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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1726-0531.htm

Reinforced
Numerical analysis of reinforced concrete
concrete beams strengthened in beams

shear using carbon fiber

reinforced polymer materials 339
Sabiha Barour and Abdesselam Zergua Received 19 March 2020
Revised 17 June 2020
Department of Civil Engineering, Université des Frères Mentouri, 21 August 2020
Constantine, Algeria Accepted 5 September 2020

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to analyze the performance of reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened in
shear with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets subjected to four-point bending.
Design/methodology/approach – ANSYS software is used to build six models. In addition,
SOILD65, LINK180, SHELL181 and SOLID185 elements are used, respectively, to model concrete, steel
reinforcement, polymer and steel plate support. A comparative study between the nonlinear finite
element and analytical models, including the ACI 440.2 R-08 and FIB14 models as well as experimental
data, is also carried out.
Findings – The comparative study of the nonlinear finite element results with analytical models shows that
the difference between the predicted load capacity ranges from 4.44%–24.49% in the case of the ACI 440.2 R-08
model, while the difference for FIB14 code ranges from 2.69%–26.03%. It is clear that there is a good agreement
between the nonlinear finite element analysis (NLFEA) results and the different expected CFRP codes.
Practical implications – This model can be used to explore the behavior and predict the RC beams
strengthened in shear with different CFRP properties. They could be used as a numerical platform in contrast
to expensive and time-consuming experimental tests.
Originality/value – On the basis of the results, a good match is found between the model results and the
experimental data at all stages of loading the tested samples. Load capacities as well as load deflection curves
are also presented. It is concluded that the differences between the loads at failure ranged from 0.09%–6.16%
and 0.56%–4.98%, comparing with experimental study. In addition, the increase in compressive strength
produces an increase in the ultimate load capacity of the beam. The difference in the ultimate load capacity
was less than 30% when compared with the American Concrete Institute and FIB14 codes.
Keywords Reinforced concrete beams, CFRP, Numerical model, ANSYS, Shear, Bending
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) is used to strengthen reinforced concrete structural
members in shear and flexure because of their superior mechanical properties in terms of
high strength-to-weight ratio, corrosion resistance, thermal resistance and ease of use
(Hollaway et al., 2008). Several experimental research on CFRP has shown the effectiveness of
using externally bonded CFRP composites to improve the flexural and shear strength of RC
structural members (Jiangfeng et al., 2013; Bukhari et al., 2013). CFRP composites improve
the performance and ductility of the structural behavior of RC beams (Al-Hadithy and Al- Journal of Engineering, Design
and Technology
Ani, 2016). Studies (Ashour et al., 2004; Ahmed et al., 2011; Aboutaha et al., 2003) have Vol. 19 No. 2, 2021
pp. 339-357
showed that reinforced concrete (RC) beams have a higher load capacity than non-RC beams. © Emerald Publishing Limited
1726-0531
The shear and flexural capacities of RC beams reinforced with CFRP have also been studied. DOI 10.1108/JEDT-03-2020-0099
JEDT The authors in Pannirselvam et al. (2008) showed that beams strengthened with glass fiber-
19,2 reinforced polymer (GFRP) show better performance compared to the non-strengthened beams.
The authors also found that the increase in first crack loads ranged from 88.89–100%. The
increase in ductility in terms of energy and deflection ranged between 56.01 and 64.69% for
GFRP with thicknesses of 3 and 5 mm, respectively.
In Al-Amery and Al-Mahaidi (2006), the author tested six RC beams with various
340 combinations of CFRP sheet and straps, in addition to an un-strengthened beam. The author
observed an increase in flexural strength of up to 95% when using CFRP straps to anchor
the CFRP sheets. However, the use of CFRP sheets alone increases the performance by 15%
over the control beam. The authors in Bencardino et al. (2007) presented an experimental
study on shear strengthening of RC beams wrapped in CFRP under four-point bending. The
results showed that the anchorage system enhances the strength and deformability
properties of CFRP-plated beams. The CFRP composite changes the failure mode of the
strengthened RC beam under predominant shear force.
The results of the study in Adhikary et al. (2004) showed that vertical U-wrap of CFRP sheet
is the most effective strengthening for RC beam compared to other wrapping schemes. The RC
beam strengthened with U-wrap increases the shear capacity by 119% compared to the control
beam. In Sundarraja and Rajamohan (2009), the authors studied the role of GFRP in improving
the shear capacity of RC beams. The accuracy of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) code
guideline in predicting the shear capacity of RC beams strengthened with GFRP. The results
indicated that the shear capacity of the strengthened RC beams enhances by about 50%
compared to the control ones. Moreover, the U-wrapping method is more efficient for RC beams
than for GFRP strips bonded on the sides. The equations provided by the ACI code show good
accuracy with the experimental data. Mhanna et al. (2019) investigated shear strengthening of
RC beams using U-Wrapped and completely wrapped CFRP laminates. They concluded that
the complete wrapping scheme provides significant increasing of shear strength and ductility
of the strengthened RC beams, compared to U-wrapped beams with the same depth. The failure
mode of completely wrapped beams is FRP rupture, compared to the sudden debonding of the
FRP laminates of the U-wrapped beams.
In Bukhari et al. (2010), the authors studied the orientation of CFRP-fiber (0/90 and 45/
135) as the main variables. The tests showed that it is advantageous to orientate the fibers of
the CFRP sheet at 45°, as they are approximately perpendicular to the shear cracks. The
authors in Monti and Liotta (2007) worked experimentally on the orientation of the CFRP
fiber strips; the fiber orientation was installed in the beams at different angles (30, 45, 60 and
90°). The increase in shear capacity is almost 86% compared to the control sample. The
strips strengthening method with the different angles and spacing increased the shear
capacity of the beams up to 37%. The strips that were added at the lower corner contributed
effectively to the bonding process. Furthermore, to study the performance of the beams, the
difference between the sample strengthened with FRP composites, and the un-strengthened
one was achieved at a 12%. However, Arafa et al. (2018) studied the effect of fiber orientation
on shear behavior of RC beams externally strengthened with CFRP using ANSYS. The
