COMPOSITES

SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Composites Science and Technology 65 (2005) 11481158
www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech

Eect of beam size and FRP thickness on interfacial shear stress

concentration and failure mode of FRP-strengthened beams
M. Maalej *, K.S. Leong
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, 1 Engineering Drive 2, Singapore 117576, Singapore

Received 8 March 2004; received in revised form 22 October 2004; accepted 24 November 2004
Available online 19 January 2005

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an experimental research program designed to study the interfacial shear stress concentration at
FRP cut-o points and the failure modes of RC beams strengthened in exural with externally bonded carbon bre reinforced polymer
(CFRP) sheets. The test variables include the RC beam size and the CFRP thickness. The objectives are to investigate the eects of
reduced scaling and the inuence of the FRP thickness on the interfacial shear stresses and the failure modes of the FRP-strengthened
beams as well as to conrm the validity of proposed analytical models for the prediction of intermediate crack-induced interfacial
debonding and interfacial shear stresses at FRP cut-o points. The experimental works involve exural testing of 17 FRP-strengthened
beams under third-point loading. Three dierent eective beam depths and two CFRP thicknesses are considered.
Two main conclusions are drawn from this study. First, the increase in beam size and/or FRP thickness is found to increase the
interfacial shear stresses in the FRP curtailment region. In the present study, however, the peak shear stresses are not high enough to
cause a change in the failure mode of the beams. Second, the size of the beam does not seem to aect the extent (measured in term of
a strengthening ratio, SR) to which a reinforced concrete beam can be strengthened.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: A. Carbon bres; B. Debonding; B. Interface; B. Mechanical properties; C. Stress concentration

1. Introduction tion given of failure. The most commonly reported fail-

Epoxy-bonding of bre reinforced polymers (FRP)
has emerged as a new structural strengthening technol-
ogy in response to the increasing need for repair and
strengthening of reinforced concrete structures. Because
of its excellent strength- and stiness-to-weight proper-
ties, corrosion resistance, and the benet of minimal la-
bor and downtime, FRP has become a very attractive
construction material and has been shown to be quite
promising for the strengthening of concrete structures
[1]. Although epoxy bonding of FRP has many advanta-
ges, most of the failure modes of FRP-strengthened
beams occur in a brittle manner with little or no indica-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 687 449 13; fax: +65 6779 1635.
E-mail address: cvemm@nus.edu.sg (M. Maalej).
ure modes include peeling of the concrete cover and
interfacial debonding [28]. These failure modes occur
mainly due to interfacial shear and normal stresses con-
centrations at FRP-cut o points and at exural cracks
along the beam. Although there are various analytical
solutions proposed to evaluate the state of stress at
and near the FRP cuto points [912] as well as the
maximum CFRP tensile stress for intermediate crack-in-
duced debonding [13], there are limited laboratory tests
supporting the validity of the proposed models. The
main objective of this study is, therefore, to investigate
the interfacial shear stress concentration at the CFRP
cut-o regions as well as the failure mode of CFRP-
strengthened beams as a function of beam size and
FRP thickness and compare the test results with theoret-
ical predictions. Because most structures tested in the

