Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Efficient strengthening of opened-joint for reinforced concrete broken

slabs
Hamdy M. Afefy ⇑, Nesreen M. Kassem, Mohamed H. Mahmoud, Salah El-Din F. Taher
Structural Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta 31511, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Reinforced concrete broken slab presents a crucial element that exists in all multi-story buildings.
Available online 6 November 2015 Normally, it can be used as the flight of the stair. In many cases such element is in urgent need for
strengthening or upgrading due to change of the usage or any construction errors. The current paper
Keywords: presents three different strengthening strategies for opened-joint broken slabs in the aim of doubling
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) their flexural resistance. The adopted strategies were the application of Externally Bonded Carbon
Ultra High-Performance Strain-Hardening Fiber Reinforced Polymer (EB-CFRP) sheets, adding thin layer of Ultra High-Performance Strain-
Cementitious material (UHP-SHCC)
Hardening Cementitious Composites (UHP-SHCC), and the application of hybrid system integrated both
Strengthening
Opened-joint
former techniques. The studied parameters were the anchorage system of the CFRP sheets at the opened-
Broken slab joint as well as the connection between the substrate slab and the UHP-SHCC layer. Based on the overall
Precast slab structural performance and exhibited ductility, the application of properly anchored EB-CFRP sheets on a
well-connected UHP-SHCC layer enabled the substrate broken slab to exhibit the most favorable behav-
ior. Finally, a new stitching procedure was proposed in order to construct a precast slab similar to a
monolithic one and then strengthened using the same strengthening strategies. Its performance showed
comparable results against the results of the monolithic broken slab.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction using either steel plates or fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) plates/

Broken slab is considered as the most important structural ele-
ment that exists in all multistory reinforced concrete structures.
The obvious example of the broken slab is the stair’s flight. Also,
it can be used as a transit between levels inside the structure.
These slabs include two different joints; namely, closed-joint and
opened-joint. Incorrect detailing of closed-joint hardly happens,
however, incorrect detailing of opened-joint could happen leading
to falling of the concrete cover associated with the formation of
major cracks at the defected joint as depicted in Fig. 1. Thus, cau-
tion should be paid to the configuration of the internal reinforce-
ment detailing. As a consequence, proper strengthening/
retrofitting of the opened-joint for broken slabs could be a chal-
lenging issue.
Different strengthening/retrofitting techniques have been
developed in order to upgrade/restore the strength of an assigned
structure or a part of it so that the serviceability or durability prob-
lems could be eliminated. These techniques include traditional
concrete patching, section enlargement, external plate bonding
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +20 106 177 3174.
E-mail address: hamdyafefy@hotmail.com (H.M. Afefy).
sheets, and external post-tensioning. External plate bonding incor-
porating steel plates can be accomplished using either adhesive
bonding or bolting. Unfortunately, a large equipment is required
to install the heavy steel plates. As a result, the installation costs
are significantly high [1]. In addition, external steel plate bonding
and external post-tensioning strands are susceptible to corrosion
damage that may lead to durability problems and accelerate the
failure of the strengthened system. Accordingly, implementation
of new non-corrosive material as a substitute to conventional steel
reinforcement was presented [2,3]. Strengthening of RC slabs by
adding a new layer of concrete is another strengthening technique.
However, this layer can result in durability problems due to differ-
ential movements between the substrate slab and the overlay
caused by shrinkage, temperature variations or both and poor
workmanship [4,5]. Thus, cracking and de-lamination along the
transition zone between the two materials could be experienced.
Therefore, good surface preparation and/or using proper connec-
tors between the two layers are essential [6,7].
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials have been rapidly
widespread as strengthening/retrofitting material in recent years
due to their favorable characteristics such as high tensile strength,
lightweight, corrosion resistance and ease of application. These

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.007
0263-8223/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615
M M
M M
Development length
Dev
elop
men
t len
gth
M = bending moment
T = tension force
(a) Correct detailing
Fig. 1. Detailing of the opened-joint for broken slab.
characteristics are not available in other traditional strengthening
materials. Among different types of the FRP materials, Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Polymers (CFRPs) are used frequently in different civil
engineering strengthening applications. The Externally Bonded
Reinforcement (EBR) technique has been used due to its simple
and fast installation procedure, durable and robust strengthening
and significant enhancement in the flexural capacity of reinforced
concrete (RC) prismatic and non-prismatic members [6,8–14]. In
addition, due to the linear stress–strain behavior of the CFRP mate-
rial up to failure, premature failure of the CFRP sheets along with
end peeling and debonding of their ends are most likely to happen.
Therefore, several studies were conducted in order to identify the
appropriate methods of preventing premature failure with the
aim of improving the load carrying capacity and ductility of RC
members [15–19].
Ultra High-Performance-Strain Hardening Cementitious Com-
posites (UHP-SHCC) is one form of fiber reinforced composites that
was developed by Kunieda et al. [20]. It has high strength in both
compression and tension as well as high strain capacity in tension
with strain hardening behavior [20–22]. Previous studies showed
the efficiency of the strain hardening cementitious composites in
restoring and increasing the ultimate capacity of reinforced con-
crete members [21–26]. In addition, it was found that providing
a small amount of internal reinforcing steel enhanced the crack
distribution and the strain capacity of the UHP-SHCC repair tension
layer [7,27].
Each method of strengthening/retrofitting comes with a series of
benefits and shortcomings. For instance, section enlargement or
concrete overlaying or patching add considerable dead load to the
strengthened/retrofitted structure. The EB-CFRP sheets are expen-
sive, need more care to anchor their ends and cannot sustain higher
temperature. Externally bonded steel plate technique and external
post-tensioning steel strands are susceptible to corrosion damage
which may lead to reversal effect on the strengthened system.
The main target of the current research work is to verify differ-
ent strengthening techniques for the opened-joint of broken slabs,
in order to develop the most efficient strengthening system for
doubling their flexural resistance. Strengthening techniques based
on the application of EB-CFRP sheets and adding thin layer of UHP-
SHCC at tension side are considered individually. In addition,
hybrid system of both techniques is also studied. Finally, the same
previous strengthening techniques are implemented on newly
developed stitched precast slab specimens identical to the mono-
lithic slabs.
2. Experimental work program
2.1. Test slabs
The experimental work program consisted of eight half-scale
monolithic one-way broken slabs divided into three groups:
603
Developed major cracks
T
Concrete cover falling T
(b) Wrong detailing
un-strengthened group No. 1 and two strengthened groups using
either EB-CFRP sheets or thin layer of UHP-SHCC, (groups Nos. 2
and 3). Besides one additional group (group No. 4) represented a
developed stitching system to construct precast slab similar to
the monolithic one. Group No. 4 consisted of three stitched precast
specimens strengthened using the same techniques applied to the
monolithic slabs.
All slabs had the same concrete dimensions and internal steel
reinforcement. Each slab had 400 mm width
80 mm thickness
and a total span of 1800 mm divided into two equal parts; horizon-
tal part and inclined one with slope 1 (vertical):2 (horizontal) as
the slope of regular flight of RC stair. The center to center span
was 1700 mm. The flexural reinforcement of the slabs consisted
of six smooth mild steel bars of 8 mm diameter in the main direc-
tion and nine bars of 6 mm diameter as distributed steel in the
transverse direction as shown in Fig. 2. The flexural reinforcement
ratio was 1.16% and it was below the maximum reinforcement
ratio allowed under the current Egyptian Code of practice, ECP
203-2007 [28] and the ACI 318-11 [29] codes, in order to ensure
tension failure of the slabs. Fig. 2 shows the typical cross-section
and the reinforcement detailing for typical un-strengthened slabs
and the substrate slab for the strengthened groups.
The strengthening technique for the tension side was based on
the application of either Externally Bonded Carbon Fiber Rein-
forced Polymer (EB-CFRP) sheets or adding 15 mm thickness layer
of Ultra High-Performance Strain-Hardening Cementitious Com-
posites (UHP-SHCC). Group No. 2 that was based on the first tech-
nique (EB-CFRP) included four specimens. The first two specimens
(SII-1 and SII-2) were used in order to study the effect of both end
anchorage and the CFRP transverse anchorage sheets at the broken
joint. The concrete tension cover of the third specimen (SII-3) was
replaced by UHP-SHCC material before the application of the prop-
erly anchored EB-CFRP sheets. The fourth specimen (SII-4) was
similar to specimen SII-3 except that the UHP-SHCC layer was
added to the substrate control slab, i.e., the total thicknesses of
specimens SII-3 and SII-4 were 80 mm and 95 mm, respectively.
Fig. 3 shows details of the strengthening schemes for Group No. 2.
Group No. 3 included two slabs strengthened in tension side by
adding 15 mm thickness UHP-SHCC layer. For both specimens, the
UHP-SHCC layer was reinforced by welded wire mesh of
100 mm
100 mm with a wire diameter of 4 mm in order to
reduce the volumetric changes. The first specimen SIII-1 did not
have shear dowels however, the surface of the RC substrate slab
was prepared more properly than that of the second specimen
(SIII-2). The second specimen (SIII-2) as well as specimen SII-4
had been provided with six shear connectors of 6 mm diameter
at each fold of the slab in the form of shear dowels to hold the
welded wire mesh to the reinforced concrete substrate slab.
Fig. 4 shows details of the strengthening schemes for Group No. 3.
Group No. 4 represented a developed stitching system in order
to construct precast slabs similar to the monolithic slabs, and then
604 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615
6 8
400 mm
Distributed steel of diameter 6 mm
ST-1
900 mm
Plan of steel reinforcement
Fig. 2. Concrete dimensions and reinforcement detailing for typical control un-strengthened and base strengthened specimens.
strengthened them with the same procedure. The precast slab was
cast into two parts then connected through the extended steel
dowels with the same number as those of the main internal steel.
Since the developed precast slabs were connected at the maximum
stressed section, i.e., moment-transferred connection, the lengths
of the extended steel bars were chosen to follow to the develop-
ment length stipulated by the Egyptian Code of practice (ECP
203-2007) [28] as given by Eq. (1).


