The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2398-4708.htm

Flexural bearing capacity of Flexural

bearing
reinforced concrete beams capacity of RC
beams
reinforced with carbon fiber
reinforced plastics strips and
ultra-high performance Received 9 April 2022
Revised 7 June 2022

concrete layers 14 July 2022

Accepted 17 July 2022

Long Liu and Songqiang Wan

Anyang Institute of Technology, Anyang, China

Abstract
Purpose – To make full use of the tensile strength of near surface mounting (NSM) pasted carbon fiber
reinforced plastics (CFRP) strips and further increase the flexural bearing capacity and flexibility of reinforced
concrete (RC) beams, a new composite reinforcement method using ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC)
layer in the compression zone of RC beams is submitted based on embedding CFRP strips in the tension zone of
RC beams. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned points.
Design/methodology/approach – The experimental beam was simulated by ABAQUS, and compared with
the experimental results, the validity of the finite element model was verified. On this basis, the reinforced RC
beam is used as the control beam, and parameters such as the CFRP strip number, UHPC layer thickness, steel
bar ratio and concrete strength are studied through the verified model. In addition, the numerical calculation
results of yield strength, ultimate strength, failure deflection and flexibility are also given.
Findings – The flexural bearing capacity of RC beams supported by the new method is 132.3% higher than
that of unreinforced beams, and 7.8% higher than that of RC beams supported only with CFRP strips. The
deflection flexibility coefficient of the new reinforced RC beam is 8.06, which is higher than that of the
unreinforced beam and the reinforced concrete beam with only CFRP strips embedded in the tension zone.
Originality/value – In this paper, a new reinforcement method is submitted, and the effects of various
parameters on the ultimate bearing capacity and flexibility of reinforced RC beams are analyzed by the finite
element numerical simulation. Finally, the effectiveness of the new method is verified by the analytical formula.
Keywords UHPC, CFRP strips, Strengthening, Flexural bearing capacity, Finite element model
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Recently, the need to retrofit and reinforce structures has increased dramatically, which is
mainly to overcome the deterioration of material properties because of structural aging,
material degradation, disaster-related structural damage and construction defects; or to
improve the ability of structures to withstand higher levels of load (Chabbi et al., 2021).
Recently, a series of new reinforcement materials, such as engineering cementing composite
(ECC) (Zhang et al., 2006), ultra- high performance concrete (UHPC) (Yang et al., 2010) or fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) (Antonopoulos and Triantafillou, 2003) has emerged and are used
in the modification and reinforcement of civil engineering structures. Among which carbon
fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) is widely used in the support of RC beams by its advantages

International Journal of Building

This study is supported by two essential funds: (1) Science and technology planning project of Anyang, Pathology and Adaptation
Henan Province, China (2022C01GX038); (2) Science and technology planning project of Henan Province, © Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-4708
China (222102320040). DOI 10.1108/IJBPA-04-2022-0056
IJBPA of high tensile strength, lightweight, good durability, convenient construction and wide
application.
CFRP strips are applied to RC beams for reinforcement mainly realized by two
technologies: external bonding (EB) and NSM. (1) externally bonded CFRP strips (EBR)
technology cannot ensure the tensile strength of CFRP strips being fully utilized because of
premature stripping of CFRP strips. Zhang et al. (2021) reinforced a 40-year-old stone arch
bridge and conducted load tests before and after the reinforcement. The results showed that
the strength and stiffness of the bridge were improved, and the method of CFRP
reinforcement was feasible and practical. Barros and Fortes (2005) found that CFRP materials
are exposed in the EBR process, the reinforcement performance of composite materials
decreases significantly under high or low temperature conditions, and the EBR system is also
susceptible to damage behavior. Recently, there are two particular external bonding
technologies to overcome these shortcomings: externally bonded reinforcement on grooves
(EBROG) and externally bonded reinforcement in grooves (EBRIG). The EBROG submitted
by Sabzi et al. (2020) involves placing FRP strips in precut grooves and bonding them with
epoxy adhesive. The EBRIG submitted by Mostofinejad and Shameli (2013) is another
improved reinforcement procedure with the slotting method when the FRP sheet is in direct
contact with the internal surface of the tensile surface groove of the concrete beam. Compared
with EBROG, EBRIG provides a larger contact area between FRP strips and concrete, and
improves load-bearing capacity, crack emergence and propagation, which means EBRIG is
an effective reinforcement technology. (2) NSM CFRP strip mounting technology has been
studied in depth. Steel bars in concrete are corroded by chloride penetration (Hamidane et al.,
2020). Almassri et al. (2014, 2015) found NSM technology can restore the mechanical
properties of RC beams damaged by corrosion through experiments, improving the ultimate
bearing capacity and stiffness of control beams and corroded beams, and ensuring sufficient
flexibility of corroded beams after repairing, indicating that NSM technology has a good
repair effect, and it is a promising technique for RC structure reinforcement. Through
experiments, Abdallah et al. (2020) studied the external NSM technology based on
strengthening RC beams with FRP strips inside, they found that changing the type, part and
length of FRP strips have great influences on improving the flexural bearing capacity of RC
beams. Hajihashemi et al. (2011) used NSM to paste CFRP strips to reinforce RC beams, and
analyzed the stress of RC beams under different loads. Sena-Cruz and Barros (2004) evaluated
the effect of NSM pasting CFRP strips on bending damaged concrete columns and concrete
beams. They confirmed that NSM pasting CFRP strips is an effective reinforcement method.
Sharaky et al. (2014) conducted an experimental study on the mechanical properties of RC
beams strengthened by NSM pasted CFRP bars, considering the influence of CFRP bar
number, epoxy resin properties and reinforcement positions, etc. Barris et al. (2020) conducted
a parameter study on the reinforcement of RC flexural members by pasting CFRP laminates.
They evaluated the influence of concrete strength, internal reinforcement ratio, and NSM
reinforcement ratio on the reinforcement effect. Lorenzis and Teng (2007) and Coelho et al.
(2015) summarized several advantages of NSM in comparison with EBR reinforcement, and
analyzed the NSM pasting CFRP strips to enhance RC beams in detail. According to the
discussion, it is possible to enhance RC beams with NSM pasted CFRP strips.
Although NSM pasted CFRP strips will improve the flexural bearing capacity of RC
beams to a certain extent, there are also some shortcomings. For example, concrete in the
compression zone of RC beams often fails prematurely before the tensile material yields,
which limits the improvement of the flexural bearing capacity of RC beams. In addition, the
flexibility of RC beams decreases regardless of the failure form. Therefore, to further improve
the flexural bearing capacity of RC beams, it is necessary to enhance the compressive ability
of its compression zone. UHPC is a new fiber-reinforced cement composite material, it has
higher compressive-tensile strength, excellent impact and fatigue resistance than ordinary
concrete. UHPC can be used to restore the damage to RC beams, which not only significantly Flexural
improves their mechanical properties, but also ensure their enough durability. Scholars have bearing
studied the technology of strengthening and restoring RC beams by UHPC. Zhang et al. (2019)
studied the flexural performance of damaged RC slabs reinforced by UHPC layer with
capacity of RC
different curing conditions under the action of negative bending moment and positive beams
bending moment, effectively eliminating the problems of insufficient flexural bearing
capacity and reduced durability caused by roof cracking. Results show the following: Under
the action of a negative bending moment, the cracking capacity of reinforced slabs is
improved, and the cracking load is more than twice that of unreinforced RC slabs. Meanwhile,
the analytical calculation model of the flexural capacity of UHPC-RC composite slabs is
established theoretically, and the theoretical calculation formula agrees with relevant
experimental results. The results show that the submitted theoretical formula can predict the
cracking and flexural bearing capacity of reinforced slabs to a certain extent. Dias et al. (2018)
and Obaidat et al. (2020) studied the effect of enhancing RC beams with CFRP strips on
improving flexural bearing capacity through experiments. The results show that the stiffness
and toughness of concrete beams can be improved by pasting CFRP strips with NSM.
However, it has little effect on the ultimate bearing capacity caused by the premature
crushing of concrete in the compression zone. On the basis of a literature survey, it is found
that only adding CFRP strips in the tension zone of RC beams has a limited effect on
improving the flexural bearing capacity of RC beams. At the same time, UHPC shows good
performance in the reinforcement of RC beams. The combination of the two allows for
improving the flexural bearing capacity of RC beams.
The finite element is effective in analyzing and predicting the flexural capacity of
reinforced RC beams. Panahi et al. (2021) used the finite element software ABAQUS for
numerical analysis and verified the effectiveness of the finite element model by comparing it
with experimental beam results in the literature. The results show that the flexural behavior
of RC beams strengthened with FRP composite materials can be accurately simulated. Sun
and Liu (2021) submitted the method of UHPC-UN composite beams to increase the flexural
bearing capacity, and adopted ABAQUS to conduct the finite element model on the
experimental beams. The installation of appropriate longitudinal reinforcement in the UHPC
layer can improve the flexural bearing capacity of the experimental beams. At the same time,
the experimental beam is numerically studied with the constitutive relation obtained from the
experiment. The results show that the flexural capacity obtained from the finite element
model is in good agreement with the experimental results. Sakr et al. (2019) found that UHPC
improved the ultimate shear bearing capacity of RC beams. The results showed that:
Compared with the shear failure control beam. The UHPFRC slab significantly improved the
maximum bearing capacity, flexibility and midspan reinforcement strain of the reinforced
beam. In addition, a three-dimensional finite element model of the experimental beam was
established to predict the shear performance of these specimens. Considering the slip between
the concrete surface and the UHPFRC slab, the bonding layer is simulated with the cohesive
surface model. The finite element calculation results are in good agreement with the
experimental results, which can accurately predict the mechanical behavior of the reinforced
beam. In the concrete plastic damage model (CDP), based on ABAQUS, Zhu et al. (2020)
adopted the method of introducing geometric discontinuity to conduct a nonlinear finite
element model on damaged RC slabs, and simulated the experimental process. The results
show that using UHPC in the negative bending moment zone of the UHPC-RC slab can
significantly improve the cracking performance of the negative bending moment zone and
effectively solve the cracking problem of the bridge deck in the negative bending moment
zone. The numerical simulation results of the finite element model established by ABAQUS
are in good agreement with the experimental results, indicating that the numerical analysis
model established can accurately simulate the flexural performance of UHPC-RC composite
IJBPA plates, including the force-span deflection relationship, ultimate bearing capacity and failure
mode. In conclusion, the finite element model can be used as an effective tool to evaluate the
ultimate bearing capacity and failure mode of reinforced RC beams.
To further improve the flexural bearing capacity of RC beams and ensure flexibility after
reinforcement. An innovative flexural reinforcement method for RC beams was submitted:
the combination of CFRP strip and UHPC layer; that is, CFRP strips with strong tensile ability
are configured in the tension zone, and the UHPC layer with strong compressive power is
configured in the compression zone to make full use of the advantages of the two materials
and improve the flexural bearing capacity. The diagram of this method is shown in Figure 1.

