Symmetric and Asymmetric Strengthening of Two-Span RC

Beams Using FRCM Systems

Ahmed Mandor1 and Ahmed El Refai2

Abstract: This paper reports on the feasibility of using fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems to strengthen two-span re-
inforced concrete (RC) beams that are structurally deficient in their sagging regions. In addition to one unstrengthened control beam, nine
beams strengthened either symmetrically or asymmetrically with polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole (PBOFRCM), carbon (CFRCM), and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets were tested under a five-point load configuration. Test results showed that increasing the
strengthening ratio resulted in significant increases in the yielding and load-carrying capacity of the beams. Beams symmetrically strength-
ened with PBOFRCM showed high ductility indices ranging between 100% and 121% of that of the control beam, whereas those strength-
ened with CFRCM and CFRP showed ductility indices of 45% and 34% of that of the control beam, respectively. Moreover, beams
symmetrically strengthened with PBOFRCM systems encountered moment redistribution ratios between 42% and 82% of that of the control
beam compared with 10% and 9% only for those strengthened with CFRCM and CFRP systems, respectively. The asymmetric strengthening
configuration in which FRCM systems were used along with CFRP sheets proved to be an efficient method to enhance the ductility and mo-
ment redistribution capacity of the strengthened beams. Analytically, the rigid-body-rotation approach was modified to predict the moments
and curvatures at the plastic hinges of the strengthened sections. The predicted moments and curvatures showed a notable agreement with the
experimental values. DOI: 10.1061/JCCOF2.CCENG-3975. © 2023 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: FRCM; Textile reinforced mortars; Continuous beams; Strengthening; Flexure; Asymmetric strengthening; Ductility;
Rotational capacity; Moment redistribution; Rigid-body rotation.

Introduction and Background
Strengthening techniques of reinforced concrete (RC) structures
widely differ in their materials, their application procedures, and
their long-term performance. Previous researchers have demon-
strated the effectiveness of the commonly known externally bonded
techniques, which were widely manifested in the use of fiber-
reinforced polymer (FRP) products in several strengthening appli-
cations due to their noncorrosive properties, ease of installation,
and their long-term durability (Teng et al. 2002; Ceroni et al.
2008; ACI 2017).
However, previous studies have confirmed that the ductility of
FRP-strengthened structures substantially decreased after strength-
ening, particularly when the strengthening ratio, represented in the
number of FRP plies used, increased (Ashour et al. 2004; Silva and
Ibell 2008; Coccia et al. 2008; Jumaat et al. 2010; Tajaddini et al.
2017; Mandor and El Refai 2022a). Grace (2001) reported average
reductions of 87% and 73% in the ductility and moment redistribu-
tion capacity of RC continuous beams strengthened with carbon
fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets in their hogging section.
El-Refaie et al. (2003) concluded similar results and reported that
1
Ph.D. Graduate, Dept. of Civil and Water Engineering, Laval Univ.,
Quebec City, Quebec G1V 0A6, Canada. Email: ahmed.mandor.1@
ulaval.ca
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Water Engineering, Laval
Univ., Quebec City, Quebec G1V 0A6, Canada (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7245-7523. Email: ahmed.elrefai@
gci.ulaval.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 23, 2022; approved on
December 8, 2022; published online on February 14, 2023. Discussion pe-
riod open until July 14, 2023; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con-
struction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
the use of CFRP sheets in strengthening RC beams led to an aver-
age loss in ductility and moment redistribution capacity of 70% and
83%, respectively. Maghsoudi and Bengar (2009) claimed that in-
creasing the axial stiffness of the CFRP strengthening sheets in
both the hogging and sagging zones of high-strength concrete con-
tinuous beams was accompanied by a substantial reduction in their
ductility and moment redistribution capacity of 91% and 78%,
respectively.
Most researchers attributed the loss of ductility in
FRP-strengthened structures to the brittle nature of the FRP prod-
ucts, especially their associated epoxy adhesives, which affects
the serviceability characteristics of the strengthened structure and
results in a premature brittle debonding of the FRP system at ulti-
mate loads (Tajaddini et al. 2017; Mandor and El Refai 2022a).
Consequently, the use of FRP systems in seismic regions
becomes questionable due to the loss of the required ductility
and rotational capacity in the strengthened sections. Hence, most
design codes and guidelines are conservative in consider-
ing the redistribution of flexural moments between the critical
sections in FRP-strengthened structures (CSA 2012; ACI 2019;
BSI 2019).
Recently, new cement-based composites, known as fabric-
reinforced cementitious matrices (FRCMs), were introduced to
remedy the drawbacks of FRPs. FRCM systems consist of one or
more layers of long woven, knitted, or unwoven textiles made of
carbon (C), glass (G), or polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole
(PBO) grids that are sandwiched between layers of a cementitious
mortar. Many researchers have reported on the effectiveness of
FRCM systems in enhancing the load-carrying and deformation ca-
pacity of flexure-deficient structures (Elsanadedy et al. 2013;
Pellegrino and D’Antino 2013; Loreto et al. 2014; Elghazy et al.
2018; Mandor and El Refai 2022a, b) and shear-deficient structures
(Aljazaeri and Myers 2018; Tetta et al. 2018). In a comparative

© ASCE 04023017-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017

 Table 1. Test matrix of the experimental program

Tensile steel Strengthening system

Compressive
reinforcement (No. of fabric layers used) f
Beam Strengthening strength, β (%) Failure
identifier Hog. Sag. configuration West sag. East sag. f ′c , MPa (W–E) modes
W0-E0 — — — 49 — Y-CC
WP1-EP1 Symmetric PBOFRCM (1) PBOFRCM (1) 48.5 (1.9–1.9) FS
WP2-EP2 PBOFRCM (2) PBOFRCM (2) 48.8 (3.8–3.8) PD–FS
WP4-EP4 PBOFRCM (4) PBOFRCM (4) 49.7 (7.6–7.6) CS–ES
WC2-EC2 CFRCM (2) CFRCM (2) 44.5 (7.4–7.4) CS–SR
2–15M 2–10M
WF1-EF1 CFRP (1) CFRP (1) 49 (7.8–7.8) SR
WF1-EP4 Asymmetric CFRP (1) PBOFRCM (4) 47.3 (7.8–7.6) CS–ES
WF1-EC2 CFRP (1) CFRCM (2) 46.3 (7.8–7.4) CS–SR
WC2-EP4 CFRCM (2) PBOFRCM (4) 49.5 (7.4–7.6) CS–ES
W0-EP4 — PBOFRCM (4) 48.12 (NA–7.6) Y-CC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: W = west span; E = east span; Y-CC = steel yielding followed by concrete crushing; FS = fabric slippage; PD–FS = partial delamination accompanied
by fabric slippage in the zone of maximum sagging moment; CS–ES = separation of FRCM accompanied by slippage at the end anchor; and SR = sudden
rupture in fibers.

study between FRCM and FRP systems, Raoof et al. (2017) re-
ported that using FRCM systems in strengthening simply supported
beams resulted in 80% gain in their flexural capacity compared
with 74% in their FRP-strengthened counterparts. The authors
also reported that using U-shaped end-anchorage had increased
the deformation capacity of the FRCM-strengthened beam by
68% of that of the control beam versus 41% increase in the
FRP-strengthened beam. Ombres (2011) confirmed that using a
PBOFRCM system led to 44% gain in the flexural capacity of sim-
ply supported RC beams with an average loss of ductility of 18%,
depending on the number of the fabric layers used. Note that, con-
trary to the FRP-strengthened structures, the large deformation ca-
pacity of the FRCM-strengthened simply supported structures is
predominantly attributed to the gradual slippage of the fabric
from its surrounding matrix as encountered in most of the reported
tests. Such mechanism allows for large deformations, and, hence,
sufficient ductility in the strengthened structure prior to failure
can be observed (Banholzer et al. 2006; Brückner et al. 2006;
D’Antino et al. 2014; Hadad et al. 2020).
Despite the numerous studies that confirmed the feasibility of
FRCM systems as an efficient strengthening technique for simply
supported RC structures, the flexural behavior of multispan struc-
tures strengthened with FRCM systems has received little attention.
The current study aims to fill this gap by examining both experi-
mentally and analytically the flexural behavior of RC two-span
beams strengthened with various types of FRCM systems. The
study also includes testing of two-span beams strengthened with
FRP systems for comparison purposes. Several parameters are in-
vestigated during testing, with an emphasis on the ductility perfor-
mance and the moment redistribution ratios between the critical
sections of the tested beams. Symmetric and asymmetric strength-
ening configurations are examined as a practical strengthening
scheme that may exist in real-life situations. The experimental
part of the study also reports on the failure modes, the gain in the
yield and ultimate capacity, and the formation of the plastic hinges
at the strengthened sections of the beams. In the analytical part, the
relationship between the curvature of the strengthened sections and
the formation of the plastic hinges is interpreted using the
rigid-body-rotation (RBR) approach.
Experimental Investigation
The test matrix of the experimental program is detailed in Table 1.
Ten large-scale two-span RC beams were constructed in the
Structural Laboratory of Laval University and tested up to failure.
The sagging regions in all beams were deficient in flexure, with an
internal reinforcement ratio of 50% less than that provided in the
hogging regions. One of the beams was not strengthened and
served as control, and nine beams were strengthened in their sag-
ging regions and were strengthened with either FRCM or FRP
systems.
The first part of the beams’ labels refers to the strengthening
condition of the west span, W, followed by the type of the strength-
ening system (“0” for the control beam, “P” for PBOFRCM, “C”
for CFRCM, and “F” for CFRP systems) and the number of the fab-
ric layers used (1, 2, or 4 layers). Similarly, the second part of the
label refers to the strengthening condition of the east span, E, fol-
lowed by the type and the number of the fabric layers of the
strengthening system. Therefore, specimen WF1-EP4 refers to a
beam strengthened with one layer of CFRP sheet in its west span
and four layers of PBOFRCM system in its east span.
Test Specimen and Materials
The dimensions and reinforcement details of the test specimen are
shown in Fig. 1. All beams were 3,600 mm long with a rectangular
cross section of 250 × 150 mm2 and clear spans between each two
supports of 1,680 mm. Each beam was reinforced with 2–10 M de-
formed bars in its sagging section (bar diameter of 11.3 mm with a
total area of 200 mm2) and 2–15 M deformed bars in its hogging
section (bar diameter of 16 mm with a total area of 400 mm2).
The compression zones were reinforced with 2–6 M bars (diameter
of 6.35 mm and total area of 64 mm2). The beams were designed to
fail in flexure under a five-point load configuration. Thus, the tested
beams were reinforced with 10 M deformed stirrups spaced at
100 mm throughout the length of the beam. The design was con-
ducted according to the provisions of ACI (2019) for internal
steel reinforcement, ACI (2020) for FRCM systems, and ACI
(2017) for FRP systems.
All beams were constructed using ready-mixed, normal-weight
concrete with a target compressive strength of 40 MPa. The con-
crete batch constitutes of 970, 870, and 400 kg/m3 of gravel,
sand, and Portland cement, respectively, with a water-to-cement
ratio of 0.4. Three standard concrete cylinders (100 × 200 mm2)
were prepared for each beam during the casting and were tested
on the day of testing to evaluate the compressive strength, f ′c ,
of concrete given in Table 1. The yield strengths of the 6, 10,
and 15 M steel bars were 616 ± 14.56, 482 ± 13.31, and

© ASCE 04023017-2 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Geometry and reinforcement details of the test specimen (all dimensions are in mm).

