Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Experiments and analytical comparison of RC beams strengthened

with CFRP composites
O. Rabinovitch*, Y. Frostig
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel
Received 18 January 2003; revised 6 June 2003; accepted 19 June 2003

Abstract
This paper deals with strengthening, upgrading, and rehabilitation of existing reinforced concrete structures using externally bonded
composite materials. Five strengthened, retrofitted, or rehabilitated reinforced concrete beams are experimentally and analytically
investigated. Emphasis in placed on the stress concentration that arises near the edge of the fiber reinforced plastic strip, the failure modes
triggered by these edge effects, and the means for the prevention of such modes of failure. Three beams are tested with various edge
configurations that include wrapping the edge region with vertical composite straps and special forms of the adhesive layer at its edge. The
last two beams are preloaded up to failure before strengthening and the ability to rehabilitate members that endured progressive or even total
damage is examined. The results reveal a significant improvement in the serviceability and strength of the tested beams and demonstrate that
the method is suitable for the rehabilitation of severely damaged structural members. They also reveal the efficiency of the various edge
designs and their ability to control the characteristic brittle failure modes. The analytical results are obtained through the Closed-Form High-
Order model and are in good agreement with the experiment ones. The analytical and experimental results are also used for a preliminary
quantitative evaluation of a fracture mechanics based failure criterion for the strengthened beam.
q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Layered structure; B. Delamination; D. Mechanical testing; C. Analytical modeling; Reinforced concrete

1. Introduction many cases are involved with sudden separation of the

The ongoing efforts to upgrade, strengthen, retrofit, and
rehabilitate existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures,
along with the development of advanced composite
materials, led to the development of a new strengthening
approach. This approach uses strips made of fiber reinforced
plastic (FRP) bonded to the tensile face of the member. The
method has many advantages, mainly due to the superior
mechanical properties of the composite material and its
applicability to broad range of structural members such as
beams, columns, slabs, masonry, and walls [1,2].
Various aspects of this innovative strengthening method
have been investigated in the past years. These aspects
include the overall behavior of the strengthened beam [3,4];
the response of strengthened precracked or pretensioned
beams [5,6]; shear strengthening of beams [7 – 9]; the failure
mechanisms of the strengthened member [10,11], which in
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 972-48293047; fax: þ 972-48295697.
E-mail address: cvoded@tx.technion.ac.il (O. Rabinovitch).
1359-8368/03/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S1359-8368(03)00090-8
bonded FRP strip; and various means for the prevention of
such edge failure, see Garden and Hollaway [12], Quantrill
and Hollaway [13], Spadea et al. [14]. Special attention has
been paid to description of the stress distributions within the
adhesive layer near the edge of the bonded strip, see Smith
and Teng [15,16], Roberts [17], Jones [18], Roberts and
Haji-Kazemi [19], Ascione and Feo [20], Rabinovitch and
Frostig [21]. However, important aspects such as the
feasibility of setting failure criteria based on the analytical
prediction of the stress concentration near the edge of the
bonded strip, reliable prediction of brittle and unstable
failure modes, and the applicability of the method to
severely or totally damaged RC members have to be further
investigated.
In earlier studies, a systematic approach for the analysis
of RC beams strengthened with externally bonded FRP
strips has been presented [21 – 24]. The analytical model
derived is based on equilibrium and compatibility con-
ditions following the concepts of the high-order theory, it
accounts for the nonlinear behavior of the materials
664 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
involved, and it combines concepts of structural analysis
and fracture mechanics. As a result, the model is capable of
providing a quantitative description of the shear and vertical
normal stresses that arise near the edge of the bonded strip
and the stress concentrations that occur near flexural and
shear cracks in the RC member itself. These stress
concentrations lead, in many cases, to the formation and
unstable growth of an interfacial crack, to separation of the
bonded FRP strip, and to failure of the strengthened
member.
In this paper, the behavior of five RC beams strengthened
with externally bonded FRP strips is investigated exper-
imentally and analytically. The investigation focuses on the
stress concentrations that arise near the edge of the FRP
strip, the brittle and sudden failure modes triggered by these
edge effects, and the means for the reduction of the edge
stresses and prevention of the delamination failure modes.
For this purpose, the various edge-anchoring designs that
appear in Fig. 1 and include wrapping the edge of the
strengthened member with additional FRP sheet and the
