1 Cumberland Close – Feasibility design – FRP

PROJECT:

1 Cumberland Close – Feasibility design - FRP

Content:
1- Actions.
2- Input for the analysis.
3- Results.
4- Layout and Method Statement.
5- Appendix - A.

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by the Structural Engineer Page 1 of 9

 1 Cumberland Close – Feasibility design – FRP
1. Actions.
As required by the SE action are going to be estimated according to British standard: Loading for building – Part 1: Code of
practice for dead and imposed load

Category of use: A

Specific use: Areas for domestic and residential activities.

Values of actions:

Combination of actions:
Combination of actions at the time of strengthening.
G1 + G2 + Qk1 + Qk2 + Qk3

Combination of actions for service conditions.

G1 + G2 + Qk1 + Qk2 +Qk3

Fundamental combination.
ɣG1 G1 + ɣG2 G2 + ɣQ1 Qk1 + ɣQ2 Qk2 + ɣQ3 Qk3

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by the Structural Engineer Page 2 of 9

 1 Cumberland Close – Feasibility design – FRP
Loads:
Global effects.
udl_sw_concrete = 23kN/m³ x 0.1 m x 1m = 2.3 kN/m

Comments:
0-Depth of the section considered as 100mm, average value.

udl_sw_screed = 23kN/m³ x 0.03 m x 1m = 0.69 kN/m

udl_sw_new_finishes = 0.5 kN/m (small protective layer for the FRP(5-10mm), and waterproof solution considered)

udl_live = 1.5 kN/m² x 1m = 1.5 kN/m (see Table 1)

Local effects.
Pl_live = 1.4 kN (see Table 1)

Design actions:
Combination of actions at the time of strengthening.
G1 + G2 + Qk1 + Qk2 + Qk3
- wo,d = 2.3 kN/m = 2.3 kN/m

Comments:
1-Screed is not considered because must be removed before to apply FRP.
2-Due the temporary support, the effect of live on the balcony at the time of strengthening are not considered.

Combination of actions for service conditions.

G1 + G2 + Qk1 + Qk2 +Qk3
- ws,d = 2.3 kN/m + 0.5 kN/m + 1.5 kN/m = 4.3 kN/m

- ws,base,d = 2.3 kN/m + 0.5 kN/m = 2.8 kN/m for local effect analysis
- PLs,d = 1.4 kN = 1.4 kN for local effect analysis

Combination of actions for the ULS - Fundamental combination.

ɣG1 G1 + ɣG2 G2 + ɣQ1 Qk1 + ɣQ2 Qk2 + ɣQ3 Qk3
- wu,d = 1.4 x (2.3 kN/m + 0.5 kN/m) + 1.6 x 1.5 kN/m = 6.32 kN/m

- wu,base,d = 1.4 x (2.3 kN/m + 0.5 kN/m) = 3.92 kN/m for local effect analysis
- PLu,d = 1.6 x 1.4 kN = 2.24 kN for local effect analysis

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by the Structural Engineer Page 3 of 9

 1 Cumberland Close – Feasibility design – FRP
2. Input for the analysis.

L= 0.06m + 0.96m + 0.03m + 0.15m = 1.2 m

Internal span= 4 m (this value is assumed and can be confirmed)

Cantiliver beam – Uniformly distributed load.

Cantiliver beam – Concentrated load at free end.

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by the Structural Engineer Page 4 of 9

 1 Cumberland Close – Feasibility design – FRP

Maximum moment at the time of strengthening.

- Mo,d = 2.3 x 1.25² /2 = 1.796 kNm → 1.8 kNm

Maximum moment for the SLS.

- Ms,d = 4.3 x 1.25² /2 = 3.36 kNm
- Ms,local,d = 2.8 x 1.25² /2 + 1.4 x 1.25 = 3.937 kNm → 3.95 kNm

Maximum moment for the ULS.

- Mu,d = 6.32 x 1.25² /2 = 4.93 kNm
- Mu,local,d = 3.92 x 1.25² /2 + 2.24 x 1.25 = 5.862 kNm → 5.87 kNm

Comments:
3-Worst position for the point load considered at the free end of the cantilevered beam.

