Composites Part B

Manuscript Draft
Manuscript Number: JCOMB-D-11-00173
Title: An experimental investigation on flexural behavior of RC beams strenthened with prestressed
CFRP strips using a durable anchorage system
Article Type: Full Length Article
Keywords: A. Carbon fiber; B. Debonding; B. Strength; D. Mechanical testing
Abstract: This paper investigates the effectiveness and feasibility of a prestressed carbon fiberreinforced polymer (CFRP) system for strengthening reinforced concrete (RC) beams. The proposed
prestressing system with a novel anchorage allows the utilization of full capacity of the CFRP strips.
Eight small-scale and two large-scale concrete beams strengthened different configuration of
prestressed CFRP strips are tested under static loading conditions up to failure. The main parameters
considered include the level of prestressing applied, ranging from 20 to 70% of the tensile strength of
the CFRP strips, and the use of mechanical anchorages at both ends of the CFRP strips. Thanks to the
durable anchorage, the full range of flexural behavior was investigated including post-debonding. The
results indicate that the beams strengthened using prestressed CFRP strips exhibited a higher firstcracking, steel-yielding, and experimental nominal moments as the level of prestressing force
increased up to a certain point. After analyzing prestress effects in small scale tests, an optimum
prestress level for strengthening concrete beams using CFRP strips is proposed and verified in large
scale tests.

*Manuscript

An experimental investigation on flexural behavior of RC beams

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

strengthened with prestressed CFRP strips using a durable anchorage

system

Young-Chan Youa, Ki-Sun Choia, and JunHee Kima,b

Building Structure & Resources Research Division in Korea Institute of Construction

Technology, 1190, Simindae-Ro, Ilsanseo-Gu, Goyang-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, 411-712, Republic

of Korea
b

Corresponding author, Tel:82319100230, Fax:82319100392, Email: junheekim@kict.re.kr

ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the effectiveness and feasibility of a prestressed carbon fiberreinforced polymer (CFRP) system for strengthening reinforced concrete (RC) beams. The
proposed prestressing system with a novel anchorage allows the utilization of full capacity of
the CFRP strips. Eight small-scale and two large-scale concrete beams strengthened different
configuration of prestressed CFRP strips are tested under static loading conditions up to
failure. The main parameters considered include the level of prestressing applied, ranging
from 20 to 70% of the tensile strength of the CFRP strips, and the use of mechanical
anchorages at both ends of the CFRP strips. Thanks to the durable anchorage, the full range
of flexural behavior was investigated including post-debonding. The results indicate that the
beams strengthened using prestressed CFRP strips exhibited a higher first-cracking, steelyielding, and experimental nominal moments as the level of prestressing force increased up to
a certain point. After analyzing prestress effects in small scale tests, an optimum prestress

level for strengthening concrete beams using CFRP strips is proposed and verified in large
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

scale tests.

Keywords: A. Carbon fiber; B. Debonding; B. Strength; D. Mechanical testing

1. INTRODUCTION
Strengthening using fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials has been widely used as an
alternative to steel plates in retrofitting reinforced concrete structures throughout most parts
of the world. Although past studies for non-prestressed FRP strengthening systems have
shown significant increases in the ultimate strength, no significant increase in serviceability
has been observed due to the possibility of premature debonding failure [1,2,3,4,5,6]. The
non-prestressed FRP strengthening systems hardly utilize the full capacity of externally
bonded FRP.
FRP can be utilized as either a form of sheets or strips. FRP strips are beneficially applied to
retrofit a flexural concrete member because FRP strips produced by closely controlled
pultrusion processes typically have enhanced mechanical properties and higher fiber volume
compared to hand laid-up FRP sheets. However, since strips have a smaller width and a
larger thickness than sheets, bonding stress at the interface between the FRP strips and
concrete surface tend to be higher for pultruded strengthening systems. In past research
premature debonding failures were reported more frequently for beams strengthened using
CFRP strips [2,3]. In order to maximize the utilization of the CFRP materials, these brittle
failure modes caused by debonding or delamination should be overcome and strengthening
with prestressing has been alternatively introduced [7,8,9].
The use of externally bonded prestressed CFRPs for strengthening concrete members has
only been studied within the last two decades [1,11,12,13]. Although many of the past studies
mainly focused on the use of CFRP sheets, it is worth reviewing them in order to characterize

prestressing systems for flexural strengthening with CFRP strips. These can be divided into
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

three categories. In the category I, a camber is applied to the beam prior to installing the
CFRP [14]. The CFRP is bonded to the beam and prestressing is applied by releasing the
camber. In the category II, the prestressing force is applied to the CFRP using an independent
external reaction frame [1,9,13,13,15]. Since the initial prototype prestressing systems in
category I and II did not use a mechanical anchorage, failure occurred due to debonding of
the FRP sheets within the end zone at a relatively low level of prestress [1,9,13,14]. In the
category III, the prestressing force is applied to the CFRP by reacting against the
strengthened beam itself [8,12,16,17]. Adding mechanical anchorage within the end zone of
the beam can ensure more ductile behavior while also increasing the allowable level of
prestress which can be applied [11,15]. Although past research reported that the use of a
mechanical anchorage can result in a significant improvement in serviceability and strength
[5, 9,18], the most of them focused on CFRP sheets. For the application of CFRP strips, an
anchorage system should have higher-performance to utilize the full capacity of CFRP strips.

2. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Strengthening using externally bonded prestressed CFRP strips can maximize the utilization
of CFRP materials if taking advantage of excellent durability and structural improvement in a
prestressing system with an anchorage device. In this paper, to achieve practical use of a
prestressed strengthening system using CFRP strips, a novel high-performance mechanical
anchorage and jacking systems for CFRP strips are developed. Through a series of smallscale experimental tests, the performance of the proposed prestressed strengthening system is
evaluated in terms of strength and deformability of strengthened concrete beams, and then
maximized allowable prestressing level in the new anchorage system is validated with a
large-scale test set. Test results indicate that the RC beams strengthened using the proposed

prestressed CFRP system exhibit a significant increase in strength and serviceability over
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

non-prestressed FRP strengthened concrete beams as well as ordinary concrete beams.

Consequently, this study gives a better understanding of the flexural capacity from cracking,
via steel-yielding, FRP-debonding, concrete crushing, to rupture of FRP for bonded
prestressed-CFRP strips and an anchorage system.

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The present experimental study investigates the effectiveness of prestressed CFRP strips to
strengthen a deteriorated concrete beams as well as to enhance the serviceability of precracked and damaged RC beams. A total of ten small and large-scale concrete beams were
strengthened using prestressed CFRP strips and tested to failure. The details of the
experimental programs are presented in the following section.

3.1 Test beams

The experimental program included a total of eight small-scale beams and two large-sale
beams. The details of the experimental program are given in Table 1. The small-scale beams
had nominal cross-sectional dimensions of 200 x 300 mm (7.87 x 11.8 in.) with a total length
of 2,700 mm (106.3 in.). The overall nominal dimensions of large-scale beams were 400 x
600 x 6,800 mm (15.75 x 23.62 x 267.71 in.). The small-scale beams included one
unstrengthened beam (Control-1), two strengthened beams using non-prestressed CFRP strips
without end anchorages (NFCB1:one FRP strip, NFCBW2:two FRP strips), one strengthened
beam using non-prestressed CFRP strips with end anchorages (PFCB1-0R), and four
strengthened beams using prestressed CFRP strips with end anchorage (PFCB1-2R, PFCB14R, PFCB1-6R, and PFCB1-7R). The control beam and two strengthened beams using nonprestressed CFRP strips were manufactured to compare the structural behavior of the

prestressed strengthened beams using CFRP strips. Different levels of prestressing force were
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

used for each of the four small-scale prestressed beams. The target level of prestress was
selected relative to the ultimate tensile strength of the CFRP strips, which is 20, 40, 60, and
70%. The large-scale beams included one unstrengthened beam (Control-2) and one
strengthened beam using prestressed CFRP strips with end anchorages (PFCB2-5R). The
level of prestress for the large-scale beam (PFCB2-5R) was determined after analyzing the
behavior of the small-scale prestressed strengthened beams.
Fig. 1 shows the reinforcement details of the typical test beams. The beams are reinforced
with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) reinforcing bars. The small-scale beams were reinforced with
three D10 bars in tension and three D13 bars in compression. The two large-scale beams were
reinforced with three D19 bars in compression and five D22 bars in tension. The shear
reinforcement consists of D10 steel stirrups with a constant spacing of 100 mm (3.94 in.)
center-to-center along the length of the beam.

3.2 Prestressing system and operations

The prestressing system presented in this paper consists of mechanical anchorages and
jacking assemblage with hydraulic jacks as shown in Fig. 2. The anchorages consist of three
individual anchors; two fixed grip anchors which permanently attach the end of CFRP strips
to the beam and one jacking anchor which is used to apply the tension force to the CFRP
strips.
The anchorage system and jacking assemblage developed in this study were used to directly
tension the CFRP strips by jacking and reacting against permanent anchors mounted on the
strengthened concrete beam itself. Fig. 3 shows the jacking assemblage of a small-scale
strengthened beam. The prestressing force for the small-scale beam was applied with the
beams placed on the floor with the bottom face-up. The base plate of the grip anchor was

installed at the dead end of the beam and fastened into position using several bolts anchored
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

directly into the concrete beam. After applying adhesive on the CFRP strips, the CFRP was
gripped by tightening the bearing plate of the grip anchor with a torque wrench. The jacking
force was applied to the CFRP strips using the jacking anchor and a hydraulic jacking
assemblage at the other end of the beam. When the desired level of prestress in the strips was
achieved, the CFRP strips was fixed to the beam using the other grip anchors located in front
of jacking assembly. The jacking system was removed and the beam was isolated to cure the
adhesive for one week.
Fig. 4 shows the loss of a prestressing strain in CFRP strips after the mechanical anchorage
was set. As shown in Fig 4, it was clear that the prestressing strain in CFRP strips rapidly
decreased with a removal of a jacking force, but the decreasing rate was reduced and
converged to a certain value. In this prestressing system, the total loss of the prestressing
strain in CFRP strips which was measured over 300 hours was 6% of the initial prestressing
strain.
The basic concept and prestressing process for the large-scale beams was similar to that of
the small-scale beams except the prestressing force was applied while the beams were placed
on a support with the bottom face-down. A specially designed jacking assemblage with
hydraulic jacks was used as shown in Fig. 5. The bottom surface of the large-scale concrete
beams was strengthened using two prestressed CFRP strips tensioned individually to
approximately 50% of their ultimate tensile strength.

