Aprile 2004

Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125
www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb
Coupled flexural-shear design of R/C beams strengthened with FRP

Alessandra Aprilea,*, Andrea Benedettib
b
a
Department of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ferrara, Via Saragat 1, Ferrara 44100, Italy
Department of Distart, Faculty of Engineering, University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, Bologna 40136, Italy
Received 28 January 2003; accepted 22 September 2003
Abstract
The ultimate strength of reinforced concrete beams retrofitted in flexure and shear by means of externally bonded fiber reinforced polymers
(FRP) has attracted the attention of many researchers due to the particularities highlighted by a wide set of experimental results. In fact, an
increase of the external reinforcement area does not always lead to the expected increase of the beam load capacity, due to the interaction of
flexural and shear behaviour within the discontinuity regions of the strengthened element. In this paper, the available experimental data are
considered and, in the light of an equilibrated equivalent truss model, a theoretical explanation of the observed behaviour is presented. A new
definition of the design strength of the externally bonded FRP reinforcement is proposed, for both flexural plates and shear ties, taking into
account the ultimate anchorage force.
In the first part of the paper, the model is presented and discussed; in the second part, the proposed model is validated by comparison with
more than 100 experimental results. The application to the available experimental tests shows the robustness of the method, which appears to
be fully eligible as a design practice procedure.
q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Fibres; B. Debonding; C. Analytical modelling; R/C beams strengthening
1. Introduction
In recent years, the repair or strengthening works carried
out with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites underwent a rapid and constant growth; in particular, flexural and
shear FRP reinforcing elements, externally bonded to
reinforced concrete (R/C) beams, constitute the larger
body of the actual applications.
In this context, urgent regulatory standards are needed,
that encompass design procedures, based on sound
conceptual models, safe and possibly simple to understand. Although some code proposals have been emanated
by the United States (ACI 440-F) [1], Canada (CSA) [2]
and the European Community (fib Bulletin 14) [3], the
work is still in progress and the definition of the safety
factors to be applied to the code formats is actually under
debate. Furthermore, mainly referring to shear and torsion,
there are opened questions even about the resisting
mechanisms for simple R/C element, as pointed out by
some changes introduced in the latest version of Eurocode
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aaprile@ing.unife.it (A. Aprile).
1359-8368/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2003.09.001
2 (ENV 1992-1-1) [4] for the shear strength design of R/C

beams without stirrups.
A keystone contribution in the understanding of the R/C
mechanics is developed in the report published in 1998 by
the ASCE-ACI Committee 445 [5], where a detailed state of
the art of the design rules for shear is reported. It is now a
fundamental perception that, using the nomenclature
introduced by Schleich et al. [6], the rules holding for the
Bernoulli (B) regions, where the sectional analysis is
allowed, must be rather different from those holding in
Discontinuity (D) regions, where the resisting mechanism
hidden in the concrete mass must be accounted for.
In this last case, following the Morsch intuition [7], the
structural behavior can be analyzed building a strut and tie
(S&T) model, wherein several failure modes are possible. In
the D regions, the ultimate limit state (ULS) verifications, in
terms of internal actions like moments and forces, are
derived by the failure conditions of the S&T components; in
these regions, bending and shear are coupled and cannot be
checked once a time.
In case of R/C members strengthened with externally
bonded FRP plates and ties, additional D regions are
identified within the anchorage zones of the added
A. Aprile, A. Benedetti / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125
Nomenclature
a
Ac;eff
Afl
Afv
Asc
Asl
Asv
bp
bw
c
cmin
d
Ecm
Ecs
Ef
ep
Es
fbd
fcd
fck
fcm
fctm
ffd
ffk
fsu
ftk
fyd
fyk
fyv
h
hw
kb
L
Lbd
Lcm
Le
M
MRd
shear arm of the R/C beam

effective concrete area in tension
area of the longitudinal FRP reinforcement
area of the transversal FRP reinforcement
area of the longitudinal steel reinforcement in
compression
area of the longitudinal steel reinforcement
area of the transversal steel reinforcement
breadth of the longitudinal FRP reinforcement
breadth of the beam web
cover of the steel reinforcement
minimum cover measured from the steel bar
surface
depth of the effective beam section
average initial elastic modulus of the concrete
secant elastic modulus of the concrete
elastic modulus of the FRP reinforcement
offset of the FRP longitudinal reinforcement
from the support
elastic modulus of the steel reinforcement
design bond strength of the FRP reinforcement
design strength of the concrete
characteristic compression strength of the
concrete
average compression strength of the concrete
mean tensile strength of the concrete
design tensile strength of the FRP reinforcement
characteristic failure stress of the FRP
reinforcement
design tensile strength of the longitudinal
reinforcement
characteristic tensile strength of the steel
reinforcement
design yielding stress of the steel reinforcement
characteristic yielding stress of the steel
reinforcement
design yielding stress of the transversal stirrups
height of the beam section
height of the beam web reinforced with FRP
ties
size effect coefficient of the FRP reinforcement concrete interface
bond length of the FRP reinforcement
design bond length of the FRP reinforcement
mean crack spacing of the strengthened R/C
beam
effective bond length of the FRP reinforcement
external bending moment
resisting bending moment design value
My
nf
ns
q
qmax
Sbd
Sc
Sd
sf
Sfl
Sfl;pe
ss
Ssl
St
Sv
tf
tp
V
V0
Vc
Vd
Veq
Vexp
Vl
Vpre
VRd
VRd;flex
VRd;pe
VRd;sh
Vv
wf
y
z
yielding moment of the strengthened R/C beam

homogenization coefficient of the FRP
reinforcement
homogenization coefficient of the steel
reinforcement
bond stress
failure bond stress
design bond force of the FRP longitudinal
reinforcement
compression force in the concrete section in the
longitudinal direction
compression force in the diagonal concrete
elements
spacing of the FRP transversal reinforcement
tensile force in the FRP longitudinal reinforcement
tensile force in the FRP longitudinal reinforcement that causes the concrete cover rip-off
spacing of the steel transversal reinforcement
tensile force in the steel longitudinal reinforcement
total tensile force in the longitudinal reinforcement
tensile force in the transversal reinforcement
thickness of the FRP transversal reinforcement
thickness of the FRP longitudinal reinforcement
external shear force
resisting shear force of the beam before FRP
strengthening
resisting shear force carried by the concrete by
friction and dowel effects
resisting shear force causing the failure of the
concrete diagonals
resisting shear force of the equivalent truss
experimental failure shear force
longitudinal reinforcement
predicted failure shear force
resisting shear force design value
resisting shear force design value due to flexural
failure
resisting shear force design value due to plate
end failure
resisting shear force design value due to shear
failure
transversal reinforcement
breadth of the FRP transversal reinforcement
height of the compression zone of the beam
section
flexural lever arm
DM
DSc
DSfl
DSt
Dv0
DvRd
D1f
F
Q
a
1b
1c
1c0
1c1
1cu1
1d
1f
1f;exp
1f;pre
1fk
1l
1t
1uk
1v
1z
f
gc
gf
gF
gL
glv
h
n
external bending moment increment

compression force increment in the concrete
section in the longitudinal direction
tensile force increment in the FRP longitudinal
reinforcement
total tensile force increment in the longitudinal
reinforcement
relative error of the collapse shear for the beam
without FRP reinforcement
relative error of the collapse shear for the beam
with FRP reinforcement
relative error of the FRP reinforcement strain at
beam collapse
steel rebar diameter
inclination of the material element experiencing
the largest shortening in the strain field
experimental coefficient
longitudinal strain at the bottom of the concrete
section
concrete normal strain
concrete normal strain at the design strength of
the concrete
concrete peak strain value
concrete ultimate strain value
axial strain of the concrete diagonals
strain of the FRP reinforcement at failure
experimental strain of the FRP reinforcement at
failure
predicted strain of the FRP reinforcement at
failure
elongation at maximum stress of the FRP
reinforcement
average axial strain in the longitudinal
direction
longitudinal strain at the top of the concrete
section
elongation at maximum stress of the steel
axial strain in the transversal reinforcement
average strain orthogonal to the inclined cracks
reduction factor of the FRP shear reinforcement
bond strength due to inclined cracks
safety coefficient of the concrete
safety coefficient of the FRP reinforcement
safety coefficient of the FRP bond strength
safety coefficient of the FRP bond length
shear deformation of the concrete
non-dimensional height of the compression
zone
nondimensional average shear stress in the
concrete section
rfl
rfl;eff
rfv
rsl
rsl;eff
rsv
sc
scd
scl
scv
sfbd
sfl
sfld
sfly
sfv
sfvd
srl
srv
ssl
ssr
ssv
sv;cr
v
z
zmax
u^
u
CF
CL
ratio of the longitudinal FRP reinforcement to

the effective concrete section
ratio of the longitudinal FRP reinforcement to
the concrete effective area in tension
ratio of the FRP transversal reinforcement to
the pertaining concrete section
ratio of the longitudinal steel reinforcement to
the effective concrete section
ratio of the longitudinal steel reinforcement to
the concrete effective area in tension
ratio of the steel transversal reinforcement to
the pertaining concrete section
concrete normal stress
concrete normal stress in diagonal direction
concrete normal stress in longitudinal direction
concrete normal stress in vertical direction
effective bond strength design value of the FRP
reinforcement
tensile stress in the FRP longitudinal reinforcement
critical stress design value of the longitudinal
FRP reinforcement
tensile stress in the FRP longitudinal reinforcement at the yielding moment
tensile stress in the FRP transversal reinforcement
critical stress design value of the transversal
FRP reinforcement
tensile stress in the longitudinal reinforcement
tensile stress in the vertical reinforcement
tensile stress in the steel longitudinal reinforcement
tensile stress in the steel longitudinal reinforcement at the crack first opening
tensile stress in the steel transversal reinforcement
tensile stress in the transversal reinforcement at
the concrete cracking
homogenization coefficient of the FRP to steel
reinforcement
bond slip
failure bond slip
approximate inclination of the material element
experiencing the largest compression
inclination of the material element experiencing
the largest compression
experimental coefficient of the FRP reinforcement bond strength
experimental coefficient of the FRP reinforcement bond length
reinforcements, where the bond failure can take place with a

rapid diffusion process. Up to the first cracking load, the
anchorage zones are located only at the plate ends and the
rest of the beam is characterized by sectional behavior. For
higher loads, due to the crack formation in the R/C beam,
the bonding zones are located inside each pair of cracks, at
roughly constant spacing along the beam. As a matter of
fact, at each new crack opening, the concrete tensile stress is
transferred to the internal and external reinforcements
through the bonded surface, introducing new peaks in the
bond stress distribution localized where the FRP plate
crosses the crack. Thus, near the failure load, almost all of
the beam length contains D regions due to cracks and the
safety verification at ULS must consider this situation.
Among the available S&T models, the variable angle
truss (VAT) model presented by Collins [8] and Collins and
Mitchell [9], making use of the compression field theory
(CFT), has several attractive features. The power of this
model is due to its relative simplicity, equilibrium and
compatibility fulfillment, clear distinction among different
failure paths, experimental verification and possibility to be
extended to the case of beams with FRP externally bonded
reinforcements (EBR).
In the first part of the paper, the VAT model will be
shortly discussed, introducing the modifications needed for
the extension of the method to the FRP externally reinforced
beams. In order to compute the strength of the lower
stringer, the anchorage failure load of a plate bonded to a
cracked beam face is assessed in detail introducing a new
model derived from experimental evidences. Furthermore,
in order to compute the effectiveness of the external ties, the
bond strength of a sheet bridging over a diagonal crack
introduced by Triantafillou [10] and Khalifa et al. [11] is
extended in order to take into account the geometry of the
ties. Finally, the brittle failure conditions of the S&T model
are listed and compared, in order to obtain resisting bending
moment and shear equivalent forces, which fit into the
ordinary safety verification formulas.
In the second part of the paper, the presented model is
used as a verification tool of more than 100 experimental
tests, obtaining finally an average absolute error less than
10% on the failure load prediction. Moreover, for the
experiments where the FRP fiber strain is reported, a good
agreement is found with the computed value at failure
(average error less than 25%).
the safety factors that characterize breaking and bonding

of the EBR.
With relation to the design strength of the fiber
composites, it is to mention that several effects can interact
making the composite strength lower than the single fiber
strength: bundle effect, out of straightness of installation,
fabric geometry and fiber defects, apart from the statistical
distribution of the fiber strength. All of these effects can be
correctly dealt with statistical analysis of experimental
batches [12]. However, if experimental data are lacking, a
cumulative safety factor can be selected on the basis of the
reliability analysis.
The first edition of the European standards on EBR for
civil engineering applications [3] suggests the following
safety coefficient ranges, within the proper values can be
selected according to the quality of the on-site application
gf 1:20 1:35 for Carbon FRP,

gf 1:25 1:45 for Glass FRP,
gf 1:30 1:50 for Aramid FRP.
Conversely, the bond strength of EBR is governed by the
strength properties of the concrete surface and workmanship; waiting for a more appropriate definition of the safety
coefficient to apply on the bond strength, the design value of
the anchorage force can be prudentially derived by
assuming the typical safety coefficient of the concrete.
3. The variable angle truss model

