See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321634809

Flexural behaviour of RC beams strengthened with near-surface-mounted

BFRP bars

Article  in  Magazine of Concrete Research · December 2017

DOI: 10.1680/jmacr.17.00227

CITATIONS READS

0 142

3 authors, including:

Guohua Xing
Chang'an University
56 PUBLICATIONS   114 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Guohua Xing on 02 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Magazine of Concrete Research Magazine of Concrete Research
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.17.00227
Paper 1700227
Flexural behaviour of RC beams Received 14/05/2017; revised 07/08/2017; accepted 15/08/2017
Keywords: beams & girders/composite materials/reinforcement
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Flexural behaviour of RC beams strengthened

with near-surface-mounted BFRP bars
Guohua Xing Ziqi Bai
Associate professor, School of Civil Engineering, Chang’an University, Master’s degree student, School of Civil Engineering, Chang’an University,
Xi’an, Shaanxi, P. R. China (corresponding author: ghxing@chd.edu.cn) Xi’an, Shaanxi, P. R. China
Zhaoqun Chang
PhD candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Chang’an University,
Xi’an, Shaanxi, P. R. China

Basalt-fibre-reinforced polymers (BFRPs) are promising economical materials developed in recent years for
strengthening or repairing reinforced concrete (RC) structures. The effectiveness of strengthening RC beams with
near-surface-mounted (NSM) BFRP reinforcement was investigated in this study. One reference beam and six beams
strengthened with NSM BFRP reinforcements were tested under four-point loading. The main test variables were the
NSM reinforcement ratio, the tensile reinforcement ratio and the pre-cracking load. The experimental results
indicated that, compared with the control beam, both the load-carrying capacity and flexural stiffness of the
strengthened concrete beams increased due to use of NSM BFRP bars. For the NSM-strengthened concrete beams,
the pre-cracked specimens failed by BFRP bar end cover separation while the directly strengthened specimens (not
pre-loaded) were governed by concrete crushing. Analytical models based on the section analysis method were
developed to predict the maximum bending moment and ultimate deflection at mid-span of the concrete beams
strengthened with NSM BFRP bars. The analytical values of maximum bending moment and ultimate mid-span
deflection were in good agreement with the experimental results.

Notation fcu cube compressive strength of concrete

Af area of bottom NSM reinforcing BFRP bars ff stress of BFRP bar
As area of steel reinforcement in tension zone ffu ultimate strength of BFRP bar
As′ area of steel reinforcement in compression zone fs stress of steel bar
At cross-sectional area of tensile concrete in ft tensile strength of concrete
beam section fu ultimate strength of steel bar
a shear span length fy yield strength of steel bar
b width of beam section h depth of beam section
bclear beam clear width hi thickness of every concrete segment
Cc total concrete force in compression Icr cracked moment of inertia
Cs force in top steel reinforcement Ieff effective moment of inertia
c distance between extreme compression concrete Ig second moment of area of uncracked section
fibre and neutral axis L span length between two supports
cd distance between steel and FRP reinforcement M bending moment at beam section in mid-span
Dt sum of tensile steel bar diameters Mcr cracking moment
dci depth of concrete segment i Mu ultimate moment of concrete beam
df depth of BFRP bar Mu,p predicted value of ultimate moment
ds depth of tensile reinforcement Mu,t test value of ultimate moment
d s′ depth of longitudinal compression steel n number of segments
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete P concentrated force applied on distribution beam
Ef modulus of elasticity of BFRP bar Pcr load at appearance of first crack
Es modulus of elasticity of steel bar Pmax maximum load
Eu energy dissipation capacity Ppre pre-cracking load
Ey yield energy Pres residual load-carrying capacity
Fci compressive force at centroid of concrete Py load when tension reinforcements began to yield
segment i sc crack spacing
fc concrete compressive stress Tf force of BFRP bars
f c′ cylinder compressive strength of concrete Ts force of steel bars
fci concrete compressive stress at centroid of uNSM average shear bond strength between FRP
segment i and concrete

