Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

Shear capacity of FRP-strengthened RC beams: FRP debonding

J.F. Chena,*, J.G. Tengb
a

Institute for Infrastructure and Environment, School of Engineering and Electronics, Edinburgh University, The Kings Buildings,
Edinburgh EH9 3JN, UK
b
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, PR China

Abstract
Many studies have been undertaken on shear strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) beams by externally bonding fibrereinforced polymer (FRP) composites. These studies have established clearly that such strengthened beams fail in shear mainly
in one of two modes: FRP rupture; and FRP debonding, and have led to preliminary design proposals. This paper is concerned
with the development of a simple, accurate and rational design proposal for the shear capacity of FRP-strengthened beams which
fail by FRP debonding. Existing strength proposals are reviewed and their deficiencies highlighted. A new strength model is then
developed. The model is validated against experimental data collected from the existing literature. Finally, a new design proposal
is presented.
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fibre reinforced polymer; Fibre reinforced plastic; FRP; Debonding; Reinforced concrete beams; Shear design; Shear strength; Shear
strengthening

1. Introduction
A recent innovation for the shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete (RC) beams is to externally bond
fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite plates or
sheets. This method has become popular because of the
advantages of FRP composites such as their high
strength-to-weight ratio, good corrosion resistance, and
versatility in coping with different sectional shapes and
corners. Many studies on this theme have been carried
out since the early 1990s w124x. These studies have
established clearly that such strengthened beams fail in
shear mainly in one of the two modes: tensile rupture
of the FRP; and debonding of the FRP from the sides
of the RC beam, depending on how the beam is
strengthened w25x.
Common methods of strengthening include side bonding, U-jacketing and wrapping (Fig. 1). Both FRP strips
and continuous sheets have been used. The fibres in the
FRP may also be oriented at different angles.
The combination of different bonding configurations,
fibre distributions and fibre orientations can result in
many different strengthening schemes. Symbolic representations are used here as in Chen and Teng w7x when
*Corresponding author.

presenting the test database so that each shear strengthening scheme is identified by a set of clearly defined
symbols. Each of the shear strengthening schemes can
be denoted by one symbol representing the bonding
configuration (S for side bonding, U for U jacketing
and W for wrapping), followed by a second symbol
representing the fibre distribution (S for strips and P for
platesysheets) and followed by two sets of numbers
representing the first and second fibre orientations (Fig.
1). For example, US45y135 represents U jacketing with
FRP strips at 45 and 1358. A more detailed discussion
is given in Teng et al. w25x.
Available experimental data indicate that almost all
beams strengthened by wrapping failed due to FRP
rupture (although debonding most likely occurs first,
FRP rupture controls the shear capacity in this case).
Some beams strengthened by U jacketing w6x also failed
in this mode. A predictive strength model and a design
proposal for this failure mode are given in Chen and
Teng w7x. In contrast, almost all beams strengthened by
side bonding only, and most strengthened by U jacketing, failed due to FRP debonding. Fig. 2 shows the
possible debonding zones for both U jackets and side
plates. Once the FRP starts to peel off, the beam can
fail very quickly. The ductility of beams failing in this
mode is usually very limited.

0950-0618/03/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 0 - 0 6 1 8 0 2 . 0 0 0 9 1 - 0

28

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

Fig. 1. FRP shear strengthening schemes.

It may be noted that pure interfacial debonding failure

along the FRPyadhesive interface or the adhesivey
concrete interface and failure within the adhesive have
been rarely reported. Debonding failures almost always
occur in the concrete at a small distance from the
concreteyadhesive interface with some concrete attached
to the debonded FRP. Although such failures are not
debonding failures in a strict sense, the term debonding
failure has, nevertheless, been commonly used and is
thus also adopted here. Because the failure actually
occurs in the concrete, the properties of the concrete
play a key role in this failure mode.
This paper is concerned with the development of a
simple, accurate and rational design proposal for the
shear capacity of FRP-strengthened beams which fail by
FRP debonding. Existing design proposals are first
briefly reviewed, and their deficiencies highlighted. A
new shear strength model is then developed, which
makes use of the best bond strength model currently
available for FRP-to-concrete bonded joints. The new
shear strength model is validated against experimental
data collected from the existing literature. Finally, a new
design proposal is presented.
2. Existing design proposals
In all existing design proposals w5,21,26,27x, the shear
strength of an FRP-strengthened RC beam, Vn, is eval-

uated from
VnsVcqVsqVfrp

(1)