The evaluation of the shear strength in a cracked R/C
beam can be carried out by using an ideal S&T model which
approximates the stress fluxes in the material domain of the
beam [13]. Starting from the original analysis of Morsch [7],
several authors introduced refined models addressing
special issues of the shear resistance mechanism, but in
fact the key idea of the equilibrated truss structure never
changed (CEB) [14], (ACI-ASCE 445) [5].
With reference to Fig. 1, it is assumed that, after the
formation of the crack field, the force transmission to
2. Definition of the safety factors for design quantities

A challenging problem in the definition of the design
rules for externally bonded FRP reinforcements is the
determination of the safety factors that guarantee the
minimum reliability margin. For the materials other than
fiber composites, i.e. steel and concrete, the partial safety
factors of strength values can be inferred from the
existing design codes. The major concern is related to
Fig. 1. Variable angle truss model of a simply supported beam and local
equilibrium of a strut.
Usually a very strong hypothesis is introduced by

considering the shear force carried by the VAT and the
concrete fully additive; however, in the latest edition of
ENV 1992-1-1 [4], the concrete contribution is accounted
only for concrete members without shear reinforcement,
while for members with shear reinforcement this term is
dropped out and compensated with the assumption of the
truss diagonal inclination lower than 458. In the extensive
verifications discussed thereafter, the cumulative capacity
of the concrete action with the VAT resistance is thoroughly
validated and found to be an essential contribution to the
correct interpretation of the coupled flexural-shear resistance of the beam.
Fig. 2. Stirrup stress evolution with load.
3.1. The modified VAT model for FRP strengthened beams

the supports is possible through a diagonal compression
field linking in a proper way the bottom reinforcing chord
and the top compressed chord. The local equilibrium of each
separated diagonal strut puts into relation the forces Sv
carried by the stirrups and St carried by the lower chord.
According to the experimental evidence, the normal
stress in the stirrups due to shear increases with very small
deformations until the crack formation is completed (Fig. 2);
up to this load, a concrete shear resisting mechanism is
active. After this load, the truss resisting scheme is drawn
and the stress in the stirrups is rapidly increasing. In this
phase, the stress in the truss elements must increase linearly
with the load, until one of the resisting components yields or
crushes. Because the VAT resisting scheme works like a
structural system with brittle components connected in
series, the failure load of the weakest resisting component is
the ultimate load of the beam too.
Although a detailed description of the phenomena
composing the concrete shear resisting action Vc is
available, the major part of the codes aggregates the crack
face friction, the dowel effect of the reinforcement and the
restraining effect of the uncracked concrete in a single term,
obtained as a regression of the experimental data in terms of
the concrete strength and the reinforcement ratio.
A simply supported beam with internal and external

bonded reinforcement is considered; the internal reinforcement is composed by conventional steel rebars and stirrups,
while the external reinforcement is realized with FRP
longitudinal and vertical plates or fabrics (Fig. 3).
Let bw and h be the beam breadth and height, Asl and
Asv the internal longitudinal and vertical steel reinforcement, c the concrete cover, d h 2 c the effective section
depth, ss the stirrup spacing; furthermore, let assume that
the beam has been reinforced with FRP areas Afl and Afv in
longitudinal and vertical directions, being bp and tp width
and thickness of the longitudinal plate, and wf ; tf and sf ;
respectively, the width, thickness and spacing of the
external ties. Let finally be ep the distance of the
longitudinal plate end from the beam support. In Fig. 3,
the meaning of the symbols used for the analysis is
graphically explained.
Following the CFT approach presented by Collins [8],
and considering the proper modifications discussed in Ref.
[5], it is possible to solve the local inclination of the
compression strut approximating the real stress field for the
case of R/C beam with additional FRP reinforcement. Let us
recall the following preliminary definitions for the considered section
Fig. 3. Representation of the symbols denoting the beam and reinforcement data.
flexural lever arm

z
M
Asl ssl Afl sfl
1:1
shear arm
a
M
V
non-dimensional height of the compression zone

y
h
z
1:2
1:3
steel and FRP to concrete homogenization coefficients

Es
E
; n f
Ecs f
Ecs
ns
1:4
where Es ; Ef and Ecs are, respectively, the steel, the FRP and
the concrete elastic moduli.
By considering an effective concrete section bw z where
almost constant shear stresses act, the following nondimentional average shear stress in the concrete can be defined
V
bw z
2:1
and the following geometrical ratios of the reinforcement

can be consequently assumed
ratio of the longitudinal steel reinforcement to the
effective concrete section
rsl
Asl
bw z
2:2
ratio of the longitudinal FRP reinforcement to the

effective concrete section
rfl
Afl
bw z
2:3
ratio of the steel stirrups to the pertaining concrete area
rsv
Asv
bw s s
2:4
ratio of the FRP ties to the pertaining concrete area
rfv
Afv
bw s f
2:5
The solution of the VAT model by using the CFT requires

the satifaction of the equilibrium, compatibility and
constitutive relations.
In Fig. 4, a cracked portion of the beam is represented;
the average shear stress v; applied to the cracked concrete,
induces tensile stresses in vertical srv and longitudinal
srl reinforcements and a diagonal compressive stress in
the concrete scd that stabilizes with an inclination u to the
longitudinal direction. So, by imposing the equivalence of
the stress distribution in a cracked specimen of the beam
with its representation in terms of diagonal struts, it is
possible to define the equilibrium equations that fulfill
the condition of null normal stress across cracks and
Fig. 4. Stress states emerging on the boundary of a separated element.
the compression field alignment along cracks (Fig. 4)
scv cos u 2 v sin u 0;
3:1
scv sin u v cos u scd sin u;
3:2
where u is the inclination of the compression field struts.

The selected portion of concrete body must also be in
global equilibrium with the stress resultants of the
reinforcing bars and plates (Fig. 4); making use of Eqs.
(3.1) and (3.2) we obtain
rsv ssv rfv sfv scv n tan u;
4:1
rsl ssl rfl sfl scl n cot u;
4:2
scd ntan u cot u:
4:3
Furthermore, let us consider the compatibility of the local

average deformation components of a cracked concrete
volume, expressed in terms of a kinematical equivalent
continuum body. By defining with 1l and 1v ; respectively,
the longitudinal and transversal deformations, and by
putting glv the shear deformation, the compatibility can be
expressed in terms of the inclination angle Q of the
maximum shortening direction (Fig. 5)
glv 21d 2 1l cot Q;
5:1
glv 21d 2 1v tan Q;
5:2
where the compressive deformation is assumed to be

positive.
In dealing with slender beams subjected to flexure
and shear, the longitudinal deformation is not constant
over the concrete section. However, in order to fulfill
Fig. 5. Mohr circle of the deformations.
the compatibility of the truss element deformations, the only

relevant term along the beam axis is the average strain 1l ;
that can be evaluated as the mean of the deformations 1t and
1b of the top and bottom chords, namely of the compressed
concrete and the tensile reinforcement [15].
By dividing side by side Eqs. (5.1) and (5.2), the
following noticeable relation is obtained that defines the
shortening principal direction
1 1b
1d 2 t
1d 2 1l
2
tan Q
:
1d 2 1 v
1d 2 1v
2
The CFT hypothesis has been borrowed by Collins with

reference to a previous work of Wagner [16] concerning
post critical shear strength of thin steel panels. In detail, the
cited assumption states that the direction of the maximum
compression stress coincides with that of the maximum
shortening deformation, i.e.
Q u:
The value of the angle can be readily computed once the

constitutive relations of the materials are selected; in
particular, an elastic plastic law is assigned to the steel,
an elastic brittle law is assumed for the FRP, and an
elastic cracked law is selected for the concrete. Although
the response to compression of the cracked concrete along
the crack direction has been extensively investigated [5], the
simpler constitutive model is still represented by a secant
linear relation limited by a maximum compression value
equal to 60% of the peak value, given by a standard
cylindrical specimen (Fig. 6)
s
s
1c c c 1c0 ; with sc # 0:6fcd :
8
Ecs
fcd
The axial deformations of the elements composing the S&T
model can be computed from the CFT by using the relations
(4.1) and (4.3), assuming perfect bond between the concrete
and the reinforcement and expressing the strain in terms of
the concrete secant modulus (Eq. (8))
n
tan u
;
Ecs ns rsv nf rfv
n
1d
tan u cot u:
Ecs
1v 2
9:1
9:2
The mean longitudinal strain can be derived form Eq. (4.2),

dividing the average concrete stress by the secant elastic
modulus
1t 1 b
s
n
cot u
cl 2
:
2
Ecs
Ecs ns rsl nf rfl
9:3
Upon substitution of the relations (9.1) (9.3) into Eq. (6),

the common factor n=Ecs ; is cancelled out and the following
transcendental equation is obtained, whose solution is the
unknown inclination angle u
2
tan u
tan u cot u
tan u cot u
cot u
ns rsl nf rfl
tan u
ns rsv nf rfv
10
Through some trigonometric transformations, the approximate analytic value of the inclination angle u^ is finally
worked out for the case of internal and external
reinforcement, in close analogy with the Collins original
solution [8]
v
u
1
u
4 1 n r n r
s sl
f fl
^
:
11
u arctant
1
1 ns rsv n
f rfv
By using Eq. (11), the u^ value is usually evaluated inside
the range from 308 up to 608; accordingly, the cotangent
values are within the interval [0.577,1.732]. In most
codes, the cotangent value is set to 1.0, but it is to note
that the ENV 1992-1-1 [4] introduces a cotangent value
equal to 1.2. As will be clear in the trial comparisons, in
case of EBR the strut inclination is always small with
cotangent values very often larger than 1.2.
It is to observe that high cotangent values result in a
significant increase of the tensile stress in the longitudinal
reinforcement, due to the shear contribution to flexure as a
consequence of the crack inclination. By expressing the
bending moment as M aV; and solving for the stresses
(Eq. (4.2)), the tensile force in the bottom chord is obtained
as follows

V
M
1
a
Asl ssl Afl sfl 2
2 2V
:
12
tan u z
tan u z
Once the geometry of the truss has been defined, the
shear strength is related to the resistance of the most
critical element composing the truss. Then, assuming
that the failure succeeds after the longitudinal steel
reinforcement has yielded, it is possible to compute the
shear values that correspond, respectively, to the collapse
either of the shear reinforcement (Eq. (4.1)), of the flexural
reinforcement (Eq. (12)), or of the struts (Eq. (4.3))
compressed up to a value 0.6 fcd
Vv
Vl
Fig. 6. Simplified constitutive relation for the cracked compressed concrete.

