Engineering Structures 99 (2015) 631–641

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Structural effectiveness of FRP materials in strengthening RC beams

Giuseppe Spadea a,⇑, Francesco Bencardino a, Fabio Sorrenti a, Ramnath Narayan Swamy b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, Cosenza, Italy
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, United Kingdom

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

Article history: The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the state of the art concerning the structural
Received 15 September 2014 behavior of concrete beams externally reinforced with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) systems. The rel-
Revised 21 April 2015 evant aspects that mostly characterize the overall performance of strengthened beams, such as strength
Accepted 13 May 2015
increase, ductility, and the ability to dissipate the internal strain energy are illustrated by means of a crit-
Available online 6 June 2015
ical analysis of the results obtained from a multiphase an extensive ongoing experimental investigation
carried out at the University of Calabria. The latter showed how a stable and controlled progressive failure
Keywords:
of reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened with FRP materials can be obtained through a holistic
FRP materials
Performance factor
approach. The basis of a holistic design is the concept of ‘‘performance factor’’, obtained by the product
RC structures of ‘‘deformability’’ and ‘‘strength’’ factors.
Strengthening Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Structural ductility

1. Introduction modes of failure are unacceptable. The premature debonding

The most important aspect of the behavior of a concrete beam
reinforced with an externally bonded plate is that the composite
action should be preserved at all stages of loading up to failure.
In strengthening for flexure, one normally considers to add plates
on the tension face of the beam. Plates cannot be continued over
the supports and the abrupt curtailment of plate-adhesive system
adjacent to a support creates a high concentration of interface
shear stress and normal peeling stress in the vicinity of the edge
of the plate. The magnitude of these stresses depends on the geom-
etry of the plate reinforcement, the properties of the adhesive and
the shear strength of the original concrete beam. Composite mate-
rials as the Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) are manufactured by
using brittle fibers (Glass, Aramid, Carbon) and a thermosetting
resin (Epoxy, Polyester, Vinylester). While polymer resins have a
relatively large strain up to failure (efu  5%), they are nevertheless
also brittle materials like the fibers (efu < 1.5%). As a result, compos-
ite materials do not deform plastically under the tensile stress
regime hence dissipating internal strain energy, contrarily to the
most of metallic materials, as steel [1–3]. The inability to dissipate
strain energy is a relevant obstacle for structural uses of composite
materials, especially in civil constructions. Large structural defor-
mations and significant load-carrying capacity prior to failure,
are required in civil structures in which sudden and catastrophic
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Calabria, 87036 Rende, Cosenza, Italy. Tel./fax: +39 0984 496919.
E-mail address: g.spadea@unical.it (G. Spadea).
and/or anchorage failure can take many forms, and the plate
strength also plays an important role in determining the failure
mode [4,5]. Although substantial increases in load carrying capac-
ity can be achieved with FRP plates, the failure mode occur in a not
desirable way. Premature and undesirable failures have been
observed in reinforced concrete (RC) beams plated with glass,
glass-carbon, carbon and aramid FRP plates because the strain in
the compression zone of the concrete never reached the crushing
stage. Many beam tests reported in literature are relative to beams
over-designed for shear to avoid brittle shear failures that may
occur due to the increased shear load arising from the increased
load capacity of composite beams, while other beam tests are rel-
ative to under-designed or slightly over-designed for shear, but
even then, all the beams with FRP plates demonstrated brittle
behavior, and did not show the yield plateau associated with duc-
tile failures [5–8]. Although the Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers
(CFRP) reinforcement is very effective in enhancing both, stiffness
and strength, sudden failures occur when the beams approach
their load carrying capacity. The high local interface shear and
peeling stresses at the ends of the steel or FRP plates can be effec-
tively countered by the provision of adequately designed bonded
anchorage plates [9–13]. Insufficient control of these critical end
forces by inadequately proportioned end anchorage plates may
give moderate improvements in structural performance or load
capacity, and are unlikely to eliminate premature failures whether
the plates are made of steel or FRP.
Some research have been developed to address this topic [25–
34] and the authors of the paper are still carrying out ongoing ex