0266-3538/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2004.11.010
 M. Maalej, K.S. Leong / Composites Science and Technology 65 (2005) 11481158
Nomenclature
Ac gross concrete cross-sectional area
Ap CFRP sheet cross-sectional area
As area of tension steel reinforcement
Av area of shear steel reinforcement
b beam width
bw beam web width
d eective beam depth
DR deection ratio
Ea elastic modulus of adhesive
Eelastic elastic energy (area under the linearelastic
portion of the loaddeection curve)
Ep elastic modulus of CFRP sheet
Etot total energy up to ultimate load (area under
the loaddeection curve)
fpt CFRP sheet tensile rupture strength
fy yield stress of tension steel reinforcement
Ga shear modulus of adhesive
hc overall thickness of beam
L beam clear span
Mn nominal bending moment corresponding
to ultimate load
laboratory are often scaled-down versions of actual
structures (for practical handling), it would be interest-
ing to know whether the results obtained in the labora-
tory are inuenced by the dierence in scale.
2. Experimental investigation
Seventeen simply supported, under-reinforced, nor-
mal strength concrete beams were tested in exure under
third-point loading. The variables were the size of beam
and the FRP thickness. For each variable, two speci-
mens were cast. The beams were geometrically scaled
in all aspect except for aggregate size and stirrups spac-
ing. The stirrups were placed in order to avoid shear
failure.
2.1. Specimen reinforcing details
Three sizes of beams (breadth depth length =
115 146 1500 mm, 230 292 3000 mm and 368
467 4800 mm) were considered in this study. The
beams were designated as Series A, B and C and had size
ratios of 1:2:3.2. For the size-eect investigation, two
groups of beams were considered. The rst group
(Group 1) consisted of Beams A3A4, B3B4 and C3
C4 and had a CFRP reinforcement ratio (qp = Ap/Ac)
equal to 0.106% of the gross concrete cross-sectional
area Ac (i.e., area of CFRP Ap = 107.8 0.165 mm,
215.6 0.330 mm and 368 0.495 mm, respectively).
1149
My lowest possible bending (yielding) moment
calculated according to My = fyAs(0.9hc)
Pu beam ultimate load
s spacing of shear reinforcement
SR strengthening ratio
ta thickness of the adhesive layer
tp thickness of one layer of CFRP sheet
Du midspan beam deection at ultimate
load
Dy midspan deection at yielding of tension steel
reinforcement
a calibration factor in Teng et al.s equation
[13]
epu midspan CFRP strain at ultimate load
e pt CFRP sheet tensile rupture strain
le energy ductility index [15]
lD deection ductility index [14]
qp CFRP reinforcement ratio = Ap/Ac
rn nominal stress at ultimate load (dened as
rn = Pu/bd)
The second group (Group 2) consisted of Beams A5
A6, B5B6 and C5 and had a CFRP reinforcement ratio
equal to 0.212% of the gross concrete cross sectional
area. Beams in each group were geometrically similar
but of dierent sizes.
The CFRP cut-o points for Series A, B and C were
25, 50 and 80 mm, respectively. A clear concrete cover of
15, 30 and 51.2 mm was used for specimens in Series A,
B and C, respectively. Further details on the specimens
are provided in Table 1 and Figs. 13.
2.2. Material
Ready-mix concrete with 9 mm maximum coarse
aggregate size was used to fabricate all specimens. The
concrete fracture energy determined by means of
three-point bend tests on notched beams and the tensile
splitting strength at test-day for both Series A and B
were 133 N/m and 3.41 MPa, respectively, while those
for Series C were 128 N/m and 3.24 MPa, respectively.
A summary of the material properties of the concrete,
steel reinforcement CFRP sheets, and adhesive is given
in Tables 2 and 3.
2.3. Casting scheme
Series A and series B were cast simultaneously while
series C were cast separately due to the limitation of
the volume of concrete a truck can carry. During cast-
ing, concrete was compacted by means of a power-dri-
1150 M. Maalej, K.S. Leong / Composites Science and Technology 65 (2005) 11481158

Table 1
Description of specimens
Series Beam Dimension (mm) Internal reinforcements External reinforcements (CFRP sheets)
d L Tensile Comp. Shear
As/bd (%) As/bd (%) Av/bws (%) No. of layers Sheet thickness (mm)
A A1, A2 120 1500 1.71 1.14 0.82 0 0
A3, A4 120 1500 1.71 1.14 0.82 1 0.165
A5, A6 120 1500 1.71 1.14 0.82 2 0.330

B B1, B2 240 3000 1.71 1.14 0.82 0 0

B3, B4 240 3000 1.71 1.14 0.82 2 0.330
B5, B6 240 3000 1.71 1.14 0.82 4 0.660

C C1, C2 384 4800 1.71 1.14 0.82 0 0

C3, C4 384 4800 1.71 1.14 0.82 3 0.495
C5 384 4800 1.71 1.14 0.82 6 0.990

500 P/2 500 P/2 500

R6-60 2T10 A

25 3T10 A 25
75 CFRP 1500 75

P/2 P/2
1000 1000 1000
R12-120 2T20 B

50 CFRP 3T20 B 50
150 3000 150

P/2 P/2
1600 1600 1600
C
R16-133 2T32

80 CFRP 3T32 80
C
240 4800 240

Fig. 1. Specimen reinforcing details for Series A, B and C beams (all dimensions are in mm).

