Construction

and Building

Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 799–809

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Tests and design equations for FRP-strengthening in shear

Giorgio Monti *, Marc’Antonio Liotta
Department of Structural Engineering and Geotechnics, University of Rome ‘‘La Sapienza’’, Via A. Gramsci, 53, 00197 Roma, Italy

Received 20 January 2005; received in revised form 24 May 2006; accepted 19 June 2006
Available online 7 September 2006

Abstract

The experimental/analytical study presented herewith arrived at developing a mechanics-based (as opposed to regression-based)
model of the shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams, strengthened with externally bonded fibre reinforced polymers (FRP). The
model is obtained through the following steps, with due consideration of the underlying physical mechanisms: (a) the generalised con-
stitutive law of an FRP layer bonded to concrete is defined first, then, (b) the compatibility imposed by the shear crack opening and the
appropriate boundary conditions – which depend on the strengthening configuration (either side bonding, U-jacketing or wrapping) – are
included in the formulation, and, finally, (c) analytical expressions of the stress field in the FRP strip/sheet crossing a shear crack are
obtained. Through these expressions, closed-form equations for the effective debonding strength of FRP strips/sheets are defined as func-
tion of, both, the adopted strengthening configuration, and of some basic geometric and mechanical parameters. The so-obtained FRP
contribution is then added to those of concrete and steel, which, for the sake of comparison, have been considered as given by different
codes. The equations accuracy has been verified by predicting – a priori, with the developed equations – the shear strength of experimen-
tally tested r.c. beams, both collected from the literature and obtained from purposely carried out tests on under-designed real-scale beam
specimens, strengthened with different FRP schemes. No a posteriori calibration of the model was performed. The prediction capability
of the developed equations has been finally compared to other approaches available in the literature.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: FRP strengthening; Shear strengthening; Experimental tests; Design equations

1. Introduction tion to the shear capacity: as a matter of fact, an FRP sheet

The development of practical and reliable design equa-
tions for shear strengthening of reinforced concrete mem-
bers through FRP is still hindered by three aspects that
still remain not perfectly understood. The first regards
the shear resisting mechanism that develops when FRP
strips/sheets are side bonded to the element, rather than
U-jacketed or fully wrapped around. In the former case
(side bonding), a ‘‘crack-bridging’’ mechanism – similar
in nature to the aggregate interlock, dowel effect and con-
crete tooth – activates, while in the latter two cases (U-jac-
keting and wrapping) a Mörsch truss resisting mechanism
is actually mobilised. The second aspect regards the correct
evaluation of the FRP transverse strengthening contribu-
covering a shear crack develops a variable tensile stress
along the crack profile. This can be conveniently expressed
through an effective stress, whose intensity is usually found
in the literature as given through diagrams rather than
closed-form equations. The third aspect regards the evalu-
ation of the relative contributions to the shear capacity of
concrete, steel and FRP at ultimate:, it is not guaranteed
that both concrete and steel stirrups, can exploit their max-
imum strength when in the presence of FRP strengthening.
The objective of this work is exactly that of clarifying these
aspects, treating them from both the experimental and the
analytical standpoint.
2. Experimental tests

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 06 49919197; fax: +39 06 49919192. Twenty-four beam specimens, purposely designed as
E-mail address: giorgio.monti@uniroma1.it (G. Monti). under-reinforced in shear, were tested with a three-point

