A way for preventing tension delamination of concrete cover

in midspan of FRP strengthened beams

G.J. Xiong
*
, X. Jiang, J.W. Liu, L. Chen
Department of Civil Engineering, Shantou University, Shantou 515063, P.R. China
Received 29 September 2004; received in revised form 31 July 2005; accepted 8 August 2005
Available online 21 September 2005
Abstract
In order to prevent tension delamination of concrete cover in midspan more eciently, an attempt to strengthen reinforced concrete
beams by combining unidirectional carbon bre reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheet (to bond to the tension faces of the beams) and bi-
directional glass bre reinforced polymer (GFRP) sheet (to wrap 3 sides of the beams continuously) was proposed. The feasibility and
potential advantages of the attempt were discussed. A comparative test program including ten beams was carried out. The test results
showed that the hybrid CF/GF reinforced polymer (H-CF/GF-RP) strengthening could not only prevent the tension delamination of the
bottom concrete cover, but also lead to a signicant increase of deformation capacity of the strengthened beams at a very low cost com-
pared to CFRP strengthening.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hybrid bre strengthening; Carbon bre sheet; Glass bre sheet; Peeling; Deformation capacity
1. Introduction
Failure of carbon bre reinforced polymer (CFRP)
strengthened reinforced concrete (RC) beams may occur
due to peeling o of the bottom concrete cover along the
level of the longitudinal steel reinforcement. This failure
mode is considered undesirable because the full strength
of the CFRP is not utilized. The cover tension delamina-
tion may be delayed, or in some cases prevented, by wrap-
ping spaced CFRP transverse strips (U-strips) around
three sides of strengthened concrete beams [1,2]. It was re-
ported that full CFRP sheet wrap (3-side U-wrap) contin-
uously along the beam span clearly provided a greater
amount of anchorage and connement action to eliminate
the delamination [3]. However, the displacement levels of
CFRP strengthened beams failed in tension by rupture of
the CFRP were still considerable less than those of the con-
trol beams [13] and the strengthening cost increased sig-
nicantly. Noticing that glass bre (GF) with a low cost
has a much larger elongation (35.4%) than CF (11.5%)
[4], the authors proposed an idea to strengthen RC beams
by combining CF sheet (to bond to the tension faces of the
beams) and bi-directional GF sheet (to wrap 3 sides of the
beams continuously) in order to both prevent peeling fail-
ure and increase the deformation capacity of the strength-
ened beams at a low cost compared to CFRP
strengthening. It should be noted that this method is only
ecient if the end-block of a beam is free from shear or
bending shear failures.
2. Feasibility and potential advantage of CF/GF
strengthening
As shown in Fig. 1, due to the variation of concrete
properties, the heights of the adjacent two cracked sections
of a concrete beam are dierent, leading to a tensile stress
dierence in the two ends of the FRP sheet/sheets as indi-
cated by the stress state of block abdc (Fig. 1(b)). The block
is taken from the concrete beam in the tensile region. The
direct FRP stresses r
f
and r
f
+ Dr
f
as well as concrete shear
stress s on the block can only satisfy one equilibrium
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.005
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 754 290 3242; fax: +86 754 290 2005.
E-mail address: gjxiong@stu.edu.cn (G.J. Xiong).
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat
Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402408
Construction
and Building
MATERIALS
condition,
P
X 0. In order to keep the equilibrium, the
block needs another condition
P
M 0. It leads to us to
conclude that there must be a tensile stress r
p
at boundary
ab (the weakest level of the tension reinforcement) of con-
crete. The ab plane tends to peel o under the tensile stress
r
p
. Because exural cracks are probable to occur in any
sections of a beam (due to the randomness of concrete
properties) it would be a good practice to continuously
wrap the 3 sides of the beam for preventing cover tension
delamination. It should also be noted that because the
cover tension delamination may be prevented in some cases
by adding spaced three-sided FRP strips at the ends of
CFRP sheets and the span [1,2], it can be inferred that
the peeling stress value is not high. In the light of this the
authors put forward the idea to use bi-directional GFRP
sheet/sheets to continuously wrap concrete beams. It is to
be hoped that the relatively weak transverse direction of
the GFRP may prevent bottom concrete cover from peel-
ing o, and the relatively strong longitudinal direction
may make a noticeable contribution for increasing defor-
mation capacity of strengthened concrete beams [5,6].
The authors also take the view that because the durabil-
ity of FRP mainly depends on polymer (similar to that
concrete protects steel), H-CF/GF-RP may be as durable
as CFRP. In the light of this a comparative test research
program to strengthen RC beams by combining hybrid
CF and GF sheets was proposed.
