ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 105-S05
Experimental Study of Intermediate Crack Debonding
in Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strengthened Beams
by Owen Rosenboom and Sami H. Rizkalla
Inteiface crack propagation of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)-
strengthened reinforced or prestressed concrete flexural members
is often initiated from the toes of the intermediate cracks and
p ropagates toward the supports. This type of FRP delamination is
commonly tenned intennediate crack (IC) debonding alld is common
for flexural members with high shear span-to-depth ratios. This
paper describes an experimental program where six 30ft (9.14 m)
lOllg prestressed concrete bridge girders were tested monotonically
to fail ure to evallla te the bond characteristics of carbon FRP
(CFRP) strengthening systems. Four of the beams Jailed due to Ie
debondillg, one failed due to FRP rupture, alld the ul1strengtitened
control girderfailed due to concrete crushillg. The results of this
study were combined with the results from other tests ill the literature
to create a useful experimelllal database. The database was used
to assess the analytical models currellliy available in the national
code documems. The analysis indicated that the current models do
not correlate well with the experimental database and the needfor
a new analytical model is highlighted. This paper briefly discusses
a proposed model for Ie debondin g that predicts the measured
values tested by olher researchers well.
Keywords: bond; cracking; debonding; fiber.rcinforced concrete; prestressed.
INTRODUCTION
Strengthening of existing structures using lightweight
composite materials is becoming widespread due to their
ease of installation and competitive pricing compared with
traditional methods. Reinforced or prestressed concrete
beams strengthened with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
materials often fail in flexure due to concrete crushing or
FRP rupture. I This type of failure can be well predicted
using cracked section analysis of the strengthened
section using the specified FRP material properties from the
manufacturer 2 A detailed examination of the flexural
behavior of prestressed concrete beams strengthened with
FRP materials can be fo und elsewhere. 2 The behavior under
fatigue loading ofFRP strengthened beams is often controlled by
the stress range induced in the internal steel reinforcement,
which should be kept within presctibed limits 3
The presence of an FRP strengthening material bonded to
the tension face of a reinforced concrete beam will restrict
but not prevent the opening of intermediate flexural or shear
cracks due to applied loading. Displacements at the toe of the
flexural cracks create stress concentrations at the interface of
the plate and the beam, leading to the development of localized
interface cracking. At higher load levels, the interface cracks
propagate between the flexural cracks and move toward the
end supports for a simply su pported beam as shown in
Fig. 1. This type of FRP delamination is commonly tenned
intennediate crack (IC) debonding whether the propagation
is from intermediate flexural cracks or intennediate shear
cracks. It is a failure mode common in structures with: I) high
shear span-to-depth ratios; 2) FRP strengthening with low
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2008
TECHNICAL PAPER
axial stiffness per unit width; 3) strengthening plate tennination
in regions near the support; or 4) anchorage details. Prestressed
concrete beams are prone to IC debonding failures because of
their high shear span-to-depth ratios. They will also have
slightly improved bond behavior compared with reinforced
concrete members due to the existing compressive strain in
the beam soffit. This proves to be beneficial because the IC
debonding propagation is typically due to failure in the
concrete sutface material. Conversely. beams with short
shear span-Io-depth ratios or strengthening plates with high
stiffness or thickness may experience debonding propagating
from the plate end (pE debonding), which has been examined in
many analytical studies.4-7 Debonding miti%ation techniques
have been explored by several researchers8-1 and have been
codified in China. II
This study has three main objectives: I) to create a
description of an experimental program designed to assess
the bond behavior of CFRP strengthening systems for
prestressed concrete; 2) assemble an experimental data-
base of IC debonding failures from sources in the literature;
and 3) use the measured values and the database to assess the
accuracy of the current models of the national code documents
in predicting IC debonding failure. The accuracy of a
proposed model by the authors is also presented.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This study provides unique data on the bond behavior
using large-scale 30 ft (9. 14 m) long prestressed concrete
btidge girders strengthened with FRP, which complements
earlier studies using small-scale beams. The experimental results
presented in this paper, along with the assembled database, are
useful for the development of rational models and design
procedures that can be used by ACI Committee 440 12 to provide
up-to-date guidelines for the repair and strengthening of
concrete structures using FRP.
Toe of intermec:l(ate ne:wral crack
Fig. i - Intermediate crack debonding process.
ACI Structural ioumal, V. 105. No. I. January-February 2008.
MS No. S-2006-358.R2 received February 20, 2007, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright (!.I 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved.
including the making of copies unless pennission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author"s closure, if any, will be published in the November-
December 2008 ACt Srrnctllml JOU/7/01 if the discussion is received by July 1,2008.
41
 bridges in Eastern North Carolina. The 30 ft (9.14 m) long
ACI member Owen Rosenboom is (I PosI·DOCloral Fellow at Hong Kong PolYlechnic
U"iversity, HOllg KOIIg, China. H~ receil'~d his PhD from North CarolblQ State girders were prestressed with ten 250 ksi (1724 MFa) 7/16 in.
University, Raleigh. NC, in 2006. He is a member of ACI Comnril/u 440, Fiber·Reiliforred (11.1 mm) diameter stress-relieved seven-wire prestressing
Polymer Rein/arcement, and Joint ACI·ASCE Commiuee 423, Prestressed Concrete.
strands. Five strands were in each web, the top three of which
Sami H. Rizkalla, FACI, is Distinguished Professor of Cil'il alld COllslmc/joll were harped with a hold-down point located at the midspan.
Engineering in Ihe Departmerrr of Cil'il, COllstmclioll alld Ellrirollmelltal Engineerillg, Details of the girder reinforcing are shown in Fig. 2. Two
North Carolina State Ulliversity. He is also rhe Director of the COl/structed Facilities
lAboratory alld NSF IIUCRC in Repair oj StnICIIlrt!S alld Bridges at North Carolilla
types of CFRP material was used in this research: precured
State Unil'ersily. He is a member oj ACI Committees 118. Use oj Compllters; 440, strips and wet lay-up sheets. Girders EB IS, EB ISB, and
Fiber Reilljorred Polymer Reinforcement; £803. FlI ClIlty Network Coordilwting EB 1SB2 were all strengthened with one 2 in. (51 mm)
Comminee; alld Joillt ACI-ASCE Commil1~~s 423. Prestresud Concrete. and 550.
PTl'C(lst Concrete StruCtllft'S. precured strip per web. Girder EB8SB was strengthened
with two 2 in. (51 mm) sheets per web and Girder EB9SB
was strengthened with four 2 in. (51 mm) sheets per web. All
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM of the strengthened girders had debonding mitigation,
A total of six girders were tested as part of an experimental consisting of 10 transverse CFRP wet lay-up V-wraps (five
study. Three girders were strengthened with precured carbon on each web) on one side only to promote debonding on the
FRP (CFRP) strips (EB IS, EB ISB, and EB ISB2) and two instrumented side of the girder, except Girder EB IS, which
girders were strengthened with CFRP wet lay-up sheets had the same debonding mitigation placed throughout the
(EB8SB and EB9SB). An unstrengthened control girder (CS) length of the girder. Details of the CFRP strengthening are
was also tested to examine the effectiveness of the various shown in Fig. 2 and summarized in Table I. Four of the
strengthening schemes used in this investigation. Table 1 beams were purposefully designed without V-wrap
provides a summary of all six tested girders. Detailed anchorage on one side to study the IC debonding failure
information on the test results can be found elsewhere. 2 mechanism and not to achieve specific increases in load-
carrying capacity. All materials were tested to determine
Test girders their stress-strain behavior in accordance with the appropriate
The precast prestressed C-channel type bridge girders ASTM standard and summarized results are shown in Table 1.
tested in this study were obtained from two decommissioned
Test setup and instrumentation
Table 1-Summary of material properties All girders were tested using a 490 kN MTS hydraulic
and experimental results actuator mounted to a steel frame placed at the midspan of
the girder. The load was applied using a steel plate
Speciman
designation CS EBIS EBISB EBISB2 EB8SB EB9SB approximately 10 x 20 in. (250 x 510 mm [the same area as
Concrete strength,
the design loading area specified by AASHTO))u To
10,720 8890 5410 5180 7930 6720
psi (MPa) · (73.9) (61.3) (37.3) (35.7) (54.7) (46.3)
Modulus of elast icity 23.2 23.6 23.6 10.8 10.8 m
of FRP, Msi (GPa) - (160) ( 163) (163) (74.4) (74.4)
Ultimate strength of 400 383 383 110 110
FRP, ksi (MPa) ' - (275S) (2640) (2640) (758) (75S)

