FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

SHEAR STRENGTHENING OF RC BEAMS WITH NSM

CFRP LAMINATES

Renata KOTYNIA 1
1
Department of Concrete Structures, Technical University of Lodz, Poland

Keywords: RC beams, shear, strengthening, near surface mounted reinforcement, CFRP laminates,
failure, strain efficiency, cracking, load capacity.

1 INTRODUCTION

Many studies have been undertaken on reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened for shear
by externally bonded reinforcement (EBR) made of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials. They
have presented several configurations of the shear FRP reinforcement such as straight strips bonded
to the sides [1-3], L-shaped strips bonded both to the sides and the tension face of the beam [4], U-
jackets and full wrapping of the whole cross-section [5]. Several tests carried out on RC beams
externally bonded with FRP indicate significant increase in the shear resistant of RC beams [6].
Shear-strengthened RC beams with side strips and U-jackets fail generally due to FRP debonding.
Beams completely FRP wrapped or strengthened with U-jackets fail due to FRP rapture. The test
results carried out on RC beams externally strengthened with FRP revealed that this technique can
not mobilize the full strength of the FRP materials due to their brittle and premature debonding [7, 8].
To overcome this drawback a strengthening technique with near surface mounted (NSM) FRP rods
and strips bonded into precut grooves made in the concrete cover of the RC elements is presented. A
few tests carried out with NSM FRP confirm higher efficiency of this technique than EBR FRP
technique [9-13]. That is due to larger bond area between the FRP laminate and concrete that provide
higher bond stress transferred by the NSM reinforcement.
The main aim of the paper is to analyze the shear behavior, failure mode of the strengthened
beams and the strain distribution in the NSM FRP strips. The influence of the type of NSM strips and
their spacing are considered. A simple analytical model is proposed to design the NSM shear
strengthening of RC beams.

2 EXPERIMENTAL TESTS

2.1 Beams, materials and strengthening technique

The research program consists of total five RC T-section beams, simply supported over the clear
span 2600 mm and a shear span of 0.8 m (shear span to effective depth ratio a/d=2.58). The T-cross-
section was 150 mm wide and 360 mm deep with an effective depth of 310 mm and a flange of 60 mm
deep (Figure 1). The tensile steel reinforcement consisted of 4 deformed bars of 20 mm diameter,
applied in two layers. The average yield strength of the bars located in upper and lower layer was 425
MPa and 545 MPa, respectively. Compressive steel bars consisted of 4 deformed bars of 12 mm
diameter and yield strength 493 MPa. The shear reinforcement was assumed the same for all beams,
consisted of steel stirrups of 6 mm diameter at two different centre to centre spacing 200 mm and 250
mm in the shear and in the pure bending region, respectively. The average yield strength of the
stirrups was 340 MPa. One reference beam was remained unstrengthened and the rest beams were
strengthened with two types of the NSM CFRP 45 degrees laminates of 2.4 mm and 1.2 mm thick and
15 mm deep. Both supports of these beams were strengthened with CFRP NSM strips.
Prior to the beam testing material characteristics of concrete, steel, CFRP strips and epoxy
adhesive were determined. Steel and CFRP properties are summarized in Table 4. The average
tensile and compressive concrete strength was determined on the cubic specimens 150×150×150 mm
and cylinders of 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height (Table 3).
Two component epoxy adhesive paste obtain by mixing resin and hardener in a 3:1 weight ratio
were used for bonding NSM strips. The first main assumption of the test program was to obtain the
same flexural and shear capacity for both support regions of each beam. The second investigated
parameter was different shear protection index η determined from Eq. (1) and assumed in the test
between 0.14 and 0.64 (Table 6), that corresponds to five different strip’s spacing: 360, 210, 140, 120
and 80 mm.

1
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

Vf + Vs Vf + Vs
η= = (1)
Vflex,cal MRd
a

were: Vf, Vs - shear forces transferred by NSM FRP and steel reinforcement, respectively.
Vflex,cal - shear force corresponding to the load carrying capacity of the cross section, MRd – load
carrying capacity of the beam and a - shear span of the beam.

Table 1 Shear steel and CFRP configurations in the tested beams.

