Structures 23 (2020) 26–33

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Experimental study on anchoring of FRP-strengthened concrete beams T

Ayman N. Ababneh , Rajai Z. Al-Rousan, Issam M.N. Ghaith
⁎

Department of Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study aims at determining an effective technique for anchoring reinforced concrete beams strengthened
Anchoring techniques using FRP composites. Fourteen reinforced concrete beams were cast and strengthened with FRP. Twelve of
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) them were anchored using three different techniques: FRP anchor; bolted steel plates ancho, and FRP sheet and
Debonding bolted steel plate’s anchors, and two beams were unanchored and left as a control. The beams then were tested
Concrete reinforcement
under four-point bending to assess their structural performance in terms of failure modes, and load-displacement
relations. The experimental results have clearly shown that the unanchored beams suffered from premature
debonding failure, while the FRP-anchored beams experienced concrete cover separation failure, and the pre-
sence of end anchorages in the bolted steel plates and FRP sheet and bolted steel plate’s anchor's beams had
shifted the failure mode to a less critical one. The anchored beams showed an increase in the ultimate load-
carrying capacity accompanied by a reduction in mid-span deflection in different percentage with respect to the
control beam. It was also observed that the FRP and/or steel U-jackets increase the shear capacity of the an-
chorage zone, therefore result in higher anchorage efficiency of FRP-strengthened concrete beams. The results
also revealed that the FRP sheet and bolted steel plate’s anchors U configuration was the best anchorage system
in terms of the structural performance factor. Developing an anchor system to prevent plate end debonding
failure is vital for the successful design of strengthening systems using FRP composites.

1. Introduction peeling mode of failure is initiated at the end of the FRP plate, this
failure mode is caused by the transfer of shear stresses from the FRP to
FRP materials are frequently used in structural engineering appli- the concrete. A layer of concrete is separated with the FRP. The amount
cations for repair and strengthening of existing concrete structures. of concrete that debonded has been reported at levels from a few mil-
Externally bonded FRP composite is used to strengthen concrete beams limeters to the entire concrete cover. The peak shear stresses are caused
in flexure and shear. Many experimental observations indicated that the by the beam section geometric discontinuity at the plate end. This
debonding that occurs at the interface between concrete and FRP is a failure mode typically occurs in beams reinforced with plates that are
typical failure mode of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with short and is brittle in nature [15–18]. While mid-span debonding mode
externally bonded fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP). The premature of failure is initiated at a flexural crack in the region of the maximum
failure due to debonding limits the full use of the FRP strengthening bending moment near the concentrated load, this failure mode is also
system in terms of design guidelines [1]; Near-surface-mounted fiber- caused by the transfer of shear stresses from the FRP plate to the con-
reinforced polymer technique [2]; Near Surface Mounted Carbon Fiber crete. The peak shear stresses are caused by the gradient in the plate
Reinforced Polymer Strips [3,4]; CFRP-based techniques [5]; carbon strain resulting from changes in the moment diagram adjacent to the
fiber-reinforced polymers [6]; CFRP laminates under sustained load concentrated load and the tensile steel reinforcement yielding. This
[7]; debonding failure modes [8]; failure mode analyses [9]; CFRP failure mode is typically more ductile than the previous one because the
flexural and shear strengthening efficiencies [10], epoxy-bonded fiber- response of the beam is taken to a level where the tensile steel yields,
composite materials [11], flexural retrofitting of reinforced concrete allowing for greater deflections and ductility [15–18].
bridge [12], strengthening of RC bridge slabs using CFRP sheets [13], The anchorage of FRP composites, when applied to RC structures as
and embedded CFRP rods [14]. externally bonded reinforcement, is a necessity to achieve higher levels
The most common failure modes of FRP external strengthening are of fiber utilization prior to premature debonding failure. Many re-
classified as the end of plate peeling and mid-span debonding. The plate searchers investigated anchorage devices for FRP strengthening

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: anababneh@just.edu.jo (A.N. Ababneh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.09.018
Received 4 July 2019; Received in revised form 17 August 2019; Accepted 27 September 2019
Available online 13 November 2019
2352-0124/ © 2019 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.N. Ababneh, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 26–33

