FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

STUDY ON CRACK WIDTH OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS

STRENGTHENED WITH CFRP SHEETS

Q. L. MA 1 X. Z. LU 1 L. P. YE 1 J. B. ZHUANG 1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, PR China, 100084

Keywords: carbon fiber reinforced polymer sheets, reinforced concrete beam, strengthening, crack
width.

1 INTRODUCTION

Strengthening concrete beams with externally bonded CFRP sheets is widely used in various
applications nowadays. Besides the obvious enhancement of strength (both flexural and shear) [1], it
also can effectively reduce the crack width of beams and improve the service performance [2-5]. The
flexural strength of strengthened RC beams is now studied adequately while the tests and
computational methods on crack width are quite limited. Many existing tests indicate that the
distributing characteristics of cracks of CFRP sheet strengthened beams are different from ordinary
beams. The cracks in strengthened beams could be classified into three types illuminated as follows:
(1) Main cracks caused by flexural stress. When cracking load is reached, the first group of cracks
appears which is labeled as group (a), and the succeeding cracks which appear between cracks
of group (a) with external load increasing are labeled as group (b). As shown in Fig.1, these
cracks may grow higher with external load increasing and their distribution depends on the
synthetical bonding performance of reinforcement, CFRP sheets and concrete.
(2) Subordinate cracks due to bond between steel reinforcement and concrete. The local bonding
between steel and concrete will finally lead to appearance of local cracks surrounding the steel
bars and these cracks propagate to the surface of the beam which are labeled as group (c) in Fig.
1. The lengths of these cracks are relatively short due to the local bond effect.
(3) Subordinate cracks due to bond between CFRP and concrete. The opening-up of flexural cracks
will also leads to the local peel off in the interface between CFRP sheets and concrete. These
cracks are labeled as group (d) in Fig. 1. Furthermore, some of these cracks may intersect with
main cracks which will cause looseness of concrete. When the amount of CFRP sheets is very
large, all these cracks will tend to parallel to reinforcement [6-12].
Lots of existing tests indicate that strengthening with externally bonded CFRP sheets will reduce
the crack width of beams effectively and the spaces between cracks reduce as well. But the restraint
of CFRP sheets to the flexural cracks is limited near to the bottom surface of the beam. So the cracks
of strengthened beams are usually correspondingly narrow at the two ends and wider in the middle.
Since the worst result of cracking is corrosion of steel reinforcement, hence, the crack width near
tensile longitudinal bars of reinforcement is studied.

2 EXPERIMENTAL DATABASE

Detailed records about cracks of beams strengthened with CFRP sheets are quite limited. In this
research, 15 records [6~9, 11, 12] are collected including the test done by the authors [12], which are all
shown in Table 1.

Fig. 1 Distribution of cracks.

1
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

Table 1 CFRP parameters in existing tests.

CFRP Young’s Tensile

Test Label Specimen Area Modulus Strength
(mm2) (MPa) (MPa)
Ref [6] CB2 28.86 235000 3500
Ref [7] BM0 33.30 235000 3550
A1 17.98
Ref [8] A2 35.96 235000 3550
A3 53.94
BM1-3 12.10
BM1-4 24.20
BM1-5 36.30
Ref [9] 220000 1800
BM1-6 60.50
BMII-2 12.10
BMII-3 24.20
BEAM2 27.75
Ref [11] BEAM3 27.75 200000 2200
BEAM4 55.50
Ref [12] CB1 110.22 235000 3550

Fig. 2 Analytical model of crack spaces.

3 ANALYSIS OF CRACK SPACES

The stresses of steel reinforcement and CFRP in first cracked section (section 1) are labeled as
σs1, σf1. Correspondingly, the tensile stresses of concrete, steel reinforcement and CFRP in adjacent
section (section 2) are labeled as ft, σs2, σf2, respectively. The average bonding stress between
concrete and longitudinal bars is τs, and the average bonding stress between concrete and CFRP
sheets is τf. The average flexural crack space is lmf. Then, the balance condition between section 1
and section 2 is written as follows:
σ s1 As + σ f1 Af = σ s2 As + σ f2 Af + f t Ac (1)
Separating longitudinal steel bars as an independent part, a balance equation is written as
(σ s1 − σ s2 ) As = τ sulmf (2)
For CFRP sheets, a similar equation is given by
(σ f1 − σ f2 ) Af = τ f bf lmf (3)
where u is the perimeter of longitudinal bar and bf is the bonding width of CFRP sheets. From
equations(1),(2) and (3), the following equation is obtained:

2
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

⎡ d ⎤
⎢ τf −τ s ⎥
A + Af Af 4tf
f t Ac = 4τ s ( s )lmf ⎢1 + ( )⎥ (4)
d ⎢ As + Af τs ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
d
τf −τ s
Af 4tf
Substituting lm = [1 + ( )]lmf into Eq (4) yields
As + Af τs
f t Ac 1 f t Ac d 1 ft d
lm = = =
A + Af
) 4 τ s As + Af 4 τ s ρ f
(5)
4τ s ( s
d
where ρf is synthetical effective steel ratio of reinforcement, ρf =(As+Af)/Ac and d is the diameter of
longitudinal steel bar (mm).
Equation (5) has the similar form as the expression of average crack space of ordinary reinforced
concrete members in Chinese code for design of concrete structures [15], so the parameter lm could be
calculated following the similar way of the Code [15], which is written as
d
lm = 1.9c + 0.08 (6)
ρ te
where c is the thickness of cover layer to reinforcement; ρte is the effective tensile steel ratio of
reinforcement in ordinary RC beams. Furthermore, for strengthened beams with CFRP sheets,
because the elastic modulus of CFRP is quite close to steel, ρte is still suggested to be calculated by
equation for ordinary RC beams while the area of tensile steel reinforcement As in the original equation
is substituted by (As+Af), therefore,
As + Af
ρ te = (7)
0.5bh + (bf − b)hf
where b is sectional width, bf, hf are width and height of the tensile flange, respectively. According to
Lu’s research [14], the bonding strength τf between CFRP sheets and concrete is proportional to the
tensile strength of concrete. So by introducing strengthening influence factor β and bonding influence
factor kf, which yields:
d
τf −τ s
Af 4tf Af d (8)
β= ( )= (kf − 1)
As + Af τs As + Af tf
where kf = τ f / 4τ s .Therefore, the average crack space of CFRP sheets reinforced beams lmf and the
average crack space of ordinary RC beams lm have the relationship as follows:
lm
lmf = (9)
1+ β
where β is related to the tensile strength of concrete and the area ratio between CFRP sheets and
steel bars. By fitting the test results, the parameter lmf can be got. And from equation (6), lm also can
be calculated. With lmf and lm, the value of kf can be got from equation (8). The value of kf for each
specimen in Table 1 is shown in Table 2. Because the factors that may influence the average CFRP-
concrete bond stress are more than concrete tensile strength itself, for instance, the slippage of steel
bars and CFRP sheets, and Af/As also affect the final result, so the regressed kf is not a constant, but
can be expressed as:
kf = 0.24 Af / As (10)
The results of crack spaces of strengthened beams computed by equation (6)~(10) and
corresponding test results are all listed in Table 3. The average ratio between calculated results and
experimental results shown in Table 3a is 1.05 and the standard deviation is 0.41. In Table 3b, though
the test results are given by ranges, it is shown that the computed results and experimental results
agree well except LS2S in Ref [12] whose testing result is larger than calculation due to the lack of
web steel reinforcement.

3
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

Table 2 Crack spaces of tests.

fcu ft lm(Test) lm by equation(6) lm by equation (11)