3. Experimental program
3.1. Materials
The composition of the concrete mixes was
0.44:1:1.50: 2.41(water:ordinary portland cement:sand:-
stone). The 28-day tested concrete cube strength was
40.1 MPa. 10 and 12-mm diameter deformed steel bars
were used as main reinforcement. The yield strength
and elastic modulus of the 10-mm diameter bars were
411 MPa and 200 GPa, respectively. The yield strength
and elastic modulus for the 12-mm diameter bars were
606 MPa and 210 GPa, respectively. Eight mm diameter
steel bars with a yield strength of 233 MPa and an elastic
modulus of 210 GPa were used as stirrups and maintain
bars.
The thickness and price of the CF sheet containing
unidirectional bres only were 0.11 mm and US$ 20/
m
2
, respectively. The thickness and price of the GF sheet
containing bi-directional bres were 0.53 mm and US$
0.8/m
2
, respectively. The volume ratio between longitudi-
nal bres and transverse bres of the GF sheet was 4:1.
The bre characteristics were supplied by the manufac-
turer, the tensile strength, modulus and elongation of
the CF were 3652 MPa, 252 GPa and 1.5%, respectively;
the tensile strength, modulus and elongation of the GF
were 1280 MPa, 42.8 GPa and 3%, respectively. Because
the bre characteristics are normally much higher than
those of the nal composite products [2,7], the mechani-
cal properties of FRP laminates designed and used in
this research were tested by the authors. All of the
FRP laminates were 100 mm thickness in cross-section
and 1000 mm in length. The tests were performed in
accordance with the Chinese Standard GB/T1447-83
(an analogue of ASTM D638) and the test results are
shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1. The 1FC/2GF laminates
exhibited a noticeably higher elongation than 2CF
laminates. However, a bilinear stressstrain behaviour
was not observed for the 1CF/2GF laminates. One of
main reasons may be that the elongation of the GF sheet
used in this research was not high enough to create a
plasticity.
Nomenclature
M
u
strengthening-failure (bre sheet fracture)
moment of beam
f
y
yield strength of steel bars
A
s
area of steel bars
b
c
= 1/2 depth of compression zone of RC beam
f
F
strength of bre sheet(s)
A
F
area of bre sheet(s)
d eective depth of RC beam
h depth of RC beam
FR P
M+ M
M
c
d c
b a
+
f f
p
'
d
f
a
M
b
a
b
p
Fig. 1. Mechanism of exural peeling.
G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402408 403
3.2. Specimen preparation
Ten rectangular beams were cast with dimensions of
125 200 mm in cross-section and 2300 mm in length. As
shown in Fig. 3 and Table 2, two 10-mm diameter de-
formed steel bars were used as bottom bars for the number
19 beams giving a reinforcement ratio of 0.74%. Two 12-
mm diameter steel bars were used as bottom bars for the
tenth beam giving a reinforcement ratio of 1.07%. Stirrups
of 8-mm diameter, at a spacing of 150 mm in the beam end
and 200 mm in the beam midspan, were used for all ten
beams. All of the beams were wet-cured by covering with
wet burlap for 28 days before testing.
The process of applying bre sheet to concrete involved
surface preparation, priming, resin undercoating, bre
sheet application, and resin overcoating with a reference
to ACI [4]. The concrete surface was prepared by sanding
until the ne aggregates were exposed and then cleaned
with acetone. After that, a two-part primer was applied
to the prepared concrete surface and left to dry overnight.
Next, a two-part epoxy resin was applied to the primed
concrete surface, followed by application of the bre
sheet/sheets. Finally, a resin overcoating was applied over
the bre sheet/sheets. Complete curing took a period of 1
week at room temperature.
Five types of strengthening, as shown in Table 2 and
Fig. 3, were adopted. 2C employed two layers of CF sheet
only. U2C used two layers of CF sheet with three-sided CF
strips at the ends of the strengthened beam. F2C adopted
two layers of CF sheet with continuous CF U-wrap.
U1C/2G used both one layer of CF sheet and two layers
of GF sheet with tree-sided CF strips at each end of the
beam. F1C/2G employed one layer of CF sheet with two
continuous GFRP L-wraps. The use of L-wraps (instead
of U-wrap) was for more convenient installation and better
bond quality. Two F2C beams and two F1C/2G beams
were made in order to understand their behaviour better.
Strengthening cost including material and labour for every
type of strengthening is also listed in Table 2.