Considerations on the Input data for design

In the REPORT 58051/F No2– Cumberland close – concrete reinforcement survey is shown that balconies are reinforced with:
Longitudinal reinforcement: 2No bars @ 300mm c/c at 60-110mm depth - (min and max value reported)
Transverse reinforcement: bars @ 75mm to 90mm c/c at 60-100mm depth - (min and max value reported)

In the REPORT 58051/F/1– Cumberland close balconies – balcony slab thickness is shown that thickness of the slab at the
position of maximum bending moment is about 120mm.

In the Structural Report - Zussmanbear is reported that the steel reinforcement for the cantilever section consist in 4mm plain
round mesh reinforcement @80mm c/c at 60mm depth.
Thickness of the slab at the critical section about 125mm.
Compressive strength of the concrete is about 43.4 MPa – minimum value obtained.
Density: 23.1 kN/m³

Input for design are considered as follow.

Span of the balcony: 1.25 m
Concrete grade: C25/30
Density: 23 kN/m³
Steel grade: mild steel G250 MPa
Reinforcement: 4mm@80mm c/c
Thickness of the slab: 125mm
Concrete cover: 60mm
as required by SE from TZG
Conservative value, characteristic value for Fck,cube missed.
Density of the concrete -
Conservative value do not have info on the steel grade.
Average value, considering that the geometry changes every balcony.
Average overall depth of the slab at the critical section - from the reports.
Critical value for the design.

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by the Structural Engineer Page 5 of 9

 1 Cumberland Close – Feasibility design – FRP
3. Results.
Considering Carboplate E170GPa – 1.4mm thk – 100mm wide @ 50mm c/c the expected capacity curve of the
section is the one reported below.

Comments:
4 - For the section object of this design, few considerations must be made:
- The amount of steel and specially the depth of the reinforcement are not adequate so that the flexural capacity of the
section is compromised.
- At the moment the self-weight itself induces a stress-strain state in the steel that is s about the yield point.
For these reasons the FRP system is designed to reduce stresses in the steel so that at the ULS steel is still in the elastic field.

5- The maximum capacity of the reinforced section is considered as the maximum bending moment due the first yield of the steel
reinforcement.

6- Is recommended to use a prop system to induce in the cantilevered section a SW action relief, this will increase the efficiency of
the strengthening system.

Envelope
χ M
[1/mm] [kNm]
0 0
2E-05 1.8
3E-05 5.9667
9E-05 36.644
9E-05 2.0918
0.001 2.2622

For more information on the design please see attached calculations – Appendix A

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by the Structural Engineer Page 6 of 9

 1 Cumberland Close – Feasibility design – FRP
4. Layout and Method Statement.
1) Remove existing screed.
2) Any crack more than 0.1 mm wide must be injected with Epojet LV.
3) Break out outer leaf locally of the wall to provide required length of anchorage for each plate.
4) Prepare the substrate removing all irregularities, deteriorated and unsound concrete. Surface should be treated to a Concrete
Surface Profile: CSP4-CSP5.
5) Existing groove to be filled with an epoxy resin (Adhesilex PG1) to allow plates to be installed.

Option 1. Preferable solution

6) Break out inner leaf locally of the wall to provide required length of anchorage for each plate.
7) Install Carboplate E170 as shown in the picture below
8) Apply an epoxy primer (Eporip or Eco prim grip - TBC) to increase the grip for the protective layer.
9) Apply a protective layer about 10mm uniformly like Planitop smooth and repair
10) Waterproof properly the balcony.

Comments:
7-According with the contractor, Mapei is not going to provide spec for waterproofing.

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by the Structural Engineer Page 7 of 9

 1 Cumberland Close – Feasibility design – FRP
Option 2.

6) Prepare in advance connectors with Mapewrap C Fiocco 10 mm.

