Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

FRP-strengthened RC beams. II: assessment of debonding strength

models
*
S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, PR China

Received 11 April 2001; received in revised form 5 September 2001; accepted 12 September 2001

Abstract

Reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened in flexure by the bonding of a fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) plate to the tension
face are susceptible to brittle debonding failures. Such failures commonly initiate at or near one of the plate ends at a load below
that to achieve flexural failure of the plated section. For a successful design of flexural strengthening using FRP composites, it is
important to be able to predict such plate end debonding failures. In the first of these two companion papers, 12 plate end debonding
strength models have been reviewed and summarized (Engng Struct 24(4) (2002) 385–395). The aim of the present paper is to
provide a comprehensive assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of all the 12 models. To this end, a large test database
containing the test results of 59 beams reported to have failed by plate end debonding is first presented. This database was carefully
constructed from an extensive survey of the published literature. Both statistical and graphical comparisons between test results
and the predictions of the debonding strength models are next presented. A new simple debonding strength model which is superior
to existing models is also proposed.  2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Debonding; FRP; RC beams; Retrofitting; Strengthening; Strength models; Test database

1. Introduction comparison of even two distinct debonding strength

Reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened in
flexure by the bonding of a fiber reinforced polymer
(FRP) plate to the tension face are susceptible to brittle
debonding failures. Such failures commonly initiate at
or near one of the plate ends (simply referred to as the
plate end hereafter) at a load below that to achieve flex-
ural failure of the plated section. For a successful design
of flexural strengthening using FRP composites, it is
important to be able to predict such plate end debonding
failures. In the first of these two companion papers, 12
plate end debonding strength models have been reviewed
and summarized [1]. This large number of models is
clear evidence that a great amount of attention has been
devoted to the prediction of plate end debonding failures
in plated beams. Surprisingly, however, no study in the
published literature has been found which provides a
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2334-6389; fax: +852-2766-
6012.
E-mail address: cejgteng@polyu.edu.hk (J.G. Teng).
models, although disagreement over assumptions and
approaches for developing debonding strength models
clearly exists among researchers (e.g. [2–4]). Further-
more, many of the existing debonding models were pro-
posed on the basis of rather limited test data, often only
those from tests by the proposers themselves.
This paper is aimed at correcting the two deficiencies
mentioned above, namely the lack of information of the
performance of each model as assessed by a large
reliable test database and the establishment of the rela-
tive strengths and weaknesses of these models also using
such a database. To this end, a large test database con-
taining the test results of 59 beams reported to have
failed by plate end debonding is first presented. This dat-
abase was carefully constructed from an extensive sur-
vey of the published literature. Both statistical and
graphical comparisons between test results and the pre-
dictions of the debonding strength models are next
presented. A new simple debonding strength model
which is superior to existing models is also proposed.
As was pointed out in the companion paper [1], while
the conclusions reached here are applicable to any beams

0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 0 6 - 7
398 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417
with an FRP plate bonded to the tension face, for simpli-
fication of presentation, only simply supported beams are
explicitly considered in this paper. All the test data in
the published literature which were sufficiently well
documented for present purposes and thus included in
the present database were obtained for simply sup-
ported beams.
2. Experimental data
2.1. Previous databases
The complexity of behavior of FRP-strengthened RC
structures means that test databases are still the sole veri-
fication tool for the reliability of a strength model. As a
result, a number of previous attempts have been made
to develop test databases for simply supported RC beams
strengthened with a soffit FRP plate. These are reviewed
below to provide a proper context for the present data-
base.
Bonacci [5] reported a database of 64 test results gath-
ered from 10 studies for FRP-strengthened RC beams.
These beams failed by various modes such as plate end
debonding, FRP rupture, concrete crushing and beam
shear failure. Bonacci [5] examined trends of certain
parameters using these test results, including percentages
of occurrence of various failure modes as a function of
geometric and material properties of the RC beam and
the FRP plate. The different types of debonding failures
as discussed in the companion paper [1] were not ident-
ified and were therefore lumped into a single category.
Raoof and Hassanen [6] compared the performance of
their two “tooth” models for FRP-plated beams using
test results of such beams which supposedly failed by
cover separation. Their “tooth” models, as reviewed in
the companion paper, are for the prediction of concrete
cover separation failures. The database, however,
included FRP-plated beams reported to have failed by
concrete crushing and FRP rupture in the original
sources. In addition, the database included beams
bonded with plates with end anchorage or anchored
under the supports and beams cracked by preloading.
The suitability of this database is questionable for
assessing their tooth models which are only applicable
to concrete cover separation failures.
More recently, Mukhopadhyaya and Swamy [7]
assembled a database consisting of steel, GFRP and
CFRP-plated RC beams that were reported to have failed
by plate end debonding. The peak interfacial shear and
normal stresses at the plate end under the debonding load
were determined for these beams using the analytical
solution of Roberts [8]. A new approach for determining
the interfacial shear stress was also presented by Mukho-
padhyaya and Swamy [7] and compared with Roberts’
method [8]. Various geometric and material properties
of the RC beam and the FRP plate were investigated to
examine their effect on the interfacial stresses. Inspec-
tion of the data used in their paper revealed that the data-
base included beams bonded with plates with end
anchorage (e.g. U-jacket) as well as beams cracked by
preloading. In addition, some of the beams included in
the database were reported to have failed by intermediate
crack induced interfacial debonding in the original
source. These shortcomings of the database may have
affected the accuracy of the conclusions reached in
their study.
2.2. Selection criteria for constructing a new test
database
In this paper a carefully prepared experimental datab-
ase is presented which was assembled with clear selec-
tion criteria. For inclusion in this database, the following
requirements must be met: (a) failure of the beam was
by plate end debonding; (b) the FRP plate was neither
prestressed nor anchored in any form at its ends; (c) the
beam never experienced loading before being loaded to
debonding failure; and (d) sufficient details for various
geometric and material parameters were provided to
enable the results to be used with confidence. An exten-
sive search of the existing literature with these selection
criteria resulted in a database of 59 results from 14 stud-
ies as given in Appendix A. This database, based on its
specific selection criteria, is much larger than that used
in developing any of the existing debonding strength
models for FRP-strengthened RC beams and any of
those reviewed above, and provides a solid basis for
assessing the performance of all existing debonding
strength models. Criterion (c) above was used for con-
sistency in the database as the vast majority of tests were
conducted on beams without any preloading. Limited
research on beams preloaded to cracking and then com-
pletely unloaded before plate bonding appears to suggest
that such preloading has little effect on the plate end
debonding load [9]. This aspect should be carefully
investigated in further research but is beyond the scope
of the present study. A few tests on beams with FRP
plates bonded under sustained loading have also been
carried out [9], but no conclusion can yet be drawn from
these tests.
2.3. New test database
The test data in the new database has been grouped
into three sets, the first set for failure by concrete cover
separation (Tables 7–9) (44 results), the second set for
failure by plate end interfacial debonding (Tables 10–
12) (8 results), and the third set for failure by a mixed
concrete cover separation and interfacial debonding
mode (Tables 13–15) (7 results). An example of such
mixed mode debonding is shown in Fig. 1 [18]. All col-
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417
Fig. 1. FRP-plated RC beam: debonding in a mixed mode (plate end interfacial debonding in combination with concrete cover separation).
lected test results are for simply supported beams rec-
tangular in cross-section, conventionally reinforced,
loaded in three or four point bending, and strengthened
with a glass or a carbon FRP soffit plate. Aramid FRP
was not used in any of the tests.
Tables 7, 10 and 13 give the RC beam details where
bc, h, ds, dsc, f ⬘c, fcu, Ec, and fct denote the width of RC
beam, overall depth of RC beam, distance from beam
compression face to centroid of steel tension reinforce-
ment, distance from beam compression face to centroid
of steel compression reinforcement, concrete cylinder
compressive strength, concrete cube compressive
strength, modulus of elasticity of concrete, and concrete
cylinder splitting tensile strength respectively. Tables 8,
11 and 14 define the reinforcement properties where
Es, Esc and Eyv denote the moduli of elasticity of the
steel tension reinforcement, steel compression reinforce-
ment, and steel shear reinforcement (stirrups only)
respectively while fys, fyc and fyv denote the correspond-
ing yield strengths and As, Asc and Asv the corresponding
cross-sectional areas. Also in Tables 8, 11 and 14, s rep-
resents the spacing of the steel stirrups. Tables 9, 12
and 15 define the FRP geometric and material properties
where Ea, ta, Efrp, ffrp, tfrp, bfrp and a denote the modulus
of elasticity of adhesive, thickness of adhesive layer,
modulus of elasticity of FRP, tensile strength of FRP in
the main fiber direction, FRP thickness, FRP width, and
the distance from the support to the nearer end of the
soffit plate. Tables 9, 12 and 15 also give the details of
the loading configuration and the failure load where B,
L, and Vexp represent the distance from the support to
the nearer applied load, the span of the beam, and the
experimental shear force at the plate end to cause
debonding.
399
2.4. Assumptions for geometric and material
properties
Many of the references on FRP-plated RC beams
reviewed for possible inclusion in the database could not
be used. Often the failure mode was poorly reported
and/or important geometric and material properties of
the RC beam, the FRP plate, or the adhesive layer omit-
ted. Only those tests with the failure mode sufficiently
well described and important material and geometric
properties adequately reported could be included in the
database. The only geometric and material properties
assumed in the database, if not specified in the original
source, are depth of concrete cover which is assumed be
10% of the overall beam depth which is similar to the
average of the different cover depths used for other
beams in the database, elastic modulus of adhesive,
thickness of adhesive layer, and modulus of elasticity
of steel reinforcement (200 GPa). The ACI code [22]
expressions for the elastic modulus of concrete Ec (in
MPa) and the splitting tensile strength of concrete fct (in
MPa) were adopted which are related to the concrete
cylinder compressive strength f ⬘c (in MPa) as follows
Ec⫽4730冑f ⬘c
(1)
fct⫽0.53冑f ⬘c (2)
For beams with only the concrete cube compressive
strength fcu reported, the concrete cylinder strength was
taken to be 0.8fcu [21].
For beams with pultruded plates, the adhesive layer
thickness was sometimes not reported. In such cases, the
thickness of the adhesive layer was assumed to be 2 mm,
400 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417
a value similar to the average of those reported for the
remaining beams with pultruded plates (an average of
1.88 mm from 32 tests). This is believed to be the most
rational approach one can take without having to exclude
these test data from the database, and to have minimized
errors due to this assumed adhesive layer thickness. This
assumption may be further justified by noting that any
model which is overly sensitive to adhesive layer thick-
ness is unlikely to be suitable as design models as
adhesive layer thicknesses are difficult to control on site
and have been found to have a limited effect on test
debonding loads [4,26,27].
For beams strengthened with FRP plates constructed
in a wet lay-up process, more uncertainty exists. For
many of the tests reported on such beams, the thickness
of the FRP plate vs the thickness of the adhesive, was
generally not available. Although in a small number of
cases, both the fiber sheet thickness alone tsheet and the
gross thickness of the fiber sheet plus the applied
adhesive tfrp,g were given, only the sheet thickness
tsheet was given in most cases. For the former cases, the
adhesive layer thickness and FRP plate thickness were
worked out using the following formulas for a single
layer of FRP:
tfrp,g−tsheet
ta⫽
2
tfrp⫽ta⫹tsheet
based on the assumptions that the sheet sits in the middle
of the adhesive, and the sheet and the outside adhesive
form the plate (Fig. 2). For the latter cases, ta was
assumed to be 0.42 mm based on measurements of plate
samples formed from carbon fiber sheets by wet lay-up
in the authors’ laboratory, and the FRP plate thickness,
tfrp, was worked out from Eq. (4) for a single layer of
FRP. For cases where the FRP plate was formed from
a number of layers, the total plate thickness was found
by multiplying the single layer thickness by the number
of layers by assuming that the adhesive thickness
between two sheets is ta. The above rational process is
believed to have minimized the effect of uncertainty in
the existing test data. Furthermore, any debonding
strength model that is overly sensitive to this uncertainty
is unlikely to be suitable for design use for a wet lay-
up process as adhesive and plate thicknesses are difficult
to control on site or to define for calculations. Due to
this additional uncertainty with wet lay-up plates, test
Fig. 2. Wet lay-up plate thickness.
data of beams with wet lay-up plates and those with pul-
truded plates are appropriately differentiated from each
other in comparisons.
In addition, the elastic modulus of the adhesive was
not reported in many studies. For these cases, the elastic
modulus was assumed to be 8500 MPa, a value close to
the average of the values reported for the other cases of
the database (an average of 8697 MPa from 37 tests).
Again, this is a rational approach, and is not expected
to compromise the usefulness of the database.
3. Theoretical ultimate moment capacity
In assessing the debonding strength models, the theor-
etical ultimate moment capacity of the plated section
without considering the possibility of debonding is used
as a reference value. In this study, this ultimate moment
capacity was evaluated using the design equations given
in Teng et al. [28]. These equations were developed
within the framework of the Bristish code for concrete
design [29], assuming that the beam fails by either FRP
rupture or concrete crushing without premature failure
due to debonding. The common assumption of plane sec-
tions remaining plane was made in developing these
(3) equations. A key difference between a normal RC sec-
tion and an FRP-plated RC section is that the FRP is a
(4) linear–elastic–brittle material, so when failure occurs by
FRP rupture, the concrete is likely to have not reached
its design ultimate strain which according to BS 8110 is
equal to 0.0035. As a result, the simplified rectangular
stress block of the code [29] for the compression con-
crete is not valid. Instead, the idealized stress–strain
curve for concrete as recommended by BS 8110 was
explicitly included in these design equations. All partial
safety factors were set to unity for the present purpose.
4. Statistical comparisons of debonding strength
models
4.1. General
Tables 1–6 present the statistical characteristics of the
test-to-predicted debonding strength ratios for all 12
debonding strength models reviewed in the companion
paper [1]. Tables 1–6 are respectively for concrete cover
separation results alone, and all test results combined
(concrete cover separation, plate end interfacial debond-
ing and mixed mode debonding). Tables 1 and 4 are for
pultruded and wet lay-up plates combined, Tables 2 and
5 for pultruded plates alone, and Tables 3 and 6 for wet
lay-up plates only. A separate statistical analysis was not
undertaken for either the plate end interfacial debonding
results (8 results) or the mixed mode debonding results
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417 401