[19–23] and mechanical anchorage systems [24–32]. The literature Table 1

review unveiled four different types of anchoring systems: (i) metallic Test program summary.
fasteners [32,33]; (ii) FRP anchors [34,35]; (iii) FRP strips [11,33]; (iv) Beam type Beam Anchorage technique No. of
nailed metal plates [36], (v) steel bolted plate anchorages [36,37]; and designation specimens
(vi) Continuous Reinforcement Embedded at Ends (CREatE) [38].
Control beam CB None 2
. Anchorage devices are useful tools to prevent, delay or shift this
Anchored beams AB-1 FRP bottom sheet 2
mode of failure to a less critical one; therefore it improves the perfor- AB-2 FRP U sheet 2
mance of the conventional FRP-strengthening method. The purpose of AB-3 Steel bottom plate 2
this study was to determine an effective technique for mechanical an- AB-4 Steel U plate 2
choring of reinforced concrete beams strengthened using FRP compo- AB-5 FRP bottom sheet & 2
steel bottom plate
sites. A comprehensive review of existing literature was conducted to
AB-6 FRP U sheet & steel U 2
explore research findings related to debonding failure mechanisms and plate
anchorage schemes for reinforced concrete structural elements with
special attention to mechanical anchorage schemes. Based on the ana-
lysis of the data resulted from the literature review, six anchoring aggregates (Crushed limestone coarse aggregates were used with a
schemes were proposed. An experimental study was performed to assess maximum aggregate size of 20 mm, absorption of 2.3%, and a specific
the structural performance of the proposed schemes, and developing gravity of 2.62), and fine aggregates (The absorption of the aggregates,
recommendations to optimize their design. fineness modulus, and specific gravity were 1.9%, 2.69, and 2.65 re-
spectively), respectively, and a super-plasticizer. The mix was designed
2. Research significance according to the ACI-211 [39] to achieve the average cylindrical
compressive strength of 25 MPa and a slump of 12 mm.
Premature debonding failure of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with externally bonded fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) is
a frequent problem. Therefore, developing anchorage devices to en- 3.2.2. Reinforcing steel
hance the composite action between the FRP plates and the concrete The reinforcement details are shown in Fig. 1, while Table 3 sum-
beam is a big challenge to prevent the debonding of the FRP plates from marizes the mechanical properties of the reinforcement. Grade 60 de-
a concrete beam. Mechanical anchorage is a useful method to prevent formed rebars of 10 mm diameter and 14 mm diameter were used as
this mode of failure, therefore improving the performance of the con- main reinforcement in the tension side of the RC beams, 10 mm dia-
ventional FRP-strengthening method. Knowledge of anchorage systems meter rebars were used as top steel reinforcement, and closed stirrups
is limited and further experimental and numerical studies to understand of 8 mm diameter were used as shear reinforcement.
their behavior are still necessary to optimize their performances. This
work aims at developing an effective technique to enhance the effi-
3.2.3. CFRP sheet
ciency of flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using FRP
CFRP sheet and primer resin were used as external strengthening.
composites.
The quantity of resin coat for gluing the sheet to the concrete was
1.5 kg/m2. CFRP sheets had a 0.17 mm thickness and 300 mm wide-
3. Description of the test program
rolls with unidirectional-continuous fiber in the form of tow sheet. The
elastic modulus, ultimate tensile strength, and ultimate strain capacity
3.1. Beams details and test variables
of the dry fabric were 230 GPa, 4900 MPa, and 0.021, respectively.

Fourteen beams with a length of 1600 mm, a width of 150 mm, and
a height of 200 mm are reinforced with 2ϕ14 mm as the main steel and 3.2.4. CFRP plate
2ϕ10 mm as a hanger. The details of the beam including a longitudinal CFRP plate and primer resin were used as external strengthening.
section and, and are shown in Fig. 1, while Table 1 presents the testing CFRP plate had a 1.4 mm thickness and 500 mm wide-rolls with uni-
program summary. The beams were designed according to ACI 318–08 directional-continuous fiber in the form of tow sheet. The elastic
so as to cause them to fail in flexure, i.e. flexural deficient beams. modulus, ultimate tensile strength, and ultimate strain capacity of the
Closed stirrups with 8 mm diameter and spaced at 8 cm were used in the CFRP plate were 150 GPa, 2700 MPa, and 0.014, respectively.
shear span, whereas 3 closed stirrups having 8 mm diameter were used
at the mid-span. Two beams were strengthened by CFRP without an-
choring, as shown in Fig. 2, while the other twelve beams were 3.2.5. Anchoring materials
strengthened by CFRP and different anchoring techniques as presented ASTM A36 [40] steel plates 10 mm thickness, (FAZ ll 8/10) bolts of
in the Figs. 3–5. diameter 8 mm from FISCHER were used in vertical anchorage and
(FBN 8) in the horizontal anchorage of the FRP plates and sheets.
3.2. Materials properties Table 4 summarizes the properties of the bolts from the manufacturer
manual.
3.2.1. Concrete beams
The concrete mixture proportions are shown in Table 2. The mix
was prepared using Type I Portland cement (OPC) cement, coarse 3.3. Concrete mixing, casting, and curing

