Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
In-service steel-reinforced concrete flexural members may
require strengthening due to material decay of the internal
reinforcement and surrounding concrete, errant design and
construction practice, increased service loads, and unforeseen
settlement and structural damage. These conditions require
structural retrofit to increase the flexural strength of the
section. A popular method of increasing the flexural strength
of beams, walls, and slabs is through external bonding of
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) plates and sheets. FRP materials
are characterized by high tensile strength and low unit
weight, and they are noncorrosive when exposed to chloride
environments. An excellent summary of research in this area
is available by Teng et al. (2002) and ACI has published a
design guide for strengthening concrete structures with
externally-bonded FRP materials (ACI Committee 440 2002).
Premature failure of externally-bonded FRP plates and
sheets can occur before the ultimate flexural capacity of the
strengthened section is achieved. This is typically due to
bond failure between the FRP and concrete or tensile peeling
of the cover concrete. Available research documenting this
behavior is abundant. Brena et al. (2003) reported debonding
of longitudinal carbon FRP (CFRP) sheets at deformation
levels less than half the deformation capacity of control
specimens. Nguyen et al. (2001) observed only a limited
increase in flexural capacity for beams strengthened with
partial length longitudinal CFRP sheets due to premature
delamination, or ripping, of the concrete cover surrounding
the steel reinforcement. For beams strengthened with CFRP
plate and fabric systems, Grace et al. (2002) identified brittle
failure by shear tension and debonding, respectively. Shin
and Lee (2003) reported failure of beams held under
sustained load and strengthened with CFRP laminates due to
430
s/sb*
6-C
6-1Fa&b
0.684
38.86 (0.060)
Af /Afb
Failure type
NA
SY/CC
NA
23,068 (204.2)
18.92 (4.25)
0.85
CC
810 (117.4)
26,606 (235.5)
21.82 (4.91)
1.15
1.26
Pn/PnC
6-2Fa&b
1.69
CC
709 (102.8)
29,168 (258.2)
23.92 (5.38)
9-C
NA
SY/CC
NA
25,104 (222.2)
20.59 (4.63)
31.66
CC
1276 (185)
31,221 (276.3)
25.61 (5.76)
1.24
1.41
9-1Fa&b
0.470
1.04 (0.0016)
9-2Fa&b
63.31
CC
1091 (158)
35,415 (313.5)
29.05 (6.53)
12-C
NA
SY/CC
NA
25,790 (228.3)
21.15 (4.76)
0.84
TR
1648 (239)
34,071 (301.6)
27.95 (6.28)
1.32
1.69
CC
1436 (208.2)
40,023 (354.2)
32.83 (7.38)
1.55
12-1Fa&b
0.353
38.94 (0.060)
12-2Fa&b
*
s
A fb
cu
0.85f c b 1 d f ------------------ As fy
cu + fu
= ------------------------------------------------------------------------f fu
M n = Af f fu d f a
--- + As f y d s a
--- for A f < A fb
2
2
(2b)
A sy
cu
d
- A f E f sy ----f
0.85f c b 1 d s ------------------ d s
cu + sy
= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------fy
(3)
( A f E f cu A s f y ) + 4 ( 0.85 )f c b 1 A f E f cu d f ( A f E f cu A s f y )
a = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( 2 )0.85f c b
(4a)
( df 1 )
f f = E f cu --------------------------- f fu
1
(4b)
Mu = Af ff df a
--- + A s fy d s a
---
2
2
(4c)
(1)
(2a)
Yield
Ultimate
Comparison
21.8 (4.91)
23.9 (5.38)
20.9 (4.69)
CC
24.83 (5.58)
1.10
21.3 (4.78)
CC
23.24 (5.23)
1.12
24.4 (5.48)
CC
24.99 (5.62)
1.28
24.7 (5.56)
CC
26.94 (6.06)
1.30
SY/CC
25.29 (5.69)
25.6 (5.76)
29.0 (6.53)
25.3 (5.70)
CC
28.22 (6.34)
1.13
24.5 (5.50)
CC
27.93 (6.28)
1.09
27.7 (6.22)
CC
37.05 (8.33)
1.24
25.0 (5.63)
CC
35.82 (8.05)
1.12
SY/CC
23.52 (5.29)
27.9 (6.28)
32.8 (7.38)
24.7 (5.56)
TR
29.59 (6.65)
1.15
25.9 (5.81)
TR
31.01 (6.97)
1.20
26.5 (5.97)
