Crack Width Prediction for Concrete Beams Strengthened

with Carbon FRP Composites

Mohammed A. Al-Saawani 1; Ahmed K. El-Sayed 2; and Abdulaziz I. Al-Negheimish 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Strengthening of RC beams and slabs using fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) is known to control crack width. However, no
specific provisions are provided by most international design codes for predicting crack width in FRP-strengthened members. In this paper,
models for predicting crack width of conventional RC members in five international codes are extended to FRP-strengthened beams by
introducing appropriate modifications to account for the effect of FRP composites. Predictions of the crack width by the resulting models
are evaluated and compared with experimental results. Both analytical and experimental results showed significant reductions in crack widths
due to FRP strengthening. The efficiency of controlling crack width, however, decreased with increased amount of steel reinforcement and
increased with increasing the ratio of FRP plate to beam width. Comparison of the codes’ predictions of the maximum crack width against
experimental results revealed that some predictions are in good agreement with the measured values while others overestimate the maximum
crack width by a significant margin. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000805. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Concrete beams; Strengthening; Fiber-reinforced polymers; Cracking behavior; Crack width.

Introduction
Crack control is an important serviceability criterion in the design
of RC members. Cracking of concrete is related to its limited tensile
deformation capacity, and is usually expected to develop in RC
members under service loads during the lifetime of the structure.
However, there should be some control over the width and distri-
bution of structural cracks in order to maintain the aesthetics of
the structure, protect the internal steel reinforcement especially
when subjected to aggressive environments, and reduce the risk
of debonding of the fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) external
reinforcement.
Cracking pattern and width mainly depend on the available
flexural reinforcement. The most important factor controlling
flexural crack width under a given load is the magnitude of the
tensile strain in the reinforcing steel. Other important factors affect-
ing crack widths are the thickness of concrete cover, quality of con-
crete, ratio of steel reinforcement, size of steel bars, and distribution
of the steel bars in the tension zone (Broms 1965; Avril et al. 2005;
Zhang et al. 2015).
The crack width of an RC flexural member is obtained by multi-
plying the crack spacing by the mean strain of flexural steel
reinforcement. Many research works found in the literature pre-
dicted the crack width of RC flexural members based on theoretical
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, King Saud Univ.,
P.O. Box 800, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 11421. E-mail:
malsaawani@ksu.edu.sa
2
Associate Professor, Center of Excellence for Concrete Research and
Testing, Dept. of Civil Engineering, King Saud Univ., P.O. Box 800,
Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 11421 (corresponding author). E-mail:
ahelsayed@ksu.edu.sa
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, King Saud Univ., P.O. Box 800,
Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 11421. E-mail: negaimsh@ksu.edu.sa
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 25, 2016; approved
on December 22, 2016; published online on March 10, 2017. Discussion
period open until August 10, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for
Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
models and experimental data (ACI 2008; CSA 2012; Saliger 1936;
Thomas 1936; Base et al. 1966; Gergely and Lutz 1968; Frosch
1999), and many of the factors affecting the crack width have been
investigated (Ceroni et al. 2004; Ceroni and Pecce 2004; Ueda et al.
2002; Tan and Saha 2008). Makhlouf and Malhas (1996) studied
the effect of thick concrete cover on the maximum flexural crack
width under service load. Beeby (1971) and Nawy and Blair (1971)
showed that the transverse reinforcement had a strong influence on
the crack spacing.
The application of externally bonded (EB) FRP reinforcements
for the flexural strengthening of RC members is becoming popular
worldwide. The purpose of FRP strengthening is to increase the
ultimate capacity or improve service conditions. Generally, RC
members strengthened with EB FRP laminates have smaller and
closely spaced cracks compared with the unstrengthened beams,
either considering the same service load or considering the same
tension level in the steel (Ceroni and Pecce 2009). This is due to
the additional tension stiffening of the EB reinforcement that re-
duces the crack spacing.
The large number of experimental tests on RC elements
strengthened by externally bonded FRP laminates and sheets avail-
able in the literature focused on studying the flexural behavior at
ultimate conditions (e.g., Al-Negheimish et al. 2012; Al-Zaid et al.
2014). Only limited studies dealt with the cracking behavior of
FRP-strengthened beams (e.g., Ceroni and Pecce 2007, 2009;
Zhang et al. 2015). In this paper, models for predicting the crack
width in conventional RC members from leading international co-
des and design guidelines are presented. These prediction models
are then extended to strengthened beams by introducing appropri-
ate modifications to account for the effect of FRP composites. On
the other hand, an experimental investigation was conducted to
study the effect of several design variables on the crack width of
RC shallow beams strengthened with EB carbon FRP (CFRP) plates.
The cracking behavior of the tested beams as well as the effect of
test variables on the measured crack width are presented and dis-
cussed in this paper. In addition, the resulting prediction models
are evaluated by comparison with the results from the conducted
experimental program.

© ASCE 04017023-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., -1--1

 Overview of Design Provisions for Predicting
Crack Width
The available equations in the literature to predict the crack width
can be classified into four categories depending on the approach
used (Borosnyói and Balázs 2005):
1. Calculation of crack width in an analytical way by solving the
differential equation of bond slip;
2. Calculation of crack width by semianalytical equations; the
models include simplifications either on bond stress or on
strains;
3. Calculation of crack width by empirical relationships based on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fitting of a large number of experimental data, with or without
explicit expression of crack spacing and average strain of rein-
forcement; and
4. Numerical models for direct or indirect consideration of cracks
(e.g., fracture mechanics models, finite-element method models,
damage models, smeared crack models).
Despite the large number of investigations conducted to develop
a general analytical method for crack width prediction, there is still
no consensus among researchers about the relative significance of
the various variables that affect crack width, which sometimes leads
to different conclusions. Most design provisions of the crack width
in international codes and guidelines are based on formulas vali-
dated through experimental tests. These formulas calculate crack
width and spacing for RC members without external FRP strength-
ening. In RC beams externally bonded with FRP, the stress transfer
between the external laminate and the concrete has to be considered
in addition to the stress transfer between tension steel and concrete.
Therefore, prediction equations by codes for RC members need to
be modified to apply to RC members strengthened with EB FRP.
Among the international codes and guidelines for the prediction
of crack width, fib Bulletin 14 (2001) gives a formula for predicting
the mean crack spacing of FRP-strengthened RC members, which
can be used to calculate the crack width. On the other hand, other
codes such as Eurocode 2 (CEN 2004), ACI 224.1R-07 (2007),
JSCE-07 (2007), and CAN/CSA S6-10 (CSA 2010) provide for-
mulas for predicting crack width in conventional RC flexural mem-
bers but not for FRP-strengthened members.
fib Bulletin 14
Assuming stabilized cracking, the maximum value of the crack
width, wmax , is calculated by the fib Bulletin 14 (2001) as
wmax ¼ βsrm ξε2 ð1Þ
where β ¼ 1.7 is a coefficient that relates the mean crack width to
the maximum value; srm = mean crack spacing; and ξ = tension
stiffening coefficient given by
8 The maximum crack spacing, sr;max , depends on the spacing of
>
<0 M k < M cr
 