The mixing procedure followed the ASTM C192 [40]. Each batch
was enough to cast ten samples and four cylinders. The casting was
performed in two layers each layer was compacted using manual
compaction (rod) and the surface was finished using a towel. The beams
and the test cylinders were de-molded after 24 h and cured using wet
burlap covering and plastic sheets. After curing and before applying any
treatment, the beams were kept in the laboratory environment for 5-
Fig. 1. Beams reinforcing detail. days.

27
A.N. Ababneh, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 26–33

Fig. 2. Sketch of the strengthened beam without

anchorage (Control Beams).

3.4. Bonding fiber reinforced concrete polymers and the bottom side of the beam to record the vertical deflection. The
beams were tested under monotonically increasing load up to failure.
According to the manufacturer, manual beam surface and corners
must be treated before applying the materials. The concrete surface was
prepared mechanically to get the required surface. Corners were treated 4. Test results and discussion
to prevent stress concentrations and to achieve good adhesion to the
concrete substrate. White emulsion paint was applied on the surfaces of 4.1. Mode of failure
the beams to examine crack growth during testing.
The unanchored beams (control beams) illustrated premature de-
bonding failure mode with sudden debonding of FRP plate at a total
3.5. Anchoring methodology load of 130 kN as shown in Fig. 8. On the other hand, the presence of
anchorages prevented the debonding of FRP plate at edges of the six
A marker was used to locate the holes place as shown in Fig. 6(a). anchored beams (AB-1 to AB-6) as displayed in Fig. 9. The FRP an-
The spacing between two bolts was taken 35 mm for min. spacing. chored beams AB-1 experienced shear failure with concrete cover se-
According to bolts manufacturer, manual beam holes must be drilled paration at the FRP edge, while AB-2 beams failure started from cracks
with 8 mm diameter before applying the bolts. The holes must be drill at FRP edge. These cracks propagated vertically and horizontally
mechanically using a controlled speed electrical drilling until the holes causing longitudinal rupture of FRP with the direction of fibers fol-
meet desirable depth. The hole must be inflated using a plastic tube. lowed by spalling of the bottom concrete cover and eventually de-
The bolts must be hammered to install in the hole. The wood models bonding of FRP sheets. These failure modes are due to the high inter-
were used to take the bolts places. Before the steel plate put in its place, facial shear and normal stresses near the plate end due to the
the steel plate was drilled with 9 mm hole as the place of the bolt in termination of the plate. Beams AB-3 and AB-5 undergo shear failure
wood models. The washer was tensioned by wrench torque until the with split concrete and steel plate at FRP edge. Similarly beams AB-4
maximum allowable torsion was reached for the bolt. The U-steel plates and AB-6 experienced shear failure mode with concrete spalling at the
must be drilled 9 mm hole before fixing the steel plate in its place and bolts level with buckled steel plate. Steel plates buckled due to the
welding it by electrical welding machine as shown in Fig. 6(b) and (c). compressive stresses at the top of the beam. Steel plate buckling can be
After the steel plates were welded together, the washer tensioned by prevented by either restricting the plate to the tension zone of the
wrench torque until the maximum allowable torsion was reached for beam, or redistribution of the bolts in a way that buckling is prevented.
the bolt. It is clear that end anchorage depressed the separation of the FRP plates
or sheets, thus preventing the premature plate end interfacial de-
3.6. Test procedure and instrumentation bonding and concrete cover separation failure modes. Fig. 9 clearly
shows that the shear failure occurred between the support and the end
The testing setup consists of hinge support at one end of the beam, of the composite plate. This failure mode is common in bolted ancho-
and roller support at the other end as shown in Fig. 7. The specimens rage systems due to inadequate shear reinforcement in this region of the
were tested as simply-supported beams under four-point loading. The beam [38,39]. This important observation draws our attention to use
loading was applied using a hydraulic testing machine of a capacity of the continuous reinforcement embedded at ends technique in order to
400 kN and a loading rate of 50 N/s. An LVDT has placed the mid-span provide an increase of the shear strength at that point, and therefore, it

AB-1

AB-2
Fig. 3. Sketch of the strengthened beam with FRP anchor.