CC
33.80 (7.60)
1.23
28.0 (6.30)
CC
41.77 (9.39)
1.30
Average
Pmax/PmaxC
Average
Pmax/Py
Average
1.11
1.11
1.29
1
1.11
1.18
1
1.18
1.27
1.18
1.10
1.18
1.28
1
1.12
1.10
1.47
1.42
1
1.26
1.32
1.44
1.78
1.14
1.23
1.11
1.44
1.29
1.61
1.19
1.09
1.02
1.09
1.13
1.11
1.14
1.34
1.43
1.09
1.20
1.20
1.27
1.49
1.14
1.06
1.13
1.38
1.20
1.38
Pmax/Pn
1.12
1.14
1.06
1.04
1.13
1.23
1.10
1.09
1.28
1.23
1.11
1.06
1.11
1.03
1.27
achieved for the 305 mm (12 in.) wide specimens than for the
152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in.) wide specimens. This is
verification that the increase in strength is inversely
proportional to the relative area of steel reinforcement (s/bs).
For the strengthened specimens in this group, the average
ultimate loads Pmax were between 13 and 20% greater than
the average yield loads Py. Thus, the strength increase
between yield and ultimate limit states is slightly greater for
these specimens than for the control specimens (which was
approximately 12%). This is expected and represents the
additional tensile capacity provided by the CFRP after steel
yield, which is not available for the control specimens.
All specimens failed at loads slightly in excess of their
respective predicted nominal flexural strength Pn. Referring
to Table 2, the measured failure loads Pmax were between 6%
(6-1Fb) and 14% (6-1Fa) greater than the theoretical strength
Pn. The magnitude and range of this comparison suggest that
the analytical model and associated assumptions used in Eq. (2)
and (4) are acceptable for predicting the flexural capacity of
these four test specimens.
Specimens strengthened with two CFRP strips:
6-2Fa&b, 9-2Fa&b, and 12-2Fa&b
Referring to Fig. 6, the change from cracked-elastic to
inelastic behavior for the 230 and 305 mm (9 and 12 in.)
wide specimens reinforced with two CFRP strips can still be
seen. For the 152 mm (6 in.) wide specimens strengthened
with two CFRP strips, however, this change from elastic to
inelastic behavior is much less obvious from the load-deflection
graphs. The load-strain curve for Specimen 6-2Fb, however,
shows a clear redistribution of tensile force to the CFRP as a
result of steel yield. It is therefore concluded that the steel
did yield for these specimens (6-2Fa&b).
Failure of all 152, 230, and 305 mm (6, 9, and 12 in.) wide
specimens reinforced with two CFRP strips occurred by
concrete crushing. This is consistent with the failure mode
predicted in Table 1. After concrete crushing, the 305 mm
(12 in.) wide specimens were further deformed until rupture
of the CFRP occurred. This rupture is significant in that it
again confirmed that force transfer is sufficient to develop
the full tensile capacity of the CFRP strip.
For all specimens, there was a significant increase in yield
load Py relative to the respective companion control specimens
PyC. Referring to Table 2, the yield loads for 152, 230, and
305 mm (6, 9, and 12 in.) wide specimens reinforced with
two CFRP strips increased by 29, 18, and 27% over the
control, respectively. Comparing results, the yield load
increase for specimens with two CFRP strips was significantly
higher than for specimens with one CFRP strip. Relative to the
control specimens, the increase in ultimate load Pmax for the
152, 230, and 305 mm (6, 9, and 12 in.) wide specimens was
23, 44, and 61%, respectively. The trend in these values is
consistent with those listed in Table 1, where the gain in
ultimate strength increases with decreasing steel reinforcement
ratio. Thus, in design, the expected additional strength from
the CFRP must consider the existing relative amount of steel
in the unstrengthened condition.
