Low-Velocity Impact Load Testing of RC Beams Strengthened

in Flexure with Bonded FRP Sheets

Norimitsu Kishi, Ph.D., M.ASCE1; Masato Komuro, Ph.D.2; Tomoki Kawarai3; and Hiroshi Mikami, Ph.D.4

Abstract: In this paper, which focuses on the fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) sheet bonding method for improving the impact resistance of RC
beams, low-velocity impact load tests are performed on RC beams strengthened with FRP sheets. Both aramid FRP (AFRP) and carbon FRP
(CFRP) sheets are used to experimentally investigate the flexural strengthening effect of the sheet materials. The impact force is created by drop-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 37.239.50.70 on 01/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ping a 300-kg steel weight from various heights. The experiments are conducted using a single loading method for each beam, and the drop
height of the weight is increased until the sheet debonded. The results obtained from this study are as follows: the impact-resistance capacities
of the beams are improved by flexural strengthening with FRP sheets; the strengthening effects of the sheets are similar, regardless of the sheet
materials, when the axial stiffness values of the sheets are equal; and the maximum and residual deflections are approximately linearly distributed
with increasing input impact energy until the FRP sheets debonded. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001048. This work is made
available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Author keywords: AFRP sheet; CFRP sheet; Concrete beam; Flexural strengthening with FRP sheet; Low-velocity impact loading.

Introduction
Steel plate bonding and/or section enlargement methods are gener-
ally applied to strengthen existing RC members. However, these
methods increase the dead load, require the use of corrosive mate-
rials, and increase construction difficulty. Fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) composite materials, which are mainly developed for use in
the aviation and space industries, are lightweight, noncorrosive,
and have high strength-to-weight ratios, and they are relatively
easy to install. Due to these characteristics, research and develop-
ment on FRP applications in the field of civil engineering have
been encouraged since the 1990s. In the early 1990s, Ritchie
et al. (1991) experimentally investigated the external strengthening
effects provided by bonding FRP plates to the tension-side surfaces
of RC beams; they tested FRP plates consisting of glass, carbon,
and aramid fibers. Saadatmanesh and Ehsami (1991) also experi-
mentally investigated improvements in the static strengths of rect-
angular and T-section RC beams strengthened by bonding glass
FRP plates to tension flanges. Triantafillou (1998) experimentally
studied the applicability of carbon FRP (CFRP) laminates as
shear strengthening materials for RC beams and analytically inves-
tigated the contributions of FRP materials to the shear load-
carrying capacities of beams. These studies were followed by
1 ing provided by the CFRP laminates and that the CFRP laminates
Specially Appointed Professor, College of Environmental Technology,
Muroran Institute of Technology, Muroran, Hokkaido 050-8585, Japan
(corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9685-5761.
Email: kishi@mmm.muroran-it.ac.jp
2
Associate Professor, College of Environmental Technology, Muroran
Institute of Technology, Muroran, Hokkaido 050-8585, Japan. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3487-9442.
3
Graduate Student, Division of Engineering, Graduate School, Muroran
Institute of Technology, Muroran, Hokkaido 050-8585, Japan.
4
Senior Researcher, Technical Research Institute, Sumitomo-Mitsui
Construction, Co. Ltd., Nagareyama, Chiba 270-0132, Japan.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 28, 2019; approved on
March 17, 2020; published online on June 17, 2020. Discussion period
open until November 17, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites
for Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
several investigations in the last two decades. The authors of the
current investigation also experimentally and numerically studied
the use of FRPs on RC beams (Kishi et al. 2001, 2002, 2005,
2016). Design guidelines for strengthening RC members with
externally bonded FRP laminates have been established, such as
in the case of ACI 440.2R-17 (ACI 2017), and have been widely
applied in practice.
Currently, terrorism is a global problem, and civil infrastruc-
tures are at risk of severe damage from blast and impact loading;
hence, some structures may require improved resistance capacities.
Therefore, FRP materials may be applicable to strengthen RC
members against not only static loading but also blast and impact
loading. However, research on strengthening RC members under
blast loading has suffered from a lack of sufficient experimental
facilities. Herein, the strengthening effects of FRP sheets on the
impact resistance of RC members were investigated only under
low-velocity impact loading.
Regarding previous research on RC members strengthened with
FRP sheets under low-velocity impacts, Erki and Meier (1999) in-
vestigated the impact-resistant behavior of RC beams strengthened
with either CFRP laminates or steel plates; in their experiments,
one end of the tested beam was lifted and then dropped from a cer-
tain height onto a support. Their results indicated that the RC beams
performed well under impact loading due to the flexural strengthen-
could not provide the same energy absorption capabilities as steel
plates. However, their results are not easily applicable to simply
supported RC beams impacted in the midspan area. Tang and
Saadatmanesh (2003, 2005) performed drop-weight impact tests
on non-shear-reinforced RC beams strengthened by bonding
CFRP and/or Kevlar FRP laminates to the upper and lower surfaces
of the beams to carry positive and negative moments. Their results
showed that the impact resistance of the beams was significantly
improved through strengthening with bonded FRP laminates and
that the maximum deflections of the strengthened RC beams
were 30%–40% less than those of unstrengthened beams. Kantar
and Anil (2012) carried out impact loading tests for concrete
beams strengthened in flexure with CFRP strips by varying the
compressive strength of concrete, and they showed that CFRP