--- -.-
.-
Rupture strain of FRP.
• - 17.300 16,300 16,300 11.100 11,100 ow o•
~m1m
Area ofFRP, 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.34 0.68
in. 2 (mro 2) - (130) (130) (130) (2IS) (437) Transvme Fflp U·WllIp

Yield strength of 207 207 212 2 12 2 10 210

prestressing, ksi (Mfa). ( 1430) (1430) ( 1464) ( 1464) (145 1) (1451)
Uhimate strength of 230 230 263 263 263
263
prestressing, ksi (1vlPa)· (1590) (1590) (18 12) (1812) (1812) (1812) I < - I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ " " -''''''HI'!''-_ _ _ _-l
_ _

C._ __ _ __ _ _ _ " . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --l

Cracking load , 12.6 12.6 13.0 12.9 12.5 13.0
kips (kN) (56) (56) (57.S) (57.6) (55.6) (57.8)
Prestress losses. (0
Effective prestress,
kips (kN)
Ultimate load ,
kips (kN)
15.3
16.0

33.2
16.2

39.6
15.9

(71.2) (72.1)
36.4
(147.7) (176.1) ( 162)
15.4
16.0
(7 1.2)
16.6
15.9
(70.6)
36.2
( 161)
19.3
15.2
(67.8)
34.5
(1 53.5)
17.0
15.7
(69.S)
40.1
(l7S)
G!rMrEB1S

GirdetEB1SB. E91S112
g
S1x1 .27 nvn
CfRP plate

Percent increase in
capacity - 19.3 9.2 8.6 3.6 20.2

D
G!rdtI, EB8SB
Ultimate concrete
compressive strain, 3000 N/A 1186 1301 1262 1163
~m1m
2·51X1.07 mm
Ultimate CFRP CFRP sheet!
- 12,200 9960 10,670 9490 86S0
tensile strain, ~mlm
G!rdIIrEB9SB
Explmaterial test
tensile strain in CFRP
- 0.71 0.6 1 0.65 0.86 0.79

IC then
Failure mode t CC IC IC IC Rupture 4-S1xl.07mm
rupture CFRPshee!s

From malcnailcsling.
tcc = concrete crushing; mplure = rupture of CFRP near midspan; and IC = inlenncdialc Fig. 2-Girder reinforcing and CFRP strengthening
crack debonding. . configurations (Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.).

42 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2008

simulate field conditions, the girder was supported at both
ends on neoprene pad, which in tum rested on a steel plate.
The width of the neoprene pad was 8.5 in. (216 rom), which
provided a clear span of 28.6 ft (8712 rom) for each tested
girder. The girders were tested first up to the cracking load,
unloaded, and reloaded to failure. This allowed observation
of the crack reopening load, which aided in the computation
of the effective prestress force. I The displacement behavior
of the girders during testing was monitored using two string
potentiometers placed at the midspan and two linear potentiom-
eters to measure vertical displacement over the supports. The
compressive strain in the concrete was measured using a
combination of PI gauges (a strain gauge mounted to a spring
plate) and two electric resistance strain gauges located at
midspan. PI gauges were placed at various locations at the
level of the lowest prestressing strand to measure the crack
width and to determine the strain profile along the depth of the
girder. The tensile strain profile in the CFRP reinforcement was
measured using numerous electric resistance strain gauges
placed at various locations along the length of the girder.
Girder EB8SB failed due to rupture of the FRP at a load of
34.5 kips (153.4 kN), slightly lower than Girders EBISB and
EBlSB2, which were strengthened with the same axial stiffness
of FRP. The rupture occurred in the longitudinal CFRP at the
location of the first V-wrap. Just before failure, cracking was
heard at the FRP-concrete inte.rface near the midspan
representing localized debonding around the flexural cracks.
Inspection after the test revealed that the interface failure
plane before rupture was at the FRP-concrete interface in the
concrete surface layer. This failure plane developed between
the concrete teeth fanned between the flexural cracks at
midspan. The maximum recorded strain in the FRP before
rupture was 9490 !lm/m similar to Girders EB ISB and
EB1SB2, but much closer to the rupture strain measured
from material testing.
Girder EB9SB failed due to Ie debonding followed by
FRP rupture at a load level of 40.1 kips (178.3 kN). Inspection
after the test revealed that the failure plane was in the FRP-
concrete interface in the concrete surface layer throughout