28
A.N. Ababneh, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 26–33

AB-3

AB-4
Fig. 4. Sketch of the strengthened beam with steel anchor.

AB-5

AB-6
Fig. 5. Sketch of the strengthened beam with FRP sheet and bolted steel plates anchors.

Table 2 Table 3
Concrete mix proportions. Mechanical properties of steel reinforcement.
Material Weight (kg/m3) Bar diameter, mm Yield stress Ultimate stress Strain at failure
(MPa) (MPa) (%)
Cement 313
Gross water 187 8 291.0 632.7 33.7
Coarse aggregates 1372 10 493. 0 644.4 11.9
Fine aggregates 578 14 428.8 632.7 14.9
Super-plasticizer 4

29
A.N. Ababneh, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 26–33

Table 4
Properties of bolts.
Diameter (mm) Min. drill hole depth (mm) Effective anchorage depth (mm) Anchor length (mm) Wrench size (mm) Min. spacing (mm)

8 75 45 100 13 35
8 63 48 100 13 35

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6. (a) Bolts installation; (b) U-Steel plate installation; and (c) U-Steel plate after welding.

with the strengthening application, could have been prevailed.

4.2. Load-deflection behavior and characteristics

The loads versus mid-span deflection relationships for all tested

beams are shown in Fig. 10, while the structural test results are sum-
marized in Table 5. The deflection was measured at the mid-span of the
beam. For better illustration of the test results, the anchored beams are
classified into three groups. Group 1 are the beams that were anchored
with FRP sheets, group 2 are the steel plate anchored beams, and the
beams that were anchored with FRP sheets and steel plates anchor are
identified as group 3. In addition, the steel reinforcements did not reach
the yielding point because the CFRP debonding occurred before the
yielding of the ribbed steel bars (Table 5). Fig. 10 shows that the ap-
plied load increases monotonically with an increase in the mid-span
deflection for all curves. The slope of the linear elastic portion of the
Fig. 7. Flexural testing setup and LVDT positioning. load-deflection curve represents the stiffness of the beam (k = P/Δ),
whereas, the toughness is the area underneath the load-deflection curve
until ultimate load capacity.
For the FRP anchored beams that were identified by group one, the
ultimate loads of the FRP anchored beams, AB-1 and AB-2, were about
12% and 30% higher than that of the control (CB), as shown in Table 5.
The mid-span deflections at an ultimate load of beams AB-1 and AB-2
were about 4% and 8% higher than that of the control. Table 6 shows
that the stiffness of beams AB-1 and AB-2 were increased by 8% and
21%, while the toughness were increased by 8% and 33% compared to
the control which indicated that the U-sheet configuration (AB-2) is
better than the FRP bottom sheet (AB-1) in terms of ultimate load (18%
enhancement), ultimate deflection (4% enhancement), stiffness (13%
enhancement), and toughness (25% enhancement).
For the second group beams that were anchored with bolted steel
plates, Table 5 shows the ultimate loads of beams AB-3 and AB-4 were
about 8% and 20% higher than that of the control (CB), whereas the
mid-span deflections at ultimate load for the same beams were about
2% and 6% higher than that of the control. The stiffness of beams AB-3
and AB-4 were increased by 6% and 13% compared to the control,
Fig. 8. Cracking and failure modes of unanchored (control) beams. while the toughness for the same beams were increased by 2% and 19%
compared to the control which indicated that the steel U plate config-
may avoid such rupture as well as an efficient strengthen technique the uration (AB-4) is better than the FRP bottom sheet (AB-3) in terms of
beam for flexure. Alternatively, the shear reinforcement within that ultimate load (12% enhancement), ultimate deflection (4% enhance-
region according to the embedded through section (ETS) may also ment), stiffness (7% enhancement), and toughness (17% enhancement).
avoid such failure mode. As a result, all specimens should have been Also, these enhancement values indicated that U-sheet configuration is
overdesigned for shear so as the flexural behavior of the beams, even better than the steel U plate configuration in terms of ultimate load
(10% enhancement), ultimate deflection (2% enhancement), stiffness

30
A.N. Ababneh, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 26–33

(a) AB-1 (b) AB-2 (c) AB-3

(d) AB-4 (e) AB-5 (f) AB-6

Fig. 9. Failure modes of anchored beams.

