Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

FRP-strengthened RC slabs anchored with FRP anchors

Scott T. Smith a,∗ , Shenghua Hu a , Seo Jin Kim a , Rudolf Seracino b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China
b
Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, USA

article info abstract

Article history: An abundance of tests over the last two decades has shown the bending capacity of flexural members
Received 15 June 2010 such as reinforced concrete (RC) beams and slabs to be enhanced by the bonding of fibre-reinforced
Received in revised form polymer (FRP) composites to their tension face. The propensity of the FRP to debond, however, limits
28 October 2010
its effectiveness. Different types of anchorages have therefore been investigated in order to delay or even
Accepted 4 November 2010
Available online 3 February 2011
prevent debonding. The so-called FRP anchor, which is made from rolled fibre sheets or bundles of lose
fibres, is particularly suitable for anchoring FRP composites to a variety of structural element shapes.
Keywords:
Studies that assess the effectiveness of FRP anchors in anchoring FRP strengthening in flexural members
Debonding is, however, limited. This paper in turn reports a series of tests on one-way spanning simply supported RC
Deformability slabs which have been strengthened in flexure with tension face bonded FRP composites and anchored
Fibre-reinforced polymer composites with different arrangements of FRP anchors. The load–deflection responses of all slab tests are plotted, in
Flexural strengthening addition to selected strain results. The behaviours of the specimens including the failure modes are also
FRP anchors discussed. The greatest enhancement in load and deflection experienced by the six slabs strengthened
Slabs with FRP plates and anchored with FRP anchors was 30% and 110%, respectively, over the unanchored
FRP-strengthened control slab. The paper also discusses the strategic placement of FRP anchors for optimal
strength and deflection enhancement in FRP-strengthened RC slabs.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in [7] while a review of other anchorage methods (including FRP