0950-0618/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.06.023
800 G. Monti, M. Liotta / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 799–809
bending scheme. Some of them were already presented in
[1]. All specimens had the same geometry, reinforcement
and materials. The materials properties, chosen to repre-
sent old construction standards, were: concrete mean com-
pressive cubic strength: Rcm = 13.3 MPa, and steel rebars
mean yield strength: fym = 500 MPa. The beams dimen-
sions were: span 2.80 m, cross-section (width · depth):
250 mm · 450 mm. The longitudinal reinforcement was:
4/20 bottom and 2/20 top. The transverse reinforcement
was: stirrups /8/400 mm. In view of externally bonding
FRP strips, the beams corners were rounded with 30 mm
radius. All external strengthening was single layer CFRP
strips/sheets, having thickness 0.22 mm and elastic modu-
lus Ef = 390 GPa. Fig. 1 shows both the specimen’s dimen-
sions and the loading scheme. The FRP strengthening
strips, when not fully wrapped, are interrupted at
150 mm from the beam top, to simulate a real application
in the presence of a slab. The nomenclature used for each
typology is in Table 1.
2.1. Tests description and results
All performed tests are described in the following, with
remarks on the failure mode and the corresponding failure
load. The strips spacing is measured along the beam axis.
Reported observed cracks are those due to shear, while
flexural cracks were regularly observed at around 90–
100 kN load. Failure is always due to shear. Side bonding,
U-jacketing and wrapping around the cross-section are
referred to as, respectively, S-, U-, and W-strengthening.
Note that S-strengthening is only considered for non-seis-
mic applications. The first letter denotes the cross-section
strengthening scheme (S, U or W), the second letter
denotes discrete strips (S) or continuous fabric (F), the
number denotes the angle of the fibres. An additional
(‘+’) denotes the presence of a collaboration strip on the
beam side along the bottom corner. The notation used to
identify each test according to the strengthening scheme
is represented in Table 1.
REF1 and REF2: Reference specimens, as built (Fig. 2a
and b). Failure attained due to rupture of, respectively, the
second and third stirrups, at 550 mm and 900 mm from the
beam left end, respectively, at 210 kN and 187 kN (Fig. 2a
and b).
SS90: Beam with S-strengthening, with CFRP strips
150 mm wide at b = 90, with 300 mm spacing (Fig. 2c).
The first cracks were observed at 120–130 kN. The beam
Fig. 1. Reference specimen dimensions and loading scheme (left) and picture of a test (right).
failure was reached at 200 kN. The FRP strengthening
was ineffective in increasing the beam shear capacity,
because the cracks crossed the strips at their ends.
SS45: Beam with S-strengthening, with CFRP strips
150 mm wide at b = 45, with 300 mm spacing (Fig. 2d).
The first cracks were observed at the load of 120/130 kN.
At 170 kN the strip right of midspan started debonding
at the bottom. The beam failure was reached at 202 kN
for complete debonding of the lower part of the second
and third strip at the beam left end.
SSVA: Beam with S-strengthening, with CFRP strips
150 mm wide (Fig. 2e). Strips have variable inclination
(30–45–60) and spacing as shown in Fig. 3. Around
140 kN, the third strip from the beam left end started deb-
onding. Beam failure at 210 kN, due to failure with com-
plete debonding from the top of the 30-strip.
SF90: Beam with S-strengthening, with CFRP sheets at
b = 90 (Fig. 2f). At 208 kN debonding occurs at the beam
midspan, right after the first cracks were observed. Beam
failure at 225 kN, with rupture of the stirrup at 900 mm
from the beam end.
US90: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP strips
150 mm wide at b = 90, with 300 mm spacing (Fig. 2g).
Failure due to the rupture of the third stirrup, after deb-
onding of the second strip from left. The failure load of
190 kN was close to that of the as-built beam because the
FRP strips were not activated.
US60: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP strips
150 mm wide at b = 45, with 300 mm spacing (Fig. 2h).
Formation of the first cracks at 135 kN. The third strip
from left started debonding from the top at 165 kN. Deb-
onding also started from the bottom at 199 kN, probably
because of a crack at the beam soffit. Specimen failure at
222 kN, apparently without stirrup rupture.
USVA: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP strips
150 mm wide with variable inclination (30–45–60) as in
SSVA (Fig. 2i). Around 110 kN, formation of cracks
located between the strips at 30 and 45. Specimen failure
at 240 kN due to debonding from the top of the 30-strip.
USVA+: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP strips
150 mm wide with variable inclination as in USVA
(Fig. 2j). First cracks around 170 kN. Debonding of the
mid-span strip at the beam bottom. Specimen failure at
270 kN without stirrup rupture.
US45+: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP strips
150 mm wide at b = 45, with 300 mm spacing (Fig. 2k).
At 167 kN, first cracks observed. At 223 kN debonding
 G. Monti, M. Liotta / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 799–809 801

Table 1
Strengthening scheme, notation and experimental shear capacity of the tested beams
Strengthening Strengthening type Fibres angle Name Strengthening configuration Shear capacity
application (kN)
As built None – REF1-4 average 98.0

Side bonding Strips width 150 mm spacing 300 mm 90 SS90a 100.0

45 SS45a 101.0

60, 45, 30 SSVA 105.0

Sheets 90 SF90 112.5

U-Jacketing Strips width 150 mm spacing 300 mm 90 US90a 95.0

60 US60 111.0

60, 45, 30 USVA 120.0

60, 45, 30 USVA+ 135.0

45 US45+ 126.0

90 US90(2)a 90.0

Sheets 90 UF90 125.0

Strips width 50 mm spacing 100 mm 45 US45++ 133.5

Sheets 45 UF45+ A 167.0

45˚
45˚

45 UF45++B 172.0

45˚
45˚

45 UF45++C 183.0

45˚
45˚

Strips width 150 mm spacing 225 mm 45 US45+ D 5

164.5
45˚

45˚

45 US45++E 163.5

45˚

45 US45++F 150.0

45˚

45˚

Wrapping Strips width 50 mm spacing 100 mm 45 WS45+ 158.5

45˚

45˚

a
In these tests, the shear cracks did not fully activate the FRP strips, which then did not contribute to the shear capacity.

