ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 100-S5
Increasing Flexural Capacity of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Using Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Composites
by Sergio F. Breña, Regan M. Bramblett, Sharon L. Wood, and Michael E. Kreger
A series of reinforced concrete beams strengthened in flexure using
different carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite systems
were fabricated and tested in the laboratory to examine the effects
of the strengthening configuration on the specimen behavior. The
main goal of the tests was to find strengthening configurations to
develop the strength of the composite laminates and preclude failure
by debonding of the composite systems from the concrete surface.
Results indicate that relying on the contact area between the
composite laminates and the concrete surface is not sufficient to
eliminate debonding. Strengthening configurations involving
techniques such as placement of transverse straps along the composite
laminates or bonding the composites on the side surface of the
specimens controlled debonding and provided a more ductile failure
mode than placement on the bottom surface of the beams. Results
of this investigation are intended to provide information required
for the design of strengthening schemes of existing reinforced concrete
bridges using composites.
Keywords: carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites; reinforced
concrete; strengthening.
INTRODUCTION
Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites are
viable materials for strengthening existing reinforced concrete
structures. Much of the previous research has concentrated
on increasing the flexural capacity of reinforced beams with
CFRP materials, and common modes of failure have been
discussed by Arduini and Nanni (1997). The capacity of the
strengthened beams is often controlled by the CFRP materials
debonding from the surface of the concrete, and numerous
anchoring techniques have been studied (Spadea, Bencardino,
and Swamy 1998). Researchers have suggested anchoring
the composite laminates in the area close to initial debonding
observed during testing. Additionally, debonding is often
triggered at locations where the surface of the concrete has
irregularities, which are common in actual field conditions.
Therefore, effective strengthening procedures applicable not
only to laboratory specimens but also to actual field conditions
are needed.
In many of the previous investigations, the effectiveness of
the CFRP materials was gaged only by considering the increase
in flexural strength. Information about the distribution of strains
within the cross section, however, is needed to determine
the internal stresses and forces of the different materials. Once
the internal force distribution at capacity of the strengthened
section is known, design equations can be developed that closely
reflect the behavior of strengthened elements. Measured data
are discussed in this paper and indicate that the common
assumption of a linear variation of strain with depth is not valid
after the longitudinal reinforcement yields.
36
TECHNICAL PAPER
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This paper discusses the flexural behavior of reinforced
concrete beams that were strengthened using four types of
CFRP composites, which were applied to the surface of the
beams using four different layouts. The test results add to the
existing database of reinforced concrete beams that were
strengthened using composites, provide information about
the distribution of measured strains within the cross section,
and identify techniques that may be used to delay the onset
of debonding of the CFRP materials from the surface of the
concrete cross section. These data are particularly important
for the evaluating and refining design guidelines that are being
developed for strengthening existing reinforced concrete
structures with composite laminates.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
A total of 20 rectangular beams were tested. Eighteen of
the beams were strengthened using commercially available
composite materials with the goal of increasing their flexural
capacity. Initially, the experimental program was designed
to investigate the stress-transfer mechanism between the
CFRP materials and concrete. This objective was based on
the assumption that the force developed in the CFRP materials
was directly related to the contact area between the two
materials—a concept that is similar to the concept of devel-
opment length for reinforcing bars. Therefore, the primary
experimental parameter in the early tests was the area of the
CFRP material that extended beyond the point of maximum
moment. The objective was to determine the minimum contact
area of CFRP required to develop the strength of the composite
materials. It was quickly determined, however, that the composite
materials would debond from the surface of the concrete
regardless of the contract area provided. The objective of the
experimental program then became determining alternate
layouts of the composite materials such that the strength of
the CFRP could be developed. A total of four CFRP config-
urations were tested, although not all the composite materials
were tested in each of these configurations.
Many of the tests of strengthened specimens reported in
the literature failed along the interface between the concrete
and the composite laminates, with different amounts of concrete
remaining attached to the surface of the composites after failure.
Because of the difficulty in identifying whether failure initiated
ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 1, January-February 2003.
MS No. 01-342 received October 15, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2003, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the November-December 2003 ACI Structural
Journal if received by July 1, 2003.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2003
ACI member Sergio F. Breña is an assistant professor in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass. He is
a member of ACI Committees 374, Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete
Buildings; 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; and Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 445, Shear and Torsion.

Regan M. Bramblett is a designer at Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, Calif.

She received her BS in architectural engineering at the University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kans., in 1998 and her MS in structural engineering from the University of
Texas at Austin, Tex., in 2000.

Sharon L. Wood, FACI, is a professor of civil engineering at the University of Texas

at Austin. She is a member of ACI’s Technical Activities Committee, and ACI Commit-
tees 318, Structural Concrete Building Code; 369, Seismic Repair and Rehabilita-
tion; and 374, Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Building. She is also a
member and the past chair of the ACI Publications Committee, and a former member
of the ACI Board of Direction.

Michael E. Kreger, FACI, is the Dewitt C. Greer Centennial Professor at the University
of Texas at Austin. He is a member of ACI Committees 215, Fatigue of Concrete; 318-H,
Seismic Provisions; 374, Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Building; and
Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete
Structures, and 441, Reinforced Concrete Columns.

Fig. 1—Reinforcement details for test specimens.

in the concrete or the adhesive, all interface failures are
termed debonding failures in this paper regardless of the
amount of concrete that was pulled off from the surface of
the specimens.