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.05.021
0141-0296/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
632 G. Spadea et al. / Engineering Structures 99 (2015) 631–641
perimental/theoretical/numerical analysis. Some of these findings
have been introduced in the recent standards, guideline [9,35–38].
A critical review of published work shows that beams/slabs
strengthened with FRP suffer from two major weaknesses, namely,
lack of ductility, and lack of adequate safety in shear [1,14,15].
Research studies show that there is a close, synergistic interaction
between flexural strengthening and shear strengthening.
Strengthening structures separately for flexure and for shear can
mask inherent structural weaknesses in ductility performance
and shear strength, and can lead to premature failures. As a result
a holistic design approach could ensure structural integrity and
adequate load carrying capacity under both flexural and shear
loading regimes to which a strengthened member could be
exposed during its service life. Such an integrated, holistic
approach is just as critical to normal RC beams, and a unified global
model for both un-strengthened and strengthened beams will clar-
ify the intricate interrelationship between flexural and shear
behavior [16–24]. The conventional definition of ductility defined
as the ratio of an ultimate/yielding parameters elastic quantity
(such as curvature, deflection and strain energy) is not appropriate
for externally strengthened beams with FRP materials because only
a portion of their deformations at ultimate are plastic. Indeed even
the portion corresponding to the plastic energy dissipated by the
yielding of the steel may not be recoverable: secondary debonding
failures occur before all the energy is dissipated. It is worthwhile to
evaluate the overall structural performance of strengthened com-
posite beams, and the actual efficiency of the external anchorage
system.
2. Research significance
An integrated/holistic design approach when designing beams
strengthened in flexure and shear with externally FRP systems is
needed for improving the overall performance of the strengthened
beams. The aim of the paper is to describe this approach by means
of analysing the experimental results carried out by the authors
during these years of their ongoing research on this topic. The
parameters that are involved in the design for strengthening struc-
tures and their influence on the ductility, deformability and
increase of strength are highlighted. The concept of performance
factor obtained by the product of deformability and strength factor,
Fig. 1. Geometry, internal steel reinforcement and loading scheme of beams tested in flexure.
is assumed as a key parameter to describe the overall performance
of the RC beams externally strengthened.
3. Experimental investigation
A multiphase experimental/analytical research has been carried
out by the authors at the University of Calabria. The investigation
regarded two groups of beams: the first tested in a prevalent flex-
ure loading regime and the second tested under a prevalent shear
loading regime. The research is still ongoing and other experimen
tal/theoretical/numerical analysis are actually performing by using
new advanced techniques and materials.
3.1. Flexure tests
A total of 16 RC beams were manufactured and tested in flexure.
All the beams were rectangular in cross section 140 mm 
300 mm, and 5000 mm long. The most relevant geometrical details
of these beams are given in Figs. 1 and 2.
The concrete used to manufacture all beams was mixed, cast
and cured in the laboratory. It was designed for 28 days compres-
sive cylinder strength of about 40 MPa. In practice, the compres-
sive strength varied between 35 MPa and 43 MPa. The mean split
cylinder tensile strength at 28 days was 2.6 MPa. The internal steel
reinforcing were ribbed bars with: fym = 541.2 MPa and
ftm = 626.1 MPa. Four beams with label A1, A2, A3, C1, respectively,
were used as control beams, without any external reinforcement.
The other twelve beams were strengthened with various arrange-
ments of the external reinforcement as shown in Fig. 2.
Two types of FRP reinforcement have been used: CFRP lami-
nates and CF (Carbon Fiber) fabrics (Fig. 2). The CFRP laminate
was 80 mm wide, 1.2 mm thick and 4700 mm long, bonded with
a two component epoxy resin to the tension face of the strength-
ened beams after an appropriate preparation. The external anchor-
ages were made of U-shaped steel stirrups, 2 mm thick with an
elastic modulus of 200 GPa and a minimum tensile yield strength
of 235 MPa.
The use of steel materials as U-anchorages have been adopted
in the laboratory tests, while in the field the use of stainless steel
is preferable for a better performance against corrosion problems.
 G. Spadea et al. / Engineering Structures 99 (2015) 631–641 633

In addition, both strength and ductility can be substantially Drilling FRP materials can create a zone of serious material
enhanced if the end anchorages are also anchored mechanically, weakness around the hole with fiber fracture and local fiber burn-
particularly when weakness in shear pre-dominates whereas steel ing/scalding. Besides, there is a lot of corrosion resistant steel avail-
plates can be drilled through for additional mechanical bolts. able such as stainless steel and galvanized steel. The external

Fig. 2. External strengthening of the beams tested in flexure.

Fig. 3. Geometry, internal steel reinforcement and loading scheme of beams tested in shear.
634 G. Spadea et al. / Engineering Structures 99 (2015) 631–641

Fig. 4. External strengthening of beams tested in shear.

Fig. 5a. Positioning of instrumentation: (a) flexure. Fig. 5b. Positioning of instrumentation: (b) shear.

anchorages provided here were bonded to the concrete with the Two types of external anchorages were used: the end (type A)
same preparation of the concrete surface. They were designed after and the intermediate (type B) anchorages. The type A anchorage
a critical evaluation of tests previously carried out by the authors was 500 mm long and was designed to counteract the high normal
in the frame of multi-phase theoretical and experimental program. and shear interface stresses at the end of the lamina. The type B
 G. Spadea et al. / Engineering Structures 99 (2015) 631–641 635

anchorage was 100 mm long and was designed to control the bond
slip along the span between the CFRP lamina and concrete. The CF
fabric used for the last four beams tested in flexure was a bidirec-
tional carbon fiber fabric directly glued on tensed and side faces of
concrete beams as shown in Fig. 2.
Two series of tests were carried out on beams externally rein-
forced with CF fabrics. In the first series two layers of CF fabric
were glued at the tension face of the beam. The flexibility of the
CF fabric allowed to wrap it around the tension face and up the ver-
tical sides of the beams.
With this arrangement no further anchorage was necessary. In
the second series the beams were externally over reinforced with
four layers of the CF fabric glued to the tension face and wrapped
on the vertical sides. In this case, additional diagonal end anchor-
ages, made with the same CF fabric, were also provided.
3.2. Shear tests
ensure correct positioning of internal longitudinal bars, and to
avoid other possible secondary failures which might mask shear
failure, each beam of series B2 was provided with 6 mm diameter
well-anchored stirrups at 150 mm center-to-center, namely, three
of these were provided under each load point, and two over each
support. The beams of series B3 had an internal shear reinforce-
ment of 3 mm diameter stirrups at 150 mm center-to-center.
Two beams with labels B2 and B2.1, respectively, were used as
control beams without any external reinforcement. Beam B2 was
tested with a shear span (a)-to-effective depth (d) ratio of 6.9 so
that it failed in bending. Beam B2.1 was tested with an a/d ratio
of 3.4 so that it failed in shear. The remaining four beams were
externally strengthened with a single CFRP lamina bonded to the
tension face, and were tested with an a/d ratio of 3.4 (beams
B2.2 and B3.2). Moreover, the beams B2.3 and B3.3 were provided
with external U-shaped steel stirrups located at the ends of CFRP
laminate and along the span of the beam. The details of test beams
and of their external reinforcement are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.

