ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 94-S33
Brittle Failure in FRP Plate and Sheet Bonded Beams
by Marco Arduini, Angelo Di Tommaso, and Antonio Nanni
Analytical and numerical models are presented to simulate the
failure of RC beams strengthened with FRP plates and flexible
sheets. Different failure mechanisms, from ductile to brittle, can
be simulated and verified. The proposed analytical model takes
into account the influence of concrete confinement in the
compression zone due to the presence of the stirrups and the
tensile softening properties of concrete. This allows following
more accurately the crack propagation and the failure mecha-
nism of the flexural member. The numerical model is based on
finite element analysis (FEA), follows the smeared crack
approach, and uses standard elements available in a commer-
cial package.
Comparisons with experimental data obtained from strength-
ened RC beams tested in the laboratory are presented. Analyt-
ical and numerical models show good agreement with the
experiments. It is shown that FRP type, thickness, and bonded
length produce different types of failure ranging from FRP
rupture to concrete shear failure. Particularly important is the
characterization of the interface (FRP-concrete) mechanical
properties, for which a simple test is proposed.
Keywords: analytical model; composites; failure mechanism; FRP
plates; FRP sheets; numerical simulation; repair; reinforced concrete
beams; strengthening.
INTRODUCTION
The need for strengthening or stiffening prestressed
concrete (PC) and reinforced concrete (RC) structures is
becoming more apparent, particularly when there is an
increase in loading requirements or a change in use. Addi-
tional reasons could be, among others, corrosion of steel
reinforcement or mistakes in the design/construction
phase. Potential solutions range from replacement of the
structure to repair with new materials such as Fiber Rein-
forced Plastics (FRPs). FRP composites can be used in
the form of rods for unbonded external prestressing, or in
the forms of plates and flexible sheets for external
bonding. FRP plates are usually manufactured by pultru-
sion and are similar, in their application technique, to
steel plates. Flexible sheets are made of dry fibers or pre-
pregs that are impregnated with resin during installation.
The use of FRP materials for structural repair presents
several advantages and has been recently investigated all
over the world. Authors1,2,3 have reported experimental
data on this subject. It has also been shown that, as a result
of the FRP repair, the mode of failure of a flexural
member may change from ductile to brittle. For example,
brittle shear failure in concrete may substantially reduce
the nominal flexural capacity expected with computations
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1997
TECHNICAL PAPER
using standard design equations. Changing the thickness of
the FRP plate, changing the bonded length, or adding shear
reinforcement significantly modifies the crack distribution
along the beam and changes the failure mechanism. Possible
mechanisms are: FRP rupture, concrete crushing, shear
failure, cracking in adhesive-concrete interface, and so on. In
all cases, flexural cracks initiate in the tensile face at the
middle span of the beam producing a non-linear response in
the load-deflection.
In this paper, experimental, analytical, and numerical
results are presented for the case of beams strengthened with
FRP plates and sheets. The experimental part consists of
four-point bending tests as well as coupon tests to charac-
terize material properties including the concrete-adhesive
interface strength. For the analytical results, a simple solu-
tion is offered to model the system by taking into account the
non-linear properties of concrete in compression, the tensile
strength of concrete, and the adhesive interface properties.
Numerical results are obtained with finite element analysis
(FEA) using the commercial package Abaqus.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This study shows that it is possible to predict the load-
deflection behavior of RC beams strengthened with exter-
nally bonded FRP plates and sheets using analytical and
numerical models. The study shows that the failure mode of
the flexural member is altered by the strengthening proce-
dure and may become brittle. The parameters that affect the
failure mechanisms are recognized and discussed.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM WITH FRP PLATES
Test specimens were six rectangular RC beams with
details and dimensions as shown in Fig. 1. All beams were
constructed with two 14 mm (0.55 in.) deformed steel bars
(top and bottom), and 6 mm (0.24 in.) deformed steel stir-
rups, equally spaced at 150 mm (5.9 in.). Beams A1 and A2
were tested without bonded FRP plates. Unidirectional
pultruded carbon FRP plates (1700 x 50 x 1.3 mm, 66.93 x
1.97 x 0.05 in.) were used to reinforce the four remaining
beams (A3 to A6). Beams A3 and A4 were identically rein-
forced with three parallel plates (one layer) attached to the
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 4, July-August 1997.
Received November 27, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright 1997, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the May-June 1998 ACI Structural Journal
if received by January 1, 1998.
363
Marco Arduini received his BSC at the University of Bologna in 1989. As a technical
officer at Testing and Modeling Laboratory of the University of Bologna, Italy, he has
conducted experimental and numerical projects in the areas of concrete and compos-
ites for repair and strengthening of structures. He is a founding member of AICO, an
Italian trade association for the application of FRP in the construction industry.