Support A Support B
Steel stirrups CFRP laminates Steel stirrups CFRP laminates
Beam
Spacing Material Spacing Spacing Material Spacing
Amount Amount Amount Amount
(mm) (mm2) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm)
BI-R1 - - - - - -
BI-2/3 2 × 3 15×1.4 210 2×2 15×2.4 360
BI-3/5 3 Ø 6 200 2 × 3 15×2.4 210 3Ø6 200 2×5 15×1.4 120
BI-4/7 2 × 7 15×1.4 80 2×4 15×2.4 140
BIs-4/5* 2 × 5 15×1.4 120 2×4 15×2.4 140
* Beam with all steel stirrups cut during the NSM strips installation

The beam codes used for the strengthened beams are characterized by two digits indicating a
number of NSM strips in both shear regions (e.g. BI-4/7 - beam strengthened with 2 x 4 and 2 x 7
strips in both shear regions, respectively. Bold letters “A” and “B” refer to the supports A or B
differently strengthened with the FRP strips (see Table 1). A small letter “s” refers to the beam with all
stirrups cut in the shear span, where the strips were applied.
In order to obtain the same shear capacity for both supports, two types of CFRP strips were used.
In one support region strips of type 2.4 × 15 mm were applied at a higher spacing than those in the
opposite support, where the strips of type 1.2 × 15 mm, provided by a different supplier were used.
Details of the NSM configuration are shown in Figure 2. The steel and NSM FRP reinforcement ratio
and stiffness index values (ρsEs, ρfEf) are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Steel and NSM FRP ratio and stiffness index.

Support A Support B
ρs ρsEs
Beam ρf ρfEf ρfEf ρf ρfEf ρfEf
(%) (MPa)
(%) (MPa) ρsEs (%) (MPa) ρsEs
BI-R1
BI-2/3A 0.189 324.38 0.78
BI-2/3B 0.189 307.40 0.74
BI-3/5A 0.323 526.98 1.27
BI-3/5B 0.201 377.40 0.330 567.66 1.37
BI-4/7A 0.495 851.46 2.05
BI-4/7B 0.485 790.46 1.91
BIs-4/5A* 0.330 567.66 1.37
BIs-4/5B* 0.485 790.46 1.91
ρs, ρf – the steel and FRP reinforcement ratio, ρs = 2As/(bss) 100, ρf = 2Af/(bsf sinα) 100,
As, Af – the cross-section area of the steel stirrup and FRP strip, respectively, Af = bftf,
b – the width of the beam,
ss, sf – the horizontal center to center spacing of the stirrups and NSM CFRP strips, respectively
Es, Ef, – the elasticity modulus of the steel and the CFRP strip, respectively,
α - the angle between the FRP strips and the beam axis, assumed in the test α = 45°

Installation of the NSM laminates began by making 45 degrees slits cut into the concrete cover at
the lateral sides of the beams with a diamond blade. The depth of the grooves was 19 mm and the
width was 4.5 mm and 5.5 mm for the strips 15 × 1.4 mm and 15 × 2.4 mm, respectively.
In order to investigate the influence of the steel stirrups cutting on shear capacity, all existing
stirrups in the beam BIs-4/5 were cut during CFRP laminates installation. Each groove was filled with the

2
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

epoxy adhesive and the NSM strip was subsequently inserted and lightly pressed. The epoxy
adhesive was fully cured at a room temperature for two weeks before the beam’s testing.
Hydraulic actuators with a maximum capacity of 400 kN were used to apply monotonic loads. At
the single load of 100KN five loading-unloading cycles were carried out. After the shear failure of the
beam close to the one support, this region was post-strengthened with the longitudinal steel profiles
connected with vertical ties, which carried shear forces (Figure 3). Then the test was continued up till
the next shear failure close to the opposite support.
Vertical displacements (v) were measured in five points of the beam’s span. In order to avoid
accidental strain measurements registered by the local strain gauges (with a short base’s length),
LVDT gauges with the 300 mm bases length were used. Concrete strains (e.g. R1, R2, R3, R4 – parallel
to the diagonal strips and R5, R6 - perpendicular to the strips) measured with LVDT gauges are shown
in Figure 4.
The automatic program controlled the measurements with the PC-driven data acquisition computer
system. During the test crack pattern was recorded. The test of each beam was carried out up till the
shear failure closed to the one support and after the post-strengthening with steel it was continued up
till the next shear failure close to the opposite support.