abg fy
cs
Ld ¼ / ð1Þ
4f bu
where Ld = development length (mm); a = correction factor for the
end bar condition = 0.75 for hooked-ended bar; b = correction factor
for the surface condition of the steel bar = 1, for smooth surface;
g = top bar factor = 1.3 for reinforcement placed so that more than
300 mm of fresh concrete is cast below the considered bar; fy = steel
yield strength (MPa); cs = strength reduction factor for steel
bar = 1.15; / = bar diameter (mm); and fbu = ultimate bond stress
(MPa) according to Eq. (2).
sffiffiffiffiffiffi
f cu
f bu ¼ 0:3
cc
where, fcu = concrete cube strength (MPa); and cc = the strength
reduction factor = 1.5. Based on the material properties of the used
materials, the required development length was about 230 mm.
Hence, the precast joint was proportioned as illustrated in Fig. 5,
where the joint was filled with UHP-SHCC material. The three
specimens of group No. 4 are illustrated in Fig. 6 showing the
strengthening configuration of the precast slabs. Table 1 shows
nomenclature and characteristics of all slabs. The end conditions
of all specimens, except specimen SI-C2, were considered hinged-
roller supports. The effect of restraining the horizontal movement
of both supports was studied by specimen SI-C2 through adopting
hinged-hinged supports.
All test slabs were cast in wooden forms upside down where the
tension sides were at the top in order to facilitate strengthening
procedure. All specimens of groups No. 1, group No. 2 except spec-
80 mm
6 8
400 mm
Cross-section of the slab
6 8
ST-2
400 mm
800 mm 100 mm
imen SII-3 and group No. 3 as well as the individual parts of the
specimens of group No. 4 were poured totally with concrete at
the same time, while specimen SII-3 was cast partially leaving
the top 15 mm depth without concrete. Two days after casting,
the standard cubes (150 mm side length), standard cylinders
(150 mm diameter by 300 mm height), the concrete prism of
150 mm
150 mm
700 mm and the sides of the specimens were
stripped from the molds and covered by plastic sheets. The upper
surface of all specimens was cured by water until the tenth day,
and then allowed air-drying. After about four weeks, the concrete
surface was prepared for pouring the UHP-SHCC material. The
replaced cover of specimen SII-3, the UHP-SHCC layer of specimen
SII4, specimens of group No. 3, the shear keys of all specimens of
group No. 4 as well as the UHP-SHCC layers of specimens SIV-2
and SIV-3, the standard cubes, cylinders, prisms and tension spec-
imens for UHP-SHCC were cast at the same day. The upper surface
of the UHP-SHCC layers was cured by water for seven days, and
then allowed air-drying until the testing day.
2.2. Strengthening scheme
ð2Þ
The EB-CFRP strengthening sheets consisted of two 100 mm
width by 0.125 mm thickness CFRP sheets extended by 1400 mm
length in the longitudinal direction in the tension side of the slabs.
These sheets were centered in both horizontal and inclined parts as
shown in Figs. 3 and 6. Since the adopted strengthened technique
is considered as a bond-critical application, surface preparation
requirements in accordance with ACI-440 recommendations [30]
should be based on the intended application of the CFRP system.
The substrate slabs were cleaned and prepared by grinding to
remove all contamination such as dust, oil, grease, etc., and provide
a mechanical key. The prepared surface was checked for variation
in levels using a 300 mm straight edge as recommended by the
CFRP supplier [31], where the maximum permissible deviation
being 1 mm over a distance of 300 mm in any direction.
The presence of curvature in the soffit of the broken slab may
lead to the development of tensile stresses normal to the adhesive
and surface to which the CFRP sheet is bonded. Such tensile
 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615 605

CFRP anchors

50
80
50
mm

50
700 100
mm mm
EB-CFRP sheet

50 mm

ST-3 ST-4
400 mm

SII-1
ST-5 ST-6

700 mm
850 mm 850 mm

100 100

50
50 mm

ST-3 ST-4

100
400 mm

SII-2

100
ST-5 ST-6

100
700 mm

50
850 mm 850 mm
15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer 50

ST-3 ST-4
100
400 mm

SII-3
100

ST-5 ST-6 SII-4

100

700 mm
50

850 mm 850 mm

For specimen SII-3, 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC was included into the slab thickness
For specimen SII-4, 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC was added to the slab thickness
Fig. 3. Details of the strengthening schemes for group No. 2.

stresses result when the CFRP sheet tends to straighten under load,
and can promote the initiation of CFRP sheet separation failure that
reduces the effectiveness of the strengthened system [32,33]. Fig. 7
(a) shows the developed forces at the broken joint when the CFRP
sheets tend to strengthen as well as the developed tensile forces in
the proposed CFRP anchors. Hence, it was found that providing two
anchors at the broken joint with the same cross-sectional area of
the longitudinal CFRP sheet could resist the developed tensile
forces properly. Consequently, the CFRP anchors were propor-
tioned and detailed as illustrated in Fig. 7(b). The carbon fiber
anchors were made by cutting a strip of the CFRP sheet, inserting
it into a predrilled hole of 15 mm diameter and 55 mm depth,
and then fanning the ends of the anchor over the CFRP sheet as
shown in Figs. 3 and 6. All edges of the predrilled concrete holes
were rounded to limit stress concentrations at the anchor bend.
The anchors and the CFRP sheets were applied at the same time.
First, an appropriate amount of the adhesive was mixed up, then
the predrilled holes for the anchors were filled with adhesive,
and the longitudinal CFRP sheet was aligned in their positions. Sec-
ond, the anchors penetrated the CFRP sheets and were accommo-
dated in their holes and fanned along either the longitudinal
sheets at the ends or along both longitudinal and transverse sheets
at the joints. Finally, an additional layer of adhesive was applied on
both sheets and anchors. This process ensures that the anchors and
sheet form a continuous composite unit. In addition, for all CFRP-
strengthened slabs except specimen SII-2, two CFRP end anchors
identical to those used at the broken joint were used for each sheet
and located at 100 mm away from the free edge of the sheets.
Inserting anchors into the core of the concrete slab ensures that
stresses are transferred to the concrete, as well as ensuring that
failure does not occur by separation of the concrete cover or de-
bonding of the CFRP sheets [15–19,34].
For the 15 mm thickness UHP-SHCC layers and the shear keys of
the precast slabs, the contact surfaces of the RC substrates slabs
606 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615

