Construction and Building

Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 901909

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

An experimental and numerical study of the eect of thickness and length of CFRP on performance of repaired reinforced concrete beams
L.J. Li
a

a,*

, Y.C. Guo a, F. Liu a, J.H. Bungey

Faculty of Construction Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510643, PR China b Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GQ, UK Received 23 July 2004; received in revised form 29 October 2004; accepted 30 June 2005 Available online 19 August 2005

Abstract Experimental and numerical analyses are performed to predict the loading carrying capacity of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with carbon bre reinforced plastics (CFRP) composites. The eect of CFRP thickness and length on the failure load and ductility is studied and curves of initial cracking load, ultimate load, stiness, ductility and bre stresses are presented. The results of tests and simulations show a good agreement and indicate that, in contrast with a control beam, initial cracking loads of strengthened beams increase slightly, whilst stiness and ductility increase more and the ultimate loads increase considerably. Stresses in the carbon bre decrease with the increase of bre sheet thickness. Cracking patterns of strengthened beams are improved. Crack propagation varies with the change of bre length and results in the variation of failure mode of beams. Variation of the length of CFRP sheet is the main reason of variation of the stress of interface. Therefore, debonding failure, unless adequately considered in the design process, may signicantly decrease the eectiveness of the strengthening. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete beams; Carbon bre sheets; Test; Strengthening; Numerical simulation

1. Introduction It has been shown through experimental, numerical and theoretical studies [14] that externally bonded CFRP composites can be used to eectively improve the desired performance of a structural member such as its load carrying capacity, stiness, ductility, performance under cyclic and fatigue loading, as well as environmental durability. However, from the structural mechanics point of view, an important concern regarding the eectiveness and safety of this method is the potential of brittle debonding failure [5,6]. In present

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1517945214; fax: +44 1517945218. E-mail address: lilj@scnu.edu.cn (L.J. Li).

years, many of the calculation methods for CFRP strengthening are based on bre cracking or concrete crushing mode. For debonding failure, which is a typical failure type of strengthening problems, there is not a mature and eective numerical method to use. Consequently, such failure, unless adequately considered in the design process, may signicantly decrease the eectiveness of the strengthening. In the early 1990, Oehlers and Moran [7] had pointed out that it was the shear stresses of interface that were the main cause of debonding failure, and they also gave a method for debonding failure calculation. Later papers provided some modication and supplementation for that method [811]. Debonding failure not only has relationship with interface shear stresses but also with interface normal stresses. It has been shown from the studies of [12,13], that

0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.06.020

902

L.J. Li et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 901909

it is the distance between the end of bres and the support point that is the principal factor inuencing increase of interface stresses. The eect of length and thickness of CFRP on stresses at the interface will inuence performance, cracking patterns and failure type of strengthened beams, even if denite debonding failure does not happen. [14] has studied the eect of length of FRP on performance of beams, however, it deals with Glass bre and only a single layer bre is considered. There is not much research about this matter. There exists an optimum length when multilayer bres are used to strengthen beams, so it is necessary to carry out some experimental and numerical studies for debonding failure as well as the eect of thickness and length of CFRP on performance of strengthened beams.

Dimensions of the beams are b h = 120 200, length, l = 2000, clear span l0 = 1800, are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Tables 13 give the material properties of members and strengthening material respectively. The reinforcing steel is designed so that there is no crushing of compressive concrete before the steel yields. (In Fig. 2(a) B00 represents reference beam.) 200 kN pressure transducer is set in the middle of pressure distribution beam to measure strength of specimen. 60 points static strain measure system is used to measure strains of specimen, in which strain chips are set at bottom and side surface of the center of test beams. Deection gauges are set at the middle, loading points and support points of test beams to measure displacement as shown in Fig. 2(b).

2. Experiment design and preparation 2.1. Design of experimental member Four-point bending test is carried out for rectangular beams in a large testing frame of 2000 kN capacity.

Table 2 Physical characteristics of carbon bre Length (mm) 0.11 Tensile strength (MPa) 4100 Elastic modulus (GPa) 231 Crack ductility (%) 1.7 Specic gravity (g/cm3) 1.78

6@100

Table 3 Physical characteristics of epoxy

8

Tensile strength (MPa) 68

Tensile modulus (MPa) 3400

Crack ductility (%) 3.1

Elastic modulus (MPa) 3190

Specic gravity (g/cm3) 1.16

Fig. 1. Design and loading of RC beam.