© ASCE 04020036-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 04020036

 strips could positively affect the impact resistance of the beams.
The studies discussed previously involved flexural strengthening
of RC members with FRPs.
Other studies have investigated shear strengthening of RC
beams with FRPs. For instance, Yilmaz and Anil (2015) conducted
impact load testing on shear deficient RC beams strengthened with
CFRP U-wraps and confirmed the shear strengthening effects of the
strips. Pham and Hao (2016a) investigated the impact behavior of
FRP-strengthened RC beams and the FRP contribution to shear
strength. In their study, RC beams without stirrups were strength-
ened with CFRP U-wraps and 45°-wraps. Their results showed
that, using the same number of CFRP strips, 45°-wraps provided
better performance than U-wraps in terms of the load-carrying ca-
pacities and deflections of the beams; moreover, the failure modes
of the RC beams changed from ductile flexure failure under static
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 37.239.50.70 on 01/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The RC beam is always replaced with a new beam for each loading
test, and the drop height of the weight is increased to reach the ul-
timate state with sheet debonding. A reference beam that is not
strengthened with an FRP sheet is constructed for comparative
analysis. Static load tests are also conducted to confirm the failure
modes of the beams under static loading and to compare the load-
carrying characteristics of the beams under static and impact
loading.
Experimental Overview
Dimensions and Static Design Values of the RC Beams
Twelve specimens were used in this study. The material of the FRP

loading to brittle shear failure under impact loading. Huo et al.
(2018) also experimentally investigated the effects of a CFRP
strengthening arrangement on the failure mechanisms of RC
beams without stirrups under impact loading. From their experi-
ments, it was noted that the strengthening effect of single
45°-CFRP wraps was much higher than that of CFRP U-wraps
and crisscrossing CFRP wraps and that both the shear capacities
and deflections of RC beams strengthened with CFRP U-wraps
were slightly better than those of beams strengthened with criss-
crossing CFRP wraps.
Yilmaz et al. (2018) performed drop-weight tests for two-way
simply supported RC slabs strengthened with CFRP strips of vary-
ing arrangement and width. From these test results, it was revealed
that by strengthening with 100-mm-wide, diagonally oriented
CFRP strips placed in two directions, the impact resistance of the
RC slabs can be significantly improved.
Thus, even though the strengthening effects of FRP laminates/
sheets on the flexural and shear load-carrying capacities of RC
beams and slabs under impact loading were investigated, studies
on RC members strengthened with FRPs under impact loading
are still extremely limited (Pham and Hao 2016b).
This study focuses on RC beams with stirrups that statically
reach the ultimate state and exhibit flexural failures. In this study,
low-velocity drop-weight impact tests are performed on RC
beams strengthened by bonding FRP sheets to their tension-side
surfaces. The strengthening effects of the FRP sheets on the impact
resistance, impact-resistance characteristics, and failure behavior of
the beams are investigated. Both aramid FRP (AFRP) and CFRP
sheets are used in this experiment, and the material volumes are ad-
justed to produce sheets with approximately equal axial stiffnesses.
sheet, the total axial stiffness of the bonded FRP sheet, and the cal-
culated static flexural and shear load-carrying capacities of the
beams are listed in Table 1. In this table, the specimen name is des-
ignated by the type of FRP material (N = none; A = AFRP; and
C = CFRP) and the method of loading (S = static loading; and
I = impact loading). In the case of impact loading, the specimen
name is specified by adding the drop height of the weight (Hn)
(n = drop height in metric units) with a hyphen. The estimated
drop height (H′ ) was evaluated using the measured drop velocity
of the behavior just before impacting the upper surface of the beam.
The material volumes needed to produce AFRP and CFRP
sheets with approximately equal values of total axial stiffness Ef
Af were determined, and the results are listed in Table 1. The calcu-
lated static load-carrying capacities of each beam were estimated
according to the Japan Concrete Standard (JSCE 2007) using the
material properties of concrete and the FRP sheets (see Table 2).
Here, the ultimate compressive strain of concrete was assumed to
be ɛcu = 0.35% in accordance with the standard (JSCE 2007).
From this table, because the shear-flexural capacity ratios, α =
Vusc/Pusc, for Beams AS/AI and CS/CI are larger than 3, it is con-
firmed that the strengthened RC beams would statically fail in
flexure.
All the test beams had rectangular cross sections with a 200-mm
width, 250-mm depth, and 3-m clear-span length. The layout of the
reinforcement (referred to hereinafter as rebar) for the beams is
shown in Fig. 1. Two axial rebars with 19-mm diameters were
cast in the upper and lower fibers, and the rebars were welded to
9-mm-thick steel plates at the ends of the beam to ensure full an-
chorage and to save the distance from the support point to the
free edge to decrease the influence of the part on the impact

Table 1. List of specimens

Set drop Total
height Measured Measured Total axial tensile Compressive Yield stress Calculated Calculated
of the drop height input impact stiffness of capacity of strength of the of the flexural shear
Sheet weight of the weight energy Ei the sheet the sheet concrete f ′c longitudinal capacity Pusc capacity Vusc
Specimen material H (m) H′ (m) (kJ) EfAf (kN) (kN) (MPa) rebar fsy (MPa) (kN) (kN)
NS — Static — — — — 32 382 55.0 329
NI-H2.5 2.5 2.3 6.7
AS AFRP Static — — 14 × 103 236 35 382 102 332
AI-H1 1 1.1 3.3
AI-H2 2 2.2 6.4
AI-H2.5 2.5 2.4 7.1
AI-H3 3 3.2 9.5
CS CFRP Static — — 16 × 103 264 33 403 106 329
CI-H1 1 1.1 3.3
CI-H2 2 1.8 5.2
CI-H2.5 2.5 2.3 6.7 407 108
CI-H3 3 3.1 9.0 403 106