1
Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

us average shear bond strength between steel been shown to exhibit additional advantageous characteristics
reinforcement and concrete including good deformability, excellent corrosion resistance,
βcs, βAE, βbod correction factors used in Equation 15 high-temperature resistance and desirable bond performance
γ correction factor of the effect of axial rigidity (Deak and Czigany, 2008; Di Ludovico et al., 2010; Lopresto
of FRP bars et al., 2011; Shen et al., 2015a; Sim and Park, 2005; Wang
Δ0 residual mid-span deflection when unloading et al., 2008). They are thus regarded as highly promising com-
pre-load posite materials for strengthening building structures.
Δmax mid-span deflection at Pmax
Δu mid-span deflection at Pu Several experimental investigations and analytical studies
Δy mid-span deflection at Py have been carried out to evaluate the strengthening effects of
ε0 concrete strain at peak stress externally bonded BFRPs on various concrete members
εc compressive strain in concrete (beams, columns and beam–column joints) and RC structures
εci strain in concrete segment i (Jiang et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2013; Ouyang et al., 2012; Shen
εcu ultimate strain in concrete et al., 2015b; Wang and Yuan, 2014; Yu et al., 2015). Although
εf strain in BFRP reinforcement remarkable enhancements were achieved for concrete structures
εfu ultimate strain in BFRP reinforcement strengthened with BFRPs, debonding failure of the BFRPs was
εs strain of tensile steel predominant and this hindered further extensive applications in
εsu ultimate strain of steel reinforcement practice. Compared with externally bonded strengthening
ε s′ strain of compressive steel systems, the near-surface-mounted (NSM) method is considered
εy yield strain of steel bar to be a more effective strengthening technique and offers
μ displacement ductility several advantages such as limited surface preparation and
ρ tensile reinforcement ratio better bond behaviour while retaining the aesthetic of the
ρf NSM reinforcement ratio strengthened structure (Jiang et al., 2016; Raftery and Kelly,
ρf,eq equivalent NSM reinforcement ratio 2015; Tang et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2014). Furthermore, it has
ΣObars sum of perimeters of all tension reinforcements been reported that the NSM method is extremely effective for
ΣONSM sum of perimeters of all NSM FRP strengthening flexural members (Capozucca, 2013, 2014; Hosen
reinforcements et al., 2015). However, experimental studies available in the
literature on NSM BFRP-strengthened RC beams are extre-
Introduction mely limited: only one investigation has been reported to date
A growing number of reinforced concrete (RC) structures need (Gopinath et al., 2016). In that study, ten strengthened concrete
to be strengthened, upgraded or retrofitted due to several beams were constructed to investigate the effects of parameters
factors such as rectifying faults made during construction, such as the diameter and number of BFRP bars and the groove
increased load demand, corrosion, natural hazards and earth- size. The test results showed the load-carrying capacity of the
quakes experienced by concrete structures over time. Among the NSM-strengthened beams doubled without loss of ductility.
available strengthening materials, fibre-reinforced polymers However, the fact that the strengthened concrete beam was
(FRPs) are considered to be effective in improving the perform- deficient and cracked was somewhat ignored in that study.
ance of RC structures and, due to their many advantages such
as high strength-to-weight ratio, high fatigue strength and resist- In the work reported in this paper, seven RC beams were
ance to chemical erosion, they are widely used in engineering fabricated to study the effect of BFRP reinforcement ratio,
practice (Al-Mahmoud et al., 2009; Antonio et al., 2013; tensile steel reinforcement ratio and pre-cracking load on the
Arduini et al., 1997; De Lorenzis and Teng, 2007; El-Gamal flexural performance of NSM BFRP-strengthened beams. The
et al., 2016; Mattar, 2015; Reda et al., 2016; Sharaky et al., global behaviour of RC beams strengthened with NSM BFRP
2014; Song et al., 2015; Toutanji et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2016; reinforcement was investigated by subjecting them to four-
Zhang and Kanakubo, 2016). However, alongside worldwide point bending up to failure. The load–deflection response,
applications for structural strengthening, researchers and engin- ductility, energy dissipation capacity, failure modes and crack-
eers have raised concerns over the durability, ductility and econ- ing propagation of the strengthened beams were assessed.
omics of the usage of FRPs (Qeshta et al., 2016). Analytical models to predict the flexural strength and ultimate
deflection of NSM BFRP-strengthened concrete beams were
Basalt-fibre-reinforced polymers (BFRPs) are a newly devel- also developed.
oped class of FRP. Conventional FRPs use synthetic fibres
such as carbon, glass and aramid, while basalt fibre is a natural
Experimental programme
fibre made from melted basalt rocks. BFRPs are therefore both
environmentally friendly and cost-effective because the raw Specimen details
materials are rich in reserves and the fibres can be easily Seven simply supported RC beams (one reference beam and
obtained. In addition, compared with other FRPs, BFRPs have six strengthened beams) were loaded in flexure up to failure.

2
Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

The design details of the specimens are summarised in Table 1. centre to centre (c/c) at the bending zone and at 100 mm c/c at
All the specimens were 200
350
2100 mm in size and were the shear zone. The depth of the concrete cover of the beams
designed based on the current Chinese design code (GB 50010 was 20 mm apart from the bottom, which was 25 mm to allow
(MOHURD, 2010)). The main test variables were the NSM the cutting of NSM grooves without hitting the steel stirrups.
reinforcement ratio, the tensile reinforcement ratio and the pre- The dimensions and reinforcing details of the test specimens
cracking load. The higher reinforcement ratio of 1·02% for are shown in Figure 1.
beam specimens BB-3a and BB-3b was achieved by using two
20 mm dia. deformed steel bars at the tension side. The other Material properties
specimens, whose tensile reinforcement ratio was 0·65%, were Ready-mixed concrete was used to fabricate the specimens.
reinforced in tension with two 16 mm dia. deformed steel bars. The compressive strength of the concrete was obtained by
Two 12 mm dia. deformed steel bars for all the specimens were testing three 150 mm cubes that were reserved during casting.
used for the top compression reinforcement. Shear reinforce- The average compressive strength of the concrete ( fcu) is
ment consisted of 8 mm dia. closed stirrups placed at 150 mm shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Details of the tested beam specimens

Compression Tension Stirrups: mm
reinforcement: reinforcement: Pre-cracking NSM BFRP bars
Specimen fcu: MPa b
h: mm mm mm At mid-span At support load: kN inserted: mm

RB 35·7 200
350 2112 2116 18@150 18@100 — —

BB-1a 47·0 200
350 2112 2116 18@150 18@100 — 2114
BB-1b 47·0 200
350 2112 2116 18@150 18@100 100 2114
BB-2a 47·0 200
350 2112 2116 18@150 18@100 — 3114
BB-2b 49·0 200
350 2112 2116 18@150 18@100 100 3114
BB-3a 49·0 200
350 2112 2120 18@150 18@100 — 2114
BB-3b 49·0 200
350 2112 2120 18@150 18@100 100 2114

P/2 P/2
∅8@100 ∅8@150 ∅8@100 2∅12

BFRP bar
1600

150 600 600 600 150

2100
(a)

