Comparative Study for Strengthening Techniques of

RC Beams Using Concrete Jackets and Steel Plates

‫دراسة مقارنه ألساليب تقوية األحزمة اخلرسانية باستخذام القمصان‬

‫اخلرسانية واأللواح املعذنية‬

By

Qasem Khalaf

Supervised by

Prof. Mohamed Ziara

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

Master of Science in Civil Engineering. Rehabilitation and Design of Structures

February 2015
ABSTRACT
In comparison with the option of “demolish and rebuild buildings”, sustainability can be
better achieved by extending the life spans of existing structures. Rehabilitation of
structures results in less construction waste materials, reserves natural resources,
minimizes adverse environmental effects, saves time, saves cost, etc. The structural
behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with concrete jackets or steel
plating has been investigated in the undertaken research both theoretical and
experimental. The main aim of the research is to demonstrate the best among the
investigated strengthening techniques. The experimental work included testing of 26
reinforced concrete beams divided into two series. The first series contains 13 beams
proposed to have inadequate flexural capacity and the purpose is to increase it. While,
the second series contains 13 beams with low shear capacity because of inadequate
amount of stirrups and the purpose is to prevent the shear failure. Strengthening
operation has been accomplished using concrete jackets or steel plates with different
configurations. The test variables included the type of strengthening (shear or flexural),
the technique of strengthening (concrete jacketing, steel plating) and the type of
connections to prevent laminar shear between the old concrete and the strengthening
elements (mechanical or chemical). As predicted, the strengthened beams exhibited
different structural behavior upon loading up to failure. The beams strengthened with
mechanically bonded concrete jackets showed best structural behavior. The beams
strengthened with chemically bonded concrete jackets showed good results, especially
in the case of three-face jackets. The beams strengthened with chemically bonded steel
plates exhibited sudden brittle failure upon debonding of the plates from the beams at
ultimate load levels. The beams strengthened with mechanically connected steel plates
have not achieved the expected level of enhancement because of pre-mature debonding
of the steel plate or buckling. Better results may be achieved by using a combination of
mechanical and chemical bonding especially at the end of jacket or plate. Steel straps
bonded at the outerface of the beam can prevent the shear failure and recover the
flexural capacity while continuous steel plates bonded to both sides of the beam can
only delay the shear failure with increasing in flexural capacity. In conclusion,
strengthening of existing beams can be effectively achieved using practical techniques,
which will increase the life spans of the beams and thus enhance the sustainability of
existing structures.

I
 ‫ملخص الرسالة‬
‫ػُذ يمبسَزٓب يغ خ‪ٛ‬بس اإلصانخ ٔإػبدح انجُبء فئٌ ػًه‪ٛ‬خ ص‪ٚ‬بدح لذسح انزحًم نهًُشآد انمبئًخ ٔانز‪ٙ‬‬
‫رؤد٘ إنٗ رًذ‪ٚ‬ذ ػًشْب االفزشاض‪ٚ ٙ‬ؼزجش انخ‪ٛ‬بس األفضم ف‪ ٙ‬كث‪ٛ‬ش يٍ األحٕال‪ .‬إٌ إػبدح رؤْ‪ٛ‬م‬
‫انًُشآد ‪ٚ‬مهم يٍ انًٕاد انًسزخذيخ ٔ‪ٚ‬حبفع ػهٗ انًٕاسد انطج‪ٛ‬ؼ‪ٛ‬خ ٔ‪ٚ‬مهم يٍ األثبس انسهج‪ٛ‬خ ػهٗ‬
‫انج‪ٛ‬ئخ ٔ‪ٕٚ‬فش انٕلذ ٔانًبل‪ .‬ف‪ْ ٙ‬زا انجحث لذ رى ػًم دساسخ َظش‪ٚ‬خ ٔيخجش‪ٚ‬خ ػٍ انزصشف‬
‫اإلَشبئ‪ ٙ‬نألحضيخ انخشسبَ‪ٛ‬خ انًسهحخ انًمٕاح ثبسزخذاو انمًصبٌ انخشسبَ‪ٛ‬خ ٔاألنٕاح انًؼذَ‪ٛ‬خ‪.‬‬
‫انٓذف األسبس‪ ٙ‬نٓزا انجحث ْٕ إظٓبس األسهٕة األفضم يٍ ث‪ ٍٛ‬أسبن‪ٛ‬ت انزمٕ‪ٚ‬خ انًزجُبح ف‪ْ ٙ‬زِ‬
‫انذساسخ‪ .‬انؼًم انًخجش٘ رضًٍ اخزجبس ‪ 62‬حضاو خشسبَ‪ ٙ‬يمسًخ إنٗ سهسهز‪ .ٍٛ‬انسهسهخ األٔنٗ‬
‫رحزٕ٘ ػهٗ ‪ 31‬حضاو ثحبجخ نض‪ٚ‬بدح لذسح رحًهٓب نمٕٖ االَحُبء ث‪ًُٛ‬ب انسهسهخ انثبَ‪ٛ‬خ رحزٕ٘ ػهٗ‬
‫‪ 31‬حضاو رؼبَ‪َ ٙ‬مصب ً ف‪ ٙ‬لذسح رحًهٓب نمٕٖ انمص ٔانٓذف ْٕ يُغ االَٓ‪ٛ‬بس ػٍ طش‪ٚ‬ك لٕٖ‬
‫انمص‪ْ .‬زِ األحضيخ رى رمٕ‪ٚ‬زٓب ثبسزخذاو انمًصبٌ انخشسبَ‪ٛ‬خ ٔاألنٕاح انًؼذَ‪ٛ‬خ ثٓ‪ٛ‬ئبد يخزهفخ‪.‬‬
‫يزغ‪ٛ‬شاد انجحث ْ‪َٕ ٙ‬ع انزمٕ‪ٚ‬خ (االَحُبء أٔ انمص) ٔرمُ‪ٛ‬خ انزمٕ‪ٚ‬خ (انمًصبٌ انخشسبَ‪ٛ‬خ أٔ األنٕاح‬
‫انًؼذَ‪ٛ‬خ) ٔرمُ‪ٛ‬خ انشثظ ث‪ ٍٛ‬انؼُصش انجذ‪ٚ‬ذ ٔانحضاو األصه‪( ٙ‬ي‪ٛ‬كبَ‪ٛ‬ك‪ٛ‬خ أٔ ك‪ًٛ‬بئ‪ٛ‬خ)‪ .‬كًب ْٕ يزٕلغ‬
‫فئٌ األحضيخ انًمٕاح أثذد رصشفبد إَشبئ‪ٛ‬خ يخزهفخ خالل انزحً‪ٛ‬م ٔنغب‪ٚ‬خ االَٓ‪ٛ‬بس ٔرنك حست َٕع‬
‫انزمٕ‪ٚ‬خ‪ .‬األحضيخ انًمٕاح ثٕاسطخ انمًصبٌ انخشسبَ‪ٛ‬خ ٔانز‪ ٙ‬رى سثطٓب ي‪ٛ‬كبَ‪ٛ‬ك‪ٛ‬ب ً ثبألحضيخ األصه‪ٛ‬خ‬
‫أثذد أفضم رصشف ػهٗ اخزالف ْ‪ٛ‬ئبرٓب‪ .‬كزنك فئٌ األحضيخ انًمٕاح ثبسزخذاو انمًصبٌ انخشسبَ‪ٛ‬خ‬
‫ٔانز‪ ٙ‬رى سثطٓب ك‪ًٛٛ‬بئ‪ٛ‬ب ً ثبألحضيخ األصه‪ٛ‬خ أثذد رصشفب ً ج‪ٛ‬ذا خصٕصب ً ف‪ ٙ‬حبل انمًصبٌ راد‬
‫انثالثخ أٔجّ‪ .‬األحضيخ انًمٕاح ثبسزخذاو األنٕاح انًؼذَ‪ٛ‬خ ٔانز‪ ٙ‬رى سثطٓب ك‪ًٛٛ‬بئ‪ٛ‬ب ً آَبسد ثشكم‬
‫يفبجئ ْٔش ػُذ اَفصبنٓب ػٍ انحضاو األصه‪ ٙ‬ػُذ ٔصٕنٓب يشحهخ انزحً‪ٛ‬م انمصٕٖ‪ .‬األحضيخ‬
‫انًمٕاح ثبسزخذاو األنٕاح انًؼذَ‪ٛ‬خ ٔانز‪ ٙ‬رى سثطٓب ي‪ٛ‬كبَ‪ٛ‬ك‪ٛ‬ب ً نى رحمك انًسزٕٖ انًطهٕة يٍ انزحس‪ٍٛ‬‬
‫ٔرنك إيب ثسجت االَفصبل انًسجك أٔ اَثُبء األنٕاح‪َ .‬زبئج أفضم سثًب رزحمك ػُذ انجًغ يب ث‪ٍٛ‬‬
‫أسهٕث‪ ٙ‬انشثظ انً‪ٛ‬كبَ‪ٛ‬ك‪ٔ ٙ‬انك‪ًٛٛ‬بئ‪ ٙ‬خصٕصب ً ػُذ َٓب‪ٚ‬خ انمً‪ٛ‬ص انخشسبَ‪ ٙ‬أٔ انهٕح انًؼذَ‪.ٙ‬‬
‫اسزخذاو أطٕاق يؼذَ‪ٛ‬خ يهصمخ ػهٗ اإلطبس انخبسج‪ ٙ‬نهحضاو انخشسبَ‪ ٙ‬ثئيكبَّ يُغ انحضاو‬
‫انخشسبَ‪ ٙ‬يٍ االَٓ‪ٛ‬بس ػٍ طش‪ٚ‬ك انمص يغ اسزؼبدح سؼخ انحضاو نمٕٖ االَحُبء ث‪ًُٛ‬ب األنٕاح‬
‫انًؼذَ‪ٛ‬خ انًزصهخ ٔانًهصمخ ػهٗ جبَج‪ ٙ‬انحضاو انخشسبَ‪ ٙ‬فجئيكبَٓب فمظ رؤج‪ٛ‬م االَٓ‪ٛ‬بس يغ ثؼض‬
‫ف‪ ٙ‬رحس‪ ٍٛ‬ف‪ ٙ‬انمٕح‪ .‬انخالصخ ْ‪ ٙ‬أٌ رمٕ‪ٚ‬خ األحضيخ انمبئًخ يٍ انًًكٍ ٔثشكم فؼبل أٌ رزحمك‬
‫ثبسزخذاو رمُ‪ٛ‬بد ػًه‪ٛ‬خ ٔسٓهخ ٔانز‪ ٙ‬ثئيكبَٓب رًذ‪ٚ‬ذ انؼًش االفزشاض‪ ٙ‬نهحضاو انخشسبَ‪ٔ ٙ‬ثبنزبن‪ٙ‬‬
‫رحس‪ ٍٛ‬لذسح انزحًم نهًُشآد انمبئًخ‪.‬‬

‫‪II‬‬
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to express his sincere appreciation to his research adviser Prof.
Mohamed Ziara for his help and guidance in the preparation and development of this
work. The constant encouragement, support and inspiration he offered were
fundamental to the completion of this research.
The author would like to thank the discussion committee members, Dr. Samir Shehada
and Dr. Ali Tayeh for their comments and suggestions. The author’s sincere thanks
also go to the technicians in the material and soil lab of the Islamic University of Gaza
for their supports throughout the research work.
The author’s acknowledgements would not be completed without mentioning his work
team either in the stage of preparing or testing the samples for being very cooperative
and making it an enjoyable work place. The author would like to thank his parents for
their love and support.

III
 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... I
‫ ملخص الرسالة‬.................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... IX
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................X
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. XIII
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 THE NEED FOR REHABILITATION .............................................................................. 1
1.3 REHABILITATION NEEDS IN GAZA STRIP .................................................................. 2
1.4 DAMAGES IN BEAMS IN GAZA STRIP ........................................................................ 2
1.5 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMS ................................................................................ 3
1.6 STRENGTHENING TECHNIQUES ................................................................................. 4
1.7 STRENGTHENING OF RC BEAMS ............................................................................. 4
1.7.1 Jacketing of Beams ......................................................................................... 4
1.7.2 Jacketing by Post-Tensioning Concrete ......................................................... 6
1.7.3 Span Shortening .............................................................................................. 6
1.7.4 Increasing Reinforcement ............................................................................... 6
1.7.5 External Post-Tensioning ............................................................................... 8
1.8 COMPARISON BETWEEN RC JACKETING AND STEEL PLATING OF BEAMS ................. 8
1.9 RESEARCH SCOPE, OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS .................................................. 8
1.9.1 The Aim ........................................................................................................... 8
1.9.2 The Objectives ................................................................................................ 9
1.9.3 Scope and Limitations .................................................................................... 9
1.10 UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................... 9
1.11 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 9
1.11.1 Literature review ........................................................................................ 10
1.11.2 Test program and materials ....................................................................... 10
1.11.3 Analysis of samples ..................................................................................... 10
1.11.4 Constructing the Samples and applying strengthening .............................. 10
1.11.5 Testing of samples: ..................................................................................... 10
1.11.6 Analysis and discussion: ............................................................................. 10
1.11.7 Conducting comparison .............................................................................. 10
1.11.8 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................ 10
1.12 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS ....................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................. 12
2.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 12
2.2 STRENGTHENING RC BEAMS BY CONCRETE JACKETING ........................................ 12

IV
 2.2.1 Concrete as Strengthening Material............................................................. 14
2.2.2 Applications .................................................................................................. 15
2.2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages .................................................................... 15
2.2.4 Installations .................................................................................................. 15
2.2.5 Review of Investigations ............................................................................... 16
2.3 STRENGTHENING RC BEAMS BY STEEL PLATES ..................................................... 19
2.3.1. Steel Plates as Strengthening Material ....................................................... 19
2.3.2. Applications ................................................................................................. 19
2.3.3. Advantages and Disadvantages ................................................................... 20
2.3.3.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Chemically Bonded Steel plates ..... 20
2.3.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Mechanically Connected steel plates
............................................................................................................................ 21
2.3.4. Installation ................................................................................................... 21
2.3.5 Review of Investigations ............................................................................... 22
2.4. ANCHORING AND BONDING OF INTERFACES .......................................................... 26
2.4.1 Bonding Techniques ..................................................................................... 27
2.4.1.1 Roughening of Concrete Surface ........................................................... 27
2.4.1.2 Mechanical Connectors .......................................................................... 28
2.4.1.3 Chemical Adhesives............................................................................... 28
2.4.1.4 Selecting a Structural Adhesive ............................................................. 29
2.4.1.5 General Properties of Adhesives ............................................................ 30
2.4.1.6. Epoxy .................................................................................................... 31
2.4.6 Anchor and Bond Strength ........................................................................... 31
CHAPTER 3 DESIGN OF CONCRETE JACKETED AND STEEL PLATED
BEAMS ........................................................................................................................ 33
3.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 33
3.2 BASIC PRINCIPLES IN DESIGN OF STRENGTHENED RC BEAMS................................ 33
3.2.1 Proper Reinforced Concrete Beams ............................................................. 33
3.2.2 Strengthened RC Beams ............................................................................... 34
3.2.3 Stresses Transfer at the Interfaces................................................................ 35
3.2.4 Compatibility of Strengthened Beam Materials ........................................... 35
3.2.4.1 Physical Compatibility ........................................................................... 36
3.2.4.2 Mechanical Compatibility (Stiffness and Strain). .................................. 36
3.3 STRUCTURAL DATA OF THE ORIGINAL BEAM. ...................................................... 37
3.4 DESIGN OF BEAMS STRENGTHENED BY CONCRETE JACKETING .............................. 38
3.5 DESIGN OF BEAMS STRENGTHENED BY STEEL PLATES ........................................... 41
3.5.1 Modes of Failure of Beams Strengthened by Steel Plates ............................ 41
3.5.1.1 Adhesively Bonded Plates ..................................................................... 42
3.5.1.2 Bolted Plates .......................................................................................... 43
3.5.2 Stiffness Limits of Steel Plate........................................................................ 43
3.5.3 Section Strength of Tension Face Plated Beam (Flexural Strengthening) ... 44
3.5.4 Section Strength of beam Strengthen by Straps of Steel Plates at the Sides
(shear strengthening) ............................................................................................. 46

V
 3.5.5 Section Strength of Beam Strengthen by Continuous Steel Plates at the Beam
Web (Shear Strengthening) .................................................................................... 47
3.6 BONDING DESIGN ................................................................................................... 53
3.6.1. Mechanical Anchorage to Concrete ............................................................ 54
3.6.2 Adhesively Bonding to Concrete................................................................... 54
3.7 CONCLUDED REMARKS .......................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 4 TEST PROGRAM ............................................................................... 58
4.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 58
4.2 DEFINITION OF SAMPLES SECTIONS ........................................................................ 58
4.2.1 Original sample: ........................................................................................... 58
4.2.2 First series: Flexural Strengthening............................................................. 61
4.2.3 Second Series: Shear Strengthening ............................................................ 62
4.3 EXPERIMENTAL WORK ........................................................................................... 63
4.3.1 First Series: Flexure Samples: ..................................................................... 63
4.3.1.1 Original Specimens: ............................................................................... 63
4.3.1.2 Addition of Mechanically Connected RC jacket at the Tension Side
(AF0, AF1and AF2) ........................................................................................... 63
4.3.1.3 Addition of Chemically Bonded RC jacket at the Tension Side (BF1,
BF2). .................................................................................................................. 64
4.3.1.4 Addition of Mechanically Connected Steel Plate to the Tension Side
(AF3, AF4):........................................................................................................ 64
4.3.1.5 Addition of Chemically Bonded Steel Plate to the Tension Side (BF3,
BF4): .................................................................................................................. 65
4.3.2 Second Series: Shear Examination: ............................................................. 66
4.3.2.1 Original Specimens: 13 Specimens as Detailed in Test Program ....... 66
4.3.2.2 Addition of Mechanically Connected U Shape Concrete Jacket with
Additional Steel Cage (AS1, AS2) .................................................................... 66
4.3.2.3 Addition of U Shape Reinforced Concrete Jacket to Roughened
surface and Partially Painted with Chemical (ES1) ........................................... 67
4.3.2.4 Addition of U Shape Reinforced Concrete Jacket without Additional
Connection (BS3)............................................................................................... 68
4.3.2.5 Addition of Chemically Bonded shape Plain Concrete Jacket (BS1,
BS2). .................................................................................................................. 68
4.3.2.6 Addition of Mechanically Connected Steel Plate to the beam Sides
(AS3, AS4). ........................................................................................................ 68
4.3.2.7 Addition of Chemically Bonded Steel Plate to the beam Sides (BS3,
BS4). .................................................................................................................. 68
4.3.2.8 Addition of External Straps of Steel Plate Chemically Bonded around
the beam outer-face (BS6) ................................................................................. 69
4.4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES .......................................................................................... 69
4.4.1 Concrete........................................................................................................ 69
4.4.2 Steel Bars ...................................................................................................... 70
4.4.3 Steel Plates ................................................................................................... 71

VI
 4.4.4 Chemical Adhesives ...................................................................................... 71
4.4.4.1 EPICHOR 1768 ..................................................................................... 71
4.4.4.2 Sikadur®-31 CF ..................................................................................... 72
4.4.4.1 Sikadur®-32 ........................................................................................... 72
4.5 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES .......................................................................................... 73
4.5.1 First Series: Flexure Examination ............................................................... 73
4.5.1.1 Original Section ..................................................................................... 74
4.5.1.2 Concrete Jacketed Section ..................................................................... 74
4.5.1.3 Steel Plated Section................................................................................ 77
4.5.1.4 Monolithic Section ................................................................................. 79
4.5.2 Second Series: Shear Examination ........................................................... 80
4.5.2.1 Original Section ..................................................................................... 80
4.5.2.2 Concrete Jacketed Section (U jacket). ................................................... 81
4.5.2.3 Concrete Jacketed Section (∩ shape) ..................................................... 82
4.5.2.4 Steel Straps............................................................................................. 84
4.5.2.5 Steel Plated Beam (Side Plates). ............................................................ 85
4.5.2.2 Monolithic Section (Simulation of Jacketed Section) ........................... 85
4.5.3 Summary of Theoretical Results ................................................................... 86
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................... 87
5.1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 87
5.2. FIRST SERIES: FLEXURAL SAMPLES ....................................................................... 87
5.2.1 Control Beams: ............................................................................................. 87
5.2.2. Addition of Mechanically Connected RC Jacket to the Tension Side (AF0,
AF1, and AF2). ...................................................................................................... 88
5.2.3. Addition of Chemically Bonded RC Jacket to the Tension Side (BF1, BF2)
............................................................................................................................... 92
5.2.4. Addition of Mechanically Connected Steel Plate to the Tension Side (AF3,
AF4) ....................................................................................................................... 94
5.2.5. Addition of Chemically Bonded Steel Plate to the Tension Side (BF3, BF4)
............................................................................................................................... 95
5.3. SECOND SERIES: SHEAR SAMPLES. ........................................................................ 98
5.3.1. Control Beams: ........................................................................................... 98
5.3.2. Addition of U Shape RC Jacket with Additional Mechanical Connection
(AS1, AS2) .............................................................................................................. 99
5.3.3. Addition of Chemically Bonded Shape Plain Concrete Jacket (BS1, BS2)
............................................................................................................................. 101
5.3.4 Addition of U Shape Reinforced Concrete Jacket to Roughened surface and
Partially Painted by Adhesive(ES1) .................................................................... 103
5.3.5 Addition of U Shape RC Jacket without additional connection (only "friction
+ new stirrups") (BS3)......................................................................................... 104
5.3.6. Addition of Steel Plate Mechanically Connected to the Sides of the Original
Beam(AS3, AS4)................................................................................................... 105
5.3.7. Addition of Chemically Bonded Steel Plate to the beam Sides (BS4,BS5) 108

VII
 5.3.8. Addition of External Straps from Steel Plate Chemically Bonded to the out-
surface of the Original Section(BS6) ................................................................... 109
5.4. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE STRENGTHENING TECHNIQUES: .............................. 111
5.4.1. Load Capacity............................................................................................ 111
5.4.2. Stiffness and Deflection at SLS .................................................................. 112
5.4.3. Stiffness and Failure Mode at ULS............................................................ 117
5.4.4 Skills and Time of Construction................................................................. 119
5.4.5 Concrete Jacketing Versus Steel Plating ................................................... 120
5.4.6 Mechanical Versus Chemical Bonding...................................................... 120
5.5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS: ....................................................................................... 121
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 124
6.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 124
6.2 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 124
6.3. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 128
6.3.1. Practical Recommendations ...................................................................... 128
6.3.2. Recommendations for Future Research dick ............................................. 128
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 130

VIII
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2. 1: STRUCTURAL AND PRACTICAL REMARKS ABOUT CONCRETE JACKETING (16) .................... 13
TABLE 2. 2: TECHNIQUES OF BONDING IN THE STUDY (15) ............................................................ 17
TABLE 2. 3: TEST RESULTS (31) .............................................................................................. 22
TABLE 2. 4: TEST RESULTS (32) .............................................................................................. 23
TABLE 2. 5: TEST RESULTS (33) .............................................................................................. 24
TABLE 2. 6: TEST RESULTS FOR SERIES A (WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT) BEAMS (34) .................. 25
TABLE 2. 7: TEST RESULTS FOR SERIES B (WITH SHEAR REINFORCEMENT) BEAMS (34) ........................ 25
TABLE 2. 8: : GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF PATCH REPAIR MATERIALS FOR COMPATIBILITY (47) ........ 30
TABLE 2. 9: BONDING STRENGTHS OF STRUCTURAL ADHESIVE (1) .................................................. 30
TABLE 3. 1: EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL RESULTS (30) ......................................................... 52
TABLE 3. 2: MEASURED TO PREDICTED BOND STRENGTH RATIOS(CHEN ET AL. (2001)) ..................... 56
TABLE 4. 1: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 60
TABLE 4. 2: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR THE FIRST MIX............................................................. 69
TABLE 4. 3: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR THE SECOND MIX ......................................................... 70
TABLE 4. 4: FC' FOR THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL CONCRETE .................................................... 70
TABLE 4. 5: YIELD AND ULTIMATE STRENGTH FOR STEEL BAR (10MM) ............................................ 71
TABLE 4. 6: YIELD AND ULTIMATE STRENGTH FOR STEEL PLATE .................................................... 71
TABLE 4. 7: PROPERTIES OF EPICHOR 1768 ............................................................................. 71
TABLE 4. 8: PROPERTIES OF SIKADUR®-31 CF ........................................................................... 72
TABLE 4. 9: PROPERTIES OF SIKADUR®-32 ............................................................................... 72
TABLE 4. 10: SUMMARY OF THEORETICAL RESULTS .................................................................... 86
TABLE 5. 1: DEFLECTION AND STIFFNESS AT SLS OF THE FIRST SERIES ............................................ 113
TABLE 5. 2: DEFLECTION AND STIFFNESS AT SLS OF THE SECOND SERIES....................................... 113
TABLE 5. 3: DEFLECTION, STIFFNESS AND FAILURE MODE AT ULS OF THE FIRST SERIES .................... 117
TABLE 5. 4: TABLE: DEFLECTION, STIFFNESS AND FAILURE MODE AT ULS OF THE SECOND SERIES ...... 118
TABLE 5. 5: CONSTRUCTION TIME AND THE DEGREE OF SKILLS FOR THE FIRST SERIES ....................... 119
TABLE 5. 6: CONSTRUCTION TIME AND THE DEGREE OF SKILLS FOR THE SECOND SERIES ................... 119
TABLE 5. 7: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS ................................................................................. 121

