Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Interfacial stresses in plated beams

*
S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Received 2 May 2000; accepted 14 July 2000

Abstract

Fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP) or steel plates can be bonded to the soffit of a beam as a means of retrofitting the beam. In such
plated beams, tensile forces develop in the bonded plate and these have to be transferred to the original beam via interfacial shear
and normal stresses. Consequently, debonding failure may occur at the plate ends due to a combination of high shear and normal
interfacial stresses. This paper starts with a review of approximate closed-form solutions for interfacial stresses, identifying their
assumptions and limitations, thereby clarifying the differences between these solutions. This review also establishes the need for a
similar but more accurate solution, and such a solution is presented next in the paper. This new solution is intended for application
to beams made of all kinds of materials bonded with a thin plate, while all existing solutions have been developed focusing on the
strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) beams, which allowed the omission of certain terms. Finally, numerical comparisons
between the existing solutions and the present new solution enable a clear appreciation of the effects of various parameters. 
2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: FRP composites; Interfacial shear stresses; Interfacial normal/peeling stresses; Plate bonding; Beams; Retrofitting; Strengthening

1. Introduction minimal interference to the surrounding environment.

An existing beam can be retrofitted by bonding a
fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP) or steel plate to its soffit
(Fig. 1). This plate bonding technique has been used
widely to retrofit reinforced concrete (RC) beams, and
has also been used to retrofit beams of other materials.
The technique has numerous advantages such as increas-
ing the strength and stiffness of an existing beam with
Fig. 1. Soffit-plated beam.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2766-6047; fax: +852-2334-
6389.
E-mail address: cejgteng@polyu.edu.hk (J.G. Teng).
Consequently, many studies have been carried out on the
behaviour and strength of such plated beams (e.g., [1–
21]). In such retrofitted beams, debonding of the soffit
plate from the beam is an important failure mode as it
prevents the full ultimate flexural capacity of the retro-
fitted beam from being achieved. It is thus important to
be able to predict the debonding failure load. Debonding
failures depend largely on the interfacial shear and nor-
mal stresses between the beam and the bonded plate.
The determination of interfacial stresses has thus been
researched for the last decade for beams bonded with
either steel or FRP plates. In particular, several relatively
simple approximate closed-form solutions for interfacial
stresses have been developed [2–4,9,14,16] based on a
simple assumption for the adhesive layer as discussed
later. Despite all of these studies, one striking fact is that
the relationship between these existing solutions has not
been established clearly in the existing literature. This
paper therefore starts with a review of these existing sol-
utions, identifying their assumptions and limitations,
thereby clarifying the differences between them. This
review also establishes the need for a more accurate sol-
ution of the same type, which is subsequently presented
in the paper. This new solution is intended for appli-

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 9 0 - 0
858 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871
cation to beams made of all kinds of materials bonded
with a thin plate, while all existing solutions have gener-
ally been developed focusing on the strengthening of RC
beams, which allowed the omission of certain terms.
Finally, numerical comparisons between the existing sol-
utions and the present new solution enable a clear
appreciation of the effects of various parameters.
It should be noted that the type of analysis discussed
in this paper does not satisfy the zero shear stress con-
dition at the end of the adhesive layer. This drawback
is known to have only a limited effect in a very small
zone near the end of the plate [3]. For this condition to
be satisfied, a higher-order analysis has to be carried out.
The first such analysis has just appeared [20]. This
higher-order solution however does not provide explicit
expressions for the interfacial stresses, so numerical
results are not easily obtainable, which makes it difficult
for exploitation in developing a design rule. The cor-
rectness of this analysis has also been questioned [21].
In another higher-order analysis from the authors’ group
yet to be published [21], explicit expressions have been
obtained, but these are much more complex than the
expressions from the type of analysis discussed in this
paper. The simple approximate closed-form solutions
discussed in this paper provide a useful but simple tool
for understanding the interfacial behaviour and for
exploitation in developing a design rule. The present
paper is concerned only with this simple type of analysis
and, hereafter, no further reference to higher-order
interfacial stress analysis is made.
2. Review of existing solutions
2.1. Assumptions and approaches
All existing solutions are for linear elastic materials
only. The key assumption in all of these solutions is that
the adhesive layer is subject to shear and normal stresses
that are constant across the thickness of the adhesive
layer. It is this key assumption that enables relatively
simple closed-form solutions to be obtained, although
this assumption is somewhat hidden in some of the sol-
utions.
In the existing solutions, two different approaches
have been employed. Roberts [3] and Roberts and Haji-
Kazemi [4] used a staged analysis approach, while Vil-
nay [2], Liu and Zhu [9], Taljsten [14] and Malek et al.
[16] considered directly deformation compatibility con-
ditions.
2.2. Solutions based on direct deformation
compatibility consideration
Vilnay [2], Liu and Zhu [9], Taljsten [14] and Malek
et al. [16] directly considered compatibility of defor-
mations to determine the interfacial stresses. A summary
of the main differences between these analytical sol-
utions is given in Table 1. The solution of Malek et al.
[16] is general in terms of the applied load provided the
applied moment can be expressed by
M(x)=a1x2+a2x+a3, where x=x+L0 and L0 is the distance
between the plate cut-off point and the origin of x, while
the rest are restricted to certain loading conditions.
Interfacial shear stresses in the adhesive layer are
related to the difference between the longitudinal dis-
placement at the base of the beam and that at the top of
the soffit plate. The differences between these solutions
for interfacial shear stresses arise from the different
choices of terms for inclusion in determining these longi-
tudinal displacements. Bending deformations in the
beam and axial deformations in the soffit plate are taken
into account in all of these solutions. Liu and Zhu’s sol-
ution [9] is the only one that considers the effects of
shear deformations of the beam, but the contributions to
shear deformations in both the beam and the plate by
the interfacial normal stresses are ignored.
Interfacial normal stresses are related to vertical defor-
mation compatibility between the beam and the bonded
plate. Vilnay [2] and Taljsten [14] derived the governing
equation in terms of the vertical displacement of the
bonded plate. Liu and Zhu [9] and Malek et al. [16]
derived the governing equation in terms of the interfacial
normal stress. Nevertheless, the governing equations
derived by Vilnay and Taljsten can be reduced to those
of Liu and Zhu and Malek et al. with some differences.
The main differences between these solutions for interfa-
cial normal stresses are also summarised in Table 1.
It should also be noted that the solution of Liu and
Zhu is incomplete in that the constants of integration
were not given, instead only the boundary conditions
were listed.
2.3. Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution
Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4] is for a uni-
formly distributed load (UDL) only. In the first stage of
their solution, direct considerations of deformation com-
patibility lead to the determination of the interfacial
shear stress. Axial and bending deformations in both the
beam and the plate are considered. Free strains, which
may arise due to shrinkage, creep or temperature, in both
the beam and the plate are also included. If such free
strains are not present, then the boundary conditions
implemented in the first stage of analysis model the zero
axial force condition at the ends of the bonded plate. In
this first stage, the beam and the plate are assumed to
have identical vertical deflections. As a result, the
interfacial normal stress from the first stage has to be
worked out from an equilibrium consideration of the
beam. This first-stage analysis leads to a non-zero bend-
Table 1
Comparison of assumptions in analytical solutions