where Vc is the contribution of the concrete, Vs is the

contribution of the steel stirrups and bent-up bars and
Vfrp is the contribution of the FRP. Vc and Vs may be
calculated according to provisions in existing design
codes, so the main differences between available proposals lie in the evaluation of the FRP contribution
Vfrp. As this paper is concerned with failure due to FRP
debonding, the following brief review only deals with
how debonding was treated in these models. A fuller
review is given in Chen and Teng w7x.
Chaallal et al. w5x proposed a model by assuming that
the bonded FRP contributes to the shear capacity in the
same way as that of internal steel shear reinforcement.
Debonding was dealt with by limiting the design average
shear stress between the FRP and the concrete to half
the value expected at debonding. However, the debonding strength model used by them for limiting the stress
level in the FRP does not fit well with experimental
data w28x. Furthermore, the debonding strength of this
model is in terms of the average shear stress between
the FRP and the concrete. This implies that the tensile
strength of the FRP can always be fully utilised if there
is a sufficiently long bond length (e.g. the beam depth
is large enough), while in reality the stress level in the

Fig. 2. Shear failure due to FRP debonding: (a) side-bonded FRP; and (b) FRP U jacket.

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

29

Fig. 3. Notation for a general shear strengthening scheme.

FRP at debonding does not increase with bond length if

the bond length is already longer than the effective bond
length w28x.
Triantafillou w21x proposed to limit the strain in the
FRP to an effective strain which was obtained from
regression of experimental data. The model fails to
distinguish between different strengthening schemes and
failure modes. At the late stage of preparing the present
paper, Triantafillou and Antonopoulos w26x proposed an
extension of Triantafillous w21x model in which different effective strain expressions were proposed for CFRP
wrapping and other strengthening schemes, but no distinction was made between side bonding and U jacketing. The International Federation for Structural Concrete
(fib) report on externally bonded FRP reinforcement for
RC structures w29x recommended the use of Triantafillou
and Antonopoulos w26x effective strain with a reduction
factor of 0.8 for design. However, a close examination
of the data presented in Triantafillou and Antonopoulos
w26x reveals that their model is statistically not satisfactory for safe practical design w7x.
Khalifa et al. w27x proposed a modification to Triantafillous w21x effective strain model in which the ratio
of effective stress (or strain) in the FRP to its ultimate
strength (or strain) is used instead of the effective stress
(or strain) itself. In particular, they proposed a bond
mechanism design approach based on the bond strength
model of Maeda et al. w30x, which led to a stress
reduction factor R of
0.0042f9c.2y3wfrp
ffrp,e
Rs
s
F0.5
ffrp Efrptfrp.0.58frp,rupdfrp,e

(2)

where f frp,e is the effective stress of frp at failure, f frp

and frp,rup are the ultimate tensile strength and strain of
FRP, Efrp is the elastic modulus of FRP, wfrp and tfrp are
the width and thickness of FRP strips, and dfrp,e is the
effective depth of FRP reinforcement which they defined
as the depth from the upper edge of the shear reinforcement to the centroid of the steel tension reinforcement.
The units in Eq. (2) are in Newtons and millimetres
except that Efrp is in giga-Pascals. This model features

two deficiencies. First, the effective strain approach is

empirical and no satisfactory explanation is available
for the small effective strain ratio R (which has an upper
limit of 0.5) obtained from experimental data. Second,
the bond strength model of Maeda et al. w30x adopted
in deriving the design proposal cannot correctly predict
the effective bond length, which can be misleading for
design use w28x.
The report from the Concrete Society in the UK w31x
which provides design guidance for FRP strengthening
of concrete structures adopted Khalifa et al.s w27x
models. It also recommended that the maximum strain
in the FRP should not exceed 0.004.
Recognising the deficiencies of the existing models,
the present authors have developed two rational shear
strength models for the FRP rupture failure mode and
for the debonding failure mode, respectively. The former
is presented in Chen and Teng w7x and the latter is
presented in this paper.
3. A new shear strength model for FRP debonding
3.1. A general shear strengthening scheme
A general shear strengthening scheme for a beam
with a critical shear crack inclined to its longitudinal
axis by an angle u is considered here (Fig. 3). It is
assumed that the FRP strips are bonded on both sides
of the beam, have the same width wfrp (perpendicular
to fibre orientation, Fig. 9) and thickness tfrp, and are
evenly distributed with a centre-to-centre spacing of
sfrp measured along the longitudinal axis. The FRP may
contain fibres at several different angles, but only the
main fibres at an angle of b measured from the longitudinal axis of the beam are considered to be active in
resisting the shear force.
For continuous uni-directional FRP platesysheets,
sfrp and wfrp have a relationship of sfrpswfrp ysinb w7x.
Therefore, sfrpswfrp if and only if bs908. It may be
noted that sfrpswfrp has been used by some researchers,
and even in design guidance w31x, for continuous sheets
without giving due consideration to the fibre orientation.