200 200 200

20

20

20

Epoxy
2∅12 2∅12 2∅12 BFRP bar (∅14)
Groove 25 × 25
325

325

325
350

350

350

2∅16 2∅16 2∅20 37

27
BB-1a BB-2a BB-3a
(b)

Figure 1. Dimensions (in mm) and reinforcing details of the test specimens

3
Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Table 2. Mechanical properties of steel reinforcements and grooves was increased by treatment with a hammer and hand
BFRP bars chisel. The grooves and BFRP bars were then cleaned using a
Diameter: mm high-pressure jet and acetone, respectively. Meanwhile, epoxy
resin was prepared according to the supplier’s instructions.
12 13 16 20 Once the beam specimens were ready for strengthening, each
Steel groove was half filled with epoxy. The BFRP bars were then
Yield strength, fy: MPa 530·8 — 498·1 504·8 installed, lightly pressed into the grooves and the grooves were
Ultimate strength, fu: MPa 719·5 — 643·1 665·2 then completely filled with epoxy. The epoxy was left to
Modulus of elasticity, Es: GPa 204 — 203 205 harden for at least 7 d. It should be noted that beam specimens
BFRP bar
BB-1a, BB-2a and BB-3a were directly strengthened, while
Ultimate strength, ffu: MPa — 1134·4 — —
Modulus of elasticity, Ef: GPa — 54 — — beams BB-1b, BB-2b and BB-3b were pre-loaded to 100 kN
(45% of the maximum load of the control beam) and were
then strengthened after unloading to zero.
The mechanical properties of the steel and BFRP reinforce-
ments used in this study were obtained from tensile tests and Test setup
are presented in Table 2. The yield strength, ultimate strength
Figure 2 shows the test setup and instrumentation. All the
and modulus of elasticity of the longitudinal steel reinforce-
simply supported beam specimens were tested in four-point
ment were based on testing three steel coupon samples of each
bending using a hydraulic actuator with a capacity of 1000 kN.
diameter. Five coupon samples of 14 mm dia. BFRP bars
A load cell between the hydraulic actuator and the steel sprea-
were manufactured and tested under uniaxial tension. The
der beam was installed to monitor and record the applied load
samples exhibited linear elastic behaviour up to failure, with
during testing. The loading points and supports were selected to
an average ultimate strength of 1134·4 MPa and an average
provide an effective span of 1800 mm and a shear span of
modulus of elasticity of 54 GPa.
600 mm. The vertical mid-span deflection and the support
offset of the specimens during the test were recorded by three
Strengthening procedure linear voltage displacement transducers (LVDTs). Five strain
The un-strengthened beam RB served as a reference specimen. gauges were instrumented to monitor strains in the steel bars
Two NSM reinforcement ratios (0·50% and 0·75%) were and BFRP bars at the mid-span section of the beams: one
designed to analyse the strengthening effect of different strain gauge was attached to the top steel reinforcement in com-
amounts of BFRP bars. All the beam specimens except BB-2a pression, two strain gauges were attached to two tensile steel
and BB-2b were strengthened with two 14 mm dia. BFRP bars and the other two strain gauges were attached to two
bars; specimens BB-2a and BB-2b were strengthened with selected BFRP bars. The strains in the concrete at the mid-span
three 14 mm dia. BFRP bars, as shown in Table 1. along the cross-section were also measured by five concrete
strain gauges. All measurement devices were connected to a
Prior to strengthening the concrete beams, which were stored high-speed data acquisition system to acquire the data and
in an indoor environment for at least 28 d, grooves of size monitor the response of the tested specimens. In addition, crack
25 mm
25 mm were cut into the concrete cover on the widths were recorded manually at each loading step and the cor-
tension side of the specimens, as shown in Figure 1(b). To responding applied loads were recorded near the marked cracks
achieve a better bond performance, the roughness of the on the surface of each beam specimen.

Load cell

LVDT Strain gauge for bars

Steel spreader beam Strain gauge for concrete P/2 P/2
Specimen Top strain gauge

Compressive steel bar

BB-2a
Tensile steel bar
Specimen
2100
LVDT BFRP bar
LVDT
150 600 600 600 150
2100

Figure 2. Test setup (dimensions in mm)

4
Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Table 3. Main results of the tested beams

Beam Ppre: kN Pcr: kN Py: kN Pmax: kN Pres: kN Δ0: mm Δy: mm Δmax: mm Δu: mm μ Failure mode

RB 0 18 196 223 201 0 6·12 28·89 37·28 6·09 CC

BB-1a 0 40 210 422 — 0 6·98 39·36 39·36 5·64 CC/CCS
BB-1b 100 30 206 278 191 0·91 7·38 12·88 16·86 1·75 ECS
BB-2a 0 54 222 470 — 0 6·92 34·98 34·98 5·06 CC/BECS
BB-2b 100 30 218 322 187 0·91 7·16 13·06 13·52 1·82 ECS
BB-3a 0 54 254 470 — 0 6·66 33·46 33·46 5·02 CC
BB-3b 100 26 242 386 280 0·87 7·37 17·28 20·63 2·35 ECS

All recorded loads include self-weight of the specimen.

CC, concrete crushing; CC/CCS, concrete crushing and concrete cover separation; ECS, BFRP bar end cover separation; CC/BECS, concrete crushing and beam edge
cover separation

Test results 500

The flexural responses of the specimens were assessed in terms
of load–deflection curves, energy dissipation capacity and RB
400
ductility index, cracking propagation and failure modes, strains BB-1a
BB-1b
in the steel reinforcement and strain distribution along the
ΔPmax = 199 kN BB-2a
depth of the beam section. A summary of the test results of all 300
Load: kN

BB-2b
the flexural beams is presented in Table 3. ΔPmax = 55 kN BB-3a
BB-3b
200
Load–deflection curves P
P

Figure 3 shows the load–mid-span deflection curves of all the Beam edge cover separation

beam specimens. The directly strengthened beams (BB-1a, 100 ar

Concrete cover separation
Pb
BFR Concrete curshing
BB-2a and BB-3a) and the control beam (RB) showed a trilinear End cover separation

response with an initial elastic stage, concrete cracking to steel 0

bar yielding stage and a post-yielding stage, while the pre- 0 10 20 30 40 50
cracked beams strengthened with BFRP bars (BB-1b, BB-2b Mid-span deflection: mm
and BB-3b) experienced an additional stage called the pre- Figure 3. Load–mid-span deflection curves
loading stage. In addition, a sudden drop in each curve was
observed for the previously cracked beams.

