Original Research

Advances in Structural Engineering

1–12
Three-dimensional finite element Ó The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
modeling of intermediate crack sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369433219838082

debonding in fiber-reinforced-polymer- journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

strengthened reinforced concrete

beams

En-Li Xie , Chao-Yang Zhou, Ya-Nan Yu and Jun Liu

Abstract
Intermediate crack debonding is a common failure mode of reinforced concrete beams strengthened in flexure with an externally
bonded laminate (sheet or plate) of fiber-reinforced polymer. Many finite element models have been developed to predict this failure
mode. Research shows that the accurate modeling of interfaces between concrete and either internal steel or external fiber-
reinforced polymer reinforcements is very important. This article presents a three-dimensional finite element model based on the
smeared crack approach for predicting intermediate crack debonding failure of fiber-reinforced-polymer-strengthened reinforced con-
crete beams (including preloaded beams). In this model steel-to-concrete and fiber-reinforced-polymer-to-concrete interfaces are
more expediently modeled. The finite element results agree well with experimental results on crack patterns, fiber-reinforced polymer
strain distribution, and the variation of strain and deflection with load. This model can also simulate the fiber-reinforced polymer
debonding process of the beam and the response of the residual beam after the fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement has separated
from the reinforced concrete beam. In addition, parameters’ analyses are further conducted to find the differences between the two-
dimensional and three-dimensional models. Simulations of fiber-reinforced polymer-plated slabs or beams with additional anchors are
mostly three-dimensional problems, and their focus is also on intermediate crack debonding. This model can be used to simulate
fiber-reinforced-polymer-plated slabs or beams with additional anchors such as U-jacket strips or mechanically fastened fiber-
reinforced polymer strengthening systems in future research.

Keywords
bonding, concrete beams, fiber-reinforced polymer, finite element method, preloaded beams

