Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

Fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix: A promising strengthening

technique for concrete structures
Oluwafunmilayo Awani, Tamer El-Maaddawy ⇑, Najif Ismail
United Arab Emirates University, United Arab Emirates

h i g h l i g h t s

Previous studies on strengthening of RC structures with FRCM are critically reviewed.

Factors affecting the performance of FRCM-strengthened RC elements are highlighted.

Research gaps are identified.

Directions for future research are outlined.

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

Article history: Fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems have recently been introduced in the construction
Received 26 June 2016 industry as a viable alternative strengthening material, to circumvent problems associated with fiber-
Received in revised form 11 November 2016 reinforced polymers (FRP). They are made of fabric grids and a cementitious agent which serves as matrix
Accepted 25 November 2016
and binder. The cementitious matrix used in FRCM systems has higher thermal capacity and better com-
patibility with the concrete substrate compared to those of the epoxy resin used in FRP. The use of FRCM
composites for strengthening and repair of reinforced concrete structures, though relatively recent, is
Keywords:
gradually gaining popularity as an alternative to FRP. This paper presents a critical review of existing
Bond
Cementitious matrix
research on structural strengthening with FRCM composites, identifies gaps in knowledge, and outlines
FRCM directions for future research.
Fabric Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Fiber
Flexural
Mortars
Shear
Textile

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
2. Bond behaviour of FRCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2.1. Test methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2.2. Failure modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2.3. Factors affecting bond behaviour of FRCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.3.1. Number of FRCM layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.3.2. Fabric type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.3.3. Anchorage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.3.4. Bond width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.3.5. Bond length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2.3.6. Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2.4. Bond-slip (s-s) models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

⇑ Corresponding author at: United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates.
E-mail addresses: more_funmi@yahoo.com (O. Awani), tamer.maaddawy@uaeu.ac.ae (T. El-Maaddawy), najif@uaeu.ac.ae (N. Ismail).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.125
0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111 95

3. Flexural strengthening with FRCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

3.1. Failure modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.1.1. Concrete cover separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.1.2. Debonding at fabric-matrix interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.1.3. Debonding at concrete-matrix interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.1.4. Slippage of fabric roving within matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.1.5. Rupture of fabric within matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.2. Factors affecting the flexural capacity of FRCM-strengthened members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.2.1. Number of FRCM layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.2.2. Fabric type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.2.3. Mortar type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.2.4. FRCM configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.2.5. Anchorage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.2.6. Concrete strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.2.7. Corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.2.8. Tensile steel reinforcement ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4. Shear strengthening with FRCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.1. Failure modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.1.1. Cover separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.1.2. Debonding at concrete-matrix interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.1.3. Slippage of fabric roving within the matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.1.4. Rupture of fabric within the matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.2. Factors affecting the shear capacity of FRCM-strengthened members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.2.1. Number of FRCM layers (reinforcement ratio) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.2.2. Fabric type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.2.3. Mortar type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.2.4. FRCM configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.2.5. Mechanical anchorage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.2.6. Concrete strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.2.7. Stirrup spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.2.8. Mortar thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5. Column confinement with FRCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.1. Failure modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.1.1. Fabric rupture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.1.2. Debonding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.1.3. Fiber slippage within rovings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.1.4. Concrete crushing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.2. Factors affecting the axial capacity of FRCM-strengthened members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.2.1. Number of FRCM layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.2.2. Fabric type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.2.3. Mortar type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.2.4. FRCM configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.2.5. Concrete strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.2.6. Tie spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.2.7. Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.2.8. Section size/shape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.2.9. Layout of longitudinal steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.2.10. Corner radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.2.11. Load eccentricity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.2.12. Loading protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6. Conclusions and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.1. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.2. Recommendations for future studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Notations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

1. Introduction bond surface/line. This often leads to delamination of the compos-

Since the early 1980’s, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) compos-
ites have gradually gained popularity as viable strengthening
materials for reinforced concrete (RC) structures. FRP composites
possess certain characteristics, which make them a viable alterna-
tive to the traditionally used strengthening systems. These charac-
teristics include corrosion resistance, high strength-to-weight
ratio, and high versatility. FRPs consist of fibers embedded in a
polymer matrix, usually epoxy resin. The epoxy resin used in FRPs
is incompatible with the concrete substrate, resulting in a critical
ite from the substrate [1–8]. FRP composites also have poor perfor-
mance at elevated temperatures and thermal incompatibility with
the substrate. They are difficult to apply on humid surfaces and at
low temperatures. Fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM)
systems, also referred to as textile-reinforced mortar (TRM),
mineral-based composite (MBC) or textile-reinforced concrete
(TRC) systems, have recently been introduced in the construction
industry as an alternative to circumvent the problems associated
with FRPs [9]. FRCM composites consist of fabric grids (made of
fibers such as carbon, glass, etc.) and a cementitious agent (mortar)
96 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111
that serves as matrix and binder. The matrix used in FRCM com-
posites has higher thermal capacity compared to that of the epoxy
resin used in FRPs, and is more compatible with the concrete sub-
strate. The inclusion of mortar in the system rather than epoxy
improves the heat/fire resistance and the compatibility with the
concrete substrate [9].
FRCM composites are applied in a similar manner as FRP com-
posites for the strengthening and repair of RC structures. They
are usually applied by the hand lay-up method, which involves
the application of a layer of mortar, followed by a layer of fabric
grid, and a second mortar layer. This process is repeated till the
required number of layers is reached. The bond between the fabric
and the mortar is achieved by mechanical interlock, formed as a
result of the mortar penetrating through the grid spaces. It is
important that each mortar layer is applied while the previous
layer is still wet. In flexural strengthening, FRCMs are typically
applied externally at the bottom surface of RC beams and slabs.
In shear strengthening, they are applied at the lateral sides of RC
beams, in a side-bonded, U-shape, or full-wrapping configuration.
The use of FRCM composites for strengthening and repair of RC
structures, though relatively recent, is gradually gaining popularity
as an alternative to FRPs. Existing literature on the use of FRCM
composites is much more limited than FRP composites. This paper
presents a critical review of existing research on structural
strengthening with FRCM composites, identifies gaps in knowl-
edge, and outlines directions for future research. A summary of
available literature on bond behaviour of FRCM, flexural strength-
ening, shear strengthening, and column confinement with FRCM
are discussed in the following sections.
2. Bond behaviour of FRCM
In order to fully maximize the potential of FRCM strengthening
materials, a sufficient understanding of their bond behaviour at the
fabric-matrix interface and with the concrete substrate is essential.
FRP materials exhibit a linear stress-strain response, however this
is not the case with FRCM composites. FRCM composites have a bi-
linear stress-strain behaviour, with a change in slope representing
cracking [9,10]. Fig. 1 compares the typical stress-strain response
of FRP with that of FRCM. Table 1 gives a summary of previous
studies [11–18] on the bond behaviour of FRCM. Results of these
studies are discussed in the following sections.
The strains in FRCM composites tend to be higher at the loaded
end and decrease towards the unloaded end as the load increases
[10,12,14,16]. This behaviour is also typical in FRP strengthening.
Strain distribution along the bond length of FRCM in bond speci-
mens tested by the first author is shown in Fig. 2 [19]. A ‘strain
Fig. 1. Typical tensile stress-strain response of FRCM and FRP coupons.
front’ or strain peak could develop close to the loaded end then
shifts towards the unloaded end with further increase in load [10].
2.1. Test methods
Two test methods are typically employed to investigate the
bond behaviour of FRCM: single-lap shear tests, and double-lap
shear tests. In single-lap shear tests (Fig. 3), the FRCM is applied
to one surface of the substrate (concrete prism) with a length of
bare fabric extending beyond the bonded area. The full length of
the bare fabric or just its end (away from the bonded area) is usu-
ally sandwiched between steel plates using epoxy. A pull force is
then applied to the fabric while the concrete substrate remains
fixed [11,13,16,18].
In double-shear tests, FRCM strips are bonded on opposite sides
of the concrete substrate and a force is applied simultaneously to
both strips. The force applied to the FRCM can be achieved by
bonding the FRCM to two concrete prisms, and pulling the prisms
apart using rods inserted through their middle (Fig. 4), or by apply-
ing a push force between both prisms as shown in Fig. 5.
Bond failure of the FRCM systems typically occurs at the fabric-
matrix interface. In the single-lap test, the failure load can be mea-
sured directly with more accuracy than in double-lap tests. In
double-lap tests, unsymmetrical debonding could occur due to
the prisms rotating relative to their initial positions, leading to
one FRCM strip debonding before the other. Load re-distribution
occurs in double-lap shear tests after debonding occurs, and may
even happen before failure due to eccentricity or inconsistencies
in bonding characteristics of the two composite strips [14,17]. As
a result of this, direct calculation of the applied load to each strip
by halving the total load may be inaccurate, especially in describ-
ing the post-peak response. Sneed et al. [17] proposed a methodol-
ogy to determine the load applied to each FRCM strip using LVDT
measurements, the angle of rotation of the prisms, and the hori-
zontal translation of the prisms.
Single-lap shear test setup is recommended for FRCM-concrete
bond tests due to its simplicity, and as double-lap shear setup
tends to estimate the lower bound of the composite’s bond capac-
ity [17].
2.2. Failure modes
Failure modes observed in FRCM bond tests are presented in
Table 1. Debonding at the fabric-matrix interface is the most
prevalent bond failure mode of FRCM systems. It is characterized
by transverse cracks which initiate near the loaded end of the spec-
imen and propagates towards the unloaded end as the applied load
increases. The transverse cracks extend from a horizontal crack
which forms at the fabric-matrix interface, as shown in Fig. 6.
The fabric-matrix debonding mode of failure is accompanied by
slippage and deformation of the longitudinal fiber bundles [12–
14]. This was clearly observed in specimens tested by Sneed
et al. [13], where the longitudinal fiber bundles pulled out of the
matrix at the loaded end.
In some cases, bond failure of FRCM is characterized purely by
slippage of the fabric inside the matrix as exhibited by specimens
with one FRCM layer tested by Ombres [16]. Depending on the type
of matrix used, inconsistencies could be noted in the bond between
the matrix and the concrete, resulting in debonding of the FRCM
system from the concrete substrate [16]. This highlights the impor-
tance of the substrate surface preparation prior to application of
the FRCM to ensure adequate bond at the concrete-matrix
interface.
Another mode of failure observed in the literature is rupture of
the fabric in the matrix. This was observed by Awani et al. [14]
in FRCM-strengthened specimens using a matrix that exhibited
Table 1
Summary of previous studies on bond behaviour of FRCM.

