Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ABSTRACT: When RC beams are strengthened by FRP plates bonded to the bottom face of the beam they
fail due to the lack of the mechanical anchorage of the plate. This paper shows that it is possible to relate the
anchorage failure of tension face FRP-plated beams to the crack sliding capacity of the beams.
The method suggested gives the highly desirable occurrence of the critical diagonal shear crack. The occurrence of this crack is suggested as the anchorage failure mechanism of the plate. The failure load that produces
the sliding in such crack is shown to be a lower bound to the anchorage failure load of tension face plated
beams. The assumption is that the FRP-plate must be extended at least one critical anchorage length beyond the
theoretical occurrence of the critical diagonal crack.
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.
beam.
1069
M ( x) 1
+ V ( x)cot
h
2
(1)
Here is the inclination of the diagonal compression field and M and V are the moment and shear section forces, respectively. h is the beam height.
It is seen that the tensile force T is thus not only
equal to the value M/ h from the section with bending moment only but due to the presence of the compressive stresses in normal sections of the web it
increases, Nielsen (1998). Not being able to establish
the same tensile force distribution in an FRP plate as
given in eq. (1), at the limit state, must mean that in
general the elastic solutions (normally based on an
elastic stress state at the plate end) fail to give rational
solutions of the anchorage failure.
The literature describes the anchorage failure of
FRP tension face plated beams very well and there
is a general agreement in the description. Quantrill
et al. (1996) describe the dominant failure in the
tests they conducted as the plate separation failure.
This plate separation occurs at the plate end near
the support with the concrete cover still attached
to the plate. Garden and Hollaway (1998) investigate the influence of the plate end anchorage. They
find the plate separation failure as the most common
failure due to the peeling action at the end of the
plate. They write that this failure is influenced by
the shear span to depth ratio of the beam: increasing ratio leads to the plate separation being initiated away from the plate end towards the constant
moment region. Oh et al. (2003) recognize the plate
separation failure as the rip-off failure that occurs
at the cover to internal reinforcement ratio but they
also describe the same type of failure occurring in
the interface between the adhesive and the concrete.
One more extensive description of the anchorage
failure mechanisms is due to Teng and Yao (2007).
They describe major failure modes as the critical
diagonal cracking (CDC) debonding of the plate
and the cover separation failure. Their description
is somewhat comprehensive and it even contains the
combinations of these failures.
Ali et al. (2001) and Oehlers et al. (2004) use
the crack sliding theory for FRP tension face plated
beams. This paper gives a brief discussion of their
solutions.
METHODS
1
h
f c ub(1 cos )
u
2
sin
(2)
(3)
1070
Due to the lack of perfect plasticity of the concrete compressive strength a so-called effectiveness
factor must be introduced. The effectiveness factor
also covers the strength reductio due to the cracking.
In the beam shear problem the effectiveness factor
is a product of functions f depending on concrete
strength, the beam height (size effect), the reinforcement ratio = As/bh and the relative shear span a/ h.
he f-functions are written as
f1 ( f c ) =
3.5
[MPa ]
fc
(4a)
f 2 ( h) = 0.27 1 +
[m]
(4b)
f 3 ( ) = 15 + 0.58 [%]
(4c)
a
a
(4d)
2.2
(5)
Figure 3.
1071
1
bf c ( h2 + ( a x )2 ( a x ))
2
(6)
a x
fc 1 +
h
( )
a x
1+ h
a x
= f t .ef a 1 c
h
h + 2 h
(7)
v0 = f1 ( f c ) f 2 (h) f 3 ( )
2.4
(8)
is the load factor: 1.6 for point load. The effective tensile strength of concrete is given by Zhang (1997) to
f t .ef = 0.6 f t s( h),
f t = 0.26 f c 2 / 3 ,
0.3
h
s( h) =
0.1
(9)
2.3
(a x) 2 + h 2
b f t f f tf
h
(10)
2 +
a
h2
(11)
ftef is given in eq. (9).
