ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 95-S11
Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using
Epoxy-Bonded FRP Composites
by Thanasis C. Triantafillou
The paper deals with the application of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)
laminates or fabrics as shear strengthening materials for reinforced con-
crete beams. The study aims at increasing the experimental database on
shear strengthening of concrete using composites and, most importantly,
developing an analytical model for the design of such members within the
framework of modern code formats, based on ultimate limit states. The
experimental part of the study involved testing of eleven concrete beams
strengthened in shear with carbon FRP (CFRP) at various area fractions
and fiber configurations, while the analytical part resulted in a model for
the contribution of FRP to shear capacity in analogy with steel stirrups,
with an effective FRP strain that decreases with increasing FRP axial
rigidity. It is shown that the effectiveness of the technique increases almost
linearly with the FRP axial rigidity and reaches a maximum, beyond which
it varies very little.
Keywords: adhesives; composite materials; reinforced concrete beams;
shear design; shear strengthening.
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Changing social needs, upgrading of design standards,
increased safety requirements, and deterioration result in
existing reinforced concrete structures such as bridges and
buildings that need to be strengthened. Strengthening of
concrete members is usually accomplished by construction
of external reinforced concrete or shotcrete jackets, by epoxy
bonding of steel plates to the tension faces of the members,
or by external post-tensioning. A relatively new technique
involves the replacement of steel plates by fiber reinforced
polymers (FRP), or simply composites, in the form of thin
laminates or fabrics. These materials offer the engineer an
outstanding combination of properties, such as low weight
(making them much easier to handle on site), immunity to
corrosion, excellent mechanical strength and stiffness, and
the ability of formation in very long lengths, thus eliminating
the need for lapping at joints. The FRP-strengthening tech-
nique has found wide attractiveness and acceptance among
researchers and engineers today in many parts of the world,
and is no longer considered to be a new technique for certain
types of strengthening jobs.
The initial developments of the FRP-strengthening tech-
nique took place in Germany1 and Switzerland.2 Flexural
strengthening of reinforced concrete members with exter-
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998
TECHNICAL PAPER
nally epoxy-bonded FRP laminates has been studied in detail
by researchers at several institutions, including the Swiss
Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research
(EMPA),2-5 the German Institute for Structural Materials,
Building Construction, and Fire Protection (IBMB),1,6 the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,7-11 and the University
of Arizona.12-13 These (and a few other) studies have exam-
ined both the short-term and the long-term performance of
reinforced concrete beams strengthened by carbon, glass, or
aramid FRP epoxy-bonded laminates. Among the topics
investigated was the static, creep and fatigue behavior, the
effect of various types of adhesives and composite materials
on the response, the use of pretensioned laminates, the
behavior under fire, and the development of design procedures
based on reliability theory. The results obtained through
such investigations have proved that the FRP-strengthening
technique is highly efficient and effective, especially when
the FRP materials are made using carbon fibers (CFRP), and
have led to hundreds of applications worldwide.
Another area of investigation related to the use of compos-
ites as strengthening materials of concrete structures has
been that of column wrapping with FRP jackets to provide
flexural, axial, and shear strength enhancement under
seismic loads.14-19 Analytical and experimental results, as
well as practical experiences, have demonstrated that FRP-
wrapped columns (or column-like elements, such as tall
chimneys) under axial, flexural and shear loading possess
excellent strength, stiffness, and ductility characteristics.
Studies on shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
beams using composite materials have been limited, and to a
certain degree controversial. The first research study was
performed by Berset20 at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. He tested reinforced concrete beams with and
without shear strengthening reinforcement in the form of
GFRP laminates epoxy-bonded to the vertical sides in the
ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 2, March-April 1998.
Received May 24, 1996, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right © 1998, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion will be published in the January-February 1999 ACI Structural Journal if
received by Sept.1, 1998.
107

ACI member Thanasis C. Triantafillou is Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at
the University of Patras, Greece. He received his diploma in civil engineering for the
University of Patras in 1985 and his MSc (1987) and PhD (1989) degrees in civil
engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he served as Assis-
tant Professor of Civil Engineering from 1990 to 1993. His current research interests
include the application of advanced composite materials in combination with
concrete, masonry, and wood, with emphasis on strengthening.
shear-critical zones, and developed a simple analytical model
for the contribution of the external reinforcement to shear
capacity. In Berset's20 model the FRP shear reinforcement is
treated in analogy with steel stirrups, reaching a maximum
allowable strain, which is determined by experiments.
The second study reported in the literature is that of Uji,21
who tested reinforced concrete beams strengthened in shear
with either wrapped-around carbon fabrics or CFRP lami-
nates bonded to the vertical sides (with the fibers either
vertical or inclined). His model for the FRP contribution to
shear capacity is based on rather arbitrarily defined FRP-
concrete bonding interfaces, which, during peeling-off
(debonding) of the fabrics, carry average shear stresses
(bonding stresses) determined by experiments (to be about
1.3 MPa). The upper limit to the FRP contribution is given
by its tensile strength.
