Composite Structures 255 (2021) 113036

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Concrete cracking and deflection analysis of RC beams strengthened

with prestressed FRP reinforcements under external load action
Justas Slaitas ⇑, Juozas Valivonis
Dept. of Reinforced Concrete Structures and Geotechnics, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio Ave. 11, Vilnius 10223, Lithuania

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcements (laminates, sheets, strips, rods) are considered for retrofitting of
Carbon RC structures worldwide. Such reinforcements are light, easy to install, corrosion resistant, satisfying aesthet-
Glass fibre reinforced polymer ical and design requirements. In order to use full potential of the FRP it should be pretensioned, this way reduc-
Strengthening ing crack widths and deflections. In most cases in practice strengthening will be carried out for structures
Reinforced concrete
exposed to external load with initial cracks and deflection. However, there is the lack of experimental and the-
Crack
Deflection
oretical research of such phenomena when RC structure is strengthened with prestressed FRP reinforcements
under external load action. Therefore, here will be presented experimental program for the full analysis of this
phenomena. 14 identical RC beams were casted and tested at the courtesy of Vilnius Gediminas Technical
University (VGTU): 2 control RC beams, 6 beams strengthened with prestressed carbon fibre reinforced poly-
mer (CFRP) laminates without external load action, 6 beams – under external load action. Different prestress-
ing levels were used in both cases: 17 ÷ 56% from the nominal load bearing capacity of FRP. Based on the
results theoretical models for calculation are being presented for consideration.

1. Introduction
Despite the higher cost of the material itself, fibre reinforced poly-
mer (FRP) reinforcements are light and easy to install (what leads to
the reduction of labour cost), they are thin (aesthetical and design
requirements) and more resistant to corrosion in comparison to the
steel (durability requirements) [1–5]. Moreover, carbon fibre rein-
forced polymer (CFRP) reinforcements can be prestressed during
strengthening as it has modulus of elasticity close to steel. The modu-
lus of elasticity of other common FRP’s in civil engineering: glass fibre
reinforced polymer (GFRP), aramid fibre reinforced polymer (AFRP)
[4,6] and basalt fibre reinforced polymer (BFRP) [7–11] is much
lower. The benefits of prestressing include, but are not limited to the
use of full strength potential, reduced deflection, control of cracks,
improved cracking and steel reinforcement yield loads of the retro-
fitted structures [3,7–10,12]. Despite the benefits above and the rising
popularity of FRP materials for retrofitting reinforced concrete (RC)
members, there is a lack of experimental and theoretical data on the
behaviour of RC members strengthened under external load action.
Most research [3,13,22–30,14–21] is targeted to FRP strengthened
members from the start of loading, but in practice more common
situation than the RC elements with high initial cracks and deflections
are being retrofitted under external load action. Here the significance
of this work is revealed. An experimental program is presented consist-
ing of 14 identical RC beams casted during one casting at the courtesy
of Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU): 2 control RC
beams, 6 beams strengthened with prestressed (CFRP) laminates with-
out external load action, 6 beams – under external load action. Differ-
ent prestressing levels were used in both cases: 17 ÷ 56% from the
nominal load bearing capacity of FRP. The laminates were externally
bonded to the concrete surface (EBR). Such a strengthening method
was chosen instead of near surface mounted reinforcements (NSM)
as for the practical applications in the field it is easier to prestress
FRP sheets/laminates by bonding them to concrete surface (EBR)
[3,13–19,30,31] in comparison to prestressing FRP rods/strips
installed into the grooves on the concrete surface (NSM) [20–29].
Moreover, using EBR it is unnecessary to do additional damage to con-
crete (no risk of damaging transverse reinforcement) and it is unneces-
sary to access the ends of the beams in order to use the prestressing
device (in many cases such access is limited or not possible at all).
Based on the results of experimental research, the theoretical models
for calculation are being presented for consideration.