Reference
Hashemi and Al- D’Ambrisi et al. Sneed et al. Awani et al. [14] D’Antino et al. Ombres [16] Sneed et al. [17] D’Antino
Mahaidi [11] [12] [13] [15] et al. [18]
No. of specimens 5 12 58 18 15 24 16 (+ 58 from Sneed 20
et al. [13])
Test parameters Bond length, Bond length, Bond length, Bond length, bond Loading Bond length, bond width, number Bond length, bond Length of
anchorage, fabric number of layers bond width width, matrix type frequency, load of layers, temperature width, test method prism
type range
Test method Single-lap shear Double-lap shear Single-lap Double-lap shear Single-lap shear Single-lap shear Double-lap shear Single-lap
shear shear

O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111

Loading protocol Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Cyclic-fatigue Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic
Concrete Specimen Prism Prism Prism Prism Prism Prism Prism Prism
shape
Width (mm) 75 100 125 150 125 N/A 125 125
Length (mm) 245 N/A 375 150 375 N/A 375 375, 510
Comp. 38 (cyl.) N/A 42.5 (cyl.) 55 (cube) 42.5 (cyl.) N/A 33.5 (cyl.) 33.5, 42.5
strength (cyl.)
(MPa)
Details of Fabric Fabric type Carbon PBO PBO Carbon PBO PBO PBO PBO
FRCM ff (MPa) N/A 5213/53911 3015 3800 3010 5213/53911 3014 3015
Ef (GPa) N/A 271/2732 206 230 206 271/2732 206 206
tf (mm) 0.176 0.046/0.0113 0.092 N/A 0.092 0.046/0.0223 0.092 0.092
bf (mm) 50 N/A 34, 43, 60 75, 100, 150 60 50, 70 34, 60, 80, 100 60
L (mm) 100, 180 N/A 100, 150, 200, 75, 100, 150 330 150, 200, 250 100, 200, 250, 330 330
250, 330
efu (%) N/A 1.92/1.974 1.45 1.42 1.45 1.92/1.97 1.45 1.45
Mortar fc,m (MPa) 65 (cube) 16.1+ 27.9 (cyl.) 65, 69 (cube) 28.4 (cyl.) 30.4 (cube) 28.4 (cyl.) 28.4 (cyl.)
ft,m (MPa) 5.7* 2.6* 3.6** 3.4, 3.5** 3.5** N/A 3.5** 3.5**
Em (GPa) N/A 6.1 N/A 25.4, 40.7 N/A 6.1 N/A N/A
tm (mm) N/A N/A 4 4 4 4 4 4
Results Failure mode DB2 DB2, FS DB2, FS FR, FS, DB2 FR FS, DB2, DB3 FS, DB2 FS, DB2
Failure load N/A 5.2–15.6 0.97–7.12 8.4–38.7 2.3–3.3 1.6–8.9 3.3–10.6 5.2–8.3
(kN)
smax (mm) N/A 0.26–1.17 N/A N/A N/A 0.22–0.63 N/A N/A
emax (%) N/A 7.31–12.96 N/A N/A N/A 0.41–0.99 N/A N/A
Le (mm) N/A 250–300 250–330 N/A N/A 150–200 260 N/A

cyl. = cylinder compressive strength of concrete; cube = cube compressive strength; PBO = poly-p-phenylenebenzobisoxazole.
Failure modes: DB2 = debonding at fabric-matrix interface; DB3 = debonding at concrete-matrix interface; FR = fabric rupture; FS = fabric slippage; bf = width of fabric; Ef = Young’s modulus of fiber; Em = Young’s modulus of
mortar; fc,m = compressive strength of mortar; ff = tensile strength of fiber; ft,m = tensile strength of mortar; L = bond length; Le = effective bond length; tf = nominal thickness of fabric; tm = thickness of one layer of mortar;
smax = relative displacement between fabric and matrix at failure; efu = ultimate tensile strain of fiber; emax = fiber strain at failure.
*
Determined from flexure test.
**
Determined from split cylinder test.
+
Determined using halved prisms from flexure test.
1
Tensile strength of fibers in longitudinal/transversal directions.
2
Young’s modulus of fibers in longitudinal/transversal directions.
3
Nominal fiber bundle thickness in longitudinal/transversal directions.
4
Ultimate tensile strain of fiber in longitudinal/transversal directions.

97
98 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111
Fig. 2. Surface strain distribution along bond length of FRCM in bond specimens
tested by the first author [19].
Fig. 3. Typical single-lap shear test setup.
Fig. 4. Typical double-lap pull shear test setup.
irregular bonding behaviour with the fabric. Rupture of fabric in
the matrix was also reported in specimens subjected to cyclic load-
ing. D’Antino et al. [15] speculated that the fabric was damaged
due to friction between the fabric and matrix in the course of the
repeated load cycles.
2.3. Factors affecting bond behaviour of FRCM
Different parameters affecting the bond behaviour of FRCM
were investigated in previous studies. The effects of these param-
eters are discussed in the following sections.
2.3.1. Number of FRCM layers
D’Ambrisi et al. [12] noted that specimens with two FRCM lay-
ers experienced lower strains in the fabric than those of specimens
with one FRCM layer. The debonding fabric strain in specimens
with two FRCM layers was approximately 85% of that of specimens
with one FRCM layer. Ombres [16] also observed a reduction in
fabric strain with an increase in number of layers, and a shift of
Fig. 5. Double-lap push shear test adopted previously by the first author.
failure mode from fabric slippage to delamination at the fabric-
matrix interface.
2.3.2. Fabric type
Hashemi and Al-Mahaidi [11] reported that fabric textiles (with
spacing between tows) had better bond with the cementitious
mortar than fabric sheets. This was ascribed to penetration of the
mortar through the fabric, which resulted in a mechanical interlock
thus improving the bond between the fabric and the mortar. The
bond capacity of a specimen with a fabric textile was 30% more
than that of a corresponding specimen with a fabric sheet.
2.3.3. Anchorage
Hashemi and Al-Mahaidi [11] investigated the effect of anchor-
age consisting of a 30  20 mm groove created in the concrete sub-
strate in which the fabric was held using two FRP strands. The
concept of the anchorage system used is illustrated in Fig. 7. The
presence of anchorage improved the bond between the FRCM
and the concrete substrate, delayed debonding of the fabric, and
thus resulted in higher bond capacity of the specimens. The bond
capacity of a specimen with anchorage was 25% higher than that
of a similar specimen without anchorage. In another pair of speci-
mens, an increase in bond capacity corresponding to about 15%
was observed due to anchorage. The increase in the bond capacity
of the latter pair of specimens was less significant than that of the
former because the debonding cracks, in the latter pair, did not
extend to the anchorage zone.
2.3.4. Bond width
Sneed et al. [13,17] reported that varying the bond width of the
FRCM composites tended to have no effect on their bond perfor-
mance. This was assumed to be as a result of independent action
of the longitudinal fiber bundles [13]. Ombres [16], however,
 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111 99

Fig. 6. Typical bond failure at fabric-matrix interface.

Fig. 7. Concept of FRCM anchorage system with groove in concrete.
reported an effect for the bonded width on the bond-slip response.
With similar bond length, specimens with a bond width of 50 mm
showed higher bond stress values at failure compared with speci-
mens with a bond width of 70 mm. This was attributed to the non-
uniform distribution of fibers across the bonded width.
2.3.5. Bond length
The bond capacity of FRCM specimens increases with an
increase in the bond length. By plotting the bond capacity against
the bonded length, with sufficient bonded lengths, an effective
length can be clearly observed beyond which the bond capacity
remains constant. The effective bond length (Le) was found to be
in the range of 250–300 mm, 250–330 mm, and 150–200 mm, as
reported by D’Ambrisi et al. [12], Sneed et al. [13], and Ombres
[16], respectively. Awani et al. [14] reported a decrease in maxi-
mum bond stress at the concrete-matrix interface with an increase
in the bonded length, for the same bonded area.
slip between the fabric and matrix, since there was no slippage
between the mortar and the concrete substrate.
The perimeter of the bond surface is important in the calibra-
tion of the bond-slip relationship, and is defined as pf = 2bf for
one fabric layer, where bf is the width of the fabric layer. With n
fabric layers, however, two assumptions of pf can be made: (i) all
fabric layers are considered as one homogenous layer, having a
thickness of n  tf, and pf = 2bf; or (ii) all fabric layers are consid-
ered as independent, therefore pf = 2nbf, where n = number of fab-
ric layers. Experimental results of D’Ambrisi et al. [12,20] indicated
that the effective perimeter of the bond surface for multiple FRCM
layers ranged between assumption (i) and assumption (ii). For this
reason, a bond effectiveness factor [k = k(n)] was introduced by
D’Ambrisi et al. [20], thus pf is expressed as:
pf ¼ 2nbf  kðnÞ kð1Þ ¼ 1; and 0 6 kðnÞ 6 1 ð1Þ
The assumptions (i) and (ii) are determined by Eq. (1), assuming
k(n) = 1/n and k(n) = 1, respectively. The bond-slip laws given in
Eqs. (2) and (3) provided the most accurate predictions of the
experimental results of D’Ambrisi et al. [12,20], where s = slip (rel-
ative displacement between fabric and matrix); sf = final slip when
value of bond stress is zero; A, sr, a, b, c = curve-fitting parameters;
s = bond stress; and so = initial finite value of bond shear stress.


s
sðsÞ ¼ ½s0 þ Aðeas  ebs Þ  1  0 6 s 6 sf ð2Þ
sf
"
 #
s
2
2s
sðsÞ ¼ s0 ½Aðs þ sr Þa þ 1  ecs  þ1 0 6 s 6 sf ð3Þ
sf sf

2.3.6. Temperature The unknown parameters of these equations were evaluated

Bond specimens in Ombres [16] were exposed to temperatures such that the adopted values minimized the difference between
of 50 °C and 100 °C for a period of 8 h, and allowed to cool before the experimental results and analytical predictions. The values of
testing at an ambient temperature of 20 °C. A decrease in failure these parameters are given in Table 2. A typical s-s curve of FRCM
load with an increase in temperature was reported. With two specimens is shown in Fig. 8. Ombres [16] calibrated a bond-slip
FRCM layers, the failure load decreased by 28% and 38% with relation assuming pf = 2nbf using a procedure similar to that used
heat-conditioning at 50 °C and 100 °C, respectively. Temperature by D’Ambrisi et al. [20]. The curve proposed by Ombres [16] was
conditioning at 100 °C for specimens with one FRCM layer resulted more conservative. The proposed models are influenced by the
in a 36% reduction in the failure load, whereas no strength reduc- experimental results used in the calibration, and may not be accu-
tion was observed at 50 °C. The reduction in the failure load of the rate for other FRCM strengthening systems.
heat-conditioned specimens could be due to a change in the failure Jung et al. [21] modified a model developed earlier by Teng et al.
mode. Specimens which were not heat-conditioned failed by slip- [22] to predict the bond stress in FRCM at debonding, rdeb, (Eq. (4)).
page or debonding at the fabric-matrix interface, while the heat- The modified model defines the total nominal thickness of the fab-
pffiffiffi
conditioned specimens failed mostly by debonding at the fabric- ric as t f ;total ¼ t f  n , as suggested by D’Ambrisi et al. [12,20].
matrix or concrete-matrix interfaces. vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u qffiffiffiffi0
uE f
t f
rdeb
c
2.4. Bond-slip (s-s) models ¼ ab bf bL pffiffiffi ð4Þ
tf n
Bond failure of FRCM typically occurs at the fabric-matrix inter- qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2bf =bw pL (if L < L ).
face with little or no slippage of the matrix relative to the concrete where bf ¼ 1þb =bw
, and bL ¼ 1 (if L P Le) or sin 2L e
e
f

substrate, indicating adequate bond with the substrate [14,16]. The parameter ab was taken as 0.729 based on regression anal-
D’Ambrisi et al. [12,20] used their experimental results to develop ysis. This model was used to predict the ultimate loads at the onset
bond-slip laws for FRCM. The displacement was assumed to be the of debonding at concrete-matrix interface of the beam specimens
100 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111

Table 2 dinal crack at the level of the fabric extending from a flexural crack
Parameters of bond-slip relationships. in the maximum moment region. The longitudinal crack gradually
Parameters D’Ambrisi et al. [20] Ombres [15] propagates towards the ends of the FRCM strengthening layer
Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (2) (Fig. 9b). This failure mode was observed in Hashemi and Al-
pf = 2nbf  k(n) pf = 2nbf  k(n) pf = 2bf pf = 2nbf Mahaidi [11], El-Maaddawy and El Refai [26], D’Ambrisi and
A 0.92 0.25 1.15 0.7
Focacci [27], and Ebead et al. [28].
a 8.94 4.55 0.007 0.005
sf 1.81 229 0.47 0.65 3.1.3. Debonding at concrete-matrix interface
s0 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.15
b 43.85 – 6.14 6.00
Fig. 9c shows the debonding failure mode at the concrete-
k(2) 0.73 0.74 – matrix interface. Loss of composite action by debonding of the
c – 1 – FRCM from the concrete substrate initiates at the region of maxi-
sr – 0.58 – mum bending moment after formation of flexural cracks or
flexure-shear cracks. As the load progresses, debonding extends
along the concrete-matrix interface towards the end of the
strengthening layer [11,23,25–29]. This could result in a clean
debonding of the FRCM composite from the concrete surface, or
debonding of the composite with a thin layer of concrete attached
to the composite [27].