Laboratory specimens
Eighteen beams were strengthened using composite
materials from four different manufacturers. The remaining
two specimens were used as control specimens to compare
the response of the bare reinforced concrete beams with the
strengthened specimens. All the reinforced concrete beams
had rectangular cross sections (Fig. 1). The test specimens
were designed assuming that strains varied linearly with
depth and that perfect bond existed between the concrete
surface and the composite materials. Each specimen was
proportioned such that the composites would rupture before
the concrete crushed at the extreme compression fiber. To
achieve the design goal, two different sizes of beams were
required because of the differences in strength of the composite
systems used in this study. Ten of the beams were 8 in. wide x
14 in. deep (203 x 356 mm) and ten beams were 8 in. wide
x 16 in. deep (203 x 406 mm). The beams with the smaller
cross sections had spans of 106 in. (2.69 m) and the beams with
the larger cross sections had spans of 118 in. (3.0 m).
The test setup is shown in Fig. 2. Two vertical loads were
applied symmetrically about the midspan of the beams to
generate a 22 in. (560 mm) region of constant moment. The
beams were supported on 36 in. (915 mm) tall concrete pedestals
so that the researchers could safely observe the bottom face of
the beams during the tests. Elastomeric bearing pads were used
to support the ends of the beams to avoid crushing of the concrete
and to permit unrestrained rotation. The shear span to depth
ratio was approximately the same for both sets of beams.
The reinforcement details are shown in Fig. 1. All beams
were reinforced with two No. 5 bars in tension and No. 6
gage wire stirrups spaced at 4 in. (102 mm) on center within
the shear span. Two No. 3 bars were added as longitudinal
reinforcement in the compression zone to facilitate fabrication
of the reinforcing cages.
All beams were designed using a nominal 28-day concrete
compressive strength equal to 4500 psi (31 MPa), an assumed
yield stress for the longitudinal reinforcement of 60 ksi
(420 MPa), and an assumed yield stress of 75 ksi (520 MPa)
for the smooth wire that was used to fabricate the transverse
Fig. 2—Experimental setup.
reinforcement. As summarized in Table 1, the actual material
properties exceeded the values assumed for design.
CFRP Composites
The four composite material systems used in this study
were selected because of their immediate availability for the
construction industry. Three of these materials are manu-
factured in the form of nonimpregnated carbon fiber sheets.
Two used unidirectional carbon fibers (Composite Systems A
and B) and one comprised a woven fabric (Composite
System C). These dry-fiber systems were bonded to the
reinforced concrete beams using a wet-layup process. The
fourth product (Composite System D) was fabricated in the
form of stiff pultruded plates that were bonded to the surface of
the concrete using an epoxy-based paste. Material properties
for the four composite systems are reported in Table 2.
Detailed information about each of the composite systems is
available in the technical literature provided by the manu-
facturers (Fyfe 1997; Master Builders 1998; Mitsubishi
Chemical 1999; Sika Corp. 1997 and 1999).
The results from previous experimental studies indicated
that debonding of the CFRP from the surface of the reinforced
concrete beams is the likely mode of failure (Arduini, Di
Tommaso, and Nanni 1997; GangaRao and Vijay 1998;
Garden and Hollaway 1998). Therefore, the objective of the
first series of tests was to determine if debonding could be
prevented by increasing the bonded area between the CFRP

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2003 37

Table 1—Description of laboratory specimens
Specimen Concrete compressive Yield stress longitudinal CFRP Total number of Width of longitudinal Total number of
ID* strength bars† configuration‡ Bonded length§ longitudinal layers|| composite transverse straps
MPa psi MPa ksi mm in. mm in.
Control A/B 35.1 5090 440 63.8 — — — — — — —
A1 35.1 5090 440 63.8 I 254 10 2 50 2 0
A2 35.1 5090 440 63.8 I 356 14 2 50 2 0
A3 35.1 5090 440 63.8 I 762 30 2 50 2 0
A4 37.2 5390 440 63.8 I 381 15 I 100 4 0
B1 37.2 5390 440 63.8 I 889 35 2 75 3 0
B2 37.2 5390 440 63.8 II 889 35 2 50 2 12
B3 37.2 5390 440 63.8 III 889 35 2 50 2 0
B4 34.3 4970 438 63.6 II 889 35 2 50 2 8
B5 34.3 4970 438 63.6 II 610 24 2 50 2 8
Control C/D 35.1 5090 440 63.8 — — — — — — —
C1 35.1 5090 440 63.8 I 1092 43 2 50 2 0
# 35.1 5090 440 63.8 I 1092 43 2 50 2 0
C2
C3 35.1 5090 440 63.8 II 1092 43 2 50 2 12
C4 37.2 5390 440 63.8 III 1092 43 2 50 2 0
D1 37.2 5390 440 63.8 I 1092 43 1 50 2 0
D2# 37.2 5390 440 63.8 I 1092 43 1 50 2 0
D3 37.2 5390 440 63.8 III 1092 43 2 50 2 0
D4 34.3 4970 438 63.6 IV 1092 43 2 50 2 8
D5 34.3 4970 438 63.6 IV 711 28 2 50 2 8
*First character in specimen identification code refers to composite system ID (Table 2), and second character refers to specimen number. Cross-sectional dimensions are given in Fig. 1.
†Yield stress of transverse reinforcement was 86.5 ksi (596 MPa).
‡The four CFRP configurations used to strengthen test specimens are shown in Fig. 3.
§Bonded length is defined as length that CFRP material extended into shear span, as shown in Fig. 3. Shear span for beams strengthened using Composite Systems A and B is 42 in. (1070
mm), and shear span for beams strengthened using Composite Systems C and D is 48 in. (1220 mm).
||Two layers of carbon sheets or fabrics were used for all specimens strengthened using Composite Systems A, B, and C, except for Specimen A4. Both layers were placed on bottom of
beam for CFRP Configurations I and II, and one was used on each side of beam for CFRP Configuration III. For specimens strengthened using Composite System D, one plate was
used on bottom of beam for CFRP Configuration I, and one plate was used on each side on beam for CFRP Configurations III and IV.
#The concrete surface was prepared by sandblasting for Specimens C2 and D2. The concrete surface was prepared by grinding for all other test specimens.