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: justas.slaitas@vgtu.lt (J. Slaitas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113036
Received 7 September 2020; Accepted 24 September 2020
Available online 28 September 2020
0263-8223/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Slaitas, J. Valivonis
2. Experimental research
2.1. Experimental program
This Chapter presents an experimental investigation of prestressing
and not full composite action effects on cracking and short‐term defor-
mations of RC beams strengthened with CFRP laminates. Experimental
results on tests of 14 RC beams (all casted at once) having constant
reinforcement ratio, but different levels of prestressing have been
reported.
The tests were performed at the courtesy of Vilnius Gediminas Tech-
nical University. The following objectives of the experimental program
have been pursued: 1) investigating prestressing effect on cracking and
deformations of strengthened members; 2) exploring not full compos-
ite action of the concrete and CFRP laminate joint.
The beams were tested under a four‐point loading scheme. All the
specimens were of rectangular cross‐section, with nominal length
3000 mm (span 2810 mm), depth 300 mm and width 180 mm. Geo-
metric characteristics of test beams are shown in Fig. 1.
The experimental programme has comprised of two series of
beams. In the beams of the first series (BS), beams were strengthened
before externally loading the beam and the beams of the second series
(BSM) were strengthened under external load action. Linear‐elastic
springs were used to maintain sustained load action during strengthen-
ing and hardening of adhesive (see Fig. 2).
Beam numbers were assigned according to the following logics XX‐
YY‐Z, where XX indicates beam series: CB – control beam, BS – beam
strengthened before external load action and BSM – beam strength-
ened under external load action; YY – shows level of prestressing in
percent from load bearing capacity of FRP reinforcement; Z is used
in case of twin beams.
All beams were strengthened not less than 174 days after concrete
casting and tested 7 days after strengthening. The crack width was
measured at the level of the reinforcement in the pure bending zone
with digital concrete crack width gauge BJQF‐1 (measurement range
0.01–6.5 mm, accuracy ≤ ± 0.02 mm). Measurement step was ≈0.1
Mu. Deflection of the beam was measured in 5 control points (mid‐
span, loading points, supports) with 100 mm base LVDT’s, strains
and anchorage zone slip with 25 mm base LVDT’s. Principle layout
of measurement devices is given in Fig. 3. All beams were preloaded
with load equal to 40–50% from load‐bearing capacity of the element
and unloaded, afterwards LVDT’s were mounted on potentially critical
cracks.
Compressive strength of concrete was found from the compressive
tests of 100x100x100 mm concrete cubes and 150 mm diameter,
300 mm height concrete cylinders (according to [32] requirements).
Secant modulus of elasticity was found from the tests of the same
cylinders, using method B from [33]. Tensile strength of concrete
was found from the flexural tests of 100 × 100 × 400 mm
concrete prisms and same prisms splitting tests (according to [32]
Fig. 1. Geometric characteristics.
2
Composite Structures 255 (2021) 113036
Fig. 2. The use of linear-elastic springs to maintain sustained load action.
requirements), which can be recalculated into mean axial tensile
strength (fctm) (in accordance with [34], it was obtained that
αsp = 0.69). Strengthening material was S&P C‐Laminates glued to
concrete surface with S&P Resin 220. The tensile tests of the laminate
(in accordance with [35]), adhesive and steel reinforcements were per-
formed. The main characteristics of concrete are presented in Table 1
and overall properties of the tested beams in Table 2.
Concrete density from 36 cubes is 2245.07 ± 33.47 kg/m3.
Water/cement ratio of the tested beams was 0.49, particle size distri-
bution of concrete aggregates is presented in Table 3.
2.2. Experimental results
Maximum crack width development in BS series beams is presented
in Fig. 4a and in BSM series in Fig. 4b.
Crack width had a high variation in not strengthened RC members
and when the elements were strengthened before loading, crack width
development was stable from the beginning, on the other hand when
the RC members were strengthened under external load action, com-
mon situation in practice, crack width development until strengthen-
ing was unstable and it was stabilized and improved after
prestressing of FRP reinforcement. At the moment of prestressing the
concrete cracks were closed to a certain level, but a jump in the width
of the cracks is visible after external load increment.
Mid‐span deflection response of BS series beams is given in Fig. 5
and BSM series beams in Fig. 6.
Although the BS‐48 and BS‐49 beams had a greater curvature, the
upper zone of concrete with reinforcement As2 cracked during pre-
stressing and the character of moment‐deflection graphs became sim-
ilar to the beams with lower prestressing levels BS‐20 and BS‐22,
which did not cracked during prestressing. However, bending moment
J. Slaitas, J. Valivonis Composite Structures 255 (2021) 113036

Fig. 3. Principle layout of measurement devices.

Table 1
Main characteristics of concrete.

Test type Specimen Mean strength/secant modulus, MPa Standard deviation, MPa Coefficient of variation, % Number of samples

Comprresion Cube, fcm.cube 50.81 5.00 9.85 36

Comprresion Cylinder, fcm 50.00 4.22 8.43 17
Comprresion Cylinder, Ecm 35,409 4494 12.69 17
Flexural Prism, fctm.fl 8.16 0.62 7.59 26
Concrete splitting Prism, fctm.sp 7.11 0.88 12.39 52

Table 2
Properties of the tested beams.

