See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232809419

Intermediate Crack Debonding in FRP-Strengthened RC Beams: FE Analysis and

Strength Model

Article in Journal of Composites for Construction · April 2007

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:2(161)

CITATIONS READS
114 929

4 authors, including:

Xinzheng Lu J.G. Teng

Tsinghua University The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
198 PUBLICATIONS 2,940 CITATIONS 312 PUBLICATIONS 16,633 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Simulation Technologies of Mega-Earthquake Scenarios of Cities ( National Key Technology R&D Program) View project

Study on A Novel Earthquake and Progressive Collapse Resilient Concrete/Steel Frame View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xinzheng Lu on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Board Publications Committee
Andrew W. Herrmann, P.E., F.ASCE, Chair
Kenneth L. Carper, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Gregory E. DiLoreto, P.E., L.S., F.ASCE
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
Thomas M. Rachford, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
Robert H. Wortman, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Bruce Gossett, Aff.M.ASCE, ASCE Staff
Contact
Publications
Bruce Gossett, Managing Director and
Publisher
Journals Department
Johanna M. Reinhart, Director, Journals
Jackie Perry, Managing Editor, Journals
Holly Koppel, Discussions and Closures
Production Department
Charlotte McNaughton, Director, Production
Teresa Metcalfe, Manager, Journals
Production
Gene Sullivan, Senior Production Editor
Nancy Green, Production Editor
Rajashree Ranganathan, Production Editor
Xi Van Fleet, Manager, Information
Services
Donna Dickert, Reprints
Publishing Office
Journals Department
ASCE
1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, VA 20191-4400
Telephone: 共703兲 295-6290
E-mail: journal-services@asce.org
VOLUME 11 / NUMBER 2 MARCH / APRIL 2007
SPECIAL ISSUE: Recent International Advancements in FRP Research and
Application in Construction
SPECIAL ISSUE EDITOR: Rudolf Seracino
Editorial
109 Preface to IIFC Special Issue
Rudolf Seracino
Technical Papers
110 Large-Span Woven Web Structure Made of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Peng Feng, Lie-ping Ye, and J. G. Teng
120 Mineral-Based Bonding of Carbon FRP to Strengthen Concrete Structures
Björn Täljsten and Thomas Blanksvärd
129 Bond Behavior of CFRP Bars in Simply Supported Reinforced Concrete
Beam with Hanging Region
Rendy Thamrin and Tetsuzo Kaku
138 Bonding Characteristics of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Sheet-Concrete
Interfaces under Dowel Load
Jianguo Dai, Tamon Ueda, and Yasuhiko Sato
149 ESPI Measurement of Bond-Slip Relationships of FRP-Concrete Interface
S. Y. Cao, J. F. Chen, J. W. Pan, and N. Sun
161 Intermediate Crack Debonding in FRP-Strengthened RC Beams: FE Analysis
and Strength Model
X. Z. Lu, J. G. Teng, L. P. Ye, and J. J. Jiang
175 Study of Intermediate Crack Debonding in Adhesively Plated Beams
I. S. T. Liu, D. J. Oehlers, and R. Seracino
184 Modeling Debonding Failure in FRP Flexurally Strengthened RC Members
Using a Local Deformation Model
Scott T. Smith and Rebecca J. Gravina
192 Behavior of FRP Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beams under Torsion
Mehran Ameli, Hamid R. Ronagh, and Peter F. Dux
201 Theoretical Model for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Confined Concrete
J. G. Teng, Y. L. Huang, L. Lam, and L. P. Ye
211 Performance-Based Seismic Retrofit Strategy for Existing Reinforced
Concrete Frame Systems Using Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites
Stefano Pampanin, Davide Bolognini, and Alberto Pavese
227 Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strengthening and Monitoring of the
Gröndals Bridge in Sweden
Björn Täljsten, Arvid Hejll, and Gerard James
 VOLUME 11 / NUMBER 2
MARCH/APRIL 2007

236 Structural Evaluation and Construction of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer

Composites Strengthening Systems for the Sauvie Island Bridge
Ayman Mosallam
 Intermediate Crack Debonding in FRP-Strengthened RC
Beams: FE Analysis and Strength Model
X. Z. Lu1; J. G. Teng2; L. P. Ye3; and J. J. Jiang4

Abstract: Reinforced concrete 共RC兲 beams strengthened in flexure with a bonded fiber-reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 plate may fail by
intermediate crack 共IC兲 debonding, in which debonding initiates at a critical section in the high moment region and propagates to a plate
end. This paper first presents a finite-element 共FE兲 model based on the smeared crack approach for concrete for the numerical simulation
of the IC debonding process. This finite-element model includes two novel features: 共1兲 the interfacial behavior within the major flexural
crack zone is differentiated from that outside this zone and 共2兲 the effect of local slip concentrations near a flexural crack is captured using
a dual local debonding criterion. The FE model is shown to be accurate through comparisons with the results of 42 beam tests. The paper
also presents an accurate and simple strength model based on interfacial shear stress distributions from finite-element analyses. The new
strength model is shown to be accurate through comparisons with the test results of 77 beams, including the 42 beams used in verifying
the FE model, and is suitable for direct use in design.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0268共2007兲11:2共161兲
CE Database subject headings: Cracking; Bonding; Concrete beams; Concrete, reinforced; Finite element method; Fiber reinforced
polymers.

Introduction This paper reports the results of a recent study aimed at a

Over the past decade, the bonding of a fiber-reinforced polymer
共FRP兲 plate to the tension face of a RC beam has become a
popular flexural strengthening technique. A number of debonding
failure modes can occur in such FRP-strengthened RC beams
关Fig. 1共a兲兴, before failure occurs by the rupture of the FRP plate
or the compressive crushing of the concrete 共see Teng et al. 2002;
Oehler et al. 2003兲. One of the common debonding failure modes
is caused by the opening up of major flexural cracks 关Fig. 1共b兲兴:
Debonding initiates at a major flexural crack and then propagates
toward a plate end 共Teng et al. 2003兲. This debonding failure
mode is commonly referred to as intermediate crack-induced
interfacial debonding or more simply intermediate crack 共IC兲
debonding. Although, a substantial amount of research has been
published on IC debonding, as reviewed in the next section, there
has been limited success with the development of theoretical
models/design methods for IC debonding failures 共Yao et al.
2005兲.
1 Brena et al. 2003; Ceroni and Prota 2001; Chan and Niall 2001;
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, China.
E-mail: luxinzheng@263.net
2
Chair Professor of Structural Engineering, Dept. of Civil and
Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong,
China. E-mail: cejgteng@polyu.edu.hk
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua Univ., Beijing,
China.
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua Univ., Beijing,
China.
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 2007. 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 June 16, 2005; approved on November 16, 2005.
This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol.
11, No. 2, April 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/2007/2-161–174/
$25.00.
better understanding of the IC debonding process and the devel-
opment of a reasonably simple and rational theoretical model to
predict IC debonding failures. To this end, a novel finite-element
共FE兲 model based on the smeared crack approach for concrete is
first presented for the numerical simulation of the IC debonding
process and verified with test results. On the basis of the FE
results, a simple strength model for predicting IC debonding fail-
ures is then proposed.
Existing Research
Experimental Data
IC debonding has been observed in many tests on FRP-
strengthened RC beams or slabs 共referred to as beams only else-
where in the paper for brevity兲. During the present study, a total
of 77 beam specimens that failed by IC debonding were collected
from the existing literature 共Arduini et al. 2004; Beber et al. 2001;
Fang 2002; Gao et al. 2001; Garden and Hollaway 1998; Grace
et al. 2002; Rahimi and Hutchinson 2001; Shin and Lee 2003;
Teng et al. 2003; Triantafillou and Plevris 1992; Tumialan et al.
1999; Xiong et al. 2001; Ye et al. 2001; Yi and Huang 2001; Zhao
et al. 2002兲. Table 1 lists the key parameters of some of these tests
for ease of reference; the remainder of the tests are given in easily
accessible sources 共Arduini et al. 2004; Brena et al. 2003; Garden
and Hollaway 1998; Grace et al. 2002; Rahimi and Hutchinson
2001; Shin and Lee 2003; Teng et al. 2003兲 and are thus not
included in Table 1.
In all these 77 tests, the beams were not subject to any pre-
loading 共loading before the bonding of the FRP plate兲 and were
not provided with anchorage measures 共e.g., U-jackets兲 in the
critical region where IC debonding occurred. All 77 beams were
used to verify the proposed strength model, whereas 42 of them,