In another study, Dolan et al.22 tested prestressed concrete
beams with externally applied aramid fabric reinforcement,
and concluded that AFRP fabrics perform quite well as shear
retrofit reinforcement.
The work of Al-Sulaimani et al.23 dealt with shear strength-
ening using GFRP laminates in the form of plates or strips.
Their model for the contribution of composites to shear capacity
is based on the assumption of FRP-concrete interfaces which
carry average shear stresses during peeling-off equal to 0.8 MPa
and 1.2 MPa for the case of plates and strips, respectively.
Ohuchi et al.24 carried out an extensive series of experi-
ments on reinforced concrete beams strengthened in shear
with wrapped-around carbon fabrics. They modeled the
CFRP contribution to shear capacity in analogy with steel
stirrups, assuming a limiting strain for the external reinforce-
ment equal to either the tensile failure strain of CFRP or 2/3
of it, depending on the thickness of the fabrics.
At another research effort, Chajes et al.25 report on FRP-
strengthened concrete beams using composites with various
types of fibers, namely glass, aramid, and carbon. In this
work, the FRP contribution to shear capacity is modeled in
analogy with steel stirrups and assumes a limiting FRP
strain, which was determined by experiments to be approxi-
mately equal to 0.005.
Malvar et al.26 also tested reinforced concrete beams
strengthened in shear with CFRP fabrics and verified the
high effectiveness of the technique. In terms of analysis,
they stated that the contribution of the fabrics to shear
capacity can be obtained in analogy with steel stirrups by
considering the limiting FRP strain equal to that at tensile
fracture of the material.
Vielhaber and Limberger27 reported on the shear strength-
ening of large scale reinforced concrete beams with CFRP
fabrics, and demonstrated through testing that even small
amounts of external reinforcement provide considerable
safety against brittle shear failures.
108
Finally, Sato et al.28 conducted tests on concrete beams
strengthened in shear with CFRP strips or continuous
fabrics, and described the observed failure mode (debonding
of external reinforcement) through a simple model which
accounts for partial shear transfer by the debonded CFRP.
From the above review of the literature it becomes clear that
although some studies on shear strengthening of reinforced
concrete beams exist, the design of such members is far from
straightforward. The analytical models proposed in the litera-
ture are almost as numerous as the studies from which they
came, and are in most cases contradictory. According to the
writer's view, the relatively good agreement between models
and experimental results is attributed to the fact that, essen-
tially, the same set of data have been used for both calibration
and comparison. The present study’s scope is twofold: (a) to
enhance the experimental database on shear strengthening of
concrete beams using composites, and (b) to develop an
analytical model for the design of such members within the
framework of modern code formats.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
A considerable proportion of construction worldwide is
devoted to repair and strengthening of existing structures.
In earthquake- prone regions, repair of seismically
damaged and seismic strengthening of concrete structures
is very common, whereas in other regions repair and
strengthening projects mostly aim at remedying the ravages
of time and/or harsh environmental conditions on old or
otherwise deteriorating structures. Repair and strength-
ening is usually based on traditional, often inefficient, tech-
niques and on conventional materials, which may soon
exhibit new durability problems. It is common belief today
that the limited financial resources available and the
current technology together cannot solve the problem of
infrastructure rebuilding. Instead, high-tech solutions must
be investigated, relying on innovative uses of new technol-
ogies and advanced construction materials. One such inno-
vative strengthening technique involves the use of
composite materials in the form of external epoxy-bonded
reinforcement for concrete structures. Recent years have
seen numerous research efforts and successful applications
(in Europe, the United States, and Japan) regarding the use
of composites for flexural strengthening of reinforced
concrete, and limited research results (often contradictory)
regarding the use of these materials as shear strengthening
reinforcement. Combining all the available experimental
evidence on shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
members using composites with some new experimental
results, and based on analytical developments, the present
research provides a comprehensive design procedure for rein-
forced concrete members strengthened with composites in
shear, within the framework of ultimate limit state design.