Introduction analysis of failure mechanism and prediction of ulti-

Reinforced concrete (RC) beams can be strengthened
by bonding fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) plates to
their tension face. There are several failure modes of
this strengthening method. They are summarized as (1)
flexural failure by FRP rupture, (2) flexural failure by
crushing of compressive concrete, (3) shear failure, and
(4) failure by interfacial debonding between FRP plates
and RC beams. The modes of debonding in FRP-pla-
ted beams can be classified into four types (Teng et al.,
2003): (a) concrete cover separation, (b) plate end inter-
facial debonding, (c) intermediate flexural crack-
induced interfacial debonding, and (d) intermediate
flexural–shear crack-induced interfacial debonding.
Many attempts have been made to explore effective
solutions for debonding prevention (Kalfat et al., 2011;
Wu and Huang, 2008; Zhou et al., 2017). Meanwhile,
mate load are of the same importance.
Failure modes (c) and (d) abovementioned can be
collectively referred to as intermediate crack (IC)
debonding (IC debonding) which is very common in
FRP-strengthened RC beams. IC debonding initiates
at an IC in the beam and then propagates to one of
the laminate ends. Many finite element (FE) models
have been made to simulate IC debonding. To accu-
rately predict IC debonding in FRP-plated RC beams,
an FE approach should consider the following three
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China
Corresponding author:
Chao-Yang Zhou, School of Civil Engineering, Central South University,
Changsha 410075, China.
Email: cyzhou@csu.edu.cn
2 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
key components: (a) appropriate modeling of concrete
cracking, (b) accurate modeling of the bond of FRP-
to-concrete interface, and (c) accurate modeling of the
bond of steel-to-concrete interface (Chen et al., 2010).
There are mainly two approaches of FE analysis to
simulate the crack propagation in RC beams. One is
the discrete crack approach, which is the first proposed
crack model to simulate concrete cracking. The basic
idea is to treat the crack as the boundary of the ele-
ments, adjust the position of the node or add new
nodes once the crack appears, and remesh the elements
so that the crack is between the boundaries of the ele-
ments. In this way, the discontinuity caused by cracks
can be described naturally, and the location, shape,
and width of cracks can be clearly expressed.
Therefore, this approach can predict slip concentra-
tions near a crack. To trace the propagation of crack-
ing, it requires continuous remeshing in the solution
process. In RC beams, many cracks need to be traced,
which involves prohibitively large computational
effort. Moreover, pre-definition of crack positions is
required in the discrete crack approach. As a result,
the discrete crack approach has only been used to
investigate IC debonding resulting from one or several
pre-defined cracks (Monti et al., 2003; Niu and Wu,
2005; Sun et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2003). The other is
the smeared crack approach. Its essence is to ‘‘smear’’
actual concrete cracks into the entire element, treat
concrete material as anisotropic material, and use the
material constitutive model of concrete to simulate the
influence of cracks. In this way, when the stress of a
concrete element exceeds the cracking stress, the mate-
rial constitutive matrix can be adjusted without chang-
ing the element shape or remeshing the elements,
which is easy to implement using a FE program.
Therefore, it has been much more popular with
researchers who are concerned with IC debonding in
FRP-plated RC beams (Baky et al., 2007; Chen et al.,
2010; Coronado and Lopez, 2006; Fu, 2016; He et al.,
2006; Kotynia et al., 2008; Li and Wu, 2018; Lu et al.,
2007; Neale et al., 2006; Nour et al., 2007; Pham and
Al-Mahaidi, 2005; Teng et al., 2004; Wong and
Vecchio, 2003; Wu and Yin, 2003). The assumptions
in the smeared crack approach lead to the mesh sensi-
tivity problem: results of the simulation with the
smeared crack approach are sensitive to the choice of
size of elements. To address the mesh sensitivity prob-
lem, Bažant and Oh (1983) proposed the crack band
model, which further developed the traditional
smeared crack model. By introducing the concepts of
fracture zone and fracture energy, the smeared crack
model was combined with fracture mechanics to
reduce the influence of element size.
Appropriate modeling of FRP-to-concrete inter-
faces is essential for the accurate prediction of IC
debonding. Most existing studies considered slips
between the FRP plate and the concrete using a bond-
slip model. The model is generally derived from pull
tests in which the FRP-to-concrete interface is subject
to shear by loading the FRP plate in tension. However,
many researchers have found that the debonding
strength of the interface is often overestimated if the
bonding slip relationship obtained from pull tests is
directly used to simulate the interface element (Wong
and Vecchio, 2003). When the smeared crack model is
employed to simulate the crack propagation, the crack
is simulated evenly distributed as tensile strain over a
representative zone of concrete. It does not require
remeshing, but it cannot predict slip concentrations
near a crack. As a result, the slip near the crack
obtained from the smeared crack model is smaller than
the actual slip. Therefore, if the relationship derived
from pull tests is directly used to represent the shear
bond stress–slip behavior of the FRP-to-concrete inter-
face, the load capacity will be overestimated. Lu et al.
(2007) proposed a dual local debonding criterion to
solve this problem.
Appropriate modeling of steel-to-concrete interfaces
is essential for capturing the localization of slips at
cracks. Most existing studies on FE modeling of FRP-
plated RC beams considered the bond behavior of
steel-to-concrete interface using either perfect bonding
(i.e. directly connecting the concrete elements to steel
elements) or tension stiffening concrete stress–strain
model (i.e. directly connecting the concrete elements to
steel elements and modifying the stress–strain model
for concrete elements adjacent to consider the slip
between concrete and steel tension bars; Baky et al.,
2007; Coronado and Lopez, 2006; Kotynia et al., 2008;
Lu et al., 2007; Neale et al., 2006; Nour et al., 2007;
Pham and Al-Mahaidi, 2005; Teng et al., 2004; Wong
and Vecchio, 2003). Both approaches are inaccurate in
predicting cracking behavior (i.e. crack patterns and
widths), thus leading to inaccurate prediction of IC
debonding (Chen et al., 2010). Chen et al. (2010) con-
sidered the bond behavior of both steel-to-concrete
interface and FRP-to-concrete interface using interfa-
cial elements cooperating with the appropriate bond–
slip models for them to connect the concrete elements
and steel elements. Numerical results presented in
Chen et al. (2010) show that their approach has the
ability to accurately predict the crack pattern as well as
crack width, thus accurately predicting IC debonding
of FRP-plated RC beams.
Based on Lu et al. (2007) and Chen et al.’s (2010)
research, this article presents a three-dimensional (3D)
Xie et al. 3