ξ¼ M cr 2 ð2Þ
>
: 1 − β β
1 2 M k > M cr
Mk
in which β 1 = coefficient taking into account the bond character-
istics of the reinforcement (β 1 ¼ 0.5 and 1 for smooth and de-
formed steel, respectively); β 2 = coefficient taking into account
the loading type (β 2 ¼ 0.5 and 1 for long-term and short-term load-
ing, respectively); M cr = cracking moment of the RC section; and
M k = acting moment on the section.
In Eq. (1), ε2 is the reinforcement strain in the fully cracked state
given as
© ASCE 04017023-2
J. Compos. Constr., -1--1
T R þ Ef Af εo
ε2 ¼ ð3Þ
Es As þ Ef Af
where T R ¼ T s þ T f ¼ M k =ze , with ze being the lever arm be-
tween the total tensile force of both tension steel and FRP
ðT s þ T f Þ and the compression force of the concrete and compres-
sion steel ðCc þ Cs Þ; Es , As and Ef , Af = modulus of elasticity and
area of steel and FRP, respectively; and εo = initial strain in concrete
prior to FRP strengthening.
The mean crack spacing, srm , taking into account the effect
of both the internal and the external reinforcement, can be calcu-
lated as
2f ctm Ac;eff
srm ¼ ð4Þ
τ fm uf þ τ sm us
where fctm = mean value of the concrete tensile strength; Ac;eff =
effective area in tension taken as the lesser of 2.5bðh − ds Þ and
bðh–xÞ=3, in which b and h represent the width and height of the
RC section; ds = depth of the tension steel; x = depth of the neutral
axis; τ sm ¼ 1.8f ctm and τ fm ¼ 1.25f ctm are the mean bond stress
of the steel and the FRP, respectively; and us and uf = bond
perimeter of the steel and FRP reinforcement, respectively.
The fib Bulletin 14 recommends a simplified method for calcu-
lating the maximum crack width by neglecting the tension stiffen-
ing effect ðξ ¼ 1Þ, and assuming no initial strain in concrete prior to
strengthening ðεo ¼ 0Þ, so the crack width could be derived from
Eqs. (1)–(4) as
  
Mk 1
wmax ¼ 2.1ρc;eff ð5Þ
Es ds ρeq us þ 0.694uf
where ρc;eff ¼ Ac;eff =bds is the ratio of the effective area in tension;
and the equivalent reinforcement ratio is suggested to be taken
as ρeq ¼ As þ ðEf =Es ÞAf =bds .
Eurocode 2
In the latest version of Eurocode 2 (EC2-04), the maximum value
of crack width for conventional RC members is calculated as
follows:
wmax ¼ sr;max ðεsm − εcm Þ ð6Þ
where the maximum crack spacing, sr;max , is calculated from the
following expressions:
(
3.4cc þ0.425kb kl ρp;eff
db
whensteelspacing ≤ 5ðcc þdb =2Þ
sr;max ¼
1.3ðh−xÞ whensteelspacing > 5ðcc þdb =2Þ
ð7Þ
the main reinforcing bars. If the bar spacing is equal to or less than
5ðcc þ db =2Þ, the concrete cover to the tension reinforcement cc ,
the diameter of the main bars db , and the effective reinforcing ratio
[suggested to be taken as ρp;eff ¼ As þ ðEf =Es ÞAf =Ac;eff ] will be
taken into consideration in the calculation of sr;max . In addition,
other factors are also taken into consideration in the crack spacing
equation, including the bond properties of the steel reinforcement
(kb taken as 0.8 for ribbed bars and 1.6 for bars with plain surface)
and the type of loading (kl taken as 0.5 for bending and 1.0 for pure
tension). On the other hand, in the case the main reinforcing bar
spacing is greater than 5ðcc þ db =2Þ, crack spacing depends on the
height of the cross section and the location of the neutral axis, x.
The preceding equations show that thickness of the concrete cover
J. Compos. Constr.
 has a significant effect on the crack spacing (concrete cover is di-
rectly proportional to the crack spacing), which has a great effect on
the crack width.
The average strain in the tension steel reinforcement, εsm , and
the average strain in concrete between cracks, εcm , are taken into
consideration in the crack width equation, where the difference be-
tween these strains is calculated from the following expression:
f s − kt ρfp;eff
ctm
ð1 þ ns ρp;eff Þ fs
ðεsm − εcm Þ ¼ ≥ 0.6
Es Es
which takes into account the stress of the tension reinforcement, f s ;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the loading duration (kt taken as 0.6 for short-term loading and 0.4
for long-term loading); the effective tensile strength of concrete,
f ctm ; the effective reinforcement ratio, ρp;eff ; and the modular
ratio (ns ¼ Es =Ec ). The lower limit is suggested to the difference
ðεsm − εcm Þ, which is set greater than or equal to 0.6fs =Es .
When external fiber reinforcement is applied, Eqs. (7) and (8)
can be modified (Ceroni and Pecce 2009) to introduce the contri-
bution of the external reinforcement in ρp;eff as follows:
As þ Af ðEf =Es Þ
ρp;eff ¼
Ac;eff
where Af and Ef = area and the modulus of elasticity of the external
FRP reinforcement, respectively. The external FRP reinforcement
is also accounted for in Eq. (8) by the reduced stress in steel, which
is obtained from considering the RC cracked section with the ex-
ternal FRP laminate.
American Concrete Institute Approach
The approach of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), through
ACI 224.1R-07 (ACI 2007), is based on the statistical analysis
of Gergely and Lutz (1968) of crack width data from a number
of sources. Based on the statistical analysis, the equation that pre-
dicts the maximum crack width in bending is given in a simplified
form by
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
wmax ¼ 0.011β ACI f s 3 dc A × 10−3 ð10Þ
where wmax = most probable maximum crack width (mm). The steel
stress is the most important variable affecting crack width and is
taken into account in the ACI equation with a factor f s. Also, the
maximum crack width is directly affected by the thickness of con-
crete cover, dc , considered from the tension concrete fiber to the
center of the closest steel bars in millimeters. In addition, the ACI
equation takes into account the effect of the area of concrete sub-
jected to tensile stresses by the factor, A, which is calculated as the
area of concrete symmetric with reinforcing steel divided by num-
ber of bars in square millimeters.
The ACI recommended equation for crack control predicts the
maximum crack width at the level of tension steel reinforcement
and does not require the evaluation of crack spacing. The width
of a flexural crack increases with the distance from the neutral axis.
This is taken into account in the ACI prediction equation through
the use of an amplification factor, β ACI , to account for the change of
the strain over the beam section. This factor ðβ ACI ¼ h − x=ds − xÞ is
taken as the ratio of distance between neutral axis and concrete ten-
sion face to distance between neutral axis and the reinforcing steel.
It could be seen that the ACI recommended equation for crack
control predicts the most probable maximum crack width, which
was derived from regression analyses on data from several crack
width studies. This usually means that expected crack widths in the
member have high probability to be below the calculated value.
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., -1--1
To predict the crack width of FRP-strengthened beams using the
preceding equation, the steel stress, fs , is suggested to be calculated
for the FRP-strengthened section based on elastic cracked-section
analysis. Also, the area of FRP composite laminate, Af , is trans-
formed into an equivalent area of steel reinforcement using the elas-
tic modulus ratio Ef =Es . Thus, the distance, tr , considered from the
extreme tensile fiber of concrete to the resultant of the tension
forces in the internal steel bars and the external FRP composite
is given by
ð8Þ
As dc
tr ¼ ð11Þ
As þ Af ðEf =Es Þ
The value of A in Eq. (10) is then calculated as A ¼ ð2btr =nb Þ,
where b is the beam width and nb is the number of tensile steel bars.
Japanese Standard Specifications
For unstrengthened RC members, the crack width can be calculated
according to JSCE-07 using the following equation:
 