368

51.2

230

30

115 467.2
15
292

146

Fig. 2. Section details for Series A, B and C beams.

 M. Maalej, K.S. Leong / Composites Science and Technology 65 (2005) 11481158 1151

Fig. 4. Series A, B and C beams after curing.

Fig. 3. Steel reinforcement of Series A, B and C beams.

the CFRP sheets. The strengthened beams were left to

cure for about two weeks before testing. During the cur-
ven vibrator. After casting, all beams were covered with
ing period, strain gauges were installed on the surface of
plastic sheet and wet burlap for about one week before
the CFRP sheets.
demoulding.
For each batch, cubes, cylinders and notched beams
2.5. Instrumentation
were cast and cured. The cube and cylinder specimens
were then tested for the 28-day compressive strength,
Four and ve strain gauges were installed on the
tensile strength and elastic modulus while four notched
transverse and longitudinal reinforcements, respectively,
beams were tested for fracture energy. A photograph
and one strain gauge was installed on the compression
of the concrete specimens showing Series A, B and C
face of the concrete specimen at midspan (Fig. 5). To
is given in Fig. 4.

2.4. CFRP application

2 strain gauges One strain gauge on concrete 2 strain gauges
The tension surface of the concrete beams was rough-
ened using a disk grinder and cleaned with water to re- 2 strain gauges
move unwanted dust and dirt. The concrete surface was 3 strain gauges
then left to dry for about one day before a two-part
epoxy (composed of primer and saturant) was applied
Support LVDT
on the concrete surface, followed by CFRP sheets appli-
cation. Finally, an over-coating resin was applied onto Fig. 5. Beam instrumentation.

Table 2
Material properties
Property Materials
Series A Series B Series C
R6 T10 Conc. R12 T20 Conc. R16 T32 Conc.
Yield stress (MPa) 348 547 324 544 324 552
Yield strain (%) 0.17 0.35 0.17 0.35 0.20 0.45
Ultimate stress (MPa) 460 584 39.8a 488 644 39.8a 492 650 41.0a
42.8b 42.8b 42.4b
Modulus (GPa) 237 180 27 199 183 27 188 181 25
a
28-day cylinder strength.
b
Test-day cylinder strength.

Table 3
CFRP properties provided by manufacturer
Property Ea (MPa) Ga (MPa) ta (mm) Ep (GPa) fpt MPa etp mm=mm tp (mm)
Value 1824 622 0.636 235 3550 0.015 0.165
1152 M. Maalej, K.S. Leong / Composites Science and Technology 65 (2005) 11481158

Table 4
Location of strain gauges on the CFRP sheet along half of the beam
Series Distance from beam edge (mm)
Support FRP cut-o point Gauge number
110 11 12 13 14 15
A 75 100 120300 340 420 580 825 (ctr.)
B 150 200 220400 440 520 680 1000 1650 (ctr.)
C 240 320 340520 560 800 1120 1760 2640 (ctr.)

capacity of 1000-kN for Series A and 2000-kN for

both Series B and C. The beams were simply sup-
ported on a pivot bearing on one side and a
roller bearing on the other. A total of four LVDTs
(Series A) and three LVDTs (Series B and C) were
used to measure the displacements of the beams at
the supporting points, the loading points and at mid-
span during testing.
Fig. 6. Instrumentation of CFRP sheet for measuring strain
distribution.

