ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 94S33
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 (FRPconcrete) 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. Authors ^{1}^{,}^{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/JulyAugust 1997
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 adhesiveconcrete interface, and so on. In all cases, flexural cracks initiate in the tensile face at the middle span of the beam producing a nonlinear response in the loaddeflection. 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 fourpoint bending tests as well as coupon tests to charac terize material properties including the concreteadhesive interface strength. For the analytical results, a simple solu tion is offered to model the system by taking into account the nonlinear 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, JulyAugust 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 MayJune 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. 1—Beams strengthened with CFRP plates (dimensions in mm).
Fig. 2—Cross 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.
364
Fig. 3—Sketch of tensile + shear and compressive + shear concreteadhesive specimens.
Table 1—Mechanical properties of materials used for experimental program with FRP plates
Material 
E, GPa 
v 
f _{c} ′ , MPa 
f _{y} , MPa 
f _{t} , MPa 
ε _{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 
CFRP plate 
167 
0.26 
— 
— 
2906 
1.8 
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 imental procedures were used:
• E = Young’s 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);
• ν = Poisson’s ratio (for concrete, ν was assumed to be a nominal value of 0.2; for the other materials, ν was derived from strain measurements);
• f _{c} ′ = cylinder compressive strength at 28 days;
• f _{y} = yield strength (for steel, f _{y} was obtained from a 500 mm [19.7 in.] long bar);
• f _{t} = tensile strength (for concrete, f _{t} was taken as 90 percent of the splitting tensile strength according to the
; for steel,
f _{t} was obtained from a 500mm (19.7 in.) long bar tested in tension; for the adhesive, f _{t} 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.)
• ε _{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, ε _{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 sawcut (six groups of three specimens each) at different inclinations of α = 40 deg, 60 deg, and 70 deg for compression+shear, and α = 20 deg, 40 deg, and 60 deg for tension+shear tests. The sawcut pieces were readied
CEBFIP Model Code 90 recommendations
4
ACI Structural Journal/JulyAugust 1997
Table 2—Experimental interface characterization
Cut 

angle 
Tensile test 
Compression test 

Failure 

α, deg 
σ, MPa 
τ, MPa 
mode 
σ, MPa 
τ, 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 (σ), defined as σ = F cosα/(b × a), average shear strength (τ), defined as τ = F sinα/(b × a), and mode of failure for all groups. The 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 concreteadhesive interface, it was possible to construct the MohrCoulomb failure envelope of Fig. 4. From the envelope, it can be deduced that the shear strength at the concrete adhesive interface (τ _{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 concreteadhesive inter face. From these results, it was concluded that the shear strength of FRPadhesive interface was about three times the shear strength of concreteadhesive interface. All beams were tested under fourpoint bending, about 30 days after adhesive curing. Figure 5 shows the experimental loadmid 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 loadstrain curves (bold line), with strain measured at midspan on the FRP plate. For clarity of presentation, the unloadingreloading 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 linearelastic behavior followed by a first crack in the midspan region of the beam. Thereafter, a large nonlinear 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 dinal steel reinforcing bars. Beam A5, with two layers of FRP plates, showed stiffness in the cracked region considerably 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 anism was partially corrected in Beam A6 where a steel plate was wrapped around the end of the FRP plates. In this case, the load could increase till a large zone of concrete around the steel plate fractured and the steel plate separated from the concrete.
ACI Structural Journal/JulyAugust 1997
Fig. 4—MohrCoulomb failure envelope for concrete adhesive interface.
Fig. 5—Load versus midspan deflection for experimental, analytical, and numerical FEA results for beams reinforced with CFRP plates.
Fig. 6—Load versus midspan FRP strain for experimental, analytical, and numerical FEA results for beams reinforced with CFRP plates.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM WITH FRP SHEETS Experimental results relative to four RC beams with nominal dimension of 300 x 400 x 2500 mm (11.8 x15.7 x 98.4 in.) were provided to the authors. ^{5} _{A} _{s}_{k}_{e}_{t}_{c}_{h} _{o}_{f} _{b}_{e}_{a}_{m} details and dimensions is given in Fig. 7. All beams were constructed with two plus three 13 mm (0.51 in.) deformed
365
Fig. 7—Beams strengthened with CFRP flexible sheets (dimensions in mm).
Fig. 8—Cross section and failure mechanism of beams reinforced with CFRP sheets (dimensions in mm).
steel bars (top and bottom), and 8 mm (0.31 in.) deformed steel stirrups equally spaced at 100 mm (3.94 in.). Beam B1 was tested without bonded FRP sheets. Unidirectional flex ible carbon FRP sheets, 0.17 mm thick (0.007 in.), were used to reinforce the remaining three beams (B2 to B4). Beam B2 was strengthened with one ply of unidirectional carbon FRP sheet covering the soffit of the beam. Beams B3 and B4 were reinforced with three plies, all with fibers in the longitudinal direction. In addition, Beam B4 had a fourth ply wrapped around the lateral faces with the fibers oriented in transverse direction, see Fig. 8. Table 3 shows the mechanical properties of the constituent materials (i.e., concrete, steel reinforcing bars, and carbon FRP sheets) as obtained experimentally or by computation. It is to be noted that for FRP flexible sheets, mechanical and geometrical properties refer to the fiber and not the composite. Since no experimental data was available for the determination of the shear capacity at the concreteadhesive interface, the value of τ _{u} = 4.5 MPa (0.65 ksi) was assumed based on adhesive and concrete individual properties, and experience with the aforementioned experiments. All beams were tested under fourpoint bending after about 28 days of curing. Figure 9 shows the loadmid span
366
Fig. 9—Load versus midspan deflection for experimental, analytical, and numerical FEA results for beams reinforced with CFRP sheets.
Fig. 10—Load versus midspan FRP strain for experi mental, analytical, and numerical FEA results for beams reinforced with CFRP sheets.
Table 3—Mechanical properties of materials used for experimental program with FRP sheets
Material 
E, GPa 
v 
f _{c} ′ , MPa 
f _{y} , MPa 
f _{t} , MPa 
ε _{u} , % 