80
700 mm

700
mm
15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer

Steel dowels of 6 mm diameter

100 mm x 100 mm Welded wire fabric 100 mm x 100 mm Welded wire fabric
of 4 mm diameter of 4 mm diameter

850 mm 850 mm 850 mm 850 mm

SIII-1 SIII-2
Fig. 4. Details of the strengthening schemes for group No. 3.

60 mm UHP-SHCC patching ture proportions as reported in Table 2. The actual compressive

300 mm 60
mm strength and tensile strength of the used concrete were deter-
mined at the testing day using the standard cubes, cylinders and
300
mm prisms cast with the concrete slabs. It is worth mentioning that
40 mm
40
mm
the testing of all specimens was done in two consecutive days.
Sec. A - A The average compressive strength was 31.52 MPa, while the ten-
sile strength was obtained from two tests, namely; cylinder split-
8 mm bar diameter (total length = 650 mm) ting test and the modulus of rupture test. The average split
top and bottom cylinder strength and the modulus of rupture strength were 3.44
and 6.68 MPa, respectively.
Ultra High-Performance-Strain Hardening Cementitious Com-
80

posites (UHP-SHCC), was made with ingredients typically found

80

in concrete, silica fume and superplasticizer based on poly-

400 mm

A A carboxylic ether. However, no coarse aggregate was employed.

80

Instead, high performance crack control micro-fibers were added.

The mix proportions of the UHP-SHCC used as a strengthening
80

material are listed in Table 2. 15% of the design cement content

80

80 mm
300 mm
UHP-SHCC patching
Plan of the proposed precast joint
Fig. 5. Details of the precast stitched joint.
were roughened using chisel to remove slurry cement from exter-
nal surfaces of coarse aggregates. The estimated roughness ampli-
tude was about 8 mm for specimen SII-3, and about 3 mm for other
specimens. Before casting the UHP-SHCC layers, the contact sur-
faces of concrete substrates were re-cleaned with brush and
high-pressure air to ensure a clean bonding surface, and then they
were adequately damped by covering the concrete surface by
water [25]. Just before casting the UHP-SHCC layers, a bonding
agent (Addibond 65, provided by CMB company – Egypt) was
applied to the concrete surfaces in order to enhance the bonding
between the added UHP-SHCC materials and the substrate con-
crete slabs.
2.3. Material properties
The used concrete was normal strength concrete with target
cube strength of 30 MPa. It was made from ordinary Portland
cement (Type I), natural sand, and crushed pink limestone type
1, as the coarse aggregate of maximum size of 10 mm, with mix-
was replaced by silica fume. High strength polypropylene fiber
(PP) was selectively chosen and its volume in the mix was 1.5%.
300 mm
The diameter and length of the PP fibers were 0.01 mm and
12 mm, respectively. In addition, expansion agent was added in
order to compensate the plastic shrinkage of the material.
The target compressive strength of the used UHP-SHCC was
designed to be 60 MPa, while the average actual strength of the
standard cubes of 150 mm side was 53.5 MPa. Since the main prop-
erty of the used UHP-SHCC material was its tensile strength, the
tensile strength was measured using three different tests; namely,
split cylinder test, modulus of rupture test and direct tension test.
The average split cylinder strength of three cylinders and the mod-
ulus of rupture strength based on an average value of three stan-
dard prims were 4.76 and 12.87 MPa, respectively. Fig. 8
(a) and (b) shows the failure shape of the concrete cylinder and
the prism, respectively. Fig. 8(c) shows the test setup for the direct
tension test. The tension specimens were chosen as prisms of
50 mm width
150 mm length in cross-section and 450 mm
height, while the measuring length was 200 mm. the tension force
was applied to the UHP-SHCC specimen through three high tensile
steel bars of 12 mm diameter at each end embedded into the spec-
imen by 100 mm length. The developed longitudinal strain was
measured as the average value of four Pi-gauges mounted onto
both sides of the specimen as shown in Fig. 8(c). The typical failure
of the specimen is illustrated in Fig. 8(d), while typical stress–
strain curves are shown in Fig. 8(e).
In order to determine the mechanical properties of the used
8 mm diameter plain smooth tensile steel bars, tensile tests were
 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615 607

300 mm
UHP-SHCC patching
300 mm UHP-SHCC patching
300 300
mm

55
mm
50
80

50
CFRP anchors

55
7 00 10 0 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer 700
mm mm
mm
EB-CFRP sheet

50 mm x 50 mm Welded wire fabric

of 4 mm diameter

50
50 mm

100
400 mm

100
100
50
150 mm 150 mm
700 mm 700 mm
850 mm 850 mm 850 mm 850 mm

SIV-1 SIV-2
300 mm UHP-SHCC patching
300
mm
70
80

70
15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer 70 0
mm

50 mm x 50 mm Welded wire fabric

of 4 mm diameter

SIV-3
400 mm

Fig. 6. Details of the strengthening schemes for group No. 4.

performed on three specimens. The mean value of tensile yield
strength, ultimate strength and Young’s modulus was 285 MPa,
410 MPa and 202 GPa, respectively. The tensile yield strength
and the ultimate strength of the 4 mm bar used for the welded
wire mesh were 413 MPa, and 597 MPa, respectively. The welded
wire mesh was held in position through 12 steel dowels of 6 mm
diameter extruded from the base RC slab. These dowels had tensile
yield strength and ultimate strength as 274 MPa and 396 MPa,
respectively.
Regarding the used CFRP sheets, high strength carbon fiber fab-
ric X-Wrap C230 along with its compatible X-Wrap lamination
adhesive was used. Table 3 shows the mechanical properties for
the CFRP fabric sheet along with the adhesive as provided by the
manufacturer [31].

Table 1
Test matrix.

Group Specimen Characteristics Objectives

No.
1 SI-C1 Hinged-roller supports of slab (control specimen) Un-strengthened group
SI-C2 Hinged-hinged supports of slab
2 SII-1 Application of CFRP sheets with anchorages at ends as well as at the joint Strengthening using EB-CFRP sheets
SII-2 Application of CFRP sheets with anchorages at the joint only along with transversal CFRP sheet
SII-3 Application of 15 mm UHP-SHCC transition layer in the cover zone before bonding the CFRP
sheets as SII-2
SII-4 Adding of 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer before bonding the CFRP sheets as SII-2
3 SIII-1 Adding of 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer provided by welded wire steel mesh Strengthening using a thin layer of UHP-
SIII-2 Adding of 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer provided by anchored welded wire steel mesh SHCC
4 SIV-1 Stitching two precast slab units then strengthening as SII-2 Strengthening using proposed stitching
SIV-2 Stitching two precast slab units then strengthening as SIII-2 technique for precast units
SIV-3 Stitching two precast slab units then added 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC as SIII-2. Finally, application
of CFRP sheet as SII-2
608 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615
2.4. Test setup and instrumentation
One bay of three-dimensional steel frame as presented in Fig. 9
was equipped and then used in order to carry out the testing. A
100 mm LVDT was used in order to measure the vertical deflection
at mid-span point of the slab at the broken joint while, 6 mm strain
gauges were used in order to measure the developed normal
strains in the internal reinforcement at the tension side (ST-1
and ST-2, Fig. 2) and the CFRP sheets at positions shown in Fig. 3
(ST-3, ST-4, ST-5 and ST-6). In addition, a 100 mm gauge length
Pi-gauge was used in order to measure the deformation at the bro-
ken joint as shown in Fig. 9. The slab was loaded at the joint by line
load through a loading steel plate of 100 mm side and 30 mm
thickness. Therefore, in several steps the slab was loaded up to fail-
ure. The load on the slab was measured by a load cell of 200 kN
capacity.
After each loading step, the vertical mid-span deflection, the Pi-
gauge readings, the developed normal strains in the longitudinal
steel bars in addition to the developed tensile strain in the CFRP
sheets were recorded. An automatic data logger unit (TDS-150)
had been used in order to record and store the readings during
the test for the load cell, steel strain gauges, CFRP strain gauges,
Pi-gauges, and LVDT.
3. Results and discussion
The test results of the un-strengthened and strengthened slabs
with different techniques are presented and analyzed in order to
verify the efficiency of the adopted strengthening techniques in
upgrading the flexural resistance of the strengthened slabs. In gen-
eral, all strengthened slabs achieved higher strength and stiffness
than that of the control un-strengthened slab. A summary of the
test results is presented in Table 4 and further discussions are con-
ducted including modes of failures, ultimate capacity, developed
normal strains on both longitudinal steel bars and the CFRP sheets
as well as the ductility.
3.1. Modes of failure
Due to the discrepancy of the structural behavior of both CFRP
sheet and the UHP-SHCC material, especially at the inelastic region
as well as the variation in the behavior of both strengthening mate-
rials and the substrate reinforced concrete slab, diverse modes of
failures were manifested by each slab.
The failure of control slab, SI-C1, was typical flexural failure.
Cracks began to appear at the tension side of the horizontal part
of slab at a vertical load of about 8.5 kN. With further loading, crack
C F R P an ch o rs
TF = R esistin g te n sile fo rce
b y C F R P sh eet
R = R esu ltan t o u tw ard fo rce d ev elo p ed
E B -C F R P sh e et b y C F R P sh eet
TA = T e n sile fo rc e carried b y
C F R P an ch o r
TA
TA
TF
R
153° TF TA
R = 0 .7 7 T F TA = 0 .4 0 T F
F ree b o d y d iag ram fo r C F R P fo rces E q u ilib riu m trian g le o f fo rces
(a) Developed forces at the broken joint
Fig. 7. Developed forces and details of the CFRP anchors at the broken joint.
width increased and other cracks spread on the tension side till
steel strain exceeded the yield strain and concrete was crushed
at the compression side. Due to the horizontal movement of the
end support of the inclined part, longitudinal cracks appeared
due to the developed pullout force at the joint leading to slippage
of the upper parts of the x-bars reinforcement as shown in Fig. 10
(a). Preventing the horizontal movement of both supports, as for
slab SI-C2, led to regular flexural failure of the slab at the horizon-
tal part as shown in Fig. 10(b). This can be attributed to the devel-
oped membrane action in the inclined part due to the developed
normal force that prevented the development of the flexural cracks
at the inclined part.
Fig. 11 showed the failure modes of all specimens of group No.
2. Failure of slab SII-1 was typical flexural failure till the CFRP sheet
began to debond at the broken joint at a vertical load of about
34.7 kN. With further loading, major flexural cracks were devel-
oped till complete failure was triggered by complete debonding
of all longitudinal edges of the CFRP sheets at the broken joint as
depicted in Fig. 11(a). It is worth mentioning that the properly
designed CFRP anchors did not cut/rupture, while the longitudinal
CFRP sheets debonded at the longitudinal free edges outside the
effective zone of the anchors. The observed mode of failure high-
lighted the importance of the transverse CFRP anchorage sheets.
Providing transverse CFRP anchorage sheets as depicted in Fig. 11
(b), enabled the slab to sustain higher load compared to the previ-
ous slab (SII-1). In addition, it delayed the debonding of the CFRP
sheet, however the failure happened due to end debonding of the
CFRP sheets at the horizontal part due to the absence of the end
anchorage. In spite of replacing the concrete cover by UHP-SHCC
material in order to enhance the cracking behavior of slab SII-3,
the manifested behavior was deficient. This happened due to the
absence of shear dowels between the UHP-SHCC cover and the
substrate slab, which resulted in premature separation of the
UHP-SHCC cover at the broken joint as depicted in Fig. 11(c). It
can be observed that the CFRP sheet ruptured at complete failure
and if the UHP-SHCC material was properly anchored to the sub-
strate slab, the specimen could sustain more load. Slab SII-4
showed the most favorable performance among all specimens of
the group. Adding thin layer of the UHP-SHCC material delayed
the crack appearance, exhausted the tensile strength of the added
UHP-SHCC material till its failure. In addition, the CFRP sheets did
not show any sign of rupture along the sheets or at the anchors as
shown in Fig. 11(d).
In spite of good surface preparation between the UHP-SHCC
layer and the substrate slab of specimen SIII-1, the absence of shear
dowels resulted in detachment of the UHP-SHCC layer at the bro-
ken joint as depicted in Fig. 12(a). The gap between the substrate
D = 15 m m
TA
55
55
50 m m
mm
50
mm
80
(b) Details of the CFRP anchors at the joint
 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615 609

Table 2
Mix proportions of RC slabs and UHP-SHCC material for one cubic meter (kg/m3).

Concrete mix W/Ba Cement Sand Crushed pink limestone Water Silica fume Expansion agent Super-plasticizer PP fiber (12 mm)
RC 0.45 400 650 1300 180 – – – –
UHP-SHCC 0.23 1243 149 – 338 223 20 16.2 14.6
a
W/B is the water/binder ratio, B = cement + silica fume.

(a) Split cylinder, UHP-SHCC (left) Normal strength (right)

(b) Bridging effect of the fiber (Modulus of rupture test) (c) Set-up for direct tension test of UHP-SHCC

5
Stress (MPa)

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Strain x10-6

(d) Failure due to direct tension test of UHP-SHCC (e) Typical stress-strain test of the UHP-SHCC

Fig. 8. Tension test results for UHP-SHCC material.

Table 3 better crack distribution. The measured crack width for the major
Mechanical properties of used CFRP sheets along with the adhesive. crack of slab SIII-1 near failure at a vertical load of about 51 kN was
Criteria CFRP sheets Adhesive 0.56 mm, while the major crack width for slab SIII-2 at a vertical
load of about 54 kN was 0.2 mm. The average crack spacing near
Tensile strength (MPa) 4000 45a
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 240 1.67a failure for slab SIII-1 was about 35 mm, while it was about
Failure strain (%) 2 – 28 mm for slab SIII-2. Furthermore, the UHP-SHCC layer of slab
Thickness (mm) 0.125 – SIII-2 did not show wide separation at the free longitudinal edges
Glass transition temperature – 65 °C as exhibited by slab SIII-1, refer to Fig. 12(b).
a
These values were obtained after 7 d/20 °C. The most obvious observation for all specimens of group No. 4
was that the failure loads of all specimens were higher than those
of the opponent monolithic specimens. Specimen SII-2 failed at a
slab and the UHP-SHCC reached up to 20 mm near failure. On the vertical load of about 49.8 kN, while specimen SIV-1 failed at a ver-
other hand, properly connected UHP-SHCC layer enabled the slab tical load of about 54.5 kN. Specimen SIII-2 failed at a vertical load
to perform better as exhibited by slab SIII-2. It resulted in delayed of about 64.9 kN, while specimen SIV-2 failed at a vertical load of
crack appearance, reduced crack width near failure and showed about 94 kN. The failure loads of specimen SIII-4 and its opponent
610 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615

Load cell

80 mm
50 m m Pi-gauges

mm
80
LV D T

400 mm

80 mm
100 m m

C onnecting bolts

850 m m 800 m m

Strong girder of the m ain fram e

Fig. 9. Test setup.

Table 4
Experimental results.

Group No. Specimen Loads (kN) Deflection (mm) Maximum measured Dominant mode of failure
normal strain near
failure, micro-strain
Pcr Py Pu Du Steel bars CFRP sheet
1 SI-C1 8.5 10.5 13.3 37.6 5618 – Flexural failure
SI-C2 9.4 12.6 15.3 45.4 3043 — Flexural failure
2 SII-1 20 30.1 40.4 10.3 2770 6593 CFRP debonding at the joint
SII-2 22.5 40.4 49.8 21.2 5219 5334 End debonding of the CFRP sheets at straight part
SII-3 20 33.8 44.2 46.3 1175 2200 Detachment of the UHP-SHCC layer at the central part
SII-4 25 48.9 67.7 33.9 3704 4503 Flexural failure accompanied by separation of the UHP-SHCC layer
3 SIII-1 10.4 36.7 51.7 19.1 1760 – Detachment of the UHP-SHCC layer
SIII-2 13.9 51.7 64.9 35.5 5540 – Flexural failure along with failure of the UHP-SHCC layer
4 SIV-1 32.8 45.3 54.5 43.3 2618 5130 Rupture of CFRP sheet
SIV-2 30 75.3 94.0 33.3 5210 – Flexural failure at the UHP-SHCC joint
SIV-3 27 72.5 89.3 49.8 4130 5129 Rupture of the CFRP sheet at the joint

Pcr = cracking load; Py = yielding load; Pu = ultimate load; Dy = central deflection corresponding to the yielding load; Du = central deflection corresponding to the ultimate load.

(a) Specimen SI-C1 (b) Specimen SI-C2

Fig. 10. Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 1.

specimen, SIV-3, were about 67.7 and 89.3 kN, respectively. In
addition, the specimens of group No. 4 began to crack at higher
loads. That can be attributed to the higher concrete strength at
the shear key joint owing to the UHP-SHCC material where the
maximum moment occurred. Failure of all specimens of group
No. 4 was flexural failure governed by CFRP rupture for both spec-
imens SIV-1 and SIV-3 as depicted in Fig. 13(a)–(c).
3.2. Cracking and ultimate loads
Table 4 shows the results of the major flexural cracking load for
all specimens after the tensile resistance of the concrete was
exhausted. It can be noted that the highest percentage of the crack-
ing load to ultimate load was for control specimen SI-C1. It was
about 0.64, which can be attributed to the accelerated failure due
to the moved end on the broken part. On the other hand, when
the horizontal movement was prevented as for specimen SI-C2,
this percentage was decreased to about 0.42. For group No. 2, the
percentages of cracking loads to the ultimate loads ranged from
0.37 (specimen SII-4) to 0.49 (SII-1), while specimens SII-2 and
SII-3 showed the same percentage of about 0.45. The relatively
higher percentage could be attributed to the effect of the CFRP
sheets which prevented the appearance of the hair cracks and con-
trolled the crack propagation. As for specimens SIII-1 and SIII-2,
hair cracks began to appear on the substrate slabs at lower loads,
which were about 0.20 of the ultimate load. The specimens of
 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615 611

(a
(a) Sp
Speci
ecimen
en SI
SII-11 (b
(b) Sp
Speci
ecimen
en SI
SII-2

(c
(c) Sp
Speci
ecimen
en SI
SII-33 (d
(d)) S
Spec
ecime
men SI
SII-44
Fig. 11. Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 2.

(a) Specimen SIII-1 (b) Specimen SIII-2

Fig. 12. Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 3.

(a) Specimen SIV-1 (b) Specimen SIV-2 (c) SpecimenSIV-3

Fig. 13. Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 4.

group No. 4 showed higher cracking loads among all specimens
due to higher sustained load. The percentage of cracking loads to
the ultimate loads was 0.6, 0.32, and 0.3, respectively, for speci-
mens SIV-1, SIV-2 and SIV-3. The highest ratio showed by speci-
men SIV-1 was due to the lower ultimate load owing to the
rupture failure of the CFRP sheets.
Table 4 shows the results of the ultimate load carrying capaci-
ties for all specimens. These values cannot be used for rational
comparison due to differences in the total depth and concrete com-
pressive strength, especially between the monolithic specimens
and the precast specimens. The total depth of specimens SI-CI,
SI-C2, SII-1, SII-2, SII-3 and SIV-1 was 80 mm, while the remaining
specimens have 95 mm in total depth. In addition, the concrete
compressive strength of precast specimens for group No. 4 at max-
imum stresses section was 53 MPa, while the compressive strength
of the remaining specimens was 32.52 MPa. In order to make the
comparison more practical, all the ultimate capacities are normal-
ized to the relevant concrete dimensions and strength. The ratio
between the corrected normalized ultimate loads to that of the
control specimen SC-1 are 1.15, 3.04, 3.74, 3.32, 4.29, 3.28, 4.1,
2.48, 3.59, and 3.41, respectively for specimens SI-C2, SII-1, SII-2,
SII-3, SII-4, SIII-1, SIII-2, SIV-1, SIV-2 and SIV-3. It can be concluded
that all strengthening systems enabled the substrate slabs to out-
perform their ultimate capacities by more than 100% even if the
612 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615

strengthened system lack proper anchorage. Restraining the hori- 100

zontal movement of the supports resulted in increased capacity 90
by about 15%. The application of EB-CFRP sheets enabled the slabs SI-C1
to increase their ultimate capacities by about 204%, 274%, 232% 80
SII-1
and 329%, respectively, for specimens SII-1, SII-2, SII-3, and SII-4. 70

Vertical load, kN
SII-2
Consequently, specimens SII-4 exhibited the highest capacity 60 SII-3
among all specimens of group No. 2. Providing thin layer of UHP- SII-4
50
SHCC material to the tension side of slabs showed increases in
the ultimate capacities by 228% and 310%, respectively for speci- 40
mens SIII-1 and SIII-2. Properly anchored UHP-SHCC layer exhib- 30
ited a close increase in the ultimate capacity as that provided by 20
the same thin layer in addition to the CFRP sheet. Precast slabs
10
showed comparable increases in the ultimate capacity. These
increases are 148%, 259% and 241%, respectively, for specimens 0
SIV-1, SIV-2, and SIV-3. 0 10 20 30 40 50
From the structural point of view, providing 15 mm thick layer Mid-span deflection, mm
of UHP-SHCC material enabled the slab (SIII-2) to exhibit 310%
increase in the ultimate capacity, while the application of the EB- Fig. 15. Comparison among load–deflection relationships for all slabs of group No.
CFRP sheet on the same layer showed 329% increase in the slab 2.