Angelo Di Tommaso is a professor in the Department of Structural Engineering at the

University of Bologna. He has over 20 years of experience in education and research
in the area of construction materials. He is a RILEM member and president of its Ital-
ian group.

Antonio Nanni is a professor in the department of architectural engineering at Penn-

sylvania State University. He is a member of ACI committees 325, 440, 530, 537, 544,
and 549.

Fig. 3Sketch of tensile + shear and compressive + shear

concrete-adhesive specimens.

Table 1Mechanical properties of materials used

for experimental program with FRP plates
Material E, GPa v fc , MPa fy, MPa ft, MPa u , %
Concrete 25 0.2 33* 2.6 n/a
Steel 200 0.3 540 700 10.0
Adhesive 11 0.25 26 0.3
Fig. 1Beams strengthened with CFRP plates (dimensions
CFRP plate 167 0.26 2906 1.8
in mm).
Note: n/a = see computation in text
*85 percent of average value obtained from cubic specimen 150 mm in side.

With reference to Table 1, the following symbols and exper-

Fig. 2Cross section and failure mechanism of beams
reinforced with CFRP plates (dimensions in mm).
beam soffit. Beams A5 and A6 were identically reinforced
with two layers of three plates. A 1.5 x 100 mm (0.06 x 3.94
in.) steel plate was wrapped around the ends of the FRP
plates and epoxied to the concrete in beam A6. Sketches of
the strengthened cross sections are given in Fig. 2.
Table 1 shows the mechanical properties of the constituent
materials (i.e., concrete, steel reinforcing bars, adhesive, and
carbon FRP plates) as obtained experimentally or assumed.
imental procedures were used:
E = Youngs modulus (for concrete, E was taken as 2/3
of the dynamic modulus measured by ultrasonic means
directly on the beams; for the other materials, E was
derived from load and strain measurements);
= Poissons ratio (for concrete, was assumed to be a
nominal value of 0.2; for the other materials, was
derived from strain measurements);
fc = cylinder compressive strength at 28 days;
fy = yield strength (for steel, fy was obtained from a
500 mm [19.7 in.] long bar);
ft = tensile strength (for concrete, ft was taken as 90
percent of the splitting tensile strength according to the
CEB-FIP Model Code 90 recommendations4; for steel,
ft was obtained from a 500-mm (19.7 in.) long bar
tested in tension; for the adhesive, ft was based on the
tensile test of a plate 250 x 50 x 5 mm (9.84 x 1.97 x
0.20 in.) after 7 days of curing; and for FRP, it was
based on tensile test of a lamina 250 x 50 x 1.3 mm,
(9.84 x 1.97 x 0.05 in.)
u = maximum tensile strain at failure (for concrete, a
discussion is offered later in the paper; for steel, the
nominal values of 0.1 was adopted; for adhesive and
CFRP, u was measured with strain gages during
coupon tests).
To calculate the interface characteristics between adhesive
and concrete, two simple tests were carried out in
tension+shear and compression+shear. A sketch of the spec-
imens is shown in Fig. 3. Prismatic (150 x 150 x 500 mm,
5.91 x 5.91 x 19.7 in.) and cubic (150 mm in side, 5.91 in.)
concrete elements were cast together with the beams. After
curing, they were saw-cut (six groups of three specimens
each) at different inclinations of = 40 deg, 60 deg, and 70
deg for compression+shear, and = 20 deg, 40 deg, and 60
deg for tension+shear tests. The saw-cut pieces were readied

