Materials 12 01367 v2 PDF

materials
Article
Prediction of Deflection of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Strengthened with Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Mykolas Daugevičius *, Juozas Valivonis and Tomas Skuturna
Department of Reinforced Concrete Structures and Geotechnics, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania; juozas.valivonis@vgtu.lt (J.V.); tomas.skuturna@vgtu.lt (T.S.)
* Correspondence: mykolas.daugevicius@vgtu.lt

Received: 21 February 2019; Accepted: 20 April 2019; Published: 26 April 2019
Abstract: The article analyses the calculation of the deflection of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with fiber reinforced polymer. This paper specifically focuses on estimating deflection
when the yielding of reinforcement is reached. The article proposes a simple method for calculating
deflection that was compared with the experimentally predicted deflection. The carried out comparison
has showed that the proposed method is suitable not only for the strengthened beams but also for the
reinforced concrete beams with a varying reinforcement ratio. The suggested calculation method
is based on the effective moment of inertia, such as the one introduced in the ACI Committee 318
Building Code Requirement for Structural Concrete (ACI318). The development of deflection was
divided into three stages, and equations for the effective moment of inertia were proposed considering
separate stages. In addition, the put forward equations were modified attaching additional relative
coefficients evaluating a change in the depth of the neutral axis.
Keywords: strengthening; FRP; deflection; yielding; effective moment of inertia
1. Introduction
One of the greatest advantages that can provide strengthening with carbon fiber reinforced
polymer (CFRP) is an increase in the flexibility of the beam. Failure in the reinforced concrete beam is
related to steel yielding, concrete crashing, or shear failure. Short-term and long-term experiments
have showed that strengthening RC beams with CFRP can delay steel yielding [1–6]. Evenly, if steel
yielding is reached or steel is rusted, the strengthened beams can serve until the rupture, delamination
of the CFRP layer, steel fatigue fracture, or concrete crashing are achieved [7–11]. Due to high strength
and high elasticity, the tensioned layer of CFRP can intercept tensile forces (stresses) when the yielding
of reinforcement is reached. That is why the deflection of the beam can develop, thus reaching the
yielding of reinforcement at a later stage. However, there is a danger for premature debonding of
CFRP layer. In order to prevent this, proper additional anchoring can delay this phenomenon [12].
As well near surface mounted CFRP due to a larger perimeter-to-sectional-area-ratio can ensure better
bond performance [13].
Various researches demonstrate that deflection development and reached yielding depend on the
reinforcement (steel) ratio [14,15]. This may be related to the exploitation of the compressed concrete.
If the reinforcement ratio is low, the exploitation of the compressed concrete is also greatly reduced until
the yielding of reinforcement is reached. Therefore, the deflection (when the yielding of reinforcement
is reached) of the strengthened beams with a low reinforcement ratio is the biggest. This is due to the
unexploited deformability of the compressed concrete.
The existing methods for calculating deflection can perform estimation until the yielding of
reinforcement is reached. The most common and simplest methods are based on design guidelines
ACI318 [16] and the Eurocode 2 [17]. In addition, the multi-layer method can be used for calculating the
Materials 2019, 12, 1367; doi:10.3390/ma12091367 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 1367 2 of 43
deflection of the strengthened beams; however, this method is not that convenient for engineers, and
therefore will not be discussed in this article. The calculation method based on ACI318 [16] evaluates
the effective moment of inertia, and the method based on Eurocode 2 [17], usually evaluates the
average curvature of the bending element. Both methods evaluate the moment of the inertia of the full
cross-section and the moment of the inertia of the cross-section where the crack is opened. However,
these methods evaluate stress strain state in the cross-section before yield stresses in reinforcement are
reached. There are several methods [18–21] that can evaluate stress-strain state in the cross-section
after yield stresses are reached but these methods are difficult to be applied by the designer. Several
contributions based on the moment-curvature modeling are available [22,23]. The accuracy of the
proposed model [22,23] is impressive, however certain parameters like moment of inertia, depth of the
neutral axis remains unknown.
The load carrying capacity of the strengthened beams can significantly increase such that the
increased service load can locate in the range of the load-deflection curve where steel yielding is
reached. The main objective of this article is to calculate the deflection of the strengthened beam when
steel yielding is reached and when only the layer of CFRP intercepts tensile forces.
2. Analyzed Beams
RC strengthened beams with various reinforcement ratios were chosen to perform the calculation
of deflection. The data about beams were collected from various research. The references and titles of
the analyzed beams with a short description are presented in Table 1. The chosen beams are suitable
for deflection analysis, because deflection develops when the yielding of reinforcement is reached.
As mentioned above, a lower reinforcement ratio allows a higher increment in deflection when the
yielding of reinforcement is reached.
The mechanical parameters of the material such as the modulus of elasticity and tensile strength
are required in order to calculate the deflection of the beam. This and other mechanical parameters are
presented in Table 2.
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 3 of 43
Table 1. Characteristics of investigated experimental beams.
Author Beam Name l, m Load Positions, m b, m h, m As1 As2 d1 , m d2 , m Af

V1 0.178 2Ø6 –
V1R1 0.17 2Ø6 1 × 1.45 × 9.59
V2 0.173 3Ø6 –
0.024
Barros et al., V2R2 1.5 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 0.1 0.177 3Ø6 2Ø8 0.025 2 × 1.45 × 9.59
2005 [24]
V3 0.175 2Ø6 –
V3R2 0.175 2Ø6 + Ø8 2 × 1.45 × 9.59
V4 0.175 3Ø8 –
0.025
V4R3 0.18 3Ø8 3 × 1.45 × 9.59
Ref_c_no_1 0.925 + 0.25 + 0.925 –
Ref_d_no_1 Distributed load –
EBR_c_1.4 × 40_1 56 mm2
0.925 + 0.25 + 0.925
EBR_c_1.4 × 40_2 56 mm2
Bilotta et al., EBR_d_1.4 × 40_1 2.1 0.12 0.16 2Ø10 2Ø10 0.05 0.035 56 mm2
2015 [25] Distributed load
EBR_d_1.4 × 40_2 56 mm2
NSM_c_2_1.4 × 10_1 0.925 + 0.25 + 0.925 28 mm2
NSM_d_2_1.4 × 10_1 Distributed load 28 mm2
NSM_c_3_1.4 × 10_1 0.925 + 0.25 + 0.925 42 mm2
NSM_d_3_1.4 × 10_1 Distributed load 42 mm2
P1 –
David et al.,
P2 2.8 0.9 + 1.0 + 0.9 0.15 0.3 2Ø14 2Ø8 0.027 0.024 1.2 (cm2 )
2003 [26]
P5 2.4 (cm2 )
REF –
EL-Gamal et al., CN1 71.26 (mm2 )
2.36 0.93 + 0.5 + 0.93 0.2 0.3 2Ø12 2Ø8 0.04 0.032
2016 [27]
CN2 2 × 71.26 (mm2 )
GN1 71.3 (mm2 )
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 4 of 43
Table 1. Cont.

GN2 2 × 71.3 (mm2 )
71.26 + 25.8
CHYB
(mm2 )
71.3 + 25.8
GHYB
(mm2 )
REF-II –
4Ø12
CN1-II 71.26 (mm2 )
CN2-II 2 × 71.26 (mm2 )
Ferrier et al., A1 –
2.0 0.7 + 0.6 + 0.7 0.15 0.25 2Ø14 2Ø8 0.025 0.025
2003 [28]
A2 120 (mm2 )
CON1 –
A0 0.22 × 75
A10 0.22 × 75
Gao et al., 2004
A20 1.5 0.5 0.15 0.2 2Ø10 2Ø8 0.038 0.027 0.22 × 75
[29]
B0 0.44 × 75
B10 0.44 × 75
B20 0.44 × 75
2O –
2N6
2T625-1 6 × 0.11 × 150
Gao et al., 2006 2T650-1
1.5 0.5 0.15 0.2 2Ø10 2Ø8 0.038 0.027
[30] 2T675-1
2N4
2T450-1 4 × 0.11 × 150
2T4100-1
Heffernan 1997 Conventional 2Ø25 + –
4.8 1.6 + 1.6 + 1.6 0.3 0.5739 2Ø10 0.074 0.067
[31] Ø20
CFRP strengthened 65.5 (mm2 )
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 5 of 43
Table 1. Cont.

Conventional –
Heffernan and 2Ø20 + 2Ø10 0.037
2.85 1.1 + 0.65 + 1.1 0.15 0.3 0.041
Erki 2004 [32] CFRP strengthened Ø10 89.4 (mm2 )
SREF –
Hosseini et al., S2L-0
2.4 0.9 + 0.6 + 0.9 0.6 0.12 4Ø8 3Ø6 0.024 0.023
2014 [33] S2L-20 2 × 1.4 × 20
S2L-40
B-C –
B-S-2 60 (mm2 )
B-S-4 120 (mm2 )
Khalifa et al.,
2.2 0.95 + 0.3 + 0.95 0.15 0.26 2Ø12 2Ø12 0.041 0.031
2016 [34] B-N-1-2 60 (mm2 )
B-N-2-2 60 (mm2 )
B-N-2-4 120 (mm2 )
B-08S 60 (mm2 )
Kotynia et al.,
4.2 1.4 + 1.4 + 1.4 0.15 0.3 3Ø12 2Ø10 0.03 * 0.03 **
2008 [35] B-083m 58.5 (mm2 )
G1 –
Kotynia et al., G2 1.2 + 1.2 + 1.2 + 1.2 120 (mm2 )
6.0 1.0 0.22 7Ø12 7Ø8 0.03143 * 0.024 **
2011 [36]
G3 + 1.2 120 (mm2 )
G4 120 (mm2 )
B12-a 1.2 × 100
Kotynia et al.,
B12-asp 1.2 + 1.2 + 1.2 + 1.2 1.2 × 100
6.0 0.5 0.22 4Ø12 4Ø8 0.031 0.029
2014 [37] + 1.2
B16-asp 1.2 × 100
B0 –
B1-NP
Omran et al., B1-P1 5.0 2+1+2 0.2 0.4 3Ø15 2Ø10 0.057 0.036
2012 [38] 2 × 2 × 16
B1-P2
B1-P3
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 6 of 43
Table 1. Cont.

Control –
Non prestressed
Rezazadeh et al., 20% prestressed 2.2 0.9 + 0.4 + 0.9 0.15 0.3 2Ø10 2Ø10 0.035 0.025 1.4 × 20
2014 [39]
30% prestressed
40% prestressed
CB –
LB1C1 1Ø8
LB1G1 1Ø8
Sharaky et al., LB2C1 2Ø8
2.4 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 0.16 0.28 2Ø12 2Ø8 0.036 0.034
2014 [40] LB2G1 2Ø8
LA2C1 2Ø8
LA2G1 2Ø8
LB1G2 1Ø12
C-0 –
Soudki et al.,
T-0 2.25 0.75 0.15 0.25 2Ø10 2Ø6 0.025 0.023 4 × 0.11
2007 [41]
S-0 50 × 1.2
B0 –
B500
Teng et al., 2006
B1200 3.0 1.2 + 0.6 + 1.2 0.15 0.3 2Ø12 2Ø8 0.036 0.034
[42]
2 × 16
B1800
B2900
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 7 of 43
Table 1. Cont.

B6.1C
0.167 (cm2 )
B6.2C 2Ø6
B6.5 200 2Ø6 –
B8.1C
0.167 (cm2 )
Valivonis et al., B8.2C 100 2Ø8
1.2 0.4 + 0.4 + 0.4 0.025 0.025
2010 [14]
B8.3 –
B12.1C 203
0.167 (cm2 )
B12.2C 200
2Ø12 2Ø8
B12.5 104 198 –
B12.6 105 201
Control –
B11 Ø7.9
B21
2Ø7.9
Wu et al., 2014 B22
1.8 0.6 + 0.6 + 0.6 0.15 0.3 3Ø14 2Ø6 0.037 0.033
[43] BP11
BP12 Ø7.9
BP13
BP14
Pa –
2 × 10 0.03
Xiong et al., 2007
2C 2.1 0.7 0.125 2×8 0.024 0.22 × 100
[44]
Pb 2 × 12 0.031 –
* as = h-As1 /ńs1 ·b; ** evaluated individually; l—span length; b—total width of the beam; h—height of the beam; As1 —cross-section of the tensioned steel bars; As2 —cross-section of the
compressed steel bars; d1 —position of the tensioned steel bars; d2 —position of the compressed steel bars; Af —cross-section of the tensioned fibers or FRP; ńs1—reinforcement ratio by As1 .
0.2
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 8 of 43
Table 2. Mechanical characteristics of investigated experimental beams materials.
Author Beam Name fc , MPa fct , MPa Ec , GPa fy1 , MPa fy2 , MPa Es1 , GPa Es2 , GPa ff,fe , MPa Ef,fe , GPa
V1 – –
46.1 3.37 33.35 730
V1R1 2740 158.8
V2 – –
46.1 3.58 36.5 730
Barros et al., 2005 V2R2 2740 158.8
554.32 200 200
[24]
V3 730 – –
46.1 3.21 34.89
V3R2 730; 554.32 2740 158.8
V4 – –
46.1 3.43 35.86 554.32
V4R3 2740 158.8
Ref_c_no_1 – –
Ref_d_no_1 – –
EBR_c_1.4 × 40_1
EBR_c_1.4 × 40_2
Bilotta et al., 2015 EBR_d_1.4 × 40_1 17.4 1.34 25.98 540 540 200 200
[25] 2052 171
EBR_d_1.4 × 40_2
NSM_c_2_1.4 × 10_1
NSM_d_2_1.4 × 10_1
NSM_c_3_1.4 × 10_1
NSM_d_3_1.4 × 10_1
P1 38.7 2.94 1 33.02 2 – –
David et al., 2003 1 2 3 3
P2 39.2 2.97 33.14 500 500 205 205
[26] 2400 150
P5 40.1 3.03 1 33.37 2
REF – –
CN1
1588 119.4
EL-Gamal et al., CN2
49.62 2.99 35.57 2 480 455 205 3 205 3
2016 [27] GN1
1185 52.34
GN2
CHYB 2096 * 147.47 *
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 9 of 43
Table 2. Cont.
GHYB 1800 * 98.22 *
REF-II – –
CN1-II
1588 119.4
CN2-II
Ferrier et al., 2003 A1 – –
[28]
39 2.96 1 31 550 550 3 210 210 3
A2 650 80
CON1 – –
A0
A10 2.75 1
Gao et al., 2004 A20 35.7 25 531 400 200 200
[29] 4200 235
B0
B10
B20
2O – –
2N6
2T625-1
Gao et al., 2006 2T650-1
[30]
62.1 4.29 1 37.1 460 460 200 205
2T675-1 4200 235
2N4
2T450-1
2T4100-1
Heffernan 1997 Conventional - - – –
[31]
32.9 2.56 1 31.45 2 200 200
CFRP strengthened 325
Heffernan and Conventional – –
Erki 2004 [32]
37 2.83 1 32.57 2 511 & 411 411 210 210
CFRP strengthened 233
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 10 of 43
Table 2. Cont.
SREF – –
Hosseini et al.,
S2L-0 46.7 3.43 1 29.7 486 464 200 200
2014 [33]
S2L-20 2483.9 153.2
S2L-40
B-C
B-S-2
Khalifa et al., 2016
[34] B-S-4 35 2.7 1 28 400 400 200 200 2800 165
B-N-1-2
B-N-2-2
B-N-2-4
Kotynia et al., B-08S 32.3 2.52 1 31.27 2 490 524 195 209 2915 172
2008 [35] 1 2
B-083m 34.4 2.66 31.87 436 524 220 209 3500 230
G1 45 3.33 1 34.55 2 – –
Kotynia et al.,
G2 46.2 3.4 1 34.82 2 554 561 200 200
2011 [36] 2800 165
G3 45.9 3.39 1 34.75 2
G4 45.6 3.37 1 34.68 2 2235 149
B12-a 45.3 3.35 24.3 539.6 416.2 191.3 186.1
Kotynia et al.,
B12-asp 32.2 2.51 23.7 511.4 583.2 191.4 200.7 2800 173.3
2014 [37]
B16-asp 49 3.57 25.4 595 555.8 198 196.4
B0 – –
B1-NP
Omran et al., 2012 B1-P1
[38]
40 3.02 1 27.84 478 500 200 200 2610 130.5
B1-P2
B1-P3
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 11 of 43
Table 2. Cont.
Control – –
Non prestressed
Rezazadeh et al., 20% prestressed
2014 [39]
32.2 2.51 1 27.4 585 585 208 208 1922 164
30% prestressed
40% prestressed
CB – –
LB1C1 2350 170
LB1G1 1350 64
Sharaky et al., LB2C1 2350 170
32.4 2.8 31.7 545 545 205 205
2014 [40] LB2G1 1350 64
LA2C1 2350 170
LA2G1 1350 64
LB1G2 1350 64
C-0 – –
Soudki et al., 2007
T-0 35 2.7 32.04 460 460 205 205 3480 230
[41]
S-0 2800 165
B0 – –
B500
Teng et al., 2006 B1200 – –
[42]
44 3.27 1 34.31 2 210 210 2068 131
B1800
B2900
B6.1C
4800 231
B6.2C 34.4 2.93 32.45 358 358 205 205
Valivonis et al., B6.5 – –