250
AB-1 (FRP bottom sheet anchor)
AB-2 (FRP U sheet anchor) AB-6
AB-3 (Steel bottom plate anchor)
200 AB-4 (Steel U plate anchor)
AB-5 (FRP bottom sheet & steel bottom plate anchor) AB-2
AB-6 (FRP U sheet & steel U plate anchor) AB-5
CB (Control Beam - No Anchorage) AB-4
150
Load (kN)

AB-1
AB-3

CB
100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Deflection (mm)

Fig. 10. Load-deflection curves for anchored and control beams.

Table 5
Deflection, ultimate total loads, and failure modes.
Group No. Beam designation Δu (mm) Pu (kN) εs, με εf, με εf/εfu,% Mode of failure

Control (No anchorage) CB 8.30 0% 130.0 0% 709 1462 10 Plate end debonding
FRP anchor AB-1 8.60 4% 145.0 12% 1136 2343 17 Concrete cover separation
AB-2 9.00 8% 168.6 30% 1810 3733 27 Diagonal crack debonding
Steel anchor AB-3 8.45 2% 140.0 8% 1446 2982 21 Shear failure
AB-4 8.78 6% 155.9 20% 1681 3468 25 Shear failure
FRP sheet and bolted steel plates anchors AB-5 8.90 7% 165.0 27% 1529 3154 23 Shear failure
AB-6 9.90 19% 208.0 60% 2049 4226 30 Shear failure

Note: εs: Steel strain, εf: FRP strain, εfu: Ultimate FRP strain which is equal to 14,000 με.

31
A.N. Ababneh, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 26–33

Table 6
Stiffness, toughness, and performance factors.
Group Beam designation Stiffness (KN/mm) Toughness (kN.mm) Ductility Factor, DF Strength Factor, SF Performance Factor, PF

Control (No anchorage) CB 17.8 — 575.3 — 1 1 1

FRP anchor AB-1 19.2 0.08 621.3 0.08 1.04 1.12 1.16
AB-2 21.5 0.21 763.7 0.33 1.08 1.30 1.41
Steel anchor AB-3 18.8 0.06 589.4 0.02 1.02 1.08 1.10
AB-4 20.2 0.13 682.0 0.19 1.06 1.20 1.27
FRP sheet and bolted steel plates AB-5 21.1 0.18 731.7 0.27 1.07 1.27 1.36
anchors AB-6 23.9 0.34 1026 0.78 1.19 1.60 1.91

Note: DF = δanchored beam/δcontrol beam, SF = Panchored beam/Pcontrol beam, PF = DF × SF.

Table 7 configuration in terms of ultimate load (30% enhancement), ultimate

Sectional analysis of the tested beams versus the experimental results. deflection (11% enhancement), stiffness (13% enhancement), and
Beam f′c, MPa fs, MPa ff, MPa MDesign, kN.m MTest, kN.m MTest toughness (45% enhancement) which reflect the efficiency of FRP sheet
MDesign and bolted steel plates anchors U configuration in term of structural
behavior because this configuration provided higher shear resistance
CB 25 216.7 282.0 18.8 26.0 1.38
for the concrete block between the support and the end of the com-
AB-1 25 347.2 451.9 30.1 29.0 0.96
AB-2 25 553.2 719.9 48.0 33.7 0.70
posite plate, therefore delaying the shear failure of these beams.
AB-3 25 441.9 575.1 38.3 28.0 0.73
AB-4 25 513.9 668.8 44.6 31.2 0.70 4.3. Ductility, strength and performance factors
AB-5 25 467.4 608.3 40.5 33.0 0.81
AB-6 25 626.3 815.0 54.3 41.6 0.77
The effectiveness of the anchorage systems is measured quantita-
Note: f′c is the concrete compressive strength at 28 days, fs is the steel stress, fd tively by calculating the strength factor (SF) and deformability factor
is the CFRP stress, MDesign is the theoretical moment capacity, and Mtest is the (DF) as well as the overall structural performance factor (PF) which is
tested moment capacity. combines SF and DF as shown in Table 6 (the values were normalized
with respect to those of control beam (CB)). The PF can be used for
assessment of the overall structural performance of the strengthened
1.4 1.38
beam in terms of DF (ultimate deflection of beam strengthened divided
by the ultimate deflection un-strengthened beam) by the SF (ultimate
load capacity of beam strengthened divided by the ultimate load ca-
38%