Asv fyd
z
A s
fv fvd
tan u
ss
sf
Asl fyd Afl sfld
1
a
tan u
z
13:1
13:2
Vd
0:6 fcd bw z
:
tan u cot u
13:3
It is to point out that the design stresses sfld and sfvd of the
EBR elements must take into account the anchoring
capacity of the epoxy resin concrete interface; a detailed
discussion of this issue is presented thereafter.
The maximum shear held by the truss in overall
equilibrium conditions can thus be computed as follows
Veq min{Vv ; Vl ; Vd };
14
finally, according to the superposition hypothesis of the

concrete and the reinforcement shear strength, we have
VRd;sh Veq Vc min{Vv ; Vl ; Vd } Vc :
15:1
A detailed discussion concerning the Vc term will be

presented in the second part of the paper.
The relation that defines the shear carried on by the
equilibrium of the lower chord in tension (Eq. (13.2)),
automatically includes the rule of shift of the bending
moment diagram.
3.2. Failure shear force evaluation
The presented VAT model does not capture correctly the
behavior in pure flexural zones; in fact, in these zones, the
cracks are almost vertical and the ideal truss is locally
undefined. For this reason, a flexural verification is
necessary where the gradient of the bending moment
diagram is small.
As is well known, the flexural failure can be activated
either by the crushing of the compressed concrete or the
failure of the FRP longitudinal reinforcement. The resisting
bending moment can be computed following a conventional
Bernoulli approach, as reported by the fib Bulletin 14 [3], by
taking into account the limitation on the FRP strength due to
the plate anchorage debonding.
Thus, the shear force VRd;flex related to the resisting
bending moment of the critical section, can be computed as
the resisting moment divided by the lever arm a: Finally, the
failure shear force of the reinforced beam is evaluated as the
minimum value between the shear resisting force (Eq.
(15.1)) and the bending equivalent shear force as follows
VRd min{VRd;sh ; VRd;flex }:
passed over, the bonded plate gets separated with a brittle

failure mode, apart of the plate length when the bonded
length is larger than a given critical length. For a thorough
discussion about the bond strength evaluation problem see
Refs. [19,20] and the references cited therein.
Concerning the calculation of the anchorage force and
the critical length, the most recent European code provisions
[3] are strictly related to the works of Rostasy and Neubauer
[21], Taljsten [22] and Matthys [23].
Let us consider a FRP reinforcement of breadth bp
bonded on a concrete surface of breadth bw and subjected to
a tensile force. The design value of the critical bond
length Lbd and bond strength fbd of the FRP plate in the
anchorage zone can be computed as a function of the plate
elastic modulus Ef and thickness tp and of the average
tensile strength fctm of the concrete surface
s
Ef tp
Lbd gL cL
;
16
fctm
s
1
Ef fctm
fbd
;
17
c k
gF F b
tp
where the units are N, mm, N/mm2, cF and cL are
experimental coefficients, gF and gL are design coefficients
and kb is a term taking into account the size effect of the
beam-plate system
8 v 9
u
>
>
>
u
bp >
>
>
> u
>
2
2
<
u
bw =
u
kb max 1; u
:
18
>
bp >
t
>
>
>
>
1
>
:
;
400 >
Fig. 7 shows the total bond force, or anchorage force, as a
function of the bonded length experimentally obtained [21,
22,24 30]. The experimental values are compared with the
values computed making use of Eqs. (16) and (17). As the
figure labels show, both of the experimental and analytical
data are normalized to critical bond force Sbd and bond
length Lbd ; where the design coefficients are set to 1.0.
15:2
4. The anchorage force of the externally bonded FRP

elements
The problem of the FRP reinforcement anchorage,
bonded with an epoxy resin to concrete surfaces, has
recently received the greatest attention in the field of
composite materials. In the elastic stage, the tangential bond
stress follows an exponential decay from the free end
[17,18] but, once the tensile strength of the concrete is
Fig. 7. Experimental and analytical bond force as a function of the bonded

length.
The fib document [3] suggests a parabolic variation of the

anchorage strength for bonded length shorter than the
critical length Lbd

L
L
sfbd L fbd
22
:
19
Lbd
Lbd
The coefficients cF and cL can be evaluated by regression of
the experimental data. On the basis of the data analysis, it
can be set cF 0:64 and cL 0:85: However, the fib
document defines cL 0:7:
A very complex problem in the analysis of the
reinforcement effect, is due to the crack crossing of the
reinforcement, that happens for both longitudinal plates and
transversal ties. In the following, the calculation of the bond
strength of FRP plates bonded to cracked concrete surface is
discussed in detail.
4.1. Critical stress of longitudinal FRP plates
due to beam flexure
Many experimental tests performed on RC beams
strengthened with longitudinal FRP plates have shown that
the detachment of the reinforcing plate may occur either at
the plate end or in the area of the maximum bending moment
once the steel rebars have yielded [31]. It is to mention that
the plate always detaches when the bond strength of the
plate concrete interface is locally reached, but the anchoring
force is quite different for the two cases. As a matter of fact, at
the plate end the anchoring force equilibrates the total tension
of the plate while at any internal length the bond force
equilibrates the incremental force of the plate.
After the early works of Oehlers and Moran [32],
Saadatmanesh and Ehsani [33] and Ritchie et al. [34], the
experimental effort has constantly increased; an extended
comparison of the experimental evidences can be found in
Smith and Teng [35].
Due to the crack distribution related to flexure, the
effective bond length is often shorter than the critical bond
length. The available bond length can be evaluated as the
minimum length between the critical bond length Lbd and
the mean crack spacing of the FRP-strengthened beam Lcm ;
as follows
Le min{Lbd ; Lcm }:
20
The experimental evidences have shown that the mean

crack spacing of the FRP-strengthened beam is typically
shorter than that of the unstrengthened beam. However, at
the present moment, a totally effective model for the
evaluation of the cracks spacing is not available. The actual
European instructions [3] suggest to modify the unstrengthened beam crack spacing with a factor accounting
for an homogenized reinforcing area, comprehensive of the
internal steel rebars and the external FRP plate.
It is to mention that crack patterns put in evidence by the
experimental beams exhibit small crack clusters extended
through the cover layer formed inside a main system of
Fig. 8. Limit equilibrium condition of the FRP plate at the plate end.
cracks extended up to the neutral axis. Even if the influence of

the smaller cracks on the bond strength is not fully addressed,
the experimental data suggest that only the main crack
pattern drives the bond force distribution. In the second part
of the paper, three different formulations for the crack
spacing evaluation will be discussed in detail and compared.
Let us consider now the equilibrium conditions of the
beam section placed at distance Le from the FRP plate end. As
schematically shown in Fig. 8, the maximum force Sfl that can
be transferred by the FRP plate is limited by the anchoring
force, evaluated over the effective length Le (Eq. (20))
Sfl # sfbd Le Afl :
21
It is to mention that the proposed interpretation is correct

when the plate detachment occurs by peeling off a thin
concrete layer glued to the plate. However, especially for
plates much shorter than the beam length, the plate end
detachment is possible with the concrete cover rip-off. This
different failure mechanism cannot be covered by the
presented theory.
On the other hand, a different situation can be described
for an intermediate beam length Le : As a matter of fact, in
this case, the maximum incremental force DSfl that can be
transferred by the FRP plate is limited by the anchoring
force evaluated over the effective length Le : With reference
to symbols reported in Fig. 9, this condition can be
expressed as follows
DSfl # sfbd Le Afl :
22
In order to compute the critical stress in the plate, the

maximum incremental force DSfl must be evaluated. Let us
define My as the bending moment that causes the first
yielding of the internal steel rebars; if the external moment
M reaches My ; the plate incremental force alone does
Fig. 9. Limit equilibrium condition of the FRP plate over an effective bond
length.
10
equilibrate the bending moment increment. The maximum

incremental force can thus be evaluated assuming no further
stress increment in the steel rebars.
Therefore, the maximum force that can be sustained by
the FRP plate can be computed by summing up the plate
stress across the first crack (at yielding moment) and the
stress increment due to bond strength (Eq. (22))
Sfl DSfl # sfly sfbd Le Afl ;
23
where sfly is the plate stress at the moment My
sfly fyd
np h 2 y
:
ns d 2 y
24
Finally, the design stress of the FRP plate can be assumed as

the minimum between the critical plate stress and the failure
stress ffd :
at the plate end
sfld min{ffd ; sfbd Le }
25:1
at the maximum bending moment section
sfld min{ffd ; sfbd Le sfly }
25:2
4.2. Critical stress of transversal FRP ties due to shear

distortion
When the critical stress of transversal FRP ties is the
concern, a different problem must be faced. In this case, the
attention is focused on the reduction of the EBR anchorage
force due to an inclined crack that causes a local reduction
of the composite anchorage length. The analysis presented
here is mainly based on ideas introduced by Triantafillou
[10] and Khalifa et al. [11].
In the practice, several tie configuration layouts are
possible: L lateral plates bonded to the vertical faces only,
Fig. 11. Bond stress reduction caused by crack development in the beam
web.
U jacket strips connecting three faces and W winding

strips turning the whole beam perimeter with each strip.
In particular, if we assume that the anchorage
distributed forces are linearly dependent on the available
bond length at the shorter side of the EBR crossing the
crack (Fig. 10), it is possible to compute an average
geometric reduction factor, that decreases the bond
strength of the plate fbd :
In case of L plates, summing up the contribution of a
full bonded central zone and two lateral zones with reduced
bond capacity, the average geometric reduction factor f is
obtained as follows

h
1 h 2 Lbd
fL min 1; w max ; w
;
26
2
2Lbd
hw
where hw is the web height reinforced with FRP ties.
In case of U and W ties, we can consider that the
bond capacity reduction is applied only to the free tie
end; therefore, the geometric factor for these cases is
obtained as

hw
1 2hw 2 Lbd
max ;
:
27
fU min 1;
2
Lbd
2hw
The reduction factor f can be directly applied to the stress in
the EBR at the bond failure, introducing a further limitation
to the stress that can be sustained by the FRP ties
sfvd min{ffd ; ffbd }:
28
Fig. 11 shows the effect of the beam web height on

the anchoring force of ties as expressed by Eqs. (26)
and (27).
5. The proposed calculation procedure
Fig. 10. Distribution of the FRP bond forces across an inclined crack.
The wide base of experimental data existing in the

literature allows to check the efficiency of a given design
procedure in the prediction of the failure load of R/C beams
with externally bonded FRP reinforcements. A basic
difficulty in the construction of a trial comparison program
is due to the fact that the experimental reports drawn by the

various authors not always present all of the necessary
information. Furthermore, the experimental activity concerns mainly simply supported beams with four point
symmetric loading conditions, which differ considerably
from real structural beams; therefore, the extension of the
proposed procedure to design could require some further
particularization. Finally, the experimental investigation
rarely involves real scale structural elements [36]. With the
purpose to list data in a format allowing a future inclusion of
further tests in the data base, all the collected data are
reported in the tables of Appendix A, by dividing the
geometrical and mechanical data of the bare R/C beams
from the FRP reinforcement specifications.
The experimental data and the analytical results of the
proposed model are compared in terms of collapse shear
force, assuming all the safety factors equal to 1.0; for the
tests in which the FRP reinforcement strains have been
recorded, the comparison is extended also to the FRP strains
at failure. The comparison is carried out for both the
reference R/C beams without strengthening and the FRP
strengthened beams. The obtained results are listed in detail
in Appendix B, in order to allow a future reanalysis.
The calculation procedure includes some intermediate
evaluations that can strongly influence the results and that
must be carried out in an approximate form, due to the lack
of more reliable models. The most influential parameter
discussed thereafter is the crack spacing along the beam,
which plays a very important role in the whole computation;
further important parameters are the shear force carried on
by the concrete across cracks and the strength reduction
factor of the FRP ties.
Moreover, in the case of plate end failure, the mechanism
that activates the concrete cover ripping-off is only roughly
understood and the available models provide highly
scattered results, when compared with the experimental
results. This particular failure mode is frequently found in
R/C beams with the reinforcing plate much shorter than the
beam span; for this reason, this kind of reinforced beams
have been left out from the present analysis.
5.1. Material constitutive laws
The presented model implements elastic plastic constitutive laws for both the concrete and steel reinforcement
and a linear elastic law for FRP reinforcement. In case of
design, the constitutive law must be resized by means of
appropriate safety coefficients.
The concrete behavior in compression is captured
making use of the Saenz model, as reported by the Eurocode
2 [4], which accounts a polynomial evolution of the
compression stress for increasing strain. The ascending
branch is a function of the average compression strength fcm ;
or peak stress value, the peak strain value 1c1 and the elastic
modulus Ecm ; the descending branch is limited by the
ultimate strain 1cu1 : The tensile concrete behavior is not
11
accounted in this study; however, the average tensile

strength fctm is also requested for calculations.
All of the needed mechanical parameters can be
analytically derived from the compression strength value
fcm which is usually defined on experimental basis. In the
paper, the concrete mechanical parameters that are not
available from the literature references are computed
making use of the conventional values suggested by
Eurocode 2 [4].
The steel reinforcement behavior is modeled by means
of a bilinear relation with hardening, whose first branch is
defined by the characteristic yielding stress fyk and the
elastic modulus Es (200 GPa), and whose second branch
is limited by the characteristic tensile strength ftk and by
the elongation at maximum stress 1uk : The needed values
are usually extracted from the experimental reports in
terms of tensile test results or nominal steel grade
definitions.
Finally, the FRP reinforcement behavior is defined by a
linear elastic law which is limited by the characteristic
failure stress ffk and strain 1fk ; that should be experimentally
defined (see the discussion on safety factors).
5.2. Crack pattern
In the literature, a clear and systematic analysis of the
crack pattern of externally reinforced beams is actually
lacking. However, the crack spacing acts as a constraint on
the anchoring force transferred by the bond along the beam,
and therefore it plays a major role in the beam failure
mechanism.
A first simple formula for crack spacing evaluation for
FRP reinforced beams is reported by fib Bulletin 14 [3],
based on the usual assumption that, in the stabilized phase,
the crack spacing is twice the minimum distance over which
the reinforcement tensile stress at an early crack is
transferred trough the surrounding concrete, and the
concrete tension reaches the tensile strength. Following
this approach, the proposed mean crack spacing is roughly
computed making use of the CEB Bulletin 203-205 [14]
formulation and accounting for an homogenized reinforcing
area comprehensive of the internal steel rebars and the
external FRP reinforcement
Lcm
F
1
;
3:6rsl;eff v
29
where F is the reinforcing bar diameter and rsl;eff is the steel