Theory Vilnay [2] Roberts [3] Roberts and Haji- Liu and Zhu [9] Taljsten [14] Malek et al. [16] Present solution
Kazemi [4]

Shear and normal stresses Load cases Point load at mid- General UDL UDL, point load at Single point load General with some General
span mid-span, two limitations
symmetric point
loads

Shear stress Axial deformations No Partially Yes No Yes Partially Yes

of beam considered* considered*

Bending No Partially Yes No No Partially Yes

deformations of considered* considered*
plate

Shear deformations No No No Yes but incorrectly No No Yes (in governing

equations only)

Boundary/continuity Zero shear stress – – Continuity in shear Zero shear stress Zero shear stress Continuity in shear
conditions at point stress and its first stress and its first
load derivative derivative

Other remarks – *Considered in – Only general – *Stress at base of Specific interfacial

stage 1 analysis solutions are given the original beam stress expressions
which is for a fully with boundary based on fully developed only for
composite section conditions composite action three load cases

Normal stress Bending No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

deformations of
S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

beam

Shear deformations No No No Yes but incorrectly No No Yes (in governing

equations only)

Additional plate Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

bending
deformations due to
interfacial shear
stresses
859
860 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871
ing moment and a non-zero transverse shear force at
each plate end.
In the second stage of analysis, a bending moment and
a shear force equal to those from the first stage but
opposite in direction are applied at each plate end. The
plate is treated as a flexible beam on an elastic foun-
dation which represents the adhesive. The effect of any
deflection of the beam on interfacial normal stresses is
ignored. The second stage leads to the determination of
additional interfacial normal stresses, and also additional
interfacial shear stresses due to the deflection of the plate
relative to the beam. The various assumptions of Roberts
and Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4] are given in Table 1.
The final interfacial shear and normal stresses are
found by combining the results from both stages; how-
ever, interfacial normal stresses from stage 1 and interfa-
cial shear stresses from stage 2 are, in general, rela-
tively small.
2.4. Roberts’ solution
Roberts’ solution [3] is general in terms of loading
conditions and consists of three stages. In the first stage,
the interfacial shear stress in the adhesive layer is
determined for a fully composite section of infinite
length. For a soffit plate of finite length, stage 1 of the
analysis produces an axial force at each end of the
bonded plate. As this force does not exist in practice,
the second stage of the analysis is to apply an equal but
opposite axial force to either end of the plate. In the
second stage the soffit plate is treated as being an axial
member with no bending deformations on an elastic
shear foundation representing the adhesive, with the
beam assumed to be rigid. At the end of the stage 2
analysis, there exist a non-zero moment and a non-zero
shear force at each end of the plate. In analysis stage 3,
equal but opposite moments and shear forces are applied
at the ends of the bonded plate with the plate assumed
to be a beam on an elastic foundation representing the
adhesive, while the beam is assumed to be rigid. Final
interfacial shear stresses are obtained by combining the
results from stages 1 and 2, while the interfacial normal
stresses are given by the stage 3 analysis only.
2.5. Need for a new solution
The above review suggests that the analysis of Roberts
and Haji-Kazemi [4] is likely to be the most accurate
for interfacial shear stresses as both axial deformations
in the beam and bending deformations in the plate are
taken into account. This solution is however restricted
to a UDL only and is rather complex. Most solutions
ignore the effects of axial deformations in the beam
and/or bending deformations in the plate. Such solutions
are expected to be unsuitable for cases when the bonded
plate has a significant flexural rigidity compared with the
beam, as in the case of an aluminium beam bonded with
a carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic (CFRP) plate.
For interfacial normal stresses, the solution of Taljsten
[14] is expected to be the most accurate as both bending
deformations in the beam and additional bending defor-
mations of the plate due to interfacial shear stresses are
properly accounted for. This solution is for a single point
load. Liu and Zhu’s solution [9] also considers both fac-
tors, but the constants of integration in their solution are
yet to be determined. Most solutions ignore the effect of
bending deformations in the beam. This omission again
may be inappropriate when the flexural rigidity of the
bonded plate becomes significant compared with that of
the beam.
While the assumptions adopted in these solutions are
reasonable for RC beams bonded with a thin plate, which
was the intended application, the above review does sug-
gest the need for a more accurate solution, both for appli-
cations to other situations where the flexural rigidity of
the beam and that of the bonded plate are more compara-
ble, and to assess the significance of the various terms
that have been omitted by existing solutions. In addition,
it should be commented that except for the works of
Roberts [3] and Roberts and Haji-Kazemi [4], all of the
other solutions are based on the deformation compati-
bility approach. From a physical point of view, interfa-
cial stresses in the adhesive layer are induced as the
adhesive layer attempts to enforce deformation compati-
bility between the RC beam and the soffit plate which
otherwise would deform without interaction. The defor-
mation compatibility method which embodies a simple
physical aspect is thus believed to be more advantageous
over the staged analysis approach of Roberts and Roberts
and Haji-Kazemi. In the following sections, a new sol-
ution that is based on the deformation compatibility
approach and fulfils the above-mentioned requirements
is presented. Governing equations and their general sol-
utions are derived for general loading conditions, while
specific interfacial stress expressions are given for three
important load cases: an arbitrarily positioned point load,
two symmetrically positioned point loads and a UDL. It
may be noted that, among the existing solutions, the one
likely to be the most accurate for the interfacial shear
stress is Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4] which
is limited to a UDL, while Taljsten’s solution [14],
which is likely to be the most accurate for the interfacial
normal stress, is limited to a single point load.
3. Assumptions of the new solution
The derivation of the new solution below is described
in terms of adherends 1 and 2, where adherend 1 is the
beam and adherend 2 is the soffit plate. Adherend 2 can
be either steel or FRP but not limited to these two. The
assumptions adopted in the present solution are summar-
ised below.
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871 861

Linear elastic behaviour of adherends 1 and 2, as well where u(x, y) and v(x, y) are the horizontal and vertical
as of the adhesive layer, is assumed. Deformations of displacements respectively at any point in the adhesive
adherends 1 and 2 are due to bending moments, axial layer as defined in Fig. 1. The corresponding shear stress
and shear forces. The adhesive layer is assumed to be is given as

冉 冊
subject to stresses invariant across its thickness. This is
du(x, y) dv(x, y)
the key assumption which enables relatively simple t(x)⫽Ga ⫹ , (2)
closed-form solutions to be obtained. dy dx
Under normal stresses in the thickness-wise direction, where Ga is the shear modulus of the adhesive layer.
the adhesive layer will deform, so the vertical displace- Differentiating the above expression with respect to x
ments at the bottom of adherend 1 and the top of gives