3.3 Material properties

The mechanical properties of the concrete, steel reinforcing bars, and CFRP strips were
obtained from material tests. The measured compressive strength of the concrete after 28
days was between 16.4 to 20.7 MPa (2.34 to 2.96 ksi) for all of the tested beams. The CFRP

materials used in this study were composed of pitch-based carbon fibers and epoxy resin
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

pultruded into 1.4 mm (0.055 in.) thick, 50 mm (1.97 in.) wide plates. The fiber volume
fraction of the strips was 68%. The mechanical properties of the CFRP strips were
determined from tension tests in accordance with ASTM D 3039. Test results showed that the
average ultimate strength of CFRP strips was 2,161 MPa (308.7 ksi) with a standard
deviation of 121 MPa (17.3 ksi). The average measured modulus of elasticity was 165 GPa
(23,571 ksi). A two-component epoxy adhesive was used to bond the CFRP strips to the
surface of the concrete beam. The average tensile shear strength of the epoxy adhesive was
measured according to ISO 4587 as 4.3 MPa (0.61 ksi).

3.4 Test set-up

The clear span of the small-scale and large-scale beams was 2,400 mm (7 ft 10.5 in.) and
6,400 mm (20 ft 11.9 in.) respectively. The beams were simply supported and loaded in
three-point quasi static loading as shown in Fig. 6. The load was applied gradually to the
beam with an MTS controller-testing machine. After yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement, the load was applied using displacement control at a constant displacement
rate of 5 mm/min (0.2 in./min) until failure.

3.5 Instrumentation
All beams were fully instrumented to measure the applied load, deflections, and strains of
steel reinforcing bars, concrete, and CFRP strips. The distribution of cracks along the beams,
from first cracking to final failure, was also monitored. Deflections at mid-span were
measured using two linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs). Electrical resistance
strain gauges were installed at mid-span of the beam on the top and bottom reinforcing bars,
on the top face of the concrete, and on the CFRP strips along the beam with constant spacing

of 150 mm (5.91 in.) as shown in Fig. 7. Pi gauges were placed at mid-span along the front
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

face of the beam to measure the strain distribution in concrete over the depth of the beam. All
the signals from LVDTs, strain gauges, and load cells were automatically recorded by a data
acquisition system, data logger TDS-303.

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 Crack patterns and failure modes
In the experimental test, a typical pattern of crack formation was observed. The first flexural
crack occurred in the mid-span of the beam, and was followed by the formation and
propagation of many smaller cracks which were symmetrically distributed about the midspan of the beam after yielding of longitudinal reinforcements. The crack formation pattern
was similar for all of the tested beams. Both deflection and cracking were reduced in
proportion to the level of prestress because the prestressed CFRP strips induce compressive
stresses. Furthermore, the presence of the bonded prestressed CFRP strips helped to distribute
the flexural cracks more evenly along the length of the beams resulting in smaller crack width.
This is similar to the trend reported previously by others [12,16]. These flexural cracks
continued to propagate with shear cracks at higher load levels, but shear failure was
effectively controlled by the stirrups spaced at 100 mm (3.94 in.).
The control beam (Control-1) failed in a conventional flexural manner with the concrete
crushing in compression in the mid-span of the beam. The beams strengthened with nonprestressed CFRP strips without end anchorage (NFCB1 and NFCBW2) failed by the abrupt
debonding of CFRP strips starting from the center to the one end of the beam as shown in Fig
8.
In the non-prestressed strengthened beam with end anchorage, the debonding of CFRP strips
initiated on one shear span followed by a second debonding on the other shear span. The

debonding was accompanied by a sudden drop of the applied load. The mechanical
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

anchorages at both ends of the CFRP strips delayed the abrupt propagation of debonding in
the CFRP strips. Consequently, the CFRP strips were only supported by the end anchorages
and the strengthening system behaved similarly to an unbounded system. The final failure of
this beam was governed by the rupture of the CFRP strips at the mid-span of the beam as
shown in Fig. 9.
From the experimental results, it was observed that the failure modes of the prestressed
strengthened beam were influenced by the level of prestress in the CFRP strips. Although the
flexural behavior and failure mode of the strengthened beams prestressed to not more than
60% of the CFRP tensile strength was similar to that of the non-prestressed strengthened
beams with end anchorage as shown in Fig. 10(a), the first-cracking and steel-yielding loads
are delayed due to the presence of the prestressing and this effects reduced the deflection
within the service load range due to the increased member stiffness. For the strengthened
beam prestressed to 70% of the CFRP tensile strength, failure occurred due to a rupture of the
CFRP strips without any occurrence of CFRP debonding as shown in Fig. 10(b). Following
the rupture of CFRP strips, the strengthened beams retained a reserve capacity comparable to
the strength of the unstrengthened control beams.

4.2 Flexural behavior and strengthening effects

The load-deflection response of the small-scale beams including the unstrengthened control
beam, non-prestressed strengthened beams, and the prestressed strengthened beams is given
in Fig. 11 to 13 respectively. The CFRP strips were of the same dimensions in all tested
beams. This approach allowed direct comparison of flexural behavior of the unstrengthened
beam, non-prestressed strengthened beams, and the prestressed strengthened beams with
different levels of prestress. The load-deflection response of the large-scale beams including

the unstrengthened control beam and the prestressed strengthened beam was given in Fig. 14.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

A summary of significant values characterizing the behavior of the tested beams is given in
Table 2.

Unstrengthened control beamThe unstrengthened small-scale control beam (Control-1)

showed a typical flexural behavior of a concrete beam tested under static loading as shown in
Fig. 11. The first-cracking and steel-yielding load of beam Control-1 were 18.2 kN (4.10
kips) and 40.4 kN (9.09 kips), respectively. The stiffness of the unstrengthened beams
decreased significantly after yielding of the longitudinal reinforcements. The experimental
nominal strength is defined in this study as the smallest of "the load when a FRP failed by
rupture" or "the load when a compressive strain in concrete reach 0.003. Since the control
beams do not have FRP reinforcements, the experimental nominal strength was determined
by the latter, as 47.0 kN (10.58 kips), and the maximum load achieved was 50.5 kN (11.36
kips). The unstrengthened large-scale control beam (Control-2) also displayed a typical
flexural load-displacement behavior similar to that of the small-scale control beam except the
difference of load level caused by the differences of scale.