© ASCE 04020036-2 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 04020036

 Table 2. Material properties of the FRP sheets
Mass per Tensile Elastic Failure
Sheet unit area Thickness strength ff modulus Ef strain ɛuf
material (g/m2) (mm) (GPa) (GPa) (%)
AFRPa 830 0.57 2.1 118 1.75
CFRPb 600 0.33 3.4 245 1.39
a
Catalog values of Fibex (2014).
b
Catalog values of Toray (2019).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 37.239.50.70 on 01/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. (Color) Specimen configurations.
response characteristics of the beam. Stirrups with 10-mm diame-
ters were placed at 100-mm intervals. The FRP sheet was bonded
to the tension-side surface, and 50 mm was left between the support
point and the end of the sheet. The concrete surface used to bond
with the FRP sheet was grit-blasted to a depth of approximately
1 mm to improve the bonding capacity. Beams AS/AI and CS/CI
were strengthened by bonding one AFRP ply with an areal mass
of 830 g/m2 and one CFRP ply with an areal mass of 600 g/m2.
The FRP sheet properties as provided by the manufacturers
(Fibex 2014; Toray 2019) are reported in Table 2. These properties
were determined by testing based on JIS K 7165 (JIS 2008). Table 2
shows that the elastic modulus Ef of the CFRP sheet is more than
twice that of the AFRP sheet. However, the failure strain ɛuf of
the AFRP sheet is 0.36% greater than that of the CFRP sheet.
Experimental Method for the Impact Loading Test
Drop-weight impact tests were conducted by dropping the weight
from a prescribed height onto the midspan of the beam using the
impact apparatus shown in Fig. 2. The 300-kg weight was a solid
steel cylinder. The RC beams were placed on supports equipped
with load cells to measure the reaction forces, and they were
clamped at their ends using cross beams to prevent lifting. The sup-
ports were able to freely rotate while restraining the horizontal
movement of the beam.
In this experiment, the impact force P, the total reaction force
(referred hereinafter as the reaction force) R, the midspan deflection
(referred to hereinafter as the deflection) δ, and the axial strain dis-
tribution of the FRP sheet were measured. Additionally, the crack
patterns of the side surface of the beam near the loading point were
recorded with a high-speed camera at 2,000 fps. After each test,
the residual deflection δrs was measured, and the crack patterns
observed on the side surface of the beam were sketched for docu-
mentation. The deflection δ of the beam was measured at middepth
using a laser-type linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT)
with a maximum stroke of 200 mm. These analog data were con-
verted into digital data at 0.1-ms time intervals.
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 04020036
Fig. 2. (Color) Experimental setup for drop-weight impact testing.
Deflection Calculation Method
To estimate the deflection of the RC beams up to the ultimate state
under static loading, the multilayered method (Kaklauskas et al.
1999), which is based on classical techniques of strength of mate-
rials extended to the application of the layered approach and full
stress–strain material relationships, was applied.
The employed approaches and assumptions were as follows:
(1) a plane section and perfect bonding between the concrete and
reinforcement, including the FRP sheet, were assumed; (2) the
smeared crack approach was used; (3) the layered approach was
used; (4) the stress–strain relation was assumed for each material
following the JSCE (2007), as shown in Fig. 3; and (5) constant
stress–strain relationships were assumed for each layer.
To precisely determine the curvature and bending moment rela-
tionship for each strain level, the cross section of the beam was di-
vided into horizontal thin layers of less than 5-mm thickness
corresponding to either concrete or reinforcement. Following the
aforementioned approaches and assumptions, the neutral axis and
lower fiber strain corresponding to the arbitrary upper fiber strain
of the cross section were determined by varying the lower strain
gradually and taking the resultant force equilibrium of the whole
layers. Using these upper and lower fiber strains, the corresponding
curvature and sectional bending moment could be obtained.
For these relationships from zero to the ultimate state, ɛcu =
0.35% of the upper fiber strain of the concrete can be obtained
by repeating the aforementioned procedures. Therefore, the curva-
ture distribution along the span corresponding to the bending mo-
ment diagram for each loading step can be determined. Finally,
midspan deflection was obtained by applying Mohr’s integral tech-
nique, i.e., by calculating the moment at the midspan point of the
simply supported beam subjected to the curvature distribution.
Experimental Results for Static Loading
The static load was applied to the beams by using a hydraulic jack
with a 500-kN capacity and setting up a loading jig with a 100-mm
width in the span direction. For Beam NS, which was not strengthened
with an FRP sheet, the load gradually increased after the rebar yielded
due to the plastic hardening effect of the rebar; therefore, the load was
applied until the beam deflected to approximately 90 mm.
Load Deflection
Fig. 4 shows a comparison of the static load–deflection relations
between RC beams strengthened with and without FRP sheets.
04020036-3 J. Compos. Constr.
 f’c - 30 σ
Ec = ( 2.8 + ) x 10 4 ft = 0.23 f’c 2/3
33 ft
30 < f’c < 40 MPa
- 0.35 - 0.2 Ec
0 ε (%)
σ  0.85 x f’c x
ε
(2 +
ε
) Es
0.2 0.2
- 0.85 f’c
(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 37.239.50.70 on 01/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Stress–strain relationships: (a) concrete; (b) longitudinal rebar; and (c) FRP material.
Fig. 4. (Color) Static load–deflection curves.
In this figure, the numerical results are obtained by applying the
aforementioned technique. For Beam NS, Fig. 4 shows that the de-
flection from the experimental results gradually increases after the
rebar yielded. In contrast, the load–deflection curves of Beams AS
and CS behaved similarly and finally reached the ultimate state due
to FRP sheet debonding. The experimental results for the rebar
yielding load and the maximum load for three beams are listed in
Table 3. In Table 3, the maximum load for Beam NS is taken at
the point when the deflection δ = 40 mm because the strengthened
beams (i.e., Beams AS and CS) reach the ultimate state at this de-
flection level. Table 3 shows that, as a result of strengthening with
the FRP sheets, the rebar yielding loads and maximum loads of
Beams AS and CS are approximately 30% and 45% greater than
those of Beam NS, respectively.
The following observations can be made by comparing the ex-
perimental and numerical results: (1) the numerical results showed