existence of a surplus adhesive body that forms a ‘spew-
fillet’ at the edge of the adhesive layer are investigated. In
addition, the feasibility of rehabilitating severely damaged
RC members and the effect of the original design (shear or
flexural design) of the RC member on its failure mode are
studied. Finally, analytical results obtained through the
Closed-Form High-Order (CFHO) model are compared with
the experimental ones, provide additional confirmation of
the analytical modeling approach, and explore further
aspect of the structural response. The analytical and
experimental results are also used for the preliminary
quantitative evaluation of a fracture mechanics based failure
criterion for the strengthened beam.
2. Experiments
2.1. Test specimens
Section 2 includes the examination of five 2.5-m-long
rectangular RC beams strengthened with externally bonded
Fig. 1. Edge configurations and edge anchorage devices: (a) ‘square-edge’ configuration; (b) ‘spew-fillet’ configuration; (c) wrapping with additional
FRP sheet.
CFRP strips. All the beams were loaded in a four-point
bending loading scheme and were supported on a clear span
of 2.1 m. In attempt to examine the effect of the original
design of the member and the influence of the diagonal
shear cracking on the behavior of the strengthened member,
two types of specimens were tested. The two type of beams
are denoted by A and B and appear, along with their
dimensions and reinforcement details, in Fig. 2. A short
description of each specimen appears in Table 1. Note that
the type A beams were designed with a larger shear
reinforcement ratio, whereas the type B beams have a larger
longitudinal reinforcement ratio and a reduced shear
reinforcement ratio. Also note that beams A1 and B1 were
preloaded up to failure before strengthening, whereas beams
A2, A3, and B2 were strengthened and tested without
preloading.
2.2. Material properties
The concrete compressive strength tests were conducted
using 100 mm3 at the ages of 7 and 28 days and at the time
of the experiment (87 days). These tests yield average
values (over three cubes sample in each test) of 47.8(35),
70.1(50), and 75.3(55) MPa, respectively. (The numbers in
brackets refer to the minimum characteristic cylinder
strength based on BS EN 206-1:2001 [25]). Standard
deformed reinforcement steel bars with a characteristic
strength of 390 MPa and an elastic modulus of 200 GPa
were used for the longitudinal and shear reinforcement
(stirrups).
Sika CarboDur S1212 unidirectional carbon/epoxy strips
were used for the strengthening and rehabilitation of the RC
beams. SikaWrap Hex-230c CFRP sheets were used for
wrapping the edge region of beams A3 and B2. During the
fabrication process, these sheets were saturated with
Sikadur-330 epoxy resin. The mechanical properties of the
CFRP composite strips, the CFRP fabrics, and the epoxy
resin are based on the manufacturer’s datasheets and appear
in Tables 2 and 3.
The flexural elastic modulus, Ea ; and the flexural tensile
strength, fat ; of the epoxy adhesive were determined through
 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
Fig. 2. Dimensions and reinforcement details of the tested beams: (a) type A beams; (b) type B beams.
four-point-bending tests of adhesive beams. The compres-
sive strength of the adhesive was evaluated through
compression tests of 1 in3 cubes compression tests. The
results for the adhesive beam tests are summarized in
Table 4. These results highlight the unique properties of the
adhesive that include very high tensile strength (about 10
times higher than the tensile strength of concrete) and the
very low modulus of elasticity (less than 20% of the elastic
modulus of concrete). It was also observed that the adhesive
specimens exhibit a linear and elastic behavior up to failure.
The results of the adhesive cube tests reveal a mean
compressive strength of 76.3 MPa with a coefficient of
variance of 1.22%.
2.3. Test setup
The test setup, the various monitoring devices, and their
location along the beam appear in Fig. 3. The beams were
tested using a displacement control testing machine with
a 500 kN hydraulic actuator. The loading rate was
0.011 mm/s and the data was assembled using a 0.2 Hz
sampling rate. The monitoring devices include linear
665
voltage displacement transducers (LVDT) and strain
gauges, see Fig. 3. These devices are divided into five
groups as follows:
1. Measurement of the vertical deflections. Three LVDTs,
denoted by LVDT 1, 2, and 3, were located at midspan
and at the locations of the concentrated loads and
monitored the absolute vertical deflections of the tested
beam (Fig. 3).
2. Measurement of the ‘average strain’ in the RC beam.
These quantities were monitored using two pairs of
LVDTs. The first pair, denoted by 4F and 4B, was
located at the upper face of the beam on its front and back
sides, respectively. The second pair, denoted by 5F and
5B, was located at the level of the internal longitudinal
reinforcement on the front and back sides of the beam,
respectively. The ‘averaged strain’ is defined as the
relative displacement measured by the LVDT divided by
the distance between the measuring points.
3. Measurement of the strains of the internal steel rebars.
This is achieved using two strain gauges (denoted by SG
6 and SG 7) bonded to the internal steel rebars.
666 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677