measure the interfacial shear stress distribution following
the method proposed by Maalej and Bian [5], the CFRP
sheets were instrumented with 27, 29 and 31 electrical
strain gauges distributed along the length of the sheet
for Series A, B and C, respectively. The detail position
of the strain gauges is shown in Table 4. A total of 10
strain gauges spaced at 20 mm were placed near the cut-
o point to measure the steep variation of strain (Fig. 6).
2.6. Testing procedure
The beams were tested in third-point bending using
an MTS universal testing machine with a maximum
3. Results and discussion
Loaddeection curves for all specimens are plotted
and summarized in Table 5 and Fig. 7. It can be seen
that all CFRP-strengthened beams performed signi-
cantly better than the control beams with respect to
load-carrying capacity. However, the observed strength
increases were associated with reductions in the deec-
tion capacity of the respective beams. The CFRP-
strengthened beams failed prematurely with no concrete
crushing occurring at ultimate load and only one type of
failure mode intermediate exural crack-induced deb-
onding was observed

Table 5
Summary of test results
Series Beam Ultimate load Ultimate deection Du/L (%) epu (le) Failure mode
Pu (kN) % of ctrl. Du (mm) % of ctrl.
A1 (ctrl) 60.4 38.6 2.57 CC
A2 (ctrl) 60.7 46.4 3.09 CC
A A3 77.5 128 22.0 52 1.47 9910 ICID
A4 75.5 125 21.8 51 1.45 8213 ICID
A5 87.4 144 21.0 49 1.40 6745 ICID
A6 85.8 142 20.9 49 1.39 6273 ICID
B1 (ctrl) 203.9 59.5 1.98 CC
B2 (ctrl) 200.3 50.6 1.69 CC
B B3 263.5 130 35.0 64 1.17 7463 ICID
B4 260.3 129 34.9 63 1.16 7995 ICID
B5 294.7 146 32.2 59 1.07 5761 ICID
B6 284.3 141 30.4 55 1.01 4691 ICID
C1 (ctrl) 520.0 76.2 1.59 CC
C2 (ctrl) 519.1 74.3 1.55 CC
C C3 652.9 126 52.4 70 1.09 5824 ICID
C4 669.3 129 56.4 74 1.17 6725 ICID
C5 650.1 125 39.5 52 0.82 3665 ICID
CC: concrete crushing; ICID: intermediate exural crack-induced interfacial debonding.
 M. Maalej, K.S. Leong / Composites Science and Technology 65 (2005) 11481158 1153

100 ies A, B and C, respectively. For beams strengthened

A5 with 0.212% CFRP (Group 2) the average strengthened
80 A6 capacity was 43.0%, 43.5%, and 25% higher than the
A3 control for Series A, B and C, respectively.
A4 Fig. 7 also shows that beams with higher CFRP rein-
A1-ctrl.
Load (kN)

60 forcement ratio have lower deection capacities but

A2-ctrl. higher stiness. The average midspan deection capac-
40 ity for Group 1 beams (qp = 0.106%) was 51.5%,
63.5% and 72% of the control for Series A, B and C,
respectively. For Group 2 beams (qp = 0.212%) the
20
average midspan deection capacity was 49%, 57.0%
and 52% of the control for Series A, B and C, respec-
0 tively. It can also be seen that up to a load of approxi-
0 10 20 30 40 50 mately 60 kN, 200 kN and 400 kN for Series A, B, and
(a) Midspan displacement (mm) C, respectively, a linear loaddeection response is
exhibited by all beams. As the strengthened beams ap-
350
proached yielding, the strain in the CFRP sheets was
300
B5 still larger than that in the reinforcing bars, suggesting
B6 satisfactory bond transfer between the CFRP sheets
250 B3 and the beams.
B4
B1-ctrl The results shown in Table 5 (except for Beam C5)
Load (KN)

200 indicate that the strengthening ratios SR (dened as

150 B2-ctrl the strength of beams with CFRP reinforcement divided
by the strength of control beams) for beams with same
100 CFRP reinforcement ratios qp but dierent sizes are
similar, suggesting that the beam size does not signi-
50 cantly inuence the extent to which a RC beam can be
strengthened (provided that the beams are not shear-
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
critical). However, the deection capacity, expressed as
(b) Midspan displacement (mm) a fraction of total span length seems to be dierent for
the dierent series of beams, with larger beams showing
800 smaller (relative) deection capacity. Beam C5
(qp = 0.212%) did not reach the expected strengthening
700 C5 C4
ratio of about 1.4 because it failed prematurely due to
C3
600 C1-ctrl debonding failure and will be discussed later.
To examine the ductility of the strengthened beams,
500
two ductility criteria were used, namely the deection
Load (KN)