1072
3.5
fc
8.54
0.27 +
f 3 ( f )
h
f1 ( f c ) f 2 ( h) f 3 ( ) / 1 KW
(12)
Fps + Paxial
Pu = 0.4 f c bh 1 + 2
f c bh
a x
a x
1+
(14)
RESULTS
f t ( m p Af L f )
bf t .ef
+
Pcr = ( x 2 + h2 )
h2
+ Fps d ps /( L0 + K M + KW e)
(13)
where Af and Lf are the cross-sectional area of a rectangular section of the plate and the lever arm from
the centroid of the rectangular section to the focal
point O, respectively. Fps is the prestressing force
and dps is the lever arm of the prestressing force
from the focal point. They define the crack sliding
load as
1073
1074
1T6LN
2T6LN
274LN
A-S1
A-S2
B-S1
B-S2
1B
3B
AF4
AF10
AF11
DF2
DF3
DF4
5
B1u1.0
B2u.10
B1u2.3
1Au
1Bu
1B2u
2Bu
1Cu
2Cu
2Au
3Au
3Bu
3Cu
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
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
150
150
150
100
100
100
100
154
151
125
200
200
125
125
125
150
100
100
130
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
150
150
150
150
250
250
225
150
150
225
225
225
250
100
100
230
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
167
167
167
133
133
133
133
220
220
197
125
125
197
197
197
210
87
87
211
150
150
150
110
150
110
110
50
50
50
250
250
250
100
100
100
100
250
250
250
300
300
250
250
250
250
150
150
256
L1
280
280
280
320
280
320
320
380
380
380
480
480
480
350
350
350
350
475
450
450
750
750
450
450
450
450
280
280
804
L2
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
50
50
50
50
25
50
50
0
0
50
50
50
50
20
20
40
L3
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
46.70
47.80
62.10
62.10
39.50
39.50
41.60
41.60
31.10
44.70
41.00
48.60
48.60
46.00
46.00
46.00
40.10
42.70
42.70
37.10
fc
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
460
460
460
500
500
500
500
506
506
568
575
575
568
568
568
537
350
350
556
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
fy
Tensile reinf.
Beam details
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
8.00
10.00
10.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
10.00
6.00
6.00
10.00
dt
Internal reinforcement
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
10
10
6
6
6
6
6
6
10
2.99
2.99
6
dw
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
75
75
75
100
100
100
100
100
100
71
150
150
100
100
100
100
51
51
150
fyw
Shear reinf.
Table 1. Test database of four-point bending tests exhibiting the cover separation failure, Teng and Yao (2007).
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
250
250
250
500
500
500
500
506
506
553
250
250
553
553
553
537
350
350
350
sw
0.500
0.700
0.700
0.700
1.000
1.000
0.500
0.500
0.700
1.000
0.660
0.660
0.440
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
0.330
0.330
0.334
0.800
0.800
0.334
0.501
0.668
2.640
0.820
0.820
1.280
tf
90
65
65
65
45
45
90
90
65
45
150
150
150
50
50
50
50
150
147
75
150
150
75
75
75
150
67
67
90
bf
FRP details
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
235
235
235
165
165
165
165
271
257
240
127
127
240
240
240
20
111
111
115
Ef
1273
1273
1273
1273
1273
1273
1273
1273
1273
1273
4200
4200
4200
2600
2600
2600
2600
3720
4519
3500
1532
1532
3500
3500
3500
259
1414
1414
1284
ftf
5.94
5.49
5.46
5.78
4.80
6.05
6.56
7.80
6.92
6.16
29.05
34.00
33.35
15.72
16.84
14.04
15.12
33.40
32.65
27.75
25.35
26.03
30.15
30.00
31.40
39.70
5.49
4.80
42.37
Mu
5.26
5.26
5.26
5.70
5.26
5.70
5.70
6.34
6.34
6.34
21.49
24.89
24.89
8.93
8.93
9.19
9.19
21.51
25.88
18.12
27.97
27.97
19.84
19.84
19.84
24.19
5.01
5.01
27.12
Mtheory
Comparison
Note: For the origin of the data see Teng and Yao (2007). The units are mm, kN, MPa and GPa for Ef . L1, L2 and L3 are the horizontal distance from the middle of the beam to
the first loading point, from the loading point to the plate end and from the plate end to the support point, respectively. For other quantities see List of symbols. The predicted
moment values are found by satisfying (7) and inserting the corresponding x into (5) or (6). The achieved force P is multiplied with a = L2 + L3 in order to get Mtheory. Mu is
maximum moment by applying the test failure loads from the database.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
B2
B4
B6
A1c
A2b
A2c
G
M
100
100
100
100
100
100
152
152
100
100
100
100
100
100
305
305
87
87
87
87
87
87
257
257
150
150
150
150
150
150
305
305
280
280
280
280
280
280
914
914
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
41.90
41.90
41.90
55.30
33.20
33.20
43.00
43.00
350
350
350
350
350
350
414
414
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
12.70
12.70
2.99
2.99
2.99
3
3
3
7.94
7.94
50
50
50
100
100
100
102
102
350
350
350
350
350
350
414
414
1.200
1.600
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
4.190
1.270
80
60
80
80
80
80
152
152
49
49
119
49
49
49
10
118
1078
1078
987
1078
1078
1078
184
1489
5.10
5.25
6.12
6.60
5.52
5.61
57.49
65.90
4.95
4.95
4.95
5.78
4.35
4.35
46.95
46.95
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Angle between the diagonal crack and the longitudinal axis of the beam
Load type factor
Mean shear stress distribution along the beam
height
1075
REFERENCES
Ali, M.S.M., Oehlers, J.D., and Bradford, M.A. (2001).
Shear peeling of steel plates bonded to tension faces
of RC beams. Journal of structural engineering,
127(12):14531459.
1076