Table 1
Test-to-predicted debonding strength ratios for failure by concrete cover separation: pultruded and wet lay-up plates

Standard Coefficient of Percentage of No. of

Category Model Average
deviation variation exceedence tests

Shear capacity based models Oehlers [36] 2.35 0.49 21% 0.3% 44
Jansze [30] 1.50 0.45 30% 13% 39
Ahmed and van Gemert [14] 1.15 0.25 21% 27% 39
New model (Vdb,end=1.4Vc) 1.67 0.35 21% 2.8% 44
New model (Vdb,end=1.5Vc) 1.56 0.33 21% 4.4% 44
Concrete tooth models Raoof and Zhang: Lower [37] 1.47 0.52 36% 19% 44
Raoof and Zhang: Upper [37] 1.06 0.31 29% 43% 44
Wang and Ling: Lower [33] 1.20 0.35 29% 28% 44
Wang and Ling: Upper [33] 0.88 0.16 18% 78% 44
Raoof and Hassanen I: Lower [6] 1.61 0.65 41% 18% 44
Raoof and Hassanen I: Upper [6] 1.13 0.43 38% 38% 44
Raoof and Hassanen II: Lower [6] 1.57 0.60 38% 17% 44
Raoof and Hassanen II: Upper [6] 1.09 0.35 32% 40% 44
Interfacial stress based models Ziraba et al. I [34] 4.89 3.64 74% 14% 44
Ziraba et al. II [34] 1.63 0.55 34% 13% 44
Varastehpour and Hamelin [35] 0.59 0.20 34% 98% 44
Saadatmanesh and Malek [31] 3.24 2.83 87% 21% 39
Tumialan et al. [32] 1.83 1.28 70% 26% 39

Table 2
Test-to-predicted debonding strength ratios for failure by concrete cover separation: pultruded plates only

Standard Coefficient of Percentage of No. of

Category Model Average
deviation variation exceedence tests

Shear capacity based models Oehlers [36] 2.09 0.27 13% 0% 25

Jansze [30] 1.21 0.35 29% 27% 23
Ahmed and van Gemert [14] 1.06 0.23 22% 40% 23
New model (Vdb,end=1.4Vc) 1.48 0.18 12% 0.4% 25
New model (Vdb,end=1.5Vc) 1.38 0.17 12% 1.2% 25
Concrete tooth models Raoof and Zhang: Lower [37] 1.32 0.38 28% 19% 25
Raoof and Zhang: Upper [37] 0.95 0.26 27% 58% 25
Wang and Ling: Lower [33] 1.12 0.27 24% 32% 25
Wang and Ling: Upper [33] 0.81 0.13 16% 93% 25
Raoof and Hassanen I: Lower [6] 1.41 0.36 25% 12% 25
Raoof and Hassanen I: Upper [6] 0.96 0.21 22% 57% 25
Raoof and Hassanen II: Lower [6] 1.43 0.42 30% 16% 25
Raoof and Hassanen II: Upper [6] 0.96 0.23 24% 57% 25
Interfacial stress based models Ziraba et al. I [34] 3.54 3.25 92% 22% 25
Ziraba et al. II [34] 1.54 0.45 29% 11% 25
Varastehpour and Hamelin [35] 0.57 0.14 25% 100% 25
Saadatmanesh and Malek [31] 2.99 3.30 110% 27% 23
Tumialan et al. [32] 1.63 1.53 94% 34% 23

(7 results) alone due to the small number of such test
results available.
It should be noted that the models of Jansze [30],
Ahmed and van Gemert [14], Saadatmanesh and Malek
[31] and Tumialan et al. [32] cannot be used for plates
terminated at the support. These limitations account for
the smaller number of test data used to assess these mod-
els (Tables 1–6).
It should also be noted that many of the upper bound
predictions and a few of the lower bound predictions of
debonding moments by the tooth models [6,33,37]
exceed the theoretical moment capacities of beams with-
out considering the possibility of debonding. For such
beams, these theoretical moment capacities instead of the
predicted debonding moments were used for compari-
sons with test data, as has been previously done for these
models (e.g. [6]).
Of the 12 debonding strength models, model I of Zir-
aba et al. [34] and Varastehpour and Hamelin’s model
[35] are for plate end interfacial debonding only. All the
concrete tooth models are for cover separation only,
while the remainder of the interfacial stress based mod-
402 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417

Table 3
Test-to-predicted debonding strength ratios for failure by concrete cover separation: wet lay-up plates only