Beam fcm (MPa) fy.s1 (MPa) Es1 (GPa) fy.s2 (MPa) Es2 (GPa) ffu (MPa) Ef (GPa) σp (MPa) M0 (kNm)

CB-1 50.00 568.5 199.75 537.68 195.55 – – – –

CB-2
BS-0 2627.61 170.06 0 0
BS-20 522.08
BS-22 568.57
BS-40 1069.39
BS-48 1259.01
BS-49 1287.07
BSM-0 0 30.67
BSM-17 447.82 32.86
BSM-18 482.12 29.74
BSM-35 919.17 29.16
BSM-46 1212.24 29.97
BSM-56 1471.59 29.72

σp – FRP prestressing stress, M0 – initial strengthening moment.

Table 3
Particle size distribution of concrete aggregates.

Aggregate Proportion, % Fraction by particle size mm, %

<0.125 0.125–0.25 0.25–0.5 0.5–1 1–2 2–4 4–8 8–16 16–31.5

Sand 47 1.2 1.8 11.7 13.7 13.1 5 0.5 0 0

Gravel 53 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.6 6.1 24.2 21.3 0.5

corresponding to steel reinforcement yield stress (further will be
denoted as yield moment) was proportionately higher for the beams
with higher prestressing stress.
When the RC members were strengthened under external load
action (series BSM), as in the case of crack width, a deflection jump
was observed immediately after post prestressing external load incre-
ment. To clarify this phenomena, the strains of tensile concrete were
compared with the ones of FRP in same sections. Strain increment after
decompression was compared for BS series beams and strain increment
after post prestressing increase of external load for BSM series beams.
Two beams with similar level of prestressing were presented in
Figs. 7, 8.
The Fig. 7 shows the gradual decay of the adhesive joint and the
subsequent activation of the anchors. On the other hand, in case of
the BSM beam series (Fig. 8), an immediate activation of the anchors
is observed. This phenomena causes a strain difference of tensile con-
crete and FRP reinforcement. Such difference is presented in schematic
strain profile (see Fig. 9).
ψf in Fig. 9 is a bond stiffness reduction factor, evaluating not full
composite action of concrete and FRP joint. To evaluate this factor,

3
J. Slaitas, J. Valivonis Composite Structures 255 (2021) 113036

Fig. 4. Crack width development a) BS series, b) BSM series.

Fig. 5. Mid-span deflection of BS series beams a) full graphs, b) cut out M = 0 ÷ 30 kNm.

Fig. 6. Mid-span deflection of BSM series beams a) full graphs, b) cut out M = 25 ÷ 35 kNm.

the authors propose to use the coefficient based on built‐up bars theory E s1 ɛ s1
kpl ¼ 2  ⩾1 ð1Þ
[13,18,19,36–42]. kpl is a coefficient evaluating occurrence of concrete‐ f s1:y
FRP bond partial stiffness effect, related to stress state in the element.
The above factors allows to evaluate not full composite action of
As it was shown in Figs. 7, 8, for the beams strengthened under external
concrete and FRP joint effect to strengthened RC member’s
load action (BSM) kpl = 1.00 and for the BS series kpl can be calculated
deformations.
assuming linear descending decay of the adhesive joint.

4
J. Slaitas, J. Valivonis Composite Structures 255 (2021) 113036

Fig. 7. Comparison of CFRP and tensile concrete strains (beam BS-48) a) bending moment-strain graph, b) the ratio of FRP and tensile concrete strains.

Fig. 8. Comparison of CFRP and tensile concrete strains (beam BSM-46) a) bending moment-strain graph, b) the ratio of FRP and tensile concrete strains.

3. Proposed methods of solution

3.1. Crack width

In view of unstable distribution of cracks before strengthening, it is

better to directly relate critical crack parameters with strains in the
element than calculating mean values of crack spacing and strains with
the constant relation of mean and characteristic/maximum values as it
is proposed in [6,43]. Direct relation of crack parameters and strains is
obtained from crack model in Fig. 10. The original Jokūbaitis et al.
[44–49] crack model was proposed for RC elements. What served as
a basis for Slaitas et al. [36,37,40] to go further and directly relate
crack parameters with strains in the FRP strengthened members with-
out neither fracture energy nor fracture parameter.
There are two triangles in Fig. 10a, one represents tensile zone of
concrete with depth hct and width δcr and the second one ‐ idealized
crack with depth hcr and width wcr. Also there are two triangles in
Fig. 10b as well. Fig. 10b represents strain profile in a cracked cross‐
section. The triangle which refers to tensile zone of concrete has width
εct.max which refers to maximum concrete tensile strain and the width
of second triangle refers to reinforcement strains εs1 or εf. The depths
of flexural crack and tensile zone of concrete directly relates crack
parameters with strains in the element. This relation is expressed from
Fig. 9. Strain profile. similarity of triangles:

5
J. Slaitas, J. Valivonis Composite Structures 255 (2021) 113036

Fig. 10. The relation of crack parameters and FRP strains, a) crack model, b) strain profile (based on [36,37,40]).

hct δcr Ma  M0
¼ ð2Þ Δɛ s1:y ¼ 2
  
 3
hcr  d1 wcr  δcr As1 Es1 d  x3c1 þ As2 E s2 xdx c1 d2 xc1
 d2 þ
6 c1 3 7 ð6Þ
4   5
df xc1

hct ɛ ct:max þkpl ψ f Af E f dxc1 df  3 xc1
¼ ð3Þ
hcr  d1 ɛ s1  ɛ ct:max
where the depth of concrete compressive stress diagram xc1 is calcu-
Crack width from Eqs. (2) and (3):
lated assuming linear elastic stress–strain distribution and triangular
δcr ðɛs1  ɛ ct:max Þ δcr Δɛs1 concrete stress diagram (as it is generally accepted by design codes
wcr ¼ þ δcr ¼ þ δcr ð4Þ
ɛ ct:max ɛct:max [6,34,43,50,51], tensile zone of concrete is considered insignificant
where δcr is a crack tip width referring to beams neutral axis for and not taken into account).
strengthened structures (crack opening width) [36,37,40]. The last stage is post‐yielding, where the steel reinforcement do not
Based on experimental data, crack width development can be resist for further strain increment:
divided into 4 stages (see Fig. 11): 1) from crack opening to strength- Ma  My
ening moment Mcr < Ma ≤ M0; 2) strengthening/prestressing of FRP Δɛs1:u ¼  
   ð7Þ
xc2 d2 λxc2 df xc2

reinforcement Ma = M0; 3) from strengthening to steel yield moment As2 Es2 dxc2 2
 d2 þ kpl ψ f Af E f dx c2
df  λx2c2
M0 < Ma ≤ My; 4) from steel yield to ultimate moment My < Ma ≤ Mu.
where the depth of concrete compressive stress diagram xc2 is calcu-
Initial crack width (wcr.0) should be checked on‐situ before
lated using equivalent rectangular concrete stress diagram; depth
strengthening. At the strengthening point axial prestressing force will
reduction factor λ is found according to design codes [4,6,34,43,52],
try to close the crack, for what tensile steel reinforcement will resist
recommended value in [43] is 0.8.
and strain reduction due to prestress will be as follows.
Afterwards, the crack width will be as follows.
ψf P

Δɛ p ¼ ð5Þ δcr Δɛ s1:y þ Δɛs1:u  Δɛ p
As1 E s1 wcr ¼ wcr:0 þ ð8Þ
ɛ ct:max
where P is a FRP prestressing force after prestressing stress losses.
If the element was strengthened before loading (M0 = 0), then Eq.
A further increase in deformation due to load increment will be
(8) can be simplified in a following way.
found by following equation.

Fig. 11. Bending moment-crack width dependency graphs a) schematic, b) experimental.

6
J. Slaitas, J. Valivonis Composite Structures 255 (2021) 113036

 
Δɛ 0s1:y þ Δɛ s1:u General expression of deflection used in design codes
wcr ¼ δcr 1 þ ð9Þ
ɛ ct:max [6,34,43,50,51], based on double integration method:
ZZ

 1
M a  M cr  M p  kpl ψ f M p δ¼ Mdz≈ξκ e L2 ð12Þ
Δɛ 0s1:y ¼ 2
  
 3
EI
c1 d2
As1 E s1 d  x3c1 þ As2 E s2 xdx xc1
 d2 þ ð10Þ
6 c1 3 7 where ξ – load adding coefficient, for four point bending
4   5
df xc1

þkpl ψ f Af E f dx d f  xc1
3
ξ ¼ 1=8  ðLs =LÞ2 =6.
c1
The effect of prestressing can be taken into account as it is proposed
where Mp is a bending moment corresponding to deflection δ = 0. It is in U.S. design codes [50,51], then Eq. (11) with added initial deflec-
a second member in the expression of concrete cracking moment [52]. tion gets the following form.
 