400 C2-ctrl ductility and the energy ductility:

300
(1) Deection ductility [14], dened by lD = Du/Dy,
200 where Du is the midspan deection at ultimate load
and Dy is the midspan deection at yielding of ten-
100
sion steel reinforcement.
0 (2) Energy ductility [15], dened by le = (1 +
0 20 40 60 80 Etot/Eelastic)/2, where Etot and Eelastic are the total
(c) Midspan displacement (mm) energy up to ultimate load (area under the
loaddeection curve) and elastic energy,
Fig. 7. Loaddeection curve of Series A, B and C beams.
respectively.

If one looks at the deection ductility and energy

3.1. Eects of strengthening
Fig. 7 shows the loaddeection curves for beam Ser-
ies A, B and C. The average strengthened capacity for
beams strengthened with 0.106% CFRP (Group 1) was
27.0%, 29.0% and 27.5% higher than the control for Ser-
ductility indices of the CFRP-strengthened beams, there
seems to be no signicant dierence among the values
for the dierent series of beams as shown in Table 6
and Fig. 8. The data suggest that geometry scaling the
beams does not aect the ductility of the beams
signicantly.
1154 M. Maalej, K.S. Leong / Composites Science and Technology 65 (2005) 11481158

Table 6
Average strengthening ratio, deection ratio and ductility indices
Group Beams CFRP reinforcement Yield Strengthening Deection Deection Energy ductility
ratio qp load (kN) ratio SR ratio DR ductility index [15] le
index [14] lD
1 A3, A4 0.00106 64 1.27 0.515 1.65 1.39
B3, B4 202 1.29 0.635 1.74 1.42
C3, C4 529 1.275 0.720 1.66 1.38
2 A5, A6 0.00212 72 1.43 0.49 1.42 1.32
B5, B6 234 1.435 0.57 1.41 1.22
C5 582 1.25 0.52 1.20 1.15

1.4 generally remained attached to the CFRP sheet. A com-

B3 parison was made between the experimental results and
C3
1.2 the analytical results using Teng et al.s model [13] for
A3 the ultimate strain in the CFRP for intermediate exural
1.0 crack-induced debonding. An average value of 1.1 for a
(calibration factor in Teng et al.s equation) was used in
0.8
the model and the results are shown in Fig. 9.
P/Py

0.6
12000
0.4 Max. CFRP strain at failure (microstrain)
Group 1, p =0.106%

0.2 Group 1, p =0.106% 10000

0.0
8000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
(a) /y
6000

1.4
A5 4000
Exp. values
1.2 C5
2000
Predicted (Teng et al.[ 13])
1.0 B5 Avg. exp. values
0.8 0
P/Py

0 100 200 300 400 500

0.6 (a) Beam depth (mm)

0.4 12000
Group 2, p =0.212%
Max. CFRP strain at failure (microstrain)

0.2
Group 2, p =0.212% 10000
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 8000

(b) /y
6000
Fig. 8. Normalized load-midspan displacement curve for Group 1 and
2 beams.
4000
Exp. values

2000
Predicted (Teng et al. [13])
3.2. Failure modes
Avg. exp. values
All control beams failed in the conventional mode of 0
steel yielding followed by concrete crushing. The failure 0 100 200 300 400 500
mode for all CFRP-strengthened beams was intermedi- (b) Beam depth (mm)
ate exural crack-induced interfacial debonding. Upon Fig. 9. Comparison of measured and predicted CFRP debonding
debonding, a very thin layer of concrete and aggregate strains.
 M. Maalej, K.S. Leong / Composites Science and Technology 65 (2005) 11481158 1155