that Beam NS reached the ultimate state immediately after the rebar
yielded because of the upper fiber strain reaching the ultimate com-
pressive state with ɛcu = 0.35%; (2) the experimental results for
both Beams AS and CS were lower than the numerical results;
(3) in particular, the difference in the experimental and numerical
results after rebar yielding tended to increase as the deflection in-
creased; and (4) the experimental results could not confirm the
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 04020036
σ σ
fsy ff
0 ε sy ε
E
f
0 εuf ε
- fsy
(b) (c)
Table 3. Experimental results for static loading
Specimen Rebar yield load (kN) Max. load (kN)
Beam NS 57 (1.0) 67 (1.0)
Beam AS 74 (1.30) 98 (1.46)
Beam CS 74 (1.30) 98 (1.46)
Note: The values in parentheses indicate the ratios with respect to the
corresponding values of Beam NS.
numerical maximum loads. Therefore, it was implied that both
FRP sheets might have gradually debonded after the rebar yielded.
Crack Patterns After the Experiments
Fig. 5 shows comparisons of the crack patterns of three beams after
the experiments. The following can be observed from this figure:
(1) for Beam NS, the flexural cracks emanating from the lower con-
crete cover were concentrated near the midspan area; (2) the load-
ing area was severely crushed; and (3) the beam was deformed
permanently near the loading point. However, the flexural cracks
in Beams AS and CS were more widely distributed than those in
Beam NS, and the FRP sheets debonded in both beams. However,
Beams AS and CS were less deformed than Beam NS due to the
strengthening effect of the FRP sheet. Because the sheets debonded
together with the lower concrete cover, the bonding strength of the
sheet might be higher than the tensile strength of the concrete.
From these results, it was confirmed that the RC beams reached
the ultimate state with flexural failure mode under static loading,
regardless of whether they were strengthened with the FRP sheet.
Experimental Results for Impact Loading
Time Histories of Impact Force, Reaction Force,
and Deflection
Fig. 6 shows the time histories of the impact force P, reaction force
R, and deflection δ for all beams subjected to impact loading. In this
figure, the origin of the time axis was taken as the actual time when
the weight impacted the beam. The reaction force R in the upward
direction was assumed to be positive as in the case of static loading.
Fig. 6(a) shows the time histories of the impact force P during
25-ms intervals that started at the beginning of the impact. This fig-
ure shows that the responses had similar time histories regardless of
the method of strengthening (or lack thereof) or the drop height of
the weight (referred to hereinafter as the drop height). These simi-
larities can be described as follows: (1) at the beginning of the
04020036-4 J. Compos. Constr.
 impact, the time history exhibited a triangular shape with a high
amplitude for a short time (approximately 1 ms), and (2) afterward,
high-frequency components with low amplitudes were excited. The
time histories of the three beams with the drop height of H = 2.5 m
were similar until approximately 12 ms after the beginning of the
impact regardless of strengthening with or without FRP sheets
and the material properties of the FRP sheet.
The maximum impact forces of the three specimens are listed in
Table 4. From this table, it can be observed that the maximum
(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 37.239.50.70 on 01/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(b)
(c)
Fig. 5. Crack patterns after static loading: (a) beam NS; (b) beam AS;
and (c) beam CS.
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. (Color) Time histories of dynamic responses: (a) impact force P; (b) reaction force R; and (c) deflection δ.
© ASCE 04020036-5
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 04020036
values are similar, even though the one for Beam CI is slightly
smaller than those of the other beams. Generally, the magnitude
of the maximum impact force at the beginning of the collision
may be related to the drop weight, drop height of the weight, bend-
ing stiffness and dimensions of the beams, and contact stiffness of
concrete. The contact stiffness may be the most influential factor
among them. In this study, all conditions are similar among the
three specimens except flexural strengthening with/without FRP
sheets. This finding indicates that the impact force time history
may depend on the contact stiffness of concrete (compressive
strength, elastic modulus, and mass per unit volume).
Fig. 6(b) shows the time histories of the reaction force R during
100-ms intervals that started at the beginning of the impact. This
figure shows the following phenomena: (1) at the beginning of
the impact, a negative reaction force was excited [this phenomenon
was also reported by Cotsovos (2010), Pham and Hao (2017) and
Kishi and Mikami (2012)]; (2) the main response was composed
of a triangular-shaped component with a duration of 30–50 ms
and high-frequency components; and (3) the duration of the main
response tended to be prolonged by increasing the drop height H.
The negative reaction force excited at the beginning of the impact
can be measured as follows: (1) the amplifier units of the load cells
were initialized after the beam ends were tightened with the load
cells using cross beams; (2) the beam ends tended to lift due to
the rebound of the applied impact force; and (3) a negative reaction
force was accurately measured up to a magnitude of approximately
50 kN for the tightening force. Pham and Hao (2017) accurately
measured the negative reaction force by using the upper load
cells installed at the supports, and this phenomenon can be ex-
plained based on the theory of stress waves. However, because
(c)
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 4. Experimental results for maximum responses to impact loading at
H = 2.5 m
Maximum impact Maximum reaction Maximum deflection
Specimen force Pmax (kN) force Rmax (kN) δmax (mm)
Beam NI 1,542 (1.00) 251 (1.00) 85.6 (1.00)
Beam AI 1,527 (1.01) 385 (1.53) 58.5 (0.68)
Beam CI 1,457 (0.94) 343 (1.37) 58.5 (0.68)
Note: The values in parentheses indicate the ratios with respect to the
corresponding values of Beam NI.
the lower load cells were used only to measure the reaction forces
in this study, further discussion is limited.
The time histories of the three beams for the drop height of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 37.239.50.70 on 01/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
H = 2.5 m showed that, even though the time histories of Beams
AI and CI were approximately equal, the maximum reaction
force and the duration of the main response of Beam NI were
smaller and approximately 10 ms longer than those of Beams AI