ANALYTICAL FORMULATION
Design of reinforced concrete beams in shear
According to modern design codes, the design of rein-
forced concrete beams in shear is typically based on the
assumption that the total contribution to shear capacity is
given as the sum of two terms. The first accounts for the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998
action of mechanisms such as the dowel action, the aggre-
gate interlock, and the uncracked concrete in the compres-
sion zone, and the second accounts for the effect of shear
reinforcement (e.g. stirrups or inclined bars), which is
modeled by the well-known truss analogy. An upper bound
to shear capacity is obtained by considering compression
crushing of the concrete blocks formed between diagonal
shear cracks. For instance, the theoretical shear capacity VRd
of a reinforced concrete beam is given, according to Euro-
code 2, as follows:29
VRd = min(Vcd + Vwd, VRd2)
where
Vcd = τRdmin(2, 1.2 +40ρl )max(1, 1.6 – d)bwd
A sw⎞
V wd = ⎛ -------
- f 0.9b w d ( 1 + cot α ) sin α
⎝ sb w⎠ ywd
f ck
V Rd2 = 0.5max ⎛ 0.5, 0.7 – ---------⎞ f cd 0.9b w d ( 1 + cot α )
⎝ 200⎠
In the above equations, τRd = basic design shear strength
= 0.25fctk/γc (fctk = characteristic tensile strength of concrete,
γc = 1.5 = partial safety factor for concrete), ρl = longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, d = effective depth of cross section, bw
= minimum width of cross section over the effective depth,
Asw = cross sectional area of shear reinforcement, s = spacing
of shear reinforcement measured along the longitudinal axis,
fywd = design yield strength of shear reinforcement, α = angle
of the shear reinforcement to the longitudinal axis of the
member, fck = characteristic compressive cylinder strength
of concrete at 28 days, and fcd = fck/γc = design value of
concrete cylinder compressive strength. As characteristic
strength is defined that with 95 percent probability of
exceedance. For design under seismic loading, the value of
Vcd in the critical areas is reduced to rsVcd, where the reduc-
tion factor rs depends on the ductility demands (ductility
“class” of the structure). Finally, in case of strengthening in
the absence of full repair, that is, in the case of damaged
(diagonally cracked) beams, the value of Vcd may be taken
lower than that given by Eq. (1). Such a reduction depends
on the degree of damage, and can only be estimated on a case
by case basis.
Contribution of FRP reinforcement
Typical FRP configurations for shear strengthening of
concrete beams are shown in Fig. 1. The external reinforce-
ment in Fig. 1(a) is in the form of epoxy-bonded laminates or
fabrics extending in the compression zone, where adhesive
bonding may be supplemented by mechanical fastening.
Another possibility is that of Fig. 1(b), where the epoxy-
bonded FRP fabric is wrapped around the beam. The effec-
tiveness of the strengthening reinforcement, that is, the load
carried by the FRP at the ultimate limit state, depends on its
failure mechanism, which, in turn, depends on various
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Fig. 1—Shear strengthening of concrete with FRP: (a) lami-
nates or fabrics (b) wrapped fabrics or strips.
factors. As suggested by experimental evidence,20-28 failure
of the FRP reinforcement may occur either by peeling off
(debonding) through the concrete near the concrete-FRP
interface, or by tensile fracture at a stress which may be
lower than the tensile strength of the composite material,
because of stress concentrations (e.g. at rounded corners or
at debonded areas), etc. Whether debonding or fracture will
occur first depends on the bond conditions, the available
anchorage length and/or the type of attachment at the FRP
ends, the thickness of the laminates and others. In many
cases, the actual failure mechanism is a combination of FRP
debonding at certain areas and fracture at others.
In light of the above, the load carried by FRP at the beam's
ultimate limit state is rather impossible to quantify based on
rigorous analysis. In what follows, the contribution of FRP
to shear capacity is calculated through a semi-quantitative
description of the problem, leading to a simple equation
which describes reasonably well the majority of the experi-
mental results.
Let us consider first the case of epoxy-bonded laminates or
fabrics without special anchorage (e.g. through wrapping or
mechanical fastening) and with the strong material direction
(that is, the principal fiber orientation) at an angle β to the
longitudinal axis of the member. A qualitative description of
the FRP load bearing mechanisms at ultimate shear capacity
is shown in Fig. 2(a), which indicates regions of full
109
 Fig. 2—(a) Schematic illustration of FRP stress bearing mechanisms; (b) simplified
FRP normal stress along diagonal crack.
debonding, limited shear transfer (through the concrete), and
full shear transfer. A simplification of the associated tensile
stresses in the FRP is given in Fig. 2(b), where only a portion
of the reinforcement is stressed to its tensile capacity, ffrp,d.
Adopting the classical truss analogy, as in the case of
internal steel shear reinforcement, and based on the geom-
etry of Fig. 2(a) and the simplified stress distribution of Fig.
2(b), the contribution of external FRP to shear capacity can
be expressed as:
2t z z
V frp, d = ⎛ ------⎞ f frp, d ⎛ ---1- + z 2 + ---3-⎞ ( 1 + cot β ) sin β
⎝ b w⎠ ⎝2 2⎠
where t = thickness of FRP laminate or fabric on each side of
the beam. Defining the FRP area fraction as ρfrp = 2t/bw,
Eq. (5) is written as:
ε frp, u⎞
V frp, d = ρ frp E frp 0.9b w d ⎛ r 1 -----------
- ( 1 + cot β ) sin β
⎝ γ frp ⎠
where Efrp = FRP elastic modulus, εfrp,u = ultimate tensile
strain of FRP in the principal material direction, γfrp = partial
safety factor for FRP in uniaxial tension (approximately
equal to 1.15, 1.20 and 1.25 for CFRP, AFRP and GFRP,
respectively30) and r1 = FRP reinforcement efficiency
factor, which depends on the exact failure mechanism, and is
equal to:
110
⎛ z---1- + z + --- z 3⎞
-
⎝2 2
2⎠
r 1 = -------------------------------- (7)
0.9d
In the case of perfect anchorage of the FRP reinforcement
onto the concrete surface, as could be achieved, for instance,
by wrapping or by using clamping devices, Eq. (6) is still
valid with r1 replaced by r2, which has the meaning of a FRP
strength reduction factor (e.g. due to stress concentrations).