Test results
Before strengthening, the prestressed concrete girders
used in this research were similar. Girders EBIS, EBISB,
EB ISB2, and EB8SB were strengthened with approximately
the same axial stiffness EtAfof FRP material and, therefore,
perfonned much the same before and after cracking and after
yielding of the prestressing strands. Because only Girder EB IS
was strengthened with debonding mitigation throughout the
entire length, this indicates that the presence of the V-wraps
did not influence flexural cracking. Girder EB9SB was
strengthened with approximately double the CFRP axial
stiffness of the other girders; therefore, the stiffness was greater
both before and after yielding of the prestressing strands.
Spacing of the cracks around midspan was approximately
8 in. (203 rom) for the control girder (CS) and approximately
6 in. (152 mm) or smaller for the strengthened girders, which
also had numerous other branching cracks around the toes of
the flexural cracks.
Girder EB IS failed due to IC debonding at a load of
39.6 kips (176.1 kN), a 19.3% increase in ultimate load
compared with the control girder (CS). The IC debonding
occurred rapidly and developed despite the presence of
V-wraps throughout the length of the girder. The failure
interface was in the concrete interface at midspan, but was
difficult to discern between the V-wraps in other locations.
The maximum measured strain of the CFRP material at
midspan was 12,200 !lm/m, which is 71 % of the rupture
strain as determined from material tests. Girders EB1SB and
EB ISB2 failed due to IC debonding at measured strain
values of 9960 and 10,670 !lm/m, lower than the value for
Girder EBIS. This indicates that the presence of the V-wraps
throughout the length of the girder delayed the IC debonding
failure. For both girders, the debonding initiated near the
midspan on the side without V-wraps and propagated rapidly
towards the supports. Initially, the failure occurred at the
FRP-concrete interface in the concrete surface layer and then
shifted to the CFRP-adhesive interface outside of the heavily
cracked region. Figure 3 shows the rapid debonding propagation
observed during the test of Girder EB I SB. The measured
ultimate loads were nearly the same for both girders and
represented approximately an 8% decrease from Girder
EBIS with V-wraps along the entire span. Fig. 3-JC debondingfailure of Girder EBlSB.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2008 43

the debonded length, except for near midspan where the Discussion of test results
formation of small concrete teeth between the branching This section discusses the structural behavior of the six
cracks led to damage at the CFRP-adhesive interface before girders tested as part of the experimental study. A summary
failure. The maximum measured strain at midspan was of the results is provided in Table 1.
8680 f.lmlm, lower than the other strengthened girders. Girder EB IS had debonding mitigation placed along the
entire length of the girder, which reduced the propensity for
Mklspan DeftKt!on (mm) debonding failure and increased the ultimate load and
0 100 150 200
50
45000 r-----------------------~----~~ "" displacement at failure due to IC debonding. For the other
strengthened girders, the ultimate displacements were lower
EB9SB
40000 EB15 180 than the control girder due to premature debonding failures,
35000 160 which was designed intentionally to study the failure
140 mechanism. The applied load-versus-midspan displacement
cs
;[JOOOO is shown in Fig. 4 for the all the strengthened girders, along
,,25000 EB1SB, EB1SB2, and EB8SB 12"~ ~
with the unstrengthened girder. The girder with debonding
100 .9
"i 20000
- 80 i mitigation (EB 1S) showed considerably more ductility than
the other strengthened girders. The girder with the largest
't ,SOOO -ContrO(CS)
f -EB1S 60 axial stiffness of FRP (EB9SB) achieved the highest
10000 Bond 1· EB1SB measured load value, which is slightly higher than Girder EB IS
Bon<l2·E81SB2 40 -
SOOO Bond 3 • EB8SB - and 20.2% higher than the unstrengthened girder.

0
~
- - . Bond 4 - EB9SB
____________________________ _"' O " From the continuous monitoring of strain gauges attached
to the CFRP material, the strain profile along the length of
0 2 4 6
Mh!spaD DeIIedJoII (in)
• 10
the girder was established for various load levels. The strain
profile for Girder EB 1SB is shown in Fig. 5, where the dark
Fig. 4-Applied load versus midspan displacement. lines represent, the load of flexural cracking and debonding
failure. The figure indicates that the tensile strain in the
I..erVh akJ'g beram(rmt CFRP material at service load levels, which is approximately
o 1000 2(XX) 3COO 4000 5000 600J 7(xx) !OX) 9CXXl the cracking load, are considerably below the strains
12r-------~--~------~--~----------~
measured at debonding failure. The debonding mitigation
provided on one side of Girder EB ISB (the right side of the
figure) indicates that the transverse U-wraps did not affect
the tensile strain profile of the longitudinal CFRP; therefore,
in subsequent tests, the strain gauges were grouped on the
side without U-wraps. Girders EB ISB2 and EB8SB had
similar axial stiffnesses of longitudinal CFRP resulting in
similar strain distributions. The strain profile of Girder
EB9SB, which had twice the axial stiffness of the other
girders tested, is shown in Fig. 6. Comparing the strain
profiles of Girders EB ISB and EB9SB suggests that
externally bonded wet lay-up type systems can have a
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 slightly more uneven (or jagged) distribution of strain due to
length along beam (ft) the conformation of tbe strengthening material to the soffit of
Fig. 5-Tensile strain in CFRP versus length along girder the beam or a result of the increased amount of instrumentation.
for Girder EBlSB. The interface shear stress [,(x)) along the length of the
girder corresponding to the measured tensile strain in the
CFRP can be evaluated using the following equation
"""' ..... """'(nn!
10
0 500 1000 1500
= 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

(I)
• G oobondillg r.1lur1!

.-:;. •7
r- . •
I
I "CI
where dldx[ep(x)) is the change in FRP strain along the
0. 6 length of the beam x and Kp is the axial stiffness of the CFRP
]
material per unit width. Based on the slope of the measured
i 5
tensile strain and the axial stiffness of the material, the interface
'"•
.,S
4

3
shear stress along the length of the beam can be determined .
The interface shear stress versus length for Girders EB ISB
2 · and EB9SB is shown in Fig. 7 and 8, respectively. The more
Mids~ of beam
uniform distribution of measured strain for the externally
bonded FRP precured strips provided positive interface
shear stress distribution over half the girder with a maximum
o 2 4 6
Length along beam (ft)
• 10 12 14
value of 145 psi (1.0 MPa) as shown in Fig. 7. The interface
shear stress distribution for Girder EB9SB has a much more
Fig. 6-Tensile strain in CFRP versus length along girder variable distribution with a maximum positive value of
for Girder EB9SB. approximately 340 psi (2.34 MPa) and a negative value of