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 161


Fig. 1. Debonding failure modes in RC beams with an externally
bonded FRP plate: 共a兲 various debonding failure modes; 共b兲
FRP-stengthened RC beam after failure by IC debonding
which were more easily accessible and are referred to as Group A
specimens in the paper, were used to verify the FE model. These
42 beams were tested by Brena et al. 共2003兲; Chan and Niall
共2001兲; Fang 共2002兲; Garden and Hollaway 共1998兲; Grace 2002;
Rahimi and Hutchinson 共2001兲; Shin and Lee 共2003兲; Teng et al.
2003; Ye et al. 共2001兲, and Zhao et al. 共2002兲.
Finite-Element Analysis
Most existing FE studies of IC debonding failures of FRP-
strengthened RC beams have been conducted using a two-
dimensional model, in which the concrete is represented using
plane stress elements, whereas the FRP plate and the steel rebars
are represented using bar elements. The shear bond stress-slip
behavior of the FRP-to-concrete interface is represented using
interface elements based on predefined bond-slip relationships.
These relationships are generally derived from pull tests in which
the FRP-to-concrete interface is subject to shear by loading the
FRP plate in tension 共Chen and Teng 2001兲.
Two approaches are available for the modeling of crack propa-
gation in the FE analysis of concrete structures: The discrete
crack approach and the smeared crack approach. The discrete
crack approach requires continuous remeshing in the solution pro-
cess to trace the propagation of cracking, so for the realistic mod-
eling of IC debonding in RC beams, the computational effort
required generally becomes intolerable as a large number of
cracks need to be traced. This approach has so far only been used
to study IC debonding caused by the propagation of one or a few
predefined cracks 共Wu and Niu 2000; Niu 2002; Monti et al.
2003兲. Such simplified analyses however ignore the interaction
between crack propagation and structural response and thus can-
not provide realistic predictions of IC debonding failures.
The smeared crack approach has been more widely used in the
FE modeling of IC debonding failures 共e.g., Wong and Vecchio
2003; Wu and Yin 2003兲. In this approach, a crack is evenly
distributed as tensile straining over a representative zone of con-
crete, and the cracking behavior is simulated using an appropriate
constitutive law for concrete. This approach does not require re-
meshing, but is unable to predict strain/slip concentrations near a
162 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007
crack, unless very small elements are used. However, both ana-
lytical solutions and discrete crack simulations 共Wu and Niu
2000; Niu 2002; Monti et al. 2003兲 have shown that an accurate
description of slip concentrations near a crack is important for
accurate predictions of IC debonding failures. To overcome this
problem, some researchers 共Wong and Vecchio 2003; Wu and Yin
2003兲 artificially adjusted the bond-slip relationship by reducing
the local bond strength 共i.e., maximum bond stress on the bond-
slip curve兲 to bring the FE results into closer agreement with the
test results. Such adjustments have been done without a sound
theoretical basis and do not lead to a generally valid FE model for
IC debonding failures.
Strength Models
Teng et al. 共2003兲 developed a simple strength model for the IC
debonding failure mode of RC flexural members. This model is a
simple modification of the bond strength model of Chen and Teng
共2001兲, with the modification being based on IC debonding test
data available to them. In addition, existing design guidelines
共ACI 2002; fib 2001; JSCE 2001兲 also contain provisions for
design against premature debonding failures, some of which may
be used to design against IC debonding. The ACI 440 共2002兲
approach is to directly limit the FRP strain to avoid debonding, so
it is rather simple to apply. By contrast, JSCE 共2001兲 limits the
maximum stress gradient in the FRP plate, but two key param-
eters including the fracture energy and the crack width are incom-
pletely defined and the method requires an involved iterative pro-
cess of analysis. fib 共2001兲 provides three alternative approaches
to avoid debonding failures by limiting: 共1兲 the FRP strain, 共2兲 the
maximum stress gradient in the FRP plate, and 共3兲 the shear force
in the RC member. The first approach is similar to the strain limit
approach of ACI 440 共2002兲 and suggests a FRP strain limit in the
range of 0.0065–0.0085, which is much higher than indicated by
some of the existing tests 共Table 2兲; further, no suggestion is
given on the specific value to be used for a particular situation.
The second approach is similar to the JSCE 共2001兲 approach but
is significantly more complicated. The third approach is suitable
for application in design in terms of simplicity. These provisions
in design guidelines do not appear to either have a solid scientific
basis or have been appropriately verified by IC debonding test
data.
Yao et al. 共2005兲 recently assessed the above-mentioned
strength models using their own test data and reached the follow-
ing conclusions: 共1兲 the IC debonding strength model of Teng
et al. 共2003兲 generally provides safe predictions of the experimen-
tal debonding strains; 共2兲 the models of ACI 440 共2002兲, fib
共2001兲, and JSCE 共2001兲, which are also models for design use,
are not sufficiently safe for use in design; and 共3兲 the model of
Teng et al. can become overly conservative and the scatter of its
predictions is large. In addition, the JSCE 共2001兲 suffers from the
tediousness of an iterative process of analysis. Therefore, much
further research is needed to develop a simple and accurate IC
debonding strength model that has a rational theoretical basis.
Interfacial Stresses and IC Debonding Process
Existing research has shown that the interfacial shear stresses in a
FRP-strengthened RC beam can be divided into two types: Those
due to the shear force in the beam 关Fig. 2共a兲兴 and those due to the
opening-up of flexural cracks 关Fig. 2共b兲兴, respectively. Fig. 2共a兲
shows a small segment of the beam in the flexural-shear zone,
where the interfacial shear stresses between the FRP plate and the
 Table 1. IC Debonding Test Data
Specimen L1 L2 L3 bc h bf tf Compression f ⬘y a⬘ Tension fy a f c⬘ E0 ff du Pu Mu ␧IC
f Group
Data source name 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 rebars 共MPa兲 共mm兲 rebars 共MPa兲 共mm兲 共MPa兲 共GPa兲 共MPa兲 共mm兲 共kN兲 共kN·m兲 ␮␧ A
Tumialan et al. A1 0 1065 0 150 300 150 0.165 0 0 0 7⌽12 427 50 50.60 230 3400 NA 72.80 77.53 NA No
共1999兲 A2 0 1065 0 150 300 150 0.33 0 0 0 7⌽12 427 50 50.60 230 3400 NA 84.90 90.42 NA No
A7 0 1065 0 150 300 75 0.33 0 0 0 7⌽12 427 50 50.60 230 3400 NA 86.10 91.70 NA No
C1 0 1065 0 150 300 75 0.165 0 0 0 7⌽12 427 50 50.60 230 3400 NA 77.20 82.22 NA No
Beber et al. 共2001兲 VR5 391.5 783 0 120 250 120 0.44 2⌽6 738 25a 2⌽10 565 25a 33.60 230 3400 27 102.20 40.01 NA No
VR6 391.5 783 0 120 250 120 0.44 2⌽6 738 25a 2⌽10 565 25a 33.60 230 3400 33 100.00 39.15 NA No
a
VR7 391.5 783 0 120 250 120 0.77 2⌽6 738 25 2⌽10 565 25a 33.60 230 3400 NA 124.20 48.62 NA No
VR8 391.5 783 0 120 250 120 0.77 2⌽6 738 25a 2⌽10 565 25a 33.60 230 3400 NA 124.00 48.55 NA No
VR9 391.5 783 0 120 250 120 1.1 2⌽6 738 25a 2⌽10 565 25a 33.60 230 3400 19 129.60 50.74 NA No
VR10 391.5 783 0 120 250 120 1.1 2⌽6 738 25a 2⌽10 565 25a 33.60 230 3400 18.9 137.00 53.64 NA No
Ceroni and Prota A2 150 600 150 150 100 110 0.165 2⌽8 590 25a 2⌽8 590 25a 29.00 230 3430 51.7 18.50 6.94 NA No
共2001兲 A3 150 450 300 150 100 110 0.165 2⌽8 590 25a 2⌽8 590 25a 29.00 230 3430 39.3 19.20 7.20 NA No
Chan and Niall S6-50-0 400 800 50 330 100 50 1.2 0 0 15a 4⌽6 677 15a 53.36 165 2940 NA 29.79 12.66 NA Yes
共2001兲 S6-50-1 400 800 50 330 100 50 1.2 0 0 15a 4⌽6 677 15a 53.36 165 2940 NA 30.84 13.11 NA Yes
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 163

