Isomat Documentatie

PROF. THANASIS C.
TRIANTAFILLOU
UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
STRUCTURAL MATERIALS LABORATORY
STRENGTHENING AND SEISMIC

RETROFITTING OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE STRUCTURES WITH
FIBER-REINFORCED POLYMERS (FRP)
PATRAS, GREECE
2005
iii
CONTENTS
page
PREFACE
CONTENTS
iii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
1.2
Structure of the book
CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES
2.1
Materials
2.1.1
General
2.1.2
Fibers
2.1.3
Matrix
2.1.4
Composite materials
Example 2.1
2.1.5
2.2
2.3
Adhesives
9
10
Strengthening systems
11
2.2.1
Wet lay-up systems
11
2.2.2
Prefabricated elements
12
Basic strengthening technique
13
CHAPTER 3 BASIS OF DESIGN
15
3.1
General
15
3.2
Material constitutive laws
15
3.2.1
Calculation of resistance full composite action
15
3.2.2
Calculation of resistance - debonding
17
3.2.3
Serviceability limit state
17
3.3
Bond at the FRP concrete interface
17
3.3.1
General, behavior
17
3.3.2
Analytical model
19
Example 3.1
20
iv
page
CHAPTER 4 FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
21
4.1
General
21
4.2
Initial situation
22
4.3
Ultimate limit state failure modes
23
4.4
Ultimate limit state - calculations
25
4.4.1
Full composite action
25
4.4.2
Loss of composite action
27
4.5
Ductility considerations
30
4.6
Summary of design calculations ultimate limit state
31
4.7
Example
32
4.8
Servicability limit state
34
4.9
Columns
35
CHAPTER 5 SHEAR STRENGTHENING
39
5.1
General
39
5.2
Shear carried by FRP
41
5.3
Summary of design procedure
44
Example 5.1
45
Example 5.2
47
Example 5.3
47
Beam-column joints
48
5.4
CHAPTER 6 CONFINEMENT
51
6.1
General
51
6.2
Behavior and constitutive modeling of FRP-confined concrete
52
6.2.1
Behavior
52
6.2.2
Design model
54
6.3
6.4
6.5
Example 6.1
58
Chord rotation and ductility
58
Example 6.2
63
Lap-splices
64
6.4.1
64
Behavior and design
Example 6.3
66
6.4.2
67
Effect of lap-splices on chord rotation
Rebar buckling
68
Example 6.4
69
page
6.6
General comments on FRP-jacketed columns
69
CHAPTER 7 DETAILING AND PRACTICAL EXECUTION
71
7.1
General
71
7.2
Detailing
71
7.2.1
Flexural strengthening
71
7.2.2
Shear strengthening
73
7.2.3
Confinement
74
7.3
Practical execution
76
CHAPTER 8 DURABILITY
79
8.1
General
79
8.2
Temperature effects
79
8.3
Moisture
79
8.4
UV light exposure
80
8.5
Alcalinity and acidity
80
8.6
Galvanic corrosion
81
8.7
Creep, stress rupture, stress corrosion
81
8.8
Fatigue
81
8.9
Impact
82
REFERENCES
83
APPENDIX THE PROGRAM Composite Dimensioning
87
vi
PREFACE
This document is based on the book by Prof. Thanasis C. Triantafillou Strengthening of

Reinforced Concrete Structures with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (in Greek), published in 2003,
and covers basic design aspects of strengthening and seismic retrofitting of concrete with
advanced composite materials. This relatively new strengthening/retrofitting technique offers, in
many cases, several advantages compared with traditional techniques, but is rather unknown to
many designers, especially with respect to the relevant calculations. It is this gap that the present
document intents to fill, through explanatory text (including simple examples) and a simple to use
software package Composite Dimensioning described in the Appendix and included in the
accompanied CD.
ii
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The issue of upgrading the existing civil engineering infrastructure has been one of
great importance for over 15 years or so. Deterioration of bridge decks, beams, girders
and columns, buildings, parking structures and others may be attributed to ageing,
environmentally induced degradation, poor initial design and/or construction, lack of
maintenance, and to accidental events such as earthquakes.
The infrastructures
increasing decay is frequently combined with the need for upgrading so that structures
can meet more stringent design requirements (e.g. increased traffic volumes in bridges
exceeding the initial design loads), and hence the aspect of civil engineering
infrastructure renewal has received considerable attention over the past few years
throughout the world. At the same time, seismic retrofit has become at least equally
important, especially in areas of high seismic risk.
Recent developments related to materials, methods and techniques for structural
strengthening and seismic retrofitting have been enormous. One of todays state-of-theart techniques is the use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials or simply
composites, which are currently viewed by structural engineers as new and highly
promising materials in the construction industry. Composite materials for strengthening
of civil engineering structures are available today mainly in the form of: (a) thin
unidirectional strips (with thickness in the order of 1 mm) made by pultrusion, (b) flexible
sheets or fabrics, made of fibers in one or at least two different directions, respectively
(and sometimes pre-impregnated with resin). Central to the understanding of composites
bonded to concrete is the fact that stresses in these materials are carried only by the
fibers, in the respective directions.
The reasons why composites are increasingly used as strengthening materials of
reinforced concrete members may be summarized as follows: immunity to corrosion; low
weight (about of steel), resulting in easier application in confined space, elimination of
the need for scaffolding and reduction in labor costs; very high tensile strength (both
static and long-term, for certain types of FRP materials); stiffness which may be tailored
to the design requirements; large deformation capacity, which results in substantial
member ductility; and practically unlimited availability in FRP sizes and FRP geometry
and dimensions. Composites suffer from certain disadvantages too, which are not to be
STRENGTHENING AND SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF RC STRUCTURES WITH FRP
T. C. Triantafillou
INTRODUCTION
neglected by engineers: contrary to steel, which behaves in an elastoplastic manner,

composites in general are linear elastic to failure (although the latter occurs at large
strains) without any yielding or plastic deformation, leading to reduced (but generally
adequate) ductility. Additionally, the cost of materials on a weight basis is several times
higher than that for steel (but when cost comparisons are made on a strength basis, they
become less unfavorable). Moreover, some FRP materials, e.g. carbon and aramid,
have incompatible thermal expansion coefficients with concrete. Finally, their exposure
to high temperatures (e.g. in case of fire) may cause premature degradation and collapse
(some epoxy resins start softening at about 50-70 oC). Hence FRP materials should not
be thought of as a blind replacement of steel (or other materials) in structural intervention
applications.
Instead, the advantages offered by them should be evaluated against
potential drawbacks, and final decisions regarding their use should be based on
consideration of several factors, including not only mechanical performance aspects, but
also constructability and long-term durability.
Composites have found their way as strengthening materials of reinforced concrete
(RC) members (such as beams, slabs, columns etc.) in many thousands of applications
worldwide, where conventional strengthening techniques may be problematic (e.g. steel
plating or steel jacketing). For instance, one of the popular techniques for upgrading RC
elements has traditionally involved the use of steel plates epoxy-bonded to the external
surfaces (e.g. tension zones) of beams and slabs. This technique is simple and effective
as far as both cost and mechanical performance is concerned, but suffers from several
disadvantages (Meier 1987): corrosion of the steel plates resulting in bond deterioration;
difficulty in manipulating heavy steel plates in tight construction sites; need for
scaffolding; and limitation in available plate lengths (which are required in case of flexural
strengthening of long girders), resulting in the need for joints. Replacing the steel plates
with FRP strips provides satisfactory solutions to the problems described above. Another
common technique for the strengthening of RC structures involves the construction of
reinforced concrete (either cast in-place or shotcrete) jackets (shells) around existing
elements. Jacketing is clearly quite effective as far as strength, stiffness and ductility is
concerned, but it is labour intensive, it often causes disruption of occupancy and it
provides RC members, in many cases, with undesirable weight and stiffness increase.
Jackets may also be made of steel; but in this case protection from corrosion is a major
issue, as is the rather poor confining characteristics of steel-jacketed concrete. The
conventional jackets may be replaced with FRP in the form of sheets or fabrics wrapped
around RC members, thus providing substantial increase in strength (axial, flexural,
shear, torsional) and ductility without much affecting the stiffness.
T. C. Triantafillou
INTRODUCTION
1.2 Structure of the book

In this document the aim is to give an overview of the main applications of
composites as externally bonded reinforcement (EBR) of concrete structures and to
present guidelines for the design. Following a general description of materials and
techniques related to the application of composites as external reinforcement of
concrete members in Chapter 2, the document contains several chapters, with each of
them devoted to one particular aspect of strengthening with externally bonded FRP.
Chapter 3 deals with the basis of design with FRP and the three following chapters deal
with the design and structural behaviour of concrete members strengthened in flexure
(Chapter4), shear (Chapter 5) as well as through confinement (Chapter 6). Naturally,
these chapters are followed by detailing and practical execution rules (Chapter 7) and
various issues regarding environmental effects and durability (Chapter 8).
The
Appendix describes the use of the program Composite Dimensioning for the
dimensioning of RC members strengthened in flexure, shear or through confinement.
T. C. Triantafillou
INTRODUCTION
T. C. Triantafillou
MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES
CHAPTER 2
This chapter provides general information on FRP materials used in concrete

strengthening and on the basic technique for their application.
2.1 Materials
2.1.1 General
The selection of materials for different strengthening systems is a critical process.
Every system is unique in the sense that the fibers and the binder components are
designed to work together. This implies that a binder for one strengthening system will
not automatically work properly for another. Furthermore, a binder for the fibers will not
necessarily provide a good bond to concrete. Hence, only systems that have been
tested extensively on reinforced concrete structures shall be used in strengthening with
composites.
Today there are several types of composite material strengthening
systems, which are summarised below:

Wet lay-up systems
Systems based on prefabricated elements
Special systems, e.g. automated wrapping, prestressing, near-surface mounted
bars, mechanically attached laminates, etc.
These systems correspond to several manufacturers and suppliers, and are based
on different configurations, types of fibers, adhesives, etc. In the following sections the
three main components, namely adhesives, matrices and fibers of a composite
material strengthening system will be discussed briefly.
2.1.2 Fibers
Fibers have a diameter in the order of 5-25 m and constitute the primary loadcarrying elements (parallel to their axis) in a composite material system. Main properties
of the fibers are the high tensile strength and the linear elastic behavior to failure (Fig.
2.1). Basic properties of the most common fibers used in FRP strengthening systems are
given in Table 2.1 (Feldman 1989, Kim 1995). It should be noted that properties listed in
T. C. Triantafillou
this table correspond to monotonic loading and do not account for environmental
degradation and/or sustained loading effects (see Chapter 8).
(MPa)
6000
High
modulus
Carbon
4000
High
strength
Carbon
Aramid
Glass
2000
Mild steel
0
0
0.04
0.02
Fig. 2.1 Typical uniaxial tension stress-strain diagrams for different fibers and comparison with
steel.
Table 2.1 Typical properties of fibers (Feldman 1989, Kim 1995).

Material
Carbon
High strength
Ultra high strength
High modulus
Ultra high modulus
Glass
E
AR
S
Aramid
Low modulus
High modulus
Elastic modulus
(GPa)
Tensile strength
(MPa)
Ultimate tensile
strain (%)
215-235
215-235
350-500
500-700
3500-4800
3500-6000
2500-3100
2100-2400
1.4-2.0
1.5-2.3
0.5-0.9
0.2-0.4
70-75
70-75
85-90
1900-3000
1900-3000
3500-4800
3.0-4.5
3.0-4.5
4.5-5.5
70-80
115-130
3500-4100
3500-4000
4.3-5.0
2.5-3.5
Carbon fibers are normally either based on pitch or PAN, as raw material. Pitch
fibers are fabricated by using refined petroleum or coal pitch that is passed through a thin
nozzle and stabilised by heating.
PAN fibers are made of polyacrylonitrile that is
carbonised through burning. The pitch base carbon fibers offer general purpose and high
strength/elasticity materials. The PAN-type carbon fibers yield high strength materials
and high elasticity materials. The density of carbon fibers is 1800-1900 kg/m3. Glass
fibers for continuous fiber reinforcement are classified into three types: E-glass fibers, Sglass and alkali resistant AR-glass fibers. E-glass fibers, which contain high amounts of
T. C. Triantafillou
boric acid and aluminate, are disadvantageous in having low alkali resistance. S-glass
fibers are stronger and stiffer than E-glass, but still not resistant to alkali. To prevent
glass fiber from being eroded by cement-alkali, a considerable amount of zircon is added
to produce alkali resistance glass fibers; such fibers have mechanical properties similar
to E-glass. An important aspect of glass fibers is their low cost. The density of glass
fibers is 2300-2500 kg/m3. Aramid fibers were first introduced in 1971, and today are
produced by several manufacturers under various brand names (Kevlar, Twaron,
Technora). The structure of aramid fiber is anisotropic and gives higher strength and
modulus in the fiber longitudinal direction. Aramid fibers respond elastically in tension but
they exhibit non-linear and ductile behaviour under compression; they also exhibit good
toughness, damage tolerance and fatigue characteristics. The density of aramid fibers is
1450 kg/m3.
2.1.3 Matrix
The matrix for a structural composite material is typically a polymer, of
thermosetting type or of thermoplastic type, with the first being the most common one.
Recent developments have resulted in matrices based on inorganic materials) (e.g.
cement-based). The function of the matrix is to protect the fibers against abrasion or
environmental corrosion, to bind the fibers together and to distribute the load. The
matrix has a strong influence on several mechanical properties of the composite, such
as the transverse modulus and strength, the shear properties and the properties in
compression. Physical and chemical characteristics of the matrix such as melting or
curing temperature, viscosity and reactivity with fibers influence the choice of the
fabrication process. Hence, proper selection of the matrix material for a composite
system requires that all these factors be taken into account.
Epoxy resins, polyester, vinylester and phenolics are the most common polymeric
matrix materials used with high-performance reinforcing fibers. They are thermosetting
polymers with good processibility and good chemical resistance.
Epoxies have, in
general, better mechanical properties than polyesters and vinylesters, and outstanding
durability, whereas polyesters and vinylesters are cheaper. Phenolics have a better
behavior at high temperatures.
2.1.4 Composite materials
Advanced composites as strengthening materials consist of a large number of small,
continuous, directionalized, non-metallic fibers with advanced characteristics, bundled in
the matrix (Fig. 2.2).
Depending on the type of fiber they are referred to as CFRP
(carbon fiber based), GFRP (glass fiber based) or AFRP (aramid fiber based); when
T. C. Triantafillou
different types of fibers are used, the material is called hybrid. Typically, the volume
fraction of fibers in advanced composites equals about 50-70% for strips and about 2535% for sheets. Given also that the elastic modulus of fibers is much higher than that of
the matrix, it becomes clear that the fibers are the principal stress bearing components,
while the matrix transfers stresses among fibers and protects them. Different techniques
are used for manufacturing (e.g. pultrusion, hand lay-up), detailed descriptions of which
are outside the scope of this document. As externally bonded reinforcement for the
strengthening of structures, advanced composite materials are made available in various
forms, which are described in Section 2.2.
Matrix
Fiber
Fig. 2.2 Magnified cross section of a composite material with unidirectional fibers.
Basic mechanical properties of composites may be estimated if the properties of the