IX
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. 1: CRACK ALONG STEEL BAR DUE TO STEEL CORROSION (5) .............................................. 2
FIGURE 1. 2:VERTICAL FLEXURAL CRACKS (5) ............................................................................. 3
FIGURE 1. 3: DIAGONAL SHEAR CRACK (6) .................................................................................. 3
FIGURE 1. 4:THE MAIN CATEGORIES OF RETROFITTING METHODS (4)................................................. 4
FIGURE 1. 5: DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION OF CONCRETE JACKETS (8)................................................ 5
FIGURE 1. 6: ONE FACE JACKETING (COMPRESSION SIDE) (8) ........................................................... 5
FIGURE 1. 7: THREE-FACES JACKETING (U JACKET) (10)................................................................. 5
FIGURE 1. 8: PREPARING STEEL AND TENDONS (6) ........................................................................ 6
FIGURE 1. 9: CASTING AND POST-TENSIONING ............................................................................. 6
FIGURE 1. 10: SPAN SHORTENING BY ADDING CONCRETE OR STEEL COLUMN (8) .................................. 6
FIGURE 1. 11: DIFFERENT FORMS OF EXTERNAL REINFORCEMENT FOR SHEAR STRENGTHENING (8) .......... 7
FIGURE 1. 12: MECHANICAL AND CHEMICAL BONDING OF EXTERNAL REINFORCEMENT FOR FLEXURAL
STRENGTHENING (9) ....................................................................................................... 7
FIGURE 1. 13: FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING BY STEEL PLATE (12) ..................................................... 7
FIGURE 1. 14: FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING BY FRP SHEET (13) ....................................................... 7
FIGURE 1. 15: EXTERNAL POST-TENSIONING (6) ........................................................................... 8
FIGURE 2. 1: FAILURE LOADS OF BEAMS TESED BY EL-EBWEINI AND ZIARA (7) .................................. 16
FIGURE 2. 2: FAILURE LOAD OF TESTED BEAMS BY RAVAL AND DAVE (15) ...................................... 18
FIGURE 2. 3: ARANGMENT AND SPACING OF STEEL STRAPS (35) ..................................................... 26
FIGURE 3. 1: THE IDEALIZED SYSTEM OF BONDING (51). ................................................................. 34
FIGURE 3. 2: STRAIN AND STRESS DISTRIBUTION AT ULTIMATE CONDITION FOR PROPER SECTION (50). ... 34
FIGURE 3. 3: : COMPONENTS OF STRENGTHENED BEAMS ............................................................... 34
FIGURE 3. 4: STRESSES AT THE INTERFACES (52) ......................................................................... 35
FIGURE 3. 5: EFFECTS OF MISMATCHING ELASTIC MODULI ............................................................ 37
FIGURE 3. 6: STRAIN AND STRESS DIAGRAMS OF PLATED BEAM AT THE TENSION FACE (41) ................ 37
FIGURE 3. 7: DIFFERENCE IN STRAIN CURVATURE BETWEEN BEAM SECTION AND SIDE PLATE (29) ......... 37
FIGURE 3. 8: APPLYING FLEXURAL THEORY TO FULL-JACKETED SECTION ALTUN (22) ........................ 38
FIGURE 3. 9: JACKETING IN ONE FACE (TENSION FACE) ................................................................. 39
FIGURE 3. 10: JACKETING IN THREE FACE (U SHAPE) ................................................................... 39
FIGURE 3. 11: COMPRESSIVE FORCE PATH MACALEVEY ET AL. (37) ............................................... 40
FIGURE 3. 12: SLANT SHEAR RESULTS (37) ................................................................................ 40
FIGURE 3. 13: COMPRESSIVE FORCE PATH AT A SIMPLY SUPPORTED END (37) ................................... 41
FIGURE 3. 14: MODES OF FAILURE OF STEEL PLATE (57) ............................................................... 42
FIGURE 3. 15: FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING- RECOMMENDED DIMENSION LIMITS )33( ........................ 44
FIGURE 3. 16: SHEAR STRENGTHENING- RECOMMENDED DIMENSION LIMITS )33(.............................. 44
FIGURE 3. 17: STRAIN AND STRESS FOR DEFORMED SECTION )33( .................................................. 45
FIGURE 3. 18: STRAIN AND STRESS FOR INTACT SECTION (STEEL PLATED) )33( ................................. 45
FIGURE 3. 19: SHEAR STRENGTHENED BEAMS BY BONDED STRAPS.................................................. 46
FIGURE 3. 20: DIFFERENCE IN CURVATURE IN BOLTED STEEL PLATE AT BEAM SIDES (41)..................... 48
FIGURE 3. 21: DIFFERENCE IN CURVATURE IN ADHESIVELY BONDED STEEL PLATE AT BEAM SIDES (41) .. 48
FIGURE 3. 22: PLATED CONCRETE BEAM UNDER SHEAR LOADING )23( ............................................ 49
FIGURE 3. 23: FURTHER MODIFIED STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN PLATED BEAM )23( ............................ 49
FIGURE 3. 24: EQUILIBRIUM SECTION OF SIDE STEEL PLATED BEAMS (30)......................................... 50
FIGURE 3. 25: BARNES MODEL (30) ......................................................................................... 50
FIGURE 3. 26: NOTATIONS OF BARNES MODEL (30) .................................................................... 51
FIGURE 3. 27: BEAM REINFORCEMENT DETAILS. (30) ................................................................... 51
FIGURE 3. 28: DEFLECTION AT LOAD POINT OF TESTED BEAMS (30) ................................................ 52
FIGURE 3. 29: TENSION FORCE IN THE BARS ............................................................................... 53

X
FIGURE 3. 30: TENSION FORCE IN THE STEEL PLATE ..................................................................... 53
FIGURE 3. 31: SHEAR STRESS AT THE BONDED AREA (65).............................................................. 55
FIGURE 4. 1: THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TEST PROGRAM .................................................................... 58
FIGURE 4. 2: ORIGINAL FOR FLEXURE SAMPLES .......................................................................... 58
FIGURE 4. 3: ORIGINAL FOR SHEAR SAMPLES............................................................................. 58
FIGURE 4. 4: SAMPLES DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................................... 59
FIGURE 4. 5: JACKETING FOR FLEXURE USING SHEAR CONNECTORS (AF1, AF2, AF0) ......................... 61
FIGURE 4. 6: JACKETING FOR FLEXURE USING ADHESIVES (BF1,BF2) ............................................. 61
FIGURE 4. 7: STEEL PLATING FOR FLEXURE USING SHEAR CONNECTORS (AF3,AF4) ........................... 61
FIGURE 4. 8: STEEL PLATNG FOR FLEXURE USING ADHESIVES (BF3,BF4) ........................................ 61
FIGURE 4. 9: STRENGTHENING FOR SHEAR BY CONCRETE JACKETING .............................................. 62
FIGURE 4. 10: STRENGTHENING FOR SHEAR BY SIDE STEEL PLATES ................................................. 62
FIGURE 4. 11: STRENGTHEING FOR SHEAR BY STEEL STRAPS (BS6) ................................................. 62
FIGURE 4. 12: STEEL CAGE OF THE ORIGINAL SAMPLE OF THE FIRST SERIES ...................................... 63
FIGURE 4. 13: STEEL CAGE OF THE UNDERLAY ........................................................................... 63
FIGURE 4. 14: DRILLING HOLES IN THE TENSION SIDE IN THE ORIGINAL BEAM ................................... 63
FIGURE 4 .15: STICKING SHEAR CONNECTORS ............................................................................ 64
FIGURE 4. 16: SETTING THE NEW STEEL CAGE ............................................................................ 64
FIGURE 4. 17: DRILLING HOLES IN STEEL PLATE ......................................................................... 64
FIGURE 4. 18: FIXING STEEL PLATE .......................................................................................... 65
FIGURE 4. 19: STEEL CAGE OF THE ORIGINAL SAMPLE OF THE SECOND SERIES ................................... 66
FIGURE 4. 20: DETAILING OF THE NEW STIRRUPS AND CONNECTORS ............................................... 66
FIGURE 4. 21: HOLES DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................ 66
FIGURE 4. 22: FIXING THE CONNECTORS AND THE NEW STIRRUPS ................................................... 67
FIGURE 4. 23: THE NEW STIRRUPS DETAILING ............................................................................ 67
FIGURE 4. 24: HOLES DISTRIBUTION OF ES1 .............................................................................. 67
FIGURE 4. 25: FIXING STIRRUPS AND LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT ............................................ 68
FIGURE 4. 26: PARTS OF STEEL STRAP ...................................................................................... 69
FIGURE 4. 27: WELDING AND BONDING STEEL STRAPS................................................................. 69
FIGURE 4. 28: LOADING SYSTEM OF THE FIRST SERIES .................................................................. 73
FIGURE 4. 29: ORIGINAL SECTION FO FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING .................................................. 74
FIGURE 4. 30: JACKETING AT THE TENSION FACE ........................................................................ 74
FIGURE 4. 31: STEEL PLATES AT THE TENSION FACE .................................................................... 77
FIGURE 4. 32: FLECTURAL MONOLITHIC SECTION........................................................................ 79
FIGURE 4. 33: LOADING SYSTEM FOR SECOND SERIES .................................................................. 80
FIGURE 4. 34: THE ORIGINAL SECTION FOR SHEAR STRENGTHENING................................................ 80
FIGURE 4. 35: U JACKET FOR SHEAR STENGTHENING ................................................................... 81
FIGURE 4. 36: ∩JACKET FOR SHEAR STRENGTHENING .................................................................. 82
FIGURE 4. 37: SECTION OF BEAM STRENGTHENED STEEL STRAPS .................................................... 84
FIGURE 4. 38: SHEAR MONOLITHIC SECTION .............................................................................. 85
FIGURE 5. 1:FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF CF1.............................................................. 87
FIGURE 5. 2: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF CF2 .......................................................... 87
FIGURE 5. 3: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF CF1 ............................................................... 88
FIGURE 5. 4: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF AF0 AND CF0 .............................................. 90
FIGURE 5. 5: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF AF1 ........................................................... 90
FIGURE 5. 6: FAILURE MODE CRACK PATTERN OF AF2 ................................................................. 90
FIGURE 5. 7: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF AF0 COMPAIRED WITH CONTROL BEAM CF0 ........... 91
FIGURE 5. 8: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF AF1 AND AF2 COMPAIRED WITH CONTROL BEAM CF2
AND MONOLITHICLY CASTED BEAM MF ............................................................................ 91
FIGURE 5. 9: FAILURE MODE CRACK PATTERN OF BF1 ................................................................. 93
FIGURE 5. 10: FAILURE MODE (POST ULTIMATE) AND CRACK PATERN OF BF2 ................................... 93

XI
FIGURE 5. 11: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF BF2 AND BF2 COMPARED WITH CONTROL BEAM CF2
AND MONOLITHICLY CASTED BEAM MF ............................................................................ 93
FIGURE 5. 12: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF AF3......................................................... 94
FIGURE 5. 13: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF AF4......................................................... 95
FIGURE 5. 14: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF AF4 AND AF3 COMPARED WITH MF AND CF2 ...... 95
FIGURE 5. 15: FAILURE MODE OF BF3 ...................................................................................... 96
FIGURE 5. 16: CRACK PATTERN OF BF3 .................................................................................... 96
FIGURE 5. 17: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF BF3 COMPARED WITH MF AND CF2 .................... 97
FIGURE 5. 18: FAILURE MODE OF BF4 ...................................................................................... 97
FIGURE 5. 19: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF BF4 ............................................................. 97
FIGURE 5. 20: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF CS1 ......................................................... 98
FIGURE 5. 21: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF CS2 ......................................................... 98
FIGURE 5. 22: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF CS1 AND CS2 ................................................ 99
FIGURE 5. 23: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF AS1....................................................... 100
FIGURE 5. 24: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF AS2....................................................... 100
FIGURE 5. 25: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF AS1 AND AS2 COMPARED WITH THE CONTROL BEAMS
.............................................................................................................................. 100
FIGURE 5. 26: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF BS1 ....................................................... 101
FIGURE 5. 27: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF BS1 ........................................................... 102
FIGURE 5. 28: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF BS2 ....................................................... 102
FIGURE 5. 29: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF BS2 COMPARED WITH THE CONROL BEAM .......... 103
FIGURE 5. 30: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF ES1 ....................................................... 103
FIGURE 5. 31: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF ES1 COMPARED WITH THE CONTROL BEAMS ....... 104
FIGURE 5. 32: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF BS3 ....................................................... 105
FIGURE 5. 33: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF BS3 COMPARED WITH THE CONTROL BEAMS ....... 105
FIGURE 5. 34: FAILURE MODE OF AS3 .................................................................................... 106
FIGURE 5. 35: FAILURE MODE OF AS4 .................................................................................... 106
FIGURE 5. 36: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF AS4 AND AS4 ............................................. 107
FIGURE 5. 37: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF AS4 COMPARED WITH CS1 AND CS2................. 107
FIGURE 5. 38: FAILURE MODE OF BS4 .................................................................................... 108
FIGURE 5. 39: FAILURE MODE OF BS5 .................................................................................... 108
FIGURE 5. 40: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF BS4 AND BS5 COMPARED WITH CONTROL BEAMS 109
FIGURE 5. 41: FAILURE MODE AND CRACK PATTERN OF BS6 ....................................................... 110
FIGURE 5. 42: LOAD-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP OF BS6 COMPARED WITH THE CONTROL BEAMS ....... 110
FIGURE 5. 43: PERCENTAGE OF ENHANCMENT OVER THE CONTROL BEAM FOR FIRST SERIES ............... 111
FIGURE 5. 44: PERCENTAGE OF ENHANCMENT OVER THE CONTROL BEAM FOR SECOND SERIES............ 112
FIGURE 5. 45: COMPARATIVE STIFFNESS FOR THE FIRST SERIES AT THE SLS ................................... 114
FIGURE 5. 46: COMPARATIVE STIFFNESS FOR THE SECOND SERIES AT THE SLS ................................ 114
FIGURE 5. 47: COMPARATIVE LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR THE FIRST SERIES ............................. 115
FIGURE 5. 48: .: COMPARATIVE LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR THE SECOND SERIES ....................... 116

XII
ABBREVIATIONS

ACI American Concrete Institute

IUG Islamic University of Gaza
JIS Japanese Industrial Standards
FRP Fiber Reinforced Polymers
RC Reinforced Concrete
CFP Compressive Force Path
IC Crack-induced debonding
CDC Critical Diagonal Crack

XIII
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The well-designed reinforced concrete systems exhibit excellent behavior through several
decades. However, several factors affect the reinforced concrete structures causing
decrease in load carrying capacity, especially environmental and mechanical factors.
Structural rehabilitation represents an important aspect of the construction industry and
its significance is increasing because the concrete structures are forever expanding and
aging and more of the available resources are being used to maintain it. It is becoming
both environmentally and economically preferable to repair or strengthen the structures
rather than replacement, particularly if rapid, effective and simple strengthening methods
are available (1; 2). Reinforced concrete (RC) beams are significant structural members
in load transferring process in structural skeleton. Therefore, they should afford satisfied
structural performance. The load carrying capacity of beams may decrease by many
reasons such as design errors and increase of loads. Existing beam members that are
deficient with respect to flexural or shear capacity are costly to demolish and reconstruct.
An efficient, cost-effective means of strengthening existing concrete beams is needed so
an unsafe or unusable structure can once again be utilized. There are several
strengthening methods for RC beams, each with different advantages, disadvantages and
practical limitations, so engineers should have the ability to choose the best according to
some criteria (2).

Little information is available and insufficient code guidelines are accessible for
strengthening concrete structures (1). In fact, most repair and strengthening designs are
based on the assessment of engineers only and, often, empirical knowledge and current
practice have an important role in the decisions to be made. Therefore, it is imperative
that researches should be done in purpose of providing reliable knowledge about
rehabilitation techniques.

In this research, the work is to investigate the behavior of different strengthening

techniques to propose the most effective for the rehabilitation of beams. This has
accomplished by strengthening RC beams by RC jackets and steel plates to increase
flexural and shear capacity using mechanical and chemical bonding techniques. These
methods are evaluated according to different characteristics in order to help structural
engineers to choose the most appropriate solutions. Recommendations are given, based
on theoretical and experimental study supported by published studies.

1.2 The Need for Rehabilitation

Generally, the need to rehabilitate buildings and structural elements such as beams may
arise at any time from the beginning of the construction phase until the end of the service
life. There are a number of different aspects contributing to the degradation of reinforced
concrete structures (2; 3; 4):

1. Physical: water and moisture transport, freezing, shrinkage, fatigue, abrasion,

early age cracking etc.

1
 2. Mechanical: excessive loading, vibration, explosion, settlement, impact etc.
3. Chemical: de-passivation of reinforcement, chloride intrusion, corrosion,
4. Design phase deficiencies: calculation errors, poor detailing.
5. Construction phase deficiencies: workmanship mistakes, material inelegances.
6. Service life phase: accidents (such as collisions, fire, explosions), earthquakes,
changing in the structure functionality, the development of more demanding code
requirements.

1.3 Rehabilitation Needs in Gaza Strip

Structures in Gaza Strip are mainly reinforced concrete structures. Gaza Strip is a coastal
area. According to the survey study executed by Abu-Hamam (5), the damages in
existing building in Gaza strip are mainly due to environmental conditions, which result
in deterioration of concrete and corrosion of steel reinforcement. Also other damages are
associated with design and construction errors, poor quality concrete, fire accident and
Israeli military attacks. Design and construction errors represent 28% of the natural
causes of the assessment, while the need for upgrading the structures represent 10%.
Deterioration represents the greatest percentage as motivation for rehabilitation (49%).
Mainly, the reason is that Gaza strip is a coastal region. According to the researcher,
rehabilitation works, including repair of structural defects and strengthening of some
elements were recommended for about 33% of defects. This visibly implies that the field
of rehabilitation work is considerable in Gaza strip. The rehabilitation works include
strengthening and repairing of structural and non-structural member. As long as this is
true, reliable and applicable repairing and strengthening methods are needed.

1.4 Damages in Beams in Gaza Strip

The deficiency of RC beams is generally due to the unexpected loads, corrosion (Figure
1. 1) and upgradation of load standards. Vertical (Figure 1. 2) and diagonal (Figure 1. 3)
cracks which may result from overload, section deficiency, or/and low strength materials.
According to the survey carried by Abu-Hamam (5) which conducted in 2008, 9.6% of
the deficiencies in Gaza strip are structural cracks in slabs and drop beams.

Figure 1. 1: Crack along steel bar due to steel corrosion (5)

2
 Figure 1. 2:Vertical flexural cracks (5) Figure 1. 3: Diagonal shear crack (6)

Many researchers have been studied several types of damages of beams. El_Ebweini and
Ziara conducted a study about the effect of corrosion on RC beams (7). While, Owayda
and Shihada studied three types of damages in beams, over loading cracks,
honeycombing, and spalling of concrete cover due to elevated temperature (8). These
researches include execution and testing of suggested repair of the damaged beams.

1.5 Statement of the Problems

The function of the structures and structural members at the serviceability and ultimate
limit state exposed to be at lower levels due to several reasons such environmental
exposure, design errors, accidents, etc. There is significant need around the world for
rehabilitation since it is the best option in many cases. In addition, a survey study in Gaza
strip refer to the need of the rehabilitation in Gaza strip. Therefore, the field of
rehabilitation engineering needs reliable, economical an applicable techniques for
repairing and strengthening. The reliable strengthening technique should result in stable
system during the service life of the structural element. In addition, strengthening system
should behave in a ductile manner at the ultimate limit state.
In this research, the focus will be on examining two of strengthening techniques of
beams, which are steel plate bonding and partial concrete jacketing. This research
proposes answers to the following questions (research problems):
1. How the strengthened beams by bonding steel plates and concrete jacketing
behave in the serviceability and ultimate states? Is it better in the case of
monolithically casted beams?
2. Can the strengthening by the adopted techniques provide additional shear and
flexural capacity?
3. Is the type of bonding a significant factor in strengthening process?
4. Can the beam reach its shear or flexural capacity when the bonding is done by
chemical adhesives only? And is the mechanical bonding provide better results?
5. Is the partial concrete jacketing better than bonding steel plates theoretically and
experimentally?
6. Can the one-face jacketing provide good behavior always? And is the three-face
jacketing better?

These issues and others will be discussed through theoretical and experimental study for a
set of small-scale beams strengthened by concrete jacketing and steel plate as detailed in
this thesis.

3
1.6 Strengthening Techniques
Basically, the strengthening techniques for reinforced concrete structures can be divided
into:
1. Addition of new structural elements;
2. Strengthening of the existing structural elements.

Techniques of structural strengthening are various such as enlarging sectional area,

adding reinforcements, pre-stressed retrofit, changing load path, sticking steel plates and
encasing members with steel (1). Figure 1. 4 summarizes the common categories and
types of strengthening techniques (4):

Figure 1. 4:The main categories of retrofitting methods (4)

1.7 Strengthening of RC Beams

As they most common structural elements, beams and slabs maintain the largest
retrofit workload. A lot of researches and case studies are available about strengthening
beams by different techniques. Following are some of the techniques of strengthening RC
beans.

1.7.1 Jacketing of Beams

Jacketing of beams involves enlarging one or more side in the section. Several forms of
concrete jacketing are shown in Figure 1. 5, Figure 1. 6 and Figure 1. 7.

4
Figure 1. 5: Different configuration of concrete jackets (8)

Figure 1. 6: One face jacketing (compression side) (8)

Figure 1. 7: Three-faces jacketing (U jacket) (10)

5
 1.7.2 Jacketing by Post-Tensioning Concrete

Figure 1. 8 and Figure 1. 9 illustrate using post-tensioning concrete in jacketing.

Figure 1. 8: Preparing steel and tendons (6) Figure 1. 9: Casting and post-tensioning

1.7.3 Span Shortening

This method involves shortening beam span by adding concrete or steel column to reduce
the bending moment. This can be done also by adding transverse beam at the middle of
the existing beams (see Figure 1. 10).

Figure 1. 10: Span shortening by adding concrete or steel column (8)

1.7.4 Increasing Reinforcement

External reinforcement can be bonded chemically or mechanically to the surface of the

beam to increase its load carrying capacity. The reiforcement added to the web vertically
or diagonally if the strengthening is needed for shear (Figure 1. 11), while added to the
tension side of the beam when the strengthening needed for flexure (Figure 1. 12). The
common reinforcement used for these purposes is steel plates (Figure 1. 13) and Fiper
Reinforced Polymers (FRP) plates or sheets (Figure 1. 14).

6
 Figure 1. 11: Different forms of external reinforcement for shear strengthening (8)

Figure 1. 12: Mechanical and chemical bonding of external reinforcement for flexural
strengthening (9)

Figure 1. 13: Flexural strengthening by steel Figure 1. 14: Flexural strengthening by FRP
plate (12) sheet (13)

7
1.7.5 External Post-Tensioning

External post-tensioning systems utilize high strength tendons, strands and steel bars, and
are used to increase or restore load-carrying capacity (Figure 1. 15). Post-tensioning is
ideal for situations that require significant load capacity increases or deflection and/or
crack control.

Tendo
ns Existing beam

Anchorage device

Figure 1. 15: External post-tensioning (6)

1.8 Comparison between RC Jacketing and Steel Plating of Beams

Engineers may face difficulties to choose the best strengthening technique for beams. The
most important criteria for comparison between the techniques are:

1. Availability of rehabilitation materials.

2. The cost of the rehabilitation materials.
3. The need of skilled workmanship.
4. The ability to provide the needed load capacity.
5. Behavior of the beam at failure.

In this research, a comparison based on detailed knowledge extracted from theoretical

and experimental study has been done between some systems of RC jacketing and steel
plating of RC beams, basically with regard the following features:
1. Crack pattern and the nature of strengthening system failure:
a. Monolithic Flexural failure.
b. Monolithic Shear failure.
c. Bond failure.
d. Delamination of concrete cover.
2. The percentage of increasing in load capacity.
3. The construction time and degree of skills needed for samples fabrication.

1.9 Research Scope, Objectives and Limitations

1.9.1 The Aim

The structural behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with concrete jackets
or steel plates has been investigated in the undertaken research both theoretical and
experimental. The main aim of the research is to demonstrate the best among the
investigated strengthening techniques

8
1.9.2 The Objectives

This research:
1. Reviewed theoretical study of the strengthening systems applied to the samples.
2. Presented experimental investigation for concrete jacketed and steel plated beams.
3. Presented a comparison between the strengthening systems applied to the
samples.
4. Provided recommendations for future research
5. Provided a practical recommendation in strengthening RC beams using concrete
jacketing and steel plating.

1.9.3 Scope and Limitations

This research studied two strengthening techniques, which are; concrete jacketing and
steel plating of beams. This study is theoretical and experimental. The samples are small
scale and simply supported. Reinforced concrete beams with rectangular sections was
used.

1.10 Unique Features of the Research

1. Variety of strengthening systems of RC jacketing and steel plating of RC beams.
2. Studying a package of variables in the same circumstances.
3. The presentment in a comparative way.

1.11 Methodology
To achieve the objectives of this research, the following tasks were executed:

Literature review

Test program

Material properties.

Analysis of samples.

Constructing the Samples.

Applying the strengthening

Testing of samples

Analysis and discussion.

Conducting comparison

Conclusions and recommendations

9
1.11.1 Literature review

Reviewing the literature related to strengthening beams using concrete jacketing and
steel plating in order to extract important points that help in conducting this research.

1.11.2 Test program and materials

Selecting and specifying the properties of the set of samples and the materials used to
construct them to serve the achievement of the aim of this research.

1.11.3 Analysis of samples

Analyzing the samples in order to obtain the theoretical values of the load carrying
capacities.

1.11.4 Constructing the Samples and applying strengthening

Constructing the original samples and then executing the strengthening operation using
the material specified previously.

1.11.5 Testing of samples:

Testing the samples using the loading system which is available in the Islamic
University in Gaza, and recording the results during testing.

1.11.6 Analysis and discussion:

Analysis and discussion of tests results and stating explanations for the results.

1.11.7 Conducting comparison

Conducting comparison between the strengthening techniques in order to specify the

precedence of them.

1.11.8 Conclusions and recommendations

Producing conclusions after analysis and discussion and then presenting

recommendations for practice and future research.

11
1.12 Outline of the Thesis

The following is a brief description of the contents of each chapter in the thesis:

Chapter 1 mainly contained Statement of the problems, methodology, Research Scope,

Objectives and limitations

Chapter 2 reviews the use of RC jacketing and steel plating to strengthen RC beams
through a literature survey and evaluates the commonly used retrofit materials, properties
and application procedures. The content is placed within the framework of the knowledge
and the aim of this thesis.

Chapter 3 contained different design approaches of beams strengthened by concrete

jackets and steel plates.

Chapter 4 describes the experimental program, including the first and the second series
and analysis of the samples. The mechanical properties of the materials, reinforcement
steel, concrete, steel plate and epoxy are presented.

Chapter 5 presents the results of the experimental program, including the effects of
various parameters as well as different failure modes. The overall behavior of concrete
beams strengthened with various systems of RC jacketing and steel-plating techniques is
discussed. In addition, a comprehensive comparison between the adopted systems is
performed according the declared criteria.

Chapter 6 summarizes the thesis with a retrospective view on the research study and
draws conclusions from the work. Recommendations for future research are also
highlighted in this chapter.

11
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction
Beams are very important structural elements in the structural system of buildings. They
may need to be strengthened to increase or recover their flexure and shear capacity as a
result of structural deficiency. Structural deficiency can be caused by details errors,
increase of load or environmental reasons such as reinforcement corrosion.
Strengthening of reinforced concrete beams is one of the important tasks normally
associated with the maintenance of concrete structures. The load carrying capacity of the
strengthened beams will increase if monolithic action exists between the existing beams
and the strengthening materials. The monolithic action may be achieved by using either
chemical bonding materials (epoxy resin adhesive, etc.) or mechanical shear connectors
at the interface between the strengthening materials and the existing beam and with
proper end anchorage. Strengthening R.C beams by externally bonded steel plates or R.C
jacketing is the most traditional method. Strengthening of reinforced concrete beams by
RC jacketing is a well-established and frequently used technique. It involves increasing
size of the existing reinforced concrete section by adding more reinforcement and
concrete. This method may be easier and cheaper compared to other approaches (14; 2).
Steel plates are one of the most common materials for strengthening of reinforced
concrete beam. It is very effective for increasing the flexural and shear capacity of
reinforced concrete beam. Strengthening by steel plate is a popular method due to its
availability, cheapness, uniform materials properties (isotropic), easy to work, high
ductility and high fatigue strength (1). A literature review gathered from different
references and articles relating to the use of externally bonded steel plates and R.C
jacketing for shear and flexural strengthening of concrete beams is included in this
chapter. The main purpose of the literature review in this and the following chapter is to
flatten the way for building the hypothesis and test program for this study.

2.2 Strengthening RC Beams by Concrete Jacketing

Jacketing has been considered as one of the important methods for strengthening and
repairing of RC beams (15). Traditionally, concrete has been used to jacket RC beams in
most of the applications. Concrete jacketing could be accomplished by either of the
following methods (14):

1. Bonding of hardened concrete to hardened concrete, typically associated with the

use of precast units in repair and strengthening.