2. Methods
2.1 Experiment overview
The basic information of the reinforced RC beam studied in this paper is shown in Table 1.
Four-point bending loading method is adopted for the experimental beam. The calculated
span of the RC beam is 1400 mm, the height is 250 mm, the width is 200 mm, and the thickness
of the protective layer is 25 mm. Two ф 12.0 mm and ф 14.0 mm (S450) longitudinal steel bars
and ф 10.0 mm (S450) stirrups are arranged at the top and bottom of the experimental beam,
with a spacing of 100 mm. At the bottom, two CFRP strips with a length of 1600 mm, a width
of 15 mm, and thickness of 2.5 mm are used for NSM reinforcement of the experimental beam.
The section size, span and support arrangement of the experimental beam are shown in
Figure 2.

2.2 Finite element model

In this paper, ABAQUS is used to simulate the experimental beam, which can accurately
reflect the nonlinear behavior of the material. In simulation, it is assumed that there is no
bond-slip between the steel bar and concrete, binder and concrete, CFRP strips and binder.
Rigid pads are set at the support and loading points, respectively for avoiding stress
concentration.
The model uses C3D8R solid elements to simulate concrete, pad, CFRP strips and UHPC
layer; T3D2 three-dimensional truss elements to simulate steel bars; and COH3D8S bond
elements to simulate CFRP strips and bond agents between RC beams. Binding regulations
are adopted for pad and RC beam, embedding of steel bar and RC beam, binding restraint
are also used for binder and CFRP strips, and bolt nail connection is adopted for contact
between the UHPC layer and RC beam. The tractor-separation model in ABAQUS simulates
the connection between the UHPC layer and the RC beam. There are two rows of studs with
the strength of 450 MPa, length of 100 mm, and diameter of 13 mm. The transverse spacing

F
F

UHPC Layer RC Beam

Figure 1. CFRP Strip

The reinforcement
diagram of RC beams
combined with CFRP
strip and UHPC layers
 Diameter of
Flexural
Number of The thickness longitudinal steel bearing
Specimen Reinforcement CFRP of UHPC bar under Concrete capacity of RC
number method strips layer(mm) tension(mm) strength(MPa)
beams
SB


14 35
CSB-1 CFRP strips 1
14 35
CSB-2 CFRP strips 2
14 35
CSB-3 CFRP strips 3
14 35
CUSB-4 CFRP 2 30 14 35
strips þ UHPC
layer
CUSB-5 CFRP 2 40 14 35
strips þ UHPC
layer
CUSB-6 CFRP 2 30 12 35
strips þ UHPC
layer
CUSB-7 CFRP 2 30 16 35
strips þ UHPC
layer
CUSB-8 CFRP 2 30 18 35
strips þ UHPC
layer
CUSB-9 CFRP 2 30 14 30
strips þ UHPC
layer
CUSB-10 CFRP 2 30 14 40 Table 1.
strips þ UHPC Characteristics of the
layer experimental beam

1,600
250

80 14×100 80
(a)

