Width Effect in FRP–Concrete Debonding Mechanism:

A New Formula
Mattia Santandrea1; Imohamed Ali Omar Imohamed2; and Christian Carloni, Ph.D.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper presents the results of an experimental work aimed at determining the effect of the width of a steel fiber-reinforced
polymer (FRP) composite on the load-carrying capacity of a composite–concrete interface. Single-lap shear tests were performed in
which the main parameter was the width of the composite strip. Steel FRP strips were applied to three different faces of each concrete
prism and it was observed that the load-carrying capacity is strongly related to the face to which the composite is applied. In addition, a
few tests were carried out at a displacement rate, used to control the test, equal to ten times the rate employed for the majority of the spec-
imens. A great influence of the rate on the load-carrying capacity was observed, although the number of tests was limited. The authors argue
that most of the width effect formulas available in the literature use data from different sources without taking into account the face of ap-
plication and the rate. A new width effect formula is proposed, which takes into account the most recent articles on this subject.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001001. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Steel FRP; Concrete; Debonding; Single-lap shear test; Width effect; DIC.

Introduction
In the field of structural rehabilitation of existing buildings, com-
posite materials stood out as one of the most employed strengthen-
ing techniques in previous decades. In particular, the large use of
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites to increase the capacity
of an existing structural member is mainly due to several advan-
tages associated with FRPs when compared with traditional
strengthening systems. Some of the key features of FRP systems
are the high strength-to-weight ratio, the ease of installation, and
the possibility of designing the arrangement of the fibers to fit
the design needs of a specific application. Recently, a new type
of FRP, which employs high-strength steel fibers embedded in a
thermosetting epoxy resin, has been developed for strengthening
applications. Steel FRP composites, also known as steel-reinforced
polymer (SRP) composites, are a promising strengthening tech-
nique that owes its success to the low cost of the steel fibers with
respect to most of the common fibers employed in traditional
FRP systems (carbon, glass, or aramid) and the possibility of bend-
ing the fibers without the need of chamfering the edges of columns
(Sneed et al. 2017) and beams (Sneed et al. 2016). Steel FRP com-
posites have been successfully applied to reinforced concrete
beams (Wobbe et al. 2004; Kim et al. 2005; Barton et al. 2005;
Casadei et al. 2005; Prota et al. 2006; Pecce et al. 2006; Ceroni
1
Dept. of Civil, Chemical, Environmental, and Materials Engineering,
Univ. of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy. Email:
mattia.santandrea3@unibo.it
2 the cohesive behavior of the interface is described by a shear stress (τ)
Dept. of Civil, Chemical, Environmental, and Materials Engineering,
Univ. of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy. Email:
imohamedali.imohamed@unibo.it
3
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Case Western Reserve University,
10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland OH 44106 (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1663-7535. Email: christian.carloni@
case.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 17, 2018; approved
on August 14, 2019; published online on April 22, 2020. Discussion period
open until September 22, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con-
struction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
and Pecce 2007; Hawileh et al. 2014; Napoli and Realfonzo
2015; Mitolidis et al. 2012; Bencardino and Condello 2015) and
slabs (Napoli et al. 2016b) as a flexural reinforcement, and to
plain concrete columns (Sneed et al. 2017; El-Hacha and Mashrik
2012; Napoli and Realfonzo 2016) as an external confinement. The
results show that steel FRP can increase the capacity of the struc-
tural member and its ductility.
Carloni et al. (2017a) showed that there is no difference between
the debonding phenomenon of steel FRP and other FRPs. They
proved that the facture mechanics approach used to study the de-
bonding of FRP strips from a concrete substrate can be applied
to steel FRP composites. For this reason, the title of this work refers
in general to FRP composites and the term FRP is also used for
steel FRP in this paper. The debonding appears to be cohesive,
that is, a thin layer of mortar-rich concrete remains attached to
the steel FRP strip as it separates from the substrate. As long as
the fracture process occurs in the substrate, the substrate itself
does not feel the differences between the different fibers employed
in the FRP. Thus, the fracturing process is related to the quality of
the substrate and the stiffness of the composite. It might also de-
pend on the type of epoxy as it penetrates into the concrete pores.
Within the framework of fracture mechanics, adhesion of the
composite to concrete is described by a fictitious zero-thickness in-
terface subjected to Mode-II loading. The Mode-I loading condition is
typically neglected although its presence cannot be avoided in labora-
tory testing and applications (Carrara et al. 2011; Ghorbani et al. 2017;
Carrara and Ferretti 2013; Rabinovitch 2008; Rabinovitch 2012). As
separation between the two materials occurs in a thin layer of concrete;
versus slip (s) relationship that features a softening branch (Rostasy
and Neubauer 1997; Ali-Ahmad et al. 2006; Mazzotti et al. 2008;
Napoli et al. 2016a; Grande et al. 2015; Ceroni et al. 2016).
In this work, an extensive experimental campaign is carried out
to investigate the effect of the width of the FRP strip on the debond-
ing mechanism of steel FRP–concrete joints. Tests are performed
using a single-lap shear test setup. The main parameter investigated
is the width of the composite strip. In addition, tests are performed
by varying the face to which the FRP strip is applied. Three tests are
performed at a different loading rate in order to show the influence

© ASCE 04020024-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

 of the rate on the experimental results, as already pointed out by with another quantity used in this paper and to be consistent with
Carloni et al. (2017c) for fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix current standards. The width factor kb is
(FRCM) composites bonded to a concrete substrate. Digital 





















image correlation (DIC) is used to investigate the displacement 2 − (bf /b)
and strain fields on the surface of the composite strip. kb = 1.125 (2)
1 + (bf /400)

Background on the Width Effect
Early studies on the width effect in FRP–concrete joints date back
to the end of the1990s. In this section, only the main contributions
are reported. The symbols used in this section are consistent with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where b = the width of the concrete prism (Fig. 1). It should be
noted that kb was first proposed by Holzenkämpfer (1994) based
on the size effect formula by Baž ant (Baž ant and Planas 1997;
Hoover and Baž ant 2013). Eq. (1) was derived by assuming that
the fracture energy of the interface was determined as

the original papers. Among the first researchers, who observed

GF = kb2 CF fh (3)
that the load-carrying (or bond) capacity of the FRP strip bonded
to a concrete substrate varied with the ratio of the width bf of the The coefficient CF was calibrated against 70 bond tests by the
composite to the width b of the face of concrete prism to which authors. Eq. (3) implies that the fracture energy is not a true mate-
the composite strip is applied (see Fig. 1), Neubauer and Rostasy rial property but depends on the width factor.
(Neubauer and Rostasy 1997; Rostasy and Neubauer 1997) pro- Brosens and Van Gemert (1999) adjusted Eq. (2) by changing
posed the following formula for the maximum bond force Tu,max the expression of kb
(i.e., the bond capacity, which in the next section is identified by 


















the symbol Pcrit for experimental values): 2 − (bf /b)












kb = 1.5 (4)
Tu, max = 0.64kb bf EFRP tFRP fh (1) 1 + (bf /100)

where bf, EFRP, and tFRP = width, Young’s modulus, and thickness Later, Brosens (2001) modified the expression of the fracture
of the composite; and fh = surface tensile strength of concrete [EN energy reported in Brosens and Van Gemert (1999)
1542 (CEN 1999)]. It should be noted that the original symbol used
for the surface tensile strength has been changed to avoid confusion GF = kc kb2 CF fh (5)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 1. (a) Single-lap shear test setup; (b) specimen DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2; (c) casting procedure and definition of the faces of the prism; and
(d) LVDT c and d.

© ASCE 04020024-2 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

 where kc depends on the concrete surface condition and varies be-
tween 0.65 and 1.00. The width factor is















2 − (bf /b)
kb = k (6)
1 + (bf /b0 )
where k is calibrated against the experiments (as well as CF) and
b0 = tref/(k – 1); tref (first introduced in Brosens and Van Gemert
1999) = the thickness of the portion of concrete near the surface
of concrete where the composite is applied and can be assumed
equal to 2.5–3 times the aggregate size.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Chen and Teng (2001) collected a large database of experimental
results to calibrate the width factor. The bond capacity Pu proposed
by the authors is (when the bonded length is sufficiently long)





















Pu = 0.427βp bf EFRP tFRP f ′c
where f’c = the cylindrical compressive strength of concrete and the
width factor βp is












2 − (bf /b)
βp = (8)
1 + (bf /b)
It should be noted that, as is highlighted subsequently in this
paper, when data are collected from different studies, certain pa-
rameters, such as the rate of testing and the face of the concrete
prism to which the composite is applied, are typically not reported,
although they strongly affect the results. Teng et al. (2003) slightly
modified the expression of the bond capacity without changing the
width factor.
Additional data were considered by Lu et al. (2005), who pro-
posed a slightly different expression of the width factor βw
