results indicated that the overall behavior of the finite element (FE) models have a good
agreement with corresponding previous experimental results. Further, the parametric study
proved that shear strengthening of RC beams with vertical CFRP fabric is more efficient
than strengthening with CFRP fabric inclined at an angle of 45°. In Banjara and
Ramanjaneyulu (2017), the authors investigated the experimental and numerical shear
deficiencies of strengthened reinforced concrete beams with glass fiber-reinforced plastic.
The authors noted that the results of FE analysis using the ANSYS code are in good
agreement with those of the beams tested in the laboratory. The authors in Belarbi et al.
(2012) studied the behavior of bridge beams strengthened with FRP sheets. They observed Reinforced
an increase in the shear capacity of up to 26% for beams strengthened with FRP sheets concrete
without anchorage compared to un-strengthened ones, and a 48% increase in shear capacity
for beams strengthened with the mechanical anchorage system. In Dong et al. (2012), the
beams
authors used two FRP-type (CFRP or GFRP) sheets to study the fatigue behavior of RC
beams strengthened with FRP. The results indicated that the FRP sheets can be used to
significantly enhance the fatigue resistance of the strengthened beams.
The study in Panigrahi et al. (2014) focused on 12 RC beams, which were tested under a 341
four-point bending. Retrofitting of RC beams in shear was also examined using
mechanically anchored and bonded FRP fabrics. The results showed that the FRP
composites can significantly improve the strength of the RC beams. In recent decades, FE
analysis (FEA) has also been used to determine the overall behavior of the structure. The
use of numerical FE models allows a better understanding of the behavior and allows
parametric studies to be carried out at a lower cost. The authors in Fanning (2001), Anthony
and Wolanski (2004), Ibrahim and Mahmood (2009), Parandaman and Jayaram (2014) and
Musmar et al. (2014) concluded that the FE package could well model the failure mechanism
of the beams. In Dahmani et al. (2010), the authors studied crack propagation in reinforced
concrete beams using the FEA software ANSYS. It was found that there was a good
agreement between the experimental and numerical results. In addition, the authors in
Saifullah et al. (2011) studied the response of RC beams with different shear reinforcement
patterns using the FEA method. In addition, a comparison was made between the existing
variation of RC beams behaviors with and without shear reinforcement and that obtained by
FEA. The results showed that all types of web reinforcements have an almost similar effect
for a static loading condition. The results of the FE model indicated a good matching with
the experimental results. In Dawari and Vesmawala (2014), the nonlinear behavior of RC
beams using FE models was analyzed. The capability of the FE models to detain the vital
crack areas, loads and deflections for different loadings in RC beam was also examined. The
authors in Sasmal et al. (2012) used the FEA software ANSYS to evaluate numerically the
response of FRP strengthened reinforced concrete beams. They investigated the suitability
of different elements available in the ANSYS library to represent FRP, epoxy and interface
FRP-epoxy. The authors recommended using the shell elements to model the single FRP
layer. When multi-layered FRP is used, the solid-layered element can be a good choice. The
epoxy matrix was modeled using the linear solid element and did not require additional
complicated model.
The authors in Obaidat et al. (2010) performed an experimental investigation to study the
behavior of beams designed to fail in bending or shear. The load–deflection relationship, failure
modes and crack patterns obtained from FEAs were compared with the experimental results.
In Jayajothi et al. (2013), the authors carried out the nonlinear FEA to study the behavior of the
RC beams strengthened using FRP laminates. Flexural strengthening was conducted by
affixing FRP laminates at the bottom of the RC beams. FRP shear strengthening with U-wraps
arrangement at support section was used. Initial cracking in the RC beam, yielding of steel
reinforcement and strength limit state of the beam was also investigated.
The authors in Harihar et al. (2016) used the nonlinear FEA to evaluate the performance
of RC beams strengthened using CFRP sheets. FE software ANSYS was used to model the
nonlinear static examination of strengthened RC beams. The authors observed that the
numerical results were in good agreement with previously published test results. In
Elyasian et al. (2006), the authors numerically studied the behavior of RC beams
strengthened in shear with FRP composites using the FEA ANSYS software. The results
showed that FEA code ANSYS was capable to predict the response of RC beams
JEDT strengthened in shear with FRP composites. It can, therefore, be used reliably in design and
19,2 analysis situations. Furthermore, the authors in Hawileh et al. (2013) developed three-
dimensional (3D) FE models using the ANSYS software to simulate the response and
performance of RC beams externally strengthened with short-length CFRP plates. The
numerical simulation results were in good agreement with the measured experimental data.
It is also confirmed by Habib et al. (2018) in their numerical study of the response of RC
342 beams in flexure and shear strengthened CFRP sheets that strengthened beams in shear and
flexure have higher load carrying capacity as compared to the control beams, ranges from
15.1–47% and continuous U-wrap was found more effective than stirrups of CFRP. A
69.37% increase was found for continuous U-wrap. In addition, the numerical and
experimental results reported by Choobbor et al. (2019) of RC beams strengthened with
hybrid carbon and basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP/BFRP) composite sheets show
that the increase of the basalt sheets in the hybrid laminate achieved higher ductility that
reached up to 31.1%. The use of hybrid laminates provides an improved strength and
ductility in an RC beam’s behavior. Interchanging the sequence of FRP sheets did not have
an impact on the behavior of the strengthened beams with two or three layers of FRP
laminates. In addition, the FE model was able to predict the ultimate load-carrying capacity
and deflection with a percentage difference ranged from 1–11% and 2–12%, respectively.
This work aims to develop several numerical models of RC beams strengthened in shear
with CFRP sheets and subjected to four-point bending. The obtained results were compared
with those obtained experimentally by Al-Tersawy (2013). The main parameters
investigated are concrete strength, CFRP thickness and fiber orientation of CFRP (90–45°).
An important agreement is reached between the experimental and FEA results, and a high
level of accuracy was observed. The comparison between numerical models with analytical
models (ACI 440.2 R-08 and FIB14) is also investigated.