and CI, respectively. The maximum reaction forces of the three
specimens are listed in Table 4. From this table, it is seen that
the forces of the strengthened Beams AI and CI are almost 40%–
50% greater than the reference Beam NI. The flexural stiffness of
Beam NI is less than those of the strengthened beams and may sig-
nificantly decrease due to its severe damage.
Fig. 6(c) shows the time histories of the deflection δ during
200-ms intervals that started at the beginning of the impact. This
figure shows that the main response had the form of a half-sine
wave; after the main response, the deflection was restrained, and
the beams exhibited a damped-free vibration with a low frequency.
The residual deflection δrs of the beam tended to increase with in-
creasing drop height H.
The time histories of the three beams for the drop height of H =
2.5 m showed that (1) the two strengthened beams—Beams AI and
CI—exhibited approximately equivalent time histories; and that (2)
the unstrengthened beam—Beam NI—exhibited greater maximum
and residual deflections and a longer damped-free vibration period
than the strengthened beams. The maximum deflections of the
three beams are listed in Table 4. The table indicates that the maxi-
mum deflection of the beams was decreased by more than 30% by
strengthening with the FRP sheets. Therefore, it was confirmed
that, by bonding FRP sheets to the tension-side surfaces of the
beams: (1) the maximum and residual deflections could be improved;
and (2) the strengthening effects of the two FRP sheets on the
impact-resistant behavior of the beams were approximately equal.
For the drop height of H = 3 m, even though the FRP sheets de-
bonded in both beams, both sheets debonded at similar times from
the beginning of impact. Both beams reached the maximum deflec-
tion at the same time (t = 24 ms), and the time histories for both
beams were approximately equal.
Temporal Transitions of FRP Strain Distributions
and Crack Patterns of the Beams
Fig. 7 shows the temporal transitions of the FRP axial strain distri-
butions and crack patterns on the side surfaces near the midspan
areas of the beams at a drop height of H = 3 m. From this figure,
at time t = 0.5 ms after the beginning of the impact (referred to
hereinafter as time), double or triple diagonal cracks developed
from both sides of the beams and were connected in a cap-shaped
form in the midspan area without reaching the upper surface of the
beam. In this time step, flexural cracks had not yet developed. The
strain distributions showed that the tensile strain was distributed in
the midspan areas of both beams, whereas the compressive strain
© ASCE 04020036-6
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 04020036
was distributed in the outer areas for both beams. The compressive
strain might have developed due to the fixed nature and small span
length of the beam, wherein the compressive strain formed while
the flexural wave propagated over the whole length of the beam.
At time t = 1 ms, the following details could be observed: (1) all
diagonal cracks reached the edges of the lower concrete cover for
both beams; (2) the tensile strain area expanded toward the support
points; and (3) near the loading area, there tended to be an equi-
bending state because the strain was flattened. The maximum ten-
sile strain for both beams remained at approximately 0.5%.
At time t = 2 ms, a new diagonal crack developed across the ex-
isting cracks and reached the edge of the upper concrete cover for
Beam CI. At time t = 5 ms, both beams changed to the simply sup-
ported state because the compressive strain disappeared, and the
peaks of both sides of the tensile strain wave reached the support
points. The strain was distributed in an approximately parabolic
shape, as in the case of a uniformly distributed load acting on a sim-
ply supported beam.
At time t = 10 ms, some diagonal cracks formed, and flexural
cracks originated from the lower concrete cover in the midspan
areas of both beams. Additionally, compressive failure initiated
at the upper concrete cover near the loading point. The strain dis-
tributions showed that the gradients of the strain distribution be-
tween the area near the support area and around the midspan
were different and that the maximum strain reached approximately
1.25% near the midspan. These findings indicated that the axial re-
bars in the support area remained in an elastic state, whereas those
in the midspan area remained in a plastic state.
At time t = 15–20 ms, the FRP sheets in both beams tended to
debond from the tips of the diagonal cracks toward the support
points due to a peeling action. Compressive failure was clearly in-
dicated near the loading point. The strain distributions showed that
the peak strain was flattened at approximately 1% because of the
partial debonding of the sheets.
Times t = 26 and 22.5 ms for Beams AI and CI, respectively,
were the times immediately before the FRP sheets fully debonded.
For Beam AI, full debonding of the sheet was initiated after reaching
the maximum deflection response at time t = 24 ms (see Fig. 6),
while for Beam CI, full debonding of the sheet was initiated before
reaching the maximum response. Therefore, even though maximum
deflections for both beams occurred simultaneously, the times at
which full debonding of the sheet initiated were slightly different.
At time t = 30–40 ms, the FRP sheets for both Beams AI and CI
debonded from the tip of the diagonal crack toward the right-hand
and left-hand edges, respectively, together with the concrete blocks
of the lower concrete cover. From the strain distribution, it could be
observed that the strain of the sheet was perfectly released because
the sheet perfectly debonded on one side surface of the beam.
Pham and Hao (2017) measured the axial strain of the FRP strip
when the strip debonded from the RC beams under impact loading.
For strengthened RC beams with a longitudinal FRP strip and with-
out a U-shaped transverse strip, the average axial strain was less
than 0.5%, and the beam failed in a shear-flexure mode. This
value was approximately 0.5% smaller than that obtained in the
aforementioned study. This discrepancy might be due to the differ-
ence in the failure mode and/or strengthening ratio of the FRP ma-
terial, referring to an unstrengthened beam.
Energy Dissipation
To compare the energy dissipation under impact loading among the
three specimens in the case of H = 2.5 m, two evaluation methods
were considered: (1) the method using the hysteretic loop between
impact force P and deflection δ; and (2) the method using the region
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 37.239.50.70 on 01/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. (Color) Temporal transitions of the FRP strain distributions and crack patterns of the beams at H = 3 m: (a) Beam AI; and (b) Beam CI.