Non-prestressed strengthened beams without end anchorageA considerable increase of the

measured maximum load was observed due to the addition of the non-prestressed CFRP
strips in the non-prestressed strengthened beams NFCB1 and NFCBW2 as shown in Fig. 11.
The maximum load of the beam NFCB1 achieved was 77.0 kN (17.33 kips) and that of the
beam NFCBW2 was 96.4 kN (21.69 kips). As shown in the figure, the one and two CFRP
strips approximately increase the load capacity of the strengthened beam compared to the
unstrengthened control beam by 60% and 100%, respectively. However, both strengthened
beams failed due to debonding of the CFRP strips from the beams The strain in the CFRP

10

strips measured immediately prior to debonding failure was from 5,191 to 6,852 which
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

corresponded to nearly 40 to 53% of their ultimate tensile strain of the CFRP. As referred in
the literature review, the premature debonding resulted in hardly utilizing the full material
capacity of FRP reinforcement. If the ductility is defined the fraction of the strain at the
maximum load to the steel-yielding strain, the ductility of NFCBW2 is similar with that of
NFCB1unlike the strength enhancement.

Non-prestressed strengthened beams with end anchorageThe load-deflection behavior of

beam PFCB1-0R, which was strengthened with non-prestressed CFRP but with mechanical
anchorage installed, is given in Fig. 12 and compared to the behavior of beams Control-1 and
NFCB1. The presence of the mechanical anchorages on the non-prestressed strengthened
beams did not significantly affect the flexural behavior of the beam prior to debonding of the
CFRP strips. The first-cracking and steel-yielding load of beam PFCB1-0R were 24.5 kN
(5.51 kips) and 55.4 kN (12.47 kips) respectively, which represent almost same performance
in terms of strength and serviceability, compared to the beam without end anchorages. The
debonding load was 80.5 kN (18.11 kips), slightly larger than that of beam NFCB1, 77.0 kN
(17.33 kips).
However, the load-deflection behavior of beam PFCB1-0R after debonding is obviously
different from that of beam NFCB1. The first debonding of the CFRP strips occurred at one
shear span as the shear stress between strips and substrate exceeded the concrete shear and
tensile strength. At the same load level at which first debonding occurred, the second
debonding of the CFRP strips occurred at the other shear span, accompanied by a sharp drop
in load as can be clearly observed in Fig. 12. The behavior of the beam was similar to that of
an unbonded system due to the loss of full composite action after two debondings. The
further increase of the applied load was resisted by the unbonded CFRP strips fixed at both

11

ends of the beam by the mechanical anchorage. The loss of full composite action caused
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

further loss of member stiffness and resulted in further increase in deflection as the load
increased as shown in Fig. 12. The final failure of beam PFCB1-0R was governed by the
rupture of the CFRP strips with a drastic drop in load.
The experimental nominal strength was 81.8 kN, (18.41 kips) which was similar to the
debonding load of the CFRP strips. The maximum load attained was 121.5 kN (27.34 kips),
50% higher than the experimental nominal strength. This indicates that the use of anchorages
at both ends of CFRP strips without prestress does not contribute to an increase of the
experimental nominal strength but significantly increase the maximum capacity of the
strengthened beam as shown in Fig. 12. Even if there is twice strength fluctuation due to
debonding, the mechanical anchorage also significantly increased the ductility of the FRP
strengthened beam.

Prestressed strengthened beams The addition of non-prestressed CFRP strips slightly

enhanced the serviceability of the beam with a little increase in first-cracking and steelyielding load. But a significant increase of serviceability was achieved when the applied
strips were prestressed with an end anchorage system. The delay in first-cracking load also
led to a delay in steel-yielding load, resulting in a significant increase in member stiffness.
The enhancements in serviceability were in proportion to the level of prestress in each beam.
The initial cracking load of beam PFCB1-4R, for example, prestressed using 40% of the
ultimate tensile strength of the CFRP strips was 24.0 kN (5.40 kips) greater than the firstcracking load of the control beam. This represented an increase in first-cracking load over the
control beam of 133%. The maximum increase in first-cracking load was obtained in beam
PFCB1-7R prestressed using 70% of its ultimate tensile strength. The first-cracking load was

12

42.7 kN (9.61 kips) greater than that of the control beam, corresponding to an increase over
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

the control beam of 235% as shown in Fig. 13 and Table 2.

For beams PFCB1-2R, PFCB1-4R, PFCB1-6R, and PFCB1-7R which were strengthened
with prestressed CFRP strips with different level of prestressing, 20, 40, 60 and 70% of their
tensile strength respectively, the steel-yielding occurred at a load 77 to 186% higher than that
of the control beam in proportion to the level of prestress. This was due to the compression
forces induced in the concrete and the steel reinforcement due to the prestressed CFRP strips.
Also, the experimental nominal strength of the beams was increased by 123 to 155%
compared to the control. This indicated that the prestressed CFRP strips with the proposed
anchorage system can greatly contribute to an increase of member strength as well as member
serviceability. Nevertheless, the maximum loads of each beam attained from the test were
almost same regardless of the level of prestress. This was because the failure was governed
by the rupture of the CFRP strips in all cases. The CFRP strain at failure was within the range
of 12,218 to 13,508 regardless of their initial prestressing strain as can be seen in Table 2.