2010 [14] B8.1C
4800 231
B8.2C 29.7 2.63 30.91 557 358 195 205
B8.3 – –
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 12 of 43
Table 2. Cont.
B12.1C
30.4 2.67 31.14 4800 231
B12.2C 318 420 204.9 204.1
B12.5 – –
28.7 2.56 30.55
B12.6 – –
Control – –
B11
B21
B22 2629 170
Wu et al., 2014 [43] 34.4 2.66 1 31.87 2 340 240 200 200
BP11
BP12
BP13
BP14
Pa – –
411 200
Xiong et al., 2007
2C 30.71 2.41 1 233 210 3652 252
[44]
Pb 606 210 – –
1 fctm = 0.3(fcm -8)2/3 equation from Eurocode 2 [17]; 2 Ecm = 22(fcm /10)0.3 equation from Eurocode 2 [17]; 3 evaluated individually; fc —concrete compressive strength; fct —concrete tensile
strength; Ec —modulus of elasticity of the concrete material; fy1 —yielding strength of the tensioned steel bars; fy2 —yielding strength of the compressed steel bars; Es1 —modulus of
elasticity of the tensioned steel bars; Es2 —modulus of elasticity of the compressed steel bars; ff,fe —tensile strength of tensioned fibers or FRP; Ef,fe —modulus of elasticity tensioned fibers or
FRP; *—calculated by the law of the mixture.
30.8 2
Materials 2019, 12,
Materials 2019, 12, 1367
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of
11 of 41
43
3. Calculation
3. Calculation of
of Deflection
Deflection
The developmentof
The development ofthe
thedeflection
deflectionofof thethe strengthened
strengthened andand unstrengthened
unstrengthened beams
beams is divided
is divided into
into stages.
stages. At theAt first
the first
stage,stage, deflection
deflection develops
develops untiluntil vertical
vertical cracks
cracks openopen in tensioned
in the the tensionedpartpart of
of the
the cross-section. At the second stage, deflection develops when the vertical
cross-section. At the second stage, deflection develops when the vertical crack is opened until the crack is opened until
the yielding
yielding strengthstrength
of theoftensioned
the tensioned reinforcement
reinforcement is reached.
is reached. At the
At the third third
stage, stage, deflection
deflection develops
develops
when when the
the yielding yielding
strength strength of reinforcement
of reinforcement is reached andisonly reached and
a layer only aintercepts
of CFRP layer of tensile
CFRP
intercepts tensile force. Therefore, two deflection development stages
force. Therefore, two deflection development stages exist for the unstrengthened beams and threeexist for the unstrengthened
beams for
stages andthe three stages forones
strengthened the strengthened ones (Figure
(Figure 1). Bending moments 1). MBending moments MI and MI.S are
I and MI.S are shown in (Figure 1),
shownisinthe
which (Figure 1), which
cracking moment is of
thethe cracking moment and
unstrengthened of the unstrengthened
strengthened beam,and strengthened
respectively. Due beam,
to the
respectively. Due to the CFRP layer, the contribution cracking moment of the
CFRP layer, the contribution cracking moment of the strengthened beam is slightly bigger than that of strengthened beam is
I.S > MI). Bending moments (MI.S and MI ) correspond to the end of the
slightly
the bigger than beam
unstrengthened that of(Mthe unstrengthened beam (MI.S > MI). Bending moments (MI.S and MI)
correspond to the end of
first stage. The maximal carrying bendingthe first stage.
moment Theof maximal carrying beam
the unstrengthened bending = MII ) is smaller
(MR moment of the
unstrengthened beam (M = M ) is smaller than that of the bending moment
than that of the bending moment of the strengthened beam (MII.S ) when the yielding of reinforcement
R II of the strengthened
beam
is (MII.S)These
reached. whenbending
the yielding
moments of reinforcement
correspond toisthe reached.
end of theThese
secondbending
stage.moments
The maximum correspond to
carrying
the end of the second stage. The maximum carrying bending moment of
bending moment of the strengthened beam is designated as MR.S = MIII and corresponds to the end of the strengthened beam is
designated
the as MR.S = MIII and corresponds to the end of the third stage.
third stage.
M
MR.S=MIII
MII.S
IIII
MR=MII
III
MI.S
MI II
I
ωII
ωIII.S
ωII.S
ωI.S
ω
ωI
Figure 1. The
The development
development of the deflection of the strengthened and unstrengthened beam.
The deflection
The deflectionofofthethebeams
beamsat a at
certain stage stage
a certain is influenced by different
is influenced flexural stiffness.
by different flexural Generally,
stiffness.
bending
Generally, stiffness
bending E·Istiffness
(the product of the
E·I (the modulus
product of elasticity
of the modulus and the moment
of elasticity and oftheinertia)
moment is influenced
of inertia)
by the momentby
is influenced of inertia.
the momentThe current methods
of inertia. Thefor calculating
current deflection
methods usually evaluate
for calculating the modulus
deflection usually
of elasticity
evaluate thelike for an elastic
modulus material.
of elasticity likeThen, theelastic
for an development
material.of Then,
deflection
the undergoes
development all stages, cracks
of deflection
in the tensioned
undergoes part of cracks
all stages, the cross-section develop, part
in the tensioned therefore,
of thethecross-section
moment of the inertia istherefore,
develop, not constant.the
Thus, at a certain stage, the depth of the neutral axis and the moment of inertia
moment of the inertia is not constant. Thus, at a certain stage, the depth of the neutral axis and theare different. A change
in the depth
moment of the neutral
of inertia axis of the
are different. strengthened
A change in the anddepthunstrengthened
of the neutralbeamsaxis of is the
presented in Figures
strengthened and2
and 3. Thus, there are parts of the cross-section containing and having
unstrengthened beams is presented in Figures 2 and 3. Thus, there are parts of the cross-section no cracks. Therefore, the
effective moment of inertia should be evaluated. The prediction of the depth
containing and having no cracks. Therefore, the effective moment of inertia should be evaluated. of the neutral axis at each
stageprediction
The confirms that
of thethedepth
distribution of strains
of the neutral axisisatlinear. Stresses
each stage in the compressed
confirms part of the
that the distribution of section
strains
are in the elastic range. In addition, a hypothesis about the plane section is valid.
is linear. Stresses in the compressed part of the section are in the elastic range. In addition, a The strain of internal
and externalabout
hypothesis reinforcement
the planeis section
equal toisthe surrounded
valid. The strain concrete strain (bond
of internal slip is not
and external evaluated). is
reinforcement
equal to the surrounded concrete strain (bond slip is not evaluated).
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 14 of 43
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 41
dd2 1
1
1
1 xxII
1
1 xxIII
2 III
II
A
As2
s2
hh
A
As1
s1
yyc.I
c.I
dd1 2
2
1
A ttf
Aff bb f
(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure
Figure 2.2. A
A change
A changein
change inthe
in thedepth
the depthof
depth ofofthe
theneutral
the neutralaxis
neutral axisof
axis ofofthe
theRC
the RCRCstrengthened
strengthened
strengthened beam:
beam:
beam: (a) Cross-section
(a)(a) Cross-section
Cross-section of
of
the
of strengthened
thethe strengthened
strengthened beam;
beam; (b)
beam; depth
(b)(b) depth
depth of the neutral
of the
of the axis
neutral
neutral before
axisaxis vertical
before
before cracks
vertical
vertical will
cracks
cracks open;
willwill (c)
open;
open; depth of
(c) depth
(c) depth the
of
of the
neutral
the
neutral axis
neutral when
axisaxis
when vertical
when
vertical cracks
vertical
cracks are
cracks opened;
are are opened;
opened; (d) depth
(d) (d) depth
depth of
of the neutral
of the
the axis
neutral
neutral when
axis
axis when
when steel yielding
steel
steel yielding
yielding is
is
reached.
is reached.
reached.
dd2 1
1
1
1 xxII
2 II
A
As2
s2
hh
A
As1
s1
yyc.I
c.I
dd1 2
2
1
bb
(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
Figure 3. A change
change in the depth of the neutral axis of the RC beam: (a) Cross-section
Cross-section of the
the beam (b)
(b)
Figure 3. A change in the depth of the neutral axis of the RC beam: (a)(a) Cross-section of
of the beam
beam (b)
depth depth the neutral axis when vertical
depth of
of the
the neutral
neutral axis
axis before
before vertical
vertical cracks
cracks will
will open;
open; (c)
(c) depth of
of the neutral axis when vertical
cracks are opened.
cracks are opened.
The deflection
The of the strengthened beam at stage 1 up to to
the cracking of thethe
tensioned partpart
of the
The deflection
deflection of
of the
the strengthened
strengthened beam
beam at
at stage
stage 11 up
up to the
the cracking
cracking of
of the tensioned
tensioned part of
of
cross-section
the can be predicted by the equation:
the cross-section
cross-section can
can be
be predicted
predicted by
by the
the equation:
equation:
333· ll222 
 444·aaa2 · M
22
ω
I.S
I . SM M
I I 
 I . S M I  
( ) = 
− MMI I
 EEcm I·III.red.. . (1)
(1)
(1)
24
24 cm  I I . red
Ecm I . red
where l—the span length of the beam, a–distance

a–distance support to the external
external load position,
position,
where l—the span length of the beam, a–distance from from the the support support to the external loadload position,
M —acting moment,
II—acting moment, Ecm cm —the
—the modulus
modulus of
of elasticity
elasticity of concrete, I —the
—the reduced
reduced moment
moment of the
of
MI—acting moment, Ecm —the modulus of elasticity of concrete, II.red I.red
I.red—the reduced moment of the
inertia cross-section according to the neutral axis of the cross-section.
inertia of
of the
the total
total cross-section according to the neutral axis axis of of the
the cross-section.
cross-section.
At stage 1, the evaluated acting moment is 00 << M I≤ M I.S,, and
and the ultimate bending moment
moment
At stage 1, the evaluated acting moment is 0 < MI ≤ MI.S, and the ultimate bending moment of
the evaluated acting moment is M I ≤ M I.S of
stage 1 is
is the
the cracking
crackingmoment:
moment:
stage 1 is the cracking moment:
I
Mcrc = MI.S = fct ·I I.red . (2)
MMcrc  M
M I .S  ffct  I IIy..red
c.I .
red
. (2)
crc I .S ct yc. I (2)
where fct —the tensile strength of concrete, yc.I —the centre yof c. I the gravity of the cross-section at stage 1.
The center
where of gravitystrength can be predicted by the—the following
centreequations:
where ffctct–the
–the tensile
tensile strength of of concrete,
concrete, yyc.I of the gravity of the cross-section at stage 1.
c.I—the centre of the gravity of the cross-section at stage 1.
The
The center
center of of gravity
gravity can can be be predicted
predicted by by the the following
following equations:
equations:
Ared = b · h + α f · A f + (αs1 − 1) · As1 + (αs2 − 1) · As2 , (3)
A
Ared  b
b 
 h
h 
 
  A   
f  Af  s1  1  A
1  A s1 
 s 2  11 AAs 2 ,, (3)
red f f s1 s1 s2 s2 (3)
tf
!
h
Sred = b · h · +th + α · A f · +
SSred  bb2 hh   hf  tt f f 
 f  A f  
tt f (αs1 − 1) · As1 · d1 + t f + (αs2 − 1) · As2 · h + t f − d2 , (4)
A2f    s1  11 A
As1  dd1  tt f  
s 2  11 A  
As 2  hh  tt f  dd2 ,, (4)
(4)
red  22 f  f f 22 s1 s1 1 f s2 s2 f 2
Ef
αf = E , (5)
 E cf
 ff  E f ,, (5)
(5)
Ecc
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 15 of 43
Es1
αs1 = , (6)
Ec
Es2
αs2 = , (7)
Ec
Sred
yc.I = . (8)
Ared
where Ared —the reduced cross-section of the strengthened beam, Af —the cross section of carbon fibers,
As1 , As2 —the cross-section of steel bars, Sred —the static moment of the reduced cross-section of the
strengthened beam, αf , αs1 , αs2 —coefficients of reduction, Ef —the modulus of elasticity of fibers, Es1 ,
Es2 —the modulus of elasticity of the steel bars.
The reduced moment of the inertia of the cross-section can be predicted by the following equation:
!2
b · h3 tf 2
!
h
II.red = + b · h · + t f − yc.I + α f · A f · yc.I −
12 2 2 (9)
2 2
+(αs1 − 1) · As1 · yc.I − t f − d1 + (αs2 − 1) · As2 · h + t f − yc.I − d2 .
The deflection of the strengthened beam at stage 2, when the tensioned part of the cross-section
is cracked and the yielding of the tensioned reinforcement is not reached, can be predicted by the
equation:
3 · l2 − 4 · a2 MII
ωII (MII ) = · . (10)
24 Ec · III (MII )
The acting bending moment at stage 2 is MII and the moment MI.S < MII ≤ MII.S . The moment
when the yielding of reinforcement is reached is MII.S . The effective moment of inertia is evaluated
using the Branson [45] equation for parameter III :
3
MI.u MI.u 3

III (MII ) = II.red · + III.red − III.red · . (11)
MII MII
If change of the neutral axis is evaluated, then Equation (11) is modified like:
3 3
MI.u MI.u

III (MII ) = II.red · + III.red · γ1.c · γ1.t − III.red · · γ1.c · γ1.t . (12)
MII MII
where III.red —the reduced moment of the inertia of the cross section where the vertical crack is opened.
This moment of inertia can be predicted by the equation:
b · x3II tf 2
!
xII 2

III.red = + b · xII · + α f · A f · h + t f − xII −
12 2 2 (13)
2 2
+αs1 · As1 · (h − xII − d1 ) + (αs2 − 1) · As2 · (xII − d2 ) .
Coefficients γ1.c and γ1.t evaluate a change in the neutral axis and can be predicted by equations:
xII
γ1.c = , (14)
xI
h + t f − xII
γ1.t = . (15)
h + t f − xI
The depth of the neutral axis at stage 1 is predicted by the equation:
xI = h + t f − yc.I . (16)
Materials 2019, 12,
Materials 2019, 12, 1367
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16
14 of
of 43
41
The prediction of the depth of the neutral axis in the section having an opened crack is based on
The prediction of the depth of the neutral axis in the section having an opened crack is based on
the previously mentioned assumptions. The hypothesis of plain sections is valid. The distribution of
the previously mentioned assumptions. The hypothesis of plain sections is valid. The distribution
strains through the height of the section is linear (Figure 4b). Then, by the similarity of triangles,
of strains through the height of the section is linear (Figure 4b). Then, by the similarity of triangles,
strains at each layer, in proportion with the strain of the compressed concrete layer, can be expressed,
strains at each layer, in proportion with the strain of the compressed concrete layer, can be expressed,
and the depth of the neutral axis should be expressed from the square equation. The depth of the
and the depth of the neutral axis should be expressed from the square equation. The depth of the
neutral axis at stage 2 can be predicted by the equation:
neutral axis at stage 2 can be predicted by the equation:
 B  B2  4 AC
x II −B + √B2 + 4 · A · C. (17)
xII = 2 A . (17)
2·A
where coefficients A, B, and C:
where coefficients A, B, and C:
A  b  0.5, (18)
A = b · 0.5, (18)
B   f  A f   s1  As1   s 2  1  As 2 , (19)
B = α f · A f + αs1 · As1 + (αs2 − 1) · As2 , (19)
 tf t f 
 (αs 2 −11)A·sA
!
C =Cαf  · f h +h  2+ α
· Af f A  As1 · dd +
s1· A
s2 2  d 2· .d .
s2 2
(20)
(20)
 2  s1 s1
εc σc
1 σc·Ac·
k1;
xII xII εs2 σs2·
As2
εs
σs·
As
εf σf·
Af
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 4.4.Stress-strain
Figure Stress-strainstate in the
state strengthened
in the strengthenedRC beam until the
RC beam yielding
until of reinforcement
the yielding is reached:
of reinforcement is
(a) Depth (a)
reached: of the neutral
Depth axis;neutral
of the (b) distribution
axis; (b) of strains; (c) distribution
distribution of distribution
of strains; (c) stresses; (d) internal forces.
of stresses; (d)
internal forces.
The deflection of the strengthened beam at stage 3, when the yielding strength of tensioned
reinforcement is reached,
The deflection of thecan be predictedbeam
strengthened by theatequation:
stage 3, when the yielding strength of tensioned
reinforcement is reached, can be predicted by the equation:
3 · l2 − 4 · a2 MIII
ωIII (MIII ) = · . (21)
3  l 2 24
 4  a 2 Ec · M
 III M III    IIIIIII(MIII .)
(21)
24 Ec  I III M III 
The acting bending moment at stage 3 is MIII and the moment MII.u < MIII ≤ MIII.u . The ultimate
Themoment
bending acting bending
at stage moment
3 is MIII.uat . Thestage
new 3 iseffective
MIII andmoment the moment of inertia MII.uis<evaluated
MIII ≤ MIII.u
in. the
Theequation
ultimate
bending
for moment
parameter IIII : at stage 3 is MIII.u. The new effective moment of inertia is evaluated in the equation
for parameter IIII:
MI.u 33 MII.u 3 3 MI.u3 3