Concrete 
26 
^{*} 
0.2 
30 
— 
1.9* 
n/a 
Steel 
200 
0.3 
— 
340 
530 
10.0 

CFRP sheet 
400 
0.26 
— 
— 
3000 
0.75 
Note: n/a = see computation in text ^{*} From flexural behavior of the beam without FRP sheets
deflection curves (bold line) for the four beams. Fig. 10 reports the loadstrain behavior (bold line), with strain measured on the FRP sheet at midspan. All beams showed a behavior similar to that obtained with beams strengthened with FRP plates. Beam B1 reached failure by concrete crushing long after yielding of the longitudinal steel. Beam B2 showed the FRP sheet rupture in the middle span region after yielding of the steel and considerable gain in load carrying capacity. Beam B3, with three layers of FRP sheets, reached failure by sheet debonding when the increase of load capacity was about 2.5 times that of Beam B1. For Beam B4, where the lateral sheet was present, the debonding of the threeply FRP reinforcement was partially contained, resulting in the highest load carrying capacity.
ACI Structural Journal/JulyAugust 1997
MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR MODELING For the analytical and numerical models, the constituent material properties described in this section were assumed. Concrete—The constitutive model for concrete in unconfined compression, confined compression, and tension is given in Figure 11(a). Hognestad’s 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: σ = compressive stress; ε = compressive strain, and compressive strain at peak ε _{c} = 2 f _{c} ′/E.
σ
= f _{c} ′
⎛
⎝
2ε  –
^{ε}
c
ε