2.25 − (bf /b)
βw = (9)
1.25 + (bf /b)
It should be noted that Lu et al. (2005) applied the width factor
to the fracture energy GF.
Subramaniam et al. (2007, 2011) conducted two experimental
campaigns to investigate the width effect and their results somehow
contradicted the expressions of the width factor proposed in the lit-
erature. The results presented by the authors were all obtained from
tests conducted at the same testing rate, but the face of the prism to
which the composite was applied was not reported.
Wu and Jiang (2013) performed an analytical study based on a
database of 628 shear tests. A closed-form solution was used to de-
termine the bond parameters by matching the analytical solution
with test results. The coefficients of the bond capacity model
were derived by regression analyses. Wu and Jiang (2013) pro-
posed a new formulation of the width factor as a function of both
the width ratio and the concrete strength
κ WU
w = λ + (1 − λ) · bf /b
λ = 1 + 0.222 · ( f ′c )0.304
Wu and Jiang (2013) proposed the following formula to evalu-
ate the bond capacity:
Ptheor,WU = Q(EFRP tFRP )−0.5 ( f ′c )J κWU
w
where Q and J = 0.703 and 0.108, respectively.
Lin et al. (2017) performed a numerical analysis on composite
strips bonded to a concrete substrate, considering several bonded
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024
widths, and obtained the following formula for the width factor:
′R −S
w = 1 + f c [8(EFRP tFRP )
κ LIN + 0.001](1 − bf /b)0.5 /(1 + 0.01bTf )
(13)
where R, S, and T = 0.385, 0.438, and 1.7, respectively.
The width factor proposed by Lin et al. (2017) shall be used in
Eq. (12) proposed by Wu and Jiang (2013) in order to evaluate the
load-carrying capacity of composite strips bonded to a concrete
surface.
Additional numerical work has been carried out to investigate
the effect of the width (Xu et al. 2015; Benvenuti et al. 2016;
Neto et al. 2016; Salomoni et al. 2011), which points to that ob-
served by Subramaniam et al. (2007, 2011), that is, the distribution
of the longitudinal strain component is not constant across the
width of the composite, which is the source of the width effect.
(7)
Experimental Program
This section reports the procedure used to perform single-lap shear
tests, information about the geometry of the specimens, and the me-
chanical properties of the materials employed in this experimental
campaign.
Materials
All concrete specimens employed in this experimental campaign
were cast from the same batch of concrete, including specimens
used for material characterization. Concrete was normal weight
portland cement mixed with limestone and sandstone aggregates,
with a water–cement ratio equal to 0.43. The maximum diameter
of the aggregates (Dmax) was equal to 15 mm. Compressive tests
were performed on 150 mm cubes, while splitting tests were per-
formed on 150 mm (diameter) × 300 mm (length) cylinders in
order to determine indirectly the tensile strength of concrete. Com-
pressive and tensile tests were performed at different ages accord-
ing to EN 12390-3 (CEN 2001) and EN 12390-6 (CEN 2009),
respectively, in order to determine the compressive and tensile
strength as a function of time. The cubic compressive (Rcm) and
tensile splitting ( fctm) strengths at 28 days, obtained as the average
of three tests, were 24.9 and 2.3 MPa, respectively. Their coeffi-
cient of variation (CoV) was 0.09 and 0.06, respectively. The
behavior of the compressive and tensile strength versus time is re-
ported elsewhere (Carloni et al. 2017a, b), for the sake of brevity.
Single-lap shear tests were performed approximately 300 days
after the concrete prisms were cast. Tests were performed after con-
crete was sufficiently aged to assume no variation of its properties
during the days of testing since the tests were performed over a
span of one month. In addition, three-point bending tests of notched
beams were performed approximately 300 days after concrete spec-
imens were cast to evaluate the fracture energy of concrete, using
a fracture mechanics setup reported in Carloni et al. (2017a, b).
(10)
Fracture tests were performed on three 600 mm (length) × 150 mm
(width) × 150 mm (depth) notched concrete specimens and on three
(11) 300 mm (length) × 75 mm (width) × 75 mm (depth) notched concrete
specimens. The average value of the fracture energy was equal to
104 N/m (CoV 0.05) and 109 N/m (CoV 0.12), respectively. The frac-
ture energy was evaluated based on the concept of work of fracture
(12) (Hillerborg 1985; Hoover and Baž ant 2013; Elices et al. 1992).
Further details about the fracture mechanics tests are provided in
Carloni et al. (2017a, b).
The composite material consisted of steel fibers (cords) embed-
ded in a thermosetting resin. Steel fibers were in the form of a
04020024-3 J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 1. Properties of the steel fibers (textile) provided by manufacturer
Property High density
Number of cords/mm
Tensile strength, f fA,u (MPa) f fHD,u = 3,000
Young’s modulus, Ef (GPa)
Ultimate deformation, ɛf,u (%)
Equivalent thickness, t *f ,A (mm) t *f ,HD = 0.254
Source: Data from Kerakoll (2018).
Note: f fA,u is the tensile strength of the fibers. t *f ,A is the equivalent thickness
of the fibers. Superscript and subscript A represents the steel fiber density
(HD = high density). The technical datasheet of the manufacturer reports a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
value of the tensile strength >3,000.
Table 2. Mechanical properties of the epoxy provided by manufacturer
Property
Tensile strength (MPa)
Flexural young’s modulus (GPa)
Young’s modulus under compression (GPa)
Source: Data from Kerakoll (2018).
unidirectional sheet made of ultrahigh strength galvanized steel
cords fixed to a fiberglass micromesh to facilitate installation (fur-
ther details can be found in Santandrea et al. 2016; Sneed et al.
2017). Each cord is obtained by joining five filaments. Three fila-
ments out of five are straight and the remaining two filaments are
wrapped with a high-torque angle. The cross-sectional area of the
cord, Acord, is equal to 0.538 mm2. High-density (HD) steel fiber
sheets with a fiber spacing approximately equal to 2.12 mm and
an equivalent thickness, t*f, HD, equal to 0.254 mm, were employed
(subscript HD represents the steel fiber sheet density). The equiva-
lent thickness is obtained by dividing the total cross-sectional area
of the fiber sheet by the width of the steel FRP strip. Mechanical
properties of the fibers reported by the manufacturer (Kerakoll
2018) are provided in Table 1.
The epoxy matrix is a two-component epoxy thixotropic gel
system. The mechanical properties of the epoxy reported by the
manufacturer (Kerakoll 2018) are provided in Table 2.
Three steel FRP strips were tested in tension according to
ASTM D3039 (ASTM 2008). The steel FRP strips were selected
from the strips used to strengthen the concrete specimens, after
single-lap shear tests were performed. Since a thin layer of concrete
was attached to the steel FRP strips at failure, only the unbonded
region of the composite strips was tested in tension, with nominal
dimensions equal to 370 mm (length) × 50 mm (width) × 4 mm
(thickness). The average value of the tensile strength, ff,u, resulted
equal to 3,060 MPa (CoV = 0.02). Young’s modulus computed as
the slope of the stress–strain response between two fixed percentages
of the tensile strength of the fibers, that is, 20% and 40%, was deter-
mined from the strain obtained with DIC. The average Young’s mod-
ulus of the composite strips (EHDf ,SRP ), referred to the area of the fibers,
were equal to 258 GPa (CoV = 0.06). Further details about the tensile
tests of the steel FRP strips are provided in Carloni et al. (2017a).
Methods
Forty-six specimens were tested using a single-lap shear test setup in
order to evaluate the stress-transfer mechanism in steel FRP–concrete
joints. All concrete prisms had the same nominal dimensions equal to
150 mm (width) × 150 mm (depth) × 600 mm (length). In this paper,
the width of the concrete prism is named b, as shown in Fig. 1.
Prior to applying the composite material, all prisms were sandblasted
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024
with silica sand to obtain a prescribed roughness of 2 mm. The steel
FRP composite strips were applied using a wet lay-up procedure, fol-
lowing the manufacturer’s recommendations. After they were applied,
0.472 the composite strips were left to cure for seven days at room temper-
ature and humidity. Steel FRP strips were applied approximately be-
190
tween 290 and 320 days after the concrete prisms were cast.
2
The main parameter investigated in this study is the width bf of
the composite strip. Six different bonded widths of the steel FRP
strips were used to strengthen the concrete specimens, that is, nom-
inally 15, 30, 40, 50, 75, and 90 mm. Out of 46 specimens, 40 spec-
imens had a nominal bonded length equal to 300 mm, while six
specimens had a nominal bonded length equal to 200 mm. The
bonded length was chosen in order to be longer than the effective
bond length, that is, the length needed to activate completely the
stress-transfer mechanism during the debonding phenomenon.
The effective bond length for FRP strips with HD steel fiber
Value
sheet was determined in Carloni et al. (2017a) and is within the
14 range 100–150 mm. The nominal thickness of the steel FRP strip
2.50 was equal to 4 mm. Steel fibers were arranged across the width
5.30 of the steel FRP strip in order to obtain a distance between the ex-
ternal fibers and the edges of the matrix equal to half of the fiber
spacing. Since the actual dimensions of the steel FRP strips slightly
differed from the nominal ones, the actual bonded width, bf,actual,
and the actual thickness, tSRP,actual, are reported in Table 3 for
each specimen. The value of bf,actual and tSRP,actual for each speci-
men were obtained as the average of three measurements evenly
spaced in the unbonded region of the steel FRP strip and taken
after single-lap shear tests were performed. The bonded region
started 70 mm from the top edge of the concrete prism, in order
to provide an initial notch. Fibers were embedded within the matrix
for the entire length of the strip, including the portion outside the
bonded area. In this work, the portion of the steel FRP strip gripped
by the wedges of the testing machine is referred to as the clamped
end. The beginning of the bonded region near the clamped end is
referred to as the loaded end, while the opposite edge of the bonded
area is referred to as the free end (Fig. 1).
The side to which the steel FRP strip was applied was also varied in
order to fully understand the width effect and interpret the results pub-
lished in the literature. The faces of the concrete prisms were classified
in two different types. The side (S) face was one of the two rectangular
formed faces adjacent to the screeded (or casting) face, while the bot-
tom (B) face was the formed face opposite to the screeded face
[Fig. 1(c)]. Steel FRP strips were applied to both S and B faces.
All specimens were tested using a direct single-lap shear test
setup. Two linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs)
were mounted on the concrete surface close to the beginning of
the bonded area. The LVDTs [LVDT a and LVDT b in Fig. 1(a)]
reacted off a thin aluminum Ω-shaped plate that was glued directly
to the steel FRP strip at the beginning (loaded end) of the bonded
area. The average value of the LVDTs is referred to as global slip,
g, in this paper, and was used to control the test at a constant rate.
Global slip is a term used in many publications. An alternative and
probably more correct term is loaded-end slip because it is the slip
between the faces of the crack at the beginning of the bonded area
where the load is applied. Out of 46 specimens, 43 were tested at a
rate equal to 0.00084 mm/s (which is considered as the standard
rate in this study), while three specimens were tested at a rate
equal to 0.0084 mm/s. Two additional LVDTs, named LVDT c
and LVDT d, were placed in the back of the prism and were
mounted horizontally in order to measure the out-of-plane displace-
ments, wc and wd, respectively [Figs. 1(a–d)]. LVDT c and LVDT d
reacted off the face of the concrete prism opposite to the one where
the steel FRP strip was applied and were fixed to the bottom plate of
the test setup using two magnets [Fig. 1(d)]. A prestressing load
04020024-4 J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 3. Characteristics of the single-lap shear test specimens
Steel FRP strip
Fibers
Specimen name Concrete face Actual bonded width bf,actual (mm) Actual thickness tSRP,actual (mm) Number of cords DIC
DS_300_15_HD_D_S_1 S 18.0 4.4 8 Yes
DS_300_15_HD_D_S_2 S 17.5 4.6 8 Yes
DS_300_15_HD_D_S_3 S 18.0 4.4 8 Yes
DS_300_15_HD_D_S_4 S 18.0 5.4 8 Yes
DS_300_15_HD_D_S_5 S 18.0 4.3 8 Yes
DS_300_15_HD_D_B_1 B 18.0 4.2 8 Yes
DS_300_15_HD_D_B_2 B 18.0 4.3 8 Yes
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_1 S 30.0 4.5 14 Yes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DS_300_30_HD_D_S_2 S 29.0 4.4 14 Yes

DS_300_30_HD_D_S_3 S 32.0 4.5 14 Yes
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_4 S 32.0 4.5 14 Yes
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_5 S 31.0 4.5 14 Yes
DS_300_30_HD_ND_B_1 B 32.0 4.3 14 No
DS_300_30_HD_D_B_2 B 31.5 4.9 14 Yes
DS_300_30_HD_D_B_3 B 31.5 4.6 14 Yes
DS_300_40_HD_D_S_1 S 43.0 4.8 19 Yes
DS_200_40_HD_D_S_2 S 40.0 4.2 19 Yes
DS_200_40_HD_D_S_3 S 40.0 4.1 19 Yes
DS_200_40_HD_D_S_4 S 40.0 4.3 19 Yes
DS_300_40_HD_ND_B_1 B 42.0 4.8 19 No
DS_300_40_HD_D_B_2 B 42.0 4.6 19 Yes
DS_300_40_HD_D_B_3 B 41.5 4.6 19 Yes
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_1 S 51.0 4.3 24 Yes
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_2 S 52.0 4.6 24 Yes
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_3 S 50.0 4.2 24 Yes
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_4 S 52.0 4.2 24 Yes
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_5 S 52.0 4.7 24 Yes
DS_200_50_HD_ND_S_6 S 52.5 4.5 24 No
DS_200_50_HD_D_S_7 S 53.5 4.5 24 Yes
DS_300_50_HD_ND_S_10R_1 S 53.0 3.9 24 No
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_10R_2 S 53.0 4.3 24 Yes
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_10R_3 S 53.0 4.2 24 Yes
DS_300_50_HD_ND_B_1 B 52.0 4.3 24 No
DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2 B 52.0 4.6 24 Yes
DS_300_50_HD_D_B_3 B 52.5 4.5 24 Yes
DS_200_50_HD_D_B_4 B 52.5 4.2 24 Yes
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_1 S 75.0 4.2 36 Yes
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_2 S 76.5 4.0 36 Yes
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_3 S 74.5 4.4 36 Yes
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_4 S 75.0 4.0 36 Yes
DS_300_75_HD_ND_B_1 B 74.5 4.7 36 No
DS_300_75_HD_D_B_2 B 76.0 4.4 36 Yes
DS_300_75_HD_D_B_3 B 76.0 4.3 36 Yes
DS_300_90_HD_D_B_1 B 94.0 4.0 44 Yes
DS_300_90_HD_ND_B_2 B 93.0 4.2 44 No
DS_300_90_HD_D_B_3 B 92.0 4.4 44 Yes
Note: Specimens for which DIC was employed are marked “Yes” in the DIC column.