capacity (SII-4). That means the contribution of the CFRP sheets

over the UHP-SHCC is about 19%, which is very small compared
to their expenses. 100
90
3.3. Load–deflection relationships 80
Vertical load, kN 70
Figs. 14–17 show the load–deflection relationships for all
groups. Each slab exhibited linear behavior up to the cracking load. 60
Beyond that, a fast change in the slope of the load–deflection curve 50
was observed. With further loading, the yielding of the internal SI-C1
40
steel reinforcement occurred in all specimens, while the mani- SIII-1
fested load–deflection plateaus after yielding were varied accord- 30
SIII-2
ing to the relevant strengthening techniques. 20
For un-strengthened specimens, both specimens SI-C1 and SI-
10
C2 showed approximately identical behavior up to cracking load
of the specimen SI-C1, then the behavior showed a different trend 0
up to failure. Near failure, the stiffness of specimen SI-C2 showed 0 10 20 30 40 50
higher value due to restrained movement of both supports. As Mid-span deflection, mm
for group No. 2, all specimens showed higher stiffness compared Fig. 16. Comparison among load–deflection relationships for all slabs of group No.
to that of control specimen SI-C1 as shown in Fig. 15. With further 3.
loading, the instantaneous stiffness of specimen SII-4 showed the
highest value compared to the remaining specimens of this group.
This can be attributed to the higher total depth of specimen SII-4 100
compared to the others. Both specimen SII-1 and SII-2 showed 90
abrupt drop in the resisting load due to the debonding failure of
80
70
Vertical load, kN

20
60
18 50
16 40
14 30
Vertical load, kN

SI-C1
12 20 SIV-1
10 10 SIV-2
SIV-3
8 0
6 0 10 20 30 40 50
Mid-span deflection, mm
4 SI-C1
Fig. 17. Comparison among load–deflection relationships for all slabs of group No.
2 SI-C2 4.

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
the CFRP sheets owing to the improper anchorage system. In spite
Mid-span deflection, mm
of that specimen SII-3 showed premature detachment of the
Fig. 14. Comparison among load–deflection relationships for all slabs of group No. replaced UHP-SHCC cover and exhibited sudden drop in the ulti-
1. mate load, it showed ductile behavior up to failure. This can be
 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615
attributed to the provided end anchors of the CFRP sheets that con-
nected the CFRP sheets and the UHP-SHCC concrete cover to the
substrate slab. On the other hand, specimen SII-4 showed smooth
ductile behavior after reaching the ultimate load due to properly
anchored CFRP sheets on appropriately connected UHP-SHCC layer
to the substrate slab.
Fig. 16 shows comparison between both specimens of group No.
3. It can be noticed that both specimens showed identical behavior
till the commencement of the detachment of the UHP-SHCC layer
of specimen SIII-1. With further loading, specimen SIII-1 showed
decreased stiffness till the ultimate load, and then the load
dropped gradually till complete separation of the UHP-SHCC layer.
On the other hand, specimen SIII-2 showed hardening behavior
after yielding up to complete collapse of the specimen. As for group
No. 4, specimen SIV-1 showed the lowest instantaneous stiffness
from the beginning of loading up to complete failure due to the
smaller thickness of this specimen compared to the other speci-
mens. Both specimens SIV-2 and SIV-3 showed identical behavior
up to the yielding load, and then specimen SIV-2 developed soften-
ing behavior up to failure. Providing EB-CFRP sheets restrained the
inelastic deformation of the UHP-SHCC layer leading to sudden
rupture failure of the CFRP sheets. This resulted in manifested duc-
tile behavior of specimen SIV-3 and despite that it developed lower
ultimate capacity than that of specimen SIV-2, refer to Fig. 17.
3.4. Steel strain
Table 4 shows the maximum recorded tensile strains on the
internal steel bars at the broken joint. Based on the measured
mechanical properties of the used steel bars, the yield strain equals
1410 micro-strain. It can be observed that the developed strain on
the internal steel bars of the control specimen SI-C1 was relatively
higher than that of the other un-strengthened specimen SI-C2. That
can be attributed to the horizontal movement of the end support of
the inclined part, which developed additional pullout tensile force
on the internal steel bars. It can be noted that all internal steel bars
for all specimens except specimen SII-3 developed normal strains
greater than the yield strain. This observation was matching the
exhibited mode of failure where all specimens developed tension
mode of failure. However, the premature detachment of the
UHP-SHCC cover of specimen SII-3 could result in failure of the
mentioned specimen prior to reaching the yield point of the inter-
nal steel. The detachment of the UHP-SHCC layer of specimen SIII-1
resulted in lower developed tensile strain on the internal bars com-
pared to the relevant specimen SIII-2. However, the developed
steel strain was greater than the yield strain due to the relatively
higher sustained load.
3.5. CFRP strain
Away from the section where externally bonded CFRP sheet ter-
minates, a failure controlled by CFRP debonding may be governed
[30]. In order to prevent the intermediate crack-induced debond-
ing failure mode, the effective developed strain in the CFRP sheet
should be limited to the strain level at which debonding may occur,
efd as defined in Eq. (3)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 serviceability limit state, while SF is the ratio of the ultimate load
fc
efd ¼ 0:41 6 0:9efu ð3Þ
nEf t f
0 straight portion of the load–deflection relationship. It is important
where efd = debonding strain of externally bonded CFRP; f c = speci-
fied compressive strength of concrete (MPa); n = number of plies
of CFRP sheet; Ef = tensile modulus of elasticity of CFRP (MPa), tf = -
nominal thickness of one ply of CFRP reinforcement (mm); and
efu = design rupture strain of CFRP reinforcement and can be calcu-
lated from Eq. (4)
613
efu ¼ C E efu ð4Þ
where CE = environmental reduction factor (0.95 for interior expo-
sure); efu = ultimate rupture strain of CFRP reinforcement.
Based on the mechanical properties of the used CFRP sheets as
given in Table 3, efd = 11,887 micro-strain. Table 4 shows the max-
imum recorded tensile strains on the CFRP sheets at the measuring
points as shown in Fig. 3. It can be noted that none of specimens
developed debonding strain and in spite of that all specimens
failed by rupture of the CFRP sheet except specimens SII-1 and
SII-3. Specimen SII-1 failed due to debonding of the ends of the
CFRP sheets due to the absence of the end anchorages, while spec-
imen SII-3 failed due to premature detachment of the UHP-SHCC
holding the CFRP sheets. The discrepancy of the strain results
may be attributed to that failure which occurred in all cases away
from the measuring points.
3.6. Ductility measurement
A ductile material is the one that can undergo inelastic defor-
mations beyond the initial yielding while resisting loads. For RC
members, ductile failure is more favorable because it displays signs
of impending failure while retaining the capacity to carry loads.
Conversely, RC members that fail in a brittle mode of failure will
show few signs of distress prior to failure. Reinforced concrete flex-
ural members strengthened with EB-FRP laminates exhibited
decreased ductility [35,36]. The main reason for the decrease in
ductility is related to the purely elastic behavior of the FRP until
complete failure. Besides, the decrease in the ductility of strength-
ened RC flexural members may be caused by a non-ductile failure
mode controlled by debonding of the externally bonded FRP lami-
nates [37,38]. However, properly anchored CFRP sheets were
shown to be effective in delaying the debonding and also were
effective in enhancing the deformability and ductility of RC slabs
strengthened in flexure with CFRP sheets [6,39]. Another way for
enhancing bonding between the CFRP sheets and the substrate
strengthening member leading to enhanced ductility is using a thin
transition layer of high performance cementitious composites
[27,40].
For the current study, three indices were selectively chosen for
ductility calculations, namely; displacement-based ductility,
energy-based ductility and performance factor. The displacement
ductility index, lD, is defined by Eq. (5) [41]:
Du
lD ¼ ð5Þ
Dy
where (Du) is the mid-span deflection at failure and (Dy) is the mid-
span deflection at yielding point based on load–deflection relation-
ship. The energy ductility index (lE) as presented in Eq. (6) [42] is
defined as the ratio between the energy of the slab at failure (Eu)
and the energy of the slab at yielding load (Ey).
Eu
lE ¼ ð6Þ
Ey
The performance factor (PF) [43] equals the deformability factor
(DF) multiplied by strength factor (SF). The DF is the ratio between
the deflection at ultimate state and the deflection corresponding to
to the service load. For the current study, the serviceability limit
state is considered as that corresponds to the last point of the
to highlight that the deformability, strength, and performance fac-
tors are not absolute, but comparative to those of the un-
strengthened control slab.
Table 5 shows the ductility indices for all slabs using the three
schemes. It can be noted that the three ductility indices showed
614 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615

Table 5
Ductility indices for test slabs.