Standard Coefficient of Percentage of No. of

Category Model Average
deviation variation exceedence tests

Shear capacity based models Oehlers [36] 2.69 0.51 19% 0% 19

Jansze [30] 1.91 0.18 9.7% 0% 16
Ahmed and van Gemert [14] 1.28 0.21 16% 9.3% 16
New model (Vdb,end=1.4Vc) 1.92 0.36 19% 0.6% 19
New model (Vdb,end=1.5Vc) 1.79 0.34 19% 1.0% 19
Concrete tooth models Raoof and Zhang: Lower [37]] 1.66 0.63 38% 15% 19
Raoof and Zhang: Upper [37] 1.20 0.33 27% 28% 19
Wang and Ling: Lower [33] 1.30 0.41 32% 24% 19
Wang and Ling: Upper [33] 0.97 0.15 15% 57% 19
Raoof and Hassanen I: Lower [6] 1.87 0.85 46% 15% 19
Raoof and Hassanen I: Upper [6] 1.35 0.54 40% 26% 19
Raoof and Hassanen II: Lower [6] 1.76 0.74 42% 15% 19
Raoof and Hassanen II: Upper [6] 1.25 0.41 33% 27% 19
Interfacial stress based models Ziraba et al. I [34] 6.67 3.43 51% 4.9% 19
Ziraba et al. II [34] 1.74 0.66 38% 13% 19
Varastehpour and Hamelin [35] 0.60 0.26 43% 93% 19
Saadatmanesh and Malek [31] 3.59 2.02 56% 9.9% 16
Tumialan et al. [32] 2.10 0.76 36% 7.4% 16

Table 4
Test-to-predicted debonding strength ratios for all plate end failures: pultruded and wet lay-up plates

Standard Coefficient of Percentage of No. of

Category Model Average
deviation variation exceedence tests

Shear capacity based models Oehlers [36] 2.25 0.53 24% 1.0% 59
Jansze [30] 1.41 0.46 33% 19% 54
Ahmed and van Gemert [14] 1.08 0.29 27% 40% 53
New model (Vdb,end=1.4Vc) 1.60 0.38 24% 5.8% 59
New model (Vdb,end=1.5Vc) 1.49 0.36 24% 8.3% 59
Concrete tooth models Raoof and Zhang: Lower [37] 1.44 0.48 33% 18% 59
Raoof and Zhang: Upper [37] 1.04 0.28 27% 44% 59
Wang and Ling: Lower [33] 1.14 0.34 30% 34% 59
Wang and Ling: Upper [33] 0.87 0.16 19% 79% 59
Raoof and Hassanen I: Lower [6] 1.55 0.59 38% 18% 59
Raoof and Hassanen I: Upper [6] 1.09 0.38 35% 41% 59
Raoof and Hassanen II: Lower [6] 1.49 0.55 37% 18% 59
Raoof and Hassanen II: Upper [6] 1.05 0.32 31% 44% 59
Interfacial stress based models Ziraba et al. I [34] 4.36 3.43 79% 16% 59
Ziraba et al. II [34] 1.57 0.52 33% 14% 59
Varastehpour and Hamelin [35] 0.57 0.19 33% 99% 59
Saadatmanesh and Malek [31] 2.75 2.59 94% 25% 54
Tumialan et al. [32] 1.58 1.20 76% 32% 54

els and all the shear capacity based models appear to be
suitable for both cover separation and plate end interfa-
cial debonding, although their applicability to plate end
interfacial debonding has not been found to be clearly
stated in the descriptions of these models.
4.2. Concrete cover separation: better models
The statistically better performing models for concrete
cover separation failures, based on the results given in
Tables 1–3 and in terms of providing safe and close pre-
dictions, are given by Oehlers [36], Ziraba et al. (model
II) [34], Jansze [30], Raoof and Zhang (lower bound
predictions) [37] and Raoof and Hassanen (lower bound
predictions of both of their models) [6].
For the combined data of pultruded plates and wet
lay-up plates (Table 1), the most un-conservative of the
better performing models is Raoof and Zhang’s model
[37] which provides an 81 percentile lower bound (i.e.
19% of exceedence), while the most conservative is that
given by Oehlers [36] which has a percentage of exceed-
ence being 0.3%. Oehlers’ model [36] also shows the
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417 403

Table 5
Test-to-predicted debonding strength ratios for all plate end failures: pultruded plates only

Standard Coefficient of Percentage of No. of

Category Model Average
deviation variation exceedence tests

Shear capacity based models Oehlers [36] 2.00 0.32 16% 0.1% 37
Jansze [30] 1.15 0.31 27% 31% 35
Ahmed and van Gemert [14] 0.99 0.28 28% 52% 34
New model (Vdb,end=1.4Vc) 1.41 0.22 16% 3.0% 37
New model (Vdb,end=1.5Vc) 1.32 0.21 16% 6.0% 37
Concrete tooth models Raoof and Zhang: Lower [37] 1.31 0.35 27% 19% 37
Raoof and Zhang: Upper [37] 0.95 0.23 24% 59% 37
Wang and Ling: Lower [33] 1.06 0.27 26% 42% 37
Wang and Ling: Upper [33] 0.81 0.13 16% 92% 37
Raoof and Hassanen I: Lower [6] 1.39 0.34 25% 13% 37
Raoof and Hassanen I: Upper [6] 0.96 0.20 21% 58% 37
Raoof and Hassanen II: Lower [6] 1.38 0.38 28% 16% 37
Raoof and Hassanen II: Upper [6] 0.94 0.21 22% 61% 37
Interfacial stress based models Ziraba et al. I [34] 3.06 2.82 92% 23% 37
Ziraba et al. II [34] 1.46 0.41 28% 13% 37
Varastehpour and Hamelin [35] 0.57 0.14 25% 100% 37
Saadatmanesh and Malek [31] 2.37 2.83 119% 31% 35
Tumialan et al. [32] 1.34 1.32 99% 40% 35

Table 6
Test-to-predicted debonding strength ratios for all plate end failures: wet lay-up plates only

Standard Coefficient of Percentage of No. of

Category Model Average
deviation variation exceedence tests

Shear capacity based models Oehlers [36] 2.68 0.55 21% 0.1% 22
Jansze [30] 1.89 0.26 14% 0% 19
Ahmed and van Gemert [14] 1.24 0.24 19% 16% 19
New model (Vdb,end=1.4Vc) 1.91 0.39 21% 1.0% 22
New model (Vdb,end=1.5Vc) 1.78 0.37 21% 1.6% 22
Concrete tooth models Raoof and Zhang: Lower [37] 1.65 0.59 36% 13% 22
Raoof and Zhang: Upper [37] 1.20 0.30 25% 26% 22
Wang and Ling: Lower [33] 1.28 0.40 31% 25% 22
Wang and Ling: Upper [33] 0.97 0.16 17% 58% 22
Raoof and Hassanen I: Lower [6] 1.80 0.81 45% 16% 22
Raoof and Hassanen I: Upper [6] 1.31 0.51 39% 27% 22
Raoof and Hassanen II: Lower [6] 1.69 0.71 42% 17% 22
Raoof and Hassanen II: Upper [6] 1.22 0.40 32% 29% 22
Interfacial stress based models Ziraba et al. I [34] 6.55 3.28 50% 4.5% 22
Ziraba et al. II [34] 1.75 0.63 36% 12% 22
Varastehpour and Hamelin [35] 0.58 0.25 43% 95% 22
Saadatmanesh and Malek [31] 3.45 1.95 57% 10% 19
Tumialan et al. [32] 2.01 0.77 38% 9.4% 19