Steel bar Φ 12
Steel bar Φ 14

Figure 2.
250

Diagram of
Steel bar Φ 10 experimental beam size
and steel bar (mm): (a)
25

200 Elevation; (b)

Sectional view
(b)

of studs is 100 mm, and the longitudinal distance is 150 mm. The “Tie” method was
adopted to simulate the interaction between RC beam and pad; and the “Embedment”
method was adopted to simulate the interaction between concrete and steel bars or studs.
IJBPA The “Surface-to-Surface contact” method was used between the RC beam and the UHPC
layer. The finite element model is shown in Figure 3.
2.2.1 Concrete. The CDP model provided by ABAQUS is determined based on the damage
plasticity model proposed by Lubliner et al. (1989) and Lee and Fenves (1998). The purpose is
to analyze the mechanical response of concrete structures under cyclic loading and dynamic
loading conditions. It considers the difference in material tensile and compression properties.
Zhang et al. (2008) verified the correctness of CDP model parameters by comparing the
simulation results of constitutive relationship parameters of concrete at all levels with the
standard curve. They verified the reliability of constitutive relationship parameters in
structural analysis through the simulation analysis of concrete shear wall experiment. The
simulated results obtained by Jasim et al. (2020) and Almassri and Halahla (2020) with some
model parameters are in good agreement with experimental results. These parameters are
also used in this paper, as shown in Table 2. The mechanical properties of concrete in this
study are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Concrete constitutive relation curves refer to the current code for design of concrete
structures, 2015 (GB50010-2010). Figure 4 provides the constitutive relation curves,
compressive and tensile damage parameters of concrete used in this study.

Load
(C3D8R) Embedment
Surface-surface Tie (C3D8R)

(T3D2) (C3D8R)
(COH3D8S)
Figure 3. (C3D8R)
Tie Tie (C3D8R)
Finite element model Pin (x, y = 0)
Pin (x, y, z = 0)

Parameter Value

Expansion angle 308

Eccentricity 0.1
Table 2. fb0/fc0 1.16
Plastic damage model K 0.667
parameters Viscosity coefficient 0.001

Table 3. Item f’c(MPa) ft(MPa) Ec ν

Mechanical properties
of concrete Value 35.0 2.2 31333.9 0.2

Item Diameter(mm) Elasticity modulus(GPa) Yield strength(MPa) Poisson’s ratio

Table 4. Tensile steel bar 14 210 450 0.3

Mechanical properties Compression steel bar 12 210 450 0.3
of steel bar Stirrup 10 210 450 0.3
 25 1.0 Flexural
bearing
Compression (MPa)

20 0.8 capacity of RC
15 0.6 beams

dc
10 0.4

5 0.2

0 0.0
0.0 5.0x10–3 1.0x10–2 1.5x10–2 0.0 5.0x10–3 1.0x10–2 1.5x10–2
Inelastic strain Inelastic strain
(a) (b)
2.5 1.0
Tension stress(MPa)

2.0 0.8

1.5 0.6 Figure 4.

Constitutive relation
dt

curve of concrete: (a)

1.0 0.4 Compressive stress vs.
Inelastic strain; (b)
0.5 0.2 Compressive damage
vs. Inelastic strain; (c)
0.0 0.0 Tensile stress vs.
0.0 3.0x10–4 6.0x10–4 9.0x10–4 0.0 3.0x10–4 6.0x10–4 9.0x10–4 Cracking strain; (d)
Cracking strain Cracking strain Tensile damage vs.
Cracking strain
(c) (d)

2.2.2 Steel bar. In this paper, an elastic model is used to simulate the longitudinal steel bars
and stirrups; that is, the linear elastic behavior of steel bars is defined by elastic modulus and
Poisson’s ratio. The stress-strain curve of the steel bar is shown in Figure 5.
2.2.3 CFRP strips. Compared with traditional materials, CFRP strips have the advantages
of corrosion resistance, convenient installation, high tensile strength, good flexibility, large
ultimate bearing capacity, and ultimate solid deformation ability. NSM-CFRP strips used in
this study are made by Sika Carbo Dur S1.525, which are always used for flexural
reinforcement of RC beams. Their properties are shown in Table 5.
2.2.4 UHPC. Guan et al. (2019) summarized UHPC constitutive models submitted by
different scholars, including stress-strain relationship under uniaxial compression, stress-
strain relationship under uniaxial tension and stress-crack width relationship. Shan (2002),
Wu (2012) and Shen (2014) conducted many uniaxial loading experiments on UHPC, and
gained the stress-strain relationship of UHPC under uniaxial compression by combining
experimental data with theoretical analysis. MCS-EPFL (2016) divided UHPC into strain
strengthening part and pressure softening part according to its axial tension characteristics.
They presented the curve forms of axial tension constitutive models of different types of
UHPC. Gao et al. (2021) conducted direct tensile tests on the strain-strengthened and strain-
softened parts under monotonic and cyclic loads, revealing the failure characteristics and
damage of UHPC under tensile loads, establishing the axial tension constitutive model, and
axial tension damage evolution formula of UHPC according to the experimental results.
Finally, ABAQUS was adopted to simulate a single UHPC element and unreinforced UHPC
beam, which verified the rationality and accuracy of the axial tension constitutive model, and
IJBPA
600

500
450

Tensile Stress ( MPa)

400

300

200

100
Figure 5.
Stress-strain curve of 0.275%
0 2% 4% 6% 8%
steel bar
Strain

Tensile Elasticity Poisson’s Elongation

Table 5. Item Width(mm) Thickness(mm) strength(GPa) modulus(GPa) ratio at break
The size and
mechanical properties CFRP 15 2.5 3.1 170 0.3 1.7%
of CFRP strips strips

damage evolution formula established in this paper. The compressive stress-strain

relationship of UHPC used in this paper is shown in Formula (1).
8
>
< Ax þ ð6
5AÞx þ ð4A
5Þx ð0 ≤ x ≤ 1Þ
5 6