was applied to the concrete prism before single-lap shear tests were
performed. Three strain gages were mounted, at midheight, 120°
apart along the circumference of each steel bar used to restrain
the concrete prism. The average measurement of the three strain
gages was used to determine the tensile stress on each bar at the be-
ginning of the test and for the entire duration of the test. By check-
ing the average of the strain measured by the strain gages, the same
prestressing level (1 MPa) was applied to each specimen at the be-
ginning of the test. For 34 specimens, DIC was used to measure the
displacement field and, consequently, determine the strain field on
the steel FRP strip and adjacent concrete surface. Further details
about the test setup can be found in Carloni et al. (2017a) and
Santandrea et al. (2016).
Specimens were named following the notation DS_X_Y_A_B_C_
E_Z, where X = bonded length (l ) in mm; Y = bonded width (bf) in
mm; A represents the steel fiber sheet density (HD = high density); B
indicates the use of DIC in the test (D = DIC, ND = no DIC); C de-
notes the face of the prism to which the FRP strip was applied (B =
bottom, S = side); E (if present) indicates that the loading rate was
different from the standard rate (0.00084 mm/s) used for the majority
of the specimens (10R = ten times the standard rate); and Z = speci-
men number (Table 3). The same specimen notation used in Carloni
et al. (2017a) was adopted in this work, as some specimens published
there were used or recalled in the present study.
Experimental Results
This section reports the results of the 46 single-lap shear tests.
The applied load (P) divided by the actual width of the composite

© ASCE 04020024-5 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

 (bf,actual) versus global slip (g) response of representative specimens
is presented and discussed. Failure modes are also discussed. At
least three specimens were tested for each width, except for speci-
mens with a 15 mm-wide strip applied to the B face. The number of
specimens tested for each width is limited but sufficient to investi-
gate the trend. A larger number of specimens for each width could
be beneficial. However, a longer time to cast all specimens and a
larger number of tests to be completed within a short period
might cause a variation of the properties of concrete.
Load Responses
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The load per unit width-global slip responses of representative
S-face and B-face specimens are reported in Figs. 2(a and b), re-
spectively. Specimens with different widths of the steel FRP strip
are also reported in Fig. 2. All load responses show the same behav-
ior, characterized by an initial linear portion, followed by a nonlin-
ear branch until the peak load, P*, is reached. After the peak load is
reached, a drop in the load response marks the onset of the debond-
ing mechanism and the interfacial crack starts to propagate along
the concrete surface. An idealized load response is reported in
Carloni et al. (2017a). As debonding progresses after the load
drop, the load levels off until the end of the test when the steel
FRP strip completely detaches from the concrete substrate. The pla-
teau load (or experimental bond capacity), Pcrit, is evaluated as the
average load within the global slip range [g1,g2]. The global slip
range [g1,g2] is the range where the interfacial cohesive crack prop-
agates in a self-similar way along the bonded region and, for most
specimens, is determined through the strain analysis (Carloni et al.
2017a) based on DIC results. For specimens without DIC, the
global slip range [g1,g2] is directly evaluated on the load response.
For these specimens, g1 is determined as the point in the load re-
sponse where a substantial drop is observed after the peak load is
reached, while g2 is determined as the point in the load response
that marks the onset of the last ascending branch in the load re-
sponse, which is due to the presence of Mode I (Carloni et al.
2017a; Carrara et al. 2011; Ghorbani et al. 2017). For all specimens
strengthened with a 15 mm-width FRP strip, the global slip range
[g1,g2] was determined directly on the load-global slip response,
because of the limited width of the steel FRP strip (see section
“Longitudinal Strain Across the Composite Width”). Specimens
DS_300_15_HD_D_B_1 and DS_300_15_HD_D_B_2 showed a
different failure mode with respect to all the other specimens (see
(a)
Fig. 2. Load response of representative specimens: (a) S-face specimens; and (b) B-face specimens.
© ASCE 04020024-6
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024
section “Failure Modes”). For these specimens, the crack started
to develop in the concrete substrate. As the residual bonded length
was approximately 100 mm, crack propagation shifted from the
substrate to the matrix–fiber interface. The initial crack propagation
in the concrete substrate was associated with the first part of the
load response, similarly to other specimens, and was characterized
by a drop that corresponded to the onset of the crack propagation in
the concrete substrate [Fig. 2(b)]. After the drop, the load remained
constant within a limited range of the global slip, and then contin-
ued to increase until failure. The second portion of the load
response, characterized by an increasing branch, corresponded to
the propagation of the crack at the matrix–fiber interface.
The value of Pcrit for specimens DS_300_15_HD_D_B_1 and
DS_300_15_HD_D_B_2 is evaluated within the range of the
global slip where the load is approximately constant. The average
of Pcrit for specimens characterized by the same width of the
steel FRP strip and face to which the composite strip is applied is
termed P
Y,C,E . Superscripts Y, C, and E (if present) are defined
crit
in the “Methods” section. Here, w
d are the average of the

c and w
horizontal displacements measured from LVDT c and LVDT d in
the global slip range [g1,g2]. The test results are reported in Table 4
for each specimen presented herein.
Failure Modes
All specimens tested using the single-lap shear test setup showed
the same failure mode, characterized by the detachment of the
FRP strip from the concrete substrate. A thin layer of concrete,
rich in cementitious paste, remained attached to the FRP strip as
can be observed in Fig. 3 for specimen DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2.
The thickness of the layer of concrete attached to the composite
strip was between 1 and 2 mm. Specimens DS_300_15_HD_D_B_1
and DS_300_15_HD_D_B_2 showed a mixed failure mode,
characterized by detachment of the steel FRP strip from the con-
crete substrate in the first 100 mm of bonded length and by crack
propagation at the matrix–fiber interface for the remaining part
of the bonded area (Fig. 4). The propagation of the crack at
the matrix–fiber interface can be due to the presence of
Mode-I. Since, as observed in Carloni et al. (2017a), the pres-
ence of Mode I determined a greater load in the last portion of
the load-response, it is possible that for specimens with a narrow
strip, the fracture propagated at the fiber–matrix interface be-
cause it required a lower load than the one needed to continue
(b)
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 4. Results of single-lap direct shear tests
Specimen Name g1 (mm) g2 (mm) P* (kN) Pcrit (kN)
Y,C,E (kN)
P
c (mm)
w
d (mm)
w
crit

DS_300_15_HD_D_S_1 0.60 1.23 7.04 5.37
15,S 4.82

P 0.05 0.03
crit
DS_300_15_HD_D_S_2 0.46 0.72 5.26 4.40 0.00 0.01
DS_300_15_HD_D_S_3 0.65 1.21 6.23 5.37 0.07 0.02
DS_300_15_HD_D_S_4 0.38 0.65 5.12 4.45 0.00 0.00
DS_300_15_HD_D_S_5 0.62 1.19 5.16 4.51 0.00 0.00
DS_300_15_HD_D_B_1 0.42 0.52 7.47 5.78
15,B 5.76
P 0.05 0.06
crit
DS_300_15_HD_D_B_2 0.47 0.52 7.28 5.73 0.03 0.07
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_1 0.41 0.92 8.44 7.50
30,S 7.06
P 0.00 0.02
crit
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_2 0.42 0.84 8.05 7.20 0.00 0.00
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_3 0.62 0.91 9.11 7.50 0.04 0.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DS_300_30_HD_D_S_4 0.40 1.02 7.64 6.71 0.02 0.00

DS_300_30_HD_D_S_5 0.41 0.91 8.50 6.39 0.01 0.04
DS_300_30_HD_ND_B_1 0.27 0.75 10.60 8.76
30,B 8.83
P 0.14 0.20
crit
DS_300_30_HD_D_B_2 0.70 1.01 9.57 8.58 0.08 0.05
DS_300_30_HD_D_B_3 0.78 1.16 11.44 9.16 0.19 0.12
DS_300_40_HD_D_S_1 0.66 0.98 11.09 9.01
40,S 8.89
P 0.10 0.15
crit
DS_200_40_HD_D_S_2 0.21 0.46 11.32 9.01 0.09 0.06
DS_200_40_HD_D_S_3 0.21 0.42 10.04 8.50 0.07 0.06
DS_200_40_HD_D_S_4 0.25 0.46 9.82 9.05 0.14 0.12
DS_300_40_HD_ND_B_1 0.42 0.94 14.17 11.63
40,B 11.57
P 0.16 0.17
crit
DS_300_40_HD_D_B_2 0.50 0.92 12.60 10.99 0.16 0.20
DS_300_40_HD_D_B_3 0.68 1.38 13.81 12.09 0.38 0.42
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_1 0.39 0.78 14.45 12.25
50,S 11.98
P 0.13 0.25
crit
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_2 0.64 1.02 13.82 12.27 0.13 0.07
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_3 0.48 0.80 13.15 11.92 0.05 0.11
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_4 0.49 0.81 12.33 10.44 0.14 0.18
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_5 0.48 0.77 13.01 11.47 0.37 0.33
DS_200_50_HD_ND_S_6 0.36 0.60 15.70 13.07 0.44 0.58
DS_200_50_HD_D_S_7 0.33 0.80 14.10 12.45 0.78 0.68
DS_300_50_HD_ND_S_10R_1 0.60 1.10 15.70 13.87
50,S,10R 14.57
P 0.52 0.40
crit
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_10R_2 0.65 1.20 19.34 15.48 0.68 0.70
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_10R_3 0.44 1.20 17.50 14.37 0.75 0.70
DS_300_50_HD_ND_B_1 0.44 0.98 14.76 12.78
50,B 13.02
P 0.53 0.56
crit
DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2 0.47 0.96 14.22 12.64 0.40 0.37
DS_300_50_HD_D_B_3 0.43 0.85 13.89 12.28 0.17 0.30
DS_200_50_HD_D_B_4 0.39 0.81 15.71 14.39 0.40 0.54
εyy
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_1 0.35 0.92 19.71 17.23 Pcrit 16.94 0.87 0.88
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_2 0.58 0.96 17.34 15.10 0.52 0.50
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_3 1.10 2.38 22.06 18.69 1.07 1.15
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_4 0.74 0.93 19.88 16.76 0.87 0.87
DS_300_75_HD_ND_B_1 0.70 1.48 21.79 20.25
75,B 20.57
P 0.69 1.21
crit
DS_300_75_HD_D_B_2 0.97 1.45 22.56 21.68 1.63 1.54
DS_300_75_HD_D_B_3 0.55 1.05 22.08 19.79 1.47 1.34
DS_300_90_HD_D_B_1 0.56 1.21 28.44 25.77
90,B 24.83
P 2.08 2.18
crit
DS_300_90_HD_ND_B_2 0.42 0.90 25.37 23.37 1.45 1.43
DS_300_90_HD_D_B_3 0.47 1.10 27.88 25.37 1.68 1.63

to fracture the concrete substrate through the detachment of a
large bulb of concrete. The presence of Mode-I was observed
for single-lap shear tests on steel FRP composites in Carloni
et al. (2017a) and for other FRP composites in Carrara et al.
(2011). It can be observed that for B-face specimens, the amount
of large aggregates that remained attached to the steel FRP strips
was greater than the amount for S-face specimens, for which the
concrete that remained attached to the composite is rich in small
aggregates.
Fig. 5 compares the distribution of the aggregates in the layer
of concrete attached to the steel FRP strips after tests were per-
formed for specimen DS_300_75_HD_D_S_2 and specimen
DS_300_75_HD_ND_B_1. From this comparison, it appears that
during casting a large amount of aggregates concentrated near
the B-face of the prism with respect to the S-face. The influence
of the face, to which the composite strip is applied, on the load re-
sponses is discussed in the “Width Effect” section.
Longitudinal Strain Across the Composite Width
DIC was employed to determine the displacement and consequently,
obtain the strain fields on the composite surface and on the portion of
concrete surface close to the composite edges. The displacement field
was determined using a 5-pixel step size, which implies a spacing be-
tween two consecutive points equal to 1.67 mm. DIC analysis was
performed using three different subsets (i.e., 21, 31, and 41 pixels),
in order to investigate the influence of the subset dimension on the
displacement field. Results obtained using different subsets were
similar. The 21-pixel subset, which corresponds to 7 mm square
areas, was chosen to evaluate the strain profile in the remainder of
the paper (Carloni and Subramaniam 2010). The strain field evalu-
ated from the DIC analysis and reported in this experimental work
refers to the Cartesian system in Fig. 1(a). The variation of the lon-
gitudinal strain component, ɛyy, across the width of the specimen is
shown in Fig. 6 for all the widths investigated in this study. The strain