1.2
pacity un-strengthened beam). The concept of structural PF is related to
MTest / MDesign

the ability of a structural member to sustain inelastic deformation with

1.0 a substantial increase in the load-carrying capacity. Inspection of
4%

0.96 Table 6 reveals that the anchorage system has more impact on SF
19%

23%
27%

(2%–19%) than DF (8%–60%). This large increase in SF and the de-

30%
30%

0.8
0.81 crease in DF were not affected by the overall performance of anchorage
0.77
0.73 0.70
beams. The FRP sheet and bolted steel plates anchors U configuration is
0.70
0.6 the best anchorage system in terms of PF (2 times the control one), SF
(60% enhancement than control beam), and DF (20% enhancement
CB
1 AB-1
2 AB-2
3 AB-3
4 AB-4
5 AB-5
6 AB-6
7 than control beam).
Tested Beam
4.4. CFRP tensile strains
Fig. 11. Normalized tested load capacity versus theoretical load capacity.
The tested CFRP strain values are shown in Table 5, respectively.
(8% enhancement), and toughness (14% enhancement) which reflect Inspection of Table 5 reveals that the tested CFRP strain with respect to
the efficiency of U-sheet configuration in term of structural behavior ultimate CFRP strain (14000 με) was 10%, 17%, 27%, 21%, 25%, 23%
and implementation of the configuration in reality. Drilling and appli- and 30% for CB, AB-1, AB-2, AB-3, AB-4, AB-5 and AB-6, respectively.
cation of steel U plate configuration bolts may damage the concrete and Whereas the enhancement in the CFRP strain due to anchored beams
the reinforcement reducing the shear strength of the anchorage zone. with respect to un-anchored ones (CB) was between 7%, 17%, 11%,
For the third group beams that were anchored with FRP sheet and 15%, 13% and 20% for AB-1, AB-2, AB-3, AB-4, AB-5, and AB-6, re-
bolted steel plates anchors, Table 5 shows the ultimate loads of beams spectively. Therefore, the FRP sheet and bolted steel plates anchors U
AB-5 and AB-6 were about 27% and 60% higher than that of the control configuration is the most efficient anchorage system in terms of the
(CB), whereas the mid-span deflections at ultimate load for the same tested CFRP strain with respect to ultimate CFRP strain.
beams were about 7% and 19% higher than that of the control. The
stiffness of beams AB-5 and AB-6 were increased by 18% and 34% 4.5. Experimental versus design strength capacity
compared to the control, while the toughness for the same beams were
increased by 27% and 78% compared to the control which indicated For all tested beams, the minimum design load capacity was cal-
that the FRP sheet and bolted steel plates anchors U configuration (AB- culated theoretically based on the sectional analysis considering the
6) is better than the FRP sheet and bolted steel plates anchors tension critical section as shown in Table 7. The equivalent stress block analysis
configuration (AB-5) in terms of ultimate load (33% enhancement), was implemented in order to calculate minimum design load capacity
ultimate deflection (12% enhancement), stiffness (16% enhancement), considering that the actual stress of steel and CFRP strip. The actual
and toughness (51% enhancement). concrete characteristic strength is considered for each beam as reported
Finally, the enhancement values indicated that FRP sheet and bolted in section 3.2.1 and Table 7. Fig. 11 shows the ratio of tested moment
steel plates anchors U configuration is better than the U-sheet capacity over the theoretical moment capacity. Inspection of Table 7