"  #
FE model to simulate IC debonding in FRP-plated st wt 3 ðc2 wwt Þ wt  
RC beams (including preloaded beams), as there is no = 1 + c1 e cr  1 + c31 e(c2 ) ð3Þ
ft wcr wcr
FE model published to simulate IC debonding failure
of preloaded beams. Our model is implemented in GF
wcr = 5:14 ð4Þ
ABAQUS (Simulia, 2013). In this model, the interfaces ft
between the concrete and both the internal steel and
where wt is the crack opening displacement, wcr is the
the external FRP reinforcements are more expediently
crack opening displacement at the complete loss of tensile
modeled. The capability and accuracy of the proposed
stress, st is the tensile stress normal to the crack direction,
FE model are demonstrated through comparisons of
GF is the fracture energy required to create a stress-free
its predictions with selected test results. In addition,
crack over a unit area, and c1 = 3.0 and c2 = 6.93 are
parameters’ analyses that cannot be implemented in
constants determined from tensile tests of concrete. The
two-dimensional (2D) models are further studied to
Comite Euro-International du Beton–Federation
observe the differences between 2D and 3D models.
International de la Precontrainte (CEB-FIP, 1993) equa-
The model is based on the smeared crack approach,
tion is used in this article to estimate ft and GF
while the crack band theory (Bažant and Oh, 1983) is
adopted to overcome the mesh sensitivity problem. 0
!(2=3)
More information about this approach is shown in the fc  8
ft = 1:4 MPa ð5Þ
following. 10
0
!0:7
2 fc
Modeling of concrete GF = (0:00469da  0:5da + 26) N=mm ð6Þ
10
The concrete is modeled using the 3D solid element
where da is the maximum aggregate size of the con-
C3D8R which is an eight-node linear brick–adopted
crete. In this study, it is assumed to be 20 mm if no test
reduced integration with hourglass control.
data are given. The stress–displacement curve deter-
The compress and tensile behavior is defined using
mined by equations (3) to (6) can be transformed into
concrete plasticity damage model in ABAQUS.
a stress–strain curve according to the crack band model
Poisson’s ratio and the dilation angle are assumed
in ABAQUS.
to be 0.2 and 35°, respectively. The stress–strain
The damage variable (d) is computed using the
relationship of concrete under uniaxial compression
equations proposed by Lubliner et al. (1989), whose
is defined based on the following equation proposed
plastic degradation occurs only in the softening range.
by Saenz (1964)
It can be described during both compression and ten-
ae sion behavior as
sc =     2 ð1Þ
ae s
1 + spp  2 eep + eep d =1  ð7Þ
f
where sc and e are the compressive stress and compres- where s is the stress and f is either the compressive
sive strain, respectively; sp and ep are the maximum 0
strength (fc ) or tensile strength (ft) of concrete as
compressive stress and its corresponding strain, and appropriate.
they are set to be equal to the cylinder compressive
0
strength (fc ) and 0.002, respectively; and a is the initial
tangent modulus which is set to be equal to the elastic Modeling of steel and steel–concrete
modulus of concrete Ec that is estimated following the bond behavior
equation from the American Concrete Institute (ACI,
The steel is modeled using truss element T3D2 (two-
2008) guidelines
node linear displacement), and the constitutive relation
qffiffiffiffiffi is shown in Figure 1, which is a bilinear relation allow-
0
Ec = 4730 fc ð2Þ ing for the strain hardening slope. In Figure 1, fsu is the
ultimate tensile strength, fsy is the yield strength, and
The tensile behavior of concrete is defined as linear esu and esy are the corresponding steel strains.
elastic up to the tensile strength (ft), and the descending The bond behavior between longitudinal bars and
branch is determined following the stress–crack open- concrete is modeled using spring elements, while stir-
ing displacement relationship proposed by Hordijk rups are modeled using the embedded element tech-
(1991) nique as the slip between stirrups and concrete is
4 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Modeling of FRP and FRP–concrete bond

Figure 1. Constitutive relation for steel.
neglected. The embedded element technique is
described in the following: ABAQUS will search for
the geometric relationships between nodes on the
embedded elements and the host elements. If a node
on an embedded element lies within a host element,
the degrees of freedom at the node will be eliminated
by constraining them to the interpolated values of the
degrees of freedom of the host element (Simulia, 2013).
The process used to create spring elements is
described as follows. First, create a virtual longitudinal
bar. Its property, length, position, and mesh size are
the same as those of longitudinal bars, but its sectional
area is very small, that is, 0.001 mm2. Then, embed the
virtual longitudinal bar elements into the concrete ele-
ments. Finally, connect the same position nods of vir-
tual longitudinal bar elements and longitudinal bar
elements using spring elements. In this way, the force
of the longitudinal bar can be evenly transferred to the
concrete elements through the virtual bar, and the
modeling process is simplified at the same time. The
behavior of spring elements in the direction parallel to
the steel–concrete interface is defined by using the
CEB-FIP (1993) bond–slip model. It can be expressed
as follows for deformed bars
8  a
> s
>
> t (0 ł s ł s1 )
>
>
max
s1
>
>
<t (s1 ł s ł s2 )
max
t=  
>
> s  s 2
>
> t max  (t max  t f ) (s2 ł s ł s3 )
>
> s3  s2
>
:
tf (s3 ł s)
behavior
The FRP reinforcement is modeled using 3D shell ele-
ments S4R which are four-node general-purpose shell
elements adopted reduced integration with hourglass
control, and it is assumed to be linear–elastic–brittle.
In ABAQUS, researchers usually use cohesive elements
to analyze bond–slip behavior between FRP and con-
crete; however, this requires a high demand of meshes
and is sensitive to adhesive layer thickness. After
several attempts, we put aside the idea of creating a
new adhesive layer independently; instead, bond–slip
behavior between FRP and concrete can be achieved
by defining contact interaction analysis ‘‘Cohesive
Behavior’’ and ‘‘Damage.’’ This method is similar to
the zero-thickness cohesive element, which is insensitive
to mesh changes and has better convergence. The
‘‘Maximum nominal stress criterion’’ is used as well as
the ‘‘Damage stabilization’’ principle in which a small
coefficient of viscosity is set to increase convergence.
The property of the contact interaction is defined
using ‘‘Bond-Slip Model II’’ (Lu et al., 2007). The rea-
son we chose the model and the details of the model
are as follows. Lu et al. (2005a) developed a bond–slip
model for the behavior of FRP-to-concrete bonded
joints in pull tests (Lu et al., 2005b), and they examined
the interfacial bond–slip curves at different locations
along the interface in an FRP-strengthened plain con-
crete beam (Lu et al., 2007). The results showed that
the bond–slip relationship is very close for the parts of
the interface outside the major flexural crack zone. For
the part of the interface inside the major flexural crack
zone, which is the focus of IC debonding simulation,
the bond–slip relationship can be closely described by
the bond–slip model of Lu et al. (2005a) with a brittle
post-peak branch. In this study, the property of the
contact interaction in the direction parallel to the steel–
concrete interface is defined by the bilinear model of
Lu et al. (2005a) with a brittle post-peak branch, which
is a simplified version of ‘‘Bond-Slip Model II.’’ It can
be expressed as follows
8
< t max s (0 ł s ł s0 )
s0
ð8Þ t= ð9Þ
:
0 (s.s0 )
where