For the 152 mm (6 in.) wide specimens with two CFRP
strips, the average ultimate load was only 6% greater than the
yield load. This indicates that at steel yield, the concrete
strain was near ultimate so that any increase in strength is
limited by the threshold level corresponding to concrete
compression failure. For the 230 and 305 mm (9 and 12 in.)
wide specimens, the average ultimate loads increased by
435
E =
y , mm (in.)
22.17 (0.87)
19.51 (0.77)
23.06 (0.91)
24.66 (0.97)
25.26 (0.99)
21.05 (0.83)
21.14 (0.83)
24.16 (0.95)
20.76 (0.82)
22.15 (0.87)
17.55 (0.69)
19.50 (0.77)
20.56 (0.81)
20.23 (0.80)
19.90 (0.78)
Ey*,
Ultimate
*,
Deflection ductility
kN-mm (kip-in.)
u, mm (in.)
Eu kN-mm (kip-in.)
d = u/y
Ratio
233 (2.07)
235 (2.08)
2823 (2.50)
353 (3.12)
354 (3.13)
280 (2.48)
323 (2.86)
331 (2.93)
344 (3.05)
323 (2.86)
228 (2.02)
296 (2.62)
317 (2.80)
334 (2.96)
334 (2.95)
30.23 (1.19)
28.98 (1.14)
29.30 (1.15)
26.19 (1.03)
31.04 (1.22)
47.03 (1.85)
36.80 (1.45)
44.45 (1.75)
40.81 (1.61)
47.87 (1.88)
44.68 (1.76)
44.09 (1.74)
47.36 (1.86)
46.10 (1.81)
58.55 (2.31)
395 (3.50)
455 (4.02)
423 (3.74)
389 (3.45)
503 (4.45)
909 (8.05)
729 (6.46)
863 (7.64)
989 (8.75)
1125 (9.96)
845 (6.80)
976 (8.64)
1081 (9.50)
1147 (10.15)
1732 (15.33)
1.36
1.49
1.27
1.06
1.23
2.23
1.74
1.84
1.97
2.16
2.55
2.26
2.30
2.28
2.94
1.00
1.09
0.93
0.78
0.90
1.00
0.78
0.82
0.88
0.97
1.00
0.89
0.90
0.89
1.16
Energy ductility
E = Eu/Ey
1.69
1.93
1.50
1.10
1.42
3.24
2.26
2.61
2.87
3.49
3.70
3.29
3.42
3.43
5.19
Ratio
1.00
1.14
0.88
0.65
0.84
1.00
0.70
0.80
0.88
1.08
1.00
0.89
0.92
0.93
1.40
P d .
38% over the yield loads. This is expected and represents the
increased available capacity in the concrete at steel yield. This
behavior is reflective of the relative amounts of both steel and
CFRP reinforcement and how these reinforcement areas
compare with that required for a balanced-strengthened design.
Predicted flexural strength of all specimens with two
CFRP strips was less than measured values, indicating the
analytical model is conservative. Referring to Table 2, the
measured loads were between 3 and 28% greater than
predicted strengths. Thus, the model is an acceptable analytical
tool for strength prediction in design.
Ductility and energy
The reported effect of flexural strengthening with external
FRP reinforcement is a reduction in flexural ductility relative
to the unstrengthened condition (ACI Committee 440 2002,
Bencardino et al. 2002). Typically, ductility is calculated in terms
of dimensionless deflection or energy ratios. Using these parameters ductility relative to the yield condition is defined as
Deflection ductility: d = u /y
(5a)
(5b)
NOTATION
Af , As
Afb
Asy
s, f
sb
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 440, 2002, Design and Construction of Externally
Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI 440.2R-02),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 45 pp.