3.1.4. Slippage of fabric roving within matrix

Fig. 8. Typical FRCM bond-slip relationship.
tested by Jung et al. [21] and by other researchers [23–25]. The pre-
dicted loads were in good agreement with those measured exper-
imentally, having predicted-to-measured load ratios ranging
between 0.85 and 1.20.
3. Flexural strengthening with FRCM
Slippage of the fabric usually precedes or accompanies debond-
ing at the fabric-matrix interface. The relative slip of fabric rovings
within the matrix increases with widening of cracks [27]. This may
explain why debonding typically initiates at the maximum
moment region. However, some specimens could fail solely by slip-
page of the fabric rovings, as reported by Loreto et al. [24], and
Babaeidarabad et al. [25] in the region of maximum bending
moment in specimens with one layer of FRCM, and by Ebead
et al. [28] in specimens with one or two layers of carbon-FRCM.
3.1.5. Rupture of fabric within matrix
This failure mode was observed in Elsanadeddy et al. [29], Sch-
laditz et al. [30], and Yin et al. [31]. The failure mode is shown in
Fig. 9d. Yin et al. [31] reported that with low FRCM reinforcement
ratio, concrete crushing could occur at the onset of rupture of the
fabric, without rupture of the tensile steel. However, with high
FRCM reinforcement ratio, rupture occurred in the fabric, and also
in the tensile steel, without crushing of the concrete.

Table 3 gives a summary of previous studies [11,21,23–31] on
flexural strengthening of RC elements with FRCM composites. A
discussion of the results of these studies is given in the following
sections.
3.1. Failure modes
Failure of RC elements strengthened in flexure with FRCM can
occur due to concrete crushing after yielding of the tensile steel;
shear failure due to the FRCM strengthening layer successfully
shifting the failure mode to shear; and rupture of the tensile steel
in cases involving corrosion. The failure modes explained in the fol-
lowing sections are those pertaining to failure of the FRCM
strengthening layers.
3.1.1. Concrete cover separation
This failure mode involves formation of an inclined crack at the
end of the FRCM layer which extends horizontally along the level
of the tensile steel. With further increase in load, detachment of
the concrete cover occurs (Fig. 9a). El-Maaddawy and El Refai
[26] observed this failure mode in some specimens after the occur-
rence of yielding of the tensile steel.
3.1.2. Debonding at fabric-matrix interface
Failure of strengthened specimens by interfacial debonding at
the fabric-matrix interface initiates by the formation of a longitu-
3.2. Factors affecting the flexural capacity of FRCM-strengthened
members
3.2.1. Number of FRCM layers
Many studies have shown that increasing the number of FRCM
layers resulted in an increase in the flexural capacity of strength-
ened specimens. The strength gain was usually non-proportional
to the number of FRCM layers. Ombres [23] recorded gains in the
load capacity of up to 16%, 33%, and 40%, for specimens with one,
two, and three layers, respectively. Schladitz et al. [30] reported
increases in bearing load of one-way slabs corresponding to 67%,
142%, 189%, and 245%, for specimens with one, two, three, and four
FRCM layers, respectively. Loreto et al. [24] recorded increases in
the load capacity of up to 41% and 112%, for one and four layers
of FRCM respectively. El-Maaddawy and El Refai [26] recorded
increases in the load capacity of corroded beams of 39% and 51%,
for two and four layers respectively, measured with respect to that
of a corroded unstrengthened beam. Yin et al. [31] observed that
with one layer of FRCM, there was no improvement in fatigue life
compared to that of a control specimen, however, with two and
three layers of FRCM, increases of 32% and 58%, respectively, were
recorded. The number of FRCM layers could affect the failure mode
of strengthened RC specimens. Ebead et al. [28] observed that spec-
imens with one or two layers of carbon-FRCM failed by slippage of
the fabric in the matrix, while specimens with three layers failed
by debonding of the FRCM at the concrete-matric interface.
Table 3
Summary of previous studies on flexural strengthening with FRCM.

Reference
Hashemi Jung et al. Ombres Loreto et al. Babaeidarabad El-Maaddawy and D’Ambrisi and Ebead et al. [28] Elsanadedy Schladitz Yin et al. [31]
and Al- [21] [23] [24] et al. [25] El Refai [26] Focacci [27] et al. [29] et al. [30]
Mahaidi
[11]
No. of specimens 5 7 12 18 18 8 31 12 5 5 15
Test parameters Fabric Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of layers, Fabric type, number of layers, Steel reinforcement Number of Number of FRCM configuration,
type, layers, layers layers, layers fabric type, FRCM mortar type, FRCM ratio, fabric type, layers, layers number of layers, pre-
anchorage fabric type concrete configuration configuration, anchorage number of layers mortar type damage, corrosion
strength
Test method 4-Point 4-Point 4-Point 3-Point 3-Point 4-Point bending 4-Point bending, 3-point 4-Point bending 4-Point 4-Point 4-Point bending
bending bending bending bending bending bending bending bending
Loading protocol Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Cyclic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic
Concrete Cross-section type R-beam R-beam R-beam Slab R-beam T-beam R-beam R-beam R-beam Slab R-beam
bw  h (mm) 140  260 170  300 150  250 305  152 152  305 200  260 400  250 150  260 150  200 1000  230 120  240, 120  230
Length (mm) 7000 3000 3000 1830 1829 3200 N/A 2500 2200 700 2400
d (mm) 224 N/A 216, 217 129 260 200 N/A 210 164 N/A 193–195
Comp. strength 38 (cyl.) 28 (cyl.) 22–23 29, 43 (cyl.) 29, 43 (cyl.) 25 (cyl.) 48, 64 (cube) 67.5 (cyl.) 20 46 (cube) 45 (cube)
(MPa) (cube)

O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111

Tensile steel Bar type 3 Ø12 2 Ø10 3 Ø 12, 2 3 Ø9.5 (#3) 2 Ø13 3 Ø12 3 Ø14, 3 Ø16 2 Ø12, 2 Ø16 2 Ø10 Ø10 2 Ø12, Ø14, Ø16
Ø10
q (%) 1.08 N/A 1.05, 1.04 0.54 0.67 0.85 N/A 0.72, 1.27 0.64 N/A 0.98–1.72
fy (MPa) N/A 480 515, 526 414 276 538 476, 523 601, 595 372 574 545, 500, 415
Details of FRCM Fabric Fabric type Carbon Carbon PBO PBO PBO Carbon, basalt Carbon, PBO Carbon, PBO Basalt Carbon Carbon
+ glass
ff (MPa) N/A 4300 5800 N/A 276/751,3 3800, 1040 3051, 5213/53911, 4995/ 4300, 5800 623 1200 4100
50851
Ef (GPa) N/A 240 270 N/A N/A 230, 10 238–273 240, 270 32 N/A 180
tf (mm) 0.176 0.0107, 0.046/ 0.046/0.0112 0.046/0.0122 N/A 0.011–0.046 N/A 0.064 N/A N/A
0.0162 0.0222
bf (mm) 80⁄ 170 150 305 152 150 340 150 150 1000 120
efu (%) N/A 1.75 2.15 N/A N/A 1.6, 10.3 1.28–1.97 1.75, 2.15 N/A 12 2.3
Mortar fc,m (MPa) 65 (cube) 45 (cube) 29 N/A 34 (cube) 60 (cyl.) 16, 30+ 19.67, 29.06 24, 56 89+ 53 (cube)
(cube)
ft,m (MPa) 5.7* N/A 3.5 N/A N/A 2.1** 3, 5* N/A 2.8, 3.4*** 5.7* N/A
Em (GPa) N/A 40 6 N/A N/A 25 6.1, 7.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
tm (mm) N/A 2 N/A N/A 5 N/A 6–8/layer 2–5 2 3 N/A
Composite FRCM EB EB EB EB EB EB, IE, EB+IE EB, EB-UW EB EB-UW EB EB, EB-UW
configuration
No. of layers 2 1–3 1–3 1, 4 1, 4 1, 2, 4 1–4 1–3 5, 10 1–4 1–3
ffrcm (MPa) N/A N/A N/A 1058 1664 N/A N/A 0.97, 1.55 7.7, 8.2 N/A N/A
Efrcm (GPa) N/A N/A N/A 137 128 N/A N/A 75, 121 N/A N/A N/A
efrcm (%) N/A N/A N/A 0.64 1.8 N/A N/A 1.25, 1.40 0.03,0.05 N/A N/A
tfrcm (mm) 20 5 N/A N/A N/A 6 N/A 10 N/A 6 10
bfrcm (mm) 140 170 150 305 152 150 340 150 150 1000 120
Height (mm) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A  250 N/A 125 N/A 110
Loading regime Effective span 2300 2700 2700 1524 1524 3000 2200, 1600 2200 2000 6750 2200
(mm)
Shear span (mm) 700 900 900 762 762 1300 750, 800 825 800 2750 700
Results Failure modes DB2, DB3 DB3, CS CC, DB1, FS, DB1, DB3 FS, DB3 CC, CS, DB2, DB3, SR DB2, DB3,S CC, FS, DB2, DB3 FR, DB3 FR CC, FR, SR
DB3
Strength gain (%) 9–28 32–120 9–44 35–112 13–92 7–93 1–54 8–78 39–91 67–245 0–58 (fatigue life)
Normalized N/A N/A 0.47–1.52 0.23–0.40 0.25–0.37 0.7–1.47 N/A 0.28–0.93 0.86–0.95 N/A N/A
ductility ratio

cyl. = cylinder compressive strength of concrete; cube = cube compressive strength; PBO = poly-p-phenylenebenzobisoxazole.
Failure modes: CC = concrete crushing after yielding of tensile steel; CS = concrete cover separation; DB1 = debonding of FRCM with thin layer of concrete; DB2 = debonding at fabric-matrix interface; DB3 = debonding at concrete-
matrix interface; FR = fabric rupture; FS = fabric slippage; S = shear; SR = tensile steel rupture; FRCM configuration: EB = externally-bonded; EB-UW = externally-bonded layers extended along lateral surface; IE = internally-
embedded; bfrcm = width of FRCM composite; bw = width of beam web; d = depth of tensile steel; Efrcm = Young’s modulus of FRCM composite; ffrcm = tensile strength of FRCM composite; fy = yield strength of longitudinal steel;
h = total section depth; tfrcm = total thickness of one layer of FRCM composite; efrcm = ultimate tensile strain of FRCM; q = tensile steel reinforcement ratio.
*
Determined from flexure test.
**
Determined from split cylinder test.
***
Determined from tensile testing of briquettes.
+
Determined using halved prisms from flexure test.
1
Tensile strength of fibers in longitudinal/transversal directions.
2
Nominal fiber bundle thickness in longitudinal/transversal directions.
3
Ultimate tensile strength per unit width of fabric in kN/m.