Numerous experimental investigations have proven the ability
of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites to increase the
flexural capacities of beams and slabs when bonded to their
tension faces [1,2]. Numerous studies have also observed the FRP
to debond at strains well below its rupture strain. Such premature
failure, which has been observed to initiate at the base of flexural
and flexural-shear cracks along the length of the member (e.g.
IC debonding, [2]) or at the FRP plate end (e.g. concrete cover
separation, [2]), can occur in a relatively sudden manner and
constitutes an under-utilisation of the strength and strain capacity
of the FRP. Mechanical anchorage of the FRP offers a real solution
to the debonding problem and several different systems have been
trialed to date. They include, but are not limited to, embedded
metal threads [3], nailed plates (also known as hybrid bonding [4]),
U-jackets [5], near-surface mounted rods [6], and anchors made
with FRP [7] (also known as spike anchors but herein referred to
as FRP anchors or anchors). FRP anchors are versatile as they are
non-corrosive and can be applied to wide dimensioned elements
such as slabs and walls. A recent review of FRP anchors is provided
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2241 5699; fax: +852 2559 5337.
E-mail address: stsmith@hku.hk (S.T. Smith).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.018
anchors) is presented in [8]. The anchorage of steel strengthening
plates using metallic bolts is a related field of research (e.g. [9]),
however, it is outside the scope of this paper and is therefore not
considered further.
Fig. 1. is a schematic representation of the face of a concrete
member which has been strengthened with an externally bonded
FRP plate and anchored with an FRP anchor. Such an anchor is
essentially made from glass or carbon fibres in which fibre sheets
are folded or rolled, or lose fibres are bundled together. One end
of the anchor (herein anchor dowel) is inserted into an epoxy filled
hole in the concrete substrate (Fig. 1(b)) and the other end of the
anchor is passed through the externally bonded FRP strengthening
plate (herein FRP plate or plate). The free ends of the fibres (herein
anchor fan) are splayed and epoxied onto the surface of the plate
in order to disperse local stress concentrations. The double anchor
fan arrangement (herein bow-tie) shown in Fig. 1 has been tailor
made for the test slabs reported herein. As a precursor to the
bow-tie anchor fan form, Smith [10] reported FRP anchors with
a single fan component to increase the shear strength and slip
capacity of FRP-to-concrete joints by up to approximately 70% and
800%, respectively, over unanchored control joints. The relative
difference between the strength and the behaviour of single fan
and bow-tie anchors in FRP-to-concrete joint tests has also been
summarised in [10]. While Smith [10] reported both types of
1076 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087
Fig. 1. FRP anchor and plate: (a) overall view; (b) cut-away view.
anchors to exhibit similar load–slip characteristics over most of
the responses, the bow-tie anchors were ultimately able to resist
much greater slips (while maintaining limited strength) before
failure. Such an extensive slip capacity is a desirable feature of an
FRP anchor especially when large slips are expected between the
FRP strengthening and concrete substrate in structural members.
Another benefit of the bow-tie anchor alternative is that slip may
be in the other direction for members where the applied load can
move. Here the minimum criterion is to position the anchor fan
on the side of the anchor in the direction of load. There has been
limited research though conducted to date on characterising the
fundamental behaviour of FRP anchors (e.g. [7,11–14]) and more
work is clearly required. Such work is, however, outside the scope
of this paper.
The majority of the research conducted to date on FRP an-
chors has been on the anchorage of flexurally strengthened RC
beams [15,16], slabs [17,18], slab–column connections [19], con-
fined columns [20], and concrete and masonry walls [21,22]. In
such research, FRP anchors were generally shown to be effective
in enhancing the strength and deformability of the strengthened
members, however, the FRP anchors were generally not the focus
of these studies. Also, in many cases, the FRP was not observed to
fail and as a result the limits of the anchors were not established.
Brief reviews of some of the literature of FRP-anchored FRP flexu-
rally strengthened RC beams and slabs are provided as follows.
Teng et al. [23] reported seven cantilever RC slabs tests of
700 mm span of which six slabs were strengthened in flexure
with glass FRP (GFRP) composites formed in a wet lay-up manner.
The unanchored slabs were found to fail by IC debonding with
debonding initiating at the fixed end of the slab. Two of the
strengthened slabs were anchored with FRP anchors positioned
150 mm and 300 mm from the fixed end. In both cases, the FRP
anchors were observed to reduce the rate of debonding crack
propagation. In the first case, the GFRP plate ruptured after the
debonding crack had propagated to the second anchor. The low
tensile strength of the GFRP (i.e. 428 MPa) made it susceptible to
rupture failure. The second anchored slab test utilised an extra
layer of GFRP. In this case the anchors failed after the debonding
crack had propagated along the plate. In both anchored slab
cases the slope of the load–deflection curve clearly decreased
as debonding propagated. The two anchored slabs experienced
a 24% and 61% increase over the unanchored but strengthened
control slab respectively, however, the deflection at failure for both
anchored slabs was 76% of the control.
Lam and Teng [17] then reported an additional five RC
cantilever slabs tests of 700 mm span in which fours slabs were
strengthened in flexure with wet lay-up GFRP and anchored with
FRP anchors positioned in the same locations as Teng et al.’s [23]
test slabs. The main test variables were preloading as well as
internal tension steel ratio and position. In all strengthened slab
tests the FRP was observed to rupture. In some cases, debonding
was halted by the first anchor and in other cases no debonding was
observed.
Eshwar et al. [24] strengthened ten beams of varying soffit
curvature with carbon FRP (CFRP) tension face plates. The span
of the beams was 6 m, the length of FRP was 5.2 m, and the
failure mode was IC debonding. Of the three beams with greatest
curvatures, two were strengthened with identical configurations of
wet lay-up FRP and one of these beams was additionally installed
with FRP anchors at 500 mm centres. The increase in strength
and mid-span deflection of this anchored beam to its unanchored
counterpart was 34% and 74%, respectively. The anchored beam
appeared to fail by complete debonding of the FRP followed by
anchor rupture, however, the effectiveness of the FRP anchor in
enhancing load and deflection had been proven.
Oh and Sim [15] reported tests on eleven simply supported
beams each of 2 m span. Ten of these beams were strengthened
in flexure with tension face GFRP plates formed in a wet lay-up
manner. The beams were susceptible to concrete cover separation
failure, so two FRP anchors were positioned at 500 mm centres at
the end of one beam specimen. The anchors were not successful
in delaying the occurrence of concrete cover separation and as
a result they did not enhance load or deformation capacity of
the beam. More recently, Micelli et al. [16] showed FRP anchors
spaced at 250 mm centres in 2.2 m spanning beams to increase
the load carrying capacity of the FRP-strengthened beams by
13% above the strengthened but unanchored control beams. The
strengthened beams ultimately failed by IC debonding after which
the behaviour of the beams resorted to that of the unstrengthened
(and unanchored) control beam.
While Brunckhorst et al. [25] did not consider FRP anchorage,
their research is still applicable and is therefore reviewed
here. Brunckhorst et al. [25] presented a diagram of a generic
moment–displacement (analogous to load–deflection) response of
an RC beam strengthened in flexure with a tension face bonded
CFRP pultruded plate comprising of multi-directional fibres. The
plate was also anchored with regularly spaced metal screw-bolts.
In order to install the bolts, holes were drilled through the initially
bonded (and cured) FRP plate at regular intervals along the whole
length of the plate and then metal bolts were inserted. The generic
response consisted of several key features, namely (i) first cracking
of the tensile concrete, (ii) initiation of debonding of the FRP plate
via ‘gliding fracture’ (this translation appears to be consistent with
IC debonding), (iii) a sharp drop of moment upon initiation of
debonding, (iv) residual strength (above the plain unstrengthened
RC beam) provided by the remaining bonded FRP, and (v) residual
strength provided by the bolts (after complete plate debonding).
In light of the overall success of FRP anchors in delaying
or suppressing IC debonding failures, a clear understanding
surprisingly still does not exist about the exact role the FRP anchors
play when used in structural members. Also, there is no rational
methodology for the design and placement of the anchors. Such
is the motivation for the experimental program reported in this
 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087
(a) Elevation.
Fig. 2. RC slab and geometry, loading and instrumentation details {
(a) S1.
(b) S2.
Fig. 3. Control slab details (tension face) and strain gauge layout: (a) unstrengthened and unanchored, (b) FRP-strengthened and unanchored {
tension and cross-bar steel; 10 mm strain gauge}.
paper. More specifically, the aims of the study reported herein
are to (i) quantify the load and deflection enhancement that FRP
anchors can provide to FRP flexurally strengthened RC slabs failing
by IC debonding, (ii) observe the behaviour and failure modes of the
anchored slabs, and (iii) manipulate the load–deflection response
in beneficial ways with the strategic use of FRP anchors. To achieve
these objectives, eight simply supported one-way spanning RC
slabs were constructed and tested to failure. One slab served as
an unstrengthened and unanchored control while the remaining
seven slabs were strengthened in flexure with CFRP (herein FRP)
formed in a wet lay-up manner. Six of these seven strengthened
slabs were anchored with different FRP anchor types and layouts.
2. Experimental setup
2.1. Details of test slabs
The experimental program consisted of eight simply supported
one-way spanning RC slab tests. All slabs were rectangular in cross-
section of nominally 150 mm depth and 400 mm width with a clear
span of 2400 mm as shown in Fig. 2(a). The slabs were reinforced in
flexure with two 10 mm diameter hot-rolled steel reinforcing bars
positioned at an effective depth of 120 mm as shown in Fig. 2(b).
The same steel reinforcement type was also placed on the top of
the longitudinal reinforcement at 200 mm centres as cross-bars
(Fig. 2(b), Fig. 3). The span-to-effective depth ratio of each slab was
20 and the steel reinforcement ratio was 0.33%. All slabs were cast
from the same batch of ready-mix concrete.
1077
(b) Section.
90 mm strain gauge; LVDT; CMR constant moment region}.
support line; - - -
Of the eight identical slabs cast, two were tested as control
slabs S1 and S2. Slab S1 was a plain RC slab which contained no
FRP flexural strengthening and no FRP anchorage. Slab S2 was
strengthened in flexure with three layers of carbon fibre sheet
in a wet lay-up procedure but not anchored. The remaining six
slabs were all strengthened with the same flexural strengthening
arrangement as Slab S2 in addition to being anchored with
different arrangements and types of FRP anchors. Table 1 provides
a summary of the key variables for all the eight slabs. Figs. 3 and
4 provide a summary of the FRP flexural strengthening and FRP
anchorage arrangements for control Slabs S1 and S2, and anchored
Slabs S3–S8, respectively.
The type and positioning of the FRP anchorage were the key
variables in this study and the following comments are offered in
support of the layouts presented in Fig. 4. At the initial design stage
of the project, the anchorage arrangements for Slabs S3–S7 were
intuitively selected. The anchorage arrangement for Slab S8 was
decided upon after observing the test results of Slabs S3–S7. Slabs
S3–S6 were anchored with Type 1 anchors, Slab S7 was anchored
with Type 2 anchors and Slab S8 was anchored with a combination
of Type 1 and Type 2 anchors. Type 1 anchors contained twice the
amount of fibre as Type 2 anchors, although, both anchors were
made by hand in an identical manner. In addition, no anchors were
installed at cross-bar locations because (i) the embedment depth of
the anchor was greater than the cover to the cross-bar, and (ii) as
cross-bars can act as crack initiators, it was not deemed logical to
position an anchor where flexural cracking is likely to occur. The
anchorage scheme for Slab S3 (Fig. 4(a)) entailed the anchor dowel
being positioned mid-distance between the cross-bars along the
1078 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087

(a) S3.