ACI Committee 440, 2004, Guide Test Methods of Fiber-Reinforced
Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI
440.3R-04), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 40 pp.
ASTM C 684-99, 1999, Standard Test Method for Making, Accelerated
Curing, and Testing Concrete Compression Test Specimens, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, Pa., 10 pp.
Arduini, M., and Nanni, A., 1997, Behavior of Precracked RC Beams
Strengthened with Carbon FRP Sheets, Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, V. 1, No. 2, pp. 63-70.
Bencardino, F.; Spadea, G.; and Swamy, R., 2002, Strength and Ductility of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Externally Reinforced with Carbon Fiber Fabric,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 163-171.
Brena, S. F.; Bramblett, R. M.; Wood, S. L.; and Kreger, M. E., 2003,
Increasing Flexural Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Carbon
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites, ACI Structural Journal, V. 100,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 36-46.
DeLorenzis, L. A.; Nanni, A.; and Tegila, A. L., 2000, Flexural and
Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Near Surface
Mounted FRP Bars, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Ottawa, Canada,
Aug. 15-18, pp. 521-528.
DeLorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., 2001, Shear Strengthening of Reinforced
Concrete Beams with Near-Surface Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Rods, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 60-68.
DeLorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., 2002, Bond between Near-Surface
Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Rods and Concrete in Structural
Strengthening, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 123-132.
DeLorenzis, L.; Lundgren, K.; and Rizzo, A., 2004, Anchorage Length
of Near-Surface Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars for Concrete
StrengtheningExperimental Investigation and Numerical Modeling,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 269-278.
El-Hacha, R., and Rizkalla, S., 2004, Near-Surface-Mounted FiberReinforced Polymer Reinforcements for Flexural Strengthening of Concrete
Structures, ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, V. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 717-726.
Grace, N.; Abdel-Sayed, G.; and Ragheb, W., 2002, Strengthening of
Concrete Beams Using Innovative Ductile Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Fabric,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 692-700.
Mukhopadhyaya, P., and Swamy, R. N., 1999, Critical Review of Plate
Anchorage Stresses in Premature Debonding Failures of Plate Bonded
Reinforced Concrete Beams, Fourth International Symposium on Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, SP-188,
C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 359-368.
Nanni, A., 2000, FRP Reinforcement for Bridge Structures, Proceedings,
Structural Engineering Conference, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kans., Mar. 16, pp. 1-5.
Nguyen, D.; Chan, T.; and Cheong, H., 2001, Brittle Failure and Bond
Development Length of CFRP-Concrete Beams, Journal of Composites
for Construction, ASCE, V. 5, No. 1, pp. 12-17.
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), 2001, The
Bridge Design Specification Sheet, BD-601M, Specifications for the
Concrete, Class AAA.
Rahimi, H., and Hutchinson, A., 2001, Concrete Beams Strengthened
with Externally Bonded FRP Plates, Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, V. 5, No. 1, Jan., pp. 44-55.
Saadatmanesh, H., 1994, Fiber Composites for New and Existing
Structures, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 3, May-June, pp. 346-354.
Sharif, A.; Al-Sulaimani, G. J.; Basunbul, I. A.; Baluch, M. H.; and
Ghaleb, B. N., 1994, Strengthening of Initially Loaded Reinforced
Concrete Beams Using FRP Plates, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr., pp. 160-168.
Shin, Y. S.; and Lee, C., 2003, Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Strengthened with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Laminates at
Different Levels of Sustaining Load, ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr., pp. 231-239.
Taljsten, B., and Carolin, A., 2001, Concrete Beams Strengthened with
Near Surface Mounted CFRP Laminates, Proceedings of the Non-Metallic
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRP RCS-5 Conference, July 16-18,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 107-116.
Teng, J. G.; Chen, J. F.; Smith, S. T.; and Lam, L., 2002, FRP-Strengthened
RC Structures, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, UK, 266 pp.
437