30

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

It is further assumed that the shear crack ends at a

distance of 0.1d below the compression face of the
beam (Fig. 3) so that the expression for the contribution
of FRP to shear resistance and that for the contribution
of steel stirrups given in the Eurocode have the same
form. Here, d is the effective depth of the beam
measured from the compression face to the centre of
steel tension reinforcement. Employing a downwardoriented co-ordinate originating from the upper tip of
the shear crack (Fig. 3), the effective height of the FRP
hfrp,e is expressed as:
hfrp,eszbyzt

(3)

where zt and zb are the co-ordinates of the top and

bottom ends of the effective FRP, which may be
expressed as
ztsdfrp,t

(4a)

zbswdfrpy(hyd)xy0.1ds0.9dy(hydfrp)

(4b)

in which dfrp,t is the distance from the compression face

to the top edge of the FRP, h is the height of the beam,
and dfrp is the distance from the compression face to the
lower edge of the FRP (thus, dfrpsh for U jackets).
Noting that the origin of the z-coordinate is 0.1d
below the compression face (Fig. 3), Eq. (4a) means
that the upper edge of the effective FRP is always taken
to be at 0.1d below the actual upper edge. The effective
upper edge thus starts from the crack tip if FRP is
bonded to the full height, leading to significant simplification of the resulting equations. The allowance of an
extra bond length of 0.1dysinb above the effective
upper edge is a conservative and consistent measure for
all cases.
The lower end of the effective FRP is taken to be at
the centroid of the steel tension reinforcement if the
FRP terminates at the base of the RC beam (hsdfrp in
Eq. (4b)) for simplification of expressions w7x. This
means that the effective lower end is (hyd) above the
actual lower edge of FRP. For consistency, the lower
end of the effective FRP is also taken to be (hyd)
above the actual lower edge if the FRP terminates above
the base (Eq. (4b)). This treatment is again conservative.
Fig. 3 shows an example where the side plates terminate
slightly above the base of the RC beam.

location of the shear crack relative to the ends of the

FRP. Assuming that the average (or effective) stress in
the FRP intersected by the critical shear crack at the
ultimate limit state is f frp,e for a strengthened beam as
shown in Fig. 3, the contribution of FRP strips to the
shear capacity can be expressed as
Vfrps2ffrp,etfrpwfrp

hfrp,ecotuqcotb.sinb
sfrp

(5)

Taking the non-uniformity of stresses in the FRP

intersected by the critical shear crack into consideration,
the effective or average stress in the FRP at the ultimate
limit state, f frp,e, can be defined as
ffrp,esDfrpsfrp,max

(6)

in which sfrp,max is the maximum stress in the FRP and

Dfrp is termed here the stress distribution factor which
is defined as
zb

|
Dfrps

sfrp,zdz

zt

hfrp,esfrp,max

(7)

where sfrp,z is the stress in the FRP at the ultimate limit

state at the location where the intersecting critical shear
crack is at a coordinate z. In deriving Eq. (7), it has
been assumed that discrete FRP strips can be treated as
an equivalent FRP continuous sheetyplate. As a result,
this model is applicable to beams strengthened with
either discrete strips or continuous sheetsyplates, with
continuous sheetsyplates being a special case of discrete
strips. The smearing approach for strips involves some
simplification and for it to have reasonable accuracy, a
strip spacing limitation needs to be applied as discussed
later in the paper.
For shear failures controlled by FRP debonding considered in this paper, stresses in the FRP at failure are
controlled by the ultimate bond strength between the
FRP and the concrete. Therefore, both sfrp,max and Dfrp
are related to this bond strength. The bond behaviour
between FRP and concrete in RC beams shear-strengthened with bonded FRP may be closely represented by
simple shear tests (Fig. 4). In the following sub-sections,
sfrp,max and Dfrp are evaluated based on an FRP-toconcrete bond strength model developed for these types
of tests w28x.