S8-50-0 400 800 50 330 100 50 1.2 0 0 15a 4⌽8 653 15a 53.36 165 2940 NA 35.82 15.22 NA Yes
S8-50-1 400 800 50 330 100 50 1.2 0 0 15a 4⌽8 653 15a 53.36 165 2940 NA 41.13 17.48 NA Yes
Gao et al. 共2001兲 BB1 250 350 150 150 200 75 0.22 2⌽8 531 27 2⌽10 531 38 35.70 235 4200 15.2 80.70 20.18 NA No
BB2 250 350 150 150 200 75 0.22 2⌽8 531 27 2⌽10 531 38 35.70 235 4200 13.1 78.70 19.68 NA No
BB3 250 350 150 150 200 75 0.22 2⌽8 531 27 2⌽10 531 38 35.70 235 4200 15.9 87.90 21.98 NA No
BB4 250 350 150 150 200 75 0.44 2⌽8 531 27 2⌽10 531 38 35.70 235 4200 11.51 86.40 21.60 NA No
BB5 250 350 150 150 200 75 0.44 2⌽8 531 27 2⌽10 531 38 35.70 235 4200 12.13 93.20 23.30 NA No
BB6 250 350 150 150 200 75 0.44 2⌽8 531 27 2⌽10 531 38 35.70 235 4200 13 96.80 24.20 NA No
Xiong et al. 共2001兲 CF1 300 600 0 120 150 80 0.11 2⌽6 346 25a 2⌽12 569 25a 15.68 252 3652 14.93 51.39 15.42 NA No
GF1 300 600 0 120 150 80 0.08 2⌽6 346 25a 2⌽12 569 25a 15.68 17 350 17.6 47.58 14.27 NA No
a
CF3 200 400 0 80 120 50 0.11 2⌽6 346 25 2⌽12 346.7 25a 15.68 252 3652 11.93 30.45 6.09 NA No
Ye et al. 共2001兲 BM0 500 1380 0 400 200 300 0.111 6⌽6 372.5 25 6⌽14 372.5 25 40.24 235 3550 103.46 117.04 80.76 15000 Yes
Yi and Huang B 06 300 650 50 100 180 100 0.22 2⌽6 324 25a 3⌽8 324 25a 32.64 235 3550 NA 43.30 15.16 NA No
共2001兲 B 08 300 650 50 100 180 100 0.33 2⌽6 324 25a 3⌽8 324 25a 34.00 235 3550 NA 37.70 13.20 NA No
Fang 共2002兲 B1 200 470 80 150 200 150 0.11 2⌽6 301 15 3⌽8 288 15 24.96 235 3500 10.87 65.00 17.88 7834 Yes
B2 200 470 80 150 200 150 0.11 2⌽6 301 15 3⌽8 288 15 24.96 235 3500 11.20 67.07 18.44 7100 Yes
B3 200 470 80 150 200 150 0.11 2⌽6 301 15 3⌽8 288 15 24.96 235 3500 10.70 66.55 18.30 5868 Yes
Zhao et al. 共2002兲 LL-3 200 550 50 150 250 100 0.166 2⌽12 350.7 15 2⌽12 350.7 15 20.16 240 3550 8.56 96.88 29.06 NA Yes
LL-4 200 550 50 150 250 100 0.166 2⌽12 350.7 15 2⌽12 350.7 15 33.12 240 3550 7.5 91.75 27.53 NA Yes
LL-5 200 550 50 150 250 100 0.083 2⌽12 350.7 15 2⌽14 381.2 15 20.16 240 3550 8.9 117.35 35.21 NA Yes
a
Not provided in the original source; assumed to be 25 mm for beams and 15 mm for slabs; L1= distance from midspan to loading point; L2= distance from loading point to FRP plate end;
L3= distance from FRP Plate end to support; bc= beam width; f y= yield strength of tension rebars; Es= Young’s modulus of tension rebars; f c⬘= cylinder compressive strength of concrete; E0= initial Young’s
modulus of concrete; h= beam height; b f =FRP plate width; t f = FRP plate thickness; f ⬘y = yield strength of compression rebars; Es⬘= Young’s modulus of compression rebars; a⬘=cover to centers of
compression rebars; a=cover to centers of tension rebars; E f = Young’s modulus of FRP plate; f f = tensile strength of FRP plate; du= deflection at ultimate load; Pu= ultimate load; M u= ultimate bending
moment; and ␧IC f = FRP strain at IC debonding.
Table 2. Comparison of Results from Tests, FEA, and Strength Model
Test FEA Design model
Specimen du Mu ␧IC
f du Mu ␧IC
f Mu ␧IC
f
Data source name 共mm兲 共kN·m兲 ␮␧ 共mm兲 共kN·m兲 ␮␧ 共kN·m兲 ␮␧
Triantafillou and Plevris 共1992兲 B4 — 6.78 — 6.28 5,393
B5 — 7.01 — 6.28 5,393
B6 — 6.41 — 6.89 4,428
B7 — 5.86 — 6.89 4,425
B8 — 8.56 — 8.41 2,713
Garden and Hollaway 共1998兲 Can-05 — 9.06 — 10.50 7.61 7,796 6.74 7,957
Can-06 — 8.75 — 19.50 8.42 8,494 6.86 8,177
Can-07 — 8.95 — 19.50 8.42 8,494 6.86 8,177
Tumialan et al. 共1999兲 A1 — 77.53 — 92.54 10,871
A2 — 90.42 — 98.54 7,581
A7 — 91.70 — 91.55 10,171
C1 — 82.22 — 87.47 14,585
Beber et al. 共2001兲 VR5 27 40.01 — 33.23 5,208
VR6 33 39.15 — 33.23 5,208
VR7 — 48.62 — 37.27 3,839
VR8 — 48.55 — 37.27 3,839
VR9 19 50.74 — 40.29 3,146
VR10 18.9 53.64 — 40.29 3,146
Ceroni and Prota 共2001兲 A2 51.7 6.94 — 6.62 9,148
A3 39.3 7.20 — 6.55 8,963
Chan and Niall 共2001兲 S6-50-0 — 12.66 — 45.00 14.20 6,743 12.53 7,446
S6-50-1 — 13.11 — 45.00 14.20 6,743 12.53 7,446
S8-50-0 — 15.22 — 50.00 18.28 6,945 16.13 7,446
S8-50-1 — 17.48 — 50.00 18.28 6,945 16.13 7,446
Gao et al. 共2001兲 BB1 15.2 20.18 — 19.12 9,640
BB2 13.1 19.68 — 19.12 9,640
BB3 15.9 21.98 — 19.12 9,640
BB4 11.51 21.60 — 21.48 6,451
BB5 12.13 23.30 — 21.48 6,451
BB6 13 24.20 — 21.48 6,451
Rahimi and Hutchinson 共2001兲 A4 32 23.21 — 25.89 21.29 5,164 21.32 5,629
A5 31.3 23.70 7,200 25.89 21.29 5,164 21.32 5,629
A6 23.1 22.28 — 22.64 25.17 4,759 23.69 4,501
A7 27.9 26.48 — 22.64 25.17 4,759 23.69 4,501
A8 31.9 24.45 — 25.89 21.29 5,164 21.32 5,629
A9 33 23.96 — 25.89 21.29 5,164 21.32 5,629
B3 38.7 20.70 9,700 34.62 17.68 6,544 18.03 8,176
B4 38.1 19.69 — 34.62 17.68 6,544 18.03 8,176
B5 30.3 26.14 — 22.65 25.18 4,761 23.69 4,501
B6 28.3 26.10 5,500 22.65 25.18 4,761 23.69 4,501
B7 33.3 22.16 — 28.46 19.51 6,514 19.09 7,179
B8 34.2 23.10 — 28.46 19.51 6,514 19.09 7,179
Xiong et al. 共2001兲 CF1 14.93 15.42 — 13.86 7,948
GF1 17.6 14.27 — 12.55 37,318
CF3 11.93 6.09 — 6.29 7,931
Ye et al. 共2001兲 BM0 103.46 80.76 15,000 108.00 78.60 14,043 76.31 14,063
Yi and Huang 共2001兲 B 06 — 15.16 — 12.97 7,047
B 08 — 13.20 — 14.35 5,797