y¼ x (1)
>
: ðx ≥ 1Þ
αðx
1Þ þ x
2

Where: x ¼ σ c =fc, σ c is the stress of concrete under compression, fc is the axial compressive
strength of prismatic body; y ¼ σ c =σ 0, σ c is the stress of concrete under compression, and σ 0 is
the peak compressive stress of concrete; Parameter A has clear physical significance and is
the ratio of tangent elastic modulus E0 at the zero point of the stress-strain curve to secant
modulus Ep at the peak point.
It should be pointed out that the compressive strength of UHPC used in Shan’s (2002)
experiment ranges from 140 MPa to 200 MPa, and the value of A and α got from
experimentally measured data is 1.177 and 2.41, respectively. The UHPC compressive
strength used by Wu (2012) ranges from 60 MPa to 100 MPa. It is suggested that the
parameter ranges of the ascending and rising parts of the curve are 1.0 ≤ A ≤ 1.2, 2 ≤ α ≤ 5.
Compared with the experimental data, A 5 1.1 and α 5 3 are gained. Shen (2014) suggested
the value range of A and α be 0.8 ≤ A ≤ 1.0, 3 ≤ α ≤ 5, and the UHPC with basalt fiber was
obtained by integrating all experimental curves: A 5 1.0, α 5 4.0. The experimental curves
are concentrated mainly in the range 0.8 ≤ A ≤ 1.5 and 2 ≤ α ≤ 5.
The tension stress-strain relationship of UHPC is shown in Formulae (2) and (3).
Strain strengthening part,
f
σ t ¼ te εt ðεt < εte Þ (2)
εte
Strain softening part, Flexural
σ t ¼ ftee ðεte < εt < εtu Þ (3) bearing
capacity of RC
Where, σ t is the tensile stress of UHPC; εt is the tensile strain of UHPC; fte is the elastic ultimate beams
tensile strength of UHPC, εte is the elastic maximum tensile strain of UHPC. ftu is the ultimate
tensile strength of UHPC; εtu is the ultimate tensile strain of UHPC. ftee is the equivalent tensile
strength of strain-softened UHPC.
The mechanical properties of UHPC are shown in Table 6, and the stress-strain curves
under compression and tension are shown in Figure 6.
2.2.5 Contact between UHPC layer and concrete. There are two ways to define the contact
between the UHPC layer and concrete, one of which is submitted by AASHTO. LRFD. (2017),
the other is given by ACI (2011), which specifies the minimum shear resistance at the interface
of two materials. However, the sheer calculation is conservative and ignores the bond
strength at the concrete interface poured at different times. Further, ACI (2011) assumes that
cracks have already appeared at the interface. Therefore, only the friction coefficient and
shear-friction reinforcement are considered in the shear strength calculation.
As described by Hussein et al. (2017), two types of tractor-separation models are used in
ABAQUS to simulate the connection method. The first method uses a cohesive unit with a
certain thickness to simulate the contact between the UHPC layer and concrete. The other is to
model by using surface-to-surface property settings. The latter is used in this paper because
no adhesive is added between the UHPC layer and concrete, so it can be assumed that the
adhesion thickness is 0. In this paper, studs are used as the connecting member between the
UHPC layer and concrete, and the tractor-separation model in ABAQUS is used to simulate
the contact between the UHPC layer and concrete beam. The slip parameters of the contact
surface between studs and UHPC layer, and concrete are shown in Tables 7 and 8.

2.3 Finite element model design

The constitutive model of reinforced RC beams with CFRP strips is simulated by using
ABAQUS. To verify the correctness of the numerical model submitted, the numerical model
results of the two beams were compared with the experimental results. To prevent the brittle
shear failure of the RC beam, the stirrups of the two beams were encrypted with a diameter of

Elasticity modulus(GPa) Poisson’s ratio fc (MPa) ft (MPa) Table 6.

Mechanical properties
43.3 0.2 140.3 7.08 of UHPC

σc σt
fc f te
f tee

Figure 6.
Stress-strain curves of
UHPC: (a) Under
0 compression; (b) Under
ε0 ε 0 εtee εte εtu ε tension
(a) (b)
IJBPA 10 mm and a shear span spacing of 100 mm. Each beam is subjected to a four-point flexural
load, the span between the two supports is 1,400 mm, and the external load is applied
symmetrically at 500 mm away from the support.

2.4 Determination of flexibility coefficient and yield load

In this paper, the flexibility of RC beams before and after reinforcement is analyzed, and
deflection flexibility coefficients are calculated according to Formula (4) (Santos and
Henriques, 2021).
Δ
μ¼ u (4)
Δy

Where, μ is the deflection flexibility coefficient of RC beam; Δ refers to various parameters

related to the deformation of RC beams, such as deflection, strain, sectional curvature,
rotation Angle or deflection, etc. which are represented by deflection in this paper. Δu is the
deflection corresponding to the ultimate load of RC beams; Δy is the deflection corresponding
to the initial yield load of the RC beam.
In addition, in the determination of yield load and yield deflection, this paper adopts the
“Farthest point method” submitted by Feng et al. (2017): the point is the yield point farthest
from the line between the origin and the peak point on the curve; If there are multiple yield
points, the average value of these yield points is taken according to the load value,
corresponding to the curve to get the only yield point. Specifically, as shown in Figure 7, a
tangent line is drawn on the force-deflection curve, where the tangent point of the parallel line
connecting the origin and the peak point is the yield point. When there are multiple tangent
points, the point with the maximum D value is generally taken as the yield point.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Verification of the finite element model
In this paper, the finite element method is used to simulate the flexural performance of RC
beams, and the reliability of the finite element model is verified from the force-midspan
deflection response, failure mode and crack distribution.
3.1.1 Force-midspan deflection response. To verify the correctness of the finite element
model, numerical simulation of RC beams without reinforcement and reinforcement only with
CFRP strips is conducted, respectively. The experimental results of the two beams are

Table 7. Elasticity modulus(GPa) Poisson’s ratio Yield strength(MPa)

Mechanical properties
of studs 210 0.3 450

Parameters Value
3
Ken (N/mm ) 1,358
Ks 、Kt (N/mm3) 20,358
Table 8. tn、ts、tt (MPa) 5.63
Slip parameters of Total/plastic deflection 0.241
UHPC layer and Viscosity coefficient 0.001
concrete interface Friction coefficient 1.44
 Flexural

Force
Peak point
Yield point bearing
capacity of RC
Dmax beams

Figure 7.
Diagram of farthest
O point method
Deflection

compared with the numerical simulation results. Figure 8a shows the force-midspan
deflection curve of SB gained from the testing and finite element model. OA is the elastic
working stage before SB-EXP cracking, SB-EXP cracks at point A, and the corresponding
cracking load is 24.9 kN, AB is the working stage with cracks, tensile steel bar yields at point
B, and the connected yield load is 131.2 kN, BC is the strengthening stage and the stress of
tensile steel bar increases continuously at this stage. SB-EXP cracks in large numbers, and
the deflection ratio of BC to OA shows the deflection flexibility. In the formula, BC is the
SB-EXP elastic-plastic cracking stage, the neutral axis of the section moves up, the moment
arm corresponding to the reinforcement tension continues to increase, and the section load
increases to the ultimate load at point C, which is 154.0 kN. Similarly, Figure 8b shows the
force-midspan deflection curve of CSB-2 obtained from the experimental and finite element
model. OA is the elastic working stage before cracking of CSB-2-EXP. The concrete at the
bottom of CSB-EXP2 cracks at point A, and the corresponding cracking load is 30.1 kN. The
bearing capacity of the AB part keeps increasing and reaches the ultimate load at point B,
197.3 kN.
The results of the finite element model are roughly equivalent to the experimental results.
The force-midspan deflection curve of SB-FEM can be divided into OA0 : elastic working
stage, A0 B0 : working stage with cracks, and B0 C0 : failure stage. The cracking load at point A0
is 80.76 kN, and the yield load at point B0 is 139.4 kN, slightly larger than the experimental

160 C' 210

C B
140 B' 180 B'
120 B SB-EXP 150 CSB-2-EXP
SB-FEM
Force (kN)
Force (kN)