Hence, the FRP contribution to shear capacity can be
written in the following form:
(5)
0.9- ρ E ε
V frp, d = ------- b d ( 1 + cot β ) sin β (8)
γ frp frp frp frp, e w
where εfrp,e is an effective FRP strain, the only unknown yet
to be determined for completing the analysis on FRP contri-
bution to shear capacity. It should be stated at this point that
the above physical model is a descriptive one and not an
(6)
exact model relating the effective FRP strain with the
geometric parameters z1, z2, and z3.
As far as εfrp,e is concerned, one may qualitatively argue
that it depends heavily on the area of the FRP-concrete
debonded interfaces, or, in other words, on the FRP “devel-
opment” length, defined as that necessary to reach FRP
tensile fracture before debonding. Apart from the bond
conditions, the “development” length depends (almost
proportionally) on the FRP axial rigidity (area times elastic
modulus), expressed by the product ρfrpEfrp. Hence, one
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998
Table 1—Experimental data on shear strengthening usin FRP laminates or fabrics
Beam* bw,m d,m FRP type† ρfrp Efrp, GPa β, deg εfrp,e Failure mechanism
B(3) 0.114 0.085 G,sides (s) 0.011 16.8 45 0.0066 Shear (debonding)
B(4) 0.114 0.085 G, s 0.027 16.8 45 0.0056 Shear (debonding)
U(3) 0.1 0.17 C, wrap 0.00194 230 90 0.0050 Shear (fracture)
U(5) 0.1 0.17 C, s 0.00194 230 90 0.0030 Shear (debonding)
U(6) 0.1 0.17 C, s 0.00194 230 56 0.0034 Shear (debonding)
U(7) 0.1 0.17 C, s 0.0039 230 90 0.0015 Shear (debonding)
D(F2) 0.038 0.127 A, sides & bottom ρfrpEfrp = 0.363 90 >0.0044 Flexure
(s & b)
A(WO) 0.15 0.113 G, s 0.04 16 90 0.0008 Shear (debonding)
A(SO) 0.15 0.113 G, s 0.016 16 90 0.0018 Shear (debonding)
A(JO) 0.15 0.113 G, s & b 0.04 16 90 >0.0016 Flexure
O(BS12) 0.18 0.36 C, wrap 0.0012 230 90 0.0084 Shear (fracture)
O(BS24) 0.18 0.36 C, wrap 0.0024 230 90 0.0062 Shear (fracture)
O(BM06) 0.18 0.36 C, wrap 0.0006 230 90 0.0117 Shear (fracture)
O(BM12) 0.18 0.36 C, wrap 0.0012 230 90 0.0093 Shear (fracture)
O(BM18) 0.18 0.36 C, wrap 0.0018 230 90 0.0078 Shear (fracture)
O(BM24) 0.18 0.36 C, wrap 0.0024 230 90 0.0060 Shear (fracture)
O(BL06) 0.18 0.36 C, wrap 0.0006 230 90 0.0084 Shear (fracture)
O(BL12) 0.18 0.36 C, wrap 0.0012 230 90 0.0078 Shear (fracture)
O(BMW06) 0.18 0.36 C, wrap 0.0006 230 90 0.0084 Shear (fracture)
O(BMW12) 0.18 0.36 C, wrap 0.0012 230 90 0.0069 Shear (fracture)
O(BMW24) 0.18 0.36 C, wrap 0.0024 230 90 0.0046 Shear (fracture)
O(2) 0.4 0.34 C, wrap 0.00029 230 90 0.0120 Shear (fracture)
O(3) 0.4 0.34 C, wrap 0.00058 230 90 0.0103 Shear (fracture)
C(A) 0.0635 0.1525 A, s & b 0.033 11 90 0.0049 Shear (fracture)
C(E) 0.0635 0.1525 G, s & b 0.021 14.3 90 0.0063 Shear (fracture)
C(G) 0.0635 0.1525 C, s & b 0.018 21 90 0.0052 Shear (fracture)
C(45G) 0.0635 0.1525 C, s & b 0.018 21 45 0.0051 Shear (fracture)
M(B2) 0.127 0.133 C, s & b ρfrpEfrp = 0.409 90 >0.0020 Flexure
S(S2) 0.2 0.26 C, s 0.006 230 90 0.0010 Shear (debonding)
S(S3) 0.2 0.26 C, s & b 0.006 230 90 0.0017 Shear (debonding)
S(S4) 0.2 0.26 C, s 0.012 230 90 0.0005 Shear (debonding)
S(S5) 0.2 0.26 C, s & b 0.012 230 90 0.0008 Shear (debonding)
S(S6) 0.2 0.26 C, s 0.012 230 90 >0.0009 Flexure
T(S1a) 0.07 0.10 C, s 0.0022 235 90 0.0041 Shear (debonding)
T(S1b) 0.07 0.10 C, s 0.0022 235 90 0.0034 Shear (debonding)
T(S2a) 0.07 0.10 C, s 0.0033 235 90 0.0032 Shear (debonding)
T(S2b) 0.07 0.10 C, s 0.0033 235 90 0.0026 Shear (debonding)
T(S3a) 0.07 0.10 C, s 0.0044 235 90 0.0020 Shear (debonding)
T(S3b) 0.07 0.10 C, s 0.0044 235 90 0.0016 Shear (debonding)
T(S1-45) 0.07 0.10 C, s 0.0022 235 45 0.0030 Shear (debonding)
T(S2-45) 0.07 0.10 C, s 0.0033 235 45 0.0022 Shear (debonding)
T(S3-45) 0.07 0.10 C, s 0.0044 235 45 0.0013 Shear (debonding)
*
B = Berset20; U = Uji21; D = Dolan et al.22; A = Al-Sulaimani et al.23; O = Ohuchi et al.24; C = Chajes et al.25; M = Malvar et al.26; S = Sato et al.28; T = present study (Triantafillou).