The authors take the view that if the ultimate moment
capacities of strengthened beams were close to that of the
control beam, the comparison of displacement ratios (frac-
ture deection/yield deection) of the two kinds of beams
would be more rational [6], and therefore, two un-strength-
ened beams (P
a
and P
b
) with dierent steel reinforcement
ratios were made as control beams as shown in Tables 2
and 3. All strengthened beams had the same steel reinforce-
ment ratio as P
a
beam. The estimated moment capacities of
the most of strengthened beams were close to that of P
b
beam.
3.3. Loading method and instrumentation
The tests were performed according to the Chinese Stan-
dard GB50152-92 (an analogue of ASTM Designation: C
78-84). All beams were tested as simply supported beams
under four-point loading, over an eective span of
2100 mm, with the loads applied at 350 mm on either side
of the midspan as shown in Fig. 3.
The following measurements were taken: (1) midspan
deection, using dial gauges of least count 0.01 mm; (2)
concrete, steel bars and bre sheet strains at midspan, using
electrical-resistance strain gauges as shown in Fig. 4. The
tests were performed by using load control before load
reaching 40 kN, and followed by using displacement con-
trol. The applied loads were monitored through a high-
accuracy load cell with a load sensitivity of 0.1 kN. All of
the measurements were automatically recorded through a
data logger.
2
4
0
1
0
0
0
0.22(for 2CF, 2 layers of CF)
0.53(for 1GFt,1 layer of GF in transverse direction)
1.17(for 1CF/2GF, 1 layer of CF and 2 layers of GF)
180
R=125
100
A
0.22
0.53
1.17
CF sheet for strengthening specimen end
*
A
2
4
0
A-A
100
*
P(kN)
15
30
45
60
12000 9000 3000 6000
1GFt
15000
2CF
1CF/2GF
Microstrain
a
b
Fig. 2. Load-strain relationships of FRP specimens: (a) specimen; (b) p
relationships.
Table 1
Mechanical properties of dierent FRP laminates
FRP
name
Composite types Total nominal
thickness (mm)
Ultimate tensile
load (kN)
Tensile strength
(MPa)
Elastic modulus
(GPa)
Stiness
(GPa mm
2
)
Elongation
(%)
2CF Two layers of 100 mm wide CF sheet 0.22 40.11 1823 180.5 39710 1.01
1GF
t
One layer of 100 mm wide GF sheet
(transverse direction)
0.53 5.51 104 7.22 382.7 1.44
1CF/2GF One layer of 100 mm wide CF sheet
and two layers of 100 mm wide GF sheet
(longitudinal direction)
1.17 61.78 528 34.5 40365 1.53
404 G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402408
4. Results and discussion
The load and deection as well as FRP strain corre-
sponding to strengthening-failure load for every specimen
are listed in Table 3. The loaddeection curves of all spec-
imens are shown in Fig. 5. The strain distribution of the all
beams accorded with the plane deformation assumption
before and after steel yielding as shown in Fig. 4.
4.1. Modes of strengthening-failure
As shown in Fig. 6, the 2C beam failed in the end
cover peeling o, every specimen with end CFRP U-
strips exhibited a strengthening-failure mode of midspan
cover tension delamination. The strengthening-failure of
every beam with three-sided continuous FRP wrap/wraps
was marked by the fracture of the bottom FRP at mid-
a
b
c
Fig. 3. Layouts of FRP materials of strengthened specimens (mm): (a) 2C beam; (b) U2C beam and U1 C/2G beam; (c) F2C beam and F1C/2G beam.
Table 2
Details of tested beams
Beam name Reinforcement
ratio (%)
Strengthening type Strengthening cost ($)
a
P
a
0.74 Control
2C Two layers of 100 mm wide CF 10
U2C Two layers of 100 mm wide CF with end U-strips 16.3
F2 C (1) F2 C (2) Two layers of 100 mm wide CF with continuous CFRP U-wrap 35
U1C/2G(1) U1C/2G(2) One layer of 100 mm wide CF + two layers of 125 mm wide GF with end U-strips 14.2
F1C/2G(1) F1C/2G(2) One layer of 100 mm wide CF + two continuous GF L-wraps 12
P
b
1.07 Control
a
Cost included materials and labour.