Table 1 Table 3
Rationales and description of the various test specimens Mechanical properties of the CFRP sheets and resin used for anchoring

Beam Rationale Description SikaWrap Hex 230c (CFRP sheet)

Thickness of sheet 0.13 mm
A1 Control beam Preloaded up to Width of sheet 610 mm
for the type A group failure, rehabilitation, Length of sheet 47.5 m
and reloading Elastic modulus (fibers) 230 GPa
Rehabilitation Tensile strength (fibers) 3500 MPa
of totally Elongation at break 15 £ 103 m1
damaged beam Specific weight 1.73 g/cm3

A2 Examination of the Strengthening without Sikadur-330 (epoxy resin)

beam in its basic
edge configuration
Detection of
bending effect near
the edge of the FRP
strip
Assessment of the
fracture energy of the
strengthened beam
A3 Examination of various
edge configurations
Comparison with results
of the analytical
models
B1 Control beam for the
type B group
Rehabilitation of
totally damaged beam
Investigation of the
effect of the reduced
shear reinforcement
ratio
B2 Examination of the effect
of diagonal shear
cracking
Assessment of the
effectiveness of the
edge-anchoring devices
Table 2
Effective mechanical properties of the CFRP strips
Sika CarboDur S1212 (CFRP strips)
Thickness of strip
Width of strip
Length of strip
Fiber volumetric content
Elastic modulus (strip)
Tensile strength at breaka
Elongation at breaka
Specific weight
a
Obtained from longitudinal direction of fibers.
preloading Flexural elastic modulus 3.8 GPa
Tensile strength 30 MPa
Strain gauges are located Specific weight 1.3 g/cm3
on the inner and outer
faces of the FRP strip at
4. Measurement of the strains of the FRP strip. This is
midspan and at the edge
accomplished using a single strain gauge (SG 8) bonded
to the outer face of the FRP strip at the midspan.
5. Detection of bending effects in the FRP strip. In beam
One end is wrapped with A2, three additional strain gauges (SG 9, 10, 11) were
additional CFRP sheet, located at the inner face of the FRP strip at midspan and
a ‘Spew-fillet’ is formed at its inner and outer faces at the edge, respectively.
at the other end
Strengthening without
preloading 2.4. Control beams: results and discussion
The beam is cast with reduced The load versus midspan deflection curve for the
shear reinforcement ratio preloading stage of beam A1 appears in Fig. 4a and reveals
and enlarged longitudinal the typical behavior of an ordinary RC member. This
reinforcement ratio
includes a linear response up to the cracking load of 22 kN,
a cracked behavior up to the yielding point of the internal
Preloaded up to failure, rebars at 65 kN, and a long inelastic response up to the
rehabilitation, and reloading ultimate load of 75.5 kN. Loading of beam A1 was stopped
at a deflection of about 50 mm (1/40 of the span) and the
residual deflection after unloading was 40.5 mm.
The beam is cast with reduced The results for beam B1 appear in Fig. 4b and reveal a
shear reinforcement ratio and
cracking load of 24 kN, a first yielding load of 100 kN, and
enlarged longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio an ultimate load of 109 kN. These values are higher than the
The beam is tested without ones observed in beam A1 due to the larger longitudinal
preloading reinforcement ratio. The cracking pattern of beam B1
includes vertical flexural cracks around midspan and
Two ends are wrapped with
diagonal shear –flexure cracks in the constant shear spans.
CFRP sheets
Such diagonal cracks have not been observed in beam A1
and are attributed to the reduced amount of shear
reinforcement. Failure of beam B1 occurred due to crushing
of the concrete in compression. The initial linear response
and the cracking load of the control beams are also used to
Table 4
Dimensions and results for the adhesive beam specimens
1.2 mm
120 mm Beam b (mm) h (mm) I (mm4) Pmax (N) Ea (GPa) fat (MPa)
Unlimited
68%
1 10.00 20.20 6868.7 1410.6 4.8 51.9
165 GPa 2 9.90 20.05 6649.6 1299.7 5.1 49.0
.2800 MPa 3 9.50 20.40 6721.0 1259.4 4.4 47.8
17 £ 103 m1 4 9.60 20.40 6791.7 1375.3 4.5 51.6
1.5 g/cm3
Average ^ standard deviation 4.7 ^ 0.3 50.1 ^ 2.0
 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
Fig. 3. Test setup and monitoring devices.
determine the flexural elastic modulus and the tensile
strength of the concrete. The results of beam A1 yield values
of 32.8 GPa and 5.6 MPa, respectively, and the those of
beam A2 yield values of 31.4 GPa and 5.5 MPa, respect-
ively. The yielding strain of the steel reinforcement was also
detected and revealed values of about 2.1 £ 103 microstrain
(m1). It is important to emphasize that both beams have
exceeded their ultimate flexural capacity, and they are
considered as totally damaged structural members. The
ability to rehabilitate these beams is examined next.
2.5. Strengthening procedure
All beams were strengthened using externally bonded
CFRP strips. The strengthening procedure included surface
preparation, application of a priming adhesive layer, and
bonding of the FRP strip. The surface preparation included
intensive cleaning, removal of unstable particles, and
mechanical roughening down to aggregate surface. Follow-
ing this stage, a 1 –2 mm thick priming layer of the same
adhesive used for bonding the CFRP strips has been applied
on the roughened surface and cured in the open air for 24 h.
Next, the FRP strips were covered with a 2– 3 mm thick
adhesive layer, attached in position on the tensile face of
each beam, and fastened with a roller. Finally, a ‘spew-
fillet’, see Fig. 1, was formed at one edge of beam A3. The
other edge of beam A3 and both edges of beam B2 were
Fig. 4. Load versus midspan deflection for the control beams: (a) beam A1; (b) beam A2.
667
wrapped with two layers of 100-mm-wide saturated CFRP
sheets, see Fig. 5. The adhesive and the epoxy resin were
cured for at least 7 days before loading.
2.6. Strengthened beams: results and discussion
The results include the load versus midspan deflection
curves; the measured and ‘averaged’ strains; and a descrip-
tion of the failure mode. The beams that are not preloaded
(A2, A3, B2) are presented first, and the rehabilitated beams,
denoted by A1p, B1p, are discussed later.
2.6.1. Beam A2
This beam was tested in its basic configuration, i.e. no
edge devices were used, and the ‘spew-fillets’ that are
formed spontaneously in the bonding process were
removed. The load – deflection curves for the strengthened
beam A2 and for the control beam A1 appear in Fig. 6a. The
curves reveal that the strengthening process has signifi-
cantly increased the load resistance capacity of the beam.
The failure load of the strengthened beam was 156.6 kN,
which is more than twice of the failure load of the control
beam. In addition, smaller crack widths and much smaller
vertical deflections were observed through the entire