IIII (MIII ) = II.red · M  + III.red · M  − III.red· M 
I III M III   I I . red M .u   I
  IIII
Mu   I
. red 3 II .III  M
II . red  
 
I .uIII
(22)
MIII 3  M III  MIIII.u  M 
  M 
+IIII.red · −I · . III III
MIII 3 III.red MIII 3 (22)
 M III   M II .u 
 I III . red     I III . red    .
If change of the neutral axis MisIIIevaluated,
 then
 M IIIEquation
 (22) is modified like:
3 3 3
If change of the neutral axis MI.uis evaluated, then
MII.uEquation (22) is modified MI.ulike:

IIII (MIII ) = II.red · + III.red · · γ1.c · γ1.t − III.red · · γ1.c · γ1.t
M MIII 3 MIII3
3  MIII 3 M 3 M  (23)
III M·III   I I . red· γ
MIII  MIIII.u

+IIIII.red  − IIIII.red
 2.c ·Iγ.u2.t II . red ·
.u
  · γ  ·1γ
1. c2.c  .I II . red   I .u    1.c   1.t 
. t 2.t
MIII  M III  M MIIIIII   M III 
3 3
(23)
where IIII.red —the reduced 
 M IIImoment of the inertia M
of the  cross section where the vertical crack is opened.
 I III . red      2.c   2.t  I III . red   II .u    2.c   2.t .
This moment of inertia can  predicted by theequation:
M III be M III 
where IIII.red—the reduced moment of the inertia of the cross section where the vertical crack is
opened. This moment of inertia can be predicted by the equation:
2
b  x III
3
x 
2
 tf 
I III .red   b  x III   III    f  A f   h  t f  x III   
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 12  2   2 17 of 43 (24)
  s 2  1 As 2  x III  d 2  .
2
Coefficients γ2.c and γ2.t: b · x3III xIII 2

tf 2
!
IIII.red = + b · xIII · + α f · A f · h + t f − xIII −
12 2 xIII 2 (24)
2
+(αs2 − 1) · As2 · (xIII − d2 ) 2..c  ; (25)
xII
Coefficients γ2.c and γ2.t :
h  txIII xIII
 2.t γ2.c = xfII ; (25)
(26)
h  t f  xII
h + t f − xIII
γ2.t = (26)
The depth of the neutral axis at stage 3 is also
h + tpredicted
f − xII from the similarity of triangles (Figure
5b). The depth of the neutral axis at stage 3 is also predicted from the similarity of triangles (Figure 5b).
εc σc σc·Ac·
k1;
1 xIII
xIII εs2 σs2·
As2
σs·
As
εf σf·
Af
(a) (b) (c) (d)
FigureFigure 5. Stress-strain
5. Stress-strain statein
state in the
thestrengthened
strengthenedRC beam when the
RC beam yielding
when theofyielding
reinforcement is reached:
of reinforcement is
(a) Depth of the neutral axis; (b) distribution of strains; (c) distribution of stresses; (d) internal forces.
reached: (a) Depth of the neutral axis; (b) distribution of strains; (c) distribution of stresses; (d)
internal
Theforces.
depth of the neutral axis at stage 3 is predicted by the equation:
√
The depth of the neutral axis at stage 3 −B + B2 + 4 ·by
is predicted A · the
C equation:
xIII = . (27)
2·A
 B  B2  4  A  C
Were coefficients A, B, and C: xIII  . (27)
A
A = b ·20.5; (28)
Were coefficients A, B, and C: B = α f · A f + (αs2 − 1) · As2 ; (29)
A tf b  0.5; (28)
!
C = αf · Af · h + + (αs2 − 1) · As2 · d2 . (30)
B   f  A f   s 2  1  As 2 ;
2
(29)
The deflection of the unstrengthened beams can be predicted by the same Equations (1) and
f 
(10). However, the parameters of the FRP layer tin other equations should be ignored. If the beams
C   f  AFRP,
are strengthened with the prestressed   this
f   hin  s 2itis1necessary
 case  As 2  d 2 . to calculate the additional (30)
 2
curvature and the deflection from prestress force. The total deflection is obtained by summing up all
the deflection
The deflections. of the unstrengthened beams can be predicted by the same Equations (1) and
(10). However,
4. Results the parameters of the FRP layer in other equations should be ignored. If the beams
are strengthened with the prestressed FRP, in this case it is necessary to calculate the additional
A comparison of deflections (Figures 6–9) shows that the equation method is suitable for RC beams
curvature and the deflection from prestress force. The total deflection is obtained by summing up
with various reinforcement ratios. Calculated deflections of all mentioned beams are presented in the
all the Appendix
deflections.
A. In these figures, designation “Calc. I” is related to Equations (11) and (22). Designation
“Calc. II” related with Equations (12) and (23). It is clear that the theoretical equation method gives
4. Results
brake points such as the cracking moment and steel yielding moment on the load deflection curve.
The difference between the calculated and experimental deflection increases when the load level
Aincreases.
comparison of deflections (Figures 6–9) shows that the equation method is suitable for RC
This may happen because the theoretical method evaluates the elastic work of concrete and
beamsthewith various
constant reinforcement
depth of the neutral axis. ratios.
Thus, theCalculated deflections
deflection curve of all just
curvature depends mentioned beams
from ratio of the are
presented in the
bending Appendix
moments. A. In
In order these figures,
to increase designation
the accuracy “Calc. I”
of the theoretical is related
method, to Equations
nonlinear (11) and
stress-strain
(22). Designation “Calc. II” related with Equations (12) and (23). It is clear that the theoretical
equation method gives brake points such as the cracking moment and steel yielding moment on the
load deflection curve. The difference between the calculated and experimental deflection increases
when the load level increases. This may happen because the theoretical method evaluates the elastic
work of concrete and the constant depth of the neutral axis. Thus, the deflection curve curvature
depends just12,
Materials 2019, from
1367 ratio of the bending moments. In order to increase the accuracy of the theoretical18 of 43
method, nonlinear stress-strain distribution across the height of the cross-section should be
evaluated. The proposed method evaluates linear stress-strain distribution. The evaluation of
distribution across the height of the cross-section should be evaluated. The proposed method evaluates
nonlinear stress-strain distribution can be complex for designers, and thus triangular distribution is
linear stress-strain distribution. The evaluation of nonlinear stress-strain distribution can be complex
easier to assess. Furthermore, a comparison of the position of the center of the parabolic and
for designers, and thus triangular distribution is easier to assess. Furthermore, a comparison of the
triangular form gives little difference. The difference in results is also influenced by the accuracy of
position of the center of the parabolic and triangular form gives little difference. The difference in
the experiment. In certain experiments, deflection at the cracking moment to big. The main
results is also influenced by the accuracy of the experiment. In certain experiments, deflection at the
drawback of the suggested method is the prediction of the bending moment when steel yielding is
cracking moment to big. The main drawback of the suggested method is the prediction of the bending
reached. It is difficult to predict the moment when the FRP layer is incorporated, because strains are
moment when steel yielding is reached. It is difficult to predict the moment when the FRP layer is
not known in the compressed concrete and tensioned CFRP layer. In such a case, the problem must
incorporated, because strains are not known in the compressed concrete and tensioned CFRP layer.
be solved by the iteration approach until the balance of internal forces is reached. This is also a
In such a case, the problem must be solved by the iteration approach until the balance of internal forces
complex task for designers. For this research values of cracking, yielding and ultimate moment
is reached. This is also a complex task for designers. For this research values of cracking, yielding and
were predicted from the deflection evolution plots.
ultimate moment were predicted from the deflection evolution plots.
Experiments in which the deflection was measured from the frame mounted on a beam gives a
Experiments in which the deflection was measured from the frame mounted on a beam gives
more precise result. Calculated deflection (Calc. I) using the effective moment of inertia equation
a more precise result. Calculated deflection (Calc. I) using the effective moment of inertia equation
without any coefficients is suitable for this measurement system. Equation of the effective moment
without any coefficients is suitable for this measurement system. Equation of the effective moment of
of inertia must be without coefficients—it is related with the neutral axis. Please note that the
inertia must
second stage be
doeswithout coefficients—it
not have a horizontalisstraight
related line.
withThe
the neutral axis. Please “deflection“
other experimental note that theresults,
second
stage does
which not have
are more closeatohorizontal
the “Calc.straight
II” can line. The otherwith
be associated experimental “deflection“
the measured results, which are
displacement.
more close to the “Calc. II” can be associated with the measured displacement.
16
14
14
12
Bending moment, kN·m
12
10
10
8
8
6 Barros et. al. 2005_V1R1 (presented as 6 Bilotta_NSM_c_2x1.4x10_1
"Displacement at mid-span")
4 Calc. I; V1R1 4 Calc. I; NSM_c_2x1.4x10_1
2 2
Calc. II; V1R1 Calc. II; NSM_c_2x1.4x10_1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Deflection, mm
Deflection, mm
(a) (b)
45 60
40 50
35
30 40
25
David et. al. 2003_P1 30
20
Calc. I; P1 El-Gamal et. al. 2016_CN1
15 20
Calc. II; P1
10 Calc. I; CN1
10
5
Calc. II; CN1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection, mm Deflection, mm
(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 6. Bending
Bending moment–deflection
moment–deflectioncurves,
curves,(a)(a) beam
beam V1R1;
V1R1; (b) beam
(b) beam × 1.4 ××1.4
NSM_c_2
NSM_c_2 × 10_1;
10_1; (c)
(c) beam
beam
P1; (d)P1; (d) beam
beam CN1. CN1.
Materials 2019,
Materials 12, x
2019, 12, 1367
FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of
17 of 41
43
25
30
25 20

20 15
15
10 Gao et. al. 2004_A0
Ferrier et. al. 2003_A2
10
Calc. I; A0
Calc. I; A2 5
5
Calc. II; A0
Calc. II; A2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
(a) (b)
40 450
35 400

30 350
300
25
250
20
Gao et. al. 2006_2N4 (presented as 200
15 Heffernan_CFRP Strengthened (presented
"Displacement") 150 as "Centre span displacement")
10 Calc. I; 2N4 Calc. I; CFRP Strengthened
100
5 Calc. II; 2N4 50 Calc. II; CFRP Strengthened
0 0
0 2,5 5 7,5 10 12,5 15 17,5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c) (d)
120 25
100 20
80
15
60
Heffernan and Erki 2004_CFRP Strengthened 10 Hosseini et. al. 2014_S2L-0
40 (presented as "Centre span displacement")
Calc. I; CFRP Strengthened Calc. I; S2L-0
20 5
Calc. II; CFRP Strengthened
Calc. II; S2L-0
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
(e) (f)
45
70
40 60
35
50
30
25 40
20 30
Khalifa et. al. 2016_B-N-1-2 Kotynia et. al. 2008_B-08S
15
20
10 Calc. I; B-N-1-2 Calc. I; B-08S
5 10
Calc. II; B-N-1-2 Calc. II; B-08S
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
(g) (h)
Figure 7.
7. Bending
Bendingmoment–deflection
curves,(a)(a)
beambeam
A2;A2;
(b) (b)
beambeam A0;beam
A0; (c) (c) beam 2N4;
2N4; (d) (d) CFRP
beam beam
CFRP Strengthened;
Strengthened; (e) CFRP
(e) beam beam strengthened;
CFRP strengthened;
(f) beam (f)S2L-0;
beam S2L-0; (g)B-N-1-2;
(g) beam beam B-N-1-2; (h)B-08S.
(h) beam beam B-08S.
Materials2019,
Materials 12,x1367
2019,12, FOR PEER REVIEW 20ofof41
18 43
100
100
90
90
80

80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40 40 Kotynia et. al. 2014_B12-a
Kotynia et. al. 2011_G2
30 30
Calc. I; G2 Calc. I; B12-a
20 20
10 10 Calc. II; B12-a
Calc. II; G2
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 50 100 150 200
(a) (b)
160
45
140 40

120 35
100 30
25
80
20
60 Omran et. al. 2012_B1-NP Rezazadeh et. al. 2014_Ex_passive
15
40 Calc. I; B1-NP 10 Calc. I; Non prestressed
20 5
Calc. II; B1-NP Calc. II; Non prestressed
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) (d)
50 60
45
40 50
35
40
30
25 30
Sharaky et. al. 2014_LB1C1
20 Soudki et. al. 2007_T-0
15 20
Calc. I; LB1C1 Calc. I; T-0
10
10
5 Calc. II; LB1C1 Calc. II; T-0
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
(e) (f)
30 18
16
25
14
20 12
10
15
8
Teng et. al. 2006_B500 Valivonis et. al. 2010_B6.1C
10 6
Calc. I; B500 4 Calc. I; B6.1C
5
2
Calc. II; B500 Calc. II; B6.1C
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25
(g) (h)
Figure
Figure 8.
8. Bending moment–deflection
moment–deflection curves,
curves,(a)(a)beam
beam G2;G2;
(b)(b) beam
beam B12-a;
B12-a; (c) beam
(c) beam B1-NP;
B1-NP; (d)
(d) beam
beam Non prestressed,
Non prestressed, (e) beam
(e) beam LB1C1;
LB1C1; (f) beam
(f) beam T-0;
T-0; (g) (g) B500;
B500; (h) B6.1C.
(h) B6.1C.
Materials 2019,12,
Materials2019, 12,1367
19of
of43
41
18
90
16
80

14
70
12
60
10
50
8
40 Xiong_2C
Wu et. al. 2014_B11
6
30
4 Calc. I; 2C
20 Calc. I; B11
2 Calc. II; 2C
10 Calc. II; B11
0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection, mm
Deflection, mm
(a) (b)
Figure9.9. Bending
Figure Bending moment–deflection
curves,(a)
(a)beam
beamB11;
B11;(b)
(b)beam
beam2C.
2C.
5.5. Conclusions
Conclusions
According
According to tothe
theproposed
proposed method
method for for calculating
calculating the the deflection
deflection ofof the
the strengthened
strengthened RC RC beam,
beam,
ititisispossible to predict deflection when steel yielding is reached. When the
possible to predict deflection when steel yielding is reached. When the deflection is calculated deflection is calculated
using
using the usual expression
the usual expressionofofan aneffective
effectivemoment
moment of of inertia
inertia (Equations
(Equations (11)(11)
and and
(22)),(22)), in some
in some cases
cases smaller deflections are obtained. This discrepancy may be
smaller deflections are obtained. This discrepancy may be due to an incorrectly determined due to an incorrectly determined
experimental
experimentaldeflection,
deflection, since in some
since in someexperiments
experimentsit is notit clear
is notwhether
clear the deflection
whether the isdeflection
determinedis
by compensating the lift of the neutral axis at the supports. In most
determined by compensating the lift of the neutral axis at the supports. In most cases, cases, the most accurate calculation
the most
using the normal expression of an effective inertia moment (Equations (11)
accurate calculation using the normal expression of an effective inertia moment (Equations (11) and and (22)). Estimating the
change in the neutral axis (Equations (12) and (23)) results in bigger deflections
(22)). Estimating the change in the neutral axis (Equations (12) and (23)) results in bigger deflections but are more precise
when
but are themore
deflections
preciseare lower
when thewith normal expression
deflections are lower (Equations
with normal (11) and (22)). (Equations
expression Another important
(11) and
criterion related to the accuracy of deflections is the coefficient of estimating
(22)). Another important criterion related to the accuracy of deflections is the coefficient of the nature of the external
load, since after
estimating the the
naturestrengthening the evolution
of the external load, sinceof cracks
after changes, the curvature
the strengthening thedevelopment
evolution ofchangecracks
too. In order to verify the accuracy of the experimental and computational
changes, the curvature development change too. In order to verify the accuracy of the experimental results, further finite
element analysis is required.
and computational results, further finite element analysis is required.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.D.; Investigation, M.D.; Resources, T.S.; Supervision, J.V.
Notation
Funding: This research received no external funding.
A, B, C the designation of the equation for the depth of the neutral axis;
Acknowledgments: Thanks to all researchers who publish detailed theoretical and experimental information.
Ac the cross section of the compressed concrete layer;
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Af the cross-section area of carbon fiber;
A red
Notation the transformed cross section of the beam;
As1 and As2 the cross-section area of the tensioned and compressed reinforcement;
A,
EcmB, C thethe designation
modulus of the equation
of elasticity for the depth of the neutral axis;
of concrete;
AEcf the modulus of elasticity of carbonconcrete
the cross section of the compressed fiber; layer;
Af the cross-section area of carbon fiber;
Es1, Es2 the modulus of elasticity of steel bars;
Ared the transformed cross section of the beam;
III, IIII the effective moment of inertia at stages 2 and 3;
As1 and As2 the cross-section area of the tensioned and compressed reinforcement;
II.red, III.red,
Ecm thethe modulus
moment ofofthe
elasticity
inertiaofofconcrete;
the transformed cross-section at stages 1, 2, and 3;
EIfIII.red the modulus of elasticity of carbon fiber;
EM Es2 MI.S
s1I, and
thethe
cracking
modulus moment of the
of elasticity unstrengthened
of steel bars; beam and strengthened beam
III , IIII respectively;
the effective moment of inertia at stages 2 and 3;
II.red , III.red , IIII.red thethe
bending
momentmoment of the
of the inertia of strengthened
the transformedbeam when the
cross-section yielding
at stages 1, 2,of reinforcement
and 3; is
MII.S
MI and MI.S reached;
the cracking moment of the unstrengthened beam and strengthened beam respectively;
MR, MII
MII.S
thethe bending moment
maximum carrying ofbending
the strengthened
momentbeam when
of the the yielding of beam;
unstrengthened reinforcement
MR.S, MIII theismaximum
reached; carrying bending moment of the strengthened beam;
MSred
R , M II the maximum
the static moment carrying
of thebending moment
transformed of the unstrengthened beam;
cross-section;
MR.S , MIII the maximum carrying bending moment of the strengthened beam;
a distance from the support to loading;
Sred the static moment of the transformed cross-section;
b the width of the beam;
distance from the beam edge to the center of the tensioned and compressed
d1 and d2
reinforcement;
fc the compressive strength of concrete cylinders;