44 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2008

100 psi (-0.69 MPa). The large variability is mainly due to
complex cracking behavior of reinforced/prestressed concrete
and the resulting stress concentrations occurring around the
toes of the flexural cracks. The distribution of the interface
shear stress, in particular Fig. 7, indicates that the
maximum interface shear stress at debonding failure is likely
to occur at the location along the girder corresponding to first
yielding of the prestressing strands, in this case, approximately
10.5 ft (2790 mm) from the support.
The average measured debonding strain for Girders EBISB,
EBISB2, and EB8SB that were strengthened with the same
axial stiffness of FRP was approximately 10,000 ~rnIm as
shown in Table I. Using simple cracked section analysis
(described in detail elsewhere I) that satisfies equilibrium and
compatibility of the section for the strengthened prestressed
concrete girders and deb on ding strain of 10,000 ~rnIm,
the load versus deflectiori behavior was predicted as shown
in Fig. 9. The figure indicates that if the debonding strain is
known, the behavior of the girders can be well predicted.
INTERMEDIATE CRACK DEBONDING DATABASE
There have been numerous experimental studies examining
the intermediate crack debonding phenomenon. In construction
of the IC debonding database presented herein, reported test
results were not included if they had any of the following
characteristics:
I. Beams less than 5.9 in. (150 mm) in depth;
large drop-off in strain that occurs just away from the CFRP
directly below the loading location.
The variation of the reported debonding strain value could
also be due to the time at which the strain was measured. In
some cases, researchers report the strain at the initiation of
debonding and other just before IC debonding failure, a
difference that could be as much as 230%.14 Due to the wide
variation in reported debonding strain, some have tried back-
calculation of the debonding strains using strain compatibili~
and equilibrium and the measured values for applied load 1 ;
however the results of this exercise were inconclusive.
Out of a total of 38 experimental studies, only 17 had one
or more specimens satisfying the previous requirements,
resulting in a total of 47 beams or slabs included in the data-
base. Including the four prestressed concrete C-cbannels
tested as part of this research that satisfy the requirements,
there are a total of 51 beams or slabs reported in the data-
base. The selected members represent a wide cross section of
shapes and $izes, with depths varying from the lower limit of
5.9 in. (150 mm) up to 32.5 in. (825 mm). There are five T-beam
sections and spans ranging from 59 to 360 in. (1500 to
9140 mm). The shear span-to-depth ratio of the tested beams
varies from 2.65 (near the lower prescribed limit) to 10.04. The
reinforcement ratio varies from 0.34 to 2.7%. Some of the
beams were heavily reinforced for shear, and others had no
_ _ Inn;
~

2. Beams with a shear span-to-depth ratio less than 2.5 ; o 500 lOCO 1500 2(XX) 2SOO 9000 3500 4000 4SlO

3. Plate-end debonding;
2.50
4. Beams with anchorage details;
"" ;""~
5. Studies where no debonding strains were provided; and
6. Cantilever beams or slabs, beam-end, or other specimens.
It should be noted that most of the reported strains were
~""
300

0-C 2.00

1.50 ';
'l
,.
....-.
200
1
~
~ ""
measured from electrical resistance strain gauges placed on 1.00 ...
the outside surface ofthe CFRP after strengthening normally :
within the constant moment region or high moment regions.
Due to induced stress concentrations on the externally
OJ

I~
100

~ -- ~ -0/
f)
'If'
0.50
~
0.00 ~
~

bonded plates due to flexural cracking, these reported strains -50

'J ~
could vary significantly, even if they are placed very close -100
-0.50

together. For in the test configuration of four-point bending, -1.00

the most reliable reported debonding strains are those that
are averaged over the constant moment region. For the test
o 2 4
• • 10 12 14

configuration using three-point bending, the most reliable

value is the highest recorded value at midspan due to the Fig. 8- Interface shear stress versus length along girder for
Girder EB9SB.
~ _ _ Inn;
fItipwl DefIedion (rmt
0 :me 3500 4000 4500 o ~ ~ ro 00 ~ _ ~ ~ ®
500 1= 1500
"'" "'" . 1.9)

200
~~ l
35.000 F.~"'mod."",,,·'0000""'m"",,,,,' ~ '1'::
.
~
S ) ::
125
gJrderCL 30.000 .
AlSO 1.DOl ?" ES6S8
! l
i I !
25.000
• . .r<.r<
~ ~~
and E81SB2 ~oo ~
1100 ·"1 i
20.000

8
~
~
•.,J ... 15.000

'1O.~ J A' _ - EB1S8 - - --.

EB1SB2 I
00
I
50
= 5.000 II! - E88SB I
-:- FII!X!!...~ Mod.!l .

,LL. _ _ _ __
0
0 2
• , • 10 12 ,. 0.00
. , 3
o
length along beam (ft) Midsp;ln Detle<;tion (in)

Fig. 7-/nterface shear stress versus length along girder for Fig. 9- Analysis versus experimental for Girders EBISB,
Girder EB1SB. EB/SB2, and EB8SB.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2008 45

shear reinforcement. The database includes three different
FRP materials: CFRP, aramid FRP (AFRP), and glass FRP
(GFRP), which were installed using both the wet lay-up
method and externally bonding a precured laminate using
structural adhesive. The properties of the FRP vary signifi-
cantly and represent both the laminate and fiber properties for
wet lay-up systems. Several assumptions were made in the
construction of the database: 1) if the depth to the tensile
steel d was not specified, then it was assumed to be 0.9h
(where h is the height of section); and 2) if the shear modulus of
the adhesive was not provided it was assumed to be 145 ksi
(1000 MPa). The IC debonding database is given in Tables 2
and 3. A full review of all 38 studies can be found elsewhere, 1
but the studies included in the database are referenced
herein. I , I4-30
COMPARISON OF EXISTING MODELS
This section evaluates the existing national and international
code equations currently available to predict the tensile
strain at IC debonding. The strain in the beam soffit before
strengthening was included in the calculations for the
reinforced or prestressed concrete members, although this
value was of a small magnitude.
ACI Committee 440 12 proposes the use of a bond reduction
factor Km multiplier to determine Ihe debonding strain 0db in
tenns of the ultimate rupture strain €f u of the material to give
the design debonding strain of the material. The value of Km
depends on the axial stiffness nEff of the FRP material per
unit width and the ultimate rupture strain of the material.
Km = _1_ ( 1_ nE& '\ ,s 0.90 for nE&,s 180, 000 (2 )
60o!, 360, OOOJ
otherwise
(3)
The predicted debonding strain based on the aforemen-
tioned equations correJates poorly to the measured
debonding strain from the database as shown in Fig. 10. The
prediction with the reduction factor of 'I' = 0.85 is also