冉 冊
adherend 2 differ. As a result, the curvature of the beam
will differ from that of the soffit plate. These thickness- dt(x) d2u(x, y) d2v(x, y)
⫽Ga ⫹ . (3)
wise deformations of the adhesive are assumed to have dx dxdy dx2
a negligible effect on the interfacial shear stresses. That
The curvature of a differential element can be related to
is, in finding the interfacial shear stresses, the curvatures
the applied moment, MT(x), by the following
of both adherends are assumed to be the same. The same
assumption has been used by Roberts and Haji-Kazemi d2v(x) 1
2 ⫽⫺ M (x), (4)
[4]. This assumption is not used in the determination of dx (EI)t T
interfacial normal stresses.
where (EI)t is the total flexural rigidity of the composite
section considering the partial interaction between the
3.1. Interfacial shear stress: governing differential
two adherends. The adhesive layer is assumed to be sub-
equation
jected to uniform shear stresses and therefore u(x, y)
must vary linearly across the adhesive thickness ta, then
A differential segment of a plated beam is shown in
Fig. 2, where the interfacial shear and normal stresses du 1
are denoted by t(x) and s(x), respectively. Fig. 2 also ⫽ [u (x)⫺u1(x)] (5)
dy ta 2
shows the positive sign convention for the bending
moment, shear force, axial force and applied loading. and
The shear strain g in the adhesive layer can be written as

g⫽
du(x, y) dv(x, y)
⫹ , (1)
dxdy
⫽
ta dx
⫺冉
d2u(x, y) 1 du2(x) du1(x)
dx
, 冊 (6)

dy dx where u1(x) and u2(x) are the longitudinal displacements

at the base of adherend 1 and the top of adherend 2,
respectively, and ta is the thickness of the adhesive layer.
Eq. (3) can be rewritten as

dx
⫽
ta dx冉
dt(x) Ga du2(x) du1(x) ta
⫺
dx
⫺ M (x) .
(EI)t T 冊 (7)

In calculating (EI)t, interfacial shear stresses should

be considered but to do so would complicate the sol-
ution. The third term in parentheses in Eq. (7) is very
small and thus is ignored in the following derivation.
The strains at the base of adherend 1 and the top of
adherend 2, considering all three components of axial,
bending and shear deformations, are given as
du1 y1 1 y1
e1(x)⫽ ⫽ M (x)⫺ N (x)⫹ [q (8)
dx E1I1 1 E1A1 1 G1aA1
⫹b2s(x)]
and
du2 y2 1
e2(x)⫽ ⫽⫺ M2(x)⫹ N (x) (9)
dx E2I2 E2A2 2
y2
⫹ b s(x),
Fig. 2. Differential segment of a soffit-plated beam. G2aA2 2
862 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

where E is the elastic modulus, G the shear modulus, b2

the width of the soffit plate, A the cross-sectional area,
I the second moment of area and a the effective shear
d2t(x) Ga
dx 2
⫽
ta
⫺ 冉y2 dM2(x)
E2I2 dx
⫹
1 dN2(x)
E2A2 dx
area multiplier, which is equal to 5/6 for a rectangular y2 ds(x) y1 dM1(x) 1 dN1(x)
⫹ b2 ⫺ ⫹ (19)
section. The subscripts 1 and 2 denote adherends 1 and G2aA2 dx E1I1 dx E1A1 dx

冊
2, respectively. M(x), N(x) and V(x) are the bending
y1 dq y1 ds(x)
moment, axial and shear forces in each adherend while ⫺ ⫺ b2 .
y1 and y2 are the distances from the bottom of adherend G1aA1 dx G1aA1 dx
1 and the top of adherend 2 to their respective centroid. Substitution of the shear forces [Eqs. (17) and (18)] and
Consideration of horizontal equilibrium gives axial forces (Eq. (11)) in both adherends into Eq. (19)
dN1(x) dN2(x) gives the following governing differential equation for
⫽ ⫽b2t(x) (10) the interfacial shear stress
dx dx
where
dx 2
⫺
ta 冉
d2t(x) Gab2 (y1+y2)(y1+y2+ta)
E1I1+E2I2
⫹
1
⫹
1
E1A1 E2A2 冊
t(x)

冕
x

N1(x)⫽N2(x)⫽N(x)⫽b2 t(x) dx.

0
(11) ⫽⫺ 冉
Ga y1+y2
V (x)⫺
ta E1I1+E2I2 T 冊
Ga y1 dq
ta G1aA1dx
(20)

Assuming equal curvature in the beam and the soffit

plate, the relationship between the moments in the two
⫺ 冉
Gab2 y1
⫺
y2 ds(x)
ata G1A1 G2A2 dx
. 冊
adherends can be expressed as
M1(x)⫽RM2(x), (12)
with
4. Interfacial normal stress: governing differential
E1I1 equation
R⫽ . (13)
E2I2
The governing differential equation for the interfacial
Moment equilibrium of the differential segment of the normal stress is derived in this section. When the beam
plated beam in Fig. 2 gives is loaded, vertical separation occurs between adherends
MT(x)⫽M1(x)⫹M2(x)⫹N(x)(y1⫹y2⫹ta). (14) 1 and 2. This separation creates an interfacial normal
stress in the adhesive layer. The normal stress, s(x), is
The bending moment in each adherend, expressed as given as
a function of the total applied moment and the interfacial
shear stress, is given as Ea
s(x)⫽ [v2(x)⫺v1(x)], (21)
ta

冋 冕 册
x
R where v1(x) and v2(x) are the vertical displacements of
M1(x)⫽ M (x)⫺b2 t(x)(y1⫹y2⫹ta) dx (15)
(R+1) T adherends 1 and 2, respectively. The equilibrium of
0
adherends 1 and 2, neglecting second-order terms, leads
and to the following relationships.
Adherend 1:

冋 冕 册
x
1 d2v1(x) 1 1
M2(x)⫽ M (x)⫺b2 t(x)(y1⫹y2⫹ta) dx . (16) ⫽⫺ M (x)⫺ [q⫹b2s(x)], (22)
(R+1) T dx2 E 1 I1 1 G1aA1
0

The first derivative of the bending moment in each dM1(x)

