Engineering Structures

Flexural resistance of RC beams strengthened with NSM CFRP strips and steel bars.
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: ENGSTRUCT-D-24-00514

Article Type: Research Paper

Section/Category: America/Africa

Keywords: NSM CFRP strips; NSM steel bars; Flexural strengthening; Reinforced concrete;
Polymer-modified mortar; Cement-based mortar

Corresponding Author: Mauricio P. Ferreira

Universidade Federal do Pará
Belem, Para BRAZIL

First Author: Mauricio P. Ferreira

Order of Authors: Mauricio P. Ferreira

Marcos H. Oliveira

Renata S. P. Dal Pont

Laura G. Pinto

Renato S. Cortopassi

Manuscript Region of Origin: South America

Abstract: This paper presents the results of experimental tests to investigate the flexural
response and resistance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with the NSM
CFRP strips and steel bars. Nine beams were submitted to monotonic four-point
bending tests, with one beam set as a reference to four tests on beams with NSM steel
bars and four beams with NSM CFRP strips, having the flexural reinforcement ratio as
the main variable. The main objective was to compare the performance and resistance
of beams strengthened with NSM steel bars with those strengthened with standardised
NSM CFRP strips. The NSM steel bars were bonded using a polymer-modified
cement-based mortar with a corrosion inhibitor and an adhesion bridge. This mortar
significantly reduces the strengthening costs compared to epoxy resins and improves
the corrosion protection of the steel bars. The experimental results show that both
strengthening techniques presented similar resistance increments. However, the
beams strengthened with NSM steel bars showed a stiffer flexural response than those
strengthened with CRFP. A good correlation was observed between the experimental
results and the theoretical estimates obtained considering the design equations
provided by ACI 440.2R (2017) and fib Bulletin 90 (2019). These results demonstrate
the potential of NSM steel bars as a strengthening method for concrete structures and
should encourage further research to standardise their use in consistency with the
industry.

Suggested Reviewers: Válter Lúcio

NOVA School of Science and Technology
vlucio@fct.unl.pt

António Ramos
NOVA School of Science and Technology
ampr@fct.unl.pt

Joaquim António Oliveira Barros

Universidade do Minho
barros@civil.uminho.pt

Opposed Reviewers:

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Response to Reviewers

Dear Reviewers / Editor,

The authors would like to express their gratitude for the valuable remarks provided by the reviewers in this

second round of revisions of our work. We have made significant improvements to our manuscript, including

contracting a professional revision of the manuscript. All the modifications are highlighted in red in the

attached files. Furthermore, we sincerely apologize for the delay in our response.

Best regards.

Mauricio de Pina Ferreira

Federal University of Para

Augusto Correa Street No. 1

Belem, Para, Brazil, 66075-110

mpina@ufpa.br / mpinaf@gmail.com
 Reviewer #2
* Highlights are three to five bullet points. The
number of letters and spaces must not exceed 85
characters in each Highlight.
* The English language must be improved throughout
the manuscript.
* The Abstract needs a profound revision. The
Abstract must be improved and include clear
statements about novelties and objectives.
* The novelties, innovative features, and objectives of
the paper must be mentioned at the end of the
Introduction Section.
* Some relevant references related to the effect of the
concrete cover strength and reinforcement geometry,
i.e., strip and bar, are missing in the Introduction
section. Therefore, the following references must be
added and discussed to overcome the shortcomings in
the Introduction:
o https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.2.419
o http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.11.057
o http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.03.018
o http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.192
o https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.062
o https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111751
* Analysis of results must be enriched and compared
with others, especially the above-suggested
references.
Reviewer #3
The authors have addressed the raised comments.
Please provide a short explanation for the low
ultimate deflection of beam VR1 in the text.
Answer from authors
The authors followed your suggestion and made
revisions to the highlights to ensure compliance with
the limits set by Engineering Structures. Many thanks
for pointing out this relevant inconsistency.
The authors contracted professional services to
review the text of our manuscript. We hope that the
manuscript has reached an acceptable format.
The authors agree with the reviewer, and the Abstract
was significantly revised, as can be observed in the
resubmitted files.
We greatly appreciate your valuable comments on
our paper. We have considered all your observations
and significantly improved the introduction section.
We kindly request you to check the sections
highlighted in red of the resubmitted files to evaluate
if our revisions have addressed all your concerns.
Again, we would like to express our gratitude for
your time and attention. All the papers you
suggested that we think are related to our work are
now included in the resubmitted version of our
manuscript.
We appreciate your comment and would like to
express our gratitude for your valuable work. We
understand the importance of discussing the
similarities and differences between our new results
and those available in the literature, and we have
incorporated all the works you suggested to improve
the quality of our paper.
Answer from authors
That was a great observation from the reviewer. The
explanation was added to the text and is also
presented below.
During the test of the reference beam (VR1), a
problem with the load application system forced the
abrupt test interruption just after the flexural bars
started to yield. However, this issue was promptly
solved, and loading resumed, but from this point on,
only load measurements were taken. As a result, the
vertical displacements of this beam are prematurely
interrupted compared to the other beams, as observed
in Figure 11.
Cover Letter

Federal University of Para

Applied Structural Modelling Group

1 Mauricio de Pina Ferreira

2 Federal University of Para
3 Augusto Correa Street No. 1
4 Belem, Para, Brazil, 66075-110
5 mpina@ufpa.br / mpinaf@gmail.com
6
7 Professor James Ricles, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
8 Editor-in-Chief, Engineering Structures
9
10 January 19, 2024
11 Dear Professor James Ricles,
12
13 I am resubmitting this original research article entitled " Flexural resistance of
14 RC beams strengthened with NSM CFRP strips and steel bars " for publication in the
15 Engineering Structures Journal. This paper was initially submitted in 2023 with the
16 reference number Ref.: Ms. No. ENGSTRUCT-D-22-06644R2.
17 The research project was conducted by Civil Engineer Renata Dal Pont under
18 the supervision of Professor Marcos Honorato from the University of Brasília and co-
19 supervised by me with funding from MC Bauchemie from Brazil. Unfortunately, we
20 faced difficulties reviewing the paper because Miss Dal Pont suffered a severe
21 accident at work last year.
22 In the second revision round, we made a mistake by resubmitting only the
23 manuscript and highlights, which led to rejection. The message we received from the
24 editors was: "The figures and tables are missing for the revised manuscript R2. The
25 authors will need to include them and resubmit the manuscript."
26 We would greatly appreciate your support in resubmitting the manuscript to
27 the same reviewers, continuing from where we left off in December 2023. Thank you
28 for your help.
29
30 Best regards.
31
32
33 Mauricio de Pina Ferreira
34 Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, Federal University of Para, Brazil.

1/1
Highlights

Flexural resistance of RC beams strengthened with

NSM CFRP strips and steel bars.

Marcos H. Oliveiraa, Maurício P. Ferreirab, Renata S. P. Dal Ponta,

Laura G. Pintoa, Renato S. Cortopassic.

a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Para, Belem, Brazil
c
Consultant Civil Engineer, Kali Engenharia, Brasilia, Brazil

Full contact details of the corresponding author:

Marcos Honorato de Oliveira

Address: Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Faculdade de Tecnologia, Departamento de

Engenharia Civil e Ambiental, Universidade de Brasília, CEP 70910-000, Brasília, Distrito

Federal, Brasil.

Tel: +55 61 98155 1038 Email: marcoshonorato@unb.br

honorato.eng@gmail.com

1
HIGHLIGHTS

 Tests on reinforced concrete beams strengthened with NSM CFRP strips and steel bars.

 Use of a polymer-modified cement-based mortar to bond NSM steel bars in RC beams.

 Performance of NSM CFRP strips and steel bars for flexural strengthening of RC beams.

 Comparisons of the test results and estimates from ACI 440.2R and fib Bulletin 90.