For beams BB-1a, BB-2a and BB-3a, a linear elastic response thus remarkably enhanced, but the displacement of these beams
prior to concrete cracking was observed from the load–deflection was slightly decreased.
curves. With respect to the control beam, the cracking load of
beams BB-1a, BB-2a and BB-3a increased by 120, 200 and For beams BB-1b, BB-2b and BB-3b, which were loaded up to
200%, respectively. Once the specimen went into the concrete 100 kN prior to strengthening, the pre-loading stage ended
cracking to steel yielding stage, the slopes of the load–deflection with mid-span deflections of 3·53, 3·28 and 3·10 mm, respect-
curves for the directly strengthened beams were slightly higher ively. The unrecovered deflections were 0·91, 0·91 and
than that of the control beam due to fact that the NSM BFRP 0·87 mm, respectively. The recorded yielding loads of beams
bars were involved to bear the applied load. This stage ended BB-1b, BB-2b and BB-3b were 206, 218 and 242 kN, respect-
with the onset of steel rebar yielding. The increase in yielding ively. Due to the premature debonding failure, the post-yielding
load for the directly strengthened specimens varied between 7·1% stage of these beams ended at relatively lower load values. The
and 29·6% in comparison with that of the control beam. An recorded loads were 278, 322 and 386 kN for specimens BB-
obvious discrepancy in the stiffness between the strengthened 1b, BB-2b and BB-3b, respectively. Compared with the refer-
beams and the control beam specimen was observed after yield- ence beam, although the increase in the maximum load of the
ing of the tension reinforcement. The load–deflection curves of pre-cracked specimens was 47% on average, the ultimate deflec-
the directly strengthened beams exhibited an upward sloping tion and displacement ductility of these specimens showed
branch owing to the NSM reinforcements resisting the additional obvious reductions.
applied load, while the control beam had almost zero stiffness
after steel bar yielding. Finally, specimens BB-1a, BB-2a and
BB-3a failed at ultimate loads of 422, 470 and 470 kN with ulti- Energy dissipation capacity and energy ductility index
mate deflections of 39·36, 34·98 and 33·46 mm, respectively. The The energy dissipation capacity and energy ductility index of
load-bearing capacity of the directly strengthened beams was the tested beams are shown in Figure 4. The energy dissipation

5
Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

capacity Eu was calculated as the area under the load–deflection at the bottom of the strengthening zone was different in these
curves up to failure. Correspondingly, the energy ductility index beams. For specimen BB-1a, when the diagonal shear crack
was defined as the ratio of Eu to the yield energy Ey, calculated intersected the flexural shear crack, debonding was initiated
as the area under the load–deflection curves from 0 to Δy. As due to shear and normal interfacial stresses and propagated
shown in Figure 4, with respect to the reference beam, the towards the bending zone; finally, the failure prompted con-
energy dissipation capacity of the directly strengthened beams crete cover separation. Specimen BB-2a, with three NSM bars,
BB-1a and BB-2a increased remarkably (by 60·5% on average) failed due to beam edge cover separation. This is because the
while that of the pre-cracked strengthened beams BB-1b and distance from the centre of the NSM reinforcement to the con-
BB-2b decreased by 68·3% on average. Furthermore, there was crete edge, which was about 40 mm including the groove
a notable increase in the energy ductility index for specimens
BB-1a, BB-2a and BB-3a but a great decrease in energy ductility
index for specimens BB-1b, BB-2b and BB-3b. The decrease in
RB RB
energy dissipation capacity and energy ductility index of the
pre-cracked strengthened beams may be a result of the prema-
ture failure of end cover separation.
(a)
Failure modes and cracking propagation
Concrete crushing
Crack patterns at failure and the failure modes of the beam B B-1a B B-1a
specimens are shown in Figure 5. Two different failure modes
were observed for the directly strengthened beams and the pre-
cracked strengthened beams: concrete crushing and end cover Diagonal shear crack Concrete cover separation

separation after yielding of the tension steel bars, respectively. (b)

Reference beam RB exhibited a ductile flexural response. B B-1b B B-1b

The first visible crack, of width 0·02 mm, was observed at
the mid-span when the load reached 18 kN. With a further
increase in the applied load, new flexural cracks progressively
appeared, mainly located within the bending zone. Tension (c)
steel reinforcement yielding occurred at 196 kN and the corre-
sponding deflection at mid-span was 6·12 mm, while the crack B B-2a
B B-2a
width reached 0·36 mm. Finally, specimen RB failed by con-
crete crushing at an ultimate load of 223 kN and mid-span
deflection of 37·28 mm. Beam edge cover separation

(d)
The failure of the directly strengthened beams was governed by
concrete crushing within the compression zone, as shown in B B-2b B B-2b
Figures 5(b), 5(d) and 5(f). However, the failure characteristic

End cover separation

16 16
(e)
Energy dissipation
14 Energy ductility index 14
B B-3a B B-3a
Energy dissipation: kN.m

12 12
Energy ductility index

10 10

8 8 (f)

6 6
B B-3b B B-3b
4 4

2 2 End cover separation

0 0
(g)
RB BB-1a BB-1b BB-2a BB-2b BB-3a BB-3b
Figure 5. Crack patterns and failure modes of beam specimens:
Figure 4. Energy dissipation capacity and energy ductility index of (a) RB; (b) BB-1a; (c) BB-1b; (d) BB-2a; (e) BB-2b; (f) BB-3a;
beam specimens (g) BB-3b

6
Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

width, was so small with the limited beam width that the In the pre-cracked specimens, a vertical crack through the
mutual stress greatly influenced the edge concrete cover. The cover at the bottom formed within the un-strengthened zone at
higher tensile steel reinforcement ratio of specimen BB-3a the end of BFRP bars under increasing load. Subsequently, a
resulted in premature failure (concrete crushing without con- major horizontal crack was initiated and propagated along the
crete cover separation) but, once the specimen was unloaded, level of the steel reinforcement from the vertical crack towards
the filling material separated due to the sudden deflection the middle of the strengthened zone. Finally, this longitudinal
recovery action (as shown in Figure 5(f)). Compared with the crack resulted in the whole of the concrete cover below it depart-
reference beam, beams BB-1a, BB-2a and BB-3a showed sig- ing from the specimen, and the specimen failed suddenly.
nificant reductions in the width (Figure 6) and number of The mechanism of the bar end cover separation is shown in
cracks (Figure 5). Figure 7.