constituent materials (fibers, matrix) and their volume fractions are known. Details about
the micromechanics of composite materials are not considered here. However, for the
simple yet quite common - case of unidirectional fibers, one may apply the rule of
mixtures simplification as follows:
E f E fib Vfib + E m Vm
(2.1)
f f f fib Vfib + fm Vm
(2.2)
where:
Ef
= elastic modulus of fiber-reinforced material in fiber direction
E fib
= elastic modulus of fibers
Em
= elastic modulus of matrix
Vfib
= volume fraction of fibers
Vm
= volume fraction of matrix = 1- Vfib
ff
= tensile strength of fiber-reinforced material in fiber direction
T. C. Triantafillou
f fib
= tensile strength of fibers
fm
= tensile strength of matrix
At this point we should note that since E fib / E m >>1 and f fib / fm >>1, the above equations
are approximately valid even if the second terms in the right parts are omitted.
In case of prefabricated strips the material properties based on the total crosssectional area can be used in calculations and are usually supplied by the manufacturer.
In case of in-situ resin impregnated systems, however, the final composite material
thickness and with that the fiber volume fraction is uncertain and may vary. For this
reason the properties of the total system (fibers and matrix) and the actual thickness
should be provided based on experimental testing. Note that manufacturers sometimes
supply the material properties for the bare fibers. In this case a property reduction factor
r1 should apply, to be provided by the supplier of the strengthening system. The above is
better explained in the following example.
Example 2.1
Material supplier provides unidirectional carbon sheets, with a weight of 260 g/m2.
Fiber properties are as follows: E fib = 230 GPa, f fib = 3500 MPa. The nominal thickness
of the sheet, t fib , is calculated based on the fiber material density, say fib = 2000 kg/m3,
as follows: fib : fib x t fib = 260, hence t fib = 0.13 mm. We assume that after resin
impregnation, the composite material reaches a thickness of 0.3 mm, implying a
volumetric fraction of fibers equal to Vfib = 0.13/0.3 = 43%. If the tensile strength and the
elastic modulus of the composite material were measured experimentally, the results
would be lower than 0.43x230 GPa and 0.43x3500 MPa, respectively, say by 10%
(hence r1 = 0.9): 89 GPa 1355 Pa. Therefore, the composite material properties to
be used in calculations should be one of the following:
(a) E f = 89 GPa, f f = 1355 MPa, t f = 0.3 mm, or
(b) E f = 0.9x230 GPa, f f = 0.9x3500 MPa, t f = 0.13 mm.
In a real application the amount of impregnating resin could, in general, be different from
that suggested by the supplier, hence the real thickness of the composite will not be
equal to 0.3 mm. But what is of interest in the calculations is typically the product E f t f
or, sometimes, the product f f t f , hence the above two solutions (a) and (b) are
equivalent. The advantage of solution (a) is that the properties provided by the supplier
are quite close to those expected in-situ and the disadvantage is that those properties are
hypothetical. On the other hand, the advantage of solution (b) is that the material
provided by the supplier is accompanied by a set of properties, which could be combine
T. C. Triantafillou
10
with the proper reduction factor (0.9 in our example) to yield the properties of the in-situ
applied composite.
2.1.5 Adhesives
The purpose of the adhesive is to provide a shear load path between the concrete
surface and the composite material, so that full composite action may develop. The
most common type of structural adhesives is epoxy, which is the result of mixing an
epoxy resin (polymer) with a hardener. Other types of adhesives may be based on
inorganic materials (mainly cement-based). Depending on the application demands,
the adhesive may contain fillers, softening inclusions, toughening additives and others.
When using epoxy adhesives there are two different time concepts that need to be
taken into consideration. The first is the pot life and the second is the open time. Pot
life represents the time one can work with the adhesive after mixing the resin and the
hardener before it starts to harden in the mixture vessel; for an epoxy adhesive, it may
vary between a few seconds up to several years. Open time is the time that one can
have at his/her disposal after the adhesive has been applied to the adherents and
before they are joined together.
Glass-like
Rubbery
Viscous flow
Fig. 2.3 Effect of temperature on elastic modulus of polymers (Triantafillou 2004).
Another important parameter to consider is the glass transition temperature, Tg.

Most synthetic adhesives are based on polymeric materials, and as such they exhibit
properties that are characteristic for polymers. Polymers change from relatively hard,
elastic, glass-like to relatively rubbery materials at a certain temperature (Fig. 2.3).
This temperature level is defined as glass transition temperature, and is different for
different polymers.
T. C. Triantafillou
11
Typical properties for cold cured epoxy adhesives used in civil engineering
applications are given in Table 2.2 (fib 2001). For the sake of comparison, the same
table provides information for concrete and mild steel too.
Table 2.2
Typical properties of epoxy resins and comparison with concrete and

steel (fib 2001).
Property (at 20 C)
Density (kg/m3)
Elastic modulus (GPa)
Shear modulus (GPa)
Poissons ratio
Tensile strength (MPa)
Shear strength (MPa)
Compressive strength (MPa)
Tensile strain at break (%)
Approximate fracture energy (Jm-2)
Coefficient of thermal expansion (10-6/C)
Water absorption: 7 days - 25 C (% w/w)
Glass transition temperature (C)
Epoxy
adhesive
1100 1700
0.5 - 20
0.2 8
0.3 0.4
9 - 30
10 - 30
55 - 110
0.5-5
200-1000
25 - 100
0.1-3
50 - 80
Concrete
Mild steel
2350
20 - 50
8 - 21
0.2
1-4
2-5
25 - 150
0.015
100
11 - 13
5
---
7800
205
80
0.3
200 - 600
200 - 600
200 - 600
25
105-106
10 - 15
0
---
Alternative materials to epoxies may be of the inorganic binder type.
These
materials are based on cement in combination with other binders (e.g. fly ash, silica
fume, metakaolin), additives (e.g. polymers) and fine aggregates.
In this case the
adhesive also plays the role of the matrix in the composite material, hence it must be
designed such that compatibility with the fibers (textiles) will be maximized. General
requirements for inorganic binders are high shear (that is tensile) strength, suitable
consistency, low shrinkage and creep and good workability.
2.2 Strengthening systems
Different systems of externally bonded FRP reinforcement exist, related to the

constituent materials, the form and the technique of the FRP strengthening. In general,
these can be subdivided into wet lay-up (or cured in-situ) systems and prefab (or
pre-cured) systems. In the following, an overview is given of the different forms of these
systems (e.g. ACI 1996, fib 2001). Basic techniques for FRP strengthening are given in
Section 2.3.
2.2.1 Wet lay-up systems
Dry unidirectional fiber sheet (Fig. 2.4) and

semi-unidirectional fabric (woven or knitted),
T. C. Triantafillou
12
where fibers run predominantly in one direction

partially or fully covering the structural element.
Installation on the concrete surface requires
saturating resin usually after a primer has been
applied. Two different processes can be used
. 2.4
to apply the fabric:

- the fabric can be applied directly into the resin which has been applied uniformly
onto the concrete surface
- the fabric can be impregnated with the resin in a saturator machine and then
applied wet to the sealed substrate
Dry multidirectional fabric (woven or

knitted), Fig. 2.5, where fibers run in at
least two directions (e.g. 0 and 90 or
45 with respect to the member

axis).
Installation requires saturating
resin. The fabric is applied using one
. 2.5
of the two processes described above.
Resin pre-impregnated uncured unidirectional sheet or fabric, where fibers run

predominantly in one direction. Installation may be done with or without additional
resin.
Resin pre-impregnated uncured multidirectional sheet or fabric, where fibers run

predominantly in two directions. Installation may be done with or without additional
resin.
Dry fiber tows (untwisted bundles of continuous fibers) that are wound or otherwise
mechanically placed onto the concrete surface. Resin is applied to the fiber during
winding.
Pre-impregnated fiber tows that are wound or otherwise mechanically placed onto
the concrete surface. Product installation may be executed with or without additional
resin.
2.2.2 Prefabricated elements
Pre-manufactured cured straight strips, which are installed through the use of
adhesives. They are typically in the form of thin ribbon strips or grids that may be
delivered in a rolled coil. Normally strips are pultruded. In case they are laminated,
also the term laminate instead of strip may be used.
T. C. Triantafillou
13
Pre-manufactured cured shaped shells, jackets or angles, which are installed through
the use of adhesives. They are typically factory-made curved or shaped elements or
split shells that can be fitted around columns or other elements.
The suitability of each system depends on the type of structure that shall be
strengthened. For example, prefabricated strips are generally best suited for plane and
straight surfaces (e.g. bottom of beams and slabs), whereas sheets or fabrics are more
flexible and can be used to plane as well as to convex surfaces (e.g. sides of beams,
column wrapping).
2.3 Basic strengthening technique
Hand lay-up of
CFRP strip
Hand lay-up of
carbon fiber sheets
Flexural strengthening of bridge

deck using CFRP strips
Column wrapping
using CFRP fabric
Strengthening of cooling tower with carbon fiber sheets
Fig. 2.6 Examples for the application of the basic FRP strengthening technique.
T. C. Triantafillou
14
The basic FRP strengthening technique, which is most widely applied, involves the
manual application of either wet lay-up (so-called hand lay-up) or prefabricated systems
by means of cold cured adhesive bonding. Common in this technique is that the external
reinforcement is bonded onto the concrete surface with the fibres as parallel as
practically possible to the direction of principal tensile stresses. Typical applications of
the hand lay-up and prefabricated systems are illustrated in Fig. 2.6.
Apart from the basic technique there is a number of special techniques with rather
limited applicability: automated wrapping, prestressed FRP, in-situ fast curing using
heating device, near-surface-mounted bars, mechanical fastening etc. The description of
these not so common techniques falls outside the scope of this document.
T. C. Triantafillou
BASIS OF DESIGN
15
CHAPTER 3
BASIS OF DESIGN
3.1 General
The design of RC members strengthened with FRP follows the philosophy of the
relevant design codes (e.g. Eurocodes 2 and 8) and involves the verification for the
ultimate and serviceability limit states, with proper modifications to account for the
contribution of FRP.
3.2 Material constitutive laws

This section describes briefly the material constitutive laws in uniaxial loading and
gives data on FRP material safety factors.
3.2.1 Calculation of resistance full composite action
For concrete and steel (existing materials) the design values for strength are
calculated by dividing the representative value of strength Xk with the material safety
factor m . If the limit state verification is performed in terms of strength (forces), as
representative value is taken the mean value divided by a reliability coefficient (1.0, 1.2,
1.35), which depends on the quantity and reliability of available material data. If the
verification is performed in terms of deformations (e.g. displacements, rotations), the
representative value is taken as the mean value. In each of the above cases the safety
factor m ( c and s for concrete and steel, respectively) depends on the level of
reliability for material strength data. For the concrete compressive strength fcd = fck / c ,
where fck = representative strength and c = safety factor for concrete.
For steel
reinforcement fyd = fyk / s , where fyk = representative value of yield stress and s =
safety factor for steel.
The strength of composite materials (added materials) is represented by the
characteristic value if the safety verification is performed in terms of strength, or by the
mean value if the safety verification is performed in terms of deformations.
Their
behavior in uniaxial tension is assumed linear elastic to failure, according to eq. (3.1);
failure is defined at a (design) stress ffd = ffk / f :
f = Ef f
ffd
(3.1)
T. C. Triantafillou
BASIS OF DESIGN
16
The elastic modulus of FRP is determined by dividing the representative values of

strength to ultimate strain, E f = ffk / fuk . The design stress-strain curves for concrete,
steel and FRP are summarized in Fig. 3.1.
r
c
f
ck
c
concrete
FRP
ffd
Ef
Steel
fyd
0.2%
0.35%
. 3.1
yd
fu
Design stress strain curves.
At this point we should point out that that the in-situ tensile strength of FRP is lower
than that measured in a uniaxial tension test, due to stress concentrations, complex
multiaxial states of stress, several layers, environmental degradation effects etc.
All
these reduction factors may be taken into account by assuming that FRP reaches failure
at an effective strain fue , which is less than the mean ultimate strain fum determined
through testing. On the basis of the above, the design value of the effective strength for
FRP, ffde , is given as follows:
f fde =
fue f fk
= e f fd
fum f
(3.2)
More details on the effective strain fue will be given in the sections where this strain
plays an important role (e.g. shear strengthening, confinement).
Table 3.1 FRP material safety factors, f .
(1)
(2)
FRP type
Application type A(1)
Application type B(2)
CFRP
1.20
1.35
AFRP
1.25
1.45
GFRP
1.30
1.50
Application of prefab FRP systems under normal quality control conditions. Application
of wet lay-up systems if all necessary provisions are taken to obtain a high degree of
quality control on both the application conditions and the application process.
Application of wet lay-up systems under normal quality control conditions. Application of
any system under difficult on-site working conditions.
T. C. Triantafillou
BASIS OF DESIGN
17
Values for the FRP material safety factor are suggested in Table 3.1 (fib 2001). Note
that these values are still a topic of current research and are subject to further
refinements.
3.2.2 Calculation of resistance - debonding

In many cases fracture of the FRP is not reached due to premature bond failure at
the FRP-concrete interface (see next chapter for details). Debonding is mainly caused
due to high interfacial shear stresses and is observed as shearing through the concrete,
due to the lower strength of the latter compared to that of epoxy resins. When debonding
controls failure, the material safety factor concerns the substrate and should be taken as
f ,b = 1.5.
3.2.3 Serviceability limit state

The elastic modulus of FRP for the serviceability limit state should be taken equal to
that for the ultimate limit state.
3.3 Bond at the FRP concrete interface

The full composite action between FRP and concrete can only be achieved through
high quality epoxy adhesives. Bond failure is a critical phenomenon, which should be
accounted for carefully in the safety verifications. This requires a good understanding of
bond mechanics and the development of appropriate bond modeling, as described in the
following.
3.3.1 General, behavior

The behavior of the bond between externally bonded FRP and concrete can be
analyzed in bond tests, such as the one illustrated in Fig. 3.2, which represents, in a
simplified manner, the state of stress and strain near cracks (see Fig. 3.3). In the vicinity
of cracks (e.g. Fig. 3.3), the FRP carries a tension force N f (Fig. 3.2), which is
transferred through shearing in the substrate.
Of particular practical interest is the
relationship between the mean shear stress b at the FRP-concrete interface (equal to
Nf / l bb f in Fig. 3.2, where b f the width of FRP) and the slip s f . This relationship
depends on many factors, including the concrete strength, the type of adhesive, the FRP
characteristics (e.g. thickness, elastic modulus) and the bond length. A typical shear
T. C. Triantafillou
BASIS OF DESIGN
18
stress slip curve is plotted in Fig. 3.4, along with others for deformed and smooth steel
rebars, which are provided for the sake of comparison.
Bond length
slip sf
lb
FRP
debonding
adhesive
Nf
concrete
Nc
Nf
Fig. 3.2 Simplified FRP-concrete bond test (e.g. Zilch et al 1998, Bizindavyi and Neale 1999).
crack
propagation
crack propagation
Fig. 3.3 Cracking in RC beam and possible debonding (the arrows indicate the crack
propagation).
bond stress b (MPa)

10
embedded steel bar
12 mm (deformed)
8
CFRP strip
tf = 1.2 mm
6
4
embedded steel bar
12 mm (smooth)
0
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
slip sf (mm)
Fig. 3.4 (Zilch et al. 1998).
Contrary to the case of embedded steel rebars, an important characteristic of the

FRP-concrete bond is that FRP fracture rarely precedes debonding. The force in the
T. C. Triantafillou
BASIS OF DESIGN
19
FRP to cause debonding, that is the maximum anchorable force, N fa , increases with the
bond length l b , until this length reaches a limiting value, beyond which the maximum
anchorable force remains practically unchanged, equal to N fa,max (Fig. 3.5).
Nfa,max
Nfa
Bond length l b
l b,max
Fig. 3.5 Anchorable force bond length relationship.
3.3.2 Analytical model