^{ε}
c
2
⎞
⎠
(1)
The ultimate compressive strain ε _{c}_{u} 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 critical parameters of this
new relationship f _{c} *, ε _{c} * , and ε _{c}_{u} * are given as follows:
the CEBFIP Model Code 90.
4
f _{c} * = f _{c} ′ (1 + 2.5αω _{c} )
(2)
ε _{c} * = f _{c} * 2/E
(3)
ε _{c}_{u} * =
_{ε} cu +0.1αω _{w}
(4)
where
reductionfactor depending on type, number and hoop pattern of stirrups
ω _{w}
α
=
=
6.83A _{s} f _{y} /bsf _{c} ′ crosssection area of stirrups yield strength of steel
width of concrete beam
spacing between stirrups 0.2f _{c} *
=
A _{s}
=
b =
s =
=
f _{y}
f _{c}_{u}
With regard to the program with CFRP plates, the following
values were adopted: A _{s} = 28 mm ^{2} (0.04 in. ^{2} ); s = 150 mm (5.9 in.); b = 200 mm (7.87 in.); f _{y} = 540 MPa (78.3 ksi); f _{c} ′
= 33 MPa (4.79 in.), ω _{w} = 0.1; α = 0.27; f _{c} * = 1.1f _{c} ′; ε _{c}_{u} *= 0.006. With regard to the program with CFRP flexible
sheets, the following values were adopted: A
= 50 mm ^{2}
(0.08 in. ^{2} ); s = 100 mm (3.94 in. ^{2} ); b = 300 mm (11.81 in.); f _{y} = 340 MPa (49.3 ksi); f _{c} ′ = 30 MPa (4.35 in.), ω _{w} = 0.1; α
s
= 0.27; f _{c} * = 1.1f _{c} ′; ε _{c}_{u} * = 0.007.
The monolinear strain softening behavior of concrete in
tension is characterized by the value of
of the splitting tensile strength, ^{6} and the values of ε _{t}_{y} and ε _{t}_{u} .
ε _{t}_{y} is equal to f _{t} /E and the value of ε _{t}_{u} is calibrated a posteriori (due to the complexity of a direct tensile test), by fitting the experimental loaddeflection behavior for the beams without FRP reinforcement. For both experimental programs a value of ε _{t}_{u} = 0.0008 was adopted. Adhesive—A nominal 1 mm thickness of adhesive is considered in this model. Isotropic elastic behavior is adopted with perfect bond between the two interfaces.
, equal to 90 percent
^{f} t
ACI Structural Journal/JulyAugust 1997
Fig. 11—Constitutive model for concrete (confined and
unconfined) and steel.
Steel—Steel reinforcing bars are modeled according to an elastohardening behavior (see Fig. 11[b]) as suggested in reference 4. Carbon FRP—FRP 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 fourpoint 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 crosssection, 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 ε _{c}_{t} < ε _{t}_{y} while the top compressed fiber of concrete is still elastic ε _{c}_{c} < ε _{c} (parabolic stress distribution).
II: Concrete tension strain at the bottom fiber is higher than ε _{t}_{y} , which means that the tension stress diagram is bilinear, while the top compressed fiber of concrete is still elastic ε _{c}_{c} < ε _{c} (parabolic stress distribution). III: Concrete tension strain at the bottom fiber is higher than ε _{t}_{u} , which means that a crack is opening, while the top compressed fiber of concrete is still elastic ε _{c}_{c} < ε _{c} (parabolic stress distribution). IV: Cracked crosssection and concrete compression strain at top fiber higher than ε _{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 stepbystep fashion. The first step is the determi nation of momentcurvature diagrams for any type of section. This procedure is guided by increasing the strain at
the bottom concrete fiber ε _{c}_{t} . 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 concreteadhesive interface of each segment, shear stresses (τ) are generated from the difference between the normal forces N acting on the FRP reinforcement at the two
367
Fig. 12—Analytical 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 (τ _{m}_{a}_{x} ) for the generic segment is equal to
τ _{m}_{a}_{x}_{,}_{j} = 2(N _{j}_{+}_{1} – N _{j} )/bDx
(5)
Second order effects also generate tensile stresses (σ) at the concreteadhesive interface. The distribution of the normal stress is assumed to be linear with maximum at the ends of the segments equal to
σ _{m}_{a}_{x}_{,}_{j} = 6M _{j} /bDx ^{2}
(6)
where M _{j} 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 τ reaches τ _{u}
• Tensile fracture of concrete when the maximum tensile stress σ reaches f _{t}
• Local adhesive failure when the ultimate tensile strain ε _{u} is reached When the interface maximum value of σ or τ is reached in one crosssection 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 4—Comparison between experimental and analytical data
Beam 
^{F} u ^{/}^{F} max 
^{δ} u ^{/}^{δ} max 
Type of failure 
A1A2 
n/a 
n/a 
Concrete crushing 
A3A4 
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 
B3 
1.00 
0.8 
Sheet debonding and shear failure in 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 (F _{u}_{,}_{a} ) and the maximum experimental load (F _{m}_{a}_{x} ). The third column reports the ratio of analytical to experimental mid span deflection (δ _{u}_{,}_{a} /δ _{m}_{a}_{x} ). 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 loaddeflection 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 FRPstrengthened RC flexural member (i.e., uncracked, crackedsteel 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 postyielding phase is probably due to the existence of slipping at the two interfaces in both horizontal and vertical directions.
ACI Structural Journal/JulyAugust 1997
Fig. 13—Horizontal strain E11 (mm/mm) and shear stress
^{S}^{1}^{2} ^{(}^{M}^{P}^{a}^{)} ^{a}^{t} ^{m}^{a}^{x}^{i}^{m}^{u}^{m} ^{l}^{o}^{a}^{d} ^{f}^{o}^{r} ^{B}^{e}^{a}^{m} ^{A}^{6} ^{(}^{2}^{D}^{}^{m}^{o}^{d}^{e}^{l}^{)}^{.} Fig. 14—Horizontal strain E11 (mm) and shear stress S12 (MPa) at maximum load for Beam B3 (3Dmodel)
• 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 adhesiveconcrete 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.
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 (2D model). The bottom fibers at the midspan 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 (3D model) shown in Fig. 14. Here, due to the high rigidity of the FRP sheets, less flexural cracking occurs in the midspan 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 quarterspan section and propa gates by debonding to the end of the sheets.
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.), 8node, 2D concrete elements. A 3D 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 ε _{t}_{u} = 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. Elastoplastic steel reinforcing bars were adopted. The numerical results also show good accordance to the experimental results in terms of loaddeflection response (Fig. 5 and 7), loadFRP strain response (Fig. 6 and 8), and
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
ACI Structural Journal/JulyAugust 1997
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 concreteFRP. 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 concreteadhesive 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. 34173455.
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. 191201.
3. Arduini M.; D’Ambrisi 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. 1316, 1994, p. 3.
4. Model Code 90, CEBFIP 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,” Master’s thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1995, pp. 96106.
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,” EUROC 1994, H. Hang, N. Bicanic, and
R. De Borst, eds., Innsbruck, Austria, 1994, pp. 209221.
7. L’Hermite R. L., and Bresson J., “Beton arme’ par collages des arma
tures,” RILEM Int. Symp., Resins in Building Construction, Part 2, Paris, 1967, pp. 175203.
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/JulyAugust 1997
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.