© ASCE 04020024-7 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

 plots of Figs. 6(a–f) refer to the representative B-face specimens
represented in Fig. 2b. Here, ɛyy is evaluated at different locations
along the steel FRP strip, corresponding to different values of the
y coordinate. For all specimens, the values of y, for which the longi-
tudinal strain has been plotted, are comprised within the stress trans-
fer zone (STZ), that is, the portion of the steel FRP strip where shear
stresses are transferred to the concrete substrate (Carloni et al.
2017a). If the width of the composite strip is between 30 and
90 mm, the trend of ɛyy across the width of the composite is charac-
(a)
terized by a central region in which ɛyy is nominally constant. Close
to the edges of the composite strip, ɛyy starts to decrease until it be-
comes null on the concrete surface at a distance from the composite
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

edge approximately equal to 10 mm. The central region of the steel

FRP strip, characterized by a constant value of ɛyy, becomes larger as
(b)
the width of the composite strip increases. The lateral regions, char-
acterized by a gradient of ɛyy, have approximately the same width
equal to 20 mm on both sides of the composite strip, regardless of
the width of the strip. The 15 mm-wide strips do not exhibit a central
(c) region within the composite width with nominally constant strains
[Fig. 6(a)], which could be associated with the different failure
Fig. 3. Failure mode for specimen DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2: (a) con- mode observed previously. Fig. 7 shows the variation of the shear
crete substrate; and (b) fracture surface on the steel FRP strip; and strain, ɛyx, across the width of the composite strip for specimen
(c) side view of the steel FRP strip. DS_300_15_HD_D_B_1 and specimen DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2.
The shear strain, for specimen DS_300_15_HD_D_B_1, continu-
ously changes across the width of the steel FRP strip, determining
a fracture mixed Mode II and Mode III condition (Subramaniam
et al. 2007). Conversely, for specimen DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2,
the central region of the composite strip does not experience any
shear strain, which implies that a Mode II loading condition exists.
It should be noted that a mixed Mode II and Mode III fracture con-
dition occurs in the edge regions of the composite strip.
It can be assumed that as the width of the composite strip in-
creases, the central portion characterized by a pure Mode II condi-
tion tends to become larger. This behavior is confirmed for S-face
specimens. It can be observed that in the central region of the com-
posite strip, for specimens with a width of the FRP strip larger or
(a) equal to 30 mm, ɛyy exhibits some fluctuation due to the nonuni-
form distribution of the aggregates across the width of the specimen
(Ali-Ahmad et al. 2006).

(b) Strain Analysis in Direct-Shear Tests and Interfacial

Fig. 4. Failure mode for specimen DS_300_15_HD_D_B_1: (a) con-
crete substrate; and (b) fracture surface on the steel FRP strip.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5. Fracture surface: (a) specimen DS_300_75_HD_D_S_2; and
(b) specimen DS_300_75_HD_ND_B_1.
Cohesive Material Law (CML)
The DIC analysis, introduced in the “Longitudinal Strain Across
the Composite Width” section, was also used to obtain the profile
of the longitudinal strain component ɛyy along the bonded length
of the composite strip. Because of the nonconstant trend of ɛyy
across the width of the composite (observed in the previous sec-
tion), for each value of the y coordinate along the strip, ɛyy was
averaged across a 15 mm-wide strip centered with respect to the
width of the composite. Averaging the values of ɛyy allowed for
taking in to account the nonhomogeneous distribution of the aggre-
gates. The 15-mm strip was chosen based on the maximum aggre-
gate size (Dmax) of concrete (Ali-Ahmad et al. 2006). Different
widths (10 and 20 mm) of the strip were used to average the strain
and no significant difference was observed. Three different func-
tions were used to fit the experimental profile of ɛyy along the
steel FRP strip, that is, an exponential function (Dai et al. 2005),
a sinusoidal function [Eq. (3) in Carloni et al. 2017a], and a poly-
nomial function [Eq. (7) in Carloni et al. 2017a]. Additional details
on the choice of the functions are reported in Carloni et al. (2017a).
Since the fitting procedure is fully described in Carloni et al.
(2017a), it will not be revisited herein for the sake of brevity.

© ASCE 04020024-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 6. Plot of ɛyy across the width of the steel FRP strip at different locations along the bonded area for specimen (a) DS_300_15_HD_D_B_1;
(b) DS_300_30_HD_D_B_2; (c) DS_300_40_HD_D_B_3; (d) DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2; (e) DS_300_75_HD_D_B_2; and
(f) DS_300_90_HD_D_B_3.

The stress-transfer zone (STZ) is the portion of the FRP strip where
the stress transfer occurs, and is usually characterized by an
“S-shaped” profile of ɛyy. The fully debonded zone (FDZ) is the
portion of the FRP strip that has already detached from the concrete
substrate and where ɛyy is nominally constant and equal to the
maximum value (ɛmax). Fig. 8(a) shows the load response of speci-
men DS_300_90_HD_D_B_3. Fig. 8(b) shows the best fit of the
strain profile using the exponential function (Dai et al. 2005) for
different DIC images that correspond to different points of the load-
global slip response [Fig. 8(a)]. It can be observed that the STZ

© ASCE 04020024-9 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)
(a)

Fig. 7. Shear strains component ɛxy across the width of the steel FRP strip at different locations along the bonded area for specimen
(a) DS_300_15_HD_D_B_1; and (b) DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 8. Specimen DS_300_90_HD_D_B_3: (a) load response; (b) experimental ɛyy profile for point C, and fitting strain profiles, using the exponential
function (Dai et al. 2005), for points A, B, C, D, and E; (c) experimental ɛyy profile for point C and fitting functions; and (d) cohesive material law
τzy(s) obtained using the exponential function (Dai et al. 2005), the sinusoidal function [Eq. (3) in Carloni et al. 2017a], and the polynomial function
[Eq. (7) in Carloni et al. 2017a] to fit the ɛyy profile of point C.

© ASCE 04020024-10 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

 moves gradually from the loaded end to the free end of the compos-
ite strip. In Fig. 8(a), the global slip range [g1,g2] (see “Load
Responses” section) is marked with dashed lines. Fig. 8(c) shows
the best fit of the strain profile at point C of the load-global slip re-
sponse [Fig. 8(a)] using the three functions mentioned previously.
Once an analytical function that approximates the experimental
trend of ɛyy is available, the interfacial shear stress and slip at any
location along the composite strip can be determined (Carloni
et al. 2017a)
dεyy
τzy (y) = Ef t *f ,A
dy
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The effective bond length, that is, the length of the composite
strip needed to completely establish the shear stress transfer, can
be evaluated as the length of the STZ. The procedure to determine
Leff associated with each fitting strain function is described in
Carloni et al. (2017a).
The average values of the fracture energy, G
F , and the effective


bond length, Leff , were determined for each specimen by averaging
the values of the parameters obtained by the DIC analysis of at least
10 images within the range [g1,g2]. Table 5 provides for each speci-
men the values of G
F and L

eff , obtained using the three different
(14) functions (exponential, sinusoidal, and polynomial) to approximate
the experimental ɛyy profile.

y
s(y) = εyy dy (15)
0 Width Effect
Combining Eqs. (14) and (15) allows for the determination of The failure modes, presented in the “Failure Modes” section, indi-
the cohesive material law (CML) τzy(s). The CMLs evaluated at cate that debonding of the steel FRP strip occurs as interfacial crack
point C of the load response of specimen DS_300_90_HD_D_B_3 propagation in a thin layer of concrete, which is the typical failure
[see Fig. 8(a)], using three different functions to fit ɛyy, are shown in mode of traditional FRP systems. The analogy between FRP and
Fig. 8(d). steel FRP, discussed in Carloni et al. (2017a), allows employing
The Mode-II fracture energy, that is, the energy needed to fully the formula proposed by Täljsten (1996) for FRP–concrete joints
break the unit area of a cohesive crack, is equal to the area under in order to evaluate the theoretical load-carrying (or bond) capacity
the CML Ptheor of the steel FRP–concrete interface
∞













GF = τzy (s)ds (16) Ptheor = bf 2Ef t*f ,A GF (17)
0

Table 5. Fracture mechanics parameters

eff (mm) (CoV)
L
F (N/m) (CoV)
G

Sinusoidal Eq. (3) Polynomial Eq. (7) Sinusoidal Eq. (3) Polynomial Eq. (7)
Exponential in Carloni et al. in Carloni et al. Exponential in Carloni et al. in Carloni et al.
Specimen name (Dai et al. 2005) (2017a) (2017a) (Dai et al. 2005) (2017a) (2017a)
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_1 114.5 (0.13) 151.2 (0.09) 100.3 (0.11) 450 (0.08) 480 (0.09) 440 (0.12)
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_2 101.0 (0.27) 148.6 (0.12) 96.7 (0.29) 380 (0.16) 390 (0.16) 370 (0.16)
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_3 86.0 (0.20) 133.4 (0.04) 69.8 (0.17) 490 (0.15) 470 (0.16) 450 (0.14)
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_4 76.0 (0.19) 101.6 (0.24) 71.3 (0.18) 310 (0.14) 330 (0.14) 310 (0.14)
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_5 85.0 (0.16) 149.6 (0.11) 79.3 (0.17) 270 (0.18) 290 (0.16) 270 (0.17)
DS_300_30_HD_D_B_2 113.0 (0.12) 126.3 (0.05) 97.5 (0.15) 670 (0.16) 670 (0.17) 640 (0.17)
DS_300_30_HD_D_B_3 116.0 (0.13) 146.5 (0.05) 103.5 (0.28) 720 (0.11) 760 (0.11) 710 (0.10)
DS_300_40_HD_D_S_1 125.3 (0.16) 145.3 (0.12) 105.4 (0.25) 350 (0.10) 350 (0.11) 330 (0.12)
DS_200_40_HD_D_S_2 93.9 (0.15) 97.8 (0.15) 79.2 (0.16) 320 (0.27) 340 (0.19) 320 (0.19)
DS_200_40_HD_D_S_3 89.7 (0.17) 98.4 (0.11) 79.4 (0.16) 320 (0.09) 310 (0.10) 310 (0.05)
DS_200_40_HD_D_S_4 124.5 (0.15) 110.9 (0.14) 101.0 (0.19) 380 (0.10) 370 (0.10) 350 (0.12)
DS_300_40_HD_D_B_2 84.7 (0.04) 133.4 (0.15) 77.0 (0.10) 530 (0.21) 580 (0.14) 510 (0.18)
DS_300_40_HD_D_B_3 110.1 (0.27) 126.9 (0.21) 98.7 (0.28) 750 (0.10) 770 (0.08) 760 (0.09)
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_1 147.5 (0.16) 147.7 (0.12) 119.5 (0.21) 470 (0.11) 460 (0.08) 440 (0.07)
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_2 125.4 (0.14) 141.5 (0.12) 109.6 (0.12) 420 (0.11) 420 (0.08) 400 (0.07)
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_3 165.1 (0.11) 173.7 (0.10) 133.0 (0.26) 430 (0.17) 450 (0.23) 440 (0.20)
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_4 144.9 (0.09) 173.9 (0.06) 128.7 (0.19) 300 (0.14) 340 (0.20) 320 (0.21)
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_5 111.6 (0.10) 133.9 (0.09) 99.6 (0.18) 360 (0.12) 370 (0.10) 350 (0.09)
DS_200_50_HD_D_S_7 88.0 (0.10) 101.2 (0.12) 78.0 (0.12) 400 (0.11) 410 (0.11) 400 (0.10)
DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2 120.0 (0.18) 130.7 (0.20) 106.1 (0.23) 420 (0.11) 440 (0.12) 430 (0.11)
DS_300_50_HD_D_B_3 138.4 (0.16) 136.3 (0.15) 124.7 (0.23) 420 (0.12) 450 (0.17) 440 (0.14)
DS_200_50_HD_D_B_4 121.5 (0.16) 119.6 (0.14) 85.1 (0.19) 730 (0.16) 730 (0.11) 650 (0.15)
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_1 122.6 (0.14) 153.1 (0.06) 118.9 (0.24) 380 (0.16) 370 (0.22) 350 (0.18)
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_2 121.3 (0.35) 129.6 (0.29) 94.8 (0.32) 290 (0.15) 270 (0.11) 280 (0.06)
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_3 110.2 (0.18) 151.8 (0.08) 90.5 (0.21) 470 (0.11) 460 (0.13) 460 (0.10)
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_4 153.4 (0.15) 153.8 (0.12) 114.5 (0.24) 370 (0.08) 350 (0.12) 350 (0.12)
DS_300_75_HD_D_B_2 135.0 (0.09) 140.2 (0.07) 105.9 (0.10) 880 (0.10) 790 (0.05) 760 (0.06)
DS_300_75_HD_D_B_3 108.0 (0.22) 147.5 (0.08) 92.7 (0.16) 570 (0.09) 560 (0.11) 530 (0.10)
DS_300_90_HD_D_B_1 133.0 (0.12) 150.1 (0.11) 118.4 (0.19) 520 (0.07) 600 (0.10) 580 (0.12)
DS_300_90_HD_D_B_3 111.2 (0.15) 127.0 (0.11) 96.2 (0.17) 500 (0.06) 520 (0.11) 490 (0.11)
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_10R_2 162.6 (0.29) 146.7 (0.32) 128.2 (0.39) 850 (0.15) 860 (0.13) 810 (0.11)
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_10R_3 115.6 (0.29) 122.6 (0.19) 100.9 (0.25) 590 (0.09) 590 (0.08) 570 (0.08)