For FRP-concrete interfaces, the anchorable force bond length relationship shown
in Fig. 3.5 can be described analytically as follows (Holzenkmpfer 1994, Neubauer and
Rostsy 1999):
if l b l b,max :
Nfa = Nfa,max = c1k c k bb f fctmE f t f
if l b < l b,max :
Nfa = Nfa,max
lb
l b,max
l b,max =
2 lb
l b,max
Ef t f
c 2 fctm
(mm)
(N)
(3.3a)
(N)
(3.3b)
(3.4)
with
1.125 2 f
b
kb =
b
1+ f
400
(3.5)
where b f / b should be taken no less than 0.33, k c = concrete compaction coefficient,

equal to 1.0 for normal compaction or equal to 0.67 for poor compaction (e.g. faces not in
contact with the formwork during casting), b f = width of FRP (mm), b = width of RC
T. C. Triantafillou
BASIS OF DESIGN
20
member cross section (mm), fctm = mean tensile strength of concrete (MPa), E f = elastic
modulus of FRP (MPa) and t f = thickness of FRP (mm). Moreover, c1 = 0.64 (or 0.50, if
the characteristic value of N fa,max is to be calculated) and c 2 = 2.0.
In terms of stresses, the above model results in the following equations for the FRP
design stress ( fd = Nfad / b f t f ) corresponding to debonding:
if l b l b,max :
fd =
0.5k c k b
f ,b
fctmE f
tf
if l b < l b,max :
fd =
0.5k c k b
f ,b
fctmE f l b
t f l b,max
2 lb
l b,max
(MPa)
(3.6a)
(MPa)
(3.6b)
Example 3.1
Consider an FRP strip with width b f = 50 mm, thickness t f = 1.2 mm, elastic modulus
E f = 180 GPa and tensile strength f f = 3000 MPa, epoxy-bonded on a concrete member
with a width b = 100 mm (Fig. 3.6). The mean tensile strength of concrete is assumed
fctm = 1.9 MPa.
N fa
. 3.6
lb
50 mm
100 mm
Eq. (3.4) gives that l b,max =
(180000 1.2) (2 1.9) = 238 mm and from eq. (3.5)
50
1.125 2
100
kb =
= 1.22 > 1,
50
1+
400
hence from eq. (3.3a) we calculate Nfa,max = 0.64 1.0 1.22 50 1.9 180000 1.2 =
25010 25 kN, corresponding to a stress in the FRP equal to 25010/(50x1.2) = 417
MPa [it is worth noting here that if the strip reached its tensile capacity the respective
force would be Nf = 3000x(50x1.2)/1000 = 180 kN, that is about 7 times higher than that
causing].
In terms of stresses, the design stress in the FRP at debonding (assuming a bond
length at least equal to 238 mm) is given by eq. (3.6) (with material safety factor f,b = 1.5)
fd = 217 MPa.
T. C. Triantafillou
FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
21
CHAPTER 4
4.1 General
Reinforced concrete members, such as beams and columns, may be strengthened in
flexure through the use of strips or sheets epoxy-bonded to their tension zones, with the
direction of fibers parallel to that of high tensile stresses (member axis). The concept is
illustrated in Fig. 4.1. Flexural strengthening of columns is, in general, more difficult to
achieve, due to the requirements for anchorage of the FRP through the joints. The latter
is easy to construct if the width of beams is smaller than that of columns (hence sufficient
space is available to bond strips, Fig. 4.2b), but requires small FRP cross sections placed
near the column corners if the column and the beams have similar dimensions (Fig.
4.2c).
The analysis for the ultimate limit state in flexure may follow well-established
procedures for reinforced concrete structures, provided that: (a) the contribution of
external FRP reinforcement is taken into account properly (linear elastic material); and (b)
special consideration is given to the issue of bond between the concrete and the FRP.
Fig. 4.1 Flexural strengthening of beams.
T. C. Triantafillou
22
(b)
(a)
(c)
Fig. 4.2 Flexural strengthening of columns with maximum moment at the ends requires proper
anchorage of the external reinforcement. (a) Incorrect application, (b) continuity of the
FRP through the slab, (c) continuity of the FRP through the joint.
4.2 Initial situation

The effect of the initial load prior to strengthening should be considered in the
calculation of the strengthened member. Based on the theory of elasticity and with M o
the service moment (no load safety factors are applied) acting on the critical RC section
during strengthening, the strain distribution of the member can be evaluated. As M o is
typically larger than the cracking moment M cr , the calculation is based on a cracked
section (Fig. 4.3). If M o is smaller than M cr , its influence on the calculation of the
strengthened member may easily be neglected.
Based on the transformed cracked section, the neutral axis depth x o can be solved
from:
1 2
bx o + ( s 1)A s2 ( x o d 2 ) = s A s1(d x o )
2
(4.1)
where A s1 = area of tension steel, A s2 = area of compression steel, d1 = distance of

tension steel centroid to extreme tension fiber, d 2 = distance of compression steel
centroid to extreme compression fiber, d = static depth, h = height of cross section, b =
width of cross section and s = E s / E c = ratio of steel elastic modulus to concrete elastic
modulus. The concrete strain co at the extreme compression fiber is calculated as
follows:
T. C. Triantafillou
23
co =
Mo x o
E c Io 2
(4.2)
where Io2 is the moment of inertia of the transformed cracked section:

Io 2 =
bx 3o
+ ( s 1)A s2 ( x o d 2 ) 2 + s A s1(d x o ) 2
3
(4.3)
Based on strain compatibility, the strain o at the extreme tension fiber can be derived as
follows:
o = co
h xo
xo
(4.4)
The strain o determined by eq. (4.4) is the initial strain at the level of FRP when
strengthening takes place.
Fig. 4.3 Strain distribution in rectangular cross section subjected to moment M o at the time of
strengthening.
4.3 Ultimate limit state failure modes
The failure mechanisms of RC members strengthened with FRP in flexure are

descrived schematically in Fig. 4 (Triantafillou and Plevris 1992, Matthys 2000, fib 2001,
Teng et al. 2001). Calculations for each failure mechanism are given in the following
section.
T. C. Triantafillou
24
concrete crushing
steel yields
steel yields
2
FRP fracture
concrete crushing
no steel yielding
debonding at outermost crack
debonding at intermediate flexural crack
debonding at intermediate shear crack
Shear failure at FRP end, causing peeling-off
Fig. 4.4 Failure mechanisms for RC beam strengthened in flexure.
T. C. Triantafillou
25
4.4 Ultimate limit state - calculations
Mechanisms (1), (2) and (3) in Fig. 4.4 are based on composite action between
concrete and FRP and can be analyzed using standard procedures, whereas the other
mechanisms involve some kind of debonding or peeling-off and will be analyzed
separately.
4.4.1 Full composite action
(1) Steel yielding, concrete crushing
Yielding of the longitudinal steel reinforcement followed by crushing of the concrete

in the compression zone is the most desirable failure mechanism. The design bending
moment capacity may be calculated based on equilibrium and strain compatibility as
follows (Fig. 4.5):
b
fcd
c=cu=0.0035
d2
As2fsd2
s2
Gx
As2
d
h
As1
As1fyd
s1
tf
Af
Affd
bf
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 4.5 Cross section analysis at the ultimate limit state. (a) Geometry, (b) strain distribution, (c)
internal force distribution.
Calculation of neutral axis depth, x :
fcdbx + A s2 fsd2 = A s1f yd + A f fd
(4.5)
where =0.8, fcd = design strength of concrete, f yd = design value of tension steel yield
stress, A f = cross section area of FRP, fsd2 = design stress in the top steel
T. C. Triantafillou
26
reinforcement and fd = design stress in the FRP. Based on strain compatibility, fsd2
and fd are calculated as follows:
x d2
fsd2 = E s c
(4.6)
hx
fd = E f c
o
x
(4.7)
In the above expression c = cu is the ultimate strain in the concrete (=0.0035) and o
is the initial strain given by eq. (4.4). Note that fsd2 should not be taken higher than f yd .
Design bending moment capacity:
MRd =
1
Rd
[A s1fyd (d G x ) + A f fd (h G x ) + A s2 fsd2 (G x d2 )]
(4.8)
where G =0.4, Rd = safety factor for the calculation of the resistance in an existing
member (in general Rd 1, but in the case of flexure Rd =1).
For the equations given above to be valid, the following assumptions should be
checked: (a) yielding of tensile steel reinforcement and (b) straining of the FRP is limited
to the limiting strain, f ,lim (corresponding to fracture or debonding):
s1 = c
f = c
d x f yd
x
Es
hx
o f ,lim
x
(4.9)
(4.10)
where c = cu .
(2) Steel yielding, FRP fracture
The failure mechanism involving steel yielding / FRP fracture is theoretically

possible. However, it is quite likely that premature FRP debonding will precede FRP
fracture and hence this mechanism will not be activated. For the sake of completeness
we may state here that the analysis for this mechanism may be done along the lines of
the previous section. Equations (4-5) (4-8) still apply, with the following modifications:
cu is replaced by c ; fd is replaced by ffde ; and , G are provided by the following

expressions:
T. C. Triantafillou
1000
c if c 0.002
1000 c 0.5
12
2
1
if 0.002 c 0.0035
3000 c
27
(4.11)
8 1000 c
4(6 1000 ) if c 0.002
c
G =
1000 (3000 4 ) + 2
c
c
if 0.002 c 0.0035
2000 c (3000 c 2)
(4.12)
The resisting moment can be obtained by solving eqs. (4.5) (4.8) (with the above
modifications) for the three unknowns, x , c and MRd .
(3) Concrete crushing
Being a brittle failure mechanism, concrete crushing is not acceptable.
Non-
activation of this mechanism is achieved by limiting the area of FRP below certain limits.
More details are provided in Section 4.5, which describes ductility requirements.
4.4.2 Loss of composite action
(4) Debonding at outermost crack
Using the analytical model described in Section 3.3 one can calculate the bond
length required to prevent debonding. Consider, for example, the beam in Fig. 4.6a, with
a moment diagram as shown in Fig. 4.6b (note the application of the shift rule, resulting
shift of the diagram by a l ). The force distribution in the tension steel ( Nsd ) and in the
FRP ( N fd ) is provided in Fig. 4.6c. As an approximation, the total tensile force (in steel
and FRP), Nsd + N fd , equals MSd / z , where z = 0.95 d = lever arm.
Based on Fig. 4.6c, the FRP anchorage length is calculated beyond the location
(section A) where the total tension force envelope MSd / z intersects the line
corresponding to the maximum force carried by the steel only, NRsd = A s1f yd . At this
location the FRP tension force is N fad and the corresponding anchorage length is l b .
The anchorable force (design value) N fad can be estimated based on internal force
equilibrium as follows:
MSd
A E
A E
= N fad 1 + s1 s s1 N fad 1 + s1 s
z
A fEf f
A fEf
(4.13)
T. C. Triantafillou
28
Equation (4.13) was derived on the assumption that s1 / f 1 .
(d)
(a)
al
al
(b)
Myd
lb
MSd
NRsd = As1fyd
NSd , NRd
(f)
(c)
Nfad
lb
MSd
Nsd
Nfd
(e)
Myd
NRsd = As1fyd
Nfad,max
NRfd
NRfd
NSd , NRd
MSd/z
MSd/z
Fig. 4.6 Anchorage of FRP.
It is clear that the force N fad is limited by Nfad,max [eq. (3.3a), with safety factor f ,b ]
and that sufficient space should be provided for the anchorage length l b . If this is not
the case, section A must be re-positioned (in the direction where the bending moment
decreases, that is towards the support), Fig. 4.6d-f, so that N fad will be reduced to
Nfad,max or so that a lower l b will be required (as seen in Fig. 3.5, a small reduction in
N fad results in substantial reduction in l b ). If the anchorage length is still not adequate,
then the FRP width should be increased and the thickness decreased, or mechanical
anchorages should be provided.
(5) Debonding at intermediate flexural crack
The analytical model described in Section 3.3 applies here too, provided that a
proper correction is made to account for the fact that the true state of stress and strain at
the concrete-FRP interface near vertical cracks in a real beam is not identical to that in
the experimental setup of Fig. 3.2.
Detailed finite element analyses as well as
experimental evidence suggest that the maximum shear stress at the interface is much
lower than the one found in the test setup. Based on the literature, it is proposed here to
modify the model of Section 3.3.2 by increasing the debonding force by 150%. Hence,
T. C. Triantafillou
29
the FRP strain corresponding to debonding in the vicinity of flexural cracks (where the
shear force is practically zero) is calculated as follows:
if l b l b,max :
f ,b, fl = fl
0.5k c k b
f ,b
fctm
Ef t f
if l b < l b,max :
f ,b, fl = fl
0.5k c k b
f ,b
fctm l b
E f t f l b,max
(4.14a)
2 lb
l b,max
(4.14b)
where fl = 2.5 .
The calculations for the resisting moment are performed as in the above case (2),
with fd = E f f ,b,fl .
(6) Debonding at intermediate shear crack
The statements made above apply here too, except that the increase o fthe
debonding force is about 100% compared with the experimental setup. Hence, the FRP
strain corresponding to debonding in the vicinity of shear cracks is:
if l b l b,max :
f ,b, fl sh = fl sh
0.5k c k b
f ,b
fctm
Ef t f
if l b < l b,max :
f ,b, fl sh = fl sh
0.5k c k b
f ,b
fctm l b
E f t f l b,max
(4.1a)
2 lb
l b,max
(4.15b)
where fl sh = 2 .
The calculations for the resisting moment are performed as in the above case (2),
with fd = E f f ,b,fl sh .
(7) FRP end shear failure peeling-off
Investigations by several researchers (e.g. Oehlers 1992, Ziraba et al. 1994, Jansze
1997, Raoof and Hassanen 2000), have indicated that when externally bonded plates
stop at a certain distance from the supports (as is typically the case in strengthening
applications) a nearly vertical crack might initiate at the plate end (plate end crack) and
then grow as an inclined shear crack (Fig. 4.7). However, by virtue of internal stirrups,
the shear crack may be arrested and the bonded-on plate separated from the concrete at
the level of the longitudinal reinforcement in the form of spalling (Fig. 4-10 right). The
latter failure mode is also called concrete peeling-off, and is attributed to a critical
T. C. Triantafillou
30
combination of shear and vertical tensile stresses at the plate end. A simple, yet reliable
and conservative approach for the verification of FRP end shear failure involves the
following checks:
VSd, end 1.4 VRd,c
MSd,end
(4.16)
2
MRd
3
(4.17)
where VSd,end and MSd,end is the acting shear force and bending moment (design values)
at the FRP end, VRd,c is the member shear resistance neglecting the contribution of
stirrups and MRd is the moment resistance [minimum value calculated based on
mechanisms (1), (2), (5) and (6)]. It is noted that the verification of (4.17) is rather easy
to achieve, e.g. by adjusting the FRP end. However, is (4.16) is not satisfied, then the
member should be strengthened near the FRP ends in shear (see next chapter).
Fig. 4.7 FRP end shear.
4.5 Ductility considerations
The basic ductility requirement is to ensure activation of a failure mechanism that

involves steel yielding, thereby securing a minimum curvature ductility factor ( ). This
implies that the tensile strain in the FRP at the ultimate limit state, fu,c , must exceed a
minimum value, f ,min ; at the same time, this strain is limited by either the FRP ultimate
strain (at fracture), fu , or by the strain corresponding to debonding (but not necessarily
at the critical cross section for flexural failure). Relevant to the above is Fig. 4.8.
The minimum FRP strain at the ultimate limit state, f ,min , corresponding to a given
curvature ductility factor, , is given as follows:
f ,min = yd
h
cu o
d xy d

h
h
(4.18)
T. C. Triantafillou
31
where x y is the neutral axis depth at yielding of the steel reinforcement.