least scatter based on the coefficient of variation, fol-
lowed by Jansze’s model [30]. The predictions of both
models of Raoof and Hassanen (lower bound
predictions) [6] are seen to be the most scattered, with
coefficients of variation being about 40%.
If pultruded plates are examined alone (Table 2), the
same 6 models already identified above remain the better
ones. Predictions by Oehlers’ model [36] remain the
most conservative and least scattered. For these beams,
the predictions of this model are conservative in all
cases. The degree of scatter now does not vary too much
among the other better performing models, with coef-
ficients of variation in the range of 22%–30%. Jansze’s
model [30] is the most un-conservative for these beams,
with a percentage of exceedence being 27%.
If wet lay-up plates are examined alone (Table 3),
Jansze’s model [30] becomes the best performing model,
with the lowest coefficient of variation (9.7%) and con-
servative predictions for all cases. Oehlers’ model [36] is
also conservative for all cases and has the second lowest
coefficient of variation. The rest of the better performing
models all show a high degree of scatter with coefficients
404 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417
of variation being in the range of 38%–46%, with the
percentages of exceedence being either 13% or 15%.
Based on the statistical characteristics given in Tables
1–3, it can be concluded that Oehlers’ model [36] is the
best performing model in terms of providing safe and
reliable predictions, although it may be considered
overly conservative as indicated by its relatively high
average ratios between the test and predicted debonding
loads (Tables 1–3).
4.3. Concrete cover separation: poorer models
The models of Raoof and Zhang (upper bound
predictions) [37], Varastehpour and Hamelin [35], Saa-
daatmanesh and Malek [31], Wang and Ling (both lower
and upper bound predictions) [33], Ahmed and van
Gemert [14], Tumialan et al. [32], Raoof and Hassanen’s
(upper bound predictions) [6], and model I of Ziraba et
al. [34] are identified to be the worse performing models
in terms of giving close and safe predictions (Tables
1–3).
When the combined data for the two types of plates
are examined (Table 1), Varastehpour and Hamelin’s
model [35] suffers from great un-conservativeness with
the percentage of exceedence being 98% which means
that its predictions are un-conservative in almost all
cases. On the other hand, Ziraba et al.’s model I [34]
suffers from a great scatter, with its coefficient of vari-
ation being 74%. These two models developed for plate
end interfacial debonding are thus not suitable for cover
separation failures as can be expected. The upper bound
predictions of all tooth models are unsafe as they are
expected to be. The interfacial stress based cover separ-
ation models of Saadaatmanesh and Malek [31] and
Tumialan et al. [32] suffer from great scatters, with Saa-
daatmanesh and Malek’s model [31] having the highest
coefficient of variation of all models (87%). The model
of Ahmed and van Gemert [14] and the lower bound
predictions of Wang and Ling’s model [33] show more
reasonable performance.
When the worse performing models are examined
using the data for pultruded plates (Table 2) and those
for wet lay-up plates (Table 3) separately, the models
are found to perform differently for the two types of
plates. Ahmed and van Gemert’s model [14] based on
the shear capacity approach, which was modified from
Jansze’s model [30], is rather un-conservative for pul-
truded plates (Table 2) as evidenced by the high percent-
ages of exceedence, but is satisfactory for wet lay-up
plates alone (Table 3). The worse performing tooth mod-
els generally show greater scatters (except the upper
bound predictions of Wang and Ling’s model) but
reduced percentages of exceedence for wet lay-up plates
than for pultruded plates but they are still too un-con-
servative for design use for wet lay-up plates. Of the
interfacial stress based models, Varastehpour and Hame-
lin’s model [35] performs worse for wet lay-up plates
than for pultruded plates as the percentages of exceed-
ence are similar for the two types of plates, but the
degree of scatter is greater for the former. The other
interfacial stress based models show much better per-
formance for wet lay-up plates, with both the coefficient
of variation and the percentage of exceedence substan-
tially reduced from those for pultruded plates. In fact for
wet lay-up plates, Tumialan et al.’s model [32] and Zir-
aba et al.’s model I [34] are comparable to some of the
better performing models.
4.4. All test results
The statistical performance of all 12 models as
assessed using all the test results in the database which
includes 8 results for plate end interfacial debonding and
another 7 results for mixed mode debonding is shown
in Tables 4–6. Twelve of these fifteen results are for
pultruded plates with only three for wet lay-up plates.
The inclusion of these additional results has no or very
limited effect on the statistical characteristics of the
models, with some showing a small deterioration in per-
formance (e.g. Oehlers’ model). The better and worse
performing models for all plate end debonding failures
combined, based on the statistics in Tables 4–6, are the
same as those for concrete cover separation (Tables 1–3).
It should be noted that one of the predictions by
Ahmed and van Gemert’s model [14] is in fact negative
([25], Beam B7, Tables 13–15, mixed mode failure) and
was therefore neglected from both the statistical analyses
(Tables 4 and 5) presented here and the graphical com-
parison presented in the next section. Geometrical and/or
material limits appear to exist for Ahmed and van
Gemert’s model [14], which were not stated in the orig-
inal source.
5. Graphical comparisons of debonding strength
models
5.1. General
More illustrative comparisons of the test data with all
of the debonding strength models are given in Figs. 3–
14, where the test data are differentiated based on both
plate types and failure modes. In these figures, Mu is the
theoretical ultimate moment capacity of the plated sec-
tion without the influence of debonding, Mexp is the
maximum experimental moment in the beam at debond-
ing, and Mdb is the corresponding debonding moment
predicted by the debonding strength models. The aver-
ages of the test-to-predicted debonding strength ratios
are shown for all failure modes lumped together
(concrete cover separation, plate end interfacial debond-
ing and mixed mode debonding), and concrete cover sep-
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417
Fig. 3. Test results vs predictions of Oehlers’ model [36].
aration alone, without distinction between pultruded and
wet lay-up plates.
The illustrative comparison of results is presented in
order of the classification of the model as given in the
companion paper [1]. Such order is given by (a) shear
capacity based models, namely those of Oehlers [36]
(Fig. 3), Jansze [30] (Fig. 4), and Ahmed and van
Gemert [14] (Fig. 5), (b) concrete tooth models, namely
those of Raoof and Zhang (both lower and upper bound
predictions) [37] (Fig. 6), Wang and Ling (both lower
and upper bound predictions) [33] (Fig. 7), Raoof and
Hassanen (model I, both lower and upper bound
predictions) [6] (Fig. 8), and Raoof and Hassanen (model
II, both lower and upper bound predictions) [6] (Fig. 9),
and (c) interfacial stress based models, namely those of
Fig. 4. Test results vs predictions of Jansze’s model [30].
405
Fig. 5. Test results vs predictions of Ahmed and van Gemert’s
model. [14].
Ziraba et al. (model I) [34] (Fig. 10), Ziraba et al. (model
II) [34] (Fig. 11), Varastehpour and Hamelin [35] (Fig.
12), Saadatmanesh and Malek [31] (Fig. 13), and Tumia-
lan et al. [32] (Fig. 14).
5.2. Shear capacity based models
Oehlers’ model [36] (Fig. 3) is more conservative for
wet lay-up plates than for pultruded plates. Concrete
cover failures are also generally more conservatively
predicted than plate end interfacial debonding failures.
Oehlers’ model [36] is overly conservative, as even the
lowest test result is about 40% higher than the prediction
from this model.
Jansze’s model [30] (Fig. 4) is also more conservative
for wet lay-up plates than for pultruded plates. Its predic-
tions are also more conservative for cover separation
alone than for all plate end failures combined. Many test
results are lower than predictions from this model, with
the lowest test result being about 65% of the prediction.
However, the predictions are safe for wet lay-up plates
alone.
Predictions from Ahmed and van Gemert’s model [14]
are unsafe for all failure modes and both plate types
(Fig. 5).
5.3. Concrete tooth models
Fig. 6 shows that for both Raoof and Zhang’s lower
[37] (Fig. 6a) and upper (Fig. 6b) bound predictions, no
clear patterns appear to exist for different plate types
and failure modes. Furthermore, the averages of test-to-
predicted debonding strength ratios for concrete cover
separation and all plate end failures combined are simi-
lar. Therefore, the fact that the model was developed for
406 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417
Fig. 6. (a) Test results vs predictions of Raoof and Zhang’s model:
lower bound [37]. (b) Test results vs predictions of Raoof and Zhang’s
model: upper bound [37].
cover separation only is not consistent with its perform-
ance shown in Fig. 6. The model suffers from over pre-
dictions which exist regardless of failure modes or plate
types, although the lower bound predictions are un-con-
servative only for a limited number of cases.
Wang and Ling’s lower bound predictions [33] (Fig.
7a) are generally more conservative for concrete cover
separation and mixed mode debonding than for plate end
interfacial debonding. Most of the upper bound predic-
tions of Wang and Ling’s model [33] (Fig. 7b) are higher
than the theoretical ultimate moment capacity of the sec-
tion without debonding. As a result, the ultimate moment
capacities are shown in Fig. 7b for such beams, and these
Fig. 7. (a) Test results vs predictions of Wang and Ling’s model:
lower bound [33]. (b) Test results vs predictions of Wang and Ling’s
model: upper bound [33].
lead to an apparent trend which however should not be
mistaken as any measure of the reliability of the model.
The predictions for all failure modes and both plate
types are scattered for both models of Raoof and Has-
sanen (both lower and upper bound predictions) [6]
(Figs. 8 and 9). For a few beams with wet lay-up plates,
both the lower and upper bound predictions from these
two models are very conservative. The upper bound pre-
dictions of both models are lower than the test results
for many cases. The lower bound predictions give sig-
nificantly unsafe predictions only for two test results. It
should be noted that some of the upper bound predictions
of both models of Raoof and Hassanen (Figs. 8b and 9b)
[6] exceed the theoretical ultimate moment capacity of
the plated section without debonding. For these beams,
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417
Fig. 8. (a) Test results vs predictions of Raoof and Hassanen’s model
I: lower bound [6]. (b) Test results versus predictions of Raoof and
Hassanen’s model I: upper bound [6].
the theoretical ultimate moment capacities are again
shown in Figs. 8b and 9b.
5.4. Interfacial stress based models
The predictions of Ziraba et al.’s model I [34] are
clearly very widely scattered (Fig. 10) for cover separ-
ation failures. Its performance for its intended failure
mode of plate end interfacial debonding is substantially
better and generally conservative, with the scatter being
much smaller. It also shows reasonable performance
when compared with test data of mixed mode debond-
ing. The model appears to be more suitable for pultruded
407
Fig. 9. (a) Test results vs predictions of Raoof and Hassanen’s model
II: lower bound [6]. (b) Test results vs predictions of Raoof and Has-
sanen’s model II: upper bound [6].
plates, as for both plate end interfacial and mixed mode
debonding, the two very conservative predictions are for
wet lay-up plates. This may be attributed to the fact that
the model was based on test results of beams bonded
with steel plates, which resemble more beams bonded
with FRP pultruded plates than those with wet lay-up
plates.
Predictions of Ziraba et al.’s model II [34] (Fig. 11)
are less scattered than those of Ziraba et al.’s model I
[34] but are very unsafe for 5 cases, raising doubt about
the reliability of the model. For all other cases, test
results are conservatively predicted. For concrete cover
separation failures, Ziraba et al.’s model II [34] provides
more conservative predictions for beams with wet lay-
up plates than for those with pultruded plates. All plate
408 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417
Fig. 10. Test results vs predictions of Ziraba et al.’s model I [34].
Fig. 11. Test results vs predictions of Ziraba et al.’s model II [34].
end interfacial debonding failures are closely predicted.
It is interesting to note that for plate end interfacial
debonding, their model II provides better predictions
than their model I developed specifically for plate end
interfacial debonding (Fig. 10).
All of Varastehpour and Hamelin’s [35] predictions
(Fig. 12) have a ratio of Mexp to Mdb below 1.0 and are
therefore un-conservative. The predictions are also scat-
tered for all failure modes and both plate types.
Both Saadatmanesh and Malek [31] (Fig. 13) and
Tumialan et al.’s [32] (Fig. 14) results are widely scat-
tered. They both provide conservative predictions when
only beams with wet lay-up plates are considered. For
beams with pultruded plates, about half of the predic-
tions from these two models are un-conservative. In
Fig. 12. Test results vs predictions of Varastehpour and Hamelin’s
model [35].
Fig. 13. Test results vs predictions of Saadatmanesh and Malek’s
model [31].
particular, for beams with the plate terminated at the sup-
port, Saadatmanesh and Malek [31] and Tumialan et al.’s
models [32] predict debonding loads which are unrealist-
ically high. This is due to the fact that even though the
interfacial shear stress t and normal sy stress at the plate
end are non-zero, the longitudinal stress at the base of
the beam sx is zero. Without the influence of sx in
determining the maximum principal stress, the load
required to achieve a principal stress equal to the failure
criterion of concrete becomes unrealistically high.
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417
Fig. 14. Test results vs predictions of Tumialan et al.’s model [32].
6. A simple new model
6.1. Oehlers’ model
Of the six better performing models, Oehlers’ model
[36] is the only one which gives safe but overly con-
servative predictions for design use when either cover
separation data are examined alone or when all test data
are considered together (Tables 1–6), despite the fact
that it was developed for steel plated RC beams. It also
generally has the smallest scatter so a new model is
therefore proposed here by modifying Oehlers’ model
[36]. It is also worth noting that of the six better per-
forming models, three of them [30,34,36] relate the
debonding strength to the shear strength of concrete in
an RC beam, while the other three are concrete tooth
models from the same group with only small differences
from each other. The shear capacity based approach
independently proposed by three different groups
appears to be a promising approach, which is another
reason for building a new model on the basis of Oehlers’
model [36]. Oehlers’ model [36] is given by Eqs. (1)–
(3) in the companion paper.
6.2. A simple new model
In Fig. 15, Eq. (3) of the companion paper is plotted
against the test data of FRP-plated beams where the test
data are differentiated based on failure by either concrete
cover separation, plate end interfacial debonding, and
mixed mode debonding. In addition, eight test results
from Ross et al. [38] (Tables 16–18) are shown on this
plot for beams which were reported to have failed by
plate end interfacial debonding in the adhesive. Further
comments on these results are made later in this section.
409
Fig. 15. Comparison of a new debonding strength model with test
data.
This plot shows that no interaction appears to exist
between the moment and the shear force, and the shear
force at failure is always greater than Vdb,s(Vc) as pre-
dicted by Eq. (2) of the companion paper (Fig. 15). As
a result, the following simple debonding strength model
is proposed
Vdb,end⫽hVc (5)
This equation with h=1.5 and with Vc given by Eq.
(2) of the companion paper provides a 95.6 percentile
lower bound prediction to the cover separation data
(Table 1) and is shown as the dashed line in Fig. 15.
When all plate end failures are considered but with the
test data of Ross et al. [38] excluded, h=1.4 provides a
94.0 percentile lower bound prediction (Table 4) and is
shown as the solid line in Fig. 15. In practical design,
since it is difficult to ascertain whether cover separation
will be the failure mode, Eq. (5) with h=1.4 is rec-
ommended for use to design against all forms of plate
end debonding failures. It is reassuring to note that the
test results of Ross et al. [38], for beams which failed
by plate end interfacial debonding in the adhesive, lie
near or below the lower bound design recommendation.
In practical application, it is important to ensure that
debonding failure occurs in the concrete by proper sur-
face preparation and the use of strong adhesives, other-
wise the present design recommendation can lead to
unsafe predictions.
At this stage, it is necessary to limit the range of appli-
cability of the model to that of the collected data in terms
of the magnitude of the moment at the plate end. It is
suggested that the above proposed model can only be
used when Mdb,end/Muⱕ0.67 as this approximates the
upper limit of the test data. The choice of this ratio as
410 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417