2. Nonlinear finite element modeling

Six FE models are developed using the ANSYS (2007), and the predicted results are
compared with the measured experimental data of Sherif (2013) multiple element types were
used. Namely:
SOLID65 element was used to model the concrete material (Figure 1). It has a total of
eight nodes with three translational degrees of freedom at each node. It has the ability of
simulating the nonlinear behavior of concrete by cracking in tension and crushing in
compression. The material properties assigned to concrete were obtained from the
experimental testing of Al-Tersawy (2013). Two compressive strengths are considered for
concrete, which are 21 MPa and 35 MPa and the Poisson ration is equal to 0.2.
For the ANSYS software, the properties of concrete enter as follows:
Elastic modulus, ultimate uniaxial p compressive
ffiffiffiffi strength fc, ultimate uniaxial tensile
strength (modulus of rupture, fr = 0.62 fc0 ) (American Concrete Institute, 2005), Poisson’s
ratio (
= 0.2) and shear transfer coefficient ( b t), which represents conditions of the crack
face. The value of b t ranges from 0.0–1.0, with 0.0 representing a smooth crack (complete
loss of shear transfer) and 1.0 representing a rough crack (no loss of shear transfer).
LINK180 element was used for the flexural steel bars reinforcements. It has three degrees
of freedom at each node. Plasticity, creep, rotation, large deflection and large strain
capabilities are included. This element is shown in Figure 2.
The steel reinforcement for the FE models is assumed to be an elastic-perfectly plastic
material and identical in tension and compression. The measured elastic modulus and
yield strength of the main steel reinforcement is 200 GPa, while the steel used for stirrups
 Reinforced
concrete
beams