© ASCE 04020024-11 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

 Table 6. Comparison between the theoretical and experimental bond capacity

theor /Pcrit (%)
P

Exponential (Dai et al. Sinusoidal Eq. (3) in Carloni et al. Polynomial Eq. (7) in Carloni et al.
Specimen name Pcrit (kN) 2005) (2017a) (2017a)
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_1 7.50 83.7 86.1 82.4
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_2 7.20 76.9 78.4 75.9
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_3 7.50 92.4 90.8 88.5
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_4 6.71 82.6 84.7 82.0
DS_300_30_HD_D_S_5 6.39 78.2 81.1 77.7
DS_300_30_HD_D_B_2 8.58 93.6 93.5 91.3
DS_300_30_HD_D_B_3 9.16 90.7 93.4 89.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DS_300_40_HD_D_S_1 9.01 87.2 88.1 85.6

DS_200_40_HD_D_S_2 9.01 78.6 80.1 78.2
DS_200_40_HD_D_S_3 8.50 82.1 82.0 82.0
DS_200_40_HD_D_S_4 9.05 84.6 83.0 81.6
DS_300_40_HD_D_B_2 10.99 86.2 90.1 84.4
DS_300_40_HD_D_B_3 12.09 92.6 93.8 92.8
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_1 12.25 88.3 88.0 85.4
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_2 12.27 85.3 85.3 83.6
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_3 11.92 85.2 87.8 86.2
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_4 10.44 84.6 90.6 86.9
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_5 11.47 84.0 86.2 83.3
DS_200_50_HD_D_S_7 12.45 84.2 85.6 83.9
DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2 12.64 82.5 84.6 83.3
DS_300_50_HD_D_B_3 12.28 85.2 89.1 88.4
DS_200_50_HD_D_B_4 14.39 97.0 96.7 91.1
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_1 17.23 83.1 82.5 79.7
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_2 15.10 85.5 81.9 82.9
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_3 18.69 85.2 83.6 83.8
DS_300_75_HD_D_S_4 16.76 84.3 81.8 81.7
DS_300_75_HD_D_B_2 21.68 101.9 96.8 94.9
DS_300_75_HD_D_B_3 19.79 90.2 89.5 87.1
DS_300_90_HD_D_B_1 25.77 81.5 87.4 86.2
DS_300_90_HD_D_B_3 25.37 80.0 81.0 78.5
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_10R_2 15.48 98.0 98.7 95.7
DS_300_50_HD_D_S_10R_3 14.37 87.8 87.7 86.5

Since Ptheor requires that the fracture energy is known, the aver-
age fracture energy of each test G
F , obtained from the direct proce-
dure (see previous section) associated with the fitting of the ɛyy
profile with three different strain functions, was used. Thus, three
values of the theoretical load-carrying capacity, named P
theor and
associated with the three fitting functions, are computed for each
test. Table 6 reports, for each specimen analyzed with DIC, the per-
centage ratio P
theor /Pcrit . For almost all the specimens, the percent-


age ratio Ptheor /Pcrit is comprised within the range 80%–95%. The
value of P
theor is always lower than Pcrit. As discussed in Carloni (a) (b)
et al. (2017a), the value of P
theor depends on the values of Young’s
Fig. 9. Fracture surface, longitudinal strain component in the FRP, and
modulus and thickness of the fibers. If the modulus of the compos-

theor would be al- interfacial shear stress distribution: (a) pure Mode-II condition; and
ite and its actual thickness are used, the value of P
(b) experimental evidence.
ways greater than the experimental Pcrit. Several factors should be
considered in discussing the difference between P
theor and Pcrit.
1. Eq. (17) is derived under the assumption of constant ɛyy across
the entire width of the composite [Fig. 9(a)]. In the “Longitudi- is a 3D phenomenon that affects an area that is larger than the
nal Strain across the Composite Width” section, it has been ob- horizontal projection of the bonded region of the FRP strip
served that ɛyy is constant only in the central region of the width [Fig. 9(b)]. The fracture surface is not plane and therefore,
of the FRP strip, while close to the edges there is a high gradient Eq. (17) should be modified. The actual shape of the fracture
of ɛyy with the additional presence of shear strain. surface depends on the porosity of concrete and therefore on
2. In addition to a constant strain cross the width of the composite, the depth of penetration of epoxy into the concrete substrate.
as shown in Fig. 9(a), Eq. (17) implies that the interfacial frac- This aspect is not investigated in this work. It would require re-
ture surface has the same width of the composite and is nomi- peating the same experimental campaign for different types of
nally plane. concrete. It is expected that the load-carrying capacity will de-
3. Furthermore, when the width of the FRP strip, bf, is smaller than pend on the type of concrete, that is, on the thickness of the
the width of the concrete prism, b, the debonding phenomenon thin layer of substrate involved. However, it is impossible to

© ASCE 04020024-12 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

 yyε
Table 7. Evaluation of Pcrit for specimen DS_300_90_HD_D_B_3
ε
Point Parameter yD − Dmax
2 yD − 38 Dmax yD − Dmax
4 yD − Dmax
8 yD yD + Dmax
8 yD + Dmax
4 yD + 38 Dmax yD + Dmax
2
yy
Pcrit (kN)
Point A y (mm) 282.9 281.1 279.3 277.5 275.7 273.9 272.1 270.4 268.6 25.25
εyy
Pcrit (kN) 27.20 26.60 25.79 24.93 24.16 23.61 23.19 22.89 22.86
Point B y (mm) 256.1 254.3 252.5 250.7 248.9 247.1 245.4 243.6 241.8
εyy
Pcrit (kN) 30.60 30.71 30.60 30.07 29.21 28.00 26.55 25.08 23.85
Point C y (mm) 240.0 238.2 236.4 234.6 232.9 231.1 229.3 227.5 225.7
εyy
Pcrit (kN) 27.31 27.53 27.43 27.06 26.55 26.03 25.52 24.99 24.25
Point D y (mm) 197.1 195.4 193.6 191.8 190.0 188.2 186.4 184.6 182.9
εyy
Pcrit (kN) 22.93 21.41 20.26 19.59 19.47 19.98 20.96 22.01 22.91
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Point E y (mm) 159.6 157.9 156.1 154.3 152.5 150.7 148.9 147.1 145.4
εyy
Pcrit (kN) 23.36 22.79 23.15 24.03 25.71 27.16 28.47 29.54 30.20

predict whether the trend of the width effect could be affected by
the thickness of the layer of concrete detached. Further work is
needed in this area.
It can be observed that if the strain on the surface is assumed to be
representative of the strain throughout the thickness of the composite,
then the strain across the width at the beginning of the STZ (at the
loaded end) can be used to compute the load-carrying capacity:
b f
εyy
Pcrit = t *f ,HD E HD
f ,SRP εyy |y=yD dx (18)
0 evaluated considering a 15 mm-wide strip within the central region
where yD = the coordinate corresponding to the end of the STZ eval-
uated, for example, through the polynomial function [Eq. (7) in
Carloni et al. 2017a]. Eq. (18) does not take into account what was ob-
served in point 3). In Eq. (18), Young’s modulus of the composite re-
ferred to the fibers, EHD f ,SRP , evaluated in the “Materials” section, has
been employed. As discussed in Carloni et al. (2017a), the actual mod-
ulus of the composite should be always used for the evaluation of the
load-carrying capacity of FRP–concrete joints. The actual Young’s
modulus of the composite varies for each strip since it depends on
the percentage volume of fibers and matrix in the cross section of
the strip. To overcome this problem, the Young’s modulus of the fi-
bers, Ef, and the equivalent thickness of the fibers, t*f ,A are generally
used in the literature to evaluate the load-carrying capacity of FRP
strips bonded to a concrete substrate, even if this procedure entails a
slight underestimation of the load-carrying capacity.
εyy
For specimen DS_300_90_HD_D_B_3, the value of Pcrit
evaluated for different values of the global slip, that is, points A,
B, C, D, and E in the load response of Fig. 8(a). For each point,
εyy
the value
 of DPmax
crit is evaluated for different values of y within the
range yD − 2 ; yD + Dmax 2 . Finally, averaging the value of Pcrit
obtained for the five different points, the mean value of the load-
εyy
carrying capacity, Pcrit , is calculated (Table 7). It can be observed
εyy
that for specimen DS_300_90_HD_D_B_3 the value of Pcrit
equal to 25.25 kN, which is very similar to the experimental
value of Pcrit (25.37 kN).
The fracture energy and effective bond length, evaluated in the
previous section, are plotted in Fig. 10 as a function of the ratio bf/b.
Figs. 10(a and b) show the average value of G
F together with the
standard deviation obtained using the polynomial function (Carloni
et al. 2017a), for S-face and B-face specimens, respectively. In the
same graphs is also reported the fracture energy, GFPcrit , which has
been back-calculated from Eq. (17), substituting Ptheor with Pcrit
for each specimen:
2 face of the specimen. Due to the geometry of the molds and the di-
Pcrit
GFPcrit =
2bf Ef t *f ,A
2
Considering the polynomial strain function, the average value of