Ig δ ¼ δ0 þ ξκe  κ p =8 L2 ð13Þ
M p ¼ P ep þ ð11Þ
Ac y t
where δ0 is an initial deflection, corresponding to initial strengthening
where yt is a distance from extreme concrete bottom fibre to the section moment M0.
centroid, Ac – cross‐sectional area, ep – eccentricity of prestressing force, Curvatures in Eq. (13) can be found with the allusion to springs in
Ig – second moment of gross section area. series as it is proposed in European, International design codes
The comparison of experimental and numerical results of the crack [6,34,43] and approved by Bischoff [53,54]. For the concrete mem-
width is presented in Figs. 12, 13. bers reinforced with deformed steel bars under short‐term load action:
Predicted bending moment‐crack width dependency graphs suffi-  2 !  2
ciently precisely replicates experimental ones (coefficient of correalation Ma  M0 M cr M a  M 0 M cr
κe ¼ 1 þ ð14Þ
0.95 ÷ 1.00). Crack width of the beams BSM‐46 and BSM‐56 was pre- E cm I cr1 Ma E cm I g Ma
dicted with higher reserve – the effect of prestressing was higher for
  2  
the beam BSM‐56 and the not full composite action of concrete and
kpl ψ f M p 1  MMcra 1  IIcr0g
FRP joint effect was lower for both beams than predicted one.
κp ¼ ð15Þ
Error graphs of crack width prediction are presented in Fig. 14. E cm I cr0
The calculation results had a low systematic error (1.12 for BS and
where Mcr is concrete cracking moment, Icr – second moment of cracked
0.88 for BSM), low random error (0.17 and 0.19 respectively) and low
section area, Icr0 – initial second moment of cracked section area before
coefficient of variation (15.31% and 21.91% respectively) what shows
strengthening (without resistance of FRP reinforcement).
a sufficient level of accuracy in terms of crack width prediction.
If the RC element was strengthened before external load action, Eq.
(12) can be simplified as follows.
3.2. Mid-span deflection
 2 !   !
M a  kpl ψ f M p M cr M a  kpl ψ f M p M cr 2
δ ¼ ξL2 1 þ ð16Þ
In view of novel experimental data presented in chapter 2, correc- E cm I cr1 Ma E cm I g Ma
tions to traditional deflection prediction methods will be proposed
below. The second moment of cracked section area taking into account
concrete‐FRP partial stiffness bond:

Fig. 12. The comparison of experimental and numerical results of the BS beam series crack widths.

7
J. Slaitas, J. Valivonis Composite Structures 255 (2021) 113036

Fig. 13. The comparison of experimental and numerical results of the BSM beam series crack widths.

Fig. 14. Error graphs of experimental and numerical crack widths a) BS series, b) BSM series.

bx3c1 Then the deflection at this stage will be as follows.

I cr1 ¼ þ αs1 As1 ðd  xc1 Þ2 þ ðαs2  1ÞAs2 ðxc1  d2 Þ2
3  2 !  2 !

2 Ma  My M cr M a  M y M cr
þ kpl ψ f αf Af df  xc1 ð17Þ δ ¼ δy þ ξL2 1 þ ð19Þ
E cm I cr2 Ma E cm I g Ma
where As1, As2, Af are the areas of tensile steel, compressive steel and
FRP reinforcements respectively; αs1, αs2, αf are the ratios of reinforce- Whereas in experimental moment‐deflection graphs (Figs. 7, 8)
ment and concrete deformation modules: αs1 = Es1 / Ecm, αs2 = Es2 / there are no expressed concrete cracking point, it is accepted that
Ecm, αf = Ef / Ecm. when the element was already cracked before loading, cracked and
However, equations above are valid up to steel yield moment My, uncracked zones will be evenly distributed from the start of loading,
afterwards steel reinforcement no longer resist to load increment i.e. (Mcr / Ma)2 ≤ 0.5.
(Figs. 7, 8) and the second moment of cracked sections area will take It should be noted that in case of the beam series BS until decom-
the following form. pression elements tensile zone works as compressive and vice versa.
The numerical and experimental moment‐deflection graphs are
bx3c2
2 presented in Fig. 15 (BS series) and 16 (BSM series).
I cr2 ¼ þ ðαs2  1ÞAs2 ðxc2  d2 Þ2 þ kpl ψ f αf Af df  xc2 ð18Þ
3

8
J. Slaitas, J. Valivonis Composite Structures 255 (2021) 113036

Fig. 15. Experimental and numerical moment-deflection graphs, BS beam series.

The following conclusions can be made from experimental and
numerical graphs in Figs. 5, 6, 15, 16: (1) predicted moment‐
deflection graphs sufficiently precisely replicates experimental ones
(coefficient of correlation R = 0.99 ÷ 1.00), the hypothesis, that not
full composite action of the concrete and FRP bond effect to element’s
deformations can be evaluated with a coefficient based on built‐up
bars theory was confirmed. (2) If the element was already cracked
before loading, then cracked and uncracked zones distributes approx-
imately equally along the element, i.e. (Mcr/Ma)2 ≤ 0.5. (3) The effect
of FRP reinforcement can be disregarded in terms of safety up to steel

Fig. 16. Experimental and numerical moment-deflection graphs, BSM beam series.