343

Figure 1.
SOLID65 elements

Figure 2.
LINK180 elements

yield strength equals 240 MPa. In addition, the used Poisson’s ratio in the numerical
simulation is 0.3.
SOLID185 element was used for the modeling the loading and supporting steel plates
(Figure 3). SOLID185 is defined by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom in each
node. It is capable of plasticity, hyper-elasticity, stiffness of constraint, creep, significant
deflection and large strain capabilities (ANSYS, 2007).
SHELL181 element was used for modeling CFRP sheet. It is an element of four nodes
with six degrees of freedom at each node. It is well suited for linear and large rotation and/or
large strain nonlinear applications. The geometry, node locations and the coordinate system
are shown in Figure 4.
JEDT
19,2

344

Figure 3.
SOLID185 element

Figure 4.
SHELL181 element
The tensile rupture stress of CFRP wraps was 3,400 MPa, and the modulus of elasticity was Reinforced
200 GPa with layer thickness of 0.13 and 0.26 mm. concrete
beams
3. Summary of experimental program by Al-Tersawy (2013)
The authors Sherif (2013) carried out an experimental study to evaluate the performance of
RC beams strengthened in shear with CFRP under four-point loading. All beams had a
rectangular cross-section dimensions of 100  200 mm and a total length of 1,800 mm. The 345
span of the beam was 1,600 mm from support to support. Figure 5 presents the details of the
RC beams, while Table 1 summarizes all the beams assessed in the present study.

Figure 5.
Mechanical and
geometrical
properties of beams
Sherif (2013)
JEDT 3.1 Meshing of the nonlinear finite element model
19,2 The FEA model was constructed using a rectangular mesh with dimension is 25  25 mm.
The FE model of the reference test beams is given in Figures 6 and 7.

4. Numerical simulation results and discussion

4.1 Numerical model validation
346 The FE models were validated by comparing the predicted load–mid-span deflection
response and the final load capacity with measured experimental results of Sherif
(2013). Table 2 summarizes the experimental results and the predicted numerical as

Longitudinal
reinforcement CFRP details
Wrap
Stirrups Wrapping Wrap width thickness
Beam code fcu (MPa) As As’ (mm) scheme FRP angle (mm) (mm)

B1-Control-21 21 2T12 2T10 8–200 – – – –

B2-Control-35 35 2T12 2T10 8–200 – – – –
Table 1. B3Va1Lb-21c 21 2T12 2T10 8–200 Full wrap 90° 100 0.13
Details of the B4V2L-21 21 2T12 2T10 8–200 Full wrap 90° 100 0.26
laboratory tested RC B5Incl.1L-21 21 2T12 2T10 8–200 Full wrap 45° 100 0.13
beams Sherif (2013) B7Incl.1L-35 35 2T12 2T10 8–200 Full wrap 45° 100 0.13

Figure 6.
FE modeling of the
RC beam (vertical
CFRP wraps)
 Reinforced
concrete
beams

347

Figure 7.
FE modeling of the
beam (inclination
angle over axis of
beam equal 45°)

Ultimate Difference Deflection at

load (KN) (%) failure load (mm) Difference (%)
Specimen Exp. Num. (Exp-Num)  100/Exp Exp. Num. (Exp-Num)  100/Exp

B1-Control-21 62.34 63.50 –1.86 6.43 6.44 –0.15

B2-Control-35 67.76 68.14 –0.56 6.15 6.16 –0.16
B3Va1Lb-21c 98.01 102.9 –4.98 9.78 10.19 –4.19
B4V2L-21 97.59 99.05 –1.49 8.60 9.13 –6.16 Table 2.
B5Incl.1L-21 93.11 95.04 –2.07 11.08 11.07 þ0.09 Validation of
B7Incl.1L-35 106.54 109.22 –2.51 10.60 10.63 –0.28 numerical model

well as the comparison between the experimental and predicted numerical load-
carrying capacity and corresponding deflection. Based on Table 2, it can be noted that
the difference between the predicted failure loads and the experimental data obtained is
between 0.56 and 4.98%, and that the difference between the deviation measured at
mid-span and the experimental data obtained is between 0.09 and 6.16%. In addition,
the difference between the predicted and measured load and the final deflection of the
tested beams is less than 7%. Furthermore, Figure 8 shows the response of the
predicted and measured load–mid-span deflection response of the tested and simulated
beam. Figure 8 and Table 2 clearly show that there is a good agreement between the
experimental measurement and the results of the predicted deflection of the load at the
mid-span at all load stages up to failure.
JEDT 100 100
19,2
80 80