It can be observed that the predicted results from Beam C5 failed at an ultimate load of 649 kN achiev-
Teng et al.s model [13] and the CFRP strain at failure ing a SR of only 1.25. The low strengthening ratio of
given by the experimental results are within 15%. From beam C5 may be explained by referring to the plots of
Fig. 9, it can be seen that when the beam size increases, load-midspan CFRP strain (ep) for Group 2 beams as
the ultimate CFRP strain decreases. Although the ulti- shown in Fig. 11. The loads were computed from section
mate CFRP strain decreased with increasing beam size,
the strengthening ratio did not seem to be aected. It
seems that the reduced contribution of the CFRP (in 100
terms of the maximum CFRP tensile strain that was able A5-A6 Exp. debonding
to develop) to the strength increase in large-size beams is strain
80 ( =0.212%)
oset by the reduced nominal load capacity of the
unstrengthened beam [16] (see Fig. 10), leading to al-

Load (kN)
most similar strengthening ratios among the dierent 60 Almost linear
beams. To further illustrate this, the nominal bending portion
moment (Mn) corresponding to the peak load (plotted 40
as a function of the beam depth) for the control speci-
mens is shown in Fig. 10(a). The bending moment is
normalized to My, the lowest possible bending (yielding) 20
moment calculated according to My = fyAs(0.9hc),
where 0.9hc = eective beam depth, ignoring the contri- 0
bution of concrete to the ultimate load [16]. It can be 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
seen that Series A generally have higher nominal bend- (a) Midspan CFRP strain
ing moment capacity compared to Series B and C. A
similar pattern can also be observed from the plot of 400
nominal stress at ultimate load (dened as rn = Pu/bd) B5-B6
versus beam depth shown in Fig. 10(b). Exp. debonding strain
( =0.212%)
300
Load (kN)

5.0
Almost linear
200
4.0 portion
A1-A2
3.0
100
Pu/bd

B1-B2 C1-C2
2.0

1.0 0
Ctrl. specimen
(average) 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
0.0 (b) Midspan CFRP strain
0 200 400 600
(a) Beam depth (mm) 1000
C5 Exp. debonding
1.2 ( =0.212%) strain
800
Strength limit
1.0
M y = f y A s ( 0.9h c )
Load (kN)

0.8 A1-A2 600 Almost linear

Mn/My

0.6 B1-B2 C1- C2 portion

400
0.4

0.2 Ctrl. specimen 200

(average)
0.0
0
0 200 400 600
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
(b) Beam depth (mm)
(c) Midspan CFRP strain
Fig. 10. Nominal (a) bending moment and (b) stress at ultimate load
as a function of beam depth. Fig. 11. Load versus mid-span CFRP strain for Group 2 beams.
1156 M. Maalej, K.S. Leong / Composites Science and Technology 65 (2005) 11481158

analysis according to the procedure outlined by Teng ing ratio mainly because the CFRP debonding strains
et al. [13]. It can be seen that the plots consist of two suc- were greater than 0.005 as shown in Fig. 11.
cessive portions: a nonlinear portion with gradually
decreasing slope for ep up to about 0.005 and a nal al- 3.3. Interfacial shear stresses
most linear portion (due to yielding of steel). In the non-
linear portion, the load decreases rapidly with a decrease The interfacial shear stress distributions along the
in CFRP strain; this was the case of beam C5, where the CFRP interface in the CFRP curtailment region were
ICID debonding strain was below 0.005 (predicted computed according to the procedure proposed by Maa-
epu = 0.0042 and measured epu = 0.0037) due to a thick lej and Bian [5]. The peak shear stresses were plotted in
layer of CFRP sheets. This may explain why beam C5 Fig. 12 at dierent load levels.
failed at a lower load and did not achieve the expected The results show that the interfacial shear stresses
strengthening ratio. On the other hand, other group of vary signicantly along the CFRP sheet in the curtail-
beams did not show signicant dierence in strengthen- ment region with the peak stress occurring at the