Table 2—Properties of CFRP composites*

Composite system
identification† Composite type Thickness Strength‡ Modulus‡ Rupture strain‡
mm in. MPa ksi GPa ksi µε
A Unidirectional fiber 0.165§ 0.0065§ 3790 550 230 33,000 15,000
B Unidirectional fiber 0.168§ 0.0066§ 3400 493 230 33,400 15,000
C Woven fabric 1.04 0.041 760 110 62 9000 12,000
Pultruded plate|| 1.19 0.047 2400 348 155 22,500 14,000
D
|| 1.02 0.040 960 139 75 10,600 13,000
Woven fabric
*
Material properties published by manufacturers.
†Composite System A: MBrace CF 130 (Master Builders 1998); Composite System B: Replark 30 (Mitsubishi Chemical 1999); Composite System C: Tyfo SCN-41 (Fyfe 1997);
and Composite System D: CarboDur S512 Pultruded Plates (Sika Corp. 1997), SikaWrap Hex 103C Woven Fabric (Sika Corp. 1999).
‡
Properties reported for Composite Systems A and B refer to properties of carbon fibers. Properties reported for Composite Systems C and D refer to properties of cured composites.
§
Thickness of composite used for design calculations. Actual thickness after fabrication ranged from 0.75 to 1.5 mm (0.03 to 0.06 in.) per ply.
||Pultruded plates were used for longitudinal CFRP, and woven fabric was used for transverse straps.

composites and the concrete. In this phase of the investigation,
the CFRP composites were attached to the bottom face of the
beams (Configuration I in Fig. 3). As will be discussed in detail
later in the paper, the CFRP materials debonded from the
surface of the concrete for all of these test specimens, even
when the composites extended nearly the entire length of the
shear span. Therefore, three additional configurations of the
composites were developed (Configurations II thorough IV)
to delay debonding. The goal was to develop the rupture
strength of the composites, although this was only achieved
in four of the 18 test specimens.
Two in. (50 mm) wide transverse straps were added along
the shear span in Configuration II. The straps were wrapped
around the bottom of the cross section and extended vertically
to within 3 in. (75 mm) of the compression face. The center-
to-center spacing of the straps was half the depth of the beam
for all specimens. As testing progressed, the number of
transverse straps and the bonded length of the longitudinal
composites were reduced.
The longitudinal composites were positioned on the sides
of the beams in Configuration III, rather than on the bottom
surface. This arrangement of the composites reduced the prying
action within the longitudinal composites in the vicinity of

38 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2003

cracks. Transverse straps were used with the side application
of the composites in Configuration IV. Details of the CFRP
layout for each beam are summarized in Table 1.
Although two of the configurations of the composites (II
and IV) used transverse straps to hold the longitudinal CFRP
materials in place, the influence of these straps on the
strength of the beams was not investigated. The internal
stirrups provided sufficient shear capacity for the specimens
to resist the expected maximum loads after strengthening. In
addition, because the carbon fibers in the straps were oriented
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the beams, the
effect of the straps on the flexural strength was considered
to be negligible.
The transverse straps were fabricated using a 2 in. (50 mm)
wide layer of carbon fiber sheet or fabric bonded to the sides
and bottom surface of the beams. The bottom corners of the
specimens were rounded to a radius of approximately 0.5 in.
(13 mm) to reduce the stress concentration generated on the
composite at the beam corners. For the specimens strengthened
with Configuration IV, epoxy paste had to be used as filler
material in the proximity of the longitudinal CFRP plates at
each strap location. The straps were then bonded directly to
either the concrete surface or the epoxy paste, providing a
smooth transition in the vicinity of the longitudinal plates.
Two plies of carbon fiber sheets or fabrics were used for
all specimens strengthened using Composite Systems A, B,
and C, except for Specimen A4 for which only one ply was
used. One ply was used on each side of the beam when the
composites were applied in Configuration III. For the
specimens strengthened using Composite System D, one
plate was attached to the beam if the composite was applied
to the bottom face of the beam (Configuration I), and two
plates, one on each side, were used when the composites were
applied to the sides of the beam (Configurations III and IV).

Instrumentation
Applied load, vertical displacements, and strains were
monitored throughout the tests. Vertical loads were applied
monotonically to the beams. Displacements were measured
at midspan, at the locations of the applied loads, and at the
centerlines of the supports. The displacements measured at
the supports were caused by deformations within the elastomeric
pads. Therefore, these deformations were subtracted from
the displacements measured along the span to determine the
relative deflection of the test specimens.
All of the beams were fabricated with a crack initiator: a
0.015 in. (0.4 mm) thick piece of sheet metal that was placed
in the forms before casting the concrete. The sheet metal
extended the entire width of the beam and was approximately
0.25 in. (6 mm) deep. The crack initiator was positioned 42 in.
(1070 mm) from the centerline of one of the supports for the Fig. 3—Layouts of CFRP materials.
smaller beams and 50 in. (1270 mm) from the centerline of
one support for the larger beams. Strain gages were attached to
the reinforcing bars, the surface of the concrete, and the sur-
face of the CFRP materials at the location of the crack ini-
tiator (Fig. 4). The crack initiator was located under one of
the load points for the smaller beams and was located within
the constant moment region for the larger beams. The crack
initiator served three purposes: it fixed the location of the
first flexural crack in each beam, it ensured that the steel
strains were measured at the location of a crack, and for cases
where the bonded length of the CFRP materials was not
symmetric at the two ends of the beam, the shorter bonded
length was always positioned near the crack initiator. Fig. 4—Locations of strain gages at instrumented section.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2003 39