Fig. 1 Details of RC beams (dimensions in mm).

Table 3 Concrete properties.

Concrete age Ec fc fc, cube fct, sp fc / fc,cube

Beam
(days) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (-)
BI-R1 35 29.2 39.5 45.7 3.5 0.86
BI-2/3 88 28.2 39.0 45.3 3.7 0.86
BI-3/5 63 27.6 38.5 47.3 3.5 0.86
BI-4/7 86 28.3 40.0 46.0 3.9 0.81
BIs-4/5 153 29.9 41.9 48.7 3.5 0.86
fc,cube, fct,sp – Compressive and tensile strength of concrete registered on the cubic specimens of
150 x150 mm, fc – Compressive strength of concrete registered on the cylinders 150 x 300 mm

3
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

Table 4 Mechanical properties of CFRP laminates and steel reinforcement.

Dimensions Area E fy fu εu
Material Type
(mm) (mm2) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (‰)
CFRP 1514 15 × 1.4 21.0 172 - 2924 17
laminate 1524 15 × 2.4 36.0 163 - 2249 14
St0S Ø6 30.19 206 340 430 140
34GS Ø 12 120.0 205 493 688 126
Steel
34GS Ø 20 311.6 200 425 669 240
BSt500 Ø 20 312.5 203 545 631 252
E – Elasticity modulus; fy – Yielding strength; fu, εu – Ultimate tensile strength and strain

Fig. 2 Strengthening details of the tested beams.

BI-2/3

Suport A Suport B

Fig. 3 Test set-up of the beam BI-2/3 after post-strengthening of the support B failed due to shear.

4
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

Fig. 4 Test set-up and location of gauges in the beam BI-4/7.

3 TEST RESULTS

3.1 Failure modes and ultimate loads

The reference beam failed due to shear, after a formation of a diagonal shear crack and splitting of
the concrete cover of the steel longitudinal reinforcement closed to the beam’s support (see Figure 5).
The beams strengthened with 2 x 2 and 2 x 3 NSM strips failed in shear due to debonding of the NSM
strips and splitting of the concrete cover of the longitudinal reinforcement as it was observed in the
reference beam. The strip separation occurred in the beams BI-2/3B and BI-3/5A as a result of the low
anchorage length of the strip intersected by the major shear crack. This mechanism was prevented by
decreasing of the strip’s spacing, which provided a larger bond length. Table 5 includes the ultimate
loads and failure modes of all tested beams. Unfortunately, post-strengthening of the beams BI-2/3A
and BI-3/5B with the longitudinal steel profiles slightly changed the static scheme of beam’s loading in
comparison with the initial scheme (BI-2/3B, BI-3/5A), hence these results are not analysed in the
paper.

Table 5 Test results of the beams.

Support A Support B
Beam FuL FuL / Fu0 Failure FuL FuL / Fu0 Failure
Strengthening Strengthening
(kN) (-) mode (kN) (-) mode
BI-R1 - 125.46* 1.00 Shear - -
BI-2/3B 2×2 176.59* 1.41 Shear
BI-2/3A 2×3 208.25** 1.66 Flexure
BI-3/5A 2×3 212.60* 1.69 Shear
BI-3/5B 2×5 234.10** 1.87 Flexure
BI-4/7A 2×7 216.52 1.73 Flexure
BI-4/7B 2×4 216.52 1.73 Flexure
BIs-4/5A 2×5 220.93 1.76 Flexure
BIs-4/5B 2×4 220.93 1.76 Flexure
BI-2/3A, BI-3/5A – beams tested after the post-strengthening of the one support with steel profiles
* The first failure closed to the one support
** The second failure due to flexure (caused by changing the loading scheme after the
strengthening with the steel profiles, not analysed later)