364 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1997

Table 2Experimental interface characterization
Cut
angle Tensile test Compression test
Failure
, deg , MPa , MPa mode , MPa , MPa Failure mode
20 3.1 1.1 concrete n/a n/a n/a
40 2.1 1.7 concrete 28.1 23.6 adh.-concrete int.
60 1.2 2.1 concrete 11.1 19.3 adh.-concrete int.
70 n/a n/a n/a 4.7 12.8 adh.-concrete int.
Note: n/a = not available

for testing after being rejoined with a layer of the adhesive

used for plate bonding. Table 2 reports average tensile
(assumed positive) and compressive strength (), defined as
= F cos/(b a), average shear strength (), defined as = Fig. 4Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for concrete-
F sin/(b a), and mode of failure for all groups. The adhesive interface.
symbols F, a and b in the above definitions represent the
ultimate load, and the length and width of the adhesive
surface, respectively. From these experimental results of
concrete-adhesive interface, it was possible to construct the
Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope of Fig. 4. From the envelope,
it can be deduced that the shear strength at the concrete-
adhesive interface (u) is about 5 MPa (0.73 ksi).
The aforementioned tests were repeated with specimens of
the same materials and geometry to evaluate the interface
properties between adhesive and FRP plate. This time, two
FRP plates were first adhered to the concrete faces and then
glued together. Only the compression+shear tests showed
failure in the adhesive between the FRP plates, at loads much
higher than those recorded at the concrete-adhesive inter-
face. From these results, it was concluded that the shear
strength of FRP-adhesive interface was about three times the
shear strength of concrete-adhesive interface. Fig. 5Load versus mid-span deflection for experimental,
All beams were tested under four-point bending, about 30 analytical, and numerical FEA results for beams reinforced
days after adhesive curing. Figure 5 shows the experimental with CFRP plates.
load-mid span deflection curves (bold line) for four selected
beams. The two beams not shown (A2 and A3) had similar
behavior to their companion specimens (A1 and A4). Simi-
larly, Fig. 6 shows the experimental load-strain curves (bold
line), with strain measured at mid-span on the FRP plate. For
clarity of presentation, the unloading-reloading cycles are
not shown in both figures. Figure 2 reports a sketch of frac-
ture evolution and failure mechanism obtained.
All beams tested showed at first a linear-elastic behavior
followed by a first crack in the mid-span region of the beam.
Thereafter, a large non-linear phase was recorded with the
development of numerous flexural cracks. In this phase, the
strain in the FRP plate increased considerably, as well as the
beam deflection. Beams A1 and A2 reached the failure by
crushing of the concrete long after yielding of the steel.
Beams A3 and A4 showed a brittle concrete shear failure. In
both beams, a crack started from the end of the plates and
propagated along the concrete cover parallel to the longitu- Fig. 6Load versus mid-span FRP strain for experimental,
dinal steel reinforcing bars. Beam A5, with two layers of analytical, and numerical FEA results for beams reinforced
FRP plates, showed stiffness in the cracked region considerably with CFRP plates.
higher than that of the beams strengthened with one layer of
FRP plates. However, it failed at a lower load due to concrete
shear failure at the end of the plate. This brittle failure mech- EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM WITH FRP SHEETS
anism was partially corrected in Beam A6 where a steel plate Experimental results relative to four RC beams with
was wrapped around the end of the FRP plates. In this case, nominal dimension of 300 x 400 x 2500 mm (11.8 x15.7 x
the load could increase till a large zone of concrete around 98.4 in.) were provided to the authors.5 A sketch of beam
the steel plate fractured and the steel plate separated from the details and dimensions is given in Fig. 7. All beams were
concrete. constructed with two plus three 13 mm (0.51 in.) deformed

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1997 365

Fig. 7Beams strengthened with CFRP flexible sheets
(dimensions in mm).

Fig. 9Load versus mid-span deflection for experimental,

analytical, and numerical FEA results for beams reinforced
with CFRP sheets.