100 CSB-2-FEM
120
80 A'
Deflection location 90 Deflection location Load
Load
60 P/2 P/2
P/2 P/2 60
40 A'
A 0.5m 0.4m 0.5m Figure 8.
0.5m 0.4m 0.5m 30
20 A Force-midspan
0
O 0 O deflection response: (a)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SB-EXP, SB-FEM; (b)
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm) CSB-2-EXP, CSB-
2-FEM
(a) (b)
IJBPA results. The ultimate load at point C0 is 147.3 kN, close to the observed failure load. The force-
span deflection curve of CSB-2 is divided into the same three stages. The cracking load at
point A0 is 34.8 kN, slightly larger than the experimental results, and the ultimate load at point
B0 is 187.1 kN. In addition, the slope (characteristic stiffness) of the OA0 part of the two finite
element simulation beams is larger than the experimental results.
In general, the force-midspan deflection curve calculated by the finite element model fits
well with the experimental results. The ultimate bearing capacity is also close, as shown in
Figure 9, showing the finite element model has good accuracy and applicability. At the elastic
stage, the overall stiffness calculated by the finite element model is higher than the
experimental results. The main reasons for this deviation are as follows: (1) The shrinkage of
the experimental beam and hydration reaction of cement will lead to slight cracks in concrete,
but such damages are not considered in the finite element model; (2) The boundary conditions
as strict as the finite element model cannot be achieved in the experiment; (3) The contact
established in the finite element model assumes the steel bar and concrete are combined. Still,
there will be a bond-slip between the steel bar and concrete in the experiment, leading to the
reduction of the bond between the steel bar and concrete. In addition, for CSB-2, it can be seen
the force-midspan deflection curves calculated by the finite element model are in good
agreement with the experimental results in the rising part. Still, there are some deviations in
the increasing position. The main reason is that the development of cracks in CFRP strips is
related to the initial defects and the distribution of internal fibers, and the distribution of
initial defects and fibers is random. Therefore, it is difficult to predict fracture development
along the height of the section.
3.1.2 Failure mode. Using the finite element model will get the failure modes of reinforced
RC beam and fracture distribution. The failure mode of the experimental beam is concrete
breaking, mainly related to the yield of the tensile steel bar and concrete cracking in the
tension zone. The “DAMAGET” output from ABAQUS effectively reflects the fracture
distribution generated by this failure mode. As shown in Figure 10, the finite element model
and experimental fracture distribution of SB and CSB-2 are presented, respectively.
The failure mode of SB obtained by the finite element model and experiment is shown in
Figure 3a and 3b. In the early loading stage, subtle cracks first appeared at the bottom of the
beam. With the increase of load, mid-span cracks increased, and oblique cracks began to
appear. In the late loading stage, the concrete at the top was crushed, and the concrete at the
bottom fell off. The finite element model and experimental fracture distribution of CSB-2 are
shown in Figure 3c and 3d. In the loading process, micro-cracks appear at the bottom of the

EXP
FEM
5.21%
200 197.34
187.05
Ultimate bearing capacity(kN)

4.36%
154.03
150 147.31

100

Figure 9.
Comparison between 50
experimental and finite
element model of
ultimate bearing 0
capacity SB CSB-2
Beam
 Flexural
bearing
capacity of RC
beams

Figure 10.
Crack distribution: (a)
SB-FEM; (b) SB-EXP;
(c) CSB-2-FEM; (d)
CSB-2-EXP
IJBPA concrete pure bending section and the end of beam first. With the increase of load, concrete
cracks continue to expand, and inclined cracks extend from the end of shear span to the
middle of the beam span. As can be seen from Figure 3d, concrete at the top is crushed,
concrete at the bottom begins to fall off and peel with CFRP strips, which is consistent with
the distribution in the finite element model. The finite element model is accurate in analyzing
the crack distribution and failure state of RC and CFRP reinforced beams.

3.2 Parameter study

To further explore the influence of geometric and material parameters on the flexural bearing
capacity of RC beams in the new method of combining CFRP strips and UHPC, parameters
are studied based on the verified finite element model. The influences of CFRP strip number,
UHPC layer thickness, steel bar ratio and concrete strength on the flexural bearing capacity of
RC beams are discussed and evaluated from the ultimate bearing capacity and flexibility.
3.2.1 CFRP strip number. The influence of the CFRP strips on the flexural bearing capacity
of RC beams is studied by changing the number of CFRP strips. The linear part slope of the
force-midspan deflection curve of the reinforced beam is more significant than that of the
unreinforced beam. It can be seen from Figure 11a that the force-midspan deflection curve of
the experimental beam goes through three stages, namely, before concrete cracks, from
concrete cracking to the yield stage of the longitudinal steel bar at the bottom, and then to the
ultimate load. On the first stage before concrete cracking, all experimental beams show linear
elastic behavior, among which CFRP strips have little influence on the cracking load of the RC
beams. In the second stage, from concrete cracking to reinforcement yield, CFRP strips
increase the stiffness and yield load of reinforced RC beams. On the third stage, the steel bar
yields to the failure of the RC beam, and the unreinforced beam, as expected, behaves in a
brittle failure mode. Because of the linear elastic properties of CFRP bars in the plastic stage,
cracking concrete is seriously damaged. The effect of CFRP bars makes the reinforced beams
in the third stage have approximately linear properties. The stiffness of the strengthened
beam at this stage is almost proportional to the CFRP strip number, and its flexural bearing
capacity is significantly improved.
According to Table 9, the deflection flexibility coefficients of CSB-1, CSB-2, and CSB-3
strengthened by CFRP strips increase from 4.42 to 5.37, 6.81 and 6.89, respectively, compared
with SB without reinforcement. The yield loads increased from 138.44 kN to 216.84 kN,
317.55 kN and,405.35 KN, respectively. The ultimate loads increased from 147.31 kN to
216.84 KN, 317.55 kN, and 405.35 KN, respectively, compared with 147.31 kN of SB without
reinforcement. They increased by 47.2%, 115.6% and 175.2%, respectively.
It can be seen that laying CFRP strips at the bottom of RC beams greatly improves the
flexibility and flexural capacity of RC beams. The flexibility and yield loads of CSB-1, CSB-2
and CSB-3 also increase with the increase of the number of CFRP strips at the bottom of RC
beams, as CFRP has good flexibility and tensile properties. With the increase load, the
concrete at the bottom of RC beams cracks, and the crack width gradually increases. Because
the tensile strength of CFRP strips is better than that of concrete, the CFRP strips are not
damaged after the bottom concrete exits from work, so the reinforced beams can withstand
more significantly load. At the same time, the flexibility of the reinforced beam increases. The
NSM technology is used to deploy CFRP strips at the bottom of RC beams, which can work
better with the bottom concrete and prevent the bearing capacity of RC beams from being
reduced due to the cracking of the base concrete. The results show that the number of CFRP
bars has a certain influence on the flexibility and flexural capacity of reinforced RC beams in a
certain range.
3.2.2 UHPC layer thickness. With adding CFRP strips to the bottom of RC beams, the top
concrete is replaced by the UHPC layer, and its thickness is changed to study the influence on
the flexural bearing capacity. The tensile strength and flexural capacity of reinforced RC beams
 SB
CSB-1
CSB-2 Flexural
420 CUSB-4
CSB-2
350
CUSB-5 bearing
CSB-3
350 300 capacity of RC
250 beams

Force (kN)
280
Force (kN)

200
210
Deflection location Deflection location Load
Load 150
P/2 P/2 P/2 P/2
140
100

0.5m 0.4m 0.5m 0.4m 0.5m

70 0.5m
50

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Deflection (mm)
Deflection (mm)
CFRP strip number UHPC layer thickness
(a) (b)
CUSB-6
CUSB-9
CUSB-4
CUSB-4
420 CUSB-7 350 CUSB-10
CUSB-8
350 300

