Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Construction
and Building

Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 143–153

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Steel plate contribution to load-carrying capacity

of retrofitted RC beams
a,* b,1 a,2
G. Arslan , F. Sevuk , I. Ekiz
a
Structural Engineering Division, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Yıldız Technical University, 34349 Besßiktasß, I_ stanbul, Turkey
b _
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Yıldız Technical University, 34349 Besßiktasß, Istanbul, Turkey

Received 4 April 2006; received in revised form 28 September 2006; accepted 14 October 2006
Available online 8 December 2006

Abstract

Experiments for flexural strengthening of rectangular reinforced concrete (RC) beams using epoxy-bonded continuous horizontal
steel plates have been carried out. Seven reference beams have been loaded monotonically up to maximum load capacities in order to
define load–deflection relationship of damaged beams. The beams have been then repaired and strengthened using different steel plate
configurations as defined by variations in plate curtailment length. These retrofitted RC beams have been then tested in the same con-
ditions as reference beams and the contribution of the repairing and strengthening techniques on load-carrying capacity have been inves-
tigated. The experimental programme is supported by a three-dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis and an equation for ultimate
shear capacity of retrofitted beams is proposed except for beams which have steel plate extended to the supports and/or additional
anchorages at the ends of steel plate. At the end of experiments and finite element analyses, it is concluded that the investigated repairing
and strengthening technique is highly effective on improving the flexural behavior of previously damaged slender RC beams.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flexural strengthening; Reinforced concrete; Epoxy-bonded steel plate; Nonlinear finite element analysis; Retrofitted beams; Load-carrying
capacity

1. Introduction ple strengthening techniques are available. Different

The existing concrete structures and/or elements may
be damaged by chemical processes due to aggressive envi-
ronment, excessive loading and poor initial design. It is
becoming both environmentally and economically prefer-
able to repair or strength rather than rebuilt them. The
choice between these and rebuilt is based on specific fac-
tors of each individual case, but certain issues are consid-
ered in every case. The strengthening of these beams
would be desirable if rapid, economic, effective and sim-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 212 259 70 70x2738; fax: +90 212 236
41 77.
E-mail addresses: aguray@yildiz.edu.tr, gurayarslan@yahoo.com (G.
Arslan), sevuk@yildiz.edu.tr (F. Sevuk), ekiz@yildiz.edu.tr (I. Ekiz).
1
Tel.: +90 212 259 70 70x2359.
2
Tel.: +90 212 259 70 70x2543; fax: +90 212 236 41 77.
methods are available for strengthening of existing con-
crete structures and/or elements. These are bonding with
steel plates, glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP), fibre
reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets, external prestressing,
external post tensioning and additional concreting. The
plate bonding technique is becoming preferable for
strengthening due to several advantages such as easy con-
struction work, and minimum change in the overall size
of the structure after plate bonding. The disadvantage
of this method, however, is the danger of corrosion at
the adhesive–steel interface, which adversely affects the
bond strength [1].
The pioneering study of epoxy-bonded steel plates for
strengthening and repairing of RC members is carried
out by L’Hermite and Bresson in 1967 [2] and during the
last 39 years period, many researchers have been made sev-
eral attempts to predict the behavior ultimate strength of