where s is the slip between steel and concrete and

ffi t is
pffiffiffiffi t max = 1:5bw ft ð10Þ
0
the corresponding shear stress. t max = 2:0 fc , t f =
0.15tmax, a = 0.4, s1 = s2 = 0.6 mm, and s0 = 0:0195bw ft ð11Þ
s3 = 1.0 mm. In the direction normal to the interface, sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
it is assumed that there is no relative displacement 2:25  bf =bc
bw = ð12Þ
between the steel reinforcement and the concrete. 1:25 + bf =bc
Xie et al.
where bf is the width of the FRP plate and bc is the
width of the concrete beam. Normal to the interface,
the property of the contact interaction is assumed to
behave linear elastically with a stiffness of the adhesive
layer, which is also adopted by Chen et al. (2010).
Modeling techniques
To improve the convergence of the numerical solution,
a dynamic approach is employed, in which an essen-
tially static nonlinear deformation problem is treated
as a dynamic problem and solved using the Hilber–
Hughes–Taylor a method (Hilber, 1978; an implicit
time integration method) available in ABAQUS. To
employ the dynamic approach, the densities of con-
crete, steel, and FRP plate are set to be 2400, 7800, and
1750 kg/m3, respectively, while Rayleigh mass propor-
tional damping and Rayleigh stiffness proportional
damping for all three materials are calculated by pre-
scribing a viscous damping ratio value of 0.0005, and
the loading time is set to be 2 s. It is proved in Chen
et al. (2015) that this dynamic approach with these set-
tings can achieve a close approximation of the static
solution for IC debonding in FRP-plated RC beams.
To simulate beams under sustained load, the model
change technique in ABAQUS is adopted, which can
be used to simulate removal and reactivation of ele-
ments or contact pairs. The progress of implementing
model change technique is described as follows. First,
create a virtual FRP plate whose progress is similar to
the creation of virtual bar. The function of virtual FRP
is to locate the FRP location at a specific loading time.
Then, ‘‘Merge’’ the virtual FRP part and FRP part,
noting that ‘‘Remove duplicate elements’’ in ‘‘Merge
nodes’’ option should not be selected. In this way, a
new part with the same node numbers but different ele-
ment numbers has been generated. Because the virtual
FRP shares nodes with the FRP, when the FRP is reac-
tivated, it is positioned at the location of the virtual
FRP. Next, create contact interaction between FRP
and concrete. We set tangential and normal contact
interaction behavior between virtual FRP and concrete
as frictionless and ‘‘Hard’’ contact, respectively, and do
not select ‘‘Allow separation after contact.’’ Finally, set
the ‘‘Model change’’ options: deactivate FRP elements
in the start and then reactivate them under a specific
load and deactivate virtual FRP elements simultane-
ously. The corresponding contact interaction in the
‘‘Model change’’ is set in a similar way.
By taking advantage of symmetry, only a quarter of
the specimen was modeled for all the RC beams. Since
the FE model is a quarter-symmetric model, the corre-
sponding symmetric constraints should be set at the mid-
span section along the length direction and the mid-
5
Figure 2. Simple 3D model with geometrical and loading data.
section along the width direction, and vertical constraints
should be set at the centerline of the base of the support.
Comparison between FE and
experimental results
Matthys (2000) reported the results of experimental
study of RC beams strengthened in flexure with CFRP
reinforcement, which included load–deflection rela-
tionship, cracking behavior, moment–strain behavior,
and FRP strain distribution. Comparisons have been
made between experimental data and FE results in
such behaviors. Matthys (2000) tested nine RC beams,
two of which were reference beams (BF1 and BF7)
and others were FRP-plated beams (BF2–BF6, BF8,
and BF9). It should be noted that all of the FRP-pla-
ted beams were failed by IC debonding. Beam BF5
was preloaded with 110 kN. Beams BF4 and BF6 were
precracked and anchored at the plate ends, respec-
tively, which are beyond the scope of this study. The
test behavior of beam BF3 was almost the same as that
of BF2. Therefore, six beams (BF1, BF2, BF5, and
BF7–BF9) were simulated to compare with the test
results in predicting IC debonding failure. Geometrical
and material properties of those beams are given in
Figure 2 and Table 1.
Mesh convergence study
The result of mesh convergence study of specimen BF2
is shown in Figure 3. To reduce the computing time,
meshes in width direction were controlled to be a single
element as forces in that direction are very small.
Figure 3 shows the influence of different concrete ele-
ment sizes and the effect of meshing one element in
width direction, where ‘‘20 mm in all directions’’ was
meshed in three coordinate system directions of 20 mm
and others are meshed into one element in width direc-
tion. The predicted ultimate loads of beams of element
size of 10, 20, 40, and 20 mm in all directions are
176.9, 177.4, 175.8, and 175.1 kN, respectively, with
differences of only 0.34%, 0.62%, 0.28%, and 0.68%,
respectively, as the mean of these predicted ultimate
6 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Table 1. Geometrical and material properties of RC beam specimens.