With the aim of highlighting the role and effectiveness of exter-

nal shear reinforcement in a shear prevalent loading regime, seven
beams (series B2 and series B3) were designed to be identical in
every aspect except for their test loading regime, internal shear
reinforcement and external reinforcement. The beams had no
internal shear reinforcement in the shear spans. However, to
3.3. Instrumentation and testing procedure
All beams were extensively instrumented, both internally and
externally, as shown in Figs. 5a and 5b. Strains in concrete, internal
steel reinforcement and CFRP lamina were measured at various

Fig. 6. Load–Deflection diagrams (flexure).

Fig. 7. Moment–Curvature diagrams (flexure).

636 G. Spadea et al. / Engineering Structures 99 (2015) 631–641

sections along the span. In addition, deflection and strains over the
depth of the beams were measured in the mid-span section. To
measure steel strains, four electrical strain gages were positioned
on steel bars and protected before concrete casting. Maximum con-
crete strain was measured by means a strain gage placed, at the
mid-span section of each beam, on the compression face.
Five strain gages were placed on the lamina surface to measure
its strains at various loading steps as well as at various locations. In
order to measure average concrete strains in the mid-span section,
also in the cracked stage, five Linear Variable Displacement
Transducers (LVDTs) were mounted with gage lengths of 200 mm
or 100 mm. Deflection at mid-span was measured by two long
stroke LVDTs, mounted on the opposite sides of the beams.
All beams were tested under a displacement control regime.
The applied loads were measured by a high-accuracy load cell with
a load sensitivity of 0.1 kN. All the measurements were automati-
cally recorded through a data logger.
4. Test results and discussion
The results shown in Figs. 6 and 7 and in Table 1 highlight that,
as expected, all the unplated beams failed in the flexural conven-
tional mode, after extensive yielding of tension steel followed by
crushing of concrete in the compression zone.
The beams with only the CFRP laminate bonded to the tension
face, without any anchorage system carried higher loads, com-
pared to the control beams, but all failed in a brittle manner with
the load capacity dropping suddenly by explosive debonding of FRP
plates.
The end and other supplementary anchorage devices favored a
more ductile failure and an increase of the load carrying capacity.
The use of only flexural strengthening without external links
does not guarantee a good efficiency to the structure, consequently
of this the comparison between the increase of the flexural
strength in case of A1–A1.1 and A3–A3.1 is equal to 60% in the first
case and equal to 30% in the second case. In both cases the failure
occurred in a sudden way, so there was not the possibility to mea-
sure the exactly value of the increase of strength. The variability

A large amount of data was obtained from the tests. Only those
relevant and representative of the structural behavior of the beams
are given here.

4.1. Load and deformation behavior of beams tested in flexure

The structural behavior of the beams tested in flexure is pre-

sented in terms of their load-central deflection and moment–cur-
vature curves at the mid-span section, respectively (Figs. 6 and 7).
The structural response of tested beams in terms of loads at first
cracking, at tension steel yielding, at ultimate, and their failure
mode are summarized in Table 1. In the same table the measured
strains at mid-span section in the compression concrete and in the
tensed CFRP lamina are also given. Fig. 8. Load–Deflection diagrams (shear).

Table 1
Summary of test results of beams tested in flexure.

Tested beams flexural loading regime (a/d = 6.9) Beam First visible Tension steel Failure Max concrete CFRP strain Mode of
label flexural crack yielding load load strain at failure at failure failure
(kN) (% FL) (kN) (% FL) (kN) (lm/m) (lm/m)
Control beams A1 10.2 18.9% 45.2 83.7% 54.0 5000 – CC
A2 6.4 21.9% 20.0 68.5% 29.2 4800 – CC
A3 11.3 19.8% 40.2 70.3% 57.2 6300 – CC
C1 10.0 22.2% 37.5 83.3% 45.0 – – CC
Beams with only CFRP A1.1 10.0 11.5% 55.3 63.7% 86.8 2100 7100 ED1
A3.1 11.6 15.5% 54.9 73.4% 74.8 2700 6100 ED2
CFRP + external anchorage system 1 A1.2 10.2 10.4% 59.8 61.0% 98.0 3700 9600 D1
A2.2 5.7 7.6% 35.1 46.8% 75.0 4000 10000 D2
A3.2 12.8 13.0% 55.1 55.8% 98.8 4300 10200 D3
CFRP + external anchorage system 2 A1.3 12.7 13.1% 55.2 57.1% 96.7 4400 10500 D4
A3.3 14.6 14.9% 55.0 56.0% 98.3 4500 12000 D5
CFRP + external links A2.3 7.6 9.8% 35.2 45.3% 77.7 6000 11000 D6
Beams with two layers of CF fabric A3.4 35.0 34.5% 65.0 64.2% 101.3 NA NA D7
C1.1 20.0 22.2% 55.6 61.8% 90.0 NA NA D7
Beams with four layers of CF fabric + anchorages A3.5 40.2 30.2% 75.9 57.0% 133.1 NA NA R1
C1.2 40.0 39.1% 70.6 69.0% 102.3 NA NA D8