fct the tensile strength of concrete;
h the height of the beam;
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 22 of 43
k1 the coefficient evaluating the shape of stress distribution;
l the span length of the beam;
taf the distance
thickness fromof the carbon to
the support fiber layer;
loading;
xbI, xII and xIII the the width
depth of of
thethe beam; axis at stages 1, 2 and 3;
neutral
ydc.I yc.II,dy2 c.III, the distance
1 ,and centre of from
thethe beam of
gravity edge
thetobeam
the center of the tensioned
cross-section and 1,
at stages compressed
2 and 3; reinforcement;
fαcf, αs1, αs2 the compressive
relative coefficients; strength of concrete cylinders;
f the tensile strength of concrete;
γct1.c, γ1.t relative coefficients evaluating a change in the depth of the neutral axis at stage 2;
h the height of the beam;
γ2.c, γ2.t relative coefficients evaluating a change in the depth of the neutral axis at stage 3;
k1 the coefficient evaluating the shape of stress distribution;
εc the strain of the compressed concrete;
l the span length of the beam;
εt c1 strain
thewhen theof
thickness maximum
the carbonstrength of concrete material is reached;
fiber layer;
f
εxfI , xII and xIII the the strain of of
depth thethe
carbon
neutralfiber
axis layer;
at stages 1, 2 and 3;
εysc.I , yc.II , yc.III , the the
strain
centre of the gravity ofreinforcement;
of the tensioned the beam cross-section at stages 1, 2 and 3;
εαs2f , αs1 , αs2 the relative
strain of the compressed reinforcement;
coefficients;
σγc1.c , γ1.t stresses in coefficients
relative the layer ofevaluating
the compressed
a changeconcrete;
in the depth of the neutral axis at stage 2;
σγf2.c , γ2.t relative
stresses in coefficients
the layer ofevaluating a change in the depth of the neutral axis at stage 3;
carbon fiber;
σεsc the strain
stresses in theof tensioned
the compressed concrete;
reinforcement;
ε
σs2c1 strain when the maximum strength
stresses in the compressed reinforcement; of concrete material is reached;
ε
ωfI, ωII the strain of the carbon fiber layer;
the deflection of the control beam up to the end of stages I and II.
εs the strain of the tensioned reinforcement;
ωI.S, ωII.S,
εs2 the the
deflection
strain ofofthethe strengthened
compressed beam up to the end of stages I, II, and III.
reinforcement;
ωIII.S
σc stresses in the layer of the compressed concrete;
σf stresses in the layer of carbon fiber;
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.D.; Investigation, M.D.; Resources, T.S.; Supervision, J.V.
σs stresses in the tensioned reinforcement;
σs2
Funding: This research received
stresses nocompressed
in the external funding.
reinforcement;
ωI , ωII the deflection of the control beam up to the end of stages I and II.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to all researchers who publish detailed theoretical and experimental information.
ωI.S , ωII.S , ωIII.S the deflection of the strengthened beam up to the end of stages I, II, and III.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Appendix A
7 14
6 12
5 10
4 8
3 Barros et. al. 2005_V1 (presented as 6 Barros et. al. 2005_V1R1 (presented as
"Displacement at mid-span") "Displacement at mid-span")
2 Calc. I; V1 4 Calc. I; V1R1
1 2 Calc. II; V1R1

Calc. II; V1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) (b)
10 25
9
20
8
7
6 15
5
4 Barros et. al. 2005_V2 (presented as 10 Barros et. al. 2005_V2R2 (presented as
3 Calc. I; V2 Calc. I; V2R2
2 5
1 Calc. II; V2 Calc. II; V2R2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c) (d)
Figure A1. Cont.

Materials 2019, 12, 1367 23 of 43
12 25
10 20
kN·m moment, kN·m

8
15
6 12 25
Barros et. al. 2005_V3 (presented as 10 Barros et. al. 2005_V3R2 (presented as
Bending moment,Bending
4 10 "Displacement at mid-span") "Displacement at mid-span")
20
Calc. I; V3 Calc. I; V3R2

2 8 5
Calc. II; V3 15 Calc. II; V3R2
6
0 0 Barros et. al. 2005_V3R2 (presented as
Barros et. al. 2005_V3 (presented as 10
0 4 2 4 6 8 10
"Displacement at mid-span")
12 0 5 10 15 "Displacement
20 at25 30
mid-span") 35 40
Calc. I; V3
Deflection, mm Calc. I; V3R2mm
Deflection,
2 5
Calc. II; V3 Calc. II; V3R2
0 (e) 0 (f)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
14 25
12
20
kN·m
(e) (f)
10
25
moment,
14
8 15
12
20
m
kN·
Barros et. al. 2005_V4 (presented as 10 Barros et. al. 2005_V4R3 (presented as
10
Bending
Bending moment,
4 8 Calc. I; V4 15 Calc. I; V4R3
5
2 6 Calc. Barros
II; V4 et. al. 2005_V4 (presented as Calc.
Barros II; 2005_V4R3
et. al. V4R3 (presented as
10
0 4 Calc. I; V4 0 Calc. I; V4R3
0 2 4 6 8 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25
2 Calc. II; V4 Calc. II; V4R3
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15 20 25
(g)Deflection, mm (h)
Deflection, mm
25
(g) (h)
20 25
Experimental, mm
20
15
Experimental, mm
15
10 calc. I/exp. 60%
10 calc.
calc. I/exp.
I/exp. 60%80%
5 calc.
calc. II/exp.
I/exp. 80%60%
5 calc.
calc. II/exp.
II/exp. 60%80%
ref.II/exp. 80%
calc.
0
ref.
00 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Calculated, mm
Calculated, mm
(i)
(i)
Figure
Figure A1.
A1. Barros
Figure Barros
A1. Barroset
et al.,
al., 2005
2005
et al., [24]
[24]
2005 research
research
[24] beams
researchbeams displacement
beams displacement compared
compared
displacement compared with
with
with calculated
calculated
calculated deflection,
deflection,
deflection,
(a)
(a) beam
beam V1; (b)
(a) beam
V1; (b) beam
V1;beam
(b) beamV1R1;
V1R1;
V1R1; (c)beam
(c) beam
(c) beam V2;
V2;V2; (d)
(d) (d)beam
beam
beam V2R2;
V2R2;(e)
V2R2; (e)beam
(e) beam
beam V3;
V3;
V3; (f)(f)
(f) beam
beam
beam V3R2;
V3R2;
V3R2; (g) (g)
(g)beambeam
beam V4;V4;
V4; (h)
(h)
beam (h)
beam beam (i)V4R3;
V4R3;
V4R3; (i) scatter
(i) scatter
scatter of
of the
of the the results
results
results atat60%
at 60% 60% and
andand 80%
80%80% of
of the
of the the ultimate
ultimate
ultimate load.
load.
load.
10 12
10 12
9
9 10
8
kN·m
10
8
kN·m
7
8
7
moment,
6 8
moment,
6 5 6
5 4 Bilotta_Ref_c_no_1 6 Bilotta_Ref_d_no_1
Bending
4
4 3 Bilotta_Ref_d_no_1
Bilotta_Ref_c_no_1
Bending
2 Calc. I; Ref_c_no_1 4 Calc. I; Ref_d_no_1

3 2
2 1 Calc. I; Ref_c_no_1
Calc. II: Ref_c_no_1 Calc. II;Calc. I; Ref_d_no_1
Ref_d_no_1
0
2
0
1 Calc. II:20Ref_c_no_1 25 Calc.
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 II; Ref_d_no_1
35
0 Deflection, mm 0 Deflection, mm
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
(a) (b)
(a) Figure A2. Cont.
(b)
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 24 of 43
18 18
16 16

14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
Bilotta_EBR_c_1.4x40_2
6 Bilotta_EBR_c_1.4x40_1 6
4 Calc. I; EBR_c_1.4x40_1 4 Calc. I; EBR_c_1.4x40_2
2 2
Calc. II; EBR_c_1.4x40_1 Calc. II; EBR_c_1.4x40_2
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
(c) (d)
20 18
18 16
16

14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8 Bilotta_EBR_d_1.4x40_1 Bilotta_EBR_d_1.4x40_2
6
6
Calc. I; EBR_d_1.4x40_1 4 Calc. I; EBR_d_1.4x40_2
4
2 2
Calc. II; EBR_d_1.4x40_1 Calc. II; EBR_d_1.4x40_2
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(e) (f)
16 20
14 18
16
12
14
10 12
8 10
6 Bilotta_NSM_c_2x1.4x10_1 8 Bilotta_NSM_d_2x1.4x10_1
6
4 Calc. I; NSM_c_2x1.4x10_1 Calc. I; NSM_d_2x1.4x10_1
4
2 2
Calc. II; NSM_c_2x1.4x10_1 Calc. II; NSM_d_2x1.4x10_1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
(g) (h)
18 18
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
Bilotta_NSM_c_3x1.4x10_1 Bilotta_NSM_d_3x1.4x10_1
6 6
4 Calc. I; NSM_c_3x1.4x10_1 4 Calc. I; NSM_d_3x1.4x10_1
2 2
Calc. II; NSM_c_3x1.4x10_1 Calc. II; NSM_d_3x1.4x10_1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
(i) (j)
40
35
30
Experimental, mm
25
20
15 calc. I/exp. 60%
calc. I/exp. 80%
10
calc. II/exp. 60%
5 calc. II/exp. 80%
ref.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Calculated, mm
(k)
FigureFigure
A2. A2. Bilotta
Bilotta et al.,
et al., 20152015 [25]research
[25] research beams
beams deflection
deflectioncompared
comparedwith calculated,
with (a) beam
calculated, (a) beam
Ref_c_no_1; (b) beam Ref_d_no_1; (c) beam EBR_c_1.4 × 40_1; (d) beam EBR_c_1.4 × 40_2; (e) beam
Ref_c_no_1; (b) beam Ref_d_no_1; (c) beam EBR_c_1.4 × 40_1; (d) beam EBR_c_1.4 × 40_2; (e) beam
EBR_d_1.4 × 40_1; (f) beam EBR_d_1.4 × 40_2; (g) beam NSM_c_2 × 1.4 × 10_1; (h) beam NSM_d_2 ×
1.4 × 10_1; (i) beam NSM_c_3 × 1.4 × 10_1; (j) beam NSM_d_3 × 1.4 × 10_1; (k) scatter of the results at
60% and 80% of the ultimate load.
Materials
60% 2019,
and 12,80%
1367of the ultimate load. 25 of 43
60% and 80% of the ultimate load.
45 70
45 70
40 60
40

60
35

35 50
30 50
30 40
25
25 David et. al. 2003_P1 40 David et. al. 2003_P2
20 David et. al. 2003_P1 30 David et. al. 2003_P2
20 Calc. I; P1 30 Calc. I; P2
15 Calc. I; P1 Calc. I; P2
15 Calc. II; P1 20 Calc. II; P2
10 Calc. II; P1 20
10 Calc. II; P2
5 10
5 10
0 0
0 0 5 10 15 20 0 0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10
Deflection, mm 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Deflection, mm
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
80 14
80 14
70 12
70
12
60
10
Experimental, mm
60
10
Experimental, mm
50
50 8
40 David et. al. 2003_P5 8
40 David et. al. 2003_P5 6
30 Calc. I; P5 6 calc. I/exp. 60%
30 Calc. I; P5 4 calc.
calc.I/exp.
I/exp.60%
80%
20 Calc. II; P5
Calc. II; P5 4 calc.
calc.I/exp. 80%
II/exp. 60%
20
10 2 calc.
calc.II/exp.
II/exp.60%
80%
10 2 calc. II/exp. 80%
0 ref.
0 ref.
0 0 5 10 15 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8mm 10 12 14
Deflection, mm Calculated,
Deflection, mm Calculated, mm
(c) (d)
(c) (d)
Figure A3. David et al., 2003 [26] research beams deflection compared with calculated, (a) beam P1;
Figure A3.
Figure David et al., 2003
A3. David 2003 [26]
[26] research
researchbeams
beamsdeflection
deflectioncompared
comparedwith calculated,
with (a)(a)
calculated, beam P1;P1;
beam (b)
(b) beam P2; (c) beam P5; (d) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of the ultimate load.
beam
(b) P2;P2;
beam (c) beam P5;P5;
(c) beam (d) (d)
scatter of the
scatter results
of the at 60%
results andand
at 60% 80%80%
of the ultimate
of the load.
ultimate load.
60
30 60
30
50
25
50
25
20 40
20 40
15 30
15 30
El-Gamal et. al. 2016_REF El-Gamal et. al. 2016_CN1
10 El-Gamal et. al. 2016_REF 20 El-Gamal et. al. 2016_CN1
10 Calc. I; REF 20
Calc. I; CN1
5 Calc. I; REF 10 Calc. I; CN1
5 Calc. II; REF 10
0 Calc. II; CN1
Calc. II; REF 0 Calc. II; CN1
0 0 5 10 15 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 Deflection, mm 10 15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection, mm
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
80 60
80 60
70
70 50
60 50
60 40
50 40
50
40 30
40 30
30 El-Gamal et. al. 2016_CN2 El-Gamal et. al. 2016_GN1
30 El-Gamal et. al. 2016_CN2 20 El-Gamal et. al. 2016_GN1
20 20
Calc. I; CN2 Calc. I; GN1
20 Calc. I; CN2 10 Calc. I; GN1
10 10
10 Calc. II; CN2 Calc. II; GN1
0 Calc. II; CN2 0 Calc. II; GN1
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0 5 10 15
Deflection,20mm 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 Deflection,
30 35 mm 40 45 50 55 60 65
(c) (d)
(c) (d)
Figure A4. Cont.
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 26 of 43
70 80
60 70

60
50
50
40
40
30 El-Gamal et. al. 2016_CHYB
El-Gamal et. al. 2016_GN2 30
20
Calc. I; GN2 20 Calc. I; CHYB
10 10
Calc. II; GN2 Calc. II; CHYB
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
(e) (f)
70 60
60 50