2
Manuscript File Click here to view linked References

1 Flexural resistance of RC beams strengthened with

2
3
4
5 NSM CFRP strips and steel bars.
6
7
8
9
10
11 Marcos H. Oliveiraa, Maurício P. Ferreirab, Renata S. P. Dal Ponta,
12
13
14 Laura G. Pintoa, Renato S. Cortopassic.
15
16
17
18
19 a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil
20
21 b
22
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Para, Belem, Brazil
23 c
24 Consultant Civil Engineer, Kali Engenharia, Brasilia, Brazil
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 Full contact details of the corresponding author:
37
38 Marcos Honorato de Oliveira
39
40
41 Address: Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Faculdade de Tecnologia, Departamento de
42
43 Engenharia Civil e Ambiental, Universidade de Brasília, CEP 70910-000, Brasília, Distrito
44
45
46 Federal, Brasil.
47
48 Tel: +55 61 98155 1038 Email: marcoshonorato@unb.br
49
50 honorato.eng@gmail.com
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 1
63
64
65
 ABSTRACT
1
2
3 This paper presents the results of experimental tests to investigate the flexural response and
4
5 resistance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with the NSM CFRP strips and steel
6
7
8 bars. Nine beams were submitted to monotonic four-point bending tests, with one beam set
9
10 as a reference to four tests on beams with NSM steel bars and four beams with NSM CFRP
11
12
strips, having the flexural reinforcement ratio as the main variable. The main objective was
13
14
15 to compare the performance and resistance of beams strengthened with NSM steel bars with
16
17 those strengthened with standardised NSM CFRP strips. The NSM steel bars were bonded
18
19
20 using a polymer-modified cement-based mortar with a corrosion inhibitor and an adhesion
21
22 bridge. This mortar significantly reduces the strengthening costs compared to epoxy resins
23
24
25 and improves the corrosion protection of the steel bars. The experimental results show that
26
27 both strengthening techniques presented similar resistance increments. However, the beams
28
29
30
strengthened with NSM steel bars showed a stiffer flexural response than those strengthened
31
32 with CRFP. A good correlation was observed between the experimental results and the
33
34 theoretical estimates obtained considering the design equations provided by ACI 440.2R
35
36
37 (2017) and fib Bulletin 90 (2019). These results demonstrate the potential of NSM steel bars
38
39 as a strengthening method for concrete structures and should encourage further research to
40
41
42 standardise their use in consistency with the industry.
43
44
45
46
47 KEYWORDS
48
49 NSM CFRP strips; NSM steel bars; Flexural strengthening; Reinforced concrete; Polymer-
50
51
52 modified mortar; Cement-based mortar.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 2
63
64
65
 HIGHLIGHTS
1
2
3  Tests on reinforced concrete beams strengthened with NSM CFRP strips and steel bars.
4
5
6
7
8  Use of a polymer-modified cement-based mortar to bond NSM steel bars in RC beams.
9
10
11
12
13  Performance of NSM CFRP strips and steel bars for flexural strengthening of RC beams.
14
15
16
17
18  Comparisons of the test results and estimates from ACI 440.2R and fib Bulletin 90.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 3
63
64
65
 1. INTRODUCTION
1
2
3 The ordinary deterioration of structural concrete, design and construction mistakes,
4
5 environmental loads like earthquakes, or increased loads due to changes in the use of a
6
7
8 structure are some of the motivations for the flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete
9
10 beams, and several techniques and materials are available. According to De Lorenzis and
11
12
Teng [1], the Near Surface Mounted (NSM) system is a highly effective strengthening
13
14
15 alternative for reinforced concrete beams requiring additional longitudinal reinforcement.
16
17 The NSM technique consists of installing FRP bars or strips into longitudinal grooves made
18
19
20 on the concrete surface of a structural member. The strengthening material is embedded in
21
22 the grooves with a specific adhesive, which binds the concrete substrate and the
23
24
25 strengthening material after in-place curing. This adhesion between the added reinforcement
26
27 and the concrete substrate is a critical point for the efficiency of this strengthening method,
28
29
30
which may be affected by the geometry and the dimensions of the groove and the
31
32 strengthening material, by mechanical properties of the concrete and adhesive, besides the
33
34 roughness of the substrate surface (see references [2] to [7]).
35
36
37 FRP bars and strips are widely used with the NSM technique. It is a lightweight, easy-to-
38
39 install material with high tensile strength and durability. In addition, it is commercialised
40
41
42 within various geometries, favouring its application in different situations. Despite the
43
44 advantages of FRP compared to steel, the fib Bulletin 90 [8] advises that its brittle behaviour
45
46
47 can lead to reduced levels of ductility in strengthening situations of concrete structures.
48
49 According to Cruz and Barros [2], a potential disadvantage of utilising FRP is its thermal
50
51
expansion coefficient, which significantly differs from concrete's, and it may lead to
52
53
54 premature damage and collapse in the event of exposure to high temperatures during a fire.
55
56 Therefore, using FRP as a strengthening material should be carefully examined, considering
57
58
59 its benefits and drawbacks for each application scenario.
60
61
62 4
63
64
65
 Steel bars are a low-cost, durable, and readily available option with excellent adhesion and
1
2 ductility, as noted by Rahal and Rumaih [9] and Al-Issawi and Kamonna [10]. These
3
4
5 advantages motivated significant scientific efforts, and the behaviour and the resistance of
6
7 reinforced concrete beams strengthened with NSM steel bars were previously investigated
8
9
10 by Almusallam et al. [11], Hosen et al. [12], Hosen et al. [13], Khalil [14], Mondal [15] and
11
12 Janki et al.[16], among others.
13
14
15
Janki et al. [16] tested twelve reinforced concrete beams with NSM flexural strengthening to
16
17 evaluate the effectiveness of various materials for adding longitudinal reinforcement,
18
19 including steel bars, GFRP, and BFRP bars. Two 12 mm bars were installed in all beams,
20
21
22 bonded on grooves with a cross-section of 20 mm x 20 mm, filled with epoxy resin. All
23
24 beams failed by end debonding at the interface between the concrete cover and the existing
25
26
27 flexural reinforcement, indicating that the adhesion between the strengthening material and
28
29 the adhesive, and between the adhesive and the concrete substrate, was greater than the
30
31
32
adhesion between the concrete and the flexural reinforcement. To avoid this failure mode,
33
34 the authors tested three additional beams by adding CFRP clamps at their ends and
35
36 successfully changed the failure mode to flexure by concrete crushing.
37
38
39 Hosen et al. [13 conducted a series of tests on reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
40
41 various NSM systems. The experimental program consisted of tests on five beams: one set
42
43
44 as a reference, one beam strengthened with NSM CFRP bars, and three beams strengthened
45
46 with NSM steel bars. All tested beams failed due to debonding, likely because their NSM
47
48
49 reinforcement ratio, which ranged from 0.32% to 0.72%, was close to the initial longitudinal
50
51 reinforcement ratio of the beams, which was 0.72%.
52
53
54
In most of the experimental tests on beams strengthened with NSM steel bars, the diameter
55
56 of the steel bars was often the same as that of the FRP bars, difficulting the direct
57
58 comparison of their strengths and failure modes, as the mechanical properties of
59
60
61
62 5
63
64
65
 strengthening materials were significantly different, affecting the experimental results.
1
2 Therefore, the efficiency of the strengthening techniques was not evident.
3
4
5 Based on studies conducted by Al-Bayati et al. [17] and Al-Abdwais and Al-Mahaidi [18],
6
7 the epoxy-based resins commonly used as an adhesive for NSM steel bars have several
8
9
10 disadvantages. These include the emission of toxic vapours during curing, flammability,
11
12 impermeable mixture, skin irritation for workers, and loss of mechanical properties of the
13
14
15
epoxy resin at temperatures higher than the glass transition temperature (60 to 70°C), as
16
17 stated by Gamage et al. [19] and fib Bulletin 90 [8]. Despite these disadvantages, they are
18
19 still preferred due to their excellent mechanical properties.
20
21
22 Castanheira [20] experimentally evaluated repair systems for concrete structural members
23
24 contaminated by chlorides. The study concluded that the structural performance of elements
25
26
27 strengthened using epoxy-based resin was worse than those in which NSM steel bars were
28
29 fixed with mortar containing microsilica and corrosion inhibitors.
30
31
32
Moreover, the literature shows that several parameters can also affect the performance of the
33
34 flexural strengthening of concrete structures, e.g., the corrosion of the steel bars (see [21] to
35
36 [25]), the fatigue of the added reinforcement induced by cyclic loading (see references [26]
37
38
39 to [29]), and the flexure-torsion interaction (see references [30] to [32]).
40
41 This paper presents the results of nine experimental tests on reinforced concrete beams. The
42
43
44 tests investigated the behaviour and the resistance of beams strengthened with NSM CFRP
45
46 strips and steel bars, having their post-strengthening flexural reinforcement ratio as a main
47
48