FL = Failure load.
CC = Concrete crushing.
ED1 = Explosive debonding of CFRP sheet; sudden and total loss of load capacity.
ED2 = Explosive debonding of CFRP plate; sudden and total loss of load capacity.
D1 = Debonding of ext. anchorages and successive debonding of CFRP plate.
D2 = Gradual debonding and slippage of CFRP plate.
D3 = Debonding of external anchorages.
D4 = Gradual slip and progressive debonding of CFRP plate.
D5 = Gradual slip of CFRP plate.
D6 = Gradual debonding and slippage of CFRP plate. Concrete crushing. Local damage to carbon fibers.
D7 = Debonding of fabric.
R1 = Rupture of fabric where end anchorages were stopped. Secondary, shear separation of beam in shear span.
D8 = Debonding of fabric from vertical sides in the midspan region.
 G. Spadea et al. / Engineering Structures 99 (2015) 631–641 637

between four results achieved in case of external links (A1, A1.2,
A1.3, A3, A3.2, A3.3) is really small.
4.2. Load and deformation behavior of beams tested in shear
The structural behavior of the beams tested in shear is pre-
sented in terms of their load-central deflection and moment–cur-
vature curves at the mid-span section, respectively (Figs. 8 and 9).
The structural response of tested beams in terms of loads at first
cracking, at tension steel yielding, at ultimate, and their mode of
failure are summarized in Table 2. In the same table the measured
strains at mid-span section in the compression concrete and in the
tensed CFRP lamina also given.
Fig. 9. Moment–Curvature diagrams (shear).
The results drafted in Figs. 8 and 9 and the data of Table 2 show
that the capacity for strength and deformability of the control
beams and of the simply strengthened beams tested in shear were
drastically reduced, and that their overall performance are also
very much adversely affected. On the other hand, the factors
related to beams with an external anchorage system show that
an external anchorage system can significantly improve structural
performance, both in terms of strength and deformability.
4.3. Performance factor of beams tested in flexure and in shear
Unlike the concept of toughness is applied to single materials,
we introduce here the concept of Performance Factor (PF), which
incorporates both the deformability and strength behavior of com-
posite beams and the effect of other parameters that influence the
structural behavior.
Because of the nature of the stress–strain profile of FRP materi-
als, it is rational, from an engineering point of view, to relate the
deformability and strength factors to the two critical stages in
the design process and behavior characteristics of structural mem-
bers, namely, the ultimate limit state and the serviceability limit
state. In general terms, the serviceability limit state can be satisfac-
torily defined for most structural systems as the stage when the
compressive strain in the concrete begins to have a non-linear
behavior at a strain of 0.001. These two factors can then be defined
as: Deformability Factor (DF) given by the ratio of deflection at ulti-
mate state and the deflection at ec = 0.001; Strength Factor (SF)
given by the ratio between load at ultimate state and load at
ec = 0.001, being ec the concrete compressive strain. The two

Table 2
Summary of test results of beams tested in shear.

Tested beams shear loading Beam label First visible Tension steel Failure load Max concrete CFRP strain Mode
regime (a/d = 3.4) flexural crack yielding load strain at failure at failure of failure
(kN) (% FL) (kN) (% FL) (kN) (lm/m) (lm/m)
Control beams B2.1 10.1 12.2% No Yield 82.5 871 – SC
B3.1 7.5 9.4% No Yield 80.1 893 – SC
(a/d = 6.9) B2 9.1 15.8% 48.8 84.9% 57.5 3667 – CC
Beams with only CFRP B2.2 10.4 12.7% No Yield 82.1 1063 1981 SC
B3.2 9.0 10.9% No Yield 82.7 1020 1922 SC
CFRP + external links B2.3 10.3 5.0% 134.9 65.4% 206.3 2706 8669 SCS
B3.3 7.4 3.6% 120.2 59.1% 203.5 2735 8474 SCS

FL = Failure load.
SC = Shear crack.
CC = Concrete crushing.
SCS = Slice end concrete section.

Table 3
Ductility and Performance factors of beams tested in flexure.

Tested beams flexural loading regime (a/d = 6.9) Beam label Deflection at Deflection at DF Load at Load at SF PF
ec = 0.001 (mm) failure (mm) ec = 0.001 (kN) failure (kN)
Control beams A1 16.0 190.0 11.9 25 54.0 2.2 25.7
A2 28.0 174.5 6.2 22 29.2 1.3 8.3
A3 17.6 196.7 11.2 26 57.2 2.2 24.7
C1 16.0 180.8 11.3 25 45.0 1.8 20.3
Beams with only CFRP A1.1 31.0 78.9 2.6 47 86.8 1.9 4.6
A3.1 23.2 61.6 2.7 42 74.8 1.8 4.7
CFRP + external anchorage system 1 A1.2 21.7 125.0 5.8 47 98.0 2.1 12.0
A2.2 18.2 137.5 7.6 22 75.0 3.4 25.7
A3.2 22.8 137.1 6.0 42 98.8 2.4 14.1
CFRP + external anchorage system 2 A1.3 19.5 102.9 5.3 39 96.7 2.5 13.2
A3.3 15.3 108.4 7.1 32 98.3 3.1 21.7
CFRP + external links A2.3 23.0 159.9 7.0 30 77.7 2.6 17.9
Beams with two layers of CF fabric A3.4 23.0 103.0 4.5 43 101.3 2.4 10.5
C1.1 22.0 114.4 5.2 41 90.0 2.2 11.4
Beams with four layers of CF fabric + anchorages A3.5 24.0 104.8 4.4 44 133.1 3.0 13.2
C1.2 25.0 81.6 3.3 47 102.3 2.2 7.1
638 G. Spadea et al. / Engineering Structures 99 (2015) 631–641