50
40
40
30
30 El-Gamal et. al. 2016_GHYB El-Gamal et. al. 2016_REF-II
20
20
Calc. I; GHYB Calc. I; REF-II
10 10
Calc. II; GHYB Calc. II; REF-II
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20
(g) (h)
80 90
70 80
60 70
60
50
50
40
40
30 El-Gamal et. al. 2016_CN1-II El-Gamal et. al. 2016_CN2-II
30
20 Calc. I; CN1-II 20 Calc. I; CN2-II
10 10
Calc. II; CN1-II Calc. II; CN2-II
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(i) (j)
30
25
Experimental, mm
20
15
calc. I/exp. 60%
10
calc. I/exp. 80%
calc. II/exp. 60%
5
calc. II/exp. 80%
ref.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Calculated, mm
(k)
Figure
Figure A4.A4. El-Gamal
El-Gamal etet
al.,al., 2016
2016 [27]
[27] research
research beams
beams deflection
deflection compared
compared with
with calculated,
calculated, (a)(a) beam
beam
REF; (b) beam CN1; (c) beam CN2; (d) beam GN1; (e) beam GN2; (f) beam
REF; (b) beam CN1; (c) beam CN2; (d) beam GN1; (e) beam GN2; (f) beam CHYB; (g) beam GHYB; CHYB; (g) beam GHYB;
(h)(h) beam
beam REF-II;
REF-II; (i)(i) beam
beam CN1-II;
CN1-II; (j)(j)
beambeam CN2-II;
CN2-II; (k)(k) scatter
scatter ofof the
the results
results at at 60%
60% and
and 80%
80% ofof
thethe
ultimate
ultimate load.
load.
Materials 2019, 12,
Materials 2019, 12, 1367
25 of
of 43
41
30
30 25
25
25
kN·m
25 20
kN·m
kN·m
20
kN·m
20
moment,
moment,
20 15
moment,
moment,
15 15
15
Ferrier et. al. 2003_A2 10 Ferrier et. al. 2003_A1
Bending
Bending
10 Ferrier et. al. 2003_A2 10 Ferrier et. al. 2003_A1
Bending
Bending
10 Calc. I; A0
Calc. I; A2 5
5 Calc. I; A2 5 Calc. I; A0
5 Calc. II; A0
Calc. II; A2
Calc. II; A2 0 Calc. II; A0
0 0 0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Deflection, mm
Deflection, mm
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
5
5
4
4
mmmm
3
Experimental,
3
Experimental,
2 calc. I/exp. 60%

2 calc. I/exp.
I/exp. 80%
60%
calc.
calc. II/exp.
calc. I/exp. 80%
60%
1
1 calc. II/exp.
calc. II/exp. 80%
60%
calc.
ref. II/exp. 80%
0 ref.
0 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Calculated, mm
Calculated, mm
(c)
(c)
Figure A5. Ferrier et al., 2003 [28] research beams deflection compared with calculated, (a) beam A2;
Figure A5.
Figure A5. Ferrier
Ferrier et
et al.,
al., 2003
2003 [28]
[28] research
research beams
beams deflection
deflection compared
compared with
with calculated,
calculated, (a) beam A2;
(b) beam A0; (c) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of the ultimate load.
14 25
14 25
12
20
kN·m
12
kN·m
20
kN·m
kN·m
10
10
moment,
moment,
15
moment,
8
moment,
15
8
6 Gao et. al. 2004_CON1 10 Gao et. al. 2004_A0
Bending
Bending
6 Gao et. al. 2004_CON1 10 Gao et. al. 2004_A0

Bending
Bending
4
4 Calc. I; CON1 Calc. I; A0
Calc. I; CON1 5 Calc. I; A0
2 5
2 Calc. II; CON1 Calc. II; A0
0 Calc. II; CON1 Calc. II; A0
0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
25 25
25 25
20 20
kN·m
kN·m
20 20
kN·m
kN·m
moment,
moment,
15 15
moment,
moment,
15 15
10 Gao et. al. 2004_A10 10 Gao et. al. 2004_A20

Bending
Bending
10 Gao et. al. 2004_A10 10 Gao et. al. 2004_A20

Bending
Bending
Calc. I; A10 Calc. I; A20

5 Calc. I; A10 5 Calc. I; A20
5 5
Calc. II; A10 Calc. II; A20
Calc. II; A10 Calc. II; A20
0 0
0 0 0 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5
2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5
(c) (d)
(c) (d)
Figure A6. Cont.
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 28 of 43
25 25
25 25
20
kN·m
20
kN·m
20
kN·m
20
kN·m
moment,
moment,
15 15
moment,
moment,
15 15
10 Gao et. al. 2004_B0 10 Gao et. al. 2004_B10

Bending
Bending
10 Gao et. al. 2004_B0 10 Gao et. al. 2004_B10
Bending
Bending
Calc. I; B0 Calc. I; B10
5 Calc. I; B0 5 Calc. I; B10
5 5
Calc. II; B0 Calc. II; B10
Calc. II; B0 Calc. II; B10
0 0
0 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 0 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5
(e)
(e) (f)
(f)
30 10
30 10
25 8
kN·m
25 8
kN·m
mm
20
mm
moment,
20 6
Experimental,
moment,
Experimental,
15
15
Gao et. al. 2004_B20 4 calc. I/exp. 60%
Bending
10 Gao et. al. 2004_B20 4 calc. I/exp.

I/exp. 80%
60%
Bending
10 calc.
Calc. I; B20 calc. II/exp.
I/exp. 80%
Calc. I; B20 2 calc. 60%
5 2 calc. II/exp.
II/exp. 80%
60%
5 Calc. II; B20 calc.
Calc. II; B20 calc. II/exp. 80%
ref.
0 0 ref.
0 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 0 2 4 6 8 10
(g)
(g) (h)
(h)
Figure A6. Gao et al., 2004 [29] research beams deflection compared with calculated, (a) beam
FigureA6.
Figure A6.Gao
Gaoet et
al.,al.,
20042004
[29][29] research
research beamsbeams deflection
deflection compared
compared with calculated,
with calculated, (a) beam(a)CON1;
beam
CON1; (b) beam A0; (c) beam A10; (d) beam A20; (e) beam B0; (f) beam B10; (g) beam B20; (h)
CON1;
(b) beam(b) A0;beam A0; A10;
(c) beam (c) beam A10;A20;
(d) beam (d) beam A20;
(e) beam B0;(e)
(f)beam
beam B0;
B10;(f)(g)beam
beamB10;
B20;(g)
(h)beam
scatterB20; (h)
of the
scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of the ultimate load.
scatteratof60%
results the results
and 80% atof60%
theand 80% of
ultimate the ultimate load.
load.
16 40
16 40
14 35
35
mm
14
mm
kN·
30
kN·
12
kN·
30
kN·
12
moment,
25
moment,
10
moment,
25
moment,
10
8 20
8 Gao et. al. 2006_2O (presented as 20 Gao et. al. 2006_2N4 (presented as
6 15 Gao et. al. 2006_2N4 (presented as
Bending
Bending
Gao et. al. 2006_2O (presented as

"Displacement") "Displacement")
6 15
Bending
Bending
4 "Displacement")
Calc. I; 2O "Displacement")
Calc. I; 2N4
10
4 Calc. I; 2O 10 Calc. I; 2N4
2 Calc. II; 2O 5 Calc. II; 2N4
2 Calc. II; 2O 5 Calc. II; 2N4
0 0
0 0 2 4 6 8 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 2,5 5 7,5 10 12,5 15 17,5
Deflection, mm 0 2,5 5 7,5 10 12,5 15 17,5
Deflection, mm
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
40 40
40 40
35 35
35 35
mm
mm
kN·
30
kN·
30
kN·
30
kN·
30
moment,
25
moment,
25
moment,
25
moment,
25
20 20
20 Gao et. al. 2006_2N6 (presented as 20 Gao et. al. 2006_2T450-1 (presented as
15 Gao et. al. 2006_2N6 (presented as 15 Gao et. al. 2006_2T450-1 (presented as
Bending
Bending
15 15
Bending
Bending
"Displacement")
Calc. I; 2N6 "Displacement")
Calc. I; 2T450-1
10 Calc. I; 2N6 10
10 10 Calc. I; 2T450-1
5 Calc. II; 2N6 5 Calc. II; 2T450-1
5 Calc. II; 2N6 5 Calc. II; 2T450-1
0 0
0 0 2,5 5 7,5 10 12,5 0 0 2,5 5 7,5 10 12,5 15 17,5
0 2,5 5 7,5 10 12,5 0 2,5 5 7,5 10 12,5 15 17,5
(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure A7. Cont.
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 29 of 43
Materials
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2727of
of 41
40
40 40
40
35
35 35
35
kN·m
m
kN·m
m
30
moment,kN·
30 30
moment,kN·
30
25
Bendingmoment,
25 25
Bendingmoment,
25
20
20 20
20
Gao Gao
Gao et.
et. al.
al. 2006_2T650-1
2006_2T650-1 (presented as
15 Gao et.
et. al.
al. 2006_2T625-1
2006_2T625-1 (presented as 15
15
15 "Displacement")
Bending
Bending
"Displacement")
Calc. I; 2T625-1 10 Calc.
Calc. I;I; 2T650-1
2T650-1
10
10 Calc. I; 2T625-1 10
55 Calc. 55 Calc.
Calc. II;
II; 2T650-1
2T650-1
Calc. II;
II; 2T625-1
2T625-1
00 00
00 2,5
2,5 55 7,5
7,5 10
10 12,5
12,5 00 2,5
2,5 55 7,5
7,5 10
10 12,5
12,5 15
15
Deflection, Deflection,
Deflection, mm
mm
Deflection, mm
mm
(e) (f)
40
40 35
35
35
35 30
30
kN·m
kN·m
m
m
30
moment, kN·
moment,kN·
30 25
25
25
Bending moment,
Bending moment,
25
20
20
20
20
Gao
Gao et.
et. al. 2006_2T675-1
2006_2T675-1 (presented as 15
15 Gao
Gao et.
et. al.
al. 2006_2T4100-1
2006_2T4100-1 (presented
(presented as
as
15
15
Bending
Bending
"Displacement")
"Displacement")
10 Calc.
Calc. I;I; 2T675-1
2T675-1 10
10 Calc.
Calc. I;I; 2T4100-1
2T4100-1
10
55 Calc. 55 Calc.
Calc. II;
II; 2T4100-1
Calc. II;
II; 2T675-1
2T675-1 2T4100-1
00 00
00 2,5
2,5 55 7,5
7,5 10
10 12,5
12,5 00 2,5
2,5 55 7,5
7,5 10
10 12,5
12,5 15
15
Deflection,
Deflection, mm
mm Deflection,
Deflection, mm
mm
(g) (h)
12
10
Experimental, mm
6
calc.
calc. I/exp.
I/exp. 60%
60%
4
calc.
calc. I/exp.
I/exp. 80%
80%
calc.
calc. II/exp.
II/exp. 60%
60%
2
calc.
calc. II/exp.
II/exp. 80%
80%
ref.
ref.
0
0 2 4 66 88 10
10 12
12
Calculated,
Calculated, mm
mm
(i)
FigureA7.
Figure A7.Gao
Gaoetetal.,
al.,2006
2006[30]
[30]research
research beams
beams displacement
displacement compared
compared with
with calculated
deflection, (a)
(a) beam
beam 2O;beam
2O; (b) (b) beam
2N4;2N4; (c) beam
(c) beam 2N6; 2N6; (d) beam
(d) beam 2T450-1;
2T450-1; (e) beam
(e) beam 2T625-1;
2T625-1; (f) 2T650-1;
(f) beam beam 2T650-1; (g)
(g) beam
beam 2T675-1;
2T675-1; (h) beam(h)2T4100-1;
beam 2T4100-1; (i) scatter
(i) scatter of the results
of the results at 60 %atand
60 80%
% andof 80% of the ultimate
the ultimate load. load.
300
300 450
450
400
400
250
250
kN·m
kN·m
m
m
350
350
moment, kN·
moment, kN·
200
200 300
300
Bending moment,
Bending moment,
250
250
150
150
200
200
Heffernan_Conventional
Heffernan_Conventional(presented
(presentedas
as Heffernan_CFRP
Heffernan_CFRPStrengthened
Strengthened(presented
(presented
Bending
100
100 "Centre
"Centrespan
spandisplacement")
displacement") 150
150 as
as"Centre
"Centrespan
spandisplacement")
displacement")
Calc.
Calc.I;I;Cenventional
Cenventional 100
100 Calc.
Calc.I;I;CFRP
CFRPStrengthened
Strengthened
50
50
50
50 Calc.
Calc.II;
II;CFRP
CFRPStrengthened
Strengthened
Calc.
Calc.II;
II;Cenventional
Cenventional
00 00
00 55 10
10 15
15 20
20 25
25 30
30 35
35 00 55 10
10 15
15 20
20 25
25 30
30 35
35 40
40
Deflection,
Deflection,mm
mm Deflection,
Deflection,mm
mm
(a) (b)
Figure A8. Cont.

Materials 2019, 12, 1367 30 of 43
Materials 2019,
Materials 2019, 12,
12, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 28 of
28 of 41
41
25
25
25
20
20
20
Experimental, mm
mm
Experimental,mm
15
15
15
Experimental,
10 calc. I/exp. 60%
10
10 calc. I/exp. 60%
calc.
calc. I/exp.
I/exp. 80%60%
calc.
calc.
calc. I/exp.
I/exp.
II/exp. 80%
80%
60%
5
55 calc.
calc.
calc. II/exp.
II/exp.
II/exp. 60%
80%60%
calc.
calc.
ref. II/exp.
II/exp.80%
80%
0 ref.
000 ref.
5 10 15 20 25
00 55 10
10 15 20 25
Calculated, mm 15 20 25
Calculated,
Calculated,mm
mm
(c)
(c)
(c)
Figure A8. Heffernan 1997 [31] research beams displacement compared with calculated deflection,
Figure
Figure A8. Heffernan
A8.Heffernan 1997
1997 [31]
Heffernan1997 [31] research
research beams
displacementcompared
comparedwith with calculated
withcalculated deflection,
Figure
(a) beamA8.Conventional; (b) [31]
beamresearch beams displacement
CFRP Strengthened; (c) scatter of the results at 60% and deflection,
80% of the
(a)
(a) beam
beam Conventional;
Conventional; (b) beam CFRP Strengthened; (c) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of the
(a) beam Conventional;
ultimate load. (b) beam CFRP Strengthened; (c) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% ofof
(b) beam CFRP Strengthened; (c) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% thethe
ultimate
ultimate load.
load.
ultimate load.
120 90
120 90
120 8090
100 80
7080

100
100
kN·m
kN·m
70
moment,kN·m
moment,kN·m
80 6070
80 60
80 Bendingmoment, 5060
Bendingmoment,
60 50
6060 4050
Heffernan and Erki 2004_CFRP Strengthened 40 Heffernan and Erki 2004_Conventional
40 Heffernan
(presented
Heffernanas and Erki
Erki2004_CFRP
"Centre
and Strengthened
span displacement")
2004_CFRP Strengthened 3040 Heffernan
Heffernanasand
(presented Erki
Erki2004_Conventional
"Centre
and span displacement")
2004_Conventional
Bending
Bending
40 (presented as "Centre 30
40 Calc.
(presented
Calc. I; CFRP as "Centrespan
I; CFRP Strengthened
Strengthenedspandisplacement")
displacement") 2030 (presented
Calc.
(presented as
as"Centre
I; Cenventional"Centrespan
spandisplacement")
displacement")
20 Calc. I; CFRP Strengthened 20 Calc. I; Cenventional
Calc. I; Cenventional
2020 Calc. II; CFRP Strengthened 1020 Calc. II; Cenventional
Calc.
Calc.II;II;CFRP
CFRPStrengthened 10 Calc.
0 Strengthened 010 Calc.II;II;Cenventional
Cenventional
000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 000 5 10 15 20 25 30
00 55 10
10 15
15 20
20 25
25 30
30 35
35 00 55 10 15 20 25 30
Deflection, mm 10 Deflection,
15mm 20 25 30
Deflection,
Deflection,mm Deflection,
mm Deflection,mm
mm
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) 20 (b)
(b)
20
20
15
Experimental, mm
15
15
mm
Experimental,mm
Experimental,
10
10
10
calc. I/exp. 60%
calc.
calc. I/exp.
I/exp. 60%
60%
calc. I/exp. 80%
5 calc.
calc. I/exp. 80%
I/exp.60%
80%
55 calc. II/exp.
calc.
calc. II/exp.
II/exp.60%
60%
calc. II/exp. 80%
calc. II/exp. 80%
calc. II/exp. 80%
ref.
0 ref.
00 ref.
0 5 10 15 20
00 55 10
10 mm 15
15 20
20
Calculated,
Calculated,
Calculated,mm
mm
(c)
(c)
(c)
Figure A9. Heffernan and Erki 2004 [32] research beams displacement compared with calculated
Figure
Figure
Figure A9.
A9. Heffernan
A9.Heffernan and
Heffernanand Erki
andErki 2004
Erki2004 [32]
2004[32] research
research
[32] beams
beams
research displacement
displacement
compared
compared with
with
with calculated
calculated
calculated
deflection, (a) beam CFRP Strengthened; (b) beam Conventional; (c) scatter of the results at 60% and
deflection,
deflection, (a)
(a) beam
beam CFRP
CFRP Strengthened;
Strengthened; (b)
(b) beam
beam Conventional;
Conventional; (c)
(c) scatter
scatter of
of the
the results
results
deflection, (a) beam CFRP Strengthened; (b) beam Conventional; (c) scatter of the results at atat 60%
60%
60% and
and
and
80% of the ultimate load.
80%
80%
80%ofof
of the
the ultimate
ultimate
the load.
load.
ultimate load.
10
25
10
25
25
910
9 20
8 9
20
kN·m
8 20
kN·m
moment,kN·m
7 8
moment,kN·m
7 15
6 7
15
Bendingmoment,
6
Bendingmoment,
5 6 15
5
4 5 Hosseini et. al. 2014_SREF 10 Hosseini et. al. 2014_S2L-0
4 Hosseini
Hosseini et. et. al.
al. 2014_SREF 10
10 Hosseini
Hosseiniet. et.al.
al.2014_S2L-0
2014_S2L-0
3 4 2014_SREF
Bending
Bending
3 Calc. I; SREF Calc. I; S2L-0