Fig. 2. Flexural test of beams: (a) testing beams; (b) equipment location along the specimen.

Table 1 Test results of material properties Material (MPa) Sample 1 Yield strength /6 Hoop steel /8 Reinforcement Compressive strength of concrete prism 452.94 318.34 37.9 Ultimate strength 576.79 410.03 Sample 2 Yield strength 477.71 314.5 38.7 Ultimate strength 559.1 406.05 Sample 3 Yield strength 474.17 338.38 40.1 Ultimate strength 566.17 427.95 Average Yield strength 468.27 323.74 38.9 Ultimate strength 567.35 414.68

L.J. Li et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 901909

903

Fig. 3. Scheme of strengthening test: (a) B11 with 0.6 m CFRP; (b) B12 with 1.2 m CFRP; (c) B13 with 1.6 m CFRP; (d) B21 with 1.60.6 m CFRP; (e) B22 with 1.61.2 m CFRP; (f) B23 with 1.61.6 m CFRP.

2.2. Test scheme Two types of strengthened beams, i.e. a single layer strengthening and a double layer strengthening, and three lengths of CFRP, i.e. 0.6, 1.2 and 1.6 m are considered. Fibres are used at the bottom of beams and are shown in Fig. 3(a), represented by B11, B12 and B13, respectively for single layers. In the second type of beam, 1.6 m length of CFRP is used as a rst layer for all the beams, and then three lengths of CFRP, i.e. 0.6, 1.2 and 1.6 m, are used as the second layer of strengthening, shown in Fig. 3(d)(f) and represented by B21, B22 and B23, respectively. Due to symmetry only half portions of the beams are displayed. The beams are subjected to a four-point static load up to failure with an increment of 3 kN, as illustrated in Fig. 2(a).

of thickness and length of CFRP after cracking has happened. Fig. 4(a) shows longer CFRP can eciently restrain the crack development than shorter ones, Fig. 4(b) shows bi-layer strengthening CFRP can eciently restrain the crack development than uni-layer strengthening ones. Test results demonstrate that the length and thickness of CFRP inuence crack patterns and ultimate failure modes of beams. CFRP is adhered only in the pure bending part of beam B11. When beam B11 is loaded, cracks appear in the end parts of bres and propagate along at angle of 45 with the beam axis. Strengthening eect is not obvious because shear failure happens in this beam, which fails even earlier than the reference beam (RB) as indicated in Fig. 4(a). It is the quality problem of the construction process that inuences the strength of beam B13 and results in failure of this beam earlier than beam B12 as shown in Fig. 4(a). (In the following Figures RB represents reference beam.) 3.2. Ductility

3. Test results 3.1. Stiness of strengthened beams Fig. 4 shows the load versus mid-span deection curves of strengthened RC beams. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that deections of all the strengthened beams are reduced under the same load compared with the reference beam, which indicates that CFRP can signicantly improve stiness of strengthened RC beams. Variations of the stiness of beams are not evident prior to tensile cracks appearing on the strengthened beam. The stiness of the beam then increases with the increase Moment versus curvature curves give the macro mechanical properties of members and are reection of the member ductility. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that curvatures increase slowly with the increase of moment and retain the linear relationship prior to cracking of the tensile concrete, but increase rapidly after the concrete cracked. The speed of curvature increase of the reference beam is far faster than that of the strengthened beams. It can be seen from Fig. 5(b) that there is not much dierence among curvature curves when two layers of CFRP

60 50

60 50

Load/KN

40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10

Load/KN

RB B11 B12 B13

15 20

40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15

B13 B21 B22 B23

20

Deflection/mm

Deflection/mm

Fig. 4. Load-deection curves of strengthened RC beams: (a) loaddeection curves of single layer strengthening; (b) loaddeection curves of double layer strengthening.

904
20

L.J. Li et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 901909

20

Moment/KN.m

MOment/KN.

15 10 5 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

15 10 5 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

RB B11 B12 B13

B13 B21 B22 B23

Curvature 1/m

Curvature 1/m

Fig. 5. Moment versus curvature curves of strengthened RC beams: (a) momentcurvature of uni-layer strengthening; (b) momentcurvature of bilayer strengthening.