164 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007

Table 2. 共Continued.兲
Test FEA Design model
Specimen du Mu ␧IC
f du Mu ␧IC
f Mu ␧IC
f
Data source name 共mm兲 共kN·m兲 ␮␧ 共mm兲 共kN·m兲 ␮␧ 共kN·m兲 ␮␧
Fang 共2002兲 B1 10.87 17.88 7,834 10.83 17.07 10,050 13.87 8,478
B2 11.19 18.44 7,100 10.83 17.07 10,050 13.87 8,478
B3 10.70 18.30 5,868 10.83 17.07 10,050 13.87 8,478
Grace et al. 共2002兲 C-3 22 57.89 6,700 21.00 61.68 7,967 56.13 6,899
Zhao et al. 共2002兲 LL-3 8.56 29.06 — 7.20 26.36 7,376 24.48 7,202
LL-4 7.5 27.53 — 7.80 28.67 8,859 27.25 9,999
LL-5 8.9 35.21 — 7.80 32.26 9,784 30.98 10,389
Brena et al. 共2003兲 A1 11.3 63.74 7,900 14.00 71.21 8,877 62.52 8,097
A2 15.1 67.04 6,100 14.00 69.43 7,923 63.22 8,646
A3 27 73.64 10,200 16.00 72.82 9,285 64.15 9,374
A4 19 68.69 7,800 20.00 73.67 11,630 66.98 11,534
B1 20.06 71.21 7,200 20.06 71.21 8,727 69.80 9,007
C1 22.94 87.66 7,600 21.00 82.86 7,609 78.90 7,236
C2 16.89 76.80 7,000 21.00 82.86 7,609 78.90 7,236
D1 10.92 78.14 3,500 18.00 88.30 5,692 82.92 6,166
D2 13.94 81.68 4,800 18.00 88.30 5,692 82.92 6,166
Shin and Lee 共2003兲 R2O 21.8 31.40 — 18.00 26.40 5,609 24.63 6,445
R3O 21.3 46.00 — 16.00 37.53 5,977 34.90 6,445
Teng et al. 共2003兲 GS1-I 36.7 10.00 9,700 15.75 9.77 9,122 10.28 12,609
CS1-I 37.4 8.51 10,000 36.00 9.52 8,030 9.13 10,005
CP1-I 21.7 19.95 5,700 17.50 20.87 6,040 18.73 5,141
CP2-I 16.1 17.58 4,300 19.25 22.50 7,380 20.00 6,175
Arduini et al. 共2004兲 S-T1L1p — 226.50 — 185.41 12,475
S-T2L1 — 420.00 — 423.20 9,477
S-T2L2 — 536.25 — 539.37 4,624
S-T3L1 — 213.75 — 210.60 9,477
S-T3L2 — 255.00 — 233.37 12,008
S-T4L1 — 487.50 — 471.97 12,008
S-T4L2 — 525.00 — 507.32 8,405

RC beam are caused by the shear force Q directly. These interfa-
cial stresses are referred as ␶s hereafter: they define the overall
distribution of interfacial shear stresses and should be zero in a
pure bending zone of a beam. Fig. 2共b兲 shows the opening-up of
a flexural crack in a RC beam and the constraint provided by a
FRP plate bridging the crack. In this case, the interfacial shear
stresses developed between the FRP plate and the RC beam near
the flexural crack, which are hereafter referred to as ␶c, define the
local fluctuations in the interfacial shear stresses in an FRP-
strengthened RC beam and exist near each crack both within and
Fig. 2. Two types of interfacial shear stresses: 共a兲 shear
force-induced; 共b兲 crack-induced
outside the pure bending zone. Laboratory tests on RC beams in
four-point bending showed that IC debonding was commonly ini-
tiated under one of the two concentrated loads 共e.g., Fang 2002;
Rahimi and Hutchinson 2001兲. This is because at this location,
both the shear force and the bending moment are at their maxi-
mum values, so both the shear force-induced interfacial shear
stress ␶s and the crack-induced interfacial shear stress ␶c are
maximized.
Unless strong additional anchorage measures are provided in
the flexural-shear zone, IC debonding, once initiated, will propa-
gate quickly to a FRP plate end. During this process of debonding
propagation, there may be a small load increase, followed by an
eventual sudden drop. The initiation of debonding propagation
and the attainment of the peak load 共i.e., ultimate load兲 are two
important instances of an IC debonding process, and the loads
corresponding to these two instances are usually very close to
each other. In many laboratory tests, the debonding propagation
process is so quick that a distinction between the two instances
can hardly be made, but the ultimate load and the corresponding
deflection can generally be captured. In developing the simple
strength model presented later in this paper, the interfacial stress
distribution at the initiation of debonding propagation was taken
as the basis. This has two important advantages: 共1兲 the interfacial

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 165

 Fig. 3. Slip fields in interface elements
stress distribution at the initiation of debonding propagation is
much less complicated than that at the peak load and can be more
easily interpreted, but the two corresponding loads are similar;
and 共2兲 at the initiation of debonding propagation, the plane sec-
tion assumption is believed to be still valid for the FRP-
strengthened RC beam, so that the ultimate load can be easily
related to the strain in the FRP plate.
Dual Local Debonding Criterion
Before presenting the FE model based on the smeared crack ap-
proach, two key issues are first discussed in this paper. These
discussions are based on the assumption that four-node interface
elements are employed between the RC beam and the FRP plate
to represent the bond-slip behavior of the interface. The two is-
sues include the modeling of local slip concentrations at the FRP-
to-concrete interface near a major flexural crack in the concrete
discussed in this section and the modeling of bond-slip behavior
of this interface in the next section.
As pointed out earlier, the smeared crack approach, though
more efficient than the discrete crack approach, is incapable of
capturing the effect of slip concentrations near each flexural crack
on the behavior of the FRP-to-concrete interface. To overcome
this difficulty, a dual criterion for local interfacial debonding is
proposed here to approximate this effect. This dual local debond-
ing criterion needs to be applied to each interface element to
detect the occurrence of local debonding during a FE analysis.
In Fig. 3, the slip fields of the FRP-to-concrete interface with
or without the presence of a major flexural crack in the adjacent
concrete are both illustrated. When a major flexural crack does
not exist in the adjacent concrete, the slip field of the interface
varies smoothly and this slip field is generally well described by
the shape functions of the interface element. In such cases, local
debonding can be predicted by monitoring the slips between the
top and bottom nodes at the two ends of the interface element. If
the interfacial slip at any end is larger than the slip value s0
corresponding to the peak bond stress in a bond-slip model, local
debonding is then deemed to have started in the zone represented
by these two nodes. For a four-node interface element with a zero
thickness, the two nodes at each end represent half of the inter-
face element on each side of the two nodes.
By contrast, if a major flexural crack exists in the adjacent
concrete, which is also shown in Fig. 3, slip concentrations occur
near the crack 共Wu and Niu 2000; Niu 2002; Monti et al. 2003兲.
166 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007
Fig. 4. Comparison of load–deflection curves for beams tested by
Wu and Yin 共2003兲
It is difficult to evaluate these slip concentrations with the
smeared crack approach, so an approximate method is proposed
here. It may be noted that interfacial slips occur on both sides of
the flexural crack, and the total amount of the interfacial slip
within the interface element should be equal to the width of the
flexural crack. Therefore, local debonding is deemed to have oc-
curred if the total slip within an interface element exceeds 2s0.
Bond-Slip Models for FRP-to-Concrete Interfaces
General
In the FE analysis of FRP-strengthened RC beams which fail by
IC debonding, a key issue is the modeling of the bond-slip behav-
ior of the FRP-to-concrete interface. In all existing FE studies, a
single bond-slip model based on pull tests of FRP-to-concrete
bonded joints was used to model the entire length of the FRP-to-
concrete interface in a beam. Sato 共2003兲 pointed out that the
bond-slip behavior near a flexural crack might be different from
that found from pull tests and included this positional effect in his
bond-slip model through a linear reduction of the local bond
strength towards the flexural crack. The study by Sato 共2003兲
raised an important issue, which was clarified in the present study
using a mesoscale FE approach as described in the following.
Mesoscale FE Analysis
A mesoscale FE approach has recently been proposed by Lu et al.
共2005b兲 for modeling debonding failures in pull tests of FRP-to-
concrete bonded joints. In this approach, the concrete, FRP, and
adhesive are modeled with very small elements and the element
size effect is taken into account in the constitutive law of con-
crete. Debonding is simulated as the fracture of concrete ele-
ments, so the bond-slip behavior of the interface can be predicted
using this mesoscale approach. Although this mesoscale FE ap-
proach is based on the smeared crack approach, due to the use of
very small elements 共e.g., element side lengths of the order of
0.5 mm兲, the results closely approximate those from a discrete
crack approach. As a result, slip concentrations near cracks can be
accurately simulated using this mesoscale FE approach if suffi-
ciently small elements are used. Comparisons with test results
showed that this mesoscale FE approach is capable of correctly
simulating the debonding failure process in a pull test. This model
 Fig. 5. Cracks from mesoscale FE model of the beams of Wu and Yin 共2003兲
was employed to obtain the bond-slip relationship of the FRP-to-
concrete interface in a pull test by Lu et al. 共2005a兲, which led to
excellent results. Further details of the mesoscale FE approach
can be found in Lu et al. 共2005b兲.
Mesoscale FE Analysis of Plain Concrete Beams
In the present study, the mesoscale FE method was used to find
out whether the bond-slip behavior of the interface in a FRP-
strengthened RC beam, with cracking in the tensile concrete, can
be predicted by a bond-slip model derived from pull tests. Two
identical FRP-strengthened plain concrete beams under three-
point bending tested by Wu and Yin 共2003兲 were chosen for
analysis by the mesoscale approach. The beams had a cross sec-
tion of 100 mm⫻ 150 mm and a clear span of 900 mm. It was
symmetrically bonded with a 750 mm long carbon FRP 共CFRP兲
sheet having a nominal thickness of 0.11 mm and a Young’s
modulus of 230 MPa based on this nominal thickness. The con-
crete of the beams had a cylinder compressive strength of
24.6 MPa, an elastic modulus of 25 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio of
0.15 共Wu and Yin 2003兲. The tensile strength of concrete was
found to be 2.6 MPa using a relationship in GB-50010 共2002兲.
These beams were relatively small and had no steel reinforce-
ment, so their mesoscale model is computationally less demand-
ing than one for a more realistic RC beam.
In the mesoscale model of these two beams, the smallest
elements for the concrete had a side length of 0.5 mm, which is
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 167
one order smaller than the thickness of the concrete layer that
debonded. The elements representing the FRP plate were directly
connected to those representing the concrete, without an adhesive
layer in between. This treatment is believed to be appropriate as
for commonly used adhesives, the amount of interfacial slip con-
tributed by the adhesive layer is a small portion of the total slip
and debonding generally occurs in the concrete rather than in the
adhesive layer 共Lu et al. 2005b兲. The general purpose FE package
MSC.MARC 共2003兲 was used to establish the mesoscale model.
The FE load–deflection curve is compared with those from the
two tests in Fig. 4. The mesoscale FE results are seen to be in
close agreement with the test results in general, given that the two
nominally identical tests delivered significantly different results
共Fig. 4兲. The crack pattern, as indicated by the contours of crack
strain 共Lu et al. 2005b兲, which is defined as the total tensile strain
minus the elastic strain at each Gauss point, is shown in Fig. 5共a兲.
This crack pattern is also in close agreement with that given in
Wu and Yin 共2003兲. The accuracy of the mesoscale model is thus
verified.
Bond-Slip Models
Using the results from the mesoscale FE model described previ-
ously, the interfacial bond-slip curves in this FRP-strengthened
plain concrete beam were examined at different locations along
the interface. These results showed that for the parts of the inter-
face outside the major flexural crack zone, the crack pattern of the
concrete near the interface 关Fig. 5共b兲兴, which is composed of a
series of tension-shear interfacial cracks, is close to that observed
in a pull test. Further, the bond-slip relationship does not vary
much along the interface and is very close to that predicted by the
bond-slip model proposed by Lu et al. 共2005a兲 based on pull tests
关Fig. 6共a兲兴, which is given by