Large-scale beams testThe feasibility of strengthening concrete beams using prestressed

CFRP strips with the proposed anchorage system was also verified by a large-scale beam test.
The unstrengthened control beam Control-2 and one strengthened beam PFCB2-5R
prestressed to 50% of their ultimate tensile strength using two CFRP strips were tested. As
shown in Fig. 14, a significantly increase in first-cracking and steel-yielding load as well as
an experimental nominal strength was observed in the large-scale beam PFCB2-5R. The
prestressed CFRP strips increased the first-cracking and steel-yielding load by 105 and 49%
respectively. The experimental nominal strength of the prestressed strengthened beam was
59% higher than that of the unstrengthened control beam. Also, the overall flexural behavior
of the large-scale beams was similar to that of the small-scale beams; two instant load drops

13

after subsequent debondings of the CFRP strips, loss of further stiffness after a bonded
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

prestressing system switched into an unbonded system, and the final failure governed by the
rupture of the CFRP strips. In addition, the load-deflection curve exhibited large ductility
because the prestressing system with the end anchorage enables the strengthened beam to
have large deformability in spite of twice debonding.

Strain distribution in the CFRP strips

Fig. 15 shows the distribution of strains along the length of the prestressed CFRP strips at
different loading levels along one shear span of the beam. The linear strain distribution in the
CFRP strips was observed along the beam before steel-yielding, which was directly
proportional to the magnitude of the applied moment. After the steel reinforcing bars yielded,
the slope of the strain distribution increased dramatically within the region of steel-yielding,
representing the increased load carried by the CFRP strips. Finally, the slope of the strain
distribution along the shear span was drastically reduced after CFRP debonding, representing
the separation of the CFRP strips from the concrete substrate. This also indicated that the
bonded strengthening system behaved as an unbonded system due to loss of the full
composite action after debonding. However, a little strain gradient in the unbonded CFRP
strips remained due to a local friction force between the CFRP strips and concrete substrate.
The trend of the measured strains was similar for the small-scale and the large-scale beams as
shown in Fig. 15.

Optimum prestressing force

A new parameter, the experimental nominal strength of a concrete flexural member
strengthened using FRP materials was defined in this study as the smaller of "the load when a
FRP material failed by fracture" and "the load when a compressive strain in concrete reach

14

0.003. This parameter will be compared to analytical nominal strength later in this paper.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

Based on this analysis, the first-cracking load, the steel-yielding load, the experimental
nominal strength, and the maximum load attained for each tested beam are given in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, the first-cracking and the steel yielding load were significantly
increased for the strengthened beams prestressed to not less than 40% of the ultimate tensile
strength of the CFRP strip compared to both the unstrengthened beam and the nonprestressed strengthened beam. The delay in first-cracking and steel-yielding load increased
the overall member stiffness and contributed to the increase of serviceability. Also the
experimental nominal strength defined above increased in proportion to the level of prestress.
The strengthened beam prestressed using 70% of their ultimate tensile strength failed due to
rupture of the CFRP strips without any occurrence of CFRP debonding. This beam showed
an extremely brittle failure mode with a drastic decrease of load after failure. A ductile failure
mode, on the other hand, was observed in the beam prestressed to not more than 60% of the
ultimate tensile strength of the CFRP strips with a significant increase of serviceability and
flexural maximum strength. The two subsequent debondings of the CFRP strips prior to
CFRP rupture transformed the bonded prestressing system into an equivalent unbonded
system. The stress redistribution in the unbonded CFRP strips reduced the large strain around
mid-span of the beam, and delayed the rupture of the CFRP strip while increasing the
deflection until the unbonded CFRP strips reached their ultimate rupture strain. This failure
mechanism led to a ductile failure mode for the RC beams strengthened using prestressed
CFRP strips prestressed to not more than 60% of their ultimate tensile strength.
The average debonding strain on the CFRP strips measured was about 6,852, which
corresponds to nearly 50% of the ultimate tensile strain of the CFRP strips. Prestressing the
CFRP strips to not more than 60% of their ultimate tensile strength ensured a ductile failure
mode for the CFRP strengthened beams with a significant increase in both serviceability and

15

strength. This mechanism was verified by the large-scale beam test in this paper. An optimum
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

level of prestressing, 50% of the ultimate tensile strength of the CFRP strips is proposed
when strengthening a concrete beam using the prestressed CFRP system.

5. ANALYTICAL PREDICTION
In this section, the flexural behavior of a section strengthened by prestressed CFRP with the
proposed anchorage system is predicted on the basis of simple mechanics with recent code
equations. The cracking moment, yielding moment, and nominal moment at the first
debonding state are calculated by using strain compatibility and internal force equilibrium.
The three moments are compared with the test results.
The prestressing force (Pi) of CFRP bonded on the bottom induces eccentric moment as well
as compressive axial force. Fig. 16 shows the stress distribution of a prestressed FRPstrengthened section. The compressive strain in the bottom-end of the section (fb) and the
corresponding moment (Mpi) are calculated in equations (1) and (2).

(1)
(2)

where Ag, Ig, and rg are the gross sectional area, the moment of inertia of a gross concrete
section neglecting reinforcement, and radius of gyration of a gross section, respectively; y2
and ep are the distance of neutral axis from extreme tension fiber and the eccentric distance
from the bottom of a beam; Z2 is the section modulus of the FRP-strengthened section. The
prestressing force increase the moment capacities at cracking, yielding, and ultimate states by
the prestressing-induced moment (Mpi) since it resists the sagging deformation characteristic
of a beam experiencing bending. Therefore, cracking moment(Mcr), yielding moment (My),
and nominal moment (Mn) are computed as following equations (3) and (4) and (5).
16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

(3)

(4)

(5)

where d, h, k, k2, and a are the distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension
reinforcement, the height of a beam, ratio of depth of neutral axis to reinforcement depth
measured from extreme compression fiber, ratio of the distance between the extreme
compression fiber and the resultant of the compressive force to the depth of the neutral axis,
and the depth of equivalent rectangular stress block, respectively; f and fd are the strain level
in the FRP reinforcement and the debonding strain of externally bonded FRP reinforcement.
fr, f`c, and Ef are the flexural tensile strength, specified compressive strength of concrete, and
tensile modulus of elasticity of FRP.
An ultimate state controlled by concrete crushing is assumed to occur if the compressive
strain reaches 0.003. In the test specimens strengthened with prestressed FRP strips lower
than 60% of the CFRP tensile strength, the compressive strain in concrete reached 0.003
immediately when the FRP strips debonded. Therefore, the nominal moment is determined

17

when the FRP debonding occur. This study adopts the following debonding strain equation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

(ACI440.2R-08) modified from the original form proposed by Teng et al.[19,20]

(6)

where n and tf are the number of FRP strips and the thickness of a FRP strip.

Table 3 lists both analytical and experimental moments at cracking, yielding, and ultimate
states. The analytical approach predicts the similar increase rate of moment capacities at each
state as prestressed force increases. While the analytical cracking and yielding moments are
acceptably close to the measured moments in the experimental tests, the analytical nominal
moment is much lower than the experimental nominal moment by 38~57% because using the
ACI debonding stain equation have the nominal moments predicted conservatively. After the
first debonding points, the prestressed-FRP and the anchorage system indeed allow the
strengthened beams to reach the maximum moments until the FRP strips rupture in the
experimental tests. The 11th column shows the maximum strength when the FRP strips
rupture, and they are all similar because the failure modes are controlled by rupture of the
FRP strips. The 12th column presents the fraction of the maximum moments measured in the
experimental tests to the analytical nominal moments.

6. CONCLUSIONS
Eight small-scale and two large-scale tests were conducted to investigate the flexural
behavior of RC beams strengthened by bonded prestressed-CFRP strips and an anchorage
system. Most of past studies focused on FRP sheets or relatively low level of prestress on
FRP plates and flexural behavior up to debonding of FRP reinforcements. However, this

18

study include effects on relatively high level of prestress on CFRP strips as well as the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

flexural behavior after debonding. The research results and findings are presented below.
1. The beam strengthened using non-prestressed CFRP strips without end anchorage
failed due to debonding of the CFRP strips at about 50% of the ultimate tensile
strength of the CFRP with a slight increase in serviceability.
2. Prestressed CFRP strips can significantly improve serviceability of reinforced
concrete beams by increasing member stiffness because of increase and delay of firstcracking and steel-yielding load, respectively in proportion to the level of prestress
compared to an unstrengthened concrete beam. The enhancement in serviceability
was also verified in a large-scale beam test.
3. Significant increases in the flexural strength of the beams were also observed. The
first-cracking and steel-yielding strength increased by 133 to 235% and 77 to 186%
and the experimental nominal strength increased by 123 to 155% over the
unstrengthened control beams. The enhancement in strength was also verified in a
large-scale beam test.
4. The proposed prestressing system with end anchorages allowed the concrete beams
prestressed by not more than 60% of the ultimate tensile strength of the CFRP strips
to resist additional loads(up to maximum strength) in a ductile manner. On the other
hand, the beam prestressed to 70% of the ultimate tensile strength of the CFRP strips
showed an extremely brittle failure mode caused by rupture of the CFRP strips
without any occurrence of CFRP debonding.
5. Debondings of the CFRP strips was observed at two stages of loadings which
transformed the bonded prestressing system into an unbonded system. In this
debonding mechanism, the proposed durable anchorage system helps strain

19

distribution along the FRP strips and induces a large deformability to the CFRP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

rupture.
6. In strengthening a concrete beam using prestressed CFRP strips, a maximum
allowable prestressing force, 50% of their ultimate tensile strength is, in authors
opinion, proposed with some safety margin.
7. The computed nominal moment of a prestressed-FRP strengthened beam are
underestimated in comparison with the experimental nominal moment because of
using the ACI debonding strain equation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is a part of research project supported by the Korea Institute of Construction and
Transportation Fund under the E01-01. The authors wish to express their gratitude and
sincere appreciation to the authority of KICTTEP for financing this research work

REFERENCES
1. Meier U. Strengthening of structures using carbon fibre/epoxy composites. Constr
Build Mater 1995; 9(6):341-351.
2. Seim W, Hrman M, Karbhari V, Seible F. External FRP poststrengthening of scaled
concrete slabs. J Compos Constr 2001;5(2):67-75.
3. Camata G, Spacone E, Saouma V. Debonding failure of RC structural members
strengthened with FRP lamimates. In: Proceedings 6th International Symposium on
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (iFRPRCS-6).
2003. p. 267-276.
4. ACI Committee 440. Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI440.2R-08). American

20

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

5. Motavalli M, Czaderski C. FRP Composites for Retrofitting of Existing Civil

Structures in Europe: State-of-the-Art Review. In: COMPOSITES & POLYCON 2007.
Tampa, FL: American Composites Manufacturers Association, 2007.