G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402408 405
span. At this stage, though the internal tension steel had
yielded as well on every strengthened beam the strain in
the compression portion of the concrete never reached
the crushing stage for any strengthened beams. This fail-
ure mode was also observed by Shahawy et al. [3]. It
should be noted that the cover delamination at beam
ends did not occur either for F1C/2G beams. Because
the possibility of the cover delamination at beam ends
is much higher than that at midspan, it can be concluded
that bi-directional GFRP L-wraps are reliable to prevent
midspan delamination.
4.2. Flexural-failure-load, deection capacity and stiness
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the exural-failure-loads of
F2C and F1C/2G beams were about 82.5% and 136.8%
4000 0
-200
-2000 2000 8000 6000
-200
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Depth(mm)
0
Depth(mm)
-150
-100
0
Depth(mm)
-50
6
5
2
5
5
5
at 35 kN
at 45 kN
at 25 kN
-150
-100
-50
-200
-2000 0
-150
-100
5
5
Strain gauge
0
-50
at 25 kN
at 45 kN
at 35 kN
at 25 kN
at 20 kN
2000 4000 6000 8000
at 15 kN
Microstrain
Microstrain
Microstrain
a
b
c
d
Fig. 4. Strain distributions across midspan sections of typical beams: (a) arrangement of strain gauges at midspan; (b) strain distribution of Pa beam; (c)
strain distribution of F2C(2) beam; (d) strain distribution of F1C/2G(1) beam.
Table 3
Test and calculation results of beams
Beam name Tested steel
yield load
(kN)
Tested yield
deection
(mm)
Tested
fracture
load
Calculated exural
failure load
(kN)
Tested fracture
deection
(mm)
Tested fracture
FRP strain
(%)
Failure
P
a
19.46 3.21 29.34 29.57 46.60
2C 33.30 5.80 45.50 54.90 16.10 0.55 End cover delamination
U2C 28.80 5.30 44.70 54.90 22.2 0.59 Midspan cover delamination
F2 C (1) 38.0 7.10 54.70 54.90 24.32 0.95 CFRP fracture (exural failure)
F2 C (2) 32.80 6.40 52.40 54.90 22.3 0.87
U1C/2G(1) 38.0 7.05 66.30 70.43 29.58 0.91 Midspan cover delamination
U1C/2G(2) 34.30 6.58 66.03 70.43 32.52 0.87
F1C/2G(1) 34.80 6.68 70.68 70.43 32.64 1.40 HFRP fracture (Flexural failure)
F1C/2G(2) 37.0 6.94 68.30 70.43 38.0 1.28
P
b
48.03 7.06 58.42 58.16 48.90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
- 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Mid-span deflection (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
F1C/2G (1) F1C/2G (2)
U1C/2G (1)
U1C/2G (2)
PB
F2C (1)
F2C (2)
2C U2C
PA
Fig. 5. Load-midspan deection curves for all specimens.
406 G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402408
higher than the ultimate load of control beam P
a
, respec-
tively.
The fracture deections and bre sheet composite frac-
ture strains of all tested beams are listed in Table 3. It
can be seen that the fracture deections of F1C/2G beams
were about 51.5% higher than those of F2C beams, and the
corresponding composite fracture strains of the formers
were about 47.3% higher than those of the latters. It should
be noted that the fracture deections of the H-CF/GF-RP
and CFRP strengthening beams were about 27.8% and
52.3% lower than that of the control beam P
b
, respectively;
the displacement ratios of the two kinds of strengthened
beams were about 25.3% and 50.1% lower than that of
beam P
b
, respectively. The stiness of H-CF/GF-RP
strengthened beams was similar to that of CFRP strength-
ened beams as shown in Fig. 5 due to the similarity of the
stiness of 1CF/2GF laminates to that of 2CF laminates
(see Tables 1 and 2).
It should also be noted that if the 1CF/2GF laminates
(Table 1) had a bilinear ductile stressstrain behaviour,
the ductility of the H-CF/GF-RP strengthening beams
would be to improve either [5,6].
4.3. Calculation of ultimate moment
Though the strain in the compression portion of the
concrete never reached the crushing stage for any strength-
ened beam failed in exure (F2C and F1C/2G beams) the
exural-failure moment can still be approximately calcu-
lated by the following equation proposed by Ross et al.
[8] (see Fig. 7)
M
u
f
y
A
s
d b
C
=2 f
F
A
F
h b
C
=2;
where M
u
is the strengthening-failure (bre sheet fracture)
moment of beam, f
y
and A
s
are the yield strength and area
of steel bars, respectively, b
C
is the depth of compression
zone of RC beam, f
F
and A
F
are the strength and area of
bre sheet(s), respectively, d and h are the eective depth
and depth of RC beam.