冑
冦
s
␶max if s ⱕ s0 共1a兲
␶= s0
␶maxe−␣共s/s0−1兲 if s ⬎ s0 共1b兲
where

␶max = 1.5␤w f t 共1c兲

s0 = 0.0195␤w f t 共1d兲

␤w = 冑 2.25 − b f /bc
1.25 + b f /bc
共1e兲

1
␣= 共1f兲
Gf 2
−
␶maxs0 3

G f = 0.308␤2w冑 f t 共1g兲
where b f ⫽width of the FRP plate 共mm兲; bc⫽width of the concrete
member 共mm兲; f t⫽tensile strength of concrete 共MPa兲;
G f ⫽interfacial fracture energy 共MPa mm兲; and ␶ and s⫽shear
bond stress 共MPa兲 and the interfacial slip 共mm兲, respectively. It
should be noted that three bond-slip models of different levels of
sophistication were proposed by Lu et al. 共2005a兲 and the one
given above is their “simplified model,” which is nevertheless as
accurate as their “precise model” for FRP plates bonded to RC
beams with commonly used adhesives. This bond-slip relation-
ship is hereafter referred to as “Bond-Slip Model I.”
For the part of the interface inside the major flexural crack
zone, the crack pattern near the interface 关Fig. 5共c兲兴 is different
from that observed in a pull test. Around a major flexural crack,
some root-shaped cracks exist. This difference in crack pattern
implies different failure mechanisms. As it was difficult to obtain
a stable bond-slip curve from the numerical results for a single
point along the interface in the major flexural crack zone, the
average bond-slip response over a certain length obtained was
examined. Two averaging lengths, 15 and 20 mm, respectively,
were used, as they correspond to interface element widths of 30
and 40 mm that are most frequently used in the conventional FE
simulations 共i.e., FE analyses using elements of normal sizes兲
presented later in the paper. The resulting average bond-slip re-
sponses for these two averaging lengths are shown in Fig. 6共b兲. It
can be seen that both curves are composed of a curved ascending
branch and a highly brittle descending branch. These bond-slip
responses can be closely described by the bond-slip model of Lu
et al. 共2005a兲 with a brittle postpeak branch 关Fig. 6共b兲兴. That is,
Fig. 6. Bond-slip curves for the interface from mesoscale FE model
of the beams of Wu and Yin 共2003兲
FE Modeling of IC Debonding
General
Although the IC debonding failure of the plain concrete beam
discussed in the preceding section was successfully simulated
using the mesoscale FE approach, this approach is computation-
ally too demanding for the simulation of a large number of large
RC beams with a length of several meters. Using the bond-slip
models defined earlier, a conventional FE approach can be used
for large RC beams, in which elements of normal sizes are used.
Normal element sizes refer to those commonly used in conven-
tional FE analyses, which are several times the maximum aggre-
gate size.
The general purpose FE package MSC.MARC 共2003兲 was also
used for the conventional FE simulations. The concrete, the rebars
and the FRP plate were modeled with the plane stress quadrilat-
eral element 共Element 3 in MSC.MARC兲, the four-node plane
rebar element 共Element 143 in MSC.MARC兲 and the truss ele-
ment 共Element 9 in MSC.MARC兲, respectively.

冑
冦
s
␶max if s ⱕ s0 共2a兲 Modeling of Concrete
␶= s0
Concrete in compression was treated as an elastic–plastic material
0 if s ⬎ s0 共2b兲
using the yield function proposed by Buyukozturk 共1977兲 with an
Here, ␶max and s0 are still given by Eqs. 共1c兲 and 共1d兲. Eq. 共2兲 is associated flow rule, which was already included in MSC.MARC
hereafter referred to as “Bond-Slip Model II.” 共2003兲. It was also assumed that concrete is a linearly elastic

168 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007

material when the equivalent stress as defined by Buyukozturk
共1977兲 is smaller than 0.3f c. The initial Poisson ratio of concrete
was set to be 0.2 for all beam specimens. The uniaxial stress–
strain relationship of concrete from Hognestad 共1951兲 was used as
the equivalent stress–strain curve to represent the compressive
behavior of concrete

冋 冉 冊 冉 冊册
冦 冣
␧ ␧ 2
␴0 2 − if ␧ ⱕ ␧0 共3a兲
␧0 ␧0
␴=
冋 冉 冊册
␴0 1 − 0.15
␧ − ␧0
␧u − ␧0
if ␧0 ⬍ ␧ ⱕ ␧u 共3b兲

0 if ␧ ⬎ ␧u 共3c兲 Fig. 7. Interface element

where ␴0 = f c, ␧0 = 2共␴0 / E0兲, ␧u = 0.0038, and f c⫽compressive
strength of concrete which was taken to be the cylinder compres-
sive strength f ⬘c in this study. The cube compressive strength f cu
reported in some papers was converted to the cylinder strength
using f ⬘c = 0.8f cu. E0 is the initial elastic modulus of concrete and if
E0 was not reported for a test specimen, it was obtained from
E0 = 105 / 共2.2+ 34.74/ f cu兲 共MPa兲 according to the Chinese code
for the design of concrete structures 共GB-50010 2002兲.
Concrete in tension was assumed to be linearly elastic before
the peak stress 共i.e., cracking兲 is reached and then to follow the
linear softening curve proposed by Hillerborg 共Rots et al. 1985兲
defined by
Modeling of Steel Rebars and FRP Plate
The steel rebars were assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic. With
the rebar element available in MSC.MARC 共2003兲, the sections,
directions and positions of both flexural and shear rebars were
modeled precisely. The rebar elements were connected to the con-
crete elements using the common node method, so no slips be-
tween rebars and concrete were allowed. This simplification of
interfaces between rebars and concrete has little effect on the
predicted strength but may lead to overestimation of the stiffness
of the beam if the beam is reinforced with plain rebars.