0950-0618/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.10.009
144 G. Arslan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 143–153
flexure upgraded RC structures and/or elements. The ques-
tion of ultimate strength prediction of RC members with-
out web reinforcement is still far from being settled. Tests
on RC beams bonded with steel plates [3–7] have revealed
that debonding of the soffits plate from the RC beam, typ-
ically with the concrete cover attached to the plate, is a
common failure mode in these beams. This bonding failure
of strengthened RC beams has been known as a typical
case of brittle failure and indicates high interfacial shear
or normal stresses caused by transfer of the tensile stresses
from the bonded plate to the RC beam. The determination
of interfacial stresses has been researched and several
closed-form analytical solutions proposed [8–12].
MacDonald and Calder [13] studied the behavior of
concrete beams externally reinforced with steel plates
bonded to their tension flanges. Hamoush and Ahmad
[14] used the finite element method to predict the failure
by interface debonding of the steel plate and the adhesive
layer as a result of interfacial shear stresses. Swamy et al.
[15] investigated the effect of glued steel plates on the first
cracking load, cracking behavior, deformation, serviceabil-
ity, and ultimate strength of RC beams. Some researchers
[1,16–18] indicated that bonded steel plates to the beam
web can substantially increase flexural stiffness, reduce
cracking and structural deformations at all load levels
and contribute to the ultimate flexural capacity. It is the
fact that gains in strength and stiffness are usually associ-
ated with a decrease in ductility.
The ultimate and cracking load of the retrofitted RC
beams bonded steel plate depend principally on the com-
pressive strength of concrete (fc), nominal strength of web
reinforcement, the yield strength of longitudinal bars, the
tensile reinforcement ratio, shear span to depth ratio (a/
d), the strength of steel plates, the area of steel plates,
the anchorage lengths of steel plates, mechanical proper-
ties of epoxy adhesive and friction coefficient between
steel plate and concrete. The bonding of continuous hor-
izontal steel plates to the beam web is one convenient and
effective method of enhancing the flexural strength of RC
beams. The objectives of this work are to investigate the
effectiveness of flexural strengthening with continuous
horizontal steel plates and load–deflection behavior of
rectangular section RC beams after retrofitting. Seven ref-
erence beams have been loaded monotonically up to max-
imum load capacities in order to define the load–
deflection relationship of damaged beams. The damaged
reference beams have been then repaired and strengthened
using different steel plate configurations in order to obtain
fourteen different test beams included seven reference
beams. These retrofitted RC beams have been tested in
the same conditions and the contribution of the repairing
and strengthening techniques on load-carrying capacity
are investigated. In addition, results obtained from a
three-dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis
(NLFEA) have been compared to the results of experi-
ments and proposed an equation for the calculation of
ultimate load capacities.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test variables
Fourteen RC beams including seven reference and seven
retrofitted beams have been tested under concentrated
loads at mid-span to determine their cracking load and ulti-
mate load capacity. Three sets of fourteen specimens each
have been manufactured using concrete compressive
strengths of 32.46 MPa, 32.16 MPa and 38.26 MPa for sets
K1, K2 and K3, respectively. Within the series, compres-
sive strength of concrete (fc) and shear reinforcement ratio
(qw) has been held constant, while seven beams have been
strengthened with externally bonded steel plates in various
manners.
2.2. Materials
A total of 14 beams, seven reference and seven retrofit-
ted, have been investigated in this work. A concrete mix
consisting of Portland Cement (PC 42.5) and maximum
aggregate size of 16 mm in diameter has been used. Con-
crete strength is determined from 150 · 300-mm cylinder
samples taken for each beam. The concrete mix propor-
tions for 1 m3 of concrete are given in Table 1.
The steel plates have been tested to establish their prop-
erties and showed a linearly elastic behavior until sudden
failure occurred. The mechanical properties of steel plates
are: Thickness of the steel plate is 5 mm and its width is
50 mm, yield strength and ultimate strength of the steel
plate are 286 MPa and 420 MPa, respectively [17].
The damaged beams have been sandblasted to remove
the oxide layer and the surface for insuring proper adhe-
sion. The steel plates also have been sandblasted to remove
the oxide layer and roughen the surface for insuring proper
adhesion. The epoxy resin consists of two components: an
epoxy resin and hardener. They have been mixed in the
ratio of 2:1 with low-speed drill and used for bonding.
The uniaxial compressive strength of the epoxy is
50.74 MPa. Epoxy is usually used into cracks in order to
glue cracked concrete or for gluing steel plate on concrete
surface. Epoxy based bonding mortar consists of two com-
ponents; epoxy resin and quartz sand. They have been
mixed in the ratio of 1:9. Maximum aggregate size of the
quartz sand is 2.5 mm in diameter. When the crack width
is small, pure resin is used.
Table 1
Mix proportions of concrete
Material Quantity (kg/m3)
Cement 372
Water 188
0–4 mm aggregate 760
4–8 mm aggregate 797
8–16 mm aggregate 398
Super plasticizer 5.8
 G. Arslan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 143–153 145

2.3. Details of test beams
All beams are 100 · 160 · 1970 mm with an effective
depth of 135 mm and cover of 13 mm. Beams are simply sup-
ported with the distance of 1800 mm between the supports
and loaded at mid-span. Fig. 1 shows the cross-sectional
dimensions and steel plate’s sizes of the various specimens.
Within the series the shear span to depth ratio has been held
constant, while seven beams have been strengthened with
externally bonded steel plates in various manners. The prop-
erties of the specimens are detailed in Table 2.
The beams are reinforced with two B8 bars (8 mm in
diameter) in the compression zone, whereas two B12 bars
(12 mm in diameter) in the tension zone. The web rein-
forcement consists of 6 mm diameter closed web reinforce-
ments spaced by 160 mm centre to centre throughout the

160 135

25

85 100 10x160=1600 mm 100 85 100

a) Reference beams

10
5/50-1000 50

100

2.5
5
5/50-1500 25 50 25
85 150 1500 mm 150 85

b) Plated beam, S3

10
5/50-1000 50

100

2.5
5
5/50-1000 25 50 25
85 400 1000 mm 400 85

c) Plated beam, S1

160

2.5
25 50 25 5
5/50-1000
85 400 1000 mm 400 85

d) Plated beam, S2

10
5/50-500 50

100

2.5
5
5/50-1000 25 50 25
85 400 1000 mm 400 85

e) Plated beam, S21

Fig. 1. Configuration and details of RC beams [17].
146 G. Arslan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 143–153