In contrast to the directly strengthened beams, the pre-cracked

Strains in concrete, steel reinforcement and BFRP
strengthened specimens exhibited BFRP bar end cover separ-
strengthening bars
ation and the failures were classified as brittle. Considering
Figure 8 shows the strain distributions of the test specimens at
that end cover separation was observed for specimen BB-1b,
the mid-span section under specific loads. It is evident that the
specimens BB-2b and BB-3b were installed with U-shaped
longitudinal strains in the BFRP bar, tension and compression
CFRP wraps on the beam section at the ends of the BFRP
steel and top fibre of the concrete were proportional to the dis-
bars in an attempt to provide better anchoring to avoid prema-
tance from the neutral axis. With an increase in applied load,
ture end cover delamination. Unfortunately, the vertical legs of
the neutral axis of the specimens moved upwards. This implies
the U-wrap were not long enough to reach the top com-
that the cross-section of both the directly strengthened and the
pression region of the beam section, and specimens BB-2b and
pre-cracked strengthened beam specimens satisfied the plane-
BB-3b also exhibited brittle failure by end cover separation. It
section assumption.
should be noted that the position of the end cover separation
in specimen BB-3b moved towards the middle of the strength-
ened region, as shown in Figure 5(g). Discussion
Effect of NSM reinforcement ratio
Specimens BB-1a and BB-2a were strengthened with BFRP
500 bars with NSM reinforcement ratios of 0·50% and 0·75%,
BB-3a BB-2a
respectively. According to Table 3 and Figure 3, increasing the
400 NSM reinforcement ratio led to significant improvements in
BB-1a the flexural strength and stiffness of the strengthened speci-
mens. The failure mode changed from concrete cover sepa-
300 ration to beam edge cover separation due to an increase in the
Load: kN

RB amount of NSM bars. In addition, both the energy dissipation

200 capacity and energy ductility index of specimen BB-2a
decreased with respect to beam BB-1a.

100
The pre-cracked specimens BB-1b and BB-2b had the same
NSM reinforcement ratio as that of specimens BB-1a and
0 BB-2a. Similarly, the flexural strength and stiffness of these two
0 1 2 3 4 specimens were increased by increasing the NSM reinforcement
Crack width: mm ratio. The failure mode of end cover separation was not affected
Figure 6. Load–crack width relationships of the reference beam by increasing the BRFP bar ratio. Due to the U-shaped wraps,
and the directly strengthened beams the end cover separation was delayed for specimen BB-2b com-
pared with specimen BB-1b. Consequently, both the ultimate

Load Load Load

Cracks Steel

BFRP bar Horizontal crack Concrete cover peeling off

Figure 7. Mechanism of the bar end cover separation

7
Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

In addition, the ultimate deflection of specimen BB-3a was

Top fibre of concrete
350 33·46 mm while for specimen BB-1a it was 39·36 mm.
Compression steel
Correspondingly, the ductility of specimen BB-3a was smaller
300
than that of specimen BB-1a.
Section depth: mm

250
54 kN (cracking load)
94 kN As shown in Figure 4, the energy dissipation capacity and
200 142 kN energy ductility index of the specimen BB-3a were smaller than
222 kN (yielding load)
150 those of specimen BB-1a. Moreover, increasing the ratio of the
tensile reinforcement significantly decreased the crack width,
100 as shown in Figure 6. Therefore, comparing the behaviour of
50 Tension steel specimens BB-1a and BB-3a indicates that the strengthening
BFRP bar effect with BFRP bars was more efficient for RC beams with a
0 lower tensile reinforcement ratio.
–0.2 –0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Strain of cross-section: %
(a)
Effect of pre-cracking load
Top fibre of concrete
The failure mode of the tested specimens was altered from con-
350 crete crushing for the directly strengthened beams to end cover
Compression steel
separation for the pre-cracked strengthened beams due to the
300
effect of the pre-cracking load. It should be noted that the pre-
Section depth: mm

250 cracked specimens had wider cracks propagated based on exist-

30 kN (cracking load)
98 kN ing initial cracks. A stress concentration phenomenon would
200 162 kN
218 kN (yielding load)
occur near the initial cracks, especially the cracks at the con-
150 nection between the un-strengthened region and the strength-
ened region. These widened cracks failed to propagate across
100
the compression zone at the top of the beam section and com-
50 Tension steel bined with the horizontal cracks in the concrete cover, leading
BFRP bar to failure of the pre-cracked specimens by end cover
0 separation.
–0.2 –0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Strain of cross-section: %
(b) Besides greatly decreasing the ultimate load, applying a pre-
cracking load also seemed to affect the yielding load of
Figure 8. Strain distributions of test specimens at the mid-span the strengthened beams. Specimens BB-1b, BB-2b and BB-3b
section: (a) BB-2a; (b) BB-2b
achieved lower yielding loads than the corresponding
specimens BB-1a, BB-2a and BB-3a. However, the mid-span
displacement of the pre-cracked specimens at steel yielding
increased by an average of 6·6% compared with the directly
deflection and ductility index of beam BB-2b slightly increased strengthened specimens. The slightly increased yield deflection
with respect to beam BB-1b. was due to stiffness degradation of the beam specimens caused
by damage resulting from the pre-cracking load. In addition,
Effect of tensile reinforcement ratio compared with the directly strengthened specimens, applying
Specimens BB-1a and BB-3a, with identical parameters except a pre-cracking load decreased both the energy dissipation
for tensile reinforcement ratio (0·65% and 1·02%, respectively) capacity and energy ductility index of the specimens, as shown
exhibited similar cracking propagation. Concrete cover separ- in Figure 4.
ation was observed in specimen BB-1a, while specimen BB-3a
showed premature failure due to concrete crushing. Due to the
higher tensile reinforcement ratio (ρ = 1·02%) and the equi- Analytical modelling
valent NSM reinforcement ratio (ρf,eq = ρf ffu/fy = 0·98%), Since the plane-section assumption was satisfied, section analy-
BB-3a exhibited a failure mode like an over-reinforced concrete sis was employed to predict the maximum moment capacity
beam, although the steel bars yielded. Obviously, specimen of specimens strengthened with NSM BFRP bars. The tensile
BB-3a had a greater flexural strength than specimen BB-1a, strain in the BFRP bars was calculated by an empirical
according to Table 3 and Figure 3. Again, the load-carrying formula for the pre-cracked beams governed by end cover sep-
capacity was increased due to the greater tensile reinforcement aration. The ultimate deflection at mid-span of the simply sup-
ratio, but the improvement in flexural capacity was not pro- ported specimens was obtained using material mechanics
portional to the increase in tensile reinforcement ratio. theory based on the effective moment of inertia method.