⫽V1(x)⫺b2y1t(x) (23)
adherend gives dx
dM1(x) R and
⫽V1(x)⫽ [V (x)⫺b2t(x)(y1⫹y2⫹ta)] (17)
dx (R+1) T dV1(x)
⫽⫺b2s(x)⫺q. (24)
and dx
dM2(x) 1
⫽V2(x)⫽ [V (x)⫺b2t(x)(y1⫹y2⫹ta)]. (18) Adherend 2:
dx (R+1) T
Substituting Eqs. (8) and (9) into Eq. (7) and differen- d2v2(x) 1 1
⫽⫺ M (x)⫹ b s(x), (25)
tiating the resulting equation once yields dx2 E 2 I2 2 G2aA2 2
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871 863

dM2(x) For simplicity, the general solutions presented below

⫽V2(x)⫺b2y2t(x) (26) are limited to loading which is either concentrated or
dx
uniformly distributed over part or the whole span of the
and beam, or both. For such loading, d 2VT(x)/dx2=0, and the
dV2(x) general solution to Eq. (31) is given by
⫽b2s(x). (27)
dx
t(x)⫽B1 cosh(lx)⫹B2 sinh(lx)⫹m1VT(x), (32)
Based on the above equilibrium equations, the governing
differential equations for the deflections of adherends 1 where

冉 冊
and 2, expressed in terms of the interfacial shear and
normal stresses, are given as follows. Gab2 (y1+y2)(y1+y2+ta) 1 1
l 2⫽ ⫹ ⫹ (33)
Adherend 1: ta E1I1+E2I2 E1A1 E2A2
d4v1(x) 1 1 d2s(x) y1 dt(x) and
⫽ b s(x)⫺ b ⫹ b (28)

冉 冊
2
dx4 E1I1 G1aA1 dx2 E1I1 2 dx
2

Ga 1 y1+y2
1 1 d 2q m1⫽ . (34)
⫹ q⫺ . ta l2 E1I1+E2I2
E1I1 G1aA1 dx2
The governing differential equation for the normal
Adherend 2: stress, with the effects of shear deformations neg-
lected, becomes
4
d v2(x) 1 1 d2s(x)
dx4
⫽⫺
E2I2
b

y2 dt(x)
2 s(x)⫹ b2
G2aA2 dx2
(29) d4s(x) Eab2 1
dx 4
⫹ ⫹
1
ta E1I1 E2I2 冉
s(x)⫹
Eab2 y1
ta E1I1 冊 冉 (35)

冊
⫹ b .
E2I2 2 dx y2 dt(x) Ea 1
⫺ ⫹ q⫽0.
Substitution of Eqs. (28) and (29) into the fourth deriva- E2I2 dx ta E1I1
tive of the interfacial normal stress obtainable from Eq. The general solution to this fourth-order differential
(21) gives the following governing differential equation equation is
for the interfacial normal stress
d4s(x) Eab2 1
dx4 ⫺ ⫹冉
ata G1A1 G2A2 dx2
⫹ 冊
1 d2s(x) Eab2 1
ta E1I1 冉 s(x)⫽e−bx[C1 cos(bx)⫹C2 sin(bx)]

⫹ebx[C3 cos(bx)⫹C4 sin(bx)]⫺n1

dt(x)
⫺n2q.
(36)

冊 冉 冊
dx
1 Eab2 y1 y2 dt(x) Ea 1
⫹ s(x)⫽⫺ ⫺ ⫺ q (30)
E2I2 ta E1I1 E2I2 dx ta E1I1 For large values of x it is assumed that the normal stress
2 approaches zero, and as a result C3=C4=0. The general
Ea 1 d q
⫹ . solution therefore becomes
ta G1aA1dx2
dt(x)
s(x)⫽e−bx[C1 cos(bx)⫹C2 sin(bx)]⫺n1 ⫺n2q, (37)
dx

5. General solutions for the interfacial shear and where

冉 冊
normal stresses
冪 4t
Eab2 1 1
b⫽ 4 + , (38)
The governing differential equations for the interfacial a E1I1 E2I2
shear and normal stresses [Eqs. (20) and (30)] are
coupled and hence a solution is not easily found. To
uncouple the equations, the effects of shear deformations n 1⫽ 冉 y1E2I2−y2E1I1
E1I1+E2I2 冊 (39)
in both adherends are now neglected. The governing dif-
ferential equation for the interfacial shear stress then and
reduces to

冉 冊
E2I2
d2t(x) Gab2 (y1+y2)(y1+y2+ta) 1 1 n 2⫽ . (40)
b2(E1I1+E2I2)
2 ⫺ ⫹ ⫹ t(x) (31)
dx ta E1I1+E2I2 E1A1 E2A2

冉 冊
In deriving Eq. (37), it has been assumed that
⫹
Ga y1+y2
V (x)⫽0. d 5t/dx5=0, because d 5t/dx5 generally has negligible sig-
ta E1I1+E2I2 T nificance to the final answer.
864 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

6. Application of boundary conditions
Having derived the general solutions for the interfacial
shear and normal stresses, three load cases are now con-
sidered. A simply supported beam is investigated which
is subjected to a uniformly distributed load, an arbitrarily
positioned single point load, and two symmetric point
loads as shown in Fig. 3. This section derives the
expressions of the interfacial shear and normal stresses
for each load case by applying suitable boundary con-
ditions.
and the axial force of either the beam or the soffit plate
[N1(0)=N2(0)] are zero. As a result, the moment in the
section at the plate curtailment is resisted by the beam
alone and can be expressed as
qa
M1(0)⫽MT(0)⫽ (L⫺a). (42)
2
Substituting Eqs. (8) and (9) with the effects of shear
ignored into Eq. (7) with the third term ignored, and
applying the above boundary condition, gives

6.1. Interfacial shear stress for a uniformly distributed

load
dt(x)
dx |
x=0
⫽⫺m2MT(0), (43)

where
By substituting the expression for the shear force in
Ga y1
a simply supported beam subjected to a uniformly dis- m2⫽ . (44)
tributed load into Eq. (32), the general solution for the ta E1I1
interfacial shear stress for this load case can be found as By substituting Eq. (32) into Eq. (43), B2 can be determ-

t(x)⫽B1 cosh(lx)⫹B2 sinh(lx)⫹m1q 冉 L

2 冊
⫺x⫺a , (41)
ined as

B2⫽⫺
m2qa m1
(L⫺a)⫹ q. (45)
0ⱕxⱕLP l 2 l
where q is the uniformly distributed load and x, a, L and
LP are defined in Fig. 1. The constants of integration The second boundary condition requires zero interfa-
need to be determined by applying suitable boundary cial shear stress at mid-span due to symmetry of the
conditions. applied load. B1 can therefore be determined as

冉 冊 冉 冊
The first boundary condition is the applied bending
m2qa lLP m1 lLP
moment at x=0. Here, the moment at the plate end M2(0) B1⫽ (L⫺a) tanh ⫺ q tanh . (46)
l 2 2 l 2
For practical cases lLP/2⬎10 and as a result
tanh(lLP/2)⬇1, so the expression for B1 can be simpli-
fied to
m2qa m1
B1⫽ (L⫺a)⫺ q⫽⫺B2. (47)
l 2 l

Substitution of B1 and B2 into Eq. (41) gives an

expression for the interfacial shear stress at any point

t(x)⫽ 冋
m2a
2
(L⫺a)⫺m1
l 册
q e−lx L
冉
⫹m1q ⫺a⫺x .
2 冊 (48)