(b) S4.

(c) S5.

(d) S6.

(e) S7.

(f) S8.

Fig. 4. FRP anchor layout (tension face) and strain gauge layout { Type 1 FRP anchor; Type 2 FRP anchor; support line; - - - cross-bar (tension steel omitted);
10 mm strain gauge}.
 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087 1079

Table 1
FRP strengthening and FRP anchorage details.
Slab FRP strengthening FRP anchor details Comments
Arrangement Fibre content (mm) Shear connection fibre (mm2 )c

S1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Unstrengthened control

S2 3-layers Nil Nil Nil Unanchored control
S3 3-layers Fig. 4(a) 250a 166 Type 1 anchor
S4 3-layers Fig. 4(b) 250 83 Type 1 anchor
S5 3-layers Fig. 4(c) 250 166 Type 1 anchor
S6 3-layers Fig. 4(d) 250 83 Type 1 anchor
S7 3-layers Fig. 4(e) 125b 166 Type 2 anchor
S8 3-layers Fig. 4(f) 125 and 250 166 Hybrid Type 1 and Type 2 anchors
a
Type 1 FRP anchor.
b
Type 2 FRP anchor.
c
Total cross-sectional area of FRP anchor crossing the FRP-to-concrete interface in one shear span (Area = cross-sectional area of the fibre sheet in single anchor dowel
times number of anchors in one shear span).

whole length of the FRP flexural strengthening while in Slab S4 a

(Fig. 4(b)) every second anchor was removed. In Slab S5 (Fig. 4(c)),
the shear span anchors of Slab S2 were only retained. For Slab
S6 (Fig. 4(d)), only the ends of the FRP plate were anchored. The
anchored regions as well as the amount of fibre used to construct
the anchors in Slabs S7 (Fig. 4(e)) and S8 (Fig. 4(f)) were identical
to Slab S5 (Fig. 4(c)). The Type 2 anchors used in Slab S7 were
double in number and half the spacing as the Type 1 anchors
used in Slab S5. In order to avoid collision with the cross-bars, the
anchors in Slab S7 were offset 50 mm to those of Slab S5. The hybrid
arrangement of anchors in Slab S8 utilised both Type 1 and Type 2
anchors. The reasons for positioning the Type 1 anchors closer to
the mid-span region and the Type 2 anchors closer to the free end
of the FRP plate are discussed in detail in Section 3 of this paper.
It should be noted that only one specimen was tested for each
b
configuration of FRP strengthening and FRP anchorage. The results
and discussions presented in this paper are therefore void of the
variation inherent in experimental testing of like specimens.
In reality, serviceability rather than strength commonly governs
the design of slabs. The current experimental program, however,
considers both load and deflection. Also, slabs have been selected
in this study in order to ensure the occurrence of IC debonding
failure of the FRP flexural strengthening. Such a debonding failure
mode is most common in FRP-strengthened RC slabs and can
provide a useful framework for evaluation of the effectiveness of
FRP anchors. The understanding gained from this study on FRP
anchors can be extended to other RC structural elements, such as
beams.