between the reaction force R and the deflection δ based on the
quasistatic concept. Fig. 8 shows the hysteretic loops for the
three specimens corresponding to the two methods until the weight
was rebounded. The figure indicates that (1) the beams did not
deflect at maximum impact force; (2) negative impact forces oc-
curred during the beams deflection due to stress wave propagation;
(3) negative reaction forces occurred until the beams deflected up to
approximately 15–17 mm as mentioned previously; and (4) the
loop with the reaction force exhibited an approximate parallelo-
gram shape for Beam NI but a triangular shape for Beams AI
and CI.
Assuming that the negative force could not contribute to the dis-
sipation energy, the energy for each beam is estimated as listed in
Table 5. From this table, it is seen that the dissipation energies due
to the impact force Edp were less than a half the measured input im-
pact energy (referred to hereinafter as input impact energy) Ei

© ASCE 04020036-7 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 04020036

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 37.239.50.70 on 01/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

Fig. 8. (Color) Hysteretic loops between the force and deflection δ at H = 2.5 m: (a) relationship between the impact force P and the deflection δ; and
(b) relationship between the reaction force R and the deflection δ.

Table 5. Dissipation energy of beams for impact loading at H = 2.5 m

Dissipation energy Dissipation energy
Input impact due to impact force due to reaction force
Specimen energy Ei (kJ) P Edp (kJ) R Edr (kJ) (a)
Beam NI 6.7 (1.00) 3.2 (0.48) 6.5 (0.97)
Beam AI 7.1 (1.00) 3.1 (0.44) 5.5 (0.77)
Beam CI 6.7 (1.00) 2.3 (0.34) 6.4 (0.96)
Note: The values in parentheses indicate the ratios with respect to the input
impact energy Ei for each beam.
(b)
regardless of strengthening with/without FRP sheets; conversely,
the energies due to the reaction force Edr were greater than 0.75
of the input impact energy Ei. Although the impact force P was ex-
cited due to the weight impacting the beam, the reaction force R
might be resistant to not only the impact force P but also the inertial
force distributed along the whole span. Comparing the ratios of the (c)
dissipated energy refereeing to the input impact energy Ei among
the three beams, even though the strengthened Beams AI and CI Fig. 9. Crack patterns after impact loading at H = 2.5 m: (a) Beam NI;
had less dissipate energy than the reference Beam NI, the difference (b) Beam AI; and (c) Beam CI.
was very small. Comparing the values between strengthened
Beams AI and CI, these characteristics of the dissipation energy debonding with a peeling action of the tip of the diagonal crack ac-
were not similar to each other and differed depending on the ap- companying the flexural-shear failure mode.
plied force (impact force P or reaction force R). Pham and Hao (2017) also showed crack patterns of a reference
beam without an FRP strip and strengthened beams. In these exper-
iments, similar crack patterns to those shown in Fig. 9 are obtained,
Cracks Pattern of Test Specimens
but flexural cracks develop from the upper toward the lower fiber.
Fig. 9 shows the crack patterns of the three beams after testing at the A comparison of the deformation of the unstrengthened beam
drop height H = 2.5 m. This figure shows that flexural cracks devel- (Beam NI) with those of the strengthened beams (Beams AI and
oped along the whole span and from both the lower and upper con- CI) showed that Beam NI was permanently deformed near the load-
crete covers; moreover, diagonal cracks also developed near the ing point; however, Beams AI and CI did not similarly deform be-
loading area, irrespective of whether the beam was strengthened cause of the strengthening effect of the FRP sheet. Beams AI and
with FRP sheets. These characteristics were significantly different CI exhibited similar crack distribution characteristics to each other.
from those of the static loading case (Fig. 5). The development of
crack patterns from the upper concrete cover might be due to the
Relationships between Maximum Responses and Input
flexural wave traveling toward the support points of the fixed
Impact Energy
beams at the beginning of impact, as mentioned previously. There-
fore, Beam NI reached the ultimate state in the flexural-shear failure Fig. 10 shows the distributions of the maximum impact force Pmax,
mode. In contrast, strengthened Beams AI and CI failed due to sheet the maximum reaction force Rmax, the maximum deflection δmax,