Specimen BF1 BF2 BF5 BF7 BF8 BF9

Beam Type of strengthening (U = unstrengthened; U S P U S S

S = strengthened; P = preloaded)
Span/shear span (mm) 3800/1250
Width (mm) 200
Height/effective depth (mm) 450/410
Concrete Cylinder compressive strength (MPa) 33.7 36.5 37.4 38.5 39.4 33.7
Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 27,460 28,580 28,927 29,350 29,690 27,460
Tensile strength (MPa) 2.627 2.814 2.873 2.944 3.002 2.627
Tension bars Nominal diameter (mm) 4Y16 (deformed) 2Y16 (deformed)
Yield strength/tensile strength (MPa) 590/690
Ultimate strain (%) 12.4
Elastic modulus (GPa) 200
Stirrups Nominal diameter (mm) Y8 at 100 (deformed, double legs)
Yield strength/tensile strength (MPa) 560/620
Ultimate strain (%) 12.4
Elastic modulus (GPa) 200
FRP plates Nominal thickness (mm) None 1.2 1.2 None 1.2 2 3 0.111
Strip width (mm) 100 100 100 100
Strip length (mm) 3660 3660 3660 3660
Tensile strength (MPa) 3200 3200 3200 3500
Elastic modulus (GPa) 159 159 159 233

FRP: fiber-reinforced polymer; RC: reinforced concrete.

Figure 4. Finite element model of specimen BF2 after

debonding.

influence of element size on the clarity of crack pattern,

Figure 3. Load versus deflection curve of specimen BF2.
loads is 176.3 kN. The corresponding deflections are
32.2, 33.7, 31.8, and 33.3 mm, respectively, with differ-
ences of only 1.68%, 2.90%, 2.90%, and 1.68%,
respectively, as the mean of these corresponding deflec-
tions is 32.75 mm. Nevertheless, the load–deflection
curve of the 40 mm mesh has some defects, perhaps
because the mesh is too large. The result shows that
different concrete element sizes have some influence on
IC debonding in simulation, but the influence is very
small compared to the variance of the test results.
Meanwhile, reducing the element number in width
direction also has a very small influence. Owing to the
we chose the smallest element size as far as possible
within the acceptable computing time. In this study,
these six beams were modeled using a concrete element
size of 10 mm while meshing only one element in the
width direction. Take the beam BF2 for instance;
Figure 4 shows the meshed 3D model after debonding,
in which CSLIP1 SPOS is the interfacial slip distance
between FRP and concrete.
Load–deflection relationship
Figure 5 shows the comparison of load–deflection
behavior between simulation and test results. The pre-
dicted ultimate loads of Beams BF1, BF2, BF5, BF7,
BF8, and BF9 are 143.9, 176.9, 169.3, 78.6, 115.5, and
95.2 kN, respectively, which are close to the corre-
sponding test values of 144.2, 185.0, 177.0, 80.7, 111.3,
Xie et al. 7