Symbols for each beam appear in parentheses (), as assigned by those who conducted tests.
†
G = GFRP; C = CFRP; A = AFRP; sides = bonded to sides only; wrap = wrapped around.
Note: 1 m =39.4 in.; 1 GPa =145 ksi.

would expect εfrp,e to be roughly inversely proportional to
ρfrpEfrp. The implication of this argument is that as the FRP
laminates or fabrics become stiffer and thicker, debonding
dominates over tensile fracture, and the effective FRP strain
is reduced. Finally, εfrp,e depends on whether r1 or r2 applies,
that is, on whether the FRP is wrapped around the cross
section or not.
Next we proceed to an evaluation and synthesis of all the
experimental results on shear strengthening of concrete
beams with FRP laminates or fabrics. The available data are
summarized in Table 1, as found in the literature. The effec-
tive FRP strain, εfrp,e, was calculated based on Eq. (8) and
the experimentally measured contribution to shear capacity,
equal to γfrpVfrp,d. These data, along with the ones obtained
in the experimental program of the present study, will be
used later to establish the dependence of εfrp,e on ρfrpEfrp.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Experimental procedure
To increase the experimental database on shear strength-
ening of reinforced concrete beams using FRP, a series of

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998 111

 Fig. 3—Geometry of reinforced concrete beams.
Fig. 4—Strengthened beam.
tests was carried out. Eleven deficient in shear identical
concrete beams were fabricated, of which nine were
strengthened in shear with epoxy- bonded CFRP fabrics
attached on the two sides, and two were used as control spec-
imens, that is, without external reinforcement. The 1000 mm
(39.4 in.) long beams were loaded in four-point bending at a
span of 800 mm (31.5 in.) and a shear span of 320 mm (12.6
in.) (Fig. 3). Six 100 x 200 mm (4 x 4 in.) cylinders were also
cast and tested at the time of beam tests (at an age of 28 days)
to determine the compressive strength of concrete.
Type I portland cement was used, the maximum aggregate
size was about 10 mm (0.4 in.), and the
water:cement:sand:gravel ratio was 0.5:1:2.5:3.2 by weight.
After casting the concrete in steel molds, all specimens (both
beams and cylinders) were covered by plastic bags for one
day and then were cured at 20 deg C (68 deg F) in a water
bath for six days and outside the bath until the day of testing.
Shear strengthening reinforcement was provided by CFRP
fabrics made up of epoxy-bonded unidirectional fibers,
approximately 15 days after concrete casting. According to
data provided by the CFRP supplier, the fabrics had an
elastic modulus of 235 GPa (34 × 103 ksi) and a tensile
strength of 3300 MPa (480 ksi). Application of the CFRP
reinforcement was achieved through the following steps: (a)
removal of laitance on the sides of the concrete beam shear
spans using a disk grinder; (b) blowing the concrete surface
with air; (c) coating the concrete with primer; (d) applying
putty, after the primer surface became tack-free; (e) applying
two-part epoxy-adhesive; (f) adhesion of CFRP sheets and
112
debulking along the fibers direction using a plastic roller; (g)
applying second impregnation resin; and (h) removing
excessive resin using a rubber scraper. A photograph of a
strengthened beam is shown in Fig. 4.
Each beam had a cross section 70 mm (2.7 in.) wide and
110 mm (4.3 in.) deep. Longitudinal steel reinforcement was
provided by two 8-mm-diameter deformed steel bars (fywd =
400 MPa [58 ksi]) at an effective depth of 100 mm (3.9 in.).
No steel shear reinforcement was provided, in order to
ensure that the failure modes would be governed by shear.
Details about the CFRP area fraction and fiber orientation
are given in Table 1 for all beam designs tested.
The load was applied at a rate of 0.02 mm/sec (0.8 x 10-3
in./sec) through a programmable servohydraulic testing
machine (Fig. 5). Total load and midspan deflection and load
were recorded continuously through the load cell and a linear
variable differential transformer (LVDT), respectively.
Test results
The concrete cylinder tests gave an average strength of
approximately 30 MPa (4.3 ksi). All the beams tested expe-
rienced a brittle shear failure mode evidenced by develop-
ment of diagonal tension cracks in the constant shear span.