loading process, see Fig. 6a. The response of the
strengthened member is almost linear and elastic up to
failure and it lacks the ductile behavior that is typical for
668 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
Fig. 5. Strengthened and wrapped edge of beam A3.
ordinary un-strengthened RC members. Hence, in spite of
its considerably higher strength and stiffness, the energy
absorption capacity of the strengthened member is signifi-
cantly reduced. The measured and ‘averaged’ strains within
the various constituents of the strengthened beam appear in
Fig. 6b –e. The results show that the average compressive
strains in the concrete are higher than those observed in the
control beam, (which failed in a ductile meaner governed by
yielding of the internal reinforcement and without crushing
of the compressed concrete). Correspondingly, the tensile
stresses in the internal steel reinforcement of the strength-
ened beam, as well as the ‘averaged’ tensile strains at the
level of the reinforcement, are smaller than those in the
control one. This effect is attributed to the composite
action of the RC beam and the FRP strip that yields tension
Fig. 6. Results of beam A2: (a) load versus midspan deflection; (b) average compressive strains in concrete; (c) tensile strains in concrete and steel rebar;
(d) strains in FRP strip at midspan; (e) strains in FRP strip at the edge; (f) debonded edge after failure.
in the bonded strip and compression in the RC beam. Fig. 6d
reveals that the tensile strains measured in the FRP strip at
midspan are much higher than the strains in the internal steel
rebars. However, it appears that these values are affected by
localized effects such as the formation of a flexural crack in
that vicinity or localized delamination do the FRP strip. The
strains measured in the upper and lower faces of the FRP
strip near its edge appear in Fig. 6e. These curves indicate
that the tensile forces in the strip develop very close to its
edge due to the high shear stresses in this region. Yet, the
results do not indicate any significant bending effects that
occur near the edge of the FRP strip due to the edge stress
concentrations. This is explained by the length of the strain
gauge that equals about 6 –7 times the thickness of the
adhesive layer whereas previous analytical investigations
have shown that the region in which the localized bending
effects are observed is limited to about 3 – 4 times the
thickness of the layer [21,26]. Outside this limited region,
the stress concentrations and the bending effects in the
bonded FRP laminate are totally vanished. This phenom-
enon, which is further investigated in the analytical
comparison section ahead, indicates that alternative moni-
toring devices such as fiber optics or piezoelectric sensors
should be used instead of strain gauges in order to detect
such localized edge effects.
The failure of beam A2 was associated with a rapid,
sudden, and unstable separation of the bonded FRP strip.
This separation was initiated at the edge of the strip in the
form of a horizontal crack between the priming layer and
the adhesive layer that propagated in an unstable manner
 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
toward the midspan. A photograph showing the edge
region after failure appears in Fig. 6f and reveals a local
damaged region within the FRP strip itself. The damage
takes the form of splitting in the transverse and through the
thickness directions. Such damage occurs due to the edge
stress concentrations that are associated with tractions
normal to the fiber orientation of the unidirectional
laminate. Hence, it is recommended that additional
reinforcement in the transverse direction and, especially,
through the thickness (stitched laminates) would be
considered. Application of such additional reinforcement
can be limited to the edge regions only, thus is does not
affect the capacity of the strip in the regions subjected to
higher unidirectional tensile stresses. In addition, it can be
combined with other edge anchorage devices such as the
vertical straps used in beam B2.
2.6.2. Beam A3
In this case, different edge configurations are examined.
These configurations include the formation of a ‘spew-fillet’
at one end of the adhesive layer and wrapping the other end
with additional CFRP sheets, see Figs. 1 and 5. The load
versus midspan deflection curve of beam A3 appears in
Fig. 7a and it is compared with the curve of the control beam
A1. These curves show that the ultimate load here is
178 kN, which is 2.36 times larger than the ultimate load of
the control beam. It is also seen that the behavior of beam
Fig. 7. Results of beam A3: (a) load versus midspan deflection; (b) average compressive strains in concrete; (c) tensile strains in concrete and steel rebar; (d)
strains in FRP strip at midspan.
669
A3 is similar to that of beam A2 and it lacks the inelastic
range that is typical to RC members.
The measured and ‘averaged’ strains in the various parts
of beam A3 appear in Fig. 7b – d. These figures indicate that
yielding of the internal steel reinforcement occurred at a
strain of about 2.1 £ 103 m1 and a load level of 140 kN. It
appears that the strain gauges SG 6 and SG 7, which were
attached to the internal steel reinforcement bars, were
debonded or damaged in the post yielding stage due to
concrete cracks intersecting them. However, the results of
LVDT 5F and 5B, which reflect the ‘averaged’ strains at the
level of the internal reinforcement, provided consistent
readings throughout the entire loading process. Based on the
readings of LVDT 4F and 4B and the external strain gauge
SG 8, it appears that the concrete did not exceed its crushing
strain (3.5 £ 103 m1) and the FRP strip did not reach its
rupture strain (17 £ 103 m1). It means that the upgraded
beam did not exceed its potential flexural capacity due to the
premature failure of the edge region.
The failure of beam A3 was also triggered by the shear
and vertical normal stress concentration near the edge of the
bonded strip, yet, a different mode of failure was observed
here. In this case, the sudden failure occurred due to
detachment of the FRP strip along with the concrete layer
beneath the internal reinforcement level. In other words, the
vertical strap located at one edge and the ‘spew-fillet’ at the
other edge prevented the interfacial delamination failure
670 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
Fig. 8. Beam A3 after failure.
observed in beam A2. However, while the vertical strap
strengthened the entire section in the vertical direction and
prevented failure due to the peeling stresses, the spew-fillet
could only contribute to the stress transfer mechanism at the
adhesive-concrete interface. As a result, the vertical normal
peeling stresses are transferred through the adhesive-