2.2. FRP anchor construction c

The same roll of carbon fibre sheet of 0.166 mm nominal
thickness and the same tins of two-part epoxy were used to
make all the FRP anchors and all the FRP plates in this study. In
addition, all anchors were made from the same bow-tie form as
shown in Figs. 1 and 5. The method of manufacturing the FRP
anchors was essentially the same as that reported in detail in [26].
The difference though was the use of a single anchor fan in [26]
and a bow-tie arrangement in the present study. The following
explanation is offered in support of the making of the anchors.
All bow-tie anchors were made from 90 mm long carbon fibre
sheets. The 90 mm length was to form a 50 mm long fan with a
40 mm embedded portion which included a small allowance for
the 90 degree bend portion. Type 1 anchors were made from a Fig. 5. Construction of bow-tie FRP anchors: (a) schematic of fibre sheet rolling
250 mm wide sheet of fibre which was twice the width as that (epoxy impregnated end fibres shown in foreground); (b) schematic of completed
used for Type 2 anchors. In preparing the anchors, the fibre sheet FRP anchor; (c) actual FRP anchor.
was spread out on a flat surface and a 25 mm long region at one
end of the sheet was impregnated with epoxy across the whole met (Fig. 5(a)). The rolled sheets, of approximate circular cross-
width of the sheet. Both exterior edges of the sheet were then section, were then inserted into preformed holes of 14 mm (for
rolled towards the centre of the sheet until the two rolled portions Type 1 anchors) or 10 mm diameter (for Type 2 anchors) in a
1080 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087
(a) Installed FRP anchor dowel.
Fig. 6. FRP anchor and plate installation.
Fig. 7. Test setup.
polystyrene mould which was pre-filled with epoxy in order to
properly form the anchor dowel. The anchors were then removed
from the mould once the epoxy had cured for at least one day.
Fig. 5(b) and (c) show completed anchors.
2.3. Application of FRP strengthening and FRP anchors
The FRP plates and FRP anchors were installed in accordance
with the procedures described in [26]. The following summary is,
however, provided for completeness:
1. Drill anchor dowel holes into concrete slabs at appropriate
locations.
2. Prepare surface of concrete to be strengthened using a
pneumatic needle scaler. This method of surface preparation
removes the top surface of weakened concrete, exposes
aggregate and also roughens the concrete surface (Fig. 6(a)). It
has been found to be successful on numerous occasions by the
first author of this paper (e.g. [7,26]).
3. Flush anchor dowel holes with compressed air for cleaning and
then inject epoxy. Then, insert the preformed anchor dowel
(Fig. 6(a)) and allow to cure for at least half a day.
4. Slip parted carbon fibre sheet fibres over the anchor fan fibres
and then form the plate from the sheet fibres in a wet lay-up
manner (Fig. 6(b)) (i.e. three layers of fibre sheet were used to
form the FRP plate in this study).
5. Curve the dry fan fibres of the anchor (without kinking), splay
into the bow-tie form, and then epoxy onto the outer surface of
the outermost plate layer.
(b) Wet lay-up application of fibre sheet and anchor fans.
6. Allow the plate and anchor fan fibres to cure for a period of 7
days prior to testing. In the case of this experimental program,
all slabs were left in a controlled laboratory environment.
Recent work by this research group [26] has identified the
importance of not impregnating the anchor fibres in the bend
region with epoxy upon installation of the FRP anchor. Dry fibres
in the bend region will enable slips of the plate relative to the
concrete surface to be achieved that are generally greater than
5 mm. Such large slippage will enable greater deflection of the FRP-
strengthened and FRP-anchored slabs considered herein and help
prevent brittle FRP anchor rupture failure.
The specimens considered in this study are undamaged
specimens. In reality though, FRP strengthening may need to
be applied to damaged or deteriorated RC members containing
corroded reinforcement, cracked concrete, or spalled concrete
cover. In such cases, it would be necessary to repair and prepare
the concrete substrate onto which the FRP system will be applied
according to the FRP manufacturer’s recommendations and design
guidelines (e.g. [27,28]). In this situation, it is not anticipated that
the behaviour of the FRP-strengthened system in question would
significantly change.
2.4. Instrumentation and test procedure
Two electric strain gauges of 90 mm gauge length were
mounted onto the top compressive face of each of the eight RC
slabs at mid-span as shown in Fig. 2. Extensive arrays of electric
strain gauges of 10 mm gauge length were mounted onto the FRP
plates for Slabs S2–S8 as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. In addition, linear
variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were positioned along
the length of the slab as well as above the supports in order to
record the vertical deflection as shown in Fig. 2(a) (only the results
at mid-span are reported in this paper; also, support deflections
were negligible). LVDTs were also placed at each end of the FRP
and were reacted off the adjacent slab soffit in order to measure
plate end slip for Slabs S5–S8. Such results are also not reported
herein, however, suitable comments are provided in Section 3 of
this paper. All slabs were tested in a stiff reaction frame and load
was applied through a 1000 kN capacity servo-controlled actuator
by displacing the ram of the actuator at a rate of 1 mm/min. The
mass of the spreader beam (170 kg) was included in the load, strain
and LVDT readings, however, the self-weight of the slab was not.
Fig. 7 shows a typical test in progress.
2.5. Material properties
All the eight slabs were poured in one batch and tested over
a ten week period. The mechanical properties of the concrete,
 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087 1081

Table 2
Concrete mechanical properties.
Slab Age (days) Propertiesa
Age (days) fcu (MPa) Ec (MPa) fct (MPa) ER (MPa)

S1 31
S2 43 36 51.7 28 389 3.3 4.1
S3 44

S4 74
77 55.1 29 299 4.2 6.1
S5 79

S6 92
S7 93 94 56.8 29 234 4.2b 5.9
S8 109
a
fcu = cube compressive strength; Ec = elastic modulus; fct splitting strength; ER = modulus of rupture.
b
Based on one test result.

which were determined in accordance with the BS 1881 suite of

standards [29–32], are reported in Table 2. The age of the concrete
when the mechanical property tests were conducted, in addition to
the age of the slabs upon testing, are also reported in Table 2. The
10% increase in concrete compressive strength over the duration of
the experimental program was expected to have a minor influence
on the test results as none of the test slabs failed in compression.
The yield stress (0.2% proof stress) and elastic modulus of the
steel reinforcing bars, which were averaged from three specimens
tested in accordance with BS EN 1000201:2001 [33], were found
to be 566 MPa (standard deviation, sd. = 5 MPa) and 198 GPa
(sd. = 3.8 GPa) respectively.
Two layers of fibre sheet were used to form flat FRP coupons
of 30 mm width. Five coupons were prepared and then tested
to failure in accordance with ACI 440.3R-04 [34] to produce an
elongation at rupture of 14,674 µε (1.5%) (sd. = 402 µε), tensile
strength at rupture of 3163 MPa (sd. = 206 MPa) and elastic
modulus of 239 GPa (sd. = 6.8 GPa).
The mechanical properties of the epoxy were tested in
accordance with the 527 series of documents published by BS EN
ISO 527:1996 [35]. The results of seven specimens were averaged
to produce an elongation at rupture of 6716 µε (0.7%) (sd. =
391 µε), tensile strength at rupture of 28.3 MPa (sd. = 1.4 MPa)
and elastic modulus of 4273 MPa (sd. = 126 MPa).

3. Experimental results

3.1. Load–deflection responses and load–deflection–strain summary

The total load (P) versus mid-span deflection responses for all
the eight slab tests are shown in Fig. 8(a). In order to further
enhance the clarity of these results, the slabs which experienced an
increase in both load and deflection are shown in Fig. 8(b) while the
slabs which experienced a predominant increase in deflection only
are shown in Fig. 8(c). The influence on strength and deflection of
the FRP-strengthened RC slabs by the FRP anchorage can be clearly
observed. Table 3 provides a summary of the enhancement in peak
load and corresponding peak deflection of all slab specimens as
well as the maximum measured compressive strain in the concrete
and measured tensile strain on the FRP. Table 3 also provides a Fig. 8. Load–deflection responses of anchored slabs relative to control Slabs S1 and
summary of the post-peak results which refer to the behaviour of S2: (a) all anchored slabs; (b) anchored slabs with increasing strength and deflection
the slabs, once the large and sudden drop in load had occurred due (c) anchored slabs with predominantly increasing deflection.

to complete plate debonding. Slab S8 offers the highest increase in

load and Slab S7 offers the highest increase in central deflection.
The load–deflection responses of Slabs S2–S8, prior to complete
debonding of the FRP strengthening, were predominantly of a tri-
linear nature [36]. The two main turning points, which define
the ends of the first two linear portions, are due to the concrete
cracking and yield of the internal tension steel reinforcement. The
response of the third portion was a direct consequence of the FRP
strengthening as well as the influence of the FRP anchors. The
dramatic drop in load upon the peak load being reached was due to
complete debonding of the FRP plate on one side of the slab. Most
slabs then sustained a post-peak reserve of strength. This reserve
was due to frictional resistance from the intact anchors clamping
the debonded plate to the rough concrete substrate failure plane.
1082 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087