The beam BI-2/3B strengthened closed to the support B with 2 × 2 CFRP strips (sf = 360 mm)
showed an increase in the shear capacity of 41% in comparison with the capacity of the
unstrengthened beam. Decreasing of the NSM spacing from 360 mm to 210 mm (2 × 3 strips), which
corresponds to a 71.5% increase in the CFRP material quantity, caused an increase in the shear
capacity of 69%. Moreover it led to an increase in the shear protection index η from 0.35 to 0.45.
Further decrease in the spacing of the NSM FRP to 140 mm (2 × 4 strips), that corresponds to a 157%
increase in the material, fully protected the beam against the shear failure (η =0.61) and enhanced the
capacity to 73% over the unstrengthened beam (Table 5). The beams strengthened in shear with the
NSM laminates at spacing at least 140 mm failed due to flexure. Cutting of all steel stirrups during
FRP strips installation in the beam BIs-4/5 did not influence the mode of failure and the ultimate load.
Furthermore, the anchorage condition of the NSM strips in this beam sufficiently improved, due to a
higher slit’s depth.

5
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

BI-R1A BI-R1B

A B

BI-2/3A BI-2/3B

A B
2

BI-3/5A BI-3/5B

A B

BI- 4/7A BI- 4/7B

A B

BIs-4/5A BIs-4/5B

A B

Fig. 5 Failure modes o the beams.

3.2 Strain efficiency and cracking pattern

Diagonal shear crack in the reference beam appeared at the center of both shear spans, at the
mid-height of the beam at an angle about 45 degrees (Figure 5). In both unstrengthened and
strengthened beams strains started to increase at the similar load of about 60 kN (see fig. that
correspond with the first shear cracking observed at the load between 60 kN and 70 kN and the
calculated shear cracking force defined by Eq. (2). that is mainly influenced by the tensile strength of
concrete and the longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio (see Table 6).

Vcr = 0.25fctkk(1+50ρL)bd (2)

where: fctk – characteristic tensile strength of concrete, fctk = 0.754 (0.3 fck2/3), k = 1.6 – d ,
d – effective depth of the beam (d = 0.315m), ρL – longitudinal tensile steel reinforcement ratio,
ρL = As1 / bd ≤ 0.01, As1 – cross section of the longitudinal tensile steel reinforcement.

6
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

150 150
R1L
R1P
120 R3L 120 R2P
R2L R3P

Load, F (kN)
Load, F (kN)

90 90

60 60

30 30

0 0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
Strain, εtL (‰) Strain, εtP (‰)

200 200
R3L R1L R2P R3P R1P
160 R2L 160
Load, F (kN)

Load, F (kN)
120 120

80 80

40 40

0 0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
Strain, εtL (‰) Strain, εtP (‰)

240 240
R3L R1L R3P R2P R1P
200 200
Load, F (kN)

Load, F (kN)

160 R2L 160

120 120

80 80

40 40

0 0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
Strain, εtL (‰) Strain, εtP (‰)

240 240
R2L R3L R2PR3P R1P R4P
R4L
200 R1L 200
Load, F (kN)

Load, F (kN)

160 160

120 120

80 80

40 40

0 0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
Strain, εtL (‰) Strain, εtP (‰)

240 R2L 240

R4L R3P R2P R1P
R1L
200 200

160 160
Load, F (kN)

Load, F (kN)

R3L
120 120

80 80

40 40

0 0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
Strain, εtL (‰) Strain, εtP (‰)

Fig. 6 Load-strain curves.

7
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

After the increasing of loading in the control beam, the main diagonal crack propagated
decreasing the inclination to almost horizontal above and below the mid-height of the beam. These
horizontal cracks forming at the bottom of the beam closed to the support, finally led to the spalling of
the bottom and side concrete cover of the steel longitudinal reinforcement and partially steel stirrups.
In the beams strengthened with the NSM strips the evolution of the shear cracking depended on
the spacing of the NSM strips. Cracks propagated until reaching the edges of the adjacent grooves on
both sides of the crack at an angle about 45 degrees. In the beams BI-2/3B and BI-3/5A, with the NSM
strips at a spacing 360 and 210 mm, the diagonal cracks passed round the upper and bottom tips of
the strips. Then horizontal cracks occurred in the vicinity of the loading point on the top of the beam
causing the local concrete crushing (Figure 5). Similar horizontal cracks formed at the bottom of these
beams, closed to the support and led a separation of the bottom and side concrete cover like it was
observed in the reference beam.
Different crack pattern formed in the beams strengthened with the NSM strips at the lower spacing
than 140 mm. A few shear cracks were visible on the sides of the beams in the shear span. They did
not propagate from the mid-height of the beam to the upper and bottom edge of the beam due to the
close spacing of the strips (see Figure 5).
The load – tensile strain curves, F-εt, of the reported beams are shown in Figure 6. In the
unstrengthened and strengthened beams strains start to increase significantly just after the initial
shear cracking. The location of the strain gauges regarding the shear cracks has a high influence on
the strain measurements. The largest increase in strain is visible in the LVDT gauge that is intersected
by this crack (see Figure 6). In the beam BI-2/3B the shear crack just before the failure passed round
the LVDT gauge (R2L), hence the registered strain in shear failure is not the maximum.
Presence of the NSM reinforcement decreased ductility of the beams that confirms decrease in the
strain with the load at a lower rate in the strengthened beams than in the reference beam. The
maximum strain registered during the test indicates that the steel stirrups fully contributed to the shear
capacity (see Table 6).