Table 2-IC debonding database-Part 1

Longi-
Test Shear Concrete Bar Tension Yield tudinal Ply No. Rupture FRP
Refer- Height, Width, span, span, strength, size, steel strength, FRP Modulus, thickness. of Width, strain Failure strain,
No. cocc no. Specimen mm mm mm mm MP. mm number MP. type MP. nun plies mm ~ m1m type "m1m
1 1 EB1SB 432 127 8928 4337 6 1.4 Varies Yaries 124 1 CFRP 164,785 1. 194 1 102 17,000 IC 10,600
2 1 EB1SB2 432 127 8928 4 337 61.4 Varies Varies 124 1 CFRP 164,785 1.1 94 1 102 17,000 IC 10,000
3 1 EB8SB 432 127 8928 4337 61.4 Varies Varies 1241 CFRP 95,834 2.032 I 102 10,000 Rupture 9500
4 1 EB9SB 432 127 8928 4337 61.4 Yaries Varies 1241 CFRP 95,834 2.032 2 102 10,000 IC 8680
5 14 UI- 1 155 203 2000 1000 22. 1 10 2 346 CFRP 257,000 0. 165 1 50 17,600 IC 5508
6 14 111-2 156.5 199 2000 1000 20.9 10 2 373 CFRP 257,000 0.165 1 100 17,600 1C 7692
7 14 111-4 153.5 150.1 2000 1000 22. 1 10 2 35 1 CFRP 257,000 0. 165 1 50 17,600 IC 11,29 1
8 15 B 455 205 4880 1982 35 25 2 456 GFRP 37,200 6.00 I 152 10,753 IC 5200

A3.1 CFRP
9 16 300 140 4800 1800 24.9 16 2 435 152,000 1.20 1 80 15,789 IC 7000
strips
BF-041
10 17 300 150 3000 1500 33 10 2 449 CFRP 165 ,000 1.20 I 40 17,000 IC 5800
O.5S
11 17 B F-06/S 300 150 3000 1500 32.5 12 2 490 CFRP 165,000 1.20 I 80 17,000 IC 5400
12 17 B -08/S 300 150 3000 800 33.8 12 3 490 CFRP 165,000 1.20 1 80 17,000 IC 5000
13 17 BO-0 8/S 300 150 3000 800 36.5 12 3 490 CFRP 165,000 1.20 1 80 17,000 IC 5500

14 18 BF2 450 200 CFRP

3800 1250 36.5 16 4 590 159,000 1.20 I 100 18,500 IC 6700
strips
15 18 BF3 450 CFRP
200 3800 1250 34.9 16 4 590 159,000 1.20 1 100 18,500 IC 7200
strips
16 18 BF4 450 200 CFRP
3800 1250 30.8 16 4 590 159,000 1.20 1 100 18,500 IC 6800
strips
17 18 BF5 CFRP
450 200 3800 1250 37.4 16 4 590
strips
159,000 1.20 1 100 18,500 IC 5700

18 18 BF8 CFRP
450 200 3800 1250 39.4 16 2 590 159,000 1.20 1 100 18,500 IC 5800
strips
19 19 A5 150 200 21 00 750 54 10 2 575 CFRP 127,000 0.80 I 150 12,100 IC 7200
20 19 B3 150 200 2100 750 54 10 2 575 CFRP 127,000 0 .40 1 150 12,100 IC 9700
21 19 B6 150 200 2 100 750 54 10 2 575 CFRP 127,000 1.20 1 150 12,1 00 IC 5500
22 20 C-3 CFRP
254 152 2440 83 9 55.2 16 2 4 15 49,250 1.90 1 152 14,000 IC 6700
sheets
23 20 C- 1 254 152 CFRP
2440 839 55.2 16 2 4 15 28,333 0. 13 1 152 12,000 Rupture 11 ,000
sheets
24 21 BI 200 150 1500 550 24.96 8 3 288 CFRP 235,000 0.11 I 150 14,894 IC 7834
25 21 B2 200 150 1500 550 24.96 8 3 288 CFRP 235,000 0. 11 I 150 14,894 IC 7100
26 21 B3 200 150 1500 550 24.96 8 3 288 CFRP 235,000 0 .1 1 1 150 14,894 IC 5868
Note. I m. =25.4 mm, I lest =6.895 MPa

46 AC I Structural Journal/J an uary-Feb ruary 2008

unconservative over a wide range ofFRP axial stiffnesses as
shown in Fig. 10. The ACI equation is unconservative for
low FRP stiffnesses and becomes s li ghtly more conservative
as the FRP stiffness increases.
The Concrete Society31 and the Federation Internationale
du Beton (jib)32 have s imil ar analytical models for IC
debonding based on a fracture mechanics approach with
different calibration constants. The debonding strain Edb
according to the fib code is
(4)
where a is a reduction factor accounting for the influence of
inclined cracks on the bond strength (0. = 1.0 for beams with
sufficient shear reinforcing and for slabs, otherwise 0. = 0.9).
The value ke is a factor accounting for the state of compaction of
concrete (ke = 0.67 for FRP bonded to concrete with low
compaction, for example, faces not in contact with form work
during casting, otherwise ke = 1.0). The value c i can be
determined experimenlally or can be setequal to 0.64. The
value of kb is a width factor equal to
2- '2
b, I
kb = 1.06 --b-~ (5)
I+~
400
where bl/be ~ 0.33 andJ,' is the mean value of the concrete
tensile strength. The prediction according to the fib equation
and the collected database is g iven in Fig. II. The comparison
suggests that the debonding prediction becomes less
conservative as the axial stiffness of the FRP decreases. It

Table 3-IC debonding database-Part 2

Longi-
Test Shear Concrete Bar Tension Yield IUdinal No. Rupture FRP
Refer- Speci- Height. Width. span . span. strength, size, steel strength, FRP Modulus. Ply thick- of Width, strain, Failure strain,
No. ence no. men mm mm mm mm MPa mm number MPa type MPa ness. mm plies mm ~m1m type ~m1m
27 22 BI 356 203 2690 1065 37.2 16 2 440 CFRP 230,000 0.17 2 75 15,000 IC 7200
28 22 CI 406 203 3000 1220 35.1 16 2 440 CFRP 62,000 1.04 2 50 12,000 ' IC 7600
29 22 C2 406 203 3000 1220 35.1 16 2 440 CFRP 62,000 1.04 2 50 12.000 IC 7000
30 22 D2 406 203 3000 1220 37.2 16 2 440 CFRP 155.000 1.19 I 50 14,000 IC 4800
31 23 B-083m 300 150 4200 1400 34.4 12 2 436 CFRP 65,400 0.38 3 150 15.000 IC 6810
32 23 8-08S 300 150 4200 1400 32.3 12 2 493 CFRP 172,000 1.20 1 50 17.000 IC 6170
33 23 8-08M 300 150 4200 1400 37.3 12 2 493 CFRP 220.000 1.40 I 120 12,400 IC 5060