Table 3
Summary of load and deflection (mid-span) enhancement and peak strains.
Slab Load (peak) Deflection (peak) Load (post-peak) Strain (peak)
Peak, P (kN) P /PS1 a (%) P /PS2 b (%) Peak, δ (mm) δ/δS2 b (%) Peak, Ppp (kN) Ppp /Ppp,S1 a (%) εconc (µε) (concrete)d εfrp (%c ) (µε) (FRP)
S1 20.32 0 NA NA NA 20.32 0 −1872 NA
S2 41.66 105 0 25.53 0 20.90 3 −1237 6 649 (45.3%)
S3 51.22 152 23 41.58 63 26.87 32 −1566 7 676 (52.3%)
S4 43.90 116 5 37.34 46 23.82 17 −1543 8 025 (54.7%)
S5 51.80 155 24 41.99 64 26.20 29 −1300 8 884 (60.5%)
S6 40.59 100 −3 31.78 24 22.47 11 −1141 6 696 (45.6%)
S7 51.47 153 24 53.65 110 19.78 −3 −2564 11 566 (78.8%)
S8 54.27 167 30 48.76 91 22.35 10 −1528 11 348 (77.3%)
NA = not applicable.
a
% increase over unstrengthened control (S1); e.g. (P − Ps1 )/Ps1 × 100%.
b
% increase over unanchored control (S2); e.g. (P − Ps2 )/Ps2 × 100%.
c
% of flat coupon capacity (flat coupon capacity = 14,674 µε).
d
compressive (−’ve) strain.

All anchored slabs (i.e. Slabs S3 to S8) except Slab S2 were on
the whole stiffer on account of the anchor fan fibres increasing the
thickness of the FRP plate. The relative enhancement in stiffness
was a function of the amount of fan fibre (i.e. dependent on the
number of anchors) with the stiffer slabs experiencing slightly
higher cracking and steel yielding loads. The maximum mid-
span deflection of all anchored slabs prior to complete FRP plate
debonding was about 54 mm. As it served no purpose in this study
to then displace the slabs until the concrete crushed, the loading
was stopped and released once a mid-span deflection of 80 mm had
been reached. At this stage the strain in the compressive concrete
was on average about 1600 µε and well below its crushing strain
(except Slab S7 due to high deflection).
The level of utilisation of the tensile strain capacity of the FRP
was 45% for the unanchored control slab (Slab S2). This level was
increased by up to 79% (i.e. Slab S7) upon the addition of FRP
anchors.
3.2. Behaviour and failure modes
Fig. 9 provides a schematic representation of the debonded
regions for all anchored slab tests in addition to the condition of the
anchors immediately following complete FRP plate debonding. The
anchors were found to fail in one of three different modes, namely
(i) complete rupture at the bend region, (ii) partial rupture at
the bend region, and (iii) pull-out from the concrete substrate.
Fig. 10(a) shows the condition of a typical completely ruptured
anchor while Fig. 10(b) shows a pulled-out anchor.
The following comments are offered in support of the behaviour
and failure of all test slabs in the context of the results contained
in Figs. 8 and 9 and Table 3.
3.2.1. Slab S1
The unanchored–unstrengthened control Slab S1 behaved in a
manner befitting that of an under-reinforced ductile member. First
cracking of the tensile concrete occurred at a load of 11 kN and
then the internal tension steel yielded at a load of 19 kN. The slab
then deflected extensively until the test was stopped at 80 mm
of mid-span deflection. Theoretical calculations [36] estimated the
concrete to crush (i.e. concrete strain to reach 3000 µε ) at 95 mm
of mid-span deflection. In addition, the corresponding strain in
the tension steel at concrete crushing was 4.2% which fits within
the ACI 318M-05 [37] definition of a tension-controlled failure (i.e.
ductile section).
3.2.2. Slab S2
The flexurally strengthened but unanchored control Slab S2
failed by IC debonding of the FRP plate. Such a failure mode has
been well documented in the open literature [1,2,38]. In the Slab
S2 test, first cracking occurred at a load of 13 kN with tension
steel reinforcement yielding at a load of 34 kN. The maximum
measured tensile strain on the FRP was about 6650 µε (Table 3)
upon complete debonding of the FRP. This strain is identical to
the predicted debonding strain of 6650 µε from Teng et al. [38]
(using their best-fit factor of 0.753) and close to 7650 µε as
calculated from ACI 440.2R-08 [28]. The FRP plate increased the
load capacity of the slab, compared to Slab S1, by 105%. Upon
complete debonding, the FRP was no longer effective, and Slab S2
then behaved in a very similar manner to the control Slab S1.
3.2.3. Slab S3
Localised debonding of the FRP initiated at a load of ap-
proximately 39 kN (upon observation of the first drop in the
load–deflection response) at one of the applied load positions
once the third linear portion of the load–deflection response had
been reached (Fig. 8). The gradient of the third portion of the
load–deflection response then started to decrease as the debond-
ing crack propagated. The FRP anchors, however, decreased the
rate of propagation of debonding compared to Slab S2. The plate
then completely debonded at a load of 23% and deflection of 63%
in excess of the respective load and deflection at debonding in Slab
S2. Upon complete plate debonding, the load suddenly decreased
although at this stage none of the anchors were found to have com-
pletely failed. The three anchors adjacent to the debonded plate
end had partially ruptured (Fig. 9(a)) while the fourth anchor from
the plate end had pulled-out due to a major crack passing right
through the anchor dowel region (Fig. 10(b)). The stepped descent
of the load–deflection response was believed to be due to the resid-
ual restraint offered by the intact FRP anchors. The slab then sus-
tained a post-peak reserve of strength 32% in excess of the strength
of control Slab S1.
3.2.4. Slab S4
The anchorage scheme of Slab S4 involved the removal of
every second anchor from the Slab S3 anchorage scheme. This
translated into Slab S4 having 55% of the number of anchors as
Slab S3. In addition, the spacing between the anchors in Slab S4
was twice that over Slab S3. The effect of such an arrangement
of anchors in Slab S4 reduced the slope of the third portion of
the load–deflection response to virtually zero once the load and
deflection corresponding to failure of the control Slab S2 was
reached. More specifically, debonding first initiated at a load of
40 kN (deflection 23 mm) as observed from the large drop in the
load in Fig. 8. When the debonding crack had propagated to the
plate end, the central deflection had increased by 46% above Slab
S2. Once the plate completely debonded, the load dropped down
to the capacity of the plain control Slab S1 and at this stage no
anchors had failed (Fig. 9(b)). The post-peak reserve of strength
was increased by 17% in excess of the capacity of Slab S1. The
shear span anchors in the debonded plate portion were observed
to be partially ruptured when the load was stopped at a mid-span
deflection of 80 mm as shown in Fig. 9(b).
 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087 1083