concrete interface into the concrete member itself and the
failure is shifted to the critical section at the level of the
internal reinforcement. In other words, the ‘spew-fillet’
provides a solution of the stress transfer mechanism in the
localized level, while the use of the vertical strap provides
Fig. 9. Results of beam B2: (a) load versus midspan deflection; (b) average compressive strains in concrete; (c) tensile strains in concrete and steel rebar; (d)
strains in FRP strip at midspan.
an overall type of solution to the entire cross-section. Beam
A3 after failure appears in Fig. 8, which demonstrates the
fatal character of this failure mechanism.
2.6.3. Beam B2
In this beam, both edges were wrapped with a 100-mm-
wide carbon sheet. In addition, the beam was cast with a
reduced shear reinforcement ratio and a larger longitudinal
reinforcement ratio. The load versus midspan deflection
curve for this beam is presented and compared with the
response of the control beam in Fig. 9a. The ultimate load
capacity of the strengthened beam was 187.4 kN, which is
about 72% higher than the ultimate load of the control beam.
The cracking load was 35 kN and the yielding load was
about 155 kN. These values are 59 and 55% higher than the
cracking and yielding loads of the control beam. This effect
is attributed to the compressive force induced in the RC
member as a result of the composite action with the FRP
strip. The compressive stresses neutralize the tensile stresses
in the concrete, reduce the tensile force in the steel rebars,
and postpone their yielding.
The developments of the measured and ‘averaged’
strains appear in Fig. 9b –d. These curves indicate that
the potential flexural capacity of the strengthened beam
has not been utilized, as both the concrete and the FRP
did not reach their ultimate strains. Also, Fig. 9c and d
point out that the strains in the FRP strip are somewhat
 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
fig. 10. Failure of beam B2 due to localized delamination near diagonal
cracks.
smaller than those measured on the internal rebars or
averaged at the reinforcement level. This observation
implies that the readings of the externally bonded strain
gauges, which is strongly influenced by localized effects
such as cracking, surface roughness, and flows in the
bonding process, may be problematic. However, the
combination of the data gathered by the strain gauges,
along with the ‘averaged’ strains determined using the
LVDTs, provides a reliable picture of the structural
Fig. 11. Results of beam A1p: (a) load versus midspan deflection (loading and reloading); (b) average compressive strains in concrete; (c) tensile strains in
concrete and steel rebar; (d) strains in FRP strip at midspan.
671
response and sets a reliable basis for the physical
interpretation of the results.
In this beam, the edge failure modes were prevented by
using the additional CFRP sheets that wrap the edge region.
Failure of beam B2 was triggered by the formation of a
diagonal shear–flexure crack at the constant shear region.
Such crack is usually associated with discontinuity in the
vertical deflections and yields different deflections left and
right of the cracked section. In most cases, the thin adhesive
layer cannot accommodate such vertical displacements and
cannot resist the corresponding vertical normal stresses
developed [23]. Thus, a localized delamination occurs and
propagates rapidly towards the supports. The beam after
failure appears in Fig. 10, which clearly shows the discon-
tinuous vertical deflections at the lower face of the beam and
the delamination of the FRP strip. Note that the interfacial
delamination that has been initiated at the tip of the diagonal
crack and propagated toward the support was mechanically
arrested in the vertical wraps. Hence, the use of such wraps
within the span of the strengthened beam, and not only at its
edges, may avoid the unstable growth of the interfacial crack.
2.6.3. Beam A1p (reloading of beam A1 after rehabilitation)
The load versus midspan deflection curves for the
initial loading and the reloading after rehabilitation of
the damaged beam appear in Fig. 11a. The curves reveal that
672 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
the process has rehabilitated the damaged beam and even
improved its original load carrying capacity. The ultimate
load of the rehabilitated beam was 138 kN, which is 83%
higher than its failure load in the initial loading stage. It is
also seen that the process has increased the stiffness of the
damaged beam. On the other hand, the load versus
deflection curve clearly shows that the retrofitted beam
lacks the ductile behavior that characterizes the control
beam. Hence, in spite of the significantly improved
capacity, the lack of ductility and the significantly reduced
deflections prior to failure requires that such retrofitted
structural members would be designed and used with extra
caution and appropriate factors of safety. Additional results
in terms of the tensile and compressive strains within the
rehabilitated beam appear in Fig. 11b –d. These curves
confirm that the reloading process is not associated with
renewed cracking and yielding points. Hence, the initial
tensile strength of the concrete and the pre-yielding
contribution of the steel reinforcement should be disre-
garded in the case of rehabilitating members that endured
such progressive damage.
The failure mode observed in this case is similar to that
of beam A2, which has also been tested without edge
anchorage devices. This mode consists of the formation of
an interfacial crack at the upper face of the adhesive layer
and its unstable growth toward midspan. As in the previous
Fig. 12. Results of beam B1p: (a) load versus midspan deflection (loading and reloading); (b) average compressive strains in concrete; (c) tensile strains in
concrete and steel rebar; (d) strains in FRP strip at midspan.
cases, the delamination failure of the retrofitted beam is
sudden, brittle, and without any warning. Thus, it empha-
sizes the necessity of efficient edge anchorage devices to
avoid the edge delamination failure. Along with the
delamination failure, a local crushing of the concrete
occurred within the constant moment region. This obser-
vation is also reflected by the average compressive strains at
the upper face of the beam that exceeded the ultimate value
of 3.5 £ 103 m1 (Fig. 11b). It means that even if edge
anchorage devices had been used and the edge delamination
failure had been prevented, a classical ductile failure
mechanism could not develop. However, such failure
mechanism due to compressive crushing of the concrete
should be preferred over the brittle and hazardous
delamination failure modes.
2.6.4. Beam B1p (reloading of beam B1 after rehabilitation)