3.2. FRP contribution to shear capacity

3.3. Maximum FRP stress along a shear crack
In the debonding failure mode considered in this
paper, the stresses in the FRP intersected by the critical
shear crack are likely to be non-uniform primarily
because the bond length of the FRP depends on the

Substantial research has been carried out on simple

shear tests w6,28,30,3242x. A very important aspect of
this bond behaviour is that there exists an effective bond

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

31

where bL reflects the effect of bond length and bw the

effect of FRP-to-concrete width ratio (bfrp ybc) of the
shear test specimen. The maximum stress sfrp,max, the
elastic modulus of FRP Efrp and the concrete cylinder
compressive strength f9c are all in megaPascals while
the thickness of FRP strips tfrp is in millimetres.
For shear strengthening considered here, the maximum stress in the FRP intersected by the critical shear
crack may be obtained from Eq. (8) using appropriate
geometric parameters as follows. Clearly, this maximum
stress occurs in the fibre with the longest bond length.
Assuming that the critical shear crack is a straight line,
the maximum bond length for the FRP occurs at the
lower end of the shear crack for an FRP U jacket but is
located at the mid-height of the FRP for side plates
(Fig. 3). Therefore, the maximum bond length Lmax is
given by
S

hfrp,e

T sinb
h
T 2sinb

for U jackets
(9)

LmaxU

frp,e

for side plates

Replacing the bond length L in the bond strength

model of Chen and Teng w28x with Lmax here, the bond
length coefficient bL can be expressed as w28x

Fig. 4. Single and double shear tests.

length beyond which an extension of the bond length

cannot increase the bond strength. This is a fundamental
difference between externally bonded FRP reinforcement
and internal reinforcement. For the latter, a sufficiently
long bond length can always be found so that the full
tensile strength of the reinforcement can be achieved,
provided there exists a sufficient concrete cover.
The authors have recently developed a simple, rational
and accurate model for predicting the bond strength and
the effective bond length for this type of FRP-toconcrete joint w28x. This model has been shown to be
in closer agreement than any other existing models with
test data covering a wide range of parameters collected
from the literature. This bond strength model is thus
adopted here, to derive the maximum stress in the FRP
and the stress distribution factor along the critical shear
crack.
At debonding failure, the maximum stress in the FRP
occurs at the location where the FRP has the longest
bond length. The maximum stress in the FRP sfrp,max is
thus limited by the ultimate bond strength unless FRP
rupture controls w28x:
ffrp

T
smin
T0.427b b

sfrp,max

Efrpyf9c
tfrp

T
bs
Tsin pl
2
L

if lG1
(10)

if l-1

in which the normalised maximum bond length l is

defined as
ls

Lmax
Le

(11)

where Le is the effective bond length

Les

Efrptfrp

yf9c

(12)

Similarly, the FRP plate width bfrp and concrete prism

width bc defined in Chen and Tengs w28x bond strength
model for simple shear lap tests may be replaced here
with the FRP strip width wfrp and the centre-to-centre
spacing (perpendicular to the fibres) between them
sfrpsinb. The strip width coefficient bw w28x can thus be
expressed as

(8)

bws

2ywfrp y sfrpsinb.
1qwfrp y sfrpsinb.

(13)

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

32

It may be noted that bwsy2y2 for continuous sheetsy

plates because wfrp y(sfrpsinb)s1 in this case.
3.4. Stress distribution in FRP along a shear crack
Because an FRP-to-concrete bonded joint generally
experiences some slip after reaching the ultimate bond
strength (i.e. it shows some pseudo-plastic behaviour
w43x, it may be assumed that all the FRP intersected by
the critical shear crack has developed the full bond
strength at the ultimate limit state. Note that the bond
strength of a particular partystrip, however, depends on
the location of the shear crack relative to the ends of
this partystrip.
Under this assumption, for a beam strengthened by
U-jacketing, the stress in the partystrip of FRP intersected by the critical shear crack at a coordinate z at
failure can be obtained from Eq. (8) by replacing Lmax
with Lzszysinb in Eq. (9):
ffrp

T
smin
T0.427b b

sfrp,z

Lz

(14)

Efrpyf9c
tfrp

where
1

if lzG1

L
z
T
s
and l s s
L
L sinb
Tsin pl2 if l -1

bLz

(15)

When sfrp,max calculated according to Eq. (8) is

smaller than f frp, the stress distribution factor Dfrp can
be obtained by substituting Eqs. (8) and (14) into Eq.
(7):
p
1ycos l
2
if lF1
p
sin l
2
py2
1y
if l)1
V
pl
S

T
T

2
U pl
Dfrps

(16)

Note that the condition for Eq. (16) that sfrp,max

obtained from Eq. (8) is less than f frp is almost always
satisfied in practice. Even if this is not satisfied, Eq.
(16) may still be used as it is slightly on the conservative
side.
Following the same procedure, the expression for the
stress distribution factor for side bonding can be found
to be exactly the same as Eq. (16). Therefore, Eq. (16)
is applicable to both U jackets and side stripsyplates.

However, the actual calculated values are different for

these two cases even if the bond geometry is the same
on the beam sides because the maximum bond length
Lmax for U jackets is twice that for side stripsyplates
(Eq. (9)).
Fig. 5a shows the variation of Dfrp with l. A more
detailed picture of Dfrp within 0-l-5 is shown in Fig.
5b. The figure shows that Dfrp increases from 0.5 as l
increases from 0 and approaches unity when l approaches infinity. For the same bonding geometry on the sides
of a beam, Dfrp is larger for U jacketing than for side
bonding, because the values of l are different for the
two cases. Similarly, the maximum FRP stress along the
shear crack (Eq. (8)) for U jacketing is larger than or
at least equal to that for side bonding. These reflect the
fact that U jacketing is more effective in shear strengthening than side bonding.
Fig. 6 shows the FRP contribution to shear capacity
for two example RC beams calculated using the above
equations. The two beams have hs150 and 350 mm
and ds120 and 310 mm, respectively, with f9cs40
MPa. Both are bonded over the full height with CFRP
strips of tfrps1 mm, Efrps200 GPa and f frps3500 MPa.
It is clear that U jacketing is more effective than side
bonding. Fig. 6 also shows that the FRP contribution to
shear capacity increases as the strip-to-spacing ratio
rises (wfrp ysfrpsinbs1 for continuous plateysheets), but
this increase is non-linear. This reflects the non-linear
relationship between bw and wfrp ysfrpsinb in Eq. (13).
The fact that the stress in the FRP varies along the
shear crack and the maximum stress is limited by the
ultimate tensile strength of FRP, explains why the
contribution of externally bonded FRP shear reinforcement to the shear capacity of a beam is less than that
of internal steel shear reinforcement of equivalent total
tensile capacity. For most beams which fail by FRP
debonding, the maximum stress the FRP reaches is
substantially smaller than the ultimate tensile strength
of FRP, reducing the FRP contribution further below
that obtained by treating it as equivalent steel shear
reinforcement.
4. Comparison with experimental observations
4.1. Experimental data
An extensive literature review has been carried out to
collect test data of RC beams shear-strengthened with
bonded FRPs. Table 1 includes 46 beams that failed by
FRP debonding, including 13 beams strengthened by
FRP U jacketing and 33 beams strengthened by FRP
side bonding. Only the geometric and material properties
required to determine the contribution of FRP to the
shear capacity by the strength model presented in the
previous section are shown. Further details can be found
from the original sources. Tests that were not sufficiently

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

33

Fig. 5. Stress distribution factor for side bonding and U jacketing: (a) 0-l-20; (b) 0-l-5.

well documented have been excluded. The geometric

parameters of cross-section are given in terms of a T
beam, with the flange thickness T f s0 for rectangular
beams. The beams were tested under symmetric threepoint bending or four-point bending, or anti-symmetrical
moment conditions w15x.
The test data listed in Table 1 have the following
parameter ranges: beam height hs110475 mm; web
thickness bws70200 mm; cylinder compressive
strength of concrete f9cs20.559 MPa; steel tension
reinforcement ratios0.34.1%; shear span ayds1.1
4.7; and steel shear reinforcement ratios0.070.42%.

4.2. Experimental FRP contribution to shear capacity

Reference data of unstrengthened beams with the
same geometry and internal reinforcement are available
for all the specimen groups. However, differences exist
between strengthened and un-strengthened reference
specimens in concrete strength. To take these differences
into account, the following simple procedure was used
in this study.
The shear capacity of the un-strengthened reference
beam, Vpre,ref, may be calculated using one of the wellknown design codes for concrete structures. The exper-

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

34

sources. No such information is available to make such

estimates for a few groups of specimens, so a single
angle for all beams of the same study, which made their
results the best fit for the present model, was assumed
in this case. This assumption may appear less than ideal,
but it should be noted that in the final design proposal
presented later in the paper, a single angle of 458 is
used, so the validity of the final design proposal is not
at all affected by this assumption.
4.3. Comparison of experimental observations with theoretical predictions
Fig. 6. Effect of strip width-to-spacing ratio on shear capacity of sample beams.

imental shear capacity of the reference beam, Vexp,ref, is

most likely much higher than the predicted value. Their
ratio is denoted by k, that is
ks

Vexp,ref
Vpre,ref

(17)

It may be assumed that the same ratio k applies to

the contribution to the shear capacity of the strengthened
test beam by the concrete and the internal reinforcement.
This experimental contribution is thus kVpre,RC, where
Vpre,RC is the contribution by the concrete and the
internal reinforcement calculated according to the same
code as for Vpre,ref. Therefore, the contribution of FRP
to the shear capacity of a strengthened test beam can be
obtained by
VfrpsVexpykVpre,RC

(18)

where Vexp is the experimental shear capacity of the

strengthened beam.
In the present study, Vpre,ref and Vpre,RC were calculated
according to BS 8110 w44x but any other codes may be
used which would lead to little difference for the
deduced Vfrp. It may be noted that k is a combined
scaling factor for concrete and steel shear reinforcement
(all test specimens had the same steel shear reinforcement as their respective reference beam). This simple
approach was adopted in the present study, because the
alternative approach of separating the contributions from
concrete, steel and FRP based on the assumption that
steel reinforcement crossing the critical shear crack with
the assumed angle reached yielding led to little difference to the deduced FRP contribution.
The shear crack angle u has a significant effect on
the shear capacity (see Eq. (5)), but the actual value is
seldom reported in the literature. The majority of the
values listed in Table 1 was estimated from pictures,
sketches or text descriptions presented in the original

The new model is compared with the test data given

in Table 1. Table 2 shows that the new shear strength
model has a good agreement with experimental observations for both side bonded and U jacketed beams. On
average, the test data are approximately 10% higher
than the predictions of the model. This may be a
reflection of the fact that the effective FRP edges were
taken to be at a small distance (0.1d) below the actual
upper edge and a small distance (from the tension face
to the centroid of the steel tension reinforcement) above
the actual lower edge. The good agreement between the
new model and the experimental data is shown graphically in Fig. 7.
5. A new design proposal
5.1. Design equations
For shear strengthening using side stripsyplates, the
shear capacity needs only to be evaluated for the FRP
debonding failure mode as given here. For U jacketing,
the smaller of the predictions of the FRP rupture mode
w7x and the debonding mode shall be taken as the
ultimate shear capacity.
For practical design, it can be assumed that us458.
The contribution of FRP to the shear strength is thus
Vfrps2

hfrp,esinbqcosb.
ffrp,ed
tfrpwfrp
gb
sfrp

(19)

in which gb is the partial safety factor in a limit state

design approach. gbs1.25 is suggested here. The design
effective FRP stress f frp,ed is defined as
(20)

ffrp,edsDfrpsfrp,max,d

where the maximum design stress in FRP sfrp,max,d may

be obtained by using the 95th percentile characteristic
value of the bond strength given by Chen and Teng
w28x, i.e.

y Et

sfrp,max,ds0.315bwbL

frp

frp

yf9cFffrp

(21)

Table 1
Test data of debonding-controlled FRP-strengthened RC beams
Ref

Specimen

Vfrp

Crack

(kN)

angle
u (8)

Web

Depth

Effective

Flange

Flange

FRP

FRP

FRP

Youngs

Tensile

Strengthening

strength
f9c (MPa)

thickness
bw (mm)

h (mm)

depth
d (mm)

thickness
T f (mm)

width
B (mm)

type

thickness
tfrp (mm)

effective
height
hfrp,e (mm)

modulus
Efrp (MPa)

strength
f frp (MPa)