486 ± 14.88 MPa, respectively, as reported in the manufacturer’s
datasheet.
Properties of Strengthening Systems
Two FRCM strengthening systems were used in this study namely,
the PBOFRCM and the CFRCM in addition to the CFRP system.
The PBO fabric was a bidirectional fabric manufactured with 5 ×
15 mm2 windows between the strands in the primary and secondary
directions, respectively, as shown in Fig. 2(a). The average com-
pressive and flexural strengths of the mortar associated with the
PBO fabric were 43.9 and 3 MPa, respectively, as determined by
Ebead et al. (2016). The carbon fabric of the CFRCM system
was a unidirectional fabric with 12 × 28 mm2 windows between
the strands in the primary and secondary directions, respectively,
as shown in Fig. 2(b). The plastic strands in the secondary direction
maintained the integrity of the mesh with no structural role. The av-
erage compressive and flexure strengths of the associated mortar
were 42.1 and 3.2 MPa, respectively (Ebead et al. 2016). The
FRP-strengthening system consisted of unidirectional carbon fi-
bers, as shown in Fig. 2(c), which were bonded to the concrete sur-
face using an epoxy resin. The CFRP system had a tensile strength
of 0.89 GPa, a modulus of 65.4 GPa, and an ultimate elongation of
1.33% according to the manufacturer’s datasheet.
To characterize the tensile properties of FRCM systems, Ebead
et al. (2016) tested five coupons for each PBOFRCM and CFRCM
system used in the current study as recommended by AC434 (ICC
2013). The coupons were 410 mm long, 50 mm wide, and 10 mm
thick. The results of these tests were detailed in Ebead et al. (2016)
and listed in Table 2.
Fig. 3(a) shows the average tensile stress–strain curves of both
types of FRCM systems as obtained from the conducted coupon
tests. The uncracked stage has an initial ascending branch until
the first crack occurs in the mortar. At this stage, the FRCM com-
posite is characterized by its uncracked modulus of elasticity, Eun,
as illustrated in the idealized curve shown in Fig. 3(b). Stress levels
at 60% and 90% of the ultimate tensile strength, ffu, are defined to
determine the cracked tensile modulus of elasticity, Ecr, and the
corresponding rupture strain, εfu, used in design.
Strengthening Schemes
The strengthening systems used in this study were installed either
symmetrically or asymmetrically in the sagging regions. In the
symmetric scheme, both the west and east sagging spans were
strengthened with the same strengthening system and number of
layers (e.g., beams WP2-EP2 and WC2-EC2). In the asymmetric
scheme, the beams were either strengthened with different strength-
ening systems in each of their sagging spans (e.g., beams WF1-EP4
and WC2-EP4) or were unstrengthened in one span and strength-
ened in the other span (e.g., beam W0-EP4). Figs. 4(a and b) depict
the symmetric and asymmetric schemes, respectively.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2. FRCM fabric: (a) bidirectional PBOFRCM fabric; (b) unidirectional CFRCM fabric; and (c) unidirectional CFRP fabric (all dimensions are
in mm).

© ASCE 04023017-3 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017

 Table 2. Average cracked tensile properties of PBOFRCM and CFRCM
coupons
FRCM Cracked modulus Ultimate
composite Ultimate tensile of elasticity, Ecr, tensile strain,
used strength, ffu, GPa GPa εfu %
PBO 1.55 121 1.4
Carbon 0.97 75 1.25
Source: Reprinted from Ebead et al. (2016), © ASCE.
The strengthening systems were applied along the sagging
spans with a length of 1,520 mm and a width of 150 mm (equal
to the width of the beam’s section). The fabrics were oriented
so that their primary direction was parallel to the longitudinal
axis of the beam. The end regions of the longitudinal plies were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
anchored using U–shaped transverse strip of the same longitudi-
nal fabric material with 250 mm width and 200 mm height as
shown in Fig. 4 to delay the delamination of the fabric at ultimate
loads according to previous studies (Koutas et al. 2020; Mandor
and El Refai 2022a, b).
To quantify the contribution of the strengthening systems to the
flexural response of the beams, a strengthening ratio, β f, was em-
ployed as
ρf Ecr
βf (%) =
ρs Es
where ρf and ρs = reinforcement ratios of the strengthening system
and the tensile steel, respectively; and Ecr and Es = cracked modu-
lus of the FRCM system and the modulus of the steel reinforce-
ment, respectively. The strengthening ratio, βf , varied with the
number of the fabric layers used in each system. Note that the
asymmetric strengthening systems were designed such that they
had the same strengthening ratio, βf , in each span. For instance,
the CFRCM and PBOFRCM systems used in the west and east
span of Beam WC2-EP4, respectively, had almost similar βf ratios
(7.4% versus 7.6%, respectively). In the FRP-strengthened spans,
the βf ratio was calculated by replacing the cracked modulus,
Ecr , with the elastic modulus of the FRP system. Table 1 summa-
rizes the βf ratios for all the tested beams.
Strengthening Procedure
Fig. 5 shows the steps followed to install the FRCM and FRP sys-
tems on the soffit of the tested beams. In all applications, the
strengthening procedure followed the recommendations of the
manufacturer of each strengthening system. For FRCM installation,
(a)
Fig. 3. Stress–Strain curves: (a) actual (reprinted from Ebead et al. 2016, © ASCE); and (b) idealized tensile stress–strain curves for PBOFRCM and
CFRCM coupons.
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017
the concrete substrate was first roughened using a jackhammer to a
profile greater than or equivalent to CSP-5 according to ICRI
(2013). The concrete surface was then dampened in water for 1 h
before applying the first layer of the cementitious matrix with a
thickness of 3–4 mm. The fabric was then impregnated in the ma-
trix and coated with a second layer of the matrix with the same
thickness. This process was repeated until the designated number
of layers on each beam was achieved.
Prior to the installation of the FRP sheets, the concrete surface
was first ground down, and the corners rounded with a maximum
radius of 3 mm to avoid damaging the FRP sheet. The epoxy
resin was then installed, followed by the FRP sheet using a steel
roller to eliminate any air voids that might exist between the
sheet and the concrete surface.
Instrumentation and Test Setup
All beams were instrumented with six 6-mm-long strain gauges
bonded at the midpoint of the tensile steel bars as shown in
Fig. 4: two in each of the sagging spans and two in the hogging
zone. Two other strain gauges were bonded at the midspan of the
strengthening layers in the sagging regions in addition to three
50 mm–long strain gauges on the side of concrete at 10 mm from
the surface of the compressed concrete (one in each sagging span
and one in the hogging zone). The beams were also instrumented
(1)
by six linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) installed
along the beam length at midpoint, one-quarter, and three-quarters
of each span to record the deflections during testing, as shown in
Fig. 1.
All beams were tested under a five-point load configuration
using two hydraulic actuators, each located at the midpoint of
each span. Two load cells each of 250 kN capacity were placed
below the hydraulic actuators to record the applied loads. Another
load cell of 200 kN capacity was placed between the beam soffit
and the middle support to record the induced reaction during test-
ing. A data acquisition system was used to capture the readings
of the strain gauges, the LVDTs, and the load cells at a rate of 4
readings per second.
Test Outcomes
Modes of Failure
Fig. 6 and Table 1 describe the failure modes as observed in the
tested beams. The Control Beam W0-E0 failed due to steel yielding
followed by concrete crushing in both the hogging and sagging
(b)
04023017-4 J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. Strengthening schemes: (a) symmetric; and (b) asymmetric (beam soffit shown up) (all dimensions are in mm).

sections, as shown in Fig. 6(a). The strengthened beams failed in
either one or a combination of the following modes:
1. Mode 1: Excessive fabric slippage in the zone of the maximum
sagging moment (FS),
2. Mode 2: Partial delamination of the FRCM system at the
fiber–matrix interface (PD),
3. Mode 3: FRCM separation at the FRCM–concrete interface
(CS), or
4. Mode 4: Sudden rupture of the strengthening system (SR).
PBO symmetrically strengthened beams WP1-EP1, WP2-EP2,
and WP4-EP4 showed vertical cracks in the maximum moment re-
gions in the sagging spans. Increasing the applied loads resulted in
new cracks in the shear spans. Those beams ultimately failed by
one or a combination of failure Modes 1, 2, or 3. Beam
WP1-EP1 strengthened with one layer of PBOFRCM system failed
by excessive slippage of the fabric from the surrounding mortar, as
shown in Fig. 6(b), after the formation of several transverse cracks
in the mortar (Mode 1). This mode of failure was also observed in
beam WP2-EP2 and was accompanied by a partial delamination of
the fibers within the matrix due to the propagation of the flexural
cracks and the creation of a fracture plane, as shown in Fig. 6(c)
(Modes 1 and 2). Beam WP4-EP4, strengthened with four layers
of PBOFRCM, failed by the gradual separation of the FRCM layers
from the concrete substrate (Mode 3), followed by an excessive
slippage of the vertical strands of the end anchors, as depicted in
Fig. 6(d). Such modes of failure in beams WP2-EP2 and
WP4-EP4 confirmed those reported in previous studies, as in
Loreto et al. (2014), Ebead et al. (2016), and Mandor and El
Refai (2022a, b).
The CFRCM-strengthened beam WC2-EC2 showed longitu-
dinal cracks in the east and west sagging spans, which propagated
along the length of the strengthening system, indicating the sep-
aration of FRCM from the concrete interface (Mode 3). However,
the beam finally failed abruptly due to the sudden rupture of the
fabric in the west span, as shown in Fig. 6(e) (Mode 4). Beam
WF1-EF1 strengthened with one layer of CFRP system failed pre-
maturely due to the tensile rupture of the carbon sheet (Mode 4).
Peeling of the concrete cover adjacent to the CFRP system was
also noticeable in the east sagging span at the beam soffit
[Fig. 6(f)].
The two asymmetrically strengthened beams WF1-EP4 and
WC2-EP4 failed due to the gradual separation of the PBOFRCM