32
A.N. Ababneh, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 26–33

and Fig. 11 reveals that the tested load capacity of the beams can be shear strengthening efficiencies of RC beams. Constr Build Mater
obtained theoretically with a safety margin in the range of 4–38%. 2011;25(1):1419–29.
[11] Triantafillou TC, Plevris N. Strengthening of RC beams with epoxy-bonded fiber-
composite materials. Mater Struct 1992;25(1):201–11.
5. Conclusions [12] Pham H, Al-Mahaidi R. Experimental investigation into flexural retrofitting of re-
inforced concrete bridge beams using FRP composites. Compos Struct
2004;66(1):617–25.
The following can be concluded from the experimental results: [13] Fathelbab Fahmy A, Ramadan Mostafa S, Al-Tantawy Ayman. Strengthening of RC
bridge slabs using CFRP sheets. Alexandria Eng J 2014;53(4):843–54.
1. The unanchored beams suffered from premature end interfacial [14] Morsy Alaa M, El-Tony El-Tony M, El-Naggar Mohamed. Flexural repair/strength-
ening of pre-damaged R.C. beams using embedded CFRP rods. Alexandria Eng J
debonding, while the FRP anchored beams experienced end con- 2015;54(4):1175–9.
crete cover separation failure. [15] Tumialan G, Belarbi A, Nanni A. Reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
2. The presence of end anchorages in the bolted steel plates and FRP CFRP composites: failure deu to concrete delamination. Report No. CIES-99/01,
Department of Civil Engineering, Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies
sheet and bolted steel plates anchors beams shifted the two forms of
1999, University of Missouri-Rolla, USA.
end debonding failure modes, i.e. end interfacial debonding and [16] Fanning PJ, Kelly O. Ultimate response of RC beams strengthened with CFRP plates.
cover separation, to a less critical one, therefore improved the per- J Compos Constr 2001;5(2):122–7.
formance of the conventional FRP-strengthening method. [17] Sebastian WM. Significance of midspan debonding failure in FRP-plated concrete
beams. J Struct Eng-ASCE 2001;127(7):792–8.
3. FRP and/or steel U-jackets increase the shear capacity of the an- [18] Shin YS, Lee C. Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
chorage zone, therefore result in higher anchorage efficiency of FRP- carbon fiber–reinforced polymer laminates at different levels of sustained load. ACI
strengthened concrete beams. Struct J 2003;100(2):231–9.
[19] Demakos Constantinos B, Repairs Constantinos C, Drivas Dimitrios. Investigating
4. The anchored beams showed an increase in the load-carrying ca- the influence of FRP sheet anchorage to structural response of reinforced concrete
pacity for the strengthened beams accompanied by a reduction in beams. Open Constr Build Technol J 2013;7(1):146–57.
the vertical deflection at the mid-span in different percentages [20] Khalifa A, Alkhrdaji T, Nanni A, Lansburg S. Anchorage of surface mounted FRP
reinforcement. Concr Int: Des Constr 1999;21(10):49–54.
compared with the control beam. [21] Manos GC, Katakalos Konstantinos, Kourtides V. The influence of concrete surface
5. U-Anchoring improved the ultimate load capacity, stiffness, tough- preparation when fiber-reinforced polymers with different anchoring devices are
ness and decrease deflection with respect to control beam as well as being applied for strengthening R/C structural members. Appl Mech Mater
2011;82(1):600–5.
providing higher structural performance factor. [22] Mosallam Ayman S, Banerjee Swagata. shear enhancement of reinforced concrete
beams strengthened with FRP composite laminates. Compos B Eng
Declaration of Competing Interest 2007;38(5–6):781–93.
[23] Anil O, Belgin CM. Anchorages effects on CFRP-to-concrete bond strength. J Reinf
Plast Compos 2010;29(1):539–57.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [24] Diab H, Wub Z, Iwashita K. Short and long-term bond performance of prestressed
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- FRP sheet anchorages. Eng Struct 2009;31(1):1241–9.
ence the work reported in this paper. [25] Smith ST, Hua S, Kim SJ, Seracino R. FRP-strengthened RC slabs anchored with FRP
anchors. Eng Struct 2011;33(1):1075–87.
[26] El Maaddawy T, Soudki K. Strengthening of reinforced concrete slabs with me-