250
280
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

200
Deflection location Load
210
Deflection location Load P/2 P/2
150
P/2 P/2
140
100 0.5m 0.4m 0.5m
0.5m 0.4m 0.5m
70 50
Figure 11.
0 0 The Force-midspan
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
deflection curves of
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
beams under the
Steel bar ratio Concrete strength influence of different
parameters
(c) (d)

Beam Δu =mm Δy =mm μ Fy/kN Fu/kN Improvement rate

Table 9.
SB 11.55 2.61 4.42 138.44 147.31
Comparison of
CSB-1 28.49 5.30 5.37 142.01 216.84 47.2% flexibility coefficient,
CSB-2 31.16 4.58 6.81 160.02 317.55 115.6% yield load, and
CSB-3 41.52 6.03 6.89 196.85 405.35 175.2% ultimate load

can be improved by adding CFRP bars in the tensile zone. But with the increasing number of
CFRP strips in the tension zone, the height of the concrete compression zone will continue to rise
until RC beams are damaged, and the tensile steel bars or CFRP strips will not yield. Therefore,
the improvement of the RC beam’s flexural bearing capacity will be limited, and the excessive
increase of CFRP strips in the tensile zone will lead to brittle failure of the RC beam.
According to Table 10, compared with CSB-2 supported with only CFRP strips, CUSB-4, and
CUSB-5 supported with a combination of CFRP strips and UHPC layer, the deflection flexibility
coefficients increase from 6.81 to 8.06 and 8.30 respectively. The yield load decreased from
160.02 kN to 158.84 kN, and 157.46 kN, respectively, while the ultimate load increased from
317.55 kN to 342.25 kN, and 332.27 kN, respectively, increasing by 7.8 and 4.6%. The flexibility
and maximum bearing capacity of the reinforced RC beam reinforced with CFRP strips and
IJBPA UHPC layer are improved, while the yield load is reduced compared with the reinforced RC
beam reinforced with CFRP strips and UHPC layer. With the increase of UHPC layer thickness,
the ultimate bearing capacity of CUSB-5 is lower than that of CUSB-4, and the reinforcement
efficiency is also lower, because UHPC has good flexibility and compression resistance. For RC
beams and beams reinforced only with CFRP strips, the concrete at the top of the beams will be
crushed as the load increase. For the beam supported by the CFRP strips and UHPC layer,
because the UHPC layer at the top has a strong compressive capacity, it provides greater
bending bearing capacity and flexibility for the reinforced beam.
3.2.3 Steel bar ratio. By adding two CFRP strips to the bottom of RC beams and replacing
30 mm UHPC layer at the top, the influence on the flexural bearing capacity of RC beams is
studied by changing the longitudinal tensile steel bar ratio. CUSB-4 was used as a reference to
change the steel bar ratio. The steel bar ratio of CUSB-6 decreased slightly, while the steel bar
ratio of CUSB-7 and CUSB-8 increased successively. Force-midspan deflection curves
obtained by the finite element model are shown in Figure 11c, the variation rules of each curve
are close. The detailed data of flexibility coefficient, yield load and ultimate load are shown in
Table 11. Compared with CUSB-4, the steel bar ratio of CUSB-6 reduced slightly, the
deflection flexibility coefficient reduced from 8.06 to 5.48, while the yield load changed little,
and the ultimate load decreased from 342.25 kN to 313.75 kN, down by 8.3%. Compared with
CUSB-4, the steel bar ratio of CUSB-7 and CUSB-8 increases, and the deflection flexibility
coefficient decreases to 4.77 and 3.91, respectively, the yield loads increase to 213.68 kN and
236.06 kN. The ultimate load increased by 9.7 and 20.8% to 375.44 kN and 413.41 kN,
respectively, indicating that the flexural capacity of the CFRP strip and UHPC layer
reinforced beam increases when the number of longitudinal tensile reinforcement is
increased. In general, the bearing capacity is positively correlated with the reinforcement
ratio. In addition, the flexibility of the reinforced beam decreases after the reinforcement ratio
increases, and the reinforced beam is prone to brittle failure. The yield load increases linearly.
Concluding that changing the reinforcement ratio has a significant influence on the flexural
bearing capacity of reinforced beams.
3.2.4 Concrete strength. By adding two CFRP strips to the bottom of RC beams and
replacing the 30 mm UHPC layer at the top, the influence on the flexural bearing capacity of
RC beams is studied by changing the concrete strength. CUSB-4 is used as the reference for
changing the concrete strength. CUSB-9 and CUSB-10 are the reinforced beams for changing
the concrete strength. The force-midspan deflection relationship simulated by finite element
is shown in Figure 11d. Compared with CUSB-4, the concrete strength of CUSB-9 decreases,
the deflection flexibility coefficient increases from 6.81 to 7.30, while the yield load changes
little, and the ultimate load decreases from 342.25 kN to 339.40 kN, decreasing by 0.8%.

Table 10. Beam Δu =mm Δy =mm μ Fy/kN Fu/kN Improvement rate

Comparison of
flexibility coefficient, CSB-2 31.16 4.58 6.81 160.02 317.55

yield load and CUSB-4 25.27 3.14 8.06 158.84 342.25 7.8%
ultimate load CUSB-5 29.06 3.50 8.30 157.46 332.27 4.6%

Beam Δu =mm Δy =mm μ Fy/kN Fu/kN Improvement rate

Table 11.
Comparison of CUSB-6 28.44 5.19 5.48 157.19 313.75
8.3%
flexibility coefficient, CUSB-4 31.16 4.58 8.06 158.84 342.25

yield load and CUSB-7 26.57 4.77 5.57 213.68 375.44 9.7%
ultimate load CUSB-8 25.98 3.91 6.65 236.06 413.41 20.8%
Compared with CUSB-4, while the concrete strength of CUSB-10 increases, the deflection Flexural
flexibility coefficient increases to 7.24, yield load increases to 163.35 kN, ultimate load bearing
decreases to 340.72 kN, decreases by 0.4%. The detailed flexibility coefficient and yield load
are shown in Table 12. In addition, based on the combination of CFRP strips and UHPC layer
capacity of RC
reinforcement, the flexural bearing capacity of RC beams decreases slightly by reducing the beams
concrete strength. Especially, when the concrete strength changes, the flexibility and yield
load of reinforced beams increase. In general, the flexural bearing capacity of RC beams is not
significantly affected by the shift in concrete strength.

3.3 Analytical calculation of flexural bearing capacity

According to Formulae (5) and (6), it is possible to predict the flexural capacity of reinforced
RC beams; the strain and stress distribution of section is shown in Figure 12:
α1 fc bx þ fy0 A0s ¼ fy As (5)
 x  
Mu ¼ α1 fc bx h0
þ fy0 A0s h0
a0s (6)
2
Where, Mu is the flexural bearing capacity of RC beams; as is the distance between the
resultant point of a tensile steel bar of RC beam and the tensile edge of section; α1 is
the equivalent rectangular stress graphic coefficient of concrete compression zone. fc is the
design value of axial compressive strength of concrete; b is the section width; h0 is the
effective height of the section; x is the height of concrete compression zone; f 0 y is the design
value of compressive strength of steel bar; A0 s is the section area of the compression steel bar;
fy is the design value of tensile strength of steel bar; As is the section area of tensile steel bar;
a0 s is the distance from the resultant point of the compression steel bar to the edge of the
compression zone of the section.
For CUSB-2, the flexural bearing capacity can be predicted by formula (7). There are two
types of materials in the pressure zone of CUSB-2 and CFRP strips are added to the bottom, so

Beam Δu =mm Δy =mm μ Fy/kN Fu/kN Improvement rate Table 12.