factors DF and SF, recognize the two critical design factors: It can be seen that these results have two significant implica-
strength and deformability. The overall structural performance of tions. Firstly strengthening RC beam with a CFRP plate bonded to
the strengthened composite beam can then be evaluated by a sin- the tension face alone without considering the end anchorage
gle criterion: the performance factor, by integrating the strength stresses and the bond slip between the laminate and the concrete
factor and the deformability factor, defined as PF = DF  SF. substrate can lead to substantial losses of structural performances,
For the designer both factors are important and, for the best as shown by beams A1.1 and A3.1. Secondly, a judicious combina-
structural performance, strength and deformability need to be tion of the end and intermediate anchorages of the bonded plate
optimized. On the other hand, the concept of PF also allows the can substantially overcame this loss, and enable the strengthened
designer to balance the strength and deformability requirements beams to recovery a satisfactory structural performance.
of a particular application, as in seismic design and emphasize thus Therefore, the overall implication of the results summarized in
the need to consider both strength and deformability when select- Table 3 is that when we design bonded plates to strengthen and
ing materials and design parameters. The effectiveness and relia- rehabilitate existing RC structures adequate anchorages of the
bility of this parameter has been examined by the authors with bonded plate are essential in order to guarantee the best structural
reference to the series of 23 RC beams which were tested to eval- performance of the strengthened beams.
uate the structural performance of beams strengthened with and The above considerations, drawn for beams tested in flexure,
without externally bonded CFRP laminates, and with different are emphasized in the case of beams tested in a shear prevalent
types of internal reinforcement and external anchorage system loading regime. In fact, as it can be argued from the analysis of
under different loading conditions. results given in Table 4, bonding of a CFRP lamina to the tension
The structural behavior of sixteen beams tested with a predom- face of RC beams weak in shear is not an adequate structural solu-
inant flexure loading regime and other seven beams tested with tion to increase their load carrying capacity or to change their
predominant shear loading regime, were evaluated by the PF. mode of failure. The ultimate failure load of the strengthened RC
The results evaluated as the ratio of deflection at ultimate and at
yielding of internal steel reinforcement are given in
Table 6
Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Energy ductility index of beams tested in shear.
The essential requirements of holistic design for structural
Beam label ETOT (kNmm) E0.75Fu (kNmm) lE
strengthening should be based on sound/rational engineering prin-
ciples and it should consider all possible failure modes and espe- B2 5274.83 649.60 8.12
B2.1 1289.74 795.35 1.62
cially incorporate the load transfer mechanism by bond to reflect
the debonding phenomenon which has a dominant influence on B2.2 1190.15 665.96 1.79
B2.3 14192.03 4271.22 3.32
the failure processes of plated beams.
Holistic design structural approaches will give designers a phys- B3.1 1320.52 725.26 1.82
B3.2 870.78 487.62 1.79
ical understanding as to how the strengthened structure will fail in
B3.3 12865.63 4100.05 3.14
real life loading/environmental conditions.

Table 4 Table 7
Deformability, strength and performance factors of beams tested in shear. Curvature ductility index of beams tested in flexure.

Tested beams shear loading Beam DF SF DF Beam label /u (rad  103/m) /y (rad  103/m) l/
regime label deflection deflection
A1 108.21 13.53 8.00
Control beams B2 1.4 7.6 10.9 A1.1 29.63 19.75 1.50
B2.1 <1 <1 <1 A1.2 45.42 15.66 2.90
Beams with only CFRP B2.2 1.08 1.06 1.14 A1.3 42.71 10.68 4.00
B2.3 2.1 3.4 7.2
A2 49.48 4.30 11.50
CFRP + external anchorage B3.1 <1 <1 <1
A2.2 36.88 12.29 3.00
system 1 B3.2 1.02 1.02 1.04
A2.3 58.85 14.71 4.00
B3.3 3.8 2.36 9.12
A3 120.63 11.71 10.30
A3.1 30.83 14.01 2.20
A3.2 48.33 14.65 3.30
A3.3 49.48 10.10 4.90
Table 5
A3.4 78.17 15.24 5.13
Energy ductility index of beams tested in flexure.
A3.5 44.82 15.51 2.89
Beam label ETOT (kNmm) E0.75Fu (kNmm) lE C1 65.78 11.92 5.52
A1 8937.87 770.5 11.60 C1.1 56.98 16.01 3.56
A1.1 4234.86 2228.9 1.90 C1.2 42.60 18.44 2.31
A1.2 8943.75 941.4 9.50
A1.3 6766.60 890.3 7.60
A2 3471.19 199.5 17.40
A2.2 6899.63 522.7 13.20 Table 8
A2.3 8468.23 526.0 16.10 Curvature ductility index of beams tested in shear.