F for S-face specimens is equal to 365, 330, 390, and 357 N/m
G which in turn might require a greater amount of energy to propagate
for bf/b equal to 0.2, 0.27, 0.33, and 0.5, respectively. It can be ob-
served that the fracture energy is almost constant, regardless of the
ratio bf/b. Similar results were obtained using the fitting function
proposed by Dai et al. (2005) or the sinusoidal function proposed
by the authors. Those results are not plotted for the sake of brevity.
The fracture energy GFPcrit , for S-face specimens, is equal to 550,
495, 541, and 530 N/m for bf/b equal to 0.2, 0.27, 0.33, and 0.5,
respectively. The average value of G
F is lower than GPcrit . The rea-
F

F was
son of this difference can be explained considering that G
of the steel FRP strip, while GFPcrit is determined directly from the
load-carrying capacity Pcrit. Here, G
F is a pure Mode-II fracture en-
ergy and does not take into account the mixed Mode-II–Mode-III
condition close to the edges of the strip. On the other hand, GFPcrit
can be considered as a fictitious fracture energy influenced by the
presence of different fracture modes across the width of the strip.
Considering B-face specimens analyzed with the polynomial strain
function, the average value of G
F was equal to 673, 631, 504, 647,
and 532 N/m for bf/b equal to 0.2, 0.27, 0.33, 0.5, and 0.6, respec-
tively. Similar results, not reported in this work for the sake of brevity,
were obtained using the other fitting functions. The fracture energy,
GFPcrit , for B-face specimens, is equal to 822, 794, 652, 773, and 783
N/m for bf/b equal to 0.2, 0.27, 0.33, 0.5, and 0.6, respectively. As ob-
served for S-face specimens, GFPcrit was always also greater than G
F
also for B-face specimens (if Young’s modulus of the fibers Ef is
is used). Results are more scattered than the ones obtained for the
S-face specimens. It is worth noting that the overall number of
B-face specimens tested with DIC (11 specimens) is lower than the
number of S-face specimens tested with DIC (19 specimens), and
εyy
for each width no more than three B-face specimens were tested
with DIC. The scatter in the results for B-face specimens can be attrib-
uted partially to the low number of specimens tested with DIC.
is Comparing the average values of G
F obtained for each bf/b ratio
for B-face specimens with the equivalent values determined for
S-face specimens, it can be noted that B-face specimens always
present a fracture energy that is greater than S-face specimens.
Considering the polynomial strain function, the ratio of the average

F for B-face specimens to the average value of G
F for
value of G
S-face specimens is equal to 1.84, 1.90, 1.30, and 1.81 for bf/b
equal to 0.2, 0.27, 0.33, and 0.5, respectively. Part of these results
have been already presented in Carloni et al. (2017a) and it was ob-
served that steel FRP strips applied to the B face of the specimen
had a Mode-II fracture energy greater than strips applied on the S
(19) rection of casting [Fig. 1(c)], a large amount of aggregates distrib-
utes near the B face of the specimen with respect to the S face. The
large amount of aggregates influences the debonding phenomenon,

© ASCE 04020024-13 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 10. Comparison between the fracture energy evaluated through a direct procedue based on the fitting of the strain profile using a polynomial
function [Eq. (7) in Carloni et al. (2017a)] and the fracture energy obtained from Eq. (19) for (a) S-face specimens; and (b) B-face specimens. Com-
parison between the value of Leff obtained from the polynomial function [Eq. (7) in Carloni et al. (2017a)] that approximates the strain profle and
through Eq. (20) proposed by Chen and Teng (2001) for (c) S-face specimens; and (d) B-face specimens.

the interfacial cohesive crack. The presence of more and larger composite strip is applied do not affect the effective bond length.
aggregates near the B face could also explain the larger scatter of A similar observation is reported in Carloni et al. (2017a). In Figs.
the results in terms of fracture energy when compared to the 10(c and d), the value of Leff determined using the formula proposed
S-face results. The reader might be confused by this result, that is, by Chen and Teng (2001) is reported for comparison:
the fracture energy G
F varies between B-face and S-face specimens. 







Here, G
F is the energy required to extend the crack by a unitary Ef t *f ,A
eff =
LC−T 


′
(20)
amount along the surface of concrete (roughly 1–2 mm underneath f c
the surface). Thus, if the surface changes (from S face to B face) ′
the energy is not supposed to be the same because it is similar to test- where the cylindrical compressive strength at 28 days fc was indi-
ing a different material (i.e., a different interface). On the other hand, rectly evaluated from Rcm (European Standards 2004)
the fracture energy of concrete corresponds to the energy required to
f ′c = 0.83Rcm (21)
extend a crack within the bulk of the concrete. This energy must be
constant because it is a property of the bulk of the concrete. From Figs. 10(c and d), it can be observed that the value of LC−T
Figs. 10(c and d) show the value of L
eff together with the standard obtained from Chen and Teng (2001) formula is in good agreement
eff

deviation obtained using the polynomial function for S-face and with the average value of L
eff determined for S-face and B-face
B-face specimens, respectively. The average values of the effective specimens for different values of the ratio bf/b, using the polyno-
bond length are quite scattered when plotted versus the ratio bf/b. mial fitting function. A good agreement is observed also using
For S-face and B-face specimens, the value of L
eff evaluated through the Dai et al. (2005) fitting function (Table 5). Using the sinusoidal
the polynomial function is comprised within the range 83 mm–111, function, the values of L
eff seemed to be slightly different with re-
and 88–107 mm, respectively [Figs. 10(c and d)]. From the available C−T
spect to the value of Leff obtained from Chen and Teng (2001)
results, it appears that the ratio bf/b and the face to which the (see Table 5).

© ASCE 04020024-14 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 11. P
Y,C,E
per unit width for different bf/b ratios: (a) experimental results using the actual width of the FRP strip; (b) predictive behavior from the
crit
literature; and (c) best fitting using Eq. (22) and Eq. (23).
Fig. 11(a) shows the plot of P
Y,C,E
for each width and face di-
crit
vided by the actual width of the composite bf,actual as a function
of the ratio bf/b. It can be observed that for both S-face and
B-face specimens, high values of Pcrit per unit width are reached
when the steel FRP composite strip is narrow (15 mm). As the
width of the strip increases, the value of Pcrit per unit width tends
to plateau, that is, no substantial variations of Pcrit per unit width
are observed when the ratio bf/b is increased. This behavior can
be explained considering the strain analysis performed in the “Lon-
gitudinal Strain across the Composite Width” section. For speci-
mens with a 15 mm-wide strip, the presence of a mixed
Mode-II–Mode-III condition entailed for a high amount of energy
needed to propagate the crack. When the ratio bf/b increases, the
area across the FRP width characterized by a pure Mode II condi-
tion becomes larger than the region with a mixed mode condition,
causing a decrease of the value of Pcrit per unit width that tends to
an approximately constant value when the ratio bf/b becomes equal
to or higher than 0.33. Results plotted in Fig. 11(a) indicate that re-
gardless of the width of the composite strip, specimens with the
composite strip applied to the B face reached higher values of
Pcrit than specimens with the steel FRP strip applied to the S face.
Fig. 11(a) includes the results of three S-face specimens with a
width equal to 50 mm (bf/b = 0.33) tested at a rate equal to 10 times
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024
(b)
the rate used for the other tests. The value of P
Y,C,E
for these three
crit
specimens was 21.6% higher than S-face specimens tested at stan-
dard rate. Given these observations, it appears that an accurate pre-
dictive formula can be defined only if homogeneous specimens
tested with a standard procedure are considered.
In Fig. 11(b), the value of P
Y,C,E per unit width (using the nom-
crit
inal width) for S-face and B-face specimens is shown, together with
the most important models proposed in literature (Lin et al. 2017;
Neubauer and Rostasy 1997; Brosens and Van Gemert 1999;
Chen and Teng 2001; Wu and Jiang 2013; Lu et al. 2005) (previ-
ously described in the “Background on the Width Effect” section)
that define the load-carrying capacity of the FRP–concrete interface
as a function of the ratio bf/b. The choice of using the nominal
width to divide the load in Figs. 11(b and c) is related to the design
implications that can be derived from these plots. The curves cor-
responding to the models from literature were plotted using
Young’s modulus of the fibers, Ef, and the equivalent thickness
of the fibers, t*f ,A , instead of the values referred to the composite,
that is, EFRP and tFRP, respectively. It can be observed that most
of the models are not able to predict the experimental behavior of
this campaign. It is worth noting that the majority of the models
proposed in literature are based on experimental data in which
the testing conditions are not homogeneous. For example, in
04020024-15 J. Compos. Constr.
 Chen and Teng (2001) the database used to calibrate the predictive
model considered specimens with different test rates and specimens
for which the face of application of the composite strip was not re-
ported. Among the different predictive models shown in Fig. 11(b),
only the model proposed by Lin et al. (2017) is in relatively good
agreement with the experimental data of S-face specimens.
It should be noted that Eq. (13) implies that the width factor
is influenced by the product between Young’s modulus and the
thickness of the composite. The influence of the stiffness of the
composite strip on the width factor should entail for a different dis-
tribution of ɛyy across the width of the composite strip when differ-
ent densities of the steel fiber sheet are employed. Figs. 12(a and b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
observation can be made if the face of application of the composite
strip is considered. Fig. 12(c) shows the longitudinal strains across
the width for specimen DS_300_50_HD_D_S_1. For this speci-
men, the width of the region with constant longitudinal strains is
equal to 30 mm, that is, the same value observed for specimen
DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2. It appears that both the stiffness of the
composite strip and the face of application of the FRP strip do
not affect the strain profile across the width of the strip, and there-
fore the width factor should not be influenced by these parameters.
Based on this experimental evidence, the authors propose a new
formula for the width factor, which is obtained by fitting the exper-
imental results reported in Fig. 11(b). The load-carrying capacity

provide a comparison between the profile of ɛyy across the per unit width was evaluated through Eq. (17) introducing the re-
composite width for specimens DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2 vised width factor kw
and DS_300_50_UHD_D_B_5, respectively. Specimen ΓF 











DS_300_50_UHD_D_B_5 is part of the experimental campaign Ptheor
= kw 2ΓF Ef t*f ,A (22)
presented in Carloni et al. (2017a) and it was strengthened with a bf
ultra-high density (UHD) steel fiber sheet, characterized by a
Young’s modulus of the fibers, Ef, and an equivalent thickness,
kw = 1 + (1 − bf /b)0.5 /(1 + 0.01bU
f ) (23)
t*f ,UHD , equal to 190 MPa and 0.381 mm, respectively. Fig. 12
shows that, regardless of the stiffness of the composite strip, the ΓF is the value of the fracture energy evaluated as
region of the steel FRP strip characterized by a pure Mode-II con-








dition (see “Longitudinal Strain across the Composite Width” sec-
ΓF = α f ′ c fctm (24)
tion) has always the same width for a 50 mm-wide strip. A similar

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 12. Profile of ɛyy across the width of the composite strip for specimens (a) DS_300_50_HD_D_B_2; (b) DS_300_50_UHD_D_B_5; and
(c) DS_300_50_HD_D_S_1.