49 variable. The NSM steel bars were bonded onto grooves with a polymer-modified cement-
50
51 based mortar containing a corrosion inhibitor and an integrated adhesion bridge, thus
52
53
54
offering superior corrosion protection to the steel bars, besides significantly reducing the
55
56 strengthening costs compared to the methods using epoxy resins.
57
58
59
60
61
62 6
63
64
65
 The tested beams were carefully designed to ensure the amount of NSM CFRP strips and
1
2 steel bars added were comparable. The flexural response of the tested beams is discussed
3
4
5 based on their cracking pattern, vertical displacements and measured strains on concrete,
6
7 steel and strengthening materials. The design methods presented by ACI 440.2R [33] and fib
8
9
10 Bulletin 90 [8] are briefly reviewed and summarised, and the experimental strengths are
11
12 compared with the theoretical design values.
13
14
15
16
17 2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
18
19
20 2.1. Characteristics of the tested specimens
21
22 Nine reinforced concrete beams were tested under four-point bending, and Table 1
23
24
25 summarises their characteristics. Beam VR1 was a reference beam for the tests on beams
26
27 strengthened with NSM CFRP strips, beams VC1 to VC4, and near-surface mounted steel
28
29
30
bars (beams VA1 to VA4). The tested beams were rectangular, 250 mm wide, 550 mm high,
31
32 and had an effective depth of 506 mm. Their total length was 4,400 mm, and the distance
33
34 between the support axles was 4,000 mm. The CFRP strips were 1.2 mm thick, 10 mm wide,
35
36
37 and 3,680 mm long.
38
39 These tests aimed to evaluate the influence of the flexural reinforcement ratio, calculated
40
41
42 considering both the existing steel and the added NSM reinforcement, on the flexural
43
44 resistance of the tested beams. More particularly, these tests investigated the performance, in
45
46
47 terms of response and resistance, of the beams strengthened with NSM steel bars bonded on
48
49 grooves with a polymer-modified cement-based mortar (beams type VA), compared to
50
51
results observed for the beams strengthened with NSM CFRP system (beams type VC).
52
53
54 All tested beams had the same initial flexural longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρs = 0.29%),
55
56 calculated as As /(bw.d), where As is the longitudinal reinforcement area, composed of three
57
58
59 12.5 mm steel bars. All beams also had longitudinal steel bars in their compression zone,
60
61
62 7
63
64
65
 formed by two 8 mm rebars. Closed stirrups made with 8 mm steel bars spaced at each
1
2 200 mm were used in all beams as shear reinforcement, designed to guarantee flexural
3
4
5 failure in all tests. In these tests, the concrete cover thickness was 30 mm. Fig. 1 shows the
6
7 geometry of all tested beams, the reinforcement detailing, and the position of the applied
8
9
10 load and supports.
11
12
13
14
15
2.2. Properties of the materials
16
17 MC CarbonFiber Lamella, produced by MC Bauchemie, was used as CFRP strips to
18
19 strengthen beams VC1 to VC4. Based on an epoxy resin matrix, MC CarbonFiber Lamella
20
21
22 is reinforced with unidirectional carbon fibers with a fiber content of 74% in the volume.
23
24 The CFRP strips were bonded using MC-Carbosolid 1300, produced by MC Bauchemie, an
25
26
27 epoxy-based two-component structural adhesive with regular hardening. Nafufill CR, a
28
29 polymer-modified cement-based mortar made by MC Bauchemie, was used to bond the steel
30
31
32
bars on grooves in beams VA1 to VA4. Nafufill CR is a cementitious polymeric mortar with
33
34 an integrated adhesive agent, corrosion inhibitor, and thixotropic consistency.
35
36 The steel bars used as flexural, shear, and NSM reinforcement were made with CA50-A,
37
38
39 which is hot-rolled steel produced in accordance with ABNT NBR 7480 [34] with a well-
40
41 defined yield plateau. Ready-mixed concrete was used in the tested beams. The concrete
42
43
44 was made with CPII cement, a composite Portland cement with pozzolan as defined by
45
46 ABNT NBR 16697 [35], natural sand, and crushed limestone aggregate with a maximum
47
48
49 size of 19 mm.
50
51 Table 2 presents the mean values and standard deviation of the mechanical properties of the
52
53
54
materials used in the tested beams. Six 100 × 200 mm control cylinders were cast for each
55
56 beam to determine the concrete's compressive and tensile strength. Three 150 × 300 mm
57
58 cylinders were also cast to obtain the modulus of elasticity of concrete for each tested beam.
59
60
61
62 8
63
64
65
 The mechanical properties of the polymer-modified cement-based mortar were obtained
1
2 through tests on nine 100 × 200 mm cylindrical samples. All these tests followed the
3
4
5 recommendations presented by the Brazilian standards [36], [37], and [38]. Three samples
6
7 of the steel bars were submitted to uniaxial tensile tests to obtain their yield strength and
8
9
10 modulus of elasticity, following the recommendations presented by ISO NBR 6892 [39].
11
12 The properties of the epoxy-based adhesive and CFRP strips are those provided by the
13
14
15
manufacturer.
16
17
18
19 2.3. Strengthening procedures
20
21
22 The flexural strengthening started by opening grooves on the bottom of the beams,
23
24 following the details shown in Figure 2, which respect the limits established by the
25
26
27 ACI 440.2R [33]. The next step was cleaning the grooves using air blasting to remove all the
28
29 pulverulent materials.
30
31
32
The strengthening procedures were conducted with the tensile face of the beam downwards
33
34 to simulate the most frequent situation of flexural strengthening, in which gravity makes
35
36 difficult the application of the adhesives used to fill the grooves and bond the NSW
37
38
39 reinforcement. 5 mm "U" bars were used to hold the NSM steel rebars in position while
40
41 filling the grooves, as shown in Figure 3.
42
43
44 For the beams strengthened with NSM CFRP, an alcohol solution was used to clean the
45
46 laminate strips before installation. Afterwards, the epoxy resin was prepared, following the
47
48
49 manufacturer's recommendations, and the CFRP strips were immediately inserted after the
50
51 grooves were filled with the resin. After the installation of the CFRP strips, part of the epoxy
52
53
54
resin is expelled from the grooves, and this excess is removed during the strengthening
55
56 surface finishing stage.
57
58
59
60
61
62 9
63
64
65
 The polymer-modified cement-based mortar was mixed with water for the beams
1
2 strengthened with NSM steel bars, and a low-speed mechanical mixer was used to uniform
3
4
5 the mixture. Applying the polymer-modified cement-based mortar requires the concrete
6
7 surface into the grooves to be saturated and dry. The grooves were filled halfway with the
8
9
10 adhesive, and the steel bars were installed and maintained in position using the "U" bars.
11
12 After setting the steel bar, the rest of the groove was filled with the adhesive and finished.
13
14
15
Figure 4 shows photos of the polymer-modified cement-based mortar and epoxy resin
16
17 application to bond the CFRP strips and steel bars during the flexural strengthening of the
18
19 reinforced concrete beams.
20
21
22
23
24 2.4. Tests setup
25
26
27 The beams were subjected to monotonic four-point bending tests, with symmetric loads
28
29 applied 1,500 mm from the supports. A constant loading rate of 5 kN/min was applied by an
30
31
32
automated loading system formed by one electric pump, one hydraulic jack, one steel ball
33
34 joint, one steel spread beam, and two steel supports. Figure 5 presents the tests setup in
35
36 detail.
37
38
39
40
41 2.5 Instrumentation
42
43
44 The vertical displacements were measured by six LVDT transducers (LVDT 1 to LVDT 6),
45
46 placed as shown in Fig. 6. Strains on the flexural, NSM reinforcement, and stirrups were
47
48
49 measured by pairs of strain gauges placed in the points indicated in Figure 7. In this figure,
50
51 EF, ER, and ET refer to the points where strains were measured on the flexural rebars, NSM
52
53
54
reinforcement, and stirrups, respectively. Compression strains on the concrete surface were
55
56 also measured by strain gauges (see EC1 and EC2 in Fig. 7).
57
58
59
60
61
62 10
63
64
65
 3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1
2
3 3.1. Experimental strength, crack patterns, and failure modes
4
5 The strains measured on the concrete surface and the flexural and NSM reinforcement were
6
7
8 considered to establish the failure modes of each tested beam. Table 3 summarises the
9
10 flexural strength (Mu) and the failure mode of the tested beams.
11
12
All the strengthened beams presented significant resistance increments compared to the
13
14
15 reference beam, hanging from 23% to 62%, depending on the flexural reinforcement ratio of
16
17 the beam after strengthening. In addition, the flexural resistance observed experimentally
18
19
20 also presented a good correlation with the load-bearing capacity estimated by the theoretical
21
22 methods. No significant differences in terms of performance were observed concerning the
23
24
25 strengthening techniques evaluated. Beams VA2, VA3, and VA4 strengthened with NSM
26
27 steel bars presented comparable flexural resistance to their equivalent beams strengthened
28
29
30
with NSM CFRP (VC2, VC3, and VC4), with the most considerable differences being just
31
32 3% in the case of beams VA4 and VC4.
33
34 Beam VA5 was the only beam strengthened with NSM steel bars that showed lower strength
35
36
37 than its equivalent beam strengthened with NSM CFRP (VC5). Furthermore, this was the
38
39 only beam with a failure mode different from the others due to the detachment of the NSM
40
41
42 steel bars. The authors consider that the premature failure observed for beam VA5 resulted
43