A3 9448.72 601.8 15.70 Beam label /u (rad  103/m) /y (rad  103/m) l/

A3.1 2992.13 935.0 3.20
B2 59.77 16.66 3.59
A3.2 9824.75 901.4 10.90
B2.1 11.92 No yield <1
A3.3 7325.29 872.1 8.40
A3.4 7134.24 1221.6 5.84 B2.2 10.14 No yield <1
A3.5 8463.98 1410.7 6.00 B2.3 38.21 15.64 2.44
C1 8134.23 591.6 13.75 B3.1 8.45 No yield <1
C1.1 6764.31 1053.6 6.42 B3.2 13.44 No yield <1
C1.2 5209.57 4100.1 3.42 B3.3 34.57 11.84 2.92
 G. Spadea et al. / Engineering Structures 99 (2015) 631–641 639

beam is almost the same as the failure load of the un-strengthened high strain capacity, almost equal to the failure strain in flexure.
RC beam when the shear loading regime is predominant, and the Therefore, the anchorage system enhances the strength and
mode of failure remains extremely brittle. deformability properties of the CFRP plated beam, as reflected by
The anchorage system enables, before failure, the tension rein- the global PF, and modifies the failure mode of the strengthened
forcing bar to yield, the CFRP lamina to reach a high percentage of RC beam under predominant shear forces from a brittle failure,
its failure strain, and allows the compression concrete to reach a without increase of load capacity, to an almost ductile failure with
a substantial increase of load-carrying capacity with yielding of the
tension steel.
Table 9
Deflection ductility index of beams tested in flexure.
These results show that the use of the PF can realistically con-
stitute the overall structural behavior of the strengthened compos-
Beam label Du (mm) Dy (mm) lD ite beams both in terms of strength enhancement, ductility and
A1 189.67 30.59 6.20 deformability behavior. It is also shown that the reinforcement
A1.1 78.90 52.60 1.50 details of the beams to be strengthened have a strong influence
A1.2 124.60 28.98 4.30
A1.3 102.85 29.39 3.50
on the effectiveness, arrangement and position details, of the
external anchorages designed to optimize the structural behavior
A2 145.30 19.37 7.50
A2.2 137.45 28.64 4.80
of the strengthened composite beams.
A2.3 150.95 26.03 5.80
A3 196.65 28.21 6.97
4.4. Ductility index of beams tested in flexure and in shear
A3.1 61.60 30.80 2.00
A3.2 137.10 30.47 4.50 Ductility is the capacity of a material, section, structural ele-
A3.3 108.35 28.51 3.80 ment, or structural system to tolerate large inelastic deformations
A3.4 95.46 32.58 2.93
prior to total collapse. The load–deflection curves in Fig. 6 and in
A3.5 90.69 31.60 2.87
Fig. 8 and the flexural moment–curvature diagrams in Fig. 7 and
C1 180.83 27.36 6.61
in Fig. 9 show that strengthening by externally bonded reinforce-
C1.1 102.99 34.10 3.02
C1.2 76.39 38.39 1.99 ment could affect the overall structural ductility of the strength-
ened beam. Measures of ductility are best related to structural
parameters which designers can easily understand, such as
mid-span deflection, curvature, and area under the load–deflection
Table 10 diagram (as a measure of energy absorption). These quantities are
Deflection ductility index of beams tested in shear.
expressed as indices or factors, through relationship at two differ-
Beam label Du (mm) Dy (mm) lD ent stages, namely, at yielding of the tension steel and at ultimate
B2 114.2 33.6 3.40 load capacity. Thus, the more common ductility indices, the impli-
B2.1 31.1 No yield <1 cations of which can be easily appreciated, can be expressed as:
B2.2 26.5 No yield <1 Du
B2.3 107.4 44.8 2.40 lD ¼ ð1Þ
Dy
B3.1 32.7 No yield <1
/u
B3.2 26.6 No yield <1 l/ ¼ ð2Þ
B3.3 100.3 37.1 2.70 /y

Fig. 10. Ductility indices (flexure).

640 G. Spadea et al. / Engineering Structures 99 (2015) 631–641
Fig. 11. Ductility indices (shear).
ETOT
lE ¼ ð3Þ
E0:75Fu
where:
lD = deflection ductility;
l/ = curvature ductility;
lE = energy ductility;
Du = mid-span deflection at ultimate load;
Dy = mid-span deflection at tension steel yielding;
/u = curvature in the constant moment region at ultimate load;
/y = curvature in the constant moment region at yielding of ten-
sion steel;
ETOT = area under the load–deflection diagram at ultimate load;
E0.75Fu = area under the load–deflection diagram up to 0.75 ulti-
mate load (elastic energy).
The ductility indices calculates as above are shown in Tables 5–
10. For the sake of clarity and for a synthetic comparison, these
data are also given in the istograms of Figs. 10 and 11.
These data definitely show that strengthening with externally
bonded FRP systems results in significant losses in structural duc-
tility of the strengthened beams. Besides, both deflection and
moment–curvature response are drastically and adversely affected
by bonding of the CFRP laminate without any external anchorages.
Ductility indices and ductility ratios depend very much not only
on the type and amount of the external reinforcement and on the
anchorage systems used, but, equally importantly, on the concrete
strength and internal reinforcement conditions of the
un-strengthened beam. In general, curvature ductility is more vari-
able as it very much depends on strain measurements, and strain
measurements are greatly influenced by concrete cracking. Also,
curvatures based on surface strains do not fully reflect the physical
factors involved in measurements of rotation capacity. These fac-
tors would explain the low values of the computed curvature duc-
tility and the resulting low ductility ratios. These arguments are
also valid for the control beams, and so one could generally say
that ductility ratios based on surface concrete measurements are
likely to be less reliable than those based in deflection and energy
absorption. The ductility definitions based on deflection and
energy can give consistent, close, and similar values and that they
can be relied upon to accurately reflect the mechanical behavior of
the beams.
First, strengthening an RC beam with a CFRP sheet bonded to
the tension face alone without consideration of the end anchorages
stresses and the bond slip between the sheet and the concrete sub-
strate can lead to substantial losses ductility, as shown by beams
A1.1 and A3.1. The ductility of these beams is only about 15–30%
of that of the original control beam. Secondly, a judicious combina-
tion of the end and the intermediate anchorages can substantially
overcome this loss and enable the strengthened beams to retain, on
average, about 60–70% of the ductility of the original unplated con-
trol beam. Referring to Fig. 10, beams A3.4 and C1.1 have reduced
ductility compared with their respective control beams A3 and C1.
Beam A3.5 showed no improvement in ductility because it was
heavily strengthened (four layers of CF fabric at the tension face),
although it had external anchorages. These results show firmly that
over-reinforcement can have serious adverse structural effects that
cannot be easily overcome by conventional anchorage systems.
5. Concluding remarks
In this paper a general approach for the design and analysis of
plate-bonded RC beams was provided. In particular, to address crit-
ical issues in the process of achieving sustainable development in
the construction industry, the need of a global strategy was dis-
cussed. Such an approach, involves choice of FRP systems and
arrangements in the strengthened RC beams and design philoso-
phy for repair and rehabilitation, integrating material properties
with structural performance. The application of the proposed con-
cepts was not only validated by a multiphase experimental
research carried out by the authors but also by a critical analysis
of the results relative to strengthened beam to flexure and/or shear
reported in literature.
In fact, the main results of an experimental/analytical research
program, developed by the authors were summarized and critically
analyzed, in order to highlight the most relevant mechanical and
analytical parameters which influence the structural behavior of
 G. Spadea et al. / Engineering Structures 99 (2015) 631–641
plate-bonded RC members under bending and shear.
Strengthening of beams should not be seen as strengthening for
flexure or strengthening for shear but as a unified approach of
strengthening for flexure and shear. A synergistic interaction
between tensile strengthening and shear links is essential. In fact,
recent studies emphasize this interaction and imply that external
shear links can act compositely with external longitudinal rein-
forcement, and that such shear link longitudinal plate interaction
is synergistic with significant structural benefits.
In practice, the role of the external shear reinforcement is two-
fold: it not only acts as a confinement tool to improve the effective-
ness of the flexural sheets before the eventual flexure or shear
failure, but also acts as externally bonded shear reinforcement to
improve the shear resistance of the beam. A direct result of these
synergistic interactions is that the external shear reinforcement
is very effective in controlling the tensile splitting at the level of
the main reinforcement and the peeling in the vicinity of the
cut-off ends of the tension plate, which are both characteristic of
premature and brittle failures. At the same time, the shear links
are equally very effective in controlling the growth of shear cracks
and thereby make the mechanisms which govern the shear resis-
tance of the beam more active. The benefits of this double funda-
mental role of shear links lead to better structural performance
in terms not only of ultimate failure loads but also in terms of
deformational behavior, allowing to transform the mode of failure
from a sudden and catastrophic mechanism into a more ductile
and progressive failure mode.
References
[1] Swamy RN, Mukhopadhyaya P. Role and effectiveness of non-metallic plates in
strengthening and upgrading concrete structures. Proceedings of the Second
International RILEM Symposium (FRPRCS-2). London, UK: E & FN Spo; 1995. p.
473–82.
[2] Mufti AA, Newhook JP, Tadros G. Deformability versus ductility in concrete
beams with FRP reinforcement. In: Proc., Second Int. Conf. on Advanced
Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS 2), The Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, QC 1996. p. 189–99.
[3] Bank LC. Composites for construction: structural design with FRP
materials. New York: Wiley; 2006.
[4] Swamy RN, Mukhopadhyaya P, Lynsdale C. Ductility considerations in using
GFRP sheets to strengthen and upgrade structures. Non-Metallic (FRP)
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Jpn Concr Instit 1997;1:637–44.
[5] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP strengthened RC structures. New
York: Wiley; 2002.
[6] Grace NF, Ragheb WF, Abdel-Sayed G. Flexural and Shear strengthening of
concrete beams using new triaxially braided ductile fabric. ACI Struct J
2003;100(6):804–14.
[7] Smith ST, Teng JG. Shear-bending interaction in debonding failures of FRP-
plated RC beams. Adv Struct Eng 2003;6(3):183–99.
[8] Buyukozturk O, Gunes O, Karaca E. Progress on understanding debonding
problems in reinforced concrete and steel members strengthened using FRP
composites. Constr Build Mater 2004;18(1):9–19.
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Guides for the Design and Construction of
Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures. ACI
440.2R-08, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008.
[10] Johnson AF, David M. Failure mechanisms in energy-absorbing composite
structures. Phil Mag 2010;90(31–32):4245–61.
[11] Nardone F, Lignola GP, Prota A, Manfredi G, Nanni A. Modeling of flexural
behavior of RC beams strengthened with mechanically fastened FRP strips.
Compos Struct 2011;93(8):1973–85.
[12] Kalfat R, Al-Mahaidi R, Smith ST. Anchorage devices used to improve the
performance of reinforced concrete beams retrofitted with FRP composites:
state-of-the-art review. J Compos Constr 2013;17(1):14–33.
[13] Bank LC. Progressive failure and ductility of FRP composites for construction:
review. J Compos Constr 2013;17:406–19.
641
[14] Bencardino F, Spadea G, Swamy RN. Design to repair/upgrade R.C. structures:
the key to a successful utilization of CFRP laminates. In: Forde MC editor,
Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Structural Faults and
Repair. NY: Springer; 1997. p. 183–90.
[15] Spadea G, Bencardino F, Swamy RN. Strengthening and upgrading structures
with bonded CFRP sheets: design aspects for structural integrity. Non-Metallic
(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Jpn Concr Instit 1997;1:629–36.
[16] Spadea G, Swamy RN, Bencardino F. Structural behavior of composite R.C.
beams with externally bonded CFRP. J Compos Constr 1998;2:132–7.
[17] Spadea G, Bencardino F, Swamy RN. Optimizing the performance
characteristics of beams strengthened with bonded CFRP laminates. Mater
Struct 2000;33:119–26.
[18] Spadea G, Bencardino F, Swamy RN. Design against premature debonding and
brittle behavior: the key to structural integrity with FRP bonded structural
strengthening. In: Third Int. Conf. on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges
and Structures (ACMBS 3), The Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Ottawa,
Ontario 2000. p. 569–76.
[19] Spadea G, Swamy RN, Bencardino F. Ductility or Deformability? Reinforced
Concrete Beams Strengthened with Externally Bonded Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Laminates. Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures,
American Concrete Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, Selected Presentation
Proceedings 2000. p. 171–80.
[20] Spadea G, Swamy RN, Bencardino F. Strength and ductility of RC beams
repaired with bonded CFRP laminates. J Bridge Eng 2001;6:349–55.
[21] Bencardino F, Spadea G, Swamy RN. Strength and ductility of reinforced
concrete beams externally reinforced with carbon fiber fabric. ACI Struct J
2002;99:163–71.
[22] Bencardino F, Colotti V, Spadea G, Swamy RN. Holistic design of RC beams and
slabs strengthened with externally bonded FRP laminates. Cement Concr
Compos 2006;28:832–44.
[23] Bencardino F, Spadea G, Swamy RN. The problem of shear in RC beams
strengthened with CFRP laminates. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:1997–2006.
[24] Bencardino F, Colotti V, Spadea G, Swamy RN. Shear behavior of reinforced
concrete beams strengthened in flexure with bonded carbon fibre reinforced
polymers laminates. Can J Civ Eng 2005;32(5):812–24.
[25] Toutanji H, Saxena P, Zhao L, Teng O. Prediction of interfacial bond failure of
FRP–concrete surface. J Compos Constr 2007;11(4):427–36.
[26] Belarbia A, Acunb B. FRP systems in shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
structures. In: 11th International Conference on Modern Building Materials,
Structures and Techniques, MBMST, vol. 57, 2013. p. 2–8.
[27] Zeris CA. Experimental investigation of strengthening of non ductile RC beams
using FRP. In: Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering 2006; San Francisco, California, USA, Paper No. 853.
[28] Martinelli E, Bilotta A, Faella C, Nigro E. On the Behavior of FRP-to-concrete
Adhesive Interface: Theoretical Models and Experimental Results. Advances in
Composite Materials-Ecodesign and Analysis, Dr. Brahim Attaf (Ed.) 2011;
ISBN:978-953-307-150-3.
[29] Ombres L. Prediction of intermediate crack debonding failure in FRP-
strengthened reinforced concrete beams. Compos Struct 2010;92:322–9.
[30] Bakis CE, Bank LC, Brown V, Cosenza E, Davalos JF, Lesko JJ, Machida A, Rizkalla
SH, Triantafillou TC. Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for construction-
state-of-the-art review. J Compos Constr 2002;6(2):73–87.
[31] Bousselham A, Chaallal O. Behavior of reinforced concrete T-beams
strengthened in shear with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer – an
experimental study. ACI Struct J 2006;103(3):339–47.
[32] Chen JF, Teng JG. Shear capacity of FRP-strengthened RC beams: FRP
debonding. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(1):27–41.
[33] Duthinh D, Starnes M. Strength and ductility of concrete beams reinforced
with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer plates and steel. J Compos Constr
2004;8(1):59–69.
[34] Demakos CB, Repapis CC, Drivas D. Investigation of structural response of
reinforced concrete beams strengthened with anchored FRPs. Open Constr
Build Technol J 2013;7:146–57.
[35] CNR-DT 200 R1/2013. Guide for the design and construction of externally
bonded FRP systems for strengthening existing structures e materials, RC and
PC structures, masonry structures. Rome, Italy: Italian National Research
Council; 2013.
[36] ISIS design manual no. 4. FRP rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures.
ISIS Canada; 2004.
[37] JSCE. Japan Concrete Engineering Series. Recommendations for upgrading of
concrete structures with use of continuous fiber sheets, vol. 41. Tokyo: Japan
Society of Civil Engineers; 2001.
[38] Task Group 9.3. Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures.
Technical report Bulletin 14, fib-CEB-FIP. 2001.