© ASCE 04020024-16 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

 where U and α = parameters obtained from a best fit procedure of
the experimental data (Fig. 11(c)). Instead of using GF, the symbol
ΓF is adopted to indicate the fracture energy, since the value deter-
mined in Eq. (24) is obtained from an empirical formula and not
from experimental tests. Similarly, the load-carrying capacity is in-
ΓF
dicated as Ptheor in Eq. (22) since it is evaluated using ΓF. Eq. (22) is
used to fit the experimental data of S-face specimens and B-face
specimens separately, since they show a different trend. The values
of U and α for S-face specimens are equal to 1.78 and 0.0698, re-
spectively, while for B-face specimens are equal to 1.75 and 0.102,
respectively. The trend of S-face specimens has been then fitted
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
again, keeping the parameter U equal to the value determined for
B-face specimens (1.75). This choice is related to the observation
that the main fracture parameter that differs between S-face speci-
mens and B-face specimens is the fracture energy, GF, while results
of Fig. 12 indicate that the width factor should be independent of
the face to which the composite strip is applied. A value of α
equal to 0.0685 is obtained from this new fitting for S-face speci-
mens (U is kept equal to 1.75). Fig. 11(c) shows the comparison
between the two different fittings made for S-face specimens. It
can be noted that the two fittings are almost identical, therefore
the last one (U = 1.75 and α = 0.0685) is chosen to represent the be-
havior of S-face specimens, in order to maintain the same width
factor both for S-face and B-face specimens. Since the FRP shear
reinforcements are usually applied to the side faces of a concrete
structural element (e.g., beam), the predictive formula obtained
for S-face specimens (U = 1.75 and α = 0.0685) shall be used to de-
sign the load-carrying capacity of FRP composites used for shear
strengthening. On the other hand, since the FRP flexural reinforce-
ments are usually applied to the bottom face of a structural element,
the predictive formula obtained for B-face specimens (U = 1.75 and
α = 0.102) shall be used to design the load-carrying capacity of
FRP composites used for flexural strengthening. The value of ΓF
for S-face and B-face specimens resulted equal to 479 and 703
N/mm. These values are slightly higher than the average values
of G
F , obtained through the polynomial strain function considering
all the different widths [red dotted lines in Figs. 10(a and b)], that
resulted equal to 364 and 589 N/mm for S-face and B-face speci-
mens, respectively.
Eq. (22) is characterized by an asymptotic behavior that levels
off when the ratio bf/b is greater than 0.4. Using Eq. (17), it is pos-
sible to predict the value of the load-carrying capacity per unit
width when the ratio bf/b is equal to 1 for both S-face and B-face
specimens [point W in Fig. 11(c)]. To this end, the value of GF em-
ployed in Eq. (17) is set equal to the average of the values of G
F
determined from the polynomial fitting (Table 5) for all S-face
and B-face specimens, respectively. For S-face and B-face speci-
mens, the load-carrying capacity per unit width when bf/b = 1
from Eq. (17) is lower than the value predicted by Eq. (22). It
should be observed once again that for the evaluation of Ptheor
and GF, the fracture mechanics formulation requires the use of
Young’s modulus of the composite material instead of Young’s
modulus of the fibers. However, if Young’s modulus of the com-
posite referred to the bare fibers (E HD f ,SRP = 258 GPa) is employed
to evaluate the load-carrying capacity per unit width when bf/b = 1
via Eq. (17), a much higher value is obtained compared with the
one predicted by Eq. (22) [point V in Fig. 11(c)]. This circumstance
can be in part explained by referring to what was previously ob-
served, that is, Eq. (17) does not take into account the high gradients
of the longitudinal strain component close to the edges of the com-
posite strip. In addition, it should be noted that the analytical evalu-
ation via Eq. (17) of the load per unit width when bf/b = 1 is valid
only under the hypothesis that the fracture process occurs in a thin
layer of concrete and only a small portion of the substrate beneath
© ASCE 04020024-17
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024
the strip is involved in the shear transfer. It is possible that when
the width of the composite strip is equal or very close to the width
of the concrete prism, Eq. (17) needs to be modified or it is not ap-
plicable at all. The difference between points W and V and the plot of
function (22) is the reason why ΓF and G
F are different.
Conclusions
In this paper, direct single-lap shear tests were performed to deter-
mine the load-carrying capacity of steel FRP–concrete joints. Tests
were performed varying the bonded width of the composite strip
in order to investigate the influence of the bf/b ratio on the load-
carrying capacity. The face of the concrete prism to which the com-
posite strip was applied was also varied in order to study the effect of
concrete surface quality on the bond behavior. Three specimens were
tested at a rate that was 10 times higher than the rate used for the re-
maining specimens. DIC was employed to study the longitudinal
strain profile on the surface of the composite strip during the debond-
ing phenomenon. Three different functions were used to fit the ex-
perimental strain profile. The following observations can be made.
1. The load-carrying capacity per unit width is affected by the
width of the composite strip. When the bf/b ratio is lower than
0.33, the load-carrying capacity per unit width tends to decrease
for increasing bf/b ratios. For bf/b ratios equal to or higher than
0.33, the load-carrying capacity per unit width is nominally
constant.
2. The fracture energy GF is not affected by the bf/b ratio, while it
varies as the composite is bonded to different faces of the con-
crete prism.
3. The effective bond length seems not to be affected by the bf/b
ratio and by the face of the concrete prism to which the compos-
ite strip is applied.
4. The loading rate affects the load-carrying capacity of the steel
FRP–concrete joint and therefore should be always reported
in order to compile a database.
5. A new formula for the width factor is proposed. Different coef-
ficients are proposed for the width factor that depends on
whether the steel FRP strip is used for shear strengthening or
flexural strengthening.
Acknowledgments
Technicians of the laboratory LISG (Laboratory of Structural and
Geotechnical Engineering) at University of Bologna are gratefully
acknowledged. Kerakoll S.p.A. of Sassuolo, Italy, is gratefully ac-
knowledged for providing the composite materials.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Acord = area of a steel cord comprising five steel filaments;
b = width of the concrete prism (Fig. 1);
bf = width of the FRP strip (Fig. 1), which is also the width
of the bonded area in single-lap shear tests;
bf,actual = actual width of the steel FRP composite obtained as
the average of three measurements along the strip;
CF = calibration factor for the fracture energy used in
Neubauer and Rostasy (1997), Brosens and Van
Gemert (1999), and Brosens (2001);
Dmax = maximum diameter of the aggregates in the concrete
mix;
J. Compos. Constr.
 Ef = Young’s modulus of the bare fibers;
EFRP = Young’s modulus of the FRP composite;
f ,SRP = Young’s modulus of the steel FRP composite referred
EHD
to the area of the HD fiber sheet ASTM D3039
(ASTM 2008);
fh = surface tensile strength of concrete [EN 1542 (CEN
1999)];
fctm = tensile strength of concrete [EN 12390-6 (CEN
2009)];
ff,u = average tensile strength of the steel FRP composite
strip;
f ′c = cylindrical compressive strength of concrete;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
f fA,u = tensile strength of the steel fiber sheet provided by the
manufacturer (Kerakoll 2018). A specifies the density
of the sheet;
,u = tensile strength of the high-density steel fiber sheet
f fHD
provided by the manufacturer (Kerakoll 2018);
g = global slip, that is, average of the readings of the
LVDT a and b that are mounted at the beginning of the
bonded area. An alternative name for g is loaded-end
slip;
g1 = value of the global slip that defines the beginning of
the range of values of g used to compute the average of
the load, which corresponds to Pcrit;
g2 = value of the global slip that defines the end of the
range of values of g used to compute the average of the
load, which corresponds to Pcrit;
GF = interfacial fracture energy that corresponds to the area
under the τxy(s) curve;
G
F = average of the fracture energy for one specimen
obtained using a fitting curve for the strain profile and
ten DIC images within the range [g1,g2];
GFPcrit = fracture energy back-calculated from Eq. (17),
substituting Ptheor with Pcrit for each specimen;
kb = symbol used for the width effect factor in Neubauer
and Rostasy (1997), Brosens and Van Gemert (1999),
and Brosens (2001);
kw = symbol used for the width effect factor by the authors
in this paper;
kc = parameter used in Brosens (2001) to take into account
the effect of concrete surface condition on the
interfacial fracture energy;
Leff = effective bond length that corresponds to the length of
the fully established stress transfer, that is, the
minimum bonded length to obtained the bond capacity
Ptheor;

eff = average of the effective bond length for one specimen
L (Fig. 1);
obtained using a fitting curve for the strain profile and
ten DIC images within the range [g1,g2];
LC−T
eff = effective bond length proposed by Chen and Teng
(2001);
l = length of the bonded area;
P = applied load to the FRP strip in single-lap shear
tests;
Pcrit = plateau load, which corresponds to the bond capacity
obtained experimentally from single-lap shear test as
the average of the applied load P within the range [g1,
g2];
εyy
Pcrit = bond capacity obtained as the integral of the
longitudinal strain over the width of the composite at
the loaded end (see Eq. 18);
εyy εyy
Pcrit = average of the bond capacity Pcrit considering several
values of y near the loaded end and five points of the
load response (Table 7);
© ASCE 04020024-18
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024

Y,C,E = average of Pcrit for specimens characterized by the
P crit
same width (Y), the same face to which the
composite is applied (C), and the same loading rate (E)
(Table 4);
Ptheor = theoretical bond capacity (or load-carrying capacity)
based on the Mode-II fracture approach proposed in
Täljsten (1996) [see Eq. (17)];

theor = theoretical bond capacity when GF = G
P
F . There are
three values of P
theor for each specimen corresponding
to the three fitting functions of the strain profile used in
Carloni et al. (2017a);
Ptheor,WU = symbols used for the maximum bond force (bond
capacity or load-carrying capacity) in Wu and Jiang
(2013);
Pu = symbols used for the maximum bond force (bond
capacity or load-carrying capacity) in Chen and Teng
(2001);
P* = peak load in the response of single-lap shear
tests;
ΓF
Ptheor = bond capacity expressed in terms of the width factor
bw proposed by the authors and employing Eq. (17)
with GF = ΓF;
Rcm = cubic compressive strength of concrete [EN 12390-3
(CEN 2001)];
s = interfacial slip;
tFRP = thickness of the FRP composite;
tFRP,actual = actual thickness of the steel FRP composite
obtained as the average of three measurements along
the strip;
t *f ,HD = equivalent thickness of the high density (HD) steel
fiber sheet, which is equal to 0.254 mm;
t*f ,UHD = equivalent thickness of the ultrahigh density (UHD)
steel fiber sheet, which is equal to 0.381 mm;
t*f ,A = equivalent thickness of the steel fiber sheet. A
specifies the density of the sheet. For example, A =
HD for high density;
Tu,max = symbols used for the maximum bond force (bond
capacity or load-carrying capacity) in Neubauer and
Rostasy (1997) [see Eq. (1)];
wc = backward displacement of the concrete prism
measured by LVDT c;
wd = backward displacement of the concrete prism
measured by LVDT d;