2 3 Calc. I; SREF 5
2 Calc. I; SREF Calc. I; S2L-0
Calc. I; S2L-0
1 2 55
1 Calc. II; SREF Calc. II; S2L-0
0 1 Calc.
Calc. II;
II; SREF Calc.
000
SREF 0 Calc.II;II;S2L-0
S2L-0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
00 55 10
10 15
15 20
20 25
25 30
30 35
35 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection, mm 20 40 60 80 mm 100 120 140 160
Deflection, Deflection,
Deflection, mm
mm Deflection,
Deflection,mm
mm
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure A10. Cont.
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 31 of 43
30 30
30 30
25 25
25
25


20 20
20 20
15 15
15 15
Hosseini et. al. 2014_S2L-20 Hosseini et. al. 2014_S2L-40
10 Hosseini et. al. 2014_S2L-20 10 Hosseini et. al. 2014_S2L-40
10 10
Calc. I; S2L-20 Calc. I; S2L-40
5 Calc. I; S2L-20 5 Calc. I; S2L-40
5 5
Calc. II; S2L-20 Calc. II; S2L-40
Calc. II; S2L-20 0 Calc. II; S2L-40
0
0 0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
80
80
70
70
60
mm
60
Experimental,mm
50
50
Experimental,
40
40
30 calc. I/exp. 60%
30 calc. I/exp. 60%
calc. I/exp. 80%
20 calc. I/exp. 80%
20 calc. II/exp. 60%
calc. II/exp. 60%
ref.
0 ref.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Calculated, mm
Calculated, mm
(e)
(e)
Figure A10.
FigureA10. Hosseini
A10.Hosseini
Hosseinietetetal., 2014
al.,2014 [33]
2014[33] research
[33]research beams
researchbeams deflection
beamsdeflection compared
deflectioncompared
comparedwithwith calculated,
withcalculated, (a)
calculated,(a) beam
(a)beam
beam
Figure al.,
SREF; (b)
SREF;(b)(b)beam
beam S2L-0;
S2L-0; (c) beam S2L-20; (d) beam S2L-40; (e) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of
SREF; beam S2L-0; (c)(c)
beambeam S2L-20;
S2L-20; (d) (d) beam
beam S2L-40;
S2L-40; (e) scatter
(e) scatter of results
of the the results at 60%
at 60% and of
and 80% 80%theof
the ultimate
the ultimate
ultimate load.
load. load.
25 40
25 40
35
35
20
30
20
30
15
25
15
25
20
20
10 Khalifa et. al. 2016_B-C 15 Khalifa et. al. 2016_B-S-2
10 Khalifa et. al. 2016_B-C 15 Khalifa et. al. 2016_B-S-2
Calc. I; B-C 10 Calc. I; B-S-2
5 Calc. I; B-C 10 Calc. I; B-S-2
5
5
Calc. II; B-C 5 Calc. II; B-S-2
0 Calc. II; B-C 0 Calc. II; B-S-2
0 0
0 2 4 6 10 8 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
50 45
50 45
45 40
45 40
40
40 35
35 35
35 30
30 30
30 25
25 25
25 20
20 Khalifa et. al. 2016_B-S-4 20 Khalifa et. al. 2016_B-N-1-2
20 Khalifa et. al. 2016_B-S-4 15 Khalifa et. al. 2016_B-N-1-2
15 15
15 Calc. I; B-S-4 10 Calc. I; B-N-1-2
10 Calc. I; B-S-4 10 Calc. I; B-N-1-2
10 5
5 5 Calc. II; B-N-1-2
5 Calc. II; B-S-4 Calc. II; B-N-1-2
0 Calc. II; B-S-4 0
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure A11. Cont.
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 32 of 43
Materials2019,
Materials 2019,12,
12,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 30
30ofof41
41
5050 60
60
4545
4040 50
50


3535
40
3030 40
2525 30
30
2020 Khalifa
Khalifaet.et.al.al.2016_B-N-2-2
2016_B-N-2-2 20
Khalifa et. al. 2016_B-N-2-4
Khalifa et. al. 2016_B-N-2-4
1515 20
Calc. Calc. I; B-N-2-4
1010 Calc.I; I;B-N-2-2
B-N-2-2 10 Calc. I; B-N-2-4
10
55 Calc. II; B-N-2-4
Calc.
Calc.II;II;B-N-2-2
B-N-2-2 Calc. II; B-N-2-4
00 0
0
00 55 1010 1515 2020 2525 3030 3535 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection, Deflection, mm
Deflection,mmmm Deflection, mm
(e)
(e) (f)
(f)
2020
1515
Experimental, mm
Experimental, mm
1010
calc.
calc.I/exp.
I/exp.60%
60%
calc.
calc.I/exp.
I/exp.80%
80%
55
calc. II/exp. 60%
calc. II/exp. 60%
calc.
calc.II/exp.
II/exp.80%
80%
ref.
ref.
00
00 55 1010 1515 2020
Calculated,
Calculated,mm
mm
(g)
(g)
Figure A11.
FigureA11. Khalifa
A11.Khalifa
Khalifa et al., 2016 [34] research beams deflection compared with calculated, (a)
(a)beam
Figure et et
al.,al.,
20162016
[34][34] research
research beams
beams deflection
deflection compared
compared with with calculated,
calculated, (a) beam beam
B-C;
B-C;
B-C; (b)
(b)beam
beam B-S-2;
B-S-2;(c)
(c) beam
beam B-S-4;
B-S-4; (d)
(d)beam
beam B-N-1-2;
B-N-1-2;(e)
(e)beam
beam B-N-2-2;
B-N-2-2;(f)
(f)beam
beam B-N-2-4;
B-N-2-4; (g)
(g)scatter
scatter
(b) beam B-S-2; (c) beam B-S-4; (d) beam B-N-1-2; (e) beam B-N-2-2; (f) beam B-N-2-4; (g) scatter of the
ofofthe
theresults
results at 60% at
results at60%
and 60%
80%andof 80%
and ofofthe
theultimate
80%ultimate
the load. load.
ultimate load.
7070
70
70
6060
60
60

5050 50
50
4040 40
40
3030 Kotynia 30
Kotyniaet.et.al.al.2008_B-08S
2008_B-08S 30 Kotynia et. al. 2008_B-083m
Kotynia et. al. 2008_B-083m
2020 20
20 Calc. I; B-083m
Calc.
Calc.I; I;B-08S
B-08S Calc. I; B-083m
1010 10
10
Calc. Calc. II; B-083m
00 Calc.II;II;B-08S
B-08S 0
0
Calc. II; B-083m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
00 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050 6060 7070 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Deflection, mm
Deflection, Deflection, mm
Deflection,mm
mm
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
4040
3535
3030
Experimental, mm
Experimental, mm
2525
2020
1515 calc.
calc.I/exp.
I/exp.60%
60%
calc.
calc.I/exp.
I/exp.80%
80%
1010
calc. II/exp. 60%
calc. II/exp. 60%
55 calc.
calc.II/exp.
II/exp.80%
80%
ref.
ref.
00
00 55 1010 1515 2020 2525 3030 3535 4040
Calculated,
Calculated,mm
mm
(c)
(c)
Figure
Figure A12. Kotynia
A12.Kotynia
FigureA12. etetal.,
Kotyniaet al., 2008
al.,2008 [35]
2008[35] research
[35]research beams
researchbeams deflection
beamsdeflection compared
deflectioncompared
comparedwithwith calculated,
withcalculated, (a)
calculated,(a) beam
(a)beam
beam
B-08S;
B-08S; (b)
B-08S;(b) beam
(b)beam B-083m;
beamB-083m; (c)
B-083m;(c) scatter
(c)scatter ofofthe
scatterof the results
theresults atat60%
resultsat 60% and
60%and 80%
and80% ofof
80%of the
the ultimate
ultimate
the load.
load.
ultimate load.
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 33 of 43
100
70
90
60 100
80
kN·m kN·m
kN·m kN·m
70
50 90
70
60
moment,
moment,
80
60
40
50 70
50
moment,
moment,
30 60
40
40 Kotynia et. al. 2011_G1 Kotynia et. al. 2011_G2
BendingBending
BendingBending
20 50
30
30 Calc. I; G1 Calc. I; G2
Kotynia et. al. 2011_G1 40
20 Kotynia et. al. 2011_G2
10
20 Calc. II; G1 30
10
Calc. I; G1 Calc.
Calc. II; G2
I; G2
0 20
0
10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Calc. II; G1 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Deflection, mm Calc. II; G2
0 0 Deflection, mm
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Deflection, mm
(a) (b)
Deflection, mm
140 140
(a) (b)
120 120
140
kN·m kN·m
140
kN·m kN·m
100 100
120 120
moment,
moment,
80 80
100 100
moment,
60
moment,
60 Kotynia et. al. 2011_G4

80 Kotynia et. al. 2011_G3 80
BendingBending
BendingBending
40 40
60 Calc. I; G3 60 Calc. I; G4
20 20
40 Calc.II; G3 40 Calc.
0 Calc. I; G3 Calc. II; G4
I; G4
0
20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 20
Calc.II; G3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Calc. II; G4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Deflection, mm
(c) (d)
Deflection, mm
120
(c) (d)
120
100
mm mm
100
80
Experimental,
80
60
Experimental,
calc. I/exp. 60%

60
40
calc. I/exp. 80%
calc. II/exp.
calc. I/exp. 60%
60%
40
20 calc. II/exp.
calc. I/exp. 80%
80%
calc. II/exp. 60%
ref.
20
0 calc. II/exp. 80%
0 20 40 60 80 ref.100 120
0 Calculated, mm
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Calculated, mm
(e)
Figure A13. Kotynia et al., 2011 [36] research (e) beams deflection compared with calculated, (a) beam
G1; (b) beam
FigureA13. G2; (c)
A13. Kotynia beam
Kotyniaetetal., G3;
al.,2011 (d)
2011[36]beam G4;
[36]research
research(e) scatter
beams of the results
deflection at 60%with
compared and calculated,
80% of the (a)
ultimate
beam
Figure beams deflection compared with calculated, (a) beam G1;
load.
G1; (b) beam G2; (c) beam G3; (d) beam G4; (e) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of the
(b) beam G2; (c) beam G3; (d) beam G4; (e) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of the ultimate load. ultimate
load.
40 100
35 90
40 100
80
kN·m kN·m
kN·m kN·m
30
35 90
70
moment,
moment,
25 80
60
30
20 70
50
moment,
moment,
25 60
15 Kotynia et. al. 2014_B12-asp-e 40 Kotynia et. al. 2014_B12-a
BendingBending
BendingBending
20 50
30
10 Calc. I; B12 Calc. I; B12-a
15 Kotynia et. al. 2014_B12-asp-e 40
20 Kotynia et. al. 2014_B12-a
5 30
10
10 Calc.
Calc. II; B12
I; B12 Calc.
Calc. II; B12-a
I; B12-a
0 20
0
5 0 10 20 30
Calc. II;40
B12 50 60 10 0 50 100 150
Calc. II; B12-a 200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 50 100 150 200
(a)
Deflection, mm (b)
Deflection, mm
(a) Figure A14. Cont. (b)

Materials 2019, 12, 1367 34 of 43
100 100
90 90
80 80

70Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 70 32 of 41

60 60
50 50
100 100
40 90 Kotynia et. al. 2014_B12-asp 40
90 Kotynia et. al. 2014_B12-asp-e
30 80 30
80

Calc. I; B12-asp Calc. I; B12-asp-e

20 70 20
70
10 60 60
10
Calc. II; B12-asp Calc. II; B12-asp-e
0 50 500
0 40 50 100 Kotynia et.
150 al. 2014_B12-asp200 40 0 50 100 Kotynia et.
150al. 2014_B12-asp-e
200 250
30 Deflection, mm Calc. I; B12-asp 30 Deflection, mm
Calc. I; B12-asp-e
20 20
10 Calc. II; B12-asp 10 Calc. II; B12-asp-e
0 (c) 0 (d)
70 0 50 100 150 200 140 0 50 100 150 200 250
60 120
moment, kN·m
50
(c) 100
(d)
70 140
40 80
60 120
kN·m
30 Kotynia et. al. 2014_B16-asp-e 60 Kotynia et. al. 2014_B16-asp
50 100
Bending
Bending moment,
20 40
40
80
Calc. I; B16 Calc. I; B16-asp
10 30 20
60
Calc.Kotynia
II; B16 et. al. 2014_B16-asp-e KotyniaCalc.
et. al.II;2014_B16-asp
B16-asp
0 20 400
Calc. I; B16 Calc. I; B16-asp
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 50 100 150 200 250
10 20
Deflection, mm Calc. II; B16 Deflection,
Calc. II;mm
B16-asp
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 50 100 150 200 250
(e) Deflection, mm (f)
Deflection, mm
140 120
(e) (f)
120 100
140 120
100
mm mm
120 80
100
Experimental,
80 100
80
60
Experimental,
60 80 Kotynia et. al. 2014_B16-asp-e

60 calc. I/exp. 60%
40
40 60 calc. I/exp. 80%
Calc.Kotynia et. al. 2014_B16-asp-e
I; B16-asp-e 40
calc. I/exp. 60%
calc. II/exp. 60%
40 20 calc. I/exp. 80%
20 Calc. I; B16-asp-e calc. II/exp. 80%
Calc. II; B16-asp-e calc. II/exp. 60%
20 20 ref.80%
0 0 calc. II/exp.
Calc. II; B16-asp-e
ref.
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 50 100
Deflection, mm 150 200 250 0 20 40 60
Calculated, 80
mm 100 120
(g) (g) (h)(h)

FigureFigure
Figure A14. A14.
A14. Kotynia
Kotynia
Kotynia al.,
et al., 2014
2014
et al., [37]
[37]
2014 research
research
[37] beams
researchbeams deflectioncompared
beams deflection
deflection compared
compared with
with
with calculated,
calculated,
(a)
(a) beam beam
B12; (b) beam b12-a; (c) beam B12-asp; (d) beam B12-asp-e; (e) beam B16; (f) beam
B12; (b) beam b12-a; (c) beam B12-asp; (d) beam B12-asp-e; (e) beam B16; (f) beam B16-asp; (g) beam
B12; (b) beam b12-a; (c) beam B12-asp; (d) beam B12-asp-e; (e) beam B16; (f) beam B16-asp;
B16-asp; (g) (g)
beam beam
B16-asp-e;
B16-asp-e; (h)
B16-asp-e; (h) scatter
(h) scatter
scatter of of
of the the results
the results
results at at
at60% 60%
60%and and
and80%80%
80%ofof the
ofthe ultimate
theultimate load.
ultimateload.
load.
90 160
90 160
80 140
80 140
70
kN·m
120
70
kN·m
60 120
moment,
100
60 50
moment,
100
80
50 40
Omran et. al. 2012_B0 80
60 Omran et. al. 2012_B1-NP
Bending
40 30
Omran et. al. 2012_B0 60
40 Omran et. al. 2012_B1-NP
Bending
20 Calc. I; B0 Calc. I; B1-NP

30
10 20
40
20 Calc.Calc.
I; B0II; B0 Calc. II;Calc.
B1-NPI; B1-NP
0 0
10 20
0 5 10 15 20 Calc. II;
25B0 30 35 0 20 40 60 80 100 Calc.
120 II; B1-NP
140 160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Deflection, mm
(a) mm
Deflection, (b)
(a) Figure A15. Cont. (b)
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 35 of 43
160 160
140 140

120 120
100 100
80 80
60 Omran et. al. 2012_B1-P1 60 Omran et. al. 2012_B1-P2
40 Calc. I; B1-P1 40 Calc. I; B1-P2

20 20
Calc. II; B1-P1 Calc. II; B1-P2
0 0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
(c) (d)
160 100
140
80
120
Experimental, mm
100 60
80
60 Omran et. al. 2012_B1-P3 40 calc. I/exp. 60%
calc. I/exp. 80%
40 Calc. I; B1-P3
Calc. II; B1-P3 ref.
0 0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
(e) (f)
FigureFigure A15. Omran