70 60

Load/KN

50 40 30 20 10
0

B11 B12 B13 B21 B22 B23

0 500 1000 1500 2000

strengthened beams. If properly anchored, the bres will be snapped and strengthening level is low, whilst concrete will crush or have shear fracture when the level of strengthening is relatively higher, depending on the reinforcement ratio and the length of the bre reinforcement.

4. Finite element method (FEM) analyses 4.1. Discretization

Stress/ MPa
Fig. 6. Loadstress curves of bres at mid-span of strengthened RC beams.

are used to strengthen beams. The length of the second strengthening CFRP layer has little inuence on curvature. 3.3. Stresses of bre Fig. 6 shows the stresses of bres in the mid span of the beams. It can be seen that loads are carried mainly by concrete prior to the beam cracking. At this time, the slopes of curves of load versus stress are steep. When cracks expand and reinforcing steel yields, more cracks occur in the tensile region, stresses in concrete release and loads are carried by bres more than by concrete. There is thence, high strength contribution from the bres. It can be seen from Fig. 6 that bigger stresses exist in the longer bre under the same load. The stresses in bres with two-layer strengthening are much smaller than in the case of single layer strengthening. Ultimate stresses of bres are related with failure mode of

In the numerical analysis, a nite element program is used to perform a failure analysis of the rectangular reinforced beams strengthened by CFRP. An 8-node solid element (three degrees of freedom per node) is used to model the reinforced concrete beams. Because the bre-reinforced plastics are relatively thin compared to the concrete beam, they are modelled by a 4-node shell element (six degrees of freedom per node). The CFRP shell elements are attached to the bottom surface of the concrete beam directly and a perfect bonding between CFRP and the concrete is assumed. As is shown in Fig. 7. 4.2. Material properties and constitutive models of concrete beams A 5-factor WillamWarnke failure criterion [15] is used in calculation to simulate concrete cracking or crushing. The cracking constitutive model [16] is shown in Fig. 8, in which parallel cracks appear in the direction that is perpendicular to maximal primary stress or

Fig. 7. Finite element model of strengthened RC beams.

L.J. Li et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 901909

905

smeared throughout the element section and the bondslip eect between concrete and steel is not considered. 4.4. Numerical analysis 4.4.1. Calculation of stresses at the bottom of beams Curves of equivalent stress versus length of beams are shown in Fig. 9. Maximum stress happens at the end of the bres for beam B11, whilst it happens at the support points for beam B12 and B13. Shear failure of beam B11 happens at the region near the end of bres under load of 35 kN. It can be seen from Fig. 9(a) that equivalent stresses are almost the same for beam B12 as for B13, which demonstrates that, if properly anchored, increased length of CFRP does not improve concrete properties greatly when the strengthening length reaches some limiting value. For two-layer CFRP strengthened beams, as is shown in Fig. 9(b), larger stresses in beam B21 appear at mid span and near the loading points of the beam, and the cracks will generate at these places. Fibre stresses are still within its tensile strength limit under the load of 55 kN. Fibres can carry the tensile loads and the same with the concrete beams. Beams B22 and B23 have almost the same ability of sustaining stress increases. When load increases to 60 kN, large number of cracks are produced at the bottom of beams but the bre is still below its tensile strength. When exural cracks appear at mid span of the beams, there will be stress concentrations at the front point of the cracks, and then bigger interface shear stresses will appear which will result in the debonding failure between concrete and CFRP. Debonding failure usually happens under this condition.

Fig. 8. Stressstrain curves for cracking concrete: (a) stressstrain curve for tension cracking model; (b) stressstrain curve for crush model.

strain of concrete under tensile stresses. At this time, the stresses perpendicular to the cracks reduce to zero, only the stresses being parallel to the cracks remain. When the concrete crushes under compression, the stresses in the concrete are assumed to decrease to zero abruptly and the load carrying capacity is thus lost. Table 4 gives material constants for the concrete beams, with the choice of some of the constants based on bridge design code [17]. 4.3. Constitutive models of CFRP composites and steel The bre-reinforced plastics are considered as an elastic material. When any layer of material reaches its ultimate tensile strength, it will lose its load carrying capacity completely. Only ultimate strength is used in calculation of the contribution of CFRP. The steel reinforcement used in the beam is assumed to have a yielding stress of 320 MPa and the stress versus strain curve of the reinforcing bar is assumed to be elastic perfectly plastic [18]. In the nite element program used, the steel reinforcement is treated as an equivalent uniaxial material

Table 4 Constants of concrete materials Elastic modulus (N/mm2) 3.6 104 Poissons ratio Cracking shear stress transfer coecient 0.1 Closed crack shear stress transfer coecient 0.5 Uniaxial tensile strength (N/mm2) 2.85 Uniaxial compressive strength (N/mm2) 38.9 Cracking stiness discount coecient 0.6

0.2

20

20

Stress/MPa

Stress/MPa

15 10 5 0 0

B11 B12 B13 RB

16 12 8 4

B21 B22 B23 RB

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Position/m

Position/ m

Fig. 9. Equivalent tensile stresses of left half of beam at the bottom of strengthened RC beams measured from beam end: (a) beams strengthened with uni-layer CFRP; (b) beams strengthened with bi-layer CFRP.

906

L.J. Li et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 901909

Fig. 10. Stresses of carbon bre in strengthened RC beams: (a) bre stresses of uni-layer strengthening at 35 kN; (b) bre stresses of bi-layer strengthening at 35 kN.

4.4.2. Stresses in carbon bre Curves of bre stresses versus length of beams are shown in Fig. 10. It can be seen from Fig. 10(a) that bre stresses at the end part are much lower than in the mid part. When 0.6 m CFRP is applied to the pure bending part of a beam B11, cracks appear near the end of the bre and release the stresses of concrete, where they are perpendicular to the cracks and eventually result in the lower stresses of bre at the end part. The distribution of stresses of bre in beams B12 and B13 is basically the same. Stresses at the end part of beam B21 are much larger than those both of B22 and B23 under the same load of 55 kN, which shows the high strength of bre can be eectively used in shorter lengths of bre strengthening.

5. Comparison of test and numerical results 5.1. Initial cracking load and ultimate load Test and analysis results are shown in Fig. 11 and Table 5. It can be seen from Fig. 11 that at the beginning of loading, load is carried more by concrete than by bre, and with the increase of load, load is carried more by bre than by concrete. The ultimate load capacity of a concrete beam is improved by bre strengthening. Initial cracking loads and ultimate loads both increase with the increasing of length of strengthening bre, but the degree of increase is lower for the former. The increase is not proportional and will approach constant value when the length of bre reaches some limit. There are some dierence between test

Fig. 11. Comparison of loading results of test and simulation: (a) initial cracking loads; (b) ultimate loads.

Table 5 Comparison of results of nite element analysis and test Beam number Initial cracking load (pcr/kN) pcro Reference beam Test Ref. B11 B12 B13 B21 B22 B23
a

Ultimate load (pcu/kN) pcuo Reference beam Test (Rcr)a (%) 100 140 120 140 140 120 100 Numerical Rcra (%) 100 104.8 115.9 117.2 120.7 125.5 127.6 Test 33 36 57 54 51 57 60 Numerical 35.5 41.2 60 64.2 68.2 71 73.2 Error (%) 7.6 14.4 5.3 18.9 33.7 24.6 22 Test Rcua (%) 100 109.1 172.7 145.5 154.5 172.7 181.8 Numerical Rcua(%) 100 116.1 169 180.8 192.1 200 206.2

Numerical 14.5 15.2 16.8 17 17.5 18.2 18.5

Error (%) 3.3 27.6 6.66 19 16.7 1.1 23.3

15 21 18 21 21 18 15

Rcr = pcr/pcr0, Rcu = pcu/pcu0.

L.J. Li et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 901909

907

and numerical results, because a non-slip mode is used and shear debonding failure is not considered in calculation, whilst debonding failure happens in testing. It can be seen from Table 5 that ultimate loads improve more than initial cracking loads compared with the reference beam. There is not much dierence of performance between single layer strengthening and double layer strengthening for initial cracking loads, but double layer strengthening can eectively improve ultimate loads more than single layer strengthening does. Calculation constitutive models are based on debonding failure mode, which is suitable for ultimate load calculations, debonding failure, however, does not happens in the beginning of testing for beams B11, B12, B13 and B21, so there is minus error of initial cracking load calculation for these beams. 5.2. Pd curves of test Curves of load versus deection at the mid part of the beam are shown in Fig. 12. Where Fig. 12(a) is about the uni-layer strengthened beams and Fig. 12(b) is about
80 70 60

bi-layer strengthened beams. It can be seen from the Pd curves of Fig. 2 that the load periods can be divided into three parts: the rst period is from beginning to initial cracking, the second period is from initial cracking to steel yield, and the third period is from steel yield to beam failure. The stiness of the strengthened beams is improved eectively during each period with increasing bre quantity both for uni-layer strengthened beams as in Fig. 12(a) and for bi-layer strengthened beams as in Fig. 12 (b). Fig. 2 shows, under the same load capacity, bi-layer strengthened beams have higher stiness than uni-layer strengthened ones.

6. Crack development and failure modes There are three failure patterns for tested specimen as shown in Fig. 13(a)(c), which are end delamination failure pattern, adhesive layer debonding failure pattern and debonding failure at mid part pattern, and the corresponding failure modes are illustrated in Fig. 14(a)(c), respectively.
80 70 60

Load/ KN

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20
B11Test B12Test B13Test
B11FEM B12FEM B13FEM

Load/ KN

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5
B21Test B22Test B23Test
B21FEM B22FEM B23FEM

10

15

20

Deflection/mm

Deflection/mm

Fig. 12. Pd curves of strengthened beams: (a) Pd curves of uni-layer strengthened beams; (b) Pd curves of bi-layer strengthened beams.

Fig. 13. Debonding failure of four-point bending beam tests: (a) end delamination failure; (b) adhesive layer debonding failure; (c) debonding failure at mid part.

Fig. 14. Analysis models of debonding failures of four-point bending beam: (a) end delamination failure; (b) adhesive layer debonding failure; (c) debonding failure at mid part.

908

L.J. Li et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 901909

Concrete

Concrete

Adhesive layer CFRP

Adhesive layer CFRP

Fig. 15. Calculation models of debonding failure: (a) calculation model of debonding failure at end; (b) calculation model of debonding failure at mid-span.

For the rst two failure patterns as shown in Fig. 13(a) and (b), the characteristic of debonding failure mode is that cracks begin at the end of the bre at the bottom of the beams. Crack propagation is similar to that of shear cracks. When the front points of the cracks meet steel bars they will go along the horizontal direction. Debonding failure of bre ends is inuenced primarily by resin physical properties, construction quality and anchor patterns, with failure rst happening at the end of the bre and then spreading as shown in Fig. 14(a) and (b). For the mid part failure pattern as shown in Fig. 13(c), the debonding failure results from the exural cracks at the middle of the beam. Crack numbers increase with load increase and then develop towards the top of the beam. When exural cracks meet the steel bars, shear cracks develop and expand towards both ends of the beam and at last result in interface debonding failure. This failure mode is shown in Fig. 14(c). 6.1. End debonding failure calculation model Debonding failure includes both delamination debonding failure of concrete cover and adhesive layer debonding failure. Calculation models are shown in Fig. 15(a). Delamination of concrete debonding failure will take place when bre is properly anchored and adhered, because the shear resistant ability of interface between resin and concrete is typically more than three times larger than that of concrete [19]. Since concrete adhering to the end of the bre produces shear stresses under the load, while the end of bre is freed and with no shear stresses, then shear stress gradients [20] will be produced in the end of bre through resin within a very short distance (approximately equal to thickness of CFRP). This shear stress will reduce to zero when it spreads towards the mid part of the beam. Combination of normal stresses and shear stresses results in sloping cracks and then leads to debonding failure of the end part. The distance from the end of bre to the support point is the main reason that aects the moment of the end point and it can be used to control the debonding stresses at this position. Debonding stresses can also be decreased by reducing the thickness of bre and by enhancing the strength of adhesive resin.

6.2. Mid-span failure calculation model The concrete cover is not completely removed when failure of the middle of the beam happens. The calculation model is shown in Fig. 15(b). Slantwise cracks form at the front points of exural cracks during the initial cracking period and will eventually result in debonding failure. There are normal stresses and shear stresses in the front of initial exural cracks. Normal stresses are compressive [21] which cannot cause adhesion delamination, thus it is the shear stresses that induce debonding failure. 6.3. Crack patterns There were fewer but wider cracks in the reference beam. Cracks develop rapidly when steel yields and then the deection of the concrete beam will increase rapidly. The failure mode was a typical exural failure. However, there are more but narrower cracks in strengthened concrete beams. Crack widths maintain stable and were found to be not larger than 0.20.3 mm within 80% of ultimate load.