Zone :
Zone :
cu
steel yielding FRP failure

(fracture or debonding)
steel yielding concrete crushing
xlim
su
yd
fu
fu,c fu
f,min
f
Fig. 4.8 Strain distribution at critical cross section.
A last point to be made here is that large ductility values are not always achievable,
especially when the FRP quantity is controlled by serviceability, in which case the
member is under-designed in terms of strength.
4.6 Summary of design calculations ultimate limit state
A summary of the verifications for the ultimate limit state is provided next:
1.
Determine the resisting moment for the member before strengthening ( Mo,Rd ).
2.
From the service moment Mo prior to strengthening determine the initial strain o at
the extreme tension fiber.
Calculate the required FRP area A f (corresponding to MRd ) for cases (1), (2) and
(6) [or (5), in the absence of shear force] at the critical section, based on eqs. (4.5)(4.12). Note that these equations with c cu and f f ,lim = min( fu , f ,b, fl sh )
describe three failure modes simultaneously (steel yielding concrete crushing, steel
yielding FRP fracture, steel yielding debonding at intermediate crack). As an
approximation, f ,lim may taken equal to 0.004-0.005.
Next follows the ductility
verification.
4.
Calculate the anchorage length and finalize the FRP configuration based on the
anchorage verification [mechanism (4)].
5.
Verify failure mechanism (7) (FRP end shear failure).
If not satisfied, shear
strengthening is required (see next chapter).
T. C. Triantafillou
6.
32
Verify the shear resistance of the member (given that the flexural resistance has
been increased). If not satisfied, shear strengthening is required.
4.7 Example
Consider the simply supported T-beam of Fig. 4.9 at

1200
a span of 5 m, under a uniformly applied vertical load.
216
Materials: fcd = 13.5 MPa, fctm = 2.2 MPa, fyd = 435

MPa. Assuming an acting moment MSd = 203 kNm,
design the appropriate strengthening system. Consider
150
500
CFRP with thickness t f = 1.1 mm, width 80 mm, elastic

modulus E f = 150 GPa and ultimate strain (design
value)
fu
= 0.01.
40
The service moment during
50
Fig. 4.9
320
250
strengthening is Mo = 47 kNm. Rd = 1.
Geometric data: A s1 = 940 mm2, A s2 = 400 mm2, h = 500 mm, d = 450 mm, d1 =
50 mm, d2 = 40 mm and b = 1200 mm. The ratio s = E s / E c equals 200/29 = 6.9.
Solving eq. (4.1)-(4.4) we find o = 0.00066.
Assuming k c = 1 and k b 1, eq. (4.14a) for debonding near the mid-span (where
the moment is maximum and the shear equals zero) gives:
f ,b, fl = 2.5
0 .5 1 . 0
2 .2
= 0.003 , hence f ,lim = min(0.01, 0.003) = 0.003,
1.5
150000 1.1
which is the FRP strain at the critical section (mid-span) for the ultimate limit state
(debonding).
Next, with MRd = 203 kNm (and Rd = 1) from eq. (4.5) (4.12) we calculate x =
104 mm, c = 0.00071 and A f = 245 mm2. Each strip has a cross section area equal to
88 mm2, hence the use of 3 strips is required, with a total cross section area of 264 mm2,
which corresponds to MRd = 206 kNm, x = 105 mm and c = 0.00071. These strips will
be placed one next to the other, in order to avoid multiple layers.
The next step is the verification of the end anchorage (Fig. 4.10), which results in a
total length of strips equal to 4.10 m.
Finally, the FRP end shear calculations give:
5
5 0.45
VSd,end = 65 0.45 = 133.25 kN, M Sd,end = 65 0.45

= 66.54 kNm
2
2
2
Assuming for the problem that Rd = 0.26 Pa,

1.4 VRd,c = 1.4 Rd max(1, 1.6- d )min(2, 1.2+1.4 l ) b w d =
1.4x0.26x1.15x1.2024x0.25x0.25x0.45x103 = 56.62 kN
T. C. Triantafillou
33
It is concluded that (4.17) is satisfied but (4.16) is violated, hence the ends should be
strengthened in shear for a shear force equal to 133.25 56.62 = 76.63 kN (according to
the procedure described in Chapter 5).
(a)
(d)
a l 0.40 m
a l 0.40 m
(b)
203 kNm
(e)
203 kNm
MSd
l b = 0.20 m
MSd
1.35+0.50 m
1.35 m
(c)
NRsd = As1fyd
NRsd = As1fyd
(f)
= 408.7 k
= 408.7 k
MSd/z
Nfad,max=48.20 kN
Nfad=71.11 kN
203/0.95d=475 kN
NSd , NRd
475 kN
MSd/z
NSd , NRd
940 200
408.7 N fad 1 +
N fad = 71.11 kN
264 150
0.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 150000

= 48.20 kN
N fad,max = 0.264
1
.
5
1
.
1
l b,max =
150000 1.1
= 193.6 mm 0.2 m
2 2 .2
Fig. 4.10 Verification of anchorage.
T. C. Triantafillou
34
4.8 Servicability limit state
Calculations to verify the serviceability limit state may be performed according to a

linear elastic analysis and considering that the concrete does not sustain tension (Fig.
4.11).
Fig. 4.11 Linear elastic analysis of cracked section.
From the equilibrium of forces and strain compatibility, the depth of the neutral axis
x e is obtained from the following:

1 2
bx e + ( s 1)A s2 ( x e d 2 ) = s A s1(d x e ) + f A f h 1 + o x e
2
c
Ec c =
x
1
bx e h e + ( s 1)A s2
2
3
(4.19)
Mk
(x e d2 ) (h d ) A d x e (h d)
2
s s1
xe
xe
(4.20)
where f = E f / E c and Mk is the characteristic value of the acting moment. The last two
equations can be solved for the unknown x e and c .
The moment of inertia of the cracked section is given by:
I2 =
bx 3e
+ ( s 1)A s2 ( x e d2 ) 2 + s A s1(d x e ) 2 + f A f (h x e ) 2
3
(4.21)
whereas that of the uncracked section may be approximated as follows (for rectangular
cross sections):
I1
bh 3
12
(4.22)
T. C. Triantafillou
35
Regarding stress verification, apart from limiting stresses in the concrete and steel, it
is required to limit the stress in the FRP, f , under the rare load combination, as follows:
h xe
f = E f c
o f fk
xe
(4.22)
where the reduction coefficient < 1 accounts for the poor behavior of some composites
(e.g. GFRP) under sustained loading. Based on creep rupture tests (e.g. Yamaguchi et
al. 1998), indicative values of are 0.8, 0.5 and 0.3 for CFRP, AFRP and GFRP,
respectively. Note that as the design is often governed by the serviceability limit state,
relative low FRP strains at service load may be expected, so that FRP creep rupture is
typically not of concern.
The verification of deflections and crack widths is performed in analogy to the case of
reinforced concrete members (e.g. fib 2001).
4.9 Columns
The analysis of cross sections where bending develops in combination with an axial
force is performed according to the principles presented above, the basic difference
being the addition of one more term in the force and moment equilibrium equations: NSd
in the right part of eq. (4.5) and NSd [(h / 2) G x] in the right part of eq. (4.8), where NSd
is the acting axial force (design value). Furthermore, the contribution of FRP in carrying
compression should be neglected. Assuming that debonding is prevented (e.g. through
proper anchorage inside slabs or joints, Fig. 4.2b-c, the failure mechanism will be one of
the following:
yielding of tension steel ( s1 f yd / E s ), concrete crushing ( c = cu )

yielding
of
tension
( s1 f yd / E s ),
steel
debonding
or
FRP
fracture
[ f = f ,lim = min( fu , f ,b,fl sh ) ]
concrete crushing ( c = cu )
The bending moment axial force interaction at failure is best demonstrated through
the so-called interaction diagrams, such as those given in Fig. 4.12a-b. Those diagrams
have been constructed for various equivalent geometric ratios of steel and FRP
reinforcement, eq , defined as:
eq = s + f
where
A s,tot = 2A s1 = 2A s2
A s,tot A f ,tot E f
Ef
=
+
Es
bd
bd E s
(symmetrically
placed
A f ,tot = 2A f (symmetrically placed FRP reinforcement).
(4.23)
steel
reinforcement)
and
Moreover, for the sake of
T. C. Triantafillou
36
simplicity it has been assumed that f ,min =0.008. The interaction diagrams in Fig. 4.12
show that the effectiveness of FRP in increasing the flexural capacity decreases
substantially as the axial load increases.
0,8
d=NSd / bhfcd
eq=0,006
eq=0,007
eq=0,008
eq=0,009
C16/20
S400
b/h=1
d1/h=0,10
Ef=180 GPa
Es=200 GPa
1,0
eq=0,010
eq=0,011
eq=0,012
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,00
(a)
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
0,40
0,45
0,50
0,55
0,60
d=MSd / bh fcd
0,8
d=NSd / bhfcd
eq=0,012
C16/20
S400
b/h=1
d1/h=0,10
Ef=180 GPa
Es=200 GPa
1,0
eq=0,014
eq=0,016
eq=0,018
eq=0,020
eq=0,022
eq=0,024
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,00
(b)
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
0,40
0,45
0,50
0,55
0,60
d=MSd / bh fcd
Fig. 4.12 Axial force bending moment interaction diagrams for square cross sections (b=h)
under uniaxial bending. Concrete C16/20, steel S400, d1/h=0.10, Ef =180 GPa. (a)
As,tot=0.006, (b) As,tot=0.012.
As a general conclusion one may state that flexural strengthening of columns is not
always feasible (and easy as in the case of beams); and certainly the FRP contribution is
of rather low effectiveness, unless the axial load is kept at low levels (e.g. d < 0.2).
T. C. Triantafillou
37
T. C. Triantafillou
38
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
39
CHAPTER 5
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
5.1 General
Shear strengthening of RC members using FRP may be provided by bonding the
external reinforcement (typically in the form of sheets) with the principal fiber direction as
parallel as practically possible to that of maximum principal tensile stresses, so that the
effectiveness of FRP is maximized (see Fig. 5.1 for the dependence of the FRP elastic
modulus on the fiber orientation). For the most common case of structural members
subjected to lateral loads, that is loads perpendicular to the member axis (e.g. beams
under gravity loads or columns under seismic forces), the maximum principal stress
trajectories in the shear-critical zones form an angle with the member axis which may be
taken roughly equal to 45o. However, it is normally more practical to attach the external
FRP reinforcement with the principal fiber direction perpendicular to the member axis
(Fig. 5.2). Photographs of typical applications are shown in Fig. 5.3.
30
60
90
Fig. 5.1 Dependence of FRP elastic modulus on fiber orientation.
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
40
FRP sheet or fabric
(b)
(a)
tf
C
(c)
(d)
(e)
Wrapped of U-shaped strips or sheets
(f)
sf
bf
E
(g)
(h)
bf
(k)
(i)
Fig. 5.2
(j)
sf
Shear strengthening of: (a)-(h) beams, (i)-(k) columns and shear walls.
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
41
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5.3 Shear strengthening (a) of beam end with CFRP, (b) of column with GFRP.
5.2 Shear carried by FRP

At the ultimate limit state in shear, the fibers crossing a diagonal crack are activated
and carry tension in analogy to internal stirrups, Fig. 5.4.
df
0.1d
Inclined crack
Fig. 5.4 Contribution of FRP to shear resistance (Triantafillou 1998).
If shear strengthening is achieved with strips of thickness t f and width b f (measured

perpendicular to the axis of the strips), at a spacing s f (parallel to the member axis), the
design shear carried by the FRP, VRd,f , may be calculated from the following expression:
VRd,f =
2t f b f
df fe,d (cot + cot ) sin
sf
(5.1)
where d f = height of FRP crossed by the shear crack, measured from the longitudinal
steel reinforcement (equals 0.9 d in the case of fully wrapped members, e.g. Fig. 5.2g, k),
= angle of diagonal crack with respect to the member axis (assumed equal to 45,
based on the classical Mrsch-Ritter truss analogy), = angle between principal fiber
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
42
orientation and longitudinal axis of member, fe,d = design value of mean stress in the
FRP crossing the shear crack, in the principal fiber direction (effective stress).
Note that the differences between eq. (5.1) and that for the contribution of internal
stirrups to shear resistance ( VRd,s ) are: use of 2t f b f instead of A sw (cross section area
of stirrups), s f instead of sh (spacing of stirrups) and fe,d instead of f ywd (yield stress
of stirrups).
For the most common case of continuous sheets or fabrics (instead of equally
spaced strips) b f = s f sin and eq. (5.1) gives:
VRd,f = 2t f df fe,d (cot + cot ) sin2
(5.2)
Furthermore, for the typical case where the FRP is applied with the fibers perpendicular
to the member axis ( = 90), we obtain:
VRd, f = 2t f d f fe,d cot
(5.3)
The exact calculation of the effective stress fe,d is not a straightforward task. In
approximation, this stress varies linearly with the crack opening, which may be taken as
minimum at point A in Fig. 5.4 and maximum at point B. Hence the stress increases
linearly up to a maximum value, fd,max , which, in approximation, controls failure of the
FRP material. On the basis of the above assumptions, one may write:
0 .5 d f
fe,d = D f fd,max = 1
fd,max
0 .9 d
(5.4)
The value of fd,max at the ultimate limit state in shear depends on the definition of
failure, which can be one of the following:
FRP fracture
Fracture of the FRP is most likely the case in fully wrapped and properly anchored
jackets (e.g. Fig. 5.2g-k). In this case
fd,max = f fde
(5.5)
where f fde is the design value of FRP strength given by eq. (3.2) (note that this is lower
than the tensile strength of jacket in uniaxial tension).
As a first estimate, we may
consider that the strength reduction coefficient, e , for determining f fde is 0.80.
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
43
FRP debonding
For open-type jacketing (e.g. U-shaped or side-bonded, Fig. 5.2c-e or Fig. 5.2b,
respectively), fracture of the jacket is not likely to occur (except for the case of Fig. 5.2e,
where anchorage conditions are slightly improved). In this case debonding of the FRP is
expected to be the dominant failure mode (Fig. 5.5), which can be described with the
analytical model presented in Section 3.3.2. This model can be adopted with k c = 1 ,
k b = 1 and an empirical coefficient sh (in analogy to fl and fl sh described in Section
4.4.2):
if l b l b,max :
fd,max = sh
0. 5
f ,b
fctm f
tf
if l b < l b,max :
fd,max = sh
0.5
f ,b
fctmE f l b
t f l b,max
(5.6a)
2 lb
l b,max
(5.6b)
where sh = 1.25 ,
lb =
df
sin
for U-shaped (three-sided) jacket
(5.7a)
lb =
df
2 sin
for two-sided jacket
(5.7b)
l b,max =
Ef t f
c 2 fctm
(5.8)
Fig. 5.5 Debonding of FRP strips used for shear strengthening.
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
44
Note that in the case of U-shaped (three-sided) jackets the best-anchored part of the
FRP is that at the maximum crack opening, with a bonded length d f / sin (Fig. 5.6a),
where in the case of two-sided jackets the best-anchored part of the FRP is at the middle
of the shear crack (Fig. 5.6b); hence the factor 2 in eq. (5.7b).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5.6 Bond length of (a) U-shaped FRP jacket, (b) two-sided FRP.
The improved anchorage shown in Fig. 5.2e, where the FRP end is rolled around a
rod and inserted into grooves is an interesting solution, which may be considered of
effectiveness in between that for open (Fig. 5.2c) and closed (Fig. 5.2g-k) jackets. This
case could be treated using the expressions for U-shaped jackets [eq. (5.6)-(5.7a], with
fd,max increased by approximately 30%.
Limiting strain
Some researchers have proposed that the effective strain in the FRP be limited to a
maximum value, in the order of 0.006, to maintain the integrity of concrete and secure
activation of the aggregate interlock mechanism. With this limitation, fd,max should not
be taken higher than 0.006 E f .
5.3 Summary of design procedure
The contribution of FRP to shear resistance is provided through the term VRd,f in the
well-known equation for the design shear resistance:
VRd =
1
Rd
min (VRd,c + VRd,s + VRd,f , VRd,max )
(5.9)
where VRd,c shear resistance of member without stirrups (concrete contribution),

VRd,max maximum shear resistance determined from crushing of the diagonal concrete
struts and Rd = safety factor (>1) for the determination of the shear resistance in
existing members ( Rd =1.20).. The FRP contribution VRd,f in eq. (5.9) is given by eq.
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
45
(5.1) or (5.2) for FRP in the form of strips at equal spacing or continuous jackets,
respectively, with fe,d calculated from eq. (5.4), in which fd,max is determined as
follows:
For closed, properly anchored jackets (e.g. columns or shear walls):

the minimum of the value given by eq. (5.5) and 0.006 E f .
For open jackets (U-shaped or two-sided):

the minimum of the value given by eq. (5.5), (5.6) and 0.006 E f .
At this point we should mention that the shear resistance of RC members under
cyclic (e.g. seismic) loading depends on the target ductility factor: high values of ductility
result in reduced shear resistance (e.g. Moehle et al. 2001), which affects (reduces) the
terms of eq. (5.9), but not the one regarding the FRP contribution ( VRd,f ). Hence the
reduced shear capacity due to cycling does not affect the equations presented above.
Finally it should be noted that if shear strengthening is provided by means of equally
spaced strips, the spacing should be such that the shear crack intersects at least two
strips, that is s f s f ,max = 0.5 min(df , 0.9d) (for = 45 and = 90).
Example 5.1
1200
216
Consider the T-beam of Fig. 5.7, with b = 250 mm,

height h = 500 mm and static depth d = 460 mm. The
150
500
mean tensile strength of concrete is assumed fctm = 2

MPa. Determine the required CFRP thickness for an
additional shear resistance VRd,f = 75 kN.
40
320
250
Fig. 5.7
We assume the following properties for the CFRP: thickness of one layer = 0.12 mm,
elastic modulus E f = 230 GPa, effective design tensile strength f fde =2560 MPa. The
jacket will be applied according to the configuration shown in Fig. 5.2c (U-shaped).
Eq. (5.5):
fd,max = 2560 MPa
Eq. (5.7):
d f = 310 mm, = 90, l b = 310 mm
The problem will be solved trying different numbers of layers, in order to illustrate their
relative effectiveness in carrying shear.
Jacket with one layer:
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
46
230000 0.12
= 83 mm < l b
22
Eq. (5.8):
l b,max =
Eq. (5.6a):
fd,max = 1.25
0 .5
1.5
2 230000
= 815 MPa
0.12
We take fd,max = min(2560, 815, 0.006 230000) = 815 MPa.