Table 7
Database: concrete cover separationa

Reference Beam designation Concrete beam

bc h ds dsc fc⬘ fcu Ec fct

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

[10] C 152 305 251 0 39.8 49.8c 22754 3.3e

D 152 305 251 0 39.8 49.8c 22754 3.3e
G 152 305 251 0 43.0 53.8c 25512 3.5e
I 152 305 251 0 39.8 49.8c 22754 3.3e
M 152 305 251 0 43.0 53.8c 25512 3.5e
[11] B2 100 100 84 16 42.4b 53.0 34000 3.5e
B4 100 100 84 16 42.4b 53.0 34000 3.5e
B6 100 100 84 16 42.4b 53.0 34000 3.5e
[12] 1Au 100 100 84 16 47.3b 59.1 39900 4.2
1Bu 100 100 84 16 47.3b 59.1 39900 4.2
1B2u 100 100 84 16 47.3b 59.1 39900 4.2
1Cu 100 100 84 16 47.3b 59.1 39900 4.2
2Bu 100 100 84 16 47.3b 59.1 39900 4.2
2Cu 100 100 84 16 47.3b 59.1 39900 4.2
[13] B1u,1.0 100 100 84 16 43.2b 54.0 31089d 3.5e
B2u,1.0 100 100 84 16 43.2b 54.0 31089d 3.5e
B1u,2.3 130 230 206 25 37.6b 47.0 29004d 3.2e
[14] DF.2 125 225 193a 32a 46.0 57.5c 30000 3.6e
DF.3 125 225 193a 32a 46.0 57.5c 30000 3.6e
DF.4 125 225 193a 32a 46.0 57.5c 30000 3.6e
[15] AF3 125 225 193a 32a 46.0 57.5c 30000 3.6e
CF2-1 125 225 193a 32a 46.0 57.5c 30000 3.6e
CF3-1 125 225 193a 32a 46.0 57.5c 30000 3.6e
CF4-1 125 225 193a 32a 46.0 57.5c 30000 3.6e
[16] VR5 120 250 214a 34a 33.6 42.0c 27418d 3.1e
VR6 120 250 214a 34a 33.6 42.0c 27418d 3.1e
VR7 120 250 214a 34a 33.6 42.0c 27418d 3.1e
VR8 120 250 214a 34a 33.6 42.0c 27418d 3.1e
VR9 120 250 214a 34a 33.6 42.0c 27418d 3.1e
VR10 120 250 214a 34a 33.6 42.0c 27418d 3.1e
[17] P2 150 300 257a 0 40.0 50.0c 29915d 3.4e
P3 150 300 257a 0 40.0 50.0c 29915d 3.4e
P4 150 300 257a 0 40.0 50.0c 29915d 3.4e
P5 150 300 257a 0 40.0 50.0c 29915d 3.4e
[18] 2 150 250 205 45 35.4b 44.3 28158d 3.2e
6 150 250 205 45 39.9b 49.9 29885d 3.3e
7 150 250 205 45 37.6b 47.0 29004d 3.2e
[19] A3 150 300 250 0 51.7 64.6c 34010d 3.8e
A8 150 300 250 0 51.7 64.6c 34010d 3.8e
C2 150 300 250 0 51.7 64.6c 34010d 3.8e
[20] A950 120 150 120 34 25.7b 32.1 23970d 2.7e
A1100 120 150 120 34 25.7b 32.1 23970d 2.7e
A1150 120 150 120 34 25.7b 32.1 23970d 2.7e
B2 120 150 120 34 35.7b 44.6 28254d 3.2e

a
Notes: Values followed by lowercase letters have the following meaning. a — cover assumed to be 10% of h; b — converted from cube
strength using f ⬘c=0.8fcu [21]; c — converted from cylinder strength using fcu=f ⬘c/0.8 [21]; d — modulus of elasticity of concrete calculated from
Ec=4730√f ⬘c [22]; e — splitting tensile strength of concrete calculated from fct=0.53√f ⬘c [22].

a parameter means that little extra work is required as
Mu is expected to be calculated in any flexural strength-
ening design. The use of the alternative ratio of
Mdb,end/Mdb,f may be considered with its value limited to
0.78 (Fig. 15), but this would require the extra work of
evaluating Mdb,f. The use of Mdb,end/Mu thus appears to
be preferable unless evidence to the contrary emerges.
6.3. Advantages of the new model
This new model has a number of advantages over all
the models assessed in the previous section and is rec-
ommended for use in design. These include: (a) the new
model was calibrated with a large and reliable test datab-
ase of FRP-strengthened beams and provides a suitable
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417 411

Table 8
Database: concrete cover separationa

Reference Beam designation Reinforcement

Es fys As Reo* Esc fyc Asc Eyv fyv Asv s

(GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (tension) (GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (mm)