A15. Omran et al.,et2012
al., 2012
[38][38] research
research beams
beams deflectioncompared
deflection compared with
with calculated,
calculated, (a)
(a)beam
beam B0;
B0; (b) beam B1-NP; (c) beam B1-P1; (d) beam B1-P2; (e) beam B1-P3; (f) scatter
(b) beam B1-NP; (c) beam B1-P1; (d) beam B1-P2; (e) beam B1-P3; (f) scatter of the results at of the results at 60%
60% and
80% ofand 80%12,
the2019,
Materials
of xthe
ultimate FOR
ultimate
load. load.
PEER REVIEW 34 of 42
25 45
25 45
40
40
20
mm
20 35
kN·
35
moment,kN·
30
30
Bendingmoment,
15 15
25
25
20
20
10 10 Rezazadeh et.et.
Rezazadeh al.al.
2014_Ex_control
2014_Ex_control Rezazadeh
Rezazadeh et.et.
al.al. 2014_Ex_passive
2014_Ex_passive
Bending
15
15
Calc. I; Control
Calc. I; Control 10 Calc.
Calc. I; Non
I; Non prestressed
prestressed
5 5 10
Calc. II; Control 55 Calc.
Calc. II; Control Calc. II; II;
Non Non prestressed
prestressed
0 0 00
0 0 2 2 4 4 6 6 88 1010 00 1010 2020 3030 40 40 50 50
Deflection, mm
Deflection, mm Deflection,
Deflection, mmmm
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
45 45 50
50
40 40 45
45
40
40
m
kN·m
35 35
moment, kN·
30 30 35
35
Bending moment,
30
30
25 25
25
25
20 20
Rezazadeh
Rezazadeh et.et.
al. al. 2014_Ex_20%
2014_Ex_20% prestressed
prestressed 20
20 Rezazadeh
Rezazadehet.et.
al.al.
Bending
15 15 15
15
10 10 Calc.
Calc. I; 20%
I; 20% prestressed
prestressed 10 Calc.
Calc.I; 30% prestressed
I; 30% prestressed
10
5 5 Calc. II; 20% prestressed 55 Calc. II; II;
30% prestressed
Calc. II; 20% prestressed Calc. 30% prestressed
0 0 00
0 0 5 5 10 10 1515 2020 2525 00 55 1010 1515 20 20 25 25
Deflection,
Deflection, mm mm Deflection, mm
Deflection, mm
(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
20
45 45 20
40 40
35 15
35 15
mm
Experimental,mm
30
30
Experimental,
25
25 10
20 10
20 Rezazadeh et. al. 2014_Ex_40% prestressed calc. I/exp. 60%
15 Rezazadeh et. al. 2014_Ex_40% prestressed calc. I/exp. 60%
15 calc. I/exp. 80%
10 Calc. I; 40% prestressed 5 calc. I/exp. 80%
10 Calc. I; 40% prestressed 5 calc. II/exp. 60%
calc. II/exp. 60%
5 calc. II/exp. 80%
5 Calc. II; 40% prestressed calc. II/exp. 80%
0 Calc. II; 40% prestressed ref.
0 ref.
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 00 5 10 15 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 5 10 15 20
(e) (f)
Figure Figure A16. Rezazadeh

A16. Rezazadeh et al.,
et al., 20142014 [39]research
[39] research beams
beams deflection
deflection compared withwith
compared calculated, (a) beam
Control; (b) beam Non prestressed; (c) beam 20% prestressed; (d) beam 30% prestressed; e) beam 40%
Control; (b) beam Non prestressed; (c) beam 20% prestressed; (d) beam 30% prestressed; (e) beam 40%
prestressed; (f) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of the ultimate load.
prestressed; (f) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of the ultimate load.
(e) (f)
Figure A16. Rezazadeh et al., 2014 [39] research beams deflection compared with calculated, (a)
beam
Materials 2019,Control;
12, 1367 (b) beam Non prestressed; (c) beam 20% prestressed; (d) beam 30% prestressed; 36
e) of 43
beam 40% prestressed; (f) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of the ultimate load.
30 50
45
25 40

35
20
30
15 25
Sharaky et. al. 2014_LB1C1
Sharaky et. al. 2014_CB 20
10
15
Calc. I; CB Calc. I; LB1C1
10
5
Calc. II; CB 5 Calc. II; LB1C1
0 0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(a) (b)
45 50
40 45
40

35
30 35
30
25
25
20 Sharaky et. al. 2014_LB1G1
20 Sharaky et. al. 2014_LB2C1
15 15
Calc. I; LB1G1 Calc. I; LB2C1
10 10
5 Calc. II; LB1G1 5 Calc. II; LB2C1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 5 10 15 20 25
(c) (d)
50 50
45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 Sharaky et. al. 2014_LB2G1 20 Sharaky et. al. 2014_LA2C1
15 15
Calc. I; LB2G1 Calc. I; LA2C1
10 10
5 Calc. II; LB2G1 5 Calc. II; LA2C1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25
(e) (f)
50 45
45 40
40
35
35 30
30
25
25
Sharaky et. al. 2014_LA2G1 20
20 Sharaky et. al. 2014_LB1G2
15
15
Calc. I; LA2G1 10 Calc. I; LB1G2
10
5 Calc. II; LA2G1 5
Calc. II; LB1G2
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(g) (h)
Figure A17. Cont.

Materials 2019,12,
Materials2019, 12,1367
35ofof43
41
20
20
20
15
Experimental, mm
15
Experimental, mm
15
Experimental, mm
10
10
10 calc. I/exp. 60%
calc. I/exp. 60%
calc. I/exp. 80%
5 calc.calc.
I/exp.I/exp.
80% 60%
5 calc. II/exp. 60%
5 calc.calc. I/exp.
II/exp. 60%80%
calc. II/exp. 80%
calc.calc. II/exp.
II/exp. 80% 60%
ref.calc. II/exp. 80%
0 ref.
0
0 5 10 15 ref. 20
00 5 10 15 20
0 5 Calculated,
10mm 15 20
Calculated, mm
Calculated, mm
(i)
(i)
(i)
FigureA17.
A17.Sharaky
Sharakyetetal.,
al.,2014
2014[40]
[40]research
researchbeams
beamsdeflection
deflectioncompared
comparedwithwithcalculated,
calculated,(a)
(a)beam
beam
Figure
Figure
CB;(b) A17.
Figure
(b)beam Sharaky
A17. Sharaky
beamLB1C1; et
LB1C1;(c) al.,
et 2014
al.,
(c)beam [40]
2014
beamLB1G1; research
[40]
LB1G1;(d) beams
research
(d)beam deflection
beams
beamLB2C1; compared
deflection
LB2C1;(e) (e)beam with
compared
beamLB2G1;
LB2G1;(f) calculated,
with
(f)beam (a) beam
calculated,
beamLA2C1;
LA2C1;(g) (a) CB;
beam
(g)beam
beam
CB;
(b) beam LB1C1; (c) beam LB1G1; (d) beam LB2C1; (e) beam LB2G1; (f) beam LA2C1; (g) beam LA2G1;
CB; (b)
LA2G1;(h) beam
(h)beam LB1C1;
beamLB1G2; (c)
LB1G2;(i) beam LB1G1;
(i)scatter
scatterofofthe (d) beam
theresults LB2C1;
resultsatat60%
60%and (e)
and80% beam LB2G1;
80%ofofthe (f)
theultimate beam
ultimateload.
load.LA2C1; (g) beam
LA2G1;
(h) beam LB1G2; (i) scatter
LA2G1; (h) beam LB1G2;of(i)the results
scatter of at
the60% and at
results 80%
60%ofand
the ultimate load.
60
60 50
60 50
45 50
50 45
50 40 45

50 40

40 35 40

40 35
40 30 35
30
30 25 30
30 25
30 Soudki et. al. 2007_T-0 20 25 Soudki et. al. 2007_S-0
20 Soudki et. al. 2007_T-0 20 Soudki et. al. 2007_S-0
20 Soudki et. al. 2007_T-0 15 20 Soudki et. al. 2007_S-0
20 Calc. I; T-0 15 Calc. I; S-0
Calc. I; T-0 10 15 Calc. I; S-0
10 10 Calc. I; S-0
10 Calc. I; T-0 5 10 Calc. II; S-0
10 Calc. II; T-0 5 Calc. II; S-0
0 Calc. II; T-0 0 5 Calc. II; S-0
0 Calc. II; T-0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 00
00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20 25
Deflection,
20 mm25
30
30
35
35
40
40
45
45
0 5 10 Deflection,
15 mm20 25 30 35 Deflection, mm
Deflection, mm
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
25 (a) 30 (b)
25 30
25 30
25
20
25
20
25
Experimental, mm
20
20
Experimental, mm
20
Experimental, mm
15
15 20
15 15
15
10 Soudki et. al. 2007_C-0 15 calc. I/exp. 60%
10 Soudki et. al. 2007_C-0 10 calc. I/exp. 60%
10 Soudki et. al. 2007_C-0 10 calc. I/exp.
calc. 80%
I/exp. 60%
Calc. I; C-0 10 calc.
calc.I/exp.
II/exp.80%
60%
5 Calc. I; C-0 calc. I/exp. 80%
Calc. I; C-0 5 calc. II/exp.
calc. 80%
II/exp.
5 Calc. II; C-0 5 calc. II/exp.
ref.calc. 80%60%
0 Calc. II; C-0 0 ref. II/exp. 80%
0 0 Calc. II; C-0 0 ref.
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 00 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 Deflection,
20 25 mm 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 Calculated,
15mm 20 25 30
(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
(c) (d)
FigureA18.
A18.Soudki
Soudkietetal.,
al.,2007
2007[41]
[41]research
researchbeams
beamsdeflection
deflectioncompared
calculated,(a)
(a)beam
beam
Figure Soudki et al., 20072007
[41][41]
research beams deflection compared with calculated, (a) beam
T-0;
A18.
Figure
(b) A18.
beam Soudki
S-0; (c) et al.,
beam C-0; (d) research
scatter of thebeams
resultsdeflection
at 60% andcompared
80% of with
the calculated,
ultimate load. (a) T-0;
beam
T-0;beam
(b) (b) beam (c)
S-0;beam
(c) beam C-0; (d) scatter
of theofresults
the results at 60% and of
80%
theofultimate
the ultimate
load.load.
T-0; (b)S-0;
beam S-0; (c)C-0;
beam(d)C-0;
scatter
(d) scatter at 60%
of the results and 80%
at 60% and 80% of the ultimate load.
30 30
30 30
30 30
25 25
25
25
25
25
20
20
20 20
20 20
15 15
15 15
15 Teng et. al. 2006_B0 15 Teng et. al. 2006_B500
10 Calc. I; B0 10 Calc. I; B500
5 Calc. II; B0 Calc. II; B500
Calc. II; B0 5
0 Calc. II; B0 0 Calc. II; B500
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 Calc. II; B500
00 0 5 10 15 20
2 4 6 8
Deflection, mm
10 12 14 16 00 5 10 15 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 5 Deflection,
10mm 15 20
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
(a) (b)
Figure A19. Cont.
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 38 of 43
45 60
45 60
40
40 50
kN·m
35
kN·m
50
kN·m
35
kN·m
30 40
moment,
moment,
30 40
moment,
moment,
25
25 30
20 30
20 Teng et. al. 2006_B1200 Teng et. al. 2006_B1800
Bending
Bending
Bending
Bending
15 20
10 Calc. I; B1200 Calc. I; B1800
10 Calc. I; B1200 10 Calc. I; B1800
5 10
5 Calc. II; B1200 Calc. II; B1800
0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
70
70 40
40
60 35
60 35
kN·m
kN·m
50 30
mm
50 30
mm
moment,
25
Experimental,
moment,
40 25
Experimental,
40 20
30 20
30 Teng et. al. 2006_B2900 15 calc. I/exp. 60%
Bending
Teng et. al. 2006_B2900 15 calc. I/exp.

I/exp. 80%
60%
Bending
20 calc.
20 Calc. I; B2900 10 calc. II/exp.
I/exp. 80%
10 calc. 60%
Calc. I; B2900 calc. II/exp. 60%
10 Calc. II; B2900 5 calc.
ref. II/exp. 80%
0 Calc. II; B2900 0 ref.
0 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20 40 60 80 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 20 40 60 80 100 Calculated, mm
Deflection, mm
(e)
(e) (f)
(f)
Figure A19. Teng et al., 2006 [42] research beams deflection compared with calculated, (a) beam B0;
FigureA19.
Figure A19.Teng
Tengetetal.,
al.,2006
2006 [42]
[42] research
research beams
beams deflection
deflection compared
compared with
with calculated,
(a) beam B0;
B0; (b)
(b) beam B500; (c) beam B1200; (d) beam B1800; (e) beam B2900; (f) scatter of the results at 60% and
(b) beam B500; (c) beam B1200; (d) beam B1800; (e) beam B2900; (f) scatter of the results at 60%
beam B500; (c) beam B1200; (d) beam B1800; (e) beam B2900; (f) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of and
80%
the of the ultimate
ultimate load. load.
6 18
6 18
16
5 16
kN·m
kN·m
5 14
kN·m
kN·m
14
4 12
moment,
moment,
4 12
moment,
moment,
10
3 10
3 8
Valivonis et. al. 2010_B6.5 8 Valivonis et. al. 2010_B6.1C
Bending
Bending
2 Valivonis et. al. 2010_B6.5 6 Valivonis et. al. 2010_B6.1C

Bending
Bending
2 6
Calc. I; B6.5 4 Calc. I; B6.1C
1 Calc. I; B6.5 4 Calc. I; B6.1C
1 2
Calc. II; B6.5 2 Calc. II; B6.1C
0 Calc. II; B6.5 0 Calc. II; B6.1C
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 5 10 15 20 25
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
16 10
16 10
14 9
14 9
kN·m
8
kN·m
12
kN·m
8
kN·m
12 7
moment,
10 7
moment,
6
moment,
10
moment,
6
8 5
8 5
6 Valivonis et. al. 2010_B6.2C 4 Valivonis et. al. 2010_B8.3
Bending
Bending
6 Valivonis et. al. 2010_B6.2C 4 Valivonis et. al. 2010_B8.3

Bending
Bending
3
4 Calc. I; B6.2C 3 Calc. I; B8.3
4 2 Calc. I; B8.3
Calc. I; B6.2C 2
2 1
2 Calc. II; B6.2C 1 Calc. II; B8.3
0 Calc. II; B6.2C 0 Calc. II; B8.3
0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure A20. Cont.
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 39 of 43
18 18
16 16

14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
Valivonis et. al. 2010_B8.1C Valivonis et. al. 2010_B8.2C
6 6
4 Calc. I; B8.1C 4 Calc. I; B8.2C
2 2
Calc. II; B8.1C Calc. II; B8.2C
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(e) (f)
14 14
12 12

10 10
8 8
6 6
Valivonis et. al. 2010_B12.5 Valivonis et. al. 2010_B12.6
4 4
Calc. I; B12.5 Calc. I; B12.6
2 2
Calc. II; B12.5 Calc. II; B12.6
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
(g) (h)
20 20
18 18
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 Valivonis et. al. 2010_B12.1C 8 Valivonis et. al. 2010_B12.2C
6 6
4 Calc. I; B12.1C 4 Calc. I; B12.2C
2 Calc. II; B12.1C 2 Calc. II; B12.2C
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(i) (j)
15
12
Experimental, mm
6 calc. I/exp. 60%

calc. I/exp. 80%
3 calc. II/exp. 60%
calc. II/exp. 80%
ref.
0
0 3 6 9 12 15
Calculated, mm
(k)
FigureA20.
Figure A20.Valivonis
Valivonisetetal.,
al.,2010
2010[14]
[14]research
researchbeams
beamsdeflection
deflectioncompared
comparedwith
withcalculated,
calculated,(a)
(a)beam
beam
B6.5; (b) beam B6.1C; (c) beam B6.2C; (d) beam B8.3; (e) beam B8.1C; (f) beam B8.2C; (g) beam
B6.5; (b) beam B6.1C; (c) beam B6.2C; (d) beam B8.3; (e) beam B8.1C; (f) beam B8.2C; (g) beam B12.5; B12.5;
(h)beam
(h) beamB12.6;
B12.6;(i)
(i)beam
beamB12.1C;
B12.1C;(j)(j)beam
beamB12.2C;
B12.2C;(k)
(k)scatter
scatterof
ofthe
theresults
resultsatat60%
60%and
and80%
80%ofofthe
the
ultimateload.
ultimate load.
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 40 of 43
50 90
45 80
Bending moment, kN·m 40

70
35
60
30
50
25
40
20 Wu et. al. 2014_Control Wu et. al. 2014_B11
30
15
Calc. I; Control 20 Calc. I; B11
10
5 10 Calc. II; B11
Calc. II; Control
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(a) (b)
90 100
80 90
80

70
70
60
60
50
50
40
Wu et. al. 2014_B21 40 Wu et. al. 2014_B22
30
30
20 Calc. I; B21 Calc. I; B22
20
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 5 10 15 20 25
(c) (d)
90
90
80
80
70
70
60 60
50 50
40 40
Wu et. al. 2014_BP11 Wu et. al. 2014_BP12
30 30
20 Calc. I; BP11 20 Calc. I; BP12
10 10
Calc. II; BP11
0
Calc. II; BP12
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection, mm
Deflection, mm
(e) (f)
80 90
70 80
60 70
60
50
50
40
40
30 Wu et. al. 2014_BP13 Wu et. al. 2014_BP14
30
20 Calc. I; BP13 20 Calc. I; BP14
10 10
Calc. II; BP13 Calc. II; BP14
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20
(g) (h)
10
8
Experimental, mm
4 calc. I/exp. 60%

calc. I/exp. 80%
2 calc. II/exp. 60%
calc. II/exp. 80%
ref.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Calculated, mm
(i)
Figure A21. Wu et al., 2014 [43] research beams deflection compared with calculated, (a) beam Control;
(b) beam B11; (c) beam B21; (d) beam B22; (e) beam BP11; (f) bam BP12; (g) beam BP13; (h) beam BP14;
(i) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of the ultimate load.
Figure A21. Wu et al., 2014 [43] research beams deflection compared with calculated, (a) beam
Control;
Materials 2019, (b) beam B11; (c) beam B21; (d) beam B22; (e) beam BP11; (f) bam BP12; (g) beam BP13; (h)41 of 43
12, 1367
beam BP14; (i) scatter of the results at 60% and 80% of the ultimate load.
8 18
7 16

6 14
12
5
10
4
8
3 Xiong_Pa Xiong_Pb
6
2 Calc. I; Pa 4 Calc. I; Pb
1 Calc. II; Pa 2 Calc. II; Pb
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
(a) (b)
18 12
16
10
14
Experimental, mm
12 8
10
6
8
Xiong_2C calc. I/exp. 60%
6 4
calc. I/exp. 80%
4 Calc. I; 2C
calc. II/exp. 60%
2
2 Calc. II; 2C calc. II/exp. 80%
ref.
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(c) (d)
Figure
FigureA22.
A22.Xiong
Xiongetetal.,
al.,2007
2007[44]
[44]research
researchbeams
beamsdeflection
deflectioncompared
calculated,(a)(a)beam
beamPa;
Pa;
(b)
(b)beam
beamPb;
Pb;(c)
(c)beam
beam2C; 2C;(d)
(d)scatter
scatterofofthe
theresults
resultsatat60%
60%and
and80%
80%ofofthe
theultimate
ultimateload.
load.
References
References
1.1. Skuturna,
Skuturna,T.; T.; Valivonis,
Valivonis, J.;J.; Vaini
Vainiūnas,
ūnas, P.;P.; Marčiukaitis,
Marčiukaitis, G.;G.; Daugevičius,
Daugevičius, M. Analysis
M. Analysis of deflections
of deflections of
of bridge
bridge
girdersgirders strengthened
strengthened by carbonby carbon fibre reinforcement.
fibre reinforcement. Balt. J.Balt.
RoadJ. Bridge
Road Bridge Eng. 2008,
Eng. 2008, 3, 145–151.
3, 145–151. [CrossRef]
Daugevičius, M.; Valivonis,
2.2. Daugevičius, Valivonis,J.; J.;Marčiukaitis, G. Deflection
Marčiukaitis, analysisanalysis
G. Deflection of reinforced concrete beams
of reinforced strengthened
concrete beams
with carbon fibre
strengthened with reinforced
carbon fibre polymer underpolymer
reinforced long-term action. J. Zhejiang
load long-term
under Univ.-Sci.
load action. A (Appl.
J. Zhejiang Phys. Eng.)
Univ.-Sci. A
(Appl. 13, 571–583.
2012,Phys. Eng.) 2012, 13, 571–583.
3.3. Skuturna,
Skuturna,T.;T.; Valivonis,
Valivonis, J.J.The
Thestatistical
statistical evaluation
evaluation of design
of design methods of the
methods ofload-carrying
the load-carryingcapacity of flexural
capacity of
reinforced
flexural concrete
reinforced elements
concrete strengthened
elements with FRP.
strengthened withArch.
FRP.Civ. Mech.
Arch. Civ.Eng.
Mech. Eng.15,
2015, 214–222.
2015, [CrossRef]
15, 214–222.
4.4. Skuturna,
Skuturna, T.;
T.; Valivonis,
Valivonis,J. J.Experimental
Experimental study on the
study oneffect
the of anchorage
effect systems on
of anchorage RC beams
systems on strengthened
RC beams
using FRP. Compos.
strengthened using FRP.PartCompos.
B 2016, 91, Part283–290. [CrossRef]
B 2016, 91, 283–290.
5.5. Skuturna,
Skuturna,T.;T.;Valivonis,
Valivonis,J.J.Evaluation
Evaluationofofcalculation
calculationmethods
methodsused usedforforestimating
estimatingthe theultimate
ultimatemoment
moment
resistanceofofbridge
resistance bridgedecks
decksreinforced
reinforcedwith withFRP
FRPbars. Balt.J. J.Road
bars.Balt. RoadBridge
BridgeEng.
Eng.2016, 11,22–34.
2016,11, 22–34. [CrossRef]
Eslami, A.;
6.6. Eslami, A.;Ronagh,
Ronagh, H.R.;HR.;
Mostofinejad, D. Analytical
Mostofinejad, D. Assessment
Analytical of CFRP Retrofitted
Assessment Reinforced-Concrete
of CFRP Retrofitted
Buildings Subjected Buildings
Reinforced-Concrete to Near-Fault GroundtoMotions.
Subjected Near-FaultJ. Perform.
GroundConstr. Facil.J. 2016.
Motions. [CrossRef]
Perform. Constr. Facil. 2016,
7. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000882.
Al-Rousan, R.; Issa, M. Fatigue performance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with CFRP sheets.
7. Constr. Build.
Al-Rousan, Mater.
R.; Issa, M.2011,
Fatigue25, 3520–3529.
performance [CrossRef]
of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with CFRP sheets.
8. Constr.
Attari,Build.
N.; Amziane, S.; Chemrouk,
Mater. 2011, 25, 3520–3529. M. Flexural strengthening of concrete beams using CFRP, GFRP and
8. hybridN.;
Attari, FRP sheets. Constr.
Amziane, Build. Mater.
S.; Chemrouk, 2012, 37,
M. Flexural 746–757. [CrossRef]
strengthening of concrete beams using CFRP, GFRP and
9. hybrid
Li, X.;FRP
Gu, sheets.
X.; Song, X.; Ouyang,
Constr. Build. Mater.Y.; Feng,
2012,Z.37,Contribution
746–757. of U-shaped strips to the flexural capacity of
9. Li,low-strength reinforced
X.; Gu, X.; Song, concreteY.;
X.; Ouyang, beams
Feng,strengthened
Z. Contribution withofcarbon fibre strips
U-shaped composite to thesheets. Compos.
flexural capacityPart
ofB
2013, 45, 117–126. [CrossRef]
low-strength reinforced concrete beams strengthened with carbon fibre composite sheets. Compos. Part B
10. 2013,
Charalambidi,
45, 117–126.B.G.; Rousakis, T.C.; Karabinis, A.I. Analysis of the fatigue behavior of reinforced concrete
beams strengthened
10. Charalambidi, in flexure
BG.; Rousakis, TC.;with fiber reinforced
Karabinis polymer
AI. Analysis of thelaminates. Compos.ofPart
fatigue behavior B 2016, concrete
reinforced 96, 69–78.
[CrossRef]
beams strengthened in flexure with fiber reinforced polymer laminates. Compos. Part B 2016, 96, 69–78.
11. Triantafyllou, G.G.; Rousakis, T.C.; Karabinis, A.I. Corroded RC beams patch repaired and strengthened in
flexure with fiber-reinforced polymer laminates. Compos. Part B 2017, 112, 125–136. [CrossRef]
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 42 of 43
12. Charalambidi, B.G.; Rousakis, T.C.; Karabinis, A.I. Fatigue Behavior of Large-Scale Reinforced Concrete
Beams Strengthened in Flexure with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Laminates. J. Compos. Constr. 2016, 20.
[CrossRef]
13. Zhang, S.S.; Yu, T.; Chen, G.M. Reinforced concrete beams strengthened in flexure with near-surface mounted
(NSM) CFRP strips: Current status and research needs. Compos. Part B 2017, 131, 30–42. [CrossRef]
14. Valivonis, J.; Skuturna, T.; Daugevičius, M. The load-carrying capacity of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with carbon fibre composite in the tension zone subjected to temporary or sustained load. In
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Modern Building Materials. Structures and Techniques,
Vilnius, Lithuania, 19–21 May 2010; pp. 818–825.
15. Hawileh, R.A. Nonlinear finite element modelling of RC beams strengthened with NSM FRP rods. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2012, 27, 461–471. [CrossRef]
16. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirement for Structural Concrete; American Concrete Institute:
Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2002.
17. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings; European Committee
for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
18. Paththini, M.M.; Burgoyne, A.; Burgoyne, C. Moment-Curvature and Strain energy of Beams with External
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. ACI Struct. J. 2009, 106, 20–29.
19. Yinghao, L.; Yong, Y. Arrangement of hybrid rebars on flexural behavior of HSC beams. Compos. Part B 2013,
45, 22–31. [CrossRef]
20. Guan, G.X.; Burgoyne, C.J. Comparison of Moment-Curvature Models for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Plate-End
Debonding Studies Using Global Energy Balance Approach. ACI Struct. J. 2014, 111, 27–36.
21. Rezazadeh, M.; Barros, J.; Costa, L. Analytical approach for flexural analysis of RC beams strengthened with
prestressed CFRP. Compos. Part B 2015, 73, 16–34. [CrossRef]
22. Smith, S.T.; Kim, S.J. Deflection Calculation of Frp-Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members.
Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 2010, 11, 75–86. [CrossRef]
23. Smith, S.T.; Rasheed, H.A.; Kim, S.J. Moment-Curvature Based Modeling of FRP-Strengthened RC Members
Anchored with FRP Anchors. In Proceedings of the APFIS, Singapore, 19–21 July 2017.
24. Barros, J.A.O.; Fortes, A.S. Flexural strengthening of concrete beams with CFRP laminates bonded into slits.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2005, 27, 471–480. [CrossRef]
25. Bilotta, A.; Ceroni, F.; Nigro, E.; Pecce, M. Efficiency of CFRP NSM strips and EBR plates for flexural
strengthening of RC beams and loading pattern influence. Compos. Struct. 2015, 124, 163–175. [CrossRef]
26. David, E.; Ragneau, E.; Buyle-Bodin, E. Experimental analysis of flexural behaviour of externally bonded
CFRP reinforced concrete structures. Mater. Struct. 2003, 36, 238–241. [CrossRef]
27. El-Gamal, S.E.; Al-Nuaimi, A. Efficiency of near surface mounted technique using fiber reinforced polymers
for the flexural strengthening of RC beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 118, 52–62. [CrossRef]
28. Ferrier, E.; Avril, A.; Hamelin, P.; Vautrin, A. Mechanical behavior of RC beams reinforced by externally
bonded CFRP sheets. Mater. Struct. 2003, 36, 522–529. [CrossRef]
29. Gao, B.; Kim, J.K.; Leung, C.K.Y. Experimental study on RC beams with FRP strips bonded with rubber
modified resins. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2004, 64, 2557–2564. [CrossRef]
30. Gao, B.; Kim, J.K.; Leung, C.K.Y. Strengthening efficiency of taper ended FRP strips bonded to RC beams.
Compos. Sci. Technol. 2006, 66, 2257–2264. [CrossRef]
31. Heffernan, P.J. Fatigue behaviour of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with CFRP laminates. Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Civil engineering Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, ON, Canada, May 1997.
32. Heffernan, P.J.; Erki, M.A. Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Plastic Laminates. J. Compos. Constr. 2004, 8, 132–140. [CrossRef]
33. Hosseini, M.R.M.; Dias, S.J.E.; Barros, J.A.O. Effectiveness of prestressed NSM CFRP laminates for the flexural
strengthening of RC slabs. Compos. Struct. 2014, 111, 249–258. [CrossRef]
34. Khalifa, A.M. Flexural performance of RC beams Strengthened with near surface mounted CFRP strips. Alex.
Eng. J. 2016, 55, 1497–1505. [CrossRef]
35. Kotynia, R.; Baky, H.A.; Neale, K.W.; Ebead, U.A. Flexural Strengthening of RC Beams with Externally
Bonded CFRP Systems: Test Results and 3D Nonlinear FE Analysis. J. Compos. Constr. 2008, 12, 190–201.
[CrossRef]
Materials 2019, 12, 1367 43 of 43
36. Kotynia, R.; Walenziak, R.; Stoecklin, I.; Meier, U. RC Slabs Strengthened with Prestressed and Gradually
Anchored CFRP Strips under Monotonic and Cyclic Loading. J. Compos. Constr. 2011, 15, 168–180. [CrossRef]
37. Kotynia, R.; Lasek, K.; Staskiewicz, M. Flexural Behavior of Preloaded RC Slabs Strengthened with Prestressed
CFRP Laminates. J. Compos. Constr. 2014, 18, A4013004. [CrossRef]
38. Omran, H.Y.; El-Hacha, R. Nonlinear 3D finite element modeling of RC beams strengthened with prestressed
NSM-CFRP strips. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 31, 74–85. [CrossRef]
39. Rezazadeh, M.; Costa, I.; Barros, J. Influence of prestress level on NSM CFRP laminates for the flexural
strengthening of RC beams. Compos. Struct. 2014, 116, 489–500. [CrossRef]
40. Sharaky, I.A.; Torres, L.; Comas, J.; Barris, C. Flexural response of reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened
with near surface mounted (NSM) fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. Compos. Struct. 2014, 109, 8–22.
[CrossRef]
41. Soudki, K.; El-Salakawy, E.; Craig, B. Behavior of CFRP Strenghtened Rainforced Concrete Beams in Corosive
Environment. J. Compos. Constr. 2007, 11, 291–298. [CrossRef]
42. Teng, J.G.; De Lorenzis, L.; Wang, B.; Li, R.; Wong, T.N.; Lam, L. Debonding Failures of RC Beams Strengthened
with Near Surface Mounted CFRP Strips. J. Compos. Constr. 2006, 10, 92–105. [CrossRef]
43. Wu, G.; Dong, Z.Q.; Wu, Z.S.; Zhang, L.W. Performance and Parametric Analysis of Flexural Strengthening
for RC Beams with NSM-CFRP Bars. J. Compos. Constr. 2014. [CrossRef]
44. Xiong, G.J.; Jiang, X.; Liu, J.W.; Chen, L. A way for preventing tension delamination of concrete cover in
midspan of FRP strengthened beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21, 402–408. [CrossRef]
45. Branson, D.E. Deformation of Concrete Structures; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1977.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Materials 12 01367 v2 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Materials 12 01367 v2 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

materials

Keywords: strengthening; FRP; deflection; yielding; effective moment of inertia

Materials 2019, 12, 1367; doi:10.3390/ma12091367 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Table 1. Characteristics of investigated experimental beams.

Author Beam Name l, m Load Positions, m b, m h, m As1 As2 d1 , m d2 , m Af

Author Beam Name l, m Load Positions, m b, m h, m As1 As2 d1 , m d2 , m Af

Author Beam Name l, m Load Positions, m b, m h, m As1 As2 d1 , m d2 , m Af

Author Beam Name l, m Load Positions, m b, m h, m As1 As2 d1 , m d2 , m Af

Author Beam Name l, m Load Positions, m b, m h, m As1 As2 d1 , m d2 , m Af

Table 2. Mechanical characteristics of investigated experimental beams materials.

Valivonis et al., B6.5 – –

where l—the span length of the beam, a–distance

Coefficients γ2.c and γ2.t: b · x3III xIII 2

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

fc the compressive strength of concrete cylinders;

Bending moment, kN·m

1 2 Calc. II; V1R1

Figure A1. Cont.

kN·m moment, kN·m

Calc. I; V3 Calc. I; V3R2

2 Calc. I; Ref_c_no_1 4 Calc. I; Ref_d_no_1

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

2 calc. I/exp. 60%

6 Gao et. al. 2004_CON1 10 Gao et. al. 2004_A0

10 Gao et. al. 2004_A10 10 Gao et. al. 2004_A20

10 Gao et. al. 2004_A10 10 Gao et. al. 2004_A20

Calc. I; A10 Calc. I; A20

10 Gao et. al. 2004_B0 10 Gao et. al. 2004_B10

10 Gao et. al. 2004_B20 4 calc. I/exp.

Gao et. al. 2006_2O (presented as

Figure A8. Cont.

Bending moment, kN·m

3 Calc. I; SREF Calc. I; S2L-0

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

Bending moment, kN·m

60 Kotynia et. al. 2011_G4

calc. I/exp. 60%

(a) Figure A14. Cont. (b)

Bending moment, kN·m

70Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 70 32 of 41

Bending moment, kN·m

Calc. I; B12-asp Calc. I; B12-asp-e

60 80 Kotynia et. al. 2014_B16-asp-e