E. (5.4):
0.5 310
815 = 0.62 815 = 505 MPa
0
.9 460
Eq. (5.3):
VRd,f = 2 0.12 310 505 10 3 = 37.6 kN
The above value is the shear force carried by a one-layered jacket. This value is quite
low, hence we try three layers:
230000 (3 0.12 )
= 144 mm < l b
22
Eq. (5.8):
l b,max =
Eq. (5.6a):
fd,max = 1.25
0.5 2 230000
= 471 MPa
1 .5
3 0.12

Eq. (5.4):
0.5 310
471 = 0.62 471 = 292 MPa
0.9 460
Eq. (5.3):
VRd, f = 2 (3 0.12 ) 310 292 10 3 = 65.2 kN < 75 kN
Next we try four layers:

230000 (4 0.12)
= 166 mm < l b
22
Eq. (5.8):
l b,max =
Eq. (5.6a):
fd,max = 1.25
0.5 2 230000
= 408 MPa
1 .5
4 0.12

Eq. (5.4):
0.5 310
408 = 0.62 408 = 253 MPa
0
.9 460
Eq. (5.3):
VRd, f = 2 (4 0.12 ) 310 253 10 3 = 75.3 kN > 75 kN OK
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
47
Hence the jacket should be made with four layers.
Example 5.2
1200
216
Consider the T-beam of Example 5.1.

Design
an
appropriate
shear
strengthening
150
500
system for an additional shear VRd,f = 75 kN,

based on carbon fiber strips at constant spacing.
40
320
The strips may be assumed fully anchored in the

compression zone (Fig. 5.2h).
250
Fig. 5.8
We assume that the strips have a width b f = 40 mm, thickness t f = 1.4 mm, elastic
modulus E f =120 GPa and effective design strength f fde =1360 MPa.
Eq. (5.5):
fd,max = 1360 MPa
We take fd,max = min(1360, 0.006 120000) = 720 MPa.
df = 0.9d
Eq. (5.4):
fe,d = D f fd,max = 0.5 720 = 360 MPa
Calculation of spacing:
Eq. (5.1):
VRd, f =
2 1.4 40
0.9 460 360 10 3 > 75 kN s f < 223 mm
sf
s f ,max = 0.5 0.9 460 = 207 mm. Finally we propose the use of strips at a spacing of
200 mm.
Example 5.3
Consider a column of rectangular cross section,

250x400 mm, with a static width of 365 mm. Design
365 mm
a CFRP jacket for an additional shear VRd,f = 100

kN corresponding to strong axis bending.
Fig. 5.9
We assume the following properties for the CFRP: thickness of one layer = 0.12 mm,
elastic modulus E f = 230 GPa, effective design tensile strength f fde =2560 MPa. The
jacket will be applied according to the configuration shown in Fig. 5.2i (full wrapping).
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
Eq. (5.5):
48
fd,max = 2560 MPa
We take fd,max = min(2560, 0.006 230000) = 1380 MPa.

Eq. (5.4):
fe,d = D f fd,max = 0.5 1380 = 690 MPa
Required number of layers:

Eq. (5.2):
VRd, f = 2 (n 0.12 ) 0.9 365 690 10 3 100 kN n 1.84
Hence we need two layers (they correspond to VRd, f =108.8 kN).
5.4 Beam-column joints
Typical shear failures of (exterior) beam-column joints are shown in Fig. 5.10.
Studies on joints strengthened with FRP in shear demonstrated that even very thin FRP
jackets (e.g. 2-3 layers of carbon fiber sheets with layer thickness in the order of 0.12
mm) properly anchored outside the joints can provide an increase in shear capacity by
well above 80-100% (Antonopoulos 2001, Antonopoulos and Triantafillou 2002,
Antonopoulos and Triantafillou 2003). This is feasible provided that the sheets will be
made of fibers primarily in the beam direction, but if possible, also in the column (Fig.
5.11).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5.10 Shear failure of exterior joints: (a) Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake, Japan, 1995. (b)
Kalamata earthquake, Greece, 1986 (fib 2003).
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
49
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5.11 Typical configurations for shear strengthening of beam-column joints and anchorage
outside the joint. (a) Exterior joint, (b) Interior joint.
The substantial increase in shear capacity of beam-column joints is demonstrated

schematically in Fig. 5.12, which gives load-displacement loops for non-strengthened as
well as strengthened (with two layers of 0.12 mm thick carbon fiber sheets) joints under
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
P,
C1
P (kN)
P (kN)
cyclic loading (Antonopoulos and Triantafillou 2003).
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10
10 20 30 40 50
(mm)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
P,
F22
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10
(a)
10 20 30 40 50
(mm)
(b)
Fig. 5.12 Load-displacement loops for poorly detailed (lack of stirrups) beam-column joints. (a)
Non-strengthened specimen, (b) Strengthened specimen, which shows a 70%
increase in shear strength.
An approximate and simple method to account for the contribution of FRP to the
shear resistance of joints is to assume that the fibers in the beam direction are activated
up to a strain equal to 0.004.
T. C. Triantafillou
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
50
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
51
CHAPTER 6
CONFINEMENT
6.1 General
Confinement is generally applied to members in compression (Fig. 6.1), with the aim
of enhancing their load carrying capacity or, in cases of seismic upgrading, to increase
their ductility. FRP, as opposed to steel that applies a constant confining pressure after
yielding, has an elastic behavior up to failure and therefore exerts a continuously
increasing confining action. The confining stresses applied by the FRP result in one or
more of the following:
1.
Increase of concrete compressive strength and deformability (ultimate strain).
2.
Increase of chord rotation after flexural yielding of columns (that is, increase of
ductility).
3.
Increase of bond strength at lap-splices, hence prevention of lap-splice failures.
4.
Delay of rebar buckling in compression zones with poor detailing (inadequate

spacing of stirrups).
Each one of the above is briefly described in the following sections.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6.1 Confinement of columns with FRP jackets: (a) CFRP, fibers in the horizontal direction,
(b) helically applied GFRP.
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
6.2
52
Behavior and constitutive modeling of FRP-confined concrete
6.2.1 Behavior
Consider a concrete cylinder (Fig. 6.2a) with diameter D , fully wrapped with an FRP
jacket with thickness t f and elastic modulus E f (in the direction of the fibers, that is
circumferentially).
(a)
tf
(b)
Fig. 6.2 (a) Axially loaded column. (b) Lateral stresses due to confinement.
The lateral stresses l (in the radial direction, due to dilation of the concrete) exerted in
the jacket (equal but of opposite sign act on the concrete) are calculated as follows:
l =
2t f
2t
1
f = f Ef f = f Ef f
D
D
2
(6.1)
where f and f = FRP tensile stress and strain, respectively, and f = volumetric ratio
of FRP. The result of confining stresses l is control of lateral expansion and hence
increase of deformability, until the tensile stress f (corresponding strain f ) in the FRP
reaches its tensile strength f fde (corresponding strain fue ); at this point the jacket
fractures (Fig. 6.3) and the member fails. Of course the mechanism described above is
possible only provided that premature debonding of the FRP (at its ends) will not occur.
Note here that the circumferential tensile strength of the jacket is, in general, lower
than the tensile strength of FRP measured in a uniaxial tension test. This is attributed to
the multiaxial state of stress in the FRP, stress concentrations, the use of many layers,
the quality of application etc., and may be taken into account through the reduction factor
e , with values in the of 0.7-0.9:
f fde = e f fd
(6.2)
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
53
Fig. 6.3 Tensile fracture of FRP jacket in the circumferential direction when the tensile stress f
reaches the design FRP strength f fde .
c
fcc=ccu
Compressive
stress
tf increases
b
a
fc
(ccu, ccu)
(cc, fcc)
Unconfined concrete
co cu
Compressive strain
c
ccu
Fig. 6.4 Compressive stress-strain curves for concrete confined with FRP.
The stress-strain relationship for concrete confined with FRP is given schematically
in Fig. 6.4.
On the basis of experimental support, one may draw the following
conclusions:
The stress-strain curve is approximately bilinear, with change of slope at a strain

( co 0.002 ) corresponding to the peak stress for unconfined concrete ( fc ).
Jackets of very low thickness increase only the ultimate strain ccu (curve a in Fig.
6.4).
Jackets of low thickness result in confined concrete strength fcc which corresponds
to strain cc lower than that at ultimate ( ccu ) (curve b in Fig. 6.4).
For a given type of FRP, the strength fcc and ultimate strain ccu of confined
concrete increase with the thickness of the jacket.
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
54
For jackets of equal thickness but with different types of fibers (e.g. carbon versus
glass) the confined strength fcc increases with the jacket strength f fde (carbon is
better than glass in this case), whereas the ultimate strain ccu increases with the
jacket strength f fde but also, mainly, with its ultimate strain fue (glass is better than
carbon in this case).
For jackets of equal stiffness (expressed by the product E f t f ), the confined strength
fcc increases with the ultimate strain of FRP fue .
6.2.2 Design model
As far as the design of FRP jackets for confinement is concerned, typically we aim at
calculating the required thickness t f (for a given type of FRP) for a target confined
strength fccd (design value) and/or for a target ultimate strain ccu . The international
literature on FRP-concrete confinement models is vast.
One of these models is
described next (fib 2001). The model applies to columns with rectangular cross section
(dimensions b and d , b d ), rounded at the corners with a radius rc .
fccd = E sec,ud ccu fcd
ccu = 0.002[1 + 5(1d 2d
E sec,ud =
E sec,Md =
(6.3)
E
(E E sec,ud )
1)] sec,Md c
E sec,ud (E c E sec,Md )
Esec,Md
Ec
(6.4)
Ec
(6.5)
E
1 ffde
1 + 2 c
fcd 0.002 E f
1d 2d fcd
0.002[1 + 5(1d 2d 1)]
1d = 2.254 1 + 7.94
lud,b
fcd
lud,b
fcd
(6.6)
1.254
(6.7)
d 2

d
2d = 1 0.6 1.4 + 0.8 lud,b
b
b
fcd
lud,b = f
In
the
above
expressions
Ec
(6.8)
2t f
f fde
d
initial
modulus
(6.9)
of
elasticity
for
concrete
[ E c = 1.05 9500 ( fck + 8)1/ 3 ] and f = confinement effectiveness coefficient for the
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
55
specific jacket used, depending on: (a) the cross section geometry (aspect ratio, radius at
corners, Fig. 6.5), (b) the degree of concrete coverage (Fig. 6.6b) and (c) the fiber
orientation with respect to the member axis (Fig. 6.6c). Specificallly:
f = n s a 1
Shape coefficient:
n =
Ae
= 1
Ag
(6.10)
(b 2rc )2 + (d 2rc )2
b 2 + d 2
1
3bd
A
3 A g 1 s
A g
(6.11)
1 f
2
sf
2d
s =
1
A
2d
1 s
Ag
Coverage coefficient:
a =
Fiber orientation coefficient:
(6.12)
(6.13)
1 + (tan f )
where A g = area of cross section, A s = cross section area of longitudinal steel, sf = clear
space between strips, for the case of partial coverage (Fig. 6.6a), d = smallest dimension
of the cross section (or diameter, in the case of circular columns) and f = fiber
orientation with respect to member axis (Fig. 6.6b). For circular cross sections n =1, for
fully covered members s =1 and for fibers in the direction perpendicular to the member
axis a =1.
rc
d
b'=b-2rc
b
d'=d-2rc
Confined
concrete
Fig. 6.5 Confinement of rectangular cross sections is achieved by rounding the corners.
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
56
(a)
(b)
bf
d sf / 2
sf
Confined
concrete
Fig. 6.6 Confinement (a) with equally spaced strips, (b) with helically applied fibers.
Other confinement models found in the international literature are much simpler,
typically in the form:

fccd
= 1 + k 1 lud
fcd
fcd
ccu = cu

+ k 2 lud
fcd
(6.14)
n
(6.15)
In eqs. (6.14)-(6.15) lud is the mean confining stress (at failure of the jacket),
approximately equal to (Fig. 6.7):
lud,d
lud,b
Fig. 6.7 Mean confining stress in each direction of rectangular cross section.
lud =
=
lud,b + lud,d
2t
1 2t f
f fde + f f f fde
f
2
d
b
(b + d) t f
1
f ( f ,b + f , d )f fde = f
f fde
2
bd
(6.16)
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
57
where lud,b and lud,b are the mean confining stresses in the direction of sides b and
d , respectively. In eq. (6.16) f ,b and f , d is the volumetric ratio of FRP in each

direction: f ,b = 2t f / d and f ,d = 2t f / b .
Typical values found in the international literature for the empirical constants in eqs.
(6.14) (6.15) are as follows: k 1 = 2.15, m = 1, k 2 = 0.02 or 0.04 for carbon or glass
fibers, respectively, and n = 1. Alternatively, k 1 = 2.6, m = 2/3, k 2 = 0.015 (regardless
of the type of fibers) and n = 0.5. The ultimate strain of unconfined concrete is may be
taken equal to cu = 0.0035.
If the full constitutive law in uniaxial compression is of interest (e.g for column
analysis under the combination of axial load and bending moment), the model of Lam
and Teng (2003), described in Fig. 6.8, may be adopted.
cd = E c c
(E c E 2 )2 2
4fcd
cd = fcd + E 2 c
if 0 c t
(6.17a)
if t c ccu
(6.17b)
where
Compressive
stress
t =
2fcd
(E c E 2 )
(6.18)
E2 =
fccd fcd
ccu
(6.19)
cd
fccd
E2
Unconfined
concrete
fcd
Ec
co=0.002
Compressive strain
t
cu = 0035
FRP-confined
concrete
c
ccu
Fig. 6.8 Stress-strain model for unconfined and FRP-confined concrete.
Finally, one may rely on the simpler, but not so accurate for the case of FRPconfined concrete, models described in Eurocodes 2 or 8.
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
58
Example 6.1
Consider a concrete column of rectangular cross section, with unconfined strength
fcd = 20 Pa and elastic modulus E c = 33.5 GPa. The column is to be jacketed with
either CFRP or GFRP, aiming at increasing the compressive strength to fccd = 35 MPa
and the ultimate strain to ccu = 0.025: (a) For CFRP we assume E f = 230 GPa, ffd =
2590 MPa, thickness of one layer = 0.12 mm. (b) For GFRP we take E f = 70 GPa, ffd =
1400 MPa and thickness of one layer 0.17 mm. Finally we assume that the tensile
strength of the jacket is reduced by 5% with respect to tension testing specimens (that is
e =0.95).
For CFRP f fde = e f fd = 0.95 2590 = 2460 MPa and for GFRP f fde = 0.95 1400 = 1330
MPa. The results for the required fiber sheet thickness and the corresponding number of
layers are calculated in Table 6.1, based on the analytical model of eq. (6.3) (6.9), for
three different cross sections.
The results given in this table verify if the aim of
confinement is to increase strength then the required CFRP is much less than GFRP,
whereas the opposite is the case if the aim is to increase deformability.
Table 6.1 Required fiber sheet thickness for various types of cross sections.
Cross
rc
Ag
section
(cm)
(cm2)
(effectiveness)
( b , d m)
d=0.3
Required thickness of fiber sheet t f (mm)