7. Conclusion In this paper, numerical and testing analysis of rectangular reinforced concrete beams strengthened by CFRP has been performed. Based on the results, the following conclusions may be drawn: (1) CFRP can eectively increase initial cracking loads, ultimate loads, stiness and ductility of concrete beams and improve crack patterns. The distance from the end of bre to the support point is the main inuence on debonding failure when a single layer bre is used for strengthening. When the two-layer bres are used for strengthening, the eect of increase of the length of the second layer of the bre on performance of beams approaches a constant value if the length of the second layer reaches some limit, CFRP strengthening will have a low ratio of performance to cost under this condition.

L.J. Li et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 901909

909

(2) Debonding failure of concrete beams strengthened with CFRP occurs before the normal ultimate load, and the high strength property of CFRP cannot be fully utilized. (3) Debonding failure has greater inuence on initial cracking loads than on stiness, ductility and ultimate loads of concrete beams and it has a lesser inuence on crack patterns, but it does aect these behaviour signicantly. (4) Debonding failure will greatly inuence the performance of strengthened concrete beams and it must be considered suciently during the design process. Construction procedures and anchorage design procedures may not avoid debonding failure completely.

Acknowledgements This research work was nancially supported by the Educational Committee and Construction Committee of Guangdong Province, Peoples Republic of China. The Project No. is Q02094 2003. References
[1] Rabinovitch O, Frostig Y. Nonlinear high-order analysis of cracked RC beams strengthened with FRP strips. Struct Eng 2001;04(127):3819. [2] Ferretti D, Savoia M. Non-linear model for R/C tensile members strengthened by FRP-plates. Eng Fract Mech 2003;70:106983. [3] Lau K, Zhou LM. Mechanical performance of composite strengthened concrete structures. Compos Part B-Eng 2001; 32:2131. [4] Triantallou TC. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using epoxy-bonded FRP composites. ACI Struct J 1998;95:10715.

[5] Buyukozturk O, Gunes O, Karaca E. Progress on Understanding debonding problems in reinforced concrete and steel members strengthened using FRP composites. Constr Build Mater 2004;18:919. [6] Guo, YC. Numerical and test analysis of CFRP strengthened beams. Dissertation of Guangdong University; 2003. [7] Oehlers DJ, Moran JP. Premature failure of reinforced concrete beams. Struct Eng 1990;116:97895. [8] Granju JL. Debonding of thin cement-based overlays. Mater Civil Eng 2001;13:11420. [9] Sebastian WM. Signicance of midspan debonding failure in FRP-plated concrete beams. Struct Eng 2001;127:7928. [10] Rabinovitch O, Frostig Y. Experiment and analytical comparison of RC beams strengthened with CFRP composites. Compos Part B 2003;34:66377. [11] Teng JG, Zhang JW, Smith ST. Interfacial stresses in reinforced concrete beams bonded with a sot plate: a nite element study. Constr Build Mater 2002;16:114. [12] Ahmed O, Gemert DVan, Vandewalle L. Improved model for plate-end shear of CFRP strengthened RC beams. Cement Concrete Compos 2001;23:319. [13] Smith ST, Teng JG. Interfacial stresses in plated beams. Eng Struct 2001;23:85771. [14] EI-Amoury T, Ghobarah A. Seismic rehabilitation of beamcolumn joint using GFRP sheets. Eng Struct 2002;24:1397407. [15] Chen WF, Saleeb AF, McCarron WO, Yamaguchi E. Constitutive equations for engineering materials. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1994. [16] Maekawa K, Okamura H, et al. Nonlinear mechanics of reinforced concrete. London: Spon Press; 2003. [17] Shanghai Institute of City Planning. Codes and regulations of city bridge design. China Architectural Engineering Publication; 1993. [18] Faifar P, Krawinkler H. Nonlinear seismic analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings. London: Spon Press; 1992. [19] Roberts TM. Approximate analysis of shear and normal stress concentrations in the adhesive layer of plated RC beam. Struct Eng 1989(Mar):22833. [20] EI-Mihilmy MT, Tedesco JW. Prediction of anchorage failure for reinforced concrete beams strengthened with bre-reinforced polymer plates. ACI Struct J 2001(MayJune):30114. [21] Leung CKY. Delamination failure in concrete beams retrotted with a bonded plate. J Mater Civil Eng 2001(March-April): 10613.