101
102 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111
3.2.2. Fabric type
The type of fibers used in preparing the fabric has been found to
influence the flexural capacity of FRCM-strengthened members.
D’Ambrisi and Focacci [27] compared the performance of carbon
fabric and PBO (poly-p-phenylenebenzobisoxazole) fabric in flexu-
ral strengthening of beams with FRCM. The former failed by slip-
page of the carbon fabric in the matrix, and the latter by
debonding at the concrete-matrix interface. The gains in flexural
capacity attained due to the carbon-FRCM and PBO-FRCM were
16% and 30% respectively, with respect to a control unstrengthened
specimen. It was concluded that the PBO-FRCM performed better
possibly due to a better bond between the PBO fabric and the
matrix. Ebead et al. [28] also observed greater ductility and energy
absorption in the PBO-FRCM specimens compared to carbon-FRCM
specimens. El-Maaddawy and El Refai [26], on the other hand,
compared carbon fabric with basalt fabric in the strengthening of
corroded beams. The specimen with carbon-FRCM attained a load
increase of 51% while its counterpart basalt-FRCM attained a load
increase of only 7%, with respect to a corresponding unstrength-
ened corroded specimen. Thus the basalt fabric was less effective
than the carbon fabric in improving the beam capacity. This could
be attributed to the significantly lower tensile strength of basalt
fibers, compared to that of carbon fibers [32].
Hashemi and Al-Mahaidi [11] strengthened two beams with
carbon sheets and two others with carbon textile. Results showed
that the beams strengthened with carbon sheets had load capacity
gains of up to 14%, relative to a control unstrengthened beam. On
the other hand, the beams strengthened with carbon textile had
Fig. 9. Typical flexural failure modes of FRCM-strengthened beams; (a) concrete cover separation, (b) debonding at fabric-matrix interface, (c) debonding at concrete-matrix
interface, and (d) rupture of fabric.
load capacity gains of up to 28%. The use of fabric in a grid form
(textile) with spacing between fiber tows allowed for better pene-
tration of the matrix and hence better bond with the fabric, com-
pared with those of continuous fabric sheets. The improved bond
at the fabric matrix interface resulted in a higher strength gain.
3.2.3. Mortar type
Proper selection of mortar to be used in FRCM strengthening is
crucial. The mix constituents of the mortar and overall mechanical
properties have significant effects on the performance of the FRCM
strengthening system. The inclusion of short fibers in the matrix
could improve the performance of the mortar. Elsanadedy et al.
[29] investigated the performance of an ordinary cementitious
mortar and a polymer-modified cementitious mortar. The speci-
men with ordinary cementitious mortar failed by end-debonding
of the FRCM, while the specimen with polymer-modified mortar
failed by rupture of the fabric. The gains in the load capacity of
the specimens were 82% and 91%, respectively, with respect to that
of a control unstrengthened specimen. It was concluded that the
polymer-modified mortar provided better bond between the FRCM
layers and the concrete substrate, and hence, improved the beam
ductility, compared with those made of ordinary cementitious
mortar.
3.2.4. FRCM configuration
In D’Ambrisi and Focacci [27], one beam was strengthened with
two layers of FRCM bonded at the soffit, while another beam was
strengthened with a combination of one layer bonded at the soffit
 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111
and one U-shaped layer. The specimen with two layers bonded at
the soffit failed prematurely by debonding at the concrete-mortar
interface along with slippage of the fabric. The specimen with
one FRCM layer bonded at the bottom and one U-shaped FRCM
layer failed by slippage of the strengthening fabric. The strength
gains attained by the specimens were 9% and 18% respectively. This
may be an indication of greater effectiveness due to the inclusion
of U-shaped FRCM in flexural strengthening of RC beams. Yin
et al. [31] observed, however, that bonding at the soffit only was
more effective than U-shaped bonding in enhancing the fatigue life
of beams. Further research is needed to fully understand the effect
of U-shaped bonding on the effectiveness of FRCM to improve the
structural response and fatigue life of RC beams.
In El-Maaddawy and El Refai [26], corroded T-beams were
repaired by first removing the deteriorated concrete and filling
the resulting groove with mortar to cover up the exposed steel.
One beam was strengthened by applying two layers of carbon
FRCM within the beam cover, while another was strengthened by
applying the FRCM layers externally. A third beam was strength-
ened with four layers of FRCM applied internally within the cover,
and a fourth with two layers applied internally and another two
layers applied externally. The first two specimens failed by
debonding at the fabric-matrix interface and at the concrete-
matrix interface, respectively. For the specimen with four FRCM
layers internally-embedded within the concrete cover, failure
was governed by cover separation. The fourth beam failed by a
combination of debonding at the fabric-matrix interface and cover
separation. The increase in the flexural capacity of the four speci-
mens, with respect to that of an unstrengthened corroded speci-
men, was 39%, 46%, 51% and 93%, respectively. All four
strengthening schemes were effective, but the level of effective-
ness varied depending on the FRCM configuration. The combina-
tion of both internally-embedded and externally-applied layers
was more effective than applying the same amount of FRCM only
internally because of the increased bonded length of the external
layers, which delayed debonding and hence increased the flexural
capacity.
3.2.5. Anchorage
Anchoring of FRCM could help to improve their performance by
preventing or delaying the debonding mode of failure. Hashemi
and Al-Mahaidi [11] studied the effect of using two different
anchorage systems on the performance of FRCM-strengthened
beams. The first anchorage system is described in Fig. 7. The second
involved sandwiching the fabric between two steel plates. The
gripping action of the plates was achieved by means of two steel
bolts installed into concrete substrate. From the experimental
study, it was observed that both anchored and unanchored
strengthened beams failed by debonding at the fabric-matrix inter-
face, and there was no significant difference in the attained capac-
ities. This was attributed to the occurrence of debonding outside
the region of the anchorage system.
D’Ambrisi and Focacci [27] investigated the effect of using end
U-anchorage which consisted of U-shaped fabrics applied as an
extra layer at both ends of the FRCM strengthening system. Speci-
mens with end U-anchorage failed by slippage of the carbon fabric
and attained an average gain in load capacity of 16%, relative to
that of a control unstrengthened beam. Specimens without anchor-
age failed by a combination of debonding (concrete-matrix inter-
face) and slippage of the carbon fabric, with an average strength
gain of 9%.
3.2.6. Concrete strength
Loreto et al. [24] conducted flexural tests on one-way RC slabs
to investigate the effect of concrete strength on the effectiveness
of FRCM. Two batches of concrete with strengths of 29 MPa and
103
43 MPa were used to fabricate the specimens. Results of the study
indicated that varying the concrete strength had no significant
effect on the performance of the specimens. The researchers attrib-
uted this behaviour to a difference in the concrete covers of the
specimens cast from the different concrete batches.
3.2.7. Corrosion
Yin et al. [31] studied the effect of corrosion exposure on the
structural performance of carbon-FRCM-strengthened RC beams.
The beams were subjected to wet-dry cycles for 6 months. In the
wet cycle, strengthened specimens were soaked in a 5% sodium
chloride solution. Corrosion exposure reduced the fatigue life of
strengthened beams. Corroded beams exhibited separation of the
FRCM from the concrete substrate during testing. This phe-
nomenon was not observed in non-corroded specimens indicating
that corrosion weakened the bond between the FRCM layer and the
concrete substrate.
3.2.8. Tensile steel reinforcement ratio
Ebead et al. [28] investigated the effect of tensile steel reinforce-
ment ratio (q) on the flexural performance of FRCM-strengthened
beams. Specimens with steel reinforcement ratios of 0.72% and
1.27% were tested. It was observed that the increase in load capac-
ity, with respect to that of control unstrengthened specimens, was
higher in specimens with the lower reinforcement ratio. For a
group of specimens, increases in load capacity corresponding to
23–78% were associated with low reinforcement ratio, while
increases of 14–47% were associated with high reinforcement ratio.
The lower gain in capacity of specimens with high reinforcement
ratio could be attributed to the greater contribution of the steel
reinforcement to flexural resistance.
4. Shear strengthening with FRCM
Table 4 gives a summary of previous studies [4,33–41] on shear
strengthening of RC elements with FRCM composites. A discussion
of the results of these studies is given in the following sections.
4.1. Failure modes
4.1.1. Cover separation
Separation of the concrete cover in shear testing of FRCM-
strengthened beams occurs by formation of longitudinal cracks
on the top and/or bottom surface of the beams preceded by forma-
tion of several shear cracks in the shear span (Fig. 10). With further
increase in load, the longitudinal cracks widen and finally result in
separation of the lateral concrete covers of the beam [19,33,34]. In
Tetta et al. [34], this failure mode occurred in specimens with two
to three layers of FRCM applied laterally or in U-shaped configura-
tion. The authors speculated that the possible offset of the fabric
layers when more than one fabric layer was used provided a denser
mesh pattern, which led to a significantly improved mechanical
interlock, compared to the case of one fabric layer. However, spec-
imens with one or two layers failed by cover separation in Awani
et al. [33]. The occurrence of this failure mode, in this case, could
be due to a difference in stiffness between the FRCM reinforcement
and the concrete substrate, which led to a stress concentration and
high interfacial stresses between the lateral cover and the concrete
core.
4.1.2. Debonding at concrete-matrix interface
Debonding failure at concrete-matrix interface could occur by a
clean separation of the strengthening layer from the concrete or
with a layer of concrete attached [35–37]. Specimens with high
FRCM reinforcement ratio (four to six layers) exhibited this failure
Table 4

104
Summary of previous studies on shear strengthening with FRCM.

Reference
Blanksvärd et al. [4] Awani Tetta et al. Brückner Contamine et al. Tzoura and Triantafillou and Al-Salloum Azam and Escrig
et al. [33] [34] et al. [35] [36] Triantafillou Papanicolaou et al. [39] Soudki [40] et al. [41]
[37] [38]
No. of specimens 21 9 9 12 10 11 4 10 7 9
Test parameters Mortar type, fabric Number of Number of Mechanical FRCM Fabric type, Angle of Angle of FRCM Fabric
type, concrete strength, layers, layers, FRCM anchorage, configuration, number of inclination of inclination of configuration, type
stirrup spacing, mortar stirrup configuration number of concrete layers, fabric, number of fabric, number of fabric type
thickness spacing layers strength, mechanical layers layers, mortar
application anchorage type
method
Test method 4-Point bending 3-Point 3-Point 3-Point 4-Point bending Lateral loading 4-Point bending 4-Point bending 3-Point 3-Point
bending bending bending bending bending
Loading protocol Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Cyclic Monotonic, Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic
cyclic
Concrete Cross-section type R-beam R-beam R-beam T-beam R-beam T-beam R-beam R-beam R-beam R-beam
bw  h (mm) 180  500 150  300 102  203 120  450 150  250 150  350 150  300 150  200 150  350 300  300