[in () the corresponding number of layers]
Carbon fibers
Glass fibers
for fccd =
35 MPa
for ccu =
0.025
for fccd =
35 MPa
for ccu =
0.025
896.5
0.50
0.39 (4)
0.31 (3)
0.82 (7)
0.12 (1)
1246.5
0.32
0.74 (7)
0.56 (5)
1.56 (13)
0.22 (2)
886.2
0.64
0.31 (3)
0.24 (2)
0.64 (6)
0.10 (1)
b=0.3
0.25
0.5
0.3
0.3
6.3 Chord rotation and ductility
According to the philosophy of the upcoming version of Eurocode 8, of outmost

importance in seismic retrofitting is the increase of a members (column) chord rotation
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
59
at failure u (Fig. 6.9a), which is more or less equivalent to increasing the ductility. The
ductility may be quantified through the member chord rotation ductility factor,
= u / y , or through the curvature ductility factor, = u / y , where: y = chord
rotation at yielding, u = curvature at failure and y = curvature at yielding. Note that,
essentially, the chord rotation ductility factor member (relative end) displacement
ductility factor, = u / y , where u and y the relative displacement of member
ends at ultimate and yielding, respectively (Fig. 6.9). In the above definitions failure is
considered when either there is an abrupt fall in the members response (e.g. load
displacement curve) or the response parameter (e.g. force) has been reduced by 20%
with respect to its peak (Fig. 6.9b).
y
Pu
0.2Pu
Ls
u
Lpl
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 6.9 (a) Lateral loading of RC member. (b) Load-displacement diagram. (c) Curvature.
u can be calculated from the simple expression:

L pl
u = y + u y L pl 1 0.5
L
s
(6.20)
where L s = shear span (distance from base of column to the point where the bending
moment is zero, equal to the ratio of moment to shear at the column end) and L pl =
plastic hinge length. The chord rotation at yielding, y , is not affected by FRP jacketing
and equals:
For beams or columns:
y = y
fy
Ls + aV z
h
db
+ 0.00131 + 1.5 + 0.13 y
3
Ls
fc
(6.21)
For shear walls:
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
60
y = y
fy
Ls + aV z
L
+ 0.0021 1.125 s + 0.13 y

db
3
h
fc
(6.22)
where db = mean diameter of tension steel rebars, h = height of cross section, f y = yield
stress of longitudinal steel (MPa) and fc = concrete strength (Pa). The above material
data are taken as mean values of in-situ assessed properties, divided by a data reliability
factor (1.0, 1.2, 1.35), as per Eurocode 8. The term a V z is the tension shift of the
bending moment diagram a l for shear cracking at 45 and expresses the effect of
tension forces shifted by a l to the members flexural deformations. The coefficient a V ,
which multiplies the internal force lever arm z at the end cross section, equals 0 if the
shear force at flexural yielding, VMy = M y / L s , is less than the shear cracking force Vcr ,
or 1 otherwise. Note that the shear cracking force may be taken as the shear resistance
of the member without shear reinforcement, VR,c , as calculated by Eurocode 2 with a
safety factor c = 1 .
The plastic hinge length L pl may be estimated from the following expression:
L pl = 0.1L s + 0.17h +
0.24f y
fc
db
(6.23)
where f y and fc are in Pa. The curvatures y u are calculated based on section
analysis at yielding and failure. u is calculated as u = ccu / x u , where x u = depth of
compression zone at failure and ccu = ultimate strain of concrete, as provided by the
confinement model, e.g. eq. (6.15) (it is this term that is mainly affected by the properties
of the FRP jacket!).
The chord rotation u (or the curvature at failure u ) can increase by jacketing the
RC member at its critical regions (member ends), Fig. 6.10, where strains in concrete and
steel are expected to be high. In these regions the confinement exerted by the FRP
increases the ultimate strain of concrete (in addition to delaying rebar buckling and bond
failure at lap-splices) and hence the ductility (Fig. 6.11).
Fig. 6.10 FRP wrapping at member ends aiming at

increased ductility.
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
61
C4_XB Load v Deflection
Load v Deflection C2X Control

Load v Deflection C2X Control
250
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
-120
-80
-40
200
40
80
120
Load kN
Load kN
250
200
C4_XB Load v Deflection
0
-120
-80
-40
-50
-50
-100
-100
-150
-150
-200
-200
-250
40
80
120
-250
Deflection mm
Deflection mm
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6.11 Load-displacement loops for RC column of 0.25x0.50 m cross section under cyclic
loading. (a) Unretrofitted member. (b) Member retrofitted with two layers of carbon
sheet (thickness of each layer = 0.12 mm) at 0.60 m of the column base.
In summary, the design of FRP jackets for a given chord rotation at failure u (which
is introduced in the compliance criteria for the performance levels specified in Eurocode
8) requires the expression of u in terms of the jacket properties. This is achieved
through the following steps:
Determine the plastic hinge length L pl from eq. (6.23).
Calculate the yield curvature y , based on cross section analysis.
Calculate the chord rotation at yielding from eq. (6.21) or (6.22).
Solve eq. (6.20) for the required jacket characteristics.
An alternative approach for relating the FRP jacket characteristics to the ultimate
chord rotation (mean value) at flexural failure of beams or columns designed according to
old provisions for seismic design is based on the use of the following empirical
relationship (urocode 8):
um
max (0.01, )
fc
= 0.016 0.3
max (0.01, )
( )
0.225
Ls

h
0.35
f
sx yw + f fx fde
f
fc
c
25
(1.25
100 d
(6.24)
where:
= mechanical reinforcement ratio of tension longitudinal reinforcement (including any
longitudinal reinforcement between the tension and compression flanges),

= mechanical reinforcement ratio of compression longitudinal reinforcement,
= / bhfc = normalized axial force (compression taken as positive, b = width of

compression zone, h = cross section side parallel to the loading direction),
sx = A sw / b w sh = transverse steel ratio parallel to the direction x of loading,
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
62
fx = geometric ratio of FRP parallel to the direction x of loading,

sh = spacing of stirrups,
f yw = yield stress of stirrups,
d = geometric ratio of diagonal reinforcement, if any,
f = effectiveness coefficient for confinement with FRP, and
= effectiveness coefficient for confinement with stirrups, equal to
s
= 1 h
2b o
s
1 h
2ho
b2
1 i
6b oho
(6.25)
In eq. (6.25) b o and ho are the dimensions of confined concrete core to the centerline of
the stirrups and bi is the centerline spacing of longitudinal rebars supported by stirrups.
It is strongly recommended that if the stirrup ends are not bent towards the concrete core
( 135 at corners, 90 on the sides), the confinement provided by stirrups should be
neglected ( = 0).
The corresponding to eq. (6.24) formula for the mean value of the plastic part of the
ultimate chord rotation ( pl
u = u y ) is:
pl
um
max (0.01, )
= 0.0145 0.25
max (0.01, )
0 .3
0.2 L s
(fc )
0.35
f
sx yw + f fx fde
fc
fc
25
(1.275
100 d
) (6.26)
For shear walls designed according to old seismic design code provisions the right part of
eq. (6.24) (6.26) should be multiplied by 0.625 and 0.6, respectively (0.016 and
0.0145 are replaced by 0.01 and 0.0087).
A careful examination of eq. (6.24) and (6.26) reveals that the contribution of FRP
lies only in the exponent of 25.
Another alternative approach to deal with the design of FRP jackets for a target
ductility is to use the following simple but highly conservative equation proposed by
Tastani and Pantazopoulou (2002):
= = 1.3 + 12.4 lud 0.1 1.3

fcd
(6.27)
lud in eq. (6.27) is the confining stress at the ultimate limit state, given e.g. by eq. (6.9),
which neglects the contribution of stirrups. Note that the use of eq. (6.9) in rectangular
columns applies with d taken as the cross section dimension perpendicular to the plane
of bending. The application of this approach is illustrated in the next example.
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
63
Example 6.2
Longitudinal reinforcement:
18, f yd = 350 Pa
3m
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6.12 (a) Loading of column and (b) retrofitting for ductility.
Consider a column with cross section 0.30x0.40 m, subjected to strong axis bending
(Fig. 6.12).
The column edges are rounded at a radius rc = 25 mm; the concrete
strength is 11 Pa; and the carbon fiber sheets to be used have an elastic modulus 230
GPa, tensile strength 3000 MPa and thickness 0.12 mm (one layer). We assume that the
FRP strength reduction coefficient is e = 0.90. The objective is to design the jacket
(that is to calculate the required number of layers) for a target displacement (or chord
rotation) ductility factor ( = ) = 4.
Tensile strength of the jacket: 0.90 3000 = 2700 MPa.
Confinement effectiveness coefficient, eq. (6.11): A g = 1195 cm2, A s = 15.25 cm2.
n = 1
35 2 + 25 2
= 0.48
15.25
3 1195 1
1195
From eq. (6.27):

2t
0.48 f 2700
300
4 = 1.3 + 12.4
0.1
11
hence
t f = 0.40 mm
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
64
that is 0.40/0.12 = 3.3 4 layers (if repeated with t f = 4 0.12 mm, the calculations give
= 4.75 ).
6.4 Lap-splices
6.4.1 Behavior and design
FRP jackets in regions with straight lap-spliced rebars provide confinement which
increases the friction between lap-splices and prevents slippage (typically this is not of
concern in lap-splices with 180 hooks, in which case slippage is not activated). The
improved behavior in FRP-confined lap-spliced regions has been demonstrated in many
studies, including those of Ma and Xiao (1997), Saadatmanesh et al. (1997), Seible et al.
(1997), Restrepo et al. (1998), Osada et al. (1999), Haroun et al. (2001) etc. Typical
results are shown in Fig. 6.13.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6.13 Cyclic loading response of column with rectangular cross section: (a) unretrofitted
member, (b) member retrofitted at lap-splices (Saadatmanesh et al. 1997).
F = A b fs = p c b l s
Lateral stress l
Diagonal struts
ls
Bond stress b = l
Fig. 6.14 State of stress at lap-splice (friction mechanism).
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
65
According to the friction model of Fig. 6.14 and the possible failure patterns of Fig.
6.15 (details are omitted), it can be shown that lap-splice failures may be prevented using
fiber sheets with a thickness t f as follows:
t f = Rd
l s
bd1
A b f yd
l s,min
(b + d)p c ffde l s
(6.28)
where A b = cross section area and diameter of one spliced rebar, l s = available lapsplice length, l s,min = lap-splice length required to prevent slippage, p c = perimeter of
crack at lap-splice failure (Fig. 6.15b,c), f yd = yield stress of longitudinal rebars, b and d
= dimensions of rectangular cross section, = friction coefficient, f fde = effective FRP
jacket strength in circumferential direction and Rd = safety factor.
An additional
condition to met in order to prevent lap-splice failure according to Seible et al. (1997) is
that the radial concrete strain should be kept below a critical value, in the order of 0.0010.002. Hence, f fde in eq. (6.28) should exceed the value
f fde 0.0015 E f
(6.29)
D
n lap-splices
s
db
ls
(a)
db
pc=(D/2n)+2(db+c)
2 2 (db+c) (wide spacing)
(b)
c
pc=(s/2)+2(db+c)
2 2 (db+c)
(c)
Fig. 6.15 (a) Column confinement at lap-splice region. (b) Cracking of circular section in the
tension zone due to bond failure and definition of critical crack path. () Similarly for
rectangular columns.
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
66
Closing this section we should point out that the effect of FRP confinement at lapspliced rebars is favorable only for the corner rebars (in rectangular cross sections),
where confining stresses are substantial due to rounding of the corners.
Example 6.3
Consider the column of Fig. 6.12a (0.30x0.40 m cross section) with 16 rebars and
f yd = 230 Pa, under lateral loading which causes bending with respect to either the
strong or the weak axis. We assume that the radius at column edges is rc = 25 mm and
that the concrete cover is c = 30 mm. The concrete strength is 11 Pa, the friction
coefficient is taken = 1.4, the lap-splice length is l s = 0.25 m and l s,min = 0.40 m.
Assuming that confinement at the lap-splice region is provided with carbon fiber sheets
with elastic modulus E f = 230 GPa, tensile strength 2600 Pa and thickness of one
layer 0.12 mm, determine the required number of layers to prevent lap-splice failure.
Take Rd = 1.5.
(a) Strong axis bending
d
220
Fig. 6.16a
Critical crack path: p c = min [(220 / 2) + 2(18 + 30 )], 2 2 (18 + 30 ) = 136 mm .
Rebar cross section area: A b = 16 / 4 = 200 mm .

ffde = min(2600, 0.0015 230000 ) = min(2600, 345 ) = 345 MPa .
From Example 6.2, = 0.48 mm.
0.25
1.5 300 400 1

200 230
0.4
Required jacket thickness: t f =

= 0.28 mm .
0.48 (300 + 400 ) 136 1.4 345 500
Required number of layers: 0.28/0.12 = 2.33 3 layers.
(b) Weak axis bending
d
150
Fig. 6.16b
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
67
The calculations are as above, but note that FRP jacketing will prevent lap-splice failure
only at the corner rebars.
6.4.2 Effect of lap-splices on chord rotation
The effect of lap-splices on chord rotation is taken into account by computing the
yield chord rotation y and the plastic part of the ultimate chord rotation pl
u with twice
as high compared to that outside the lap-splice region. The same applies for y and M y .
Moreover, if l s < l s,min , then pl
u , u , M y and y should be computed by multiplying the
yield stress of longitudinal rebars by l s / l s,min . Moreover, the 2nd term in eq. (6.21)
(6.22) should be multiplied by the ratio of the reduced yield moment to that outside the
lap-splice region. Finally, the right part of eq. (6.26) should be multiplied by l s / l su,min .
For lap-splices without FRP jacketing:
l s,min =
l su,min =
0.3 f y
fc
db
(6.30)
fy
f
1.05 + 14.5 l sx yw
fc
fc
db
(6.31)
where
s
l = 1 h
2b o
s
1 h
2ho
nrestr
(6.32)
n = total number of longitudinal rebars in the column perimeter and nrestr = number of
rebars supported at corners of stirrups or by cross ties.
For lap-splices with FRP jacketing at a height at least equal to 2 l s /3:
l s,min =
l su,min =
0.2 f y
fc
db
(6.33)
fy
f
1.05 + 14.5 l, f fx fde
fc
fc
db
(6.34)
where l, f = 4/ n (because confinement is effective only in the vicinity of the four corner
rebars). Note here that in order to avoid accounting for the FRP contribution twice in the
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
68
correction for pl
u , f in the power of 25 in eq. (6.26) should be taken as zero. Finally, all
strength parameters in the above equations are given in MPa.
6.5 Rebar buckling
According to Priestley et al. (1996), in columns with M / Vd > 4 ( M and V is the

maximum acting bending moment and shear force, respectively, and d is the cross
section dimension parallel to the plane of bending) and the ratio of stirrup spacing to
rebar diameter sh / db exceeds a critical value, buckling of the longitudinal rebars is likely
to occur due to high axial strains.
Such buckling may be delayed when the FRP
confining jacket has a thickness equal to:

tf =
0.45nfs2 d
4E dsE f f
(6.35)
where n = total number of longitudinal rebars in the cross section, f s = stress in the
rebars at a strain equal to 0.04 and E ds = double modulus of rebars, defined as follows
(Fig. 6.17):
E ds =
(E
4E s E i
s
+ Ei
(6.36)
Stress
s
fu
fs
0.04
Strain
Fig. 6.17 Definition of steel moduli.
In eq. (6.36) E s = secant modulus from stress f s to f u (strength of steel) and E i =

initial modulus of rebars. Finally, in eq. (6.35) the quantity 0.45 f s2 / E ds may be taken
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
69
approximately (and conservatively) equal to 40 MPa. Hence, with the introduction of the
safety factor we have:
t f = Rd
10nd
Ef f
( E f in MPa)
(6.37)
Example 6.4
Consider a column with 0.30x0.40 m cross
rebars
section (Fig. 6.18) and 10 longitudinal rebars
18, S500s
18.
The radius at the rounded edges is
assumed rc = 25 mm and Rd = 1.5.
Fig. 6.18
For carbon fiber sheets with E f = 230 GPa and thickness of one layer equal to 0.12 mm,
the required sheet thickness to delay rebar buckling is:
tf =
1.5 10 10 400
= 0.54 mm
230000 0.48
which implies 0.54/0.12 = 4.5 5 layers.
6.6 General comments on FRP-jacketed columns
It must be made clear that FRP jacketing in RC columns: (a) increases the axial load
capacity (strength), if the predominant loading is axial and (b) increases substantially the
deformability (ductility, chord rotation) and/or the shear resistance, if the predominant
loading is lateral (seismic forces). Contrary to the case of steel jacketing, the stiffness is
not affected by FRP jacketing, implying that very flexible structures (e.g. buildings with
pilotis) may remain vulnerable and may require stiffening in addition to strengthening, as
per the structural analysis results.
Under the condition that the intervention does not aim to increase the stiffness (or
the flexural resistance!), any given seismic excitation will provide (through the structural
analysis) (a) the target chord rotation (or ductility) and (b) the design shear (accounting
for capacity design, that is flexural yielding before shear cracking).
The required
thickness of FRP jackets should be determined as the maximum given by the

calculations for chord rotation, shear resistance, delay or rebar buckling and prevention
of lap-splice failures.
T. C. Triantafillou
CONFINEMENT
70
T. C. Triantafillou
DETAILING AND PRACTICAL EXECUTION
71
CHAPTER 7
7.1 General
This chapter summarizes basic detailing and practical execution rules for the
application of composites as externally bonded reinforcement.
7.2 Detailing
Detailing rules are summarized here for the three basic cases: (a) flexural
strengthening, (b) shear strengthening and (c) confinement.
7.2.1 Flexural strengthening
According to the fib bulletin 14 (2001), the following rules should be respected (for
beam strengthening):
Maximum spacing between strips = min( 0.2l, 5h) ,
Fig. 7.1
where l = span length and h = total depth (in the

case of cantilevers 0.2 should be replaced by 0.4).
Minimum distance to the edge of the beam should

equal
the
concrete
cover
of
the
longitudinal reinforcement.
min( 0.2l, 0.5h)
internal
cover
Lap joints of strips should be avoided; they are absolutely not necessary, because
FRP can be delivered in the required length. Nevertheless, if needed, lap joints
should be made in the direction of the fibers with an overlap that will ensure tensile
fracture of the FRP prior to debonding at the lap joint.
Crossing of strips is allowed (e.g. strengthening of two way slabs) with bonding in the
crossing area.
If strips or sheets are to be applied in several layers, the maximum number or layers
should not exceed 3 or 5 for prefabricated strips or in-situ cured sheets, respectively.
In the case of applying FRP strips over supports of continuous beams or slabs, the
strips should be anchored at a distance in the order of 1 m in the compression zone
(Fig. 7.2).
T. C. Triantafillou
72
FRP
Fig. 7.2 FRP bonding above internal support.
1m
Shift rule
Anchoring of FRP (especially if the strips are staggered) can be ensured by applying
bonded FRP stirrups that enclose the longitudinal strips at their ends (Fig. 7.3, 7.4).
The use of such stirrups is strongly recommended. Note that these stirrups are not
considered to be part of the shear reinforcement but are responsible to keep the
longitudinal strips in their position and to prevent peeling-off.
Section A - A
Fig. 7.3 Flexural strengthening with possible end anchorages.
T. C. Triantafillou
73
Fig. 7.4 Improved anchorage at FRP strip ends using transverse FRP.
7.2.2 Shear strengthening
In the case of strengthening T-beams, externally bonded FRP should be anchored in

the compression zone (e.g. Fig. 7.5).
Fig. 7.5 Typical configurations for the anchorage of FRP ties in the compression zone.
If anchorage in the compression zone is not

possible, placement of sheets inside grooves
at the top of the web is strongly recommended
(Fig. 7.6). The rods inside the grooves could
be
non-metallic
(e.g.
FRP);
if
shear
strengthening is provided with CFRP sheets

and the rods are made of steel, the use of
Rod, filling of the

groove with epoxy
150 mm
excessive resin inside the groove should

ensure the non-contact between carbon and
steel (due
to the potential
of galvanic
Fig. 7.6
corrosion).
Minimum permissible radii at corners of rectangular cross sections are in the order of
20 mm for carbon or glass fibers and 10 mm for aramid fibers.
T. C. Triantafillou
74
Shear strengthening of columns between partial height infill walls should be done
along the full column height, not just in the free part (Fig. 7.7).
WRONG
CORRECT
Fig. 7.7 Shear strengthening of column between partial height infill walls.
Full wrapping of columns with several pieces

of FRP along the height should be done with
Fig. 7.8
the lap joints in different sides (Fig. 7.8).
7.2.3 Confinement
Rounding of the corners in columns should be done at the maximum possible radius
(typically determined by the concrete cover).
Overlapping of the jackets ends in rectangular cross

sections (Fig. 7.9) should be such that fracture of the
FRP would occur prior to debonding.
Typical
Fig. 7.9
minimum lap lengths are in the order of 200 mm for

carbon fiber sheets with a nominal thickness about
0.12-0.14 mm.
The maximum number of superimposed layers should

be in the order of 15 or according to the material
suppliers recommendation.
When jacketing is applied at column ends for ductility,
gap
a 15 mm gap is recommended to allow for unrestraint

rotation of the end cross section as well as to prevent
Fig. 7.10
damage of the FRP in compression (Fig. 7.10).
Concerning the application of FRP on rectangular columns or pier walls with large
aspect ratio, the FRP does not actually confine the internal concrete structure if just
applied to the surface.
In order to achieve confinement, the jacket need to be
constrained on both sides along the length through the use of dowels or bolts or
spike anchors (Fig. 7.11) that anchor the jacket to the existing structure, thereby
T. C. Triantafillou
75
creating shorter distances. Spike anchors provide a low cost solution, which has
been tested with very good results for the attachment of FRP jackets at the reentrant
corners of L-shaped cross section columns, Fig. 7.12 (Karantzikis et al. 2005).
First layer
Predrilled hole filled with resin
Spike anchor
Concrete
Final layer
Fig. 7.11 FRP anchorage using spike anchor.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 7.12 Fixing the jacket at reentrant corner: (a) typical configuration, (b) spike anchors, (c)
photograph of anchors at reentrant corner.
As in the case of columns strengthened in shear, full wrapping with several pieces of
FRP along the height should be done with the lap joints in different sides (Fig. 7.8).
When jackets are provided to prevent lap-splice failures (e.g. at the bottom of
columns), the FRP should extend at a height equal to at least 2/3 of the lap splice.
7.3 Practical execution

FRP materials used in strengthening and/or seismic retrofitting are typically in the
form of (a) 1.0-1.5 mm thick and 50-100 mm wide strips made of carbon fibers, or (b)
sheets with a nominal thickness of 0.1-0.6 mm made of carbon, glass and (more rarely)
T. C. Triantafillou
76
aramid fibers. Bonding on concrete surfaces is achieved with two-part epoxy adhesives.
Details about specific systems as far as material properties and practical execution are
concerned are given by the supplier of the strengthening system. In this section we
provide general rules, applicable to most of the commercially available systems.
The concrete should be sound and free from serious imperfections (e.g. cavities,
wide cracks, protrusions), roughened (e.g. by means of sand blasting or water jet
blasting) and made laitance and contamination free. Surface moisture in excess of
4% requires the use of special resins. Typical surface preparation steps are given in
Fig. 7.13.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 7.13 Surface preparation: (a) Grinding, (b) cleaning (c) leveling.
Use
of
prefabricated
strips
requires
minimum substrate tensile strength equal to

approximately 1.5 MPa (measured in-situ
through pull-off testing, Fig. 7.14).
Fig. 7.14 In-situ testing of
substrate strength.
Selection of the appropriate resin should be made on the basis of in-situ temperature
and humidity requirements.
Application of resins at very low temperatures may
require local heating.
FRP strips should be cut to proper size using an electric or manual saw. Depending
on the type of strips, cleaning (e.g. with acetone) or removal of a surface veil may be
required prior to bonding. Handling of strips by workers should be performed with
care (the use of gloves is strongly recommended).
T. C. Triantafillou
77
Bonding of strips should be followed by the application of pressure using a plastic

roller, to remove entrapped air and excess resin (Fig. 7.15-7.16).
Prepared substrate
Resin
Air
Strip with resin in trapezoidal
configuration
Plastic roller
(b)
(a)
Fig. 7.15 (a) Application of resin on concrete and FRP, (b) application of pressure during
rolling.
Resin application on strip.
Use of roller.
Placement of strip.
Removal of excess resin.
Fig. 7.16 Steps for the application of strips.
Sheets should be applied with special care to ensure that wrinkles are avoided and
that the fibers are as straight as practically possible. Impregnation of sheets with
resin is achieved using a plastic roller (Fig. 7.17)
T. C. Triantafillou
(a)
78
(b)
(d)
(c)
(e)
Fig. 7.17 In-situ impregnation of sheet: (a) Prime, (b) placement of first layer of sheet, (c)
impregnation of sheet on concrete. (d) Pre-impregnation of sheet and (e) application
of pre-impregnated sheet.
The average thickness of resin layer between strips and the concrete substrate
should be in the order of 1.5 mm. The resin used to impregnate sheets must have
an appropriate viscosity and used at the proper quantity, to ensure full impregnation
without entrapped air.
Application of mortar plastering directly on the FRP can be made possible by

providing a rough surface through the application of a certain quantity of sand (in the
order of 1 kg/m2) directly on the last layer of resin prior to its hardening.
Last, but certainly not least, the FRP strengthening system should be applied by
properly trained and qualified personnel.
T. C. Triantafillou
DURABILITY
79
CHAPTER 8
DURABILITY
8.1 General
This chapter provides a brief overview of the durability of FRP-based strengthening
systems with regard to a number of factors, namely:
Temperature effects
Moisture
Ultraviolet light exposure
Alkalinity and acidity
Galvanic corrosion
Creep, stress rupture, stress corrosion
Fatigue
Impact
8.2 Temperature effects

As reported already in Chapter 2, high temperatures, in the order of 60-80 C, cause
a dramatic degradation of properties in resins (matrix material in FRPs, adhesive at the
FRP-concrete interface). Much higher temperatures, such as those developed during
fire, result in complete resin decomposition; hence FRPs during fire cannot carry any
stresses. The decomposition of glass, carbon and aramid fibers starts at about 1000 oC,
650 oC and 200 oC, respectively. Experimental results have shown that CFRP jackets
suffer substantial strength reduction at temperatures exceeding approximately 260 oC.
Hence, an FRP strengthening system without special fire protection measures should be
considered as ineffective during (and after) fire. Fire protection may be provided using
either standard mortar plastering (with a minimum thickness of at least 40 mm, according
to the JSCE 2001 guidelines), special mortars or gypsum-based boards.
8.3 Moisture
FRP materials are, in general, highly resistant to moisture. Occasionally, extremely
prolonged exposure to water (either fresh or salt) may cause problems with some
fiber/resin combinations. The resin matrix absorbs water, which causes a slight reduction
T. C. Triantafillou
DURABILITY
80
in strength and the glass transition temperature. However, most structural adhesives
(high quality epoxy resins) are extremely resistant to moisture (Blaschko et al. 1998). As
far as the fibers are concerned, the high susceptibility of aramid to moisture deserves
special attention; carbon fibers are practically unaffected, whereas glass fibers have an
intermediate behavior.
At this point it is worth pointing out that full jacketing of RC with FRP provides a
moisture/vapor/air barrier which increases the longevity of members by protecting them
from harsh conditions (e.g. chlorides, chemicals). On the hand, in case of poor concrete
conditions, the encapsulation is at risk if the member is exposed to extreme climate
cycling and/or excessive moisture. Applications of FRP to a structural member that is at
risk of water pooling should not involve fully encapsulating the concrete. Good internal
and surface concrete conditions, proper surface preparation, adequate concrete
substrate exposure and proper application of an adequate FRP system may substantially
reduce this risk.
8.4 UV light exposure

UV light affects the chemical bonds in polymers and causes surface discoloration
and surface microcracking. Such degradation may affect only the matrix near the surface
exposed to UV, as well as some types of fibers, such as aramid (Ahmad and Plecnik
1989); carbon and glass fibers are practically unaffected by UV. Anti-UV protection may
be provided by surface coatings or special acrylic or polyurethane based paints.
8.5 Alcalinity and acidity

The performance of the FRP strengthening over time in an alkaline or acidic
environment will depend on both matrix and the reinforcing fiber. Carbon fibers are
resistant to alkali and acid environment, glass fibers can degrade and aramid displays an
intermediate behavior. However, a properly applied resin matrix will isolate and protect
the fibers and postpone the deterioration. Nevertheless RC structures located in high
alkalinity combined with high moisture or relative humidity environments should be
strengthened using carbon fibers.
8.6 Galvanic corrosion
T. C. Triantafillou
DURABILITY
81
The contact of carbon fibers with steel may lead to galvanic corrosion, a problem
which is not of concern in the case of glass or aramid fibers.
8.7 Creep, stress rupture, stress corrosion

In general, creep strains in composite materials loaded parallel to the fibers are very
low. CFRP does not creep, the creep of GFRP is negligible, but that of AFRP cannot be
neglected. Hence, the creep behavior of CFRP - or GFRP - plated RC members is
governed primarily by the compressive creep of concrete (e.g. Plevris and Triantafillou
1994). As AFRP creeps itself, long-term deformations increase considerably in the case
of AFRP-strengthened elements. However, it should be born in mind that in (the very
common) case when FRP strengthening systems are designed for additional loads
(beyond the permanent ones), creep is not of concern.
Another important issue regarding time-effects is the poor behavior of GFRP under
sustained loading. Glass fibers exhibit premature tensile rupture under sustained stress,
a phenomenon called stress rupture. Hence the tensile strength of GFRP drops to very
low values (as low as 20%) when the material carries permanent tension.
Stress corrosion occurs when the atmosphere or ambient environment is of a
corrosive nature but not sufficiently so that corrosion would occur without the addition of
stress. This phenomenon is time, stress level, environment, matrix and fiber related.
Failure is deemed to be premature since the FRP fails at a stress level below its ultimate.
Carbon fiber are relatively unaffected by stress corrosion at stress levels up to 80% of
ultimate. Glass and aramid fibers are susceptible to stress corrosion. The quality of the
resin has a significant effect on time to failure and the sustainable stress levels. In
general, the following order of fibers and resins gives increasing vulnerability either to
stress rupture or to stress corrosion: carbon-epoxy, aramid-vinylester, glass-polyester.
We may also state that, in general, given the stress rupture of GFRP and the relatively
poor creep behaviour of AFRP, it is recommended that when the externally bonded
reinforcement is to carry considerable sustained load, composites with carbon fibres
should be the designers first choice.
8.8 Fatigue
In general, the fatigue behavior of unidirectional fiber composites is excellent,
especially when carbon fibers are used, in which case the fatigue strength of FRP is even
higher than that of the steel rebars (e.g. Kaiser 1989, Deuring 1993, Barnes and Mays
1999).
T. C. Triantafillou
DURABILITY
82
8.9 Impact
The strength of composites under impact loading is highest when aramid fibers are
used (hence the use of these materials in bridge columns that may suffer impact loading
due to vehicle collision) and lowest in the case of carbon fibers. Glass gives intermediate
results.
T. C. Triantafillou
REFERENCES
83
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (1996), State-of-the-art Report on Fiber Reinforced

Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, ACI Report 440R-96, Detroit, Michigan.
Antonopoulos, . (2001), Strengthening of RC Beam-Column Joints with FRP
Materials, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Patras, Department of Civil Engineering (in
Greek).
Ahmad, S. H. and Plecnik, J. M. (1989), Transfer of Composites Technology to
Design and Construction of Bridges, Report of the California State University.
Antonopoulos, C. P. and Triantafillou, T. C. (2002), Analysis of FRP-Strengthened
RC Beam-Column Joints, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 6(1), 41-51.
Antonopoulos, C. P. and Triantafillou, T. C. (2003), Experimental Investigation of
FRP-Strengthened RC Beam-Column Joints, Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, 7(1), 39-49.
Barnes, R. A. and Mays, G. C. (1999), Fatigue performance of concrete beams
strengthened with CFRP plates, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 3(2),
63-72.
Bizindavyi, L. and Neale, K. W. (1999), Transfer lengths and bond strengths for
composites bonded to concrete, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 3(4),
153-160.
Blaschko M., Nierdermeier R. and Zilch, K. (1998), Bond failure modes of flexural
members strengthened with FRP, Proceedings of Second International Conference on
Composites in Infrastructures, Saadatmanesh, H. and Ehsani, M. R., eds., Tucson,
Arizona, 315-327.
Deuring, M. (1993), Strengthening of RC with Prestressed Fiber Reinforced Plastic
Sheets. EMPA Research Report 224, Dbendorf, Switzerland (in German).
Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings. ENV 1992-1-1, Comit Europen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 1991.
Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance Part 3: Assessment
and Retrofitting of Buildings, prEN 1998-3:2005, Comit Europen de Normalisation,
Brussels, Belgium.
Feldman, D. (1989), Polymeric uilding aterials, Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.,
UK.
Federation
International
du
Beton
fib
(2001),
Externally
onded
FRP
Reinforcement for RC Structures, Bulletin 14, Lausanne.