Table 2
Properties of specimens
Specimen Strengthened sample fc (MPa) a/d Bottom reinforcement (mm2) Top reinforcement (mm2) qw (%)
K11REF – 32.46 6.67 2B12 (226) 2B8 (100) 3.53
K12REF
K13REF
K11S3 S3
K12S1 S1
K13S2 S2
K22REF – 32.16
K23REF
K22S21 S21
K23S1 S1
K31REF – 38.26
K32REF
K31S1 S1
K32S21 S21

Table 3 carrying capacity, the retrofitted beams show a consider-

Properties of reinforcement
Bar size (mm) Es (MPa) fy (MPa) ey (·106)
6 200 000 530 2650
8 200 000 332 1660
12 200 000 280 1400
beam span. Important properties of steel are also listed in
Table 3. The parameters fy and fu represent the yield
strength and the ultimate strength of reinforcing steel,
respectively, ey represents strain values at the onset of yield.
The steel plates have been positioned on the beam web
with a clearance of 2.5 mm between the concrete face and
steel plate. During hardening of the epoxy, in order to fix
the steel plates tightly to the damaged beams, clamps are
used. The beams are cured under laboratory conditions
for at least 14 days before loading.
2.4. Testing and instrumentation
Reference beams have been loaded monotonically up to
maximum load capacities in order to define the load–
deflection relationship of damaged beams (K1 series K11,
K12 and K13; K2 series K22 and K23; K3 series K31
and K32). These beams have been then repaired using dif-
ferent plate configurations as defined by variations in plate
curtailment length (K11S3, K12S1, K13S2, K22S21,
K23S1, K31S1 and K32S21).
A linear voltage differential transducer (LVDT) is used
for each test to monitor the maximum vertical displace-
ment during loading. The beam is incrementally loaded
up to the failure under load control. For each increment
of the load, the deflections have been measured by the help
of LVDTs placed at mid-span.
3. Experimental results and discussions
The used flexural strengthening technique has enhanced
the cracking load and ultimate load. Considering the load-
able strength enhancement comparing that of the corre-
fu (MPa) sponding damaged reference beams. The level of
593 enhancement has been effected by the variation of the
358 amount of externally bonded steel plates. Also steel plate
308
length and position have showed a significant effect on
the load-carrying capacity. Test results of retrofitted RC
beams are summarized in Table 4.
3.1. K1 series beams
Reference beams (K11, K12 and K13) have failed in
flexure by crushing of concrete in the compression zone
after flexural reinforcement yielding. All retrofitted beams
except K32S21 have failed with shear peeling of steel plate.
It is observed that first cracks have been formed around
mid-span of retrofitted beams for all specimens. Fig. 2
shows the cracking pattern and flexure failure of K1 series.
For the same compressive strength of concrete and the
same amount of vertical shear reinforcement, the load-car-
rying capacity increases, but the deflection capacity of the
strengthened beam decreases as the steel plate ratio
increased for the same level of load. Considering the max-
imum load capacity of the retrofitted K1 series are 2.36,
1.39 and 1.27 times the maximum load capacity of the cor-
responding reference beams for strengthened sample of S3,
S1 and S2, respectively.
Design of RC structures for strengthening in bending
seems to be well understood, even though there are still
some obscurities regarding anchorage and end peeling fail-
ures. Peeling failure, however, gives typical warning of sud-
den failure by cracking throughout the shear span. As
Fig. 3 shows, the end of the steel plate has been left
exposed, with no concrete bonded to it, after beam failure.
However, trace of adhesive has remained on the surface of
steel plate. As it is shown in Fig. 3a, for the beam of
K11S3, the crack which is numbered 3 has been formed
at the end of steel plate and then this crack has widened
under the effect of increasing load level and finally shear
peeling of steel plate has been occurred. For K12S1, as is
 G. Arslan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 143–153 147

Table 4
Results of tested beams
Specimen Cracking Ultimate Energy dissipation (kN mm) Mode of failure
Load (kN) Deflection (mm) Load (kN) Deflection (mm)
K11S3 32 11.5 52 11.5 383.33 Shear peeling of steel plate
K12S1 15 11.0 32 11.0 234.67 Shear peeling of steel plate
K13S2 11 6.5 28 6.5 121.33 Shear peeling of steel plate
K22S21 14 2.4 40 9.5 253.33 Shear peeling of steel plate
K23S1 14 3.5 38 12.0 304.00 Shear peeling of steel plate
K31S1 17 3.0 36 14.0 336.00 Shear peeling of steel plate
K32S21 13 2.3 33 20.0 440.00 Shear failure

Fig. 2. Crack pattern of beam K1 series.