3.3 Deflections
Deflections were registered in 5 points along the beam’s span by LVDTs. The load-deflection
curves of the beams are shown in Figure 7. The curves of the beams with the shear protection ratio η
≤ 0.45 (beams failed due to shear), indicate that the maximum midspan deflection is insignificantly
affected by the shear strengthening, whereas it is not at all affected by the shear strengthening for the
beams with η > 0.45(beams failed due to flexure). The stiffness of the unstrengthened beam is slightly
lower than that for shear strengthened beams, especially after five loading-unloading cycles. It
confirms that the shear strengthening reduced plastic deformations of the beams in comparison with
the unstrengthened specimen. The stiffness of the shear strengthened beams does not depend on the
strengthening configuration.

240

BIs-4/5
200
BI-4/7
BI-3/5
160
Load, F (kN)

BI-2/3
120
BI-R1
80

40

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Midspan displacement, u3 (mm)

Fig. 6 Load – midspan deflection curves.

4 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

The nominal shear strength of beams strengthened with NSM can be defined by Eq. (3).

8
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

Vtot = Vc +Vs + Vf (3)

where: Vc, Vs, Vf – shear contribution of concrete, steel stirrups and FRP laminates, respectively.
The concrete contribution to the shear capacity depend on many different parameters, among
which are tensile concrete strength (compare Eq. 2), aggregate size (effect of the interlock forces), the
number and size of the longitudinal steel reinforcement (effect of the dowel action forces) and the
thickness of the concrete cover.
Test results indicate that the beam is fully protected against shear for the shear protection ratio
η ≥ 0.47 (see Table 6), hence for the NSM shear strengthening design η ≥ 0.5 should be assumed.
Generally shear protection ratio can be determined from Eq. (4).

Vf + Vs
η= , (4)
VEd

where: VEd - shear force in the section resulting from the external loading.
The steel contribution to the shear capacity is defined by Eq. (5).

A s fy
Vs = z cot θ , (5)
ss

where: fy – characteristic yield strength of the steel shear reinforcement, z – the inner level arm (in the
reinforced concrete without axial force, the approximate value z = 0.9d), θ - the angle between the
concrete compression strut and the beam axis perpendicular to the shear force (assumed θ = 45°).
The FRP contribution to the shear capacity is defined by Eq. (6).

A f ε fEf
Vf = z(cot θ + cot α) sin α , (6)
sf

where: εf – average effective FRP strain (based on the test results assumed εf = 0.0035, Table 6).
Comparison of the calculated contributions of steel, Vs,cal, diagonal FRP strips, Vf,cal, to the shear
capacity, the cracking shear force Vcr,cal (Eq. 2) and the shear protection index are summarized in
Table 6.

Table 6 Test results of the beams.