24 A-C1 250 CFRP 14,800 Rupture 14,800

34 150 2600 1050 31.5 16 2 407 230,000 0.17 I 130
sheets

24 A-AT 250 150 2600 1050 AFRP 130 IC 17.342

35 31.5 16 2 407 78,500 0.38 I 29.900
sheets
24 AFRP
36 A-AK 250 150 2600 1050 31.5 16 2 407 118,000 0.29 I 130 17.500 IC 13.825
sheets
24 8 -CI 400 CFRP
37 150 2600 1050 31.5 16 2 407 sheets 230.000 0.17 2 130 14,800 IC 8880

24 B-C2 400 150 2600 1050 CFRP

38 31.5 16 2 407 sheets 440,000 0.19 1 130 5500 Rupture 5500

39 24 B-AT 400 150 2600 1050 31.5 16 407 AFRP 130 [C 10,465
2 78,500 0.38 2 29.900
sheets

40 24 8-AK 400 150 2600 1050 31.5 16 2 407 AFRP 0.29 2 130 17,500 [C
sheets 118.000 10.675

41 25 V2 180 120 CPRP

1800 750 41 8 2 533 240.000 0.111 2 70 15.000 1C 8070
sheets
CFRP
42 25 V4 180 [20 1800 750 41 8 2 533 HM 200,000 1.4 1 20 11.000 IC 6870
strips

43 26 B3 700 37 CFRP 1 240 [4.000 [C

350 6000 2500 20 4 557 160,000 1.40 9800
strips
44 27 200 CFRP [C
85 150 2000 750 42.9 10 2 531 235.000 0.22 1 150 17,872 10.489
sheets
45 27 B6 200 CFRP [C
150 2000 750 42.9 10 2 531
sheets
235.000 0.22 [ 150 17.872 9399
46 28 LI 250 150 4537 2269 23.3 12.7 3 429 CFRP 155,000 1.40 I 25 18,000 [C 5300
47 28 L2 250 150 4537 2269 23.3 12.7 3 429 CFRP 155,000 1.40 I 50 18.000 [C 6688
48 28 L2xl 250 150 4537 2269 23.3 12.7 3 429 CFRP 155.000 1.40 I 50 18,000 [C 7878
49 28 L4 250 150 4537 2269 23.3 12.7 3 429 CFRP 155,000 1.40 I 100 18.000 [C 6595
50 29 CS 825 343 8840 4420 45 Varies Varies 364 CFRP 155.000 1.40 I 200 [8.000 IC 9400
51 30 CS 254 [52 4600 2300 29.9 12.7 3 446 CFRP 155.000 1.40 1 50 18.000 [C 6400
Maximum 700 350 6000 2500 55.2 25 4 590 CFRP 440,000 6 3 240 29.900 - 17,342

Minimum 150 [20 1500 550 20.9 2 288 GFRP. 0. 11 1 20 5500 - 4800
8 AFRP 28.333.3333
Note. I In. _ 25.4 mm, I ksl _ 6.895 MPa.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2008 47

 was also observed that as the shear span-to-depth ratio In the current draft of the Australian standard for the retro-
increases, the model becomes more conservative. fitting of reinforced concrete with FRP, an equation is
Prediction of the debonding strain according to the provided to predict the maximum Ie debondiog strain in a
Chinese code is given by the following equation II beam with a single crack. 33 The equation contains a unique
variable defined as the perimeter length of the idealized fracture
plane Lp ,,' as illustrated in Fig. 13. The guideline adntits that the
(6) IC debonding resistance may be higher in beams with multiple
flexural cracks, but a lower bound value is estimated as

where kb is a width factor related to the width of the FRP

material bfto the base material be as follows =MJL; (8)
nEftfbf

2.25 - '2 The depth x (in Fig. 14) is equal to the thickness of the
be concrete paste layer during IC debonding failure, which
kb = (7)
1.25 + '2 separates from the concrete surface and is recommended as
0.0394 in. (I mm). The value IlFfftrbfis the axial stiffness of
be
the FRP material. The value !jDf 15 the maximum interface
shear stress multiplied by the maximum interface slip that
The value of Ld in Eq. (6) is the distance from the plate end to
the section where the FRP plate is fully used. "This is assumed to
be equal to the shear span ntinus the distance from the end of the
FRP plate to the support. The value A is a factor to account for
I::::: +-______________
g ~------------~L-~

the effect of FRP U-wrap anchors. When U-wraps are used f 0.012 j-------------;?.L-7"'''----___i
throughout the length of the beam , a factor of 1.3 is ~ 0.Q1 +----~__,_,_-'-::..-"7"_:F_,,,.$.L-------I
recommended. If the designer has sufficient experience, then A •gt 0.008 +------7"7--..,.-:,..,'---=--'-f~f:'!''"'''"''"---I
can be set equal to 1.5. When no U-wraps are used, the factor
~
should be set equal to 1.0. Comparison of the predicted strain ..8 0.006 +---....;;""'-'j".,--"""7~--C-----------I
according to the Chinese code is generally conservative and ~

correlates well with the database as shown in Fig. 12. ~ 0.004 t~~:;:/r''----;:::;::~:::=.=.;::::::;:~::;_--"l
·i 0.002 t'~~<:...------j-=-.£,!~~!L.:.:..:..:...j---I
I 0.016 ,---,""",,;==::;-----------::71 3 O¥O--~----,---_.-----,----r---~----~--~
E 0.014 o
'- Predicted Debonding Strain (Inlin) (mmfmm)
~ 0.012 u.- Regreulon ACt «0 with O.as
~
R'''O.243 Fig. i 2- Experimental versus predicted debonding strains
.~ 0,01
using Chinese lO model.
m
~ 0.008 o • o.
~ Concrete surface
.8 0.006
• 0 rP oo",:/>
,
i
~
0.004 linear Regression ACI440
~><o.243
1: 0.002

k O~--~--~--~--~--~--~-- __~
b, "
o 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.Q16 Failure plane of EB plate
Predicted Debondrng Strain (inlln) (mmfmmj

Fig. lO-Experimental versus predicted debonding strains

using ACI 440 J2 model. Fig. 13-Perimeter length of idealized failure plane. 33

'?O,01s.--- -- - - - - - - - - - -- ----?I E 0.Q16 .,-------------------71

~ 0 ,014 t--------~--------7,.L.-___i E
E 0.01 4 j-----~__,_------__:::~--"""?,.L.'---j
'- g
;g 0.012 +------------_,_"--7""'''------1 ~ 0.012 +----
~
~ 0-01 +---~~---'---'-.,,"7"".L+"""7.L-------I
~
. - - - --
~~ ~