Load (KN)
Load (KN)

60 60

348 40 40

20 20
Experimental Experimental
Numerical Numerical
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

(a) (b)

100 100

80 80
Load (KN)
Load (KN)

60 60

40 40

20 20
Experimental Experimental
Numerical Numerical
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

(c) (d)
140 140

120 120

100 100

80 80
Load (KN)

Load (KN)

60 60

40 40

20 20
Figure 8. Experimental Experimental
Comparison of load– 0
Numerical
0
Numerical
deflection 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
relationship of RC Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
beams from test (e) (f)
results and FE Notes: (a) B1-Control-21; (b) B2-Control-35; (c) B3V1L-21; (d) B4V2L-21; (e) B5Incl.1L-21;
models
(f) B7Incl.1L-35
It can also be noted that the results of the FE models are slightly more rigid than those of the Reinforced
experimental measurement. This is due to the assumption of a perfect bond between concrete
concrete and steel, which adds stiffness during nonlinear behavior. Based on these results,
the FE models are able to accurately predict the behavior and determine the load of the
beams
tested beams.
The comparison between the experimental and numerical mid-span deflection is
presented in Figures 9 and 10. It is clear from these figures a good agreement between
experimental and FE results of maximum deflections and maximum load. 349
FE models proved their accuracy with the experimental results of Sherif (2013). Figure 11
presents further analyses on different values of the compressive strength of concrete (fc)
such as 21, 35 and 49 on the predicted load–deflection response for Model 1 (B1-Control-21).
The results show that the higher the compressive strength, the higher the load capacity of
the beam. The increase in the degree of concrete favors about 23% of the final beam load.

5. Prediction of ultimate load is using different carbon fiber-reinforced

polymer codes
This section provides guidance on the calculation of the additional shear strength resulting
from the addition of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) shear reinforcement to an RC beam. The
theoretical analysis was performed according to the Analytical Model Guide for the Design
and Construction of Externally Connected FRP Systems for the Reinforcement of Concrete
Structures (ACI, 2008). Design and use of externally FRP reinforcement for RC structures
(FIB14, 2001). These equations were applied to the beams with the performance of RC beams

Experimental

120 Numerical

100

80
Load (KN)

60

40

20

Figure 9.
Comparison between
experimental and
numerical mid-span
load for all RC beams
RC beams
JEDT Experimental
19,2
12 Numerical

10
350

8
Deflection (mm)

Figure 10. 0
Comparison between
experimental and
numerical mid-span
deflection for all RC
beams
RC beams

strengthened in shear with CFRP. Table 3 shows the mechanical properties of the concrete
CFRP materials used in the analysis method.

5.1 The ultimate predicted load by ACI 440.2 R-08

ACI 440.2 R-08 (ACI, 2008) is the American guide for the design and construction of
externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures.
The following equations (1), (2) and (3), algorithm is used to predict the behavior of the
performance of RC beams strengthened in shear with CFRP using ACI 440.2 R-08 (ACI,
2008) for beam:
B3Va 1Lb  21c
Recommended additional reduction factors for FRP shear reinforcement c f ¼ 0:95 for
completely wrapped member:

Vn ¼ Vc þ Vs þ Wf Vf (1)

qffiffiffiffi
Vc ¼ 0:17 fc0 bw d (2)
 100 Reinforced
concrete
beams
80

351
Load (KN)

60

40

20 EX B1(21 MPA)
FEM B1(35 MPA) Figure 11.
FEM B1(49 MPA) Effect of using
different fc on the
0 load–deflection
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 behavior for B1-
Deflection (mm) Control-21

Table 3.
Mechanical
properties for
0
Specified compressive strength of concrete fc 21 MPa concrete and CFRP
Modulus of elasticity of CFRP Ef 200 GPa materials
Assumed thickness of CFRP layer tf 0.13 mm (B3Va1Lb-21c)