Group No. Specimen Displacement-based ductility Energy-based ductility Performance factor

Dy (mm) Du (mm) l Du
D¼ Dy
W.R.T SI-C1 Ey (kN m) Eu (kN m) l Eu
E¼ Ey
W.R.T SI-C1 DF SF PF W.R.T SI-C1

1 SI-C1 7.7 37.6 4.88 1.00 53.96 408.41 7.57 1.00 4.88 1.27 6.18 1.00
SI-C2 14.4 45.4 3.15 0.65 130.15 586.28 4.50 0.60 3.15 1.21 3.83 0.62
2 SII-1 5.3 10.3 1.94 0.40 100.26 282.25 2.82 0.37 1.94 1.34 2.60 0.42
SII-2 7.8 21.2 2.72 0.56 218.15 799.92 3.67 0.48 2.72 1.23 3.35 0.54
SII-3 5.7 46.3 8.12 1.66 124.56 1703.9 13.68 1.81 8.12 1.31 10.62 1.72
SII-4 7.1 33.9 4.77 0.99 238.37 1904.6 7.99 1.06 4.77 1.38 6.60 1.07
3 SIII-1 7.1 19.1 2.69 0.55 162.25 720.1 4.44 0.59 2.69 1.41 3.79 0.61
SIII-2 10.7 35.5 3.32 0.68 357.6 1803.6 5.04 0.67 3.32 1.26 4.14 0.67
4 SIV-1 12.2 43.3 3.55 0.73 358.2 1886.3 5.27 0.70 3.55 1.20 4.27 0.69
SIV-2 11.7 33.3 2.85 0.58 502.3 2422.7 4.82 0.64 2.85 1.25 3.56 0.58
SIV-3 11.4 49.8 4.37 0.90 474.4 3732.8 7.87 1.04 4.37 1.23 5.38 0.87

Dy = central deflection corresponding to the yielding load; Du = central deflection corresponding to the ultimate load; lD = deflection ductility index; Ey = energy of the
system at yielding load, Eu = energy of the system at failure state, lE = energy ductility index; DF = deformability factor, SF = strength factor, PE = performance factor; W.R.
T = with respect to the relevant value of control specimen SI-C1.

approximately the same trend when compared to the relevant duc-
tility of the control slab SI-C1.
In spite of restraining both supports of the slabs from horizontal
movement resulted in increased ultimate capacity, it decreased the
corresponding ductility by 35%, 40%, and 38%, respectively, consid-
ering displacement-based ductility index, energy-based index, and
performance factor.
As for group No. 2, anchorage system showed its crucial effect
on the exhibited ductility. Improper anchorage system as executed
in specimens SII-1 and SII-2 showed decreased ductility compared
to that of control specimen SI-C1. Considering the displacement-
based ductility, the percentages of decrease in ductility were 60%
and 44%, respectively, for specimens SII-1 and SII-2. This highlights
that using transverse CFRP sheet with the same width of the longi-
tudinal sheet had a dominant effect than that providing end
anchorages at the ends of the CFRP sheets. The performance factor
results showed approximately the same ductility decreases
obtained by the displacement-based index. However, the energy-
based indices showed higher decreases in the ductility. These
decreases were 63% and 52%, respectively, for specimens SII-1
and SII-2. On the other hand, providing end anchorage as well as
transverse anchorage sheets at the joint enabled the slab to outper-
form its ductility as manifested by specimens SII-3 and SII-4 [6,39].
In spite of that specimen SII-3 exhibited the highest ductility
indices among all tested specimens using different strengthening
techniques, this enhancement is false. That can be attributed to
the manifested mode of failure of this specimen where the UHP-
SHCC replacement layer was noticed to be separated from the sub-
strate slab near failure due to the absence of shear dowels. This
resulted in increased deflection considerably leading to increased
ductility measurements. On contrary, specimen SII-4 showed
lower ductility indices compared to those of specimen SII-3. How-
ever, from both ultimate strength and ductility viewpoints, speci-
men SII-4 showed the outstanding performance when compared
to those of the control specimen SI-C1. These results are in com-
plete agreement with the results obtained by others [27,40].
For group No. 3, both specimens, SIII-1 and SIII-2, showed
decreased ductility indices compared to that of control specimen,
SI-C1. The highest ductility decreases were for displacement-
based index. These decreases were 45% and 32%, respectively, for
specimens SIII-1 and SIII-2, compared to that of specimen SI-C1.
It can be noticed that providing sufficient shear dowels holding
the internal mesh of the UHP-SHCC layer to the substrate slab
resulted in enhanced ductility by about 13%, 8%, and 6%, respec-
tively, for displacement-based index, energy-based index, and the
performance factor.
Comparing the ductility indices of the stitched slabs against the
relevant monolithic slabs showed the adequacy of the proposed
stitching system. Comparing specimens SIV-1 and SII-2, showed
enhanced ductility of the stitched slab (SIV-1) by an average per-
centage of about 18%, considering an average value of the three
ductility indices. Comparing ductility indices for specimens SIV-2
and SIII-2, showed an average increase of about 7% for the mono-
lithic specimen (SIII-2). Specimen SIV-3 showed enhanced ductility
compared to that of specimen SIV-2, where its average ductility
enhancement was about 34%. Comparing the ductility indices of
specimens SIV-3 and SII-4, showed an average increase of about
10% for the monolithic specimen (SII-4).
4. Conclusion
Based on the studied strengthening techniques for reinforced
concrete opened-joint broken slabs, loading scheme, and according
to the used concrete dimensions and adopted strengthening con-
figurations, the following conclusions maybe drawn:
1. For strengthened slabs using EB-CFRP sheets, both intermediate
anchors at the broken joint and the end anchors should be pro-
vided in order to sidestep premature debonding failure of the
CFRP sheets. In addition, transverse anchorage sheets at the
broken joint are also essential to eliminate the debonding of
the longitudinal edges of the CFRP sheets near failure.
2. The application of properly anchored CFRP sheets on the tensile
side of the opened-joint broken slabs enabled them to outper-
form their ultimate capacities compared to that of control un-
strengthened slab by more than 200%.
3. When the concrete cover of the opened-joint broken slab
replaced by UHP-SHCC material, it has to be connected to the
substrate slab by any mechanical means in order to avoid pre-
mature detachment of the UHP-SHCC material. The application
of CFRP without transverse anchorage sheets at the broken joint
enabled the slab to increase its ultimate capacity by about 274%
compared to that of un-strengthened slab. On the other hand,
the application of properly anchored CFRP sheet after replace-
ment of the concrete cover by UHP-SHCC material showed
232% increase.
4. Adding thin layer (15 mm thick) of reinforced UHP-SHCC mate-
rial by internal welded wire mesh showed an increase in the
ultimate capacity by about 228%. When the internal welded
wire mesh was connected to the substrate slab by shear dowels,
this increase reached up to 310%.
 H.M. Afefy et al. / Composite Structures 136 (2016) 602–615 615