冦
The FRP was modeled as a linearly elastic material with brittle
E 0␧ if ␧ ⱕ ␧cr = f t/E0 共4a兲
failure when its tensile strength is reached. As the FRP plate was
␧ − ␧cr very thin with a very small bending stiffness, it was modeled
␴ = ft u if ␧cr ⬍ ␧ ⱕ ␧cr u
共4b兲
␧cr − ␧cr using truss elements.
0 if ␧ ⬎ ␧cr
u
共4c兲
where f t⫽tensile strength of concrete. If the tensile strength of User-Defined Interface Element
concrete f t was not reported for a test beam, it was obtained from Through the user subroutine facility of MSC.MARC 共2003兲, a
cu 共MPa兲 according to the Chinese code 共GB-50010
f t = 0.395f 0.55 user-defined interface element was defined for the FE model to
2002兲. The ultimate tensile strain when the tensile stress reduces represent the bond-slip behavior of the FRP-to-concrete interface
to zero is denoted by ␧cr u
and was calculated from the fracture in an FRP-strengthened RC beam. The details of this interface
I
energy of concrete G f . According to the model code of CEB-FIP element are shown in Fig. 7. This interface element has four
共1993兲, for normal concrete, the fracture energy GIf of concrete is nodes but no thickness, with the two upper nodes connected to the

冉 冊 0.7
concrete and the two lower nodes connected to the FRP plate. At
fc each end of the interface element, the interaction between the two
GIf = ␣ 共4d兲
10 nodes is represented by two springs: the shear spring with a se-
cant stiffness Ku and the normal 共tension-compression兲 spring
where ␣ = 0.03 for concrete with normal aggregate. The assump-
with a secant stiffness Kv.
tion of a uniform distribution of the crack strain over the crack
The secant stiffness of the normal spring Kv is defined as
bandwidth bcr leads to
follows:
2GIf 1. If a compressive force develops in the normal spring, Kv is
␧cr
u
= 共4e兲 infinite and
f tbcr
2. If a tensile force develops in the normal spring, Kv is infinite
The shear behavior of cracked concrete was treated in two differ- if no debonding has occurred but is equal to zero if debond-
ent ways. For a RC beam with steel stirrups, a constant shear ing has occurred.
retention factor ␤ = 0.4 was used. In a RC beam without steel For a given interfacial shear slip, the force induced in the shear
stirrups, the shear cracks may be relatively wide. As the interlock- spring is
ing effect of cracked concrete decreases with the crack width, a
constant shear retention factor seems no longer suitable. There- ␶Lb f
F= 共6兲
fore, the variable shear retention model of Al-Mahaidi 共Walraven 2
and Reinhardt 1981兲 was chosen to represent the shear behavior
of cracked concrete, in which where L⫽length of the interface element; b f ⫽width of the FRP
plate; ␶ is found from Eqs. 共1a兲–共1g兲; and s⫽difference in hori-
0.4 zontal displacement between the upper and lower nodes. The se-
␤= 共5兲 cant stiffness Ku can be derived easily if the bond-slip curve is
␧cr
nn/共200 ⫻ 10−6兲
known.
where ␧crnn is the direct crack strain normal to the crack, defined as Based on the dual local debonding criterion and the bond-slip
the total direct strain normal to the crack minus the elastic strain. models described previously, two situations arise in a FE analysis.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 169

 Fig. 9. IC debonding loads: test versus FE results

w = ␧cr
nnL 共7兲
If w is larger than 2s0, then debonding due to crack opening-up is
deemed to occur; the shear stress in the concerned interface ele-
ment drops to zero following Eq. 共2b兲. If w is smaller than 2s0,
the crack-induced debonding does not occur and the interface
element is treated in the same way as an interface element con-
nected to a concrete element that does not contain a flexural
crack.

FE Results

General
Altogether, the 42 Group A specimens were analyzed using the
FE model described in the preceding section and the results are
compared with the test results in this section. In particular, de-
tailed comparisons are given for Beam B6 tested by Rahimi and

Fig. 8. Comparison between FE and test results for Specimen B6

tested by Rahimi and Hutchinson 共2001兲

If no flexural crack exists in the adjacent concrete element, the

force–displacement relationship of the shear spring follows Bond-
Slip Model I and local debonding occurs when s exceeds s0.
However, if a flexural crack is present in the adjacent concrete
element, local debonding occurs when the width of the flexural
crack exceeds 2s0. For the crack width to be properly evaluated
using the smeared crack approach, the concrete element size in
the FE model should be controlled to be less than 3 times the
maximum aggregate size, so that the crack strain distribution
within a concrete element can be treated as being uniform 共Kwak
and Filippou 1990兲 and the crack width w in the concrete element
can be evaluated as Fig. 10. IC debonding deflections: test versus FE results