Afv ffe ðsina þ cosaÞ dfv

Vf ¼ (3)
Sf

Afv ¼ 2n tf wf ¼ 26 mm2
 0 23
fc
K1 ¼ ¼ 0:845
27

23300
Le ¼   ¼ 64:072 mm
n tf Ef 0:58

dfv  Le
K2 ¼ ¼ 0:662
dfv
JEDT K1 K2 Le
Kv ¼ ¼ 0:177 « fu ¼ 0:017
19,2 11900 « fu

« fe ¼ Kv « fu ¼ 0:003009

352 ffe ¼ « fe Ef ¼ 601:8 Mpa

Afv ffe ðsina þ cosaÞdfv

Vf ¼ ¼ 16:98 KN
Sf

qffiffiffiffi
0
Vc ¼ 0:17 fc bw d ¼ 14:801 KN

Av fy d
Vs ¼ ¼ 22:909 KN
S

Vn ¼ Vc þ Vs þ Wf Vf ¼ 53:841 KN

Pn ¼ 2 Vn ¼ 107:682 KN

5.2 The ultimate predicted load by FIB14

According to FIB14 (FIB14, 2001), the following design guidelines are recommended to
calculate the performance of RC beams strengthened in shear with CFRP using equations (4)
and (5). For the beam B3Va1Lb-21c, we proceed as following:

VRd ¼ Vcd þ Vwd þ Vfd (4)

 Concrete contribution to shear capacity:

pffiffiffiffiffi
fck
VRd;c ¼ Vcd ¼ kv : bw : 0:9 :d (5)
gc

200
kv ¼ # 0:15
1000 þ 1:3 :0:9:d
pffiffiffiffiffi
fck
VRd;c ¼ kv : bw : 0:9 :d
gc

 FRP contribution to shear capacity:

Vfd ¼ 0:9 : « fd;e : Efu : r f : bw : d : ðcotu þ cotaÞ:sina (6)

 u = angle of diagonal crack with respect to the member axis, assumed equal to 45°; and Reinforced
a = angle between principal fiber orientation and longitudinal axis of member. concrete
For FRP reinforcement in the form of strips or sheets of width bw at spacing Sf: beams
  !
2tf bf
rf ¼
bw Sf
353
r f ¼ 0:00148

The design value of the effective FRP strain in the principal material direction is given as in
the preceding analysis of shear for the case of fully wrapped FRP:

« fd;e ¼ « fk;e = g f

Fully wrapped (or properly anchored) CFRP–FRP fracture controls:

!0:3
2=3
fcm
« f ;e ¼ 0:17 : « fu
Efu r f

« f ;e ¼ 0:00765

« fk;e ¼ K « f ;e ¼ 0:00612

« fk;e
« fd;e ¼ ¼ 0:0047
gf

Vfd ¼ 0:9 : « fd;e : Efu : r f :bw :d:ðcotu þ cotaÞ:

Vfd ¼ 23:80 KN

Pn ¼ 105:75 KN

5.3 Comparison of nonlinear finite element analysis results with different predicted carbon
fiber reinforced polymer codes
Four equations from the shear strength prediction code were used to predict the shear
capacity of concrete sections and thus calculate the ultimate shear strength of the test
specimens. Table 4 presents the comparison between the nonlinear finite element
Table 4.
Comparison of
NLFEA results with
Beam Ultimate load (KN) NLFEA ACI 440, 2R [1] Difference (%) FIB14 [2] Difference (%) predicted ultimate
a b
B3V 1L -21 c
102.9 107.682 þ4.44 105.75 þ2.69 loads of (B3Va1Lb-21c,
B4V2L-21 99.05 125.732 þ21.22 133.91 þ26.03 B4V2L-21,
B5Incl.1L-21 95.04 121.058 þ21.49 125.42 þ24.22 B5Incl.1L-21 and
B7Incl.1L-35 109.22 144.68 þ24.50 137.93 þ20.81 B7Incl.1L-35) beams
JEDT analysis (NLFEA) results with those predicted by different CFRP codes (ACI, 2008;
19,2 FIB14, 2001).
For ACI (2008), it can be observed that the difference between the predicted breaking
loads and the data obtained from the NLFEA ranges from 4.44–24.49%, while the difference
for FIB14 (2001) code ranges from 2.69–26.03%. The difference between the NLFEA code
and the measured load and the various (ACI, 2008; FIB14, 2001) CFRP codes is less than
354 30%. It is clear that there is a good agreement between the NLFEA results and the different
expected CFRP codes.