[10] C 200f 414 253 2–12.7 0 0 0 200f 414 99 102

D 200f 414 253 2–12.7 0 0 0 200f 414 99 102
G 200f 414 253 2–12.7 0 0 0 200f 414 99 102
I 200f 414 253 2–12.7 0 0 0 200f 414 99 102
M 200f 414 253 2–12.7 0 0 0 200f 414 99 102
[11] B2 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 50
B4 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 50
B6 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 50
[12] 1Au 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51
1Bu 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51
1B2u 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51
1Cu 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51
2Bu 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51
2Cu 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51
[13] B1u,1.0 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51
B2u,1.0 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51
B1u,2.3 220 556 236 3–10 220 556 101 215 350 57 150
[14] DF.2 185 568 151 3–8 195 553 57 195 553 57 100
DF.3 185 568 151 3–8 195 553 57 195 553 57 100
DF.4 185 568 151 3–8 195 553 57 195 553 57 100
[15] AF3 185 568 101 2–8 195 553 57 195 553 57 71
CF2-1 185 568 129 2–8,1–6 195 553 57 195 553 57 71
CF3-1 185 568 151 3-8 195 553 57 195 553 57 71
CF4-1 183 586 207 2–10,1–8 195 553 57 195 553 57 71
[16] VR5 200f 565 157 2–10 200f 738 57 200f 738 57 110
VR6 200f 565 157 2–10 200f 738 57 200f 738 57 110
VR7 200f 565 157 2–10 200f 738 57 200f 738 57 110
VR8 200f 565 157 2–10 200f 738 57 200f 738 57 110
VR9 200f 565 157 2–10 200f 738 57 200f 738 57 110
VR10 200f 565 157 2–10 200f 738 57 200f 738 57 110
[17] P2 200f 500 308 2–14 0 0 0 200f 500 57 140
P3 200f 500 308 2–14 0 0 0 200f 500 57 140
P4 200f 500 308 2–14 0 0 0 200f 500 57 140
P5 200f 500 308 2–14 0 0 0 200f 500 57 140
[18] 2 231 537 157 2–10 231 537 157 231 537 157 100
6 231 537 157 2–10 231 537 157 231 537 157 100
7 231 537 157 2–10 231 537 157 231 537 157 100
[19] A3 207 427 792 4–15.9 0 0 0 207 427 143 125
A8 207 427 792 4–15.9 0 0 0 207 427 143 125
C2 207 427 792 4–15.9 0 0 0 207 427 143 250
[20] A950 200f 384 236 3–10 200f 400 57 200f 400 57 50
A1100 200f 384 236 3–10 200f 400 57 200f 400 57 50
A1150 200f 384 236 3–10 200f 400 57 200f 400 57 50
B2 200f 466 628 2–20 200f 400 57 200f 400 57 50

a
Notes: *Number of tensile steel reinforcing bars and bar diameter (all bars are positioned at the same effective depth ds). Values followed by
lowercase letters have the following meaning. f — modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement assumed to be 200 GPa.

lower bound for design use (Tables 7–15); (b) the new
model is simpler to apply as the shear capacity of the
concrete in the RC beam is either known or has to be
evaluated in flexural strengthening design so little extra
work is required for checking plate end debonding; (c)
in the new model, Vc may be evaluated according to any
national or international design code, and this facilitates
the inclusion of the model in any national code on FRP
strengthening; (d) the new model gives designers a better
intuitive feel of the possibility of plate end debonding
as it is directly related to the shear capacity of the con-
crete in the beam, particularly when steel shear
reinforcement is not present as often is the case for slabs.
Although this new model is the best proposal available
for design use, the predicted debonding strength, being
only 40% higher than the shear capacity of the concrete,
can become a limiting factor to FRP flexural strengthen-
ing of beams. Specialist advice shall be sought and/or
412 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417

Table 9
Database: concrete cover separationa

Beam
Reference Adhesive Soffit plate Loading Vexp (kN)
designation

Ea ta Type Efrp ffrp tfrp bfrp a B L

(MPa) (mm) (k) (GPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

[10] C 8500g 2.0j G–P 11.722 161 4.76 152 203 914 2438 55.4
D 8500g 2.0j G–P 11.722 161 4.76 151 203 914 2438 59.6
G 8500g 2.0j G–P 10.343 184 4.19 152 0 914 2438 62.9
I 8500g 2.0j C/G–P 27.58 319 4.06 150 203 914 2438 50.6
M 8500g 2.0j C–P 117.905 1489 1.27 152 0 914 2438 72.1
[11] B2 11560h 2.0 G–P 49 1078 1.2 80 20 300 900 17.0
B4 11560h 2.0 G–P 49 1078 1.6 60 20 300 900 17.5
B6 11560h 2.0 C–P 118.5 987 1.2 80 20 300 900 20.4
[12] 1Au 11560 2.0 C–P 111 1273 0.5 90 20n 300 900 19.8
1Bu 11560 2.0 C–P 111 1273 0.7 65 20n 300 900 18.3
1B2u 11560 2.0 C–P 111 1273 0.7 65 20n 300 900 18.2
1Cu 11560 2.0 C–P 111 1273 1.0 45 20n 300 900 16.0
2Bu 11560 2.0 C–P 111 1273 0.7 65 20n 340 900 17.0
2Cu 11560 2.0 C–P 111 1273 1.0 45 20n 340 900 17.8
[13] B1u,1.0 8600 2.0 C–P 111 1414 0.82 67 20 300 900 18.3
B2u.1.0 8600 2.0 C–P 111 1414 0.82 67 20 300 900 16.0
B1u,2.3 8600 2.0 C–P 115 1284 1.28 90 40 844 2200 50.2
[14] DF.2 7200 — C–W 240 3500 0.167 (2)m 75 50 500 1500 60.3
DF.3 7200 — C–W 240 3500 0.167 (3)m 75 50 500 1500 60.0
DF.4 7200 — C–W 240 3500 0.167 (4)m 75 50 500 1500 62.8
[15] AF3 7200i — C–W 240 3500 0.167 (2)m 75 100 500 1500 48.3
CF2-1 7200i — C–W 240 3500 0.167 (2)m 75 100 500 1500 52.4
CF3-1 7200i — C–W 240 3500 0.167 (2)m 75 100 500 1500 59.1
CF4-1 7200i — C–W 240 3500 0.167 (2)m 75 100 500 1500 70.1
[16] VR5 8500g — C–W 230 3400 0.11 (4)m 120 75 783 2350 51.1
VR6 8500g — C–W 230 3400 0.11 (4)m 120 75 783 2350 50.3
VR7 8500g — C–W 230 3400 0.11 (7)m 120 75 783 2350 62.1
VR8 8500g — C–W 230 3400 0.11 (7)m 120 75 783 2350 62.0
VR9 8500g — C–W 230 3400 0.11 (10)m 120 75 783 2350 64.8
VR10 8500g — C–W 230 3400 0.11 (10)m 120 75 783 2350 68.5
[17] P2 8500g 1.0 C–P 150 2400 1.2 100 200 933 2800 68.0
P3 8500g 1.0 C–P 150 2400 1.2 100 200 933 2800 71.1
P4 8500g 1.0 C–P 150 2400 2.4 100 200 933 2800 78.0
P5 8500g 1.0 C–P 150 2400 2.4 100 200 933 2800 79.5
[18] 2 3260 0.37 G–W 19.723 259 1.32 150 350 500 1500 53.0
6 3260 0.37 G–W 19.723 259 1.32 150 200 500 1500 63.1
7 3260 0.37 G–W 19.723 259 1.32 150 350 500 1500 53.9
[19] A3 2000 — C–W 230 3400 0.165 (3)m 150 0 1065p 2130 86.1
A8 2000 — C–W 230 3400 0.165 (6)m 75 0 1065p 2130 98.2
C2 2000 — C–W 230 3400 0.165 (3)m 150 0 1065p 2130 79.3
[20] A950 12800 1.5 C–P 181 3140 1.2 80 190 440 1330 28.1
A1100 12800 1.5 C–P 181 3140 1.2 80 115 440 1330 28.7
A1150 12800 1.5 C–P 181 3140 1.2 80 90 440 1330 29.5
B2 12800 1.5 C–P 181 3140 1.2 80 115 440 1330 65.1

a
Notes: Values followed by lowercase letters have the following meaning. g — modulus of elasticity of adhesive assumed to be 8500 MPa;
h — assumed from [12] of the same research group; i — assumed from [15] of the same research group; j — thickness of adhesive layer for
pultruded plates assumed to be 2.0 mm; k — G=GFRP, C=CFRP, P=pultruded plate, W=wet lay-up plate; m — thickness of a single fiber sheet
and number of layers of FRP; n — assumed from [11] and [13] of the same research group; p — three point bending (remaining beams four
point bending).

tests shall be conducted if a more liberal design is 7. Conclusions

desired. Further research is urgently needed to develop
a more accurate debonding strength model to reduce the This paper has presented a large reliable test database
conservativeness of this new model. consisting of 59 test results for plate debonding failures
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417 413

Table 10
Database: plate end interfacial debondinga

Reference Beam designation Concrete beam

bc h ds dsc f ⬘c fcu Ec fct

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

[23] B 205 455 400 55 35.0 43.8c 27983d 3.1e

[11] B3 100 100 84 16 42.4b 53.0 34000 3.5e
[24] SB1 200 300 252a 48a 51.2b 64.0 33845d 3.8e
SB2 200 300 252a 48a 52.0b 65.0 34109d 3.8e
SB3 200 300 252a 48a 52.0b 65.0 34109d 3.8e
MB1 200 300 252a 48a 56.0b 70.0 35396d 4.0e
HB1 200 300 252a 48a 56.0b 70.0 35396d 4.0e
FB1 200 300 252a 48a 51.2b 64.0 33845d 3.8e

a
Notes: Values followed by lowercase letters have the following meaning. a — cover assumed to be 10% of h; b — converted from cube
strength using f ⬘c=0.8fcu [21]; c — converted from cylinder strength using fcu=f ⬘c/0.8 [21]; d — modulus of elasticity of concrete calculated from
Ec=4730√f ⬘c [22]; e — splitting tensile strength of concrete calculated from fct=0.53√f ⬘c [22].

Table 11
Database: plate end interfacial debondinga

Reference Beam designation Reinforcement

Es fys As Reo* Esc fsc Asc Eyv fyv Asv s

(GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (tension) (GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (mm)

[23] B 200f 456 1013 2–25.4 200f 456 253 200f 456 253 150
[11] B3 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 50
[24] SB1 200f 527 402 2–16 200f 527 402 200f 527 157 75
SB2 200f 527 402 2–16 200f 527 402 200f 527 157 75
SB3 200f 527 402 2–16 200f 527 402 200f 527 157 75
MB1 200f 527 402 2–16 200f 527 402 200f 527 157 75
HB1 200f 527 402 2–16 200f 527 402 200f 527 157 75
FB1 200f 527 402 2–16 200f 527 402 200f 527 157 75

a
Notes: *Number of tensile steel reinforcing bars and bar diameter (all bars are positioned at the same effective depth ds). Values followed by
lowercase letters have the following meaning. f — modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement assumed to be 200 GPa.

Table 12
Database: plate end interfacial debondinga

Beam
Reference Adhesive Soffit plate Loading Vexp (kN)
designation

Ea ta Type Efrp ffrp tfrp bfrp a B L

(MPa) (mm) (i) (GPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

[23] B 8500g 1.5 G–P 37.23 400 6.0 152 155 1983 4575 125.0
[11] B3 11560h 2.0 G–P 49 1078 1.2 30 20 300 900 12.3
[24] SB1 8500g 2.1 C–P 155 2400 1.4 120 150 1300 3600 71.4
SB2 8500g 2.4 C–P 155 2400 1.4 120 200 1300 3600 75.5
SB3 8500g 3.0 C–P 155 2400 1.4 120 300 1300 3600 73.9
MB1 8500g 2.4 C–P 210 2000 1.4 120 150 1300 3600 79.6
HB1 8500g 2.1 C–P 300 1400 1.4 100 150 1300 3600 80.1
FB1 8500g 0.4 C–W 95 1800 2.4 150 150 1300 3600 74.4

a
Notes: Values followed by lowercase letters have the following meaning. g — modulus of elasticity of adhesive assumed to be 8500 MPa;
h — assumed from [12] of the same research group; i — G=GFRP, C=CFRP, P=pultruded plate, W=wet lay-up plate.
414 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417

Table 13
Database: mixed mode debondinga

Reference Beam designation Concrete beam

bc h ds dsc f ⬘c fcu Ec fct

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

[12] 2Au 100 100 84 16 47.3b 59.1 39900 4.2

3Au 100 100 84 16 47.3b 59.1 39900 4.2
3Bu 100 100 84 16 47.3b 59.1 39900 4.2
3Cu 100 100 84 16 47.3b 59.1 39900 4.2
[25] B7 75 150 131a 22a 37.0 46.3c 28772d 3.2e
[18] 4 150 250 205 45 36.2b 45.3 28474d 3.45
5 150 250 205 45 40.6b 50.8 30154d 3.4e

a
Notes: Values followed by lowercase letters have the following meaning. a — cover assumed to be 10% of h; b — converted from cube
strength using f ⬘c=0.8fcu [21]; c — converted from cylinder strength using fcu=f ⬘c/0.8 [21]; d — modulus of elasticity of concrete calculated from
Ec=4730√f ⬘c [22]; e — splitting tensile strength of concrete calculated from fct=0.53√f ⬘c [22].

Table 14
Database: mixed mode debondinga

Beam Concrete beam

Reference
designation

Es fys As Reo* Esc fyc Asc Eyv fyv Asv s

(GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (tension) (GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (mm)

[12] 2Au 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51

3Au 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51
3Bu 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51
3Cu 215 350 85 3–6 215 350 57 215 350 14 51
[25] B7 200f 190 14 2–3 200f 470 151 200f 190 14 60
[18] 4 231 537 157 2–10 231 537 157 231 537 157 100
5 231 537 157 2–10 231 537 157 231 537 157 100

a
Notes: *Number of tensile steel reinforcing bars and bar diameter (all bars are positioned at the same effective depth ds). Values followed by
lowercase letters have the following meaning. f — modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement assumed to be 200 GPa.

Table 15
Database: mixed mode debondinga

Beam Vexp
Reference Adhesive Soffit plate Loading
designation (kN)

Ea ta Type Efrp ffrp tfrp bfrp a B L

(MPa) (mm) (g) (GPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

[12] 2Au 11560 2.0 C–P 111 1273 0.5 90 20h 340 900 19.3
3Au 11560 2.0 C–P 111 1273 0.5 90 20h 400 900 19.5
3Bu 11560 2.0 C–P 111 1273 0.7 65 20h 400 900 17.3
3Cu 11560 2.0 C–P 111 1273 1.0 45 20h 400 900 15.4
[25] B7 10250 2.5 C–P 150 2400 1.2 50 10 650 1500 12.5
[18] 4 3260 0.37 G–W 19.723 259 1.32 150 200 500 1500 65.4
5 3260 0.37 G–W 19.723 259 2.64 150 50 500 1500 79.4

a
Notes: Values followed by lowercase letters have the following meaning. g — G=GFRP, C=CFRP, P=pultruded plate, W=wet lay-up plate;
h — assumed from [11] and [13] of the same research group.

in FRP-strengthened simply-supported RC beams and
assessed the performance of all 12 debonding strength
models reviewed in the companion paper [1] using this
database. Based on this study, the following conclusions
and observations can be made:
1. Of the two distinct modes of plate end debonding fail-
ures, concrete cover separation is far more common
than plate end interfacial debonding. Further studies
should be carried out to determine the circumstances
under which plate end interfacial debonding occurs.
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417 415

Table 16
Database: plate end interfacial debonding (failure in adhesive)a

Reference Beam designation Concrete beam

bc h ds dsc f ⬘c fcu Ec fct

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

[38] 1B 200 200 152 48 54.8 68.5a 34500 3.9b

1C 200 200 152 48 54.8 68.5a 34500 3.9b
2B 200 200 152 48 54.8 68.5a 34500 3.9b
2C 200 200 152 48 54.8 68.5a 34500 3.9b
2D 200 200 152 48 54.8 68.5a 34500 3.9b
3B 200 200 152 48 54.8 68.5a 34500 3.9b
3C 200 200 152 48 54.8 68.5a 34500 3.9b
3D 200 200 152 48 54.8 68.5a 34500 3.9b

a
Notes: Values followed by lowercase letters have the following meaning. a — converted from cylinder strength using fcu=f ⬘c/0.8 [21]; b —
splitting tensile strength of concrete calculated from fct=0.53√f ⬘c [22].

Table 17
Database: plate end interfacial debonding (failure in adhesive)a

Beam Reinforcement
Reference
designation

Es fys As Reo* Esc fsc Asc Eyv fyv Asv s

(GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (tension) (GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (GPa) (MPa) (mm2) (mm)

[38] 1B 200 410 143 2–9.5 200 410 143 200 410 143 102
1C 200 410 143 2–9.5 200 410 143 200 410 143 102
2B 200 410 253 2–12.7 200 410 143 200 410 143 102
2C 200 410 253 2–12.7 200 410 143 200 410 143 102
2D 200 410 253 2–12.7 200 410 143 200 410 143 102
3B 200 410 396 2–15.9 200 410 143 200 410 143 102
3C 200 410 396 2–15.9 200 410 143 200 410 143 102
3D 200 410 396 2–15.9 200 410 143 200 410 143 102

a
Notes: *Number of tensile steel reinforcing bars and bar diameter (all bars are positioned at the same effective depth ds).

Table 18
Database: plate end interfacial debonding (failure in adhesive)a

Beam
Reference Adhesive Soffit Plate Loading Vexp (kN)
designation

Ea ta Type Efrp ffrp tfrp bfrp a B L

(MPa) (mm) (e) (GPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

[38] 1B 8500c 2.0d C–P 138 2206 0.45 200 1 914 2742 40.1
1C 8500c 2.0d C–P 138 2206 0.45 200 1 914 2742 35.6
2B 8500c 2.0d C–P 138 2206 0.45 200 1 914 2742 49.0
2C 8500c 2.0d C–P 138 2206 0.45 200 1 914 2742 35.6
2D 8500c 2.0d C–P 138 2206 0.45 200 1 914 2742 40.1
3B 8500c 2.0d C–P 138 2206 0.45 200 1 914 2742 54.5
3C 8500c 2.0d C–P 138 2206 0.45 200 1 914 2742 54.1
3D 8500c 2.0d C–P 138 2206 0.45 200 1 914 2742 54.3