Figure 5. Comparison of load–deflection behavior between

simulation and test results (Matthys, 2000).

and 95.8 kN (Matthys, 2000), with differences of only

0.21%, 4.4%, 4.4%, 2.6%, 3.8%, and 0.63%, respec-
tively. The post-debonding behavior is also obtained in
this simulation, and the results show that the capacities
of strengthened beams after debonding are very close
to the reference beams. The load–deflection behavior
of the preloaded beam BF5 is almost the same as the Figure 6. Comparisons of crack patterns at the ultimate load
reference beam BF1 before the load was applied to between simulation and test results (Matthys, 2000).
110 kN, after which the load–deflection diverges as the
FRP reinforcement was strengthened to the beam. It
follows that the behavior of beams strengthened under
sustained load is accurately simulated.

Crack patterns
Figure 6 shows the comparison of crack patterns at
the ultimate load between simulation and test results
(Matthys, 2000), which match closely. The numbers of
cracks of beams BF1, BF2, and BF5 are obviously
more than those of beams BF7, BF8, and BF9, which
is also shown via simulation. On account of the
dynamic effect and quarter-modeling of the specimen,
the FRP plate would entirely separate from the con-
crete beam after totally debonding in simulation as
shown in Figure 6. The debonding behavior in simula-
tion will be explained in detail later in this article,
Figure 7. Comparison of strain of steel reinforcement
which has good agreement with the test results shown
between simulation and test results (Matthys, 2000).
in Figure 6.

Strain of steel reinforcement and
concrete
In Figures 7 and 8, the steel reinforcement tensile
strain and concrete compressive strain are given. The
strains of simulation in the following figures are
obtained by calculating the average strain of the ele-
ments within the length of mechanical deformeters
which has a gauge length of 200 mm in this study
(Matthys, 2000). The strain of steel reinforcement and
concrete shows good agreement between simulation
and test results.
8 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Figure 8. Comparison of concrete strain between simulation
and test results (Matthys, 2000).
Figure 9. Comparison of FRP strain behavior between the
simulation and test results (Matthys, 2000).
FRP strain and its distribution
Figure 9 shows the comparison of load–FRP strain
behavior between the simulation and test results. The
predicted maximum FRP strain values of beams BF2,
BF5, BF8, and BF9 are 5948 me, 5030 me, 6211 me,
and 10630 me, respectively, which are close to the test
maximum strain values of 6700 me, 5700 me, 5800 me,
and 10,000 me, respectively (Matthys, 2000). The load–
FRP strain curve of beam BF5 is quite different from
the others, because of the preload. When the load
reaches 110 kN and the FRP plate is attached, the
FRP strain begins to increase. When FRP debonds,
strain value will fluctuate sharply. Therefore to make
Figure 9 appear clear, the simulated curve is truncated
after debonding.
The FRP strain distribution along its length is
shown in Figure 10, where Figure 10(a) shows the
strain distribution of beams BF2 and BF5 under the
load of 150 kN, while Figure 10(b) shows the strain
distribution of beams BF2, BF8, and BF9 under the
load of 70 kN. Owing to cracks, the simulated strain
distribution is not very smooth. The strains for beam
BF5 are considerably lower than BF2, as the beam
was already loaded before strengthening. For a given
load level, higher strains are measured for beams BF8
and BF9 than for beam BF2 (Figure 10(b)). Indeed,
the beams BF8 and BF9 have a lower amount of steel
reinforcement, so that the FRP has to act to a larger
extent to build up the same total (steel and FRP) ten-
sile force in the section as for beam BF2. The strains
increase rapidly as the load increases after the tensile
steel yields, which can be seen in Figure 9. For load
levels above the yielding of the internal steel reinforce-
ment, the tensile force in the section can only further
increase, thanks to the FRP (the tensile force in the
steel remains constant after yielding). As a result, FRP
strains shall increase to a larger extent. At that stage,
once the simulation and test results have a little differ-
ence, the strains under the same load would differ con-
siderably. The strain distribution for beam BF5 under
the load of 150 kN does not match very well; neverthe-
less, the test results under the load of 150 kN and the
simulation results under the load of 153 kN show
good agreement.
Debonding process analysis
The debonding process in the simulation is described
as follows: This study takes the beam BF8 for example
and selects three representative states during the
debonding process: state 1 when FRP plate starts
debonding; state 2 when FRP plate is in the debonding
process; and state 3 when complete debonding of the
FRP plate occurs. Because the debonding process hap-
pened abruptly, the midspan deflections of the beam
at these three states are almost the same and they are
28.0854, 28.1046, and 28.1058 mm, respectively. The
distributions of interfacial shear stress, interfacial slip,
and FRP strain at these three states are shown in
Figure 11. It can be seen from Figure 11(a) that inter-
facial debonding started at the intermediate section of
the FRP plate and then propagated toward the nearer
plate end as the area where the interfacial shear stress
is zero has already debonded. At state 3, interfacial
debonding had propagated to the plate end and the
Xie et al. 9

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Comparison of FRP strain distribution between the simulation and test results: (a) Beam BF2 and BF5 under the load of
150 kN and (b) Beam BF2, BF8 and BF9 under the load of 70 kN(Matthys, 2000).