ð9Þ f 0
wmax ¼ 1.1α1 α2 α3 ½4cc þ 0.7ðcs − db Þ se þ εcsd ð12Þ
Es
in which cc = concrete cover (mm); cs and db = center-to-center
distance and diameter of the steel reinforcement (mm), respec-
tively; α1 = coefficient that characterizes the effect of surface geom-
etry of reinforcement (α1 ¼ 1.0 for deformed bars and α1 ¼ 1.3 for
plain bars and prestressing steel); and α2 = constant to take into
account the effect of concrete quality, calculated as
15
α2 ¼ þ 0.7 ð13Þ
fc0 þ 20
in which f c0 = compressive strength of concrete (N=mm2 ). Here, α3
is a constant that takes into account the effect of multiple layers of
tensile reinforcement; it may be calculated as
5ðnl þ 2Þ
α3 ¼ ð14Þ
7nl þ 8
0
in which nl = number of layers of tensile reinforcement. Also, εcsd
is the compressive strain for evaluation of the increment of crack
width due to shrinkage and creep of concrete, and f se is the incre-
ment of stress of reinforcement from the state in which concrete
stress at the portion of reinforcement is 0 (N=mm2 ).
For FRP-strengthened members, the crack width according to
the Recommendations for Upgrading of Concrete Structures with
Use of Continuous Fiber Sheets (JSCE 2001) is approximately 0.3
to 0.7 times the width of cracks in members not bonded with FRP.
For the specific case of large dead load, and the absence of concrete
cracking prior to the application of FRP, or for structures governed
by live loads, the flexural crack width may be calculated using
Eq. (15) [Eq. C6.5.1 in JSCE (2001)], in which the crack width
is taken as 70% of the width calculated from Eq. (12) [Eq. 7.4.4
in JSCE-07 (JSCE 2007)]
 
f 0
wmax ¼ 0.7α½4cc þ 0.7ðcs − db Þ se þ εcsd ð15Þ
Es
In addition, the external FRP reinforcement is accounted for in
the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) prediction equation
of the crack width by the reduced stress in steel reinforcement,
which is calculated for the FRP-strengthened section based on
elastic cracked-section analysis.
04017023-3 J. Compos. Constr.
 Canadian Standards Association CAN/CSA S6-10
In Supplement No. 1 to the Canadian Highway Bridge Design
Code CAN/CSA S6-10 (CSA 2010), the maximum crack width,
wmax , is given by
wmax ¼ kc β c srm εsm
where kc = 1.2 for components with epoxy-coated reinforcing steel
and 1.0 for all other components; and β c ¼ 1.7 when cracking is
caused by load, and when cracking is caused by superimposed de-
formations, β c shall be taken as 1.7 for cross sections with a mini-
mum dimension exceeding of 800 mm and 1.3 for cross sections
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
initial cracking; both are calculated on the basis of a cracked
section.
To predict the crack width of FRP-strengthened beams using the
CAN/CSA S6-10 equation, the external FRP reinforcement can be
accounted for in the prediction equation by modifying the stress in
ð16Þ steel reinforcement to be calculated for the FRP-strengthened
section based on elastic cracked-section analysis. Also, Eq. (17)
can be modified to introduce the contribution of the external FRP
reinforcement in ρp;eff as given previously by Eq. (9).
Experimental Investigation

with a minimum dimension of 300 mm or less (linear interpolation

may be used to calculate β c for cross sections with a minimum This experimental investigation was conducted to study the effect
dimension between these limits). of design variables on the cracking behavior of RC shallow beams
The average crack spacing, srm , shall be calculated as follows strengthened with EB CFRP plates. The test variables included the
(in millimeters): tension steel reinforcement ratio, ρs , the compressive strength of
concrete, fc0 , and the width of the CFRP plates, bf . A total of
db 11 RC shallow beams with section dimensions of 400 mm wide
srm ¼ 50 þ 0.25kl ð17Þ
ρp;eff and 250 mm high and a span length of 3.20 m were constructed and
tested up to failure with a constant bending moment zone of 1.0 m
in which kl = 0.5 for bending and 1.0 for pure tension; and across the midspan. The shear span to effective depth ratio for all
ρp;eff = ratio As =Ac;eff , where Ac;eff is the effective tension area tested beams was kept constant at 4.65. The test beams were di-
of the concrete cross section taken as the lesser of 2.5bðh − ds Þ vided into three groups considering the test parameters being inves-
or ð1=3Þbðh − xÞ, and As is the area of reinforcement contained tigated. A summary of the experimental program and test matrix is
within Ac;eff . shown in Table 1, while the properties of concrete, steel, and FRP
The mean strain in the steel reinforcement, εsm , shall be calcu- reinforcements are reported in Table 2.
lated as follows: The effect of ρs on the cracking behavior of the FRP-
  2  strengthened beams was investigated in Group I by testing six
fs fsr beams (having ρs values of 0.54, 0.89, and 1.25%). The effect of
εsm ¼ 1− ð18Þ
Es fs fc0 was investigated in Group II by testing four beams in addition to
two beams (C-0.9-35-0 and S-0.9-35-240) from Group I (target val-
where f s = stress in tension reinforcement at the serviceability limit ues of f c0 of 15, 25, and 35 MPa). The effect of bf was investigated
state; and fsr = stress in reinforcement under conditions causing in Group III by testing one beam (S-0.5-35-360) in addition to the

Table 1. Details of the Test Beams

Average f c0
Group Designationa Variable (MPa) ρs (%) ρf (%) Strengthening system
I C-0.5-35-0 ρs 35 0.54 — Control
S-0.5-35-240 0.39 EB CFRP, bf ¼ 240 mm
C-0.9-35-0 0.89 — Control
S-0.9-35-240 0.39 EB CFRP, bf ¼ 240 mm
C-1.3-35-0 1.25 — Control
S-1.3-35-240 0.39 EB CFRP, bf ¼ 240 mm
II C-0.9-24-0 f c0 24 0.89 — Control
S-0.9-24-240 0.39 EB CFRP, bf ¼ 240 mm
C-0.9-17-0 17 — Control
S-0.9-17-240 0.39 EB CFRP, bf ¼ 240 mm
III S-0.5-35-360 bf 35 0.54 0.59 EB CFRP, bf ¼ 360 mm
a
C = control shallow beam; S = strengthened shallow beam; first number = percentage of steel reinforcement ratio; second number = concrete compressive
strength; third number = CFRP plate width.

Table 2. Material Properties of the Tested Beams

Steel Concrete CFRPa
Property f y (MPa) Es (GPa) f 0c (MPa) Ef (GPa) f f (MPa) εf tf (mm)
Tension, ϕ14 mm 475 190 — — — — —
Compression, ϕ10 mm 530 207 — — — — —
Concrete 1 — — 35.3 — — — —
Concrete 2 — — 23.6 — — — —
Concrete 3 — — 17.4 — — — —
FRP plate — — — 165 2,800 0.017 1.4
a
CFRP plates are known commercially as S1214/220 Sika CarboDur (Sika Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia); CFRP material properties as provided
by the manufacturer.

© ASCE 04017023-4 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Test setup and instrumentation: (a) elevation; (b) beam cross sections; (c) locations of strain gauges along the CFRP plates
other two beams (C-0.5-35-0 and S-0.5-35-240) from Group I
(ratios of bf =b are 0.6 and 0.9). Fig. 1 shows the beam dimensions
and reinforcements. Detailed information about the fabrication and
testing can be found in Al-Saawani et al. (2015).
Experimental Results and Discussion
The cracking patterns were observed and presented for different
load levels until failure. The average crack spacing and width for
the tested beams were measured in the central part (between the two
concentrated loads) of each beam, where the bending moment is
constant. Fig. 2 shows the crack patterns for the tested beams at
yielding of tension steel. Generally, no significant difference in crack
spacing was observed for the unstrengthened and the strengthened
beams. The steel stirrups spaced at 100 mm appear to have influ-
enced the development of cracks during the loading history. During
testing, the initial crack widths in the constant moment region were
manually measured at the level of tension steel reinforcement using a
handheld 50× microscope. With further loading, the widths of these
cracks were also measured using high-accuracy LVDTs up to failure.
Fig. 3 shows curves of the load versus average crack width plot-
ted for the tested beams in the different groups. Fig. 3(a) shows that
increasing the tension steel reinforcement ratio, ρs , had a consid-
erable effect in reducing the crack width for the unstrengthened
beams when compared at the same load level. Applying external
FRP reinforcement modifies the cracking behavior due to the addi-
tional stresses transferred to the concrete in tension by the external
FRP reinforcement. Generally, significant reductions in the crack
© ASCE 04017023-5
J. Compos. Constr., -1--1
widths are obtained at both service and ultimate limits due to FRP
strengthening. Considering the full loading history, the tension-
stiffening effect due to FRP strengthening is evident even after
yielding of tension steel for all strengthened beams due to the elas-
tic behavior of FRPs (Ceroni et al. 2004; Ceroni and Pecce 2004).
The external FRP reinforcement produces the highest tension stiff-
ening effect for beams with the lowest steel reinforcement percent-
age (Beam S-0.5-35-240) as indicated by Fig. 3(a). The effectiveness
of EB FRP laminates in controlling the width of cracks, however,
decreased with increased ρs of the tested beams.
Comparing the values of the measured crack width for the un-
strengthened beams in Fig. 3(b) shows insignificant change in the
crack widths with increasing the concrete strength, f c0 . A similar
finding was noticed among their respective strengthened beams,
which are cast with varying fc0 (plotted in the same figure), where
no major change in the cracking behavior and crack widths was
observed among these strengthened beams. On the other hand,
Fig. 3(c) shows considerable reductions in the average crack width
with increasing the width of the CFRP plates (and consequently
increasing the FRP reinforcement ratio, calculated as ρf ¼ Af =bds ),
especially after yielding of tension steel. The greater the amount of
EB FRP used (Beam S-0.5-35-360), the greater is the tension stiff-
ening effect and the contribution to crack width control.
Table 3 lists the average and maximum experimental crack
width measured at service load level (wave;serv and wmax;serv ) and at
ultimate load level (wave;u and wmax;u ). It also shows the efficiency
of FRP strengthening in controlling the crack width of the strength-
ened beams as compared with their respective unstrengthened (con-
trol) beams, which is indicated by the ratios of the crack widths of
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Crack patterns of the tested beams at yielding: (a) Group I beams; (b) Group II beams; (c) Group III beams

Fig. 3. Load-average crack width curves for the tested beams: (a) Group I beams; (b) Group II beams; (c) Group III beams

the strengthened beams to that of their respective control beams It is observed from Table 3 that applying EB FRP laminates
(wstr =wcrl ). The service limit considered in this table is taken cor- caused significant reductions in the measured crack width for most
responding to 60% of the ultimate load capacity for the respective strengthened beams. This reduction is quantified numerically in
control beams in the different test groups. Table 3 by the ratios of the average crack width of the strengthened

© ASCE 04017023-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., -1--1

 Average crack
spacing (mm)
beams to that of their respective control beams (wstr =wcrl ), which
are conducted at service load level Pserv , and also at ultimate load,

111
99
101
99
101
97
102
92
93
102
110
Pu , as listed in the table. Varying the steel reinforcement ratio, the
FRP strengthening of Beam S-0.5-35-240 (which is reinforced by
the smallest ρs of 0.5%) was very effective in controlling crack
width because the average measured crack width was only 33%
Number of
cracks, nc
10 of that of the corresponding unstrengthened beam. Increasing ρs
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
11
10
10
to 0.9% in the strengthened beam S-0.9-35-240 caused a reduc-
tion in the efficiency of FRP strengthening in controlling the crack
width because the average measured crack width was increased
to be 51% of its respective control beam. Further increase in ρs
wstr =wcrl

0.20

0.36

0.43

0.19

0.13
0.09
—

—
to 1.25% in the strengthened beam S-1.3-35-240 significantly re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

At Pu

duced the efficiency of FRP strengthening in controlling the crack

Maximum crack width (mm)

width because the average measured crack width was 83% of its

Service limit considered in comparing the change in crack width due to CFRP strengthening is taken at 60% of ultimate load of the respective control beams.
wmax;u

respective control beam. On the other hand, increasing the concrete

4.00
0.81
1.99
0.72
1.58
0.68
2.27
0.42
2.91
0.39
0.38 strength, fc0 , had a marginal effect on the crack width control due to
FRP strengthening. By contrast, more efficiency in reducing the
crack width due to FRP strengthening was obtained when increas-
wstr =wcrl

0.26

0.61

0.79

0.57

0.42
0.21

ing the ratio of CFRP plate to beam width from bf =b ¼ 0.6 (for
—

strengthened beam S-0.5-35-240) to bf =b ¼ 0.9 (for strengthened

At Pserv

beam S-0.5-35-360) because the average measured crack widths

wmax;serv

were further reduced from 33 to 26% of that of the control beam

0.37
0.10
0.23
0.14
0.17
0.14
0.23
0.13
0.25
0.11
0.08

C-0.5-35-0.
Fig. 4 shows the relationship between the average experimental
crack width and the corresponding strain in the steel reinforcement.
wstr =wcrl

This relationship is plotted for the strengthened beam S-0.9-35-240

0.24

0.30

0.33

0.17

0.12
0.11
—

along with its control beam C-0.9-35-0 as shown in Fig. 4(a). On

At Pu

the other hand, Fig. 4(b) shows the same plots for beams reinforced
Average crack width (mm)

with different ρs and strengthened with the same amount of CFRP,

wave;u
2.36
0.57
1.78
0.53
1.44
0.48
2.24
0.39
2.80
0.34
0.26

while Fig. 4(c) shows plots of the relationship for beams rein-
forced with equal ρs and strengthened with different amounts of
CFRP. These figures show that the values of the crack width are
wstr =wcrl

directly proportional to the strain in steel reinforcement up to the

0.33

0.51

0.83

0.53

0.49
0.26
—

yielding of steel. Moreover, it is noted that the crack width values

At Pserv

are almost equal when measured at the same steel strain, irrespec-
tive of the amount of steel or CFRP reinforcements and loading
wave;serv
0.26
0.09
0.20
0.10
0.13
0.10
0.21
0.11
0.19
0.09
0.07

level considered.
62.7

101.1

119.9

97.4

92.8

62.7
Pserv a

Comparison with Design Codes and Guidelines

International codes and guidelines account for the cracking behav-
ior of RC beams by recommending design equations for predicting
ΔPcr (%)
Table 3. Experimental Crack Width at Service and Ultimate Load

63

54

28

30

16
132

the maximum or design crack width. In this section, the accuracy

—

of the predictions by the various design codes and guidelines pre-

sented previously are examined using the results from the exper-
imental testing program. Because these provisions give equations
104.6
211.9
168.4
259.3
199.8
306.1
162.3
250.3
154.7
253.2
235.1
Pu

for predictions of the maximum crack width, the comparisons are

conducted with the maximum crack width measured experimen-
Load (kN)

tally. The crack width prediction equations were implemented in

64.7
154.0
119.1
190.7
165.5
251.7
125.7
215.7
127.0
215.9
195.8
Py

an analytical model developed by Al-Zaid et al. (2012) in order

to calculate the crack width values of the tested beams. The model
is based on cross-sectional analysis satisfying strain compatibility
20.4
33.2
26.3
40.4
37.0
47.4
28.2
36.8
29.2
33.9
47.4
Pcr

and equilibrium conditions. The moment–curvature relationship

could be generated for a RC beam section using an incremental
Beam designation

strain technique. Also, the load–deflection relationship of the beam

S-0.5-35-240

S-0.9-35-240

S-1.3-35-240

S-0.9-24-240

S-0.9-17-240
S-0.5-35-360
C-0.5-35-0

C-0.9-35-0

C-1.3-35-0

C-0.9-24-0

C-0.9-17-0

could be generated with respect to its configuration, loading sys-

tem, and preloading conditions. The values of the crack width were
calculated at several levels of steel stress starting from the initiation
of concrete cracking to the yielding of tension steel reinforcement,
considering the actual properties of steel and CFRP reinforcements
and concrete used in this investigation.
Group

Figs. 5–9 show curves for the load versus maximum crack width
III

of the tested beams in the different groups. The figures also show
II
I

© ASCE 04017023-7 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Measured crack width versus corresponding strain in steel for the strengthened beams: (a) control and strengthened beams with ρs ¼ 0.9%;
(b) beams with different ρs and strengthened with equal bf ; (c) beams with equal ρs and strengthened with different bf

Fig. 5. Comparisons of the measured crack widths with fib Bulletin 14 predictions: (a) comparisons of strengthened beams with varied ρs ; (b) com-
parisons of strengthened beams with varied fc0 ; (c) comparisons of strengthened beams with varied bf

comparisons of these experimental curves with the predicted values
given by the different codes, for the unstrengthened as well as the
FRP-strengthened beams. These figures were plotted to show com-
parisons of load-crack width starting from cracking of concrete
stage until yielding of tension steel for both unstrengthened and
FRP-strengthened beams.
Predictions of the maximum crack width for the RC beams
externally strengthened with FRP laminates using the simplified
method of the fib Bulletin 14 (fib 2001) presented previously in
Eq. (5) are shown in Fig. 5. The figure shows that the crack width
predictions are generally in good agreement with the experimental
values for most of the strengthened beams regardless of the varying
values of the steel reinforcement [Fig. 5(a)], the concrete strength
[Fig. 5(b)], or the width of FRP external reinforcement used
[Fig. 5(c)].
For EC2-04, good predictions of the maximum crack width
were provided for the unstrengthened RC beams, as shown in
Fig. 6(a). These predictions, however, were slightly underestimated
for the beams with larger ρs at small levels of steel stress. The com-
parisons shown in the figure indicate that the EC2-04 prediction

© ASCE 04017023-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Comparisons of the measured crack widths with EC2-04 predictions: (a) comparisons of unstrengthened beams with varied ρs ; (b) compar-
isons of strengthened beams with varied ρs ; (c) comparisons of unstrengthened beams with varied fc0 ; (d) comparisons of strengthened beams with
varied f c0 ; (e) comparisons of strengthened beams with varied bf

equation could capture the effect of varying ρs on the maximum
crack width because it accounts for the stress in the reinforcing
steel, computed on the basis of a cracked section. The EC2-04
equation also limited the value of the average strain εm to not be
less than 0.6fs =Es . This is clearly important for avoiding underes-
timated predictions of the crack width at low levels of steel stress
for RC beams reinforced with low ρs. On the other hand, Fig. 6(b)
shows comparisons of the maximum crack width for the FRP-
strengthened beams reinforced with different ρs , calculated using
the modified equation of EC2-04 taking into account the presence
of external FRP laminates. The figure indicates good correlation
with the experimental values at all levels of steel stress. Compari-
son curves of the maximum crack width for tested beams with
different compressive strength of concrete are shown in Fig. 6(c)
for the unstrengthened beams and in Fig. 6(d) for the FRP-
strengthened beams. Predictions obtained by the EC2-04 equation
were in good agreement with the experimental crack width values.
Fig. 6(e) shows the effect of varying the CFRP plate width on
the predicted values of the maximum crack width as compared with
the experimental results. The predicted values correlated well
with the experimental values for the strengthened beams as shown
in the figure.
Predictions of the maximum crack widths by ACI 224.1R-07
(ACI 2007) for the unstrengthened RC beams were in good agree-
ment with measured values, as shown in Fig. 7(a). The ACI equa-
tion accounts for the effect of varying ρs by including the stress in
reinforcing steel, fs , and also the thickness of cover from tension
concrete fiber to the center of the closest bar as well as the effective
area of concrete symmetric with reinforcing steel bars. Therefore,
the effect of varying ρs on the maximum crack width was reflected
in the prediction equation, as shown in the comparison. On the
other hand, predictions of the maximum crack width for the FRP-
strengthened beams were calculated using the modified ACI equa-
tion taking into account the external FRP reinforcement, according
to Eq. (11). Fig. 7(b) shows good correlation of the predicted crack
width values with the experimental results at different levels of steel
stress for the strengthened beams reinforced with different ρs . Sim-
ilarly, Figs. 7(c and d) show good predictions of the crack width for
the unstrengthened and FRP-strengthened beams with different fc0 .
On the other hand, Fig. 7(e) shows the effect of varying the width of
the CFRP laminate on the predicted values of the maximum crack
width obtained by the modified ACI equation. The predictions were
in good agreement with the experimental values for both of the
FRP-strengthened beams.
Fig. 8(a) shows that the JSCE-07 (JSCE 2007) predictions over-
estimated the maximum crack width for the unstrengthened beams
reinforced with varying ρs by a significant margin. Similarly, the
JSCE prediction equation accounting for the presence of the exter-
nal FRP reinforcement gave an overestimated maximum crack
width except for the beam reinforced with the largest ρs , as shown
in Fig. 8(b). Comparison curves of the maximum crack width given
by the JSCE for the beams cast with different fc0 also indicated

© ASCE 04017023-9 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Comparisons of the measured crack widths with ACI predictions: (a) comparisons of unstrengthened beams with varied ρs ; (b) comparisons of
strengthened beams with varied ρs ; (c) comparisons of unstrengthened beams with varied f c0 ; (d) comparisons of strengthened beams with varied f c0 ;
(e) comparisons of strengthened beams with varied bf

overestimated values [as shown in Fig. 8(c) for the unstrengthened
beams, and shown in Fig. 8(d) for the FRP-strengthened beams].
On the other hand, Fig. 8(e) shows a comparison of the maximum
crack width for the strengthened beams with different CFRP plate
width given by the modified JSCE equation accounting for the ex-
ternal FRP strengthening. The highly overestimated predictions of
the maximum crack width given by JSCE are due to the large crack
spacing values calculated by the code equation, as will be discussed
subsequently.
Fig. 9(a) shows overestimated values of the maximum crack
width given by the CAN/CSA S6-10 code (CSA 2010) for the un-
strengthened beams. Predictions of the crack width for the FRP-
strengthened beams reinforced with various ρs were noticed to be
slightly overestimated but in better agreement with the experimen-
tal values after implementing modifications for the prediction
equation to account for the external FRP strengthening [Fig. 9(b)].
Also, predictions of the crack width for the unstrengthened beams
[Fig. 9(c)] and the strengthened beams [Fig. 9(d)] with different fc0
were shown to be overestimated. Fig. 9(e) shows highly overesti-
mated values of the maximum crack width provided by the modified
equation of the CAN/CSA S6-10 code for the beams reinforced by
the smallest ρs and strengthened with different CFRP plate widths.
Table 4 and Fig. 10(a) show comparisons of the maximum ex-
perimental crack widths (measured at the level of tension steel rein-
forcement) for the unstrengthened beams with the predicted values
calculated by the different design guidelines. The service load limit
considered in these comparisons was taken as 60% of the yielding
load of the unstrengthened beams. The comparisons show that
EC2-04 and ACI 224.1R-07 provided predictions that are generally
in good agreement with the experimental crack width values with
the least scatter because the average ratios of the predicted to mea-
sured maximum crack width, wmax;calc =wmax;exp , are 0.93 and 1.11,
with coefficients of variation of 5 and 6%, respectively. On the
other hand, the JSCE-07 and CAN/CSA S6-10 predictions over-
estimated the crack width and showed more scatter, with the aver-
age ratio of wmax;calc =wmax;exp being 1.43 and 1.36, and having
coefficients of variation of 11 and 14%, respectively.
Comparisons of the maximum experimental crack widths
(measured at the level of tension steel reinforcement) for the FRP-
strengthened beams with predicted values by the modified equa-
tions from the various design guidelines are shown in Table 5
and Fig. 10(b). The service load limit considered in these compar-
isons was taken at 80% of the yielding load of the strengthened
beams, as prescribed by ACI 440.2R (ACI 2008). The comparisons
indicated that each of the fib Bulletin 14, EC2-04, and ACI 224.
1R-07 provided predictions that are in good agreement with the ex-
perimental values of the crack width with the least scatter. This is
evidenced because the average ratios of the predicted to measured
maximum crack width, wmax;calc =wmax;exp , are 1.01, 1.06, and 1.02,
with coefficients of variation of 10, 11, and 9%, respectively.
On the other hand, the JSCE-07 and CAN/CSA S6-10 predictions
overestimated the crack width and showed more scatter, with the

© ASCE 04017023-10 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Comparisons of the measured crack widths with JSCE predictions: (a) comparisons of unstrengthened beams with varied ρs ; (b) comparisons
of strengthened beams with varied ρs ; (c) comparisons of unstrengthened beams with varied f c0 ; (d) comparisons of strengthened beams with varied
f c0 ; (e) comparisons of strengthened beams with varied bf

average ratio of wmax;calc =wmax;exp being 1.17 and 1.24, and having
coefficients of variation of 22 and 11%, respectively.
These comparisons indicate that the modifications implemented
into the crack width prediction equations for the unstrengthened
beams that are given by both EC2-04 and ACI 224.1R-07 resulted
in good predictions of the maximum crack width for the FRP-
strengthened beams considering the different steel and FRP rein-
forcement ratios and concrete compressive strength. On the other
hand, modified equations of the JSCE-07 and CAN/CSA S6-10
codes to predict the maximum crack width for the FRP-strength-
ened beams provided poor predictions with larger scatter.
It is also observed from Table 5 that, for the same code, the pre-
dicted crack width values are almost equal when calculated at the
same steel strain, irrespective of the amount of tension reinforce-
ment or loading level considered. This is more pronounced for fib
Bulletin 14, EC2-04, and ACI 224.1R-07. This observation was
evidenced experimentally as discussed previously and shown in
Fig. 4, emphasizing the key role played by the strain in steel rein-
forcement in determining the crack width in RC beams.
Discussion of the Main Parameters Related
to Code Predictions
Formulation of crack width in design is usually based on the aver-
age crack spacing, srm , and the average reinforcement strain, εsm .
Therefore, it is convenient to show a comparison of the crack
spacing and also of the average strain in steel, as calculated by the
different codes and guidelines, for both the unstrengthened and the
FRP-strengthened beams at the service load limit (taken as 60% of
the yielding load of the unstrengthened beams and 80% of the
yielding load of the strengthened beams).
Fig. 11(a) includes crack spacing for the strengthened beams
predicted by fib Bulletin 14, EC2-04, JSCE-07, and CAN/CSA
S6-10 codes, while no prediction was given by the ACI 224.1R-07
for the crack spacing because the equation calculates the crack
width directly without predicting the crack spacing. On the other
hand, Fig. 11(b) includes a comparison of the average strain in the
steel reinforcement predicted by the different codes, which repre-
sents the average tensile strain difference between the steel and the
concrete taking into account factors such as bond stress, tension
stiffening, and shrinkage effects. The cause for the inaccurate pre-
dictions given by the JSCE-07 and the CAN/CSA S6-10 codes
is highlighted by the large variation of crack spacing shown in
Fig. 11(a). The crack spacing predicted by fib Bulletin 14 was ap-
proximately similar to the average experimental crack spacing of
100 mm, while both the JSCE-07 and CAN/CSA S6-10 predictions
were always higher than experimental values by significant mar-
gins. No such variations were observed from comparison of the
average steel strain in Fig. 11(b), which shows only marginal differ-
ences in the predicted values by various codes.
In the JSCE-07 code, the only modification that was applied to
the prediction equation by JSCE-07 is represented by multiplying

© ASCE 04017023-11 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Comparisons of the measured crack widths with CAN/CSA S6-10 predictions: (a) comparisons for unstrengthened beams with varied ρs ;
(b) comparisons for strengthened beams with varied ρs ; (c) comparisons for unstrengthened beams with varied fc0 ; (d) comparisons for strengthened
beams with varied fc0 ; (e) comparisons of strengthened beams with varied bf

Table 4. Comparisons of the Maximum Experimental Crack Width for Unstrengthened Beams with Codes’ Predictions at Service Load
Eurocode 2 ACI 224.1R-07 JSCE-07 CAN/CSA S6-10
Experimental (CEN 2004) (ACI 2007) (JSCE 2007) (CSA 2010)
Pserv a wmax;exp wmax;calc wmax;calc = wmax;calc wmax;calc = wmax;calc wmax;calc = wmax;calc wmax;calc =
Beam (kN) (mm) (mm) wmax;exp (mm) wmax;exp (mm) wmax;exp (mm) wmax;exp
C-0.5-35-0 38.8 0.16 0.15 0.95 0.19 1.20 0.27 1.74 0.27 1.72
C-0.9-35-0 71.5 0.17 0.14 0.85 0.18 1.08 0.22 1.31 0.22 1.30
C-1.3-35-0 99.3 0.15 0.14 0.98 0.17 1.16 0.20 1.35 0.19 1.28
C-0.9-24-0 75.4 0.18 0.17 0.95 0.20 1.09 0.25 1.39 0.23 1.28
C-0.9-17-0 76.2 0.20 0.19 0.94 0.21 1.03 0.27 1.38 0.24 1.19
Mean — 0.93 — 1.11 — 1.43 — 1.36
Standard deviation — 0.04 — 0.06 — 0.16 — 0.19
Coefficient of variation — 5% — 6% — 11% — 14%
a
Service load limit considered in these comparisons is taken at 60% of the yielding load of the unstrengthened beams.

the prediction equation of crack width, which is calculated for the
unstrengthened members, by a maximum crack width ratio of 0.7.
In addition to that, the expression of the strain in steel is modified
considering the RC cracked section with external FRP reinforce-
ment. No other modification was applied to the prediction equation
because it did not include parameters that could be directly modi-
fied to introduce the contribution of the external FRP reinforce-
ment. For this reason, the empirical factors available in the crack
spacing equation, such as the multiplier of the concrete cover, cc ,
and the center-to-center distance of the outer-layer steel reinforce-
ment, cs , are suggested to be modified in order to accommodate the
effect of the external FRP reinforcement.
Similarly, in the crack spacing equation given by CAN/CSA
S6-10, overestimated values could be avoided by reducing the ini-
tial crack spacing of 50 mm given by the crack spacing equation. In
addition, the effective area of concrete in tension, Ac;eff , needs to be
modified to accommodate strengthened beams with different steel
and FRP reinforcements.

© ASCE 04017023-12 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., -1--1

 Fig. 10. Comparisons of experimental crack width with predictions by design guidelines at service load: (a) predicted to measured crack width for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

control beams; (b) predicted to measured crack width for strengthened beams

Table 5. Comparisons of Maximum Experimental Crack Width of Strengthened Beams with Codes’ Predictions at Service Load
fib Bulletin 14 Eurocode 2 ACI 224.1R-07 JSCE-07 CAN/CSA S6-10
Experimental (fib 2001) (CEN 2004) (ACI 2007) (JSCE 2007) (CSA 2010)
Pserv a wmax;exp wmax;calc wmax;calc = wmax;calc wmax;calc = wmax;calc wmax;calc = wmax;calc wmax;calc = wmax;calc wmax;calc =
Beam (KN) (mm) (mm) wmax;exp (mm) wmax;exp (mm) wmax;exp (mm) wmax;exp (mm) wmax;exp
S-0.5-35-240 123.2 0.23 0.27 1.19 0.25 1.10 0.24 1.06 0.32 1.39 0.32 1.40
S-0.9-35-240 152.5 0.23 0.23 1.00 0.22 0.95 0.22 0.94 0.21 0.94 0.26 1.15
S-1.3-35-240 201.4 0.24 0.22 0.91 0.22 0.90 0.22 0.89 0.20 0.81 0.25 1.02
S-0.9-24-240 172.6 0.25 0.25 0.98 0.26 1.04 0.25 0.99 0.26 1.04 0.30 1.18
S-0.9-17-240 172.7 0.22 0.23 1.09 0.27 1.24 0.26 1.19 0.28 1.30 0.30 1.37
S-0.5-35-360 156.6 0.21 0.19 0.91 0.24 1.12 0.22 1.04 0.33 1.52 0.28 1.31
Mean — 1.01 — 1.06 — 1.02 — 1.17 — 1.24
Standard deviation — 0.10 — 0.11 — 0.10 — 0.26 — 0.13
Coefficient of variation — 10% — 11% — 9% — 22% — 11%
a
Service load limit considered in these comparisons is taken at 80% of the yielding load of the strengthened beams.

Fig. 11. Comparisons of crack spacing and steel tensile strain at service load: (a) comparison of crack spacing for the strengthened beams;
(b) comparison of steel strain for the strengthened beams

Conclusions
The crack width prediction equations of conventional RC members
in several international codes and design guidelines were extended
to FRP-strengthened beams by introducing appropriate modifica-
tions to account for the presence of external FRP reinforcement.
The resulting modified equations were used to predict the crack
widths of FRP-strengthened beams and compare them with exper-
imental results. Based on the results of this investigation, the fol-
lowing conclusions can be made:
• Significant reductions in crack width were achieved at both
service and ultimate load limits due to strengthening with EB
CFRP laminates. However, the efficiency of FRP strengthening
in controlling the crack width decreased with increased tension
steel reinforcement. On the other hand, varying the compres-
sive strengths of concrete had little effect on the efficiency of
strengthening in controlling crack width.
• Steel strain was shown to be the key parameter affecting crack
width in both strengthened and unstrengthened RC members be-
cause the crack width values were found to be almost equal when
measured at the same steel strain, irrespective of the amount of
steel, CFRP reinforcements, and loading level considered.
• For unstrengthened RC beams, comparison of the crack width
predictions by the various codes with the experimental results
revealed that the EC2-04 and ACI 224.1R-07 codes provided
predictions that are generally in good agreement with the experi-
mental crack width values with the least scatter. On the other
hand, JSCE-07 and CAN/CSA S6-10 predictions overestimated
the measured crack width and showed more scatter.
• For FRP-strengthened beams, the predictions of the crack
width given by the fib Bulletin 14 were in good agreement
with the experimental results. Similar good predictions were
also obtained using the modified equations of both the ACI
224.1R-07 and EC2-04 codes, which provide confidence that

© ASCE 04017023-13 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., -1--1

 the modifications applied to the original crack width prediction
equations to account for the external FRP reinforcement in these
two codes are appropriate and the resulting equations can be
used for the prediction of crack width in FRP-strengthened
beams with confidence.
• Modifications to the crack width equations of both the CAN/
CSA S6-10 and JSCE-07 codes are required to be investigated
further to obtain improved predictions of the crack width for the
FRP-strengthened beams.
Acknowledgments
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 04/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support
provided by the Center of Excellence in Engineering Materials
(CEREM) and the Center of Excellence for Concrete Research
and Testing (CoE–CRT) at the College of Engineering, King Saud
University, Saudi Arabia. The help of engineers and technicians in
the structural laboratory of the Civil Engineering Department at
King Saud University is highly appreciated.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2007). “Causes, evaluation, and repair
of cracks in concrete structures.” ACI 224.1R-07, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2008). “Guide for the design and con-
struction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
structures.” ACI 440.2R-08, Farmington Hills, MI.
Al-Negheimish, A., El-Sayed, A., Al-Zaid, R., Shuraim, A., and
Alhozaimy, A. (2012). “Behavior of wide shallow RC beams strength-
ened with CFRP reinforcement.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000274, 418–429.
Al-Saawani, M., El-Sayed, A., and Al-Negheimish, A. (2015). “Effect
of basic design parameters on IC debonding of CFRP-strengthened
shallow RC beams.” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 34(18), 1526–1539.
Al-Zaid, R., Al-Negheimish, A., Al-Saawani, M., and El-Sayed, A. (2012).
“Analytical study on RC beams strengthened for flexure with externally
bonded FRP reinforcement.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 43(2), 129–141.
Al-Zaid, R., El-Sayed, A., Al-Negheimish, A., Shuraim, A., and
Alhozaimy, A. (2014). “Strengthening of structurally damaged wide
shallow RC beams using externally bonded CFRP plates.” Latin Am.
J. Solids Struct., 11(6), 946–965.
Avril, S., Vautrin, A., Hamelin, P., and Surrel, Y. (2005). “A multi-scale
approach for crack width prediction in reinforced-concrete beams
repaired with composites.” Compos. Sci. Technol., 65(3–4), 445–453.
Base, G. D., Read, J. B., Beeby, A. W., and Taylor, H. P. J. (1966). “An
investigation of the crack control characteristics of various types of
bar in reinforced concrete beams.” Research Rep. No. 18, Cement and
Concrete Association, London.
Beeby, A. W. (1971). “Prediction and control of flexural cracking in rein-
forced concrete members, cracking, deflection and ultimate load of con-
crete slab system.” SP-20, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 55–75.
Borosnyói, A., and Balázs, G. L. (2005). “Models for flexural cracking in
concrete: The state of the art.” Struct. Concr. J., 6(2), 53–62.
Broms, B. B. (1965). “Crack width and crack spacing in reinforced
concrete members.” J. Am. Concr. Inst., 62(10), 1237–1256.
© ASCE 04017023-14
J. Compos. Constr., -1--1
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2004). “Design of
concrete structures—Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.”
Eurocode 2, Brussels, Belgium.
Ceroni, F., and Pecce, M. (2004). “Modeling of tension stiffening behavior
of reinforced concrete ties strengthened with fiber reinforced plastic
sheets.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2004)8:6(510),
510–518.
Ceroni, F., and Pecce, M. (2007). “Cracking behaviour of RC beams ex-
ternally strengthened with emerging materials.” Constr. Build. Mater.,
21(4), 736–745.
Ceroni, F., and Pecce, M. (2009). “Design provisions for crack spacing and
width in RC elements externally bonded with FRP.” Compos.: Part B,
40(1), 17–28.
Ceroni, F., Pecce, M., and Matthys, S. (2004). “Tension stiffening of
RC ties strengthened with externally bonded FRP sheets.” J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2004)8:1(22), 22–32.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). (2010). “Canadian highway bridge
design code, Supplement No. 1.” CAN/CSA S6-10, Rexdale, ON,
Canada.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). (2012). “Design and construction
of building components with fibre reinforced polymers.” CAN/CSA
S806-12, Rexdale, ON, Canada.
fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete). (2001). “Externally
bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures.” Bulletin 14, Technical
Rep., Design and Use of Externally Bonded Fiber Reinforced Poly-
mer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Frosch, R. J. (1999). “Another look at cracking and crack control in
reinforced concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 96(3), 437–442.
Gergely, P., and Lutz, L. A. (1968). “Maximum crack width in RC
flexural members, causes, mechanism and control of cracking in
concrete.” SP-20, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 87–117.
JSCE (Japanese Society of Civil Engineers). (2001). Recommendations for
upgrading of concrete structures with use of continuous fiber sheets,
Concrete Engineering Series 41 (English version), Tokyo.
JSCE (Japanese Society of Civil Engineers). (2007). “Standard specifica-
tions for concrete structures—Design.” JSCE-07, Tokyo.
Makhlouf, M. H., and Malhas, F. A. (1996). “The effect of thick concrete
cover on the maximum flexural crack width under service load.” ACI
Struct. J., 93(3), 257–265.
Nawy, E. G., and Blair, K. W. (1971). “Further studies on flexural crack
control in structural slab systems, cracking, deflection, and ultimate
load of concrete slab systems.” SP-20, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1–42.
Saliger, R. (1936). “High grade steel in reinforced concrete.” 2nd Congress,
International Association for Bridges and Structural Engineering,
Preliminary Publication, Wilhelm Ernst and Sohn, Berlin, 293–315.
Tan, K. H., and Saha, M. K. (2008). “Cracking characteristics of RC beams
strengthened with FRP system.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0268(2008)12:5(513), 513–521.
Thomas, F. G. (1936). “Cracking in reinforced concrete.” Struct. Eng.,
14(7), 298–320.
Ueda, T., Yamaguchi, R., Shoji, K., and Sato, Y. (2002). Study on behavior
in tension of reinforced concrete members strengthened by carbon fiber
sheet.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:3(168),
168–174.
Zhang, D., Shen, S., Zhao, Y., Jin, W., and Ueda, T. (2015). “Cracking
behavior of CFRP laminate-strengthened RC beams with premechan-
ical and postmechanical environmental damage.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000522, 04014066.
J. Compos. Constr.