Test specimen
(MPa) (MPa) (mm) Af/As lm(mm) kf Af/As lm(mm) kf
Ref [7] BM0 50.30 3.41 80.58 0.036 84.85 0.020 0.036 75.35 0.038
Ref [6] CB2 41.45 3.06 100 0.122 91.37 0.013 0.122 73.81 0.079
Ref [12] CB1 41.41 3.06 104.70 0.097 225.93 0.322 0.097 143.60 0.126
94.59 -
BM1-3 25.20 2.33 125 0.120 0.120 85.09 0.036
0.019
BM1-4 25.20 2.33 100 0.240 89.12 0.013 0.240 79.62 0.086
Ref [9] BM1-5 25.20 2.33 71 0.359 84.61 0.078 0.359 75.11 0.188
BM1-6 25.20 2.33 62 0.599 77.63 0.127 0.599 68.13 0.263
BMII-2 17.50 1.91 83 0.077 85.31 0.017 0.077 75.81 0.109
BMII-3 17.50 1.91 71 0.154 82.15 0.053 0.154 72.65 0.165
A1 34.70 2.78 75-112 0.045 129.43 0.045 119.90
Ref [8] A2 34.70 2.78 75-112 0.089 125.68 0.089 116.20
A3 34.70 2.78 75-112 0.134 122.22 0.134 112.70
- -
BEAM2 19.40 1.75 60~90 0.099 113.78 0.099 109.60
Ref [11] BEAM3 19.40 1.75 90~110 0.099 121.36 0.099 109.60
BEAM4 19.40 1.75 30~60 0.198 117.06 0.198 102.90

Table 3a Comparison of crack spaces with lm in Chinese code (Specimen Group 1).

Ref [7] Ref [6] Ref [12] Ref [9]

Specimen BM1- BM1- BM1- BM1- BMII- BMII-
BM0 CB2 CB1
3 4 5 6 2 3
Test 80.58 100 104.7 125 100 71 62 83 71
Calculation 84.58 82.71 225.55 86.27 75.90 68.34 58.04 82.20 76.63
Calculation
1.05 0.83 2.15 0.69 0.76 0.96 0.94 0.99 1.08
/ Test

Table 3b Comparison of crack spaces with lm in Chinese code (Specimen Group 2).

Ref
Ref [8] Ref [11]
Specimen [12]
A1 A2 A3 BEAM2 BEAM3 BEAM4 LS2S
75- 75- 75- 115-
Test 60~90 90~110 30~60
112 112 112 200
Calculation 126.47 120.27 114.79 79.91 81.93 60.45 176.06

The above discussion is based on the model for lm proposed in Chinese Design Code. This model
is relatively simple but maybe not precise enough. Then, another important model for lm proposed by
Ding [13] is also discussed here which is written as
7 d
lm = (1 + 2γ 1 + 0.4γ 1' ) (for deformed steel bars) (11a)
8 ρf
10 d
lm = (1 + 2γ 1 + 0.4γ 1' ) (for plain steel bars) (11b)
8 ρf
where γ1 is enhancing factor of tensile flange, γ 1 = (bf − b)hf / bh ; γ 1 ' is enhancing factor of
compressive flange γ 1 ' = (bf '−b)hf ' / bh ; ρf is synthetical ratio of steel reinforcement,
ρf = ( As + Af ) / bh0 ; d is diameter of longitudinal bar. Similarly, use lmf from tests and lm from
equation (11), a statistical value of β is obtained, and then kf is computed by equation (8). All the
results are shown in Table 2. According to the testing results, kf is fitted as

4
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

kf = 0.35 Af / As + 0.05 (12)

The crack spaces of strengthened RC beams obtained from Eq (11) are compared with testing
results in Table 4. In Table 4a, the maximum error between tests and computed results is 35%, the
mean ratio of calculated values and testing results is 0.997, and the standard deviation is 0.15 while
the coefficient of variation is 0.15. The Table 4b also gives a range of test results, but it still shows
consistent between tests and calculation. So it can be found that with Ding’s model, a better prediction
of crack space can be obtained.

Table 4a Comparison of crack spaces with lm proposed by Ding[13] (Specimen Group 1).

Ref[7] Ref[6] Ref[12] Ref [9]

Specimen
BM0 CB2 CB1 BM1-3 BM1-4 BM1-5 BM1-6 BMII-2 BMII-3
Test 80.58 100 104.7 125 100 71 62 83 71
Calculation 73.43 95.02 118.60 92.65 81.77 73.74 62.60 94.49 87.70
Calculation
0.91 0.95 1.13 0.74 0.82 1.04 1.01 1.14 1.24
/ Test

Table 4b Comparison of crack spaces with lm proposed by Ding[13] (Specimen Group 2).

Ref
Ref [8] Ref [11]
Specimen [12]
A1 A2 A3 BEAM2 BEAM3 BEAM4 LS2S
75- 75- 75- 115-
Test 60~90 90~110 30~60
112 112 112 200
Calculation 92.12 87.84 84.06 73.22 73.22 65.00 99.52

4 CRACK WIDTH

4.1 Stress of longitudinal steel bars

The longitudinal steel stress of cracked section of beams strengthened with CFRP sheets in
service stage is illustrated in Fig.3a. When the stresses are analyzed, three assumptions will be
considered herein: (1) tensile stress of concrete within cracked section is neglected; (2) sectional
strain follows plane-in-plane assumption; (3) the longitudinal steel bars haven’t yielded. Then, the
following equations are established with sectional balance condition:
M = σ cf Acf (η h0 + a) + σ s Asη h0 (13a)
1 a ε cf Ecf Acf
M = σ s Asη h0 (1 + (1 +
)( ) ) (13b)
η h0 ε s Es As
1 a ε cf Ecf Acf
Substituting β f = (1 + )( ) into (13a) and (13b), the equation of calculating stress of
η h0 ε s Es As
longitudinal steel bars is derived as follows:
M
σs = (14)
η h0 (1 + β f ) As
where Acf, Ecf, εcf, are area, elasticity modulus and the strain of tensile CFRP sheets, respectively; As,
Es, εs are area, elasticity modulus and strain of tensile longitudinal steel bars, respectively.

5
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

(a)Distribution of sectional stress (b) Distribution of sectional strain

Fig. 3 Analysis of longitudinal steel stress.

A lot of parametrical discussions are implemented by changing strength of concrete, dimension of

beam section, amount of CFRP sheets and ratio of longitudinal steel reinforcement which indicates
that the factor of internal force couple arm εcf/εs changes inconspicuously, so εcf/εs could be a constant
which is suggested to be1.08 and η is suggested to be 0.915 in this research. Compared with testing
results [12], the error of computed stress results by Eq (14) is less than 4%.

4.2 Average short-term crack width

Similarly to the ordinary RC beams, average short-term crack width of RC beams strengthened
with CFRP sheets could be defined as the average difference of tensile elongation between concrete
and steel reinforcement in the range of average space of main cracks. According to the Chinese
code[15], the equation of crack width for CFRP sheets strengthened beams is
σs
ωm = 0.85ψ lmf (16)
Es
where σs is the stress of longitudinal steel bars at cracked section; lmf is average crack space of CFRP
sheets strengthened beams; ψ is the non-uniform distribution factor of stress of longitudinal
reinforcement.
The non-uniform distribution factor of stress of longitudinal steel reinforcement ψ which reflects
the participation of concrete in tensile region of beams could be taken as follows according to its
definition:
Mc
ψ = 1.1(1 − ) (17)
M
Mc in equation (17) is the cracking moment of concrete of strengthened beams which could be
computed as ordinary beams by
M c = 0.8[0.5bh + (b f − b)h f ] f tηc h (18)
where bf, hf, are width and height of tensile flange, respectively; ft is tensile strength of concrete, ηc is
the distance between acting points of resultant forces in tensile and compressive regions.
The moment of beam strengthened with CFRP sheets in service stage is:
σ f − σ s Af σ Af a
M = σ s ( As + Af )η h0 [1 + + f ] (19a)
σ s As + Af σ s As + Af η h0
Substituting ε f / ε s = 1.08 Ef = 235GPa Es = 200GPa a / h0 = 0.1 into equation (19a), M could
be written as
Af
M = σ s ( As + Af )η h0 [1 + 0.415 ] (19b)
As + Af
As + Af
With the definition of ρ te = and the regressed value of ηc / η = 0.67, h / h0 = 1.1
0.5bh + (bf − b)hf
approximately, the non-uniform distribution factor of longitudinal steel stress ψ could be computed as
follows

6
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

ft
ψ = 1.1 − 0.65
Af (20)
σ s ρ te (1 + 0.415 )
As + Af
Furthermore, a crack propagation coefficient is needed in the computation of maximum crack
width of strengthened beam with CFRP sheets in service stage under short-term loading which is
considered to be 1.66 according to statistical results. So the final expression of maximum crack width
of CFRP sheets strengthened beams is
σs
ωmax = αψ lmf (21)
Es
where α is load type coefficient which is 0.85×1.66=1.41 according to the Chinese code[15] for ordinary
RC flexural members.
Different results of maximum crack width will be computed by equation (21) with different
expressions of lm and kf. Herein, all the calculated results are compared with test results as follows:
(1) While lm, kf are computed by equation (6) and equation (10) respectively, calculated results and
test results of maximum crack width are shown in Table 5. The average ratio of test results to
computed results is 0.99 and the standard deviation is 0.28 which are close to the results of the
ordinary beams comparatively.
(2) While lm, kf are computed by equation (11) and equation (12) respectively, calculated results and
test results of maximum crack width are shown in Table 6. The column of ω’/ω [1] indicates that all
the computed results are smaller than tests if α takes 1.41. By analyzing the values of ω’/ω[1],
statistically α is modified to be 2.0. All the results with α=2.0 are shown in column ω’/ω [2], whose
average ratio of test results to computed results is 0.95, and the standard deviation is 0.16 which
is much smaller than former expression.

Table 5 Comparison of crack width of testing result and computed results using eqns (6) and (10).

ω (computed) ω ' (test) ω

'
Specimen M( kN ⋅ m ) M/My σ s (MPa) l(mm) ψ
ω
31.75 0.57 208.87 0.662 0.083 0.092 0.90

Ref [6] 38.81 0.69 255.32 0.742 0.113 0.138 0.82

84.57
(BM0) 45.86 0.82 301.70 0.797 0.143 0.15 0.96
52.92 0.95 348.15 0.837 0.174 0.192 0.91
153 0.51 239.48 0.331 0.126 0.217 0.58
178.5 0.60 279.39 0.441 0.196 0.217 0.90
Ref [12]
204 0.68 319.31 225.55 0.523 0.266 0.217 1.22
(CB1)
229.5 0.77 359.22 0.587 0.335 0.25 1.34
306 1.02 478.96 0.715 0.545 0.407 1.34
48 0.5 216.38 0.168 0.045 0.1 0.45
54 0.57 243.43 0.272 0.082 0.11 0.75

Ref [12] 60 0.63 270.47 0.355 0.119 0.14 0.85

176.06
(LS2S) 66 0.69 297.52 0.422 0.156 0.14 1.11
78 0.82 351.61 0.527 0.230 0.16 1.44
90 0.95 405.71 0.603 0.304 0.23 1.32

7
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

Table 6 Comparison of crack width of testing result and computed results using eqns (11) and (12).

M σs ψ ω (computed) ω ' (test) ω' ω'

Specimen M/My l (mm) [1] [2]
(kNm) (MPa) ω ω
31.75 0.57 193.57 0.596 0.06 0.092 1.45 1.02

Ref [6] 38.81 0.69 236.61 0.687 0.084 0.138 1.57 1.10
73.43
(BM0) 45.86 0.82 279.59 0.751 0.109 0.15 1.34 0.94
52.92 0.95 322.63 0.797 0.133 0.192 1.40 0.98
153 0.51 227.78 0.594 0.113 0.217 1.92 1.34
178.5 0.60 265.74 0.667 0.148 0.217 1.46 1.03
Ref [12]
204 0.68 303.71 118.6 0.721 0.183 0.217 1.19 0.83
(CB1)
229.5 0.77 341.67 0.763 0.218 0.25 1.15 0.80
306 1.02 450.16 0.847 0.323 0.407 1.47 1.03
48 0.5 201.03 0.471 0.066 0.1 1.50 1.05
54 0.57 226.16 0.541 0.086 0.11 1.28 0.90