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 11. Debonding process of the beam BF8: (a) interfacial shear stress distribution, (b) interfacial slip distribution and (c) FRP
strain distribution.

FRP reinforcement had separated from the RC beam, Parameter analysis

which can be seen in Figure 11(b). It can be seen from
Figure 11(c) that FRP strain varies very little at the
debonding area. In addition, FRP strain reduces con-
siderably at state 3 and has not reduced to zero yet on
account of the dynamic effect.
The effect of FRP placement on IC debonding is dis-
cussed as follows:Figure 12 shows a schematic diagram
of the FRP plate location. We choose four configura-
tions. Configuration 1 is the same as beam BF2, and
10
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 12. Schematic diagram of the FRP plate location: (a)
configuration 1, (b) configuration 2, (c) configuration 3, and (d)
configuration 4.
other configurations divide an FRP plate into the same
two pieces and place them in different positions. These
beams were modeled using a concrete element size of
20 mm in three coordinate system directions. The
results of these different configurations are shown in
Figure 13. The predicted ultimate loads of beams of
these configurations are 175.4, 175.0, 175.9, and 175.0,
respectively. The predicted ultimate loads before com-
pletely debonding are 34.8, 37.3, 34.1, and 32.4 mm
respectively. It can be seen that the ultimate loads of
these beams are almost the same, but the deflections
are slightly different. We can obtain an approximation
indicating that the more dispersed the FRP plates are,
the more likely the beam is to debond. In addition, if
the location and total amount of the plates are the
same, it is more difficult to debond for a few plates
than a single one. However, the difference in the results
between these beams is not significant.
Conclusion
This article has presented a 3D FE model on the basis
of the smeared crack approach for predicting IC
debonding failure of FRP-strengthened RC beams.
Compared with the experimental results, the FE model
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Figure 13. Load–deflection curves of different configurations.
not only shows good prediction of IC debonding fail-
ure but also shows good agreement on details such as
load–deflection relationship, crack patterns, load–
strain relationship, and FRP strain distribution. The
model also has the following characteristics:
1. This model can simulate preloaded beams.
2. Compared with other models on the basis of
the smeared crack approach, the interfaces
between the concrete and both the internal steel
and the external FRP reinforcements are more
expediently modeled.
3. This model can simulate the FRP debonding
process of the beam and the response of the
residual beam after the FRP reinforcement has
separated from the RC beam.
The parametric analysis shows that the 3D model is
more advanced than the 2D model, although it is not
obvious in simulating IC debonding of RC beams with
purely bonded FRP laminate. Nevertheless, this model
can be used to simulate FRP-plated slabs or beams
with additional anchors such as U-jacket strips or
mechanically fastened FRP strengthening system in
future research.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The authors are grateful for the financial support
Xie et al.
received from the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 51878664) and the National Key R&D
Program of China (National Key Project No.
2017YFC0703506). The authors are also grateful to the
anonymous reviewers for helping to significantly improve the
quality of the manuscript.
ORCID iD
En-Li Xie https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3558-0207
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2008) 318-08: Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commen-
tary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
Baky HA, Ebead UA and Neale KW (2007) Flexural and
interfacial behavior of FRP-strengthened reinforced con-
crete beams. Journal of Composites for Construction 11(6):
629–639.
Bažant ZP and Oh BH (1983) Crack band theory for fracture
of concrete. Materials and Structures 16(3): 155–177.
Chen GM, Teng JG and Chen JF (2010) Finite-element
modeling of intermediate crack debonding in FRP-plated
RC beams. Journal of Composites for Construction 15(3):
339–353.
Chen GM, Teng JG, Chen JF, et al. (2015) Finite element
modeling of debonding failures in FRP-strengthened RC
beams: a dynamic approach. Computers & Structures 158:
167–183.
Comite Euro-International du Beton-Federation International
de la Precontrainte (CEB-FIP) (1993) CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990: Design Code. London: Thomas Telford.
Coronado CA and Lopez MM (2006) Sensitivity analysis of
reinforced concrete beams strengthened with FRP lami-