Comparison of
CUSB-9 27.78 3.80 7.30 163.35 339.40
0.8% flexibility coefficient,
CUSB-4 31.16 4.58 6.81 158.84 342.25
yield load and
CUSB-10 27.57 3.80 7.24 163.35 340.72
0.4% ultimate load

αf c
Compression Zone εcu
f' y A' s
a' s

ε' s
x

A' s αf cbx
Neutral Axis Mu
x-a'c
h0
h

Tension
Zone f y As Figure 12.
Strain and stress
as

As distribution diagram:
b (a) Section; (b) Strain;
(c) Equivalent stress
(a) (b) (c)
IJBPA it is necessary to revise Formulae (5) and (6). According to the section shown in Figure 13, the
modified Formulae (7) and (8) are listed.
α1 fcUHPC bx1 þ α2 fc bx2 þ fy0 A0s ¼ fyCFRP AsCFRP þ fy As (7)
 x1   x2   
Mu ¼ α1 fcUHPC bx1 h0
þ α2 fc bx2 h0
x1
þ fy0 A0s h0
a0s
2 2
 
d

fyCFRP AsCFRP as
(8)
2
Where, α1 5 α2 5 1; fcUHPC 5 140.3 MPa; b 5 200 mm; x1 5 30 mm; h0 5 225 mm;
fc 5 35.3 MPa; x2 5 20 mm; f 0 y 5 fy 5 450 MPa; A0 s 5 226.08 mm2; As 5 307.72 mm2;
a0 s 5 25 mm; fyCFRP 5 3,100 MPa; AsCFRP 5 75 mm2; as 5 25 mm; d 5 1.25 mm.
The flexural bearing capacity of CSB-4 is 217.6 kN.m, and the calculation result of the
finite element model is 239.6 kN.m, which are close to each other, showing the finite element
model is in good agreement with the analytical results.

4. Conclusions
Based on CFRP strips embedded in the tension zone to strengthen RC beams, a new method
combining CFRP strips and UHPC layer in the tension zone and compression zone is
proposed to enhance RC beams. The flexural bearing capacity of the new approach is
analyzed in detail, and the following conclusions are drawn:
(1) The whole loading process of SB and CSB-2 was simulated by the finite element
model. The force-midspan deflection curve and failure mode of SB and CSB-2 were
highly consistent, which verified the reliability of the finite element model.
(2) Combining CFRP strips and the UHPC layer to strengthen RC beams can
significantly improve the flexural bearing capacity of RC beams. The ultimate
strength of CUSB-4 is 342.25 kN, 132.3%, and 7.8% higher than SB and CSB-2,
respectively. At the same time, compared with SB and CSB-2, the crack distribution of
the CUSB-4 beam is denser. The reason is that the UHPC layer at the top and the
CFRP strip at the bottom provide sufficient compressive and tensile strength.
(3) Combination of CFRP strips and UHPC layer to strengthen RC beams keeps enough
flexibility. The deflection flexibility coefficient of CUSB-4 is 8.06, which is higher than
that of SB and CSB-2. The flexibility of reinforced beams is increased because of the

UHPC Layer
a' s
x2 x1

A' s
Concrete Layer
h0
h

Tension
Zone CFRP Strips
as

Figure 13. As
Section of CUSB-2
b
 excellent flexibility of UHPC, and the flexibility of reinforced beams is improved with Flexural
the increase of UHPC layer thickness. bearing
(4) For CUSB-4 reinforced by CFRP strips and UHPC layer, the analytical calculation capacity of RC
results show the flexural bearing capacity is 217.6 kN.m, and the finite element model beams
calculation result is 239.6 kN.m, indicating the limited element calculation results are
consistent with the analytical calculation results.