O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111

Length (mm) 4500 4200 1677 2400 N/A 1000 2600 1500 2400 1700
d (mm) 418 250 177 372 220 320 272 164 308 254
Comp. strength (MPa) 49, 56, 74 (cube) 45 cube), 22 (cyl.) 27 (cube) 31, 42 (cube) 13, 23 (cube) 31 (cube) 20 (cyl.) 38 (cyl.) 34, 41
36 (cyl.) (cube)
Reinforcing Tensile Bar type 12 Ø16 6 Ø20 2 Ø16 6 Ø20 3 Ø20 3 Ø18 3 Ø16 4 Ø10 2 25M 3 Ø16
bars q (%) 3.21 5.04 2.23 4.22 2.86 1.59 1.48 1.28 2.2 0.79
fy (MPa) 555 520 547 500 570 545 575 578 480 517
Shear Bar type Ø12 Ø8 N/A Ø8 Ø6 N/A Ø5.5 N/A N/A N/A
Spacing (mm) 250, 350 75, 150 N/A 100, 200 200 N/A 230 N/A N/A N/A
qt (%) 0.50, 0.34 0.45, 0.22 N/A 0.84, 0.42 0.19 N/A 0.14 N/A N/A N/A
fyt (MPa) 601 294 N/A 500 570 N/A 275 N/A N/A N/A
Details of Fabric Fabric type Carbon Carbon Carbon AR-glass AR-glass Carbon Carbon Basalt Glass, carbon Basalt,
FRCM carbon,
PBO, glass
ff (MPa) 3800, 4300 3800 3800 556–590 N/A 3375 3350 623 2300, 3800 2610–
5800
Ef (GPa) 284, 288, 589 230 225 N/A N/A 225 225 32 75, 230 90–270
tf (mm) N/A N/A 0.095 N/A N/A 0.048, 0.096 0.047 0.064 N/A 0.042–
0.053
efu (%) N/A 1.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.8, 1.6 1.8–3.2
Mortar fc,m (MPa) 22, 45, 77 74 (cube) 29+ 77+ N/A 22+ 31+ 24, 56 (cube) 58 (cube) 25, 30, 35+
ft,m (MPa) 5, 9, 11* 2.1** 9.4* 6.9* N/A 5* 4.2* 2.8, 3.4*** N/A 7.9, 8.6,
10.7*
Em (GPa) 18, 27, 35 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.8 N/A N/A N/A
tm (mm) N/A N/A 2 2 N/A 2 1.5–2 2 N/A 4–5
Composite FRCM configuration SB SB SB, UW, FW UW SB, UW UW FW SB SB, UW UW
No. of layers 1 1, 2 1–3 2–6 N/A 1, 2 1,2 2, 4 1 1
ffrcm (MPa) N/A N/A N/A N/A 41 N/A N/A 7.7, 8.23 N/A N/A
Efrcm (GPa) N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
efrcm (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.4 N/A N/A 0.03, 0.5 N/A N/A
tfrcm(mm) 20, 10 6 N/A N/A 1.7, 5 N/A N/A N/A 6–8 10
Height (mm) 500 300 203 330 250 250 N/A 200 350 285
Loading regime Effective span (mm) 4000 3000 1077 2000 2000 N/A 2200 1200 2000 1500
Shear span (mm) 1250 750 460 1000 700 800 775 400 1000 700, 800
Results Failure modes CC, FR CS CC, FS, CS S, DB3, CCS CC, DB1, DB3, FR FS, FR, DB3 S, F S S S
Strength gain (%) 42–184 51–145% 9–195 1–16 3–38 18–126 72–109 36–88 18–105 0–43

cyl. = cylinder compressive strength of concrete; cube = cube compressive strength; PBO = poly-p-phenylenebenzobisoxazole.
Failure modes: CC = concrete crushing after yielding of tensile steel; CCS = crushing of concrete strut; CS = concrete cover separation; DB1 = debonding of FRCM with thin layer of concrete; DB3 = debonding at concrete-matrix
interface; FR = fabric rupture; FS = fabric slippage; S = shear.
FRCM configuration: SB = bonded along lateral sides; UW = U-shape wrapped; FW = fully wrapped; fyt = yield strength of transverse steel (stirrups); qt = transverse steel (stirrup) reinforcement ratio.
*
Determined from flexure test.
**
Determined from split cylinder test
***
Determined from tensile testing of briquettes.
+
Determined using halved prisms from flexure test.
 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111
mode [35]. The premature debonding at concrete-matrix interface
was attributed to the high flexural rigidity of the FRCM jacket
resulting in incompatible deformations with the concrete
substrate.
4.1.3. Slippage of fabric roving within the matrix
Tzoura and Triantafillou [37] observed pulling/slippage of fabric
rovings crossing shear cracks. This failure mode was accompanied
by partial rupture of fabric in the matrix, and occurred in speci-
mens with one FRCM layer in Tetta et al. [34]. This failure mode
was attributed to an insufficient interlock between the mortar
and the fabric. When two to three layers were used, the interlock
was improved and failure was shifted to separation of the concrete
covers.
4.1.4. Rupture of fabric within the matrix
Rupture of fabric in the matrix occurs in fabric rovings crossing
shear cracks [4,36]. In Blanksvärd et al. [4], the strains in the fabric
reached the ultimate strain of the fibers, which indicated a good
bond between the fabric and the mortar. The presence of mechan-
ical anchorage could also lead to rupture of fabric near the anchors,
as was observed in Tzoura and Triantafillou [37].
4.2. Factors affecting the shear capacity of FRCM-strengthened
members
4.2.1. Number of FRCM layers (reinforcement ratio)
A non-proportional increase in the shear capacity occurs as a
result of increasing the number of layers. With two or more layers,
a denser mesh pattern is created (particularly if the layers are off-
set), leading to a better mechanical interlock in the FRCM system
and prevented the premature failure of the fabric [34]. Triantafillou
and Papanicolaou [38] reported strength gains of 72% and 109% for
one and two layers of FRCM, respectively, though both specimens
were tested differently (monotonic or cyclic loading). Specimens
with two, three, four, and six layers of FRCM had shear capacity
increases of 6%, 7%, 13%, and 16%, respectively, in Brückner et al.
[35]. In Al-Salloum et al. [39], higher strength gains and deflections
were observed in specimens with four layers of FRCM than those of
similar specimens with two layers. Specimens with two layers and
four layers experienced strength gains in the range of 36–37% and
46–88%, respectively. In Tzoura and Triantafillou [37], beams
strengthened with two layers of FRCM exhibited strength gains
of up to 65%, relative to that of a control unstrengthened beam,
while those with one layer exhibited gains of up to 42%. In Tetta
et al. [34], comparing similar specimens, the strength gains caused
by one, two, and three layers of FRCM applied on the lateral sides
were 9%, 71%, and 110%, respectively, while the corresponding val-
ues for U-wrapped FRCM were 51%, 132%, and 153%. Awani et al.
[33] reported that increasing the number of FRCM from one layer
Front view
Fig. 10. Concrete cover separation of an FRCM-strengthened beam (images taken by T. El-Maaddawy).
105
to two layers increased the strength gain by 32%, 5%, and 8%, for
specimens without stirrups, specimens with stirrup spacing of
150 mm, and specimens with stirrup spacing of 75 mm,
respectively.
4.2.2. Fabric type
Fabric geometry and type of fibers used have been shown to
influence the structural response of FRCM-shear-strengthened ele-
ments. Blanksvärd et al. [4] investigated the effect of fabric geom-
etry using three carbon fabrics with different grid spacings and
mechanical properties. Using the fabric with the smaller grid spac-
ing resulted in a higher first shear crack load. This was attributed to
the improved bond at the fabric-matrix interface, which led to for-
mation of band of cracks in the shear span during the test. Tzoura
and Triantafillou [37] found that the use of higher amount of fibers
in the fabric rovings increased the strength gain. In terms of type of
fibers used, Azam and Soudki [40] observed that carbon fabric was
more effective than glass fabric in improving the shear capacity.
This can be attributed to the higher stiffness of the carbon fabric
compared with that of the glass fabric. Escrig et al. [41] compared
the performance of specimens shear-strengthened with glass-
FRCM, basalt-FRCM, carbon-FRCM, and PBO-FRCM. Results of this
study showed that the PBO-FRCM was the most effective type of
fabric in increasing the shear capacity of the tested specimens.
The carbon-FRCM exhibited inconsistent structural behaviour,
and this was attributed to a weak bond between the carbon fabric
and mortar. The effectiveness of the glass-FRCM and basalt-FRCM
in improving the shear capacity was comparable to that of the
PBO-FRCM, despite the lower tensile strengths and Young’s moduli
of the glass and basalt fabrics compared with those of the PBO fab-
ric. This suggests that other factors (such as fabric-matrix bond)
influence the effectiveness of FRCM in shear strengthening.
4.2.3. Mortar type
The incorporation of fibers in mortars or the use of polymer-
modified mortars enhanced the effectiveness of FRCM strengthen-
ing systems to improve the shear resistance of RC beams [4,39]. In
Al-Salloum et al. [39], the strength gains in specimens with
polymer-modified mortar were up to 69% higher than those with
regular cementitious mortar.
4.2.4. FRCM configuration
The conventional configuration of FRCM systems in shear
strengthening of RC beams involves placing the rovings in a direc-
tion perpendicular orientation to the beam axis. A spiral applica-
tion can also be used, with the rovings placed at an angle to the
beam axis. Triantafillou and Papanicolaou [38] concluded that
there was no major difference between the performance of the
conventional and spiral configurations. However, Al-Salloum
et al. [39] reported that with higher number of FRCM layers, spiral
Bottom view
106 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111
Steel bars anchored
through flange
FRCM
(a)
Fig. 11. Typical mechanical anchorage systems of FRCM in T-beams; (a) bars anchored vertically through the flange, (b) anchor bolts inserted at 45° through the flange.
configuration resulted in strength gains of up to 1.5 times of those
of the conventional configuration. U-shaped wrapping of fabric in
FRCM shear strengthening could provide higher shear strength
gain than that provided by lateral application of the fabric [34].
In contrast, results from Azam and Soudki [40] showed similar per-
formance of both configurations. Full-wrapping of the FRCM com-
posite is very effective and can successfully shift the failure mode
from shear to flexural [34]. This configuration is, however, less eco-
nomical and may not be feasible in some situations.
4.2.5. Mechanical anchorage
Fig. 11 shows typical mechanical anchorage systems for T-
beams shear-strengthened with FRCM. Brückner et al. [35]
strengthened T-beams with FRCM anchored with L-shaped steel
sections located at the corner between the flange and the strength-
ened web surface. The steel sections were glued to the FRCM sur-
face with epoxy adhesive, and anchored to the flange with
prestressed steel bars at 90° though the flange (Fig. 11a). The
anchorage system was found to increase strength gain and prevent
debonding mode of failure in specimens with higher numbers of
FRCM layers. Tzoura and Triantafillou [37] used an anchorage sys-
tem consisting of curved steel sections and 6 mm diameter
threaded anchor bolts. The steel sections were located at the cor-
ners between the flange and the web. The bolts were inserted in
epoxy-filled holes drilled at 45° and a depth of 80 mm in the flange,
with spacings of 100 mm or 150 mm along the longitudinal axis of
the beam. The unanchored specimens had strength gains of up to
65% and failed mostly by debonding. The anchored specimens with
100 mm and 150 mm anchor spacings had strength gains of up to
126% and 104%, respectively. The anchored specimens failed
mostly by pull-out of the fabric rovings. Thus, the effectiveness
of the FRCM system in improving the shear capacity was signifi-
cantly enhanced when mechanical anchors were present, with fur-
ther enhancement provided when the anchor spacing was smaller.
The improved performance of the specimens with mechanical
anchorage can be attributed to the change in the mode of failure.
The presence of mechanical anchorage prevented the premature
debonding mode of failure and allowed the beams to develop a
higher shear capacity.
4.2.6. Concrete strength
Blanksvärd et al. [4] and Contamine et al. [36] had conflicting
results on the effect of concrete strength on the shear strength gain
due to FRCM strengthening. Results from Blanksvärd et al. [4] sug-
gested that strength gain due to FRCM strengthening may be smal-
ler with higher concrete strengths, while Contamine et al. [36]
recorded higher strength gain with higher concrete strength. The
reported data was very limited. More research is need to investi-
gate the effect of varying the concrete strength of the effectiveness
Anchor bolts at 45o
through flange
FRCM
(b)
of FRCM systems to improve the structural response of RC
elements.
4.2.7. Stirrup spacing
Blanksvärd et al. [4] reported that with higher internal shear
reinforcement ratio (smaller stirrup spacing), lower shear strength
gains may be achieved. This is in agreement with a more recent
study conducted by Awani et al. [33]. Strength gains of 110%,
64%, and 51% were reported by Awani et al. [33], for specimens
without stirrups, specimens with stirrup spacing of 150 mm, and
specimens with stirrup spacing of 75 mm, respectively. These val-
ues were for specimens with one FRCM layer. With two FRCM lay-
ers, the corresponding values were 145%, 67%, and 55%. The shear-
strength gain is the ratio of the additional shear resistance pro-
vided by the FRCM reinforcement to the original shear resistance
of the beam without strengthening. Specimens with a greater
amount of internal steel stirrups had higher original shear resis-
tance and, hence, exhibited a lower shear-strength gain.
4.2.8. Mortar thickness
Contamine et al. [36] reported that the thickness of FRCM layer
did not significantly affect the shear strength gain of strengthened
specimens. Blanksvärd et al. [4] tested two FRCM shear-
strengthened beams with a total mortar thickness of 10 mm and
20 mm, while keeping the amount of fabric unaltered. Both speci-
mens failed in flexure, thus the effect of varying mortar thickness
on the shear capacity could not be determined. More research is
needed to investigate the effect of mortar thickness on the shear
strength gain.
5. Column confinement with FRCM
Table 5 gives a summary of previous studies [42–50] on con-
finement of concrete columns with FRCM composites. A discussion
of the results of these studies is given in the following sections.
5.1. Failure modes
5.1.1. Fabric rupture
This mode of failure could occur due to buckling of longitudinal
steel bars (if present) and dilation of the concrete [42–48]. Failure
is initiated after the formation of vertical cracks which widen until
rupture of the fabric occurs. Crushing of the concrete could occur
before failure, but the crushed concrete is held in place by the
FRCM jacket, till rupture of the jacket takes place [46,47,49]. In Tri-
antafillou et al. [42], failure of FRCM-confined specimens was char-
acterized by rupture in a limited number of fiber bundles, which
propagated slowly to other fiber bundles, resulting in a ductile
mode of failure. A similar observation was reported by Bournas
Table 5
Summary of previous studies on confinement of concrete columns with FRCM.