2. Casting of fresh concrete to hardened concrete using an adhesive bonded joint

forming a part of the structure requiring composite action.
In the second method concrete poured into a form, containing the newly placed additional
reinforcement around the beam after the surface of the beam has been roughened by
trimming and chipping. The concrete jacketing enhances strength and stiffness and
improves resistance against seismic loads and enhances the durability of the element also,
and it can be applied to any type of RC structures such as residential blocks, industrial
structures, and bridges that may be damaged due to environment or accidents. Waghmare
(16) summarized structural and practical remarks about concrete jacketing stated by
Teran and Ruiz (17). These remarks presented in Table 2. 1 (16).

12
Table 2. 1: Structural and practical remarks about concrete jacketing (16)
Item
Properties of concrete jacket
Minimum width for jacket
Longitudinal reinforcement
Shear reinforcement
Depth of jacketed beam: The
following items should be taken
into consideration before
choosing the final depth of
jacketed beam
Shear stress at the interface
Connectors
Description
 Match with the concrete of the existing
structure.
 Compressive strength greater than that of the
existing structures by five N/mm2 or at least
equal to that of the existing structure.
 8 cm if concrete cast in place or 4 cm for
shotcrete
 Percentage of steel on the jacket should be
limited to 50% of the total area of the
composite section.
 Ignore the effect of existing shear
reinforcement
 New reinforcement should have 135o hooks
and at each corner of the tie there must be at
least one longitudinal bar.
 The bar used for the tie should have at least 8
mm diameter
 Multiple piece ties can be used.
 Span/depth ratio
 Story height
 Ductile behavior
 Provide adequate shear transfer mechanism to
assure monolithic behavior.
 A relative movement between both concrete
interfaces (between the jacket and the existing
element) should be prevented.
 Chipping the concrete cover of the original
member and roughening its surface may
improve the bond between the old and the new
concrete.
 Distributed uniformly around the interface,
avoiding concentration in specific locations.
 It is better to use reinforced bars (rebar)
anchored with epoxy resins of grouts.
13
2.2.1 Concrete as Strengthening Material

In the field of repair and strengthening concrete structures one of the following types of
concrete systems can be used in concrete jacketing: (18; 3):

1. Conventional Concrete: Pouring concrete around the member to be strengthened

with additional steel reinforcement properly anchored to the existing section.
Ordinary concrete jacketing requires formwork and is time consuming due to long
curing time. Furthermore, it is difficult to achieve a dense mix in constrained
conditions. Adhesion is also an issue, especially for overhead applications.

2. Sprayed Concrete (Shotcrete): A mixture of Portland cement, sand, and water “shot”
into place by compressed air. Pneumatically projecting concrete on to the reinforced
(usually with wire mesh) and prepared surface of the member being strengthened
with a spray gun. A variety of additives and admixtures are also introduced to
expedite strength gain, reduce rebound, reduce water requirement, curb shrinkage
and improve adhesion. The grading of aggregates is critical in sprayed concrete
due to the absence of external vibration and the reduction in the quantity of coarse
aggregates as a result of rebound. Shotcrete does not require formwork and is
useful to retrofit large areas in a relatively short period of time. But, the operation
is very messy with enormous loss of sprayed materials, resulting not only wastage
of materials, but an unsightly-rough surface finish too. It is not economical for
small areas of retrofit due to high setup and machinery costs. This technique
needs good skills and experience of nozzle operators.

3. Pre-Packed Aggregate Grouting: Pumping of cementitious grout into washed/

graded coarse aggregates placed with properly anchored reinforcement around the
member to be strengthened in a tightly sealed formwork. It is one of the better
ways of jacketing a concrete member as it results in a dense mix with good
surface finish. Drying shrinkage of this concrete is approximately half that of the
conventional concrete. This type used in large projects and when the conventional
placing of concrete is difficult such as underwater.

4. Ferrocement: commonly constructed of hydraulic cement mortar reinforced with

closely spaced layers of continuous and relatively small diameter wire mesh.
Because of no formwork is required, ferrocement is especially suitable for
structures with free-form shapes like curves.
5. Fiber-reinforced concrete: conventional concrete with either metallic or
polymeric fibers added to achieve greater resistance to plastic shrinkage.
6. Silica-fume concrete: silica fume (a by-product of the manufacture of silicon and
ferrosilicon alloys) when added to concrete will increase compression strength
and decrease permeability.
7. Polymer-impregnated concrete (PIC): a hydrated Portland-cement that has been
impregnated with a monomer that is subsequently polymerized.
8. Polymer-modified concrete: Portland cement and aggregate combined at the
time of mixing with organic polymers that are dispersed in water.
9. Polymer concrete: composite material in which the aggregate is bound together
in a dense matrix with a polymer binder.

14
2.2.2 Applications

R.C. jacketing technique is usually proposed in preference to other repair methods in the
following cases (19):
1. When the volume of repair material required is such that hand application or
spraying concrete (shotcrete) is not appropriate.
2. For repairs of concrete damaged by steel corrosion to protect the bars from
future corrosion by restoration of an alkaline environment, similar to the original
concrete.
3. In areas where the repair must contribute to structural strength at high
temperatures.
4. When an exposed concrete finish must be maintained.
5. When highly specialized workmanship is not available. The similarity with
traditional cast-in-place concrete makes this method relatively easier to use than
most repair techniques.

2.2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages

Strengthening using reinforced concrete have advantages as following:

1. The material is mechanically and physically compatible with the original
material.
2. Significantly enhance the strength and the stiffness.
3. Concrete is durable material.
4. Normal skills is needed.
However, it have some disadvantages like following:
1. Heavy weight and large dimensions.
2. Relatively long construction period.
3. Need evacuation of occupants.

2.2.4 Installations

When executing concrete jacketing the following considerations should be taken into
account (3; 14):
1. In most circumstances, and particularly in cases of concrete deterioration by
corrosion, durable repairs will be obtained by cutting out the concrete all around
the original reinforcement to an extent that can allow a good cleaning of the back
of the bar.
3. The concrete substrate must be thoroughly clean and mechanically sound to
provide a rough, aggregate exposed concrete surface.
4. The exposed reinforcing bars should be cleaned to the standards of new
construction.
5. The anchorage and cover of additional steel bars must comply with the
appropriate code provisions.
6. Bonding agents are usually recommended by repair manuals on the grounds of
improving adhesion.
3. The concrete mix should provide a reasonably high workability for satisfactory
placement and compaction.

15
 5. The formwork must allow good concrete placing and compaction in the recasting
process, preventing the risk of trapping pockets of air. In most cases it has to be
built up in stages as the work proceeds.

2.2.5 Review of Investigations

El-Ebweini and Ziara (7) repaired formerly corroded beams by removing concrete
cover and anchoring two bars 10mm by shear connectors then casting 40mm of new
concrete as following:
 Normal concrete without bonding agent: beams (R1-B1) and (R1-B2).
 Normal concrete + bonding agent (epoxy resin concrete bonding agent used for
bonding wet cementitious material to existing cementitious surface): beams (R2-
B1) and (R2-B1).
 Shrinkage compensated cementitious precision grout: beams (R3-B1) and (R3-
B1).

Figure 2. 1: Failure loads of beams tesed by El-Ebweini and ziara (7)

The results of the study shown in Figure 2. 1. The beams (Co.B1, Co.B2) and (CB1,
CB2) denoted to the corroded and control beams respectively. The researchers concluded
that the repaired beams showed good ductility behavior during the flexural test and
performed as sound constructed beams especially in term of flexural capacity and crack
development. The flexural capacity of the repaired beams increased by percent of 47.3%
compared with the control beams and by a percent of 105% compared with the corroded
beams.

Mahdy et al. (20) conducted an experimental study on beams strengthened by

three-faces RC jackets (U-shape, 50mm at the bottom and 37.5 at each side of the beam)
with and without additional stirrups. The strengthened beams of additional stirrups
exhibit typical failure with a ductile manner and with enhancement in strength reach
233% of the control beam. While, the strengthened beam without additional stirrups fail
in brittle manner and by separation of the added concrete layer with strength
enhancement reach 132% of the control beam.

16
 Ziara (21) examined the effect of adding new overlay of steel fiber reinforced
concrete (SFRC) using chemical and mechanical bonding. The researcher concluded that
the epoxy bond could not prevent the inter-laminar shear failure in the beams
strengthened using chemical bonding such that the failure occurred by separation cracks
at the common interface surface between the original beam and the SFRC overly.
However, the beams of this type which are with additional stirrups reached their full
flexural capacity. On the other hand, the beams strengthened by mechanical bonding
failed monolithically and in ductile manner after reaching their full flexural capacities.

Altun (22) studied the effect of concrete jacketing of preloaded beams on the
flexural behavior. The main aim of this study is to prove that the concrete jacketing can
recover and enhance the load bearing capacity of the beam even if it reach the yielding
state. The original beams have been loaded until yielding then jacketed by 50mm
reinforced concrete layer in all beam faces after trimming off the outer clearance part
between the stirrups and the outer edge of these beams. The strengthened beams failed
typically with strength enhancement reach to 153% of the theoretical value.

Raval and Dave (15) made experimental investigation on jacketed RC beams

with 60 mm thickness all-round RC jackets using different techniques of bonding as in
Table 2. 2. All jacketed beams failed typically with significant enhancement in strength
as shown in Figure 2. 2.

Table 2. 2: Techniques of bonding in the study (15)

No. Beam code Bonding

4. C Control RC beam
5. QSD Smooth surface + dowel connectors.
6. QSB Smooth surface + bonding agent.
7. QSDB Smooth surface + dowel connectors + bonding agent.
8. QSM Smooth surface without bonding.
9. QPD Chipped surface + dowel connectors.
10. QPB Chipped surface + bonding agent.
11. QPDB Chipped surface + dowel connectors + bonding agent.
12. QPM Chipped surface without bonding

17
 Figure 2. 2: Failure load of tested beams by Raval and Dave (15)
Chalioris and Pourzitidis (23) conducted experimental study on shear-damaged
reinforced concrete beams using self-compacting concrete jacketing. Five beams were
constructed and subjected to monotonic loading in order to develop shear failure. The
damaged specimens were restored using relatively thin reinforced jackets and retested by
the same four-point bending loading. The self-compacting concrete jacket was applied by
encasing the bottom width and both vertical sides of the initially loaded beams (U-formed
jacketing) with a small thickness (25mm) and small diameter of steel bars (∅5) and U-
formed stirrups. Test results and the comparisons between the experimental behavior of
the beams indicated that the examined jacketing technique is a reliable rehabilitation
method since the capacity of the retrofitted beams was fully restored or improved with
respect to the initial specimens. The increase in load bearing capacity varied from 35% to
200% for the retrofitted beams with respect to the corresponding initial beams.
AL-Kuaity (24) conducted an experimental study on the behavior and strength of
reinforced concrete T-beams before and after strengthening by using reinforced concrete
jacket. Four full-scale beams were first loaded to certain levels of ultimate capacity (0,
60%, 77%, 100% of failure load). After formation of cracks or failure, the beams were
strengthened by 50mm reinforced concrete jackets and tested again up to failure. The
main objective of this study was to recover the full capacity of the beams which failed by
flexure and to strengthen the cracked beams. In addition, it aimed to investigate the effect
of loading condition on beams before repair on the ultimate capacity after repair. The
main factor considered here is the effect of the level of loading percentages (percentages
of ultimate load before repair) on the strength and behaviors of the beam after repair. Test
results showed that the repairing by reinforced jacketing can effectively restore more than
150% of the full flexural capacity of the original beam. In addition, reinforced jacket can
effectively increase the ultimate capacity of cracked T-beam after repair up to 250%.
Furthermore, the use of reinforced jackets for the cracked or failed beams is greatly
improved the serviceability, deformation behavior, cracking behavior as well as ductility
of T- beams compared to those of the original beams. The researcher concluded that the
ultimate flexural strength of T-beams failed by flexure and repaired by reinforced
concrete jackets can accurately be predicted using conventional ultimate strength method
of reinforced concrete. The investigation showed the effectiveness of jacketing method in
restoring the flexural strength of T-beams.

18
2.3 Strengthening RC Beams by Steel Plates
In recent years, sticking steel reinforcement method has been developed for structural
retrofitting and repairing (1). Steel plates are one of the most common materials for
strengthening of reinforced concrete beams (25). Research work in the performance of
members strengthened by steel plates was pioneered simultaneously in South Africa and
France in the 1960s (26). It is very effective for increasing the flexural and shear capacity
of reinforced concrete beam. Strengthening by steel plate is a popular method due to its
availability, cheapness, uniform materials properties (isotropic), easy to work, high
ductility and high fatigue strength. This method had been used to strengthen both
buildings and bridges in countries such as Belgium, France, Japan, Poland, South Africa,
Switzerland and United Kingdom (25). This technique involves enhancing strength
(shear, flexure, compression) or improving stiffness of deficient reinforced concrete
members by bonding steel plates of calculated thickness with adhesives and anchors to
the existing sections. Forces can be transmitted to the external plates from the RC
structure through an adhesive bond, bolts or wrapping. Plates can be placed on any
surface of the beam or slab and they can have any shape such as flat plates, channels or
angle sections. On the other hand, Steel plate bonding is a cumbersome process requiring
extensive work and drilling in the existing section. Steel plates are hard to lift and need to
be tailor made to suit to the as-built dimensions of the members resulting in surface finish
is unsightly and steel plate retrofit is prone to corrosion over time.

2.3.1. Steel Plates as Strengthening Material

To mobilize the additional steel strength with low deformations of the strengthened
element it is convenient the use of a low tensile strength steel, such as the Fe360 (11).
According to Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS), SS 400 (234MPa) is a standard material
used for steel plating. Khair Al-Deen Bsisu et. al. had used two types of steel plate which
are high strength galvanized steel plates (HSGS plates); a material that combines high
strength to weight ratio and corrosion resistance due to galvanization, and normal
strength steel plates (NSS plates) which have a more ductile behavior (27). In general, the
quality of steel plates shall be indicated by their tensile strength and other strength
properties, Young's modulus and other deformation properties, and thermal properties
and other material characteristics. Steel plates must be those for which weldability and
bonding with adhesives can be ensured when necessary (1). The surface of steel plates
must be suitably protected to prevent their quality from changing over time.

2.3.2. Applications

The strategy of sticking steel plates, which is widely used in retrofit practice for its
shortcut and convenience in construction, is particularly applicable to:

1. For the elements with good quality but insufficient reinforcement, the external
reinforcement's addition is more adequate technique (11).
2. Flexural members such as beams and slabs, but unsuitable for axial compression
members and small eccentricity members (1).
3. Where there is not evident of on-going deterioration, for example due to
reinforcement corrosion (28).

19
 4. For bridge deck applications, consideration should be given to the effect of the
plates on headroom and on the effect of damage to the soffit from vehicle impact.

2.3.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

The experience has shown that bonding steel plate to the surface of the RC beams and
slab is inexpensive and efficient method for strengthening and stiffening (29). Steel plate
not only acts as externally bonded reinforcement to the concrete section but it also
improves the moment of inertia (stiffness) of the composite (concrete-steel) section. The
in situ rehabilitation or upgrading of RC beams using bonded steel plates has been proven
in the field to control flexural deformations and crack widths, and to increase the load-
carrying capacity of the member under service load for ultimate conditions. It is
recognized to be an effective, convenient and economic method of improving structural
performance (26). In addition to this, steel plating have the following advantages (1; 30):
1. Possible increase in the beam ductility. When sufficient plate is effective then
shear failure will be less sudden and more gradual (plate controlled).
2. Short construction period, little or no downtime due to fast hardening of adhesive.
3. Simple process, fast and convenient construction.
4. It may be possible to strengthen the structure whilst it is still in use.
5. Relatively small increase in the size and weight of the existing section.
However, although the technique has been shown to be successful in practice, it also
has disadvantages (26; 30).

1. Uncertainty regarding the durability and the effects of Corrosion.

2. Weight of the plates (transporting, handling and installing).
3. Extensive shoring is required to hold the steel plates in the position while the
adhesive cures.
4. In the case of splicing, welding at the joints would destroy the adhesive bond
5. Relatively labor intensive.

2.3.3.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Chemically Bonded Steel plates

Advantages and disadvantages of steel plates bonded using structural adhesives (30).

a) Advantages
1. Generally uniform stress distribution.
2. Adhesive layer provides corrosion protection to the face of the steel plate
nearest the beam.
3. Smooth external surface.
4. Good control of surface cracking.
b) Disadvantages
1. May still need bolts to contribute to anchorage and avoid peeling stresses.
2. Additional bolts may be required for temporary propping and squeezing out of
the excess adhesive when large plates are employed.
3. Limited evidence of impending failure, with possible explosive peeling of the
plate.
4. In-situ concrete surface preparation to high standards for the application of the
adhesive.
5. Relies on the tensile strength of the concrete at the surface-limited area
available in short shear span beams.
6. Distortion of the plates during grit blasting.

21
2.3.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Mechanically Connected steel plates
Following are the advantages and disadvantages of steel plates bonded using bolts or
dowels (30):

a) Advantages
1. Avoids any uncertainty over long term durability of adhesives.
2. Overcomes the problem of peeling associated with high stress concentrations
at the ends of adhesive joints.
3. Stainless steel plates or non-ferrous coatings can be used to resist corrosion.
4. Load transfer from the plate utilizes the sub-surface compressive strength of
the concrete.
5. Through bolting can provide containment for the concrete core by allowing a
triaxial stress state to develop.
6. High post-failure capacity.
7. Only minimal on site surface preparation required.

b) Disadvantages
1. Temporary weakening of the beam due to drilling of the bolt holes, especially
if any links are cut; bolt anchors must be positioned within the main bars.
2. Corrosion of the external plate on its internal face.
3. The time and labour costs associated with drilling the numerous bolt holes.
4. Aesthetic appearance of bolts and plates.

2.3.4. Installation

When concrete jacketing method needed to be used, the following parameters are
important:

1. To allow the additional steel mobilization for the service loads the service loads
must be removed from the structures during the strengthening execution.

1. The concrete surface must be well prepared to receive the epoxy and the surface
of the steel plate must also be well cleaned and polished to a high standard using
grit blasting. A high roughness is inconvenient because it lead to an elevate resin
thick (11).
2. The epoxy must be carefully selected for both concrete and steel.
3. After mixing the two parts of the adhesive (resin and hardener) the potlife should
be observed according the manufacturer instruction.
4. The entire steel plate surface in contact with the concrete must be covered with
epoxy.
5. The thickness of the adhesive may controlled carefully by metal spacers. The
epoxy resin should allowed to cure for 14 days in all cases prior to testing.
6. When mechanical shear connectors used, high attention should be done during
drilling holes specially regarding to the position of embedded reinforcement.

21
To minimize the possibility of corrosion (26):

1. All chloride-contaminated concrete should be removed prior to bonding

2. The plates must be subjected to careful surface preparation, storage and the
application of resistant priming systems.
3. The integrity of the primer must be periodically checked.

2.3.5 Review of Investigations

Goldar et al. (31) examined RC beams strengthened by steel plates bonded at the
tension face by expansion bolts. Yielding strength of steel plate of 3mm thick equal 307
N/mm2 and for steel plate 6mm thick =327 N/mm2. The researchers used 6mm bolts for
plates of thickness 3mm and 10mm bolts for plates of thickness 6mm. They used the
concept of flexural theory to calculate the analytical values of ultimate loads. The test
results shown in Table 2. 3. For bolted steel plate (3 mm thick) attached to the bottom
face of the beam, the failure load was 95 KN i.e. about 132% of the reference beam load
and more than 87% of the predicted load. The predicted load was 108.87KN; the
difference in predicted and experimental load was 13.87KN due to the failure of bolts.
For bolted steel plate (6mm thick) attached to the bottom face of the beam, the failure
load was 126 KN, which was about 175% of the reference beam load and about 80% of
the predicted load. The predicted load was 158.36KN, the difference in predicted and
experimental load was 32.36KN and the researchers said that this possibly due to the slip
occurred at the interface of two material i.e. external plate and beam surface. For bolted
steel plate (3mm thick) attached to both side faces of the beam, the failure load was 108
KN, which was about 150% of the reference beam load and about 90% of the predicted
load. The predicted load was 120.586KN; the difference in predicted and experimental
load was 12.586KN, the researcher said that this possibly due to slippage occurred at the
interface of the two material i.e. external plate and beam surface.

Table 2. 3: Test results (31)

22
 Huovinen (32) conducted an experimental study on concrete beams strengthened
by steel plate attached on the tension side of the beam bonded by two types of chemical
adhesives. The thickness of the plate varied (2, 5and 10 mm). The width and length of the
plates were 100mm and 280 respectively. The distance between plate end and support
(cut-off distance) is 100mm. The test results shown in Table 2. 4. The steel plates was
yielded in the beams strengthened by the plates of thickness of 2 and 5mm (except beam
no. 7) but in the beams strengthened by 10 mm thick plates the plates loosened before the
yield phase. The test results showed that the ratio between the width and thickness of the
bonded plate ought to be greater than 20. The researcher also stated that anchor bolts can
also be used to avoid plate separation at the ends of the plates. However, the bolts have
no effect on the load bearing capacity before the concrete above the plate has begun to
crack.

Table 2. 4: Test results (32)

Plate thickness Avr.Yield strength glue Avr. Ultimate

Beam (mm) (MPa) type load (KN)
control 1 --- --- --- 69
control 2 --- --- --- 79
1 2 176 type1 101.3
2 2 176 type1 103.6
3 2 176 type2 96.6
4 2 176 type2 94.6
5 5 219 type1 146.6
6 5 219 type1 144.6
7 5 219 type2 101.5
8 5 219 type2 138.5
9 10 343.5 type1 167.7
10 10 343.5 type1 47.7
11 10 343.5 type2 159.8
12 10 343.5 type2 114

Ajeel and Ghedan (33) studied the effect of replacing internal tension bars of RC
beams by external steel plates chemically bonded at the tension face on their cracking
pattern, structural deformations and ultimate strength. The length of steel plates is
1400mm with varied thickness and yielding strengths. The researchers used the
conventional method to design the steel plated beams. The test results shown in Table 2.
5. The researchers concluded that the beams which reinforced with external steel plates
showed beam action and composite behavior until failure and can be used successfully
instead of internal reinforcement, they concluded this for replacement ratios of removed
bars to the original tension bars equal to 33% and 67% , the results is better in the case of
wider and thinner steel plates. There are, however, limitations to plate thickness beyond
which shear/bond failure occurs without the beams achieving their full flexural strength.

23
Table 2. 5: Test results (33)

BHAGAT and BHUSARI (34) examined the effect of strengthening of RC

beams by external steel plates chemically bonded at the sides of them on the
enhancement of the shear capacity through an experimental study. The experimental
study is conducted on 26 RC beams divided in two series of beams i.e. without and with
internal shear reinforcement. The investigated variable in this research was the effect of
thickness and depth of the steel plates on ultimate shear strength. In the first series (no
stirrups) the control beam was failed by (diagonal-tension) and the shear failure
prevented in only 45% of the samples (5 samples). While the failure mode in the rest
beams was (shear-compression). The increase in shear strength was at least between
108% -186% of the strength of the control beam, this range refer to the difference in
thickness (2, 2.5 and 3mm) and depth (40, 60, 80 and 100mm) i.e. the section area (As)
of the steel plate. In the second series (inadequate distance between stirrups), the control
beam was failed by (flexure-shear), most of strengthened beams was failed by this mode
(73% of the beams), while the rest failed by (diagonal-tension). The increase in shear
strength was at least between 117% to 166% of the strength of the control beam, this
range refer to the difference of the section area (As) of the steel plate. Table 2. 6 and
Table 2. 7 show the data of the samples and test results. The researchers concluded that
increasing the plate depths and thickness increases the ultimate shear strength of all the
beams except one beam may be due to the defects in bonding operation, which resulted in
not so perfect bond of steel plates to concrete. However, this relationship between the
ultimate load and depths or thickness of steel plate is very normal so that the effect is a
result of increasing of the area of steel plate section. In addition, the variety of depths or
thickness has no touchable effect on the mode of failure of the samples.

24
Table 2. 6: Test results for series A (without shear reinforcement) beams (34)

Table 2. 7: Test results for series B (with shear reinforcement) beams (34)

25
 Altin et. al. (35) studied the effect of steel straps chemically bonded to the
outer face of shear deficient RC beams. The researchers used different
arrangement and spacing as shown in Figure 2. 3. The researchers concluded that
strengthened specimens showed similar behavior to a control specimen up to
flexural yield. The flexural capacity of the control beams without shear
reinforcement was 61% of the full capacity while the capacity of beams with
straps of steel plate reach to 92.5% with improvement in stiffness and ductility.
The type of steel member and its arrangement on the beam were among the
effective parameters directing the ductility behavior and determining the failure
mode. The displacement ductility ratio was increased when the spacing of the steel
straps was decreased. The increase in the bonding area on the shear span reduced
the propagation of shear cracks significantly.

Figure 2. 3: Arangment and spacing of steel straps (35)

2.4. Anchoring and Bonding of Interfaces

Shear stresses arise in a repaired concrete structure due to both shear forces and
differential shrinkage. In order to prevent failure in the interface between old and new
concrete, there must be sufficient shear bond strength. Stresses due to differential
shrinkage are neglected since the real shear bond strength is several times larger than the
design shear strength in available design codes (36).
In design of strengthening work, the typical problem that should be solved is the transfer
of shear forces between the old concrete and the new material applied for strengthening.
There are factors affect the joint strength and performance such as:

1) The quality of substrate preparation.

2) The technique of bonding (mechanical or chemical).
3) Quality of the bonding (material and application).
4) The nature of the strengthening material (compatible with the old material or
not).
5) Type of loading (cyclic or static).
6) Exposure and environmental conditions (temperature, salts, etc.).

Generally, there are some considerations should be taken into account for a good bonding
(22):
1) Good choice of a suitable bonding technique.
2) Appropriate design of the joint.
3) Adequate preparation of the bonded surfaces.

26
 4) Good choice of a suitable adhesive.
5) Controlled fabrication of the joint.
6) Protection from unacceptably hostile conditions in service (heat).
7) Post-bonding quality assurance.

2.4.1 Bonding Techniques

A good bond between old and new concrete is necessary for a successful repair of
concrete structures. In general, the techniques of bonding the strengthening materials to
the surface of RC beams can be one or combination of the following (14):

2.4.1.1 Roughening of Concrete Surface

This method can be adequate only for concrete-to-concrete bonding and more practical in
small repair work rather than strengthening. It is referred to some researchers that surface
preparation by suitable methods can provide acceptable shear strength of the bond (14).
However, in practice there is a risk for of zero adhesion for the more poor removing
methods. The slant shear tests demonstrated that the failure of a concrete-to-concrete
interface is sudden (37). The bond is usually determined through pure tension tests, e.g.,
the common pull off test. However, in most applications, the shear bond strength is more
interested (36). The most common methods of surface preparation are (3):
1. Mechanical preparation: This technique consists of mechanically removing thin
layers of surface concrete using such equipment as impacting tools (breakers,
scabblers), grinders, and scarifier. Depending on the equipment used, a variety of
surfaces may be obtained.
2. Abrasive preparation: This technique consists of removing thin layers of surface
concrete using abrasive equipment such as sandblasters, shotblasters, or high
pressure water blasters.
In Gaza strip only simple grinder and manual methods available but these methods cannot
be reliable, so the site engineers should construct samples for testing the bond efficiency
before applying the any method. There are various tests to examine the efficiency of the
interface bonding such as direct tension, direct shear, pull out testing, etc. In general the
following actions are normally needed for shear forces (14):

a. The substrate must be cleaned from any contamination.

b. The substrate should not contain microcracks.
c. The substrate surface should have a good roughness (this is the critical stage which
needs lab tests for ensure the bonding efficiency).
d. The substrate surface should be pre-watered but superficially dry at the time of
casting.
Surface Preparation techniques and their efficiency have been studied by several
researchers. While, Perez et al. (38) studied the correlation between the roughness of the
substrate surface and the debonding risk and concluded that repaired beams of a substrate
with a rough surface permit to achieve a monolithic behavior of the repaired system but
the increase of roughness does not enhance the bond strength. The researchers stated that
to insure monolithic behavior, surface treatment must produce a minimal adhesion and
must induce a certain level of roughness and if the roughness is higher than a certain
threshold, the debonding risk decrease rapidly and monolithic behavior will reached (38).
Abu-Tair et al. (39) studied a new method of quantifying surface roughness and compared
it with a method reported in the literature. Also Santos et. al. (40) presented a state-of-the-
art review on roughness quantification methods for concrete surfaces.