44 from the fact that a larger diameter was used for the NSM steel bar (10 mm instead of 8 mm
45
46
47 as in the others) since difficulties were observed in filling the grooves with mortar in this
48
49 case. The hypothesis of misexecution of the strengthening is supported by the observation
50
51
that local adhesive detachment occurred asymmetrically in regions without cracks and in
52
53
54 only one of the grooves, as shown in Fig. 8.
55
56 All the other beams failed by crushing of concrete after significant strains were developed in
57
58
59 the tensile reinforcement. The steel bars yielded, and the strains in the CFRP strips were
60
61
62 11
63
64
65
 above the maximum established by design codes before failure. This type of failure is
1
2 classified as a tension-controlled flexural failure.
3
4
5 Figure 9 shows the crack pattern of four beams (VR1, VC2, VA4, and VA5), but it
6
7 illustrates the crack pattern of all beams. The first visible cracks were vertical between the
8
9
10 two loading points. As the applied load increased, these cracks developed in terms of length
11
12 and width, and other inclined cracks appeared between the supports and the load application
13
14
15
point. Figure 10 shows that the strength of the tested beams increased linearly with
16
17 increments in the strengthening ratio and that the exception was beam VA5, which differed
18
19 from the others due to its premature failure.
20
21
22
23
24 3.2. Vertical Displacements
25
26
27 Figure 11 presents the load-displacement curves of the tested beams at the mid-span. Three
28
29 stages can be observed: in stage 1, where the applied moment was below 45 kN.m, the
30
31
32
tested beams are uncracked; in stage 2, the beams are cracked, but the flexural reinforcement
33
34 did not yield; in stage 3, the flexural reinforcement starts to yield, and large displacements
35
36 are measured at the mid-span before the failure of the beam. During the test of the reference
37
38
39 beam (VR1), a problem with the load application system forced the abrupt test interruption
40
41 just after the flexural bars started to yield. However, this issue was promptly solved, and
42
43
44 loading resumed, but from this point on, only load measurements were taken. As a result,
45
46 the vertical displacements of this beam are prematurely interrupted compared to the other
47
48
49 beams, as observed in Figure 11.
50
51 In beams strengthened with NSM CFRP strips (Fig. 11a), the CFRP ratio does not
52
53
54
significantly interfere with the behaviour of the beams in stages 1 and 2 (serviceability limit
55
56 state), even when compared with the reference beam. Thus, the contribution of the
57
58 strengthening to the load-carrying capacity of the beams only becomes noticeable after the
59
60
61
62 12
63
64
65
 yielding of the flexural reinforcement. After yielding, it was observed that the strengthening
1
2 ratio affects the resistance and the flexural stiffness of the beams strengthened with NSM
3
4
5 CFRP strips. Dias et al. [40] observed the same pattern.
6
7 Compared with the reference beam, the behaviour of the beams strengthened with NSM
8
9
10 steel bars (Fig 11b) differs from stage 2 onwards, with stiffness increments observed as a
11
12 function of the strengthening ratio. Thus, the NSM steel bars work together with the initial
13
14
15
flexural reinforcement from stage 2 ahead.
16
17 The beams strengthened with NSM steel bars presented a better flexural performance than
18
19 those with NSM CFRP strips in the serviceability limit state, given the difference in
20
21
22 stiffness. However, the ultimate load-carrying capacity measured experimentally for the
23
24 tested beams was similar, regardless of the strengthening type. The same was also observed
25
26
27 by Almusallam et al. [11], Sharaky et al. [41] and Sharaky et al. [42], but the authors used
28
29 epoxy resin as an adhesive.
30
31
32
33
34 3.3. Strains in the Concrete Surface
35
36 Figure 12 presents the concrete strains on the upper face of the beam at the mid-span. As in
37
38
39 beams (VC3, VC5, VA2, VA3, and VA4), concrete crushing occurred close to the loading
40
41 points. Thus, the values shown in Fig. 12 are not necessarily the maximum compression
42
43
44 strains developed in the beams. Beams VC2 and VR1 showed flexural compression failures
45
46 within the mid-span section. Beam VA5 was the only beam where crushing of the concrete
47
48
49 was not observed, supporting the conclusion that a premature detachment failure of the
50
51 strengthening steel bars occurred due to poor execution.
52
53
54
55
56 3.4. Strains in the Flexural Reinforcement
57
58
59
60
61
62 13
63
64
65
 Fig. 13 shows the strains measured in flexural reinforcement steel bars before failure, and a
1
2 ductile response was observed for all beams, as the initial reinforcement yielded
3
4
5 significantly before failure. The results of strains in beam VA4 are not presented in Fig. 3
6
7 because both strain gauges fixed at position EF1 were lost before starting the test.
8
9
10 Analysing the measured strains of the strengthened beams, it was observed that those
11
12 strengthened with NSM steel bars showed a stiffer behaviour, with this difference increasing
13
14
15
as a function of the strengthening ratio. Similar behaviour was observed by [11]. The
16
17 yielding moment was also affected by increasing the strengthening ratio of the beams with
18
19 NSM steel bars. The yielding moment of the beams strengthened with NSM steel bars was
20
21
22 15% to 35% greater than that observed for those with NSM CFRP strips.
23
24 As the modulus of elasticity of steel bars is higher than that of the CFRP strips, and the area
25
26
27 of steel bars added was also higher, the moment of inertia of the transformed section of the
28
29 beams strengthened with NSM steel bars is higher than that of beams strengthened with
30
31
32
NSM CFRP strips, supporting the experimental observations. The stirrups did not yield,
33
34 confirming that all beams presented flexural failures.
35
36 Fig. 14 shows load-strain curves in the NSM CFRP strip and steel bars. A linear elastic stage
37
38
39 is initially observed, with minor strains measured as the concrete remains uncracked. After
40
41 that, the beam cracks, and the strengthening material is activated. After the internal flexural
42
43
44 reinforcement started to yield, large strains of the strengthening material were also measured
45
46 before the flexural failure of the beams.
47
48
49 Increments in the flexural strengthening ratio also increased the post-crack flexural stiffness
50
51 of the tested beams. Considering the results of the strengthened beams, it was noticed that
52
53
54
the beams strengthened with NSM CFRP reached higher strain levels than those
55
56 strengthened with NSM steel bars, showing higher ductility. The beams strengthened with
57
58
59
60
61
62 14
63
64
65
 NSM steel bars showed an elastoplastic behaviour, while those with CFRP strips were able
1
2 to increase strength.
3
4
5 Regarding the beams strengthened with CFRP, it can be observed that, during the concrete
6
7 cracking, beams VC4 and VC5 had more significant increases in strain values than beams
8
9
10 VC2 and VC3. However, afterwards, they started to have a stiffer behaviour than other
11
12 beams, as expected due to their higher strengthening ratio. It should be noticed that for the
13
14
15
beams strengthened with CFRP, about 80% of the total strains developed after the yielding
16
17 of the flexural reinforcement. Similar behaviour was observed by Sharaky et al. [43].
18
19 Regarding beam VA5, the results are similar to those observed for the other beams, even
20
21
22 considering that this beam presented a different failure mode. As the steel bar detached from
23
24 the groove had strain gauges, strains were measured during the test and compared with the
25
26
27 others, and no significant differences were observed.
28
29
30
31
32 4. COMPARISONS WITH DESIGN EQUATIONS
33
34 This section compares the experimental strengths and the theoretical results obtained
35
36
37 following the design equations presented by ACI 440.2R [33] and fib Bulletin 90 [8]. The
38
39 self-weight of the beams was neglected as the beams were unloaded before strengthening.
40
41
42 Equation 1 presents the flexural resistance calculated according to ACI 440.2R [33].
43
44
45
46
  x   x   x 
47 M ACI  As  f s   d s  1   Af  f fe   d f  1   As'  f s'   1  d s'  (1)
48  2   2   2 
49
50
51
52 Where: Af is the total area of NSM reinforcement; As and fs are the cross-sectional area and
53
54
the yield stress of the longitudinal tensile steel bars; x is the depth of the neutral axis, ffe is
55
56
57 the effective stress in the CFRP at section failure, taken as ffe = Ef.fe; Ef is the tensile
58
59
60
61
62 15
63
64
65
 modulus of elasticity of the CFRP; εfe is the effective strain in the CFRP reinforcement
1
2 attained at failure.
3
4
5 Based on a database of experimental tests, ACI 440.2R [33] limits the strains in the NSM
6
7 FRP reinforcement to 70% of its ultimate strain to prevent premature failure modes. The
8
9
10 parameters ds and ds' are the effective depth of the longitudinal steel bars in the tension and
11
12 compression zone, respectively. Β1 is the ratio of the equivalent rectangular stress block's
13
14
15
depth to the neutral axis's depth.
16
17 Equation 2 presents the analytical formulation recommended by the fib Bulletin 90 [8] to
18
19 obtain the flexural resistance of beams strengthened with NSM FRP reinforcement.
20
21
22
23
M fib  As  f s   d s  k2  x   Af  E f   f   d f  k2  x   As'  f s'   k2  x  d s' 
24
25 (2)
26
27
28
29 Where k1 is the factor for the average stress block determined as a function of concrete strain
30
31
(εc), obtained by:
32
33
34
35
36
37   1000 
38 1000 c  0,5  12  c   c  0,002
  