From Table 3 it can be seen that the calculation has a
good agreement with test results.
4.4. Comparison of strengthening eciency
As shown in Tables 3, 4 and Fig. 5, under the premise of
eliminating cover tension delamination, the fracture deec-
tion and failure load of F1C/2G beams were about 51.5%
and 29.8% higher than those of F2C beams. The stiness
of F1C/2G beams was similar to that of F2C beams. The
strengthening cost of H-CF/GF-RP strengthened beams
was 65.7% lower than that of CFRP strengthened beams
(Tables 2 and 4).
5. Conclusions
Within the indicated scope of this study, the particular
conclusions may be summarized as follows:
1. Due to the randomness of concrete properties it would
be a good practice to continuously wrap the 3 sides of
strengthened beams for preventing bottom cover tension
delamination. Because the peeling stress value in the
bw
Cross section
d
AF
As
c
fF
d
fy
h
Fig. 7. Sketch for calculating ultimate moment.
Table 4
Comparison of strengthening eciencies of dierent beams
Beam name Relative
load
capacity
a
Relative
deformation
capacity
b
Displacement
ratio
c
Relative
strengthening
cost
d
P
a
1 1 14.52
2C 1.55 0.345 2.78 1
U2C 1.52 0.476 4.19 1.63
F2 C (1) 1.86 0.522 3.43 3.5
F2 C (2) 1.79 0.479 3.48
U1C/2G(1) 2.26 0.635 4.20 1.42
U1C/2G(2) 2.15 0.698 4.94
F1C/2G(1) 2.41 0.700 4.89 1.2
F1C/2G(2) 2.33 0.815 5.47
P
b
1.99 1.049 6.93
a
=(Fracture load of each beam) (fracture load of beam P
a
).
b
=(Fracture deformation of each beam) (fracture deformation of
beam P
a
).
c
=(Fracture deection) (yield deection) for each beam.
d
=(Strengthening cost of each beam) (strengthening cost of 2C beam).
a b c
Fig. 6. Failure models of dierent kinds of strengthening beams: (a) 2C beam; (b) U2C or U1C/2G beam; (c) F2C or F1C/2G beam.
G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402408 407
midspan bottom cover of a strengthened beam is not
high, the relatively weak transverse direction of bi-direc-
tional GF L-wraps can prevent the cover from peeling
o.
2. Under the premise of eliminating cover tension delami-
nation and beam end shear failure, the fracture load,
deection and strengthening cost of H-CF/GF-RP
strengthening beams were about 29.8% higher, 51.5%
higher and 65.7% lower than those of CFRP strengthen-
ing beams.
3. The deformation capacities of H-CF/GF-RP and CFRP
strengthening beams were about 27.8% and 52.3% lower
than that of P
b
control beam, respectively.
4. The stiness of H-CF/GF-RP strengthened beams was
similar to that of CFRP strengthened beams.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding pro-
vided by Guangdong Provincial Natural Science Founda-
tion under Item No. 021245.
References
[1] Spadea G, Bencardino F, Swamy RN. Structural behavior of
composite RC beams with externally bonded CFRP. J Compos
Construct ASCE 1998;2(8):1327.
[2] Brena SF, Bramblett RM, Wood SL, Kreger ME. Increasing exural
capacity of reinforced concrete beams using carbon bre-reinforced
polymer composites. ACI Struct J 2003;100(1):3646.
[3] Shahawy M, Chaallal O, Beitelman TE, El-Saad A. Flexural
strengthening with carbon bre-reinforced polymer composite of
preloaded full-scale girders. ACI Struct J 2001;98(5):73542.
[4] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Guide for the design and
construction of externally Bonded FRP system for the strengthening
concrete structures. Detroit: ACI-440-2000.
[5] Grace NF, Abdel-Sayed G, Gegheb WF. Strengthening of concrete
beams using innovative ductile ber-reinforced polymer fabric. ACI
Struct J 2002;99(5):692700.
[6] Xiong GJ, Yang J, Ji Z. Behavior of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with externally bonded hybrid carbon berglass bre
sheets. J Compos Construct ASCE 2004;8(3):2758.
[7] Okeil AM, EI-Tawil S, Shahawy M. Short-term tensile strength of
carbon bre-reinforced polymer laminates for exural strengthening of
concrete girders. ACI Struct J 2001;98(4):4708.
[8] Ross CA, Jerome DM, Tedesco JW, Hughes ML. Strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded composite lami-
nates. ACI Struct J 1999;96(3):21220.
408 G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402408