The results of the initial loading and the reloading stages
are presented in terms of the load versus midspan deflection
curves in Fig. 12a. The ultimate load resistance of the
retrofitted beam was 151.8 kN, which is about 40% higher
than its originating failure load. Hence, the rehabilitation
process regained and even increased the original load
carrying capacity of the damaged beam. Note that the
percentage increase in the load is significantly smaller
than that for beam A1p, whereas the absolute values of
 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
the ultimate loads of the two strengthened beams are of the
same order (138 kN for A1p and 151.8 kN for B1p). This
effect is explained by the larger longitudinal reinforcement
ratio and the increased ultimate load of beam B1 in the
preloading stage (109 kN for beam B1 and 75.5 kN for
beam A1). The increased reinforcement ratio has only minor
influence on the response of the strengthened beams and on
its modes of failure, hence the ultimate load of the retrofitted
beams are similar. The tensile and compressive strains in the
rehabilitated beam appear in Fig. 12b –d and exhibit an
almost linear behavior up to the failure of the beam. Again,
it is attributed to the absence of renewed cracking and
yielding points.
The failure of beam B2p was associated with the unstable
growth of a horizontal crack at the interface between the
priming and the adhesive layers. The crack initiated at one
end of the bonded FRP strip and propagated horizontally in
an unstable manner, leading eventually to separation of the
strip and failure of the beam. The complete separation of
the FRP strip allows the examination and assessment of the
quality of the bonding in terms of existence of disbonded
regions. The examination of the inner side of the
delaminated strip reveals that the bonding and fastening
methods used here could not prevent the formation of air
bubbles and disbonded regions. Hence, the development of
alternative techniques that would ensure proper application
of the bonded strip, as well as the elaboration of reliable and
yet practical non-destructive tests for the assessment of the
quality of the bonding, are called for.
3. Analytical comparison
In this section, analytical results obtained using the
CFHO approach are compared with the experimental ones.
The analytical models appear in Refs. [21 – 24] and have
been verified using both FE analysis [21], and experimental
results that are available in the literature [22]. The
comparison of the experimental and analytical results has
two primary objectives. The first one is to provide further
confirmation of the analytical model. The second objective
is to reveal and to examine additional data such as the shear
and vertical normal stress concentrations near the edge of
the bended FRP strip. These localized stress distributions
are essential for understanding the behavior of the tested
beams, yet they cannot be detected using conventional
monitoring techniques. In addition, the experimental results,
along with the analytical CFHO and fracture mechanics
approach of Rabinovitch and Frostig [23], are used for the
preliminary quantitative evaluation of a failure criterion for
the strengthened system. This approach is based on the
fracture mechanics concept of the Energy Release Rate
(ERR) compared with the specific fracture energy of the
system and replaces the traditional stress based failure
criterion. Hence, the results of the experimental study are
used here for a preliminary assessment of the specific
673
fracture energy of the strengthened member. The exper-
imental data and the analytical predictions are compared
using the results of beams A2, A3, and B2 and the reloaded
beams A1p and B1p. Beam A2, A3, and B2 are used for the
comparison of the overall load – deflection behavior and the
strains in the FRP strip. Beams A2, A1p and A2p, which
have been tested with a ‘square-edge’ configuration at the
edge of the adhesive layer, are used for studying
the development of the edge stresses and the criteria for
the edge failure.
The analytical results are calculated using the nonlinear
CFHO model [22]. This model is somewhat simplified here,
and the predicted behavior is limited to three load levels,
namely: the cracking load; the yielding load of the steel
reinforcement; and to the ultimate load, that are observed
experimentally. In the case of the reloaded beams, the
tensile strength of the concrete and the pre-yielding stage of
the internal reinforcement are disregarded. The analytical
and experimental load versus midspan deflection curves and
load versus strain in the FRP strip at midspan curves appear
in Fig. 13. Fig. 13a, c and e demonstrate that the differences
between the measured and the calculated load versus
deflection curves are small and are within the range of the
accepted engineering accuracy. It is also seen that the
polygonal approximation using four significant points
provides a satisfactory description of the behavior of the
structure. The comparison of the load versus the strain in the
FRP strip curves reveals that the analytical and experimen-
tal curves of beam A3 are in good agreement (Fig. 13d).
However, discrepancies between analytical prediction and
the strains experimentally measured by the strain gauges are
observed in beams A2 and B2 (Fig. 13b and f). Furthermore,
in beam A2 the model predicts smaller strains than these
measure by the strain gauge while in beam B2 the predicted
strains are higher than the ones experimentally measured. In
order to clarify this phenomenon, the analytical curves are
also compared to the averaged strains measured by LVDT
5F and 5B, which are expected to be of similar magnitude to
the averaged strains in the FRP strip. Such comparison
reveals fair agreement between the analytical and the
experimental quantities in all examined beams. This effect is
explained by the sensitivity of the strain gauges to localized
effects such as localized cracking of the RC member,
roughness of the bonded surface, flows in the bonding
process, formation of delaminated areas, or localized
disturbance caused by the device itself. While the strain
gauges are strongly influenced by such effects, the averaged
strains determined by normalizing the relative displace-
ments and the analytical model do not monitor the response
of the structure in such resolution (unless intended to).
Hence, the combination of the data detected by the strain
gauges and evaluated using the readings of the LVDTs
provides a reliable picture of the strains in the examined
structure and establishes a reliable basis for the conclusions
drawn upon the data. This observation also reflects on the
types of non-destructive techniques that should be adopted
674 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677

Fig. 13. Analytical and experimental results for beam A3: (a) load versus midspan deflection; (b) load versus strain at the FRP strip at midspan.

for health monitoring of the strengthened structure and
suggests that combining techniques may be advantageous.
The results presented in Fig. 13 reveal that the analytical
model can describe the overall behavior of the strengthened
beam throughout the entire loading process. Furthermore, it
can also provide a description of the shear and peeling stress
concentrations near the edge of the bonded strip, and their
development with the imposed load [21,22]. The results for
the three beams that were tested without edge anchorage
devices (beams A2, A1p, and A2p) are summarized in
Table 5. The development of the edge stresses in beam A2
appear in Fig. 14 and the distributions of the shear and

Table 5
Experimental and analytical results for beams failed in edge delamination

Beam Pult (kN) wmax (mm) szz at the interfaces (MPa) t (MPa) Jult ¼ Gc (N/m)

Experimental Analytical Adhesive-concrete Adhesive-FRP

A2 178 19.8 18.6 27.65 28.73 6.25 55.8

A1p 139 52.7 ¼ 40.5 þ 12.2 54.6 ¼ 40.5 þ 14.1 22.23 27.16 5.04 46.6
B1p 151 53.8 ¼ 41.2 þ 12.6 54.7 ¼ 41.2 þ 13.5 19.49 26.24 4.47 35.2
 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
Fig. 14. Load versus vertical normal and shear stresses at the edge of the
FRP trip in beam A2.
vertical normal stress at the adhesive interfaces and the
longitudinal strains in the inner and outer faces of the FRP
strip near its edge appear in Fig. 15. These results emphasize
the nonlinear dependence of the shear and vertical normal
stresses upon the imposed load. They also point out the
localized character of the edge effects that decay within a
length of about 3 – 4 times the thickness of the adhesive
layer. The comparison of the distribution of the longitudinal
strains predicted by the high-order model and the values
measured by the strain gauges SG 10 and SG 11 clearly
show that the length scale of the edge bending effects is
smaller than the length of the strain gauge, see Fig. 15c.
Hence, it clarifies that in order to characterize this
phenomenon experimentally a monitoring device with
higher geometrical length scale resolution is required.
The results summarized in Table 5 reveal fair agreement
between the analytical prediction of the midspan deflection
and the results experimentally measures. However, they
point out that in the cases of the reloaded beam the
analytical model predicts deflections that are slightly larger
than the measured ones. Furthermore, the results show that
beam B1p failed in a higher load level than beam A1p
whereas the interfacial stresses determined by the model are
lower than those of beam A1p. These effects are attributed to
the beam’s different reinforcement configuration and its
Fig. 15. Edge effects near the cut-off section of beam A2 under its failure load: (a) shear stresses in the adhesive layer (b) vertical normal stresses in the
adhesive-concrete and adhesive-FRP interfaces (c) longitudinal strains in the FRP strip.
675
post yielding characteristics, which are considered in the
analytical model.
The results of Figs. 14, 15 and Table 5 reveal that the
shear and vertical normal stresses at the interfaces of the
adhesive layer attain very high values at the higher load
levels. As a result, the prediction of the edge failure mode by
using an ‘allowable stress’ criterion that compares the
calculated stresses with the characteristic strength of the
material would yield extremely conservative results. By
defining the averaged tensile strength of the adhesive-
concrete interface as the weakest element, the use of such
approach in this case would predict failure loads that are
about 70– 75% lower than the actual failure loads detected
experimentally. Hence, the conventional stress based failure
criteria should be replaced with alternative fracture
mechanics based ones.
The alternative failure criteria proposed by Rabinovitch
and Frostig [23] adopts the concept of the ERR determined
through the evaluation of the J-integral [27]. The failure
criterion is set by comparing the calculated ERR with the
specific fracture energy of the system, Gc : The development
of the ERR values at the edge of beam A2 versus the
imposed load appear in Fig. 16 and the ERR at failure of
beams A2, A1p, and B1p also appear in Table 5. The results
reveal that the fracture energy of the tested system, which is
equal to the ERR value detected at the failure load, varies
between 56 N/m for the beam that has not been preloaded
before strengthening to 35 – 47 N/m for the preloaded
beams. These values are smaller than the one reported by
Xie and Karbhari [28], however, they are in agreement with
fracture energies of cement-based systems and concrete as
reported by CEB-FIB [29]. Note that the lower values
determined for the preloaded beams, A1p and A2p, are
attributed to the more complicated and less controllable
strengthening process of these beams. The values deter-
mined here only provide a rough estimate for the fracture
energy of the system and need to be further verified through
a broad experimental study. Nevertheless, these preliminary
results demonstrate that the fracture mechanics approach is
suitable for setting a predictive criterion for the brittle
failure of the system.
676 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
Fig. 16. Load versus ERR values at the edge of the FRP trip in beam A2.
4. Summary and conclusions
An experimental and analytical investigation of five RC
beams strengthened and rehabilitated using externally
bonded CFRP strips has been presented. The results of the
experiments point out the increase in the flexural strength
and the stiffness of the strengthened and rehabilitated
beams. On the other hand, a significant reduction in the
deformability of the strengthened member (i.e. the ultimate
vertical deflection in which failure has occurred) as well as
brittle and sudden failure modes have been observed. The
observed failure modes include:
† The formation of a horizontal crack near on edge of the
FRP strip and the rapid and unstable growth of this crack
within the upper interface of the adhesive layer.
† The formation and growth of a horizontal crack within
the concrete member itself at the level of the internal
steel reinforcement.
† The formation of a localized delamination near the tip of
a diagonal shear –flexure crack in the RC member, and
its unstable growth towards the outer support.
Various edge configurations that include the formation of
a ‘spew-fillet’ at the edge of the adhesive layer and the use
of additional vertical CFRP straps wrapping the strength-
ened edge region have also been examined. The results have
shown that beams tested in this configuration sustained
loads that are about 20% higher than the failure loads of
similar beams tested in their basic configuration. Hence,
they may provide a potential solution to the severe edge
problems that characterize the behavior of the strengthened
beam and their use in practical applications is
recommended.
The applicability of the method for the rehabilitation of
severely damaged RC members has been examined. Two
beams that had been preloaded up to failure were
strengthened, rehabilitated, and tested. The results have
shown that an effective rehabilitation of such predamaged
beams can be achieved. The retrofitting process regained the
original flexural capacity of the damaged beams and even
increased it by more than 90%. However, the brittle and
sudden failure modes and the reduction in the ductility have
been observed in the rehabilitated beams as well. The
comparison of the structural response of the preloaded and
retrofitted beams with that of the upgraded beams (which
have not been preloaded) has revealed that the ultimate
loads of the rehabilitated beams are not significantly smaller
than those of the upgraded ones, yet they do not exhibit a
renewed cracking and yielding points.
The effect of the initial design of the RC beam has also
been examined. Two types of beams that differ in the
longitudinal and shear reinforcement ratios have been tested
and compared. The results have shown that within the
investigated limits, the amount of the longitudinal reinforce-
ment has almost no influence of the behavior of the
strengthened member. However, in the beams that have
been constructed with reduced shear reinforcement, the
development of diagonal shear cracks was involved with a
localized delamination near the crack tip and has triggered
the unstable and brittle failure of the strengthened beam.
Finally, analytical results determined through the CFHO
model have been compared with the experimental ones. The
comparison has revealed good agreement between the
analytical and the experimental results in terms of the load –
deflection behavior. Additional results that include the
development of the shear and vertical normal stresses near
the edge of the FRP strip have also been examined and
revealed the nonlinear dependence of the stresses upon the
external load. Furthermore, these results have shown that
the extreme values of the edge stresses at the ultimate stage
that are far beyond the strength of the material involved.
Hence, the prediction of the strengthened beam’s failure
load using these stresses through an allowable stress
criterion is conservative and should be replaced with a
fracture mechanics based approach. A preliminary quanti-
tative examination of such energetic criteria using the J-
integral formulation has revealed that the fracture energy of
the retrofitted system is similar to that of other cement-based
systems reported in the literature. Hence, these preliminary
results imply that by experimentally setting a broad and
reliable database of the fracture energy of the strengthened
system, this approach can be used for establishing the
appropriate failure criteria for the strengthened member.
Thus, it can contribute to robust design and safe use of the
externally strengthened structure.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research has been provided by the Israel
Ministry for Construction and Housing through the National
Building Research Institute under grant number 017-671.
The financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The
authors wish to thank Mr M. Lanzman and the technical
staff for their assistance in the experimental work.
O. Rabinovitch was supported by the Taub Foundation.
 O. Rabinovitch, Y. Frostig / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 663–677
References
[1] Meier U, Deuring M, Meier H, Schwegler G. Strengthening of
structures with advanced composites. Alternative materials for
reinforcement and prestressing of concrete. Glasgow, Scotland: J.L.
Clarke/Chapman & Hall; 1993.
[2] Meier U. Post strengthening by continuous fiber laminates in Europe.
Non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures (Proceed-
ings of the Third International Symposium), vol. 1. Tokyo, Japan:
Japan Concrete Institute; 1997.
[3] Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. Experimental and analytical
investigation of FRP strengthened beam response: part I. Mag Concr
Res 1996;48(177):331–42.
[4] Ritchie A, Thomas DA, Lu L, Connelly GM. External reinforcement
of concrete beams using fiber reinforced plastic. ACI Struct J 1991;
88(4):490–500.
[5] Arduini M, Nanni A. Behavior of precracked RC beams strengthened
with carbon FRP sheets. ASCE J Compos Construct 1997;1(2):
63–70.
[6] Triantafillou TC, Deskovic N, Deuring M. Strengthening of concrete
structures with prestressed fiber reinforced plastic sheets. ACI Struct J
1992;89(3):235–44.
[7] Al-Sulimani GJ, Sharif A, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Ghaleb BN.
Shear repair for RC by fiberglass plate bonding. ACI Struct J 1994;
91(3):458–64.
[8] Baluch MH, Zirba YN, Azad AK, Sharif AM, Al-Sulimani GJ,
Basunbul IA. Shear strength of plated R.C. beams. Mag Concr Res
1995;47(173):369–74.
[9] Khalifa A, Nanni A. Improving shear capacity of existing RC T-
section beams using CFRP composites. Cem Concr Compos 2000;
22(3):165–74.
[10] Arduini M, Di-Tommaso A, Manfroni O. Fracture mechanisms of
concrete beams bonded with composite plates. In: Taerwe L, editor.
Non-metalic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures. Proceedings
of the Second International RILEM Symposium. London: E & FN
Spon; 1995. p. 483–91.
[11] Arduini M, Di-Tommaso A, Nanni A. Brittle failure in FRP plate and
sheet bonded beams. ACI Struct J 1997;94(4):363– 70.
[12] Garden HN, Hollaway LC. An experimental study of the influence of
plate end anchorage of carbon fiber composite plates used to
strengthen reinforced concrete beams. Compos Struct 1998;42(2):
175–88.
[13] Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC. The flexural rehabilitation of reinforced
concrete beams by the use of prestressed advanced composite plates.
Compos Sci Technol 1998;58(8):1259–75.
677
[14] Spadea G, Swamy RN, Bencardino F. Strength and ductility of RC
beams repaired with bonded CFRP laminates. J Bridge Engng 2001;
6(5):349– 55.
[15] Smith ST, Teng JG. FRP-strengthened RC beams. I. Review of
debonding strength models. Engng Struct 2002;24(4):385–95.
[16] Smith ST, Teng JG. FRP-strengthened RC beams. II. Assessment of
debonding strength models. Engng Struct 2002;24(4):397–417.
[17] Roberts TM. Approximate analysis of shear and normal stress
concentrations in the adhesive layer of plated RC beams. Struct Engr
1989;87(12):229–33.
[18] Jones R, Swamy RN, Charif A. Plate separation and anchorage of RC
beams strengthened by epoxy-bonded steel plates. Struct Engr 1988;
66(5/1):85–94.
[19] Roberts TM, Haji-Kazemi H. Theoretical study of the behavior of RC
beams strengthened by externally bonded steel plates. Proc Inst Civil
Engng 1989;87(2):39–55.
[20] Ascione L, Feo L. Modeling of composite/concrete interface of R/C
beams strengthened with composite laminates. Composites Part B
2000;31(6/7):535–40.
[21] Rabinovitch O, Frostig Y. Closed-form high-order analysis of RC
beams strengthened with FRP strips. J Compos Construct 2000;4(2):
65–74.
[22] Rabinovitch O, Frostig Y. Non-linear high-order analysis of cracked
RC beams externally strengthened with FRP strips. J Struct Engng
2001;127(4):381–9.
[23] Rabinovitch O, Frostig Y. Delamination failure of RC beams
strengthened with FRP strips: a closed-form high-order and
fracture mechanics approach. J Engng Mech 2001;127(8):
852–61.
[24] Rabinovitch O, Frostig Y. High-order approach for the control of edge
stresses in RC beams strengthened with FRP strips. J Struct Engng
2001;127(7):799–809.
[25] BS EN 206-1:2001, Concrete. Part 1. Specification, performance’
production and conformity. British Standards Institute (BSI);
2001.
[26] Teng JG, Zhang JW, Smith ST. Interfacial stresses in reinforced
concrete beams bonded with a soffit plate: a finite element study.
Construct Bldg Mater 2002;16(1):1–14.
[27] Rice JR. A path independent integral and the approximated analysis of
strain concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech, Trans
ASME 1968;35(6):379–86.
[28] Xie M, Karbhari VM. Peel test for characterization of polymer
composite/concrete interface. J Compos Mater 1998;32(21):
1894– 913.
[29] CEB-FIP, Model code 1990. London, UK: Thomas Telford; 1993.