In those externally reinforced with CFRP, diagonal cracking
was followed by CFRP debonding, and failure occurred at a
load significantly higher than that for unreinforced beams.
Increases of strength ranged from 65 percent to 95 percent
over that of the control beams. All the test results obtained
are presented in Table 2, which also gives the contribution of
FRP to shear capacity, calculated as the difference between
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998
 Fig. 5—Experimental testing apparatus.

The relationship between εfrp,e and ρfrpEfrp is obtained

Table 2—Shear capacity of beams tested and here from the best-fit second order equation up to ρfrpEfrp =
contribution of FRP
1 GPa (145 ksi) and by the equation of a straight line for
Beam Failure load, kN FRP shear capacity, kN
ρfrpEfrp > 1 GPa (145 ksi), given as follows:
Ca 15.5 —
Cb 17.3 — 0 ≤ ρ frp E frp ≤ 1 :
S1a 43.5 13.55
2
S1b 38.9 11.25 ε frp = 0.0119 – 0.0205 ( ρ frp E frp ) + 0.0104 ( ρ frp E frp ) (9a)
S1(45) 44.5 14.05
S2a 48.1 15.85
S2b 42.2 12.90
ρ frp E frp > 1 :
S2(45) 47.3 15.45
ε frp = – 0.00065 ( ρ frp E frp ) + 0.00245 (9b)
S3a 42.8 13.20
S3b 37.5 10.55
S3(45) 40.7 12.15 Finally, the equation for the contribution of FRP to the
1 kN = 0.225 kip. design shear capacity can be computed from Eq. (8)-(9). The
result, given in Fig. 7, is quite interesting. It is shown that for
the shear at failure and the average shear capacity of the values of ρfrpEfrp up to about 0.4 GPa (58 ksi) the FRP
control beams (8.2 kN [1.8 kip]). contribution to shear strength increases almost linearly with
ρfrpEfrp reaching a maximum, beyond which it drops slightly
MODEL CALIBRATION AND DISCUSSION and then increases again (slightly). This suggests that the
All the experimental results available in the literature value ρfrpEfrp = 0.4 GPa (58 ksi) can be used to determine the
were combined with those obtained in the present study and limiting area fraction of FRP, ρfrp, beyond which the effec-
were used to produce the plot of Fig. 6, which gives εfrp,e tiveness of strengthening ceases to be positive.
in terms of ρfrpEfrp. In agreement with the qualitative argu- A point of discussion here concerns size effects. Some of
ments made in the analysis, it can be seen that εfrp,e the experimental data shown in Fig. 6 (including those
decreases as ρfrpEfrp increases. It is also interesting to note obtained in this study) correspond to relatively small-sized
that all the data (for wrapped beams failing by FRP fracture reinforced concrete members, which may not be representa-
as well as for beams without wrapping failing by shear tive of practical sizes for members used in buildings and
debonding) follow the same trend, so that they can be fit bridges. The FRP bond transfer length for small-sized beams
with reasonable accuracy by a single curve (although they strengthened in shear without circumferential wrapping will,
correspond to two different mechanisms). Hence, based on in general, be smaller than that for large beams, implying
the results of Fig. 6, the derivation of two different expres- that the results presented above for the shear capacity will be
sions for εfrp,e, each one associated with a different failure conservative for such members (that is, εfrp,e in reality will
mechanism, is not considered necessary at this point. be higher). Such conservatism, although desirable, should be
However, such a distinction may be required in the future, kept in mind.
when more data on shear strengthening of concrete beams Another point of discussion to be added here concerns the
(using FRP) become available. angle β between the principal FRP fibers direction and the

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998 113

Fig. 6—Effective FRP strain in terms of ρfrpEfrp (1 GPa =
1000 MPa = 145 ksi).
longitudinal axis of the members. In the experimental data-
base described above, β is limited to 90, 45, and 56 deg (one
test), whereas the proposed design equation could apply to
all angles, including β = 0 deg. In fact, the predicted FRP
contribution to shear capacity in the latter case is zero.
Considering other deformation mechanisms of the FRP, such
as the dowel action (which was neglected due to the rela-
tively low rigidity of the material), it may turn out that 0 deg
fibers provide some contribution to shear capacity, but the
author’s view is that such contribution will be small and the
0 deg configuration is far from efficient.
The last point to be discussed here is the application of
external FRP shear strengthening reinforcement with preten-
sioning. Prestressing the laminates or fabrics can only be
accomplished with proper attachment of the FRP’s ends, for
instance, through circumferential wrapping or mechanical
fastening. Such prestressing has the following effects: (a)
reduction of the design shear force VSd, equal to the
prestressing force component parallel to VSd; (b) reduction
of the FRP contribution to shear capacity, approximately
equal to the prestressing force; and (c) increase of the
concrete contribution to shear capacity, due to active
confinement, increased aggregate interlock, etc. Therefore, it
can be concluded that shear strengthening with pretensioned
composites has only indirect effects on shear capacity,
related to the contribution of Vcd, and Vfrp,d can be assumed
to remain unaffected.
CONCLUSIONS
Strengthening of reinforced concrete beams in shear using
epoxy- bonded composite materials in the form of laminates
or fabrics appears to be a highly effective technique. Within
the framework of modern code formats, based on limit
states, the design of FRP- strengthened members can be
treated in analogy with the design of internal shear reinforce-
ment, provided that an effective FRP strain is used in the
formulation. Contrary to most of the existing theories, this
strain is not constant, but decreases as the FRP axial rigidity,
114
Fig.7—FRP contribution to shear capacity in terms of
ρfrpEfrp (1 GPa = 1000 MPa = 145 ksi).
expressed by the product ρfrpEfrp, increases. This argument
is supported not only by theoretical considerations, as
presented above, but also by experimental results, reported
by various researchers and supplemented with some new
ones in this study. Based on these results, the effective FRP
strain was established here as a function of ρfrpEfrp, which
was used to quantify the contribution of external FRP rein-
forcement to the shear capacity of strengthened beams. It
was shown that this contribution increases almost linearly
with ρfrpEfrp for values of ρfrpEfrp up to approximately 0.4
GPa (58 ksi), beyond which the effectiveness of FRP ceases
to be positive. This conclusion is particularly useful in
designing FRP reinforcements and determining optimum
material quantities. In terms of fiber orientation, the analysis
presented above as well as test results demonstrated that, as
intuitively expected, the effectiveness of FRP increases as
the fibers’ direction becomes closer to the perpendicular to
the diagonal crack.
Future studies should focus on expanding the experi-
mental database of concrete beams strengthened in shear
with FRPs through full-scale experimental testing and on
long-term performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The partial support of Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation and Sumitomo
Corporation is gratefully acknowledged. The author wishes to thank Mr. K.
Antonopoulos for his invaluable assistance in the experimental program.
NOTATION
Asw = cross sectional area of shear reinforcement
bw = minimum width of cross section over the effective depth
d = effective depth of cross section
Efrp = FRP elastic modulus
fcd = design value of concrete cylinder compressive strength
fck = characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28
days
ffrp,d = design tensile strength of FRP
fywd = design yield strength of shear reinforcement
P = load
r1 = FRP reinforcement efficiency factor
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998
r2 = FRP reinforcement efficiency factor
rs = ductility class shear reduction factor
s = spacing of shear reinforcement measured along the longitudinal
axis
t = thickness of FRP laminate or fabric on each side of the beam
Vcd = shear capacity of concrete
Vfrp,d = contribution of external FRP reinforcement (design value)
VRd = design shear resistance
VRd2 = maximum design shear force that can be carried without web
failure
VSd = design shear force
Vwd = contribution of steel shear reinforcement
z1-z3 = geometric variables
α = angle of steel shear reinforcement to longitudinal axis of the
member
β = angle of strong FRP material direction to longitudinal axis of
the member
γc = partial safety factor for concrete
γfrp = partial safety factor for FRP
εfrp,e = effective FRP strain
εfrp,u = ultimate tensile strain of FRP in the principal material direction
ρfrp = FRP area fraction
ρl = longitudinal reinforcement ratio
τRd = design shear strength of concrete
REFERENCES
1. Federal Institute for Materials Testing (MPA), “Bonding of Steel and
GFRP Plates in the Area of Coupling Joints, Talbrucke Kattenbusch,”
Research Report No. 3126/1429, Braunschweig, Germany, 1987 (in German).
2. Meier, U., “Bridge Repair with High Performance Composite
Materials,” Material und Technik, V. 4, 1987, pp. 125-128.
3. Kaiser, H., “Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete with Epoxy-
Bonded Carbon-Fiber Plastics,” Doctoral thesis, Swiss Federal Institute
(ETH), Zurich, Switzerland, 1989 (in German).
4. Deuring, M., “Post-Strengthening of Concrete Structures with Preten-
sioned Advanced Composites,” Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials
Testing and Research (EMPA), Research Report No. 224, Dubendorf,
Switzerland, 1993 (in German).
5. Meier, U., and Winistoerfer, A., “Retrofitting of Structures Through
External Bonding of CFRP Sheets,” Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures, E & FN Spon, London, 1995, pp. 465-472.
6. Rostasy, F. S.; Hankers, C.; and Ranisch, E.-H., “Strengthening of R/C-
and P/C-Structures with Bonded FRP Plates,” Advanced Composite Materials
in Bridges and Structures, CSCE, Sherbrooke, Canada, 1992, pp. 253-263.
7. Triantafillou, T. C., and Deskovic, N., “Innovative Prestressing with
FRP Sheets: Mechanics of Short-Term Behavior,” Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, V. 117, No. 7, 1991, pp.1652-1672.
8. Triantafillou, T. C., and Plevris, N., “Strengthening of R/C Beams
with Epoxy-Bonded Fiber Composite Materials,” Materials and Structures,
RILEM, V. 25, 1992, pp. 201-211.
9. Triantafillou, T. C.; Deskovic, N.; and Deuring, M., “Strengthening of
Concrete Structures with Prestressed Fiber Reinforced Plastic Sheets,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 3, 1992, pp. 235-244.
10. Plevris, N., and Triantafillou, T. C., “Time-Dependent Behavior of
RC Members Strengthened with FRP Laminates,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 120, No. 3, 1995, pp. 1016-1042.
11. Plevris, N.; Triantafillou, T. C.; and Veneziano, D., “Reliability of
RC Members Strengthened with CFRP Laminates,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 121, No. 7, 1995, pp. 1037-1044.
12. Saadatmanesh, H., and Ehsani, M., “RC Beams Strengthened with
GFRP Plates. I: Experimental Study,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 117, No. 11, 1991, pp. 3417-3433.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998
13. Saadatmanesh, H., and Ehsani, M., “RC Beams Strengthened with
GFRP Plates. II: Analysis and Parametric Stud,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 117, No. 11, 1991, pp. 3434-3455.
14. Katsumata, H.; Yoshirou, K.; and Toshikaza, T., “Study with Carbon
Fiber for Earthquake-Resistant Capacity of Existing Reinforced Concrete
Columns,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo, 1988, V. 7, pp. 517- 522.
15. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Fyfe, E., “Column Seismic Retrofit
Using Fiberglass/Epoxy Jackets,” Advanced Composite Materials in
Bridges and Structures, CSCE, Sherbrooke, Canada, 1992, pp. 287-298.
16. Saadatmanesh, H.; Ehsani, M. R.; and Li, M. W., “Behavior of Exter-
nally Confined Concrete Columns,” Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Reinforce-
ment for Concrete Structures, SP-138, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1992, pp. 249-265.
17. Kobatake, Y.; Kimura, K.; and Katsumata, H., “A Retrofitting
Method for Reinforced Concrete Structures Using Carbon Fiber,” Fiber-
Reinforced-Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Proper-
ties and Applications, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 435-450.
18. Nanni, A.; Norris, M. S.; and Bradford, N. M., “Lateral Confinement
of Concrete Using FRP Reinforcement,” Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Rein-
forcement for Concrete Structures, SP-138, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1992, pp. 193-209.
19. Ohuchi, H.; Tanaka, K.; and Kobatake, Y., “Carbon Fiber Retrofit of
the ‘Example B’ Bridge,” Seismic Design and Retrofitting of Reinforced
Concrete Bridges, edited by R. Park, 1994, pp. 737-748.
20. Berset, J.-D., “Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams for
Shear Using FRP Composites,” MSc thesis, Department of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jan. 1992.
21. Uji, K., “Improving Shear Capacity of Existing Reinforced Concrete
Members by Applying Carbon Fiber Sheets,” Transactions of the Japan
Concrete Institute, 1992, V. 14, pp. 253-266.
22. Dolan, C. W.; Rider, W.; Chajes, M. J.; and DeAscanis, M., “Pre-
stressed Concrete Beams Using Non-Metallic Tendons and External Shear
Reinforcement,” Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Struc-
tures, SP-138, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1992, pp. 475-495.
23. Al-Sulaimani, G. J.; Sharif, A.; Basunbul, I. A.; Baluch, M. H.; and Gha-
leb, B. N., “Shear Repair for Reinforced Concrete by Fiberglass Plate Bond-
ing,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 3, July-Aug. 1994, pp. 458-464.
24. Ohuchi, H.; Ohno, S.; Katsumata, H.; Kobatake, Y.; Meta, T.; Yamagata,
K.; Inokuma, Y.; and Ogata, N., “Seismic Strengthening Design Technique
for Existing Bridge Columns with CFRP,” Seismic Design and Retrofitting
of Reinforced Concrete Bridges, edited by R. Park, 1994, pp. 495-514.
25. Chajes, M. J.; Januska, T. F.; Mertz, D. R.; Thomson, T. A.; and
Finch, W. W., “Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using
Externally Applied Composite Fabrics,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No.
3, May-June 1995, pp. 295-303.
26. Malvar, L. J.; Warren, G. E.; and Inaba, C., “Rehabilitation of Navy
Pier Beams with Composite Sheets,” Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement
for Concrete Structures, E & FN Spon, London, 1995, pp. 534-540.
27. Vielhaber, J., and Limberger, E., “Upgrading of Concrete Beams
with a Local Lack of Shear Reinforcement,” Federal Institute for Materials
Research and Testing (BAM), Unpublished Report, Berlin, Germany, 1995.
28. Sato, Y.; Ueda, T.; Kakuta, Y.; and Tanaka, T., “Shear Reinforcing
Effect of Carbon Fiber Sheet Attached to Side of Reinforced Concrete
Beams,” Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, edited
by M. M. El-Badry, 1996, pp. 621-627.
29. Eurocode No. 2, “Design of Concrete Structures,” Comité Euro-
International du Béton, Lausanne, 1992.
30. Triantafillou, T. C., and Fardis, M. N., “Strengthening of Historic
Masonry Structures With Composite Materials,” Materials and Structures,
V. 30, pp. 486-496.
115