Fig. 10Load versus mid-span FRP strain for experi-

mental, analytical, and numerical FEA results for beams
Fig. 8Cross section and failure mechanism of beams reinforced with CFRP sheets.
reinforced with CFRP sheets (dimensions in mm).
Table 3Mechanical properties of materials used
for experimental program with FRP sheets
steel bars (top and bottom), and 8 mm (0.31 in.) deformed fc , MPa fy, MPa ft , MPa u, %
Material E, GPa v
steel stirrups equally spaced at 100 mm (3.94 in.). Beam B1
Concrete * 0.2 30 1.9* n/a
was tested without bonded FRP sheets. Unidirectional flex- 26
ible carbon FRP sheets, 0.17 mm thick (0.007 in.), were used Steel 200 0.3 340 530 10.0
to reinforce the remaining three beams (B2 to B4). Beam B2 CFRP sheet 400 0.26 3000 0.75
was strengthened with one ply of unidirectional carbon FRP Note: n/a = see computation in text
*
sheet covering the soffit of the beam. Beams B3 and B4 were From flexural behavior of the beam without FRP sheets
reinforced with three plies, all with fibers in the longitudinal
direction. In addition, Beam B4 had a fourth ply wrapped deflection curves (bold line) for the four beams. Fig. 10
around the lateral faces with the fibers oriented in transverse reports the load-strain behavior (bold line), with strain
direction, see Fig. 8.
measured on the FRP sheet at mid-span. All beams showed
Table 3 shows the mechanical properties of the constituent
a behavior similar to that obtained with beams strengthened
materials (i.e., concrete, steel reinforcing bars, and carbon
FRP sheets) as obtained experimentally or by computation. with FRP plates. Beam B1 reached failure by concrete
crushing long after yielding of the longitudinal steel. Beam
It is to be noted that for FRP flexible sheets, mechanical
and geometrical properties refer to the fiber and not the B2 showed the FRP sheet rupture in the middle span region
composite. Since no experimental data was available for the after yielding of the steel and considerable gain in load
determination of the shear capacity at the concrete-adhesive carrying capacity. Beam B3, with three layers of FRP sheets,
interface, the value of u = 4.5 MPa (0.65 ksi) was assumed reached failure by sheet debonding when the increase of load
based on adhesive and concrete individual properties, and capacity was about 2.5 times that of Beam B1. For Beam B4,
experience with the aforementioned experiments. where the lateral sheet was present, the debonding of the
All beams were tested under four-point bending after three-ply FRP reinforcement was partially contained,
about 28 days of curing. Figure 9 shows the load-mid span resulting in the highest load carrying capacity.