170 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007


Fig. 11. IC debonding strains: test versus FE results
Hutchinson 共2001兲. In the FE analysis, the load was applied with
displacement control so that the entire load–deflection curve in-
cluding the softening branch could be obtained.
Comparison between Test and FE Results
The experimental load–deflection curve of specimen B6 is com-
pared with the FE results in Fig. 8共a兲, where FE results from two
different meshes, with average element sizes of 15 and 30 mm for
the concrete, respectively, are given. The two meshes led to al-
most identical results for the initial part of the load–deflection
curve, but after the yielding of the steel reinforcement at a load of
about 40 kN, the finer mesh led to a slightly smaller stiffness than
the coarser mesh. The finer mesh model also predicted a slightly
more gradual postfailure process. Overall, the difference between
these two predicted load–deflection curves is small, indicating
that the FE model was reasonably insensitive to element sizes and
the coarser mesh is of sufficient accuracy for use in such FE
simulations. In particular, the predicted debonding strength de-
pends little on the element size. Both FE load–deflection curves
are in close agreement with the test results.
The axial strain distributions in the FRP plate from the two FE
models at the commencement of IC debonding are compared with
that from the test in Fig. 8共b兲. The crack pattern 共contours of
crack strain兲 from the coarser one is shown in Fig. 8共c兲, which is
in close agreement with that observed in the test 共Rahimi and
Hutchinson 2001兲. These comparisons indicate a close agreement
between the FE and test results. Similar comparisons carried
out for other specimens not presented here also showed a close
agreement.
Comparisons of the IC debonding failure load and the corre-
sponding deflection are given in Figs. 9 and 10 and Table 2 for all
42 beams. A very close agreement is seen for the failure load: The
average error of the FE predictions is only −1.16%, with a coef-
ficient of variation of 0.108. This demonstrates very clearly that
the present FE method can accurately predict IC debonding fail-
ures. The predicted deflections at the failure load are slightly
smaller than the test results, and there are two reasons for this
difference: 共1兲 omission of the slips between steel rebars and con-
crete in the FE model and 共2兲 larger errors in the deflection read-
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 171
Fig. 12. Interfacial shear stresses in Specimen B6 tested by Rahimi
and Hutchinson 共2001兲
ings compared to load readings at debonding failure due to the
small slope of the load–deflection curve during this stage of de-
formation.
Of the 42 beams in Specimen Group A, the FRP strains at IC
debonding failure were reported for 21 beams. In Fig. 11, these
experimental debonding strains are compared with FE predic-
tions. It should be noted that strain measurements on the FRP
plate are significantly affected by the presence of local cracks.
The readings of strain gauges located away from flexural cracks
are likely to be significantly smaller than those at these cracks. At
least partly because of this phenomenon, it is not surprising to see
a greater scatter in the comparison of debonding strains than that
for debonding loads and to find the experimental debonding
strains to be slightly smaller than the predicted debonding strains
on average 共Fig. 11兲. The smaller scatter in the comparison of
debonding loads is also partly due to the fact that a variation in
the debonding strain leads to a smaller variation in the debonding
load which also depends on many other factors. Nevertheless, a
reasonably close agreement is still seen in Fig. 11.
Effect of Debonding Criterion and Bond-Slip Models
Compared to previous FE models for IC debonding 共Niu 2002;
Wong and Vecchio 2003; Wu and Yin 2003; Sato 2003; Arduini et
al. 1997; Aprile et al. 2001; Ferretti and Savoia 2003兲, the present
model has two novel features, namely the use of a dual local
debonding criterion and the use of two different bond-slip models
for the major flexural crack zone and the rest of the beam, respec-
tively. The effects of these two measures were investigated in the
present study. The FE results were found to substantially overes-
timate the test failure loads if these two measures are not used:
For the 42 Group A specimens analyzed in the present study, the
FE debonding strengths are about 40% larger than the test results
on average. If Bond-Slip Model I is used for the whole interface
together with the dual local debonding criterion, the average error
of the FE IC debonding strengths for the 42 beams referred to
previously was found to be +9.4%. This error reduces to −3.5%
when Bond-Slip Model II is used for the whole interface instead.
These results clearly indicate that in the present FE model based
on the smeared crack approach, the proposed dual local debond-
ing criterion is the key to accurate predictions. If a single bond-
slip model is to be used for the entire FRP-to-concrete interface in
 Fig. 13. Relationship between ␣ and Lee / Ld
an FE model for IC debonding, a bond-slip model with a brittle
postpeak branch which is valid for the major flexural crack zone
leads to more accurate predictions.
Strength Model for IC Debonding
Distribution of Interfacial Shear Stresses
The distribution of interfacial shear stress in an FRP-strengthened
RC beam at any point of the entire IC debonding process can be
predicted using the proposed FE model. As explained earlier in
the paper, the interfacial shear stress distribution at the com-
mencement of IC debonding is easier to interpret than those dur-
ing the process of debonding propagation and there are only small
load increases during this process of propagation. Therefore, in-
terfacial shear stress distributions at the commencement of IC
debonding were examined in detail in the present study in order to
establish a simple strength mode for IC debonding.
The interfacial shear stress distribution at the commencement
of IC debonding predicted by the proposed FE method for Speci-
men B6 共Rahimi and Hutchinson 2001兲 is shown in Fig. 12. The
corresponding value of the total load on the beam is 71.5 kN
Fig. 14. IC debonding strains: FE analysis versus strength model
172 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007
Fig. 15. IC Debonding moments at the critical section: tests versus
strength model
共about 97% of the ultimate load兲, whereas the corresponding mid-
span deflection is 25.7 mm 共about 87% of the deflection at ulti-
mate load兲. It can be seen that large interfacial stresses arise near
the loaded section, due to the opening-up of the major flexural
crack here. Away from this crack, the interfacial stresses in the
shear span feature smaller peaks at cracks and show an overall
trend of average stresses which may be approximated by a linear
variation. Within the pure flexural zone, the interfacial stresses are
very small. These same characteristics can also be identified in
interfacial stress distributions obtained from FE simulations for
other RC beams/slabs.
Strength Model Based on Stress Blocks
For design use, this interfacial shear stress distribution can be
approximated by two triangular stress blocks away from the pure
flexural zone where the interfacial shear stress is assumed to be
zero on average 共Fig. 12兲. One of the triangular stress blocks,
spanning over a large part of the shear span, represents the inter-
facial shear stress ␶s due to the shear force in the beam. Although
these interfacial shear stresses are due to the transverse shear
force in the beam, their distribution is different from that of the
shear force as the section material properties after cracking and
yielding vary over the length of the beam. The other stress block,
which spans only a much shorter distance, represents the interfa-
Fig. 16. Normalized debonding strain versus bond length
cial shear stress ␶c due to the opening-up of the major flexural
crack at the edge of the pure flexural zone. Although the interfa-
cial shear stress distribution is very complex, after some numeri-
cal smoothing, it was found that the length of this stress block is
roughly equal to the effective bond length corresponding to Bond-
Slip Model II for the major flexural crack zone, which can be
approximated by the following equation 共Yuan et al. 2004兲:
冑
= 0.228冑E f t f
4E f t f
Lee =
␶max/s0
Based on these idealized stress blocks, the total axial force in the
FRP plate at the loaded section is given by
T= 冉 ␶c,maxLee ␶s,maxLd
2
+
2
bf 冊
where Ld should strictly be the distance 共mm兲 from the loaded
section to the end of the cracked region or the plate end if the
plate is terminated within the cracked region, because in the un-
cracked region of the beam, the interfacial shear stress is very
small. However, to avoid the extra work involved in determining
the cracked region of the beam, Ld is simply taken to be the
distance 共mm兲 from the loaded section to the end of the FRP plate
as this simplification leads to little error in the IC debonding load
predicted using Eq. 共9兲.
As the maximum value of the crack-induced interfacial shear
stress ␶c,max and the maximum value of the shear force-induced
interfacial shear stress ␶s,max are both located at the loaded sec-
tion, IC debonding is deemed to occur when
␶c,max + ␶s,max = ␶max
Hence, if a relationship between the two maximum interfacial
shear stresses can be found, the total axial force in the FRP plate
can be easily calculated at the critical section for IC debonding.
A factor ␣ is introduced here to represent the ratio between the
maximum shear force-induced interfacial stress ␶s,max and the
total interfacial stress at the critical section ␶max. That is
␶s,max = ␣␶max
␶c,max = 共1 − ␣兲␶max
The strain in the FRP plate at the critical section ␧IC
f when IC
debonding occurs can then be obtained from
T 共1 − ␣兲␶maxLee + ␣␶maxLd
␧IC
f = = 共12兲
Eftfbf 2E f t f
In Eq. 共12兲, the only unknown is ␣. By comparing the prediction
of Eq. 共12兲 with the corresponding FE result, the value of ␣ was
obtained for each of the 42 beams in Specimen Group A. The
values of ␣ deduced from FE results vary mainly with the Lee / Ld
ratio, as shown in Fig. 13. A regression of these ␣ values led to
the following equation:
␣ = 3.41Lee/Ld
Substitution of Eqs. 共8兲 and 共13兲 into Eq. 共12兲 yields the following
equation for predicting the IC debonding strain of the FRP plate
at the critical section:
␧IC 冑
f = 0.114共4.41 − ␣兲␶max/ E f t f
The predictions of Eq. 共14兲 are compared with the FE debonding
strains for Specimen Group A in Fig. 14 and a close agreement
can been seen. The FRP strain from Eq. 共14兲 can be used in a
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007 / 173
conventional section analysis based on the plane section assump-
tion to determine the IC debonding moment at the critical section
and hence the IC debonding load. For all 77 specimens, the ex-
perimental ultimate loads are compared with the proposed