Fig. 5—Measured response of beams strengthened using
Composite System A.
Fig. 6—Measured response of beams strengthened using
Composite System B.
Strain gages were attached to the top surface of both of the
bottom longitudinal bars in all beams and to the top surface
of one of the top longitudinal bars in all specimens except
B4, B5, D4, and D5. Strain gages were attached to both sides
of the concrete at middepth of the top layer of reinforcement.
For beams strengthened using Configurations I and II, a
strain gage was attached to the bottom surface of the CFRP
material. One strain gage was attached to each side at mid-
depth of the CFRP material for beams strengthened using
Configurations III and IV.
MEASURED RESPONSE OF BEAMS
Representative load-deformation and load-strain data are
discussed in this section. Complete information about the
response of the test specimens is presented in the report by
Breña et al. (2001).
Load-deformation response
The strength and deformation capacity of the test specimens
varied significantly depending on the CFRP system applied
and the layout of the composites. The measured response of
the specimens strengthened with each of the CFRP materials
is shown in Fig. 5 through 8. Each of these figures compares
the response of the strengthened specimens with the highest
and lowest capacity for a given CFRP material with the
response of the corresponding control specimen. In order to
facilitate comparisons, the deformation data at midspan have
been normalized by the yield displacement of the companion
control specimen and the load data have been normalized by
the yield load of the control specimen. The loads and displace-
ment levels corresponding to cracking of the concrete, yielding
40
Fig. 7—Measured response of beams strengthened using
Composite System C.
Fig. 8—Measured response of beams strengthened using
Composite System D.
of the longitudinal reinforcement, and the capacity of each of
the beams are summarized in Table 3 and 4. The load and
displacement levels corresponding to cracking and yielding
were estimated from changes in the slope of the measured
load-deflection curves.
The response of the strengthened specimens was essentially
the same as the response of the control specimens before the
concrete cracked. After cracking, the strengthened specimens
tended to be stiffer than the control specimens. The load at
yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement increased between
5 and 10% for specimens strengthened using Composite
Systems A and B, between 15 and 25% for specimens
strengthened using Composite System C, and between 20
and 40% for specimens strengthened using Composite
System D. Numerous flexural cracks formed in beams during
this phase of the testing, but the CFRP composites remained
bonded to the surface of the concrete until the longitudinal
reinforcement yielded.
After yielding, the strengthened specimens continued to
be stronger and stiffer than the control beams. Although
most of the strengthened beams failed at loads that exceeded
the capacity of the control beams, all the strengthened
specimens failed at displacement levels that were considerably
less than the capacity of the control beams. Most of the
strengthened beams failed when the longitudinal composites
debonded from the surface of the concrete. This was a sudden
mode of failure, and there were few visual indicators that
debonding was imminent.
Secondary cracks formed in the vicinity of the flexural
cracks after yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement, and
these cracks tended to propagate along the sides of the CFRP
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2003
Table 3—Response of the beams strengthened using Composite Systems A and B
Cracking Yield Capacity Mode of
Load Displacement failure of
* * * † ‡
Specimen ID Load Displacement Load Displacement Load Displacement ratio ratio CFRP
kN kip mm in. kN kip mm in. kN kip mm in.
Control A/B 29.4 6.6 0.94 0.037 100.5 22.6 7.42 0.292 130.8 29.4 47.2 1.858 1.30 6.36 —
A1 36.9 8.3 0.97 0.038 105.1 23.7 7.59 0.299 119.7 26.9 11.3 0.446 1.19 1.53 Debonding
A2 34.7 7.8 1.22 0.048 107.2 24.1 7.77 0.306 125.9 28.3 15.1 0.595 1.25 2.04 Debonding
A3 33.8 7.6 1.12 0.044 106.3 23.9 7.98 0.314 138.3 31.1 27.0 1.062 1.38 3.64 Debonding
A4 37.4 8.4 0.76 0.030 110.8 24.9 8.03 0.316 129.0 29.0 19.0 0.748 1.28 2.56 Debonding
B1 37.4 8.4 1.02 0.040 107.6 24.2 7.87 0.310 132.6 29.8 20.6 0.809 1.32 2.77 Debonding
B2 37.8 8.5 0.84 0.033 110.8 24.9 7.85 0.309 141.9 31.9 27.4 1.077 1.41 3.69 Rupture
B3 36.0 8.1 0.81 0.032 108.1 24.3 7.90 0.311 137.0 30.8 28.7 1.128 1.36 3.86 Rupture
B4 33.4 7.5 0.76 0.030 104.1 23.4 7.80 0.307 132.6 29.8 27.1 1.066 1.32 3.65 Rupture
B5 33.4 7.5 0.76 0.030 108.5 24.4 7.67 0.302 129.9 29.2 23.0 0.907 1.29 3.11 Debonding
*Displacement at midspan.
†Load ratio defined as maximum applied load resisted by test specimen divided by yield load for control specimen.
‡Displacement ratio defined as displacement at maximum applied load resisted by test specimen divided by yield displacement for control specimen.

Table 4—Response of beams strengthened using Composite Systems C and D

Cracking Yield Capacity Mode of
Load Displacement failure of
Specimen ID Load Displacement* Load Displacement* Load Displacement* ratio† ratio‡
CFRP
kN kip mm in. kN kip mm in. kN kip mm in.
Control C/D 40.0 9.0 1.78 0.070 98.3 22.1 7.62 0.300 125.9 28.3 57.07 2.247 1.28 7.49 —
C1§ — — — — 121.4 27.3 10.24 0.403 143.7 32.3 22.94 0.903 1.46 3.01 Debonding
C2 43.6 9.8 1.91 0.075 113.0 25.4 8.76 0.345 125.9 28.3 16.89 0.665 1.28 2.22 Debonding
C3 41.8 9.4 1.07 0.042 120.5 27.1 9.09 0.358 149.0 33.5 24.89 0.980 1.52 3.27 Rupture
C4 43.1 9.7 1.22 0.048 114.8 25.8 8.43 0.332 132.6 29.8 23.65 0.931 1.35 3.10 Debonding
D1 44.0 9.9 1.35 0.053 118.8 26.7 8.51 0.335 128.1 28.8 10.95 0.431 1.30 1.44 Debonding
D2 42.3 9.5 1.12 0.044 120.5 27.1 8.46 0.333 133.9 30.1 13.94 0.549 1.36 1.83 Debonding
D3 44.0 9.9 0.94 0.037 133.0 29.9 8.94 0.352 158.8 35.7 16.51 0.650 1.62 2.17 Debonding
D4 43.6 9.8 1.22 0.048 139.7 31.4 9.45 0.372 188.2 42.3 23.01 0.906 1.91 3.02 Debonding||
D5 39.1 8.8 1.32 0.052 137.0 30.8 9.47 0.373 180.6 40.6 21.41 0.843 1.84 2.81 Debonding||
*
Displacement at midspan.
†
Load ratio defined as maximum applied load resisted by test specimen divided by yield load for control specimen.
‡Displacement ratio defined as displacement at maximum applied load resisted by test specimen divided by yield displacement for control specimen.
§Specimen C1 was cracked during handling in laboratory before strengthening.
||CFRP plates ruptured CFRP straps after debonding from Beams D4 and D5.

(a) (b)
Fig. 9—Photographs of typical cracks.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2003 41

 Table 5—Summary of average measured strains
Yield load Capacity CFRP
Specimen ID Steel CFRP Steel CFRP strain ratio*
µε µε µε µε
Control A/B 2900 — 28,400 — —
A1 2800 3800 12,600 7900 0.53
A2 2800 2800 15,900 6100 0.41
A3 2800 3200 16,800 10,200 0.68
A4 2800 2800 12,100 7800 0.52
B1 2900 2900 13,300 7200 0.48
B2 2800 3000 17,900 11,300 0.75
B3 2800 2900 16,400 10,700 0.71
B4 2700 3500 19,200 11,900 0.79
B5 2900 4000 13,900 13,200 0.88
Control C/D 2700 — 21,400 — —
Fig. 10—Debonding of longitudinal CFRP composites C1 2800 2600 11,100 7600 0.63
between transverse straps. C2 3000 3900 11,600 7000 0.58
C3 2900 2100 11,900 7500 0.63
C4† 2900 2500 — — —
D1 2800 2300 9500 3500 0.25
D2 2700 2900 10,300 4800 0.34
D3 3000 2600 9600 4400 0.31
D4 2800 2600 11,700 6500 0.46
D5 2900 2500 12,800 6200 0.44
*CFRP strain ratio defined as ratio of measured strain in CFRP at capacity of test
specimen divided by strain capacity reported by manufacturer of CFRP (Table 2).
†Strains were not measured at capacity of Specimen C4.

The transverse straps tended to control debonding of the

Fig. 11—Rupture of longitudinal CFRP composites.
Fig. 12—Rupture of transverse straps as result of debonding
of longitudinal CFRP plates.
materials (Fig. 9). The beams experienced small relative
vertical movements on either side of flexural cracks within
the shear span, and this movement caused the composite
materials to pry off the concrete surface. The combination of
the longitudinal cracks along the edges of the CFRP materials
and prying action within the composite led to debonding of
the CFRP materials from the surface of the concrete. Debonding
was initiated in regions of high moment within the shear
span in all specimens.
longitudinal composite materials because the growth of the
longitudinal cracks along the edges of the composites was
delayed by the straps (Fig. 10). In some cases, the transverse
straps were sufficient to eliminate debonding, and the beams
failed when the longitudinal CFRP materials fractured (Fig. 11).
In other cases, the transverse straps simply delayed debonding,
and the longitudinal CFRP materials debonded after the
transverse straps fractured (Fig. 12).
It should be noted that the capacity of the strengthened
beams was reported when the CFRP composites debonded
from the surface of the concrete or ruptured, whereas the
capacity of the control specimens was reported when the
applied load dropped due to crushing of the concrete. After
the CFRP composites detached or ruptured, the residual
strength of the beams was the same as the strength of the
control specimens, and the concrete did not crush until the
beams were pushed to significantly larger displacement levels
than the values reported in Table 3 and 4. In some cases, the
maximum load for the control specimens reported in Table 3
and 4 exceeded the maximum loads resisted for the strengthened
specimens due to strain hardening of the longitudinal reinforce-
ment at large displacement levels. Therefore, to evaluate the
increase in strength due to the composite materials, the loads
resisted by the bare and strengthened specimens should be
compared at the same level of deformation (Fig. 5 through 8).
Measured strain response
Another perspective on the debonding mechanism can be
obtained by considering the longitudinal tensile strains in the
reinforcing steel and CFRP materials. Strains recorded at the
location of the crack initiator corresponding to the yield load
and capacity are reported in Table 5, and data from Specimen
B4 are plotted in Fig. 13.

42 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2003

Fig. 13—Comparison of steel and CFRP strains.

The longitudinal strains are essentially the same in the two

materials at loads below cracking of the concrete. After Fig. 14—Typical measured strain profiles.
cracking, the strains in the CFRP materials exceeded the
strains in the reinforcement. This response is expected because
the strain gages attached to the CFRP materials were further
from the neutral axis than the strain gages attached to the
steel. As the applied load approached the yield load for the
strengthened specimen, however, the strains in the steel
increased more rapidly than the strains in the CFRP. This is
because the CFRP materials had begun to debond from the
surface of the concrete and the axial elongation of the CFRP
was now distributed over a longer distance.
The same data are plotted in Fig. 14, along with the strains
measured on the surface of the concrete at the depth of the
compression reinforcement. Three strain profiles—corre-
sponding to cracking of the concrete, yielding of the longi-
tudinal reinforcement, and capacity—are plotted. The
typically assumed linear distribution of strains appears to be
reasonable at low load levels but does not represent the
measured data near capacity. The measured strains in the Fig. 15—Influence of bonded length on flexural capacity of
CFRP are approximately half the value that would be calculated strengthened beams.
using a linear strain distribution within the cross section.
It should be noted that the measured CFRP strains for all ed from the surface of the concrete. This goal was achieved for
specimens at capacity were considerably less than the fracture four of the beams (Specimens B2, B3, B4, and C3), and the
strain reported by the manufacturers (Table 5). The average onset of debonding was delayed for most of the specimens
strain in the CFRP at capacity was approximately 50% of the constructed using Configurations II, III, and IV.
reported rupture strains when all the test specimens were Because of the number of CFRP materials, configurations,
considered. This value increased to approximately 70% of and other experimental parameters studied, it was not possible
the reported rupture strain in the four beams that failed when to test every combination within this investigation. Therefore,
the longitudinal composites ruptured. the influence of each parameter cannot be defined uniquely,
but the general trends identified from the measured data are
INFLUENCE OF CFRP CONFIGURATION described as follows.
As noted previously, the composite materials were attached
to the surface of the reinforced concrete beams using four CFRP Configuration I
different layouts. Approximately half the beams were Beams A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, C1, C2, D1, and D2 were
strengthened by attaching the composite materials to the bot- strengthened by attaching the CFRP materials to the bottom
tom face of the beam (Configuration I). This configuration of face of the cross section. These beams were tested during the
the longitudinal composites was used to investigate the influ- early stages of the experimental investigation, and observations
ence of the bonded length and width of the composites and the are summarized as follows.
techniques used to prepare the concrete surface on the strength Bonded length—The bonded length was the only experi-
of the beams. After it became apparent that debonding of the mental parameter that was varied for Specimens A1, A2, and
CFRP materials attached to the bottom surface of the beam A3. As expected, the flexural capacity of the strengthened
could not be controlled by varying these parameters, other lay- specimens increased as the bonded length of the CFRP mate-
outs of the CFRP materials were investigated. The objective rials increased (Fig. 15). However, the strength increase did
was to change the mode of failure such that the strength of the not appear to be directly related to the bonded length because
CFRP materials was achieved before the composites debond- the incremental change in strength with bonded length de-

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2003 43

creased as the bonded length increased. The data also indicate
that using a short bonded length is an inefficient use of the CFRP
materials because the composites debond from the surface of
the concrete almost immediately after the longitudinal rein-
forcement yields.
Contact area—The contact area of the CFRP materials
was 60 in.2 (38,100 mm2) for both Specimens A3 and A4. The
composite material attached to Specimen A4, however, was
twice as wide and half as long as the material attached to
Specimen A3. Specimen A4 failed at a lower load and
displacement level than Specimen A3, indicating that the
behavior of the strengthened specimens depends more on the
bonded length to shear span ratio than the area of the
composite materials.
Concrete surface preparation—Specimens C1 and C2 and
Specimens D1 and D2 were nominally identical. A grinder
was used to prepare the surface of the concrete for Specimens C1
and D1, however, while the concrete surface of Specimens C2
and D2 was sandblasted. The results of these comparisons were
inconclusive; Specimen C1 was considerably stronger than
Specimen C2, but Specimen D2 was slightly stronger than
Specimen D1. The surface of all other concrete specimens
was prepared by grinding, rather than sandblasting, because this
procedure was less time consuming.
CFRP Configuration II
Four beams (B2, B4, B5, and C3) were strengthened by
attaching the longitudinal composites to the bottom face of
the cross section and using transverse straps along the shear
span. Three of these beams (B2, B4, and C3) failed when the
longitudinal composites fractured. Specimens C1 and C3
provide the only direct comparison between CFRP Config-
urations I and II. The transverse straps increased the strength
and deformation capacity of Specimen C3 slightly, but the
mode of failure changed dramatically. The capacity of
Specimen C3 was limited by the tensile strength of the
composites, while the strength of Specimen C1 was limited
by debonding of the composites.
Specimens B2 and B4 differed only by the number of
transverse straps positioned along the shear span. The
transverse strap spacing was the same for the two specimens,
but six straps were used at each end of Specimen B2 and four
straps were used at each end of Specimen B4. Specimen B2
failed at a slightly higher load than Specimen B4, but the
displacement capacities were nearly identical. The data from
these specimens confirm the observation that debonding of
the longitudinal composites initiates in the region of high
moment within the shear span because additional transverse
straps near the end of the span had little influence on the behavior.
Specimen B5 also had four transverse straps at each end,
but the bonded length for the longitudinal composite was
approximately 30% shorter than the bonded length for
Specimens B2 and B4. The capacity of Specimens B4 and
B5 did not differ significantly (Fig. 15), but the transverse
straps were not sufficient to prevent debonding of the longitu-
dinal composites in this case.
The measured data indicated that the transverse straps
influenced the flexural behavior of the strengthened beams
by delaying the debonding of the CFRP materials. If the
longitudinal composites extend a sufficient length along the
beam, then the transverse straps were capable of changing
the mode of failure to one that was controlled by the tensile
strength of the composites. If a shorter bonded length was
used, then the longitudinal composites eventually debonded
44
from the surface of the concrete. Experimental data from this
investigation were not sufficient to determine the critical
bonded length. All the beams tested in this investigation had
a shear span-to-depth ratio approximately equal to 3. Until
more experimental evidence is available, it is recommended
that the longitudinal CFRP composites extend the entire
length of the beam in order to reduce the risk of debonding.
CFRP Configuration III
Three beams (B3, C4, and D3) were strengthened by attaching
the longitudinal composites to the sides of the cross section.
Specimen B3 failed after the longitudinal composites ruptured,
while the capacity of Specimens C4 and D3 were limited by
debonding of the composites.
The response of Specimen B3 was essentially the same as that
of Specimens B2 and B4, which were strengthened using
composite Configuration II. In contrast, the capacity of
Specimen C4 was slightly less than the capacity of Specimen C1,
which was strengthened using composite Configuration I. It is
not possible to compare the response of Specimen D3 directly
with Specimen D1 because Specimen D3 was strengthened
using twice the area of composite materials that were used to
strengthen Specimen D1.
The results from this series of tests were inconclusive because
specimens strengthened using different CFRP materials
behaved very differently. Applying the composites to the
sides of the beams, however, does provide flexibility to the
designer, and the debonding of the composites can be delayed
by adding transverse straps (Configuration IV), as discussed
in the following section.
CFRP Configuration IV
Beams D4 and D5 were strengthened by attaching the
longitudinal composites to the sides of the cross section and
using transverse straps along the shear span. Both of the
specimens failed by debonding of the longitudinal composites
after the transverse straps ruptured. Both Specimens D4 and
D5 achieved strengths and deformation capacities that exceeded
the response of Specimen D3 appreciably. Although all three
beams failed when the longitudinal composites debonded
from the surface of the cross section, the transverse straps
successfully delayed the onset of debonding. Similarly to
Specimens B4 and B5, the beam with the longer bonded length
(D4) achieved a slightly higher load at capacity (Fig. 15).
EFFECTIVE STRESSES IN
COMPOSITE LAMINATES
Design equations are often derived from simplified represen-
tations of actual behavior to determine conservative estimates
of the strength of an element using relatively simple calcula-
tions. For this reason, it was considered important to evaluate
the response of the specimens using design equations similar
to those used in common design practice for reinforced
concrete members. Figure 16 illustrates the assumed internal
stresses in a reinforced concrete member strengthened using
CFRP composites. The flexural strength can be determined
by adding the contributions of the reinforcement and the
composite laminates to the total internal moment (Fig. 16)
M test = A s fs  d – --- + A f ffe  d CFRP – --- =
a a
(1)
 2  2
M steel + M CFRP
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2003
Table 6—Effective composite stresses
Moment in
strengthened Moment in Effective
Specimen specimen control specimen composite stress Stress
ID kN-m kip-in. kN-m kip-in. MPa ksi ratio*
A1 64 565 57 506 1164 169 0.31
A2 67 594 60 531 1248 181 0.33
A3 74 653 64 567 1708 248 0.45
A4 69 609 61 538 1411 204 0.37
B1 71 626 62 546 1554 225 0.46
B2 76 670 64 563 2090 303 0.61 Fig. 16—Internal stresses and forces of reinforced concrete
B3 73 647 64 565 1804 261 0.53 beam strengthened with composites.
B4 71 626 64 563 1230 178 0.36
B5 69 613 63 552 1189 172 0.35
C1 88 775 68 602 475 69 0.63
C2 77 679 66 586 256 37 0.34
C3 91 804 69 610 535 78 0.70
C4 81 715 69 607 328 48 0.43
D1 78 691 63 559 638 92 0.27
D2 82 722 65 571 731 106 0.30
D3 97 857 65 576 765 111 0.32
D4 115 1015 69 605 1136 165 0.47
D5 110 974 68 598 1040 151 0.43
*
CFRP stress ratio determined as ratio of calculated stress in CFRP at capacity of test
specimen divided by stress at rupture reported by manufacturer of CFRP (Table
2).