© ASCE 04023017-5 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017

 (a)
(a)

(b)
(b)

(c)

(c)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(d)

(d)
(e)
Fig. 5. Profiles after strengthening: (a) concrete surface profile for
FRCM strengthening after jack-hammering; (b) impregnation of the
PBO fabric into the mortar; (c) view of a span strengthened with
CFRCM system; and (d) view of a span strengthened with CFRP sys-
(f )
tem. (Images by A. Mandor.)

systems at the concrete interface in the east span accompanied by

an excessive slippage of the vertical strands of the end anchor, as
shown in Figs. 6(g and h), respectively (Mode 3). It is believed that
the end anchors prevented the full debonding of the PBOFRCM
systems, confirming what had been reported in previous studies
for simply supported beams (Hashemi and Mahaidi 2012; Elsanad-
edy et al. 2013; Elghazy et al. 2018). Moreover, it was noticed that
the PBOFRCM system in the asymmetric configuration changed
the brittle failure mode previously encountered in beams
WC2-EC2 and WF1-EF1 to a more ductile mode, as detailed later.
Beam WF1-EC2, strengthened with both CFRCM and CFRP
systems, encountered almost similar cracks distribution and defor-
mation response in both spans up to ultimate failure. The beam
failed in a combination of Modes 3 and 4 due to the separation
of the CFRCM system from the concrete interface. However, the
beam ultimately failed by an abrupt and brittle rupture of the
CFRP system in the west span, as shown in Fig. 6(i). Finally,
beam W0-EP4 failed by yielding of the internal steel reinforcement,
followed by concrete crushing in the unstrengthened west span,
with no evidence of failure in the PBOFRCM system in the east
span, as depicted in Fig. 6(j).
Figs. 7 and 8 show the load–deflection response of the symmet-
rically and asymmetrically strengthened beams. The triangular
shapes in both figures denote the yielding loads in the
sagging–strengthened spans, and the oval shapes denoted the ulti-
mate loads. All the tested beams showed similar flexural behavior
prior to concrete cracking. Once the concrete cracked and prior to
steel yielding, increasing the strengthening ratio, β f, increased the
flexural stiffness of the strengthened beams and decreased the mea-
sured deflections as compared with those of the control beam.
Symmetrically Strengthened Beams
The strains recorded during the tests indicated that the steel bars in
the west and east sagging spans yielded simultaneously in all the
symmetrically strengthened beams regardless of the number and
type of the strengthening system. The yielding loads of all beams
are listed in Table 3. At this stage, the formation of the plastic
hinges at the critical sections followed two distinct patterns. In
(g)
(h)
(i)
( j)
Fig. 6. Failure modes of the tested beams: (a) W0-E0; (b) WP1-EP1;
(c) WP2-EP2; (d) WP4-EP4; (e) WC2-EC2; (f) WF1-EF1; (g) WF1-
EP4; (h) WC2-EP4; (i) WF1-EC2; and (j) W0-EP4. (Images by
A. Mandor.)
the first pattern, the internal steel bars yielded in the sagging
(strengthened) sections, followed by steel yielding in the hogging
(unstrengthened) section. This pattern was observed in beams
strengthened with low strengthening ratios of the PBOFRCM sys-
tems (beams WP1-EP1 and WP2-EP2), as shown in Fig. 7(a). For
instance, the yielding loads in the west and east sagging sections of
beam WP2-EP2, PyW and PyE , respectively, were 184 versus 210 kN
in the hogging section, PyH .
The second hinge pattern occurred when the steel bars in the
hogging section yielded before those in the sagging sections.
This pattern was dominated in beams with high strengthening ra-
tios, such as beams WP4-EP4, WC2-EC2, and WF1-EF1. For in-
stance, the yielding load in the hogging section of Beam
WC2-EC2, PyH , was 210 versus 266 and 264 kN in the west and
east sagging sections, PyW and PyE , respectively. Note that beams
WP4-EP4, WC2-EC2, and WF1-EF1 had almost the same
strengthening ratio, β f, in their sagging spans. However, the steel

© ASCE 04023017-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 7. Load–deflection response of symmetrically strengthened
beams: (a) using PBOFRCM layers; and (b) using different strengthen-
ing systems but with similar β f.
bars in the sagging sections in beams WC2-EC2 and WF1-EF1
yielded at significantly higher loads than did their counterparts in
beam WP4-EP4, as shown in Fig. 7(b), which was attributed to
the high stiffness of the CFRCM and CFRP systems used in
strengthening the former beams.
Fig. 8. Load–deflection response of asymmetrically strengthened
beams.
© ASCE 04023017-7
J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017
The post–yielding stage of beams WP1-EP1, WP2-EP2, and
WP4-EP4 (symmetrically strengthened with PBOFRCM systems)
were characterized by a smoothly ascending branch up to failure,
followed by a gradual descending response, as shown in
Fig. 7(a). The obtained plateau in the load–deflection response of
those beams indicated a ductile behavior at ultimate loads, which
agreed well with the failure modes reported for those beams. On
the other hand, beams WC2-EC2 and WF1-EF1 (symmetrically
strengthened with CFRCM and CFRP systems, respectively)
showed an abrupt drop at the ultimate load, indicating a brittle fail-
ure as reported from the test. This behavior is depicted in Fig. 7(b).
Asymmetrically Strengthened Beams
The effect of using an asymmetric strengthening scheme using dif-
ferent materials/configuration on the load–deflection response is
depicted in Fig. 8. Table 3 also lists the yielding loads of the asym-
metrically strengthened beams. The test results of beams WF1-EP4
and WC2-EP4 showed that yielding of the steel bars occurred first
in the sagging section that was strengthened with a PBOFRCM sys-
tem, followed by yielding of the bars in the unstrengthened hog-
ging section. The first plastic hinge in beam WC2-EP4 occurred
in the east span (strengthened with PBOFRCM) at load PyE of
212 kN ,followed by subsequent hinges in both the hogging section
and the west span at loads, PyH and PyW , of 237 and 253 kN, respec-
tively. Similarly, beam WF1-EP4 yielded first in the east span
(strengthened with PBOFRCM) at a load of 225 kN, followed by
yielding in the hogging section at 227 kN and in the west span at
247 kN.
The sequence in which the plastic hinges were formed in beams
WF1-EP4 and WC2-EP4 was compared with that encountered in
their symmetrically strengthened counterpart beam WP4-EP4. Re-
call that all three beams, WF1-EP4, WC2-EP4, and WP4-EP4,
were strengthened with four layers of PBOFRCM systems in
their east spans with similar strengthening ratios. In the symmetri-
cally strengthened beam WP4-EP4, the first plastic hinge occurred
in the unstrengthened hogging section, whereas in the asymmetri-
cally strengthened beams WF1-EP4 and WC2-EP4, the first plastic
hinge occurred in the sagging section strengthened with the
PBOFRCM system. Those results indicated the early contribution
of the PBOFRCM systems in developing the flexural capacity of
the asymmetrically strengthened beams WF1-EP4 and WC2-EP4
before the CFRP and CFRCM strengthening systems were en-
gaged. Moreover, the PBO-strengthened spans in beams
WF1-EP4 and WC2-EP4 showed significant rotational capacity
and large plastic deformations prior to failure, which was reflected
in the moment redistribution capacity and the ductility reported in
those beams, as discussed later.
Conversely, the load–deflection response of the asymmetrically
strengthened beam WF1-EC2 indicated that both west and east sag-
ging spans had similar flexural response throughout the loading up
to yielding. The first plastic hinge occurred in the unstrengthened
hogging section followed by other hinges in the sagging sections.
Such a pattern resembled that observed in the symmetrically
strengthened beams WF1-EF1 and WC2-EC2, as previously indi-
cated. As given in Table 3, the yielding load of beam WF1-EC2
at the hogging section, PyH , was 234, versus 248 and 242 kN for
the west and east sagging sections, respectively. After yielding, a
sudden drop in the applied load was observed, indicating the brittle
and sudden rupture of the beam.
Lastly, beam W0-EP4 formed its first plastic hinge in the un-
strengthened west sagging span at load, PyW , of 207 kN, followed
by a second hinge in the hogging section at load, PyH , of 214 kN.
No yielding was observed in the east span strengthened with four
layers of PBOFRCM until failure occurred. Consequently, the
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 3. Summary of the test results
PyW PyE PyH Pu PyNor ΔW
y ΔEy ΔH
y ΔW
u ΔEu δlocal
D Nor. δlocal
D
Beam (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (W–E) PuNor (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) δglob
D (W–E) Nor. δglob.
D (W–E)
Control beam
W0-E0 167 169 192 206 1 1 5 5 10 27 28 2.9 2.9 1 1
Symmetrically strengthened beams
WP1-EP1 175 176 201 226 1.05a 1.10 4 4 6 11 22 3.5 — 1.21 —
WP2-EP2 184 184 210 249 1.09a 1.21 4 4 6 16 17 2.9 — 1 —
WP4-EP4 213 211 209 267 1.26a 1.30 6 4 5 17 6 2.9 — 1 —
WC2-EC2 266 264 210 280 1.57a 1.36 10 12 4 13 16 1.3 — 0.45 —
WF1-EF1 273 276 234 277 1.63a 1.34 11 16 6 12 16 1 — 0.34 —
Asymmetrically strengthened beams
WF1-EP4 247 225 227 267 (1.47–1.33) 1.30 8 5 5 12 15 2 (1.6–2.9) 0.69 (0.55–1.00)
WF1-EC2 248 242 234 270 (1.48–1.43) 1.31 7 7 6 11 11 1.5 (1.5–1.7) 0.52 (0.52–0.59)
WC2-EP4 253 212 237 279 (1.51–1.26) 1.36 6 4 5 8 17 3 (1.3–4.3) 1.03 (0.46–1.48)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