of the second strip from left started. At 232 kN debonding
of the second strip from left started. Beam failure at
252 kN with complete debonding of the second strip.
US90(2): Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP
strips 150 mm wide at b = 90, with 300 mm spacing
(Fig. 2l). At 127 kN first shear cracks were observed. At
135 kN the third strip from left started debonding. At
166 kN debonding of the second strip from left. Failure
at 180 kN, accompanied by opening of the stirrups hooks.
Also in this case, the FRP strips were ineffective.
UF90: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP sheets at
b = 90 (Fig. 2m). First cracks at 178 kN. Debonding starts
at 206 kN. At 215 kN, reinforcement buckling at the beam
top, probably due to the upper concrete compression. FRP
failure around 250 kN and specimen failure right after with
stirrups rupture.
An interesting observation that emerged from this first
series of tests regards the limitation of the strips spacing:
it should be sufficiently close to ensure that cracks cross
at least one strip. From Fig. 4 it can be seen that, if one
802 G. Monti, M. Liotta / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 799–809
Fig. 2. (a) Reference specimen REF1; (b) reference specimen REF2; (c)
specimen SS90; (d) specimen SS45; (e) specimen SSVA; (f) specimen SF90.
Picture N/A. Same crack pattern as specimen UF90 in (m); (g) specimen
US90; (h) specimen US60; (i) specimen USVA; (j) specimen USV+; (k)
specimen US45+; (l) specimen US90(2); (m) specimen UF90.
considers the strips as ‘‘equivalent stirrups’’ at the strip
axis, having the same length of the strip minus the effective
bond length Le (defined later) at both ends in case of side
Fig. 3. Configuration of SSVA strengthening.
Side Bonding - 90˚
U-jacketing - 90˚
U-jacketing - 45˚
Fig. 4. Crack formation fields in the presence of inadequate strip spacing.
bonding and at one end in case of U-Jacketing, shear
cracks can actually develop that do not cross excessively
spaced strips in the effectively bonded zone.
Indeed, in the case of side bonding, there exists a field
where a crack, represented in its minimum and maximum
slope, passes in between strips without crossing and acti-
vating them. From the same figure, it can be seen that
the extension of such field reduces when passing from S-
to U-strengthening and also by increasing the fibre inclina-
tion. Both the observation of the tested specimens and the
comparison between theoretical and experimental results
shown in Section 4, suggest to adopt the following limita-
tions in case of strips: the width wf and the spacing pf of
the strips, measured (in mm) orthogonally with respect to
the angle b of the fibre direction, should respect the follow-
ing limitations: 50 mm 6 wf 6 250 mm, pf 6 min{0.5 d, 3
wf, wf + 200 mm} and pf P 2wf.
Complying with the above limitations, a second series of
beam tests was carried out, as described in the following. In
the tests denoted with ‘+’, the top ends of the U-jacketed
strips were mechanically anchored through FRP rebars.
In the tests denoted with ‘++’, in addition to the top
mechanical anchorage, a collaboration strip along the
beam bottom corner was applied.
REF3 and REF4: Two more reference specimens to
ensure the concrete strength of the second casting to be
 G. Monti, M. Liotta / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 799–809 803

form sheets (Fig. 5f). First cracks at 184 kN. First strip
breaks at 288 kN. FRP failure around 366 kN and beam
failure right after without stirrups rupture.
US45++ ‘‘D’’: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP
strips 150 mm wide at b = 45 with 300 mm spacing
(Fig. 5g). First cracks at 210 kN. Shear failure at 329 kN,
with stirrup hooks opening at one side and stirrup failure
on the other side.
US45++ ‘‘E’’: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP
strips 150 mm wide at b = 45 with 300 mm spacing
(Fig. 5h). First cracks at 210 kN. Shear failure at 327 kN,
with stirrup overlap opening at one side and stirrup failure
on the other side.
US45++ ‘‘F’’: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP
strips 150 mm wide at b = 45 with 300 mm spacing
(Fig. 5i). First cracks between 204 and 212 kN. Shear fail-
ure at 300 kN, with stirrup overlap opening at one side and
stirrup failure on the other side.
WS45+: Beam with W-strengthening, with CFRP strips
50 mm wide at b = 45, spacing 150 mm (Fig. 5j). First
cracks at 182 kN. Failure of first strip at 291 kN and beam
failure at 317 kN.