A s f s + A f ffe
a = -------------------------
- (2)
0.85f c′ b
where Mtest = flexural strength of beam strengthened using
CFRP composites; Msteel = contribution of reinforcement to
flexural strength of the beam; MCFRP = contribution of
composites to flexural strength of the beam; a = depth of
equivalent stress block; d = effective depth of the steel reinforce-
ment; dCFRP = effective depth of the composite laminate;
As = area of reinforcement in tension; fs = stress in the reinforce-
ment at the flexural capacity of the beam; Af = area of composite
laminate in tension; and ffe = effective stress in the composite
at the flexural capacity of the beam.
Several assumptions implicit in Eq. (1) and (2) should be
discussed. First, the Whitney stress block was used to calculate
the compression force in the beams although the maximum
measured strain in the concrete at failure was lower than the
maximum attainable strain εcu = 0.003 that is commonly
used for design. This assumption leads to a slightly larger
moment arm between the compressive and tensile force
components than the actual moment arm at CFRP debonding,
but the flexural strength of the beams is not affected signifi-
cantly. Second, the contribution of the composites to the
flexural strength was obtained by using an effective stress ffe
instead of using the rupture strength of the composite ffu. As
discussed previously, the composites in the specimens tested
in this research project often debonded from the surface of
the concrete before developing the tensile strength of the
composites. Consequently, the tensile force in the composite
at failure of the specimens was lower than the tensile
strength of the laminates. Therefore, the effective stress in
the composite laminates needs to be estimated in order to
calculate the flexural capacity of strengthened sections.
The effective composite stresses were determined from
the test results by first determining the strength of the bare
Fig. 17—Determination of strength of control specimen at
displacement level corresponding to flexural capacity of
strengthened specimen.
reinforced concrete section at the displacement level equal to
the measured displacement at the flexural capacity of each of
the strengthened specimens (Fig. 17). The applied moment
was calculated from the measured load using statics. The
strength of the control specimen at the displacement corre-
sponding to the peak load was assumed to be equal to the
internal moment contribution of the reinforcement in the
strengthened section (Msteel), which included the effects of
steel strain hardening. The contribution of the composite
laminates to the total internal moment of the strengthened
section (MCFRP) was obtained by subtracting the contribution
of the reinforcement from the measured moment of the
strengthened section. Equation (1) and (2) were then solved
simultaneously to obtain the effective stress ffe in the composites
at failure of the beams. The results of these calculations are
listed in Table 6. The ratio of the effective composite stress
to the rupture stress gives an indication of the efficiency of
the composite system for the different strengthening
schemes. The higher stress ratios correspond to specimens
where transverse straps or side placement controlled premature
debonding of the composites. Additionally, the stress ratios
are consistently lower than the strain ratio values reported in
Table 5. The magnitude of the measured strains depends on
the location of the strain gages relative to the cracks in the
beams. The strain in the CFRP composite at a crack is expected
to be higher than the strain measured between cracks. Using
the measured composite strains to compute the effective
stresses in the composites can result in artificially high values
of stress resulting in high flexural strength values.
More tests are required to develop design provisions that
include effective composite stresses as a design parameter

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2003 45

for different composite configurations and for different
composite material properties. However, the results indicate
that using the yield stress of the reinforcement in combination
with an effective composite stress approximately equal to
0.4ffu will provide a conservative estimate of the flexural
capacity of strengthened beams.
CONCLUSIONS
The response of 18 beams that were strengthened using
CFRP composites was summarized in this paper. All test
specimens were stiffer than the companion control specimens
after the beams cracked and all were able to resist loads that
exceeded the flexural capacity of the control specimens.
Most of the strengthened beams, however, failed in a brittle
manner at a deformation level less than half the deformation
capacity of the control specimens when the longitudinal
composites debonded from the surface of the concrete. Four
of the strengthened beams failed when the longitudinal
composites ruptured, but the displacement levels at failure
did not exceed 60% of the deformation capacity of the
control specimens.
Debonding of the longitudinal composites was delayed, or
in some cases prevented, by adding transverse straps along
the shear span. In all tests, debonding initiated at the location
of flexural cracks near the applied loads within the shear
span. Therefore, straps placed close to regions of high
moment within the shear span are more effective than those
positioned near the end of the span.
Steel, CFRP, and concrete strains were measured during
all tests. The maximum measured CFRP strains were consid-
erably less than the rupture strains reported by the manufac-
turers, even for cases in which the longitudinal composites
ruptured. Strain profiles demonstrated that common assump-
tions about linear distributions of strains over the depth of
the cross section were not valid after the reinforcement
yields. This is attributed to the composites debonding locally
from the surface of the concrete when existing flexural
cracks widened after yielding of the reinforcement. The
measured strains in the CFRP at capacity were approximately
half those expected using a linear strain distribution.
The data discussed in this paper demonstrate that the flexural
capacity of reinforced concrete beams can be increased
significantly by attaching CFRP laminates to the surface of
concrete elements. The data also indicate, however, that
many assumptions that are commonly used in design, such
as a linear variation of strain with depth, are not appropriate
for strengthened cross sections. The differences observed
between the expected and measured strains were attributed to
debonding of the CFRP materials from the surface of the
concrete. Layouts of the composites that include transverse
46
straps were developed that will delay the onset of debonding,
and in some cases, lead to a failure mechanism that is controlled
by rupture of the CFRP laminates.
The large variations in the composite strains observed in
these tests were largely dependent on local effects such as
cracking or debonding. The use of effective composite
stresses determined from the global behavior of the beams
eliminated the variability observed in the measured strains.
Therefore, it is recommended that effective stresses in the
composites be used as a design parameter to calculate the
flexural capacity of elements strengthened with CFRP
composites. More experimental data is needed to adequately
represent effective stresses for elements strengthened using
different composite configurations and materials.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research program discussed in this paper was funded by the Texas
Department of Transportation, and the first author received partial support
for his PhD studies from CONACYT. The findings and opinions expressed
in this paper are those of the authors and do not constitute endorsement by
the sponsors. The experiments were conducted at the Ferguson Structural
Engineering Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin. Assistance by
the staff and students at Ferguson Laboratory is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Arduini, M.; Di Tommaso, A.; and Nanni, A., 1997, “Brittle Failure in
FRP Plate and Sheet Bonded Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 4,
July-Aug., pp. 363-370.
Arduini, M., and Nanni, A., 1997, “Parametric Study of Beams with
Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94,
No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 493-501.
Breña, S. F.; Bramblett, R. M.; Benouaich, M. A.; Wood, S. L.; and
Kreger, M. E., 2001, Use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites
to Increase the Flexural Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams, Report
No. 1776-1, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin.
FYFE Co. LLC, 1998, Design Manual for the TYFO Fibrwrap System,
Feb.
GangaRao, H. V. S., and Vijay, P. V., 1998, “Bending Behavior of
Concrete Beams Wrapped with Carbon Fabric,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, V. 124, No. 1, Jan., pp. 3-10.
Garden, H. N., and Hollaway, L. C., 1998, “An Experimental Study on
the Influence of Plate End Anchorage of Carbon Fibre Composite Plates
Used to Strengthen Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Composite Structures, V. 42,
No. 2, June, pp. 175-188.
Master Builders, Inc., 1998, “MBraceTM Composite Strengthening Sys-
tem-Engineering Design Guidelines,” Cleveland, Ohio, 114 pp.
Mitsubishi Chemical Corp., 1999, “Technical Manual for REPLARKTM
System,” Japan, Jan., 48 pp.
Sika Corp., 1997, “Sika Carbodur—Engineering Guidelines for the Use
of CarboDur® (CFRP) Laminates for Structural Engineering,” Lyndhurst,
N.J., 35 pp.
Sika Corp., 1999, “SikaWrap—Composite Fabrics for Structural and
Seismic Strengthening,” Lyndhurst, N.J., 102 pp.
Spadea, G.; Bencardino, F.; and Swamy, R. N., 1998, “Structural Behavior
of Composite RC Beams with Externally Bonded CFRP,” Journal of
Composites for Construction, V. 2, No. 3, Aug., pp. 132-137.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2003