W0-EP4 207 — 214 230 (1.24–NA) 1.12 8 — 11 36 4 3.4 (4.7–NA) 1.17 (1.62–NA)
Note: W = west section; and E = east section.
a
The highest-yielding load in the symmetrically strengthened sagging sections was considered in the calculation of the normalized ratio-yielding load.

beam reflected a hinge pattern similar to that observed in the control
beam. Note that although the steel bars in the east strengthened
span did not yield, the asymmetric configuration employed in
this beam improved its overall flexural response. The beam failed
at an ultimate load higher than that of the control beam (229 versus
206 kN, respectively) and showed higher midspan deflection at ul-
timate load (36 versus 28 mm).
Flexural Strength Analysis
The load-carrying capacity of each beam was normalized to that of
the control beam and is listed in Table 3. The relationship between
the normalized load-carrying capacity and the strengthening ratio,
β f, is shown in Fig. 9 for both the symmetrically and asymmetri-
cally strengthened beams.
The effect of the number of layers on the yielding and ultimate
capacity was highlighted in the results of beams WP1-EP1,
WP2-EP2, and WP4-EP4. Note that using one PBOFRCM layer
(β f = 1.9%) on beam WP1-EP1 slightly increased the yielding
and ultimate loads by 5% and 10% with respect to those of the con-
trol beam. Doubling the number of PBOFRCM layers (β f = 3.8%)
on beam WP2-EP2 nearly doubled the gain in the yielding and ul-
timate loads with 9% and 21%, respectively. A further increase in
the number of layers on beam WP4-EP4 (β f = 7.6%) resulted in a
Fig. 9. Normalized strengths of the tested beams versus their strength-
ening ratio, β f.
26% and 30% gain in the yield and ultimate loads, respectively.
The notable gains in the ultimate load are manifested by the linear
trendline shown in Fig. 9 for beams WP1-EP1, WP2-EP2, and
WP4-EP4 with R 2 of 94%.
Note that the beams symmetrically strengthened with equal
strengthening ratio, β f, but with different strengthening systems
did not show equal gains in their load-carrying capacity. This can
be depicted from the results of beams WP4-EP4, WC2-EC2, and
WF1-EF1, all having similar strengthening ratios, β f, of 7.6%,
7.4%, and 7.8%, respectively. The yielding and ultimate loads en-
countered in beam WP4-EP4 were 213 kN (26% gain) and 267 kN
(30% gain), and those encountered in beam WC2-EC2 were
265 kN (57% gain) and 280 kN (36% gain), and in beam
WF1-EF1 were 275 kN (63% gain) and 277 kN (34% gain). This
discrepancy in the gain in yielding and ultimate loads due to
strengthening indicated that the strengthening ratio, β f, is not the
sole parameter affecting the flexural response of the strengthened
beams. Therefore, other parameters, such as the material type, the
geometry of the fabrics, and the associated mortar properties,
must be accommodated in the design of the strengthening systems
along with the strengthening ratio β f. This conclusion confirmed the
previous results reported by Mandor and El Refai (2021, 2022a, b)
and Ebead et al. (2016).
The yielding and ultimate loads of the asymmetrically strength-
ened beams WF1-EP4 and WC2-EP4 were compared with their
corresponding symmetrically strengthened beams WF1-EF1 and
WC2-EC2 to assess the effect of using the PBOFRCM systems
asymmetrically with the CFRP and the CFRCM systems. It was ob-
served that using the PBOFRCM system in beams WF1-EP4 and
WC2-EP4 had alleviated the brittle and abrupt behavior of the
CFRP and CFRCM systems. While the symmetrically strengthened
beam WF1-EF1 yielded at an average load of 275 kN in its sagging
spans, the corresponding asymmetrically strengthened beam
WF1-EP4 yielded at 225 kN in the PBOFRCM-strengthened
span, representing a decrease of 19% in the yielding capacity. Sim-
ilarly, the symmetrically strengthened beam WC2-EC2 yielded at
an average load of 265 kN in its sagging spans, whereas beam
WC2-EP4 yielded at 212 kN in the PBOFRCM-strengthened
span, with a decrease of 20%.
Despite the loss in the yielding capacity of the asymmetrically
strengthened beams WF1-EP4 and WC2-EP4, their ultimate
loads were not greatly altered, as depicted in Fig. 9. At ultimate fail-
ure, beam WF1-EP4 failed gradually due to debonding of the
PBOFRCM system at an ultimate load of 267 kN compared with
an ultimate load of 277 kN encountered in beam WF1-EF1 (a

© ASCE 04023017-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017

 decrease of only 4%). On the other hand, beam WC2-EP4 also
failed due to debonding of the PBOFRCM system at an ultimate
load of 279 kN compared with 280 kN for beam WC2-EC2 (only
0.3% decrease in the ultimate load). Such behavior allowed for
the formation of the plastic hinges in the PBOFRCM-strengthened
spans prior to its formation in other spans while maintaining the
same flexural strength. This finding confirmed the benefit of
using the PBOFRCM system asymmetrically with the CFRP or
the CFRCM systems to mitigate the brittle behavior of the rigid
CFRP or CFRCM systems, should ductility and rotational capacity
of the strengthened structure be essential without compromising the
required ultimate capacity.
The benefit of using the PBOFRCM strengthening system
asymmetrically was also confirmed in the behavior of beam
W0-EP4, in which the enhancement in the yielding and ultimate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
loads was evident. The unstrengthened west section yielded at a
load of 207 kN, with a gain of 24% of that of the control beam
(167 kN). Moreover, the beam recorded an ultimate load of
230 kN, with a gain of 12% compared with an ultimate load of
206 kN recorded in the control beam, as shown in Fig. 9. This find-
ing indicated that using the PBOFRCM strengthening system not
only enhanced the “local” flexural response of the strengthened sec-
tion but also improves the overall response in the other sections.
Recall that no signs of distress were observed in the PBOFRCM-
strengthened span until failure occurred in the unstrengthened sag-
ging span. This phenomenon was attributed to the strengthening ef-
fect of the PBOFRCM system in enhancing the moment
redistribution capacity between the unstrengthened sagging and
hogging sections, as detailed later.
Similarly, the effect of using FRCM systems on the beam’s
strength was assessed in beam WF1-EC2. It was found that the
east span strengthened with the CFRCM system yielded at a load
of 242 kN compared with a load of 276 kN in the symmetrically
strengthened counterpart beam WF1-EF1, as depicted in Fig. 9.
However, beam WF1-EC2 recorded an ultimate load of 270 kN,
representing a gain of 31% compared with that of the control
beam, which was almost equal to the gain recorded in its symmetri-
cally strengthened counterpart beam WF1-EF1 (a gain of 34%).
These findings indicate that, despite the brittle behavior of the
CFRCM system compared with the PBOFRCM system, it performs
in a less brittle manner than the CFRP system.
Displacement-Based Ductility Indices
The ductility index, δglob
D , defined as the ratio of the midspan deflec-
tion at ultimate load, Δu, to the midspan deflection at the last yield-
ing load, Δlast
y , was determined for each beam, as
Δu
δglob
D = (2)
Δlast
y
Note that the midspan deflection at ultimate load was determined as
the highest deflection recorded in either the west, ΔW u , or the east
span, ΔEu .
To study the effect of each strengthening system on the ductility
of the asymmetrically strengthened beams, “local” ductility indices
were also determined using the recorded displacements in each sag-
ging span. The local indices were calculated as the ratio of the de-
flection corresponding to the ultimate load, Δu, in the studied span
to the deflection at yielding in the same span (ΔW E
y or Δy ). Fig. 10
shows the relationship between the normalized ductility indices
and the strengthening ratio β f. Table 3 summarizes the ductility in-
dices obtained for all the strengthened beams normalized to the
ductility index of the control beam.
© ASCE 04023017-9
J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017
Symmetrically Strengthened Beams
For the PBOFRCM symmetrically strengthened beams, it was ob-
served that increasing the β f ratio decreased the ductility of the
strengthened beams, which was evident from the trendline obtained
for beams WP1-EP1, WP2-EP2, and WP4-EP4 strengthened with
one, two, and four layers of PBOFRCM systems (with R 2 of
80%), respectively, in Fig. 10.
Interestingly, the PBO-strengthened beams showed ductility in-
dices higher than or equal to their counterpart control beam. The
global ductility indices of beams WP1-EP1, WP2-EP2, and
WP4-EP4 were 3.5, 2.9, and 2.9, representing 121%, 100%, and
100%, respectively, of that of the control beam, as shown in
Fig. 10. However, Beams WC2-EC2 and WF1-EF1 (symmetrically
strengthened with two CFRCM systems and one CFRP system, re-
spectively) showed ductility indices of 1.3 and 1, representing 45%
and 34%, respectively, of that of the control beam. Those findings
were consistent with the modes of failure encountered in those
beams and reflected the efficiency of the PBOFRCM systems in
preserving the ductility of the beam after strengthening, which al-
lowed the beam to undergo significant inelastic deformations
prior to failure.
Asymmetrically Strengthened Beams
The efficiency of PBOFRCM systems in preserving the beam’s
ductility was also confirmed from the ductility indices obtained
in the asymmetrically strengthened beams WC2-EP4 and
WF1-EP4. Fig. 10 shows that beam WC2-EP4 had a global ductil-
ity index, δglob
D , of 3, representing 103% of that of the control beam,
compared with a ductility index of 1.3 for its symmetrically
strengthened counterpart beam WC2-EC2, which represented
45% only of that of the control beam. The obtained indices con-
firmed that the use of PBOFRCM system along with the CFRCM
systems in strengthening beam WC2-EP4 enhanced its overall duc-
tility in comparison with other FRCM/FRP asymmetrically
strengthened beams, as detailed in Table 3. Moreover, the local
ductility indices, δlocal
D , of beam WC2-EP4 were 1.3 and 4.3 for
its west and east span, strengthened with CFRCM and PBOFRCM
systems, respectively. Those indices represented 46% and 148% of
that of the control beam, respectively, which confirmed the ductile
behavior of the PBOFRCM system.
Conversely, beam WF1-EP4 showed a global ductility index of
2, which was twice the index encountered in its symmetrically
Fig. 10. Relationship between the normalized global displacement
ductility indices of the strengthened beams and the strengthening
ratio, β f.
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 4. Ultimate moment capacity and moment redistribution ratios
Ultimate Moment
moments redistribution
(kN · m) Moment capacity increase ratio, MRR (%) Normalized MRR
MRRstrength
Beam identifier Strengthening type Hog. Sag. η Hog. Sag. MRRcontrol
W0-E0 — 43.4 22.2 1.00 32.9 –19.7 1.00
WP1-EP1 Symmetric 45.2 24.9 1.12 26.8 –16.1 0.82
WP2-EP2 47.7 29.9 1.35 21.4 –12.8 0.65
WP4-EP4 48.2 32.7 1.47 13.7 –8.2 0.42
WC2-EC2 45.7 36.3 1.63 3.1 –1.9 0.10
WF1-EF1 44.9 35.7 1.61 2.9 –1.7 0.09
WF1-EP4 Asymmetric 44.9 33.9 1.52 5.8 –3.5 0.18
WF1-EC2 44.6 34.4 1.55 4.8 –2.9 0.15
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