6. Sayed-Ahmed EY, Bakay R, Shrive NG. Bond strength of FRP laminates to concrete:
State-of-the-Art Review. Electron J Struct Eng 2009;9.
7. Wight RG, Green MF, Erki MA. Strengthening concrete beams with prestressed FRP
sheets. J Compos Constr 2001;5(4):214-220.
8. El-Hacha R, Wight G, Green M. Prestressed carbon fiber reinforced polymer sheets
for strengthening concrete beams at room and low temperatures. J Compos Constr
2004;8(1):3-13.
9. Garden HN, Hollaway LC. An experimental study of the failure modes of reinforced
concrete beams strengthened with prestressed carbon composite plates. Composites
Part B 1998;29(4):411424.
10. Triantafillou TC, Deskovic N. Deuring M. Strengthening of concrete structures with
prestressed fiber reinforced plastic sheets. ACI Struct J 1992;89(3): 235-244.
11. Wight RG, Green MF, Erki MA. Post-strengthening concrete beams with prestressed
FRP sheets. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Non-Metallic
(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-2). Ghent, Belgium, Aug,
1995. p. 568-575.
12. El-Hacha R, Grren M, Wight G. Innovative system for prestressing fiber reinforced
polymer sheets. ACI Struct J 2003;100(3):305313.
13. Triantafillou TC, Deskovic N. Innovative prestressing with FRP sheets: Mechanics of
Short-Term Behavior. J Eng Mech 1991;117(7):1652-1672.
14. Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani M. RC beams strengthened with GFRP plates: Part I:

21

Experimental study. J Struct Eng 1991;117(11):3417-3433.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

15. Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC. The flexural rehabilitation of reinforced concrete beams
by the use of prestressed advanced composite plates. Compos Sci Technol
1998;58:1259-1275.
16. Kim YJ, Longworth M, Wight G, Green M. Flexure of two-way slabs strengthened
with prestressed or nonprestressed CFRP sheets. J Compos Constr 2008;12(4):366374.
17. Kim YJ, Shi C, Green MF. Ductility and cracking behavior of prestressed concrete
beams strengthened with prestressed CFRP sheets. J Compos Constr 2008;12(3):274
283.
18. Pellegrino C, Modena C. Flexural strengthening of real-Scale RC and PRC beams
with end-anchored pretensioned FRP laminates. ACI Struct J 2009;106(3).
19. Teng JG, Lu X Z, Ye LP, Jiang JJ. Resent research on intermediate crack induced
debonding in FRP strengthened beams. In: Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Advanced Composite Materials for Bridges and Structures. Calgary,
Canada, 2004.
20. Teng JG, Smith ST, Yao J, Chen JF. Intermediate crack induced debonding in RC
beams and slabs. Constr Build Mater 2001;17(6-7):447-462.

22

TABLES AND FIGURES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

List of Tables:
Table 1 Beam list and strengthening details
Table 2 Summary of test results
Table 3 Experimental and analytical moment capacity

List of Figures:
Fig. 1 Details of beams (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.) (a) Small-scale beam (b) Large-scale
beam
Fig. 2 Schematic drawing of prestressing system
Fig. 3 Jacking assemblage for the small-scale beams
Fig. 4 Loss of prestressing strain in CFRP strips
Fig. 5 Jacking assemblage for the large-scale beam
Fig. 6 Test set-up (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 7 Position of strain and PI gages (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 8 Typical debonding failure of beam strengthened using non-prestressed CFRP strips
without end anchorage
Fig. 9 Typical failure for beam strengthened using non-prestressed CFRP strips with end
anchorage
Fig. 10 Typical failure of beam strengthened using prestressed CFRP strips (a) Not more
than 60% of ultimate tensile strength of CFRP strips (b) 70% of ultimate tensile strength of
CFRP strips
Fig. 11 Load-deflection response of non-prestressed strengthened small-scale beams
without end anchorage (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 12 Load-deflection response of non-prestressed strengthened small-scale beams

23

with/without end anchorage (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
63
64
65

Fig. 13 Load-deflection response of prestressed strengthened small-scale beams (Note: 1

mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 14 Load-deflection response of prestressed strengthened large-scale beams (Note: 1
mm = 0.039 in.)
Fig. 15 Strain distribution in CFRP strips at different loading levels (Note: 1 mm = 0.039
in.) (a) Small-scale beam (PFCB1-6R) (b) Large-scale beam (PFCB2-5R)
Fig. 16 - Stress distribution of a prestressed FRP-strengthened section

24

Table

Table 1 Beam list and strengthening details

Beam

External
prestressing

Anchorage

Number of
CFRP strips

Level of
prestressing
force*

Scale

Control-1
NFCB1
NFCBW2
PFCB1-0R

Not strengthened
Non-prestressed
Non-prestressed
Non-prestressed

None
None
None
End anchorages

None
1
2
1

None
None
None
None

Small-scale
Small-scale
Small-scale
Small-scale

PFCB1-2R
PFCB1-4R
PFCB1-6R
PFCB1-7R
Control-2
PFCB2-5R

Prestressed
Prestressed
Prestressed
Prestressed
Not strengthened
Prestressed

End anchorages
End anchorages
End anchorages
End anchorages
None
End anchorages

1
1
1
1
None
2

20%
40%
60%
70%
None
50%

Small-scale
Small-scale
Small-scale
Small-scale
Large-scale
Large-scale

relative to ultimate strength of CFRP strips

Table 2Summary of test results

Jacking
Strain of
CFRP
strip

Cracking
load

Yield
load

Debonding
Load of CFRP
strip

jak_f
()