Fig. 9. FRP plate and FRP anchor conditions post-plate debonding. { debonding crack; Type 1 FRP anchor; Type 2 FRP anchor; - - - load point; CMR = constant
moment region; completely ruptured anchor; partially ruptured anchor; pulled-out anchor; undamaged anchor}.

Fig. 10. Typical FRP anchor failure modes: (a) completely ruptured anchor (Slab S8, anchor no. 1); (b) pulled-out anchor (Slab S3, anchor no. 4).

3.2.5. Slab S5
Slabs S5 and S3 were identical apart from the omission of
three anchors in the constant moment region in the former. Both
slabs therefore had exactly the same number and same type of
anchors in the shear span. As a result, Slab S5 followed virtually
the same load–deflection response as Slab S3, however, the former
was on the whole slightly less stiff than the latter due to the
difference of anchors in the mid-span region. The peak load
and deflection of Slab S5 was about 1% to that of Slab S3. The
similarity in slab behaviour between the anchorage layouts for
Slabs S3 and S5 suggests that anchors located in the shear span
are the most effective. The effect of anchorage in the constant
moment region can be speculated to have enabled the stepped
unloading response observed in Slab S3. The large release of energy
1084 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087
a 3.2.6. Slab S6
b (Fig. 9(d)). Slab S6 then sustained a small post-peak reserve
c the load–deflection response to considerably soften compared to
Fig. 11. Typical FRP anchor conditions after complete plate debonding: (a) Type 1
anchors (Slab S5); (b) Type 2 anchors (Slab S7); (c) Hybrid Type 1 and Type 2 anchors
(Slab S8).
associated with complete debonding of the plate (and the lack
of a stepped descent) caused the four anchors in the debonded
plate end to partially rupture (Fig. 9(c)) and Fig. 11(a) shows the
test specimen immediately after plate debonding. Unfortunately
the LVDT measuring plate end slip at the debonded plate end
detached due to the large release of energy upon plate debonding.
Measurements made during the test with a hand-held scale
revealed the slip at the plate immediately post-plate debonding to
be in excess of 5 mm. The ability of the anchors to cater for such
plate slip was due to the ability of the fibres in the bend region
to deform. This was a direct result of not impregnating the bend
region fibres with epoxy as discussed in Section 2.3. Finally, the
partially ruptured anchors and the remaining intact anchors were
able to contribute to the 29% post-peak reserve in strength over
Slab S1.
Slab S6 contained the least amount of anchorage and the two
anchors positioned at each end of the FRP proved to be least
effective in enhancing the load and deflection. Just prior to the
sharp drop in load in the load–deflection response of Slab S6
at 40 kN, the plate had been progressively debonding from the
concrete substrate in a similar manner to that of Slab S2. After all,
Slabs S6 and S2 were identical apart from the end anchorages in
the former. Once the debonding crack had become unstable, the
crack then rapidly propagated to the inner anchor, thus accounting
for the drop of load at a deflection of 25 mm. The load was then
steadily increased again until the capacity of Slab S2 was reached
approximately, upon which the debonding crack passed the FRP
anchors and the plate subsequently completely debonded. The
anchor at the debonded plate end completely ruptured, however,
the second anchor from the plate end had partially ruptured
strength of at most 11% above Slab S1.
3.2.7. Slab S7
The logic behind this anchorage scheme was to have anchors
spaced closer together in a bid to further slow down the rate of
propagation of the debonding crack. Slab S7 therefore contained
anchorage spread over the same shear span region as Slab S5,
however, the number of anchors in Slab S7 was doubled and the
amount of fibre used to make each anchor was half when compared
with Slab S5.
The load–deflection response of Slab S7 was softer than Slab
S5. This was due to the Type 2 anchors of Slab S5 containing
less anchor fan fibre than the Type 1 anchors of Slab S5. The
anchorage scheme of Slab S7 caused the third linear portion of
that of Slab S5, although the closer spaced anchors were successful
in slowing down the propagation of the debonding crack enough
for a 28% enhancement in central deflection to be achieved over
Slab S5. Interestingly, the load prior to complete debonding of the
FRP plate was virtually identical to the peak load of Slab S5. Upon
complete plate debonding, the sudden release of energy caused
all the anchors in the critical shear span to completely rupture as
shown in Figs. 9(e) and 11(b). The reduced amount of fibre used in
the Type 2 anchors caused them all to rupture and the failure of
Slab S7 was the most catastrophic one out of all the anchored slab
tests reported herein. No post-peak reserve of strength was able to
be maintained on account of all the anchors failing. Fig. 11(b) also
shows that debonding occurred at the FRP-to-concrete interface in
the concrete. In fact, all FRP-strengthened slabs (S2–S8) failed at
the same desired FRP-to-concrete interface in the concrete.
3.2.8. Slab S8
Slab S8 was anchored with a combination of anchor types
(i.e. Type 1 and Type 2) and anchor spacings. The anchorage was
designed after observing the behaviour of all preceding anchored
slab tests S3–S7. Slabs S3 and S5 demonstrated the effective
strength gains caused by Type 1 anchors positioned in the shear
span region. The results of Slab S7 showed the effectiveness of
closer spaced anchors in enhancing deflection. The closer spaced
anchors of Slab S7, however, contributed to strength gains at
greater deflections (i.e. a softer load–deflection response) over
Slabs S3 and S5. Finally, the results of Slabs S4 and S6 showed that
anchors spaced too far apart did not lead to significant strength
gains but did lead to deflection gains. As a result, the total amount
of fibre used to make all the anchors in Slab S8 was identical to the
amount of fibre used to make all the anchors in Slabs S5 and S7.
The resulting arrangement of anchors in Slab S8 produced the early
strength gains in the third linear portion of the load–deflection
response associated with Type 1 anchors near the peak moment
 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087 1085