3. Design equations for FRP shear strengthening

In this section, a coherent analytical framework is pre-

sented that aims at describing the behaviour of RC ele-
ments FRP-strengthened in shear, following previous
efforts made by other authors [2–11]. The developed theory
arrives at describing the FRP stress distribution rf,cr(x)
along a shear crack (as qualitatively sketched in Fig. 6)
through closed-form equations, as opposed to existing
regression-based formulas (e.g. [12,13]). Once this is
correctly defined, the FRP resultant across the crack is
Fig. 5. (a) Specimen REF3; (b) specimen REF4; (c) specimen US45++ (d)
specimen US45+ ‘‘A’’; (e) specimen US45++ ‘‘B’’; (f) specimen US45++
‘‘C’’; (g) specimen US45+ ‘‘D’’; (h) specimen US45++ ‘‘E’’; (i) specimen
US45++ ‘‘F’’; (j) specimen WS45+.

d
σ f ,cr ( x)
the same as in the first beams series. Shear failure at 187 θ β
and 200 kN of load, respectively (Fig. 5a and b). Shear fail-
ure at 187 and 200 kN of load, respectively.
Fig. 6. Stress distribution along an FRP sheet crossing a shear crack.
US45++: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP strips
50 mm wide at b = 45, spacing 150 mm (Fig. 5c). First
cracks at 184 kN. Failure of first strip at 261 kN and beam
failure at 267 kN.
US45+ ‘‘A’’: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP
strips 150 mm wide at b = 45 with 225 mm spacing, to
form sheets (Fig. 5d). First cracks at 197 kN. Failure at θ
w
f
p'
f

334 kN with opening of the stirrup hooks. h d hw

US45++ ‘‘B’’: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP β
strips 150 mm wide at b = 45 with 225 mm spacing, to c
bw tf pf
form sheets (Fig. 5e). First cracks at 184 kN. Failure at
344 kN with opening of the stirrup hooks.
p
f

US45++ ‘‘C’’: Beam with U-strengthening, with CFRP

strips 150 mm wide at b = 45 with 225 mm spacing, to Fig. 7. Geometry notation.
804 G. Monti, M. Liotta / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 799–809

computed and the FRP contribution to the shear capacity The debonding strength can be given as [14]:
is found. The analytical developments yield three predictive sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
equations for side bonding (S), U-jacketing (U) and wrap- 0:80 2Ef CFk
ffdd ¼ units : ½N; mm ð2Þ
ping (W). The obtained expressions of the FRP strength cf;d tf
are given in terms of readily available geometrical and
where cf,d is a partial safety factor depending on the appli-
mechanical quantities of both the FRP strengthening and
cation quality, and CFk is a specific fracture energy of the
the RC beam and are then used to compute the FRP shear
FRP–concrete bond interface, expressed as [14]:
contribution, which is then added to those of concrete and pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
transverse reinforcement to find the overall shear capacity. CFk ¼ 0:03  k b  fck  fctm ½units : N; mm ð3Þ
These equations have been incorporated in the new Code
where fck = concrete characteristic cylinder strength, and
for FRP strengthening recently issued by the Italian
kb = covering/scale coefficient, given as
Research Council [14]. In the following, for the sake of sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
coherence, the formulae relevant to the FRP debonding 2  wf =pf
mechanism are those adopted in that code. kb ¼ P1 ð4Þ
1 þ wf =400
In the subsequent developments, the following hypothe-
ses are made (notation in Fig. 7): where, for strips: wf = width measured orthogonally to b,
pf = spacing measured orthogonally to b; while, for sheets,
 Shear cracks are evenly spaced along the beam axis, and kb = 1. Note, however, that wf should not exceed
inclined with angle h. min(0.9d, hw) Æ sin(h + b)/sin h, with d = beam effective
 At the ULS the cracks depth is equal to the internal depth, hw = beam web depth, b = angle of strip/sheet to
lever arm z = 0.9d. the beam axis, h = crack angle to the beam axis.
 In the case of U-jacketing (U) and wrapping (W), the In case the available bond length lb is lower than the
resisting shear mechanism is based on the Mörsch truss, effective bond length le, the debonding strength is reduced
while in the case of side bonding (S), because the accordingly as
Mörsch truss cannot form as the tensile diagonal tie is  
lb lb
missing, a different resisting mechanism of ‘‘crack-bridg- ffdd ðlb Þ ¼ ffdd  2 ðif lb < le Þ ð5Þ
ing’’ is considered to develop. le le
For case (b), when wrapped around a corner, it is noted
In order to fully characterize the physical phenomenon, that the FRP strip attains a fraction /R of its ultimate
the following aspects must be analytically defined: (a) the strength ffu depending on the corner rounding radius rc
failure criterion of an FRP strip/sheet bonded to concrete, with respect to the beam width bw [17]:
(b) the generalised stress-slip constitutive law, (c) the com- rc rc
patibility equations (i.e., the crack opening), and (d) the /R ¼ 0:2 þ 1:6 ; 0 6 6 0:5 ð6Þ
bw bw
boundary conditions (i.e., the available bonded lengths
on both sides of the crack depending on the strengthening Thus, including both cases (a) and (b), the ultimate
configuration). strength of the FRP strip/sheet is

3.1. Generalised failure criterion of an FRP strip/sheet σf

bonded to concrete f fu Le L
1 2
3 τ
f fdd 1
The criterion should include the two possible cases of: L
(a) straight strip/sheet, and (b) strip/sheet wrapped around u
u1 ( L ) u d (L ) uu (L) = u f ( L)
a corner. Le L Le
Le L Le
For case (a), two quantities are introduced: the effective
τ τ
bond length le (also referred to as optimal anchorage length) 2 3
and the debonding strength ffdd. For both quantities, several L L

different equations have been proposed (e.g. [5,15,16]); in

this paper, as mentioned above, the equations adopted in
σf
the new Italian FRP code [14] are used. 2 Le

The effective bond length can be given as [14]: f fdd

1 τ 1 2

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ef tf L
le ¼ ½length in mm ð1Þ
2f ctm u1 ( L ) ud (L) = udu (L)

where: Ef = FRP sheet elastic modulus, tf = sheet thick-
2=3
ness, fctm ¼ 0:27  Rck ¼ concrete mean tensile strength
(with Rck = concrete characteristic cubic strength).
Fig. 8. Stress-slip law for the case of FRP strip/sheet with free end. With
sufficient bond length (top), and with small bond length (bottom).
Numbers on the stress-slip rf–u diagram correspond to different positions
of the bond stress field s(L) along the bonded length.
 G. Monti, M. Liotta / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 799–809 805

ffu ðlb ; de ; rc Þ ¼ ffdd ðlb Þ þ h/R  ffu  ffdd ðlb Þi  de ; σf

 5
0 free end ð7Þ f fu Le L
where : de ¼ 2 3 4 Ef
1 end around a corner 1
L
τ
f fdd 1
where Æ Æ æ denotes that the bracketed expression is zero if L
negative. u
If lb P le, the ultimate strength of the FRP strip/sheet, u1(L) ud (L) uu (L) u f (L)
Le L Le
wrapped around a corner with radius rc, is simply: Le L Le
τ τ
ffu ðrc Þ ¼ ffdd þ h/R  ffu  ffdd i ð8Þ 2 3
L L
3.2. Generalised stress-slip constitutive law

For the sake of simplicity, the generalised stress-slip law τ 4

kf =
Ef
τ 5
Strip/sheet rupture
Complete L at the corner
debonding
rf (u, lb, de) of FRP strips/sheets bonded to concrete, L
including both cases of free and wrapped end, is graphi-
cally depicted in Figs. 8 and 9 as function of the applied
slip u at the pulled end, of the available bond length lb, Fig. 9. Stress-slip law for the case of FRP strip/sheet wrapped around a
and of the end constraint de. More details on the analytical corner. Numbers on the stress-slip rf–u diagram correspond to different
positions of the bond stress field s(L) along the bonded length.
expressions can be found in [18].
wðxÞ 1
3.3. Compatibility (crack width) uða; xÞ ¼  sinðh þ bÞ ¼ a  x  sinðh þ bÞ ð10Þ
2 2
Considering a reference system with the origin placed at
the tip of the shear crack and with abscissa x along the 3.4. Boundary conditions (available bond length)
crack itself (Fig. 10, top left), the crack width (normal to
the crack axis) along the shear crack can be expressed as The boundary conditions refer to the available bond
w = w(x). In the following developments, in order to arrive length L(x) on both sides of the shear crack and should
at closed-form equations, a linear expression is used for the be defined according to the strengthening scheme adopted:
crack width: either S = side bonding, U = U-jacketing, W = wrapping.
Fig. 10 graphically depicts the following definitions:
wðxÞ ¼ a  x ð9Þ 8 9
where a denotes the crack opening angle. Under the < minflb;top ðxÞ; lb;bot ðxÞg S ¼ Side bonding >
> =
lb ðxÞ ¼ lb;top ðxÞ U ¼ U-jacketing
hypothesis of symmetry at the opposite sides of the crack, >
: >
;
a slip is thus imposed to the strip/sheet crossing it, accord- maxflb;top ðxÞ; lb;bot ðxÞg W ¼ Wrapping
ing to ð11Þ

L( x) = LS ( x)
S
0 ≤ x < z/2sin θ
Crack angle
z
Crack opening angle FRP sheet angle z/2sin θ ≤x ≤ z/sin θ

α θ β
x x
L( x) = LU ( x) L( x) = LW ( x)
U 0 ≤ x < z/2sin θ W

0 ≤ x ≤ z/sin θ

x x z/2sin θ ≤ x ≤z/sin θ L( x) = LW ( x)