366 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1997

 MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR MODELING
For the analytical and numerical models, the constituent
material properties described in this section were assumed.
ConcreteThe constitutive model for concrete in unconfined
compression, confined compression, and tension is given in
Figure 11(a). Hognestads parabola and linear descending
branch are used for concrete under unconfined compression.
The equation of the parabola is given in Eq. (1) using the
following symbols: = compressive stress; = compressive
strain, and compressive strain at peak c = 2 fc /E.
2 unconfined) and steel.
= f c ----- ----
2
(1)
c c
The ultimate compressive strain cu is assumed to be equal
to 0.0035.
Since the crushing of concrete is influenced by the
confinement action due to closed stirrups, a new constitutive
relation for concrete in compression is adopted according to
the CEB-FIP Model Code 90.4 The critical parameters of this
new relationship fc* , c* , and cu* are given as follows:
fc* = fc (1 + 2.5c) (2)
c* = fc* 2/E (3)
cu* = cu+0.1 w (4)
where
= reduction-factor depending on type, number and
hoop pattern of stirrups
w = 6.83As fy /bsfc
As = cross-section area of stirrups
fy = yield strength of steel
b = width of concrete beam
s = spacing between stirrups
fcu = 0.2fc*
With regard to the program with CFRP plates, the following
values were adopted: As = 28 mm2 (0.04 in.2); s = 150 mm
(5.9 in.); b = 200 mm (7.87 in.); fy = 540 MPa (78.3 ksi); fc
= 33 MPa (4.79 in.), w = 0.1; = 0.27; fc* = 1.1fc ; cu*=
0.006. With regard to the program with CFRP flexible
sheets, the following values were adopted: As = 50 mm2
(0.08 in.2); s = 100 mm (3.94 in.2); b = 300 mm (11.81 in.);
fy = 340 MPa (49.3 ksi); fc = 30 MPa (4.35 in.), w = 0.1;
= 0.27; fc* = 1.1fc ; cu* = 0.007.
The mono-linear strain softening behavior of concrete in
tension is characterized by the value of ft , equal to 90 percent
of the splitting tensile strength,6 and the values of ty and tu.
ty is equal to ft /E and the value of tu is calibrated a
posteriori (due to the complexity of a direct tensile test), by
fitting the experimental load-deflection behavior for the
beams without FRP reinforcement. For both experimental
programs a value of tu = 0.0008 was adopted.
AdhesiveA nominal 1 mm thickness of adhesive is
considered in this model. Isotropic elastic behavior is
adopted with perfect bond between the two interfaces.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1997
Fig. 11Constitutive model for concrete (confined and
SteelSteel reinforcing bars are modeled according to an
elasto-hardening behavior (see Fig. 11[b]) as suggested in
reference 4.
Carbon FRPFRP plates and sheets are considered linear
elastic until rupture.
These assumptions and values were used both for the
analytical and numerical modeling.
ANALYTICAL MODEL
An analytical model was built to predict the behavior of
RC flexural members strengthened with externally bonded
FRP composites and to evaluate the influence of different
parameters on the overall behavior of the member. With
reference to Fig. 12, the length of the member subjected to
four-point loading is discretized into a finite number (n) of
segments having a length of Dx. For each segment, the two
equilibrium equations for the normal forces and the flexural
moments have to be satisfied. The material constitutive laws
previously described were adopted in addition to the
assumption that plane sections remain plane. Depending on
the strain diagram at a given cross-section, four stress distri-
butions are possible as shown in Figure 12:
I: Concrete tension strain at the bottom fiber is in the linear
elastic range ct < ty while the top compressed fiber of
concrete is still elastic cc < c (parabolic stress distribution).
II: Concrete tension strain at the bottom fiber is higher
than ty, which means that the tension stress diagram is
bilinear, while the top compressed fiber of concrete is still
elastic cc < c (parabolic stress distribution).
III: Concrete tension strain at the bottom fiber is higher
than tu , which means that a crack is opening, while the top
compressed fiber of concrete is still elastic cc < c (parabolic
stress distribution).
IV: Cracked cross-section and concrete compression
strain at top fiber higher than c (in general, this case may
occur during the softening phase or crack propagation).
A computer program was written to carry out the compu-
tations in a step-by-step fashion. The first step is the determi-
nation of moment-curvature diagrams for any type of
section. This procedure is guided by increasing the strain at
the bottom concrete fiber ct. For a given value of the applied
load, the program calculates the effective moment at each
segment. Knowing the effective moment, the program deter-
mines the curvature and the deformation of each segment.
The vertical and horizontal global displacements are
obtained by algebraic summation of the displacements at the
n segments.
At the concrete-adhesive interface of each segment, shear
stresses () are generated from the difference between the
normal forces N acting on the FRP reinforcement at the two
367