WC2-EP4 46.2 35.6 1.58 7.8 –4.7 0.24

W0-EP4 43.1 26.5 1.20 19.6 –11.7 0.60

strengthened counterpart beam WF1-EF1 (i.e., δglob

D = 1). The local attributed to the high stiffness of the CFRCM and CFRP systems,
index obtained in the east span strengthened with PBOFRCM sys- which resulted in a linear-elastic ascending flexural behavior in the
tems was 2.9, representing 100% of the ductility index of the con- post-yielding stage of Beams WC2-EC2 and WF1-EF1, as shown
trol beam, whereas the west span strengthened with CFRP had a in Figs. 7(a and b), contrary to the plastic deformation plateau ob-
ductility index of 1.6, representing 55% only of that of the control served in Beam WP4-EP4. Recall that the three Beams WP4-EP4,
beam. The obtained ductility indices of both Beams WC2-EP4 and WC2-WC2, and WF1-EF1 had a similar strengthening ratio, β f.
WF1-EP4 were entirely consistent with their modes of failure. They
also confirmed the behavior of both beams at the yielding and ulti-
mate stages, as previously described.
Beam WF1-EC2 showed the least global ductility index
among the asymmetrically strengthened beams, with a global
ductility index δglob
D of 1.5, representing 52% of that of the control
beam as shown in Fig. 10. Such behavior agreed well with the
abrupt failure mode observed in this beam during testing. None-
theless, the obtained ductility index reflected the impact of using a
CFRCM system in enhancing the global ductility of the beam if
compared with the ductility index recorded in its symmetrically
strengthened counterpart Beam WF1-EF1 (δglob D = 1.0, represent-
ing 34% only of that of the control beam). Such enhancement
in the ductility of Beam WF1-EC2 due to the use of a CFRCM
system was also confirmed by the local ductility indices deter-
mined in its west and east spans. The west span showed an
index of 1.5 (52% of that of that of the control beam), whereas
the east span recorded an index of 1.7, which represented 59% Fig. 11. Moment enhancement ratio, η, recorded in each of the tested
of that of the control beam. beams.
Conversely, Beam W0-EP4 showed the highest global ductility
index among the asymmetrically strengthened beams with an index
of 3.4, representing 117% of that of the control beam. The un-
strengthened span showed a significant inelastic deformation with
a local ductility index of 4.7, representing 162% of that of the con-
trol beam. This finding interpreted the noticeable plastic plateau in
the load–deflection of the unstrengthened west span, as shown in
Fig. 8.

Moment Capacity and Redistribution Ratios

The moment capacity of each beam was calculated using the central
reaction and the applied loads recorded during testing. Table 4 and
Fig. 11 show the gain in the moment capacity, η, due to strengthen-
ing. Note that η increased with the increase of the strengthening
ratio β f in the PBOFRCM-strengthened beams. Beam WP1-EP1
showed a gain in its moment capacity of 12% compared with
35% and 47% gains in Beams WP2-EP2 and WP4-EP4, respec-
tively. However, the highest gain recorded in the symmetrically
Fig. 12. Relationship between the normalized moment redistribution
strengthened beams was encountered in Beams WC2-EC2 and
“out of” the sagging sections and the strengthening ratio, β f.
WF1-EF1, with η of 63% and 61%, respectively. This was

© ASCE 04023017-10 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 13. Rigid-body-rotation approach for a major flexural crack: (a) rigid plastic-hinge rotation; and (b) moment–curvature analysis.

The gain in the moment capacity in the asymmetrically strength-
ened Beams WF1-EP4, WF1-EC2, and WC2-EP4 was 52%, 55%,
and 58%, respectively, with respect to that of the control beam.
Those ratios were lower than those obtained in their symmetrically
strengthened counterparts Beams WF1-EF1 and WC2-EC2, as
shown in Fig. 11. As previously noted, the asymmetrically
strengthened Beams WF1-EP4, WF1-EC2, and WC2-EP4 showed
a higher ductility and, consequently, higher plastic deformations
than did their symmetrically strengthened counterparts Beams
WF1-EF1 and WC2-EC2, which was associated with lower gain

Fig. 14. Flowchart of the RBR approach as adopted in this study.

© ASCE 04023017-11 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017

 in their moment capacity. On the other hand, Beam W0-EP4 con-

Predicted curvatures ×10−5 (1/mm)

firmed the role of the PBOFRCM system in enhancing the moment

exp /∅pr
E

0.84d
0.72d
1.12d
0.20d
1.03
0.90
0.83
0.91
1.14
capacity, with a 20% gain in its moment capacity with respect to

∅fail
that of the control beam.
The notable increase in the moment capacity of the strengthened

6.4c

2.2c
5.4c
3.7c

3.1c
∅Epr
7.4

5.2

2.8

4.6
beams was accompanied by a decrease in their moment redistribu-
W
exp /∅pr tion ratios (MRR) between the critical sections, which was deter-
mined as the ratio of the difference between the experimental and

0.97d
1.16d
0.86d
1.03
0.90
0.83
0.91
1.14

1.3d
elastic moments, Mexp and Melastic, respectively, to the elastic mo-
∅fail
Without aspect ratio, φf

5.2c ments, as

5.4c

6.2c
Mexp − Melastic
∅W
pr

7.4
6.4

2.2
5.4
5.5

2.3
MRR % = 100 × (3)
Melastic
/MprE
Predicted failure moments (kN · m)

The MRR obtained for all strengthened beams are listed in Table 4.
1.07
1.09
1.02
1.06
1.01
1.01
1.03
1.04
0.80
fail
Mexp

A negative MRR indicates that the section redistributed a moment

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

less than the corresponding elastic moment, whereas a positive

MRR means that the experimental moment is higher than the elastic
c

27.4c

34.2c
35.3c
33.4c

34.3c
23.1

31.5

33.4

33.4
MprE

moment. The normalized MRR are plotted in Fig. 12 against the

strengthening ratio, β f. The normalized MRR for the symmetrically
/MprW

strengthened beams were best-fitted by a reverse trendline with R 2

1.07
1.09
1.02
1.06
1.01
1.01
0.95
1.04
0.98

of 0.83. A reverse trendline of R 2 of 0.99 was also obtained for the

fail
Mexp

PBO-strengthened Beams WP1-EP1, WP2-EP2, and WP4-EP4, as

shown in Fig. 12, indicating the effect of increasing the number of
31.5c

33.6c
23.1
27.4

34.2
35.3
33.7

34.2
MprW

layers on the moment redistribution ratios out of the sagging

25c

strengthened sections. Beam WP1-EP1 showed an MRR of 16%,

representing 82% of that of the control beam. Increasing the num-
exp /∅pr
E

1.25d
0.65d
1.25d
0.12d
0.98
0.80
0.66
0.81
1.20

ber of PBOFRCM layers in Beams WP2-EP2 and WP4-EP4 de-

−5

∅fail
Predicted curvatures ×10

creased the MRR to 13% and 8%, respectively, representing 65%

and 42% of that of the control beam, respectively. Lower redistri-
c

7.2c

2.4c
5.1c
2.5c

2.8c
∅Epr

bution ratios of 1.9% and 1.7% were observed in Beams WC2-EC2

7.9

6.6

3.1

7.5
(1/mm)

and WF1-EF1, representing 10% and 9% of that of the control

Calculated as the ratio of the experimental curvature in the east or the west span to its predicted curvature.
W
exp /∅pr

beam, respectively. Such finding was consistent with the ductility

1.21d
1.22d
0.84d
0.98
0.80
0.66
0.81
1.20

1.3d

response of those beams and their modes of failure.

∅fail

The asymmetrically strengthened Beam W0-EP4 showed the

With aspect ratio, φf

highest MRR of 11.7% among its group, representing 60% of the

6.6c

5.1c

6.2c
∅W
pr

7.9
7.2

2.4
5.1
4.4

2.4

redistribution capacity of the control beam, as depicted in

Fig. 12. Using FRCM systems asymmetrically with FRP systems
/MprE

in strengthening Beams WF1-EP4 and WF1-EC2 improved the

Predicted failure moments (kN · m)

1.18
1.25
1.19
1.18
1.44

1.17
1.19
0.89
1.2

ductility characteristics of both beams, as previously detailed. Con-

fail
Mexp

exp are the moments and curvatures recorded at failure experimentally.

sequently, their moment redistribution capacity improved as com-

pared with their symmetrically strengthened counterpart Beam
c

23.9c

30.6c
24.8c
28.2c
21.2

29.4

29.7
MprE

WF1-EF1. The MRR of Beams WF1-EP4 and WF1-EC2 were

27

30c

For asymmetrically strengthened beams: W = west span; E = east span.

18% and 15% of that of the control beam, respectively, which

was significantly higher than the MRR observed in Beam
/MprW
1.18
1.25
1.19
1.18
1.44
1.38
1.31
1.17
0.98

WF1-EF1 (9% of that of the control beam). A similar finding

fail
Mexp

was also observed in Beam WC2-EP4, where an MRR of 5%

Values corresponding to the span where failure happened.

was encountered (24% of that of the control beam) compared

24.6c

with 1.9% (10% of that of the control beam) for Beam

21.2
23.9

30.6
24.8
24.6

30.6
MprW

27c

25c

WC2-WC2. These findings highlighted the role of FRCM systems,

Table 5. Results of the conducted RBR approach

particularly the PBOFRCM system, in enhancing the MRR of the

b

strengthened beams.
×10 (W-E)

(5.3–3.1c)

(8.1c–0.9)
(6.2c–2)
(2–3.5c)
(1/mm)
−5

5.7c
4.4c

6.1c
7.7

2c

Rigid-Body Rotation Approach

exp ,
a
∅fail

The rigid-body rotation (RBR) approach is a mechanics-based

model originally developed by Oehlers et al. (2008) to determine
the curvature, ∅, of unstrengthened RC sections where the plastic
(kN · m)
fail a

24.9
29.9
32.2
36.1
35.7
33.9
32.1
35.6
24.6
Mexp

hinge occurs. Fig. 13 shows a portion of a RC beam where a plastic

hinge has occurred. As shown in Fig. 13(a), the concrete compres-
and ∅fail

sion region consists of two zones, namely the ascending zone cor-
WC2-EC2

WF1-EC2
WC2-EP4
WP1-EP1
WP2-EP2
WP4-EP4

WF1-EF1
WF1-EP4

responding to a concrete stress ranging up to the concrete

W0-EP4

compressive stress, f ′c , and the softening zone that is manifested

Beam

fail
Mexp

in the form of a concrete wedge and corresponds to the descending

b

d
a

© ASCE 04023017-12 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 15. Experimental versus predicted failure moments for (a) symmetrically; and (b) asymmetrically strengthened beams.
branch of the stress–strain curve of concrete. The length and depth
of the concrete wedge are denoted as Lsoft and dsoft, respectively, as
idealized in Fig. 13(b).
The model is based on performing an iterative process by rotat-
ing the rigid bodies of the constitutive materials [given in
Fig. 13(b)] until the compression forces in the ascending zone,
Pasc, and the softening zone, Psoft, are in equilibrium with the ten-
sile forces in steel, Prein, and the EB strengthening system, Pstren.
Fig. 14 shows a flowchart of how iterations were performed in
this study to determine the moment–curvature relationship at the
critical section. The equations used in the calculations are given
in the Appendix.
Analysis Results
Table 5 lists the moments and curvatures of the tested beams at fail-
fail
ure as obtained experimentally (Mexp and ∅fail
exp , respectively) and as
predicted from the RBR approach [Mprx and ∅xpr , respectively,
where x denotes the east (E) or west (W) span]. It is worth mention-
ing that the experimental curvatures were determined from the
strain readings as recorded during testing in both the concrete
and FRCM materials.
Figs. 15 and 16 compare between the experimental and pre-
dicted failure moments and curvatures of the strengthened beams,
respectively. It was noted that the model underestimated the pre-
dicted moments in all beams, while no evident trend was observed
© ASCE 04023017-13
J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017
for curvatures. The large discrepancy between the experimental and
predicted moments was particularly observed in beams/spans
strengthened with CFRP systems. For instance, beams symmetri-
cally strengthened with PBOFRCM showed an average
fail fail
experimental-to-predicted moment ratio, Mexp /MprW = Mexp /MprE , of
1.21, with average curvature ratios for the west and east span
∅fail W fail E
exp /∅pr = ∅exp /∅pr of 0.83 [Figs. 15(a) and 16(a), respectively].
Beams WC2-EC2 and WF1-EF1 strengthened symmetrically
with CFRCM and CFRP, respectively, showed a similar discrep-
ancy, with Mexp fail fail
/MprW = Mexp /MprE of 1.18 and 1.44 and ∅fail W
exp /∅pr =
∅fail
exp /∅ E
pr , of 0.81 and 1.2, respectively.
For the asymmetrically strengthened beams, similar discrepan-
cies were observed in the predicted moments and curvatures, as
shown in Figs. 15(b) and 16(b), respectively. The moments pre-
dicted in spans strengthened with CFRP systems were highly un-
derestimated if compared with those strengthened with FRCM
fail
systems. For instance, the Mexp /MprW ratio in the west spans of
Beams WF1-EP4 and WF1-EC2 was 1.38 and 1.31, respectively,
compared with 1.2 and 1.17 in the east spans, respectively.
Such discrepancies between the experimental and predicted re-
sults were attributed to the use of the aspect ratio, φf, in the model
formulations. Note that φf was included in the model to describe the
debonding surface adjacent to the concrete substrate to simulate the
shear transfer at the interface when a strengthening system existed.
According to Seracino et al. (2007), φf was calculated as the ratio of
the thickness of the strengthening system, df, to its width, bf as
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 16. Experimental versus predicted curvatures for (a) symmetrically; and (b) asymmetrically strengthened beams.
given in Eq. (25) in the Appendix. For EB strengthening systems,
the depth, df, is significantly small with respect to their width, bf,
particularly in FRP systems that are bonded to concrete using a
thin layer of epoxy. This explains the discrepancy obtained in the
predicted results for all the strengthened beams and is more pro-
nounced in the FRP-strengthened spans. The depth of FRCM sys-
tems is relatively more than that of FRP system, which explains
why the predicted moments are “less underestimated” in the
FRCM-strengthened spans. However, for both systems, the aspect
ratio should be neglected due to the significantly small
thickness, df.
Modification of RBR Approach
The moments and curvatures of the tested beams were recalculated
after neglecting the aspect ratio, φf, in the formulations. The pre-
dicted results are given in Table 5 and are also shown in Figs. 15
and 16, respectively. A notable enhancement in the predicted fail-
ure moments and the curvatures of the strengthened beams was ob-
served. Beams WP1-EP1, WP2-EP2, and WP4-EP4, symmetrically
strengthened with PBOFRCM systems, showed an average
experimental-to-predicted moment ratios, Mexp fail fail
/MprW = Mexp /MprE ,
of 1.05 versus 1.06 and 1.01 for Beams WC2-EC2 and
WF1-EF1, respectively. The obtained average curvature ratios,
∅fail W fail E
exp /∅pr and ∅exp /∅pr , were 0.92, 0.91, and 1.14, respectively
[Figs. 15(a) and 16(a)]. The enhancement in the predicted failure
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017
moments and curvatures in the asymmetrically strengthened
fail
beams was also noted. The average Mexp /MprW and ∅fail W
exp /∅pr ratios
in the west sections of Beams WF1-EP4, WF1-EC2, and
WC2-EP4 were 1.0 and 0.99 versus 1.02 and 0.9 for the
fail
Mexp /MprE and ∅fail E
exp /∅pr ratios in the east sections, respectively, as
depicted in Table 5.
Conversely, a notable overestimation in the predicted moments
and curvatures was observed in the east section of Beam W0-EP4
(strengthened with four layers of PBOFRCM), regardless of the
consideration of the aspect ratio, φf [Figs. 15(b) and 16(b)]. None-
theless, a reasonable agreement between the experimental and pre-
dicted values was observed in the unstrengthened west section. For
fail
the east section, the Mexp /MprE ratios were 0.89 and 0.8 with and
without the aspect ratio, φf, whereas the ∅fail E
exp /∅pr ratios were
0.12 and 0.2, respectively. This could be ascribed to the fact that
Beam W0-EP4 failed in the unstrengthened west span rather than
the east strengthened span. Consequently, the east strengthened
section did not show sufficient ultimate and curvature capacity
experimentally.
Conclusions
Two-span RC beams were symmetrically and asymmetrically
strengthened using FRCM and FRP systems. The theory of rigid-
body rotation (RBR) was applied to determine the curvatures of
04023017-14 J. Compos. Constr.
 the strengthened sections at which plastic hinges occurred. The fol- Appendix. Equations of RBR Approach
lowing conclusions are drawn from the experimental and analytical
results:
Softening Zone
1. Increasing the strengthening ratio of the strengthening system,
β f, resulted in significant increases in the yielding and load- As the applied load increases, the concrete strain increases along
carrying capacity, which ranged between 5% and 10% (for the ascending branch of the stress–strain curve until it reaches
β f= 1.91%) and 63% and 36% (for β f = 7.8%), respectively, de- the ascending strain, εasc . Such strain is defined as the strain corre-
pending on the material type and the strengthening scheme. sponding to the peak stress, f ′c . The ascending strain, εasc , is deter-
2. Beams symmetrically strengthened with PBOFRCM systems mined using the concrete modulus, Ec, as
showed high ductility indices ranging between 100% and
121% of that of the control beams, whereas those strengthened 2 f ′c
εasc = (4)
with CFRCM and CFRP showed ductility indices of 45% and Ec
34% of that of the control beam, respectively. "!!!′
where Ec is calculated as 4,700 fc (MPa) according to ACI
3. The use of FRCM systems along with FRP systems enhanced (2019).
the ductility of the strengthened beams. Beams WF1-EP4 and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The ascending strain, εasc , is used to determine the displacement