c = average of wc within the range [g1,g2];
w

d = average of wd within the range [g1,g2];
w
x = Cartesian coordinate along the width of the composite
y = Cartesian coordinate along the direction of the fibers
of the composite (Fig. 1);
βp = symbol used for the width effect factor in Chen and
Teng (2001);
βw = symbol used for the width effect factor in Lu et al.
(2005);
κ WUw = symbol used for the width effect factor in Wu and
Jiang (2013);
κLINw = symbol used for the width effect factor in Lin et al.
(2017);
ɛf,u = ultimate deformation of the steel fiber sheet provided
by the manufacturer (Kerakoll 2018);
ɛyy = longitudinal strain in the composite in the direction of
the fibers;
ɛxy = shear strain in the composite in the plane of the
composite;
ɛmax = maximum value of ɛyy fitting function;
J. Compos. Constr.
 ΓF = fracture energy expressed in terms of the properties of
concrete (Eq. 24); and
τxy = interfacial shear stress in debonding Mode-II problems
that assume a fictitious zero-thickness interface.
References
Ali-Ahmad, M., K. Subramaniam, and M. Ghosn. 2006. “Experimental in-
vestigation and fracture analysis of debonding between concrete and
FRP sheets.” J. Eng. Mech. 132 (9): 914–923. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9399(2006)132:9(914).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2008. Standard test
method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials.
ASTM D3039. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Barton, B., E. Wobbe, L. R. Dharani, P. Silva, V. Birman, A. Nanni, T.
Alkhrdaji, J. Thomas, and G. Tunis. 2005. “Characterization of rein-
forced concrete beams strengthened by steel reinforced polymer and
grout (SRP and SRG) composites.” Mater. Sci. Eng., A 412 (1–2):
129–136.
Baž ant, Z. P., and J. Planas. 1997. Vol. 16 of Fracture and size effect in
concrete and other quasibrittle materials. London: CRC Press.
Bencardino, F., and A. Condello. 2015. “SRG/SRP–concrete bond–slip
laws for externally strengthened RC beams.” Compos. Struct. 132:
804–815.
Benvenuti, E., N. Orlando, D. Ferretti, and A. Tralli. 2016. “A new 3D ex-
perimentally consistent XFEM to simulate delamination in
FRP-reinforced concrete.” Composites Part B 91: 346–360.
Brosens, K. 2001. “Anchorage of externally bonded steel plates and CFRP
laminates for the strengthening of concrete elements.” Dissertation,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Katholieke, Univ. Leuven.
Brosens, K., and D. Van Gemert. 1999. “Anchorage design for externally
bonded carbon fiber reinforced polymer laminates.” ACI Spec. Publ.
188: 635–646.
Carloni, C., M. Santandrea, and I. A. O. Imohamed. 2017a. “Determination
of the interfacial properties of SRP strips bonded to concrete and com-
parison between single-lap and notched beam tests.” Eng. Fract. Mech.
186: 80–104.
Carloni, C., M. Santandrea, and R. Wendner. 2017b. “An investigation on
the ‘width and size effect’ in the evaluation of the fracture energy of
concrete.” Proc. Struct. Integrity 3: 450–458.
Carloni, C., and K. V. Subramaniam. 2010. “Direct determination of cohe-
sive stress transfer during debonding of FRP from concrete.” Compos.
Struct. 93 (1): 184–192.
Carloni, C., S. Verre, L. H. Sneed, and L. Ombres. 2017c. “Loading rate
effect on the debonding phenomenon in fiber reinforced cementitious
matrix-concrete joints.” Composites Part B 108: 301–314.
Carrara, P., and D. Ferretti. 2013. “A finite-difference model with mixed
interface laws for shear tests of FRP plates bonded to concrete.”
Composites Part B 54: 329–342.
Carrara, P., D. Ferretti, F. Freddi, and G. Rosati. 2011. “Shear tests of car-
bon fiber plates bonded to concrete with control of snap-back.” Eng.
Fract. Mech. 78 (15): 2663–2678.
Casadei, P., A. Nanni, T. Alkhrdaji, and J. Thomas. 2005. “Performance of
double-T prestressed concrete beams strengthened with steel reinforce-
ment polymer.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 8 (4): 427–442.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 1999. Products and sys-
tems for the protection and repair of concrete structures. Test methods.
measurement of bond strength by pull-off. EN 1542. Brussels, Belgium:
CEN.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2001. Testing hardened
concrete—Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens. EN
12390-3. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2009. Testing hardened
concrete—Part 6: Tensile splitting strength of test specimens. EN
12390-6. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
Ceroni, F., M. Ianniciello, and M. Pecce. 2016. “Bond behavior of FRP car-
bon plates externally bonded over steel and concrete elements:
Experimental outcomes and numerical investigations.” Composites
Part B 92: 434–446.
© ASCE 04020024-19
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024
Ceroni, F., and M. Pecce. 2007. “Cracking behaviour of RC beams exter-
nally strengthened with emerging materials.” Constr. Build. Mater.
21 (4): 736–745.
Chen, J. F., and J. G. Teng. 2001. “Anchorage strength models for FRP
and steel plates bonded to concrete.” J. Struct. Eng. 127 (7): 784–
791. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:7(784).
Dai, J., T. Ueda, and Y. Sato. 2005. “Development of the nonlinear bond
stress–slip model of fiber reinforced plastics sheet–concrete interfaces
with a simple method.” J. Compos. Constr. 9 (1): 52–62. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2005)9:1(52).
El-Hacha, R., and M. A. Mashrik. 2012. “Effect of SFRP confinement on
circular and square concrete columns.” Eng. Struct. 36: 379–393.
Elices, M., V. G. Guinea, and J. Planas. 1992. “Measurement of the fracture
energy using three-point bend tests: Part 3—influence of cutting the P-δ
tail.” Mater. Struct. 25 (6): 327–334.
European Standards. 2004. BS EN 1992-1-1:2004: Eurocode 2. Design of
concrete structures. General rules and rules for buildings. UK: British-
Adopted European Standard.
Ghorbani, M., D. Mostofinejad, and A. Hosseini. 2017. “Experimental in-
vestigation into bond behavior of FRP-to-concrete under mixed-mode I/
II loading.” Constr. Build. Mater. 132: 303–312.
Grande, E., M. Imbimbo, and E. Sacco. 2015. “Investigation on the bond
behavior of clay bricks reinforced with SRP and SRG strengthening
systems.” Mater. Struct. 48 (11): 3755–3770.
Hawileh, R., J. Abdalla, W. Nawaz, A. Alzeer, R. Muwafi, and A. Faridi.
2014. Strengthening reinforced concrete beams in flexure using hard-
wire steel fiber sheets. Vancouver, BC, Canada: CICE.
Hillerborg, A. 1985. “The theoretical basis of a method to determine the
fracture energy GF of concrete.” Mater. Struct. 18 (4): 291–296.
Holzenkämpfer, P. 1994. “Ingenieurmodelle des Verbunds geklebter
Bewehrung für Betonbauteile.” Ph.D. dissertation, Technische Univ.
of Braunschweig.
Hoover, C. G., and Z. P. Baž ant. 2013. “Comprehensive concrete fracture
tests: Size effects of types 1 & 2, crack length effect and postpeak.” Eng.
Fract. Mech. 110: 281–289.
Kerakoll. 2018. Accessed May 2, 2018. http://www.kerakoll.com.
Kim, Y. J., A. Fam, A. Kong, and R. El-Hacha. 2005. “Flexural strength-
ening of RC beams using steel reinforced polymer (SRP) composites.”
ACI Spec. Publ. 230: 1647–1664.
Lin, J. P., Y. F. Wu, and S. T. Smith. 2017. “Width factor for externally
bonded FRP-to-concrete joints.” Constr. Build. Mater. 155: 818–829.
Lu, X. Z., J. G. Teng, L. P. Ye, and J. J. Jiang. 2005. “Bond–slip models for
FRP sheets/plates bonded to concrete.” Eng. Struct. 27 (6): 920–937.
Mazzotti, C., M. Savoia, and B. Ferracuti. 2008. “An experimental study on
delamination of FRP plates bonded to concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater.
22 (7): 1409–1421.
Mitolidis, G. J., T. N. Salonikios, and A. J. Kappos. 2012. “Tests on RC
beams strengthened at the span with externally bonded polymers rein-
forced with carbon or steel fibers.” J. Compos. Constr. 16 (5): 551–
562. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000281.
Napoli, A., and R. Realfonzo. 2015. “Reinforced concrete beams strength-
ened with SRP/SRG systems: Experimental investigation.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 93: 654–677.
Napoli, A., and R. Realfonzo. 2016. “Compressive behavior of concrete
confined by SRP wraps.” Constr. Build. Mater. 127: 993–1008.
Napoli, A., G. de Felice, S. De Santis, and R. Realfonzo. 2016a. “Bond be-
haviour of steel reinforced polymer strengthening systems.” Compos.
Struct. 152: 499–515.
Napoli, A., R. Realfonzo, M. Petracca, F. Candeloro, G. Camata, and P.
Casadei. 2016b. “Flexural strengthening of RC slabs with SRP/SRG: An
experimental-numerical comparison.” Appl. Mech. Mater. 847: 381–390.
Neto, P., J. Alfaiate, and J. Vinagre. 2016. “Assessment of the dependence
of CFRP-concrete behaviour on the width of the bonded materials.”
Composites Part B 91: 448–457.
Neubauer, U., and F. S. Rostasy. 1997. “Design aspects of concrete struc-
tures strengthened with externally bonded CFRP-plates.” In Proc., 7th
Int. Conf. on Structural Faults and Repair, 109–118. Edinburgh,
Scotland: ECS Publications.
Pecce, M., F. Ceroni, A. Prota, and G. Manfredi. 2006. “Response predic-
tion of RC beams externally bonded with steel-reinforced polymers.”
J. Compos. Constr.
 J. Compos. Constr. 10 (3): 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0268(2006)10:3(195).
Prota, A., K. Y. Tan, A. Nanni, M. Pecce, and G. Manfredi. 2006.
“Performance of shallow reinforced concrete beams with externally
bonded steel-reinforced polymer.” ACI Struct. J. 103 (2): 163.
Rabinovitch, O. 2008. “Debonding analysis of fiber-reinforced-polymer
strengthened beams: Cohesive zone modeling versus a linear elastic
fracture mechanics approach.” Eng. Fract. Mech. 75 (10): 2842–2859.
Rabinovitch, O. 2012. “Dynamic debonding in concrete beams strengthened
with composite materials.” Int. J. Solids Struct. 49 (26): 3641–3658.
Rostasy, F. S., and U. Neubauer. 1997. “Bond behaviour of CFRP-laminates
for the strengthening of concrete members.” In Proc., Int. Conf. of
Composite Construction-Conventional and Innovative, 717–722.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV on 04/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Zurich: IABSE.
Salomoni, V., G. Mazzucco, C. Pellegrino, and C. Majorana. 2011.
“Three-dimensional modelling of bond behaviour between concrete
and FRP reinforcement.” Eng. Comput. 28 (1): 5–29.
Santandrea, M., I. A. O. Imohamed, C. Carloni, C. Mazzotti, S. de Miranda,
and F. Ubertini. 2016. “An investigation of the debonding mechanism
in steel FRP- and FRCM-concrete joints.” In Proc., 4th Workshop on
the New Boundaries of Structural Concrete, 289–298. Italy:
University of Naples Federico II - ACI Italy Chapter, Edizioni Imready.
Sneed, L. H., F. Ravazdezh, M. Santandrea, I. A. O. Imohamed, and C.
Carloni. 2017. “A study of the compressive behavior of concrete col-
umns confined with SRP jackets using digital image analysis.”
Compos. Struct. 179: 195–207.
© ASCE 04020024-20
J. Compos. Constr., 2020, 24(4): 04020024
Sneed, L. H., S. Verre, C. Carloni, and L. Ombres. 2016. “Flexural behav-
ior of RC beams strengthened with steel-FRCM composite.” Eng.
Struct. 127: 686–699.
Subramaniam, K. V., C. Carloni, and L. Nobile. 2007. “Width effect in the
interface fracture during shear debonding of FRP sheets from concrete.”
Eng. Fract. Mech. 74 (4): 578–594.
Subramaniam, K. V., C. Carloni, and L. Nobile. 2011. “An understand-
ing of the width effect in FRP–concrete debonding.” Strain 47 (2):
127–137.
Täljsten, B. 1996. “Strengthening of concrete prisms using the plate-
bonding technique.” Int. J. Fract. 82 (3): 253–266.
Teng, J. G., S. T. Smith, J. Yao, and J. F. Chen. 2003. “Intermediate crack-
induced debonding in RC beams and slabs.” Constr. Build. Mater.
17 (6–7): 447–462.
Wobbe, E., P. Silva, B. L. Barton, L. R. Dharani, V. Birman, A. Nanni, T.
Alkhrdaji, J. Thomas, and G. Tunis. 2004. “Flexural capacity of RC
beams externally bonded with SRP and SRG.” In Proc., Society for
the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering 2004
Symposium, 16–20. Long Beach, CA: Society for the Advancement of
Material and Process Engineering.
Wu, Y. F., and C. Jiang. 2013. “Quantification of bond-slip relationship for
externally bonded FRP-to-concrete joints.” J. Compos. Constr. 17 (5):
673–686. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000375.
Xu, T., Z. J. He, C. A. Tang, W. C. Zhu, and P. G. Ranjith. 2015. “Finite
element analysis of width effect in interface debonding of FRP plate
bonded to concrete.” Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 93: 30–41.
J. Compos. Constr.