6. Conclusion
This study developed six NLFEA models to simulate RC beams strengthened in shear with
CFRP. It was observed that there is a good agreement between the experimental results and
the FE results of the maximum deformation and maximum load observed at all stages of
loading to failure:
 The differences between deflection and loads at failure obtained from the FEA
models and experimental studies ranged from 0.09–6.16% and 0.56–4.98%,
respectively. The difference between the predicted and measured load and the
ultimate deflection of the tested beams was less than 7%.
 In addition, the increase in compressive strength (f c ) from 21 to 49 MPa
resulted in a 23% increase in the ultimate load capacity of the beam (B1-
Control-21).
 Also, the observed difference in ultimate load capacity was less than 30% between
the FEA models and that measured using the ACI and FIB14 codes. It is clear that
there is a good agreement between the results of the FEA models and those
calculated using the different FIB codes.

Thus, the FE models developed can be used to explore the behavior and predict the RC
beams strengthened in shear with different CFRP properties. They could be used as a
numerical platform in contrast to expensive and time-consuming experimental tests.

References
Aboutaha, R.S., Wattanadechachan, P. and Kim, S.H. (2003), “Flexural ductility of CFRP
strengthened concrete beams experimental investigation”, Special Publication, Vol. 213,
pp. 207-220.
ACI (2008), ACI 440.2-08, Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for
Strengthening Concrete Structures, ACI, Farmington Hills, MI.
Adhikary, B.B., Asce, M. and Musuyoshi, H. (2004), “Behavior of concrete beams strengthened in
shear with carbon-fiber sheets”, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 258-264.
Ahmed, E., Sobuz, H.R. and Sutan, N.M. (2011), “Flexural performance of CFRP strengthened RC beams
with different degrees of strengthening schemes”, International Journal of Physical Sciences,
Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 2229-2238.
Al-Amery, R. and Al-Mahaidi, R. (2006), “Coupled flexural-shear retrofitting of RC beams using CFRP
straps”, Composite Structures, Vol. 75 Nos 1/4, pp. 457-464.
Al-Hadithy, L.K. and Al-Ani, M.M. (2016), “Influence of soffit bonded CFRP strips on shear capacity
and failure type of RC beams without stirrups”, American Scientific Research Journal for
Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS), Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 135-150.
Al-Tersawy, S.H. (2013), “Effect of fiber parameters and concrete strength on shear behavior of Reinforced
strengthened RC beams”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 44, pp. 15-24.
concrete
American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2005), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-
05ACI 318-05, Farmington Hills, Michigan. beams
ANSYS (2007), ANSYS, Release Version 12, a Finite Element Computer Software and User Manual for
Nonlinear Structural Analysis, ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA.
Anthony, J. and Wolanski (2004), “Flexural behaviour of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams
using finite element analysis”, Thesis Report, Marquette University.
355
Arafa, M.H. Alqedra, M.A. and Hammad, M. (2018), Effect of Fiber Orientation on Shear Behavior of RC
Beams Externally Strengthened with CFRP.
Ashour, A.F., EL-Refaie, S.A. and Garrity, S.W. (2004), “Flexural strengthening of RC
continuous beams using CFRP laminates”, Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 26
No. 7, pp. 765-775.
Banjara, N.K. and Ramanjaneyulu, K. (2017), “Experimental and numerical investigations on the
performance evaluation of shear deficient and GFRP strengthened reinforced concrete beams”,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 137, pp. 520-534.
Belarbi, A., Bae, S.W. and Brancaccio, A. (2012), “Behavior of full-scale RC T-beams strengthened in
shear with externally bonded FRP sheets”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 32,
pp. 27-40.
Bencardino, F., Spadea, G. and Swamy, R.N. (2007), “The problem of shear in RC beams
strengthened with CFRP laminates”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 21 No. 11,
pp. 1997-2006.
Bukhari, A.I., Vollum, L.R., Ahmad, S. and Sagaseta, J. (2010), “Shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams with CFRP”, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 62 No. 1,
pp. 65-77.
Bukhari, I.A., Vollum, R., Ahmad, S. and Sagaseta, J. (2013), “Shear strengthening of short span
reinforced concrete beams with CFRP sheets”, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 523-536.
Choobbor, S.S., Hawileh, R.A., Abu-Obeidah, A. and Abdalla, J.A. (2019), “Performance of hybrid
carbon and basalt FRP sheets in strengthening concrete beams in flexure”, Composite
Structures, Vol. 227, p. 111337.
Dahmani, L., Khennane, A. and Kaci, S. (2010), “Crack identification in reinforced concrete beams using
ANSYS software”, Strength of Materials, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 232-244.