WF1-EC2, both strengthened in their west spans with CFRP at the top of the ascending zone, Δasc, as
system, had ductility indices of 2 and 1.5, respectively, com-
pared with a ductility index of 1 for their symmetrically Δasc = Lsoft εasc (5)
strengthened counterpart Beam WF1-EF1.
4. The use of PBOFRCM along with CFRCM system also en- For a specified softening depth, dsoft, the softening wedge length is
hanced the global ductility of the strengthened beams. Beam calculated as Lsoft = dsoft/tan α, such that the angle of the softening
WC2-EP4 had a global ductility index of 3 compared with a wedge, α, is determined as
ductility index of 1.3 for its symmetrically strengthened coun- # √!!!!!!!!$
terpart Beam WC2-EC2. α = arctan −m + m2 + 1 (6)
5. Spans strengthened with PBOFRCM systems had an average
local ductility index of 124% of that of the control beam versus where m = parameter that characterizes the concrete softening
56% and 53% for those strengthened with CFRCM and CFRP across the wedge. For low concrete stresses encountered in the
systems, respectively. wedge zone, m is assumed equal to 0.8, as recommended in Wal-
6. Beams symmetrically strengthened with PBOFRCM systems raven et al. (1987) and Duthinh (1999).
encountered moment redistribution ratios (MRRs) between The wedge slip in the concrete softening zone, Ssoft, is calculated
42% and 82% of that of the control beam, depending on the as the integration of the slip–strain relationship across the wedge
strengthening ratio provided, compared with 10% and 9% zone using Eq. (7), in which the softening strain, εsoft , is calculated
only for those strengthened with CFRCM and CFRP systems, assuming the stress–strain model of Hongestad et al. (1955) as
respectively. given in Eq. (8):
7. Using a PBOFRCM system asymmetrically with CFRP or Ssoft = (εasc − εsoft )Lsoft ≤ Sslide (7)
CFRCM systems enhanced the MRR between the critical sec-
tions. Beams WF1-EP4 and WC2-EP4 encountered MRRs of %!!!!!!!!!
σ soft
18% and 24% of that of the control beam compared with 9% εsoft = εasc − εasc 1 − ′ (8)
and 10% for their symmetrically strengthened counterparts fc
Beams WF1-EF1 and WC2-EC2, respectively. where Sslide and σsoft = sliding capacity and the stress of the con-
8. Neglecting the aspect ratio of the strengthening system in the crete wedge, respectively, and are determined as
formulations of the RBR model resulted in excellent predictions & '
of the moment capacity and curvature at the plastic hinges. The σ lat
ratio of the experimental-to-predicted moment ratios ranged be- Sslide = 2.51 + 0.61 (9)
fc ′
tween 0.95 and 1.09 with experimental-to-predicted curvature
ratios ranging between 0.72 and 1.16. where σlat (MPa) = lateral confinement provided by the stirrups ac-
Finally, this study indicates the great potential of using FRCM cording to Haskett et al. (2009) and is determined as
systems in strengthening multispan structures where moment redis-
2fy Ast
tribution and ductility are major concerns. The asymmetric σ lat = (10)
strengthening configuration in which FRCM systems were used bb ssp
along with other systems, such as FRPs, proved its efficiency in en- where fy and Ast = yield stress and the reinforcement area of the stir-
hancing the load-carrying capacity and the overall ductility of the rups, respectively; and ssp = spacing between the stirrups along the
strengthened structure. PBOFRCM systems can enhance the ductil- beam length:
ity and the rotational capacity of a structure when installed asym-
metrically with stiffer strengthening materials, such as CFRCM c
σ soft = (11)
and FRP. Such asymmetric configuration can be feasible in seismic sin α cos α − m sin2 α
regions where the ductility and the rotational capacity of the struc- where c = cohesive component"!!! for normal concrete in the
ture are major concerns. Moreover, the moment redistribution re- softening zone calculated as 0.17 fc ′ (MPa) according to Jenson
corded between the critical sections suggests that it can be (1975).
considered in the design of FRCM systems. However, further re- Using the calculated softening stress, σsoft, the force in the con-
search is required to rationally quantify their ratio. More test param- crete softening zone is calculated using Eq. (12) as follows, in
eters and strengthening configurations that were not included in this which bb is the width of beam:
study must be examined before extending the results obtained to
other strengthening systems. Psoft = σ soft bb dsoft (12)

© ASCE 04023017-15 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017

 Ascending Zone FRCM/FRP Reinforcement
For specific curvature, ∅, and softening depth, dsoft, the depth of the Seracino et al. (2007) developed the RBR model to account for
ascending zone is calculated using FRP-strengthening systems. The slip of strengthening system at a
specific curvature is calculated using Eq. (23), in which dstren =
Δasc depth of the strengthening system measured from the top of the ten-
dasc = (13)
∅ sile zone as given in Fig. 13(b):
Therefore, the concrete compressive force in the ascending zone is Δstren = dstren ∅ (23)
determined using the parabolic model of Hongestad et al. (1955) as
According to Seracino et al. (2007), if such slip is close or higher
& '
2 ′ than the debonding slip given in Eq. (24), δdebond, the force in
Pasc = f bb dasc (14) FRP at debonding, Pstren, is determined as per Eq. (25):
3 c
0.976φ0.526
f
δdebond = (24)
0.802 + 0.078φf
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Internal Steel Reinforcement

"!!!!!!!!!!!
At yielding, the slip of the internal reinforcement, Δyield, is calcu- Pstren = 0.85 φ0.25
f fc0.33 Lper−f EAf (25)
lated as
where E = elastic modulus of the FRP system; and φf = aspect ratio
Δyield = δmax [1 − cos(λel ael )] (15) of the FRP sheet, defined as the ratio of the thickness of the
strengthening sheet, df, to its width, bf, (150 mm in the tested
According to Haskett et al. (2008), the maximum slip in the steel beams). The perimeter of the strengthening sheet, Lper-f, at the inter-
bars,δmax, is assumed equal to 15 mm. The elastic parameters λel face failure plane is calculated as
and ael are determined as
Lper−f = 2df + bf (26)
%!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lper τmax
λel = (16)
δmax Es Abar
Data Availability Statement
( )
Abar fy λel
arcsin All data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are
Lper τmax
ael = (17) available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
λel
where τmax = interface shear capacity between "!!! the concrete and
steel reinforcement, determined as 1.25 fc ′ (MPa) (Haskett Acknowledgments
et al. 2009); Lper = perimeter of the steel bar; Es = elastic modulus
of steel; Abar = area of the steel bar; and fy = yielding stress of the The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support pro-
steel bar. vided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
The force in the steel bar when the slip Δrein is less or equal to of Canada (NSERC) through their Discovery Grants Program
Δyield is calculated as (Award No. RGPIN-2017-04278).
( & ')
Lper τmax δmax − Δrein
Prein−el = sin arccos (18)
λel δmax Notation
On the other hand, the slip at which the steel bar fractures, Δfrac, is
calculated as The following symbols are used in this paper:
Abar = cross-sectional area of tensile steel reinforcement
Δfrac = Δyield + δmax [1 − cos(λsh ash )] (19) (mm2);
Af = equivalent area of fabric per unit width (mm2/m);
in which Ast = cross-sectional area of stirrups (mm2);
%!!!!!!!!!!!!! bb = cross section beam width (mm);
Lper τmax bf = width of the strengthening system (mm);
λsh = (20) c = cohesive component for normal concrete in the
δmax Esh Abar
softening zone (MPa);
( ) dasc = depth of the ascending branch of concrete in the
Abar (ffrac − fy )λsh compression side (mm);
arcsin
Lper τmax df = depth of the strengthening system measured from
ash = (21)
λsh the compressive side (mm);
dsoft = depth of the concrete wedge in the softening zone
where Esh and ffrac = strain hardening in the steel bar and the ulti- (mm);
mate stress at fracture, respectively. The force in the steel bar is cal- Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete (MPa);
culated as Ecr = cracked tensile modulus of FRCM composite
( & ') (MPa);
Lper τmax δmax − Δrein + Δyield
Prein−sh = Abar fy + sin arccos Ef = modulus of elasticity of the fabric (MPa);
λsh δmax Es = modulus of elasticity of steel;
(22) Esh = strain hardening of the tensile steel bars (MPa);