~ 0.01 +--.",...,-'-,-O-:"..."-----''':»E---"
-"7""'-",---7""'''-----1
Uoo=''COR:::'g:::,~=..,;;---l
ii
g' 0.008 +---~-_:;>""''- ....~7'''-'"-~Unear Regression Ul
gt 0.008 j--~"7r;;:-,>---___;r''-----'-'=''----___i
,':0.185
~ ~:O.20B :g " 0

0.006 +------iJ..--:--:>.L......- - - ----------1

0
.8 ..8QOO6+---~~--_,r_"7"~------------------------j
~ ~ d'o'~/

~ O·OO4I::;~~/"------__;:::::;:;::;:;::;:;::;::::::::;_-1 i 0.004 t~~;;::7,.£:'--------;::::;::::::::::::::::::;:::::;--1

.~- 0.002 t~~""-------LO~""'_'''''ri~ill"1!!·'''_by:.O_~_._~_.J
• CUrrElnl Stud ~ 0.002 +-'~~"----------1 E~perimet1tal by others 0

~
~ O~--,--_r--r--~--~-~--~-~ ~~ 0 J~=_~--~r_---r----.---~.c:":'~:"="~ru:dY::~~--J
o 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 o 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
Predicted Debonding Strain (In/in) (mmlmm) Pr.dlettd Debondlng Strain (fnlln ) (mm/mmJ

Fig. ii-Experimental versus predicted debonding strains Fig. i4-Predicted versus exf/rimental debonding strains
using fib 32 model. using Australian draft model. 3

48 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2008

E 0.016
~ , / /
1 0,014
§..o 0.012 ,
/ /
.~ 0.01 " A / Linear RegressIon-
•
~ 0.008
. ' /' ./ ~=O.501
~ o o;!:oo:; y the analytical models in national code documents as well as
~ 0.006
.. O.O()4
/-7
~
~
i O'~
0,000 0.002 O.O()4 0.006 O.ons 0.010 0.012
Pred icted debondlng ,train (Inlln) (mmlmm)
Fig. 15- Predicted versus exq,erimental debonding strains
using proposed design model. 4
represents twice the fracture energy. This value can be
determined from material testing or may be taken equal to
the following equation given by the code commentary for
beams strengthened with externally bonded sheets or strips
The predicted values for debonding strain based on the
Australian approach are similar to those found using the
approach of jib code32 but are more conservative as shown in
Fig. 14.
PROPOSED DESIGN MODEL
The following design model, proposed by the authors,
characterizes the interface shear stress based on the nature of the
applied loading and the stress concentrdtions at the toes of the
flexural cracks. 1 The model requires calculation of the flexural
yielding moment My and the corresponding strain level in the
FRP material (Ej@y). The moment corresponding to debonding
failure Mdb can be calculated by assuming a value of debonding
strain (Edb)' The maximum interface shear stress 't cmax can
then be calculated using the following equation
where s is the shear span and x, is the distance from the
support to the location of first yielding of the internal tensile
steel, which is dependent upon the loading conditions. The
value of debonding strain is iterated until 't cmax reaches the
critical value equal to 1.8 Jr'. The total strain in the CFRP
(Edb) is the summation of the debonding strain and the strain
due to stress concentrations (Esc) that can be estimated as
If the total strain (Edb + E,c) exceeds the rupture strain of
the material ,. then rupture will occur before debonding.
Complete details on the proposed model can be found
elsewhere. 1 The prediction according to the proposed model
is shown in Fig. 15. It should be noted that the uniqueness of
the proposed model is the ability to model the behavior of the
prestressed concrete section explicitly through calculation of the
parameters M,. and M db.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2008
CONCLUSIONS
This research provides unique information related to the
bond behavior of prestressed concrete strengthened with
externally bonded CFRP, especially related to the IC
debonding phenomenon. The collected database and test
results of the experimental program were compared against
a proposed model introduced by the authors. The following
conclusions can be reached from this research:
1. For long-span, flexural prestressed concrete members
strengthened with CFRP without transverse U-wraps, the
0.014 0.D16 common failure mode is IC debonding;
2. Precured CFRP systems are more prone to IC
debonding due to their large tensile strain capacity and high
stiffness due to large fiber volume fraction;
3. The IC debonding process will initiate for both precured
and wet lay-up CFRP systems in the concrete layer at the
FRP-concrete interface;
4. During rapid IC crack propagation, the failure plane
may shift through the adhesive layer imd continue along the
plate-adhesive interface outside of the heav ily cracked
(9) region for precured CFRP systems;
5. Transverse CFRP U-wraps placed throughout the girder
length can increase the tensile strain in the precured longirudinal
CFRP at IC debonding failure by as much as 20'70.
6. The analytical model from ACI Committee 440 12 for IC
debonding is currently unconservative and should be reevaluated;
7. The most conservative model currently available is the
model introduced by the Australian Draft Design
Guideline 3\ and
8. The proposed model provides a relatively accurate
prediction of IC debonding and addresses both reinforced
and prestressed concrete structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the contribution of time and energy from
P. Zia, K. Harries, M. Dawood, A. Miller, and C. Walter. Research funds
received from the N0I1h Carolina Department of Transportation are greatly
appreciated along with the many other contractors, FRP manufacturers, and
installers who generously donated time and materials. The authors would
also like to thank the dedicated staff of the Constructed Facilities Laboratory
0, Atkinson, B. Dunleavy, and A. Yanai) whose help at all stages oflhis
research has been immeasurable.
(10)
REFERENCES
1. Rosenboom, O. A., "Behavior of FRP Repair/Strengthening Systems
for Prestressed Concrete," PhD thesi s, North Carolina Stale University.
Raleigh, NC, 2006,400 pp.
2. Rosenboom , O. A.: Hassan, T. K.; and Rizkalla, S. H. , "Flexural
Behavior of Aged Prestressed Concrete Girders Strengthened wi th Various
FRP Systems," C01l$fmctioll and Bllilding Materials, V. 2 1, No.4, 2007,
pp.764-776.
3. Rosenboom, O. A., and RizkalJa, S. H.. "Behavior of Prestressed Concrete
Slrengthened with Various CFRP Systems Subjected to Fatigue Loading," JOllmal
0/ Composites/or Construction, ASCE, V. 10, No.6, 2006, pp. 492-502.
4. Oehlers, D. J., and Moran, J. P., "Premature Failure of Externally
Plated Reinforced Concrete Beams," Journal 0/ S/mcfural Engineering.
(11 ) V. 116, No.4, 1990, pp. 978-995.
5. EI-M ihilmy. M. T.. and Tedesco. J. W., "Pred iction of Anchorage
Failure for Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with Fiber-Reinforccd
Polymer Platcs ," ACI Stmctllral Journal , V. 98, No.3, May-June 2001.
pp.301-314.
6. Teng, 1. G., and Vao, 1., "Plate End Debonding in FRP-Plated RC
Beams-II: Strength Model:' Engineering Struclllres, V. 29, No. 10.
2007, pp. 2472-2486.
7. So, M., and Harmon, T. G., "Cover Delamination of RIC Members
w ith Surface Mounted FRP Reinforcement," ACI Sfructllral Journal.
(accepted for publication)
8. Tumialan. G.; Serra. P.; Nanni. A.; and Belarbi. A., "Concrete Cover
Delamination in Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with Carbon
49
 Fiber Reinforced Polymer Sheets," Proceedings of the FOUl·tll IllIernational
Symposium 011 Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement f or Reinforced
Concrete Structures (FRPRCS4), MD, 1999, pp. 725-735.
9. Reed, C. E., and Petennan, R. 1., "Evaluation of Prestressed Concrete
Girders SlrCngthened with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Sheets,"
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V. 9, No. 2, 2004, 185- 192 pp.
10. Chahrour, A., and Soudki. K., "Flexural Response of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Slrengthened with End-Anchored Partially Bonded Carbon
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Strips," Joumal of Composites in Constrnction, V. 9,
No.2, 2005 , pp. 170- 177.
11. Ye, L. P. ; Lu , X. Z.; and Chen, J. F. , "Design Proposal s for the
Debonding Strength of FRP Strengthened RC Beams in the Chinese
Design Code," Proceedings of the International Symposium on Bond
Behavior of FRP ;11 Structures (BBFS 2005), Hong Kong, China, Dec.
2005, pp. 55-62.
12. AC I Committee 440, "Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
FR P Systems for Streng thening Concrete Structures (ACI 440.2R-02),"
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 45 pp.
13. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
"AASHTO LRFO Bridge Design Specifications," AASHTO , 2004 ,
1450 pp.
14. Yao, 1.; Teng, 1. G.; and Lam, L., "Experimental Study on Intermediate
Crack Debonding in FRP-Strengthened RC Fl exural Members," Advances
in Structural Engineering, V. 8, No.4, 2004, pp. 365-395.
15. Saadatmanesh, H., and Ehsani, M. R., "RC Beams Strengthened with
GFRP Plates, I: Experimental Study," Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 11 7, No. 11, 199 1, pp. 3417-3433.
16. Spadea, G.; Bencardino, F.; and Swamy, R. N., "Structural Behavior
of Composite RC Beams with External ly Bonded CFRP," Journal of
Composites f or ConstrtlcliOfl, ASCE, V. 2, No. 3, 1998, pp. 132-137.
17. Kaminska, M. E., and Kotynia, R., "Experimental Research on RC
beams Strengthened with CFRP Strips," Repo/t No.9. Department of Concrete
Structures, Technical University of Lodz, Poland, 2000, 55 pp.
18. Matthys, S., "Structural Behavior and Design of Concrete Members
Strengthened with Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement ," dissertation,
University of Ghent, Belg ium, 2000.
19. Rahimi, H., and Hutchinson, A., "Concrete Beams Strengthened with
Externally Bonded FRP Plates," Joumal of Composites for Constnlction,
ASCE, V. 5, No.1 , 200 1, pp. 44-56.
20. Grace, N. F.; Abdel-Sayed, G.; and Ragheb, W. F., "Strengthening of
Concrete Beams Using Innovative Ductile Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Fabric,"
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No.5, Sept.-Oct. 2002, pp. 692-700.
2 1. Fang, T. Q. , "Study on V-Shaped Sheet Behavior of Anti-Debonding
in the Concrete Beam Rei nforced Flexurally with FRP," master's thesis,
Tsingua University, C hi na, 2002.
50
22. Brena. S. E; Benouaich, M. A.; Kreger, M. E. ; and Wood, S. L.,
"Fatigue Tests of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened Using Carbon
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites," ACt Structural Journal, V. 102,
No. 2, Mar.-Apc. 2005, pp. 305-3 13.
23. Kotynia, R., and Kaminska, M. E., "Ductility and Failure Mode of
RC Beams Strengthened for Flexure with CFRP," RepOlt No. 13, Department
of Concrete Structures, Technical University of Lodz, Poland, 2003, 51 pp.
24. Zhang, G. E ; Kishi, N.; and Mikami, H. , "Influence of Material
Properties of FRPs on Strength of Flexural Stren gthened RC Beams ,"
Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on FRP Reinforcemem
for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS6) , Singapore, 2003, pp. 327-336.
25. Dias, S.; Juvandes. L.: and Figueira~ , J., "Strengthening of Reinforced
Concrete Structures in Bending with CFRP," Revista tBRACON de EstnlCtlIras
(lnsrituro Brasi/eiro de Concreto), V. I , No. 1,2004, pp. 1- 19.
26. Khoman, N.; Foster, S. J.; and Smith, S. T, "Debonding Failure in
CPRP Strengthened Concrete Beams," Proceedillgs of the Second [menlO-
tionaf Conference Oil FRP Composites ill Civil Engi/1eering (CICE 2004),
Adelaide, Australia, 2004, pp. 505-512.
27. Pan, J. L., and Leung, C. K. Y. "FR.P Debonding under the Presence
of Multiple Cracks Along a Concrete Beam," Proceedings of the Imemarionai
Symposium on Bond Behavior of FRP in Strllctures (BBFS 2005), Hong
Kong, China, 2005 , pp. 283-290.
28. Reeve, B. z., "Effect of Adhesive Stiffness and CFRP Geometry on
the Behavior of Externally Bonded CFRP Retrofit Measures Subject to
Monotonic Loads," master's thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
PA, 2005, 110 pp.
29. Aidoo, 1.; Harries, K. A.; and Petrou, M. E, "Full-Scale Experimental
Inyestigation of Repair of Reinforced Concrete Interstate Bridge Using
CFRP Materials," Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V. II, No.3,
2006, pp. 350-358.
30. Quattlebaum, J.; Harries, K. A. ; and Petrou, M . .F., "Comparison of
Three CFRP Flexural Retrofit Systems Under Monotonic and Fatigue Loads,"
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE. V. 10. No.6, 2004, pp. 731 -740.
31. The Concrete Society, "Design G uidance for Strengthening Concrete
Structures Us in g Fibre Composite Materials," Technical Report 55,
UK, 2004, 128 pp.
32. Federation Internationale du Beton , "Externally Bonded FRP
Reinforcement for RC Structures," jib Bulletin 14, Task Group 9.3, FRP
Rei nforce ment for Concrete Structures, 200 I, 138 pp.
33. Oehlers, O. J. ; Seracino, R.; and Smith, S. T., " RC Structures Retro-
fitted with FRP and Metal Plates: Beams and Slabs," Standards Australia,
108 pp. (in press)
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2008