Acknowledgment chanically-anchored unbonded FRP system. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(1):444–55.
[27] Ceroni F, Pecce M, Matthys S, Taerwe L. Debonding strength and anchorage devices
for reinforced concrete elements strengthened with FRP sheets. Compos B
The work that is described in this paper was fully supported by a 2008;39(1):429–41.
grant from the Deanship of Research at Jordan University of Science [28] Bank L, Arora D. Analysis of RC beams strengthened with mechanically fastened
and Technology (Project No. 2011/255). This support is gratefully ac- FRP (MF-FRP) strips. Compos Struct 2007;79(1):180–91.
[29] Al-Mahmoud F, Castel A, François R, Tourneur C. Anchorage and tension-stiffening
knowledged. effect between near-surface-mounted CFRP rods and concrete. Cem Concr Compos
2011;33(1):346–52.
References [30] Kalfat R, Al-Mahaidi R, Smith ST. anchorage devices used to improve the perfor-
mance of reinforced concrete beams retrofitted with FRP composites: a-state-of-the-
art-review. J Compos Constr 2013;17(1):14–33.
[1] ACI Committee 440. Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for [31] Biscaia Hugo C, Micaelo Rui, Teixeira João, Chastre Carlos. Numerical analysis of
Strengthening Concrete Structures. *ACI440.2R-02. American Concrete Institute FRP anchorage zones with variable width. Compos B Eng 2014;67(1):410–26.
2002, Farmington Hills, Mich.: 45 pp. [32] Lamanna AJ, Bank LC, Scott DW. Flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete
[2] El-Hacha R, Rizkalla SH. Near-surface-mounted fiber-reinforced polymer re- beams using fasteners and fiber-reinforced polymer strips. ACI Struct J
inforcements for flexural strengthening of concrete structures. ACI Struct J 2001;98(3):368–676.
2004;101(5):717–26. [33] Spadea G, Bencardino F, Swamy RN. Structural behavior of composite RC beams
[3] Hassan T, Rizkalla S. Investigation of bond in concrete structures strengthened with with externally bonded CFRP. J Compos Constr 1998;2(3):132–7.
near surface mounted carbon fiber reinforced polymer strips. J Compos Constr [34] Lam L, Teng JG. Strength of RC cantilever slabs bonded with GFRP strips. J Compos
2003;7(3):248–57. Constr 2001;5(4):221–7.
[4] Khalifa Ahmed M. Flexural performance of RC beams strengthened with near-sur- [35] Micelli F, Rizzo A, Galati D. Anchorage of composite laminates in RC flexural
face mounted CFRP strips. Alexandria Eng J 2016;55(2):1497–505. beams. Struct Concr 2010;11(3):117–26.
[5] Barros JAO, Dias SJE, Lima JLT. Efficacy of CFRP-based techniques for the flexural [36] Biscaia Hugo C, Chastre Carlos. Design method and verification of steel plate an-
and shear strengthening of concrete beams. Cem Concr Compos 2007;29(1):203–17. chorages for FRP-to-concrete bonded interfaces. Compos Struct 2018;192(1):52–66.
[6] Shannag MJ, Al-Akhras NM, Mahdawi SF. Flexure strengthening of lightweight [37] Claudio Carlo Pellegrino, Modena ModenaClaudio. Flexural strengthening of real-
reinforced concrete beams using carbon fiber-reinforced polymers. J Struct scale RC and PRC beams with end-anchored pretensioned FRP laminates. ACI Struct
Infrastruct Eng 2014;10(5):604–13. J 2009;106(3):319–28.
[7] Wenwei W, Guo L. Experimental study and analysis of RC beams strengthened with [38] Biscaia Hugo C, Chastre Carlos, Cruz David, Franco Noel. Flexural strengthening of
CFRP laminates under sustained load. Int J Solids Struct 2006;43(1):1372–87. old timber floors with laminated carbon fiber-reinforced polymers. J Compos Constr
[8] Aram MR, Czaderski C, Motavalli M. Debonding failure modes of flexural FRP- 2019;21(1):04016073.
strengthened RC beams. Compos B 2008;39(1):826–41. [39] ACI committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318M-
[9] Thomsen H, Spacone E, Limkatanyu S, Camata G. Failure mode analyses of re- 08). Michigan (USA): American Concrete Institute; 2008.
inforced concrete beams strengthened in flexure with externally bonded fiber-re- [40] ASTM standards construction: Concrete and aggregates (V. 04-05). MI, USA:
inforced polymers. J Struct Eng-ASCE 2004;2(123). 1090-0268. American Society for Testing Materials; 2004.
[10] El-Ghandour A. Experimental and analytical investigation of CFRP flexural and

33