27
2.4.1.2 Mechanical Connectors
Steel-to-concrete or concrete-to-concrete connections can be accomplished through the
use of several types of anchorage systems. Anchorage to concrete is well-known and has
detailed design procedures in the available codes, for example (ACI-appendixD). The
bolts and dowels play a good role in transferring the shear from the RC member to the RC
jacket or steel plate. Bolt (or dowels) shear connectors, are ductile connections. For steel
plate connection it referred to (Oehlers and Bradford 1995, 1999) that mechanical shear
connectors, such as dowels or bolts shear connectors behave in a similar fashion to stud
shear connectors in composite steel and concrete design. Hence, it is recommended that
rules for the design of stud shear connectors can be applied directly and which are given in
national codes for composite steel and concrete beams (41). Mechanical Connectors can
be divided into two general types, bonded and expansion anchors (3):
3. Bonded anchors include both grouted (headed bolts or a variety of other shapes
installed with a cementitious grout) and chemical anchors (usually threaded rods
set with a two-part chemical compound that is available as glass capsules, plastic
cartridges, tubes, or bulk). These anchor systems develop their holding capacities
by the bonding of the adhesive to both the anchor and the concrete at the wall of
the drilled hole.
4. Expansion anchor systems: include torque-controlled, deformation-controlled, and
undercut anchors. These anchors develop their strength from friction against the
ide of the drilled hole, from keying into a localized crushed zone of the concrete
resulting from the setting operation, or from a combination of friction and keying.
For the undercut anchors, strength is derived from keying into an undercut at the
bottom of the drilled hole.
Mechanical bonding can be achieved by dowels from traditional reinforcement or
structural bolts which can used for all applications. The most important properties for the
dowels or bolts are tensile and shear strength. Bolts typically used for structural joining
applications can be classified based on three ASTM specifications: A307, A325, and
A490 (38).

2.4.1.3 Chemical Adhesives

The main structural adhesives specifically formulated for use in the construction industry
are epoxy and unsaturated polyester resin systems, both thermosetting polymers (26). In
general the categories of structural adhesives are epoxies (one and two part formulations);
Acrylics (and two-step formulations); Urethanes (two part formulations) and
Cyanoacrylates (“instant adhesives”). The common structural adhesive is an epoxy-based
material mixed with proportional curing agent, flexibilizer, plasticizer and in some cases
fillers (43; 44). The use of structural adhesives in the manufacture of load-bearing
components has grown extensively in recent years. It is stated in the literature that the
feasibility of bonding concrete with epoxy resins was first demonstrated in the late 1940s,
and since the early 1950s adhesives have become widely used in civil engineering (26).
The desirable qualities which adhesive bonding allows in comparison with more
traditional joining techniques such as riveting and welding include (45):

a. Allowance of a relatively uniform stress distribution, resulting in improved

fatigue performance.
b. The ability to join dissimilar substrate materials which, due to their dielectric
nature, minimizes the possibility of electrolytic corrosion between dissimilar
metals.

28
 c. Allows the joining of thin-gauge metals to each other resulting in the
availability of lightweight structures exhibiting high strength to weight ratios.
d. Allows both increased design flexibility and the ability to fabricate complex
shapes.
e. The possibility of reduced production costs in comparison to welding and
riveting

2.4.1.4 Selecting a Structural Adhesive

Regardless of the routes chosen to select structural adhesives to test, the key is testing; no
final decision should be made without specific validation testing. However, key
principles can be used to select a set of adhesives to test. Structural adhesives should be
chosen with the end use requirements. Once these are known, the proper adhesive can be
selected by matching the requirements to the different processing and performance
characteristics of different structural adhesives. In particular, end use conditions to
consider include (46):

1. Expected conditions during end use:

 Temperature: how hot? how cold?
 Humidity: will the material be exposed to rain? To salt water?
 UV exposure: will the joint be exposed to the sun and can the UV penetrate the
substrates to reach the adhesive?
2. Chemical resistance required:
 Fluids (motor oil, gasoline, diesel fluid, jet fuel): will these contact the joint?
 Cleaning solutions (weak acids and bases): will the joint be cleaned frequently?
 Are there specialized chemicals which may contact the bonded part?
 Will contact be continual (e.g. in a filtering assembly) or only occasional?
3. Cleanliness / Environmental issues during production and end use:
 Outgassing, ionics, corrosion potential: is the part being bonded sensitive to these
issues?
 Toxicity, disposal: are there regulations that come into play? Will the adhesive be
used in food packaging or a medical device?
4. Mechanical Challenges
 Impact, vibration: will the bonded part be subject to high impact or vibrational
forces in use?
 Stress type and magnitude: how high are the stresses on the bondline? What types
of stresses will the bondline experience?

For a final selection, however, testing and validation is always recommended. Typically,
overlap shear tests of some sort are done to determine the strength of the adhesive on
particular substrates or under environmental conditions, and peel tests are also common.
The exact details of the test should be based on the particular project; do not rely solely
on the results in the manufacturer’s technical data sheets. However, the most carefully
chosen adhesive may not give acceptable application performance if the bonding surfaces
have not been properly prepared or the joint has been poorly designed (46).

29
2.4.1.5 General Properties of Adhesives

In general, the more relevant resin properties for this type of application (strengthening)
are the viscosity, the pot life, the hardening time, the elasticity modulus and the strength
(11). Manufacturer provides a wide range of bonding agents with various properties
according to the nature of the strengthening materials. The correct choice and proper use
of repair materials is critical to the achievement of long service life for repaired
structures. The designer and prospective user (engineers or contractors) of the materials
should be equipped with performance criteria (shown in Table 2. 8) that provide a
rational analytical tool for selecting the appropriate materials for a particular repair
situation (47). Table 2. 9 presents structural requirements of bonding between different
surfaces (1).

Table 2. 8: : General Requirements of Patch Repair Materials for Compatibility (47)

Table 2. 9: Bonding strengths of structural adhesive (1)

31
2.4.1.6. Epoxy
Epoxy resins are wide family of materials and have the best mechanical performance
characteristics of all the resins. The most demanding strength applications use epoxy
almost exclusively. It has excellent strength and hardness, very good chemical heat and
electrical resistance. Disadvantages include higher cost, processing difficulty (quantities
of resin and hardener need to be measured precisely). Also, often heat curing is required.
Epoxy systems are used in applications like aerospace, defense, marine, sports
equipment, adhesives, sealants, coatings, architectural, flooring and many others (48; 44).
The advantages of epoxy resins over other polymers as adhesive agents for civil
engineering use can be summarized as follows (1):
a. Epoxy resin has high adhesiveness and good bond strength with most materials
such as metal, concrete, ceramics and glass.
b. Epoxy resin has good processing property and stable storage performance. It can
be prepared as thick paste or thin grouting materials, whose curing time would be
adjusted appropriately according to needs.
c. Cured epoxy adhesive has excellent physical and mechanical properties, corrosion
resistance capacity, and small curing contraction.
d. Epoxy material has relatively low cost, non-toxicity and plentiful material
resources.
e. Formulation can be readily modified by blending with a variety of materials to
achieve desirable properties.
f. Can be thixotropic for application to vertical surfaces.

2.4.2 Anchor and Bond Strength

The strength of bonds executed by chemical adhesive depend mainly on the correct
choice of the adhesive and the level of following the manufacturer instructions. However,
laboratory tests must be done to specify the bond strength especially for this type of
works (strengthening). In the case of mechanical anchor the strength and long-term
performance are dependent on a variety of factors that must be evaluated for the specific
anchor to be used. Some factors to be considered include (3):
1. Material strength (yield and ultimate),
2. Hole diameter and drilling system used,
3. Embedment length,
4. Annular gap between the anchor and the drilled hole for post-installed anchors,
5. Concrete strength and condition,
6. Type and direction of load application (static, dynamic, tension, shear, bending,
or combined loading),
7. Spacing to other anchors and edges,
8. Temperature (for chemical anchors),
9. hole cleaning,
10. Mode of failure of the anchor system (concrete breakage, steel breakage, slip, or
pullout),
11. Environmental conditions for moisture and corrosion resistance, and creep.

31
For all anchor systems, installation instructions should be followed to insure proper
anchor performance. Site testing for verification of performance is recommended for
critical applications. For chemical anchors, tests should be performed to determine the
long-term creep performance at the highest expected service temperature. There are many
types of tests for anchor and bond strength such as direct tension test, shear test and pull-
off test.

32
CHAPTER 3 DESIGN OF CONCRETE JACKETED AND STEEL
PLATED BEAMS
3.1 Introduction
This chapter aiming to present the basic principles and different approaches of designing
the strengthened beams by concrete jackets and steel plates in order to help in more
understanding the special considerations of design like these beams. Designing the
strengthened section need special considerations. Design the strengthening systems
includes the ultimate Limit States and the Limit states verifications. In the strengthening
design the serviceability Limit States verification, the existent damages and the lower
stiffness of the strengthened elements must be considered. A reduction of materials and
cross sections area and inertia is usually adopted because the uncertainties related to the
existent damage simulation and, as a consequence of assessment, by the possibility to
reduce the materials strength uncertainty (11). When the system of strengthened beam
need to be designed, mainly, three issues should be considered:
a) The structural condition of the original beam.
b) The contribution of the new material in flexural or shear enhancement.
c) The efficiency of bonding between the old and new material.

3.2 Basic Principles in Design of Strengthened RC Beams

Before design concrete jacketed and steel plated RC beams, basic principles should be
understood by designers. The beam section components must act consistently with each
other to guarantee the composite action. The proper RC beams mainly consist of
concrete and longitudinal reinforcement which surrounded by concrete and no efforts
needed to ensure the bonding between them, only casting suitable and workable concrete.
While, in the case of strengthened beams, different materials attached at one side or more
of the outer faces of RC beams. Bonding the new to the old material is critical and need
enough attention. The main difficulty in strengthening process is bonding the new
material to the old material. Duthinh and Starnes (49) stated that according to the survey
of Boncci (1996), 64% of the failure of the elements strengthened by FRP occurs by de-
bonding (brittle behavior), while 22% of the cases failed by the rapture of the FRP
material. The uncertainty in strengthened beams arise a query: Is it possible to estimate
the load carrying capacity for strengthened concrete beams, in flexure and shear by using
available design code or some modifications and considerations are needed? and can the
strengthened beam reaches its ultimate capacity before de-bonding of new materials?

3.2.1 Proper Reinforced Concrete Beams

The reinforcement in a reinforced concrete structure, such as a steel bar, has to undergo
the same strain or deformation as the surrounding concrete in order to prevent
discontinuity, slip or separation of the two materials under load (50). Maintaining
composite action requires transfer of load between the concrete and steel. The direct
stress is transferred from the concrete to the bar interface to change the tensile stress in
the reinforcing bar along its length. This load transfer is achieved by means of bond
(anchorage) and is idealized as a continuous stress field that develops in the vicinity of
the steel-concrete interface. In a reinforced concrete element bond develops through the
action of several mechanisms in the vicinity of the concrete-steel interface. At the scale of
the reinforcing steel, the bond response may be defined by continuous stress and
deformation fields. Figure 3. 1 shows the idealized system of bonding between

33
reinforcement bar and concrete. Stimulation of bond mechanisms results in the
development of bond stress in the direction parallel to the axis of a reinforcing bar and
radial stress in the direction perpendicular to the bar axis (51).

Figure 3. 1: The idealized system of bonding (51).

In proper RC beams, the flexural theory is applicable. The main assumption in the
flexural theory is that the sections perpendicular to the axis of bending which are plane
before bending remain plane after bending (Figure 3. 2). In other words, strain profiles
remain linear at all times. In addition, ductility cannot be maintained unless some
conditions checked, mainly the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement (50).

Figure 3. 2: Strain and stress distribution at ultimate condition for proper section (50).

3.2.2 Strengthened RC Beams

If beams need to be strengthened three properties need to be considered, the properties of

materials used for rehabilitation, the properties of existing materials, and the interaction
between new and existing material (2). Figure 3. 3 show the components of strengthened
beam.

Existing
beam

Bonding

New material

Figure 3. 3: : Components of strengthened beams

34
There are some factors govern the monolithic behavior of the strengthened section should
be taken in consideration at design stage. The most critical factor and the most important
stage of strengthening process is the bonding between the strengthening material and the
substrate. If the bonding executed in good level of quality and become not critical, the
mechanical compatibility is the important factor in the short term while the physical
compatibility is the important factor in the long term. If all considerations which ensure a
good bonding and compatible materials are taken into account, then the composite action
can be guaranteed.
The de-bonding mechanisms of the new materials and their compatibility with the old
material should be well understood. Consequently, well-known procedures in level of
design and practice to assure stability and satisfied yielding of strengthening system,
good flexural stiffness and acceptable failure mode should be acknowledged. The use of
proper procedures in repair and rehabilitation are critical to success, yet these procedures
are not nearly as well defined by codes and standards as those for new construction (47).

3.2.3 Stresses Transfer at the Interfaces

In general the strengthened RC beams subjected to a combined bending/shear load,

resulting in shear and normal (peeling) stresses between the concrete and the externally
bonded strengthening layer,
Figure 3. 4 (52).

Figure 3. 4: stresses at the interfaces (52)

3.2.4 Compatibility of Strengthened Beam Materials

Compatibility is a measure of the matching of physical, chemical, electrochemical and

dimensional properties between the repair materials and the substrate (47). Materials of
proper reinforced concrete beams have been experienced that they are compatible
physically and mechanically. This is because the thermal compatibility and good bonding
between reinforcement bars and concrete (50). On the other hand, the systems of
strengthened beams which consist of different layers of different materials need detailed
study about the compatibility with each other. The efficiency of the strengthening
systems in beams can be achieved only if the old and new materials are compatible and
the bonding between them is efficient.
35
3.2.4.1 Physical Compatibility

1. Dimensional compatibility (2): The compatibility of dimensional stability means

that the repair materials and the existing concrete will undergo a compatible
drying shrinkage under the influence of temperature, moisture, loading, and other
environment changes. Dimensional incompatibility will cause severe problems for
repair patches. For example, if a mortar is used as the repair material, the
shrinkage of the fresh mortar will create stress concentration at the point of
contact with the existing concrete. The stress concentration could be normal stress
or shear stress depending on the orientation of the repaired area. The normal stress
concentration at the interface may cause separation, and the shear stress
concentration may cause de-bonding between the two materials. Hence, the
shrinkage of repair mortar must be limited.

2. Thermal compatibility (2): If the thermal expansion of existing concrete differs

significantly from the thermal expansion of the new concrete, cracks may occur
due to a change in environmental temperature in the surface of repaired concrete
or along the interface of the old and new concrete. As a result, it is necessary to
choose a repair material with the same coefficient of thermal expansion as the old
concrete, or as close to the coefficient of the old concrete as possible.

3.2.4.2 Mechanical Compatibility (Stiffness and Strain).

Irregular distribution of stress is often caused by differential stiffness in repair
systems. Stiffness of a material is measured by its modulus of elasticity. A material with
low modulus of elasticity generally deforms more under the same load than a material
with a higher modulus of elasticity. The volumetric compatibility is reflected in uneven
distribution of stress due to the different Young’s moduli of new and old concretes.
When materials with widely different moduli are in contact with each other and under
loading, the large difference in the stiffness will result in uneven distribution of the
stress and thus lead to failure of either the material with low modulus of elasticity or the
material with high modulus of elasticity, depending on the strengths of the materials (2).

If the strength of the new material with higher modulus is not sufficient to bear the load,
the new materials may fail earlier than the old concrete. This is one of the important
mechanisms that are responsible for pre-matured failures of repair work in the new
material (2). Figure 3. 5 shows the effects of mismatching elastic moduli of the new and
the old material.

36
 Figure 3. 5: Effects of mismatching elastic moduli
Often, in the case of strengthening beams using concrete, the stiffness compatibility can
be controlled whatever is the position of the new concrete jacket. While in the case of
steel plating, if the plate at the tension face, with respecting some considerations the
beam section can behave monolithically (and then confirm the flexural theory (
)), but if the plate at the sides of the beam there is a significant difference in Figure 3. 6
stiffness between concrete section and the steel plate (
Figure 3. 7) so consequently difference in strain curvature.

Figure 3. 6: Strain and Stress Diagrams of Plated Beam at the tension face (41)

Figure 3. 7: Difference in strain curvature between beam section and side plate (29)

3.3 Structural Data of the Original Beam.

It is very important to take into account the original stress situation before applying the
strengthening to the beam. Only in that case an appropriate design is possible (53).The
structure strengthening design must be proceeded by a strength assessment of the existent
structure. This involves a compilation related to the build erection and design, a structural

37
inspection and a load capacity evaluation (11). The first step is to evaluate the current
condition of the concrete structure. This evaluation may include a review of available
design and construction documents, structural analysis of the structure in its deteriorated
condition, review of structural instrumentation data, review of records of any previous
repair work accomplished, review of maintenance records, visual examination,
destructive (core drilling) and nondestructive testing, and laboratory analysis of concrete
samples. Upon completion of this evaluation step, the team making the evaluation should
have a thorough understanding of the condition of the concrete structure and have
insights into the causes of any deterioration or distress noted. Additional information on
conducting surveys may be found in the reports of ACI Committees 201, 207, and 325
(3). In some practical applications the flexural or shear capacity is only partly increased
as the structure is not supported by a hydraulic jack during the installation of the
strengthening layer. Consequently, the strengthened section only provides enhanced
capacity for the live and imposed loads.

3.4 Design of Beams strengthened by Concrete Jacketing

Since the new material is concrete then the materials of concrete jacketed RC beams
are compatible physically and mechanically. Therefore, in this case these systems have
high potential for the applicability of the flexural theory especially if effective bonding
and good quality of strengthening process have been achieved. AL-Kuaity (24), have
strengthened RC T-beams by this method and design them using conventional code,
testing have shown conservative results and ductile failure. Altun (22) generated the
equation of flexural capacity of full-jacketed section using flexural theory (Figure 3. 8) as
following:

Figure 3. 8: Applying flexural theory to full-jacketed section Altun (22)

Figure 3. 9 and Figure 3. 10 show two examples of flexural theory application on

concrete jacketed beams. Design equations can be generated as following:

38
 1. Effective depth and reinforcement ratio :

dav = and

2. Shear strength:

√
Vc = bw dav

, Av = Av1 + Av2

3. Flexural strength:

C=
)+ ), or

b
0.003

d1
d2 NA
As1

As2

Figure 3. 9: Jacketing in one face (tension face)

b
0.003

d2 d1
NA

As1
As2

Figure 3. 10: Jacketing in three face (U shape)

MacAlevey et al. (37), proved that jacketed RC beams can be designed as

monolithic beams if monolithic behavior guaranteed. They stated that the monolithic
behavior of the jacketed beam is ensured if critical portions of the interface between the
two concretes possesses adequate strength (i.e. the interface in the region where it is
crossed by the inclined branch of the compressive force path (CFP) (Figure 3. 11 and

39
Figure 3. 13)). The researchers described the development of a model that can be used for
the design of jacketed reinforced concrete beams. This model is based on the use of the
compressive force path concept to describe the behavior of a monolithic reinforced
concrete beam, and a Mohr-Coulomb approach to describe the behavior of the interface
between the new and old concretes.

Figure 3. 11: Compressive Force Path MacAlevey et al. (37)

The researchers developed the model using the results of a series of tests on slant
shear prisms and simply supported and continuous jacketed beams.
Figure 3. 12 shows the results of the slant shear tests on concrete with a 28-day fcu
of 35 N/mm2.

Figure 3. 12: Slant shear results (37)

The values of the cohesion c and the angle of friction Φ obtained as a result of the slant
shear tests on various grades of concrete of "moderate roughness" result in the following
Mohr-Coulomb equations:
2 7 σtan 48° , or cu 25 N/mm2(1)
3 5 σtan 58° , or cu =30 N/mm2 (2)
3 2 σtan 50° , or cu =35 N/mm2 (3)
4 5 σtan 4]0 , or cu = 40 N/mm2 (4)
3 8 σtan 50° , or cu = 50 N/mm2 (5)

41
 Figure 3. 13: Compressive Force Path at a simply supported end (37)

A summary of the recommended design approach is as follows:

1. Proportion the reinforcement as for a monolithic.
2. Detail the beam so that the additional longitudinal reinforcement should be fully
anchored at simple supports and at the points of contraflexure of continuous
beams.
3. Check the capacity of the interface in the region where the compressive force path
crosses it (using Eqn. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, as appropriate).

The model produced by the researchers seems rational but it needs more detailing and
deeper study. However using this approach implies that anchoring the new and the old
concrete at the region of the inclined leg of the CFP is enough for composite action.

Also Ziara (54) used the concept of CFP. The researcher add new layer of
reinforced concrete at the compression face and weld the new and the old stirrups only in
the region of inclined legs of the CFP. The samples behave monolithically at all loading
levels. Moreover, the researcher examined adequacy of welding of all stirrups and
concluded that this did not result in any additional enhancement in the structural
behavior. In addition the researcher measured the strain of one strengthened and found
that the strain diagram is typical this ensure that the concrete jacketed beams can be
designed using available method. According to the researcher, all beams was failed
monolithically and the extra strength measured reached up to 154% of the capacity of the
existing beams.

3.5 Design of Beams Strengthened by Steel Plates

Design considerations of steel plated RC beams differ according to:
1. Bonding technique (adhesive or bolt)
2. Position of plate (tension face or side web)
The first hypothesis, which we can start with, is, if the steel plate (or any new layer) is
properly attached to the RC beam, the strain will be consistent with strain compatibility
theory which state that cross sections that are plane before bending remain plane after
bending. Therefore, the composite section can be designed by the procedures of the
monolithic beam. However, to guarantee this assumption some considerations should be
taken into account to ensure the monolithic behavior.

3.5.1 Modes of Failure of Beams Strengthened by Steel Plates

Tests show that steel plate stuck at the bottom of a beam can achieve yield strength when
damaged (1). In proper reinforced concrete beams, as load increases, the reinforced beam
is damaged when concrete has been crushed after yielding of the reinforcement. The ideal

41
behavior of steel plated beams is yielding of the new steel plate and failure in a ductile
manner. This is the desired mode of failure since the increased load capacity by the
strengthening system can be reached. However, some experiments showed that when
such beams was destroyed, the steel plate was still below the yield strength (1).

3.5.1.1 Adhesively Bonded Plates

Jumaat and Alam (55) conducted a research about the problems associated with
bonding methods of strengthening reinforced concrete beams. They stated that the
adhesively bonded plates are highly susceptible to premature deboning. They also
mentioned that the problem of preventing premature de-bonding of adhesively bonded
plates is an extremely complicated problem. research has shown that there are three
mechanisms of de-bonding which will be referred to as
1. Flexural peeling: when moment (curvature) is applied to a plated beam the plate
tries to stay straight including cracks in at the plate end which propagate inward.
2. Shear peeling: the sliding or rotation of the critical diagonal crack causes the
debonding crack to start at the base of the diagonal crack outward the plate.
3. Axial peeling: Axial peeling occurs when a plate spans across a flexural or shear
crack, where it can be seen that wherever a flexural crack touches the plate a
debonding crack along the edge of the plate occurs. If debonding did not occur,
where the plate crossed the crack, the plate would, in theory, be subjected to an
infinite strain, which of course cannot occur.

Ali et al. (56), mentioned similar to this statement and produced rules for peeling
resistance. These three mechanisms appear in several forms such as shown in (
Figure 3. 14) (53).

Figure 3. 14: Modes of failure of steel plate (57)

The reduction in strengthening effectiveness is associated with a change of failure mode
from crack-induced debonding to plate end failure (2). Plate end failure (premature
42
failure) is an extremely important problem because invariably de-bonding of adhesive
joints is a brittle and catastrophic failure mechanism (55). Many researchers study the
solution of this problem and produce some limits which can help in avoidance of end
plate debonding. Some of these limits can be like follwong:

a) End plate anchorage: Ignoul et al. stated that if the force capacity of the
connection is insufficient, an additional mechanical anchorage, such as bolts or
external stirrups, has to be provided (53).

b) Effect of Member Size: Swamy et al. (58) suggested two tentative design criteria
for plated beams to ensure their full flexural capacity and ductility at failure: the
first is the plate-width-to-thickness ratio should not be less than 50; further, the
neutral axis depth should not be greater than 0.4 times the effective depth.
a) Cut-off Distance: Jones et al. (59) studied the effect of the plate cut-off distance
(from the plate edge to the support) on premature debonding and stated that for
practical values of cut-off distance a considerable increase in the average bond
stress will exist in the region of the plate end. As the cut-off distance increases,
significant reduction in strengthening effectiveness can be observed, with the
failure mode changing from crack-induced-bonding to plate end failure so when
the cut-off distance is sufficiently small (i.e. the plate end is sufficiently close to
the support), the failure load and maximum plate strain are essentially
independent of cut-off distance (2). Adhikary et al. (60) tested beams strengthened
by long plates (short cut-off distances) and short plates(longer cut-off distances)
and concluded that the failure mode changes from plate yielding to debonding if
the plate is short and cut at greater distance from the support. The possibility of
debonding failure can be minimized if the plate is cut at the location very close to
the support

b) Effect of steel plate stiffness: As the plate becomes stiffer, the plate
concentration of end stresses becomes more severe (2). The value of EI of steel
plate can be reduced by reducing the plate thickness and then increasing the width
to maintain the area of plate.

3.5.1.2 Bolted Plates

The problems which may arise in the case of using bolts or dowels in bonding steel plates
to concrete can be like following (41):
1. As with stud shear connectors in composite steel and beams, bolt shear connectors
can fail by fracturing due to excessive slip, which can be easily prevented by
designing for full shear connection.
2. Placing the side plate partly in the compression region can increase the ductility of
the beam but the plate is then susceptible to buckling. A simple solution to
prevent plate buckling is by restricting the plate to the tension zone of the section.
3. The bolts shear connectors apply a concentrated load to the reinforced concrete
beam, which may cause split for the concrete.