Fig. 12. Propagation of debonding cracks (Slab S8): (a) load–deflection response (Slabs S1, S2, S8); (b) debonding cracks at specific level of load and deflection. { debonding
crack; Type 1 FRP anchor; Type 2 FRP anchor; - - - load position; CMR = constant moment region; completely ruptured anchor; partially ruptured anchor;
undamaged anchor}.

region (Fig. 8). The increase in deflection of about 16% above that
observed in Slabs S3 and S5 proved the effectiveness of the close
spaced Type 2 anchors nearer to the ends of the FRP plate. Slab
S8 achieved the greatest enhancement in strength (i.e. 30% above
that of Slab S2) and the second greatest mid-span deflection. Upon
complete debonding of the plate, all the Type 2 anchors ruptured
(Figs. 9(f) and 11(c)) however the partially and fully intact Type 1
anchors contributed to the post-peak reserve of strength gain
of 10%.
3.3. Debonding crack propagation
The presence of the anchors influenced the rate of propagation
of debonding cracks along the length of the FRP plate. Overall,
debonding cracks were found to propagate more slowly for
anchors spaced more closely together. For example, the rate
of crack propagation for Slab S7 was much reduced than that
of Slab S6. As a result, Slab S7 was able to achieve much
greater enhancement in strength and deflection than Slab S6. The
enhancement in strength in this case was also due to the use of
more FRP anchors. When the same total amount of fibre was used
to cross the shear plane, the closer spaced anchors in Slab S7 were
found to increase the deflection of the slab over the larger spaced
anchors in Slab S5. The strength enhancements for Slabs S5 and S7
were, however, virtually identical (see column 4 of Table 3).
Fig. 12 provides a detailed account of the propagation of
debonding cracks in relation to the applied load (and deflection)
for Slab S8. This slab is singled out as it is considered one of
the most optimally designed (i.e. greatest strength enhancement,
second greatest mid-span deflection, partially intact anchorage
post-plate debonding). In Fig. 12, the extent of debonding in
accordance with the level of load and deflection are related to
each other and the fifteen data points correspond to observed
propagation of the debonding cracks. However, it is important to
stress the limitations of presenting such data. First, it is based
on visual observation. Second, one edge of the FRP plate was
monitored with strain gauges. The significance of this second point
is that the extent of debonding through the width of the plate
may not be uniform. Regardless, Fig. 12 provides a qualitative
overview of the debonding crack propagation process. Overall
comments to be made include (i) debonding initiates well before
complete plate debonding (i.e. adequate warning of failure is
provided), (ii) debonding initiates near the loaded region and
propagates towards the free ends of the FRP plate, (iii) debonding
1086 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087
Fig. 13. FRP strain distributions for Slab S8: (a) complete load range; (b) selected load levels (no bond, partial debond, near complete debond) {CMR = constant moment
region}.
in the anchored regions propagates in lengths approximately
equal to the anchor spacing, and (iv) complete debonding of the
plate signifies a complete loss of load carrying capability of the
strengthened slab although post-peak reserves of strength (above
the unstrengthened slab) due to intact anchorage can be sustained.
Further inspection of Fig. 12 leads one to the conclusion
that the addition of FRP anchors introduces a considerable
degree of robustness into the FRP-strengthened slabs by allowing
the debonding crack growth process to be controlled. During
debonding, the internal tension steel has also yielded. Ample
warning of distress is thus provided well before complete
debonding of the FRP.
3.4. Load–strain response
To enable comparison with the results contained in Fig. 12,
the distribution of strain along the FRP for the same Slab S8 is
provided in Fig. 13. In Fig. 13(a), the strains at load levels of
10–40 kN are provided in addition to the strains at the 15 different
debonding crack levels identified in Fig. 12. Fig. 13(b) provides
selected results from pre-debonding, early debonding, to near final
debonding as well as corresponding drawings showing the extent
of debonding cracks. Strain gauge results are notoriously difficult
to interpret especially once the concrete has cracked and the FRP
has debonded. The following observations are, however, made in
light of Fig. 13. The FRP anchor fan influences the strain results (the
strain in the anchored regions is less due to the use of more FRP
material). Also, the strain profile becomes flatter as the debonding
cracks propagate to the ends of the plate. The strain profile does
not completely flatten though when a large proportion of the
FRP has debonded (i.e. debond crack 14 in Fig. 13(b)) due to the
clamping effect of the FRP anchor which sustains interaction along
the debonding crack by aggregate interlock and friction.
4. Conclusions
The effectiveness of FRP anchors in increasing the strength
and deflection of FRP flexurally strengthened RC slabs has been
reported in this paper. The greatest increase in strength and
deflection recorded, over the unanchored but strengthened control
counterparts, was 30% and 110%, respectively. In addition, the
usable strain in the FRP plates was increased from 45% of the
capacity of a flat coupon (for the unanchored but strengthened
control slab) to almost 80% (for optimally designed anchorage
schemes). The experimental results have revealed the following
issues of importance.
1. Anchorage of the FRP strengthening plate with FRP anchors can
build robustness into the member.
 S.T. Smith et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 1075–1087
2. Anchors positioned in the shear span were found to be most
effective (anchors in the constant moment region were largely
ineffective).
3. Closer spaced anchors were found to reduce the rate of debond-
ing crack propagation and also enabled higher deflections to be
achieved.
4. Anchors spaced far apart led to gains in deflection capacity but
limited gains in strength.
5. Anchors of greater fibre content positioned closer to the peak
bending moment region in addition to anchors of lesser fibre
content but spaced close together near the free ends of the
FRP plate produced the greatest enhancement in strength with
significant deflection capability.
Acknowledgements