9
J. Slaitas, J. Valivonis
yield point, when RC elements were strengthened from the start of
loading without prestressing (see Figs. 5 and 15a). (4) The beams
BS‐20 and BS‐22, which did not cracked during prestressing, had a
higher flexural stiffness than predicted one. The tension‐stiffening
effect of such beams could be increased for lower reserve of predicted
deflection.
4. Conclusions
1. The gradual decay of the adhesive joint and the subsequent activa-
tion of the anchors was observed in beam series BS after the decom-
pression. The linear descending character of the adhesive joint
decay is acceptable in this case. However, in case of the beams
strengthened with prestressed CFRP laminates under external load
action (BSM beam series), an immediate disintegration of the adhe-
sive joint and activation of the anchors is observed after post
prestressing load increment. This reveals the difference in a beha-
viour of the joint when the RC member is strengthened under exter-
nal load action and without it. This phenomena causes a strain
difference of tensile concrete and FRP reinforcement and the effect
of such a not full composite action of the joint to the crack width
and deflection of the beam could be taken into account with a bond
stiffness reduction factor based on built‐up bars theory.
2. It was found that crack propagation of FRP strengthened RC ele-
ments can be devided into 4 stages: 1) from crack opening to
strengthening moment Mcr < Ma ≤ M0; 2) strengthening/prestress-
ing of FRP reinforcement Ma = M0; 3) from strengthening to the
bending moment corresponding to steel yield stress M0 < Ma ≤ My;
4) from steel yield to the load bearing capacity of the element
My < Ma ≤ Mu.
3. Using the proposed calculation method, the maximum crack widths
were determined with high coefficient of correlation
R = 0.95 ÷ 1.00, low systematic error (1.12 for BS and 0.88 for
BSM), low random error (0.17 and 0.19 respectively) and low coef-
ficient of variation (15.31% and 21.91% respectively) what shows
a sufficient level of accuracy in terms of crack width prediction.
Therefore, here proposed direct relation of crack parameters and
strains should be taken into consideration.
4. Predicted moment‐deflection graphs sufficiently precisely
replicates experimental ones (coefficient of correlation
R = 0.99 ÷ 1.00), the hypothesis, that not full composite action
of the concrete and FRP bond effect to the element’s deformations
can be evaluated with a coefficient based on built‐up bars theory
was confirmed.
5. The analysis of experimental and numerical mid‐span deflection
have shown that the distribution of cracked and uncracked zones
along the element can be accepted approximately equal ((Mcr /
Ma)2 ≤ 0.5), if the RC member was already cracked before loading.
6. In terms of safety, the effect of FRP reinforcement to deflection
response could be not taken into account up to steel yield point,
when RC members are strengthened from the start of loading with-
out prestressing.
7. The beams BS‐20 and BS‐22, which did not cracked during pre-
stressing, had a higher flexural stiffness than predicted one. The
tension‐stiffening effect of such beams could be increased for lower
reserve of predicted deflection.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
10
Composite Structures 255 (2021) 113036
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to express their gratitude to S&P Polska and JSC
Delta Nova for donating the CFRP laminates and the epoxies.
Data availability
The raw data required to reproduce these findings are available to
download from http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/kxmhbj7dk5.1. The pro-
cessed data required to reproduce these findings are available to
download from http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/kxmhbj7dk5.1.
References
[1] Mcguirk GN, Breña SF. DEVELOPMENT OF ANCHORAGE SYSTEM FOR FRP
STRENGTHENING APPLICATIONS USING INTEGRATED FRP COMPOSITE
ANCHORS 2012:277.
[2] Bakis CE, Bank LC, Asce F, Brown VL, Asce M, Cosenza E, et al. Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Composites for Construction – Review. J Compos Constr 2002;6:73–7.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:2(73).
[3] Kim YJ, Green MF, Wight RG. Prestressed fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
composites for concrete structures in flexure: Fundamentals to applications.
Woodhead Publ Ltd 2014. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857097019.1.30.
[4] ACI Committee 440. Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures. 2017.
[5] Teng JG, Smith ST, Yao J, Chen JF. Intermediate crack-induced debonding in RC