3.5.2 Stiffness Limits of Steel Plate

Barnes et. al. (30) stated that it is important to realize that the maximum enhancement
obtained by retrofitting shear plates is limited by the anchorage capacity of the

43
connection. The required capacity of the connection is governed by the plate stiffness;
increasing the plate thickness increases the connection requirement. By applying strain
compatibility it can be seen that increasing the thickness of the plate increases the total
force carried by the plate at any given load. Therefore, when insufficient anchorage is
provided, increasing the plate thickness can reduce the beam load at which the failure of
connection will occur. In addition, the interaction of the plate depends on the stiffness of
the adhesive layer, this need to be evaluated to understand possible changes in the force
distributions along the critical section (30). Gomes and Appleton (11) stated that when
the connection is only guaranteed by the resin a steel plate with a maximum 5mm thick
and 200mm width is recommended. The resin thick must be got between 1 and 3mm. A
higher resin thick leads to a lower bond capacity. In addition, they recommend limits for
steel plate dimensions as shown in Figure 3. 15 and Figure 3. 16 (11).

a)Without metallic anchors b)With metallic anchors

Figure 3. 15: Flexural strengthening- recommended dimension limits )11(

a) Without metallic anchors b) With metallic anchors

Figure 3. 16: Shear strengthening- recommended dimension limits )11(

3.5.3 Section Strength of Tension Face Plated Beam (Flexural Strengthening)

Adhesively bonding steel plate at the tension side of RC beams increase the flexural
capacity and stiffness. In addition, Ali et. al. (29) stated that the presence of tension
plates delays the formation and resist the propagation of a diagonal crack at a given
location and constructed a formula of shear load on the steel plate which caused by
diagonal cracking (29). Adhesively bonding plate to tension face of RC beam can
produces a plated beam with full interaction and, hence, the composite plated beam can
be analyzed or designed using all the conventional procedures that are available for RC

44
structure (55). However, there are a part at the end of the plate the elastic theory don’t
apply (59), so some consideration should be done to prevent premature de-bonding
especially in the plate end as discussed above.

Gomes et al. stated that two different models can be used to evaluate the section
strength for adhesively bonded steel plates (11):

1. Modeling of damage in the initial section and the additional materials behavior,
including the bond between the new and old material (Figure 3. 17).

Figure 3. 17: Strain and stress for deformed section )11(

2. Simplified method based on the monolithic action of the system components. The
strengthened beam is designed as a new structure, assuming that there are no
damage and the connection between the materials is perfect (Figure 3. 18).

Figure 3. 18: Strain and stress for intact section (steel plated) )11(
Bolted steel plate at the tension face can provide ductile behavior at the ultimate limit
state but it cannot provide stiffness as well as adhesively bonded plates. However,
Bonding plates only by dowels or bolts does not produce complete and uniform bonding,
so in this case the strengthened beam has very little chance to behave according the
flexural theory. Goldar et al. (31) examined beams strengthened by bolted steel plates of
several thickness and found that the ultimate load of these beam less than the theoretical
values by 10-20% and referred this to two reasons, bolt failure and slippage at the
interface (31). This indicate that there are doubts that these beams follow the flexural
theory. For all these reasons, the technique of bonding steel plates at the tension face of

45
RC beams can perfectly accomplished by chemical adhesive bonding with mechanical
anchorage at the end of plate.

Referring to the aforementioned knowledge about mechanical or chemical bonding of

steel plate important fact can be concluded; that the combination between the two
techniques can ensure the monolithic behavior of the steel plated RC beams. There are
additional two things ensure the monolithic behavior:

 Reducing the cut-off distance of the plate.

 Using thin and wide plate.

If these considerations are taken into account and monolithic action is assumed,
flexural theory can be applied and then the following equations can be generated for
tension face steel plated beams:

a) Flexural Strength

)+ )

C=

b) Shear Strength

Vn = (Vc1 + Vs1)

√
Vc = bwdav

, Av = (Av1 + Av2)

3.5.4 Section Strength of beam Strengthen by Straps of Steel Plates at the

Sides (shear strengthening)

Shear capacity can be increased by attaching straps of steel plates as shown in Figure 3.
19.

Figure 3. 19: Shear strengthened beams by bonded straps

46
If good bonding is guaranteed the conventional provisions can be used:

∅Vn = ∅(VC + Vs + Vs2)

Altin et al. (35) used different model to calculate the contribution of steel straps in shear
capacity:

3.5.5 Section Strength of Beam Strengthen by Continuous Steel Plates at the

Beam Web (Shear Strengthening)

This type of sections has a very low potential for the applicability of flexural
theory, so that for this position and orientation of steel plate the difference in stiffness is
significant and consequently incompatible strain (Figure 3. 20 and Figure 3. 21 ). This is
ensued in the case of bonding using bolts such that the bonding not uniform and buckling
of steel plate can be occur. However, Barnes et. al. (30) , mentioned that for steel plated
beams (at beam sides), the flexural capacity can be calculated using strain compatibility
(plastic analysis) if full interaction of the plate is assumed within the mid-span and the
normal assumptions for elementary beam theory are applicable. While for shear capacity,
they stated that it can be calculated using the equilibrium of forces method (30).

47
 Figure 3. 20: Difference in curvature in bolted steel plate at beam sides (41)

Figure 3. 21: Difference in curvature in adhesively bonded steel plate at beam sides (41)
More than one researcher have been tried to construct models simulate the
contribution of continues steel plate in the shear strength of the side steel plated beams
(29; 30; 61). The ultimate shear strength of reinforced concrete beams with web-bonded
continuous horizontal steel plates is computed by adding the contributions from concrete,
internal shear reinforcement and the external steel plates (34). Nominal shear strength
(Vn) of plate-bonded beam is given as follows:

Vn = VC + Vs + VP

VC and Vs can be calculated using the available codes, while for VP the researchers use

Barnes et al. (61) constructed a model for side steel plate contribution in shear
strength of RC beams. The basic principle is that the as the diagonal crack form begin to
transfer the transverse tensile stress to the plate then an effective length of plate resist
these stresses. Figure 3. 22 show the transverse tensile stresses and Figure 3. 23 show the
modified stress distribution.

48
 La

Figure 3. 22: Plated concrete beam under Figure 3. 23: Further modified stress
shear loading )11( distribution in plated beam )11(

The researchers proposed the following model and for design:

1. The contribution of steel plate in shear capacity Vp:

2. The area of both side plates Ap:

The researchers stated that analysis of the results from the beam tests has led to the
proposal of the following parameters:

BHAGAT et. al. (30) stated that the expression for shear contribution of web-
bonded continuous steel plates to the shear strength of beam (VP) is given by summing up
the shear stresses in steel plates over its depth and thickness:

49
VP = fyp hp tp Where,
fyp: Yield strength of steel plate,
hp: Depth of the steel plate,
tp: Thickness of steel plate

Barnes et. al. (30), proposed a method of analysis for beams strengthened by
adhesive bonded and bolted steel plates at the beam webs, this method based on the
equilibrium of forces along the critical section. The forces which keep the critical section
in equilibrium are shown in Figure 3. 24.

Figure 3. 24: Equilibrium section of side steel plated beams (30)

After applying equilibrium to the critical section shown in Figure 3. 24, the
researchers generated the following equations (followed by equation numbers according
to the original article) (Figure 3. 25), the notations related to the model are shown in
Figure 3. 26.

Figure 3. 25: Barnes model (30)

51
 Figure 3. 26: Notations of Barnes model (30)

This model had been examined by the researchers through excremental study on nine
RC beams strengthened by steel plate attached at beam sides using two methods,
adhesive bonding and bolting. They use 16mm bolts and tow part epoxy resin. Figure 3.
27 show the reinforcement details of the original beam. Table 3. 1, summarize beams
details, material properties, experimental and theoretical results. Figure 3. 28 show
deflection at load point for samples. The researchers found that the results of the
proposed model showed a good correlation with the tests results and concluded that the
model is conservative because the average of the theoretical values less than the
experimental values as shown in table. They assured that these results guaranteed only in
the case of good execution of bonding and good arrangement of bolts.

Figure 3. 27: Beam reinforcement details. (30)

51
Table 3. 1: Experimental and theoretical results (30)

Figure 3. 28: Deflection at load point of tested beams (30)

52
3.6 Bonding Design

The key in design of an effective strengthening solution using concrete jacketing or

externally bonded plates is the bonding strength, and substantial research has been carried
out on this issue. In the strengthened section, the stresses will be transferred from part to
anther of the section through the bonding system, which should be sustainable.

There are different approaches for calculation the shear stress in the interface
between the new and the old layer according to the position and the type of additional
layer as following:

1. In REHABCON, ANNEX I "strengthening with reinforced concrete" (14) stated

that in the case of attaching layers at the tension face. The shear flow may be
estimated as large as the increment of the tension force in the bars included in the
repaired part of the section (see Figure 3. 29).

Asfy (for flexural bar of repaired beam)

Figure 3. 29: Tension force in the bars

Shear stresses = 2(As Fy)/ (bonding area)

2. In the case of using steel plates, Gomes el al. used shear stress equal to the
stresses generated in the attached steel plate (see Figure 3. 30).

Asfy (for the additional plate)

Figure 3. 30: Tension force in the steel plate
3. In the plated beams, the stress distribution at a region in the end of the plate differ
about the stress in the rest area of the plate. This region should be exposed to
special treatment as discussed before.
4. In REHABCON, ANNEXI " strengthening with reinforced concrete" (14) It is
sugeted a method to calculate the mean longitudinal sliding shear per unit length
in the case of repair at the compression side can e.g. be found in the european
standard ENV 1992-1-1:1991 (eurocode 2, chapter 4.3.2.5).
5. In the case of attaching the new layer at the sides of the beam the stresses equal
the applied shear divided to the bonding area.

Shear stresses = (Vu)/ (bonding area)

53
3.6.1. Mechanical Anchorage to Concrete

Anchorage to concrete using shear connectors is well-known and included in more than
one of the conventional codes for example in ACI: (chapter 17: composite concrete
flexural members), (appendix D: anchoring to concrete) and (section 12.13: Development
of web reinforcement).

3.6.2 Adhesively Bonding to Concrete.

To guarantee that the failure will not occur in the adhesive layer the bond strength of the
adhesive must exceeds the permissible shear stress in the concrete. If the sliding shear
exceeds the shear bond dowels has to be used (14). In general, the shear stress in the
interface should be less than the tensile strength of concrete (fct). The anchorage capacity of
the adhesive bonded plate is generally limited by the tensile capacity of the concrete at the
adhesive/concrete interface (30). Gomes et al. (11) presented equations for checking the stress
in the adhesive layer as following:
a. Connection without bolts:
b. Connection with bolts: = * ≤ +n ,
= min (fct, 2 MPa)

This model consider that the bond is effective at the whole area of the steel plate
while many researchers tried to prove that the fact somewhat different. Chen et al. (62)
stated that a very important aspect of bond behavior is that there exists an effective bond
length beyond which an extension of the bond length cannot increase the bond strength.
This is a fundamental difference between the anchorage design of an externally bonded
plate and an internal reinforcement for which a sufficiently long anchorage length can
always be found, so that the full tensile strength of the reinforcement can be achieved.
Many researchers conduct experimental and analytical studies to examine the anchorage
failure mechanism and construct models for shear stress at this region and effective
anchorage length (29; 30; 63; 61).

Gemert (64) examined the stresses in steel plates bonded to a rectangular plain
concrete prism in a double shear test. The tensile force in the steel plate was found to
decay exponentially toward the anchored end of the plate. At higher loads, the
distribution of the tensile force became more and more even in the initial bond zone but
the shear stresses in the adhesive layer not equivalent with the tensile forces. This means
that practically no force was transferred from the plate to the concrete in this zone,
because the cracking of the concrete near the applied load shifted the active bond zone to
new areas farther away from the loading point. Chen and Teng (62) stated that the shift
of the active bond zone means that at any one time, only part of the bond is effective.
That is, as cracking in the concrete propagates, bond resistance is gradually lost in the
zone near the load, but in the meantime it is activated farther away from the load. The
implication is, then, that the anchorage strength cannot always increase with an increase
in the bond length, and that the ultimate tensile strength of a plate may never be reached,
however long the bond length is. This leads to the important concept of effective bond
length, beyond which any increase in the bond length cannot increase the anchorage
strength, as confirmed by many experimental studies (62). Ming and Ansari (65) derived
a simple and rational model as following (see Figure 3. 31):

54
 Figure 3. 31: Shear stress at the bonded area (65)

In which, Pu is the ultimate load, Ld is the development length, bp is the width of

the FRP fabrics. c is the shear strength of concrete specimen, which is believed to be
equal to 15% of the compressive strength of concrete, fc.

Chen and Teng (62) reviewed the current anchorage strength models for both
FRP-to-concrete and steel-to-concrete bonded joints under shear. The researchers
assessed these models with experimental data collected from the literature in order to
specify the deficiencies of all existing models. The authors proposed a new model based
on an existing fracture mechanics analysis and experimental observations. The
researchers stated that the new model is suitable for practical application in the design of
FRP-to-concrete as well as steel-to-concrete bonded joints. In addition, the researchers
compared their model to models of previous research and found that the new model is
more realistic as shown in Table 3. 2 They use the same data collected from the literature
for comparison. The new model can be summarized as following:

Where:

bc = width of concrete member;

bp = width of bonded plate;
L = bond length;
Le = effective bond length;
Ep = Young’s modulus of bonded plate;
tp = thickness of bonded plate;

55
Table 3. 2: Measured to Predicted Bond Strength Ratios(Chen et al. (2001))

Note: (16) refer to the new model

The researchers stated that the existing test data suggest that the main failure mode is
concrete failure under shear, occurring generally at a few millimeters from the concrete-
to-adhesive surface. The bond strength, therefore, depends strongly on the concrete
strength. In addition, the plate-to-concrete member width ratio has a significant effect.
Thin stiff plates should be used to make the best use of the tensile strength of the bonded
plate. However, these models for direct tension (pure shear in the interaction) and does
not consider the interaction of shear and bending.

56
3.7 Concluded Remarks
After reviewing the literatures related to concrete jacketing and steel plating of RC beams
in chapter 2 and chapter 3, the following points can be remarked:

1. Referring to the aforementioned reviewing about using concrete jackets or steel

plates and about using mechanical or chemical bonding it is noticed that, in the
literature, there are not a comprehensive study focusing on comparison between
the behavior of beams strengthened by concrete jackets and steel plates using
mechanical and chemical bonding. This comparison presentation is needed for
engineers to help them in choose the optimum system of RC beam strengthening.
2. For active the utilization of all the materials of composite beam and consequently
obtaining monolithic behavior, the following items should be realized:
 Executing bonding and anchorage with satisfied level of quality and
ensuring all practical procedures which prevent separation and plate end
peeling.
 Good design for shear stresses between the old and the new surfaces.
 Good selection of chemical adhesive type.
 Designing the strengthened section to be tension controlled section.
3. It can be said that the concrete jacketed sections can be designed as monolithic
beam by available codes.
4. It can be said that it is enough to bond only the region of the inclined paths of
CFP in the case of concrete jacketed beams.
5. There are doubts about if the steel plated beams comply the flexural theory. Many
researchers tried to study their behavior and construct models for design their
sections. However, beams strengthened by steel plate at the tension face have
more potential to comply the flexural theory especially if:
 The end of the plates good anchored.
 The cut-off distance decreased.
 Stiffness compatibility achieved.
6. Decreasing the cut-off distance (the distance between the end of steel plate and
the support) may lessen the chance of plate debonding.
7. The stiffness incompatibility can be overtaken by using lesser thickness and larger
widths of the steel plate section (plate-width-to thickness ratio at least equal 50).

57
CHAPTER 4 TEST PROGRAM
4.1 Introduction
To reach the proposed objectives of this thesis, which stated in the first chapter, an
experimental test program was conducted. The main objectives of this test program
presented in Figure 4. 1 :

1
• Conducting theoritical study.

2
• Preparing the original samples.

3
• Aplying the strengthing to the old section.

4
• Testing the strengthened samples.

5
• Taking data(failure load, load defliction, load of first crack, crack width).

6
• Analysing and discusing the test results.

7
• Making comparasion between theorical and expermental results.

8
• Making comparasion between strengthening methods.

9 • Presenting conclusions and recommendations for practice and research filed.

Figure 4. 1: The objectives of the test program

To achieve these objectives, an experimental test program consisted of designing,
constructing, strengthening and testing for flexural and shear of twenty-six reinforced
concrete beams was carried out. The test program consist of two series; the first for
flexural strengthening while the second for shear strengthening. Figure 4. 4 and Table 4.
1 show the sample distribution and description.

4.2 Definition of Samples Sections

4.2.1 Original sample:

The original sample section is 150 X 150 in dimension, and provided with flexural and
shear reinforcement as in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3.
150 mm 150mm

2ɸ6 2ɸ6
150 mm 150 mm
∅6@50

2 ɸ 10 2 ɸ 10

Figure 4. 2: Original for flexure samples Figure 4. 3: Original for shear samples
58
 control Beam
3 Specimens

Monolithic section Mechanical connectors

1 Specimens 3 Specimens

Adding Concrete Jacket Chemical adhesive

5 Specimens 2 Specimens

increasing flexural Mechanical connectors

strength Adding Steel Plate 2 Specimens
13 Specimen 4 Specimens
chemical adhesive
2 specimens
original Specimens
26 Specimens Mechanical +Stirrups
2 Specimens
increasing shear
strength Control Beam
Chemical No Stirrups
13 Specimen 2 Specimens
2 Specimens

Adding Concrete Jacket No additional connection

6 Specimens +Stirrups 1 Specimen

Surface roughening with some

Steel plate addhesive+Stirrups
5 Specimens 1 Specimens

Tow side steel plates Mechanicaly connected

2 Specimens

Tow side steel plates chemically connected

Figure 4. 4: Samples distribution 2 Specimens

59 External steel plate straps chemically connected

1 Specimens
Table 4. 1: Sample description

No Sample Strengthening Connection

Type Type
First series: Flexural strengthening
1. CF0, CF1, No Strengthening -----
CF2
2. MF ----- Monolithic
section
3. AF0,AF1, Concrete Jacket/Tension face Dowels
AF2
4. BF1, BF2 Concrete Jacket/Tension face Adhesive
5. AF3, AF4 Steel Plate/Tension face Dowels
6. BF3, BF4 Steel Plate/Tension face Adhesive
Second series: Shear strengthening
7. CS1 No Strengthening (without stirrups) ------
8. CS2 No Strengthening (with stirrups @5cm) ------
9. AS1, AS2 Bottom U layer (with additional stirrups) Dowels

10. BS1, BS2 Top ∩ layer (without additional stirrups) Adhesive

11. ES1 Bottom U layer with additional stirrups Partial
adhesive and
friction
12. BS3 Bottom U layer with additional stirrups No connection
13. AS3, AS4 Steel plate at the two sides of the beam Dowels

14. BS4, BS5 Steel plate at the two sides of the beam Adhesive

15. BS6 External steel plate straps Adhesive

partially

61
4.2.2 First series: Flexural Strengthening

This series contained jacketing the original beam by 100mm of RC using mechanical (Figure 4.
5) and chemical (Figure 4. 6) bonding and plating by 3mm thick steel plates using mechanical
(Figure 4. 7) and chemical bonding (Figure 4. 8).

150 mm 150 mm

2ɸ6 2ɸ6

∅6@50 150 mm 150 mm

2 ɸ 10 2 ɸ 10
100mm 100mm
2 ɸ 10 2 ɸ 10

Figure 4. 5: Jacketing for flexure using Figure 4. 6: Jacketing for flexure using
shear connectors (AF1, AF2, AF0) adhesives (BF1,BF2)

100 mm 100 mm

2ɸ6 2ɸ6

150 mm 150 mm
∅6@50 ∅6@50

2 ɸ 10 2 ɸ 10

Steel plate, width =120mm, Steel plate, width =100mm,

Thick. = 3mm, length = 1050mm Thick. = 3mm, length = 1050mm

Figure 4. 7: Steel plating for flexure using Figure 4. 8: Steel platng for flexure using
shear connectors (AF3,AF4) adhesives (BF3,BF4)

61
 4.2.3 Second Series: Shear Strengthening

This series contain jacketing by concrete (Figure 4. 9), attaching steel plates at both sides of the
beam Figure 4. 10 and chemically bonded steel straps Figure 4. 11

50mm 50mm 250 mm

150 mm 150 mm

2ɸ6 2ɸ6
150 mm 150 mm 200 mm
`

2 ɸ 10 2 ɸ 10 2 ɸ 10
3ɸ6 3ɸ6
a) Bonding by connectors (AS1,AS2) b) Stirrups only (ES1,BS3) c) Bonding by adhesive (BS1,BS2)

Figure 4. 9: strengthening for shear by Concrete jacketing

Concrete jacketing samples 150 mm

2ɸ6
150 mm

2 ɸ 10
Steel plate, width =120mm, a) Bonding by connectors (AS3,AS4) 150 mm
Thick. = 2mm, length = 1000mm

2ɸ6
150 mm

Steel plate, width =100mm,

2 ɸ 12
b) Bonding by adhesive (BS4,BS5)
Thick. = 2mm, length = 1000mm

Figure 4. 10: Strengthening for shear by side steel plates

150 mm

150 mm

Steel straps, width =20mm,

Thick. = 2mm each 45mm

Figure 4. 11: Strengtheing for shear by steel straps (BS6)

62
4.3 Experimental Work
This section present the procedures of samples construction to be ready for testing

4.3.1 First Series: Flexure Samples:

4.3.1.1 Original Specimens: 13 specimens as detailed in test program

1. Preparing the reinforcement cage as following (Figure 4. 12):

110 mm

2ɸ6
110 mm
∅6@50
2 ɸ 10

Figure 4. 12: Steel cage of the original sample of the first series
2. Preparing forms of 150 X 150 X 1250 mm, in dimension.
3. Adjusting the steel cage inside the form and then casting the ready mixed concrete.
4. Curing the specimens after 24 hours.
5. Three samples tested as control beams and the others were strengthened.
4.3.1.2 Addition of Mechanically Connected RC jacket at the Tension Side (AF0,
AF1and AF2).
1. Preparing the reinforce cage as following (Figure 4. 13):
110 mm

2ɸ6
6 mm
∅6@5

2 ɸ 10

Figure 4. 13: Steel cage of the underlay

2. Preparing holes (10cm in depth and 10mm in diameter) in the tension side of the original
beam (Figure 4. 14):

Figure 4. 14: Drilling holes in the tension side in the original beam

63
 3. Sticking the shear connector onto the holes using Sikadure31-CF, but using EPICHOR
1768 fo the sample AF0 (shear connector = 20cm: 10cm through the old concrete and
10cm each 8cm through the new concrete) (see Figure 4 .15).

Figure 4 .15: Sticking shear connectors

4. Setting the new steel cage and adjusting the system inside the form and then casting the
ready mixed concrete (see Figure 4. 16)

Figure 4. 16: Setting the new steel cage

5. Testing the specimens and recording the results.

4.3.1.3 Addition of Chemically Bonded RC jacket at the Tension Side (BF1, BF2).

1. Preparing of the reinforcement cage as in previous samples.

2. Painting Sikadure-32, in the tension side of the original side just before casting.
3. Setting the new steel cage an adjusting the system inside the form and then casting the
ready mixed concrete.

4.3.1.4 Addition of Mechanically Connected Steel Plate to the Tension Side (AF3,
AF4):

1. Preparing of the steel plates with dimensions of 12.5 X 1050 X 3 mm.

2. Drilling holes on tension side of the beam each 8.5cm center-center within the area of
steel plate (12 pair of holes).
3. Taking marks on the steel plate and then drilling at the same positions of beam holes
(Figure 4. 17).

Figure 4. 17: Drilling holes in steel plate

64
 4. Sticking the shear connector onto the holes using Sikadure31-CF, (15cm: 10cm through
the old concrete and 5cm welded in the other connector and steel plate.
5. Fixing the steel plate at its place and pressing it to the concrete (Figure 4. 18).

Figure 4. 18: Fixing steel plate

6. Bending the connectors and welding them to each other and to the steel plate.
7. Testing the sample.

4.3.1.5 Addition of Chemically Bonded Steel Plate to the Tension Side (BF3, BF4):

1. Preparing of the steel plates with the dimensions of 1050 X 105 X 3 mm.
2. Preparing of the concrete and steel plate surfaces (roughening and brushing but not to
standards level).
3. Mixing and plastering the adhesive (Sikadure31-CF) onto the steel plate.
4. Laying the steel plate at the pre-marked place at the tension side of the beam.
5. Testing the samples.

65
4.3.2 Second Series: Shear Examination:

4.3.2.1 Original Specimens: 13 Specimens as Detailed in Test Program

1. Preparing of the reinforce cage as shown in (Figure 4. 19), except one beam reinforced
like the beams in the first series:

Figure 4. 19: Steel cage of the original sample of the second series
2. Preparing forms have dimensions of 150 X 150 X 1250 mm.
3. Adjusting the steel cage inside the form and then casting the ready mixed concrete.
4. Curing the specimens after 24 hours.
5. Two samples tested as control beams and the others were strengthened.

4.3.2.2 Addition of Mechanically Connected U Shape Concrete Jacket with

Additional Steel Cage (AS1, AS2)

1. Preparing of the stirrups and shear connectors as shown in Figure 4. 20.

Stirrups: 2 pieces
Connectors: 2 pieces
Adhesive
25cm: 15cm in the old concrete
Welding
20cm: 10cm in the old concrete

Figure 4. 20: Detailing of the new stirrups and connectors

2. Drilling holes and fixing the connectors and the new stirrups as shown in Figure 4. 21:

11 hole/1 hole each The tension side

9cm, for connectors

12 hole/1 hole each 9cm,

for connectors

12 hole/1 hole each 9cm,

for stirrups

Figure 4. 21: Holes distribution

66
 3. Fixing the connectors and the new stirrups using Sikadure31-CF (Figure 4.22) :

The tension side

Figure 4. 22: Fixing the connectors and the new stirrups

4. Adjusting the system inside the form and then casting the ready mixed concrete.
5. Testing the specimens and recording the results.

4.3.2.3 Addition of U Shape Reinforced Concrete Jacket to Roughened surface

and Partially Painted with Chemical (ES1)

1. Preparing of the stirrups and shear connectors (Figure 4. 23).

Additional stirrups: 2 pieces

Bonded by epoxy

Welding

Figure 4. 23: The new stirrups detailing

2. Drilling holes and fixing the connectors and the new stirrups as the following (Figure 4.
24):

12 hole/1 hole each

9cm, for stirrups

Figure 4. 24: Holes distribution of ES1

3. Fixing the new stirrups using Sikadure31-CF and then longitudinal reinforcement
(Figure 4. 25):

67
 The tension side

Figure 4. 25: Fixing stirrups and longitudinal reinforcement

4. Roughening and partially painting by Sikadur-32, of concrete surface.
5. Adjusting the beam inside the form and then casting the ready mixed concrete.
6. Testing the specimens and recording the results.

4.3.2.4 Addition of U Shape Reinforced Concrete Jacket without Additional

Connection (BS3).

The procedures of construction here similar to the previous samples but without any aditional
bonding or connection (only the connection from stirrups)

4.3.2.5 Addition of Chemically Bonded shape Plain Concrete Jacket (BS1, BS2).

1. Roughening the concrete surface (but not to standards)

2. Full-Painting the top face and the two sides of the beam with Sikadur-32.
3. Adjusting the beam inside the form and then casting the ready mixed concrete.
6. Testing the specimens and recording the results.

4.3.2.6 Addition of Mechanically Connected Steel Plate to the beam Sides (AS3,
AS4).

1. Preparing two steel plates 120 X 1000 X 2 mm in dimension for each beam.
2. Drilling holes in concrete and steel plate.
3. Sticking shear connectors into beam using Sikadur31-CF (20cm: 15cm through the
beam section and 5cm bended and welded to the plate at both the sides of beam 9cm
center-center(11 pair of connectors)).
4. Welding shear connectors to each other and to the steel plate.
5. Testing.

4.3.2.7 Addition of Chemically Bonded Steel Plate to the beam Sides (BS3, BS4).

1. Preparing two steel plates 100 X 1000 X 2 mm in dimension for each beam.
2. Roughening the surfaces of steel plate and concrete.
3. Plastering the steel plate by the paste of Sikadur3-CF.
4. Positioning the steel plates on the suitable place on the two sides of the beams.
5. Pressing on the plate by weights until drying of the adhesive.
6. Testing after at least days.

68
4.3.2.8 Addition of External Straps of Steel Plate Chemically Bonded around the
beam outer-face (BS6)

1. Preparing stirrups from 20mm width steel plates as shown in (Figure 4. 26):

8 cm

15
cm
7.5 cm
Figure 4. 26: Parts of steel strap

2. Sticking the steel straps each 4.5 cm center to center by the paste of Sikadure31-CF.
3. Welding and bonding the pieces of stirrups (see Figure 4. 27).
Welding

Adhesive

Figure 4. 27: Welding and bonding steel straps

4.4 Material Properties

Following sections contains the properties values of the used materials (concrete, steel bars,
steel plates and chemical adhesives).

4.4.1 Concrete

Table 4. 2 and
Table 4. 3 show the compressive strength for the first mix (average = 33.46 Mpa) and the
second mix (average = 24.2 MPa) respectively. Table 4. 4 shows the samples with the related
compressive strength.

Table 4. 2: Compressive strength for the first mix

No L W H Unit Compression Fcu fc'

mm mm mm weight force KN MPa MPa
1. 103 101 100 3.39 425 42.1 33.68
2. 101 100 101 2.28 385 38.1 30.48
3. 102 101 100 2.31 443 43.9 35.12
4. 102 100 100 2.255 432 43.2 34.56
5. 102 100 105 2.455 402 38.3 30.64

69
 6. 102 101 100 2.27 421 41.7 33.36
33.46

Table 4. 3: Compressive strength for the second mix

No L W H Unit Compression Fcu fc'

mm mm mm weight force KN MPa MPa

1. 102 100 101 2.31 277 27.4 21.92

2. 102 100 102 2.27 304 29.8 23.84
3. 103 100 102 2.28 301 29.5 23.6
4. 102 102 100 2.15 350 34.3 27.44
24.2

Table 4. 4: fc' for the original and additional concrete

No. Sample Original Added layer

First series: Flexural strengthening
1.
2. CF1 11.32 -----
3. CF2 63.6 -----
4. MF 24.2
5. AF0, AF1, AF2 33.46 24.2
6. BF1, BF2 33.46 24.2
7. AF3, AF4 24.2 -----
8. BF3, BF4 33.46 -----
Second series: Shear strengthening
9. CS1 33.46 ------
10. CS2 24.2 ------
11. MS ------ 24.2
12. AS1, AS2 33.46 24.2
13. BS1, BS2 33.46 24.2
14. ES1 33.46 24.2
15. BS3 33.46 24.2
16. AS3, AS4 24.2 ------
17. BS4, BS5 33.46 ------
18. BS6 33.46 ------

4.4.2 Steel Bars

The steel reinforcing bars used for the construction of the beams consisted of 6mm diameter
steel bar were used for both stirrups and secondary top reinforcement. In addition, 10 mm
diameter steel bar were used for main bottom reinforcement. Samples from the 10 mm
reinforcing bars were tested using the standard tension test, the results shown in Table 4. 5. The
average value of fy of the 10 mm bar is 380 MPa.

71
Table 4. 5: Yield and ultimate strength for steel bar (10mm)

No. Section area Yielding Ultimate

(mm) force KN force KN
1 10 38 54
2 10 38 53
Average 10 38 53.5

4.4.3 Steel Plates

Table 4. 6 shows the data and the result of steel plate samples. The average value of fy of
the steel plate is 310 MPa.

Table 4. 6: Yield and ultimate strength for steel plate

Length Width Thickness Yielding Ultimate Length after Fy Fu

(mm) (mm) (mm) force KN force KN failure MPa MPa
80 50 2.95 46 62 110 312 420
80 49.8 2.95 47 61 109 320 420
80 50.4 3.05 46 61 111 299 400
310 410

4.4.4 Chemical Adhesives

4.4.4.1 EPICHOR 1768

"EPICHOR 1768" is two-component solvent free, clear epoxy product. It can be mixed with
graded sand to be used as fixer of dowels in concrete and repairing mortar. The properties of
"EPICHOR 1768" is presented in Table 4. 7. This material used only for connecting shear
connectors of sample AF0.

Table 4. 7: Properties of EPICHOR 1768

Property Value
Density 2.1 gm / cm3 for mortar epoxy
Modulus of Elasticity 2320N/mm2
Compressive Strength 54.0 N/mm2 (After 7 days) ASTM (C 579
Method B)
Flexural strength @ 7 days (BS 6319) 42 N/mm2
Tensile strength @ 7 days 2.90 N/mm2 (After 7 days) ASTM (C 301)
Bond strength for Mortar epoxy (Resin + 9.70 N / mm2
Hardener + filling)
Bond strength For pure epoxy (Resin + 6.7 N / mm2
Hardener)

71
4.4.4.2 Sikadur®-31 CF

Sikadur®-31 CF is an epoxy material used to bond steel to concrete, its properties presented in
Table 4. 8.

Table 4. 8: Properties of Sikadur®-31 CF

Property Value
Density 1.94 kg / litre approx.
Volume solids 100% (solvent free)
Modulus of Elasticity 2.0 GPa approx.
Compressive Strength 69 - 79 N/mm2
Flexural strength @ 7 days (BS 6319) 25-30 MPa approx.
Tensile strength @ 7 days (BS 6319) 14-24 MPa approx.
Adhesion to concrete >4 MPa approx. (concrete failure all grades)
Adhesion to sandblasted steel @ 3 days 13-17 MPa approx.

4.4.4.3 Sikadur®-32
Sikadur-32 is a high performance bonding agent based on a 2-component solvent free epoxy
resin ideally suited to a wide range of building and civil engineering applications. Table 4. 9
shows some of physical and mechanical properties of Sikadur®-32.

Table 4. 9: Properties of Sikadur®-32

Property Value
Density 1.4 kg / litre approx.
Volume solids 100% (solvent free)
Secant Flexural Modulus of Elasticity (BS 2.0 GPa approx.
6319) @ 7 days
Flexural strength @ 7 days (BS 6319) 28 MPa approx.
Tensile strength @ 7 days (BS 6319) 13 MPa approx.
Adhesion to concrete >3 MPa approx. (concrete failure all grades)
Adhesion to sandblasted steel @ 10 days 20 MPa approx.

72
4.5 Analysis of Samples
This section present the analysis of samples in order to know their shear and flexural capacities
and the ultimate loads according to the adopted loading system. Following are some items and
assumptions should be ensured:
1. The analysis done using the real values of material properties.
2. The dimensions and the area of reinforcement of the original beam are proposed (as
mentioned before) and then analyzed.
3. The dimensions and the area of reinforcement of the additional concrete jackets of shear and
flexural strengthened beams are also proposed (as cleared before) and then analyzed.
4. The beams with flexural strengthening by steel plates designed to have the same value of
flexural capacity of the concrete jacketed beams.
5. The monolithic sample designed to have the same value of flexural capacity of the
strengthened beams.
6. The flexural capacity of side steel plated beams cannot be calculated using the flexural
theory because of the mechanical incompatibility.
7. The sample strengthened by external straps designed using the normal procedures.
Assumptions:

1) The bonding is perfect.

2) The flexural theory is applicable in the section of strengthened beam.
3) There is high certainty in load and material so the load and reduction factors would not
be used in design.

4.5.1 First Series: Flexure Examination

The loading system and shear-moment diagram for the first series are shown in Figure 4. 28.
2

55 55
0 0
1100mm
75mm 2P 75mm

1100mm
75mm P KN 75mm

P KN

550P KN.mm

Figure 4. 28: Loading system of the first series

73
4.5.1.1 Original Section

The section of the original section shown in Figure 4. 29:

1) Flexural Capacity(for fc'=33.46)= 6.68 KN.m, The applied load 2P = 24.30 KN

2) Flexural Capacity(for fc'=24.2) = 6.52 KN.m, The applied load 2P = 23.7 KN

150 mm

2ɸ6
150 mm
∅6@50
2 ɸ 10

Figure 4. 29: Original section fo flexural strengthening

4.5.1.2 Concrete Jacketed Section

The section of the jacketed beam shown in Figure 4. 30. The analysis is presented in the
following steps:
150 mm 150 mm

2ɸ6 2ɸ6
150 mm
150 mm ∅6@50

2 ɸ 10 2 ɸ 10
100m 100m
2 ɸ 10 m
2 ɸ 10 m

Bonding by adhesive Bonding by shear connector

Figure 4. 30: Jacketing at the tension face

1) Section Details :
As1 = (2 ɸ 10) = 157 mm2

As2 = (2 ɸ 10) = 157 mm2

= 150 – 20 –6 – 5 = 119mm

d2 = 250 – 20 – 6 – 5 = 219 mm

dav = (d1+d2)/2 = (119+219)/2 = 169 mm

ρ = 0.0124

74
2) Flexural Capacity :
)+ )

C= = = 32.9 mm

= 57 380 9 ) + 57 380 2 9 )

= 18.50 KN.m

This value of flexural strength will be used to obtain the area of steel plate and the area of
steel of the monolithic beam for comparison.

3) The applied load 2P:

Mn = Mu (without using reduction factor)

Referring to figure 4.12 Mu= 550p = 18500 KN.mm so, p = 33.64 KN and 2P = 67.29 KN.

4) Shear capacity:
Vn = (Vc1 + Vs1)

√
Vc = bwdav

For Normal weight concrete, λ=1.0

√
Vc = 150*169 = 24.44 KN < 12.06

= = 72.59KN ∅6 @ 5cm)

Vn = 24.44 + 72.59 = 97 KN

5) Check of yielding:
100 mm
0.003
2ɸ6

∅6@50 120 mm
NA
2 ɸ 10
0.005
80
2 ɸ 10

= = 0.0124

75
 03 9 0 3 9 0 85 = 0.0239 > 0.0124 tension controlled section.

6) Bond Design
The force which should be transferred by the bonding system = the increment of tensile
force of flexural reinforcement of the strengthened beam = Asfy = 157*380 = 59660 N

a. Mechanical Bond (Shear Connectors)

According to (ACI: D.6.1.2) the nominal strength of a single anchor or group of anchors
in shear, Vsa, shall not exceed:

Vsa = n0.6As (dowel) X fut (dowel) (equation ACI: D-20)

According to (ACI: D.6.2.1) The nominal concrete breakout strength, Vcb , in shear of a
single anchor or group of anchors shall not exceed: For shear force perpendicular to the
edge on a single anchor equation (ACI: D-21):

From D.6.2.6 equation (D-28):

Ψed,V = 0.79
From D.6.2.7: ψc,V = 1.4
From D.6.2.8: ψh,V = 1

According to (ACI: D.6.2.2) The basic concrete breakout

strength in shear of a single anchor in cracked concrete,
Vb , shall not exceed:

 le = hef for anchors with a constant stiffness over the full length of embedded section,
such as headed studs and post-installed anchors with one tubular shell over full length of
the embedment depth or, le ≤ 8da in all cases

 According to (ACI: D.8.5) The value of hef for an expansion or undercut post-installed
anchor shall not exceed the greater of 2/3 of the member thickness and the member
thickness minus (4 in = 10.16 cm)

Le = hef =2/3 * 150mm = 100 mm

76
 Le ≤ 8da = 8*6mm = 48mm
Vb = (0.66*(48/6)0.2 √6)*1* √33 46 * (100)1.5 = 14174.26N
Vcb = 7739.15 N
Vsa = 0.6*520*113 = 8817.12 N, the smaller will be used
Number of dowels = 59660/7739.15 = 7.7 for each side of the beam
26 dowels will be used for AF0, and 30 dowel for AF1 and AF2

b. Chemical Bond (Adhesive Layer)

Shear stress in the adhesive layer = (bonded area)/2Asfy

= 2* 59660 / (1250*150) = 0.64 MPa

Tensile strength of concrete = 2.4 MPa, ok

4.5.1.3 Steel Plated Section

The section of the steel plated beam shown in Figure 4. 31. The analysis is presented in the
following steps:

100 mm 100 mm

2ɸ6 2ɸ6

∅6@50 150 mm ∅6@50 150 mm

2 ɸ 10 2 ɸ 10

Bonding by adhesive Bonding by dowels

Figure 4. 31: Steel plates at the tension face

1) Section Details :
Steel plate thickness = 3mm.

= 150 – 20 –6 – 5 = 119mm
d2 = 150 + 1.5 = 151.5mm
dav = (119 + 151.5)/2 = 135.25
As2 = area of steel plate section which will be calculated in the next step.

2) Area of steel plate:

)+ )

77
 Mn = Mn of the jacked beam

C= = = 22.75 + 0.118

18500000 = 57 380 9 )+ 3 0 50 75 )

Solving this equation using C = 22.75 + 0.118 we obtain:

– 3347.13 + 931767.85 = 0

√
Using ,

For (fc' = 24.2) As2 = 335 mm2,

For (fc' = 33.46) As2 = 302 mm2

But actually it is used As2 = (125mm – 20mm "hole opening" = 105) width X 3 mm
thickness = 315 mm2

But actually it is used As2 = 105 width X 3 mm thickness = 315 mm2

For (fc' = 24.2):

C = 22.75 + 0.118A_s2= 22.75 + 0.118 3 5 = 59.92

57 380 9 )+3 5 3 0 5 5 )= 17.9 KN. M

For (fc' = 33.46):

C = 16.45+ 0.085 = 16.45+ 0.085*315 = 43.23

57 380 9 ) + 3 5 3 0 50 75 )= 18.9 KN. M

3) The applied load 2P:

Mn = Mu (without using reduction factor)
For (fc' = 24.2) Referring to figure 4.12 Mu= 550p = 17900, P = 32.55 KN, 2P = 65.1 KN
For (fc' = 33.46) Referring to figure 4.12 Mu= 550p = 18900, P = 34.36 KN, 2P = 68.73 KN

4) Shear Capacity:
Vn = (Vc1 + Vs1)
√
Vc = bwd

For Normal weight concrete, λ=1.0

√
Vc = 150*151.5 = 21.9 KN

78
 = = 57.1 KN ∅6 @ 5cm)

Vn = 21.9 + 57.1 = 79 KN

5) Check of yielding:

As,av = = 227.99

= = 0.0112

Average fy = = 333.28

03 9 0 3 9 0 85 = 0.0197 tension controlled section.

6) Bond Design
The force which should be transferred by the bonding system = the increment of tensile force
of flexural reinforcement of the strengthened beam = As*fy = 157*380 = 59660 N

a. Mechanical Bond (Shear Connectors)

Referring to section 4.4.1.2 item (6), 24 dowel was used

b. Chemical Bond (Adhesive Layer)

Shear stress in the adhesive layer = (bonded area)/2Asfy = 2*59660/ (1050*105) = 1.08
MPa

Tensile strength of concrete = 2.4 MPa, ok

4.5.1.4 Monolithic Section

The monolithic section of the flexural strengthened beam shown in Figure 4.32. (flexural
capacity = 18.5 KN)

1) Area of steel plate = (3ɸ 10 = 235.5 mm2), Mn = 18.3KN.m

2) The applied load 2P = 66.55 KN
150 mm

2ɸ6
250 mm

3ɸ 10

Figure 4. 32: Flectural monolithic section

79
4.5.2 Second Series: Shear Examination
The loading system and shear-moment diagram for the second series are shown in Figure 4.33.
2P
P P

275mm 500mm 275m

m
1050mm
100mm 100mm
2P m

500mm

100mm 1050mm 100mm

P KN

P KN

275P KN.mm

Figure 4. 33: Loading system for second series

4.5.2.1 Original Section

The original section for shear strengthening will be without stirrups but at the extremes and the
middle to hold the longitudinal reinforcement. The section of the original beam shown in Figure
4. 34

1) Flexural Capacity = 6.682 KN.m

2) The applied load 2P = 48.6 KN

150mm

2ɸ6
150 mm

2 ɸ 10

Figure 4. 34: The original section for shear

strengthening

81
4.5.2.2 Concrete Jacketed Section (U jacket).

The section of the jacketed beam shown in Figure 4. 35. The analysis is presented in the
following steps:
51mm 150 mm 51mm 150 mm

2ɸ6

150 mm 150 mm

2 ɸ 10

a) Bonding by connectors b) Stirrups only

Figure 4. 35: U Jacket for shear stengthening

1) Section Details :
As1 = (2 ɸ 10) = 157 mm2

As1 = (3 ɸ 6) = 84.78 mm2

= 150 – 20 –6 – 5 = 119mm

d2 = 200 – 20 – 6 – 3 = 171 mm

dav = (119+171)/2 = 145 mm

ρ = 0.0111

Fc' = (3*33.46+2*24.2)/5 = 29.76 MPa

2) Flexural Capacity :
)+ )

C= = = 17.1 mm

)+ )
= 57 380 9 ) + 84 78 380 7 )

= 11.94 KN.m = 11940 KN.m

This value of flexural strength will be used to obtain the area of steel plate and the area of
steel of the monolithic beam for comparison.

3) The applied load 2P:

Mn = Mu (without using reduction factor)

81
 Referring to figure 4.17 Mu= 275p = 11940 KN.mm so, p = 43.42 KN and 2P = 86.84 KN.

4) Shear capacity:
∅Vn = ∅(Vc1 + Vc2 + Vs + Vs2)

√ √
(Vc1 + Vc2) = bwd = 250*171 = 39 KN

Vs1 = 0

= = 40.81KN (∅6 @ 9cm)

Vn = 39 + 40.81 = 79.81 KN > 43.49 KN

5) Check of yielding:
= = 0.0144

03 9 0 3 9 0 85 = 0.0214 > 0.0144 tension controlled section.

6) Bond design
The force which should be transferred by the bonding system = the increment of tensile force
of flexural reinforcement of the strengthened beam = As*fy = 157*380 = 59660 N

a. Mechanical bond (shear connectors)

The force which should transferred by the sides = (Vu + ( )* 2Asfy)

= 43530 + ( )* 2*157*380 = 123076.67N

Number of dowels = 123076.67/7739.15 = 15.9, 24 dowels was used at the sides beside
the connection available from bonded stirrups.

Stress at the bottom face = ( ( ) * Asfy) = ( )* 2*157*380 = 39773.33 N

Number of dowels = 39773.33 /7739.15 = 5.1, 12 dowels was used at the bottom side.

4.5.2.3 Concrete Jacketed Section (∩ shape)

The section of the ∩ shape jacketed beam shown in Figure 4.36. The analysis is presented in
the following steps: 250 mm

2ɸ6
200 mm

2 ɸ 10

Figure 4. 36: ∩jacket for shear strengthening

82
1) Section Details :
As2 = (2 ɸ 10) = 157 mm2

= 200 – 20 –6 – 5 = 169mm

ρ = 0.00929

Fc' = (33.46 + 24.2)/2 = 28.83MPa

2) Flexural Capacity :
)

C= = = 11.46

= 157*380(169 – = 9.79 KN.m

3) The applied load 2P:

Mn = Mu (without using reduction factor)

Referring to figure 4.17 Mu= 275p = 9790 KN.mm so, p = 35.60 KN and 2P = 71.2 KN.

4) Shear capacity:
∅Vn = ∅(Vc1 + Vc2 + Vs + Vs2)

√ √
(Vc1 + Vc2 ) = bwd = 250*169 = 38.57 KN

Vs1 = 0

Vn = 37.8 KN > 35.60 KN

5) Check of yielding:
= = 0.0037

03 9 0 3 9 0 85 = 0.0210 > 0.0037 tension controlled section.

6) Bond design (chemical bond)

Compression force at the top = tension force at the bottom

The stress at the sides = (Vu + ( )* 2Asfy)/bonding area

= (35680 + ( )* 2*157*380)/ (2*150*1250) = 0.307MPa < fct ok

83
 Stress at the top face = (( ) * Asfy) = ( )* 2*157*380/ (150*1250) = 0.2Mpa < fct ok

4.5.2.4 Steel Straps

The section of the beam strengthened by straps shown in Figure 4. 37. The analysis is presented
in the following steps.
150 mm

150 mm

Steel straps, width =20mm,

Thick. = 2mm

Figure 4. 37: Section of beam strengthened steel straps

1) Section Details :
As = (2 ɸ 10) = 157 mm2

(of steel straps) 2( 20mm X 2 mm) 80mm2 each 45 mm.

= 150 – 20 –6 – 5 = 119mm

ρ = 0.0088

2) Flexural Capacity :
)

C= = = 17.76 mm

)
= 57 380 9 )

= 6.65 KN.m

3) The applied load 2P:

Mn = Mu (without using reduction factor)

Referring to figure 4.17 Mu= 275p = 6650 KN.mm so, p = 24.18 KN and 2P = 48.36 KN.

4) Shear capacity:
√ √
(Vc) = bw d = 150*119 = 16.29 KN

84
 Vs ( for steel plate) = 79.33-16.29 (Vc of the original section) = 63.04 KN

= 65 58

Vn = 16.29 + 65.58 = 81.87 KN

5) Check of yielding:
= = 0.0088

03 9 0 3 9 0 85 = 0.0214 > 0.0088 tension controlled section.

4.5.2.5 Steel Plated Beam (Side Plates).

These beams assumed be not confirm with the flexural theory.

4.5.2.1 Monolithic Section (Simulation of Jacketed Section)

The monolithic section of the shear strengthened beam shown in Figure 4. 38.

1) Area of steel = (3ɸ 10 = 235.5 mm2), Mn = 13.8KN.m

2) The applied load 2P = 100.4KN

250 mm

2ɸ6
200 mm

3 ɸ 10
.

Figure 4. 38: Shear monolithic section

85
4.5.3 Summary of Theoretical Results

present the summary of the theoretical results of load carrying of the samples. Table 4. 10

Table 4. 10: Summary of theoretical results

19. Sample Fc' Original Fc' Added layer Theoretical load

capacity KN
First series: Flexural strengthening
20. CF1 11.32 ----- 24.30
21. CF2 63.6 ----- 23.72
22. MF 24.2 66.55
23. AF0
24. AF1, AF2 33.46 24.2 67.29
25. BF1, BF2 33.46 24.2 67.29
26. AF3, AF4 24.2 ----- 65.1
27. BF3, BF4 33.46 ----- 68.73
Second series: Shear strengthening
28. CS1 33.46 ------ 48.6
29. CS2 24.2 ------ 47.42
30. MS ------ 24.2 100.4
31. AS1, AS2 33.46 24.2 86.84
32. BS1, BS2 33.46 24.2 21.2
33. ES1 33.46 24.2 86.84
34. BS3 33.46 24.2 86.84
35. AS3, AS4 24.2 ------
36. BS4, BS5 33.46 ------
37. BS6 33.46 ------ 48.36

86
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1. Introduction
In the previous chapter, the detailing, designing and construction procedures of the samples are
presented clearly. After preparing the samples they have been exposed to loading testing using
the loading device of the laboratory of Islamic University of Gaza (IUG). During testing, data
and results were recorded for all the samples. In this chapter the results and their explanation are
presented. The chapter accomplished by comparative presentation of the results.

5.2. First series: Flexural samples

5.2.1 Control Beams:

CF0, (the control beam of the sample AF0) failed in flexure with ultimate load equal 40.05KN.
CF1, CF2 (the control beams of AF1 and AF2) failed in flexure and provided ultimate load of
36.423KN and 36.124KN respectively. Figure 5. 1 and Figure 5. 2 show the sample after testing
and the crack pattern for CF1, CF2 respectively. Figure 5. 3 show the load-deflection curves of
the two samples. Average deflection for the tow samples at SLS equal 5.63 mm while the
maximum deflection equal 24.5mm.

Figure 5. 1:Failure mode and crack pattern of CF1

Figure 5. 2: Failure mode and Crack pattern of CF2

87
 40

35

30

25

Load KN 20
CF1
15 CF2

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 3: Load-deflection relationship of CF1

5.2.2. Addition of Mechanically Connected RC Jacket to the Tension Side (AF0,

AF1, and AF2).

Figure 5. 4, Figure 5. 5 and Figure 5. 6 show the samples AF0, AF1 and AF2 after testing and
their crack pattern respectively.

The sample AF0 (see Figure 5. 4, and its related control beam shown in same figure) failed
in pure flexure without any separation between the old and the new sections until the ultimate
load. The value of ultimate load is 105.18KN, which equal 290% of the ultimate load of the
control beams. This result ensure that using procedures of anchorage and curing with good level
of quality can grantee the composite action of the beam strengthened by concrete layer at the
tension face. The load-deflection curve show that the beam failed in a ductile way.

The sample AF1 (Figure 5. 5) loaded to the load of 32.2 (48.3% of the theoretical value)
and unloaded accidentally (electricity). In the second loading, the sample failed at load 69KN
which equal 270% of the ultimate load of the control beams and equal 102.6% of the theoretical
value. The first crack was flexural and crossed the whole section without separation. The first
sign of separation was at the load of 62.1KN.

In the case of sample AF2 (Figure 5. 6) the first crack was flexural and crossed the whole
section without separation. The first sign of separation was at the load 69KN. The value of

88
ultimate load is 78.361KN, which equal 216% of the ultimate load of the control beams. In AF1
and AF2, the separation occur after at least two monolithic flexural cracks crossed the system,
this mean that the dominant mode is flexural failure. The separation in this type of systems not
so critical such that the anchorage is deep not like in the case of using chemical adhesive. The
superiority of AF0 over the samples AF1 and AF2 may be for one or more of the following
reasons:

1. The samples AF1 and AF2 exposed to accidental unloading after significant loads.
2. The difference in the adhesive nature. The adhesive used for the first sample AF0
contain sand as a filler that may provide more friction and better interaction with the
concrete surface.
3. The number of holes in the last two samples more than the first, which mean less
distances between center-center.
4. The first sample exposed to perfect curing rather than the last two samples, this may has
an effect.
5. The additional concrete casted in the sample AF0 more workable than used in the
samples AF1 and AF2. The workability of the additional concrete is very important
especially in the case of congestion resulted from the new steel cage and shear
connectors.
The experimental value of the ultimate load of the perfect sample (AF0) is larger than the
theoretical by 157.3% and the worst case (AF2) the experimental is larger than the theoretical
by 116.2% this give indication that using the traditional procurers to predict the theoretical
value of the ultimate load for beam strengthened by this method is very conservative.

The deflection for AF0, AF1 and AF2 at the SLS equal 8mm, 3.2mm and 3.7mm
respectively while at ULS equal 30.8mm, 19.48mm and 11mm respectively. Figure 5. 7 show
the load-deflection relationship of the sample AF0 compared with the control beam. Figure 5. 8
show comparison between load-deflection curves of the samples AF1 and AF2 and the control
beam. The figures show enhancement in the deflection in SLS. The extra ductility of AF0 over
the other two samples may refer to that the concrete used in this sample has lower strength and
lower w/c ratio. Detailed analysis of deflection will be presented in sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.

89
CF0

AF0

Figure 5. 4: Failure mode and crack pattern of AF0 and CF0

Figure 5. 5: Failure mode and crack pattern of AF1

Figure 5. 6: Failure mode Crack pattern of AF2

91
 120

100

80
Load KN

60
CF0

40 AF0

20

0
0 10 20 30 40
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 7: Load-deflection relationship of AF0 compaired with control beam CF0

100

90

80

70

60
Load KN

AF2
50
CF2
40 AF1
MF
30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 8: Load-deflection relationship of AF1 and AF2 compaired with control beam
CF2 and monolithicly casted beam MF

91
5.2.3. Addition of Chemically Bonded RC Jacket to the Tension Side (BF1, BF2)

Figure 5. 9 and Figure 5. 10 show the samples BF1 and BF2 after testing and their crack pattern
respectively.

In the sample BF1 (Figure 5. 9) the first crack was flexural and crossed the whole section
without separation and was at load 50.6 KN. The first sign of separation was at the load
62.1KN. The value of ultimate load is 91.195KN, which equal 251.4% of the ultimate load of
the control beams.
In the case of sample BF2, the first crack was flexure (at 46KN). The flexural cracks were
growing up until they reached and stopped at the interface, which start separate at load 73.6KN.
This sample exposed to post-loading after ultimate load to in order to show the behaviors of the
beam in this stage of loading. The old and the new section have fully separated and each of
them act independently. However, both sections still tied with each other by the pressure of the
supports, this continued until crunching the bearing area at the supports as shown in figure 5.9.
The value of ultimate load is 85.58KN, which equal 236% of the ultimate load of the control
beams.
In the samples AF1,AF2,BF1 and BF2 the system still work and each part share in carrying
the total load even after two parts are completely separated due to lateral support (such that the
strengthening layer continue beyond the supports, and in the case of AF1 and AF2 the shear
connectors are deep), in this case bearing area at the supports is the critical. There is enough
anchorage beyond the supports prevent the complete separation of the bottom layer and provide
some adhesion. This explain the failure of the anchorage above the left support of the two
samples BF1 (Figure 5. 9) and BF2 (Figure 5. 10) and above the right support of the samples
AF1(Figure 5. 5) and AF2 (Figure 5. 6). The deflection for BF1 and BF2 at the SLS equal
3.65mm and 4.43mm respectively while at ULS equal 18mm and 11.7mm respectively.

Figure 5. 11 show the Load-deflection relationship of BF1 and BF2 compared with MF and
control beam. Figures show enhancement stiffness in SLS. The load-deflection curve of BF1
show that the system act similar to the monolithic sample and show good level of ductility even
after separation. In the case of BF1, the bonding of the chemical adhesive still efficient until
satisfied stage and enough signs of failure before reaching the ultimate state. Detailed analysis
of deflection will be presented in sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.

92
 Figure 5. 9: Failure mode Crack pattern of BF1

Figure 5. 10: Failure mode (post ultimate) and crack patern of BF2

100

90

80

70

60
Load KN

BF1
50
BF2
40
CF2
30 MF
20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 11: Load-deflection relationship of BF2 and BF2 compared with control beam
CF2 and monolithicly casted beam MF
93
5.2.4. Addition of Mechanically Connected Steel Plate to the Tension Side (AF3,
AF4)

Figure 5. 12 and Figure 5. 13 show the samples AF3 and AF4 after testing and their crack
pattern. The sample AF3 failed in pure flexure without failure in shear connectors until the
ultimate load. The value of ultimate load is 51.60KN, which equal 142% of the ultimate load of
the control beams. The situation in sample AF4 is similar to AF3 and the ultimate load was
51.5KN.

However, the average of experimental value of the ultimate load of the two samples is
equal 79.3% of the theoretical value. This reduction in the system capacity can be explained that
the interaction between the two surfaces not in the whole area of the plate, which cannot delay
the widening of the flexural cracks like in the case of chemical adhesive. This reason ensure that
the composite action have not achieved so the load capacity of the beam strengthened by
mechanically attached steel plates to the tension face of the beam cannot be calculated using the
flexural theory. The relative movement between the concrete section and the steel plate is not
possible because the bonding designed for full shear connection. The deflection for AF3 and
AF4 at the SLS equal 3.95mm and 4.05mm respectively while at ULS equal 21mm and 24mm
respectively. Figure 5. 14 show load-deflection relationship of AF3 and AF4 compared with MF
and the control beam. The figure show some enhancement in stiffness at SLS over the control
beam but less than the stiffness of the monolithic sample. Detailed analysis of deflection will be
presented in sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.

Figure 5. 12: Failure mode and Crack pattern of AF3

94
 Figure 5. 13: Failure mode and Crack pattern of AF4

100

90

80

70

60
Load KN

AF3
50
AF4
40
CF2
30 MF
20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Deflection mm

Figure 5. 14: Load-deflection relationship of

AF4 and AF3 compared with MF and CF2

5.2.5. Addition of Chemically Bonded Steel Plate to the Tension Side (BF3, BF4)

The two samples BF3 (Figure 5. 15 and Figure 5. 16) and BF4 (Figure 5. 18) was failed by the
peeling of the steel plate at the end with rupture of the concrete cover because the generated
shear stresses are larger than the tensile strength of concrete. The rapture of concrete proving
that the problem not in the bond. In BF3, the ultimate load is 72.146KN, which equal 199% of
the ultimate load of the control beams and exceed the theoretical value by 5%.
The superiority of BF3 over AF3 and AF4 (mechanical bonding) in term of strength can be
explained that adhesive bonding allowed the composite behavior from the section and
transferred the force to the plate until the sudden separation occurred. The uniform attachment

95
maximizes surface crack control under the plate. However, the anchorage capacity is limited by
the tensile capacity of the concrete below the adhesive. Stress concentrations at the ends of the
plate (end of the shear span) initiated plate peeling. However, AF3 and AF4 better than BF3 in
the failure mode.
The sample BF4 unloaded accidentally at the load 54.28KN (81.6% of the theoretical).
Then the sample reloaded until it uploaded also accidentally at 17.12KN. After times of loading
and unloading no cracks or signs of failure were appeared. The sample then reloaded until
failure at 51KN. The reduction in the capacity in this sample can explained that the state of the
sample after each loading and unloading differ from the original state of the sample especially
that the first loading reach to 81.6% of the expected capacity. The repetition of loading and
unloading often weakened the adhesive layer.
The load-deflection curves of the two samples BF3 and BF4 (Figure 5. 17 and Figure 5. 19
respectively) show that they still stiff until the ultimate state. This mode is not desired so that no
signs developed before the sudden failure. The deflection for BF3 at the SLS equal 3.92mm
while at ULS equal 6.7mm. Figure 5. 17 show load-deflection relationship of BF3 compared
with MF and control beam. Figure 5. 19 show load-deflection relationship of BF4 for the last
loading. The figures show enhancement in stiffness in SLS. Detailed analysis of deflection will
be presented in sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.

Figure 5. 15: Failure mode of BF3

Figure 5. 16: Crack Pattern of BF3

96
 100

90

80

70
Load KN 60

50 BF3

40 CF2

30 MF

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 17: Load-deflection relationship of BF3 compared with MF and CF2

Figure 5. 18: Failure mode of BF4

60

50

40
Load KN

30
BF4
20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 19: Load-deflection relationship of BF4

97
5.3. Second Series: Shear Samples.

5.3.1. Control Beams:

The control beams CS1 (without internal stirrup) failed in shear with some flexural cracks and
with ultimate load of 53.88KN and. Figure 5. 20 show the sample after testing and the crack
pattern for CS1. The deflection for CS1at the SLS equal 4.5mm while at ULS equal 20mm.

Figure 5. 20: Failure mode and Crack pattern of CS1

In the case of CS2 (original section with internal stirrups similar to the details of the original
sample of the first series) (Figure 5. 21) the ultimate load is 74.253KN. Figure 5.22 show the
Load-deflection curves of the two control beams. The deflection for CS2 at the SLS equal
5.8mm while at ULS equal 17.5mm.

Figure 5. 21: Failure mode and Crack pattern of CS2

98
 80

70

60

50
Load KN
40
CS1
30 CS2

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 22: Load-deflection relationship of CS1 and CS2

5.3.2. Addition of U Shape RC Jacket with Additional Mechanical Connection

(AS1, AS2)

The sample AS1 (Figure 5. 23) failed in flexure with ultimate Load equal 98.62 KN which
equal 183% of the ultimate of the control beam (CS1: without stirrups) and equal 113.6% of the
theoretical value. The sample AS2 (Figure 5. 24) failed in flexure with ultimate Load equal
101.19 KN which equal 188% of the ultimate of the control beam (CS1) and equal 116.6% of
the theoretical value .
In the two samples the shear failure was prevented and both of them failed in flexure
without separation between the old and the new layers until the ultimate state. In other words,
the composite action work until failure, which lead to the next point: The comparison with the
theoretical calculations indicate that using the flexural theory to predict the capacity of the
beams strengthened by this method is conservative.
Load-deflection curves of the samples is compared with the control beams (Figure 5. 25)
and show the enhancement in flexural stiffness. The deflection for AS1 and AS2 at the SLS
equal 6.9mm and 6.6mm respectively while at ULS equal 21mm and 18mm respectively.
Detailed analysis of deflection will be presented in sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.

99
 Figure 5. 23: Failure mode and Crack pattern of AS1

Figure 5. 24: Failure mode and Crack pattern of AS2

120

100

80
Load KN

AS1
60
AS2
CS1
40
CS2
20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 25: Load-deflection relationship of AS1 and AS2 compared with the
control beams

111
5.3.3. Addition of Chemically Bonded Shape Plain Concrete Jacket (BS1, BS2)

The sample BS1 (Figure 5. 26) loaded and then unloaded accidentally at load 68.5KN (96.3%
of the theoretical capacity) without any appearance of failure signs. Then it was reloaded and
failed at load equal 40.22KN. In this sample, the failure was in shear with some flexural cracks.
The second sample BS2 (Figure 5. 28) also unloaded accidentally at load 64.4KN(90% of the
theoretical capacity) then it reloaded and failed at 73.69KN (103.5% of the theoretical
capacity). In this sample, the shear failure was prevented and the failure was in flexure. The
difference in behavior can be explained that in the case of first sample (BS1) the adhesive layer
affected largely by the loading and unloading so in the second loading the shear crack (diagonal
tension) began in the original section then transferred to the new layer through the remaining
bonding. While in the second sample the adhesive layer abided until failure (but not like the
case if no preloading occur) which helped in maintaining of the composite action and
subsequently the work of strengthening layer.
Figure 5. 27 show the deflection behavior in the two stages of BS1, in the first stage the
beam was stiff until the end of loading while it behaved in a ductile manner when failed in
second stage. Figure 5. 29 show the flexural stiffness of BS2 compared with the control beam.
Despite the occurrence of loading and unloading the samples display satisfied results. The
deflection for BS2 at the SLS equal 3.6mm while at ULS equal 18.1mm. Detailed analysis of
deflection will be presented in sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.

Figure 5. 26: Failure mode and Crack pattern of BS1

111
 80

70

60

50

Load KN 40
BS1, stage1
30 BS1, stage2

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 27: Load-deflection relationship of BS1

Figure 5. 28: Failure mode and Crack pattern of BS2

112
 80

70

60

50
Load KN

40
BS2
30
CS1
20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 29: Load-deflection relationship of BS2 compared with the conrol

beam

5.3.4 Addition of U Shape Reinforced Concrete Jacket to Roughened surface and

Partially Painted by Adhesive(ES1)

The shear failure was prevented in sample ES1 and the failure was in flexure (Figure 5. 30). The
sample provided ultimate load equal 82.83 KN (95.4% of the theoretical capacity). This value
larger than the control sample CS1 (without internal stirrups) by 35% and larger than the control
sample CS2 (with internal stirrups) by 12%.

The load-deflection curves (Figure 5. 31) show that the flexural stiffness for this sample
(ES1) similar to the control sample CS1 (without internal stirrups) and CS2 (with internal
stirrup) with little enhancement in stiffness at SLS and the ductility at the ULS. The deflection
for ES1 at the SLS equal 5.15mm while at ULS equal 23mm. Detailed analysis of deflection
will be presented in sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.

Figure 5. 30: Failure mode and Crack pattern of ES1

113
 90

80

70

60
Load KN

50
ES1
40
CS2
30 CS1

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 31: Load-deflection relationship of ES1 compared with the

control beams

5.3.5 Addition of U Shape RC Jacket without additional connection (only "friction

+ new stirrups") (BS3)

In the sample BS3 (Figure 5. 32) the shear failure was prevented and the sample failed in
flexure with ultimate load equal 103.8KN (119.6% of the theoretical capacity). Although it
seems not logic that this sample (without additional connection) provide load capacity more
than the samples (AS1, AS2, and ES1) in which additional connection was used, but there is
persuasive explanation as following:

1. The connection provided by additional stirrups only (which connected into the old
section) is enough and the excessive drilling of holes in the sample (in the case of AS1
and AS2) for connecting additional stirrups and shear connection at the sides and the
bottom somehow weaken the original sample.
2. The surface preparation in the case of ES1 wasnot enough and made inverse action
through loosening the surface. Deeper and more quality controlled surface preparation
may was needed.

114
 3. In addition, the reason may be problem in construction of sample. This reason is weak
due to the satisfied level of quality control.

Figure 5. 33 show the comparison between load-deflection curves for BS3, CS1 and CS2.
Through this comparison it is clear the enhancement in term of stiffness and strength in BS3.
The deflection for BS3 at the SLS equal 6.12mm while at ULS equal 28mm. Detailed analysis
of deflection will be presented in sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.

Figure 5. 32: Failure mode and Crack pattern of BS3

120

100

80
Load KN

60 BS3
CS1
40 CS2

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 33: Load-deflection relationship of BS3 compared with the control beams

5.3.6. Addition of Steel Plate Mechanically Connected to the Sides of the Original
Beam(AS3, AS4)

The samples AS3 (ultimate load =64.36KN) and AS4 (ultimate load = 70.05KN) after testing
are shown in Figure 5. 34 and Figure 5. 35 respectively. In both the samples, the shear failure

115
was delayed but was not prevented. This can be referred to the mechanical incompatibility
between the section of concrete and section of steel plates. This incompatibility often referred to
unsuitable dimensions and configuration of the steel plates. In addition, the ununiformed
attachment of the plates let the plates to be buckled so the plate stopped to yield normally.
Despite the reduction in capacity (less than the control sample CS2 (with internal stirrups) by
10%), but the existence of steel plate:

1. Enhanced the ultimate load of the original beam (CS1: without stirrups) by 25%
(average of the two samples).
2. Gained the beam more ductility at the ULS.

As shown in the load-deflection curves (Figure 5. 36) there are two stages (stiffness then
ductility without transition stage). This refer to that the beam failed suddenly at end of the
stiffness stage (at load 58KN) and the ductility stage started by yielding of the bulked portions
of the steel plate. The deflection for AS3 and AS4 at the SLS equal 4.9mm and 3.8mm
respectively while at ULS equal 24mm and 21mm respectively. Figure 5. 37 show the
comparison between load-deflection curves of AS3 and the control beams CS1 and CS2.
Detailed analysis of deflection will be presented in sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3

Figure 5. 34: Failure mode of AS3

Figure 5. 35: Failure mode of AS4

116
 80

70

60

50
Load

40
AS3
30 AS4

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection

Figure 5. 36: Load-deflection relationship of AS4 and AS4

80

70

60

50
Load KN

40 AS4
CS2
30
CS2
20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 37: Load-deflection relationship of AS4 compared with CS1 and CS2

117
5.3.7. Addition of Chemically Bonded Steel Plate to the beam Sides (BS4,BS5)

The samples BS4 (ultimate load =107KN) and BS5 (ultimate load = 91.15KN) after testing are
shown in Figure 5. 38 and Figure 5. 39 respectively. As in the previous two samples (AS3 and
AS4), the shear failure in samples BS4 and BS5 was also delayed but was not prevented with
larger increment of capacity enhancement. This can be referred also to the mechanical
incompatibility between the concrete section and steel plates section. This incompatibility often
referred to unsuitable dimensions and configuration of the steel plate. However, the uniformed
attachment of the plates maximize the crack control and provide more prorogation of shear
failure than the samples AS3 and AS4 (mechanical attached steel plates). The enhancement is in
the ultimate load such that the average of the capacity of the two samples (BS4 and BS5) larger
than the control sample CS1 (without internal stirrups) by 84% and larger than the control
sample CS2 (with internal stirrups) by 33.4%.

Although the larger load capacity of the samples BS4 and BS5, but the flexural stiffness
is more worse than both the control beams and the samples AS3 and AS4 (mechanical attached
steel plates) as shown in the load-deflection curves (Figure 5. 40) such that the beams BS4 and
BS5 still stiff until the ULS and the failure was sudden. The deflection for BS4 and BS5 at the
SLS equal 6.4mm and 8mm respectively while at ULS equal 13mm and 14.5mm respectively.
Figure 5. 37 show the comparison between load-deflection curves of BS4, BS5 and the control
beams CS1 and CS2. Detailed analysis of deflection will be presented in sections 5.4.2 and
5.4.3.

Figure 5. 38: Failure mode of BS4

Figure 5. 39: Failure mode of BS5

118
 120

100

80
Load KN

BS4
60
CS1
CS2
BS5
40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 40: Load-deflection relationship of BS4 and BS5

compared with control beams

5.3.8. Addition of External Straps from Steel Plate Chemically Bonded to the out-
surface of the Original Section(BS6)

The shear failure was prevented in sample BS6 and the failure was by flexure (Figure 5. 41)
with partial separation in some straps (only 4straps), this separation occur at the ultimate state.
The sample provide ultimate load equal 77.23 KN. This value larger than the control sample
CS1 (without internal stirrups) by 31% and larger than the control sample CS2 (with internal
stirrups) by 10%. The enhancement in the original sample (CS1: without stirrups) was by
recovering the flexural capacity with little enhancement in the ductility at the ULS. These
results ensure the successful of this method in preventing shear failure but with no significant
enhancement in strength.

The load-deflection curves (Figure 5. 42) show that this sample (BS6) stiff at SLS and
ductile at the ULT, this behavior very near to the control sample CS2 (with internal stirrup).The
deflection for BS6 at the SLS equal 6.7mm while at ULS equal 31.28mm. Figure 5. 42 show the

119
comparison between load-deflection curves BS6 and the control beams CS1 and CS2. Detailed
analysis of deflection will be presented in sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.

Figure 5. 41: Failure mode and Crack pattern of BS6

90

80

70

60

50
Load KN

BS6
40 CS2

30 CS1

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 42: Load-deflection relationship of BS6 compared with the

control beams

111
5.4. Comparison between the strengthening Techniques:
In this section a comprehensive comparison will be made between the adopted strengthening
techniques according the theoretical and experimental data obtained in this research. The
preference in the strengthening techniques can be specified by many criteria and can be cleared
by comparison between them in similar circumstances. Here a comparison is presented through
some criteria, which are:
1. Load capacity.
2. Stiffness at the SLS.
3. Failure mode and stiffness at the ULS.
4. Time and skills need.

5.4.1. Load Capacity

The main purpose of strengthening in the first series is increasing the load capacity of the beam.
In the second series the main purpose was preventing shear failure. The strengthened samples
designed initially to carry the same load considering that the composite action will maintained
until the ultimate state. The difference in load carrying capacities referred to some reasons,
which prevent the composite action to be maintained until the ULS. Some considerations can be
taken in account to overtake these faults. Figure 5. 43 and Figure 5. 44 show the compression
between the samples in the base of load capacity for the first and the second series respectively.

300%

250%

200%
AF1; 268.40%
BF2; 254.50%

MF; 254.50%
BF1; 250.40%

150%
AF2; 215.16%
BF4; 197.50%

BF3; 199%

AF4; 142.50%

100%
AF3; 143%

CF2; 99.20%

CF1; 100%

50%

0%

Figure 5. 43: Percentage of enhancment over the control beam for first series

111
 250%

200%

150%

BS4; 199.44%

BS3; 192.65%

AS2; 187.80%
AS1; 183.04%
BS5; 169.17%

ES1; 153.73%

MS; 147.23%
BS6; 143.34%
CS2; 137.80%

BS2; 136.44%
100%

BS1; 124.35%
AS4; 119.49%
AS3; 119.45%

CS1; 100%
50%

0%

Figure 5. 44: Percentage of enhancment over the control beam for second series

5.4.2. Stiffness and Deflection at SLS

The value of stiffness considered to be the slope of the line between (0, 0) and the coordination
of the value of 60% of the ultimate load. Figure 5. 45 and Figure 5. 46 show the comparison
between the samples on the base of stiffness at the SLS for the first and the second series at the
SLS respectively. Table 5. 1 and Table 5. 2show the deflection, stiffness and increasing of
stiffness over the control beam at SLS of the first and the second series respectively. Figure 5.
47 and Figure 5. 48 show the comparative load-deflection curves for the first and the second
series respectively. Larger values of stiffness means larger stiffness. In general and as shown in
the figures and the tables, the following pointes can be noted:

1. The concrete jacketed beams have more potential to be stiffer at the SLS than the steel
plated beams due to the larger stiffness of the added layer.
2. In general the samples in which chemical adhesion have more potential to be stiffer at
the SLS due to the crack control occurred by the layers of the adhesive.

112
Table 5. 1: Deflection and stiffness at SLS of the first series

Sample Service Load Deflection at SLS Stiffness at SLS Stiffness increasing

over control beam
(%)
CF1 21.852 3.75 5.83 ---

CF2 21.684 4 5.43 ---

CF3 24.03 5.8 4.15 ---

MF 55.632 4.6 12.1 108

AF0 63.108 8 7.89 90
AF1 41.4 3.2 12.94 122
AF2 47.016 3.7 12.71 118
BF1 54.72 3.65 15 157
BF2 51.348 4.43 11.6 99
AF3 30.96 3.95 7.84 44
AF4 30.912 4.05 7.64 40
BF3 43.29 3.92 11.05 90

Table 5. 2: Deflection and stiffness at SLS of the second series

Sample Service Load Deflection at SLS Stiffness at SLS Stiffness increasing

over control beam
(%)
CS1 32.328 4.5 7.19 ----
AS1 59.172 6.9 8.58 20
AS2 60.714 6.6 9.2 28
BS2 44.214 3.6 12.29 71
ES1 49.698 5.15 9.66 35
BS3 62.28 6.12 10.18 42
AS3 38.616 4.9 7.89 10
AS4 42.03 3.8 11.07 54
BS4 64.476 6.4 10.08 41
BS5 54.69 8 6.84 -4
CS2 44.55 5.8 7.69 7
BS6 46.338 6.7 6.92 -3

113
 BF1,2 14
AF1,2
MF
BF3 12

10

AF3,4 AF0
8

CF1,2 6

Figure 5. 45: Comparative stiffness for the first series at the SLS
12

AS3,4 BS3 BS1,2

ES1 10
AS1
BS4,5
CS2 8
BS6 CS1

Figure 5. 46: comparative stiffness for the second series at the SLS

114
 120

100

80

BF3
Load KN

AF3
60
AF1
BF1
MF
40
AF0

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 47: Comparative load-deflection curves for the first series

115
 120

100

80 CS1
CS2
AS1
Load KN

60 BS2
AS3
BS4

40 BS3
BS6
ES1

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deflection mm

Figure 5. 48: .: Comparative load-deflection curves for the second series

116
5.4.3. Stiffness and Failure Mode at ULS

The ductile failure is basic demand in beam design, this give caution and enough signs of failure
before the critical state is reached. Table 5. 3 and Table 5. 4 show the values of deflection and
stiffness at ULS and the manner by which the samples failed for the first and the second series
respectively. The stiffness calculated as the slope of the line between the 60% of load and the
ultimate load. Larger values of stiffness means less ductility. Referring to the control beams in
the two series there is no enhancement in ductility but the stiffness values are low and
satisfaction regarding to the values of the ultimate loads except the samples in which only
chemical adhesives used. These samples failed in sudden and brittle manner. As shown in the
tables the samples of chemical adhesion connection have the larger potential for brittle and
sudden failure. This can be handled by using the mechanical connectors beside the chemical
adhesion.

Table 5. 3: Deflection, stiffness and failure mode at ULS of the first series

NO. Sample Deflection at Stiffness at Failure mode

ULS (mm) ULS
1. CF1 25 0.69 Ductile, Flexural failure
2. CF2 24 0.73 Ductile, Flexural failure
3. MF 15.7 1.62 Ductile, Flexural failure
4. AF0 18 2.77 Ductile, Flexural failure
5. AF1 30.8 1.85 Ductile ,Monolithic
flexural failure then
partial separation
6. AF2 19.48 1.7 Ductile ,Monolithic
flexural failure then
partial separation
7. BF1 11 4.3 Ductile, Monolithic
flexural failure then
partial separation
8. BF2 18 2.55 Brittle, Complete
separation
9. AF3 11.7 4.71 Ductile, Flexural failure
10. AF4 21 1.22 Ductile, Flexural failure
11. BF3 24 1.04 Brittle and sudden, Plate
end peeling with concrete
cover delamination
12. BF4 6.7 10.39 Brittle and sudden, Plate
end peeling with concrete
cover delamination

117
Table 5. 4: Table: Deflection, stiffness and failure mode at ULS of the second series

NO. Sample Deflection Stiffness at Shear failure Failure mode

at ULS ULS
1. CS1 20 1.4 Occurred Ductile, Shear
failure
2. MS ------ ------ Not occurred Ductile, Flexural
failure
3. AS1 21 2.8 Prevented Ductile, Flexural
failure
4. AS2 18 3.56 Prevented Ductile, Flexural
failure
5. BS1 ------ ------- Not prevented but Ductile, Shear
delayed failure
6. BS2 18.1 2.04 Prevented Ductile, Flexural
failure
7. ES1 23 1.86 Prevented Ductile, Flexural
failure
8. BS3 28 1.9 Prevented Ductile, Flexural
failure
9. AS3 24 1.35 Not prevented but Brittle-Ductile,
delayed Shear failure
10. AS4 21 1.63 Not prevented but Brittle-Ductile,
delayed Shear failure
11. BS4 13 6.52 Not prevented but Brittle, Shear
delayed failure
12. BS5 14.5 5.61 Not prevented but Brittle, Shear
delayed failure
13. CS2 17.5 2.54 Not occurred Ductile, Flexural
failure
14. BS6 31.28 1.26 Prevented Ductile, Flexural
failure

118
5.4.4 Skills and Time of Construction.

Table 5. 5 and Table 5. 6 present comparison between the samples in term of the construction
time and the degree of skills for the first and the second series respectively.

Table 5. 5: Construction time and the degree of skills for the first series

NO. Sample Time and skills

1. CF1, Normal time and skills
CF2
2. MF normal time and skills
3. AF0, Higher demand of time and skills
AF1,
AF2
4. BF1, Immediate demand of time and skills
BF2
5. AF3, Higher demand of time and skills
AF4
6. BF3, Immediate demand of time and skills
BF4

Table 5. 6: Construction time and the degree of skills for the second series

NO. Sample Time and skills

1. CS1 Normal time and skills
2. MS Normal time and skills
3. AS1, AS2 Higher demand of time and skills
4. BS1, BS2 Immediate demand of time and skills
5. ES1 Higher demand of time and skills
6. BS3 Higher demand of time and skills
7. AS3, AS4 Higher demand of time and skills
8. BS4, BS5 Immediate demand of time and skills
9. CS2 Normal time and skills
10. BS6 Immediate demand of time and skills

119
5.4.5 Concrete Jacketing Versus Steel Plating

In general and as shown in the previously presented figures and tables that the beams
strengthened by additional reinforced concrete layers have more potential to be stiffer at the
SLS and more ductile at the ULS than beams strengthened by steel plates. In addition, these
beams have more ability to be stable until providing its full capacity. This can be explained by:
1. The concrete layers provide larger volume than steel plate so more stiffness can be
gained.
2. The added reinforced concrete similar to the original material so mechanical
compatibility is ensured.
3. In the samples of concrete jacketed beams there are lateral anchorage such that the
strengthening layer continue beyond the supports and subsequently no end peeling
occur.
4. Casting concrete to the old concrete premise complete touch between the old and the
new section. Complete touch helps in maintaining the composite action. In the case of
steel plating the complete touch achieved only by chemical adhesive.

While, in the case of beams strengthened by steel plates, in general, steel plating of concrete
beams, either by shear connectors or chemical adhesive, could not give results as good as
concrete jacketed beams in term of strength or flexural stiffness. However, beams strengthened
by steel plating have high potential to success if some considerations taken into account to
prevent:
1. End peeling of the steel plate in the case of chemically attached steel plates.
2. Relative movement between the concrete surface and steel plate.
3. Buckling of steel plate in the case of shear strengthening by steel plate attached
mechanically at the sides of beam.

5.4.6 Mechanical Versus Chemical Bonding

1. In the case of bonding concrete to concrete by chemical adhesives, there are high risk
for brittle failure as in sample BF2. The risk will be higher if there is no lateral
connection. While in the case of mechanical bonding the risk is very low even after
separation due to the action of deep anchorage which provided by shear connectors.
2. In the case of success of chemical adhesive, the results will be better than using shear
connections, this is due to the weakening occurred in the original beam after drilling
holes, which reduce the stiffness of the original beam and made internal cracks.
Subsequently, this accelerate the failure when it begin. In addition, the adhesive layer
help in controlling both the flexural and shear cracks.
3. The configuration of strengthening system play important role in success of bonding, the
beams strengthened by concrete jacketed in three faces provide extra bonding area over
the one-face jacketing.
4. In the case of bonding steel plate to concrete using chemical adhesive, flexural stiffness
was high noticeably due to the important role of adhesive layer in delaying the
propagation of either flexural or shear cracks. However, the failure of these beams was
sudden and brittle. While in the case of mechanical bonding, the state is differing. When
using mechanical bonding of the side plates, the portions between shear connectors was
buckled. Although the steel plated beams using mechanical bonding provided lesser
strength, the failure was ductile in these beams.

121
5.5 Summary of Results:
Summary of the results is presented in Table 5. 7

Table 5. 7: Summary of the results

No Sample Strengthening Connection Ultimate Load Ratio Of Failure modes
Type Type (KN) Test
Ultimate
Load
Theo. Exper. Exp./The. %
First series: Flexural strengthening
1. CF1 No Strengthening ----- 24.30 36.42 149.9% 100% Flexural(ductile)
2. CF2 No Strengthening ----- 23.72 36.14 152.4% 99.3% Flexural(ductile)
3. CF0 No Strengthening -----
4. MF ----- Monolithic 66.55 92.72 139.4% 254.6% Flexural(ductile)
section
5. AF0 Concrete Jacket/Tension Dowels 105.81 157.3% 290.6 Flexural(ductile)
face
6. AF1 Concrete Jacket/Tension Dowels 67.29 69* 102.6% 189.5% Monolithic flexural then partial
face separation
7. AF2 Concrete Jacket/Tension Dowels 67.29 78.36 116.5% 215.2% Monolithic flexural then partial
face separation
8. BF1 Concrete Jacket/Tension Adhesive 67.29 91.2 135.6% 250.5% Monolithic flexural then partial
face separation
9. BF2 Concrete Jacket/Tension Adhesive 67.29 85.58 127.2% 235% Full separation of the underlay (in
face the post-ultimate loading).
10. AF3 Steel Plate/Tension face Dowels 65.1 51.6 79.3% 141.7% Flexural(ductile)

121
Continue Table 5.7
No Sample Strengthening Connection Ultimate Load Ratio Of Failure modes
Type Type (KN) Test
Ultimate
Load
Theo. Exper. Exp./The. %
11. AF4 Steel Plate/Tension face Dowels 65.1 51.52 79.3% 142.5% Flexural(ductile)
12. BF3 Steel Plate/Tension face Adhesive 68.73 72.15 105% 198.2% Plate end peeling with concrete
cover delamination (brittle and
sudden)
13. BF4 Steel Plate/Tension face Adhesive 68.73 54.28* 79% 149.1% Plate end peeling with concrete
cover delamination(brittle and
sudden)
Second series: Shear strengthening
14. CS1 No Strengthening ------ 48.60 53.88 110.9% 100 Shear failure
(without stirrups)
15. AS1 Bottom U layer (with Dowels 86.84 98.62 113.6% 183.1 Flexural failure
additional stirrups)
16. AS2 Bottom U layer (with Dowels 86.84 101.19 116.6% 187.9 Flexural failure
additional stirrups)
17. BS1 Top ∩ layer (without Adhesive 71.2 68.5* 96.3% 127.2 Shear failure
additional stirrups)
18. BS2 Top ∩ layer (without Adhesive 71.2 73.69* 103.5% 136.8 Flexural failure
additional stirrups)
19. ES1 Bottom U layer with Partial adhesive 86.84 82.83 95.4% 153.8 Flexural failure
additional stirrups and friction
20. BS3 Bottom U layer with No connection 86.84 103.8 119.6% 192.7 Flexural failure
additional stirrups
21. AS3 Steel plate at the two Dowels ------ 64.36 ------ 119.5 Shear failure with steel plate
sides of the beam buckling

122
Continue Table 5.7
No Sample Strengthening Connection Ultimate Load Ratio Of Failure modes
Type Type (KN) Test
Ultimate
Load
Theo. Exper. Exp./The. %
22. AS4 Steel plate at the two Dowels ------ 70.05 ------ 130.1 Shear failure with steel plate
sides of the beam buckling
23. BS4 Steel plate at the two Adhesive ------ 107.46 ------ 199.5 Shear failure with sudden separation
sides of the beam of the steel plate
24. BS5 Steel plate at the two Adhesive ----- 91.15 ------ 169.2 Shear failure with sudden separation
sides of the beam of the steel plate
25. CS2 No Strengthening (with ------ 48.36 74.25 153.6% 137.9 Flexural failure
stirrups @5cm)
26. BS6 External steel plate Adhesive 48.24 77.23 160.1% 143.4 Flexural failure
straps partially

123
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. Introduction
A comparative study about concrete jacketing and steel plating of RC beams was
presented in this research. The test program of the current study have been detailed in
the third chapter of this thesis. After testing the samples, the result have been
analyzed and discussed in the fourth chapter of this thesis. This chapter contains the
answers of the research questions, which mentioned in the first chapter. Additional
conclusions and recommendations will be presented in this chapter. These
conclusions based on the adopted range of the configurations in this study for
concrete jacketing and steel plating of RC.

6.2 Conclusions
The results presented in this research lead to the following conclusions:
1. In general, if it is needed to differentiate between concrete jacketing and steel
plating it could not be said that one is better than the other infinitely. Each
technique has a kind of superiority over the other according to some criteria.
The same thing can be said for the differentiation between mechanical and
chemical bonding.
2. Using procedures of anchoring, casting and curing with good level of quality
can grantee the composite action of beams strengthened by any configuration
(which adopted in this research) of concrete jacketing, while additional
procedures needed over the adopted configuration in the case of using steel
plates.
3. In the range of the adopted configurations in this research, strengthening
beams in flexure by concrete jacketing is better in term of strength and
stiffness than using steel plate. Other configurations may let steel plating
better than concrete jacketing like anchoring the end of adhesively bonded
plates.
4. Using three-face concrete jackets can prevent shear failure while in the case of
attaching steel plates at the two sides of the RC beams the shear failure
delayed only. In addition to prevention or delay of shear failure, these
techniques enhance strength, stiffness at SLS and ductility at ULS in the case
of concrete jacketing. While, sticking straps of steel plates using suitable
adhesive at the outer face of RC beams can prevent shear failure and recover
the potential strength without significant increasing in strength or
enhancement in stiffness at SLS.
5. In the range of adopted configurations and arrangement in this research, the
concrete jacketing can achieve a level of enhancement in flexural stiffness
better than the case of steel plating.
6. Mechanical bonding (shear connectors) is better than chemical bonding when
the strengthening material is concrete not steel plate. In the case of bonding
steel plates, both techniques have advantage compensate the disadvantage of
the other. Chemical adhesive provide complete and uniform bonding while
 shear connectors provide deep anchorage. In all cases, the combination
between the two techniques of bonding is the best choice in term of
mechanical behavior.
7. Although using chemical adhesive can guarantee higher stiffness at SLS and
can abide until failure, there are higher risk for separation and sudden failure.
This risk is higher in the case of steel plating. This problem can be overtaken
by additional anchorage (shear connectors) at the ends of the beam or plate.
8. In noticeable number of cases it is observed that the beams in which chemical
adhesive used, can provide more capacity than which bonded by mechanical
bonding (shear connectors) this can be explained that drilling holes in the
original beam to fix the shear connectors may weaken the original beam and
effect on the behavior of strengthening system, this may because one or more
of the following:
a. Holes decrease the stiffness of the original beam.
b. Drilling operation may cause formation of invisible internal cracks.
c. Rarefaction of the bonding between reinforcement and concrete during
drilling.
9. Lateral anchorage of the new concrete layer is important such that the system
can yield even after separation of the two layer and then the critical is the
lateral anchorage. The main purpose of the lateral anchorage is preventing end
peeling and sever failure specially in the case of using chemical adhesive.
10. This study proved that in general, using three-face concrete jackets is better
than one-face concrete jackets.
11. Beams strengthened by one layer at the tension face using mechanical
bonding (shear connectors) can behave monolithically until and after ultimate
loads. The chance is greater in the case of three-face jacketing.
12. Beams strengthened by one RC layer at the tension face using chemical
bonding (adhesives) can behave monolithically until failure but they have
high potential for separation before and after ultimate loads. The risk is higher
in the absence of additional anchorage at the end of the layer and lower in the
case of three-face jacketing.
13. In all beams strengthened by concrete jacketing, the experimental value of
their capacity is larger than the theoretical by 118-158%. This give indication
that using the traditional procurers (flexural theory) to predict the theoretical
value of the ultimate load for these beams is very conservative. There are
doubts about the validation of flexural theory to predict the capacity of beams
strengthened by steel plates. In all cases, this issue need more detailed study.
14. Preloading the beam strengthened by concrete jacket has not high effect on
the capacity or failure mode but it may accelerate the separation and weaken
the adhesive layer. The risk is higher in the case of using only chemical
adhesive without additional anchorage at the end of the concrete jacket or
steel plate.
15. Adding 100mm of reinforced concrete layer at the tension face of beam
(mechanically or chemically bonded) can enhance the stiffness at all load
levels and can increase the load capacity to 190-290% of the ultimate load of

125
 the control beams with increase in stiffness reach 157% over the stiffness of
the control beam.
16. Despite the beams strengthened by steel plate bonded to the tension face using
shear connectors yielded capacity exceed the control beam by 42% with
acceptable enhancement in flexural stiffness in all load levels (reach 44% over
the stiffness of the control beam), these beams was not yielded the expected
capacity (only 77% of the theoretical capacity). This may refer to:
a. The interaction between the two surfaces not in the whole area of the
plate.
b. This type of composite beams is not follow the flexural theory.
17. In spite of the premature failure of the beams strengthened by steel plate
attached to the tension face by chemical adhesive but these beams can yield
capacity reach 99% over the control beams and 9% over the theoretical value
and with enhancement in stiffness in service life reach 90% over that of the
control beam. Additional anchorage for the plate end can guarantee more
yielding and can prevent catastrophic failure. These results ensure the
superiority of complete interaction provided by chemical adhesives, which
increase the stiffness and delay the widening and propagation of flexural
cracks. In addition, results show that the repeated loading and unloading of
these beams weaken the adhesive layer but this need more study.
18. Strengthening beams by three-faces reinforced concrete jackets (50mm thick
U shapes) with additional mechanical bonding can prevent shear failure,
enhance the flexural stiffness and provide extra strength reach to 88% over the
original beam and 16% over the theoretical capacity with enhancement in
serviceability stiffness reach 28% over which for the control beam. These
beams can behave monolithically and there capacity can conservatively be
guessed using flexural theory. .
19. Strengthening beams by three-faces plain concrete jackets (50mm thick ∩
shapes) with chemical adhesive bonding can prevent shear failure, enhance
the flexural stiffness and provide extra strength reach to 38% over the original
beam and 3% over the theoretical capacity with enhancement in serviceability
stiffness reach 71% over the stiffness of the control beam. Despite they have
higher potential for separation especially in the case of repeated loading and
unloading, these beams can behave monolithically and their capacity can
conservatively guessed using flexural theory.
20. Strengthening beams by three-faces reinforced concrete jackets (50mm thick
U shapes) with surface toughening (by manual grinder) and partial painting of
suitable adhesive can prevent shear failure, enhance the flexural stiffness
(service life stiffness 35% over the control beam) and provide extra strength
reach to 35% over the original beam. Despite this beam can behave
monolithically, the ultimate load is 5% lower than the theoretical capacity.
21. Strengthening beams by three-faces reinforced concrete jackets (50mm thick
U shapes) with additional mechanical bonding (only the action of bonded
external stirrup) can prevent shear failure, enhance the flexural stiffness
(service life stiffness 42% over the control beam) and provide extra strength
reach to 94% over the original beam and 19% over the theoretical capacity.

126
 These beams can behave monolithically and there capacity can conservatively
be guessed using flexural theory.
22. Referring to the points 19 to 21 the following points can be concluded:
a. The connection provided by additional stirrups only (which connected
into the old section) is enough.
b. The excessive drilling of holes in the sample for connecting additional
stirrups and shear connection at the sides and the bottom somehow
weaken the original sample.
c. If the surface is not prepared in a suitable quality, the case of surface
will not be as good as the case of either intact or well-prepared
surfaces.
23. In the range of the adopted distributions and configurations, strengthening
beams by steel plate mechanically connected to the sides cannot prevent shear
failure but can delay it, and can enhance the flexural stiffness at SLS and
provide extra strength reach to 25% over the original beam with enhancement
in service life stiffness reach 54% over that of the control beam. These beams
cannot behave monolithically.
24. In the range of the adopted distributions and configurations, strengthening
beams by steel plate chemically connected to the sides cannot prevent shear
failure but can delay it, and can enhance the flexural stiffness at SLS (reach to
41% over the control beam) and provide extra strength reach to 84% over the
original beam. These beams cannot behave monolithically and fail suddenly.
25. Sticking straps of steel plates at the outer face of the beams by suitable
adhesive and good distribution, can prevent shear failure and recover the
flexural capacity with enhancement in flexural stiffness at ULS, but can't
enhance the stiffness at SLS .
26. Although the effect of adhesive type did not studied deeply, it can be said that,
for sticking shear connectors there are signs that the adhesives which
contained sand as filler are better than those not contained due to the
additional friction.
27. Through studying the results of tests it can be ensured that the following items
have significant effect on the behavior of strengthened beams (but need more
study) :
a. Repeated loading and unloading of the strengthened beam.
b. The difference in the adhesive nature.
c. Drilling holes in the beam.
d. Workability and quality of new concrete and quality of curing after
concrete hardening.
e. In general, quality of strengthening construction.

127
6.3. Recommendations

6.3.1. Practical Recommendations

According to the experimental and theoretical study, which have been conducted in
this study, the following items can be recommended:
1. To precede the technique of concrete jacketing before the choice of steel
plating if there is not any other considerations.
2. For safe consequences and better results, it is recommended to use a
combination of mechanical and chemical bonding especially in the case of
strengthening RC beams by steel plates. This procedure guarantee prevention
of sudden separation and plate end peeling in the case of attaching steel plate
chemically bonded to the surface to the RC beam.
3. When concrete jacketing is used, if any considerations prevent the
combination between mechanical and chemical bonding it is recommended to
precede the choice of mechanical bonding.
4. To pay high attention to the quality of new materials or strengthening
procedures (anchoring, casting and curing).
5. To precede the three-face concrete jacketing before the choice of one-face
concrete jacketing if there is not any other considerations.
6. If the required is prevention of shear failure without increasing capacity its
recommended to stick straps of steel plates using suitable adhesive at the outer
face of RC beams in similar distribution of internal stirrups.
7. To use additional anchorage at the end of concrete jacket and steel plate.
8. To use the traditional procedures (flexural theory) to predict the theoretical
value of the ultimate load for concrete jacketed beams.

6.3.2. Recommendations for Future Research

In the field of experimental work related to this research it's recommended to:
1. Conduct experimental work to study the optimum combination between
mechanical and chemical bonding. The questions are;
a. What the level of combination which guarantee the yielding of steel
plate.
b. To which limit the shear connectors can be minimized to guarantee
satisfied level of safety and cost. Minimizing shear connectors is
important to decrease the level of weakening in the original beam.
2. Study the behavior of other configurations of steel plating, the question is;
which one can assure the composite action? this mean:
a. Overtaking the peeling of plate end and buckling of steel plate.
b. Overtaking the sudden failure of adhesive layer or sudden separation
of steel plate.
c. Yielding of steel plate until failure.
3. Study the effect of the following factors on the behavior of strengthened beams:

128
 a. Repeated loading and unloading of the strengthened beam.
b. The difference in the adhesive nature.
c. Drilling holes in the beam.
d. Workability and quality of new concrete and quality of curing after
concrete hardening (In general, quality of strengthening construction).
4. Study the effect of preloading of the original beam to service loads on the
behavior of the strengthened beam.
5. Study the effect of conducting the strengthening operation during loading
(load simulate the dead loads only).

129
REFERENCES
1. Lu, X. Retrofitting Design OF Building Structures. New York : Taylor & Francis
Group, 2010.

2. Li, Z., Leung, C. and Xi, Y. Structural Renovation in Concrete. New York :
Taylor & Francis Group, 2009.

3. ACI_Committee_546. Concrete Repair Guide. ACI committee, Concrete Repair

Manual. 546: 287-327, 1996.

4. JSCE Working Group on Retrofit Design of Concrete Structures in

Specification Revision Committee. Guidelines for Retrofit of Concrete Structures.
Translation from the CONCRETE LIBRARY No.95 published by JSCE. September
199.

5. Abu Hamam, I. and Ziara, M. Rehabilitation Needs For Existing Buildings in

Gaza strip. Master thesis, Islamic university of Gaza. 2008.

6. http://www.structuraltechnologies.com.

7. El-Ebwein, M. and Ziara, M. Structural Performance of Repaired Corroded

Reinforced Concrete Beams. Master thesis, Islamic University of Gaza. 2009.

8. Owayda, Y. and Shihada, S. Strengthening and Repair of RC Beams with

Cemintitions Repair Materials. Master Thesis, Islamic University in Gaza. 2013.

9. Ziara, M. Strengthening of Structures. s.l. : ENGC 6355 Course, IUG, 2010.

10. http://www.structural.net/article/design-and-application-techniques-key-
successful-structural-strengthening-projects.

11. Gomes, A. and Appleton, J. Strengthening Design of Concrete Beams by

Addition of Steel Plates. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Enhancement and Promotion of Computational Methods in Engineering and Science
(EPMESC VII), Edited by E. Arantes e Oliveira and J. Bento. Elsevier, Macau. 1999.

12. http://www.tsetkl.com/service/beam-or-slab-strengthening.

13. www.engr.psu.edu/ce/Divisions/structure/Research/RepairRehab_research.

14. Annex I. Strengthening with Reinforced Concrete. REHABCON Manual;

ANNEX, A. REHABCON IPS-2000-00063. 2004.

15. Raval, S. and Dave, U. Effectiveness of Various Methods of Jacketing for RC

Beams. Procedia Engineering. 51(2013):230-239.

131
16. Waghmare, B. Materials and Jacketing Technigue for Retrofitting of Structures.
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies. E-ISSN2249 –
8974, 2011.

17. RUIZ, A. and Teran, J. Reinforced Concrete Jacketing of Existing Structures.

In:Earthquake Engineering: Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. July, 1992, Madrid, Spain.

18. CHHABRA, Y. Bridge Rehabilitation Techniques. The D S Brown Company, 57

Pioneer Road, Singapore. 2004.

19. Clímaco, J. and Regan, P. Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete

Beams Involving The Addition of New Concrete. The Structural Engineer. Vol.
79(2001).

20. Mahdy, A. , Seleem, M., Sallam, H., Abdin, E. and El-Ghandour N. Flexural
Behavior and Mode of Failure of Jacketed RC Beams. Scientific Bulletin. Vol.
39(2004).

21. Ziara, M. structural Upgrading of RC Beams Using Composite Overlays.

Journal of Construction and Building Material, UK. 12(2000):397-406.

22. Altun, Fatih. An Experimental Study of the Jacketed Reinforced-Concrete

Beams Under Bending. Construction and Building Materials. 18.8(2004): 611-618.

23. Chalioris, C. and Pourzitidis C. Rehabilitation of shear-damaged reinforced

concrete beams using self-compacting concrete jacketing. ISRN Civil Engineering.
2012.

24. AL-KUAITY, A. Strengthening Of Cracked Reinforced Concrete T-Beam by

Jacketing. Journal of Engineering. Vols. 16, 2010.

25. Jumaat, M. and Alam, M. Plate Bonded Strengthened R.C. Beams With End
And Intermediate Anchors. International Journal of Engineering and Technology.
Vol. 4(2007).

26. Hollaway, L. and Leeming, M. Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete

Structures. Cambridge-England : Woodhead Publishing Ltd. , 1999.

27. Bsisu, K., Hunaiti, Y., and Younes R. Flexural Ductility Behavior of
Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Steel and CFRP Plates. Jordan
Journal of Civil Engineering. 6.3(2012) : 304-312.

28. Annex K. Strengthening of Steel Structures Using Externally Bonded Steel Plate.
REHABCON Manual; ANNEX, A. REHABCON IPS-2000-00063. 2004.

131
29. ALI, M. and Oehlers, D. Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Bridges by
External Plates. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress. Vol. 62, 2002.

30. Barnes, R., Baglin, P., Mays, G. and Subedi, N. External Steel Plate Systems
for the Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams. Engineering structures.
23.9(2001) : 1162-1176.

31. Goldar, D., Singh, H. and Ali, M. Strengthening OF Reinforced Concrete

Beams by Bolting of Steel and GFRP Plates. Dept. of Civil Engineering, Delhi
College of Engineering, 3Scientist, Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi.

32. Huovinen, S. Action of Glued Steel Plates in Strengthening of Structures.

NORDIC CONCRETE RESEARCH-PUBLICATIONS. 20(1997):35-41.

33. Ajeel, A. and Ghedan, R. Replacing of Internal Tension Bars by External

Bonded Plate. Journal of Engineering and Development. 15.3, 2011.

34. BHAGAT, S. and BHUSARI, J. Improving Shear Capacity of RC Beams Using

Epoxy Bonded Continous Steel Plates. International Journal of Advanced
Technology in Civil Engineering. ISSN: 2231 –5721, Volume-2, Issue-1, 2013.

35. Altin, S., Anil, Ö., and Kara M. Improving Shear Capacity of Existing RC
Beams Using External Bonding of Steel Plates. Engineering structures. 27.5(2005) :
781-791.

36. Silfwerbrand, J. Shear Bond Strength in Repaired Concrete Structures.

Materials and Structures. 39.6(2003):419-424.

37. MacAlevey, N. and Cheong, H. Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Beams

Strengthened by Jacketing. 27th Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE &
STRUCTURES. 2002.

38. Perez, F. and Courard, L. Correlation between the Roughness of the Substrate
Surface and the Debonding Risk. Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting II.
2009.

39. Abu-Tair, A., Lavery, D., Nadjai, A., Rigden, S. and Ahmed, T. A New
Method for Evaluating the Surface Roughness of Concrete cut for Repair or
Strengthening. Construction and building materials. 14.3(2000):171-176.

40. Santos, P. and Júlio, E. A State-of-the-Art Review on Roughness Quantification

Methods for Concrete Surfaces. Construction and Building Materials. 38(2013):912-
923.

132
41. Oehlers, D. and Seracino, R. Design of FRP and Steel Plated RC Structures:
Retrofitting Beams and Slabs for Strength, Stiffness and Ductility. Elsevier. 2004.

42. Kulak, G. Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Riveted Joints. Chicago :
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., 2001. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
STEEL CONSTRUCTION, Inc..

43. Hartshorn, S. Structural Adhesives, Chemistry and Technology. 3M, St. Paul,
Minnesota : s.n., 1986.

44. Hara, O. Curing Agents for Epoxy Resin. s.l. : Custom Group,Technical
Department, Research Laboratory, Three Bond Co., Ltd., 1990.

45. Shaw, S. Epoxy resin adhesives. 1993.

46. Industrial Adhesives and Tapes Division. Choosing and Using a Structural
Adhesive. 3M Center, Building 225-3S-06 St. Paul.

47. Mailvaganam, N. Concrete Repair and Rehabilitation: Issues and Trends.

Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council , Canada.

48. www.fibermaxcomposites.com.

49. Duthinh, D. and Starnes, M. Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams With

Carbon FRP. National Institute of Standard and Technology, Gaitherburg, MD. USA.

50. McCormac, J. and Nelson, J. Design of Reinforced Concrete. s.l. : John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 2005.

51. Lowes, L. Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column

Bridge Connections. PHD Thesis, UNIVERISTY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY.
1999.

52. Brosens, K. Anchorage of externally Bonded Steel Plates and CFRP Laminates
for the Strengthening of Concrete Elements. PHD Thesis, KATHOLIEKE
UNIVERSITY. 2001.

53. Ignoul, S., Brosens, K. and Gemert, D. Strengthening of Concrete Construction

with Externally Bonded Reinforcement: Design Concept and Case Studies.

54. Ziara, M. Structural Upgrading of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Composite

Overlays. Journal of Construction and Building Material, UK. Vol. 14(2000).

55. Jumaat, M. and Alam, M. Problems Associated with Plate Bonding Methods of
Strengthening Reinforced Concrete Beams. Journal of Applied Sciences Research.
2(2006): 703-708.

133
56. Ali, M., Oehlers, D. and Park, S. Comparison between FRP and Steel Plating of
Reinforced Concrete Beams. Elsevier. 2001.

57. Teng, J. and Yao, J. Plate End Debonding Failures of FRP - or Steel- Plated RC
Beams: A New Strength Model. Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures (BBFS 2005), International Institute for FRP in
Construction. 2005.

58. Swamy, R., Jones, R. and Bloxham, J. Structural Behaviour of Reinforced

Concrete Beams Strengthened by Epoxy-bonded Steel Plates. Structural Engineer.
65(1987):59-68.

59. Jones, R., Swamy, R. and Charif, A. Plate Separation and Anchorage of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened by Epoxy-bonded Steel Plates.

60. Adhikary, B. and Mutsuyoshi, H. Numerical Simulation of Steel-plate

Strengthened Concrete Beam by a Nonlinear. Construction and Building Materials.
2002.

61. Barnes, R. and Mays, G. Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams in Shear

by the Use of Externally Bonded Steel Plates: Part 2–Design guidelines. Construction
and Building Materials. 20.6(2006) : 403-411.

62. Chen, J. and Teng, J. Anchorage Strength Models for FRP and Steel Plates
Bonded to Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering. 127.7(2001):784-791.

63. Ziraba, Y. and Baluch, M. Computational Model for Reinforced Concrete

Beams Strengthened by Epoxy Bonded Steel Plates. Finite elements in analysis and
design. 20.4(1995):253-271.

64. Gemert, D. Repair and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Plates by Epoxy-

bonded Steel Plates. Proc. 8WCEE. Vol. 1(1984).

65. Ming, Z. and Ansari, F. BOND PROPERTIES OF FRP FABRICS AND

CONCRETE JOINTS. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2004.

66. Yong, Z. Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams by Bolted Side

Steel Plates for Strength and Deformability. PhD Thesis, The University of Hong
Kong in February. 2006.

134