reinforcement ratio to the effective area of concrete in
tension. The homogenization coefficient v proposed by the
fib Bulletin 14 [3] includes the steel to FRP strength ratio;
however, the crack evolution takes place in the elastic phase
and, in the authors opinion, the following elastic homogenization factor is more appropriate
ns rsl;eff nf rfl;eff
;
ns rsl;eff
30
12
where rfl;eff is the FRP reinforcement ratio to the effective

area of concrete in tension, which is usually computed as
suggested by Ref. [14]

bw h 2 y
:
31
Ac;eff min 2:5cbw ;
2
A second formulation is obtained by introducing the factor
v; defined by Eq. (30), inside the crack spacing expression
proposed by the CEB Bulletin 235 [37]. In this case, the
solution is derived by integrating the bond-slip differential
equation for the steel rebars, accounting for a non-linear
bond-slip constitutive law expressed in the following form

z a
q qmax
;
32
zmax
where the coefficient a , 0:5; the peak bond stress qmax and
bond slip zmax are experimentally defined for the steel bars
encased into the concrete. The crack spacing detailed in Ref.
[37] is then modified as follows
"
#
a 1=1a
2
1 aFzamax Esa s12
sr
Lcm
;
33
1 2 a 8qmax 1 ns rsl;eff v
where ssr is the steel rebar stress evaluated in the nearest
cracked section at the onset of the cracking, as soon as the
tensile stress in the concrete reaches the tensile strength fctm :
1 ns rsl;eff nf rfl;eff
ssr
fctm :
34
n h2y
rsl;eff f
rfl;eff
ns d 2 y
In case of usual steel deformed bars encased into the concrete
section, the exponent a is set near to 0.3, the peak bond slip is
approximately 1.0 mm and the peak bond stress can be
computed as a fraction of the characteristic compressive
strength; according to Ref. [37], the following value can be
assumed
qmax 0:25fck :
35
Finally, the crack spacing formulation reported by the latest

version of Eurocode 2 [4], presents an additive term
including the concrete cover separate contribution in order
to match with better precision the experimental data relative
to shallow beams. In the present work, the following
extension of the Eurocode formulation reported by Beeby
[38] is considered
"
#
h2y F
Lcm 1:7 2 cmin 0:20
;
36
25cmin rs;eff v
where cmin is the net concrete cover measured from the rebar
surface.
5.3. Flexural strength
In dealing with experimental four point bending tests,
the maximum moment acts onto the section under the
load application zone. The first crack appears under the load
at the cracking bending moment and after that, subsequent
cracks are generated with small stress increments until
a stabilized crack pattern is established along the beam span.

Therefore, the computation of the critical stress of the FRP
longitudinal reinforcement is linked to the crack spacing
computed making use of the steel reinforcement stress ssr at
the appearance of the first crack.
In the verification phase the flexural strength has been
computed with the following procedure
(a) evaluate the mean crack spacing of the strengthened
beam (Eqs. (29), (33) or (36)), the FRP reinforcement
bond length (Eq. (16)) and the effective bond length
(Eq. (20));
(b) evaluate the stress in the FRP flexural reinforcement
due to the bond strength over the effective bond length
(Eq. (19));
(c) evaluate the stress in the FRP flexural reinforcement
due to the yielding bending moment of the strengthened beam (Eq. (24));
(d) evaluate the critical stress in the FRP flexural
reinforcement (Eq. (25.2));
(e) evaluate the failure bending moment as the action
causing the concrete to crush or the FRP reinforcement to reach the critical stress;
(f) evaluate the failure shear force VRd;flex :
The issue addressed at point (e) can be dealt with a simple
computer program that imposes the equilibrium of the
section stresses, calculated through the assumed constitutive
laws and an iteratively corrected strain distribution. However, the following simple formula combining additively two
contributions is a good approximation of the numerical
solution of the internal de-bonding bending moment
MRd < z fyd Asl sfld Afl :
37
Eq. (37) gives results on the safe side, provided a sensible

value of the lever arm.
5.4. Shear strength
The shear strength evaluation requires the computation of
the shear terms for each of the resisting mechanisms
contained in the beam; the analysis for the steel and FRP
contributions can be performed as indicated before. A
somewhat deeper discussion is required by the term defining
the concrete contribution Vc to the shear strength; a detailed
analysis of the shear strength of R/C beams without shear
reinforcement is given by the huge literature concerning this
topic (among the others see ASCE-ACI 445 [5], CEB 203-205
[14] and fib 14 [3]). A very interesting comparison among the
models of concrete shear strength proposed by different
authors is reported by Khuntia and Stojadinovic [39]. It must
be outlined that the available experimental data on the shear
strength of beams without stirrups but with external flexural
plates do not lead to a modified design formula yet.
In light of this, in the following analysis the concrete
contribution will be computed by using the Eurocode 2 [4]
13
formula, suitably modified in order to take into account the

total tensile reinforcement of the beam
r!
1=3

0:18
200
n
100min 0:02;rsl f rfl fcd
bw d 1
;
Vc
d
gc
ns
38
where gc is posed equal to 1.0 when the interpretation of
experimental data is the concern.
The procedure for the calculation of the shear strength is
outlined as follows
Fig. 12. Concrete cover tooth formation at the plate end.
(a) evaluate the reduction factor f of the given tie

reinforcement geometry (Eqs. ((26) and (27)) and the
critical stress of the same tie (Eq. (28));
(b) evaluate the shear strength terms due to the transversal
and longitudinal reinforcements and diagonal concrete
struts, namely Vv ; Vl and Vd (Eqs. (13.1 13.3));
(c) evaluate the shear strength term due to the concrete
beam without transversal reinforcement Vc ; (Eq. (38));
(d) evaluate the shear strength VRd;sh as the minimum
action that leads to a failure mechanism (Eq. (15.1));
(e) evaluate the failure shear force VRd as the minimum
between the flexural and the shear strength (Eq. (15.2)).
As a complement of the outlined procedure, the evaluation
of the strain in the FRP tie at the beam failure load is also
performed. With respect to this last point, it is to mention that,
if the flexural capacity limits the allowable shear, the stress
and the strain in the FRP and steel ties must be computed
using the relative stiffness, in order to estimate the action
carried on by the external reinforcement. The stiffness of the
FRP and steel ties is computed assuming that the concrete
stiffening effect is approximately equal for both of them.
5.5. Plate end failure
The most controversial issue in the verification of FRP
reinforced beams is the evaluation of the load that causes the
beam failure at the plate end. In particular, three different
types of failure mechanism can be pointed out
(i) plate de-bonding at the end anchor zone,
(ii) concrete cover rip-off between two cracks at the plate
end,
(iii) shear failure of the R/C beam outside the reinforcement
length.
The plate de-bonding is easily dealt with by particularizing the flexural analysis for the anchorage zone (Eqs. (21)
and (25.1)). Furthermore, the shear failure in the bare beam
zone can be easily computed by means of the ordinary rules
for R/C beams though, in doing this, the disturbing effect of
the singularity at the plate end is disregarded.
The more problematic evaluation is by far the concrete
cover rip-off effect that is likely to occur in many cases as
a consequence of the combined effect of both
the reinforcement geometry and the shear cracks inclination. In this respect, the force in the FRP plate causing the
cover rip-off is theoretically defined by the value causing
the loss of rotary equilibrium of the cover tooth depicted
by subsequent cracks, when the concrete stress state of
the tooth clamping section reaches the biaxial limit curve
(Fig. 12).
Unfortunately, the details of this mechanical description
are actually not clear, and also complex finite element nonlinear models work out solutions in poor agreement with the
experiments. Several reasons must be accounted in order to
explain this coarse interpretation. First of all, the stress field
has locally very high gradients and singularities that come
out in unknown stress intensification factors; secondly, the
tooth geometry is generated by cracks which are highly
unpredictable in position and extension. Finally, there are
contact stresses between neighboring teeth that alter the
force transmission to the clamping section.
As a very first approximation, assuming that the tooth
behaves like a deep beam in flexure, the following rip-off
force in the plate is derived
Sfl;pe
fctm bw L2cm
:
3cmin
39
This value is meaningful only if the plate anchorage zone is

within the cracked span of the beam, i.e. if the external
bending moment at the plate end is larger than the cracking
moment. However, some rip-off phenomena have been
experimentally observed in plates ending near the supports,
due to cracks formed by shear action.
Once the critical shear force VRd;pe that corresponds to the
plate end failure is evaluated, according to the weakest of the
three possible mechanisms, the definition of the failure shear
force VRd (Eq. (15.2)) can be readily modified as follows
VRd min{VRd;sh ; VRd;flex ; VRd;pe }:
40
6. Verification against the literature experimental tests

Owing to establish the significance of this comprehensive body of design rules, an extensive verification is carried
out using all the experimental data known to the authors.
14
It is worthwhile to mention that the chosen reference

model allows a slightly better correlation of the predicted
failure loads with the experimental values, mainly reducing
the scatter of the worst cases. Thus, in the subsequent
discussion, reference will be made to the analysis carried on
with this reference formulation.
6.1. Results in term of predicted failure shear
Fig. 13. Crack spacing predicted by the fib 14 and by the CEB 235 formula.
Some large databases are already present in the literature

(see among others Triantafillou [10] and Smith and Teng,
[35]), but according to the increasing complexity of the
design rules proposed by subsequent studies, some information inessential in the past are actually needed, because
the number of the model parameters underwent a considerable growth.
Finally, a grand total of nearly 130 experimental tests of
more than 15 authors is considered in detail, collecting the
database reported in Appendix A. As will be clear in the
final discussion, the selected tests spans several order of
magnitude for the beam geometric ratios, reinforcement
ratios and failure loads. The concrete qualities are widely
varied from low strength to high performance mixes. The
trial contains 24 beams reinforced with steel stirrups and
external FRP ties, 27 beams with externally bonded ties
only, and 64 beams reinforced with steel stirrups and FRP
longitudinal plates or fabrics.
As a first concern, the computation of the mean crack
spacing for the cited experimental beams is performed
making use of the three different evaluation formulas given
by Eqs. (29), (33) and (36); for sake of convenience, the
simple model derived from the fib Bulletin 14 [3] is used in
the following as the reference model. In Figs. 13 and 14, the
values computed with the CEB Bulletin 235 [37] and Beeby
[38] formulas are compared with the reference model,
showing that the three formulations are closely related.
In particular, a pretty linear correlation between the three
formulations is apparent; however, in comparison with the
fib 14 results, the crack spacing predicted by the CEB 235
theory is limited in the field of the larger spacing, even if
these values are less dispersed than the Beebys spacing.
Fig. 14. Crack spacing predicted by the fib 14 and by the Beeby (2000)
formula.
The predicted failure shear force Vpre present a very

good correlation with the experimental values Vexp ; in fact,
the average error of the whole comparison is less than 4%. If
we run a statistical analysis of the results in term of absolute
error computed as
D 100
absVpre 2 Vexp
;
Vexp
41
an average value of 9% is obtained with a standard

deviation of 12%. The standard error of the sample mean
is less than 1%.
A systematic trend in the error can be highlighted if the
results are plotted in non-dimensional form; as is shown in
Fig. 15, expressing the failure shear as a fraction of bw dfcd ;
the scatter of the predicted values versus the experimental
ones is linearly increasing with the non-dimensional shear.
In the figure, the two lines limiting to ^ 20% the deviation
of the predicted values from the experimental values are
also reported, and it is easy to recognize that almost all of
the results fall within these bounds. It is also interesting to
mention that the failure shear forces predicted for the beams
with external reinforcing ties are typically larger than the
experimental value, while for the beams with reinforcing
longitudinal plates are lower.
In Fig. 16, the comparison is extended to the failure shear
values predicted for the reference beams, tested without the
FRP reinforcement; as is apparent, the scatter shows the
same extension of the reinforced beams, denoting that an
unavoidable part of the error is due to the intrinsic noise of
the experimental values.
All of the geometrical and mechanical data of the
experimental specimens considered in this study are
collected in Tables A1 and A2 of Appendix A; all of
Fig. 15. Predicted non-dimensional failure shear force of the reinforced