39
40
k1   (3)
41 1  2
42 
 3000 c 0,002   c  0,0035
43
44
45
46 k2 is the factor for the lever arm of the parabolic-rectangular distribution of concrete stress
47
48
49 determined as a function of concrete strain, obtained by:
50
51
52
53
 8  1000 c
54
55  4  6  1000   c  0,002
 c
56 k2   (4)
57 1000 c  3000 c  4   2 0,002   c  0,0035
58  2000 c  3000 c  2 
59 
60
61
62 16
63
64
65
 Based on experimental data, the fib Bulletin 90 [8] limits the strains on NSM FRP
1
2 reinforcement to 80% of its ultimate strain to prevent premature failure.
3
4
5 The theoretical estimates presented in this paper related to the flexural resistance of beams
6
7 strengthened with NSM steel bars were based on adaptations of ACI 440.2R [33] and
8
9
10 fib Bulletin 90 [8], as both were developed for NSM FRP reinforcement. The first was to
11
12 assume that the limit strain of the NSM steel bars was 10‰ and that the maximum stress
13
14
15
developed in the strengthening steel was the yield stress. Tables 4 and 5 summarise the
16
17 estimates of the flexural resistance of the strengthened beams.
18
19 Fig. 15 presents the relationship between code estimates' values and the experimental
20
21
22 results. Estimates of the flexural strength of strengthened beams were similar between ACI
23
24 and fib. The first one presents slightly higher marks in the Mu / Mtheo
25
26
27 (experimental/theoretical) ratio for beams strengthened with NSM CFRP laminates since it
28
29 admits a lower limit strain for the CFRP laminate. All results found were considered safe.
30
31
32
Regarding the beams strengthened with steel bars, the values between the calculation
33
34 estimates and the experimental values do not differ by more than 12%. All beams
35
36 strengthened with steel bars, except for VA5, showed the same theoretical and experimental
37
38
39 failure mode. This way, it can be concluded that for the strengthening ratios used, the
40
41 calculation adaptations made in both code prescriptions were enough to obtain safe
42
43
44 estimates. However, there is a need to investigate this strengthening technique with higher
45
46 strengthening ratios since the failure mode may differ from those observed in this
47
48
49 experimental program.
50
51
52
53
54
5. CONCLUSIONS
55
56 This research evaluated the flexural behaviour and the resistance of reinforced concrete
57
58
59 beams strengthened with NSM CFRP strips and steel bars. The experimental study involved
60
61
62 17
63
64
65
 nine full-scale tests that investigated the influence of the strengthening ratio of the beams in
1
2 their response and resistance. The conclusions obtained are summarised below:
3
4
5 - Regardless of the strengthening ratio and the strengthening technique used, the NSM was
6
7 effective as a flexural strengthening of the beams, increasing their load-carrying capacity
8
9
10 from 23% to 62%.
11
12 - Linear strength increments were observed for the tested beams as a function of the
13
14
15
strengthening ratio. The only beam in which this was not observed was beam VA5, which
16
17 presented a failure mode different from the others. Furthermore, considering the
18
19 strengthening ratios used in the tested beams, no significant differences were observed in the
20
21
22 flexural response of the beams before concrete cracking.
23
24 - The beams strengthened with polymer-modified cement-based mortar and NSM steel bars
25
26
27 showed a stiffer behaviour than those strengthened with NSM CFRP strips after concrete
28
29 cracking. On the other hand, no significant differences were observed between them in
30
31
32
terms of their maximum load-carrying capacity.
33
34 - The performance of the polymer-modified cement-based mortar used for strengthening the
35
36 beams with NSM steel bars was adequate since these beams presented a flexural response
37
38
39 and resistance compatible with those strengthened with NSM CFRP strips.
40
41 - The adaptations evaluated on the analytical equations presented by the ACI 440.2R [33]
42
43
44 and fib Bulletin 90 [8] to account for the flexural resistance of beams strengthened with
45
46 NSM FRP strips were adequate to estimate the resistance of the beams strengthened with
47
48
49 NSM steel bars. The theoretical estimates were on the safe side for all the tested beams.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 18
63
64
65
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1
2
3 The authors thank the University of Brasília (UnB), FAPDF, CAPES, CNPq, and Kali
4
5 Engenharia for supporting this research.
6
7
8
9
10 REFERENCES
11
12
13 [1] De Lorenzis, L., & Teng, J. G. (2007). Near-surface mounted FRP reinforcement: An
14
15 emerging technique for strengthening structures. Composites Part B: Engineering, 38(2),
16
17
18 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.08.003
19
20 [2] Cruz, J. M. S., & Barros, J. a O. (2002). Bond Behavior of Carbon Laminate Strips Into
21
22
23 Concrete By Pullout-Bending Tests. School of Engineering, University of Minho,
24
25 November, 8.
26
27
28
[3] Lundqvist, J., Nordin, H., & Olofsson, T. (2005). Numerical Analysis of Concrete
29
30 Beams Strengthened With Cfrp – a Study of Anchorage Lengths. Construction, Bbfs, 239–
31
32 246.
33
34
35 [4] De Lorenzis, Laura, & Nanni, A. (2002). Bond between near-surface mounted fiber-
36
37 reinforced polymer rods and concrete in structural strengthening. ACI Structural Journal,
38
39
40 99(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.14359/11534
41
42 [5] De Lorenzis, Laura, Rizzo, A., & La Tegola, A. (2002). A modified pull-out test for
43
44
45
bond of near-surface mounted FRP rods in concrete. Composites Part B: Engineering, 33(8),
46
47 589–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-8368(02)00052-5
48
49 [6] De Lorenzis L, Lundgren K, Rizzo A. Anchorage length of nearsurface mounted FRP
50
51
52 bars for concrete strengthening – experimental investigation and numerical modeling. ACI
53
54 Structural Journal 2004;101(2):269–78
55
56
57 [7] Blaschko M. Bond behaviour of CFRP strips glued into slits. In: Proceedings FRPRCS-
58
59 6. Singapore: World Scientific; 2003. p.205–14
60
61
62 19
63
64
65
 [8] fib - Bulletin 90, Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for concrete structures, Technical
1
2 report by Commission 5 Reinforcements and Task Group 5.1 "Reinforcement for concrete
3
4
5 structures", Féderation Internationale du Béton, 2019.
6
7 [9] Rahal, K. N., & Rumaih, H. A. (2011). Tests on reinforced concrete beams strengthened
8
9
10 in shear using near surface mounted CFRP and steel bars. Engineering Structures, 33(1), 53–
11
12 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.09.017
13
14
15
[10] Al-Issawi, A. S. H., & Kamonna, H. H. (2020). Experimental study of RC deep beams
16
17 strengthened by NSM steel bars. Materials Today: Proceedings, 20, 540–547.
18
19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.186
20
21
22 [11] Almusallam, T. H., Elsanadedy, H. M., Al-Salloum, Y. A., & Alsayed, S. H. (2013).
23
24 Experimental and numerical investigation for the flexural strengthening of RC beams using
25
26
27 near-surface mounted steel or GFRP bars. Construction and Building Materials, 40, 145–
28
29 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.107
30
31
32
[12] Hosen, A., Jumaat, M. Z., Mahfuz, K., Darain, U., & Obaydullah, M. (2014). Flexural
33
34 Strengthening of RC Beams with NSM Steel Bars. January.
35
36 https://doi.org/10.15242/iicbe.c614512
37
38
39 [13] Hosen, M. A., Jumaat, M. Z., Alengaram, U. J., Islam, A. B. M. S., & Hashim, H. bin.
40
41 (2016). Near surface mounted composites for flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete
42
43
44 beams. Polymers, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym8030067
45
46 [14] Khalil, H. S. (2007). Flexural Strengthening of Rc Beams Using Near- Surface
47
48
49 Mounted Steel Rods. December.
50
51 [15] Mondal, O. A. (2019). Rehabilitation and Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced
52
53
54
Concrete Beams using External Steel Reinforcement. January.
55
56 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12228/545
57