strength model in Fig. 15 and Table 2, where M u,rupture⫽bending
moment of the loaded section if the section fails by tensile rupture
of the FRP. These comparisons show that the present strength
model predicts test results closely. The predictions of the debond-
ing moment are slightly more conservative than those for the FRP
共8兲
debonding strain. This phenomenon is believed to be due to the
use of the plane section assumption in evaluating the moment
from the plate strain, which ignores the slip between the FRP
plate and the concrete when IC debonding occurs. As a result,
共9兲
the curvature and thus the moment at the critical section are
underestimated.
A comparison of FRP strains from 21 tests and the predictions
of the FE model and Eq. 共14兲 is shown in Fig. 16. For a more
insightful comparison, the FRP strain is normalized with respect
to ␶max / 冑E f t f based on Eq. 共14兲, whereas the bond length Ld is
normalized with respect to 冑E f t f . It can be seen that the predic-
tions of Eq. 共14兲 match the overall trend of the test data and the
FE results well and pass through the middle of the scatter of the
test data and the smaller scatter of the FE results.
Conclusions
This paper has presented a new smeared crack approach for the
finite-element prediction of IC debonding failures in FRP-
共10兲 strengthened RC beams. This new approach overcomes the major
deficiency of all existing finite-element models in which the effect
of slip concentration near a flexural crack in the concrete on the
behavior of the FRP-to-concrete interface is not properly cap-
tured. In this proposed method, a dual local debonding criterion is
employed to monitor local debonding along the interface, so that
local debonding in the major flexural crack region can be accu-
rately described. In addition, two different bond-slip models are
共11a兲 used for the major flexural crack zone and the rest of the beam
respectively. Comparisons with test results showed that the pro-
posed finite-element model can accurately predict IC debonding
共11b兲
failures. Based on interfacial stress distributions predicted by the
finite-element model, the paper has also presented a simple
strength model for IC debonding failures. The new strength model
is shown to be accurate through comparisons with test results.
Acknowledgments
The writers are grateful for the financial support received from
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University through its Area of
Strategic Development 共ASD兲 Scheme for the ASD in Urban
Hazard Mitigation and the Natural Science Foundation of China
共National Key Project No. 50238030兲.
共13兲
References
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2002兲. “Guide for the design and
共14兲 construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening con-
crete structures.” ACI 440.2R-02, ACI Committee 440, Detroit.
Aprile, A., Spacone, E., and Limkatanyu, S. 共2001兲. “Role of bond in RC
beams strengthened with steel and FRP plates.” J. Struct. Eng.,
127共12兲, 1445–1452.
Arduini, M., Nanni, A., and Romagnolo, M. 共2004兲. “Performance of
one-way reinforced concrete slabs with externally bonded fiber-
reinforced polymer strengthening.” ACI Struct. J., 101共2兲, 193–201.
Arduini, M., Tommaso, A. D., and Nanni, A. 共1997兲. “Brittle failure in
FRP plate and sheet bonded beams.” ACI Struct. J., 94共4兲, 363–370.
Beber, A. J., Filho, A. C., and Campagnolo, J. L. 共2001兲. “CFRP in the
strengthening of reinforced concrete beams.” Proc., Int. Conf. on FRP
Composites in Civil Engineering, J. G. Teng, ed., Elsevier Science,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 391–398.
Brena, S. F., Bramblett, R. M., Wood, S. L., and Kreger, M. E. 共2003兲.
“Increasing flexural capacity of reinforced concrete beams using
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composite.” ACI Struct. J., 100共1兲,
36–46.
Buyukozturk, O. 共1977兲. “Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete struc-
tures.” Comput. Struct., 7, 149–156.
CEB-FIP. 共1993兲. Model Code 90, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ceroni, F., and Prota, A. 共2001兲. “Experimental behavior of RC beams
strengthened by FRP sheets.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Composites in Con-
structions, J. Figueiras, L. Juvandes, and R. Faria, eds., Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 499–504.
Chan, T. K., and Niall, M. 共2001兲. “Strengthening of one-way slabs using
carbon fibre plates: The effect of preload.” CSE Research Bulletin No.
14, Nanyang Technology Univ., Singapore.
Chen, J. F., and Teng, J. G. 共2001兲. “Anchorage strength models for FRP
and steel plates bonded to concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 127共7兲,
784–791.
Fang, T. Q. 共2002兲. “Study on U-shaped sheet behavior of anti-debonding
in the concrete beam reinforced flexurally with FRP.” Master’s thesis,
Tsinghua Univ., Tsinghua, China.
Ferretti, D., and Savoia, M. 共2003兲. “Non-linear model of R/C tensile
members strengthened by FRP-plates.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 70,
1069–1083.
fib. 共2001兲. “Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures.”
Bulletin No. 14.
Gao, B., Leung, W. H., Cheung, C. M., Kim, J. K., and Leung, C. K. Y.
共2001兲. “Effects of adhesive properties on strengthening of concrete
beams with composite strips.” Proc., Int. Conf. on FRP Composites in
Civil Engineering, J. G. Teng, ed., Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 423–432.
Garden, H. N., and Hollaway, L. C. 共1998兲. “An experimental study of
the influence of plate end anchorage of carbon fibre composite plates
used to strengthen reinforced concrete beams.” Compos. Struct., 42,
175–188.
GB-50010. 共2002兲. “Code for design of concrete structures.” China
Building Industry Press, Beijing.
Grace, N. F., Abdel-Sayed, G., and Ragheb, W. F. 共2002兲. “Strengthening
of concrete beams using innovative ductile fiber-reinforced polymer
fabric.” ACI Struct. J., 99共5兲, 692–700.
Hognestad, E. 共1951兲. “A study of combined bending and axial load in
reinforced concrete members.” Bulletin Series No. 399, Bulletin No.1,
Univ. of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station.
Japan Society of Civil Engineers 共JSCE兲. 共2001兲. “Recommendations for
upgrading of concrete structures with use of continuous fiber sheets.”
Concrete Engineering Series 41, Tokyo.
Kwak, H. G., and Filippou, F. C. 共1990兲. “Finite-element analysis of
reinforced concrete structures under monotonic load.” Research Rep.
No. UCB/SEMM-90/14, 33-39, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Lu, X. Z., Teng, J. G., Ye, L. P., and Jiang, J. J. 共2005a兲. “Bond-slip
models for FRP sheets/plates bonded to concrete.” Eng. Struct.,
27共6兲, 920–937.
Lu, X. Z., Ye, L. P., Teng, J. G., and Jiang, J. J. 共2005b兲. “Meso-scale
finite-element model for FRP sheets/plates externally boned to con-
crete.” Eng. Struct., 27共4兲, 564–575.
Monti, G., Renzelli, M., and Luciani, P. 共2003兲. “FRP adhesion in un-
cracked and cracked concrete zones.” Proc., 6th Int. Symp. on FRP
174 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2007
View publication stats
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, World Scientific, Singapore,
183–192.
MSC.MARC. 共2003兲. User’s manual, MSC Software Corporation.
Niu, H. D. 共2002兲. “Interfacial fracture mechanisms and performance
evaluation of RC structural system strengthened with FRP sheets.”
Doctoral thesis, Ibaraki Univ., Ibaraki, Japan.
Oehler, D. J., Park, S. M., and Mohamed Ali, M. S. 共2003兲. “A structural
engineering approach to adhesive bonding longitudinal plates to RC
beams and slabs.” Composites, Part A, 34共12兲, 887–897.
Rahimi, H., and Hutchinson, A. 共2001兲. “Concrete beams strengthened
with externally bonded FRP plates.” J. Compos. Constr., 5共1兲, 44–56.
Rots, J. G., Nauta, P., Kusters, M. A., and Blaauwendraad, J. 共1985兲.
“Smeared crack approach and fracture localization in concrete.”
Heron, 30共1兲, 1–48.
Sato, Y. 共2003兲. “Mechanical characteristics of the retrofitted members.”
Technical Rep. of JCI Technical Committee on Retrofit Technology,
62–78.
Shin, Y. S., and Lee, C. 共2003兲. “Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete
beams strengthened with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer laminates at
different levels of sustaining load.” ACI Struct. J., 100共2兲, 231–239.
Teng, J. G., Chen, J. F., Smith, S. T., and Lam, L. 共2002兲. FRP-
strengthened RC structures, Wiley, London.
Teng, J. G., Smith, S. T., Yao, J., and Chen, J. F. 共2003兲. “Intermediate
crack-induced debonding in RC beams and slabs.” Constr. Build.
Mater., 17共6–7兲, 447–462.
Triantafillou, T. C., and Plevris, N. 共1992兲. “Strengthening of RC beams
with epoxy-bonded fibre-composite materials.” Mater. Struct., 25,
201–211.
Tumialan, G., Serra, P., Nanni, A., and Belarbi, A. 共1999兲. “Concrete
cover delamination in reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
carbon fiber reinforced polymer sheets.” Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete
Structures, C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., Md.,
725–735.
Walraven, J. B., and Reinhardt, H. W. 共1981兲. “Theory and experiments
on the mechanical behavior of cracks in plain and reinforced concrete
subject to shear load.” Heron, 26共1兲.
Wong, S. Y., and Vecchio, F. J. 共2003兲. “Towards modeling of reinforced
concrete members with externally bonded fiber-reinforced polymer
composites.” ACI Struct. J., 100共1兲, 47–55.
Wu, Z. S., and Niu, H. D. 共2000兲. “Shear transfer along FRP-concrete
interface in flexural members.” J. Mater., Concr. Struct. and Pave-
ments, JSCE, 49共662兲, 231–245.
Wu, Z. S., and Yin, J. 共2003兲. “Fracture behaviors of FRP-strengthened
concrete structures.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 70, 1339–1355.
Xiong, G. J., Jiang, H., Huang, J. Z., Yang, J. Z., and Xie, H. C. 共2001兲.
“Behavior of concrete beams strengthened with hybrid carbon fiber-
glass fiber sheets.” Proc., Int. Conf. on FRP Composites in Civil
Engineering, J. G. Teng, ed., Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Neth-
erlands, 407–414.
Yao, J., Teng, J. G., and Lam, L. 共2005兲. “Experimental study on inter-
mediate crack debonding in FRP-strengthened RC flexural members.”
Adv. Struct. Eng., 8共4兲, 365–396.
Ye, L. P., Cui, W., and Yue, Q. R. 共2001兲. “Analysis and calculation of
flexural strength of RC members strengthened with CFRP sheet.”
Building Structures, 35共3兲, 3–5 共in Chinese兲.
Yi, W. J., and Huang, H. M. 共2001兲. “Experimental study on the flexural
behavior of RC beams strengthened with CFRP laminates.” Proc., Int.
Conf. on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, J. G. Teng, ed.,
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 399–406.
Yuan, H., Teng, J. G., Seracino, R., Wu, Z. S., and Yao, J. 共2004兲. “Full
range behavior of FRP-to-concrete bonded joints: A closed-form ana-
lytical solution.” Eng. Struct., 26共5兲, 553–564.
Zhao, M., Zhao, H. D., and Zhang, Y. 共2002兲. “Experimental study on
flexural RC members strengthened with CFRP fabrics.” Struct. Eng.,
2, 52–58 共in Chinese兲.