References
Abdallah, M., Mahmoud, F.A., Khelil, A. and Mercier, J. (2020), “Assessment of the flexural behavior of
continuous RC beams strengthened with NSM-FRP bars, experimental and analytical study”,
Composite Structures, Vol. 242, 112127, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112127.
Almassri, B. and Halahla, A.M. (2020), “Corroded RC beam repaired in flexure using NSM CFRP rod
and an external steel plate”, Structures, Vol. 27, pp. 343-351, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.05.054.
Almassri, B., Kreit, A., Mahmoud, F.A.L. and Francois, R. (2014), “Mechanical behaviour of corroded
RC beams strengthened by NSM CFRP rods”, Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 64,
pp. 97-107, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.04.012.
Almassri, B., Mahmoud, F.A.L. and Francois, R. (2015), “Behaviour of corroded reinforced concrete
beams repaired with NSM CFRP rods, experimental and finite element study”, Composites Part
B: Engineering, Vol. 92, pp. 477-488, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.01.022.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2011), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary, MI: ACI 318R–11, Farmington Hills.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Load and resistance factor
design (AASHTO. LRFD) (2017), Bridge Design Specifications, 8th ed., Washington DC.
Antonopoulos, C.P. and Triantafillou, T.C. (2003), “Experimental investigation of FRP-strengthened
RC beam-column joints”, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 39-49, doi: 10.
1061/(ASCE)1090-0268.
Barris, C., Sala, P., G
omez, J. and Torres, L. (2020), “Flexural behaviour of FRP reinforced concrete
beams strengthened with NSM CFRP strips”, Composite Structures, Vol. 241, 112059, doi: 10.
1016/j.compstruct.2020.112059.
Barros, J.A.O. and Fortes, A.S. (2005), “Flexural strengthening of concrete beams with CFRP laminates
bonded into slits”, Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 471-480, doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2004.07.004.
Chabbi, R., Ferhoune, N. and Bouabdallah, F. (2021), “Diagnostic of degraded reinforced concrete
bridges explaining the environmental condition effect and reinforcement method”, International
Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.
1108/IJBPA-11-2020-0095.
Coelho, M.R.F., Sena-Cruz, J.M. and Neves, L.A.C. (2015), “A review on the bond behavior of FRP NSM
systems in concrete”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 93, pp. 1157-1169, doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.05.010.
Dias, S.J.E., Barros, J.A.O. and Janwaen, W. (2018), “Behavior of RC beams flexurally strengthened
with NSM CFRP laminates”, Composite Structures, Vol. 201, pp. 363-376, doi: 10.1016/j.
compstruct.2018.05.126.
Feng, P., Qiang, H.L. and Ye, L.P. (2017), “Discussion and definition on yield points of materials,
members and structures”, Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 36-46, doi: 10.6052/j.issn.
1000-4750.2016.03.0192.
Gao, X.L., Wang, J.Y., Guo, J.Y. and Liu, C. (2021), “Axial tensile mechanical properties and
constitutive relation model of ultra-high performance concrete under cyclic loading”, Acta
Materiae Compositae Sinica, Vol. 38 No. 11, pp. 3925-3938, doi: 10.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.
20201218.002.
IJBPA Guan, P.W., Tu, Y.Z., Zhang, P. and Tang, G.B. (2019), “A review on constitutive relationship of ultra-
high-performance concrete under uniaxial compression and tension”, Acta Materiae Compositae
Sinica, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1295-1305, doi: 10.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.20180703.004.
Hajihashemi, A., Mostofinejad, D. and Azhari, M. (2011), “Investigation of RC beams strengthened
with prestressed NSM CFRP laminates”, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 887-895, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000225.
Hamidane, H., Ababneh, A., Messabhia, A. and Xi, Y.P. (2020), “Modeling of chloride penetration in
concrete structures under freeze-thaw cycles”, International Journal of Building Pathology and
Adaptation, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 127-147, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-04-2019-0040.
Hussein, H.H., Walsh, K.K., Sargand, S.M., Rikabi, F.T.A. and Steinberg, E.P. (2017), “Modeling the
shear connection in adjacent box-beam bridges with ultrahigh-performance concrete joints. I:
model calibration and validation”, Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 22, p. 8, doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001070.
Jasim, W.A., Tahna, Y.B.A. and Halahla, A.M. (2020), “Behavior of reinforced concrete deep beam with
web openings strengthened with (CFRP) sheet”, Structures, Vol. 26, pp. 785-800, doi: 10.1016/j.
istruc.2020.05.003.
Lee, J. and Fenves, G.L. (1998), “Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures”,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 124 No. 8, p. 892, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399.
Lorenzis, L.D. and Teng, J.G. (2007), “Near-surface mounted FRP reinforcement: an emerging
technique for strengthening structures”, Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 119-143, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.08.003.
nate, E. (1989), “A plastic-damage model for concrete”,
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S. and O~
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 299-326, doi: 10.1016/0020-
7683(89)90050-4.
MCS-EPFL (2016), Ultra-high Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement-Based Composites (UHPFRC):
Construction Material, Dimensioning and Application, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
Lausanne.
Mostofinejad, D. and Shameli, S.M. (2013), “Externally bonded reinforcement in grooves (EBRIG)
technique to postpone debonding of FRP sheets in strengthened concrete beams”, Construction
and Building Materials, Vol. 38, pp. 751-758, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110072.
Obaidat, Y.T., Barham, W.S. and Aljarah, A.H. (2020), “New anchorage technique for NSM-CFRP
flexural strengthened RC beam using steel clamped end plate”, Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 263, 120246, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120246.
Panahi, M., Zareei, S.A. and Izadi, A. (2021), “Flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete beams
through externally bonded FRP sheets and near surface mounted FRP bars”, Case Studies in
Construction Materials, Vol. 15, e00601, doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00601.
Sabzi, J., Esfahani, M.R., Ozbakkaloglu, T. and Farahi, B. (2020), “Effect of concrete strength and
longitudinal reinforcement arrangement on the performance of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened using EBR and EBROG methods”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 205, 110072, doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110072.
Sakr, M.A., Sleemah, A.A., Khalifa, T.M. and Mansour, W.N. (2019), “Shear strengthening of reinforced
concrete beams using prefabricated ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete plates:
experimental and numerical investigation”, Structural Concrete, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 1137-1153,
doi: 10.1002/suco.201800137.
Santos, J. and Henriques, A.A. (2021), “Span-to-depth ratio limits for RC continuous beams and slabs
based on MC2010 and EC2 flexibility and deflection requirements”, Engineering Structures,
Vol. 228, 111565, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111565.
Sena-Cruz, J. and Barros, J.A.O. (2004), “Modeling of bond between near-surface mounted CFRP
laminate strips and concrete”, Computers and Structures, Vol. 82, pp. 1513-1521, doi: 10.1016/j.
compstruc.2004.03.047.
Shan, B. (2002), Experiment and Research on Basic Mechanical Properties of Reactive Powder Concrete, Flexural
Master’s thesis of Hu Nan University, Changsha, p. 25.
bearing
Sharaky, I.A., Torres, L., Comas, J. and Barris, C. (2014), “Flexural response of reinforced concrete (RC)
beams strengthened with near surface mounted (NSM) fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars”,
capacity of RC
Composite Structures, Vol. 109, pp. 8-22, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.10.051. beams
Shen, T. (2014), Study on the Constitutive Elation and Structural Design Parameters of Uniaxial
Compression of Reactive Powder Concrete, Master’s thesis of Harbin University of Technology,
Harbin, p. 32.
Sun, Q.X. and Liu, C. (2021), “Experimental study and calculation method on the flexural resistance of
reinforced concrete beam strengthened using high strain-hardening Ultra high performance
concrete”, Structural Concrete, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 1741-1759, doi: 10.1002/suco.202000592.
Wu, Y.M. (2012), Study of the Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) about Compressive Stress-Strain Curve,
Master’s thesis of Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, p. 40.
Yang, I.H., Joh, C. and Kim, B.S. (2010), “Structural behavior of Ultra high performance concrete beams
subjected to bending”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 3478-3487, doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2010.07.017.
Zhang, J., Leung, C.K.Y. and Cheung, Y.N. (2006), “Flexural performance of layered ECC-concrete
composite beam”, Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 66 Nos 11-12, pp. 1501-1512.
Zhang, J., Wang, Q.Y., Hu, S.Y. and Wang, C.J. (2008), “Parameters verification of concrete damaged
plastic model of ABAQUS”, Building Structure, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 127-130, doi: 10.19701/j.jzjg.
2008.08.036.
Zhang, Y., Zhu, Y.P., Yeseta, M., Meng, D.L., Shao, X.D., Dang, Q. and Chen, G.D. (2019), “Flexural
behaviors and capacity prediction on damaged reinforcement concrete (RC) bridge deck
strengthened by ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) layer”, Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 215, pp. 347-359, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.04.229.
Zhang, K.X., Li, D.C., Shen, X.Y., Hou, W.Y., Li, Y.F. and Xue, X.W. (2021), “Research on strengthening
stone arch bridge with CFRP rebars”, International Journal of Building Pathology and
Adaptation. doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-07-2021-0097.
Zhu, Y.P., Zhang, Y., Hussein, H.H. and Chen, G.D. (2020), “Numerical modeling for damaged
reinforced concrete slab strengthened by ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) layer”,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 209, 110031, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110031.

Further reading
Chinese National Standards (2015), Code for Design of Concrete Structures (GB50010-2010), China
Architecture and Building Press, Beijing.
Donnini, J., Lancioni, G., Chiappini, G. and Corinaldesi, V. (2021), “Uniaxial tensile behavior of ultra-
high performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): experiments and modeling”, Composite
Structures, Vol. 258, 113433, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113433.
Zhu, Y.P., Zhang, Y., Li, X.L. and Chen, G.D. (2021), “Finite element model to predict structural
response of predamaged RC beams reinforced by toughness-improved UHPC under unloading
status”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 235, 112019, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112019.

Corresponding author
Long Liu can be contacted at: 20160913@ayit.edu.cn

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com