In other words, these beams demonstrate high ductile

Fig. 3. Shear peeling of steel plate from the concrete of K1 series beams.
shown in Fig. 3b, the cracks numbered 3 and 4 have wid-
ened with increasing load level and the steel plate separa-
tion was observed between those cracks. For K13S2, as is
shown in Fig. 3c, the crack numbered V has widened with
increasing load level and then shear peeling of steel plate
has been observed under the effect of increasing load.
Fig. 4 shows the comparison of the load–deflection
curves for test specimens with reference beams. The refer-
ence beams have exhibited a moderate amount of reserve
load-carrying capacity beyond the formation of cracking.
behavior and produced large deflection prior to failure
which is remarkably gradual.
The steel plates placed at the bottom of reference
beams provide significant strength enhancement for the
reference beams which exhibit flexural failure. Further-
more, the effect of side plates, which are not expected
to make a significant contribution to the strength, on
load–deflection relationship has been investigated. For
this purpose, the load–deflection curves of K11S3 and
K12S1 beams are compared in Fig. 4a. As it is shown
in Fig. 4a, the load-carrying capacity of the K11S3
beam, which has 50% longer bottom plate comparing
to the K12S1, is 63% higher than the load-carrying
capacity of K12S1. Comparing the energy dissipation
capacity of K11S3 and K12S1 beams, it is observed that
the energy dissipation capacity of K11S3 beam is 63%
higher than that of K12S1. However, there is no signif-
icant difference between deflection capacities of afore-
mentioned beams.
Fig. 4b shows load–deflection curves of retrofitted RC
beams with steel plates, K12S1 and K13S2. The only differ-
ence between K12S1 and K13S2 beams is the side plate of
K12S1 with the length of 1000 mm. Comparing energy dis-
sipation capacity of those beams; it is observed that the
energy dissipation capacity of K12S1 is 93% higher than
that of K13S2. Furthermore, ultimate deflection of
K12S1 is 69% higher than that of K13S2.
148 G. Arslan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 143–153

K11-K12 beams K12-K13 beams

60 40
K11REF K11S3 K12REF K12S1
50 K12S1
K13REF K13S2
K12REF
30

Load (kN)

Load (kN)
40
30 20
20
10
10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
a) K11 and K12 beams b) K12 and K13 beams
Fig. 4. Load–deflection curves for K1 series.

3.2. K2 and K3 series beams 50

K22-K23 beams
K23REF K23S1
K22REF K22S21
This study investigates the effect of configuration of 40

Load (kN)
externally bonded steel plates on the ultimate capacity 30
and failure mode of retrofitted RC beams. Figs. 5 and 7
show the cracking pattern and failure mode of K2 and 20

K3 series of retrofitted beams. 10

The first cracks of K22S21 and K23S1 beams have been
formed close to mid-span of the beams. Then, for K22S21,
those cracks have been extended to the neutral axis of
beams with the effect of increasing load level and flexural
cracks have been formed simultaneously. The crack, which
is causing shear peeling of steel plate, has been formed at
the end of bottom plate with the slope of approximately
45, as is shown in Fig. 5. The crack of K23S1 which is
numbered VI in Fig. 5 has been formed horizontally first
then extended to the loading point of the beam. Mean-
while, shear peeling of steel plate was observed.
Fig. 6 shows load–deflection curves of retrofitted RC
beams, K22S21 and K23S1. Considering the maximum
load, the retrofitted K2 series exhibited 1.82 and 1.73 times
the load of the corresponding reference beams for strength-
ened sample of S21 and S1, respectively. Although the fail-
ure mode of K23S1 and K22S21 are same, the energy
dissipation capacity of K23S1 is 20% higher than that of
K22S21. Furthermore, the ultimate deflection of K23S1 is
26% higher than that of K22S21. The following result
can be drawn from the above comparisons. It is recom-
mended that the length of side plate should be equal to
the length of bottom plate since side plate prevents the
extension of the crack, formed at the end of bottom plate,
to the loading point.
0
0 5 10 15
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 6. Load–deflection curves for K2 series.
The first cracks of K31S1 and K32S21 have been formed
close to mid-span of the beams with the effect of increasing
load level, new cracks have been formed at the end of bot-
tom plates. Then, for K31S1, this new crack extended
along the flexural reinforcement. At this point, under the
effect of increasing load level, a new branch of this crack
has been formed with the slope of 45 and extended to side
plate. Finally, the failure of the beam has been occurred
with the separation of side plate and beam. For K32S21,
the crack, which has been formed at the end of bottom
plate, becomes a shear crack with the slope of 45, as is
shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 8 shows load–deflection curves of retrofitted RC
beams, K31S1 and K32S21. For the same compressive
strength of concrete and the same amount of vertical shear
reinforcement, the load-carrying capacity is increased, but
the deflection capacity of the strengthened beam is
decreased as steel plate ratio increased for the same level
of load. Considering the maximum load, the retrofitted

Fig. 5. Crack pattern of beam K2 series.

 G. Arslan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 143–153
40
K31-K32 beams
K31REF
K32REF
30
Load (kN)
20
10
0 relating to out of plane confinement effects and concrete
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 8. Load–deflection curves for K3 series.
K3 series exhibited 1.80 and 1.65 times the load of the cor-
responding reference beams for strengthened sample of S1
and S21, respectively. While the ultimate load capacity of
K12S1 beam is 39% higher than that of K12REF beam,
the ultimate load capacity for K31S1 beam is 80% higher
than that of K31REF beam. The ultimate load capacity
is increased slightly with increasing compressive strength
of concrete, but is considerably affected by the bond char-
acteristics of the steel plate.
4. Finite element model
Several studies have been performed during the last two
decades in the field of strengthened RC beams; testing and
finite element modeling under monotonically load, in order
to explain the stress distributions and failure modes. In all
existing solutions, two different approaches have been
employed for linear elastic materials [8]. Roberts and
Haji-Kazemi used a staged analysis approach, while Vil-
nay, Liu and Zhu, Taljsten and Malek et al. considered
directly deformation compatibility conditions [8]. In finite
element analysis, discrete crack and smeared crack
approaches are two major models representing cracking
in concrete structures [19]. Yang et al. [19] investigated
the behavior of a fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) plated
RC beams using a discrete crack model based on linear
elastic finite element analysis. According to Ye [10], numer-
ical results are dealing with flexural interfaces and nonlin-
149
Fig. 7. Crack pattern of beam K3 series.
ear behavior of concrete have not been found in the
K31S1
K32S21 literature.
In order to support the experimental results, a nonlinear
finite element model [20] is used to determine the ultimate
load capacity of the beams. Accurate finite element
modeling of the original and replica beams is difficult, par-
ticularly if being represented by a two-dimensional mem-
brane analysis. In two-dimensional analyses, influences
25
tensile strength play a major role. Thus, three-dimensional
nonlinear finite element analyses (NLFEA) are undertaken
for each of three sets of test beams. The properties and geo-
metric characteristics of the beam in the nonlinear finite
element model are the same as in the tested beams. The
nonlinear finite element program ignores dowel action
and assumes a perfect bond between concrete and steel
bars. The typical finite element meshes used to represent
the beams are shown in Fig. 9; similar meshes are also used
for the retrofitted
pffiffiffiffi beams. The elastic modulus of concrete is
taken as 4730 fc ðMPaÞ [21].
Due to the symmetrical geometry and loading pattern,
only half portion of each beam is analyzed, imposing
appropriate boundary conditions along the line of symme-
try. A three-dimensional eight nodded solid element with
incompatible strain field is used to model the concrete,
adhesive and steel plate. The externally bonded steel plates
are modeled with additional elements. Steel plate elements
are superimposed on RC elements by using the same nodes.
The steel plate is modeled as an isotropic elasto-plastic
material satisfying Tresca yield criterion with material
properties described in the experimental part of the paper.
For concrete strengths, actual strengths obtained from the
tests are used.
Fig. 9. Typical finite element mesh (K11S3 beam).
150 G. Arslan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 143–153

The nonlinear analyses of the RC beams, employing the
Drucker–Prager yield criterion for concrete, have been per-
formed. The Drucker–Prager yield criterion can be used for
materials that exhibit volumetric plastic straining, such as
soil, concrete and rock. The Drucker–Prager yield criterion
can be written as follows [22]:
pffiffiffiffiffi
F ðrij Þ ¼ aI 1 þ J 2 ¼ k ð1Þ
where I1 is the hydrostatic component of the stress tensor
and a and k are material constants which can be related
to the friction angle / and cohesion c of the Mohr–Cou-
lomb criterion in several ways. We shall assume that the
Drucker–Prager cone circumscribes the Mohr–Coulomb
hexagonal pyramid, and the material constant a and k
are obtained as follows [22]:
2 sin / 6c cos /
a ¼ pffiffiffi ; k ¼ pffiffiffi
3ð3  sin /Þ 3ð3  sin /Þ
where c and / are the cohesion and internal friction angle,
respectively.
4.1. Comparison of load–deflection curves for K1 series
beams
Fig. 10 shows a comparison of the load–deflection
curves obtained both experimentally and analytically. A
good correlation exists between the experimental and ana-
lytical values in terms of the ultimate load of K1 series.
Comparing the maximum load, the NLFEA results of ret-
rofitted beams exhibit 1.03, 1.25 and 1.01 times the load of
the corresponding experimental results for K11S3, K12S1
and K13S2 beams, respectively. However; the deflection
capacity of the retrofitted beams are decreased for the same
level of load.
4.2. Comparison of load–deflection curves for K2 and K3
series beams
Figs. 11 and 12 show a comparison of the load–deflec-
tion curves for K2 and K3 series obtained both experimen-
tally and analytically. Comparing the maximum load, the
NLFEA results of retrofitted beams exhibit 1.02, 1.05,
1.42 and 1.21 times the load of the corresponding experi-
mental results for K22S21, K23S1, K31S1 and K32S21
beams, respectively.
As shown in Table 5, the mean value of the ratio of the
experimental ultimate load-carrying capacity to the results
of NLFEA and standard deviation are 0.89 and 0.09 for all
beams, respectively. Most of the ultimate load-carrying
capacity values obtained from NLFEA are larger than
the test results and proposed equation, since perfect bond
assumption between concrete and steel bars is made.
ð2Þ
5. Theoretical considerations
There are five failure modes that must be considered
when determining the strength of an RC beam strength-
ened with steel plate:
1. Concrete crushing in compression prior to tension rein-
forcement yielding;
2. Concrete crushing in compression after tension rein-
forcement yielding;
3. Yielding of the steel plate followed by crushing of
concrete;
4. Steel plate debonding from the concrete substrate;
5. Shear peeling failure (cover delamination).
The controlling failure mode can be determined by eval-
uating the strain levels in the concrete, tensile reinforce-

K11 beams K12 beams

60 50
K11REF K11REF,NLFEA K12REF K12S1

50 K11S3 K11S3,NLFEA
40
K12REF,NLFEA K12S1,NLFEA
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

40
30
30
20
20
10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

K13 beams
40
K13REF K13S2
K13REF,NLFEA K13S2,NLFEA
30
Load (kN)

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm)

Fig. 10. Comparison of experimental and analytical load–deflection curves for K1 series.
 G. Arslan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 143–153 151

K22 Beams K23 Beam

s
60 60
K22REF K22S21 K23REF K23S1
50 K2REF,NLFEA K22S21,NLFEA 50 K2REF, NLFEA K23S1,NLFEA

Load (kN)

Load (kN)
40 40
30 30
20 20

10 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

Fig. 11. Comparison of experimental and analytical load–deflection curves for K2 series.

K31 Beams K32 Beams

60 60
K31REF K31S1 K32REF K32S21
50 K3REF, NLFEA K31S1,NLFEA 50 K3REF, NLFEA K32S21,NLFEA
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 10 20 30
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

Fig. 12. Comparison of experimental and analytical load–deflection curves for K3 series.

Table 5
steel plate details. The design flexural capacity must equal
Comparison of analytical and experimental results
or exceed the flexural demand (Eq. (3)). The flexural
Beam No Ultimate load
demand should be computed with the load factors accord-
Exp. results NLFEA results Pu,exp/Pu,NLFEA ing to ACI 318 [21] or TS500 [23].
Pu,exp (kN) Pu,NLFEA (kN)
K11REF 22 23.76 0.93
/M n P M ult ð3Þ
K12REF 23 23.76 0.97 The nominal moment capacity for a rectangular doubly
K13REF 22 23.76 0.93
RC member strengthened with steel plate is given by
K11S3 52 53.40 0.97
K12S1 32 39.84 0.80 Eq. (4), where the moments of the internal beam forces
K13S2 28 28.26 0.99 are summed about the neutral axis. From the equilib-
K22REF 22 23.74 0.93 rium of internal and external moments is shown in
K23REF 22 23.74 0.93 Fig. 13.
K22S21 40 40.84 0.98
K23S1 38 39.84 0.95 M n ¼ As fs ðd  cÞ þ A0s fs0 ðc  d 0 Þ þ Asp fsp ðh  cÞ
K31REF 20 24.82 0.81  
k1
K32REF 20 24.82 0.81 þ 0:85f c k 1 bc2 1  ð4Þ
K31S1 36 50.98 0.71 2
K32S21 33 40.03 0.82
where As, A0s and Asp are the cross-sectional areas of fs, fs0
Mean 0.89
and fsp are the stresses developing in tensile reinforcement,
Standard deviation 0.09
compression reinforcement and steel plate of the retrofitted
beams, respectively, as the other terms are defined in
ment and steel plate at section failure. Calculating the
strain in the tension reinforcement at the ultimate load,
es, will determine if the reinforcement has yielded. If es < ey,
b
the reliability and ductility of the member is low and the cu
Fs' = As' f s'
d’
predicted shear strength is factored accordingly through ’s c 's kc Fc' = 0.85 f c k1cb
the shear strength reduction factor, /. h d

5.1. Flexural capacity of retrofitted RC beams s s Fs = As f s

sp sp Fsp= Asp f sp
The flexural ductility of a retrofitted RC beam is mainly
dependent on the failure mode, which is governed by the Fig. 13. Stress and strain distribution at ultimate load.
152 G. Arslan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 143–153

Fig. 13. k1 is the ratio of the depth of the equivalent rect-

angular stress block to the depth of the neutral axis and ex-
pressed in ACI 318 and TS500. y2
y1
l2 h
5.2. Shear capacity of retrofitted RC beams
l1 b1
The design shear capacity must exceed the shear demand L b
(Eq. (5)). Providing adequate shear strength is crucial in
Fig. 14. Details and plate configuration of retrofitted RC beams.
promoting ductile flexural failure modes.
/V n P V ult ð5Þ
The nominal shear strength is derived from two ment. The ACI 318 Building Code [21] recommends an
components: concrete and web reinforcement. However, equation for shear strength of slender beam without web
flexural strengthening of rectangular RC beams using reinforcement, subjected only to shear and flexure, as fol-
epoxy-bonded continuous horizontal steel plates have not lows:
any contribution to shear strength. So, nominal shear  
strength of these retrofitted RC beams can be determined 1 pffiffiffiffi V ud pffiffiffiffi
vcr ¼ fc þ 120q 6 0:3 fc ða=d P 2:5Þ ð8Þ
as 7 Mu
Vn ¼VcþVs ð6Þ where vcr is the cracking shear strength of beam in MPa, fc
is the compressive strength of concrete in MPa, q is the lon-
where Vn is the total shear capacity of a RC member; Vc is
gitudinal reinforcement ratio, d is the effective depth and
shear capacity of concrete; and Vs is shear capacity of web
Mu is factored moment occurring simultaneously with the
reinforcement based on yield.
factored shear force, Vu, at considered section. The crack-
ing shear strength of RC beam without web reinforcement
5.3. Shear failure after debonding of steel plate
is typically simplified into the following:
The major factors affecting the shear failure after deb- V cr 1 pffiffiffiffi
onding of steel plate are: (i) the cylinder concrete compres- vcr ¼ ¼ fc ða=d P 2:5Þ ð9Þ
bw d 6
sive strength (or cube concrete compressive strength); (ii)
the orientation of cracks in the shear span; (iii) the width where vcr in MPa; fc in MPa; bw and d in mm. The current
and the extent of cracks; (iv) the degree of lateral confine- ACI 318 [21] Code assumes that shear strength is essen-
ment and (v) steel plate configurations. To account for the tially proportional to fc0:5 . The proposed efficiency factor
above factors, the shear capacity at the point when deb- (Ks) is a term taking into account the plate configuration
onding of the steel plate occurs may be written as of the RC beam-plate system
V ult ¼ K s V cr ð7Þ
y y l  b l 
2 1 1
where Vcr is the cracking shear force of a RC beam and Ks Ks ¼ 1 þ 2 1 2
þ ð10Þ
h h L b L
is the efficiency factor for the shear capacity (Ks P 1.0).
Based on the experimental results of retrofitted RC slender
where y1, y2, b1, l1, l2, h, b and L parameters have been
beams shown in Table 6, a simple analytical expression is
shown in Fig. 14. y2 is the depth of measured steel plate
proposed for the ratio of ultimate shear strength of RC
from centre to extreme compression fiber of concrete; y1
beams strengthened by epoxy-bonded steel plates to crack-
and b1 are the width of steel plate and l1 and l2 are the
ing shear strength of RC beams without web reinforce-
length of the steel plate.
Ultimate shear capacity of retrofitted beams is proposed
Table 6
except for beams which have steel plate extended to the
Experimental results and comparisons supports and/or additional anchorages at the ends of steel
Beam no. vu,exp Ks Eq. (9) Ks Eq. (9)
vu;exp plate. Table 6 compares the proposed shear load obtained
K s Eq: ð9Þ
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) from Eqs. (7)–(10) with the experimental ultimate shear
K11S3 1.93 1.493 0.95 1.42 1.36
loads. The mean values of the ratio of the experimental
K12S1 1.19 1.354 0.95 1.29 0.93 results to Eq. (7) with using ACI Code (Eq. (9)) and coef-
K13S2 1.04 1.278 0.95 1.21 0.86 ficient of variation (COV) values are 1.04 and 0.18,
K22S21 1.48 1.316 0.95 1.24 1.19 respectively.
K23S1 1.41 1.354 0.95 1.28 1.10
K31S1 1.33 1.354 1.03 1.40 0.95
K32S21 1.22 1.316 1.03 1.36 0.90
6. Conclusions

Mean value 1.04 The nonlinear finite element analysis, experimental stud-
COV 0.18
ies and proposed equation for ultimate shear capacity in
 G. Arslan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 143–153
this paper have been undertaken to investigate the debond-
ing and shear load failure of retrofitted beams. The follow-
ing conclusions can be drawn:
1. The reference beams have been exhibited a moderate
amount of reserve load-carrying capacity beyond the
formation of cracking. In other words, these
beams demonstrate high ductile behavior and produced
large deflection prior to failure which is remarkably
gradual.
2. It has been confirm that externally bonded continues
steel plates can improve the ultimate load-carrying
capacities of damaged RC beams. The used flexural
strengthening technique has enhanced the cracking
load and ultimate load. Steel plate length has showed
a significant effect on the flexural load-carrying capac-
ity. Comparing the ultimate load, the K1 series retro-
fitted beams exhibit 2.36, 1.39 and 1.27 times the load
of the corresponding reference beams for strengthened
sample of S3, S1 and S2, respectively. K2 series have
showed 1.82 and 1.73 times for strengthened sample
of S21, S1 and K3 series have showed 1.80 and
1.65 times the load of the corresponding reference
beams for strengthened sample of S1 and S21,
respectively.
3. The apparent premature failure of the beams could be
related with end peeling steel plate from the concrete.
Special care has been put on the steel plates of all dam-
aged beams, and therefore, the low resistance cannot be
attributed to the non-homogeneity of friction between
the concrete and steel plate.
4. Based on the experimental results, a simple equation is
recommended for the ultimate shear capacity of
retrofitted RC beams considering steel plate
configuration.
5. The proposed equations (Eqs. (7)–(10)) show good
agreement with the test and NLFEA results. But, fur-
ther calibrations are needed with using different plate
configurations, geometrical and material properties of
retrofitted RC test beams reported in literature to obtain
a better performance.
6. Ultimate shear capacity of retrofitted beams is proposed
except for beams which have steel plate extended to the
supports and/or additional anchorages at the ends of
steel plate. Most of the ultimate load-carrying capacity
values obtained from NLFEA results are higher than
the test results and proposed equation, since perfect
bond assumption between concrete and steel bars is
made.
7. Comparing the deflection capacities of K22S21 and
K23S1, it is recommended that the length of side plate
should be equal to the length of bottom plate since side
plate prevents the extension of the crack, formed at the
end of bottom plate, to the loading point.
153
References
[1] Sevuk F, Arslan G. Retrofit of damaged reinforced concrete beams by
using steel plate. In: Structures congress, ASCE, New York, USA,
2005, April 21–23.
[2] L’Hermite R, Bresson J. Concrete reinforced with glued plates. In:
RILEM international symposium, synthetic resins in building con-
struction, Paris, 1967, p. 175–203.
[3] Swamy RN, Jones R, Ang TH. Under and over reinforced concrete
beams with glued steel plates. Int J Cem Comp Lightweight Concr
1982;4(1):19–32.
[4] Jones R, Swamy RN, Charif A. Plate separation and anchorage of
reinforced concrete beams strengthened by epoxy bonded steel plates.
Struct Engr 1988;66(5):85–94.
[5] Swamy RN, Jones R, Charif A. The effect of external plate
reinforcement on the strengthening of structurally damaged RC
beams. Struct Engr 1989;67(3):45–56.
[6] Oehlers DJ. Reinforced concrete beams with plates glued to their
soffits. J Struct Eng ASCE 1992;118(8):2023–38.
[7] Hussain M, Sharif A, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Al-Sulaimani GJ.
Flexural behavior of precracked reinforced concrete beams strength-
ened externally by steel plates. ACI Struct J 1995;92(1):14–22.
[8] Smith ST, Teng JG. Interfacial stresses in plated beams. Eng Struct
2001;23(7):857–71.
[9] Teng JG, Zhang JW, Smith ST. Interfacial stresses in reinforced
concrete beams bonded with a soffit plate: a finite element study.
Const Build Mater 2002;16(1):1–14.
[10] Ye JQ. Interfacial shear transfer of RC beams strengthened by
bonded composite plates. Cem Concr Comp 2001;23(4–5):411–7.
[11] Adhikary BB, Mutsuyoshi H, Sano M. Shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams using steel plates bonded on beam web:
experiments and analysis. Construct Build Mater 2000;14(5):237–44.
[12] Raoof M, El-Rimawi J, Hassanen MAH. Theoretical and experi-
mental study on externally plated RC beams. Eng Struct
2000;22(1):85–101.
[13] MacDonald MD, Calder AJJ. Bonded steel plating for strengthening
concrete structures. Int J Adhes 1982;2(2):119–27.
[14] Hamoush SH, Ahmad SH. Debonding of steel-plate-strengthened
concrete beams. J Struct Eng ASCE 1990;116(2):356–71.
[15] Swamy RN, Jones R, Bloxham JW. Structural behavior of reinforced
concrete beams strengthened by epoxy-bonded steel plates. Struct
Engr 1987;65(2):59–68.
[16] Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. RC beams strengthened with GFRP
plates. I: Experimental study. ASCE J Struct Eng 1991;117(11):
3417–33.
[17] Sevuk F. Yapı hasarları ve hasarların iyilesßtirilmesi üzerine bir
inceleme. PhD thesis, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, 2000 (in
Turkish).
[18] Almusallam TH, Al-Salloum YA. Ultimate strength prediction for
RC beams externally strengthened by composite materials. Compos-
ites: Part B 2001;32(7):609–19.
[19] Yang ZJ, Chen JF, Proverbs D. Finite element modeling of concrete
cover separations failure in FRP plated beams. Construct Build
Mater 2003;17(1):3–13.
[20] LUSAS. Finite element system examples manual, 2006. Version 13.6,
FEA Ltd., United Kingdom.
[21] ACI Committee 318. Building code for structural concrete (318R-
2002) and commentary (318R-2002). ACI, Farmington Hills, MI,
2002.
[22] Chen WF. Plasticity in reinforced concrete. McGraw-Hill Company;
1982.
[23] TS-500 Requirements for design and construction of reinforced
concrete structures. Ankara: Turkish Standards Institute; 2000 (in
Turkish).