Fig. 12Analytical discrete model.
ends of the segment. The real distribution of the shear stress
is an exponential form like that presented in Reference 7, but
here it is considered to be triangular. The maximum shear
stress (max) for the generic segment is equal to
max,j = 2(Nj+1 Nj)/bDx (5)
Second order effects also generate tensile stresses () at
the concrete-adhesive interface. The distribution of the
normal stress is assumed to be linear with maximum at the
ends of the segments equal to
max,j = 6Mj/bDx2 (6)
where Mj is the moment generated by imposing equilibrium
conditions for the j segment of the plate (see Fig. 12) and by
second order effects due to the increment of vertical deflec-
tion dv at each segment.
In this model, the failure mechanisms that can be
detected are:
FRP rupture when the ultimate strain of the material is
reached
Shear failure in concrete when the shear stress
reaches u
Tensile fracture of concrete when the maximum tensile
stress reaches ft
Local adhesive failure when the ultimate tensile strain
u is reached
When the interface maximum value of or is reached in
one cross-section of the beam, the program disconnects the
FRP reinforcement from the concrete in that segment. If
transverse reinforcement is provided in that section, such as
the case for Beams A6 or B4, a next load increment is
applied and the iterative solution can continue. The presence
of FRP reinforcement bonded to the sides of the beam can be
368
Table 4Comparison between experimental and
analytical data
Beam Fu /Fmax u /max Type of failure
A1-A2 n/a n/a Concrete crushing
A3-A4 0.90 0.7 Shear of concrete at the end of the plate
A5 1.09 0.7 Shear of concrete at the end of the plate
Shear of concrete at the end of the shear rein-
A6 1.02 0.9 forcement
B1 n/a n/a Concrete crushing
B2 1.06 1.0 FRP sheet rupture
Sheet debonding and shear failure in
B3 1.00 0.8
concrete
B4 0.93 0.8 Adhesive interface hardening after many shear
concrete failures
Note: n/a not directly available because the static test was interrupted
accounted for in its contribution to flexural capacity, if the
direction of the fibers is longitudinal. In the case of Beam
B4, the lateral reinforcement is not taken into consideration
because fibers are oriented in the transverse direction only.
The mechanical properties of the epoxy adhesive used in
beams A2 to A6 exceed that of concrete in terms of tensile
and shear strength. But, during the concrete crack propaga-
tion, local failure in the adhesive may be recorded. These
cracks do not originate failure of the beam but prevent shear
and normal stress transfer between FRP plate and concrete.
A comparison between experimental and analytical data is
summarized in Table 4. The second column in the table
reports the ratio between maximum analytical load (Fu,a)
and the maximum experimental load (Fmax). The third
column reports the ratio of analytical to experimental mid-
span deflection (u,a /max). The last column reports the
mode of failure detected in the analytical solution. The corre-
lation is perfect in terms of identification of failure mode and
good in terms of strength prediction. Ultimate deflection
prediction is less accurate.
In Figures 5 and 7, the analytical load-deflection curves
are shown in comparison with the experimental ones for the
two sets of beams. In Figures 6 and 8, the analytical load-
FRP strain curves are shown in comparison with the experi-
mental ones for the two sets of beams. Again, it is proven
that the match is satisfactory in each of the three regions that
characterize the behavior of an FRP-strengthened RC flexural
member (i.e., uncracked, cracked-steel elastic, and post-
yielding). Some of the differences between the analytical
model and the experiment can be explained as follows:
The experimental results are not obtained from monotonic
static tests but are the result of loading and unloading
cycles.
In the uncracked region, the analytical curves are
generally stiffer than the experimental ones. This is
related to the fact that the material properties assumed
for concrete are those acquired from coupon specimens
and not directly from the beams.
The good correlation between predicted and experi-
mental strain justified the assumption of perfect bond
between adhesive and concrete and adhesive and FRP.
However, the higher stiffness of the analytical model in
the post-yielding phase is probably due to the existence
of slipping at the two interfaces in both horizontal and
vertical directions.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1997
Fig. 13Horizontal strain E11 (mm/mm) and shear stress
S12 (MPa) at maximum load for Beam A6 (2D-model).
The choice of the appropriate segment length (Dx)
remains difficult to establish. In this analysis, Dx was
assumed equal to 50 mm (1.97 in.), about two times the
maximum aggregate size. There is lack of experimental
studies in the area of mechanical properties as related to
size effect. In Reference 8, pure shear tests were
conducted on the adhesive-concrete interface. It was
determined that the value of the maximum shear
strength corresponds to a length of adhesion between
30 and 50 mm (1.18 and 1.97 in.). This finding seems
to provide the justification for the choice of Dx as
adopted in the model.
NUMERICAL MODEL
A numerical simulation was conducted using finite
element analysis (FEA) in accord with the theory of the
smeared crack approach. The beams strengthened with
CFRP plates were modeled with square 50 x 50 mm (1.97 x