8
Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Constitutive laws of material models reinforcement, εf is the strain in BFRP reinforcement and εfu is
The constitutive laws of concrete, steel and BFRP imple- the ultimate strain in BFRP reinforcement.
mented in this analysis are shown in Figure 9.
Maximum moment of directly
strengthened specimens
The stress–strain relationship for concrete in compression as
proposed by CEB-FIP (1990) is shown in Figure 9(a) and is The calculation model of the ultimate moment and deflection
given by for the flexural response of NSM BFRP-strengthened beam
specimens relies on strain compatibility and section analysis.
8 "
2 # The analysis was performed in the pure bending region with
>
< 2εc 2εc
f c0  εc , ε0 the assumptions that
1: fc ¼ ε0 ε0
>
:
f c0 ε0  εc  εcu & plane sections before bending remain plane after bending
& perfect bond exists between the concrete and steel
where fc is the compressive stress in concrete, f c′ is the cylinder reinforcement, the epoxy and surrounding concrete, and
compressive strength of concrete ( f c′ = 0·8fcu, where fcu is the NSM reinforcement and epoxy resin
characteristic concrete cube strength), εc is the compressive & the effect of tension stiffening can be ignored.
strain in concrete, ε0(= 0·002) is the strain at the maximum stress
in concrete and εcu(= 0·003) is the ultimate strain in concrete. Depending on the strain compatibility (Figure 10), Equations
4–7 hold. The directly strengthened specimens failed by con-
A bilinear stress–strain relationship is used for reinforcing crete crushing after tension steel yielding. The value of con-
steel, as shown in Figure 9(b) and given by crete strain (εc) was 0·003 at the extreme compression fibre
when the concrete crushed.
(
Es εs εs  εy
2: fs ¼ c  dci
fy þ 001Es ðεs  εy Þ εy , εs  εsu 4: εci ¼ εcu
c

where fs is the stress of steel reinforcement corresponding to a

given strain (εs), Es is the elastic modulus of the steel reinforce- c  ds0
ment, εs is the strain in the reinforcing steel, fy is the yield stress 5: εs0 ¼ εcu
c
of the reinforcing steel, εy is the corresponding strain at the yield
stress and εsu is the ultimate strain of steel reinforcement.
ds  c
The stress–strain relationship of BFRP reinforcement is linear 6: εs ¼ εcu
c
elastic up to failure and is given by

3: ff ¼ Ef εf εf  εfu

df  c
where ff is the stress of BFRP reinforcement corresponding to 7: εf ¼ εcu
c
a given strain (εf ), Ef is the elastic modulus of the BFRP

fc fs ff

Parabolic curve
fu
f'c ffu
fy

Ec Es Ef

ε0 εcu εc εy εu εs ε fu εf
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9. Stress–strain relationships of (a) concrete, (b) steel and (c) BFRP

9
Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

b
ε cu

A's ε's Cs
c d's dci
ε ci fci
Concrete segment i

h df ds

As εs
Ts
εf Tf
Af

Figure 10. Strain compatibility

where εs′ and εs are the strain in compressive and tensile steel, the steel bars, εs′ and As′ are the strain and area of the steel
respectively, εcu is the concrete strain at the extreme compression reinforcement in the compression zone, respectively, εs and As
fibre, εf is the strain of BFRP bar, εci is the strain in concrete are the corresponding values of the steel reinforcement in the
segment i, dci, ds′, ds and df are the distance from the extreme tension zone and Tf, Ef, εf and Af are the force, modulus of
compression fibre to the centroid of the concrete segment i, elasticity, the strain and the area of the bottom NSM reinfor-
longitudinal compression steel, tension reinforcement and BFRP cing BFRP bars, respectively.
bar, respectively, and c is the distance between the extreme com-
pression concrete fibre and neutral axis. Using force equilibrium yields

The stresses in every concrete segment, tensile and compressive 12: Cc þ Cs ¼ T s þ T f

steel and NSM BFRP reinforcements can be calculated from
the constitutive laws of the corresponding materials presented
in Figure 9 using the above calculated strains.
X
n
The total concrete force Cc neglecting the contribution of 13: fci hi b þ Es εs0 As0 ¼ Es εs As þ Ef εf Af
tensile concrete is estimated by i¼1

X
n
8: Cc ¼ fci hi b In Equation 13, the only unknown value is the neutral axis
i¼1 depth c, which can be iteratively adjusted using the bisection
method until sufficient equilibrium accuracy is reached.
where fci is the concrete compressive stress at the centroid of
the segment i; hi is the thickness of every concrete segment, The maximum moment Mu at the strengthened member
which is calculated by c/n (n is the number of segments) and failure is then calculated by taking moments of internal forces
b is the width of the beam section. about the neutral axis

The forces in the compressive steel, tensile steel and NSM X

n
Mu ¼ Fci ðc  dci Þ þ Cs ðc  ds0 Þ
BFRP reinforcement are calculated from 14: i¼1
þ Ts ðds  cÞ þ Tf ðdf  cÞ
9: Cs ¼ Es εs0 As0

where Fci (= fcihib) is the compressive force at the centroid

of the concrete segment i.
10: Ts ¼ Es εs As

Prediction of the maximum moment of pre-cracked

strengthened beams
11: Tf ¼ Ef εf Af Considering that the failure of the pre-cracked strengthened
specimens was governed by BFRP bar end cover separation
where Cs and Ts are the forces in the top and bottom steel regardless of whether the specimens were wrapped with FRP
reinforcement, respectively, Es is the modulus of elasticity of sheets or not, the ultimate concrete strain usually taken as

10
Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Table 4. Comparison of test results and analytical values

Maximum moment: kN.m Ultimate deflection: mm

Specimen Failure mode Test, Mu,t Prediction, Mu,p Mu,t/Mu,p Test, Δu,t Prediction, Δu,p Δu,t/Δu,p

BB-1a CC/CCS 126·6 124·2 1·019 39·36 34·29 1·147

BB-1b ECS 83·4 80·8 1·032 16·86 18·71 0·901
BB-2a CC/BECS 141·0 143·9 0·980 34·98 27·14 1·288
BB-2b ECS 96·6 75·6 1·277 13·52 10·73 1·260
BB-3a CC 141·0 141·5 0·997 33·46 33·12 1·010
BB-3b ECS 115·8 106·8 1·084 20·63 17·52 1·177
Mean — — 1·065 — — 1·131
Standard deviation — — 0·120 — — 0·136

