Response Prediction of RC Beams Externally Bonded

with Steel-Reinforced Polymers

Marisa Pecce1; Francesca Ceroni2; Andrea Prota3; and Gaetano Manfredi4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 10/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper deals with an innovative technique for strengthening reinforced concrete 共RC兲 structures using steel-reinforced
polymer 共SRP兲 materials. The results of an experimental campaign using RC beams strengthened in flexure with carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer or SRP laminates are summarized, and the experimental outcomes are compared to the predictions provided by analytical models
and code formulations in terms of flexural strength, curvature of the cross section, deflections, and crack widths. Under ultimate
conditions, the ACI 440.2R-02 approach provided conservative flexural strength, and a modified expression for the bond coefficient km
was proposed. Under serviceability conditions, good agreement was obtained between experimental results and a theoretical model
developed by the writers. Comparisons of code models in terms of both crack width and deflections highlighted the need for a calibration
of code formulas to account for effects due to externally bonded reinforcement.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0268共2006兲10:3共195兲
CE Database subject headings: Concrete beams; Concrete, reinforced; Curvature; Deflection; Stiffening; Cracking; Ultimate
strength.

Introduction The present paper deals with an innovative strengthening

Over the last decade, fiber-reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 composites
have emerged in construction mainly for the strengthening and
rehabilitation of reinforced concrete 共RC兲 structures 共Cosenza
et al. 2001; Bakis et al. 2002兲. In addition to their high mech-
anical properties, these materials have other features that can be
exploited, such as high durability and high resistance to aggres-
sive and harsh environments, easy and rapid installation, light
weight and low impact on the original geometry of strengthened
members, and the possibility of targeting their density and texture
to the requirements of each specific application.
Despite a wide consensus at both the academic and industrial
levels that FRP composites represent a real and competitive alter-
native to traditional strengthening techniques, one barrier to their
larger diffusion in construction is their low fire resistance 共Nanni
et al. 2001兲. This problem affects both carbon and glass laminates
and is related to the properties of the epoxy resins generally used
to impregnate the fibers. In addition, other reasons for concern
include the linear-elastic behavior up to failure of the fibers and
the orthotropic behavior of the laminates.
1
Full Professor, Engineering Dept., Univ. of Sannio, Benevento, Italy.
E-mail: pecce@unisannio.it
2
Assistant Professor, Engineering Dept., Univ. of Sannio, Benevento,
Italy. E-mail: ceroni@unisannio.it
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Structural Analysis and Design, Univ.
of Naples Federico II, Italy. E-mail: aprota@unina.it
4
Full Professor, Dept. of Structural Analysis and Design, Univ. of
Naples Federico II, Italy. E-mail: gaetano.manfredi@unina.it
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 2006. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on November 23, 2004; approved on September 6, 2005.
This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol.
10, No. 3, June 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/2006/3-195–203/
$25.00.
system based on steel-reinforced polymer 共SRP兲 composites
that could be an alternative technique for structural applications
that could not be fulfilled by FRP materials. Similar to FRP, SRP
composites are obtained by impregnating steel cords with either
an epoxy or a cementitious matrix. The steel fibers occur in cords
identical to those used as radial reinforcement for car tires;
steel cords can vary between highly twisted cords, for optimum
ductility, and slightly twisted cords, which are more open to
allow resin penetration 共Hardwire 2002兲. The steel tape has very
high strength and stiffness and is economical to produce, and its
density can be targeted to meet the requirements of reinforcement,
viscosity of resin, and cosmetic applications. No special resin is
required for wetting the steel cord reinforcement as it is for FRP,
where sizing plays a critical role.
For applications where fire resistance is the parameter govern-
ing the strengthening job, the use of a low-density steel tape could
overcome such a problem by installing a SRP composite impreg-
nated with a cementitious matrix not sensitive to fire and high
temperatures. It is also possible to improve the bond of such
laminates by using mechanical anchorages, which in general are
not compatible with the use of FRP. If this is done, the design of
the anchorages could also rely on the ductility of steel fibers to
redistribute high stresses at anchorage locations and prevent local
failures. In addition to fire resistance, the use of a traditional
material such as a polymer-modified cementitious matrix reduces
the uncertainties and the likelihood of defects related to mixing
an epoxy resin, with which typical workers in the construction
industry are not familiar.
The use of SRP laminates in strengthening requires reassess-
ment of the models at ultimate and service conditions, usually to
predict the response of RC elements externally reinforced with
FRP. To this end, comparisons with analytical models are per-
formed to simulate the behavior of members along the entire
load history 共moment–curvature and load crack-width relation-
ships兲 and confirm the validity of assumptions typically made
for RC members. This analysis is aimed at showing which main

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006 / 195

J. Compos. Constr., 2006, 10(3): 195-203

 Table 1. Test Matrix
Externally bf
Beam reinforced Matrix 共mm兲
D — — —
A-1 Steel 3⫻2 E 150
A-2 Steel 3⫻2 E 300
A-3 Steel 3⫻2 E 150
B-1 Steel 12⫻ E 200
B-2 Steel 12⫻ C 200
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 10/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
B-3a Steel 12⫻ C 200
B-4a Steel 12⫻ C 200
C-1 CFRP E 300/500
C-2 CFRP E 300
Note: E⫽epoxy and C⫽cementitious.
a the ultimate reinforcement strain, ␧ fu, times the bond-dependent
With nails.
parameters should be recalibrated to improve the reliability of
code formulations 共Eurocode 2 1992; ACI 1995兲.
Experimental Program
The experimental program was aimed at evaluating the effect
of various types of external flexural reinforcements on RC
beams. A total of 10 RC shallow beams with a cross section of
400⫻ 200 mm were tested. The stirrups were ⌽8 mm steel
bars spaced at 100 mm center to center. For all specimens, five
⌽10 and two ⌽8 steel bars were used as tensile and compressive
internal reinforcement, respectively. All beams were tested as
simply supported members over a clear span of 3.40 m and
loaded to failure under a four-point configuration, with a constant-
moment region of 1.0 m across the midspan. One of these beams
was not strengthened 共specimen D兲, while the other nine were
externally reinforced using steel tapes 共Beam Types A and B兲 and
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer 共CFRP兲 laminates 共Type C兲
共Prota et al. 2004兲. Type A and B beams were strengthened using
3 ⫻ 2 and 12⫻ cord SRP laminates, respectively. The former is a
medium-density laminate, which the latter is characterized by a
low density of steel fibers.
Seven beams were strengthened with steel tapes impregnated
with epoxy resin or cementitious grout 共A and B beams兲; the
remaining two beams 共C-1 and C-2兲 were strengthened with
CFRP laminates impregnated with epoxy resin. Two of the
beams 共B-3 and B-4兲 were strengthened with steel tape using
cementitious grout and mechanically anchored with nail anchors.
Table 1 shows the research program, summarizing for each beam
the type, matrix, bond width, b f , and number of plies of the
externally bonded reinforcement, n f .
The experimental concrete mean cube strength was 29.7 MPa.
Based on experimental tests, the yield stress, ultimate stress, and
ultimate strain for ⌽10 bars were 500 MPa, 600 MPa, and 0.12,
respectively. The CFRP laminates had a unidirectional fiber tex-
ture with a density of 300 g / m2 and an equivalent fiber thickness
of 0.167 mm 共Mapei 2000兲. The Young’s modulus was 230 GPa,
and the ultimate tensile strain was 0.015. The experimental char-
acterization of the SRP showed that the material can be consid-
ered linear elastic up to failure, with no yielding of the steel; tests
provided mean ultimate tensile stress of 3,070 MPa, ultimate
strain of 0.017, and a Young’s modulus of 184 GPa. The compres-
sive and splitting tensile strengths of the cementitious grout, at
28 days of curing, were equal to 41.4 and 5.2 MPa, respectively.
196 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006
J. Compos. Constr., 2006, 10(3): 195-203
Experimental-Theoretical Analysis
at Ultimate Limit State
nf
— Strength and Failure Modes
1 The nominal flexural strength of tested beams was calculated
1 according to the recommendations of the guidelines, ACI 318 and
2 ACI 440.2R 共ACI 1999, 2002兲. Since the goal was to compare
1 experimental values, both CE 共environmental-reduction factor兲
1 and ␺ f 共additional FRP strength reduction factor兲 were taken to
1 equal 1. The calculations considered the above-mentioned
2 material properties.
2 To determine the failure mode according to the guidelines
3 共ACI 2002兲, one should check whether the effective strain of
the external reinforcement, ␧ fe, is no larger than the product of
coefficient, km. If this condition is verified, the failure mode is
concrete crushing, and the effective strain in the composite rein-
forcement is obtained from the linearity of the strain diagram. If it
is not verified, the failure is due to FRP/SRP rupture, and the
effective strain is computed as
␧ fe = km␧ fu 共1兲
The document ACI 共2002兲 provides two expressions for
computing km, depending on the value of the product n f · E f · t f
共n f is the number of plies and E f and t f are the Young’s modulus
and nominal thickness of one ply of the external reinforcement,
respectively兲. For beams discussed in the present paper, this
product is always less than the threshold of 180 MPa, and the
following equation should be used:
km =
1
冉
60␧ fu
1−
nE f t f
360,000
冊
艋 0.90 共2兲
Note that by means of km, the maximum usable strain in
the external reinforcement is reduced by ACI 共2002兲, and thus
SRP/FRP rupture represents a conventional way to also account
for premature failures.
For all tested beams, the ultimate neutral axis position can be
computed by a trial-and-error procedure from the equilibrium
equation in which the summation of horizontal compressive
共i.e., concrete and compressive steel reinforcement兲 and tensile
共i.e., tensile steel and FRP reinforcement兲 forces is equal to zero.
By means of the equilibrium condition, the nominal flexural
moment M n, strains in the concrete, steel reinforcement, and FRP
can be determined. For Beams A-2, B-4, C-1, and C-2, a failure
due to concrete crushing was predicted, while for all the other five
beams, Eq. 共1兲 governed and the expected failure mode involved
FRP/SRP rupture.
The results of such theoretical analysis are reported in Table 2,
where a comparison with experimental outcomes is also pro-
posed. Tests showed that the strength increases provided by SRP
bonded with cementitious grout were smaller than those obtained
using epoxy. CFRP was more effective than epoxy-bonded SRP in
terms of strength, and the epoxy resin was more effective than the
cementitious grout in engaging the concrete substrate. It was also
found that the nail anchors did not affect the performance of the
SRP impregnated with cementitious grout because the lack of a
transverse link in the steel tape did not allow distributing the local
stress concentration at the anchor location. A detailed description
of experimental results can be found in Prota et al. 共2004兲.
As far as the failure mode is concerned, the theoretical predic-
tion 共concrete crushing兲 was not confirmed by experiments for
one beam of both Series A and B 共A-2 and B-4兲 and for the
 Table 2. Comparison between Theoretical and Experimental Predictions in Terms of Strength and Failure Modes
Theoretical Experimental

Failure Fu,th Mn Failure Fu,exp M u,exp

Beam ⑀cu共h − c / c兲 − ⑀bi km⑀ fu ⑀ fe mode 共kN兲 共kNm兲 mode 共kN兲 共kNm兲
D — — — CC 43.6 26.13 Concrete crushing 49.3 29.58
A-1 0.0119 0.0108 0.0108 SR 85.3 51.16 SRP delamination 86.3 51.78
A-2 0.0090 0.0108 0.0090 CC 110.5 66.31 SRP delamination 121.1 72.66
A-3 0.0092 0.0086 0.0086 SR 107.8 64.69 SRP delamination 100.4 60.24
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 10/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B-1 0.0126 0.0108 0.0108 SR 80.4 48.22 SRP delamination 88.6 53.16
B-2 0.0126 0.0108 0.0108 SR 80.4 48.22 SRP delamination 72.7 43.62
B-3 0.0126 0.0108 0.0108 SR 80.4 48.22 SRP delamination 71.5 42.90
B-4 0.0095 0.0108 0.0095 CC 105.7 63.44 SRP delamination 86.7 52.02
C-1 0.0105 0.0131 0.0105 CC 96.1 57.65 FRP delamination 96.5 57.90
C-2 0.0080 0.0114 0.0080 CC 121.0 72.58 FRP delamination 134.8 80.88
Note: CC= concrete crushing and SR= SRP failure.

two beams of Series C 共Table 2兲. The same amount of external
reinforcement arranged in different configurations determines that
the ACI formulas are able to capture the failure mode of A-3 共two
plies and width equal to 37.5% that of the beam兲, whereas they do
not perform in the same way if the SRP is arranged in one ply, but
on a width equal to 75% of that of the beam 共A-2兲. Since the
grout 共B-2, B-3, and B-4兲. To calculate effective strains in the
SRP that provide theoretical moments equal to those experimen-
tally measured for the three beams, values of about 0.58 共B-2 and
B-3兲 and 0.47 共B-4兲 of ␧ fu are obtained. Based on these consid-
erations, the km equation could be safely extended to external
reinforcements bonded with cementitious grout as follows:

strain that the FRP would attain at concrete crushing by linearity
共second column of Table 2兲 is almost equal for both 共0.090 versus
0.092兲, the difference is due to values of km equal to 0.90 共which
would be 1.06, but the limit controls兲 and 0.71 for A-2 and A-3,
respectively.
For Beams B-1, B-2, and B-3, the km value would be 1.17,
whereas it would be 0.95 for B-4; therefore, the limit of 0.90
controls them all. This allows for a good prediction of the failure
mode on B-1, B-2, and B-3 beams, while the effective strain
in the SRP reinforcement is overestimated when two plies are
installed and concrete crushing is expected 共B-4兲. The same hap-
pens for the two CFRP-strengthened beams. Finally, for the nine
strengthened beams, the analysis according to ACI 共2002兲 would
provide ultimate strains in the tensile steel reinforcement, ␧s,
much larger than 0.005 共ranging between 0.0061 of C-2 and
0.0084 of B-1兲 and then all largely fall into the region where the
strength reduction factor, ␾, is equal to 0.90. For this reason,
no changes to the formulas appear necessary, considering that a
correction aiming at fitting all experimental failure modes would
not affect the overall safety of the strengthening design.
Regarding the nominal flexural moments, the ACI approach
is conservative for both A-1 and A-2 beams and overestimates
the strength of A-3 by 7.4% 共Table 2兲. With respect to Series B,
it is conservative for the beam impregnated with epoxy 共B-1兲,
whereas it overestimates the strength of those impregnated
with cementitious grout by about 11.4% 共B-2 and B-3兲 and 22%
共B-4兲; it is always conservative for the CFRP-strengthened beams
共Table 2兲.
The main conclusion of such comparison is that the approach
of ACI 共2002兲 overestimates by more than 10% the strength of
the beams whose SRP reinforcement is bonded with cementitious
冉 冊
1 nfEftf
km = 1− 共3兲
120␧ fu 360,000
The strength prediction that would be obtained for the three
beams according to Eq. 共3兲 are summarized in Table 3; recall that
Beams B-2 and B-3 are identical from a strength point of view, as
the presence of nails is not accounted for in the adopted formulas.
Note also that the use of Eq. 共3兲 so much reduces the effective
strain in the SRP of the B-4 beam that the strain in its tensile steel
reinforcement at ultimate is lower than 0.005 共0.0048兲. This
would have an important repercussion from a design standpoint
because it would determine the use of a strength-reduction factor
lower than 0.90.
Moment–Curvature Relationships
The behavior of tested beams was also analyzed in terms of
moment–curvature relationships. For the control beam, the
experimental mean curvature was determined from readings of
linear variable differential transducers 共LVDTs兲 mounted over a
gauge length of 350 mm across midspan at the heights of both
compressive concrete and internal steel reinforcement 关Fig. 1共a兲兴.
For the strengthened beams, the experimental mean curvature was
obtained from readings of the LVDT transducer mounted on the
compressive concrete and of strain gauges installed at midspan on
the external reinforcement 关Fig. 1共b兲兴.

Table 3. Theoretical Strength Using Modified km

Failure Mn
Beam ⑀ fe mode 共kNm兲
B-2/B3 0.0070 SRP rupture 42.16 Fig. 1. Experimental curvature of 共a兲 control and 共b兲 strengthened
B-4 0.0057 SRP rupture 50.44 beams

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006 / 197

J. Compos. Constr., 2006, 10(3): 195-203

 Table 4. Experimental Results at Service Load
Fserv f wexp srm,exp
Beam 共kN兲 ␩ 共mm兲 共mm兲 n 共mm兲
D 27 1.8 14.40 0.120 11 100
A-1 56 1.5 23.80 0.179 11 100
A-2 72 1.7 25.89 0.165 11 100
A-3 72 1.4 29.83 0.246 11 100
B-1 53 1.7 26.75 0.250 11 95
B-2 53 1.4 28.20 0.325 12 85
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 10/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B-3a 53 1.3 27.10 0.360 10 104

Fig. 2. Experimental moment–curvature relationships for Type A
beams
Experimental moment–curvature trends 共Fig. 2兲 have been
analyzed for tested beams, and it has been pointed out that
the control beam cracked at about 5 kNm and yielded at about
25 kNm, with corresponding curvatures of 1.96⫻ 10−6 and
2 ⫻ 10−5 rad/ mm, respectively. The A-1 and A-2 beams showed a
cracking moment of about 13.5 kNm, which was higher than that
provided by A-3 共about 9.7 kNm兲; up to the cracking moment, the
A-1 and A-2 curves were very similar, even though A-2 was
slightly stiffer than A-1, which was closer to D up to its first
cracking. Then A-1 yielded at about 35.4 kNm, whereas A-2 and
A-3 yielded at about 45 kNm. For these two beams, branches
between cracking and steel yielding and between steel yielding
and ultimate were very similar 共Fig. 2兲. Experimental ultimate
moment values have already been discussed for all beams in the
previous section and are summarized in Table 2.
Curves of all beams in Series B showed very similar trends up
to the cracking moment of about 6 kNm and were all stiffer than
the control beam. No matter whether the SRP tape was bonded
with epoxy or cementitious grout or nailed, Beams B-1, B-2, and
B-3 showed a similar yielding moment of about 35 kNm. How-
ever, B-1 and B-2 had similar branches between cracking and
yielding, whereas the presence of the nails stiffened B-3, which
attained the yielding with a curvature about 20% lower than the
other two beams. The higher amount of external reinforcement
caused B-4 to yield at a moment of about 43 kNm; its curve
almost overlapped that of B-2 until such beam yielded. Both
B-4a 69 1.3 30.28 0.264 10 100
C-1 66 1.5 26.38 0.237 10 94
C-2 80 1.7 25.60 0.182 9 106
a
With nails.
CFRP-strengthened beams cracked at about 10.5 kNm and their
initial slope was stiffer than that of D; after the cracking point, the
curves started diverging and reflected that the higher amount of
external reinforcement made the C-2 cross section stiffer.
Theoretical moment–curvature relationships were computed
for tested beams using the above-mentioned material properties.
A typical comparison is depicted in Fig. 3 for a series of beams
having almost equivalent external reinforcement; experimental
curves are denoted with the symbol EX in parentheses after the
code of the relevant beam. The symbol TH is used for theoretical
curves that were drawn considering, since the beginning, the
moment of inertia of the cracked cross section and were obtained
as the sum of a continuous and a dashed line.
The continuous branch represents the moment–curvature
determined by stopping the analysis of the cross section when
the strain in the external reinforcement 共SRP or FRP兲 of each
beam attains the value of ␧ fe, computed according to ACI 共2002兲
共Table 2兲. The dashed branch represents the portion of the
moment curvature that could be attained if premature failures
were not considered, and then the ultimate composite strain was
not reduced via the coefficient km discussed in the previous
sections. Therefore, the dashed branches allow understanding of
the reductions of strength 共moment兲 and deformation 共curvature兲
capacity that the cross section undergoes if premature failures
共delamination兲 are accounted for in addition to conventional
failure modes 共concrete crushing and FRP/SRP rupture兲. As
expected, the experimental curves are in general stiffer than the
theoretical ones; this is because the experimental curves are

Fig. 3. Comparison between experimental and theoretical

moment–curvature relationships for beams having almost equivalent Fig. 4. Experimental comparison between beams in terms of crack
reinforcement percentage width

198 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006

J. Compos. Constr., 2006, 10(3): 195-203

 Table 5. Experimental and Theoretical Crack Width at Service Load
Fserv wexp wmod ⌬
Beam 共kN兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共%兲
D 27 0.120 0.11 8.3
A-1 56 0.179 0.179 −0.3
A-2 72 0.165 0.18 −9.1
A-3 72 0.246 0.21 14.6
C-1 66 0.237 0.205 13.3
C-2 80 0.182 0.166 8.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 10/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

section times the depth of the internal reinforcement兲. These

Fig. 5. Ratio of experimental deflection of strengthened beam to the
reference versus strengthening ratio
mean curvatures 共averaged over a length of 350 mm where in
general only three cracks formed兲, whereas the theoretical curves
represent curvatures of the cracked cross section.
Experimental-Theoretical Analysis
at Serviceability Limit State
Experimental Results
To summarize the experimental results and compare them to code
models in terms of deflections, crack spacing, and width, the
service load, Fserv, is defined by dividing the theoretical ultimate
load over 1.5. Table 4 reports the following data:
• Service load, Fserv;
• Ratio ␩ between experimental ultimate load and service load;
• Experimental deflection, f, at Fserv;
• Mean experimental crack width, wexp, at Fserv;
• Number of cracks, n, at Fserv; and
• Mean crack spacing, srm,exp, at Fserv.
Steel stirrups spaced at 100 mm influenced the development
of cracks during the loading history, and in general no relevant
difference in crack spacing was observed between the reference
and strengthened beams. Considering the evolution of cracks for
different load levels until steel yielding, the crack pattern at the
service load corresponds to a stabilized cracking situation because
no more cracks formed until the failure occurred, and cracking
became more irregular due to local debonding at the concrete-
laminate interface 共Ceroni et al. 2004b兲.
Crack openings, as evidenced in Fig. 4, achieved maximum
reduction when carbon fibers and steel 3 ⫻ 2 cords were applied
共Beams A2 and C2兲: the reduction was greater as the width of the
external bonded reinforcement increased 共A1 and A2, C1 and
C2兲, while for the same width, no relevant effect was produced
when the number of plies increased 共A1 and A3兲. This phenom-
enon in the elastic range of steel was already evidenced by 共Pecce
and Ceroni 2004兲.
Comparable effects were obtained for carbon 共C2兲 and 3 ⫻ 2
steel 共A2兲 reinforcement with a similar equivalent reinforcement
percentage and the same width. The equivalent reinforcement
percentage is defined as ␳eq = ␳s + E f / Es · ␳ f , where ␳s and ␳ f are
the reinforcement ratios of internal and external reinforcement
area over the concrete cross-sectional area 共i.e., width of the cross
observations are confirmed in Table 4, if the comparison between
different beams is developed considering the ratio Fserv / wexp, due
to the variability of the service load.
When the 12⫻ steel cords were used 共B1 in Fig. 4兲, values of
the crack width were similar to the reference beam 共D兲, consid-
ering that the ratio Fserv / wexp is almost the same and that the
external reinforcement had no sensible effect. This is probably
due to the low density of the 12⫻ steel cords and to the use of
cementitious grout instead of epoxy resin. In fact, due to the
higher density of the cementitious grout, the adhesive layer is
thicker, giving less stiff bond relationships and a reduction of
crack width is observed only when the number of layers of steel
cords increases.
To estimate the stiffening effect of the external reinforce-
ment on the unstrengthened beam, Fig. 5 shows that the ratio
of experimental values of deflection, f, to the reference beam
deflection, f ref, is a function of the ratio between the axial stiffness
of the external reinforcement 共EA兲ext and the internal reinforce-
ment 共EA兲int; the latter is the same for all the beams. The com-
parison is reported at the service load of the reference beam and
shows that by increasing the area of the external reinforcement,
deflection can be reduced up to 50% for the same load due to
the tension-stiffening effect, since the inertia of the gross section
differs less.
Crack Width
When external reinforcement is applied, development of cracking
is modified 共Sato et al. 2002; Zhang et al. 2003; Ceroni et al.
2004a兲 because of the additional stresses transferred to the tensile
concrete by the laminate. The number of cracks and the crack
spacing change, depending on the bond behavior at the concrete-
laminate interface 共Smith and Teng 2002a,b; Teng et al. 2001兲.
Fig. 6. Comparison between experimental and theoretical crack
width for unstrengthened Beam D

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006 / 199

J. Compos. Constr., 2006, 10(3): 195-203


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 10/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Comparison between experimental and theoretical crack
width for Beams A2 and C2
Theoretical models have been developed 共Ueda et al. 2002兲 for
RC elements externally bonded with FRP, and the writers used
one model to calculate mean strain, crack width, and spacing on
RC ties externally bonded with FRP laminates 共Pecce and Ceroni
2004兲. Herein the model is extended to beams, considering the
part of the beam in tension as a tie with a section equal to the
effective area of concrete in tension surrounding the internal steel
reinforcement. The approach is monodimensional and is based
on equilibrium equations for the steel bar, external reinforcement,
and concrete and compatibility equations for slip between mate-
rials. The experimental nonlinear constitutive relationship of
steel, a linear constitutive relationship for CFRP and SRP based
on the experimental values of Young’s moduli, and the nonlinear
law developed by Eligehausen et al. 共1983兲 for the bond behavior
of steel bar in concrete are introduced in the model. For the bond
behavior of fibers externally bonded to concrete, a bilinear model
共FIB 2001兲 is assumed, adopting the following values as the main
parameters, based on a parametric analysis 共Pecce and Ceroni
2004兲:
␶max = 3 MPa; s1 = 0.05 mm; smax = 0.1 mm
The codes provide formulations to calculate the mean
crack width, wm, for RC elements in service conditions
共Eurocode 2 1992; ACI 1995; FIB 2001兲 based on numerical
parameters validated through experimental tests. Eurocode 2
共1992兲 allows evaluating the average crack width by using the
following expression:
wm = ␧sm · srm 共4兲
and formulations are proposed for the mean steel strain, ␧sm, and
the mean crack spacing, srm, depending on the bond characteris-
tics of the internal reinforcement and the loading type through
Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental and theoretical values of crack width: 共a兲 comparison between experimental and model results;
共b兲 comparison between experimental and code results
200 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006
J. Compos. Constr., 2006, 10(3): 195-203
coefficients, and on the ratio of cracking to the service bending
moment. Therefore the mean crack spacing depends on the steel
bar diameter and the geometrical percentage, ␮, of the internal
steel reinforcement with respect to the effective concrete area in
tension, Act,eff, defined as the minimum value between 关2.5· B · c兴
and 关B · 共H-xc兲 / 3兴, being B, H, c, xc width, height, concrete cover,
and neutral axis of the section. The parameter, ␮, when fiber
reinforcement is applied externally, could be modified by intro-
ducing the contribution of external reinforcement transformed
through the ratio of the Young’s modulus of the external to the
internal reinforcement.
The American Concrete Institute 共ACI 1995兲 proposed an
empirical formula for RC members where the computation of
crack width does not require the evaluation of crack spacing. The
formulation of ACI 共1995兲 depends directly on the stress in the
steel bar at the service load, and the main parameters are the
effective area of concrete in tension surrounding each steel bar,
the percentage of tensile area with respect to the total area of the
section, and the concrete cover. Bond properties would be intro-
duced by a bond parameter, k, experimentally calibrated and
equal to 1 for ribbed steel. Since 1999 关therefore also in ACI
共2002兲兴, no formulation has been proposed by the ACI 318 code
for the evaluation of crack width, but limitations on the minimum
value of spacing of reinforcement are provided to limit surface
cracks. Note that ACI 440.2R-02 refers to provisions of ACI
318-99 for all serviceability checks, while, for the purpose of
an experimental-theoretical comparison, the provisions of ACI
共1995兲 are used here.
In the following, experimental crack widths are compared
either with values calculated using code formulations 共ACI and
EC2兲 or with those given by the theoretical model developed
and previously introduced by the writers.
Table 5 reports the theoretical mean crack width given by the
model, wmod, and the percent difference, ⌬, from the experimental
values, wexp, at the service load for the unstrengthened beam and
for those strengthened with carbon fibers and 3 ⫻ 2 steel cords.
Beams reinforced with 12⫻ cords are not reported because the
experimental crack widths are comparable or greater than those of
Reference Beam D. The area of concrete in tension is assumed
equal to the effective area Act,eff calculated according to the pro-
visions of Eurocode 2 共1992兲 considering the experimental mean
crack spacing.
Good agreement between the experimental and theoretical
values of crack width was observed also for the entire load
history for the beams strengthened with carbon fibers and steel
cords using epoxy resins. As an example, Figs. 6 and 7 compare
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 10/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Comparison between experimental and code values of
deflections
the model and experimental results for the unstrengthened
Beam D and Beams A2 and C2 with the same width 共300 mm兲
and adhesive 共epoxy兲 and similar equivalent reinforcement
percentage 共0.74 for Beam A2 and 0.79 for Beam C2兲. The
experimental values of crack width are given by a mechanical
deformometer and have not been registered until the service load
for all beams.
Figs. 8共a兲 compare the experimental values of the crack width,
wexp, at the service loads with those given by the model, while
Fig. 8共b兲 compares the values, wcode, given by Eurocode 2 共1992兲
and ACI 共1995兲 to show the reliability of different theoretical
approaches. Fig. 8共a兲 confirms the effectiveness of the model. In
the EC2 formulation the crack spacing was calculated according
to the expression suggested by the code. The writers noticed that
by introducing the experimental crack spacing at the service load,
a better agreement could be obtained 共Ceroni et al. 2004b兲.
ACI 共1995兲 estimates the effective concrete area in tension
surrounding each bar to be equal to the value of Act,eff used for
formulation of Eurocode 2 共1992兲 divided by the number of bars.
Both code formulations generally overestimate the experimental
values, except for two beams 共B2 and B3兲, which resulted in a
crack width more deformable than the Reference Beam D. The
code formulations for strengthened beams with epoxy resin show
an approximation with respect to the experimental values gener-
ally no higher than for the unstrengthened beam.
Fig. 10. Comparison between experimental and code values of
deflections for Beam A1
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006 / 201
J. Compos. Constr., 2006, 10(3): 195-203
Fig. 11. Comparison between experimental and code values of
deflections for Beam C1
Deflections
Eurocode 2 共1992兲 formulates the deflection by combining the
deflection calculated for the gross, f 1, and the cracked section, f 2,
through a tension-stiffening coefficient, ␨, depending on loading
type, bond properties, and ratio of cracking to service bending
moment according to the following expression:
f = 共1 − ␨兲 · f 1 + ␨ · f 2 共5兲
On the other hand, the ACI approach is based on a combination of
gross, Ig, and cracked, Icr, inertias using the ratio of cracking to
service bending moment, according to the following expression:
冉 冊 冋 冉 冊册
3 3
M cr M cr
Ie = · Ig + 1 − · Icr 共6兲
M M
This value of equivalent inertia is used to calculate the deflection
according to the load pattern. Both formulations take FRP into
account in the calculation of inertia of the cracked section Icr.
In both code formulations the effect of the beam weight was
added to the applied load. Fig. 9 compares the experimental
deflections at the service load and the values given by EC2 and
ACI formulations, showing that the ACI provisions underestimate
the experimental values in all cases. On the other hand, EC2
mainly shows a better agreement. Note that in some cases the
experimental deflections are close to deflection f 2, corresponding
to the condition of cracked inertia; beams strengthened with
cementitious mortar in some cases show deflections larger than f 2.
Fig. 12. Comparison between experimental and code values of mean
curvature for Beam A1
 As an example, Figs. 10 and 11 compare the experimental Notation
deflection and the values given by the EC2 and ACI formulations
for the entire load history for Beams A1 and C1, which experi- The following symbols are used in this paper:
mentally showed a good tension-stiffening effect. Ac ⫽ concrete area;
The combination of curvature in the hypothesis of gross Act,eff ⫽ effective concrete area in tension;
and cracked inertia is also used to calculate the mean curvature, Afrp ⫽ area of external FRP reinforcement;
␹, according to a formulation similar to the deflection of CEB As ⫽ area of internal steel reinforcement;
共1985兲 B ⫽ width of cross section;
bfrp ⫽ width of FRP sheet;
␹ = 共1 − ␨兲 · ␹1 + ␨ · ␹2 共7兲 CE ⫽ environmental reduction factor;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 10/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