Reference
Triantafillou Bournas et al. [43] Bournas et. Colajanni Colajanni et al. [46] Ombres [47] Ombres and Trapko [49] Trapko [50]
et al. [42] al. [44] et al. [45] Verre [48]
No. of specimens 24 11 7 22 30 20 8 15 15
Test parameters Mortar type, Number of layers, Design of Cross- Cross-section shape, Number of layers, Eccentricity, Temperature Eccentricity,
number of tie spacing longitudinal section number of layers, FRCM number of FRCM
layers steel, fabric shape, corner radius, loading configuration, layers configuration,
type number of protocol concrete strength number of layers
layers
Test method Uniaxial Uniaxial Lateral Uniaxial Uniaxial compression Uniaxial Uniaxial Uniaxial Uniaxial
compression compression, lateral loading with compression compression compression compression compression
loading with constant
constant axial load axial load
Loading protocol Monotonic Monotonic, cyclic Cyclic Monotonic Monotonic, cyclic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic
Concrete Type Cylindrical, Prismatic Prismatic Cylindrical, Cylindrical, prismatic Cylindrical Prismatic Cylindrical Prismatic

O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111

prismatic prismatic with corbels
Diameter/cross-section 150/ 200  200, 250  250 154, 200/ 200/200  200, N/A 200  200 113 200  200
dimensions (mm) 250  250 250  250 200  200 200  400
Length (mm) 300, 700 380, 1600 1600 335, 425 600 N/A 1200, 1300 300 1500
d (mm) N/A 166, 215 225 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Comp. strength (MPa) N/A 25 (cube) 27 (cube) 25 (cyl) 17 (cyl) 15, 29 (cyl) 24, 40 (cyl) 23 (cyl) 56 (cube), 49
(cyl)
Reinforcing Long. Bar type N/A 4 Ø12, 4 Ø14 4 Ø14 N/A N/A N/A 4 Ø8, 4 Ø10 N/A 4 Ø12
bars fy (MPa) N/A 563, 372 523 N/A N/A N/A 312, 436 N/A 500
Trans. Bar type N/A Ø8 Ø8 N/A N/A N/A Ø8 N/A Ø6
Spacing (mm) N/A 100, 200 200 N/A N/A N/A 120 N/A >200
fyt (MPa) N/A 351 351 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 220
Details of Fabric Fabric type Carbon Carbon Carbon, glass PBO PBO PBO PBO PBO PBO
FRCM ff (MPa) 3350 3800 3800, 1700 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800 5800
Ef (GPa) 225 225 225, 70 270 270 270 270
tf (mm) 0.047 0.095 0.095, 0.089 0.045/ 0.045/0.0122 0.046/0.0222 0.046/0.0222 0.046 0.046
0.0122
efu (%) N/A N/A N/A 2.2 2.2 2 2 N/A N/A
Mortar fc,m (MPa) 9, 31+ 22+ 21+ 16 (cyl.) 16 (cyl.) 30 (cube) 30 (cube) 29 29
ft,m (MPa) 3.3, 4.2* 6.8* 6.5* N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.5 3.5
Em (GPa) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.1 6.1 6 6
tm (mm) 2 2 2 3–4 3–4 3 4 N/A N/A
Composite FRCM configuration Spiral 0°/90° 0°/90° 0°/90° 0°/90° 0°/90°, spiral 0°/90° 0°/90° 0°/90°
No. of layers 2, 3, 4 4, 6 4 2, 3 2, 3 1 2, 3, 4 1,2 2 1,2,3
ffrcm (MPa) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1664 N/A N/A
Efrcm (GPa) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 128 N/A N/A
efrcm (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.76 N/A N/A
tfrcm (mm) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Height (mm) 300, 700 430 430, 600 335, 425 335, 425 N/A 500, 900 300 1500
Results Failure modes DB2, FR FR, FR-DB2, FR-BB FR-BB, LS-PO FSR, FR FSR, FR FR-DB2, FR-DB-E FR-BB, CC DB2 DB2
Strength gain (%) 25–77 50–106, 5.51 7–26 11–51 11–51 5–220 20–39 77–123 0–24

cyl. = cylinder compressive strength of concrete; cube = cube compressive strength; PBO = poly-p-phenylenebenzobisoxazole
Failure modes: BB = bar buckling; CC = crushing of concrete; DB2 = debonding at fabric-matrix interface; E = failure at ends of specimen (top and bottom); FR = fabric rupture; FSR = relative slippage between fibers in a roving;
LS = longitudinal splitting along splice length of steel bars; PO = pull-out bond failure of spliced steel bars
*
From flexure test.
+
Determined using halved prisms from flexure test.
1
Average strength increase in push and pull directions, of specimen with lateral cyclic loading, with respect to an unstrengthened specimen.
2
Nominal fiber bundle thickness in longitudinal/transversal directions.