beams, in comparison with the experimental values.
Fig. 16. Predicted non-dimensional failure shear force of the reference

beams, in comparison with the experimental values.
the experimental and predicted failure shear forces and

relative errors are reported in Table B1 of Appendix B.
6.2. Results in term of predicted failure mechanism
In Table B1 of Appendix B, the codes individuating the
predicted and experimental failure mechanisms are
reported, along with the collapse shear values. It is to
mention that the nomenclature of the failure modes used by
the various authors in the literature is not self-consistent and
a sensible interpretation work is required in order to define
the failure mode experimentally detected. A first uncertainty
is due to the lacking description of the position where the
detachment of the FRP reinforcement takes effectively
place; secondly, the type of the observed failure is
sometimes ambiguously described. Finally, often the
given material properties are not experimentally checked,
leading to a significant error in the interpretation of the
activated failure mode.
Extending the proposal of Arduini and Nanni [40] the
following nomenclature is adopted
(a) position
(a.1) failure within the reinforced span due to shear:
SH,
(a.2) failure within the reinforced span due to flexure:
FL,
(a.3) failure at the plate end: PE;
(b) shear modes
(b.1) de-bonding of the FRP ties: TD,
(b.2) breaking of the FRP ties: TF,
(b.3) tensile failure of the lower chord: LF,
(b.4) concrete crushing of the diagonal struts: DC;
(c) flexural modes
(c.1) de-bonding of the FRP longitudinal plate: PD,
(c.2) breaking of the FRP longitudinal plate: PF,
(c.3) concrete crushing of the compressed chord: CC;
(d) plate end modes
(d.1) de-bonding of the FRP: ED,
(d.2) rip-off of the concrete cover: RO,
(d.3) failure in the bare section nearest to the plate
end: BF.
15
Fig. 17. Predicted FRP strain at failure in comparison with experimental

values [mm/m].
Each failure code is composed of four letters connecting a

failure position (point (a)) with a failure mode (points (b)(d)).
The application of the proposed procedure leads to a
coincidence of both the failure mode and the position in
approximately 50% of the considered experiments. In a
large part of the incorrectly computed codes, either the
position or the failure mode is in agreement with the
experiments. Only in a very small number of tests both
the position and the mode are in error, although the collapse
load is captured with a good approximation anyway.
6.3. Results in term of FRP strain at the collapse situation
The analysis of the computed strain at failure is restricted
to the tests where the reinforcement deformations were
recorded by means of strain gauges. In particular, the
comparison has been worked out for both longitudinal
flexural plates and transversal ties acted on by shear.
In Fig. 17, the results of the analysis are collected;
how it is apparent, the scatter of the predicted strains is
higher than that of the predicted strengths. Furthermore,
the trend of the tie deformations shows that the prediction
of the tie efficiency is generally on the safe side. As a
general consideration, the average error of the strain
prediction is 2 4%, while the average of the absolute
error is up to 23%.
7. Conclusions
In this paper, a new model for the flexural-shear design
of R/C beams strengthened with EBR is presented. The
model can predict several failure modes including
premature failures due to local debonding of flexural
and shear external reinforcements. The debonding mechanisms with concrete cover rip-off are only approximately
included in the model due to the lack of a clear
mechanical interpretation; however, such a failure mode
can be better implemented in the model once a proper
analytical formulation will be available. The bond strength
in both longitudinal plates and transversal ties is defined
taking into account explicitly the crack spacing and the
FRP reinforcement layout.
16
Table A1
Geometrical and mechanical data of the experimental R/C beams
Index
B
(mm)
bw
(mm)
h
(mm)
hw
(mm)
c
(mm)
a
(mm)
fcd
(MPa)
Es
(GPa)
Ast
(mm2)
Asc
(mm2)
fyd
(MPa)
fsu
(MPa)
Asv
(mm2)
ss
(mm)
fyv
(MPa)
F
(mm)
Triantafillou [10]
S1
S2
S3
BT2
BT4
BT5
BT6
2
3
7
8
AS1
AS2
AS3
CS1
CS2
CS3
AB1
AB2
AB3
AB4
AB5
AB6
AB7
AB8
AB9
AB10
AB11
S2
S3
S4
BS2
BS4
BS5
BS6
BS7
E
RS90
RS
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP
WP
70
70
70
380
380
380
380
250
250
400
400
150
150
150
300
300
150
150
300
300
300
300
300
300
600
450
550
550
600
600
600
200
200
200
200
200
125
150
200
155
155
155
150
150
70
70
70
150
150
150
150
250
250
400
400
150
150
150
300
300
150
150
300
300
300
300
300
300
600
450
550
550
600
600
600
200
200
200
200
200
125
150
200
155
155
155
150
150
110
110
110
405
405
405
405
500
500
700
700
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
450
550
550
600
600
600
450
450
450
450
450
200
250
400
240
240
240
150
150
110
110
110
305
305
305
305
500
500
700
700
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
450
550
550
600
600
600
450
450
450
450
450
200
250
400
240
240
240
120
120
10
10
10
34
34
34
34
100
100
100
100
28
28
28
43
43
43
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
51
51
51
90
90
90
55
55
55
55
55
30
35
40
37
37
37
37
37
320
320
320
1070
1070
1070
1070
900
900
900
900
800
800
800
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
1200
1500
1500
1275
1275
1275
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
410
425
1000
500
500
500
400
400
32.0
32.0
32.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
32.6
32.6
34.6
34.6
43.0
43.0
44.8
40.5
40.5
44.8
41.9
45.6
41.9
41.9
42.7
43.1
43.5
43.5
39.9
39.9
40.6
30.0
30.0
30.0
35.1
38.4
36.8
35.8
34.7
36.0
40.0
33.4
35.7
35.7
35.7
38.0
38.0
210
210
210
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
190
190
190
190
190
190
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
200
200
200
205
205
205
205
205
210
210
200
200
200
200
210
210
156
156
156
1242
1242
1242
1242
2280
2280
3420
3420
422
422
422
844
844
422
830
1660
1660
1660
1660
1660
1660
3320
4020
5628
5628
11256
11256
11256
1884
1884
1884
1884
1884
402
530
628
339
339
339
339
339
0
0
0
265
265
265
265
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11256
11256
11256
56
56
56
56
56
156
0
200
226
226
226
56
56
500
500
500
470
470
470
470
521
521
521
521
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1720
1070
1070
1070
1070
1070
1070
1070
1070
1040
1040
1040
1038
1038
1038
559
559
559
559
559
420
400
400
550
550
550
450
450
650
650
650
730
730
730
730
600
600
600
600
1930
1930
1930
1930
1930
1930
1150
1150
1150
1150
1150
1150
1150
1150
1150
1150
1150
1135
1135
1135
589
589
589
589
589
550
550
550
700
700
700
770
770
156
156
156
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
200
57
57
57
56
56
190
190
190
400
400
400
400
400
200
200
200
300
300
300
200
200
400
400
400
350
350
350
350
500
500
500
500
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
340
340
340
559
559
559
559
559
420
400
400
550
550
550
450
450
8
8
8
28
28
28
28
38
38
38
38
15
15
15
15
15
15
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
32
32
32
32
32
32
20
20
20
20
20
16
15
20
12
12
12
12
12
Khalifa and Nanni [41]
Kamiharako et al. [42]
Umezu et al. [43]
Funakawa et al. [44]
Taerwe et al. [45]
Norris et al. [46]

Challal et al. [47]
Fanning and Kelly [48]
Al-Sulaimani et al. [49]
Author
Chajes et al. [50]
Park et al. [51]
GangaRao and Vijay [52]

Arduini and Nanni [40]
Rahimi and Hutchinson [53]
Hormann [55]
Maalej and Bian [56]
Quantrill et al. [57]
Ahmed et al. [58]
Beber et al. [59]
150
140
140
140
100
100
300
300
150
320
160
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
100
130
145
480
480
480
115
115
115
115
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
120
120
150
64
64
64
100
100
100
100
150
320
160
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
100
130
145
480
480
480
115
115
115
115
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
120
120
150
190
190
190
250
250
300
300
300
160
320
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
100
230
230
102
102
102
150
150
150
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
250
250
120
127
127
127
250
250
250
250
300
160
320
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
100
230
230
102
102
102
150
150
150
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
250
250
37
37
37
37
65
65
65
65
30
50
50
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
15
23
25
21
21
21
25
25
25
25
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
34
34
400
410
410
410
510
510
810
810
1065
420
950
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
340
845
1525
989
989
989
500
500
500
500
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
783
783
38.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
50.0
36.0
36.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
45.0
39.0
39.0
33.2
33.2
33.2
30.3
30.3
30.3
30.3
58.1
34.9
34.9
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
42.0
42.0
40.5
33.6
33.6
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
215
210
210
205
205
205
185
185
185
185
210
210
210
215
215
215
215
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
200
200
339
195
195
195
396
396
650
650
560
226
402
157
157
157
157
157
402
402
402
84
234
226
213
213
213
234
234
234
234
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
101
101
101
101
129
151
207
207
207
207
157
157
56
0
0
0
142
142
142
142
142
226
402
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
56
100
100
0
0
0
156
156
156
156
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
450
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
415
550
550
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
350
556
556
462
462
462
534
534
534
534
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
568
565
565
770
650
650
650
600
600
600
600
550
640
640
575
575
575
575
575
575
575
575
436
639
639
600
600
600
622
622
622
622
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
654
700
654
654
654
654
654
654
654
654
700
700
56
63
63
142
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
14
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
17
200
450
12
530
16
530
16
530
16
400
13
400
13
75
400
13
75
400
13
150
415
19
100
550
12
100
550
16
150
450
10
150
450
10
75
450
10
75
450
10
75
450
10
75
450
16
75
450
16
75
450
16
51
350
6
150
436
10
150
436
12
100
460
10
100
460
10
100
460
10
60
365
10
60
365
10
60
365
10
60
365
10
100
350
6
100
350
6
100
350
6
50
350
6
50
350
6
50
350
6
50
350
6
71
553
8
71
553
8
71
553
8
71
553
8
71
553
8
71
553
8
71
553
8
100
553
8
100
553
8
100
553
8
110
738
10
110
738
10
(continued on next page)
Garden et al. [54]
JP
A
E
G
2
3
5
6
1
ST
MT
A4/5
A6/7
B3/4
B5/6
B7/8
C3/4
C5/6
C7/8
3U-1.0
IU-2.3
IU-4.5
C11
C12
C21
MAB-2
MAB-3
MAB-4
MAB-5
A1
A2b
A2g
B2
B3
B4
B6
AF2
AF2-1
AF3
AF4
CF2
CF3
CF4
DF1
DF2
DF4
VR3/4
VR5/6
18
Table A1 (continued)
Author
Aprile and Benedetti [60]

David et al. [61]
Ritchie et al. [63]
Yi and Huang [64]
Shahawy et al. [65]
Hormann [55]
Zarnic et al. [66]

Spadea et al. [67]
B
(mm)
bw
(mm)
h
(mm)
hw
(mm)
VR7/8
VR9/10
H1
W1
P2
P3
P4
P5
SB1
SB2
SB3
MB1
HB1
FB1
C
D
G
I
M
1/3
4/6
08
S5/1
S6/3
S6/5
S11
S1m
S1s
1
2
3.1
120
120
100
400
150
150
150
150
200
200
200
200
200
200
152
152
152
152
152
100
100
100
203
203
203
480
480
480
200
800
140
120
120
100
400
150
150
150
150
200
200
200
200
200
200
152
152
152
152
152
100
100
100
203
203
203
480
480
480
200
800
140
250
250
200
120
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
305
305
305
305
305
180
180
180
305
305
305
102
102
102
300
120
300
250
250
200
120
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
305
305
305
305
305
180
180
180
305
305
305
102
102
102
300
120
300
c
(mm)
a
(mm)
fcd
(MPa)
Es
(GPa)
34
34
26
30
43
43
43
43
40
40
40
40
40
40
54
54
54
54
54
30
30
30
54
54
54
21
21
21
30
15
25
783
783
1000
1000
933
933
933
933
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
914
914
914
914
914
700
700
700
1067
1067
1067
989
989
989
960
960
1800
33.6
33.6
29.0
29.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
48.6
50.5
50.5
48.6
45.1
48.6
39.8
39.8
43.0
39.8
43.0
42.8
37.5
35.2
29.6
41.4
41.4
33.2
33.2
33.2
25.0
25.0
30.0
200
200
210
210
200
200
200
200
205
205
205
205
205
205
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
205
205
205
205
205
205
Ast
(mm2)
Asc
(mm2)
157
157
226
452
308
308
308
308
402
402
402
402
402
402
253
253
253
253
253
150
150
150
254
254
254
213
213
213
339
339
402
57
57
100
156
0
0
0
0
402
402
402
402
402
402
0
0
0
0
0
56
56
56
32
32
32
0
0
0
226
156
402
fyd
(MPa)
fsu
(MPa)
565
565
440
440
500
500
500
500
527
527
527
527
527
527
414
414
414
414
414
324
324
324
468
468
468
462
462
462
450
450
435
700
700
550
550
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
550
550
550
550
550
450
450
450
550
550
550
600
600
600
560
560
560
Asv
(mm2)
ss
(mm)
fyv
(MPa)
F
(mm)
57
57
0
200
57
57
57
57
157
157
157
157
157
157
99
99
99
99
99
25
25
25
142
142
142
56
56
56
56
28
25
110
110
330
100
140
140
140
140
75
75
75
75
75
75
102
102
102
102
102
75
75
75
203
203
203
100
100
100
100
100
150
738
738
440
440
500
500
500
500
527
527
527
527
527
527
414
414
414
414
414
595
595
595
468
468
468
460
460
460
450
450
435
10
10
12
12
14
14
14
14
16
16
16
16
16
16
13
13
13
13
13
8
8
8
13
13
13
10
10
10
12
8
16
Taljsten [62]
Index
19
Table A2
Geometrical and mechanical data of the bonded FRP reinforcement
Author
Index
Ef (MPa)
bp (mm)
tp (mm)
ep (mm)
tf (mm)
wf (mm)
sf (mm)
Triantafillou [10]
S1
S2
S3
BT2
BT4
BT5
BT6
2
3
7
8
AS1
AS2
AS3
CS1
CS2
CS3
AB1
AB2
AB3
AB4
AB5
AB6
AB7
AB8
AB9
AB10
AB11
S2
S3
S4
BS2
BS4
BS5
BS6
BS7
E
RS90
RS
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP
WP
JP
A
E
G
2
3
5
6
1
ST
MT
A4/5
A6/7
B3/4
B5/6
B7/8
C3/4
235
235
235
228
228
228
228
244
90
244
90
73
73
73
244
244
244
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
34
150
150
155
155
155
15
15
15
11
14
21
240
155
240
155
235
235
235
127
127
127
127
36
127
100
100
100
100
64
64
64
0
0
100
100
150
300
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
1.200
3.000
3.000
3.000
1.000
0.460
0.580
0.160
1.200
0.480
1.200
0.330
0.165
0.165
0.800
1.200
0.400
1.200
1.800
0.400
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
20
1
1
1
75
75
75
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
50
100
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.165
0.165
0.165
0.165
0.110
0.169
0.110
0.169
0.044
0.044
0.088
0.111
0.111
0.111
0.044
0.044
0.088
0.088
0.144
0.216
0.288
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.288
0.167
0.334
0.501
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
1.000
1.000
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
3.000
3.000
3.000
1.000
0.460
0.580
0.160
1.200
0.160
1.200
0.110
30
45
60
1
50
50
1
40
40
64
64
1
100
1
1
100
100
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
1
50
50
50
1
50
12.5
120
80
40
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
1
25
1
60
60
60
1
125
125
1
100
100
100
100
1
200
1
1
200
200
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
400
1
400
600
200
1
100
200
140
130
90
50
1
1
1
1
1
1
75
1
75
1
Umezu et al. [43]
Taerwe et al. [45]
Norris et al. [46]

Challal et al. [47]
Chajes et al. [50]
Park et al. [51]

ffd (MPa)
Tie
3300
L
3300
L
3300
L
3800
U
3800
U
3800
L
3800
W
3990
W
2920
W
3990
W
2920
W
2700
W
2700
W
2700
W
4200
W
4200
W
4200
W
2700
W
2700
W
2700
W
2700
W
2700
W
2700
W
2700
W
2700
W
2700
W
2700
W
2700
W
3800
W
3800
W
3800
W
3400
U
3400
U
3400
U
3400
U
3400
W
390
U
2400
U
2400
L
2400
L
2400
L
2400
L
200
L
200
L
200
U
200
U
170
U
185
U
3400
U
2400
L
3400
U
2400
L
3100
U
3300
3300
1532
1532
1532
1532
1074
1532
20
Table A2 (continued)
Author
Garden et al. [54]
Hormann [55]
Ahmed et al. [58]
Beber et al. [59]

David et al. [61]
Taljsten [62]
Ritchie et al. [63]
Yi and Huang [64]
Shahawy et al. [65]
Hormann [55]
Zarnic [66]
Spadea et al. [67]
Index
Ef (MPa)
bp (mm)
tp (mm)
ep (mm)
tf (mm)
wf (mm)
sf (mm)
ffd (MPa)
C5/6
C7/8
3U-1.0
IU-2.3
IU-4.5
C11
C12
C21
MAB-2
MAB-3
MAB-4
MAB-5
A1
A2b
A2g
B2
B3
B4
B6
AF2
AF2-1
AF3
AF4
CF2
CF3
CF4
DF1
DF2
DF4
VR3/4
VR5/6
VR7/8
VR9/10
H1
W1
P2
P3
P4
P5
SB1
SB2
SB3
MB1
HB1
FB1
C
D
G
I
M
1/3
4/6
08
S5/1
S6/3
S6/5
S11
S1m
S1s
1
2
3.1
127
36
114
119
119
78
78
91
230
230
230
230
49
49
49
49
49
49
118
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
230
230
230
230
610
610
150
150
150
150
155
155
155
210
300
95
12
12
10
28
118
235
235
235
141
141
141
198
198
198
150
150
152
150
150
67
90
90
480
480
480
115
115
115
115
80
80
80
80
30
60
80
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
120
120
120
120
100
400
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
120
100
150
152
151
152
150
152
100
100
100
200
200
200
100
100
100
50
100
80
1.200
1.800
0.820
1.280
1.280
0.560
1.120
1.190
0.111
0.222
0.333
0.444
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.600
1.200
0.334
0.334
0.334
0.334
0.334
0.334
0.334
0.167
0.334
0.668
0.110
0.440
0.770
1.100
0.420
0.280
1.200
1.200
2.400
2.400
1.400
1.400
1.400
1.400
1.400
2.400
4.760
4.760
4.190
4.060
1.270
0.110
0.220
0.330
0.170
0.340
0.510
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
10
10
20
40
40
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
20
20
150
20
20
20
20
200
150
100
50
100
100
100
50
50
50
75
75
75
75
20
20
20
20
20
20
150
200
300
150
150
150
203
203
10
203
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
100
285
470
100
100
50
1532
1074
1414
1284
1284
724
724
869
3400
3400
3400
3400
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
987
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3400
3400
3400
3400
1500
1500
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2000
1400
1800
161
161
184
319
1489
3350
3350
3350
2758
2758
2758
2270
2270
2270
2400
2400
2300
Tie
21
Table B1
Predicted and experimental failure loads and failure mode
Author
Triantafillou [10]
Umezu et al. [43]
Taerwe et al. [45]
Norris et al. [46]

Challal et al. [47]
Chajes et al. [50]
Park et al. [51]

Analytical results
S1
S2
S3
BT2
BT4
BT5
BT6
2
3
7
8
AS1
AS2
AS3
CS1
CS2
CS3
AB1
AB2
AB3
AB4
AB5
AB6
AB7
AB8
AB9
AB10
AB11
S2
S3
S4
BS2
BS4
BS5
BS6
BS7
E
RS90
RS
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP
WP
JP
A
E
G
2
3
5
6
1
ST
MT
A4/5
A6/7
B3/4
Experimental results
Relative errors
V0
(kN)
VRd
(kN)
1f
(mm/m)
Mode
( )
V0
(kN)
VRd
(kN)
1f
(mm/m)
Mode
()
Dv0
(%)
Dvrd
(%)
D1
(%)
10.1
10.1
10.1
71.6
71.6
71.6
71.6
123.7
123.7
249.9
249.9
48.3
48.3
49.0
92.5
92.5
47.8
56.5
116.2
112.9
112.9
113.7
114.0
114.4
228.7
237.7
347.3
349.4
589.8
589.8
589.8
155.1
159.2
157.3
156.0
154.5
58.2
79.9
81.4
66.6
66.6
66.6
36.3
36.3
36.3
15.9
15.9
15.9
24.7
24.7
82.4
82.4
52.3
31.9
55.6
10.4
10.4
10.4
17.1
19.5
19.8
197.5
173.9
154.5
197.5
225.7
214.7
511.6
481.4
119.4
91.4
131.7
208.8
163.2
108.9
131.1
209.9
216.4
216.4
228.5
238.1
245.3
368.4
439.1
612.8
657.4
857.6
920.7
956.0
199.9
272.1
181.5
172.0
199.0
63.5
97.8
118.8
68.8
68.8
65.0
47.2
49.6
49.6
39.7
36.9
37.2
55.9
37.7
103.1
78.2
75.2
75.0
73.5
29.9
35.8
23.1
1.5
1.5
1.3
2.8
4.7
3.8
2.8
5.9
8.0
6.2
8.3
19.4
19.4
13.7
6.0
6.0
6.2
19.2
19.8
13.3
13.3
10.3
8.3
7.1
10.4
10.4
10.5
7.3
4.7
3.2
2.5
6.0
4.4
6.1
6.1
6.0
1.3
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
1.5
1.2
1.2
4.1
5.4
3.5
2.0
0.6
1.0
0.6
0.3
10.3
9.2
7.0
6.2
8.7
SH:TD
SH:TD
FL:CC
FL:PD
SH:TD
SH:TD
FL:PD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
FL:CC
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
FL:PF
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
SH:TD
SH:TD
FL:CC
FL:CC
FL:PD
FL:PF
FL:PF
FL:CC
SH:TD
FL:PD
SH:TD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
8.2
8.2
8.2
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
181.0
181.0
295.0
295.0
63.7
63.7
63.7
127.4
127.4
63.7
46.5
127.4
127.4
127.4
127.4
127.4
127.4
284.0
216.0
275.0
275.0
449.0
449.0
449.0
206.3
136.6
136.6
136.6
136.6
50.0
57.0
81.0
54.0
54.0
54.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
18.8
18.8
18.8
25.9
25.9
82.1
82.1
58.5
40.0
60.0
13.1
13.1
14.4
20.5
22.5
19.7
156.0
162.0
121.0
221.0
209.1
218.6
469.7
464.5
91.2
89.7
114.0
214.0
159.0
116.0
110.0
173.0
209.0
224.0
254.0
247.0
240.0
424.0
379.0
569.0
662.0
691.0
795.0
942.0
247.5
252.0
170.0
166.6
235.5
68.0
90.0
140.0
76.2
74.0
70.7
41.5
44.0
56.0
34.4
35.4
37.0
65.2
44.0
120.2
107.2
90.0
70.0
75.0
31.4
32.5
26.9
3.7
2.9
1.8
3.0
6.0
5.0
6.5
5.5
7.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
17.0
19.0
14.0
15.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
13.0
8.0
4.0
6.5
6.0
8.0
3.0
7.0
9.0
9.0
1.3
0.9
1.2
4.6
4.0
6.0
4.0
2.2
0.7
1.6
0.6
6.0
10.0
7.4
9.5
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
FL:CC
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
FL:CC
FL:CC
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
SH:TD
FL:CC
SH:TD
SH:TD
FL:CC
SH:TD
SH:TD
FL:PD
FL:CC
FL:CC
FL:CC
SH:TD
SH:TD
FL:CC
SH:TF
SH:TF
SH:TF
FL:CC
SH:TD
FL:PD
SH:TD
FL:CC
PE:ED
PE:ED
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:RO
22.93
22.93
22.93
210.51
210.51
210.51
210.51
231.67
231.67
215.30
215.30
224.12
224.12
223.08
227.43
227.43
224.95
21.44
28.81
211.35
211.35
210.79
210.51
210.23
219.46
10.02
26.30
27.04
31.36
31.36
31.36
224.83
16.53
15.12
14.19
13.13
16.42
40.18
0.50
23.42
23.42
23.42
9.89
9.89
9.89
215.47
215.47
215.47
24.77
24.77
0.35
0.35
210.58
220.28
27.27
220.75
220.75
227.91
216.73 258.87 /
213.25 247.52 /
0.52 229.68 p/m
26.59
26.12 p/m
7.34 222.38 /
27.64
/
210.64 243.67 /m
7.92
29.72 /
21.80
44.95 /
8.93 212.13 /
3.65 217.03 /
30.96
/
1.92
/
15.54
/
22.42 233.80 /
2.66 225.53 /
26.14
/
19.14
13.18 /
21.31
4.30 /
3.53
24.71 /
23.40 211.06 /
210.05
26.33 /
23.60
p/m
2.19
p/m
213.11 213.56 /
15.86
3.53 /
7.69 219.52 /
20.70
28.76 /
24.10
16.27 /
15.81 251.44 /
1.48 258.42 /
219.23 224.72 /
7.99
46.79 /
6.77 212.46 /
3.23 232.60 /
215.51 233.37 p/m
26.60
23.19 p/m
8.71
p/m
215.17
/
29.77
/m
27.09
/m
28.03
p/m
13.78
73.22 /
12.78
23.04 p/m
211.39 274.03 /
15.50
1.71 p/m
4.27 210.27 p/m
0.55 213.56 p/m
214.28
29.10 /
214.34 217.04 /
214.23 236.56 /
227.05
23.22 /
216.49
/m
7.20
71.16 p/m
22.00
28.09 p/m
24.62
25.42 p/m
10.27
p/m
214.03
28.75 p/m
Mode
( )
22
Table B1 (continued)
Author
Analytical results
V0
(kN)
Garden et al. [54]
Hormann [55]
Ahmed et al. [58]
Beber et al. [59]

David et al. [61]
Taljsten [62]
Ritchie et al. [63]
Yi and Huang [64]
Shahawy et al. [65]
Hormann [55]
B5/6
B7/8
C3/4
C5/6
C7/8
3U-1.0
IU-2.3
IU-4.5
C11
C12
C21
MAB-2
MAB-3
MAB-4
MAB-5
A1
A2b
A2g
B2
B3
B4
B6
AF2
AF2-1
AF3
AF4
CF2
CF3
CF4
DF1
DF2
DF4
VR3/4
VR5/6
VR7/8
VR9/10
H1
W1
P2
P3
P4
P5
SB1
SB2
SB3
MB1
HB1
FB1
C
D
G
I
M
1/3
4/6
08
S5/1
S6/3
S6/5
S11
10.4
10.4
25.1
25.1
25.1
6.6
28.7
15.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
26.1
30.3
41.0
40.9
40.9
40.9
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
14.4
12.0
38.3
38.3
38.3
38.3
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.3
38.4
26.3
26.3
26.3
26.3
26.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
25.7
25.9
25.9
7.4
VRd
(kN)
35.8
25.1
38.0
49.0
39.9
15.7
47.1
27.0
23.9
33.0
36.2
33.5
38.0
41.2
41.1
18.6
16.4
10.7
17.3
12.5
16.5
20.5
36.9
42.7
42.6
42.6
48.3
52.6
63.1
55.5
62.9
72.5
32.4
46.6
56.6
57.7
24.2
27.5
70.9
70.9
87.9
87.9
72.2
72.5
72.5
79.8
78.6
80.0
47.5
47.4
45.0
58.9
67.3
16.0
18.4
20.0
39.4
48.5
55.2
20.3
1f
(mm/m)
Mode
()
6.2
8.0
8.8
6.0
8.1
5.4
5.5
6.2
8.5
7.0
6.4
9.2
7.9
6.9
6.2
7.5
6.3
6.3
6.8
8.4
6.2
3.9
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.7
10.8
8.7
6.6
10.5
7.0
5.8
5.1
2.5
2.5
6.2
6.2
4.9
4.9
6.1
6.2
6.2
5.6
4.7
5.8
7.7
7.7
8.6
6.3
5.9
9.7
7.2
5.9
10.0
8.5
7.5
5.9
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:CC
FL:CC
FL:PD
PE:RO
FL:PD
FL:PD
PE:BF
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
PE:BF
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
PE:RO
FL:PF
FL:PF
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PF
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
V0
(kN)
14.4
14.4
28.7
28.7
28.7
6.3
27.5
14.2
10.7
10.7
10.7
29.5
29.5
29.5
29.5
10.2
10.0
10.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
32.5
37.5
47.7
37.5
37.5
37.5
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
18.7
22.7
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
10.7
10.7
10.7
29.9
29.9
29.9
10.7
VRd
(kN)
34.8
30.1
38.0
51.1
43.4
17.0
50.0
30.0
30.7
40.4
35.7
36.0
43.0
41.0
39.5
22.8
18.5
15.7
17.0
12.3
17.5
20.4
41.5
42.8
48.3
55.5
52.4
59.1
70.1
59.0
60.0
62.5
31.8
52.1
62.1
66.6
27.0
28.2
68.5
71.5
78.0
79.5
71.4
75.5
73.9
79.5
80.1
74.4
55.4
59.6
50.6
62.9
72.1
14.7
20.4
18.8
33.3
49.0
58.1
20.8
Relative errors
1f
(mm/m)
Mode
()
Dv0
(%)
Dvrd
(%)
D1
(%)
Mode
()
5.6
6.5
9.7
7.5
6.1
3.7
6.0
8.8
3.7
5.3
4.9
3.5
3.5
5.3
8.2
10.1
8.3
PE:RO
PE:RO
FL:CC
FL:CC
FL:CC
FL:PD
PE:RO
PE:ED
FL:PF
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PF
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:ED
PE:RO
PE:BF
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:ED
PE:ED
PE:ED
PE:RO
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PF
PE:RO
PE:ED
FL:PF
PE:ED
PE:ED
PE:ED
FL:PF
FL:PF
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:ED
PE:ED
PE:ED
PE:ED
PE:ED
PE:ED
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:RO
PE:ED
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
227.91
227.91
212.58
212.58
212.58
4.42
4.28
7.56
231.01
231.01
231.01
210.14
210.14
210.14
210.14
225.56
225.06
225.06
211.35
211.35
211.35
211.35
225.06
225.06
225.06
225.06
219.71
219.10
214.12
9.15
9.15
9.01
25.74
25.74
25.74
25.74
223.12
247.03
214.79
214.79
214.79
214.79
28.02
28.15
28.15
28.02
27.78
28.02
217.84
217.84
217.69
217.84
217.69
212.67
213.00
213.17
214.21
213.49
213.49
231.01
2.98
216.60
0.04
24.14
28.00
27.85
25.87
210.08
222.3
218.25
1.28
26.91
211.71
0.61
4.05
218.28
211.31
231.57
1.89
1.42
25.70
0.32
211.05
20.32
211.81
223.25
27.74
211.00
29.99
25.92
4.83
15.92
1.87
210.50
28.83
213.33
210.38
22.37
3.54
20.80
12.68
10.55
1.13
23.96
21.88
0.38
21.91
7.50
214.24
220.50
211.05
26.35
26.69
8.60
29.56
6.47
18.29
21.01
25.05
22.19
10.80
216.98
25.56
4.88
13.09
66.66
12.66
24.31
4.69
10.04
4.31
77.34
77.34
15.95
22.03
215.48
29.27
p/m
p/m
/m
/m
/m
/
p/m
p/m
/m
/
/
/m
p/m
p/m
/
p/m
p/m
/
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
/
/
/
/m
p/m
p/m
/m
p/m
p/m
/m
/
/
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
p/m
/
/
/
/
/
/
23
Table B1 (continued)
Author
Analytical results
V0
(kN)
Zarnic [66]
Spadea et al. [67]
S1m
S1s
1
2
3.1
7.4
7.4
38.9
15.4
24.1
VRd
(kN)
20.3
14.2
53.5
27.3
34.4
1f
(mm/m)
5.9
5.9
5.4
5.7
4.5
Mode
( )
FL:PD
PE:BF
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
First of all, a deep discussion concerning the crack pattern

definition is presented and the available formulations are
considered with relation to the sensitivity of the FRP
concrete bond model to the crack spacing evaluation. Then,
the beam resisting mechanisms related to flexural, shear and
plate end failure modes are considered separately in order to
clarify the calculation steps and to put in evidence the most
critical issues. Finally, a huge experimental database is
examined in detail and the efficiency of the proposed
procedure is assessed by comparison with the test results.
The detected average error is of the same order of the data
experimental uncertainty with a maximum error less than
20%. However, the computed failure modes highlight a
wider dispersion that points out an intrinsic difficulty to
foresee the weakest resisting mechanism, mainly as a
consequence of the brittleness of the FRP concrete
interaction.
The obtained results show that the proposed procedure is
simple and robust; therefore, the definition of the safety
factors easily allows to formulate the model as a proper
design procedure. It is to point out that the coefficient
calibration is actually under study and require a further
definition work.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Prof. Andrew Beeby
of the University of Leeds (UK) for the fruitful discussion
concerning the crack spacing evaluation and for his outstanding contribution to the study of the cracking influence
on the serviceability conditions of R/C structures.
Appendix A. Data of the experimental tests

Tables A1 and A2
Appendix B. Result comparison for the experimental

tests
Table B1
V0
(kN)
10.7
10.7
43.2
18.2
28.6
VRd
(kN)
20.9
16.5
58.4
31.5
37.4
Relative errors
1f
(mm/m)
Mode
()
Dv0
(%)
Dvrd
(%)
D1
(%)
Mode
( )
4.0
5.0
7.0
FL:PD
PE:BF
FL:PD
FL:PD
FL:PD
231.01
231.01
210.12
215.82
215.77
22.66
213.72
28.32
213.34
28.15
/
/
/
/
/
35.84
13.25
235.67
References
[1] ACI 440-F. Guidelines for selection, design and installation of FRP
systems for externally strengthening concrete structures. ACI/440-F/
440-01B rpt draft of 17/01/97.
[2] CSA, S806-00: Design and construction of building components with
fibre reinforced polymers. Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada: Canadian
Standards Association; 2000.
[3] fib, Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures. Bulletin
14. Lausanne, Switzerland: Federation Internationale du Beton; 2001.
[4] ENV 1992-1-1, Design of concrete structuresgeneral rules and rules
for buildings. 2002. CEN TC250/SC2, Bruxelles.
[5] ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Recent approaches to shear design of
structural concrete. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1998;124(12):1375417.
[6] Schleich J, Shafer K, Jennewein M. Towards a consistent design of
structural concrete. J Prestressed Concr Inst 1987;32(3):74 150.
[7] Morsch E. Der EisenbetonbauSeine Theorie und Anwendung, 5th
ed. Stuttgart, Germany: Verlag Konrad Wittwer; 1920.
[8] Collins MP. Towards a rational theory for R/C Members in shear.
ASCE Proc Struct Div 1978;104(4):64966.
[9] Collins MP, Mitchell D. Shear and torsion design of prestressed and
non-prestressed concrete beams. J Prestressed Concr Inst 1980;25(5):
32100.
[10] Triantafillou TC. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams
using epoxy-bonded FRP composites. ACI Struct J 1998;95(2):
10715.
[11] Khalifa A, Gold WJ, Nanni A, Aziz AMI. Contribution of externally
bonded FRP to shear capacity of RC flexural members. J Compos
Construct, ASCE 1998;2(4):195 202.
[12] Beaumont PWR, Schultz JM, Friedrich K. Failure analysis of
composite materials. Delaware composites design encyclopedia,
Lancaster: Technomic Pub. Co; 1985.
[13] MacGregor J. Reinforced concrete mechanics and design, 3rd ed. New
York: Prentice Hall; 1997.
[14] CEB, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990final draft. Bulletin dInformation
203, 204 and 205. Lausanne, Switzerland: Comite Euro-International
du Beto; 1991.
[15] Campbell TI, Chitnuyanondh L, Batchelor BV. Rigid plastic theory v.
truss analogy method for calculating the shear strength of reinforced
concrete beams. Mag Concr Res 1980;32(110):39 44.
[16] Wagner H. Ebene Blechwandtrager mit sehr dunnem Stegblech.
Zeitschrift fur Flugtechnik und Motorluftschiffahrt, Berlin, Germany
1929;20:812.
[17] Ascione L, Feo L. Modeling of composite/concrete interface of RC
beams strengthened with composite laminates. Compos Part B: Engng
2000;31(6/7):53540.
[18] Lau KT, Dutta PK, Zhou LM, Hui D. Mechanics of bonds in an FRP
bonded concrete beam. Compos Part B: Engng 2001;32(6):491502.
[19] Chen JF, Teng JG. Anchorage strength models for FRP and steel
plates bonded to concrete. J Struct Engng, ASCE 2001;127(7):
78491.
24
[20] Smith ST, Teng JG. FRP-strengthened RC beams. I. Review of