c ⫽ concrete cover;
where the tension-stiffening coefficient ␨ is the same used for Ec ⫽ Young’s modulus of concrete;
deflection. E f ⫽ Young’s modulus of FRP;
Fig. 12 compares the code value of mean curvature, ␹code, Es ⫽ Young’s modulus of steel bar;
using Eq. 共7兲 with the experimental value, ␹exp, given by LVDT F ⫽ vertical applied load;
measures: the theoretical values show a good agreement with the Fserv ⫽ service load;
experimental ones. Fu,th ⫽ theoretical ultimate load;
Fu,exp ⫽ experimental ultimate load;
f ⫽ deflection;
Conclusions f code ⫽ deflection calculated by codes;
f exp ⫽ experimental deflection;
The results of a theoretical-experimental analysis are presented f fu ⫽ tensile strength of FRP;
for RC beams strengthened in flexure with FRP and SRP lami- f ref ⫽ deflection;
nates. Regarding the ultimate behavior, the comparison allows f 1 ⫽ deflection at condition of gross inertia;
assessing the strength gains provided by FRP and SRP systems. f 2 ⫽ deflection at condition of cracked inertia;
For the latter, the performance of epoxy resin and cementitious Ig ⫽ gross inertia;
mortar are compared. Icr ⫽ cracked inertia;
The paper confirms that the approach of ACI 共2002兲 provides H ⫽ height of cross section;
conservative strength estimates for both FRP and SRP systems, if km ⫽ bond-dependent coefficient;
the external reinforcement is bonded with epoxy. The different M ⫽ bending moment;
bond behavior of a cementitious mortar is not predicted by the M cr ⫽ cracking bending moment;
current equations given by ACI 共2002兲; a modified expression for M n ⫽ nominal bending moment;
the bond coefficient km has been proposed herein to extend these M u,exp ⫽ experimental ultimate bending moment;
equations to systems impregnated with mortar. Further tests will n ⫽ number of cracks;
need to be performed to confirm the reliability of the modified n f ⫽ number of FRP plies;
equation. sfrp ⫽ slip at concrete-laminate interfaces;
Regarding the behavior at service conditions, the following smax ⫽ slip at concrete-laminate interface corresponding to
conclusions are based on the experimental results: shear stress equal to zero;
• At similar serviceability load levels, crack width becomes srm ⫽ mean crack spacing;
smaller if the width of the laminate increases, while the num- srm,exp ⫽ mean experimental crack spacing;
ber of fiber layers is less important; s1 ⫽ slip at concrete-laminate interface corresponding to
• Steel cords and carbon fibers, both impregnated with epoxy, maximum shear stress;
gave very similar results when the reinforcement percentage t f ⫽ thickness of FRP sheet;
was the same; wexp ⫽ experimental crack width;
• Low-density steel cords bonded with cementitious grout gave wm ⫽ mean crack width;
a low tension-stiffening effect; wmod ⫽ mean crack width;
• Comparisons between code formulations and experimental wcode ⫽ mean crack width;
values of crack width and deflections for beams strengthened xc ⫽ neutral axis;
with epoxy resin show a scatter generally comparable to that ␧ fe ⫽ effective FRP strain;
observed for unstrengthened beam. When the cementitious ␧ fu ⫽ ultimate FRP strain;
mortar is used, experimental values are much larger than code ␧sm ⫽ mean strain of steel bar;
values; and ␧2 ⫽ steel strain at cracked section;
• Beams strengthened with cementitious mortar showed a less ␨ ⫽ tension-stiffening coefficient;
stiff behavior in serviceability conditions. ␩ ⫽ ratio between experimental ultimate load over
service load;
␮ ⫽ ratio between internal reinforcement over Act,eff
␳s ⫽ percentage of internal reinforcement;
Acknowledgments ␳eq ⫽ equivalent reinforcement percentage;
␳frp ⫽ percentage of external reinforcement;
The writers would like to thank Hardwire LLC, Pocomoke ␶max ⫽ maximum bond stress of FRP at concrete interface;
City, Maryland; Mapei Spa, Milan, Italy; and Sika Italia, Milan, ␾ ⫽ steel bar diameter;
Italy, for donating the steel tapes, FRP system, and epoxy resin/ ␹ ⫽ mean curvature;
cementitious grout used to bond SRP, respectively. ␹exp ⫽ experimental curvature;