beams and slabs. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6-7):447–62.
[6] International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib). Externally bonded FRP
reinforcement for RC structures. vol. 14. 2001.
[7] Atutis E, Atutis M, Budvytis M, Valivonis J. Serviceability and Shear Response of
RC Beams Prestressed with a Various Types of FRP Bars. Procedia Eng
2017;172:60–7.
[8] M. Atutis J. Valivonis E. Atutis Experimental study of concrete beams prestressed
with basalt fiber reinforced polymers. Part I: Flexural behavior and serviceability
Composite Structures 183 2018 114 123 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/
retrieve/pii/S0263822316328690
[9] Atutis E, Valivonis J, Atutis M. Experimental study of concrete beams prestressed
with basalt fiber reinforced polymers under cyclic load. Compos Struct
2018;183:389–96.
[10] Atutis M, Valivonis J, Atutis E. Experimental study of concrete beams prestressed
with basalt fiber reinforced polymers. Part II: Stress relaxation phenomenon.
Compos Struct 2018;202:344–54.
[11] Atutis E, Valivonis J, Atutis M. Deflection determination method for BFRP
prestressed concrete beams under fatigue loading. Compos Struct
2019;226:111182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111182.
[12] Atutis M, Valivonis J, Atutis E. Analysis of serviceability limit state of GFRP
prestressed concrete beams. Compos Struct 2015;134:450–9.
[13] Skuturna T. RESEARCH OF FLEXURAL REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBERS
STRENGTHENED WITH EXTERNAL CARBON FIBRE. 2009.
[14] Daugevičius M, Valivonis J, Skuturna T. Prediction of deflection of reinforced
concrete beams strengthened with fiber reinforced polymer. Materials (Basel)
2019;12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12091367.
[15] Valivonis J, Skuturna T. Cracking and strength of reinforced concrete structures in
flexure strengthened with carbon fibre laminates. J Civ Eng Manag
2007;13:317–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13923730.2007.9636452.
[16] Skuturna T, Valivonis J. Experimental study on the effect of anchorage systems on
RC beams strengthened using FRP. Compos B Eng 2016;91:283–90.
[17] Skuturna T, Valivonis J, Vainiunas P, Marciukaitis G, Daugevicius M. Analysis of
deflections of bridge girders strengthened by carbon fibre reinforcement. Balt J
Road Bridge E 2008;3(3):145–51.
[18] Valivonis J, Marčiukaitis G. Technological-structural peculiarities of reinforced
concrete structures strengthened with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer. Technol
Econ Dev Econ 2006;12:77–83. https://doi.org/10.3846/13928619.2006.
9637726.
[19] Marchukaitis G, Valivonis Yu, Bareishis J. An analysis of the joint operation of a
CFRP concrete in flexural elements. Mech Compos Mater 2007;43(5):467–78.
[20] Peng H, Zhang J, Cai CS, Liu Y. An experimental study on reinforced concrete
beams strengthened with prestressed near surface mounted CFRP strips. Eng Struct
2014;79:222–33.
[21] Jung WT, Park YH, Park JS, Kang JY, You YJ. Experimental Investigation on
Flexural Behavior of RC Beams Strengthened by NSM CFRP Reinforcements. SP-
230 7th Int. Symp. Fiber-Reinforced Polym. Reinf. Concr. Struct. 2005:795–806.
https://doi.org/10.14359/14867.
[22] Jung W-T, Park J-S, Kang J-Y, Keum M-S. Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beam
Strengthened by Near-Surface Mounted CFRP Reinforcement Using Equivalent
Section Model. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2017;2017:1–16.
[23] A. Shukri K.h. Darain M. Jumaat The Tension-Stiffening Contribution of NSM
CFRP to the Behavior of Strengthened RC Beams Materials 8 7 4131 4146
10.3390/ma8074131 http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/8/7/4131
J. Slaitas, J. Valivonis
[24] Raafat El-Hacha MG. Flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using
prestressed, mounted CFRP bars. PCI J Pap 2011;56:134–51. https://doi.org/
10.15554/pcij.09012011.134.151.
[25] Rezazadeh M, Costa I, Barros J. Influence of prestress level on NSM CFRP
laminates for the flexural strengthening of RC beams. Compos Struct
2014;116:489–500.
[26] Barros JAO, Fortes AS. Flexural strengthening of concrete beams with CFRP
laminates bonded into slits. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27(4):471–80.
[27] Sharaky IA, Torres L, Sallam HEM. Experimental and analytical investigation into
the flexural performance of RC beams with partially and fully bonded NSM FRP
bars/strips. Compos Struct 2015;122:113–26.
[28] Sharaky IA, Torres L, Comas J, Barris C. Flexural response of reinforced concrete
(RC) beams strengthened with near surface mounted (NSM) fibre reinforced