107
108 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111
et al. [43]. The non-uniform distribution of forces in fiber bundles
due to inadequate impregnation could lead to a relative slip
between the outer and inner fibers in the fiber bundles. With more
fabric layers (four instead of two), the failure was less ductile,
likely due to the fact that with a thicker jacket, there was better
stress distribution and more fiber bundles that were significantly
stressed before failure [42]. FRCM systems with mortars having a
low tensile strength are more prone to fabric rupture mode of fail-
ure. Similarly, fabrics with low tensile strengths could promote
rupture of the jacket. In Bournas et al. [44], a specimen with
glass-FRCM jacket failed by rupture of fabric, whereas, the failure
of a similar specimen with carbon-FRCM jacket was not governed
by fabric rupture. In Ombres [47] the fabric dilated and ruptured
at the top and bottom ends of spirally-wrapped specimens, and
progressive damage of the mortar occurred. Fabric rupture resulted
in a loss of confining action and eventual failure of the specimens.
5.1.2. Debonding
The debonding mode of failure in FRCM-confined concrete col-
umns could occur at the end of the concrete lap [42,43] or at the
fabric overlap region [47,49]. The debonding typically occurs at
the fabric-matrix interface. It is often accompanied or followed
by fabric rupture, or considerable slippage of the fabric rovings.
5.1.3. Fiber slippage within rovings
Fiber slippage with rovings mode of failure involves excessive
relative slip between the outer and inner fibers in a roving. It is also
known as telescopic failure [44,45]. It could result from non-
uniform distribution of forces in the fabric due to poor impregna-
tion of the fibers. In Colajanni et al. [45], fiber slippage occurred
within rovings after formation of cracks in the overlap region of
the fabric.
5.1.4. Concrete crushing
Strengthened columns with a high amount of FRCM (two lay-
ers) could fail by concrete crushing, which may be accompanied
by buckling of the internal steel bars, without damage to the FRCM
jacket [48]. When the number of FRCM layers was reduced to one
layer, the specimens failed by fabric rupture. Removal of the
undamaged jacket after testing was necessary to evidence crushing
of the concrete core.
5.2. Factors affecting the axial capacity of FRCM-strengthened
members
5.2.1. Number of FRCM layers
The gain in strength due to FRCM confinement of columns
increases with an increase in the number of applied FRCM layers
[42,43,45,47,48,50]. In Triantafillou et al. [42], a group of speci-
mens had two or three FRCM layers, while another group of spec-
imens had two or four FRCM layers. In the first group, strength
gains in the range of 36–57% were reported for specimens with
two FRCM layers, and 74–77% for specimens with three FRCM lay-
ers, relative to an unconfined specimen. In the second group, a
specimen with two FRCM layers gained a 40% increase in strength,
while its counterpart with four FRCM layers gained a 51% increase
in strength, relative to an unconfined specimen. The ultimate strain
of the confined concrete also increased with an increase in the
number of FRCM layers. Similar observations were made by Bour-
nas et al. [43] where strength gains in the range of 72–84% were
recorded for specimens with four FRCM layers, and 84–106% for
specimens with six FRCM layers. Increasing the number of FRCM
layers from two to three layers improved the strength gain of
150 mm diameter concrete columns from 29% to 51% [45]. The
impact of increasing the number of FRCM layers was less
pronounced for specimens with a greater section size. Concrete
columns that were 200 mm in diameter strengthened with two
and three FRCM layers exhibited strength gains of 28% and 37%,
respectively [45]. The number of FRCM applied could influence
the failure mode of the specimens, as observed by Ombres and
Verre [48]. Specimens with one layer of FRCM failed by rupture
of the fabric preceded by crushing of the concrete and buckling
of reinforcing bars, while specimens with two layers of FRCM failed
by concrete crushing without damage to the FRCM jacket.
5.2.2. Fabric type
Bournas et al. [44] compared the effectiveness of carbon-FRCM
and glass-FRCM jackets in confining rectangular concrete columns.
The effectiveness of both types was quite similar, in terms of
improving the axial capacity and deformation. However, the spec-
imen strengthened with glass-FRCM failed by rupture of the jacket
preceded by buckling of steel bars and dilation of the concrete,
while the carbon-FRCM jacket remained intact till the test ended
(due to the piston reaching its maximum stroke). The rupture of
the glass fabric was most likely due to the lower tensile strength
of the glass fibers.
5.2.3. Mortar type
In Triantafillou et al. [42], two different mortar types were used
in preparing the FRCM jackets. The compressive and tensile
strengths were 8.6 MPa and 3.3 MPa for Mortar 1, and 30.6 MPa
and 4.2 MPa for Mortar 2, respectively. Specimens with Mortar 1
failed by debonding of the FRCM from the concrete at the fabric
ends, while specimens with Mortar 2 failed by rupture of the fabric.
The change of mode of failure was attributed to changing proper-
ties of the mortar used. The FRCM jacket made of Mortar 2 was
more effective than that made of Mortar 1 in improving the axial
load capacity of the columns.
5.2.4. FRCM configuration
The conventional method of wrapping concrete columns with
FRCM involves aligning the strong fiber direction of the fabric per-
pendicular (90° orientation) to the longitudinal axis of the column.
A comparison between spiral wrapping and conventional wrapping
carried out by Ombres [47] showed that spiral wrapping was less
effective than conventional wrapping in improving the axial capac-
ity of concrete columns. Furthermore, placing the fabric spirally at
an angle of 45°, with respect to the longitudinal axis of the column,
was less effective than placing it at angle of 30°. The strength gains
caused by two and three layers of FRCM with 90° orientation were
61% and 93%, respectively. Placing the fabric at 30° reduced the
strength gains to 21% and 35%, respectively. The strength gains
were further reduced to 15% and 22%, respectively, when the fabric
was placed at 45°. Trapko [50] wrapped square-section columns
using one layer of FRCM with the main/stronger fiber direction
placed parallel to the longitudinal axis of the column, as well as
another layer conventionally placed with the main fiber direction
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the column. The results
showed the ineffectiveness of placing the main fiber direction par-
allel to the longitudinal axis.
5.2.5. Concrete strength
Ombres [47] studied the effect of varying the concrete strength
on the effectiveness of the confinement provided by FRCM. Results
showed that for conventionally-wrapped specimens (90° orienta-
tion) the strength gain decreased with an increase in concrete
strength. However, for spirally-wrapped specimens (30° and 45°
orientation), there was a general increase in strength gain as the
concrete strength increased.
 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111
5.2.6. Tie spacing
In Bournas et al. [43], varying the amount of ties in concrete col-
umns did not have a significant effect on the strength gain caused
by FRCM jackets. The strength gain was calculated with respect to
the strength of a similar unstrengthened column. With tie spacing
of 200 mm, the strength gains for specimens with four and six
FRCM layers were 50% and 57%, respectively. The corresponding
strength gains for specimens with tie spacing of 100 mm were
59% and 66%. This behaviour can be attributed to the significant
amount of FRCM used in strengthening of the tested specimens
which could have concealed the effect of varying the tie spacing
on the strength gain.
5.2.7. Temperature
Trapko [49] studied the effect of high temperature exposure on
cylindrical columns confined with FRCM. Strengthened specimens
were exposed to temperatures of 40 °C, 60 °C and 80 °C. It was con-
cluded that the strength reduction due to temperature exposure
was in the range of 5–10%. In contrast, specimens confined with
epoxy-based carbon-FRP jackets experienced up to an average of
30% reduction in strength due to temperature exposure.
5.2.8. Section size/shape
FRCM jackets are more effective in confining circular-section
columns than prismatic columns. This is because the confinement
pressure is uniform in circular sections, whereas it is non-uniform
in prismatic sections. In Colajanni et al. [46], the confinement effect
of FRCM jackets on columns with circular, square, and rectangular
sections was studied. In prismatic specimens, the FRCM jacket was
most effective for square-section specimens than for specimens
with rectangular section. It was observed that the strength gain
in circular-section specimens (Ø = 200 mm) was higher than that
of square-section specimens (200  200 mm). Colajanni et al.
[45] reported that the strengths of FRCM-strengthened square col-
umns were on average 20% lower than those of their counterparts
with circular cross-section.
5.2.9. Layout of longitudinal steel
Bournas et al. [44] investigated the effect of using continuous
longitudinal steel versus lap-spliced longitudinal steel on FRCM
confinement of columns. Also the effect of the splice length was
studied using lengths of 20do and 40do (where do is the bar diam-
eter). Buckling of the longitudinal steel occurred in the specimen
with continuous bars, but did not result in failure of the specimen
as the compressive forces were effectively sustained by the sur-
rounding confined concrete (the FRCM jacket remained intact at
the end of the test due to the piston reaching its maximum stroke).
The specimen with the shorter splice length of 20do exhibited pull-
out bond failure of the bars after formation of longitudinal splitting
cracks along the splice length. Failure was suppressed in the spec-
imen with the longer splice length of 40do till the end of the test as
the actuator’s stroke was exhausted before failure could occur. The
strength increases of the specimens with continuous bars and
spliced bars were 13% and 26% (ith splice length of 20do),
respectively.
5.2.10. Corner radius
Colajanni et al. [46] observed that there was no significant influ-
ence of the corner radius of prismatic specimens on the strength
gain due to FRCM confinement. Nevertheless, for rectangular spec-
imens with four FRCM layers, an increase in the corner radius from
15 mm to 30 mm resulted in a 70% increase in the ultimate strain.
5.2.11. Load eccentricity
Trapko [50] studied the effect of loading eccentricity on the
effectiveness of FRCM in confining square-section columns. Eccen-
109
tricity values of 16 mm and 32 mm, measured from the longitudi-
nal axis of the column to the load point, were used. This
corresponded to eccentricity ratios of 0.08 and 0.16, respectively.
Concentrically-loaded specimens were also tested. The author
studied the effectiveness of the FRCM jackets in terms of energy
of destruction (area under plot of load versus shortening distance
of the columns). The energy of destruction decreased with an
increase in the eccentricity, with respect to that of similar
unstrengthened specimens. For specimens with one layer of FRCM,
reductions of 26% and 33% were recorded with eccentricity ratios
of 0.08 and 0.16, respectively. The corresponding reductions for
the specimens with two layers of FRCM were 19% and 37%. The
strength gain of confined specimens also decreased with an
increase in the eccentricity [48]. The failure mode of the tested
specimens was not influenced by the loading eccentricity [48,50].
5.2.12. Loading protocol
Colajanni et al. [46] investigated the effect of loading protocol
(monotonic or cyclic) on the effectiveness of FRCM in improving
the axial performance of concrete columns. The stress-strain
curves of specimens tested monotonically were identical to the
envelope curves of corresponding specimens tested under cyclic
loading. However, in some specimens tested under cyclic loading,
there was more stress degradation in the post-peak phase com-
pared to that of specimens tested monotonically. This was attribu-
ted to extensive cracking in the mortar due to cyclic loading.
6. Conclusions and recommendations
6.1. Conclusions
Results of previous studies reviewed in this paper have shown
the practicality and effectiveness of FRCM composites in the
strengthening of RC structures. Based on the literature survey,
the following conclusions can be made:

FRCM strengthening systems have a great potential to improve
the flexural, shear, and axial capacities of RC elements.

FRCM composites generally exhibit a good bond with concrete
substrate, and bond failure tends to occur at the fabric-matrix
interface. The fabric-matrix bond can be improved by modifica-
tions to the fabrics grid spacings and by proper mortar selec-
tion. Certain types of fabrics tend to have a better bond with
mortar, e.g., glass fabrics have a good bond with mortar, though
have much lower tensile strengths than PBO or carbon fabrics.
Thus fabric selection is also crucial.

Properly designed anchorage systems could delay debonding
failure at fabric-matrix or concrete-matrix interface, thereby
resulting in a higher strength gain.

An increase in FRCM bond length results in an increase in capac-
ity up to the effective bond length (Le), beyond which no further
increase in capacity occurs. This length lies between 150 and
330 mm for FRCM, based on previous studies.

Increasing the number of layers of FRCM reinforcement results
in a non-proportional increase in the strength gain.

Typical failure modes of flexural and shear strengthened RC ele-
ments are concrete cover separation, debonding at fabric-
matrix interface, debonding at concrete-matrix interface, slip-
page of fabric rovings, and fabric rupture. Debonding at fabric-
matrix interface is more predominant in flexural-strengthened
RC elements than in shear-strengthened RC elements.

Failure of FRCM-strengthened concrete elements is often influ-
enced by test parameters including mechanical properties of
the FRCM composite, strengthening configuration, presence of
anchorage, loading protocol. Temperature exposure reduced
110 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111
the strength of FRCM-strengthened RC elements. The strength
reduction due to temperature exposure was less significant
compared with that recorded for epoxy-based FRP systems.

The most typical failure mode of FRCM-strengthened columns is
rupture of the fabric due to the buckling of longitudinal steel
reinforcement and dilation of the concrete. This failure mode
is usually ductile owing to the gradual propagation of rupture
from a limited number of fiber bundles to other fiber bundles
in the FRM reinforcement. Other failure modes include debond-
ing of the fabric at the end of the FRCM lap, fabric slippage, and
concrete crushing without damage to the jacket in over-
strengthened RC columns.