Funding provided by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council
in the form of General Research Fund Grant HKU 716308E is
gratefully acknowledged. The following individuals from The
University of Hong Kong are thanked for their assistance with
the experimental work: Messers Huawen Zhang (Ph.D. candidate),
Jiaqi Yang (M.Phil. candidate), Kin Lung Jason Li (2009–10
undergraduate final year project student), and the LG laboratory
technicians. In addition, Mr. Jacob Schmidt (Ph.D. candidate) of
the Technical University of Denmark is thanked for his assistance
with the experimental work and also for producing the three-
dimensional drawings.
References
[1] Oehlers DJ, Seracino R. Design of FRP and steel plated RC structures: retrofitting
beams and slabs for strength, stiffness and ductility. UK: Elsevier; 2004. 228
pages.
[2] Hollaway LC, Teng JG. Strengthening and rehabilitation of civil infrastructures
using fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites. Cambridge (UK): Woodhead
Publishing Limited; 2008.
[3] Sharif A, Al-Sulaimani GJ, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Ghaleb BN. Strengthening of
initially loaded reinforced concrete beams using FRP plates. ACI Struct J 1994;
91(2):160–8.
[4] Yun YC, Wu YF, Tang WC. Performance of FRP bonding systems under fatigue
loading. Eng Struct 2008;30(11):3129–40.
[5] Smith ST, Teng JG. Shear-bending interaction in debonding failures of FRP-
plated RC beams. Adv Struct Eng 2003;6(3):183–99.
[6] Gose SC, Nanni A. Anchorage system for externally bonded FRP laminates
using near surface mounted rods. Report, centre for infrastructure engineering
studies. USA: University of Missouri-Rolla; 2000.
[7] Smith ST. FRP anchors: recent advances in research and understanding. In:
Proceedings, second Asia-Pacific conference on FRP in structures. APFIS 2009.
2009. p. 35–44.
[8] Ceroni F, Pecce M, Matthys S, Taerwe L. Debonding strength and anchorage
devices for reinforced concrete elements strengthened with FRP sheets.
Composites B 2008;29(3):429–41.
[9] Su RKL, Siu WH, Smith ST. Effects of bolt–plate arrangements on steel plate
strengthened reinforced concrete beams. Eng Struct 2010;32(6):1769–78.
[10] Smith ST. Strengthening of concrete, metallic and timber construction
materials with FRP composites. In: Proceedings, fifth international conference
on FRP composites in civil engineering. CICE 2010. 2010. p. 13–9.
1087
[11] Kim SJ, Smith ST. Behaviour of handmade FRP anchors under tensile load in
uncracked concrete. Adv Struct Eng 2009;12(6):845–65. Special issue on bond
behaviour of externally bonded FRP reinforcement.
[12] Kim SJ, Smith ST. Pullout strength models for FRP anchors in uncracked
concrete. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2010;14(4):406–14.
[13] Orton SL, Jirsa JO, Bayrak O. Design considerations of carbon fibre anchors.
J Compos Constr, ASCE 2008;12(6):608–16.
[14] Ozbakkaloglu T, Saatcioglu M. Tensile behaviour of FRP anchors in concrete.
J Compos Constr, ASCE 2009;13(2):82–92.
[15] Oh H-S, Sim J. Interface debonding failure in beams strengthened with
externally bonded GFRP. Compos Interfaces 2004;11(1):25–42.
[16] Micelli F, Rizzo A, Galati D. Anchorage of composite laminates in RC flexural
beams. Struct Concr, FIB 2010;11(3):117–26.
[17] Lam L, Teng JG. Strength of RC cantilever slabs bonded with GFRP strips.
J Compos Constr, ASCE 2001;5(4):221–7.
[18] Seliem HM, Seracino R, Sumner EA, Smith ST. A case study on the restoration of
flexural capacity of continuous one-way slabs with cutouts. J Compos Constr,
ASCE 2010 [in press].
[19] Widianto Bayrak O, Jirsa JO, Tian Y. Seismic rehabilitation of slab–column
connections. ACI Struct J 2010;107(2):237–47.
[20] Ozcan O, Binici B, Ozcebe G. Seismic strengthening of rectangular reinforced
concrete columns using fiber reinforced polymers. Eng Struct 2010;32(4):
964–73.
[21] Antoniades KK, Salonikios TN, Kappos AJ. Evaluation of hysteretic response and
strength of repaired R/C walls strengthened with FRPs. Eng Struct 2007;29(9):
2158–71.
[22] Tan KH, Patoary MKH. Strengthening of masonry walls against out-of-plane
load using fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement. J Compos Constr, ASCE
2004;8(1):79–87.
[23] Teng JG, Lam L, Chan W, Wang J. Retrofitting of deficient RC cantilever slabs
using GFRP strips. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2001;4(2):75–84.
[24] Eshwar N, Ibell TJ, Nanni A. Effectiveness of CFRP strengthening on curved
soffit RC beams. Adv Struct Eng 2005;8(1):55–68.
[25] Brunckhorst L, Knudsen PJ, Poulson E, Thorsen T. Forstærkning af betonkon-
struktioner med bolte-limede kulfiberbånd. En elementœr, teknisk introduk-
tion. Esbjerg (Denmark): Rosendahls Bogtrykkeri A/S; 2007 [in Danish].
[26] Zhang HW, Smith ST, Kim SJ. Optimisation of carbon and glass FRP anchor
design. Constr Build Mater, FRPRCS9 special edition. 2010 [in press].
[27] El-Reedy M. Steel-reinforced concrete structures. Assessment and repair of
corrosion. Florida (USA): CRC Press; 2008.
[28] ACI 440.2R-08. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP
systems for strengthening concrete structures. Farmington Hills (MI, USA):
American Concrete Institute. ACI; 2008.
[29] BS 1881-116. Method for determination of compressive strength of concrete
cubes. UK: British Standards; 1983.
[30] BS 1881-121. Method for determination of static modulus of elasticity in
compression. UK: British Standards; 1983.
[31] BS 1881-117. Method for determination of tensile splitting strength. UK:
British Standards; 1983.
[32] BS 1881-118. Method for determination of flexural strength. UK: British
Standards; 1983.
[33] BS EN 10002-1:2001. Metallic materials—tensile testing. UK: British Stan-
dards; 2001.
[34] ACI 440.3R-04. Guide test methods for fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) for
reinforcing or strengthening concrete structures. Farmington Hills (MI, USA):
American Concrete Institute. ACI; 2004.
[35] BS EN ISO 527:1996. Plastics—determination of tensile properties. UK: British
Standards; 1999.
[36] Smith ST, Kim SJ. Deflection calculation of FRP-strengthened RC flexural
members. Aust J Struct Eng 2010;11(2):75–86. Special edition on fibre
reinforcement in concrete structures.
[37] ACI 318M-05. Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary. Farmington Hills (MI, USA): American Concrete Institute. ACI;
2005.
[38] Teng JG, Smith ST, Yao J, Chen JF. Intermediate crack induced debonding in RC
beams and slabs. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):447–62.