58 [16] Janki R. Patel, Mitali R. Patel, Tejendra G. Tank, S. A. V., Modher, C. D. (2019).
59
60
61
62 20
63
64
65
 Flexural Strengthening of RC Beams Using NSM Technique (Vol. 757). Springer
1
2 Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1966-2
3
4
5 [17] Al-Bayati, G., Al-Mahaidi, R., & Kalfat, R. (2017). Torsional strengthening of
6
7 reinforced concrete beams using different configurations of NSM FRP with epoxy resins
8
9
10 and cement-based adhesives. Composite Structures, 168, 569–581.
11
12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.045
13
14
15
[18] Al-Abdwais, A. H., & Al-Mahaidi, R. S. (2020). Performance of reinforced concrete
16
17 beams strengthened with NSM CFRP composites for flexure using cement-based adhesives.
18
19 Structures, 27(October 2019), 1446–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.07.047
20
21
22 [19] Gamage, J. C. P. H., Wong, M. B., & Al-Mahadi, R. (2005). Performance of CFRP
23
24 strengthened concrete members under elevated temperatures. Proceeding of the International
25
26
27 Sysposium on Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures (BBFS 2005), Proceeding Int.
28
29 Sysposium Bond Behav. FRP Struct. (BBFS 2005), 113–118.
30
31
32
[20] Castanheira, A. P. A.-F. (1997). Estudo de um sistema de reparo mais eficaz para uma
33
34 estrutura de concreto armado contaminada por cloretos (p. 172).
35
36 [21] Kreit, A., Al-Mahmoud, F., Castel, A. (2011). Repairing corroded RC beam with near-
37
38
39 surface mounted CFRP rods. Mater Struct 44, 1205–1217,2011.
40
41 https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9693- 6
42
43
44 [22] Triantafyllou, G.; Rousakis, T.; Karabinis, A, (2019). Corroded RC Beams at Service
45
46 Load before and after Patch Repair and Strengthening with NSM CFRP
47
48
49 Strips. Buildings 2019, 9, 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9030067
50
51 [23] Al-Saidy, A.H.; Al-Harthy, A.S.; Al-Jabri, K.S.; Abdul-Halim, M.; Al-Shidi, N.M.
52
53
54
(2010) Structural performance of corroded RC beams repaired with CFRP sheets,
55
56 Composite Structures, Volume 92, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1931-1938, ISSN 0263-8223,
57
58 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.01.001
59
60
61
62 21
63
64
65
 [24] Triantafyllou, G.; Rousakis, T.; Karabinis, A, (2018). Effect of patch repair and
1
2 strengthening with EBR and NSM CFRP laminates for RC beams with low, medium and
3
4
5 heavy corrosion, Composites Part B: Engineering, Volume 133, 2018, Pages 101-111, ISSN
6
7 1359-8368, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.09.029.
8
9
10 [25] Triantafyllou, G.; Rousakis, T.; Karabinis,. (2017) A. Analytical assessment of the
11
12 bearing capacity of RC beams with corroded steel bars beyond concrete cover cracking,
13
14
15
Composites Part B: Engineering, Volume 119, 2017, Pages 132-140, ISSN 1359-8368,
16
17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.03.036.
18
19 [26] Jahani,Y.; Baena, M.; Barris, C.;Torres, L.; Sena-Cruz, J. (2022). Effect of fatigue
20
21
22 loading on flexural performance of NSM CFRP-strengthened RC beams under different
23
24 service temperatures, Engineering Structures, Volume 273, 2022, 115119, ISSN 0141-0296,
25
26
27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115119
28
29 [27] Charalambidi, B.; Rousakis, T.; Karabinis, A. (2016). Fatigue Behavior of Large-Scale
30
31
32
Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened in Flexure with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
33
34 Laminates. Journal of Composites for Construction. 96.
35
36 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000689
37
38
39 [28] Sena-Cruz, J. M.; Barros, J.A.O.; Coelho, Mário R.F.; Silva, L.F.F.T. (2012).
40
41 Efficiency of different techniques in flexural strengthening of RC beams under monotonic
42
43
44 and fatigue loading, Construction and Building Materials, Volume 29, 2012, Pages 175-182,
45
46 ISSN 0950-0618, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.044
47
48
49 [29] Ferrier, E.; Bigaud, D.; Clément, J.C.; Hamelin, P. (2011). Fatigue-loading effect on
50
51 RC beams strengthened with externally bonded FRP, Construction and Building Materials,
52
53
54
Volume 25, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 539-546, ISSN 0950-0618,
55
56 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.07.035
57
58
59
60
61
62 22
63
64
65
 [30] Karayannis, C.; Golias, E. (2022). Full-scale experimental testing of RC beam-column
1
2 joints strengthened using CFRP ropes as external reinforcement. Engineering Structures.
3
4
5 250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113305
6
7 [31] Gowda, C.; Barros, J.; Guadagnini, M.;Pereira, E. (2020). Torsional strengthening of
8
9
10 tubular type RC beams with NSM technique: Structural performance and cracking process
11
12 using DIC. Structural Concrete. 22. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202000174.
13
14
15
[32] Constantin E. C.; (2008). Torsional strengthening of rectangular and flanged beams
16
17 using carbon fibre-reinforced-polymers – Experimental study, Construction and Building
18
19 Materials, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 21-29, ISSN 0950-0618,
20
21
22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.09.003.
23
24 [33] ACI Committee 440. (2017). ACI 440.2R-17: Guide for the design and construction of
25
26
27 externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening existing structures. In American Concrete
28
29 Institute.
30
31
32
[34] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 7480: Aço destinado
33
34 às armaduras para estruturas de concreto armado - Requisitos. Rio de Janeiro, 2022.
35
36 [35] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 16697: Cimento
37
38
39 Portland - Requisitos. Rio de Janeiro, 2018.
40
41 [36] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 5739: Concreto –
42
43
44 ensaio de compressão de corpos de prova cilíndricos. Rio de Janeiro, 2018.
45
46 [37] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 7222: Concreto e
47
48
49 argamassa – Determinação da resistência à tração por compressão diametral de corpos de
50
51 prova cilíndricos. Rio de Janeiro, 2011.
52
53
54
[38] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 8522-1: Concreto e
55
56 endurecido – Determinação dos módulos de elasticidade e de deformação Parte 1: Módulos
57
58 estáticos à compressão. Rio de Janeiro, 2021.
59
60
61
62 23
63
64
65
 [39] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. ISO NBR 6892: Materiais
1
2 metálicos – ensaio à tração. Rio de Janeiro, 2013.
3
4
5 [40] Dias, S. J. E., Barros, J. A. O., & Janwaen, W. (2018). Behavior of RC beams flexurally
6
7 strengthened with NSM CFRP laminates. Composite Structures, 201(March), 363–376.
8
9
10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.05.126.
11
12 [41] Sharaky, I.A., Reda, R. M., Ghanem, M., Seleem, M.H., Sallam, H.E.M. (2017).
13
14
15
Experimental and numerical study of RC beams strengthened with bottom and side NSM
16
17 GFRP bars having different end conditions. Construction and Building Materials, Volume
18
19 149, Pages 882-903, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.192
20
21
22 [42] Sharaky, I.A., Baena, M., Barris, C., Sallam, H.E.M., Torres, L. (2018). Effect of axial
23
24 stiffness of NSM FRP reinforcement and concrete cover confinement on flexural behaviour
25
26
27 of strengthened RC beams: Experimental and numerical study. Engineering Structures,
28
29 Volume 173, Pages 987-1001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.062
30
31
32
[43] ] Sharaky, I.A., Torres, L., Sallam, H.E.M., (2015). Experimental and analytical
33
34 investigation into the flexural performance of RC beams with partially and fully bonded
35
36 NSM FRP bars/strips.Composite Structures, Volume 122, 2015, Pages 113-126,
37
38
39 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.11.057.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 24
63
64
65
Figure (Do not upload picture, .svg format. Upload only PDF, eps Click here to access/download;Figure (Do not upload picture,
or tiff format) .svg format. Upload only PDF, eps or tiff format);4_Dal-Pont-