202 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006

J. Compos. Constr., 2006, 10(3): 195-203

 ␹1 ⫽ curvature at condition of gross inertia;
␹2 ⫽ curvature at condition of cracked section; and
␺ f ⫽ FRP strength reduction factor.
References
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共1995兲. “Building code requirements
for structural concrete.” ACI 318-95, ACI, Detroit.
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共1999兲. “Building code requirements
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 10/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for structural concrete.” ACI 318, ACI, Farmington Mills, Mich.
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2002兲. “Guide for the design and
construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening con-
crete structures.” ACI 440, ACI, Farmington Hills, Mich.
Bakis, C. E., et al. 共2002兲. “Fiber-reinforced polymer composites
for construction—State-of-the-art review.” J. Compos. Constr., 6共2兲,
73–87.
Ceroni, F., Pecce, M., and Matthys, S. 共2004a兲. “Tension stiffening of RC
ties strengthened with externally bonded FRP sheets.” J. Compos.
Constr., 8共1兲, 22–32.
Ceroni, F., Pecce, M., Prota, A., and Manfredi, G. 共2004b兲. “Flexural
strengthening of RC beams using emerging materials: Cracking
behavior.” Proc. Int. Conf. CICE 2004, Taylor & Francis, London,
171–178.
Comité Euro-International du Béton 共CEB兲. 共1985兲. “Manual on cracking
deformation.” Bulletin d’Information No. 158-E, CEB, Paris.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Nanni, A., eds. 共2001兲. Composites in
construction: A reality, ASCE, Reston, Va.
Eligehausen, R., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V. 共1983兲. “Local bond
stress-slip relationships of deformed bars under generalized
excitations.” Rep. No. 83/23, Environmental Engineering Research
Council, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Eurocode 2. 共1992兲. “Design of concrete structures. 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings.” ENV 1992-1-1.
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2006 / 203
J. Compos. Constr., 2006, 10(3): 195-203
Hardwire LLC. 共2002兲. “What is Hardwire.” 具www.hardwirellc.com典,
Pocomoke City, Md.
International Federation for Structural Concrete 共FIB兲. 共2001兲.
“Externally bonded FRP reinforcement of RC structures: Basis of
design and safety concept.” FIB Bulletin 14, TG9.3, FIB, Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Mapei. 共2000兲. “World-wide leader in products for the building industry.”
具http://www.mapei.it典, Mapei, Milan, Italy.
Nanni, A., Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Prota, A. 共2001兲. “Composites
in construction: present situation and priorities for future research.”
Composites in construction: A reality, E. Cosenza, G. Manfredi, and
A. Nanni, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 269–277.
Pecce, M., and Ceroni, F. 共2004兲. “Modeling of tension stiffening
behavior of reinforced concrete ties strengthened with fiber-reinforced
plastic sheets.” J. Compos. Constr., 8共6兲, 510–518.
Prota, A., Tan, K., Nanni, A., Pecce, M., and Manfredi, G. 共2004兲.
“Performance of RC shallow beams externally bonded with steel
reinforced polymer.” ACI Struct. J. 共in press兲.
Sato, Y., Ueda, T., and Shoji, K. 共2002兲. “Tension stiffening effect of
reinforced concrete member strengthened by carbon fiber sheet.”
Proc., Int. Symp. on Bond in Concrete, 606–613.
Smith, S. T., and Teng, J. G. 共2002a兲. “FRP-strengthened RC beams.
I: Review of debonding strength models.” Eng. Struct., 24共4兲,
385–395.
Smith, S. T., and Teng, J. G. 共2002b兲. “FRP-strengthened RC beams.
II: Assessment of debonding strength models.” Eng. Struct., 24共4兲,
397–417.
Teng, J. G., Chen, J. F., Smith, S. T., and Lam, L. 共2001兲. FRP strength-
ened RC structures, Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
Ueda, T., Yamaguchi, R., Shoji, K., and Sato, Y. 共2002兲. “Study on
behavior in tension of reinforced concrete members strengthened by
carbon fiber sheet.” J. Compos. Constr., 6共3兲, 168–174.
Zhang, Y., Toutanji, H., and Balagrou, P. 共2003兲. “Crack widths in
RC beams externally bonded with CFRP sheets.” Proc., Int. Conf.
FRPRCS-6.