Fig. 10. Boundary conditions (available bond length) for three strengthening configurations: S = side bonding, U = U-jacketing, and W = wrapping.
806 G. Monti, M. Liotta / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 799–809

where: lb,top(x), lb,bot(x) = available bond lengths, starting the one offering the maximum contribution, for each
from the crack axis towards the strip/sheet top and bottom strengthening configuration.
end, respectively. More details on the analytical expres-
sions can be found in [18]. 3.6.1. Effective stress in the FRP sheet
To this aim it is expedient to define an effective stress in
3.5. FRP stress profile along the shear crack the FRP sheet as the mean FRP stress field rf,cr(x) along
the shear crack length z/sin h:
In order to obtain the FRP stress profile along the crack Z z= sin h
rf,cr(x), including compatibility (crack opening) and 1
rfe ðaÞ ¼  rf;cr ½uða; xÞ; lb ðxÞdx ð12Þ
boundary conditions (available bond length), one has to z= sin h 0
substitute into the constitutive law rf(u, lb, de): (a) the com-
which might be regarded as an equivalent constant FRP
patibility equation u = u(a, x) given by (10), (b) the bound-
stress block along the shear crack, inclined to an angle b
ary condition lb = lb(x) given by (11), and (c) the
as the FRP fibres, as the crack gradually opens. The inte-
appropriate value of de depending on the end constraint
gral (12) has closed-form solutions, which can be found
(equal to 0 for S and U and to 1 for W). Fig. 11 qualita-
again in [18].
tively depicts the rf,cr(x) profiles along the crack for the
three different strengthening configurations considered,
3.6.2. Effective debonding strength
when sheets are used. In the configuration S, the stress pro-
The maximum FRP effective stress, which is termed the
file is truncated towards the end of the crack, where the
effective debonding strength ffed, is found by imposing:
available length tends to zero. In the configuration U, the
stress profile remains constant where the available length drfe ðaÞ
allows the full debonding strength to be developed ¼0 ð13Þ
da
throughout the crack length. In the configuration W, the
stress profile rises towards the end of the crack, where, after Solution of (13) allows to determine the FRP stress profile
complete debonding, the sheet is restrained at both ends with the maximum area, that is, the effective debonding
and subjected to simple tension up to its tensile strength. strength of the FRP shear strengthening.
Also in this case, the closed-form equations of rf,cr(x) can In case of S-strengthening (neglecting the analytical
be found in [18]. developments presented in [18]) one has
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!2
zrid;eq leq
3.6. Determination of FRP contribution to the shear capacity ffed ¼ ffdd   1  0:6 ð14Þ
minf0:9d; hw g zrid;eq
The objective is to obtain the maximum contribution of
where
the FRP strips/sheet to the shear capacity. This means to  
identify, among all possible shapes of the FRP stress profile sf
zrid;eq ¼ minf0:9d; hw g  le   sin b ð15Þ
rf,cr[u(a, x),lb(x)], which changes with the crack opening a, ffdd =Ef

σ f ,cr

Crack width at mid-crack

Crack opening angle
α FRP sheet angle

θ β
S
x σ f ,cr x σ f ,cr

U W
x x

Fig. 11. Typical stress profiles in FRP sheets along the shear crack for three strengthening configurations: S = side bonding, U = U-jacketing, and
W = wrapping.
 G. Monti, M. Liotta / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 799–809 807

and it is observed that zrid,eq is equal to the vertically pro- and VRd,s is the steel contribution, given by
jected length of the FRP strip, minus the effective bond nst  Ast
length where bond is building up, plus a bonded length that V Rd;s ¼ 0:9d  fyd ðcot h þ cot bst Þ sin bst ð24Þ
sst
would be necessary if the FRP stress was uniform under the
debonding slip sf. where cc = concrete partial coefficient, bw = web section
In case of U-strengthening: width, qsl = longitudinal reinforcement ratio, fck = con-
  crete characteristic cylindrical strength, fyd = design steel
1 le sin b
ffed ¼ ffdd  1  ð16Þ yield strength, nst = transverse reinforcement arm number,
3 minf0:9d; hw g
Ast, sst = area (one arm) and spacing of traverse reinforce-
In case of W-strengthening: ment, and bst = stirrups angle.
  In (22), VRd,max is the concrete strut strength, given by
1 le sin b 1
ffed ¼ ffdd  1  þ ð/R  ffd  ffdd Þ (e.g. [19]):
6 minf0:9d; hw g 2
 
le sin b V Rd; max ¼ 0:9d  bw  m  fcd  ðcot h þ cot bst Þ=ð1 þ cot2 hÞ
 1 ð17Þ
minf0:9d; hw g ð25Þ
where ffd is the design ultimate strength of the FRP. with m ¼ 0:6½1  fck =250 ½in MPa: ð26Þ