2.0 2.0
A3-A4 33% of ctrl. A5-A6 33% of ctrl.
(=0.106%) 66% of ctrl. (=0.212%) 66% of ctrl.
1.6 1.6 100% of ctrl.
100% of ctrl.
Shear stress (MPa)

Shear stress (MPa)

Ultimate load Ultimate load
1.2 1.2

0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Distance from cut-off point (mm) Distance from cut-off point (mm)

2.0 2.0
B3-B4 33% of ctrl. B5-B6 33% of ctrl.
(=0.106%) 66% of ctrl. (=0.212%) 66% of ctrl.
1.6 100% of ctrl. 1.6 100% of ctrl.
Ultimate load Ultimate load
Shear stress (MPa)

1.2 1.2
Shear stress (MPa)

0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Distance from cut-off point (mm) Distance from cut-off point (mm)

2.0 2.0
C3-C4 33% of ctrl. C5 33% of ctrl.
(=0.106%) 66% of ctrl. (=0.212%) 66% of ctrl.
1.6 100% of ctrl. 1.6 100% of ctrl.
Ultimate load Ultimate load
Shear stress (MPa)

Shear stress (MPa)

1.2 1.2

0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Distance from cut-off point (mm) Distance from cut-off point (mm)
Fig. 12. Experimentally measured interfacial shear stress distributions.
 M. Maalej, K.S. Leong / Composites Science and Technology 65 (2005) 11481158 1157

CFRP cut-o point. However, the interfacial shear Table 7

stresses for all beams are generally low enough not to Maximum interfacial shear stress for Series A, B and C beams
cause failure by plate-end debonding or peeling of Specimen Analytical Experimental
the concrete cover. The results also indicate that the Maximum Nominal Maximum shear
interfacial shear stresses increase with increasing load, shear stressa (MPa) maximum shear stressc (MPa)
and the peak shear stress values at ultimate load for stressb (MPa)
both beam Groups 1 and 2 (qp = 0.106% and A3, A4 0.65 0.69 0.71
0.212%, respectively) increase with increasing size of A5, A6 1.10 1.29 1.32
B3, B4 0.74 0.72 0.77
the beam and CFRP thickness. The increase of peak B5, B6 1.20 1.43 1.46
shear stress with beam size can be explained by the fact C3, C4 0.94 0.85 0.88
that peak shear stress increases with decreasing thick- C5 1.34 1.76 1.87
ness of the adhesive layer [17,18] and this was the case a
Smith and Teng [12].
for Group 1 and Group 2 specimens where the thick- b
Nominal maximum shear stress computed based on the CFRP
ness of the adhesive layer was not scaled in accordance strain reading obtained from the strain gauge closest to the CFRP cut-
to the beam size, causing larger beams to have rela- o point [5].
c
From Fig. 12.
tively thinner layer of adhesive and therefore higher
peak shear stress.
Fig. 13 shows the analytical peak shear stress com-
puted using Smith and Tengs model [12] along with due to the reinforcement. It can be seen from this gure
the experimentally obtained values (Table 7). In the ana- that for both Group 1 and 2 beams, the peak interfacial
lytical model, the second moment of area is the gross un- shear stresses seem to increase with increasing beam size
cracked concrete section along the centroidal axis, as well as with increasing CFRP reinforcement ratio.
ignoring the small increase in the moment of inertia The peak shear stresses predicted by Smith and Tengs
model [12] seem to be in reasonable agreement with
2.5 the experimental results.
Smith and Teng [12]
Exp. (from Fig. 12)
2.0 Exp. (nominal) 4. Conclusions
Shear stress (MPa)

1.5 Tests in this study showed that increasing the size of

the beam and/or the thickness of the CFRP leads to in-
1.0 creased interfacial shear stress concentration in CFRP-
strengthened beams as well as reduced ultimate CFRP
strain. The work has also led to the following
0.5
conclusions:

0.0 (a) The beam size does not signicantly inuence the
0 100 200 300 400 500 strengthening ratio, nor does it signicantly aect
Beam depth (mm) the deection and energy ductility of CFRP-
strengthened beams.
2.5
Smith and Teng [12] (b) The model by Smith and Teng [12] to predict inter-
Exp. (from Fig. 12) facial shear stresses in the adhesive layer at FRP
2.0 Exp. (nominal) cut-o points and the model by Teng et al. [13] to
Shear stress (MPa)

predict intermediate exural crack-induced deb-

1.5 onding were found to agree reasonably well with
observed test data.
1.0

Acknowledgments
0.5

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Mi-

0.0 chael Chen, a third year MIT student, with the labora-
0 100 200 300 400 500 tory work during his three-month attachment with
Beam depth (mm) National University of Singapore. Part of this research
Fig. 13. Variation of peak interfacial shear stress with respect to beam was supported by a research grant (R-264-000-105-
depth for Group 1 and 2 beams at ultimate load. 112) from the National University of Singapore.
1158 M. Maalej, K.S. Leong / Composites Science and Technology 65 (2005) 11481158
References
[1] Meier U, Deuring M, Meier H, Schwegler G. Strengthening of
strutures with advanced composites. In: Clarke JL, editor.
Alternative material for the reinforcement and prestressing of
concrete. London: Blackie; 1993. p. 15371.
[2] Buyukozturk O, Hearing B. Failure behaviour of precracked
concrete beams retrotted with FRP. J Compos Constr
1998;2(3):13844.
[3] Garden HN, Hollaway LC. An experimental study of the
inuence of plate end anchorage of carbon bre composite plates
used to strengthen reinforced concrete beams. Compos Struct
1998;42(2):17588.
[4] Rahimi H, Hutchinson A. Concrete beams strengthened with
externally bonded FRP plates. J Compos Constr 2001;5(1): 4456.
[5] Maalej M, Bian Y. Interfacial shear stress concentration in FRP-
strengthened beams. Compos Struct 2002;54(4):41726.
[6] Nguyen DM, Chan TK, Cheong HK. Brittle failure and bond
development length of CFRP-concrete beams. J Compos Constr
2001;5(1):127.
[7] Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. RC beams strengthened with GFRP
plates I: Experimental study. J Struct Eng 1991;117(11):341733.
[8] Sharif A, Al-Sulaimani GJ, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Ghaleb
BN. Strengthening of initially loaded reinforced concrete beams
using FRP plates. ACI Struct J 1994;91(2):1608.
[9] Jones R, Swamy R, Charif A. Plate separation and anchorage of
reinforced concrete beams strengthened by epoxy-bonded steel
plates. Struct Eng 1988;66(5/1):8594.
[10] Malek AM, Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. Prediction of failure
load of R/C beams strengthened with FRP plate due to stress
concentration at the plate end. ACI Struct J 1998;95(1):
14252.
[11] Robert TM. Approximate analysis of shear and normal stress
concentration in the adhesive layer of plated RC beams. Struct
Eng 1989;67(12/20):22933.
[12] Smith ST, Teng JG. Interfacial stresses in plated beams. Eng
Struct 2001;23(8):85771.
[13] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP-strengthened RC
structures. West Sussex: Wiley; 2002.
[14] Spadea G, Swamy RN, Bencardino F. Strength and ductility of
RC beams repaired with bonded CFRP laminates. J Bridge Eng
2001;6(5):34955.
[15] Naaman AE, Jeong SM. Structural ductility of concrete pre-
stressed beams with FRP tendons. In RILEM Proceedings 29:
Second International RILEM symposium on non-metallic rein-
forcement for concrete structures, Ghent, Belgium: RILEM; 1995.
p. 37986.
[16] Ozbolt J, Bruckner M. Minimum reinforcement requirement for
RC beams. In: Carpinteri A, editor. ESIS Publication 24:
minimum reinforcement in concrete members. Oxford: Elsevier;
1999. p. 181201.
[17] Taljsten B. Strengthening of beams by plate debonding. J Mater
Civil Eng 1997;9(4):20611.
[18] Teng JG, Zhang JW, Smith ST. Interfacial stresses in reinforced
concrete beams bonded with a sot plate: a nite element study.
Constr Build Mater 2002;16(1):114.