Flexural resistance of RC beams strengthened with

NSM CFRP strips and steel bars.

Marcos H. Oliveiraa, Maurício P. Ferreirab, Renata S. P. Dal Ponta,

Laura G. Pintoa, Renato S. Cortopassic.

a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Para, Belem, Brazil
c
Consultant Civil Engineer, Kali Engenharia, Brasilia, Brazil

Full contact details of the corresponding author:

Marcos Honorato de Oliveira

Address: Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Faculdade de Tecnologia, Departamento de

Engenharia Civil e Ambiental, Universidade de Brasília, CEP 70910-000, Brasília, Distrito

Federal, Brasil.

Tel: +55 61 98155 1038 Email: marcoshonorato@unb.br

honorato.eng@gmail.com

1
Fig. 1. Detailing of the tested beams, including VR1 (all measurements in mm)

2
 a) b)
Fig. 2. Dimensions in mm of the grooves. a) NSM CFRP strips. b) NSM steel bars.

3
Fig. 3. Details of the "U" bars used to hold the NSM steel bars in position. Dimensions in
mm.

4
 (a) (b)
Fig.4. Strengthening of the RC beams (a) NSM CFRP strips (b) NSM steel bars

5
Fig.5. Tests setup. Dimensions in mm.

6
Fig. 6. Selected points for measurements of the vertical displacements of the tested beams.
Dimensions in mm.

7
Fig. 7. Measurements of strains on the concrete and reinforcement of the tested beams.
Dimensions in mm.

8
Fig. 8. Mortar detachment on beam VA5.

9
 (a) VR1 (non-strengthened).

(b) VC2 (2 CFRP strips).

(c) VA4 (4Ø8 mm steel bars).

(d) VA5 (3Ø10 mm steel bars).

Fig. 9. Crack pattern of the tested beams

10
 100
R² = 0.991 R² = 0.998
Increase of Strength (%)
R² = 0.823
80

62
60
VC5 51 VA4
46
36
40 34 VC4 46
23 VA5
23 VA3
VC3
20 VA2
VC2

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Percentage of NSM CFRP (%) Percentage of NSM steel bars (%)

a) b)
Fig. 10. Increments of strength as a function of the NSM strengthening ratio. a) beams

strengthened with NSM CFRP strips. b) beams strengthened with NSM steel bars.

11
 200

Applied Moment (kN.m)

150

100
VC2 VA2
VC3 VA3
50 VC4 VA4
VC5 VA5
VR1 VR1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Maximum vertical displacement (mm) Maximum vertical displacement (mm)

a) b)
Fig. 11. Load-displacement at midspan of the beams. a) beams strengthened with NSM

CFRP strips; (b) beams strengthened with NSM steel bars.

12
 200

150
Applied Moment (kN.m)

100
VC2 VA2
VC3 VA3
50 VC4 VA4
VC5 VA5
VR1 VR1
0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
Strains on the concrete surface (‰) Strains on the concrete surface (‰)

a) b)
Fig. 12. Flexural reinforcement strains. a) beams strengthened with NSM CFRP strips. b)
beams strengthened with NSM steel bars.

13
 200
VC2 VA2
VC3 VA3
VC4 VA5
Applied Moment (kN.m)

150 VC5
VR1
VR1

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Strains on the longitudinal steel bars (‰) Strains on the longitudinal steel bars (‰)

a) b)
Fig. 13. Strains on the longitudinal steel reinforcement. a) beams with NSM CFRP strips. b)
beams with NSM steel bars.

14
 200
VC2
VC3
VC4
Applied Moment (kN.m)

150
VC5
VA2
100 VA3
VA4
VA5

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Strains on the NSM CRFP strips (‰) Strains on the NSM steel reinforcement (‰)

a) b)
Fig. 14. Strains on the NSM reinforcement. a) CFRP strips. b) steel bars.