Test Analytical results

FRP Vs,cal + Vf ,cal
Beam
strips
Vtest Vcr,cal Vs,cal Vf,cal εmax,test η =
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (‰) Vflex,cal
BI-R1 - 125.46 60.09 - 4.89 0.14
BI-2/3A** 2×3l 208.25 41.36 3.75 0.32
63.52
BI-2/3B 2×2l 176.59 39.20 3.03*** 0.35
BI-3/5A 2×3l 212.60 67.19 4.52 0.45
60.09 29.10
BI-3/5B** 2×5l 234.10 72.38 3.12 0.47
(σsy=340MPa)
BI-4/7A* 2×7l 108.57 2.32 0.64
216.52 63.52
BI-4/7B* 2×4l 100.79 3.43 0.61
BIs-4/5A* 2×5l 72.38 2.17 0.47
220.93 60.09
BIs-4/5B* 2×4l 100.79 3.08 0.61
* The beam failed due to flexure thus strain registered in shear region was not the maximum
** The second failure due to flexure (caused by changing the loading scheme after the strengthening
with the steel profiles)
*** At the end of the test the main shear crack passed round the strain gauge, hence the strain
registered during failure was not the maximum
εmax,test – Maximum concrete strain registered by the diagonal gauges in the shear region

9
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

5 CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be pointed out from the experimental results:
• The use of NSM CFRP strips effectively enhanced the shear capacity of RC beams.
• Shear cracks propagated until reaching the edges of the adjacent grooves at an angle about
45 degrees.
• The beams with low FRP percentage below 0.32% failed in shear due to debonding of the
NSM strips and splitting of the side concrete cover of the internal steel stirrups.
• The NSM strips applied at the spacing at least 140 mm (ρf ≥ 0.33%) affected the failure due to
flexure and an increase in the capacity of 73% in comparison with the unstrengthened beam.
• Cutting of all steel stirrups during FRP strips installation did not influence the failure mode and
the ultimate load due to improved anchorage condition of the NSM strips.
• The NSM shear strengthened beam is fully protected against shear for the shear protection
ratio η ≥ 0.5.
• The steel contribution to the shear capacity was 23 % for unstrengthened beam and the most
16% for the strengthened beams, whereas the NSM contribution to the shear capacity ranged
between 22 % and 50 % for the strengthened beams.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wish to acknowledge the support provided by the Department of Concrete Structures,
Technical University of Lodz and the MC-Bauchemie donated the CFRP materials.

REFERENCES

[1] Triantafillou, T.C., “Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using epoxy-bonded
FRP composites”, ACI Structural Journal, 1998, 95, 2, pp 107-115.
[2] “Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening
concrete structures,” American Concrete Institute, ACI 440.2R-02, Farmington Hills, Michigan,
USA, 2002, 45 pp.
[3] fib - Bulletin 14, “Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures”, Technical report by
Task Group 9.3 FRP reinforcement for concrete structures, Féderation Internationale du Béton
– fib, Lausanne, 2001, 130 pp.
[4] Czaderski, C., "Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete with CFRP", 45th International
SAMPE Symposium, 2000, pp 880 – 894.
[5] Bousselham, A., and Chaallal, O., “Effect of transverse steel and shear span on the
performance of RC beams strengthened in shear with CFRP”, Composites: Part B, 37, 2006,
pp 37-46.
[6] Chen, J.F., and Teng, J.G., “Shear capacity of FRP-strengthened RC beams: FRP
debonding”, Construction and Building Materials, 17, 1, 2003, pp 27–41.
[7] Teng, J.G., Lam, L., Chen, J.F., “Shear Strengthening of RC Beams with FRP Composites”,
Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 6, 2004, pp 173-184.
[8] Täljsten, B., FRP strengthening of existing concrete structures, Design guideline, Department
od Civil Engineering Lulea University, Lulea, Sweden, 2004, pp 228.
[9] De Lorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., “Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams with NSM
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Rods”, ACI Structural Journal, 98 (1), 2001, pp 60-68.
[10] Barros, J.A.O., and Dias, S., “Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams with
Laminate Strips of CFRP”, Proceedings of CCC2003, Cosenza, Italy, 2003, pp 289-294.
[11] Nanni, A., Di Ludovico, M., Parretti, R., “Shear Strengthening of a PC Bridge with NSM CFRP
Rectangular Bars”, Advances in Structural Engineering, 7(4), 2004, pp 97-109.
[12] De Lorenzis, L., and Rizzo, A., “Behavior and capacity of RC beams strengthened in shear
with NSM FRP reinforcement”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress, Naples, Italy,
2006.
[13] Dias, S.J.E., and Barros, J.A.O., “NSM CFRP laminates for the shear strengthening of T
section RC beams”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress, Naples, Italy, 2006.

10