1.97 in.), 8-node, 2-D concrete elements. A 3-D mesh of 100
x 100 x 150 mm (3.94 x 3.94 x 5.91 in.) of quadratic, 20-
node, concrete elements was chosen for the case of beams
strengthened with FRP flexible sheets. Perfect bond was
assumed and FRP reinforcement was applied directly over
the concrete elements.
The mechanical properties reported in Tables 1 and 3 were
used for the material constitutive laws. The concrete tensile
softening was fixed in tu = 0.0008, after a calibration of the
flexural response on the RC beams without FRP reinforce-
ment for both experimental programs according to Refer-
ence 6. Elasto-plastic steel reinforcing bars were adopted.
The numerical results also show good accordance to the
experimental results in terms of load-deflection response
(Fig. 5 and 7), load-FRP strain response (Fig. 6 and 8), and
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1997
Fig. 14Horizontal strain E11 (mm) and shear stress S12
(MPa) at maximum load for Beam B3 (3D-model)
evolution of cracking (Fig. 13 and 14). As for the case of the
analytical model, the numerical solution is slightly stiffer
than the experimental case. One of the reasons may be found
in the limited number of nodes that had to be used in the
simulation. When numerous cracks in concrete are opening,
the solution is not attainable as convergence cannot be
reached. This explains why the numerical model falls short
in the identification of the maximum load carrying capacity
of the beam.
Fig. 13 shows the horizontal strain E11 (Fig. 13[a]) and the
shear stress S12 (Fig. 13[b]) at the last load increment of the
analysis for the Beam A6 (2-D model). The bottom fibers at
the mid-span region of the beam are subjected to large strain
(see Fig 13[a]), and cracking has developed over this entire
area. At the end of the FRP plate, shear stress is responsible
for the failure mechanism of the beam (see Fig. 13[b]).
The situation is different for Beam B3 (3-D model) shown in
Fig. 14. Here, due to the high rigidity of the FRP sheets, less
flexural cracking occurs in the mid-span region of the beam (see
Fig. 14[a], horizontal strain E11), but a larger zone of high shear
stress appears along the entire length of the bonded sheet (see
Fig. 14[b], shear stress S12). The failure mechanism in this case
is generated at about the beam quarter-span section and propa-
gates by debonding to the end of the sheets.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper experimental results on RC beams strengthened
with FRP plates and sheets are presented. In these tests,
different types of failure mechanisms are observed (i.e., FRP
rupture, concrete shear at the end of the FRP reinforcement,
and FRP debonding). These results confirm that is possible
369
 to effectively strengthen beams, but the possibility of
brittle unexpected failure mechanisms needs to be consid-
ered.
Simulation of experimental results is attained analyti-
cally. The analytical model presented in this paper takes
into account the mechanical properties of constituent mate-
rials and the characteristics of the interface concrete-FRP.
These results are supported by numerical simulation
performed using finite element analysis with a commer-
cially available package.
The need to improve the knowledge on adhesive perfor-
mance is stressed. A simple test is outlined for the charac-
terization of the failure envelope of the concrete-adhesive
interface.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The contribution of materials and technical data from Sika Italia and
Tonen is gratefully acknowledged. Financial support was partially provided
by the Italian Ministry of University Research (MURST) and the National
Science Foundation (NSF).
The first author is thankful of the Architectural Engineering Department
at The Pennsylvania State University for providing an opportunity for inter-
national collaboration.
370
REFERENCES
1. Saadatmanesh H., and Ehsani M. RC Beams Strengthened with
GFRP Plates Part I and Part II, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 117, No. 11, Nov. 1991, pp. 3417-3455.
2. Chajes M. J.; Thomson T. A.; Januszka T. F.; and Fin W., Flexural
Strengthening of Concrete Beams Using Externally Bonded Composite Mate-
rials, Construction and Building Materials, 1994, V. 8, No. 3, pp. 191-201.
3. Arduini M.; DAmbrisi A.; and Di Tommaso A. Shear Failure of
Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Plates, Proceedings, New Materials
and Methods for Repair ASCE, San Diego, Nov. 13-16, 1994, p. 3.
4. Model Code 90, CEB-FIP Committee, Lausanne, 1993.
5. Aubert M. M., Analysis and Design in the Linear Elastic Range of
Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members Externally Bonded with FRP
Sheets, Masters thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA, 1995, pp. 96-106.
6. Di Tommaso A.; Manfroni O.; and Arduini M., Mechanical Basic
Tests on Concrete Specimens and Tuning of FE Models to Simulate Crack
Growth: Application to Bending Test, Proceedings, Int. Conf. Computer
modeling of concrete structures, EURO-C 1994, H. Hang, N. Bicanic, and
R. De Borst, eds., Innsbruck, Austria, 1994, pp. 209-221.
7. LHermite R. L., and Bresson J., Beton arme par collages des arma-
tures, RILEM Int. Symp., Resins in Building Construction, Part 2, Paris,
1967, pp. 175-203.
8. M. Arduini, Analisi teorico sperimentale sul comportamento di giunti
acciaio calcestruzzo incollati, thesis, University of Bologna, Bologna,
Italy, June 1989, p. 300.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1997