3.7. Shear capacity with FRP 4. Validation of design equations

In case the reinforcement type is U or W, the Mörsch
resisting mechanism can be activated and the shear carried
by FRP is expressed as
1 wf
V Rd;f ¼  0:9d  ffed  2tf  ðcot h þ cot bÞ 
cRd pf
while for side-bonding (S) the FRP role is that of ‘‘bridg-
ing’’ the shear crack, so that
1 sin b wf
V Rd;f ¼  minf0:9d; hw g  ffed  2tf   ð19Þ
cRd sin h pf
with d = beam effective depth, ffed = design effective
strength of the FRP shear strengthening, given either by
(14) for side bonding or by (16) for U-jacketing or by
(17) for wrapping, tf = thickness of FRP strip/sheet (on
single side) with angle b, h = crack angle, sf, wf = strip
spacing and width, respectively, measured orthogonally
to direction b.
Assuming cracks inclined of an angle h = 45 with
respect to the vertical and strips/sheets vertically aligned
at b = 90, the two previous equations become:
1 wf
V Rd;f ¼  0:9d  ffed  2tf 
cRd pf
1 pffiffiffi wf
V Rd;f ¼  minf0:9d; hw g  ffed  2tf  2
cRd pf
The shear verification should be performed by comparing
the design shear demand with the design shear capacity, gi-
ven by
V Rd ¼ minfV Rd;ct þ V Rd;s þ V Rd;f ; V Rd; max g
where VRd,ct is the concrete contribution, given by (e.g.
[19]):
( rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi )
0:18 200 mm
V Rd;ct ¼ bw  d  min 1 þ
cc
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 3 100  minf0:02; qsl g  fck
The above presented equations are validated by predict-
ing the experimental results obtained both from the tests
presented above and from tests collected from the literature
[20–31] for a total of 60 tests. A complete and detailed list
ð18Þ
of the tests performed by other authors used to validate the
equations can be found in [31]. The results are presented in
Fig. 12, where also trend lines are shown. The predictions
obtained with the proposed equations are also compared
with those obtained with a different model [9] for the
FRP contribution and with the equations adopted in [30]
for both the concrete and the FRP contributions. Partial
coefficients were set to 1 and mean values of the material
properties were used for the predictions of the experimental
results. In the tests with variable slope of the FRP strips, a
fixed value of 45 was considered, while the spacing is the
effective one. The shear capacity of the reference beam
was computed as the mean between the four tested
unstrengthened specimens. Note that in specimen SS90,
SS45, and US90, the contribution of FRP strengthening
was not considered, as it was observed that the diagonal
shear cracks did not cross the strips.
The mean error in predicting the shear capacity of the
ð20Þ
beams where the FRP strengthening was activated is 7%,
with a peak of 15% for the configurations US60 and
ð21Þ UF90. Such an error can be considered as acceptable.
Looking at the trend lines, it can be observed that the pro-
posed equations predict with quite satisfactory accuracy
the experimental results.
ð22Þ 5. Conclusions
The work presented here addressed some fundamental
problems in the analytical definition of the shear capacity
of FRP-shear-strengthened RC beams and proposes possi-
;2
d ble solutions for them. In particular, for as regards the so-
called ‘effective’ debonding strength of FRP strips/sheets
ð23Þ crossing shear cracks, closed-form equations were found,
808 G. Monti, M. Liotta / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 799–809
Prediction/Experiment comparison
300
Proposed equations
Chen and Teng
250
ACI 440.2R-02
200
Prediction (kN)
150
100
50
0
0 50
Fig. 12. Prediction/experiment comparison with the proposed equations, with Chen and Teng [8] model and with the equations adopted in ACI [30].
which are then used in computing the FRP contribution
Vf to the overall shear capacity. In this respect, it has been
clarified that Vf should be computed, for U- and W-
strengthening configurations, with (18), which considers
a Mörsch truss mechanism, whereas, for S-strengthening,
with (19), which considers a ‘‘crack-bridging’’ mechanism.
The equations developed showed good correlation with
purposely carried out experimental tests and with tests
collected from the literature. As a last remark, it should
be mentioned that the proposed equations have been
included in the recently issued Italian FRP-strengthening
code [14].
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Interbau srl company of Mi-
lan, Italy, for both the beam specimens casting and the
CFRP application.
References
[1] Monti G, Santinelli F, Liotta MA. Shear strengthening of beams with
composite materials. In: Proc 2nd international conference on FRP
composites in civil engineering CICE 2004, Adelaide, Australia,
December, 2004.
[2] Täljsten B. Strengthening of concrete structures for shear with
bonded CFRP-fabrics. In: Meier U, Betti R., editors. Recent
advances in bridge engineering, Advanced rehabilitation, durable
materials, nondestructive evaluation and management, Dübendorf,
1997. p. 57–64.
[3] Triantafillou TC. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams
using epoxy-bonded FRP composites. ACI Struct J 1998;95(2):
107–15.
[4] Khalifa A, Gold WJ, Nanni A, Aziz AMI. Contribution of externally
bonded FRP to shear capacity of rc flexural members. ASCE J
Compos Construct 1998;2(4):195–202.
100 150 200 250 300
Experiment (kN)
[5] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP strengthened RC
structures. John Wiley; 2001.
[6] Pellegrino C, Modena C. Fiber reinforced polymer shear strengthen-
ing of reinforced concrete beams with transverse steel reinforcement.
ASCE, J Compos Construct 2002;6:104.
[7] Ye L, Yue Q, Zhao S, Li Q. Shear strength of reinforced concrete
columns strengthened with carbon–fiber-reinforced plastic sheet.
ASCE, J Struct Eng 2002;128:1527.
[8] Chen JF, Teng JG. Shear capacity of fibre-reinforced polymer-
strengthened reinforced concrete beams: fiber-reinforced polymer
rupture. ASCE, J Struct Eng 2003;129:615.
[9] Chen JF, Teng JG. Shear capacity of FRP strengthened RC beams:
FRP debonding. Construct Build Mater 2003;17(1):27–41.
[10] Adhikary BB, Mutsuyoshi H. Behavior of concrete beams strength-
ened in shear with carbon–fiber sheets. ASCE, J Compos Construct
2004;8:258.
[11] Deniaud C, Cheng JJR. Simplified shear design method for concrete
beams strengthened with FRP. ASCE, J Compos Construct
2004;8(5):425–33.
[12] Triantafillou TC, Antonopoulos CP. Design of concrete flexural
members strengthened in shear with FRP. ASCE J Compos
Construct 2000;4(4):198–205.
[13] Fib. Design and use of externally bonded frp reinforcement (FRP
EBR) for reinforced concrete structures. Bulletin no. 14, fib Task
Group 9.3 ‘FRP reinforcement for concrete structures’, 2001.
[14] CNR. Instructions for design, execution and control of strengthening
interventions through fiber-reinforced composites. CNR-DT 200/04,
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy (English version),
2005.
[15] Chen JF, Teng JG. Anchorage strength models for FRP and steel
plates bonded to concrete. ASCE, J Struct Eng 2001;127:784.
[16] Monti, G, Renzelli, M, Luciani, P. FRP adhesion to uncracked and
cracked concrete zones. In: 6th international symposium on fibre-
reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures
(FRPRCS-6), Singapore, 2003.
[17] Campione G, Miraglia N. Strength and strain capacities of concrete
compression members reinforced with FRP. Cement and concrete
composites, vol. 25. Elsevier; 2003. p. 31–41.
[18] Monti G, Santinelli F, Liotta MA. Mechanics of FRP shear
strengthening of RC beams. In: Proc ECCM 11, Rhodes, Greece,
May 2004.
 G. Monti, M. Liotta / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 799–809
[19] CEN. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings. prEN 1992-1-1:2003 E, Comité
Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2003.
[20] Al-Sulaimani GJ, Sharif A, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Ghaleb BN.
Shear repair for reinforced concrete by fiberglass plate bonding. ACI
Struct J 1994;91(3):458–64.
[21] Chajes MJ, Januszka TF, Mertz DR, Thomson Jr TA, Finch Jr WW.
Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using externally
applied composite fabrics. ACI Struct J 1995;92(3):295–303.
[22] Funakawa I, Shimono K, Watanabe T, Asada S, Ushijima S.
Experimental study on shear strengthening with continuous fiber
reinforcement sheet and methyl methacrylate resin. In: III int symp
non metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, Japan,
1997. p. 475–82.
[23] Kamiharako A, Maruyama K, Takada K, Shimomura T. Evaluation
of shear contribution of FRP sheets attached to concrete beams. In:
III int symp non metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures,
Japan, 1997. p. 467–74.
[24] Norris T, Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. Shear and flexural
strengthening of R/C beams with carbon fiber sheets. ASCE, J Struct
Eng 1997;123(7):903–11.
809
[25] Taerwe L, Khalil H, Matthys S. Behaviour of R/C beams strength-
ened in shear by external CFRP sheets. In: III int symp non metallic
(FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, Japan, 1997. p. 483–90.
[26] Umezu K, Fujita M, Nakai H, Tamaki K. Shear behavior of RC
beams with aramid fiber sheet. In: III int symp non metallic (FRP)
reinforcement for concrete structures, Japan, 1997. p. 491–98.
[27] Challal O, Nollet MJ, Saleh K. Use of CFRP strips for flexure and
shear strengthening of RC members. In: 2nd int conf on composites in
infrastructure, Tucson (AZ, USA), 1998. p. 249–60.
[28] Khalifa A, Nanni A. Improving shear capacity of existing RC T-
section beams using CFRP composites. Cement Concr Compos
2000;22:165–74.
[29] Park SY, Naaman AE, Lopez MM, Till RD. Shear strengthening
effect of R/C beams using glued CFRP sheets. In: Int conf on FRP
composites in civil engineering, Hong Kong, China, vol. 1, 2001. p.
669–76.
[30] ACI, ACI440.2R-02 – Guide for the design and construction of
externally bonded frp systems for strengthening concrete structures.
American Concrete Institute, Committee, 2002. p. 440.
[31] Aprile A, Benedetti A. Coupled flexural-shear design of RC beams
strengthened with FRP. Compos Part B: Eng 2004;35(1):1–25.