debonding strength models. Engng Struct 2002;24:385 95.
[21] Rostasy FS, Neubauer U. Bond behavior of CFRP-laminates for the
strengthening of concrete members. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Composite Construction-Conventional and Innovative,
IABSE, Innsbruck, Austria; 1997. p. 717 22.
[22] Taljsten B. Defining anchor lengths of steel and CFRP plates bonded
to concrete. J Adhes Adhes 1997;17(4):319 27.
[23] Matthys S. Structural behavior and design of concrete members
strengthened with externally bonded FRP reinforcements. Doctoral
Thesis. Ghent University; 2000.
[24] Chajes MJ, Finch Jr WW, Januszka TF, Thomson Jr TA. Bond and
force transfer of composite material plates bonded to concrete. ACI
Struct J 1996;93(2):208 17.
[25] Horiguchi T, Saeki N. Effect of test methods and quality of concrete on
bon strength of CFRP sheet. Proceedings of the Non-Metallic (FRP)
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Third International Symposium, vol. 1. Sopporo: Japan Concrete Institute; 1997. p. 27986.
[26] Maeda T, Asano Y, Sato Y, Ueda T, Kakuta Y. A study on bond
mechanism of carbon fiber sheet. Proceedings of the Non-Metallic
(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Third International
Symposium, vol. 1. Sopporo: Japan Concrete Institute; 1997. p. 27986.
[27] Brosens K, Van Gemert D. Anchorage of externally bonded
reinforcements subjected to combined shear/bending action. FRP
Compos Civ Engng 2001;1:589 96.
[28] Xu FQ, Guan JG, Chen Y. Bond strength between C-FRP sheets and
concrete. Proceedings of the International Conference on FRP
Composites in Civil Engineering, Hong Kong, China, vol. 1.; 2001.
p. 357 64.
[29] Seracino R. Axial intermediate crack debonding of plates glued to
concrete surfaces. Proceedings of the International Conference on
FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Hong Kong, China, vol. 1.;
2001. p. 36572.
[30] Izumo K, Saeki N, Asamizu T, Shimura K. Strengthening reinforced
concrete beams by using prestressed fiber sheets. Proceedings of the
Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Third
Internatioanl Symposium, vol. 1. Sopporo: Japan Concrete Institute;
1997. p. 37986.
[31] Aprile A, Spacone E, Limkatanyu S. Role of bond in RC beams
strengthened with steel and FRP plates. J Struct Engng, ASCE 2001;
127(12):1445 52.
[32] Oehlers DJ, Moran JP. Premature failure of externally plated reinforced
concrete beams. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1990;116(4):97895.
[33] Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. RC beams strengthened with GFRP
plates. I. Experimental study. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1991;117(11):
341733.
[34] Ritchie A, Thomas DA, Lu LW, Connelly GM. External reinforcement of concrete beams using fiber reinforced plastics. ACI Struct J
1991;88(4):490500.
[35] Smith ST, Teng JG. FRP-strengthened RC beams. II. Assessment of
debonding strength models. Engng Struct 2002;24:397 417.
[36] Kachlakev D, McCurry DD. Behavior of full scale reinforced concrete
beams retrofitted for shear and flexural with FRP laminates. Compos:
Part B 2000;31:44552.
[37] CEB, Serviceability models. Behaviour and modelling in serviceability limit states including repeated and sustained loadsprogress
report. Bulletin dInformation 235, Lausanne, Switzerland: Comite
Euro-International du Beton; 1997.
[38] Beeby A.W. Crack prediction methods in Eurocode 2. Notes for the
Madrid Workshop of the ENV 1992-1-1 Project Team. Personal
communication; August 2000.
[39] Khuntia M, Stojadinovic B. Shear strength of reinforced concrete
beams without transverse reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2001;98(5):
64856.
[40] Arduini M, Nanni A. Behaviour of pre-cracked RC beams
strengthened with carbon FRP sheets. J Compos Construct, ASCE
1997;1(2):6370.
[41] Khalifa A, Nanni A. Improving shear capacity of existing RC Tsection beams using CFRP composites. Cem Concr Compos 2000;22:
165 74.
[42] Kamiharako A, Maruyama K, Takada K, Shimomura
T. Evaluation of shear contribution of FRP sheets attached to
concrete beams. Proceedings of the III International Symposium
Non Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures,
Japan. 1997 p. 467 74.
[43] Umezu K, Fujita M, Nakai H, Tamaki K. Shear behavior of RC beams
with aramid fiber sheet. Proceedings of the III International
Symposium Non Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures, Japan; 1997. p. 491 98.
[44] Funakawa I, Shimono K, Watanabe T, Asada S, Ushijima S.
Experimental study on shear strengthening with continuous fiber
reinforcement sheet and methyl methacrylate resin. Proceedings of the
III International Symposium Non Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures, Japan; 1997. p. 47582.
[45] Taerwe L, Khalil H, Matthys S. Behaviour of R/C beams strengthened
in shear by external CFRP sheets. Proceedings of the III International
Symposium Non Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures, Japan; 1997. p. 483 90.
[46] Norris T, Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. Shear and flexural
strengthening of R/C beams with carbon fiber sheets. J Struct
Engng, ASCE 1997;123(7):90311.
[47] Challal O, Nollet MJ, Saleh K. Use of CFRP strips for flexure and
shear strengthening of RC members. Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure, Tucson,
AZ, USA; 1998. p. 24960.
[48] Fanning P, Kelly O. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
beams: an experimental study using CFRP plates. Structural Faults
Repair 99, London; 1999.
[49] Al-Sulaimani GJ, Sharif A, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Ghaleb BN.
Shear repair for reinforced concrete by fiberglass plate bonding. ACI
Struct J 1994;91(3):458 64.
[50] Chajes MJ, Januszka TF, Mertz DR, Thomson Jr TA, Finch Jr
WW. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using
externally applied composite fabrics. ACI Struct J 1995;92(3):
295 303.
[51] Park SY, Naaman AE, Lopez MM, Till RD. Shear strengthening effect
of R/C beams using glued CFRP sheets. Proceedings of the
International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering,
Hong Kong, China, vol. 1.; 2001. p. 669 76.
[52] GangaRao HVS, Vijay PV. Bending behaviour of concrete beams
wrapped with carbon fabric. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1998;124(1):
310.
[53] Rahimi H, Hutchinson A. Concrete beams strengthened with
externally bonded FRP plates. J Compos Construct, ASCE 2001;
5(1):4456.
[54] Garden HN, Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM, Parke GAR. An
experimental study of the anchorage length of carbon fibre composite
plate used to strengthen reinforced concrete beams. Construct Build
Mater 1998;12:20319.
[55] Hormann M. Post strengthening of concrete structures by externally
bonded fiber reinforced polymers. Diploma Thesis. Institute of
Structural Mechanics, University of Stuttgart, Germany, 165 p; 1997.
[56] Maalej M, Bian Y. Interfacial shear stress concentration in FRP
strengthened beams. Compos Struct 2001;54:417 26.
[57] Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. Experimental and analytical
investigation of FRP strengthened beam response, Part I. Mag Concr
Res 1996;48:331 42.
[58] Ahmed O, Van Gemert D, Vanderwalle L. Improved model for plate
end shear of CFRP strengthened RC beams. Cem Concr Compos
2001;23:319.
[59] Beber AJ, Filho AC, Campagnolo JL. Flexural strengthening of R/C
beams with CFRP sheets. Structural Faults Repair 99, London; 1999.
[60] Aprile A, Benedetti A. Four point bending tests for R/C breams
reinforced with high modulus C-FRP fabrics. Proceedings of First
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
Course on FRP applications for R/C elements rehabilitation, Bologna,

Italy; 2001.
David E, Djelal C, Ragneau E, Buyle-Bodin F. Use of FRP to
strengthen and repair beams: experimental study and numerical
simulations. Structural Faults Repair 99, London; 1999.
Taljsten B. Concrete beams strengthened for bending using CFRP
sheets. Structural Faults Repair 99, London; 1999.
Ritchie A, Thomas DA, Lu LW, Connelly GM. External reinforcement of concrete beams using fiber reinforced plastics. ACI Struct J
1991;88(4):490500.
Yi W, Huang H. Experimental study on the flexural behavior of
RC beams strengthened with CFRP laminates. Proceedings of
25
the International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Hong Kong, China, vol. 1.; 2001. p. 399405.
[65] Shahawy MA, Arockiasami YM, Beitelman T, Sowrirajan R.
Reinforced concrete rectangular beams strengthened with CFRP
laminates. Compos: Part B 1996;27B:22533.
[66] Zarnic R, Gostic S, Bosiljkov V, Bokan-Bosiljkov V. Improvement of
bending load-bearing capacity by externally bonded plates. In: Dhir
RK, Henderson NA, editors. Proceedings of Creating with Concrete.
London: Telford; 1999. p. 43342.
[67] Spadea G, Bencardino F, Swamy RN. Structural behaviour of
composite RC beams with externally bonded CFRP. J Compos
Construct, ASCE 1998;2(3):132 7.

Aprile 2004

Transféré par

Informations du document

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

Aprile 2004

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125

Coupled flexural-shear design of R/C beams strengthened with FRP

Received 28 January 2003; accepted 22 September 2003

2 (ENV 1992-1-1) [4] for the shear strength design of R/C

A. Aprile, A. Benedetti / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125

shear arm of the R/C beam

yielding moment of the strengthened R/C beam

A. Aprile, A. Benedetti / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125

external bending moment increment

ratio of the longitudinal FRP reinforcement to

A. Aprile, A. Benedetti / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125

reinforcements, where the bond failure can take place with a

the safety factors that characterize breaking and bonding

gf 1:20 1:35 for Carbon FRP,

3. The variable angle truss model

2. Definition of the safety factors for design quantities

A. Aprile, A. Benedetti / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125

Usually a very strong hypothesis is introduced by

3.1. The modified VAT model for FRP strengthened beams

A simply supported beam with internal and external

A. Aprile, A. Benedetti / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125

flexural lever arm

non-dimensional height of the compression zone

steel and FRP to concrete homogenization coefficients

and the following geometrical ratios of the reinforcement

ratio of the longitudinal FRP reinforcement to the

ratio of the steel stirrups to the pertaining concrete area

ratio of the FRP ties to the pertaining concrete area

The solution of the VAT model by using the CFT requires

Fig. 4. Stress states emerging on the boundary of a separated element.

the compression field alignment along cracks (Fig. 4)

scv cos u 2 v sin u 0;

scv sin u v cos u scd sin u;

where u is the inclination of the compression field struts.

rsv ssv rfv sfv scv n tan u;

rsl ssl rfl sfl scl n cot u;

scd ntan u cot u:

Furthermore, let us consider the compatibility of the local

glv 21d 2 1l cot Q;

glv 21d 2 1v tan Q;

where the compressive deformation is assumed to be

Fig. 5. Mohr circle of the deformations.

A. Aprile, A. Benedetti / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125

the compatibility of the truss element deformations, the only

The CFT hypothesis has been borrowed by Collins with

The value of the angle can be readily computed once the

The mean longitudinal strain can be derived form Eq. (4.2),

Upon substitution of the relations (9.1) (9.3) into Eq. (6),

A. Aprile, A. Benedetti / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125

finally, according to the superposition hypothesis of the

A detailed discussion concerning the Vc term will be

passed over, the bonded plate gets separated with a brittle

4. The anchorage force of the externally bonded FRP

Fig. 7. Experimental and analytical bond force as a function of the bonded

A. Aprile, A. Benedetti / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125

The fib document [3] suggests a parabolic variation of the

The experimental evidences have shown that the mean

cracks extended up to the neutral axis. Even if the influence of

It is to mention that the proposed interpretation is correct

In order to compute the critical stress in the plate, the

A. Aprile, A. Benedetti / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 125

equilibrate the bending moment increment. The maximum

where sfly is the plate stress at the moment My

Finally, the design stress of the FRP plate can be assumed as