Pcr
(kN)

Py
(kN)

Pde
(kN)

de
()

Pn
(kN)

n_f
()

Pmax
(kN)

max_f
()

Control-1

18.2

40.4

47.0

50.5

NFCB1

13.7

56.3

77.0

6,852

74.6

6,477

76.4

6,852

6,852

96.4

5,191

5,191

Name

Experimental
Nominal load
(c=0.003) a)

60.7

69.9

98.4

5,192

PFCB1-0R

24.5

55.4

80.5

7,002

81.8

7,109

121.5

12,218

12,218

PFCB1-2R

2,367

26.4

71.6

105.0

8,309

105.0

8,309

123.0

10,317

12,684

PFCB1-4R

5,011

42.4

85.2

120.1

6,882

120.2

6,787

125.2

7,239

12,250

PFCB1-6R

7,410

51.8

100.5

119.6

6,023

119.6

6,023

122.8

6,098

13,508

PFCB1-7R

8,069

61.0

115.5

126.5

4,987

13,056

Control-2

58.3

262.3

290.5

328.5

PFCB2-5R

6,648

119.8

390.6

461.1

7,217

461.1

6,287

502.1

8,645

15,293

c)

f_f
()

NFCBW2

Note : a) load when the strain at concrete compressive fiber reach 0.003
b) f_f= jak_f +max_f
c) fail to measure
1 kN = 0.225 kip

c)

Maximum load

Final
strain of
CFRP
strip b)

Table 3 - Experimental and analytical moment capacity

Mya)(kN-m)

Mcr(kN-m)
Name
cal

exp

PFCB1-0R

10.5

14.7

PFCB1-2R

15.9

PFCB1-4R

exp

Mn(kN-m)
exp

expn

expnb)

1.17

34.6

49.1

1.42

72.9

2.11

43.0

1.27

40.0

63.0

1.57

73.8

1.84

40.3

51.1

1.27

46.5

72.1

1.55

75.1

1.61

1.05

46.8

60.3

1.29

53.0

71.8

1.35

73.7

1.39

1.12

472.5

585.9

1.24

502.9

691.6

1.38

753.2

1.50

exp

1.31

28.4

33.2

15.8

0.95

33.9

22.4

25.4

1.10

PFCB1-6R

28.9

31.1

PFCB2-5R

160.5

179.7

/cal

a) Moment at steel-yielding b) Experimental nominal moment at

c) Experimental maximum moment at CFRP rupture

/cal

c=0.003

/cal

expmc)

expm

cal

cal

/cal

Figure

2,700
150

2,400

150

A's : 3-D13
Stirrup : D10@100

300

3-D13

As : 3-D10
CFRP Strips

CFRP strips
145

3-D10

Concrete cover: 30mm

D10@100

200

1,900

(a) Small-scale beam

6,800
400

A s : 3 -D19

6,000

400

600

3-D19

As : 5-D22
2-CFRP strips
Concrete cover : 30mm

Anchorage

CFRP Strips

5-D22

D10@100

400

(b) Large-scale beam

Fig. 1Details of beams (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

Concrete Beam
Prestressing Force
Concrete

Anchor Bolt
Base Plate
Base Plate
Bearing Plate

CFRP Strips
Bearing Plate

Fastening Bolt
Grip Anchor at Live End

Grip Anchor at Dead End

Fig. 2Schematic drawing of the prestressing system

Jacking
Anchor

Fig. 3Jacking assemblage for small-scale beams

Fig. 4Loss of prestressing strain in CFRP strips

Fig. 5Jacking assemblage for large-scale beam

Hydraulic actuator
Rubber pad
Concrete beam

Grip
anchor

CFRP strips

2,400 (small-scale beam)

6,400 (large-scale beam)

Fig. 6Test set-up (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

Concrete gaue

L1, L2
Strain Gage

PI Gage
CFRP strip

150

150

150

150

150

Grip
anchor

150

Fig. 7Position of strain and PI gages (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

10
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
10

Fig. 8Typical debonding failure of beam strengthened using non-prestressed CFRP

strips without end anchorage

Fig. 9Typical failure for beam strengthened using non-prestressed CFRP strips with
end anchorage

(a) Not more than 60% of ultimate tensile strength of CFRP strips

(b) 70% of ultimate tensile strength of CFRP strips

Fig. 10Typical failure of beam strengthened using prestressed CFRP strips

10

Fig. 11 Load-deflection response of non-prestressed strengthened small-scale beams

without end anchorage (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

11

Fig. 12 Load-deflection response of non-prestressed strengthened small-scale beams

with/without end anchorage (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

12

Fig. 13 Load-deflection response of prestressed strengthened small-scale beams (Note:

1 mm = 0.039 in.)

13

Fig. 14 Load-deflection response of prestressed strengthened large-scale beams (Note:

1 mm = 0.039 in.)

14

after CFRP
debonding
after steel
yielding

before
steel
yielding

(a) Small-scale beam (PFCB1-6R)

(b) Large-scale beam (PFCB2-5R)

Fig. 15Strain distribution in CFRP strips at different loading levels (Note: 1 mm =
0.039 in.)

15

-Pi/Ag

-Pi/Ag(1-ep*y1/rg2)

+Pi*ep*y1/Ig

A's
y1(kd)

y2(ep)
As
Af

-Pi/Ag

-Pi*ep*y2/Ig

-Pi/Ag(1+ep*y2/rg2)

Fig. 16 - Stress distribution of a prestressed FRP-strengthened section

16