0·003 does not hold. Therefore, a prediction method based on where At is the cross-sectional area of tensile concrete in the
the empirical methodology proposed by Teng et al. (2016) was beam section; ft is the tensile strength of concrete; us and uNSM
employed. The strain of the BFRP bar herein is called the are the average shear bond strength between steel reinforce-
debonding strain when the pre-cracked strengthened specimens ments, FRP and concrete, respectively; ΣObars is the sum of
failed by end cover separation. perimeters of all the tension reinforcements; ΣONSM is the sum
of perimeters of all the NSM FRP reinforcements.
A calculation model for predicting the debonding strain (εf ) in
FRPs is given by Once the debonding strain εf in BFRP bars at beam failure is
obtained by Equation 15, the ultimate bending moment can be
pffiffiffiffiffi
15: εf ¼ 104
βcs βAE βbod bclear f c0 calculated using Equations 4–13.

in which Prediction of the deflection of strengthened beams

 The effective moment of inertia (Ieff ) can be utilised to evalu-
45 cd  sc 
ate the ultimate deflection of the strengthened beams, involving
16: βcs ¼ 03
  01
scs sc 100 both the cracking and maximum moment, which can be
obtained by the previous equations. ACI 318-11 (ACI, 2011)
recommends the following equation for the effective moment
1 of inertia
17: βAE ¼
γðAf Ef Þ09
3 "
3 #
Mcr Mcr
20: Ieff ¼ Ig þ 1  Icr  Ig
M M


bclear 01
18: βbod ¼
Dt where Mcr is the cracking moment, M is the bending moment
of the beam section at mid-span, Ig is the gross moment of
inertia for the strengthened beam section and Icr is the cracked
βcs reflects the combined effect of crack spacing sc (in mm) and
moment of inertia.
the distance between steel and FRP reinforcements cd (in mm),
βAE reflects the effect of axial rigidity AfEf (Af in mm2 and Ef
Thus, the ultimate mid-span deflection of the flexural speci-
in GPa) of FRP bars, γ is a correction factor for the effect of
mens strengthened with BFRP bars in this study can be
the axial rigidity for the FRP bars (usually γ = 0·6 (ACI, 2008),
obtained using
βbod reflects the effect of the ratio between the beam clear
width bclear (in mm) and the sum of tensile steel bar diameters
Mu
Dt (in mm) and f c′ is the concrete cylinder strength (in MPa) 21: Δu ¼ ð3L2  4a2 Þ
24Ec Ieff

Among these influence factors, the formula for crack spacing

sc proposed by De Lorenzis and Nanni (2003) was adopted, where Δu is the ultimate deflection, Ec is the elastic modulus of
given by concrete, L is the span length between two supports and a is
the shear span length.
At ft
19: sc ¼
us ΣObars þ uNSM ΣONSM The experimental results and analytical values of the maximum
moment and ultimate deflection are shown in Table 4.

11
Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Comparison of the results indicates that the analytical method REFERENCES

offers acceptably accurate estimations for both the maximum ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2008) ACI 440.2R-08: Guide for the
design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for
moment and the ultimate deflection.
strengthening concrete structures. ACI, Farmington Hills,
MI, USA.
Conclusions ACI (2011) ACI 318R-11: Building code requirements for structural
An experimental study was conducted to investigate the concrete and commentary. ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Al-Mahmoud F, Castel A, Francois R and Tourneur C (2009) Strengthening
flexural response of RC beams strengthened with NSM BFRP
of RC members with near-surface mounted CFRP rods.
bars. A reference beam and six NSM BFRP-strengthened Composite Structures 91(2): 138–147.
beams were fabricated and tested under four-point bending. Antonio N, Antonio DL and Hany JZ (2013) Reinforced Concrete with
Based on the experimental and analytical results, the following FRP Bars: Mechanics and Design. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
observations and conclusions were drawn. FL, USA.
Arduini M, Di Tommaso A and Nanni A (1997) Parametric study of
beams with externally bonded FRP reinforcement. ACI Structural
& The use of NSM BFRP reinforcement significantly Journal 94(5): 493–501.
enhanced the flexural stiffness and flexural strength of Capozucca R (2013) Analysis of bond-slip effects in RC beams
RC beams. Compared with the control beam, all the strengthened with NSM CFRP rods. Composite Structures 102:
strengthened specimens showed a great increase in the 110–123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.02.024.
Capozucca R (2014) On the strengthening of RC beams with
load-carrying capacity.
near surface mounted GFRP rods. Composite Structures 117:
& Application of a pre-cracking load changed the failure 143–155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.06.030.
mode of the test specimens from concrete crushing in CEB-FIP (Comité Euro-International du Béton-Fédération International de
directly strengthened beams to end cover separation in la Precontrainte) (1993) CEB-FIP Model Code 1990: Model Code
pre-cracked strengthened beams. for Concrete Structures. Thomas Telford, London, UK.
De Lorenzis L and Nanni A (2003) Proposed design procedure of NSM
& The maximum load of the pre-cracked strengthened
FRP reinforcement for strengthening of RC beams. Proceedings of
RC specimens decreased by an average of 27·8% the 6th International Symposium on FRP Reinforcement for
compared with the directly strengthened specimens. Concrete Structures, Singapore (Tan KH (ed.)). World Scientific,
Compared with corresponding directly strengthened Singapore, pp. 1455–1464.
specimens, the ultimate deflection, energy dissipation De Lorenzis L and Teng JG (2007) Near-surface mounted FRP
reinforcement: an emerging technique for strengthening structures.
capacity and ductility of the pre-cracked specimens were
Composites Part B: Engineering 38(2): 119–143.
obviously reduced. Deak T and Czigany T (2008) Investigation of basalt fiber reinforced
& With an increase in the NSM BFRP reinforcement ratio, polyamide composites. Materials Science Forum 589: 7–12, http://
both the flexural capacity and stiffness of the strengthened dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.589.7.
specimens improved, but the ultimate deflection and Di Ludovico M, Prota A and Manfredi G (2010) Structural upgrade using
basalt fibers for concrete confinement. Journal of Composites for
ductility index exhibited a slight reduction. Specimen
Construction 14(5): 541–552.
BB-2a exhibited beam edge cover separation while El-Gamal SE, Al-Nuaimi A, Al-Saidy A and Al-Lawati A (2016) Efficiency
specimen BB-1a failed by concrete cover separation, of near surface mounted technique using fiber reinforced polymers
which was the expected failure mode. for the flexural strengthening of RC beams. Construction and
& Comparison of the behaviour of specimens BB-1a Building Materials 118: 52–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2016.04.152.
and BB-3a revealed that the strengthening effect was
Gopinath S, Murthy AR and Patrawala H (2016) Near surface mounted
more efficient for beams with a lower tensile reinforcement strengthening of RC beams using basalt fiber reinforced polymer
ratio. Strengthening materials could thus be used on bars. Construction and Building Materials 111: 1–8, https://doi.org/
such beams to obtain the expected failure and 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.046.
strengthening effect. Hosen MA, Jumaat MZ and Islam AS (2015) Side near surface
mounted (SNSM) technique for flexural enhancement of RC
& Analytical models were employed to predict the maximum
beams. Materials & Design 83: 587–597, https://doi.org/10.1016/
moment and ultimate deflection of the concrete beam j.matdes.2015.06.035.
specimens strengthened with NSM BFRP bars. Jiang SF, Zeng XG, Shen S and Xu XC (2016) Experimental studies on
The predicted values were in good agreement with the the seismic behavior of earthquake-damaged circular bridge
experimental results. columns repaired by using combination of near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars with external BFRP sheets jacketing. Engineering.
Structures 106: 317–331, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.
Acknowledgements 10.037.
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from Lopresto V, Leone C and De Iorio I (2011) Mechanical characterisation
the National Natural Science Foundation (51578077 and of basalt fibre reinforced plastic. Composites Part B: Engineering
42(4): 717–723.
51650110492), the Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi
Ma G, Li H and Wang J (2013) Experimental study of the seismic
Province (2016KW-056 and 2017KJXX-37) and the Special behavior of an earthquake-damaged reinforced concrete
Fund for Basic Scientific Research of Central Colleges frame structure retrofitted with basalt fiber-reinforced polymer.
(310828152017). Journal of Composites for Construction 17(6): 04013002.