a
Notes: Values followed by lowercase letters have the following meaning. c — modulus of elasticity of adhesive assumed to be 8500 MPa;
d — thickness of adhesive layer for pultruded plates assumed to be 2.0 mm; e — C=CFRP, P=pultruded plate.
416 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417
2. Of the 12 debonding strength models, those by
Oehlers [36], Ziraba et al. [34], Jansze [30], Raoof
and Zhang [37], and Raoof and Hassanen [6] are the
more accurate ones. Surprisingly, all but those of
Raoof and Hassanen [6] were developed for steel
plated beams, and even Raoof and Hassanen’s models
[6] were modified from that of Raoof and Zhang [37]
for steel plated beams. All models specifically
developed for FRP-plated beams give poorer predic-
tions. These conclusions remain basically unchanged
whether cover separation test data only or all plate
end debonding test data are considered.
3. Of the three approaches employed for developing
debonding strength models, the shear capacity based
models appears to be the most robust, followed by the
concrete tooth models, with interfacial stress based
models being the least reliable. The interfacial stress
based models by Saadatmanesh and Malek [31] and
Tumialan et al. [32] however provide safe predictions
for beams with wet lay-up plates.
4. Only Oehlers’ model [36] can be used directly in
design as it provides safe predictions although its pre-
dictions are overly conservative. All other models do
not provide predictions of test debonding strengths
with a sufficient degree of conservativeness for direct
design use.
5. The interaction between the shear force and the bend-
ing moment at the plate end at debonding included in
Oehlers’ model [36] does not appear to exist for FRP-
plated beams, at least according to the test data avail-
able so far. Based on this observation, a simple new
model which is superior to all existing models in pro-
viding safe and accurate predictions for design use
has been proposed by modifying Oehlers’ model [36].
This new model is suitable for direct application in
design, and can be easily included in any national
code.
Acknowledgements
Both authors wish to thank The Hong Kong Polytech-
nic University for the provision of a postdoctoral fellow-
ship to the first author. Dr J.F. Bonacci of the Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering at the University of Toronto,
Canada, is gratefully acknowledged for providing the
authors with a copy of his test database.
Appendix A. Experimental database
The test data in the new database have been grouped
into three sets, the first set for failure by concrete cover
separation (Tables 7–9) (44 results), the second set for
failure by plate end interfacial debonding (Tables 10–
12) (8 results), and the third set for failure by a mixed
concrete cover separation and interfacial debonding
mode (Tables 13–15) (7 results). In addition test results
from Ross et al. [38] are shown for beams which were
reported to have failed by plate end interfacial debonding
in the adhesive (Tables 16–18).
References
[1] Smith ST, Teng JG. FRP-strengthened RC beams. I: review of
debonding strength models. Engng Struct 2001;24(4):385–395.
[2] Oehlers DJ. Discussion on “Theoretical study of the behaviour
of reinforced concrete beams strengthened by externally bonded
steel plates” by Roberts TM and Haji-Kazemi H. Proc Inst Civil
Engnrs Part 2 1989;87:651–63.
[3] Oehlers DJ. Discussion on “Prediction of peeling failure of
reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded plates” by
Zhang S, Raoof M, Wood LA. Proc Inst Civil Engnrs Struct Build
1995;122:493–6.
[4] Oehlers DJ, Ali M. Discussion on “Predictions of the maximum
plate end stresses of FRP strengthened beams: Part II” by Quan-
trill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. Mag Concrete Res
1998;50(1):91–2.
[5] Bonacci JF. Strength, failure mode and deformability of concrete
beams strengthened externally with advanced composites. In: El-
Badry MM, editor. Advanced composite materials in bridges and
structures, Proceedings of the Second International Conference,
Quebec, Canada, 1996:419–26.
[6] Raoof M, Hassanen MAH. Peeling failure of reinforced concrete
beams with fibre-reinforced plastic or steel plates glued to their
soffits. Proc Inst Civil Engnrs Struct Build
2000;140(August):291–305.
[7] Mukhopahdyaya P, Swamy RN. Interface shear stress: a new
design criterion for plate debonding. J Composites Construct,
ASCE 2001;5(1):35–43.
[8] Roberts TM. Approximate analysis of shear and normal stress
concentrations in the adhesive layer of plated RC beams. Struct
Engnr 1989;67(12):229–33.
[9] Arduini M, Nanni A. Behavior of precracked RC beams strength-
ened with carbon FRP sheets. J Composites Construct, ASCE
1997;1(2):63–70.
[10] Ritchie PA, Thomas DA, Lu LW, Connely GM. External
reinforcement of concrete beams using fiber reinforced plastics.
ACI Struct J 1991;88(4):490–500.
[11] Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. Experimental and ana-
lytical investigation of FRP strengthened beam response: Part I.
Mag Concrete Res 1996;48(177):331–42.
[12] Garden HN, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. A preliminary evaluation
of carbon fibre reinforced polymer plates for strengthening
reinforced concrete members. Proc Inst Civil Engnrs Struct Build
1997;123(May):127–42.
[13] Garden HN, Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM, Parke
GAR. An experimental study of the anchorage length of carbon
fibre composite plates used to strengthen reinforced concrete
beams. Construct Build Mater 1998;12:203–19.
[14] Ahmed O, van Gemert D. Effect of longitudinal carbon fiber
reinforced plastic laminates on shear capacity of reinforced con-
crete beams. In: Dolan CW, Rizkalla SH, Nanni A, editors. Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete
Structures, Maryland, USA, 1999:933–43.
[15] Ahmed O, Van Gemert D. Behaviour of RC beams strengthened
in bending by CFRP laminates. In: Forde MC, editor. Proceedings
of the Eighth International Conference on Advanced Composites
for Concrete Repair, London, UK, 1999.
 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 397–417
[16] Beber AJ, Filho AC, Campagnolo JL. Flexural strengthening of
R/C beams with CFRP sheets. In: Forde MC, editor. Proceedings
of the Eighth International Conference on Advanced Composites
for Concrete Repair, London, UK, 1999.
[17] David E, Djelal C, Ragneau E, Bodin FB. Use of FRP to
strengthen and repair RC beams: experimental study and numeri-
cal simulations. In: Forde MC, editor. Proceedings of the Eighth
International Conference on Advanced Composites for Concrete
Repair, London, UK, 1999.
[18] Hau KM. Experiments on concrete beams strengthened by bond-
ing fibre reinforced plastic sheets. MSc in Civil Engineering The-
sis. Hong Kong, China: The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univer-
sity; 1999.
[19] Tumialan G, Serra P, Nanni A, Belarbi A. Concrete cover delami-
nation in reinforced concrete beams strengthened with carbon
fiber reinforced polymer sheets. In: Dolan CW, Rizkalla SH,
Nanni A, editors. Proceedings of the Fourth International Sym-
posium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for
Reinforced Concrete Structures, Maryland, USA, 1999:725–35.
[20] Nguyen DM, Chan TK, Cheong HK. Brittle failure and bond
development length of CFRP–concrete beams. J Composites Con-
struct, ASCE 2001;5(1):12–7.
[21] Kong FK, Evans RH. Reinforced and prestressed concrete. 3rd
ed London: Chapman & Hall, 1987.
[22] ACI 318-95. Building code requirements for structural concrete
(318-95) and commentary (318R-95), 5th printing. Michigan,
USA: American Concrete Institute (ACI); 1999.
[23] Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. RC Beams strengthened with
GFRP plates. I: Experimental study. J Struct Engng
1991;117(11):3417–33.
[24] Täljsten B. Concrete beams strengthened for bending using
CFRP-sheets. In: Forde MC, editor. Proceedings of the Eighth
International Conference on Advanced Composites for Concrete
Repair, London, UK, 1999.
[25] Juvandes L, Figueiras JA, Marques AT. Performance of concrete
beams strengthened with CFRP laminates. Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure
(ICCI), Arizona, USA. 1998.
[26] Swamy RN, Jones R, Bloxham JW. Structural behaviour of
reinforced concrete beams strengthened by epoxy-bonded steel
plates. Struct Engnr 1987;65A(2):59–68.
417
[27] Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. Predictions of the
maximum plate end stresses of FRP strengthened beams: Part II.
Mag Concrete Res 1996;48(177):343–51.
[28] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. RC structures strengthened
with FRP composites. Hong Kong, China: Research Centre for
Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering, Department of
Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, 2000.
[29] BS 8110. Structural use of concrete, Part 1. Code of practice for
design and construction. London, UK: British Standards Insti-
tution; 1997.
[30] Jansze W. Strengthening of RC members in bending by externally
bonded steel plates. PhD Thesis. Delft: Delft University of Tech-
nology; 1997.
[31] Saadatmanesh H, Malek AM. Design guidelines for flexural
strengthening of RC beams with FRP plates. J Composites Con-
struct, ASCE 1998;2(4):158–64.
[32] Tumialan G, Belarbi A, Nanni A. Reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with CFRP composites: Failure due to concrete
cover delamination. Report No. CIES-99/01 USA: Department of
Civil Engineering, Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies,
University of Missouri-Rolla, 1999.
[33] Wang CY, Ling FS. Prediction model for the debonding failure
of cracked RC beams with externally bonded FRP sheets. In:
Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Com-
posites in Infrastructure (ICCI 98), Arizona, USA, 1998:548–62.
[34] Ziraba YN, Baluch MH, Basunbul IA, Sharif AM, Azad AK, Al-
Sulaimani GJ. Guidelines towards the design of reinforced con-
crete beams with external plates. ACI Struct J 1994;91(6):639–
46.
[35] Varastehpour H, Hamelin P. Strengthening of concrete beams
using fiber-reinforced plastics. Mater Struct 1997;30:160–6.
[36] Oehlers DJ. Reinforced concrete beams with plates glued to their
soffits. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1992;118(8):2023–38.
[37] Raoof M, Zhang S. An insight into the structural behaviour of
reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded plates. Proc
Inst Civil Engnrs: Struct Build 1997;122(November):477–92.
[38] Ross CA, Jerome DM, Tedesco JW, Hughes ML. Strengthening
of reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded composite
laminates. ACI Struct J 1999;96(2):212–20.