15
 200 200
NSM CFRP strips NSM CFRP strips
NSM steel bars NSM steel bars
150 150

Mu (kN.m)
Mu (kN.m)

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
MACI (kN.m) Mfib (kN.m)

a) b)
Fig. 15. Comparison between experimental and theoretical strength estimates.
a) ACI 440.2R [33]. b) fib Bulletin 90 [8]

16
Table ( Editable version) Click here to access/download;Table ( Editable version);5_Dal-
Pont-Tables - R02.docx

Flexural resistance of RC beams strengthened with

NSM CFRP strips and steel bars.

Marcos H. Oliveiraa, Maurício P. Ferreirab, Renata S. P. Dal Ponta,

Laura G. Pintoa, Renato S. Cortopassic.

a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Para, Belem, Brazil
c
Consultant Civil Engineer, Kali Engenharia, Brasilia, Brazil

Full contact details of the corresponding author:

Marcos Honorato de Oliveira

Address: Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Faculdade de Tecnologia, Departamento de

Engenharia Civil e Ambiental, Universidade de Brasília, CEP 70910-000, Brasília, Distrito

Federal, Brasil.

Tel: +55 61 98155 1038 Email: marcoshonorato@unb.br

honorato.eng@gmail.com

1
Table 1

Characteristics of the tested beams

Strengthening NSM ds ds' df As Asʹ Af ρf

Beam
system Reinforcement (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm2) (mm2) %
VR1 --- --- --- ---
VC2 2 CFRP strips 24 0.02
VC3 NSM CFRP 3 CFRP strips 36 0.03
VC4 strips 4 CFRP strips 48 0.04
VC5 5 CFRP strips 506 42 540 368.2 100.5 60 0.05
VA2 2 Ø8 mm rebars 101 0.08
VA3 NSM Steel 3 Ø8 mm rebars 151 0.12
VA4 bars 4 Ø8 mm rebars 201 0.16
VA5 3 Ø10 mm rebars 236 0.19

Notes:

As is the area of tensile longitudinal steel reinforcement, composed of 3  12.5mm.

Asʹ is the area of tensile longitudinal steel reinforcement, composed of 2  8 mm.

Af is the total area of NSM reinforcement.

ρf is calculated as Af / (bw / ds), where bw is the width of the beam and ds is the distance from

extreme concrete compression fiber to the centroid of tensile longitudinal steel

reinforcement.

2
Table 2

Properties of the used materials

NSM Strengthening Flexural

Cement- Epoxy- Material Reinforcement
Mechanical
Concrete based based
Properties
adhesive adhesive  8 mm  10 mm CFRP  12.5 mm steel
steel bar steel bar strips bar

Compressive 44.3 53.0

60.0 - - - -
strength (MPa) (1.4) (2.7)

Tensile strength 4.1 3.4

- - - 2,800 -
(MPa) (0.2) (0.1)

Yield stress 540.4 643.9 548.2

- - - -
(MPa) (44.3) (50.2) (24.7)

Ultimate strain
- - - - - 17 -
(‰)

Modulus of 33.6 54.8 185.1 230.0 195.8

- 160
Elasticity (GPa) (1.7) (2.8) (25.7) (26.2) (16.1)

3
Table 3

Ultimate loads and experimental failure modes of the tested beams.

ρf εc.máx εs.máx εf.máx Mu

Beam NSM Reinforcement Mu / Mref Failure mode
(%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (kN.m)
VR1 - - 0.84 16.85 - 115 -
VC2 2 CFRP strips 0.02 2.30 20.60 18.00 141 1.23
VC3 3 CFRP strips 0.03 2.00 11.70 16.90 154 1.34
VC4 4 CFRP strips 0.04 1.41 18.88 14.50 167 1.46 Flexural failure
VC5 5 CFRP strips 0.05 2.00 19.50 18.30 186 1.62 (Tension controlled)

VA2 2 Ø8 mm steel bars 0.08 2.23 14.40 13.80 141 1.23

VA3 3 Ø8 mm steel bars 0.12 2.24 13.30 13.80 157 1.36
VA4 4 Ø8 mm steel bars 0.16 1.91 2.07* 3.10 173 1.51
Flexural failure
VA5 3 Ø10 mm steel bars 0.19 1.85 4.54 3.30 168 1.46
(Adhesive detachment)

Notes:

εc.máx is the maximum strain measured on the concrete surface.

εs.máx is the maximum strain measured on the flexural reinforcement.

εf.máx is the maximum strain measured on the NSM reinforcement.

Mu is the flexural strength of the beam.

Mu / Mref is the ratio between the flexural resistance of the strengthened beam and the

flexural resistance of the reference beam.

* Strain measured on strain gauge EF2

4
Table 4

Strength estimates according to ACI 440.2R [21].

Concrete stress
x Forces MACI
Beam block factors Mu / MACI
(mm) (kN.m)
α1 β1 Ff (kN) Fs (kN) Fc (kN) F's (kN)
VA2 53.7 0.59 0.70 55.1 201.8 -248.5 -8.4 127.4 1.11
VA3 56.5 0.61 0.70 82.7 201.8 -274.0 -10.5 141.6 1.11
VA4 59.2 0.64 0.70 110.2 201.8 -299.6 -12.5 155.9 1.11
VA5 61.0 0.65 0.71 129.2 201.8 -317.2 -13.8 165.6 1.01
VC2 49.2 0.62 0.70 45.7 201.8 -238.7 -8.8 122.7 1.15
VC3 51.4 0.65 0.70 68.5 201.8 -258.8 -11.6 134.6 1.14
VC4 53.5 0.67 0.71 91.4 201.8 -278.9 -14.3 146.5 1.14
VC5 55.6 0.69 0.71 114.2 201.8 -299.2 -16.9 158.3 1.18
Average 1.12
CoV. 0.04
Notes:
x is the depth of the neutral axis.
α1 and β1 are the concrete block stress factors.
Ff is the force of the NSM reinforcement.
Fs is the force of the longitudinal steel reinforcement.
Fc is the resultant compressive force on the concrete block.
F's is the force on the top longitudinal steel reinforcement.
Mu is the flexural strength of the beam.
MACI is the theoretical flexural strength of the beam calculated according to ACI 440.

5
Table 5

Strength estimates according to fib Bulletin 90 [8].

Concrete stress
x Forces Mfib
Beam block factors Mu /Mfib
(mm) (kN.m)
k1 k2 Ff (N) Fs (N) Fc (N) F's (N)
VA2 60.5 0.50 0.36 55.1 201.8 -243.3 -13.58 126.5 1.11
VA3 63.6 0.52 0.36 82.7 201.8 -268.5 -15.97 140.7 1.11
VA4 66.7 0.54 0.36 110.2 201.8 -293.7 -18.3 154.8 1.12
VA5 68.7 0.55 0.36 129.2 201.8 -311.1 -19.89 164.5 1.02
VC2 53.3 0.56 0.36 52.2 201.8 -238.1 -15.9 125.6 1.12
VC3 55.9 0.58 0.36 78.3 201.8 -260.4 -19.7 139.1 1.11
VC4 58.5 0.60 0.36 104.4 201.8 -282.8 -23.5 152.5 1.10
VC5 61.0 0.62 0.37 130.5 201.8 -305.2 -27.2 165.9 1.12
Average 1.10
CoV. 0.03
Notes:
x is the depth of the neutral axis.
α1 and β1 are the concrete block stress factors.
Ff is the force of the NSM reinforcement.
Fs is the force of the longitudinal steel reinforcement.
Fc is the resultant compressive force on the concrete block.
F's is the force on the top longitudinal steel reinforcement.
Mu is the flexural strength of the beam.
Mfib is the theoretical flexural strength of the beam calculated according to fib Bulletin 90.

6
Declaration of Interest Statement

Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: