FRPRCS-11

Joaquim Barros & Jos Sena-Cruz (Eds)

UM, Guimares, 2013

Review of Design Code Provisions on Externally Strengthened

Concrete Structures with FRP Laminates

R. Vuddandam1, H. Toutanji2, S. Ueno1

Grad. Res. Assistant, S201, Technology Hall, UAH, Huntsville, AL 35899, rbv0017@uah.edu
Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, Prof., S201, Technology Hall, UAH, Huntsville, AL 35899, toutanh@uah.edu

Keywords: EBR; Reinforced concrete; Flexural strengthening.

SUMMARY
Substantial research works have been done in the area of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) laminates
for strengthening concrete structures. A comprehensive set of guidelines, recommendations or reports
have been developed by different organizations from different countries on concrete structures
externally bonded with FRP laminates. Although the knowledge on FRP materials and their
applications has been exchanged through international conferences to develop these guidelines, each
report or recommendation is distinct in considering strength reduction factors, resistance factors,
environmental factors, failure modes and ductility provisions. Each organization uses different design
equations to estimate flexural capacity, development length and FRP debonding/peeling limits. The
main aim of this paper is to discuss flexural design concept and ductility provisions implemented in
design codes from several countries.

1. INTRODUCTION
The use of fiber reinforced polymer laminates to strengthen the existing concrete structures has been
gaining interest worldwide. Although design guidelines use different safety factors, the approach to
evaluate the strength contributed by FRP is almost identical in all of them. Ultimate strength for a
governing mode of failure must satisfy strain compatibility and force equilibrium. To evaluate the
effect of FRP external reinforcement at serviceability, transformed section analysis can be used.
Different types of failure modes addressed by several codes, presented in Table 1. Schematic
representation of all the failure modes is shown in Figure 1. Failure modes (a), (b) and (c) are classical
flexural failure mechanisms observed in FRP strengthened concrete beams and have been investigated
to greater extent in the available literature. Failure modes (d) and (e) govern if the force in FRP cannot
be taken by concrete substrate. Hollaway and Teng [1] further classified failure mode (e) based on
crack propagation as (i) plate end (PE) interfacial debonding, (ii) intermediate crack debonding (IC)
and (iii) critical diagonal crack (CDC) debonding. Also, ib Bull 14 [2] classifies debonding as (i)
peeling-off (localized debonding confined to a small length (0.08 in.) between concrete and FRP), (ii)
cohesion failure (debonding in adhesive only), (iii) adhesion failure (bond failure at the interface
between adhesive and concrete or adhesive and FRP), (iv) interlaminar shear failure (debonding inside
the FRP between fibers and resin). Further, ib Bull 14 classifies peeling-off as peeling-off in an
uncracked anchorage zone (PE debonding), peeling-off caused by flexural and shear cracks (IC
debonding) and peeling-off caused by unevenness of the concrete surface.

Review of Design Code Provisions on Externally Strengthened Concrete Structures with FRP
Laminates
R. Vuddandam, H. Toutanji, S. Ueno

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

Figure 1: Schematic representation of failure modes [1]: (i) crushing of concrete; (ii) FRP rupture; (iii)
Concrete cover seaparation; (iv) Plate end (PE) debonding; (v) Intermediate crack (IC) debonding; (vi)
Critical diagonal crack (CDC) debonding.

Review of Design Code Provisions on Externally Strengthened Concrete Structures with FRP
Laminates
R. Vuddandam, H. Toutanji, S. Ueno
Table 1: Summary of failure modes addressed by various FRP design codes/reports.
Code
ACI 440.2R-08 [3] (USA)

Failure modes
addressed
a, b, c, d, e

NCHRP Rpt 655-10 [4] (USA)

ISIS CDM No.4-01 [5] (Canada)

a, b, c, d, e
a, b, c, d, e

ib Bull 14-01 [2] (Europe)

a, b, c, d, e

JSCE-01 [6] (Japan)

a, b, c, e

CNR-DT 200/04 [7] (Italy)

a, b, c, e

ECP 208-05 [8] (Egypt)

CS TR55-2000 [9] (UK)

a, b, c, d, e
a, b, c, e

CECS 146:2003 [10] (China)

a, b, c

Debonding of FRP
Prevented by limiting strain level in FRP and
providing sufficient anchorage length
Prevented by limiting strain level in FRP
Assumed that it can be prevented by
providing sufficient anchorage or bond length
Prevented by limiting ultimate strain, limiting
maximum tensile stress in FRP and providing
sufficient anchorage length
Prevented by limiting maximum tensile stress
in FRP and providing sufficient anchorage
length
PE debonding is prevented by providing
optimal bond length, IC debonding is
prevented by limiting maximum strength in
FRP
Prevented by limiting strain level in FRP
Prevented by limiting longitudinal shear
stress between FRP and the substrate,
providing sufficient anchorage length and
limiting ultimate strain in FRP
Assumed to be prevented

(a) Crushing of concrete in compression before yielding of the reinforcing steel; (b) Yielding of steel in tension followed by rupture of the
FRP laminate; (c) Yielding of steel in tension followed by concrete crushing; (d) Shear/tension delamination of the concrete cover (cover
delamination); (e) Debonding of the FRP from the concrete substrate (FRP debonding).

Although significant increase in strength can be achieved through externally bonded FRP, failure
governed by debonding, limits the degree of gain in strength. Currently, many design
codes/specifications/guidelines around the world consider classical failure modes (a), (b) and (c) while
designing a FRP strengthening scheme and providing limiting equations to avoid debonding. In fact,
literature on experimental studies conducted on FRP strengthened beams designed as per code
provisions were reported to have premature failures instead of concrete crushing or FRP rupture.
Hence debonding failure mode has become a growing concern in FRP research community. In this
paper, an attempt has been made to carefully present existing code provisions for flexural
strengthening and ductility requirement.
2. FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
2.1 ACI 440.2R-08 (USA)
For a structural member, in order to safely take certain level of load, ACI code [3] recommends a
strengthening limit (Equation 1) to qualify for FRP strengthening.

(R n ) existing (1.1S DL + 0.75S LL ) new

(1)

where, S DL and S LL are anticipated dead and live load effects, respectively.
Although, ACI code [3] addresses all the five failure modes presented in Table 1, it considers failure
modes (a), (b) and (c) in analysis, while designing FRP strengthening schemes for flexure. Other
failure modes cover delamination and FRP debonding is prevented by providing sufficient anchorage
length, ldf (Equation 2) and limiting strain level in FRP, fd (Equation 3), respectively.

Review of Design Code Provisions on Externally Strengthened Concrete Structures with FRP
Laminates
R. Vuddandam, H. Toutanji, S. Ueno

ldf =

nE f t f
fc '

fd = 0.41

(2)

fc '
0.9 fu
nE f t f

(3)

where, n is the number of plies of FRP reinforcement, E f is the tensile modulus elasticity of FRP in
psi, t f is the nominal thickness of one ply of FRP reinforcement in inches, f c ' is the specified
compressive strength of concrete in psi and fu is the design rupture strain of FRP reinforcement in
in./in.

ACI code [3] adopts three safety factors, namely a strength reduction factor , a FRP strength
reduction factor f and an environmental reduction factor C E . Strength reduction factor ( )
characterizes the ductility loss due to FRP reinforcement and is defined in Equation 10-5 of ACI code
[3]:
FRP strength reduction factor, f =0.85 is addressed to account for the reliability of FRP towards
flexural strength contribution. To consider the effect of long term exposure to environmental
conditions, an environmental reduction factor C E is presented in Table 9.1 of ACI code [3] for
interior, exterior and aggressive exposure conditions.
ACI code [3] evaluates the flexural capacity of FRP strengthened RC structures under three limit
states, ultimate limit state (ULS), serviceability limit state (SLS) and fatigue limit state. The stress and
strain levels for non-prestressed steel and prestressed steel under ultimate limit state is shown in Table
2. Stress levels of steel and concrete under serviceability limit state is shown in Table 3. At creeprupture and fatigue limit state, stress level in FRP caused by moment with elastic range, f s,s in psi is
limited sustained plus cyclic stress limit. Sustained plus service load stress limits in FRP for different
fiber types can be obtained from Table 10.1 of ACI code [3].

Review of Design Code Provisions on Externally Strengthened Concrete Structures with FRP
Laminates
R. Vuddandam, H. Toutanji, S. Ueno
Table 2: Strain and stress levels at ultimate limit state (ULS)
Non-Prestressed steel

df - c
- bi fd
c

FRP

fe = cu

Steel

s = ( fe + bi )

Concrete

c = ( fe + bi )

FRP

f fe = E f fe

Strain
Stress

Prestressed steel
If failure is by concrete crushing,
d -c
fe = cu f - bi fd
c
If failure is by prestress steel rupture,
d -c
fe = ( pu - pi ) f - bi fd
dp - c

Pe e 2
1 + + pnet 0.035
ps = pe +
A C E C r 2
c

c = ( fe + bi )
df - c

d-c

df - c
c

df - c

f fe = E f fe
For Grade 250 ksi steel,
196500 ps

for ps 0.0076

0.276
f ps =
for ps > 0.0076)
1720

0.0064
ps

where, bi is the strain level in concrete substrate at the time of FRP installation in in./in., cu is the maximum usable strain
of concrete = 0.003, c is the strain level in concrete in in./in., p and ps are strain levels in nonprestressed and prestressed

Steel

fs = Es s f y

steel respectively in in./in., fe is the effective strain level in FRP at failure in in./in., fd is the debonding strain limit of FRP
in in./in.,

Ec

is modulus elasticity of the concrete in psi,

effective force in prestressing reinforcement in lbs.,

Ac

df

is the effective depth of FRP reinforcement in psi,

Pe

is the

is the cross-sectional area of concrete in compression in in. , e is the

eccentricity of prestressing steel w.r.t centroidal axis in in., r is the radius of gyration of section in in., pnet is the net strain
in flexural prestressing steel at limit state in in., f fe is effective stress in FRP at failure in psi, f s and f ps are the stresses in
nonprestressed and prestressed steel respectively in psi.

Stress

Table 3: Stress levels at serviceability limit state (SLS)

Non-Prestressed steel Prestressed steel
Concrete

f c,s = E c c,s 0.45 f c '

f c,s = E c c,s 0.45 f c '

Steel

f s,s 0.8 f y

0.82 f py
f ps,s
0.74 f pu

where, c,s is the strain level in concrete at service in in., f y is the specified yield
strength of the nonprestressed steel in psi, f pu is the specified tensile strength of
prestressing tendons in psi, f s,s and f ps,s are the stresses in nonprestressed and
prestressed steel respectively in psi at service loads.

2.2 NCHRP Rpt 655-10 (USA)

NCHRP Rpt 655 [4] presents guidelines to strengthen bridge elements using FRP in consistent with
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification [11]. Similar to Equation 1, NCHRP Rpt impose a
requirement to apply guide specifications to bridge elements, given by

R r i [(DC + DW) + (LL + IM)]

(4)

Review of Design Code Provisions on Externally Strengthened Concrete Structures with FRP
Laminates
R. Vuddandam, H. Toutanji, S. Ueno
where, R r and i are factored resistance and load modifier respectively computed in accordance with
AASHTO LFRD specification [11]. DC , DW , LL and IM are load effects due to components,
wearing surface, live load and dynamic load respectively.
While designing, the failure mode due to FRP rupture is avoided by setting a certain strain value in the
range of 0.003 to 0.008. For flexural strengthening analysis, a strain limit in FRP of 0.005 is used to
account for ductility behavior. Using values less than 0.005 tends to experience more brittle failure
modes. If the strain at the concrete/FRP interface is limited to one half of the ultimate tension strain of
FRP, debonding can be prevented. During analysis, this limit will be indirectly satisfied by setting the
strain limit in FRP to 0.005. To utilize the full tension strength of FRP at the region of maximum
moment, NCHRP report suggests a minimum development length L d expressed as
Ld

Tf
int b f

(5)

where, int is the interface shear transfer strength (ksi) given by 0.065 f c ' ; Tf and b f are tensile
force (kips) in the FRP reinforcement corresponding to FRP strain of 0.005 and width of FRP
reinforcement (in.) respectively.
For cases in which end peeling/debonding occurs, peel stress at the end of externally bonded
reinforcement is limited as

f peel int

(6)

where, f peel is a function of FRP and adhesive material properties.

Concrete bridge structures are theoretically designed to have infinite fatigue design life. As such, at
fatigue limit state NCHRP Rpt imposes limitations on strain in concrete, steel and FRP as follows:

c 0.36

fc '
Ec

(7)

s 0.8 y

(8)

fe fu

(9)

where, y and are the strain corresponding to yield stress of steel and strain reduction factor/strain
limitation coefficient respectively.
NCHRP Rpt implements two safety factors, namely a FRP strength reduction factor ( frp = 0.85) and a
strain limitation coefficient ( = 0.8 for CFRP, 0.5 for AFRP, 0.3 for GFRP).
2.3 ISIS CDM No.4-01 (Canada)
ISIS CDM No.4 [4] addresses all the failure modes except the concrete cover delamination (d). Also, it
assumes that the failure due to debonding (e) is avoided by providing sufficient anchorage length or by
using sufficient bond length (Equation 10) in order to develop full capacity in FRP laminate.

ldf k d E f t f
where, k d is factor related development length to stiffness of FRP given by

(10)

Review of Design Code Provisions on Externally Strengthened Concrete Structures with FRP
Laminates
R. Vuddandam, H. Toutanji, S. Ueno
kd

b f fu

bw k fc '
where, k is related to mean bond strength of the concrete with minimum value of 0.17.

(11)

ISIS CDM No.4 suggests two safety factors, namely a FRP resistance factor ( frp ) and an
environmental reduction factor ( frpe ). The factor frp is 0.7 for FRP rupture and is 0.75 for debonding
failure mode. Resistance factors for concrete and steel reinforcement is different based on the type of
structure (Structure or bridge) under strengthening and were presented in Table 4.1 of ISIS CDM
No.4. Environmental reduction factors adopted by ISIS Manual are similar to that of ACI code
2.4 ib Bull 14-01 (Europe)
Material safety factor f is different based on the type of FRP system (prefabricated and wet lay-up)
were presented in Table 3-1 of ib code [5].

At service limit state, the stresses in concrete, steel are limited as shown below:
0.60 f ck for rare load combination
f c,s
0.45 f ck for quasi permanent load combination

(12)

f s,s 0.60 f yk

(13)

f f,s f fk

for rare load combination

for quasi permanent load combination

(14)

where, f ck , f yk and f fk are characteristic compressive strength of concrete, characteristic yield

strength of steel and characteristic strength of FRP corresponding to 5% of failure tensile strength. The
factor is the FRP stress limitation coefficient, adopts same values of strain limitation coefficient
used in NCHRP Rpt 655.
2.5 JSCE-01 (Japan)
JSCE code [6] adopts five safety factors shown in Table 4. To avoid peeling failure, a limit on
maximum design stress of FRP laminate (Equation 15) and anchorage length (Equation 16) is
suggested,

2G f E f
nt f

(15)

where, G f is interfacial fracture energy between FRP and concrete in lb/in., is the reduction factor
related to the influence of fatigue load on fracture energy. can be set to 0.7 for fatigue limit state.
f fu nt f
(16)
f
where, f fu is the tensile stress level of FRP at design load in psi., f is the bond strength between
FRP and concrete in psi.

Ld

Review of Design Code Provisions on Externally Strengthened Concrete Structures with FRP
Laminates
R. Vuddandam, H. Toutanji, S. Ueno

Safety factor
Material factor ( m )
Concrete
Steel
FRP Laminate
Member factor ( b )
Flexure
Shear
Ductility
Structure factor ( i )
Load factor ( f )
Analysis factor ( a )

Table 4: JSCE code safety factors

Ultimate Limit State
Serviceability limit state

1.3
1.0 (1.05)
1.2-1.3

1.0
1.0
1.0

1.15
1.25
1.3
1.0-1.2
1.0-1.2
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

2.6 CNR-DT 200/04 (Italy)

CNR-DT 200/04 [7] classifies failure modes similar to that of ib Bull 14 [5]. It also provides the
bond-slip law to characterize the bond between FRP and concrete interface. CNR-DT 200/04 suggest
three safety factors, namely a FRP partial factor m , an environmental conversion factor a and long
term effect conversion factor l . FRP partial factors m at ultimate limit sate are shown in Table 3-2
of CNR-DT 200/04 code under different types of application conditions. FRP partial factor m of 1 is
assigned at serviceability limit state. Environmental conversion factor a suggested by CNR-DT code
is similar to that of Environmental reduction factor used in ACI code. Long term effect conversion
factors l for different loading modes (continuous and cyclic) are shown in Table 3-5 of CNR-DT
200/04 code.
The optimal bond length suggested by CNR-DT 200/04 code to prevent debonding is as follows:
Ef tf
Ld
(17)
2 f ctm

where, f ctm is the mean tensile strength of the concrete.

2.7 CECS 146:2003 (China)
CECS 146:2003 [10] presents the flexural strength of FRP strengthened beam under three failure
modes (a, b, c). Strength factors associated with FRP materials intrinsically considered to formulate
the empirical moment equations.

The effective strain level in FRP laminate is limited by CECS code as follows:
fe k m fu 0.01
nE f t f
2
where k m 1
is a strain reduction factor.
420,000 3

(18)

3. DUCTILITY REQUIREMENT
In general, concrete structural members are designed to exhibit ductility. More ductile a structural
member, the more robust it is. When external FRP reinforcement is used for flexural strengthening,
ductility of the existing member is reduced. A section with significant loss in ductility is not a robust
design. To ensure ductility behavior, guidelines are provided in many codes. This section will discuss
the ductility requirements presented in various codes.

Review of Design Code Provisions on Externally Strengthened Concrete Structures with FRP
Laminates
R. Vuddandam, H. Toutanji, S. Ueno
3.1 ACI 440.2R-08 (USA)
For a structural member to exhibit ductility, ACI code recommends strain in steel at ultimate limit
state irrespective of failure mode should be at least 0.005.
3.2 NCHRP Rpt 655-10 (USA)
To guarantee ductility of structural member, NCHRP Rpt recommends the following requirement:

fu
2 .5
fy

(19)

where, fu is the strain developed in the FRP at the ultimate limit state and fy is the strain in FRP
laminate corresponding to yielding of tension steel.
3.3 ISIS CDM No.4-01 (Canada)
To maintain sufficient degree of ductility, maximum tensile strain in the FRP laminate is limited to
0.007.
3.4 ib Bull 14-01 (Europe)
To achieve ductility, minimum strain capabilities are introduced in FRP laminate and steel
reinforcement as follows:
Strain is FRP laminates,

0.0050 o
0.0075 o

fu ,c

for concrete types C35/45 and lower

for concrete types higher than C35/45

(20)

Strain is steel,

0.0043 for concrete types C35/45 and lower

0.0065 for concrete types higher than C35/45

su ,c

(21)

4. COMPARISON
In the current study, flexural strength results are compared for the different [3, 4, 5, 10] design codes.
The problem statement considered for the comparison is as follows [3]: A simply supported concrete
beam reinforced with three No. 9 bars (Figure 2) is subjected to a 50% increase in its live load
carrying capacity. Its flexural strength however is inadequate to carry the increased live load and needs
to be strengthened with FRP. Table 5 summarizes the existing and anticipated service loads on the
structure.

Figure 2: Schematic representation of simply supported beam with FRP external reinforcement.

Review of Design Code Provisions on Externally Strengthened Concrete Structures with FRP
Laminates
R. Vuddandam, H. Toutanji, S. Ueno

Loading
Dead Load
Live Load

Table 5: Summary of existing and anticipated loads

Existing
Anticipated
Increase (%)
14.6 N/mm
14.6 N/mm
0
17.5 N/mm
26.3 N/mm
50

Table 6 summarizes load factors, material strength reduction factors and strength reduction factors for
some codes considered for comparison. Table 7 summarizes the percentage increase in flexural
strength.
Table 6: Summary of load factors and strength reduction factors
Load Factors
Material Strength reduction
factors

Code

Dead
loads

Live
Loads

concrete

steel

FRP

ACI 440.2R-08 [3] (USA)

NCHRP Rpt 655-10 [4] (USA)
ISIS CDM No.4-01 [5] (Canada)
CECS 146;2003 [10] (China)

1.2
1.2
1.25
1.2

1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4

0.6
-

0.85
-

0.85
0.85
0.7-0.75
-

Table 7: Summary of flexural strength results

Required
Design flexural
factored flexural
strength
strength (kN-m)
(kN-m)
ACI 440.2R-08 [3] (USA)
399
443
NCHRP Rpt 655-10 [4] (USA)
399
481
ISIS CDM No.4-01 [5] (Canada)
354
389
CECS 146;2003 [10] (China)
332
378

Code

Strength
reduction
factors

0.65-0.9
0.65-0.9
-

Increase in
Flexural
Strength (%)
11.2%
20.7%
9.9%
13.9%

5. CONCLUSION
The basic concepts for FRP flexural strengthening are common for all the discussed design codes.
However, safety factors, limits to prevent debonding, ductility requirements differ. Although, bondslip laws are briefly explained in some of the design codes [2, 7], their implementation in design of
flexural strengthened structures is not specified. While developing FRP flexural strengthening system,
design codes avoid debonding by limiting strain level in FRP [2, 3, 4, 8] or providing sufficient
anchorage length [5, 6, 7, 9]. Premature failure of concrete structures with externally bonded FRP due
to debonding still needs to be well addressed in design codes to fully utilize the strength of FRP. In the
effect of that an example to compare gain in percentage flexure strength for the design codes shows
different results. NCHRP report estimates relatively high gain in strength compared to ACI, ISIS and
CECS design codes.

REFERENCES
[1] L.C. Hollaway and J.G. Teng, Strengthening and rehabilitation of civil infrastructures using fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) composites, Cambridge, Wood head publishing limited, (2008).
[2] ib Task Group 9.3, Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC Structures, Technical Report
ib Bulletin 14, CEB-FIP, Lausanne, Switzerland, (2001).

10

Review of Design Code Provisions on Externally Strengthened Concrete Structures with FRP
Laminates
R. Vuddandam, H. Toutanji, S. Ueno

[3] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440, Guide for the design and construction of
externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures, ACI 440.2R-08, MI, USA,
(2008).
[4] National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 655, Recommended guide
specification for the design of externally bonded FRP systems for repair and strengthening of concrete
bridge elements, NCHRP Rpt 655, (2010).
[5] ISIS Canada, Strengthening reinforced concrete structures with externally bonded fiber reinforced
polymers, ISIS Design Manual No. 4, Winnipeg, Canada, (2001).
[6] Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), Recommendations for upgrading of concrete structures
with use of continuous fiber sheet, Concrete Engineering Series 41, Japan, (2001).
[7] Italian National Research Council (CNR), Guide for the design and construction of externally
bonded FRP systems for strengthening existing structures: materials, RC and PC structures, masonry
structures, CNR-DT 200/04, Rome, Italy, (2004).
[8] Egyptian Code of Practice (ECP), The use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) in the construction
fields, ECP208-2005, Egypt, (2005).
[9] The Concrete Soceity, Design guidance for strengthening concrete structures using fiber
composite materials, CS Technical Rpt 55, UK, (2000).
[10] China association for Engineering Construction Standards (CECS), Technical specifications for
strengthening structures with carbon fiber reinforced polymer laminates, CECS 146:2003, China
planning press, Beijing, China, (2003).
[11] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), LRFD bridge
design specification, 4th edition, Washington, DC, USA, (2007).

11