Dawari, V.B. and Vesmawala, G.R. (2014), “Application of nonlinear concrete model for finite element
analysis of reinforced concrete beams”, International Journal of Scientific and Engineering
Research, Vol. 5 No. 9.
Dong, J.F., Wang, Q.Y. and Guan, Z.W. (2012), “Structural behaviour of RC beams externally
strengthened with FRP sheets under fatigue and monotonic loading”, Engineering Structures,
Vol. 41, pp. 24-33.
Elyasian, I., Abdoli, N. and Rounagh, H.R. (2006), “Evaluation of parameters effective in FRP shear
strengthening of RC beams using FE method”, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 249-257.
Fanning, P. (2001), “Nonlinear models of reinforced and post-tensioned concrete beams”, Electronic
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 111-119.
FIB14 (2001), “Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures. The international
federation for structural concrete (CEB-FIB), technical report bulletin 14”, Sika Services
AG, Switzerland.
Habib, M., Zhijun, C., Zipei, Z. and Mahdi, A. (2018), “Non-linear finite element analysis of reinforced
concrete (RC) beams strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets for
JEDT flexure and shear using ANSYS”, Asian Journal of Mathematics and Computer Research,
pp. 75-95.
19,2
Harihar, A.S. and Kulkarni, D.K. (2016), “Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beam
strengthened with CFRP sheets”, Bonfring International Journal of Man Machine Interface,
Vol. 4.
Hawileh, R.A., Naser, M.Z. and Abdalla, J.A. (2013), “Finite element simulation of reinforced concrete
356 beams externally strengthened with short-length CFRP plates”, Composites Part B: Engineering,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1722-1730.
Hollaway, L.C. et al. (2008), “Strengthening and rehabilitation of civil infrastructures using fibre-
reinforced polymer (FRP) composites“, Woodhead Publishing in Materials.
Ibrahim, A.M. and Mahmood, M.S. (2009), “Finite element modelling of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with FRP laminates”, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 526-541.
Jayajothi, P., Kumutha, R. and Vijai, K. (2013), “Finite element analysis of FRP strengthened RC
beams using ANSYS”, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC), Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 631-642.
Jiangfeng, D., Qingyuan, W. and Zhongwei, G. (2013), “Structural behaviour of RC beams with
external flexural and flexural-shear strengthening by FRP sheets”, Compos, Part B, Vol. 44,
pp. 604-612.
Mhanna, H.H., Hawileh, R.A. and Abdalla, J.A. (2019), “Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
beams using CFRP wraps”, Procedia Structural Integrity, Vol. 17, pp. 214-221.
Monti, G. and Liotta, M.A. (2007), “Tests and design equations for FRP-strengthening in shear”,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 799-809.
Musmar, M.A., Rjoub, M.I. and Hadi, M.A. (2014), “Nonlinear finite element analysis of shallow
reinforced concrete beams using Solid65 element”, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 85-89.
Obaidat, Y.T., Heyden, S. and Dahlblom, O. (2010), “The effect of CFRP and CFRP/concrete interface
models when modelling retrofitted RC beams with FEM”, Composite Structures, Vol. 92 No. 6,
pp. 1391-1398.
Panigrahi, A.K., Biswal, K.C. and Barik, M.R. (2014), “Strengthening of shears deficient RC T-
beams with externally bonded GFRP sheets”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 57,
pp. 81-91.
Pannirselvam, N., Raghunath, P.N. and Sugma, K. (2008), “Strength modeling of reinforced concrete
beam with externally boned fibre reinforced polymer reinforcement”, American Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 192-199.
Parandaman, P. and Jayaram, M. (2014), “Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beam retrofitted
with different fibre composites”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 22 No. 7,
pp. 948-953.
Saifullah, I., Hossain, M.A., Uddin, S.M.K., Khan, M.R.A. and Amin, M.A. (2011), “Nonlinear analysis of
RC beam for different shear reinforcement patterns by finite element analysis”, IJCEE, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 63-74.
Sasmal, S., Kalidoss, S. and Srinivas, V. (2012), “Nonlinear finite element analysis of FRP strengthened
reinforced concrete beams”, Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, Vol. 93 No. 4,
pp. 241-249.
Sundarraja, M.C. and Rajamohan, S. (2009), “Strengthening of RC beams in shear using GFRP
inclined strips–an experimental study”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 856-864.
Further reading Reinforced
Al-Tersawy, S.H. (2013), “Effect of fiber parameters and concrete strength on shear behavior of concrete
strengthened RC beams”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 44, pp. 15-24.
beams
Dong, J., Wang, Q. and Guan, Z. (2013), “Structural behaviour of RC beams with external flexural and
flexural–shear strengthening by FRP sheets”, Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 604-612.

Corresponding author
357
Barour Sabiha can be contacted at: baroure18@hotmail.fr

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