© ASCE 04020036-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 04020036

 and the residual deflection δrs with respect to the input impact en-
ergy Ei as listed in Table 1. The residual deflection δrs was the per-
manent midspan deflection after the test was completed.
For the plot of the maximum impact force Pmax in Fig. 10(a),
even though the result for the drop height of H = 2 m (Ei =
6.4 kJ) was slightly lower for Beam AI than the other values, all
the values were approximately linearly distributed with increasing
input impact energy Ei, including the value for the case of the un-
strengthened beam, Beam NI.
The results of the maximum reaction force Rmax in Fig. 10(b)
show that the values for Beams AI and CI tended to be linearly dis-
tributed with increasing input impact energy Ei, as was the case for
the maximum impact force Pmax, while the result for Beam NI was
slightly lower. Comparing the distribution with that of the maxi-
mum impact force Pmax [Fig. 10(a)], it can be observed that the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 37.239.50.70 on 01/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
maximum reaction forces Rmax might be a quarter of the maximum
impact forces Pmax.
Fig. 10(c) shows the distribution of the maximum deflection
δmax. This figure shows that all the values, excluding the result
for Beam NI, were approximately linearly distributed through the
origin of the input impact energy Ei. Even though the FRP sheets
debonded in both Beams AI and CI for the drop height of H =
3 m, the deflections had similar distribution characteristics. Be-
cause the value for the case of Beam NI was significantly different
from those of Beams AI and CI, the strengthening effect of the FRP
sheets was confirmed.
Fig. 10(d) shows the distribution of the residual deflection δrs.
This figure shows the following: (1) the residual deflections of
the strengthened beams (Beams AI and CI) increased approxi-
mately linearly from the origin until the FRP sheet debonded;
(2) because Beams AI and CI reached the ultimate state due to
the FRP sheet debonding at H = 3 m, these residual deflections
were located above the linear distribution characteristics; and
(3) these values were smaller than that for Beam NI with H = 2.5 m
because the strengthening effect of the FRP sheet could be expected
until the maximum deflection of the beams was reached.
Taking the ratio of the residual deflection δrs to the maximum
deflection δmax, those for the strengthened beams were distributed
at approximately 1/2.5 until the FRP sheet debonded. Because
these ratios of the unstrengthened beam (Beam NI) and strength-
ened beams (Beams AI and CI), in which the sheet debonded,
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 10. (Color) Relationships between maximum responses and input
impact energy Ei: (a) maximum impact force Pmax; (b) maximum reaction
force Rmax; (c) maximum deflection δmax; and (d) residual deflection δrs.
© ASCE 04020036-9
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 04020036
were distributed in the region from 1/1.35 to 1/1.45, the restoring
forces for those cases were very low.
Calculating the ratios of the maximum and residual deflections
of the strengthened beams (Beams AI and CI) to those of the un-
strengthened beam (Beam NI) at H = 2.5 m showed that these val-
ues were restrained by more than 30% and 60%, respectively.
Therefore, even though the strengthening effect of the FRP sheet
for the maximum deflection δmax was similar to that at the rebar
yield load under static loading, the effect for the residual deflection
δrs was more than twice that for the maximum deflection δmax.
Thus, from these experimental results, the maximum and resid-
ual deflections clearly were approximately linearly distributed with
increasing input impact energy Ei through the origin until the
beams reached the ultimate state and the FRP sheets debonded.
These characteristics are similar to those in the case of unstrength-
ened beams (Kishi and Mikami 2012). Based on these characteris-
tics, an impact-resistant design procedure for unstrengthened RC
beams that includes the input impact energy Ei, the maximum
deflection δmax and/or residual deflection δrs, and the static load-
carrying capacities Pusc of the beam was proposed. Therefore, by
accumulating experimental and/or numerical results on the impact
response characteristics of the strengthened RC beams with various
FRP sheets, cross sections, span lengths, rebar ratios, input impact
energies, and strengthening volumes of the FRP sheets, an
impact-resistant design procedure for the strengthened RC beams
could be established.
Conclusions
In this study, to investigate the strengthening effects of FRP sheets
on the impact resistance of RC beams, low-velocity impact load
tests are performed on beams strengthened by bonding FRP sheets
to tension-side surfaces. AFRP and CFRP sheets are used in this
study to investigate the influences of the material properties of
the sheets on the behavior of RC beams under impact loading.
The results obtained in this study are as follows:
1. Although flexural cracks developed only from the lower con-
crete cover near the loading area under static loading, for impact
loading, flexural cracks developed from the lower and upper
concrete covers over the entire span area, and diagonal cracks
developed directly below the loading point;
2. The failure mode of the RC beams changed from flexural failure
to flexural-shear failure when the loading changed from static to
impact loads, regardless of whether they were strengthened with
an FRP sheet, and the strengthened beams failed with sheet de-
bonding due to the peeling action of the tip of the diagonal crack;
3. The time histories of the impact force at the beginning of colli-
sion were similar, regardless of whether the specimen was
strengthened with an FRP sheet, because the impacted concretes
had the same material properties, such as compressive strength,
elastic modulus, and mass per unit volume;
4. Under impact loading, if the axial stiffnesses of both sheets were
similar, the time histories of the impact force, reaction force, and
loading point deflection were also similar;
5. Both beams reached FRP sheet debonding at a similar input
impact energy due to the peeling action at the tip of the diagonal
crack;
6. Even though the dissipated energy due to the beam tended to be
decreased by flexural strengthening with FRP sheets, the effect
might be small. In addition, depending on the sheet materials,
the characteristics of the energy were different for each
strengthened beam;
J. Compos. Constr.
 7. Due to the flexural strengthening of the RC beams using FRP
sheets, the maximum and residual deflections of the beams