7) Drill holes 200mm depth and install the hard end of connectors using Adhesilex PG1.
8) Install Carboplate E170 as shown in the picture below
9) Spread onto the carboplate the other end of the connector using Mapewrap 31
10) Apply an epoxy primer (Eporip or Eco prim grip - TBC) to increase the grip for the protective layer.
11) Apply a protective layer about 10mm uniformly like Planitop smooth and repair
12) Waterproof properly the balcony. (see comment No 7)

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by the Structural Engineer Page 8 of 9

 1 Cumberland Close – Feasibility design – FRP

A detail for the anchoring system is shown below:

5. Appendix - A.

Simone Tomai
Composites Engineer
Email: s.tomai@mapei.co.uk - Mob: 07919 546964

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by the Structural Engineer Page 9 of 9

 This layout must be read in conjunction to the report and TR-55 3rd edition

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
Client
Address 1 Cumberland Close
Ref. Struct Balcony

REPORT
Users agrees that outputs from the Software will not, under any circumstances, be considered legal and are not meant to
replace the experience and sound professional judgment of professional advisors in full knowledge of the circumstances
and details of any matter on which advice is sought

1. DESIGN SITUATIONS

Persistent and transient EN 1990 & TR 55

Persistent design situations refer to conditions of normal use. As such, for a highway bridge, they will include
the passage of heavy vehicles. Transient design situations refer to circumstances when the structure is itself in
some temporary configuration, such as during execution or repair.

2. MATERIALS

Concrete grade C 25/30 Charatteristic strength BS EN 1992-1-1, Table 3.1

fck fck,cube fcm fctm fctk,0.05 fctk,0.95 Ecm εc2 εcu2

[MPa ] [MPa ] [MPa ] [MPa ] [MPa ] [MPa ] [MPa ] [‰] [‰]
25 30 33 2.6 1.8 3.3 31000 1.75 3.5

gc 1.5 Partial safety factor - TR55 TR 55, Table 3

αcc 0.85 BS EN 1992-1-1, 3.1.6
Coefficient for long term effects on the compressive strength
fcd 14.167 [MPa ] Concrete's compressive stress of design BS EN 1992-1-1, 3.1.6

Longitudinal Reinforcement

Steel grade Mild steel G250 Charatteristic strength BS4449:1997

fyk fyu Es εsy εsu

[MPa ] [MPa ] [MPa ] [‰] [%]
250 250 200000 1.087 22

gs 1.15 Partial safety factor - TR55 TR 55, Table 3

fyd 217.39 [MPa ] Steel's tensile stress of design
εu,d 19.8 [%] Steel's tensile ultimate strain of design, given by: 0.9 x εsu BS EN 1992-1-1, 3.2.7

Shear Reinforcement

Steel grade Mild steel G250 Charatteristic strength BS4449:1997

fyk fyu Es εy,d εs,u

[MPa ] [MPa ] [MPa ] [‰] [%]
250 250 200000 1.087 22

gs 1.15 Partial safety factor - TR55 TR 55, Table 3

fyd 217.39 [MPa ] Steel's tensile stress of design
εy,u,d 19.8 [%] Steel's tensile ultimate strain of design, given by: 0.9 x εsu BS EN 1992-1-1, 3.2.7

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by structural engineer. Page 1 of 9

 This layout must be read in conjunction to the report and TR-55 3rd edition

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
Client
Address 1 Cumberland Close
Ref. Struct Balcony

FRP system for Flexural Strengthening

Product Carboplate E170

E FRP,k ε FRP,k f FRP,k Fiber Type Carbon

[MPa ] [%] [MPa ] Type of system Plates
170000 2 3100 Application / manufacture Pultruded

gFRP,E 1.1 Partial safety factor for E modulus at the ultimate limit state TR55, Table 4
(all design situation).
gFRP,m 1.05 Recommended values of additional partial safety factors, to be TR55, Table 5
applied to manufactured composites.
gFRP,ε 1.25 Partial safety factor for strain at the ultimate limit state (all TR55, Table 6
design situation).

gFRP,mE 1.155 Partial safety factor for FRP for Young's modulus TR55, Equation 5.4
gFRP,mε 1.3125 Partial safety factor for FRP for ultimate strain TR55, Equation 5.6

EFRP,d 147186 [MPa ] FRP's tensile elastic module of design TR55, Equation 5.3
εFRP,d 1.5238 [%] FRP's tensile strain of design TR55, Equation 5.5
fFRP,d 2242.8 [MPa ] FRP's tensile ultimate strain of design

FRP system for U-Wrap anchorage

Product No U-Wrap system

E FRP,k ε FRP,k f FRP,k Fiber Type -

[MPa ] [%] [MPa ] Type of system -
- - - Application / manufacture -

gFRP,E - TR55, Table 4

gFRP,m - TR55, Table 5

gFRP,ε - TR55, Table 6

gFRP,mE - TR55, Equation 5.3

gFRP,mε - TR55, Equation 5.5

EFRP,d - TR55, Equation 5.3

εFRP,d - TR55, Equation 5.5
fFRP,d -

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by structural engineer. Page 2 of 9

 This layout must be read in conjunction to the report and TR-55 3rd edition

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
Client
Address 1 Cumberland Close
Ref. Struct Balcony

2. SECTION'S PROPERTIES
Sketch not in scale
BEAM dimensions 160 B
1000
140
B 1000 [mm] Width of the beam 120 300
H 125 [mm] As average beam depth
100 Carboplate
bw 0 [mm] Width of web
80 E170
hw 0 [mm] Overall slab depth
c H 125 BarsLine4
60 [mm] Concrete cover 60

40

20
LBEAM 1.25 [m] Length of the beam 0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Dimensions [mm]
STEEL rebars

No. depth Area

Ø Rebar
Rebars rebars Rebars
[-] [mm] [mm] [mm ²]
bars_1 0 0 60 0
bars_2 0 0 0 0
bars_3 0 0 0 0
bars_4 13 4 65 163.36

STEEL shear links

Area Area
No. legs Ø Link spacing
link links
[-] [mm] [mm] [mm ²] [mm ²/m]
0 0 0 0 0

a 0 [deg] Is the angle between shear reinforcement and the beam axis
perpendicular to the shear force. 90° if links are vertical
j 0 [deg] Is the angle between the concrete compression strut and the beam axis
perpendicular to the shear force, values between 21.8 and 45 degrees.

FRP flexural strenghtening

width Area
No. plies thk df
FRP FRP
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm ²]
FRP 1 300 1.4 125 420

If several strips are to be applied, it is recommended to apply the one next to the other rather
than the one onto the other. In this latter case:
-more than 3 layers of pultruded laminates
- more than 5 layers of cured in-situ fabrics

U-Wrap anchorage TR55 - 6.3.3 (B)

No.plies 0
thk 0 [mm] Thickness of single ply

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by structural engineer. Page 3 of 9

 This layout must be read in conjunction to the report and TR-55 3rd edition

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
Client
Address 1 Cumberland Close
Ref. Struct Balcony

3. DESIGN ACTIONS - combined

V0 2.88 [kN] Shear force acting at time of strenghthning at the end of the
plate.
M0 1.8 [kN] Bending moment acting at time of strenghthning

MED,SLS 3.95 [kNm] Bending moment for the SLS - Frequent combination TR 55, 6.2.2

MED,SLU 5.87 [kNm] Bending moment for the SLU due PL equivalent
Pleq*L = udl,d*L*L/2 + PL,d*L

VED,SLU,eop 8.8875 [kN] Shear force acting at the end of the plate or at the support for
the SLU

Δx 0 [mm] Distance between the sections of first yeld moment and TR 55, 6.3.3
maximum moment within the yield zone.

lanchorage 500 [mm] Bond/anchorage length

av 32.5 [mm] Shear span (distance from edge of the support to the section TR 55, 6.3.3
under consideration). For av ≤ 0.5 d , a value of 0.5 d should
be used.

"value" NOTE: suggested value calculated for simple supported beam loaded
with uniformly distributed load

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by structural engineer. Page 4 of 9

 This layout must be read in conjunction to the report and TR-55 3rd edition

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
Client
Address 1 Cumberland Close
Ref. Struct Balcony

4. DEBONDING FAILURE- TR 55

(A) Surface irregularity induced FRP separation.

Note: Prepare the substrate removing all irregularities, deteriorated and unsound concrete and repair with a proper mortar.
Surface should be threated to a Concrete Surface Profile: CSP4-CSP5. Do not apply FRPs on fresh concrete or mortar.

(B) Shear crack induced FRP separation.

The presence o shear cracks can lead to tendency for a step to develop in the tension face of the member to which the
FRP is bonded.

I_cc 3E+06 [mm ⁴] Second moment of area of unstrengthened, concrete equivalent

transformed crack section.
I_cs 7E+06 [mm ⁴] Second moment of area of strengthened, concrete equivalent
transformed crack section.

aFlex 1.4997 [-] TR 55, 6.3.3

aw 3 ≤3 TR 55, 6.3.3
εsw,eff 0 [-] Effective strain in shear stirrups TR55, Equation 6.3

VS,eff 0 [kN] Effective shear resistance from the steel stirrups TR55, Equation 6.2

acw 1 [-] non-prestressed structures BS EN 1992-1-1, 6.2.3 (3)

v1 0.6 [Mpa] BS EN 1992-1-1, 6.2.3 (3)
deq 65 [mm] Equivalent depth of tensile reinforcement
z 58.5 [mm] Inner lever arm BS EN 1992-1-1, 6.2.3 (1)

VRD,C 0 [kN] Shear resistance due failure of concrete strut. BS EN 1992-1-1, 6.2.3
VRD,S 0 [kN] Shear resistance due yelding stirrups, fywd=0.8 fywk BS EN 1992-1-1, 6.2.3
VRD 0 [kN] Design shear capacity of steel reinforced section BS EN 1992-1-1, 6.2.3

k 2 ≤2 BS EN 1992-1-1, 6.2.2 (1)

r1 0.02 ≤ 0.02 BS EN 1992-1-1, 6.2.2 (1)

VRD,C,with asl 57.396 [kN] Shear resistance with tensile reinforcement contribute BS EN 1992-1-1, (Eq 6.2a)
VRD,C,NO asl 31.2 [kN] Shear resistance without tensile reinforcement BS EN 1992-1-1, (Eq 6.2b)
contribute - non-prestressed structures.
VRD,C 31.2 [kN] Shear resistance of oncrete BS EN 1992-1-1, 6.2.2

VRD,S,F 0 [kN] Shear resistance if member has FRP shear strengthening. TR55, Equation 7.1

VRD,Crack 31.2 [kN] Capacity of the section to resist formation of signinficant shear TR55, 6.3.3 (B)
cracks.

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by structural engineer. Page 5 of 9

 This layout must be read in conjunction to the report and TR-55 3rd edition

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
Client
Address 1 Cumberland Close
Ref. Struct Balcony

(C) Longitudinal shear stress in the yeld zone.

τ,m - [Mpa] TR55, Equation 6.6

-

τ,sc - [Mpa] TR55, Equation 6.7

-

τ,t - [Mpa] TR55, Equation 6.8

-

τlim,y - [Mpa] - TR55, Equation 6.9

NOTE: NO yield zone
(D) Strain in the FRP

The maximum strain in the FRP will accur as a result of bending stresses together with localised strain increases at crack location.
This total maximum strain in the FRP in the yield zone is:

σmax,FRP 78.635 [Mpa] TR55, 6.3.3 (C - 2))

-

εmt - [-] - TR55, Equation 6.10

NOTE: NO yield zone
(E) Longitudinal shear stress near ends of FRP

τ 0.0015 [Mpa] TR55, Equation 6.11

this value should be limited to a maximum of:

τlim,c 0.96 [Mpa] TR55, Equation 6.12

(F) Anchorage design.

In addition to mataining low longitudinal shear stress,adequate FRP end anchorage must be provided.

kb 1.0447 TR55, Equation 6.15

Tk,max 95.441 [kN] Maximum bond failure force, due fctk,0.05 TR55, Equation 6.13
lt,max 426.32 [mm] Maximum anchorage length TR55, Equation 6.14

It is recommended that, where the FRPis curtailed in the span, a minimum anchorage length of 500 mm should be provided.

Tk 95.441 [kN] Bond force for the anchorage length provided TR55, Equation 6.16

NMax FRP 16.681 [kN] Tensile force in the FRP at the section where strengthening is
not longer required. Tensile force due maximum bending
capacity of unstrengthene section assuming that steel
reinforcement does not change along the beam.

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by structural engineer. Page 6 of 9

 This layout must be read in conjunction to the report and TR-55 3rd edition

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
Client
Address 1 Cumberland Close
Ref. Struct Balcony

5. RESULTS

UNREIFORCED SECTION - SECTION ANALISYS DUE M0

Σ_N 0.0006 [kN] εc,max 0.0004 ≤ 0.0035 εcu2
Σ_M 1.8 [kNm] εsteel,max 0.0009 ≤ 0.22 εy,u,d

εFRP,t=0 -0.0022 [-] Strain in concrete member at the time of strenghtening. Negative if in tension.

UN-STRENGHTENED SECTION - 1st STEEL YIELDS MOMENT

Σ_N 7E-07 [kN] εc,max 0.0005 ≤ 0.0035 εcu2
Σ_M 2.0808 [kNm] εsteel,max 0.0011 = 0.0011 εy,u,d

UN-STRENGHTENEDSECTION - ULTIMATE BENDING MOMENT

Σ_N -7E-06 [kN] εc,max 0.0035 = 0.0035 εcu2
Σ_M 2.2622 [kNm] εsteel,max 0.0646 ≤ 0.22 εy,u,d

STRENGHTENED SECTION -1st STEEL YIELDS MOMENT

Σ_N 1E-06 [kN] εc,max 0.0007 ≤ 0.0035 εcu2
Σ_M 5.9667 [kNm] εsteel,max 0.0011 = 0.0011 εy,u,d
εFRP,max 0.0005 ≤ 0.008 εFRP,lim

STRENGHTENED SECTION - ULTIMATE BENDING MOMENT -DUE : εFRP,lim

Σ_N 3E-07 [kN] εc,max 0.0035 ≤ 0.0035 εcu2
Σ_M 36.644 [kNm] εsteel,max 0.0021 ≤ 0.22 εy,u,d
εFRP,max 0.005 ≤ 0.008 εFRP,lim

STRENGHTENED SECTION - ULTIMATE BENDING MOMENT -DUE : εFRP,max,d

Σ_N 3E-07 [kN] εc,max 0.0035 ≤ ε
0.0035 cu2
Σ_M 36.644 [kNm] εsteel,max 0.0021 ≤ 0.22 εy,u,d
εFRP,max 0.005 ≤ 0.0152 εFRP,max,d

40 Time of strengthning
at the FRP's system FAILS

35

Ultimate bending moment -

30 due FRP'strain limit
Envelope
χ M
25
Moment [kNm]

Ultimate bending moment -

due FRP'max strain
[1/mm] [kNm]
0 0
20 2E-05 1.8
3E-05 5.9667
9E-05 36.644
15
9E-05 2.0918
0.001 2.2622
10 1st steel yelds - Reinforced
section

MSLU
5
MSLS
Mult
0 M0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012

Curvature [1/mm]

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by structural engineer. Page 7 of 9

 This layout must be read in conjunction to the report and TR-55 3rd edition

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
Client
Address 1 Cumberland Close
Ref. Struct Balcony

(B) Shear crack induced FRP separation. --> due MED

VED 8.8875 [kN] ≤ 31.2 [kN] VRD,Crack PASS

εfe 0 [-] TR55, Equation 6.5

AU-Wrap 0 [mm ²]
TR55, Equation 6.4

lU-Wrap 0 [mm]

WU-Wrap 0 [mm]

LU-Wrap 0 [mm]

(C) Longitudinal shear stress in the yield zone. --> due MED

τt - [Mpa] ≤ - [Mpa] τlim,y NOTE: NO yield zone

(D) Strain in the FRP. --> due MED

εmt - [-] ≤ - [-] εFRP,d NOTE: NO yield zone

(E) Longitudinal shear stress near ends of FRP. --> due MED

τ 0.0015 [Mpa] ≤ 0.96 [Mpa] τlim,c PASS

(F) Anchorage design. --> due MED

lanchorage 500 [mm] ≥ 500 [mm] lanchorage recommended

Tk 95.441 [kN] ≥ 16.681 [kN] NMax FRP due MSLU unstrengthened section PASS

Additional longitudinal FRP. --> due VED,eop

ΔF,td 0 [kN] Additional tensile force in the longitudinal reinforcement TR55, 7.4
associated with shear forces.
σmax,steel - [Mpa] Stress in the steel reinforcement due to bending
ΔA,FRP 0 [mm ²] Additional area of longitudinal FRP Stress in the steel TR55, Equation 7.2
reinforcement due to bending.
Δlanch.,FRP 0 [mm] Additional length of anchorage required for bending beyond TR55, 7.4
where it is no longer needed for flexure.
NOTE: Additional longitudinal FRP - No required
TR-55, 6.2.5 - a) - Requirement of the existing section

Mun-reinf 2.2622 [kNm] ≥ 3.95 [kNm] MED,SLS,frequent combination WARNING

Section should not be considered for FRP strengthening
TR-55, 6.2.5 - i) Bending check

Mu,FRP,lim 36.644 [kNm] > 5.87 [kNm] MED,SLU TR-55 6.2.5 - i)

εsteel,max 0.0021 [-] > 0.0031 [-] εsteel,min,required TR-55 6.2.5 - i)
Design migth be NOT adeguated in bending because steel strain does not exceed the minimum required for ULS
Mu,FRP,lim 36.644 [kNm] ≥ 6.7505 [kNm] 1.15 x MED,SLU TR-55 6.2.5 - i)

Design is adequate

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by structural engineer. Page 8 of 9

 This layout must be read in conjunction to the report and TR-55 3rd edition

FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
Client
Address 1 Cumberland Close
Ref. Struct Balcony

SUMMARY
In this table the capacity curve for the strengthened section limited for the FRP's strain less than 0.008.
No considerations on the debonding failure on the followings values.

ΣM Χ εsteel,max εconcrete εFRP ΣN σfrp

[kNm] [1/mm] [-] [-] [-] [kN] [Mpa]

1.8 2.05E-05 0.00094 0.000395 0 0.001445 0 at the time of strengthening

5.96673 2.72E-05 0.001087 0.000684 0.000549 0.002024 80.74428
8.836135 3.51E-05 0.001061 0.001222 0.000996 0.002024 146.6479
11.73373 4.32E-05 0.001025 0.001783 0.001444 9.63E-05 212.5515
15.23675 4.79E-05 0.00119 0.001924 0.001892 0.005212 278.4551
18.5236 5.27E-05 0.001349 0.002079 0.00234 0.00793 344.3587
21.72339 5.77E-05 0.001497 0.002255 0.002787 0.008447 410.2623
24.84476 6.29E-05 0.001634 0.002454 0.003235 0.008834 476.1659
27.89373 6.83E-05 0.00176 0.002676 0.003683 -0.000154 542.0695
30.87458 7.38E-05 0.001874 0.002924 0.004131 -6.35E-05 607.9731
33.79043 7.96E-05 0.001976 0.003198 0.004578 1.17E-09 673.8768
36.64359 8.56E-05 0.002063 0.0035 0.005026 0.000269 739.7804

Calculations must be reviewed and confirmed by structural engineer. Page 9 of 9

MAPEI (Uk) Ltd Layout must be read in conjunction with the Report

200

Zone requiring strengthening Anchorage zone

150

1225
Carboplate E170

100

H Beam 125
50

1250
L Beam
-50
-200 0 200 400 Dimensions
600 [mm] 800 1000 1200 1400

Layout must be confirmed by structural engineer