scheme

37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7

150
150
150
150

150
150
150
150

113
113
113
113

GFRP
GFRP
GFRP
GFRP

3
3
3
3

101.7
101.7
71.7
71.7

16
16
16
16

200
200
200
200

SS90
SS90
SP90
SP90

0.40
0.40
1.00
1.00

8.2
7.9
8.7
11.9

45
45
45
45

189.0

150

2400

SS90

0.50

34.3

45

RS90-1

35.0

150

250

210

CFRP

w11x

C1, 2-layer
C1, 3-layer
C2, 3-layer

27.5
27.5
27.5

152
152
152

152
152
152

101
101
101

CFRP
CFRP
CFRP

0.222
0.333
0.33

90.9
90.9
90.9

230
230
230

3400
3400
3500

SP90
SP90
SP90

1.00
1.00
1.00

19.1
18.2
34.1

25
25
25

w24x

SB1310
SB1210
SB1214
SB1218

39.2
39.2
39.2
39.2

200
200
200
200

200
200
200
200

160
160
160
160

CFRP
CFRP
CFRP
CFRP

0.097
0.097
0.097
0.097

144.0
144.0
144.0
144.0

284
284
284
284

3430
3430
3430
3430

SP90y0
SP90
SP90
SP90

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

31.1
22.4
24.7
25.6

45
45
45
45

w13x

BT5

35.0

150

405

360

CFRP

0.165

224.0

228

3790

SS90

0.40

31.5

45

w15x

A1
B1
C1
D1
E1
F1

28.5
28.5
28.5
28.5
28.5
28.5

150
150
150
150
150
150

250
250
250
250
250
250

220
220
220
220
220
220

CFRP
CFRP
CFRP
CFRP
CFRP
CFRP

0.167
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.167

198.0
198.0
198.0
198.0
198.0
198.0

230
230
230
230
230
230

3430
3430
3430
3430
3430
3430

SP90
SP90
SP90
SP90
SP90
SP90a

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

40.2
43.2
34.3
55.4
37.8
17.7

40
40
40
40
40
40

w18x

S2
S4

45.2
37.5

200
200

300
300

260
260

CFRP
CFRP

0.11
0.11

234.0
234.0

230.0
230.0

3480
3480

SS90
SP90

0.50
1.00

62.6
64.3

28
28

w21x

S1a
S1b
S1(45)
S2a
S2b
S2(45)
S3a
S3b
S3(45)

30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0

70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70

110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

CFRP
CFRP
CFRP
CFRP
CFRP
CFRP
CFRP
CFRP
CFRP

0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.147
0.147
0.147

90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0

235.0
235.0
235.0
235.0
235.0
235.0
235.0
235.0
235.0

3300
3300
3300
3300
3300
3300
3300
3300
3300

SS90
SS90
SS45
SS90
SS90
SS45
SS90
SS90
SS45

0.67
0.67
0.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

27.1
22.5
28.1
31.7
25.8
30.9
26.4
21.1
24.3

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

w22x

5
6
7

24.1
26.9
26.9

100
100
100

200
200
200

160
160
160

CFRP
CFRP
CFRP

0.097
0.097
0.194

144.0
144.0
144.0

230
230
230

2454
2454
2454

SP90
SP45
SP90

1.00
1.00
1.00

20.1
31.4
19.2

45
45
45

59.0

70

475

410

CFRP

0.11

199.0

230

3400

SS45b

0.47

62.0

30

U jacketing
w10x S-Diag-CL

100

60

380

480

35

w5x

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

Side bonding
w2x
SO
SP
WO
WP

wfrp
sfrpsinb

Concrete

36

Table 1 (Continued)
Ref

Specimen

wfrp
sfrpsinb

Vfrp

Crack

(kN)

angle
u (8)

Web

Depth

Effective

Flange

Flange

FRP

FRP

FRP

Youngs

Tensile

Strengthening

strength
f9c (MPa)

thickness
bw (mm)

h (mm)

depth
d (mm)

thickness
T f (mm)

width
B (mm)

type

thickness
tfrp (mm)

effective
height
hfrp,e (mm)

modulus
Efrp (MPa)

strength
f frp (MPa)

scheme

CFRP

0.097

144.0

284

3430

UP90c

1.00

23.7

45

CFRP
CFRP

0.165
0.165

224.0
224.0

228.0
228.0

3790
3790

UP90
UP90

1.00
1.00

65.0
67.5

45
45

3500
3500

US90
UP90

0.40
1.00

40.0
65.0

35
35

w24x

SCD3-23

39.2

200

200

160

w13x

BT2
BT3

35.0
35.0

150
150

405
405

360
360

w12x

CO2
CO3

20.5
20.5

150
150

305
305

264
264

CFRP
CFRP

0.165
0.165

237.6
237.6

228.0
228.0

w14x

IIGu

36.5

127

203

165

CFRP

1.68

148.5

200

UP45y45

1.00

49.3

35

w18x

S3
S5

41.3
39.7

200
200

300
300

260
260

CFRP
CFRP

0.11
0.11

234.0
234.0

230.0
230.0

3480
3480

US90
UP90

0.50
1.00

107.1
104.4

28
28

w17x

No. 2

35.7

150

300

232

CFRP

0.111

108.8

230.0

3480

UP90

1.00

24.2

46

w23x

BS2
BS5
BS6

35.1
36.8
35.8

200
200
200

450
450
450

390
390
390

CFRP
CFRP
CFRP

0.11
0.11
0.11

351.0
351.0
351.0

230
230
230

3494
3494
3494

US90d
US90
US90d

0.16
0.13
0.08

41.1
33.9
31.3

30
25
25

100
100

100

380
380

400

Treated as statistical outlier.