6.2. Interfacial shear stress for a single point load

Two scenarios are considered and they are: (1) the left
end of the plate is terminated to the left of the point load
(a⬍b) and (2) the left end of the plate is terminated to
the right of the point load (a⬎b). By substituting the
specific expressions for the shear force in a simply sup-
ported beam subjected to a point load into Eq. (32), the
general solution for the interfacial shear stress for this
Fig. 3. Load cases. load case can be found as
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871 865

a⬍b: t(x) (49) where k=l(b⫺a). Substitution of the constants of inte-

冉 冊
gration into Eqs. (49) and (50) gives

冦
b
B3 cosh(lx)+B4 sinh(lx)+m1P 1− , 0ⱕxⱕ(b−a) a⬍b: t(x) (54)
L
⫽
冉 冊 冉 冊
冦
b m2 b b
B5 cosh(lx)+B6 sinh(lx)−m1P , (b−a)ⱕxⱕLP Pa 1− e−lx+m1P 1− −m1P cosh(lx) e−k, 0ⱕxⱕ(b−a)
L l L L
⫽

a⬎b: t(x)⫽B7 cosh(lx)⫹B8 sinh(lx) (50)

m2
l
b
L 冉 冊 Pb
Pa 1− e−lx−m1 +m1P sinh(k) e−lx,
L
(b−a)ⱕxⱕLP

b
⫺m1P , 0ⱕxⱕLP
L a⬎b: t(x)⫽
m2
l 冉 冊 a
L
b
Pb 1⫺ e−lx⫺m1P ,
L
0ⱕxⱕLP (55)
The constants can be evaluated using boundary con-
ditions. The two existing solutions [2,14] derived also using
For a⬍b the boundary conditions are the deformation compatibility approach for interfacial
at x=0, M1(0)=MT(0)=Pa 1−
L
b
冉 冊 shear stresses for a point load case can be found by elim-
inating certain terms from the first part of Eq. (54), as
ab
these two solutions cover only the region 0ⱕxⱕ(b⫺a).
at x=LP, M1(LP)=MT(LP)=P Part 1 of Eq. (54) differs from that of Taljsten [14] in
L
two aspects: the inclusion of the bending deformations
at x=(b−a), t(x) is continuous, i.e., t1(x)兩x=b−a=t2(x)兩x=b−a in adherend 2 and a different implementation of the
at x=(b−a),
dt(x)
dx
is continuous, i.e.,
dt1(x)
dx | x=b−a
=
dx |
dt2(x)
x=b−a
boundary/continuity condition under the point load
which leads to the additional term in the present solution
m1P cosh(lx) e⫺k . At the point load, Taljsten as well as
(51) Vilnay [2] specified zero interfacial shear stress while
The first two boundary conditions are applied in the the present solution specifies continuity of interfacial
same manner as the first boundary condition of the uni- shear stress and its first derivative. At the plate end the
formly distributed load case. The third and fourth bound- effect of this extra term is generally small in comparison
ary conditions require continuity of the interfacial shear with the other terms but it does lead to a more realistic
stress and its first derivative under the point load. interfacial shear stress distribution under the point load.
For a⬎b the boundary conditions are given as follows If these two differences together with the effect of the
and can be applied in the same manner as the first bound- axial deformation of adherend 1 are eliminated from the
ary condition for the uniformly distributed loading case present solution and if b is set equal to LP/2 to represent

冉 冊
a point load at mid-span, the present solution reduces to
a that of Vilnay.
at x=0, M1(0)=MT(0)=Pb 1−
L
(52) 6.3. Interfacial shear stress for two point loads
ab
at x=LP, M1(LP)=MT(LP)=P
L The two point loads are symmetrically positioned.
Two cases are considered: (1) the plate extends beyond
In all cases, both the axial force and the moment at the constant moment region (a⬍b) and (2) the plate is
the ends of the soffit plate are zero, so the beam resists terminated within the constant moment region (a⬎b).
the total applied bending moment here [Eq. (42)]. Once Using Eq. (32), the general solution for the interfacial
the boundary conditions are applied, the constants of shear stress for this load case is given by
integration can be found as follows a⬍b: t(x) (56)
m2 b
冉 冊
B3⫽ Pa 1⫺ ⫺m1P e−k,
l L
m2 b
B4⫽⫺ Pa 1⫺ ,
l L 冉 冊
冉 冊 冦
B9 cosh(lx)+B10 sinh(lx)+m1P, 0ⱕxⱕ(b−a)
m2 b ⫽
B5⫽ Pa 1⫺ ⫹m1P sinh(k), (53) B11 cosh(lx)+B12 sinh(lx), (b−a)ⱕxⱕ
LP
l L 2
m2
l
b
L 冉 冊
B6⫽⫺ Pa 1⫺ ⫺m1P sinh(k), a⬎b: t(x)⫽B13 cosh(lx)⫹B14 sinh(lx), 0ⱕx (57)

m2 a
B7⫽ Pb 1⫺ ,
l L 冉 冊 m2
l
a
B8⫽⫺ Pb 1⫺ ,
L 冉 冊 ⱕLP
866 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

For a⬍b the boundary conditions are

at x=0, M1(0)=MT(0)=Pa
d2s(x)
dx2 | 冉 ⫽
Ea 1
ta E1I1
M1(0)⫺
1
M (0) .
E2I2 2 冊 (63)

冉冊
x=0
LP LP
at x= , t =0 Since it has been established that M2(0)=0,
2 2
N1(0)=N2(0)=0 and M1(0)=MT(0) at the end of the soffit
at x=(b−a), t(x) is continuous, i.e., t1(x)兩x=b−a=t2(x)兩x=b−a plate, the above relationship can be expressed as
at x=(b−a),
dt(x)
dx
is continuous, i.e.,
dt1(x)
dx | x=b−a
=
dx |
dt2(x)
x=b−a
d2s(x)
dx2 | ⫽
Ea 1
M (0).
ta E1I1 T
(64)
x=0
(58)
Boundary condition 2 concerns the shear force at the
The first two boundary conditions are applied in the end of the soffit plate in the beam and the soffit plate.
same manner as those for the uniformly distributed load Differentiating Eq. (21) three times and substituting Eqs.
case. The third and fourth boundary conditions require (23) and (26) into the resulting expression lead to the
continuity of the interfacial shear stress and its first following relationship at the plate end:

| 冉 冊 冉
derivative under the point loads and are applied in the
same manner as for the single point load case. d3s(x) Ea 1 1 Eab2 y1
⫽ V (0)⫺ V (0) ⫺ (65)
For a⬎b the boundary conditions are as follows: dx3 ta E1I1 1 E2I2 2 ta E1I1
x=0

冊
at x=0, M1(0)=MT(0)=Pb
(59) y2
at x=LP, M1(LP)=MT(LP)=Pb ⫺ t(0).
E2I2

The constants are consequently determined to be As the applied shear force at the end of the plate is
zero [i.e., V2(0)=0], V1(0)=VT(0). The second boundary
m2 m2 m2 condition can therefore be expressed as
B9⫽ Pa⫺m1P e−k, B10⫽⫺ Pa, B11⫽ Pa
l l l
d3s(x)
m2
⫹m1P sinh(k), B12⫽⫺ Pa⫺m1P sinh(k),
l
(60)
dx3 | ⫽
x=0
Ea 1
V (0)⫺n3t(0),
ta E1I1 T
(66)

where
m2 m2
B13⫽ Pb, B14⫽⫺ Pb.
l l n 3⫽
Eab2 y1
⫺冉y2
ta E1I1 E2I2
. 冊 (67)

Substitution of these expressions into Eqs. (56) and Further differentiation of Eq. (37) leads to the follow-
(57) gives ing expressions for the second and third derivatives of
a⬍b: t(x) (61) the interfacial normal stress at the plate end
d2s(x) d3t(x) d 2q
| |
冦
m2 ⫽⫺2b2C2⫺n1 ⫺n2 2 (68)
Pa e−lx+m1P−m1P cosh(lx) e−k, 0ⱕxⱕ(b−a) dx2 dx3 dx
l x=0 x=0
⫽
m2 LP and
Pa e−lx+m1P sinh(k) e−lx, (b−a)ⱕxⱕ
l 2
d3s(x) d4t(x) d3q
a⬎b:
m2
t(x)⫽ Pb e−lx,
l
0ⱕxⱕLP (62)
dx3 | ⫽2b3C1⫹2b3C2⫺n1
x=0
dx4 | x=0
⫺n2
dx3
. (69)

Since the loading is limited to either uniformly distrib-

uted or point loads, the second- and higher-order deriva-
tives of q become zero. Substituting the boundary con-
6.4. Interfacial normal stress: general expression for
ditions into the above two equations then leads to the
all three load cases
determination of C1 and C2 as follows:
The constants C1 and C2 in Eq. (37) are determined by Ea 1 n3
considering appropriate boundary conditions. The first C1⫽ 3 [VT(0)⫹bMT(0)]⫺ 3t(0) (70)
2b taE1I1 2b

冉 | |冊
boundary condition is the zero bending moment at the
ends of the soffit plate. Differentiating Eq. (21) twice n1 d4t(x) d3t(x)
⫹ ⫹b
and substituting Eqs. (22) and (25) into the resulting 2b3 dx4 dx3
x=0 x=0
expression yields the following relationship at the plate
end (neglecting the effects of shear deformations): and
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871 867

n1 d3t(x)
C2⫽⫺
Ea 1
2
2b taE1I1
MT(0)⫺ 2 3
2b dx |
x=0
. (71)

The above expressions for the constants C1 and C2 have

been left in terms of the bending moment MT(0) and
shear force VT(0) at the end of the soffit plate. With the
constants C1 and C2 determined, the interfacial normal
stress can then be found using Eq. (37) for all three
load cases.

7. Comparison of analytical solutions

A comparison of the interfacial shear and normal Fig. 4. Comparison of interfacial shear and normal stresses for an RC
stresses from the different closed-form solutions beam with a bonded CFRP soffit plate subjected to a mid-point load.
reviewed earlier is undertaken in this section. Two
example problems are considered. The first is an RC
beam bonded with a glass-fibre-reinforced plastic
(GFRP), CFRP or steel soffit plate. The second is a hol-
low aluminium (AL) beam with a bonded CFRP soffit
plate. In both examples, the beams are simply supported
and subjected to a central point load or a uniformly dis-
tributed load. A summary of the geometric and material
properties is given in Table 2. The span of the RC beam
is 3000 mm, the distance from the support to the end of
the plate is 300 mm, the mid-point load is 150 kN and
the UDL is 50 kN/m. The span of the aluminium beam
is 500 mm, the distance from the support to the plate
end is 50 mm, the mid-point load is 1 kN and the UDL
is 2 kN/m. The geometric properties of the aluminium
beam are taken from a study undertaken by Broughton Fig. 5. Comparison of interfacial shear and normal stresses for an
et al. [22] although the distance from the support to the RC beam with a bonded CFRP soffit plate subjected to a UDL.
soffit plate has been changed from 20 to 50 mm. The
same elastic modulus for the AL beam has been used is a similar plot for the UDL case. Overall, the predic-
and similar properties have been used for the adhesive tions of the different solutions agree closely with each
layer and CFRP soffit plate. other. This indicates that the bending deformations in
the beam and the axial deformations in the bonded plate
7.1. RC beam with GFRP, CFRP and steel soffit are the dominant actions determining the interfacial
plate: mid-point load and UDL stresses, including the peak values occurring at the plate
end, and the omission or inclusion of other terms such
Fig. 4 plots the interfacial shear and normal stresses as the bending deformations in the bonded plate has only
near the plate end for the example RC beam bonded with a very small effect. The results in Fig. 5 show that in
a CFRP plate for the mid-point load case, while Fig. 5 Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4], the second stage

Table 2
Geometric and material properties

Component Width (mm) Depth (mm) Young’s modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio

RC beam b1=200 d1=300 E1=30,000 –

AL beam (wall thickness=2 mm) b1=20 d1=30 E1=65,300 –
Adhesive layer (RC beam) ba=200 ta=2.0 Ea=2000 na=0.35
Adhesive layer (AL beam) ba=20 ta=2.0 Ea=2000 na=0.35
GFRP plate (bonded to RC beam) b2=200 t2=4.0 E2=50,000 –
CFRP plate (bonded to RC beam) b2=200 t2=4.0 E2=100,000 –
Steel plate (bonded to RC beam) b2=200 t2=4.0 E2=200,000 –
CFRP plate (bonded to AL beam) b2=20 t2=2.0 E2=100,000 –
868 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

Table 3
Comparison of peak interfacial shear and normal stresses: mid-point load

Theory RC beam with GFRP plate RC beam with CFRP plate RC beam with steel plate AL beam with CFRP plate

t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa)

Vilnay 2.240 1.381 3.152 1.669 4.350 1.967 2.440 1.109

Roberts 2.179 1.553 2.925 1.761 3.725 1.899 1.788 1.041
Taljsten 2.215 1.397 3.087 1.674 4.188 1.944 2.172 1.122
Malek et al. 2.179 1.553 2.925 1.761 3.725 1.899 1.787 1.040
Present 2.214 1.396 3.083 1.671 4.176 1.938 2.091 1.081

interfacial shear stress and the first stage interfacial nor-
mal stress are both small.
The interfacial normal stress is seen to change sign at
a short distance away from the plate end. In the region
of negative interfacial normal stress, the predictions of
those solutions which take into account the additional
bending deformations in the plate due to interfacial shear
stresses are similar and differ from the predictions of
those ignoring these deformations. The former includes
Vilnay’s [2] and Taljsten’s [14] solutions for the mid-
point load case, Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4]
for the UDL case and the present solution for both load
cases, while the latter includes Roberts’ [3] and Malek
et al.’s [16] solutions for both load cases, as detailed in
Table 1. Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution ignoring
the contribution from the first stage predicts interfacial
normal stresses similar to those from Roberts’ and Malek
et al.’s solutions, indicating that the first stage contri-
bution is equivalent to the inclusion of the additional
bending deformations in the bonded plate due to interfa-
cial shear stresses.
The results of the peak interfacial shear and normal
stresses (at the end of the soffit plate) are given in Tables
3 and 4 for the example RC beam with a GFRP, CFRP
or steel soffit plate. Table 3 shows that, for the mid-point
load case, the predictions of Roberts’ [3] and Malek et
al.’s [16] solutions are identical, while the present and
Taljsten’s [14] solutions give very similar results. Vil-
nay’s solution [2] leads to results closer to those of the
latter two solutions than those of the former two. For
the UDL case, the present solution gives results which
generally agree better with those from Roberts and Haji-
Kazemi’s solution [4] than with those from Roberts’ and
Malek et al.’s solutions. The latter two again give simi-
lar results.
Relating the above observations to the different
assumptions adopted in these solutions (Table 1), the
effects of various terms can be clarified. In short, it may
be concluded that all solutions are satisfactory for RC
beams bonded with a thin plate as the rigidity of the
soffit plate is small in comparison with the that of the
RC beam. Those solutions which consider the additional
bending deformations in the soffit plate due to the
interfacial shear stresses give more accurate results. The
present solution is the only solution which covers both
point loads and uniformly distributed loads and con-
siders this effect and the effects of other parameters.
7.2. Hollow aluminium beam with CFRP soffit plate:
mid-point load
Figs. 6 and 7 plot the interfacial shear and normal
stress distributions in the example aluminium beam
bonded with a CFRP plate subject to a mid-point load.
For this problem, the rigidity of the soffit plate is of
much greater significance than in the RC beam problem.
The effects of bending deformations in the plate and
axial deformations in the beam are therefore expected to
become significant.
For the interfacial shear stress, the difference between

Table 4
Comparison of peak interfacial shear and normal stresses: UDL

Theory RC beam with GFRP RC beam with CFRP RC beam with steel AL beam with CFRP
plate plate plate plate

t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa)

Roberts and Haji-Kazemi (t — Stage 1; 2.001 1.425 2.776 1.668 3.745 1.902 2.079 1.153
s — Stage 2)
Roberts and Haji-Kazemi (Stage 1+2) 1.813 1.256 2.591 1.500 3.567 1.733 1.962 1.060
Roberts 1.945 1.386 2.604 1.567 3.302 1.683 1.552 0.910
Malek et al. 1.943 1.384 2.597 1.563 3.287 1.675 1.499 0.871
Present 1.975 1.244 2.740 1.484 3.696 1.713 1.796 0.930
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871
Fig. 6. Comparison of interfacial shear stresses for a hollow alu-
minium beam bonded with a CFRP soffit plate subjected to a mid-
point load.
Fig. 7. Comparison of interfacial normal stresses for a hollow alu-
minium beam with a bonded CFRP soffit plate subjected to a mid-
point load.
the results of Vilnay’s [2] and Taljsten’s [14] solutions
seen in Fig. 6 is due to Taljsten considering axial defor-
mations in the beam. The current solution considers one
extra term to Taljsten — the bending deformations of
the soffit plate — and this accounts for the small differ-
ence in the results (Fig. 6). The solutions of Roberts [3]
and Malek et al. [16] give lower peak values but higher
results away from the plate end compared with the
present accurate solution (Fig. 6). This is due to the fact
that in these two solutions, the axial deformations in the
beam and the bending deformations in the plate are only
partially considered through the use of the transformed
section properties. These two solutions give very simi-
lar results.
The interfacial shear stress at the mid-thickness point
of the adhesive layer, based on fully composite action
between the beam and the plate, is also plotted in Fig.
6. At a suitable distance from the end of the soffit plate
(approximately 60 mm), the predictions of all solutions
converge to the results obtained from this simple beam
theory. The interfacial shear stress calculated from the
869
current solution tends to zero under the point load. This
is due to the continuity conditions enforced under a point
load. The solutions of Vilnay [2], Taljsten [14] and
Malek et al. [16] employ various simplifications such as
rounding cosh and tanh terms in their derivation. As a
result of such simplifications, the interfacial shear stress
does not tend to zero at the point load even though zero
interfacial shear stress beneath a point load is a boundary
condition in these solutions.
The normal stress results from the solutions of Roberts
[3] and Malek et al. [16] are very similar to each other
but differ from those from the solutions of Vilnay [2]
and Taljsten [14] and the present solution (Fig. 7). The
difference is mainly in the region of negative interfacial
normal stress and is due to the consideration of the plate
bending deformations induced by interfacial shear
stresses in the latter three solutions.
The peak values of the interfacial stresses are given
in Table 3. Significant differences exist between the peak
values of interfacial shear and normal stresses. For the
interfacial shear stress, the largest value, which is from
Vilnay’s solution [2], is 1.37 times the lowest value
which is from Malek et al.’s solution [16]. The corre-
sponding difference for the interfacial normal stress is
smaller. The present solution, being the most accurate
solution, gives results similar to those of Taljsten’s sol-
ution [14].
7.3. Hollow aluminium beam with CFRP soffit plate:
UDL
Figs. 8 and 9 plot the interfacial shear and normal
stresses for the example aluminium beam bonded with
a CFRP plate subjected to a UDL. The results from the
solutions of Roberts [3] and Malek et al. [16], for both
the interfacial shear and normal stresses, are very simi-
lar.
The reason for the difference between Roberts and
Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4] and the present solution for
Fig. 8. Comparison of interfacial shear stresses for a hollow alu-
minium beam with a bonded CFRP soffit plate subjected to a UDL.
870 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871
Fig. 9. Comparison of interfacial normal stresses for a hollow alu-
minium beam with a bonded CFRP soffit plate subjected to a UDL.
the interfacial shear stress is believed to be due to small
differences in secondary assumptions. One of these dif-
ferences is the assumption in Roberts and Haji-Kazemi
that the applied bending moment is resisted by both the
beam and the plate without shear interaction [i.e.,
(EI)total=E1I1+E2I2] in determining the curvature of the
beam at the plate end. In the present solution, the applied
moment here is assumed to be taken up by the beam
only. The difference in the interfacial normal stress is
expected to be due mainly to the difference in bending
deformations induced by the interfacial shear stress.
Even though Roberts and Haji-Kazemi and the present
solution both consider the effect of the interfacial shear
stress on the interfacial normal stress, the shear stresses
are different near the plate end and this accounts for the
difference in the interfacial normal stress near the plate
end. The interfacial shear stress along the mid-thickness
line of the adhesive layer, based on a simple fully com-
posite beam analysis, is plotted and a good correlation
is evident with all solutions at a suitable distance from
the end of the plate.
The peak values of the interfacial shear and normal
stresses are given in Table 4. Significant differences
exist between the various solutions, particularly for the
interfacial shear stress. The highest value for the peak
interfacial stress, which is given by Roberts and Haji-
Kazemi’s solution [4], is 1.31 times the lowest value
which is from Malek et al.’s solution [16]. For the peak
interfacial normal stress, the corresponding number is
1.22. The results of the present solution differ from those
of Roberts and Haji-Kazemi by about 10% for both
stresses.
8. Conclusions
This paper has been concerned with the prediction of
interfacial shear and normal stresses in beams strength-
ened by an externally bonded plate. Such interfacial
stresses provide the basis for understanding debonding
failures in such beams and for the development of suit-
able design rules. Six existing approximate closed-form
solutions for interfacial stresses in such beams have been
reviewed, identifying their assumptions and limitations,
thereby clarifying the differences between these sol-
utions for the first time. All of these solutions are based
on the assumption that the interfacial stresses do not vary
across the adhesive layer thickness, a key assumption
which enabled relatively simple explicit expressions for
interracial stresses to be found. A new similar but more
accurate solution was then presented. Numerical com-
parisons between the existing solutions and the present
new solution have also been carried out. The following
conclusions can be drawn from the present study.
1. All of the existing solutions include the bending
deformations in the beam and the axial deformations
in the bonded plate. These two actions dominate the
interfacial stresses in RC beams with a bonded plate.
The differences between the existing solutions are due
to the different choices in the inclusion of other terms,
of which the additional bending deformations in the
bonded plate due to interfacial shear stresses is the
most significant for RC beams.
2. The new solution includes the effects of all defor-
mation terms except shear deformations whose
inclusion would complicate the solution. Neverthe-
less, governing equations considering the effects of
shear deformations have been derived. The new sol-
ution can be applied to beams made of all kinds of
materials bonded with a plate where the rigidity of
the beam and the plate are more comparable.
3. For plated beams with a relatively stiff plate, signifi-
cantly different results have been obtained from dif-
ferent solutions. Two existing solutions give predic-
tions relatively close to those from the present
solution: Taljsten’s solution [14], which is limited to
a single point load, and Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s
solution [4], which is for a uniformly distributed load
and significantly more complicated than the present
solution. The solutions of Roberts [3] and Malek et
al. [16], which are general in terms of loading, are
the more approximate among the available solutions,
and they give results almost identical to each other.
The present solution covers all three common load
cases (single point load, double point load and UDL),
and is based on the more direct and simpler approach
of deformation compatibility rather than the staged
approach of Roberts and Haji-Kazemi. The present
solution is thus recommended as a widely applicable
and accurate solution with due simplicity for appli-
cation to beams bonded with a soffit plate, particularly
when the plate is relatively stiff.
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871
Acknowledgements
Both authors wish to thank The Hong Kong Polytech-
nic University for the provision of a postdoctoral fellow-
ship to the first author.
References
[1] Jones R, Swamy RN, Charif A. Plate separation and anchorage
of reinforced concrete beams strengthened by epoxy-bonded steel
plates. The Struct Engr 1988;66(5):85–94.
[2] Vilnay O. The analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened
by epoxy bonded steel plates. Int J Cement Compos Lightweight
Concrete 1988;10(2):73–8.
[3] Roberts TM. Approximate analysis of shear and normal stress
concentrations in the adhesive layer of plated RC beams. The
Struct Engr 1989;67(12):229–33.
[4] Roberts TM, Haji-Kazemi H. Theoretical study of the behaviour
of reinforced concrete beams strengthened by externally bonded
steel plates. Proc Instn Civil Engrs 1989;87(Part 2):39–55.
[5] Oehlers DJ, Moran JP. Premature failure of externally plated
reinforced concrete beams. J Struct Eng, ASCE
1990;116(4):979–95.
[6] Oehlers DJ. Reinforced concrete beams with plates glued to their
soffits. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1992;118(8):2023–38.
[7] Sharif A, Al-Sulaimani GJ, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Ghaleb
BN. Strengthening of initially loaded reinforced concrete beams
using FRP plates. ACI Struct J 1994;91(2):160–8.
[8] Chajes MJ, Thomson TA Jr., Januszka TF, Finch WW Jr.. Flex-
ural strengthening of concrete beams using externally bonded
composite materials. Construct Bldg Mater 1994;8(3):191–201.
[9] Liu Z, Zhu B. Analytical solutions for R/C beams strengthened
by externally bonded steel plates. J Tongji Univ 1994;22(1):21–
6 (in Chinese).
871
[10] Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. Experimental and ana-
lytical investigations of FRP-strengthened beam response: Part I.
Mag Concrete Res 1996;48(177):331–42.
[11] Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. Predictions of the
maximum plate end stresses of FRP-strengthened beams: Part II.
Mag Concrete Res 1996;48(177):343–51.
[12] Arduini M, Nanni A. Parametric study of beams with externally
bonded FRP reinforcement. ACI Struct J 1997;94(5):493–501.
[13] Raoof M, Zhang S. An insight into the structural behaviour of
reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded plates. Proc
Instn Civil Engrs — Struct Bldgs 1997;122:477–92.
[14] Taljsten B. Strengthening of beams by plate bonding. J Mater
Civil Eng, ASCE 1997;9(4):206–12.
[15] Buyukozturk O, Hearing B. Failure behaviour of pre-cracked con-
crete beams retrofitted with FRP. J Compos Construct, ASCE
1998;2(3):138–44.
[16] Malek AM, Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. Prediction of failure
load of R/C beams strengthened with FRP plate due to stress
concentration at the plate end. ACI Struct J 1998;95(1):142–52.
[17] Saadatmanesh H, Malek AM. Design guidelines for flexural
strengthening of RC beams with FRP plates. J Compos Construct,
ASCE 1998;2(4):158–64.
[18] Swamy RN, Mukhopadhyaya P. Debonding of carbon-fibre-
reinforced polymer plate from concrete beams. Proc Instn Civil
Eng — Struct Bldgs 1999;134:301–17.
[19] Raoof M, El-Rimawi JA, Hassanen MAH. Theoretical and
experimental study on externally plated RC beams. Eng Struct
2000;22(1):85–101.
[20] Rabinovich O, Frostig Y. Closed-form high-order analysis of RC
beams strengthened with FRP strips. J Compos Construct, ASCE
2000;4(2):65–74.
[21] Shen HS, Teng JG, Yang J. Interfacial stresses in beams and slabs
bonded with a thin plate. J Eng Mech, ASCE, (in press).
[22] Broughton JG, Beevers A, Hutchinson AR. Carbon-fibre-
reinforced plastic (CFRP) strengthening of aluminium extrusions.
Int J Adhes Adhes 1997;17:269–78.