polymer (FRP) bars. Compos Struct 2014;109:8–22.
[29] L. TORRES I.A. SHARAKY C. BARRIS M. BAENA EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE
INFLUENCE OF ADHESIVE PROPERTIES AND BOND LENGTH ON THE BOND
BEHAVIOUR OF NSM FRP BARS IN CONCRETE 22 6 2016 808 817 https://
journals.vgtu.lt/index.php/JCEM/article/view/1875
[30] Woo S-K, Nam J-W, Kim J-H, Han S-H, Byun KJ. Suggestion of flexural capacity
evaluation and prediction of prestressed CFRP strengthened design. Eng Struct
2008;30(12):3751–63.
[31] Fu B, Chen GM, Teng JG. Mitigation of intermediate crack debonding
in FRP-plated RC beams using FRP U-jackets. Compos Struct 2017;176:
883–97.
[32] Technical Committee : ISO/TC 71/SC 1. ISO 1920-4:2020. Testing of concrete —
Part 4: Strength of hardened concrete. 2020.
[33] European committee for standardization. EN 12390-13: 2013. Testing hardened
concrete - Part 13: Determination of secant modulus of elasticity in compression.
2013.
[34] International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib). fib Model Code for Concrete
Structures 2010. Berlin: Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn; 2013.
[35] . Concrete Structures. 2004.
[36] Slaitas J, Daugevičius M, Valivonis J, Grigorjeva T. Crack width and load-carrying
capacity of RC elements strengthened with FRP. Int J Polymer Sci
2018;2018:1–14.
[37] Slaitas J, Valivonis J, Rimkus L. Evaluation of stress-strain state of FRP
strengthened RC elements in bending. Fracture mechanics approach. Compos
Struct 2020;233:111712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111712.
[38] Slaitas J, Valivonis J. Fracture mechanics based calculation model of flexed RC
elements strengthened with FRP. 9th Int. Conf. Fibre-Reinforced Polym. Compos.
Civ. Eng. (CICE 2018), Paris: 2018, p. 548–56.
11
Composite Structures 255 (2021) 113036
[39] J. Slaitas J. Valivonis L. Juknevičius R. Šalna Load-bearing capacity of flexural
reinforced concrete members strengthened with fiber-reinforced polymer in
fracture stage Advances in Mechanical Engineering 10 5 2018
168781401877294 10.1177/1687814018772942 http://journals.sagepub.com/
doi/10.1177/1687814018772942
[40] Slaitas J, Valivonis J. Crack parameters in normal section of FRP strengthened RC
elements. 13th Int. Conf Mod Build Mater Struct Tech 2019:475–82.
[41] Skuturna T, Valivonis J. Design method for calculating load-carrying capacity of
reinforced concrete beams strengthened with external FRP. Constr Build Mater
2014;50:577–83.
[42] Rzhanitsyn AR. Sostavnije sterzhni i plastinki [Built-up bars and
plates]. Moscow: Stroijizdat; 1986.
[43] European committee for standardization. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. 2004.
[44] Jokūbaitis V, Juknevičius L, Šalna R. Conditions for failure of normal section in
flexural reinforced concrete beams of rectangular cross-section. Procedia Eng
2013;57:466–72.
[45] V. Jokūbaitis L. Juknevičius CRITICAL DEPTH OF NORMAL CRACKS IN
REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS OF RECTANGULAR CROSS-SECTION 19 4
2013 583 590 http://journals.vgtu.lt/index.php/JCEM/article/view/3888
[46] V. Jokūbaitis L. Juknevičius ANALYSIS OF METHODS FOR CALCULATING THE
WIDTH OF NORMAL CRACKS IN REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES 1 1
2009 23 39 https://journals.vgtu.lt/index.php/EST/article/view/7530
[47] Jokūbaitis V. Peculiarities of methods for calculation of normal crack width in
reinforced concrete members (in Lithuanian). Vilnius: Statyb. Konstr; 2009.
[48] Jokūbaitis V. Fundamentals of fracture mechanics of building materials and
structures (in Lithuanian). Vilnius: Technika; 2001.
[49] Jokūbaitis V, Kamaitis Z. Cracking and repair of reinforced concrete structures (in
Lithuanian). Vilnius: Technika; 2000.
[50] American Concrete Institute. ACI 435R–95 Control of deflection in concrete
Structures - Reapproved 2000. Deflection Concr Struct 2003;95:89.
[51] American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills M. Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage,
and Tempera- ture Effects in Concrete Structures (ACI 209R-92). ACI Comm 209
1992:47 pp.
[52] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-14). 2014.
[53] Bischoff PH, Scanlon A. Effective moment of inertia for calculating deflections of
concrete members containing steel reinforcement and fiber-reinforced polymer
reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2007;104:68–75. https://doi.org/10.14359/18434.
[54] Bischoff PH. Reevaluation of deflection prediction for concrete beams reinforced
with steel and fiber reinforced polymer bars. J Struct Eng 2005;131(5):752–67.