nates. Cement and Concrete Composites 28(1): 102–114.
Fu B (2016) Debonding Failure in FRP-strengthened RC
Beams: Prediction and Suppression. Kowloon: The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University.
He W, Wu Y-F, Liew K, et al. (2006) A 2D total strain based
constitutive model for predicting the behaviors of con-
crete structures. International Journal of Engineering Sci-
ence 44(18–19): 1280–1303.
Hilber HM (1978) Analysis and Design of Numerical Integra-
tion methods in Structural Dynamics. Springfield, VI:
National Technical Information Service.
Hordijk DA (1991) Local approach to fatigue of concrete.
Doctoral Dissertation, Delft University of Technology,
Delft.
Kalfat R, Al-Mahaidi R and Smith ST (2011) Anchorage
devices used to improve the performance of reinforced
concrete beams retrofitted with FRP composites: state-of-
the-art review. Journal of Composites for Construction
17(1): 14–33.
Kotynia R, Abdel Baky H, Neale KW, et al. (2008) Flexural
strengthening of RC beams with externally bonded CFRP
systems: test results and 3D nonlinear FE analysis. Journal
of Composites for Construction 12(2): 190–201.
11
Li X-H and Wu G (2018) Finite-element analysis and
strength model for IC debonding in FRP-strengthened
RC beams. Journal of Composites for Construction 22(5):
04018030.
Lu XZ, Teng JG, Ye LP, et al. (2005a) Bond–slip models for
FRP sheets/plates bonded to concrete. Engineering Struc-
tures 27(6): 920–937.
Lu XZ, Ye LP, Teng JG, et al. (2005) Meso-scale finite ele-
ment model for FRP sheets/plates bonded to concrete.
Engineering Structures 27(4): 564–575
Lu XZ, Teng JG, Ye LP, et al. (2007) Intermediate crack
debonding in FRP-strengthened RC beams: FE analysis
and strength model. Journal of Composites for Construc-
tion 11(2): 161–174.
Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, et al. (1989) A plastic-damage
model for concrete. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 25(3): 299–326.
Matthys S (2000) Structural Behaviour and Design of Concrete
Members Strengthened with Externally Bonded FRP Rein-
forcement. Ghent: Ghent University.
Monti G, Renzelli M and Luciani P (2003) FRP adhesion in
uncracked and cracked concrete zones. In: 6th Interna-
tional symposium on fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) rein-
forcement for concrete structures, Singapore, 8–10 July,
pp. 183–192. Singapore: World Scientific.
Neale K, Ebead U, Baky HA, et al. (2006) Analysis of the
load-deformation behaviour and debonding for FRP-
strengthened concrete structures. Advances in Structural
Engineering 9(6): 751–763.
Niu HD and Wu ZS (2005) Numerical analysis of debonding
mechanisms in FRP-strengthened RC beams. Computer-
Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 20(5): 354–368.
Nour A, Massicotte B, Yildiz E, et al. (2007) Finite element
modeling of concrete structures reinforced with internal
and external fibre-reinforced polymers. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering 34(3): 340–354.
Pham H and Al-Mahaidi R (2005) Finite element modelling
of RC beams retrofitted with CFRP fabrics. Special Pub-
lication 230: 499–514.
Saenz LP (1964) Equation for the stress-strain curve of concrete.
Journal of the American Concrete Institute 61(9): 1229–1235.
Simulia D (2013) ABAQUS 6.13 User’s Manual. Providence,
RI: Dassault Systems.
Sun R, Sevillano E and Perera R (2015) A discrete spectral
model for intermediate crack debonding in FRP-strength-
ened RC beams. Composites Part B: Engineering 69:
562–575.
Teng JG, Lu XZ, Ye LP, et al. (2004) Recent research on
intermediate crack debonding in FRP-strengthened RC
beams. In: Proceeding of the 4th International Conference
on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Struc-
tures, Calgary, AB, Canada, 21–23 July.
Teng JG, Smith ST, Yao J, et al. (2003) Intermediate crack-
induced debonding in RC beams and slabs. Construction
and Building Materials 17(6–7): 447–462.
Wong RS and Vecchio FJ (2003) Towards modeling of rein-
forced concrete members with externally bonded fiber-
12
reinforced polymer composites. ACI Structural Journal
100(1): 47–55.
Wu Y-F and Huang Y (2008) Hybrid bonding of FRP to
reinforced concrete structures. Journal of Composites for
Construction 12(3): 266–273.
Wu ZS and Yin J (2003) Fracturing behaviors of FRP-
strengthened concrete structures. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 70(10): 1339–1355.
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Yang ZJ, Chen JF and Proverbs D (2003) Finite element
modelling of concrete cover separation failure in FRP
plated RC beams. Construction and Building Materials
17(1): 3–13.
Zhou C, Ren D and Cheng X (2017) Shear-strengthening of
RC continuous T-beams with spliced CFRP U-strips
around bars against flange top. Structural Engineering &
Mechanics 64(1): 135–143.