12
 Magazine of Concrete Research Flexural behaviour of RC beams
strengthened with near-surface-mounted
BFRP bars
Xing, Chang and Bai

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Mattar ISAI (2015) Nonlinear FE model for RC beams Concrete Research 68(3): 109–117, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
shear-strengthened with FRP. Magazine of Concrete Research macr.14.00388.
68(1): 12–23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/macr.14.00369. Tang Y, Wang Z and Song M (2016) Self-sensing and strengthening
MOHURD (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the effects of reinforced concrete structures with near-surfaced
People’s Republic of China) (2010) GB 50010-2010: Code for design mounted smart basalt fibre–reinforced polymer bars. Advances in
of concrete structures. China Architecture & Building Press Mechanical Engineering 8(10): 1–19.
(CABP), Beijing, China (in Chinese). Teng JG, Zhang SS and Chen JF (2016) Strength model for end
Ouyang LJ, Lu ZD and Chen WZ (2012) Flexural experimental study on cover separation failure in RC beams strengthened with
continuous reinforced concrete beams strengthened with basalt near-surface mounted (NSM) FRP strips. Engineering
fiber reinforced polymer/plastic. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong Structures 110: 222–232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.
University (Science) 17(5): 613–618. 11.049.
Qeshta IMI, Shafigh P and Jumaat MZ (2016) Research progress on the Toutanji H, Zhao L and Zhang Y (2006) Flexural behavior of
flexural behaviour of externally bonded RC beams. Archives of reinforced concrete beams externally strengthened with CFRP
Civil and Mechanical Engineering 16(4): 982–1003. sheets bonded with an inorganic matrix. Engineering Structures
Raftery GM and Kelly F (2015) Basalt FRP rods for reinforcement and 28(4): 557–566.
repair of timber. Composites Part B: Engineering 70: 9–19, https:// Wang HL and Yuan XL (2014) Research on flexural behavior of
doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.10.036. damaged RC beams strengthened with basalt fiber reinforced
Reda RM, Sharaky IA, Ghanem M, Seleem MH and Sallam HEM (2016) polymer. Advanced Materials Research 834: 762–767, http://
Flexural behavior of RC beams strengthened by NSM GFRP bars dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.834-836.762.
having different end conditions. Composite Structures 147: Wang MC, Zhang ZG, Li YB, Li M and Sun ZJ (2008) Chemical durability
131–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.03.018. and mechanical properties of alkali-proof basalt fiber and its
Sharaky IA, Torres L, Comas J and Barris C (2014) Flexural response of reinforced epoxy composites. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened with near surface Composites 27(4): 393–407.
mounted (NSM) fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. Yu J, Shang X and Lu Z (2015) Efficiency of externally bonded L-shaped
Composite Structures 109: 8–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/ FRP laminates in strengthening reinforced-concrete interior
j.compstruct.2013.10.051. beam–column joints. Journal of Composites for Construction 20(3):
Shen DJ, Ji Y, Yin FF and Zhang JY (2015a) Dynamic bond stress–slip 1–10.
relationship between basalt FRP sheet and concrete under initial Yu JT, Xu YN, Yu KQ and Attard TL (2016) Preliminary study to enhance
static loading. Journal of Composites for Construction 19(6): ductility of CFRP-strengthened RC beam. Journal of Composites
04015012. for Construction 21(1): 1–10.
Shen DJ, Deng SC, Zhang JY, Wang W and Jiang GQ (2015b) Behavior of Zhang W and Kanakubo T (2016) Flexural strengthening of RC beams
reinforced concrete box beam with initial cracks repaired with with externally bonded CFRP plate: experimental study on
basalt fiber-reinforced polymer sheet. Journal of Reinforced shear-peeling debonding. Magazine of Concrete Research 68(14):
Plastics and Composites 34(18): 1540–1554. 724–738, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.15.00320.
Sim J and Park C (2005) Characteristics of basalt fiber as a Zhu H, Wu G, Zhang L and Hui D (2014) Experimental study
strengthening material for concrete structures. Composites Part B: on the fire resistance of RC beams strengthened with
Engineering 36(6): 504–512. near-surface-mounted high-Tg BFRP bars. Composites Part B:
Song L, Hou J and Yu Z (2015) Fatigue and post-fatigue monotonic Engineering 60: 680–687, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.
behaviour of partially prestressed concrete beams. Magazine of 2014.01.011.

How can you contribute?

To discuss this paper, please submit up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.

13
View publication stats