5. The proposed stitching technique of the precast slabs showed [21] Kamal A, Kunieda M, Ueda N, Nakamura H. Evaluation of crack opening
performance of a repair material with strain hardening behavior. Cem Concr
adequate results from both ultimate capacity and ductility
Compo 2008;30(10):863–71.
viewpoints. [22] Kunieda M, Ueda N, Nakamura H, Tamakoshi T. Development of spraying
6. Application of properly anchored EB-CFRP sheets on a well- technique for UHP-SHCC. Proc Concr Struct Scenar 2009;9:349–54.
connected thin layer of UHP-SHCC layer enabled the substrate [23] Li VC. From micromechanics to structural engineering: the design of
cementitious composites for civil engineering applications. JSCE J Struct
broken slab to show outstanding ductile performance in addi- Mech Earthq Eng 1993;10:37–48.
tion to more than 300% gain in the ultimate load-carrying [24] Li VC. ECC for repair and retrofit of concrete structures. Proc Fract Mech Concr
capacity. Struct FRAMCOS-3 1998:1715–26.
[25] Li VC. High performance fiber reinforced cementitious composites as durable
material for concrete structure repair. Int J Restor Build Monuments
2004;10:163–80.
References [26] Kunieda M, Hussein M, Ueda N, Nakamura H. Enhancement of crack
distribution of UHP-SHCC under axial tension using steel reinforcement. J
Adv Concr Tech 2010;8:49–57.
[1] Mufti AA. FRPs and FOSs lead to innovation in Canadian civil engineering
[27] Hussein M, Kunieda M, Nakamura H. Strength and ductility of RC beams
structures. Constr Build Mater 2003;17:379–87.
strengthened with steel-reinforced strain hardening cementitious composites.
[2] Nanni A. Flexural behavior and design of RC members using 1035 FRP
J Cem Concr Compos 2012;34:1061–6.
reinforcement. J Struct Eng 1993;119(11):3344–59.
[28] Egyptian code for design and construction of reinforced concrete structures
[3] Rizkalla SH. A new generation of civil engineering structures and bridges. Proc.
(ECP 203-2007); 2007.
of the third Int. Symp. on non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete
[29] American Concrete Institute ACI. Building code requirements for structural
structures (FRPRCS-3), Sapporo, vol. 1. Japan: Japan Concrete Institute; 1997. p.
concrete (ACI 318-11) and commentary. Farmington Hills: ACI; 2011.
113–28.
[30] ACI 440.2R-08. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP
[4] Bolander JE, Berton S. Simulation of shrinkage induced cracking in cement
system for strengthening concrete structures. ACI Committee 440. Farmington
composite overlays. Cem Concr Res 2004;26:861–71.
Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 2008. 45 pp..
[5] Barros JA, Cunha VM, Ribeiro AF, Antunes JA. Post-cracking behavior of steel
[31] X-Calibur. www.x-calibur.us.
fiber reinforced concrete. Mater Struct 2005;38:47–56.
[32] Aiello MA, Galati N, Tegola LA. Bond analysis of curved structural concrete
[6] Afefy HM, Fawzy TM. Strengthening of RC one-way slabs including cut-out
elements strengthened using FRP materials. In: Fifth international symposium
using different techniques. Eng Struct 2013;57C:23–36.
on non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures (FRPRCS-5),
[7] Afefy HM, Mahmoud MH. Structural performance of RC slabs provided by pre-
Cambridge. London: Thomas Telford; 2001. p. 680–8.
cast ECC strips in tension cover zone. Constr Build Mater 2014;65:103–13.
[33] Eshwar N, Ibell T, Nanni A. CFRP strengthening of concrete bridges with curved
[8] De Lorenzis L, Miller B, Nanni A. Bond of fiber-reinforced polymer laminates to
soffits. In: Forde MC, editor. International conference structural faults + repair
concrete. ACI Mater J 2001;98(3):256–64.
2003. London: Commonwealth Institute; 2003. p. 10 (CD-ROM).
[9] Rasheed HA, Harrison RR, Peterman RJ, Alkhrdaji T. Ductile strengthening
[34] Kim SJ, Smith ST. Strengthening of RC slabs with large penetrations using
using externally bonded and near surface mounted composite systems.
anchored FRP composites. In: The second official international conference of
Compos Struct 2010;92:2379–90.
international institute for FRP in construction for Asia-Pacific region. Seoul,
[10] Jumaat MZ, Rahman MM, Rahman MA. Review on bonding techniques of CFRP
Korea; 2009, 9–11 December 2009.
in strengthening concrete structures. Int J Phys Sci 2011;6:3567–75.
[35] Bencardino F, Spadea G, Swamy N. Strength and ductility of reinforced
[11] Cromwell JR, Harries KA, Shahrooz BM. Environmental durability of externally
concrete beams externally reinforced with carbon fiber fabric. ACI Struct J
bonded FRP materials intended for repair of concrete structures. Constr Build
2002;99(2):163–71.
Mater 2011;25:2528–39.
[36] Lee T, Pan A, Ma M. Ductile design of reinforced concrete beams retrofitted
[12] Benzarti K, Freddi F, Frémond M. A damage model to predict the durability of
with fiber reinforced polymer plates. J Compos Constr 2004;8(6):489–500.
bonded assemblies. Part I: de-bonding behavior of FRP strengthened concrete
[37] Pham H, Al-Mahaidi R. Prediction models for de-bonding failure loads of
structures. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:547–55.
carbon fiber reinforced polymer retrofitted reinforced concrete beams. J
[13] Hussein M. Strengthening of non-prismatic continuous reinforced concrete
Compos Constr 2006;10(1):48–59.
beams using CFRP. In: 14th Int. Conf. on structural faults and repair for
[38] Xiong GJ, Jiang X, Liu JW, Chen L. A way for preventing tension delamination of
structural concrete. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 3–5 July 2012.
concrete cover in mid-span of FRP strengthened beams. Constr Build Mater
[14] Afefy HM, Mahmoud MH, Fawzy TM. Rehabilitation of defected RC stepped
2007;21(2):402–8.
beams using CFRP. Eng Struct 2013;49(4):295–305.
[39] Smith ST, Hu S, Kim SJ, Seracino R. FRP-strengthened RC slabs anchored with
[15] Orton SL, Jirsa JO, Bayrak O. Design considerations of carbon fiber anchors. J
FRP anchors. Eng Struct 2011;33(4):1075–87.
Compos Constr 2008;12:608–16.
[40] Afefy HM, Kassem N, Hussein M. Enhancement of flexural behavior of CFRP-
[16] Zhang HW, Smith ST. FRP-to-concrete joint assemblages anchored with
strengthened reinforced concrete beams using engineered cementitious
multiple FRP anchors. Compos Struct 2012;94:403–14.
composites transition layer. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2015;8:1042–53.
[17] Bren SF, McGuirk GN. Advances on the behavior characterization of FRP
[41] Bonaldo E, Oliveira de Barros JA, Lourenço PB. Efficient strengthening
anchored Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) sheets used to strengthen
technique to increase the flexural resistance of existing RC slabs. J Compos
concrete elements. Int J Concr Struct Mater 2013;7:3–16.
Constr 2008;12:149–59.
[18] Bank L. Progressive failure and ductility of FRP composites for construction:
[42] Thomsen HH, Spacone E, Limkatanyu S, Camata G. Failure mode analysis of
review. J Compos Constr 2013;17:406–19.
reinforced concrete beams strengthened in flexure with externally bonded
[19] Biolzi L, Ghittoni C, Fedele R, Rosati G. Experimental and theoretical issues in
fiber-reinforced polymers. J Compos Constr 2004;8:123–31.
FRP–concrete bonding. Constr Build Mater 2013;41(4):182–90.
[43] Mufti AA, Newhook JP, Tadros G. Deformability versus ductility in concrete in
[20] Kunieda M, Denarie E, Bruhwiler E, Nakamura H. Challenges for strain
beams with FRP reinforcement. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on advanced composite
hardening cementitious composites-deformability versus matrix density. In:
materials in bridges and structures. Montreal: Canadian Society for Civil
Proc. of the 5th Int. RILEM workshop on HPFRCC; 2007. p. 31–38.
Engineering; 1996. p. 189–99.