under impact loading were reduced by more than 30% and
60%, respectively; and
8. The maximum and residual deflections tended to increase line-
arly with increasing input impact energy until the sheet
debonded.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or used during the study appear in the published
article.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 37.239.50.70 on 01/28/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Af = cross-sectional area of the FRP sheet;
Ec = elastic modulus of concrete;
Edp = dissipation energy due to impact force;
Edr = dissipation energy due to reaction force;
Ef = elastic modulus of the FRP sheet;
Ei = measured input impact energy;
Es = elastic modulus of rebar;
f ′c = compressive strength of concrete;
ff = ultimate strength of the FRP sheet;
fsy = yield stress of longitudinal rebar;
ft = tensile strength of concrete;
H = set drop height of weight;
H′ = measured drop height of weight;
P = impact force;
Pmax = maximum impact force;
Pusc = static calculated flexural load-carrying capacities of the
RC beam;
R = total reaction force;
Rmax = maximum total reaction force;
t = time after the beginning of impact;
Vusc = static calculated shear load-carrying capacities of the RC
beam;
α = shear-flexural capacity ratio of the RC beam;
δ = midspan deflection of the RC beam;
δmax = maximum midspan deflection of the RC beam;
δrs = residual midspan deflection of the RC beam;
ɛ = strain;
ɛcu = ultimate compressive strain of concrete;
ɛsy = yield strain of longitudinal rebar;
ɛuf = failure strain of the FRP sheet; and
σ = stress.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2017. Guide for the design and con-
struction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
structures. ACI 440.2R-17. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Cotsovos, D. M. 2010. “A simplified approach for assessing the load-
carrying capacity of reinforced concrete beams under concentrated
load applied at high rates.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 37 (8): 907–917.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010.01.005.
Erki, M. A., and U. Meier. 1999. “Impact loading of concrete beams exter-
nally strengthened with CFRP laminates.” J. Compos. Constr. 3 (3):
117–124. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(1999)3:3(117).
© ASCE 04020036-10
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(5): 04020036
Fibex. 2014. Material properties for unidirectional AFRP sheets. Tokyo: Fibex.
Huo, J., Z. Li, L. Zhao, J. Liu, and Y. Xiao. 2018. “Dynamic behavior of
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer strengthened reinforced concrete
beams without stirrups under impact loading.” ACI Struct. J. 115 (3):
775–787.
JIS (Japanese Industrial Standard). 2008. Plastics—Determination of
tensile properties—Part 5; Test conditions for unidirectional
fibre-reinforced plastic composites. JIS K 7165. Tokyo: JIS.
JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers). 2007. Standard specification for
concrete structures-2007 design. Tokyo: JSCE.
Kaklauskas, G., D. Bač inskas, and R. Šitnkus. 1999. “Deflection estimates
of reinforced concrete beams by different methods.” Statyba 5 (4): 258–
264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13921525.1999.10531473.
Kantar, E., and Ö. Anıl. 2012. “Low velocity impact behavior of concrete
beam strengthened with CFRP strip.” Steel Compos. Struct. 12 (3):
207–230. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2012.12.3.207.
Kishi, N., and H. Mikami. 2012. “Empirical formulas for designing rein-
forced concrete beams under impact loading.” ACI Struct. J. 109 (4):
509–519.
Kishi, N., H. Mikami, and Y. Kurihashi. 2001. “An experimental study on
load-carrying behavior of flexural strengthened RC beams with AFRP
sheet.” [In Japanese.] J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. 683 (V-52): 47–64.
Kishi, N., H. Mikami, and Y. Kurihashi. 2002. “An experimental study on
flexural load-carrying behavior and prediction of failure mode for RC
beams strengthened with FRP sheet.” [In Japanese.] J. Jpn. Soc. Civ.
Eng. 711 (V-56): 91–109.
Kishi, N., H. Mikami, and Y. Kurihashi. 2016. “Experimental study on
flexural load-carrying behavior of reinforced RC beams with pre-
tensioned AFRP sheet.” [In Japanese.] J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng., Ser. E2
72 (2): 165–180. https://doi.org/10.2208/jscejmcs.72.165.
Kishi, N., G. F. Zhang, and H. Mikami. 2005. “Numerical cracking and de-
bonding analysis of RC beams reinforced with FRP sheet.” J. Compos.
Constr. 9 (6): 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0268(2005)9:6(507).
Pham, T. M., and H. Hao. 2016a. “Impact behavior of FRP-strengthened
RC beams without stirrups.” J. Compos. Constr. 20 (4): 04016011.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000671.
Pham, T. M., and H. Hao. 2016b. “Review of concrete structures strength-
ened with FRP against impact loading.” Structures 7: 59–70. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2016.05.003.
Pham, T. M., and H. Hao. 2017. “Behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer-
strengthened reinforced concrete beams under static and impact
loads.” Int. J. Protective Struct. 8 (1): 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177
/2041419616658730.
Ritchie, P. A., D. A. Thomas, L. W. Lu, and G. M. Conelly. 1991.
“External reinforcement of concrete beams using reinforced plastics.”
ACI Struct. J. 88 (4): 490–500.
Saadatmanesh, H., and M. R. Ehsami. 1991. “RC beams strengthened with
GFRP plates. I: Experimental study.” J. Struct. Eng. 117 (11): 3417–
3433. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:11(3417).
Tang, T., and H. Saadatmanesh. 2003. “Behavior of concrete beams
strengthened with fiber-reinforced polymer laminates under impact
loading.” J. Compos. Constr. 7 (3): 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:3(209).
Tang, T., and H. Saadatmanesh. 2005. “Analytical and experimental stud-
ies of fiber-reinforced polymer-strengthened concrete beams under im-
pact loading.” ACI Struct. J. 102 (1): 139–149.
Toray. 2019. TORAYCA cloth product data. Tokyo: Toray.
Triantafillou, T. C. 1998. “Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
beams using epoxy-bonded FRP composites.” ACI Struct. J. 95 (2):
107–115.
Yilmaz, T., and Ö. Anil. 2015. “Low velocity impact behavior of shear de-
ficient RC beam strengthened with CFRP strips.” Steel Compos. Struct.
19 (2): 417–439. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2015.19.2.417.
Yilmaz, T., N. Kiraç, Ö. Anil, R. T. Erdem, and C. Sezer. 2018. “Low ve-
locity impact behavior of RC two way slab strengthening with CFRP
strips.” Constr. Build. Mater. 186: 1046–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.027.
J. Compos. Constr.