© ASCE 04023017-16 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017

 Eun = uncracked tensile modulus of FRCM composite
(MPa);
f ′c = concrete compressive strength (MPa);
ffrac = fracture stress of steel bars (MPa);
ffu = ultimate tensile strength of FRCM composite
(MPa);
fy = yield stress of steel bars (MPa);
Lper = perimeter of the tensile steel bar (mm);
Lper-f = perimeter of the strengthening layer (mm);
Lsoft = length of the concrete wedge (mm);
MRR = moment redistribution ratio (%);
m = parameter characterizing the concrete softening
across the wedge, assumed = 0.8;
Melastic = elastic bending moment of the sagging span (kN · m);
Mexp = experimental bending moment calculated in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sagging span (kN · m);
fail
Mexp = experimental bending moment at failure (kN · m);
MprE = predicted failure moment calculated in the east
span (kN · m);
MprW = predicted failure moment calculated in the west
span (kN · m);
Pasc = force in the ascending zone (kN);
Prein = force in the steel bars (kN);
Psoft = force in the softening wedge of concrete (kN);
Pstren = force in the strengthening system (kN);
Pu = ultimate load-carrying capacity (kN);
PyE = yielding load in the east span (kN);
PyH = yielding load at the hogging section (kN);
PyW = yielding load in the west span (kN);
Sslide = sliding capacity of the concrete wedge (mm);
Ssoft = sliding of the concrete wedge (mm);
ssp = spacing between stirrups along the beam length
(mm);
α = angle of the concrete wedge (degree);
σsoft = concrete stress in the softening wedge zone (MPa);
β f = strengthening ratio (%);
δdebond = debonding slip of the strengthening system (mm);
δglob
D = global ductility index;
δlocal
D = local ductility index for each span in the
asymmetric scheme;
δmax = maximum slip in the tensile steel bars when no
more shear stresses could be transferred (assumed
= 15 mm);
Δasc = slip of the top portion of concrete in the ascending
zone corresponding to concrete strain εasc (mm);
ΔW = midspan deflection at ultimate load in the west span
u
(mm);
ΔEu = midspan deflection at ultimate load in the east span
(mm);
ΔW y = midspan deflection at yielding load in the west span
(mm);
ΔEy = midspan deflection at yielding load in the east span
(mm);
ΔH y = midspan deflection in the span where failure
occurred corresponding to the yielding load in the
hogging section (mm);
Δlast
y = midspan deflection corresponding to the last
yielding load (mm);
Δrein = slip of the tensile steel bars (mm);
Δfrac = slip at fracture of the tensile steel bars (mm;
Δstren = slip in the strengthening system (mm);
Δyield = slip in the tensile steel bars at yielding (mm);
εasc = concrete strain corresponding to the peak
compressive strength, f ′c (mm/mm);
© ASCE 04023017-17
J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017
ε fu = ultimate tensile strain in the strengthening
composite (mm/mm);
εsoft = concrete strain in the softening wedge zone
(mm/mm);
η = enhancement ratio in the moment capacity;
λel and ael = elastic parameters that characterize the load–slip
relationship of steel reinforcement up to the
yielding stage;
λsh and ash = parameters that determine the load–slip
relationship of steel reinforcement in the strain
hardening stage up to failure;
ρf = reinforcement ratio of the strengthening systems
(%);
ρs = reinforcement ratio of the tensile steel bars (%);
σlat = parameter reflecting the lateral confinement
provided by the stirrups in the softening wedge
zone (MPa);
τmax = shear capacity at the steel–concrete interface
(MPa);
φf = aspect ratio of the strengthening system;
∅fail
exp = experimental curvature calculated at failure
(1/mm);
∅Wpr = curvature predicted at failure in the west span
(1/mm); and
∅Epr = curvature predicted at failure in the east span
(1/mm).
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2017. Guide for the design and con-
struction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
structures. ACI 440.2R-17. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2019. Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318-19. Farmington Hills,
MI: ACI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2020. Design and construction of ex-
ternally bonded fabric–reinforced cementitious matrix and steel–rein-
forced grout systems for repair and strengthening of concrete
structures. ACI 549.4R-20. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Aljazaeri, Z. R., and J. J. Myers. 2018. “Flexure performance of RC one–
way slabs strengthened with composite materials.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
30 (7): 04018120. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
.0002299.
Ashour, A. F., S. A. El-Refaie, and S. W. Garrity. 2004. “Flexural strength-
ening of RC continuous beams using CFRP laminates.” Cem. Concr.
Compos. 26 (7): 765–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2003
.07.002.
Banholzer, B., T. Brockmann, and W. Brameshuber. 2006. “Material and
bonding characteristics for dimensioning and modelling of textile rein-
forced concrete (TRC) elements.” Mater. Struct. 39 (8): 749. https://doi
.org/10.1617/s11527-006-9140-x.
Brückner, A., R. Ortlepp, and M. Curbach. 2006. “Textile reinforced con-
crete for strengthening in bending and shear.” Mater. Struct. 39 (8):
741–748. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-005-9027-2.
BSI (British Standard Institution). 2019. Design of concrete structures.
Part 1992-1-2: General rules. Structural fire design. London: BSI.
Ceroni, F., M. Pecce, S. Mathy, and L. Taerwe. 2008. “‘’Debonding
strength and anchorage devices for reinforced concrete elements
strengthened with FRP sheets.” Composites, Part B 39: 429–441. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.05.002.
Coccia, S., U. Ianniruberto, and Z. Rinaldi. 2008. “Redistribution of bend-
ing moment in continuous reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
fiber–reinforced polymer.” ACI Struct. J. 105 (3): 318.
CSA (Canadian Standard Association). 2012. Design and construction of
building components with fiber-reinforced polymers. CSA-S806-12
(R2017). Mississauga, ON, Canada: CSA.
J. Compos. Constr.
 D’Antino, T., C. Carloni, L. H. Sneed, and C. Pellegrino. 2014.
“‘’Matrix-fiber bond behavior in PBO FRCM composites: A fracture
mechanics approach.” Eng. Fract. Mech. 117: 94–111. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2014.01.011.
Duthinh, D. 1999. “Sensitivity of shear strength of reinforced concrete and
prestressed concrete beams to shear friction and concrete softening ac-
cording to modified compression field theory.” ACI Struct. J. 96 (4):
496–508.
Ebead, U., K. C. Shrestha, M. S. Afzal, A. El Refai, and A. Nanni. 2016.
“Effectiveness of fabric reinforced cementitious matrix in strengthening
reinforced concrete beams.” J. Compos. Constr. 21 (2): 04016084.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000741.
Elghazy, M., A. El Refai, U. Ebead, and A. Nanni. 2018. “‘’Fatigue and
monotonic behaviors of corrosion–damaged reinforced concrete
beams strengthened with FRCM composites.’.” J. Compos. Constr.
22 (5): 04018040. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ahmed El Refai on 02/14/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.0000875.
El-Refaie, S. A., A. F. Ashour, and S. W. Garrity. 2003. “Sagging and hog-
ging strengthening of continuous reinforced concrete beams using
CFRP sheets.” ACI Struct. J. 100 (4): 446–453.
Elsanadedy, H. M., T. H. Almusallam, S. H. Alsayed, and Y. A.
Al-Salloum. 2013. “Flexural strengthening of RC beams using textile
reinforced mortar – Experimental and numerical study.” J. Compos.
Struct. 97: 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.09.053.
Grace, N. F. 2001. “Strengthening of negative moment region of reinforced
concrete beams using carbon fiber–reinforced polymer strips.” Struct. J.
98 (3): 347–358.
Hadad, H. A., B. Erickson, and A. Nanni. 2020. “Flexural analysis and de-
sign of FRCM–strengthened RC beams.” Constr. Build. Mater. 244:
118371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118371.
Hashemi, S., and R. Al-Mahaidi. 2012. “Flexural performance of CFRP
textile–retrofitted RC beams using cement–based adhesives at high tem-
perature.” Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (1): 791–797. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.09.015.
Haskett, M., D. J. Oehlers, M. M. Ali, and C. Wu. 2009. “Rigid body mo-
ment–rotation mechanism for reinforced concrete beam hinges.” Eng.
Struct. 31 (5): 1032–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.12
.016.
Haskett, M., D. J. Oehlers, and M. S. Mohamed Ali. 2008. “Local and
global bond characteristics of steel reinforcing bars.” Eng. Struct.
30 (2): 376–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.04.007.
Hongestad, E., N. W. Hanson, and D. Mchenry. 1955. “Concrete stress dis-
tribution in ultimate design.” ACI J. Proc. 52 (6): 455–479.
ICC (International Code Council). 2013. Acceptance criteria for masonry
and concrete strengthening using fabric–reinforced cementitious ma-
trix (FRCM) composite systems. AC434. Washington, DC: ICC.
ICRI (International Concrete Repair Institute). 2013. Selecting and specify-
ing concrete surface preparation for sealers, coatings, polymer over-
lays, and concrete repair. ICRI 310.2R. St. Paul, MN: ICRI.
Jenson, B. C. 1975. “Line of discontinuity for displacements in the theory
of plasticity of plain and reinforced concrete.” Mag. Concr. Res.
27 (92): 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1975.27.92.143.
Jumaat, M. Z., M. M. Rahman, and M. A. Alam. 2010. “Flexural strength-
ening of RC continuous T beam using CFRP laminate: A review.”
Int. J. Phys. Sci. 5 (6): 619–625.
Koutas, L. N., Z. Tetta, D. A. Bournas, and T. C. Triantafillou. 2020.
“Strengthening of concrete structures with textile reinforced mortars:
State–of–the–art review.” J. Compos. Constr. 23 (1): 03118001. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000882.
© ASCE 04023017-18
J. Compos. Constr., 2023, 27(2): 04023017
Loreto, G., L. Leardini, D. Arboleda, and A. Nanni. 2014. “Performance of
RC slab–type elements strengthened with fabric–reinforced cementi-
tious–matrix composites.” J. Compos. Constr. 18 (3): A4013003. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000415.
Maghsoudi, A. A., and H. A. Bengar. 2009. “Moment redistribution and
ductility of RHSC continuous beams strengthened with CFRP.”
Turk. J. Eng. Environ. Sci. 33 (1): 45–59.
Mandor, A., and A. El Refai. 2021. “Assessment and modeling of the de-
bonding failure of fabric–reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) sys-
tems.” Compos. Struct. 275: 114394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compstruct.2021.114394.
Mandor, A., and A. El Refai. 2022a. “Strengthening the hogging and sag-
ging regions in continuous beams with fiber-reinforced cementitious
matrix (FRCM): Experimental and analytical investigations.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 321: 126341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2022.126341.
Mandor, A., and A. El Refai. 2022b. “Flexural response of reinforced con-
crete continuous beams strengthened with fiber-reinforced cementitious
matrix (FRCM).” Eng. Struct. 251: 113557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2021.113557.
Oehlers, D. J., M. S. Mohammed Ali, and M. C. Griffith. 2008. “Concrete
component of the rotational ductility of reinforced concrete flexural
members.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 11 (3): 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1260
/136943308785082571.
Ombres, L. 2011. “Flexural analysis of reinforced concrete beams strength-
ened with a cement based high strength composite material.” Compos.
Struct. 94 (1): 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.07
.008.
Pellegrino, C., and T. D’Antino. 2013. “Experimental behaviour of existing
precast prestressed reinforced concrete elements strengthened with ce-
mentitious composites.” Composites, Part B 55: 31–40. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.05.053.
Raoof, S. M., L. N. Koutas, and D. A. Bournas. 2017. “Textile–reinforced
mortar (TRM) versus fibre–reinforced polymers (FRP) in flexural
strengthening of RC beams.” Constr. Build. Mater. 151: 279–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.023.
Seracino, R., M. R. Raizal Saifulnaz, and D. J. Oehlers. 2007. “Generic de-
bonding resistance of EB and NSM plate–to–concrete joints.”
J. Compos. Constr. 11 (1): 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0268(2007)11:1(62).
Silva, P. F., and T. J. Ibell. 2008. “Evaluation of moment distribution in
continuous fiber–reinforced polymer–strengthened concrete beams.”
ACI Struct. J. 105 (6): 729–739.
Tajaddini, A., T. Ibell, A. Darby, M. Evernden, and P. Silva. 2017.
“Prediction of capacity for moment redistribution in FRP–strengthened
continuous RC T–beams.” J. Compos. Constr. 21 (1): 04016066. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000719.
Teng, J. G., J. F. Chen, S. T. Smith, and L. Lam. 2002. FRP strengthened
RC structures. New York: Wiley.
Tetta, Z. C., L. N. Koutas, and D. A. Bournas. 2018. “Shear strengthening
of concrete members with textile–reinforced mortar (TRM): Effect of
shear span–to–depth ratio, material and amount of external reinforce-
ment.” Composites, Part B 137: 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compositesb.2017.10.041.
Walraven, J., J. Frenay, and A. Pruijssers. 1987. ‘“Influence of concrete
strength and load history on the shear friction capacity of concrete mem-
bers.”’ PCI J. 32 (1): 66–84. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.01011987.66
.84.
J. Compos. Constr.