Federation International du Beton fib (2003), Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Bulletin 24, Lausanne.
T. C. Triantafillou
REFERENCES
84
Haroun, M. A., Mosallam, A. S., Feng, M. Q. and Elsanedeby L. L. (2001)

Experimental investigation of seismic repair and retrofit of bridge columns by composite
jackets, Proceedings of the International Conference of FRP composites in Civil
Engineering, J.-G. Teng, ed., Hong Kong, 839-848.
Holzenkmpfer, P. (1994), Ingenieurmodelle des verbundes geklebter bewehrung fr
betonbauteile. Dissertation, TU Braunschweig (In German).
Jansze, W. (1997), Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Members in Bending by
Externally Bonded Steel Plates, PhD Dissertation, TU Delft, The Netherlands.
Japan Society of Civil Engineers (2001), Recommendations for Upgrading of
Concrete Structures with use of Continuous Fiber Sheets, Concrete Engineering Series
41.
Karantzikis, M., Papanicolaou, C. G, Antonopoulos, C. P. and Triantafillou, T. C.
(2005), Experimental Investigation of Non-Conventional Confinement for Concrete using
FRP, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, December 2001.
Kaiser, H. (1989), Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete with CFRP Plates, Ph.D.
Dissertation, ETH Zrich (in German).
Kim, D.-H. (1995), Composite Structures for Civil and Architectural Engineering, E &
FN Spon, London.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2003), Stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete for
design applications, Proceedings of 6th International Symposium on Fibre-Reinforced
Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Ed. K. H. Tan, Singapore, 1, 99110.
Ma, R. and Xiao, Y. (1997), Seismic retrofit and repair of circular bridge columns
with advanced composite materials, Earthquake Spectra, 15(4), 747-764.
Matthys, S. (2000), Structural Behaviour and Design of Concrete Members
Strengthened with Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement, Doctoral Thesis, Ghent
University.
Moehle, J., Lynn, A., Elwood, K. and Sezen, H. (2001), Gravity Load Collapse of
Building Frames During Earthquakes, PEER Report: 2nd US-Japan Workshop on
Performance-based Design Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures,
PEER Center, Richmont, CA.
Neubauer, U. and Rostsy, F. S. (1999), Bond failure of concrete fibre reinforced
polymer at inclined cracks experiments and fracture mechanics model, Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on Fibre Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures, Eds. C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla and A,. Nanni, ACI, Michigan, USA, 369-382.
Oehlers, D. J. (1992), Reinforced concrete beams with plates glued to their soffits,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118(8), 2023-2038.
T. C. Triantafillou
REFERENCES
85
Osada, K., Yamaguchi, T. and Ikeda, S. (1999), Seismic performance and the
retrofit of hollow circular reinforced concrete piers having reinforcement cut-off planes
and variable wall thickness, Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, 21, 263-274.
Plevris, N. and Triantafillou, T. C. (1994), Time-dependent behaviour of RC
members strengthened with FRP laminates, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
120(3), 1016-1042.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F. and Calvi, G. M. (1996), Seismic Design and Retrofit of
Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
Raoof, M. and Hassanen, M. A. H. (2000), Peeling failure of reinforced concrete
beams with fibre-reinforced plastic or steel plates glued to their soffits, Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings, 140, 291-305.
Restrepo, J. I., Wang, Y. C., Irwin, R. W. and DeVino, B. (1988) Fibreglass/epoxy
composites for the seismic upgrading of reinforced concrete beams with shear and bar
curtailment deficiencies, Proceedings 8th European Conference on Composite Materials,
Naples, Italy, 59-66.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R. and Jin, L. (1997) Repair of earthquake-damaged
RC columns with FRP wraps, ACI Structural Journal, 94(2), 206-215.
Seible, F., Priestley, M. J. N., Hegemier, G. A. and Innamorato, D. (1997) Seismic
retrofit of RC columns with continuous carbon fiber jackets, Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, 1(2), 52-62.
Tastani, S. and Pantazopoulou, S. (2002), Design of seismic strengthening for brittle
RC members using FRP jackets, Proceedings of 12th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, London, Paper 360.
Teng, J. G.; Chen, J. F.; Smith, S. T. and Lam, L. (2001), FRP Strengthened RC
Structures, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Triantafillou, T. C. (1998), Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using
epoxy-bonded FRP composites, ACI Structural Journal, 95(2), 107-115.
riantafillou, T. C. (2004), Structural Materials, Papasotiriou Bookstores (in Greek).
Triantafillou, T. C. (2004), Strengthening and Seismic Retrofitting of RC Structures
with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP), Papasotiriou Bookstores (in Greek).
Triantafillou, T. C. and Plevris, N. (1992), Strengthening of RC beams with epoxybonded fibre-composite materials, Materials and Structures, 25, 201-211.
Yamaguchi, T., Nishimura, T., and Uomoto, T. (1998), Creep model of FRP rods
based on fibre damaging rate, Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Durability
of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites for Construction, Eds. B. Benmokrane
and H. Rahman, Sherbrooke, Canada, 427-437.
Zilch, K., Niedermeier, R. and Blaschko, M. (1998), Bericht ber versuche zum
verstrken von betonbauteilen mit CFK (Test report on retrofitting concrete members with
T. C. Triantafillou
REFERENCES
CFRP).
86
Versuchsbericht Nr. 1310, Technische Universitt Mnchen, Lehrstuhl fr
Massivbau (In German).

Ziraba, Y. N., Baluch, M. H., Basunbul, I. A., Sharif, A. M., Azad, A. K. and AlSulaimani, G. J. (1994), Guidelines towards the design of reinforced concrete beams
with external plates, ACI Structural Journal, 91(6), 639-646.
T. C. Triantafillou
THE PROGRAM Composite Dimensioning
87
The Program
Composite Dimensioning
This Appendix gives information on the use of the program Composite Dimensioning,
which may be used for the dimensioning of concrete members strengthened with FRP in
flexure, shear or through confinement. The program makes use of the composite materials
provided by ISOMAT S.A, a major producer of chemicals and mortars for construction in
Greece.
The company also delivers the following composite materials products:
MEGAWRAP-200 (unidirectional carbon fabric), MEGAPLATE THR-3000 and MEGAPLATE

HM-250 (prefabricated carbon fiber plates). The program may also be used with userspecified properties for the composite materials. It runs on PCs operating under Windows
98, 2000, Me XP and may be installed as follows:
Double click the setup icon.
Click .
Click setup.
Upon starting, the program displays its introductory window:
By clicking OK the following window allows the user to choose one of the following three
options: FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING, SHEAR STRENGTHENING, CONFINEMENT.
88
First the type of cross section is selected (Beam or Column) and then the cross section
geometry is defined, followed by selection of concrete class or design strength, material
data for composite materials (pre-selected products or user-defined elastic modulus, limiting
strain) and data for the longitudinal reinforcement. Next, the user defines the moment Mo
acting in the critical section during strengthening (initial situation) and the axial force No , in
the case of columns. Finally a selection of the target moment capacity MRd (and axial force
NRd in the case of columns) in the critical section at the ultimate limit state is made.
By clicking Solve a new window appears, which gives the results in terms of the FRP
cross section area ( A f ), the resisting moment ( MRd,o ) of the unstrengthened cross section
and the degree of strengthening.
89
If needed, the user may click on

Strain profile, in order to obtain the
strain in the cross section both during
strengthening (initial situation) and
after strengthening, at the ultimate limit
state. Moreover, the failure mode is
provided.
After selecting Return, a click on Input FRP dimensions opens a new window where the
user inputs the width b f and thickness t f of FRP strips (or sheets). Next, the Solve
button yields the required number of strips and the corresponding cross section area.
90
Finally the user has two options (apart from exiting the program): (a) Return without
Solving, which displays again the window of results, or (b) Return with Solving, which
displays the window of results updated with new values for A f and MRd (as well as the
updated degree of strengthening), those corresponding to the specific FRP geometry
chosen.
SHEAR STRENGTHENING
First the user selects the type of jacket, that is the FRP anchorage conditions. A
Closed jacket is typically the case in columns/shear walls (with full access) or beams with
fully anchored FRP in the compression zone, whereas an Open jacket is typically the case
in T-beams strengthened with U-shaped sheets.
Next the cross section geometry is
defined, followed by selection of concrete class or design strength and material data for
composite materials (elastic modulus, design strength and effective strength).
In the
following the use of either continuous jacketing or strips (of width b f ) at equal spacing ( s f )
is specified and, finally, the shear to be carried by the FRP, VRd, f , is introduced.
91
By clicking Solve the required total fiber sheet thickness t f is calculated.
click on Input FRP dimensions opens a new window where the user inputs the thickness
t fib of each layer of sheet to be used in shear strengthening. Next, the Solve button yields
the required number of layers and the corresponding total thickness of the fiber sheet, t f .
displays the window of results updated with new values for t f and VRd, f , those
corresponding to the number of layers calculated.
92
CONFINEMENT
The type of cross section (rectangular or circular) is selected first and the cross section
geometry is defined, followed by selection of concrete class or design strength and material
data for composite materials (elastic modulus, design strength and effective strength). Next
the user inputs the data regarding the existing stirrups (strength of steel, spacing, cross
section of ties in each direction, concrete cover) and defines the solution requirements,
which can be one of the following: (a) increase the concrete strength and/or the ultimate
strain, e.g. for columns where axial loading is predominant; (b) increase the displacement
ductility factor (equal to the chord rotation ductility factor ), for columns subjected to
lateral (seismic) loading causing bending either in the strong or in the weak axis (that is
parallel to either the larger or the smaller side of the cross section.
93
At this point we must emphasize that use of eq. (6.27) is made, which gives quite
conservative results (thicker jackets).
thickness t f is calculated.
By clicking Solve the required total fiber sheet
For increase in strength and/or ultimate strain:
Apart from the thickness t f , the strength of concrete fcc1d confined with the existing stirrups
is also calculated in this case. Moreover, for a given target confined concrete strength the
corresponding ultimate strain is calculated and vice-versa. Note that if the user specifies
both a target strength and a target ultimate strain, the thickness t f returned by the program
is the one corresponding to the maximum of these two cases (hence the ultimate strain and
strength values after strengthening correspond to this thickness).
For increase in ductility:
94
Next, as in the case of shear strengthening, a click on Input FRP dimensions opens a
new window where the user inputs the thickness t fib of each layer of sheet to be used for
confinement.
The Solve button yields the required number of layers and the
corresponding total thickness of the fiber sheet, t f .
displays the window of results updated with new values for t f and (or ccu and fccd ,
depending on the requirements), those corresponding to the number of layers calculated.
OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAM
By clicking Options on the data entry form, the user may specify its data, printing
details, and, for the case of Flexural strengthening, whether a failure mode that would not
involve Steel yielding would be acceptable or not. Finally, Print gives a printout of all the
input and output parameters.
95
TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS OF ISOMATS PRODUCTS
Finally, by clicking Products Data Sheets on the data entry form, a new form is
presented in which all relative to repairing and strengthening issues products of ISOMAT
could be presented. The products are divided by the use, as those related to substrate
preparation (mortars or epoxy resins) and those related to FRP application (fabrics/plates or
epoxy resins). The technical data sheets are in .pdf format so the user should have already
install Acrobat Reader.

Isomat Documentatie

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Isomat Documentatie

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PROF. THANASIS C.

STRENGTHENING AND SEISMIC

Structure of the book

CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES

Wet lay-up systems

Basic strengthening technique

CHAPTER 3 BASIS OF DESIGN

Material constitutive laws

Calculation of resistance full composite action

Calculation of resistance - debonding

Serviceability limit state

Bond at the FRP concrete interface

Ultimate limit state failure modes

Ultimate limit state - calculations

Full composite action

Loss of composite action

Summary of design calculations ultimate limit state

Servicability limit state

CHAPTER 5 SHEAR STRENGTHENING

Shear carried by FRP

Summary of design procedure

Behavior and constitutive modeling of FRP-confined concrete

Chord rotation and ductility

Behavior and design

Effect of lap-splices on chord rotation

General comments on FRP-jacketed columns

CHAPTER 7 DETAILING AND PRACTICAL EXECUTION

Alcalinity and acidity

Creep, stress rupture, stress corrosion

APPENDIX THE PROGRAM Composite Dimensioning

This document is based on the book by Prof. Thanasis C. Triantafillou Strengthening of

STRENGTHENING AND SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF RC STRUCTURES WITH FRP

neglected by engineers: contrary to steel, which behaves in an elastoplastic manner,

Instead, the advantages offered by them should be evaluated against

STRENGTHENING AND SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF RC STRUCTURES WITH FRP

1.2 Structure of the book

STRENGTHENING AND SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF RC STRUCTURES WITH FRP

STRENGTHENING AND SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF RC STRUCTURES WITH FRP

MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES

MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES

This chapter provides general information on FRP materials used in concrete

Today there are several types of composite material strengthening

systems, which are summarised below:

STRENGTHENING AND SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF RC STRUCTURES WITH FRP

MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES

Table 2.1 Typical properties of fibers (Feldman 1989, Kim 1995).

PAN fibers are made of polyacrylonitrile that is

STRENGTHENING AND SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF RC STRUCTURES WITH FRP

MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES

Depending on the type of fiber they are referred to as CFRP

STRENGTHENING AND SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF RC STRUCTURES WITH FRP

MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES

Basic mechanical properties of composites may be estimated if the properties of the

= elastic modulus of fiber-reinforced material in fiber direction

= elastic modulus of fibers

= elastic modulus of matrix

= volume fraction of fibers

= volume fraction of matrix = 1- Vfib

= tensile strength of fiber-reinforced material in fiber direction

STRENGTHENING AND SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF RC STRUCTURES WITH FRP

MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES

= tensile strength of fibers

= tensile strength of matrix