Ref [12] 60 0.63 251.29 0.597 0.105 0.14 1.33 0.93

99.52
(LS2S) 66 0.69 276.42 0.643 0.125 0.14 1.12 0.79
78 0.82 326.68 0.713 0.164 0.16 0.98 0.69
90 0.95 376.94 0.765 0.202 0.23 1.14 0.80
* Results labeled [1] are calculated with α=1.41, labeled [2] are calculated with α=2.0.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, crack width of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with CFRP sheets is studied
based on the traditional crack theory of RC beams. The influence of CFRP sheets on crack space,
tensile stress of longitudinal steel reinforcement at the cracked section and its non-uniform distribution
factor are analyzed, and two methods for crack widths for CFRP sheets strengthened beams are
proposed which give good prediction. The first method follows the way suggested in the Chinese code
[15]
which could be easily used in practice, and the second method proposed in this paper is improved
to give a more accurate prediction with less standard deviation. Furthermore, although the crack width
is quite sensitive to the secondary loading in practical application, it is not concerned in this research.
The tests on secondary loading are quite limited and the crack width records with secondary loading
are fewer, therefore, further work in this field still need to be proceeded.

REFERENCES

[1] Ye, L.P. , Lu, X.Z. and Chen, J.F., “Design Pproposals for the Debonding Strengths of FRP
Strengthened RC Beams in the Chinese Design Code”, Proc. International Symposium on
Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures (BBFS 2005), Hong Kong, China, 2005, pp 45-54.
[2] Less, J.M., Winistorfer, A.U. and Meier, U., “External Prestressed Carbon Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Straps for Shear Enhancement of Concrete”, Journal of Composites for Construction,
November 2002, pp249-256.
[3] Reed, C.E., Peterman and Robert, J., “Evaluation of Prestressed Concrete Girders
Strengthened with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Sheets”, Journal of Bridge Engineering,
v9, 2, March/April, 2004, pp185-192.
[4] Zhu, C.J., Tong, G.S. and Fan, Y., “Study on Flexural Behavior of Prestressed Carbon Fiber
Sheet-concrete Composite Beams”, Harbin Gongye Daxue Xuebao/Journal of Harbin Institute
of Technology, v 37, n SUPPL. 2, August, 2005, pp 262-264+574 (in Chinese).

8
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

[5] Abdelrahman, A.A. and Rizkalla, S.H., “Serviceability of Concrete Beams Prestressed by
Carbon-fiber-reinforced-plastic Bars”, ACI Structural Journal, v 94, n 4, Jul-Aug, 1997, pp 447-
457.
[6] Ye, L.P., Fang, T.Q. and Yang, Y.X., “Experimental Researh of Flexural Debonding
Performances About RC Beams Strengthened with CFRP Sheets”, Building Structure, v33, 2,
pp 61-65, (in Chinese).
[7] Cui, W., “Study on the Flexural Behavior of Concrete Bridge Deck Beam Strengthened with
Carbon Fiber Sheets”, bachelor’s dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua
University, PR China, 2001.6.
[8] Deng, Z.C., “Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Externally Bonded
Composite Laminates”, China Journal of Highway and Transport, v14, 2, pp 45-51 (in
Chinese).
[9] Zhao, T., Xie, J. and Dai, Z.Q., “Experimental Study on Flexural Strength of RC Beams
Strengthened with Continuous Carbon Fiber Sheet”, Building Structure, v34, 2, pp11-15 (in
Chinese).
[10] Zhao, M., Zhao, H.D. and Zhang, Y., “Experimental Study on Flexural RC Members
Strengthened with CFRP Fabrics”, Structural Engineers, v55, 2, pp52-58 (in Chinese).
[11] Liu, Z.Q., “Experimental Study and Theoretical Analysis on Flexural Beams Strengthened with
CFRP Sheets”, Master’s dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong
University, PR China, 2003.6.
[12] Zhuang, J.B., “Experimental Study on Concrete Beams Strengthened with Prestressed CFRP
Sheets”, Master’s dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, PR
China, 2005.6.
[13] Ding, D.J., Reinforced Concrete Structure, China Railway Publishing House, Beijing, PR
China, 1991.
[14] Lu, X.Z., Teng, J.G., Ye, L.P. and Jiang, J.J., “Bond-Slip Models for FRP Sheets/Plates
Externally Bonded to Concrete”, Engineering Structures, 27, 6, 2005, pp 920-937.
[15] GB50010-2002, Code for Design of Concrete Structures, China Architecture & Building Press,
Beijing, PR China, 2002.