Eccentricity of loading in FRCM-strengthened concrete columns
reduces the strength gain.
6.2. Recommendations for future studies
Although the reviewed studies have shed light on the bond
behaviour, flexural performance, and shear performance of RC
members strengthened with FRCM, further research on other
parameters is still required for a better understanding of strength-
ening with FRCM. Only few studies have focused on developing
FRCM bond-slip models. The available models are specific to the
tested types of FRCM and may not accurately describe other FRCM
systems. More research is needed to develop bond-slip models that
can be generalized for various FRCM systems. The typical failure
mode of bond specimens was not prevalent in the flexure and
shear tests; hence more examination is necessary to understand
the different phenomena resulting in different failure modes. Fur-
ther research is required to fully understand the effect of U-shaped
bonding of FRCM on failure mode and structural response of RC
beams. Very limited information is available in the literature on
the effect of varying the strength of the concrete substrate on the
structural response of FRCM-strengthened RC elements. The viabil-
ity of FRCM to upgrade the capacity of deep beams, pre-damaged
or corroded RC elements has received little attention. None of pre-
vious studies investigated the structural behaviour of continuous
RC elements strengthened with FRCM. More research is needed
to fill this gap. The effectiveness of using FRCM composites on
uneven surfaces has not been studied. Other areas requiring fur-
ther research include durability, fire resistance, and fatigue perfor-
mance of FRCM-strengthened RC elements.
Notations
A – regressing parameter used for the relations between the
strain of fabric and slip at loaded end of bond area
b – width of RC member
bf – width of fabric
bfrcm – width of FRCM composite
bw – web width of beam
d – effective depth of cross-section
do – steel bar diameter
Ef – Young’s modulus of fiber
Efrcm – Young’s modulus of FRCM composite
Em – Young’s modulus of mortar
0
fc – concrete strength
fc,m – compressive strength of mortar
ff – tensile strength of fiber
ffrcm – tensile strength of FRCM composite
ft,m – tensile strength of mortar
fy – yield strength of longitudinal steel
fyt – yield strength of transversal steel (stirrups)
h – height of RC member
k – bond effectiveness factor
L – bond length
Le – effective bond length
pf – perimeter of bond surface
n – number of fabric layers
s – bond slip (displacement of fabric in mortar)
sf – final bond slip when value of bond stress is zero
smax – relative displacement between fabric and matrix at
failure
sr – parameter based on curve fitting of experimental data
tf – nominal thickness of fabric
tf,total – total nominal thickness of the fabric
tm – thickness of one layer of mortar
tfrcm – total thickness of one layer of FRCM composite
a – curve-fitting parameter which is a function of the area
under the ascending branch of the s-s curve, the peak bond
stress, and the slip at peak bond stress
ab – bond parameter based on stress in fabric at debonding
b – parameter based on curve fitting of experimental data
bf – parameter that depends on ratio of width of FRCM to that of
the concrete section
bL – parameter that depends on actual and effective bond length
efrcm – ultimate tensile strain of FRCM
efu – ultimate tensile strain of fiber
emax – fiber strain at failure
c – parameter based on curve fitting of experimental data
q – tensile steel reinforcement ratio
qt – transverse steel (stirrup) reinforcement ratio
rdeb – stress in FRCM at debonding
Ø – diameter of concrete member
s – bond stress
s0 – initial finite value of bond shear stress
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the UAEU
for financing this project under Grant No. 31N232.
References
[1] J.G. Teng, J.F. Chen, T.S. Scott, Debonding failures in FRP-strengthened RC
beams: failure modes, existing research and future challenges, in: Proceedings
of Workshop on Composites in Construction. A Reality, Capri, Italy, 2001.
[2] O. Büyüköztürk, O. Gunes, E. Karaca, Progress on understanding debonding
problems in reinforced concrete and steel members strengthened using FRP
composites, Constr. Build. Mater. 18 (1) (2004) 9–19.
[3] T. El Maaddawy, K. Soudki, Strengthening of reinforced concrete slabs with
mechanically-anchored unbonded FRP system, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (4)
(2008) 444–455.
[4] T. Blanksvärd, B. Täljsten, A. Carolin, Shear strengthening of concrete structures
with the use of mineral-based composites, J. Compos. Constr. 13 (1) (2009) 25–
34.
[5] T. El Maaddawy, S. Sherif, FRP composites for shear strengthening of reinforced
concrete deep beams with openings, Compos. Struct. 89 (1) (2009) 60–69.
[6] T. El-Maaddawy, B. El-Ariss, Behavior of concrete beams with short shear span
and web opening strengthened in shear with CFRP composites, J. Compos.
Constr. 16 (1) (2012) 47–59.
[7] T. El-Maaddawy, Y. Chekfeh, Retrofitting of severely shear-damaged concrete
t-beams using externally bonded composites and mechanical end anchorage, J.
Compos. Constr. 16 (6) (2012) 693–704.
[8] T. El-Maaddawy, Y. Chekfeh, Shear strengthening of T-beams with corroded
stirrups using composites, ACI Struct. J. 110 (5) (2013) 779–789.
[9] ACI Committee 549, Guide to Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) Systems for Repair and
Strengthening Concrete and Masonry Structures (ACI 549.4R-13), American
Concrete Institute, MI, USA, 2013.
[10] R. Ortlepp, U. Hampel, M. Curbach, A new approach for evaluating bond
capacity of TRC strengthening, Cem. Concr. Compos. 28 (7) (2006) 589–597.
[11] S. Hashemi, R. Al-Mahaidi, Investigation of bond strength and flexural
behaviour of FRP-strengthened reinforced concrete beams using cement-
based adhesives, Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 11 (2) (2010) 129–139.
[12] A. D’Ambrisi, L. Feo, F. Focacci, Experimental analysis on bond between PBO-
FRCM strengthening materials and concrete, Compos. B 44 (1) (2013) 524–
532.
 O. Awani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 94–111
[13] L.H. Sneed, T. D’Antino, C. Carloni, Investigation of bond behavior of
polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole fiber-reinforced cementitious matrix
composite-concrete interface, ACI Mater. J. 111 (5) (2014) 569–580.
[14] O. Awani, A. El Refai, T. El-Maaddawy, Bond characteristics of carbon fabric-
reinforced cementitious matrix in double shear tests, Constr. Build. Mater. 101
(2015) 39–49.
[15] T. D’Antino, C. Carloni, L.H. Sneed, C. Pellegrino, Fatigue and post-fatigue
behavior of PBO FRCM-concrete joints, Int. J. Fatigue 81 (2015) 91–104.
[16] L. Ombres, Analysis of the bond between fabric reinforced cementitious mortar
(FRCM) strengthening systems and concrete, Compos. B 69 (2015) 418–426.
[17] L.H. Sneed, T. D’Antino, C. Carloni, C. Pellegrino, A comparison of the bond
behavior of PBO-FRCM composites determined by double-lap and single-lap
shear tests, Cem. Concr. Compos. 64 (2015) 37–48.
[18] T. D’Antino, L.H. Sneed, C. Carloni, C. Pellegrino, Effect of the inherent
eccentricity in single-lap direct-shear tests of PBO FRCM-concrete joints,
Compos. Struct. 142 (2016) 117–129.
[19] O.M. Awani, Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using textile-
reinforced mortar (Master’s thesis), 2015. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.
uaeu.ac.ae/all_theses/213.
[20] A. D’Ambrisi, L. Feo, F. Focacci, Bond-slip relations for PBO-FRCM materials
externally bonded to concrete, Compos. B 43 (8) (2012) 2938–2949.
[21] K. Jung, K. Hong, S. Han, J. Park, J. Kim, Prediction of flexural capacity of RC
beams strengthened in flexure with FRP fabric and cementitious matrix, Int. J.
Polym. Sci. 2015 (2015) 868541.
[22] J.G. Teng, S.T. Smith, J. Yao, J.F. Chen, Intermediate crack-induced debonding in
RC beams and slabs, Constr. Build. Mater. 17 (6) (2003) 447–462.
[23] L. Ombres, Flexural analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with a
cement based high strength composite material, Compos. Struct. 94 (1) (2011)
143–155.
[24] G. Loreto, L. Leardini, D. Arboleda, A. Nanni, Performance of RC slab-type
elements strengthened with fabric-reinforced cementitious-matrix
composites, J. Compos. Constr. 18 (3) (2014) A4013003.
[25] S. Babaeidarabad, G. Loreto, A. Nanni, Flexural strengthening of RC beams with
an externally bonded fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix, J. Compos. Constr.
18 (5) (2014) 04014009.
[26] T. El-Maaddawy, A. El Refai, Innovative repair of severely corroded T-beams
using fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix, J. Compos. Constr. 20 (3) (2016)
04015073.
[27] A. D’Ambrisi, F. Focacci, Flexural strengthening of RC beams with cement-
based composites, J. Compos. Constr. 15 (5) (2011) 707–720.
[28] U. Ebead, K.C. Shrestha, M.S. Afzal, A. El Refai, A. Nanni, Effectiveness of fabric-
reinforced cementitious matrix in strengthening reinforced concrete beams, J.
Compos. Constr. (2016) 04016084.
[29] H.M. Elsanadedy, T.H. Almusallam, S.H. Alsayed, Y.A. Al-Salloum, Flexural
strengthening of RC beams using textile reinforced mortar–experimental and
numerical study, Compos. Struct. 97 (2013) 40–55.
[30] F. Schladitz, M. Frenzel, D. Ehlig, M. Curbach, Bending load capacity of
reinforced concrete slabs strengthened with textile reinforced concrete, Eng.
Struct. 40 (2012) 317–326.
[31] S.P. Yin, J. Sheng, X.X. Wang, S.G. Li, Experimental investigations of the bending
fatigue performance of TRC-strengthened RC beams in conventional
and aggressive chlorate environments, J. Compos. Constr. 20 (2) (2016)
04015051.
111
[32] J. Sim, C. Park, Characteristics of basalt fiber as a strengthening material for
concrete structures, Compos. B 36 (6) (2005) 504–512.
[33] O. Awani, T. El-Maaddawy, A. El Refai, Numerical simulation and experimental
testing of concrete beams strengthened in shear with fabric-reinforced
cementitious matrix, J. Compos. Constr. (2016) 04016056.
[34] Z.C. Tetta, L.N. Koutas, D.A. Bournas, Textile-reinforced mortar (TRM) versus
fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) in shear strengthening of concrete beams,
Compos. B 77 (2015) 338–348.
[35] A. Brückner, R. Ortlepp, M. Curbach, Anchoring of shear strengthening for T-
beams made of textile reinforced concrete (TRC), Mater. Struct. 41 (2) (2008)
407–418.
[36] R. Contamine, A.S. Larbi, P. Hamelin, Identifying the contributing mechanisms
of textile reinforced concrete (TRC) in the case of shear repairing damaged and
reinforced concrete beams, Eng. Struct. 46 (2013) 447–458.
[37] E. Tzoura, T.C. Triantafillou, Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete T-
beams under cyclic loading with TRM or FRP jackets, Mater. Struct. 49 (1–2)
(2016) 17–28.
[38] T.C. Triantafillou, C.G. Papanicolaou, Shear strengthening of reinforced
concrete members with textile reinforced mortar (TRM) jackets, Mater.
Struct. 39 (1) (2006) 93–103.
[39] Y.A. Al-Salloum, H.M. Elsanadedy, S.H. Alsayed, R.A. Iqbal, Experimental and
numerical study for the shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams
using textile-reinforced mortar, J. Compos. Constr. 16 (1) (2012) 74–90.
[40] R. Azam, K. Soudki, FRCM strengthening of shear-critical RC beams, J. Compos.
Constr. 18 (5) (2014) 04014012.
[41] C. Escrig, L. Gil, E. Bernat-Maso, F. Puigvert, Experimental and analytical study
of reinforced concrete beams shear strengthened with different types of
textile-reinforced mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 83 (2015) 248–260.
[42] T.C. Triantafillou, C.G. Papanicolaou, P. Zissimopoulos, T. Laourdekis, Concrete
confinement with textile-reinforced mortar jackets, ACI Struct. J. 103 (1)
(2006) 28–37.
[43] D.A. Bournas, P.V. Lontou, C.G. Papanicolaou, T.C. Triantafillou, Textile-
reinforced mortar versus fiber-reinforced polymer confinement in reinforced
concrete columns, ACI Struct. J. 104 (6) (2007) 740–748.
[44] D.A. Bournas, T.C. Triantafillou, K. Zygouris, F. Stavropoulos, Textile-reinforced
mortar versus FRP jacketing in seismic retrofitting of RC columns with
continuous or lap-spliced deformed bars, J. Compos. Constr. 13 (5) (2009) 360–
371.
[45] P. Colajanni, F. De Domenico, A. Recupero, N. Spinella, Concrete columns
confined with fibre reinforced cementitious mortars: experimentation and
modelling, Constr. Build. Mater. 52 (2014) 375–384.
[46] P. Colajanni, M. Fossetti, G. Macaluso, Effects of confinement level, cross-
section shape and corner radius on the cyclic behavior of CFRCM confined
concrete columns, Constr. Build. Mater. 55 (2014) 379–389.
[47] L. Ombres, Concrete confinement with a cement based high strength
composite material, Compos. Struct. 109 (2014) 294–304.
[48] L. Ombres, S. Verre, Structural behaviour of fabric reinforced cementitious
matrix (FRCM) strengthened concrete columns under eccentric loading,
Compos. B 75 (2015) 235–249.
[49] T. Trapko, The effect of high temperature on the performance of CFRP and
FRCM confined concrete elements, Compos. B 54 (2013) 138–145.
[50] T. Trapko, Effect of eccentric compression loading on the strains of FRCM
confined concrete columns, Constr. Build. Mater. 61 (2014) 97–105.