I beam, lower end of FRP clamped. Treated as equivalent U jacketing here.
c
FRP bonded on the full height on one side but only a very small height on the other side. Treated as half U jacketing here.
d
Both U and inverted U jackets were used within a single shear span. This could be more efficient if used appropriately.
b

105

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

Concrete

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

37

where bL and bw can be obtained from Eqs. (10) and

(13), respectively.
In the design of a shear strengthening scheme using
U jacketing or side-bonding with strips, an iterative
procedure is required because the coefficient bw in Eq.
(13) is related to the ratio of strip width to strip spacing
wfrp y(sfrpsinb) (bws0.707 for continuous sheetsy
plates). An initial value of bws1 may be used. The
iterative process will converge very quickly, with three
iterations being usually sufficient.
If the strain reached in the FRP at the ultimate limit
state is low, yielding may have not been reached in
some of the internal steel stirrups intersected by the
critical shear crack. In such cases, the contribution of
internal steel stirrups may need to be reduced
accordingly.
5.2. Strip spacing limit
The strength model was derived by treating strips as
equivalent continuous sheetsyplates. For this treatment
to be accurate, the number of strips intersected by the
shear crack should be sufficient. Otherwise, the treatment can lead to either conservative or un-conservative
predictions, depending on the locations of the strips.
Consider diagonal shear failure as an example. The
most effective position is the middle of the shear crack
for side bonding (Fig. 8a), but at the lower end for U
jacketing (Fig. 8b), because the bond length is largest
in both cases. By contrast, a strip located at either end
of the shear crack for side bonding (Fig. 8c) and at the
upper end for U-jacketing (Fig. 8d) is completely
ineffective due to the lack of any bond length. Therefore,
a strengthening scheme may be completely ineffective
if only one strip is intersected by the shear crack.
For a shear strengthening scheme to be effective, the
spacing between the strips must be limited. BS 8110
w44x requires that the longitudinal spacing of internal
steel shear reinforcement does not exceed the lesser of
0.75d and 300 mm. However, this cannot be directly
used here because an internal steel link can be assumed
to be effective as long as it intercepts the shear crack
but an FRP strip can be completely ineffective even if
it does intercept the shear crack as discussed above. The
UK Concrete Society w31x proposed a spacing limit of
the lesser of 0.8d and wfrpqdy4. This spacing limit is

Fig. 7. Theoretical predictions vs. experimental observations: (a) side

bonding; and (b) U jacketing.

controlled by wfrpqdy4 for narrow strips. For vertical

strips, this rule means that the gap between two strips
shall not exceed dy4 in all cases and it requires approximately four strips to intersect the shear crack in the
case of very narrow strips bonded to the full height of
the beam. This may be too restrictive. Wide strips will
be controlled by the limit of 0.8d. This limit means that
strips wider than 0.8d cannot be used, which is an
unnecessary constraint. More importantly, the use of d
in the limits leads to inconsistent results for different
FRP bonding heights on the beam sides. Furthermore,

Table 2
Statistical performance of the new shear strength model
Method of strengthening

Side
bonding

U
jacketing

All

Number of valid experimental data

Average of test-to-predicted strength ratios
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation (%)

32
1.07
0.226
21.1

13
1.20
0.226
18.9

45
1.11
0.231
20.9

38

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

Fig. 8. Effect of FRP strip location on effectiveness of shear strengthening.

the orientation of the fibres has not been properly

considered.
The authors had previously proposed that the strip
spacing be limited by hfrp,e (1qcotb)y2, which ensures
that at least two strips will cross the assumed diagonal
crack w19,25x wnote that there is an error in Teng et al.
w19,25x where hfrp,e (1qcotb)y2 was mistakenly given
as hfrp,e (sinbqcosb)y2x. However, it is possible that
this rule cannot be met in practice if wide strips are
used. A more robust proposal is thus proposed below.
For a shear strengthening scheme to be effective and
for the present strength model to be accurate, it is
suggested here that the clear strip spacing sfrpywfrp y
sinb (Fig. 9) should not exceed half the horizontal
distance at the lower end of the effective FRP covered
by the projection of the shear crack in the direction of
fibres, which is given by hfrp,e (1qcotb)y2. As this
calculated value can be still very large for large beams,
it is necessary to limit it to an upper bound. The upper
limit of 300 mm for internal steel links used in BS 8110
w44x may be used before better information becomes
available. Therefore, the limit of the clear strip spacing
can be expressed as

Fig. 9. Strip spacing.

sfrpy

wfrp
sinb

Flesser of

hfrp,e1qcotb.
2

and 300 mm

(22)

This ensures that in all situations there are fibres

intercepting the more effective half (the lower half for
U jackets and middle half for side plates) of the assumed
diagonal crack. For continuous sheetsyplates, Eq. (22)
is automatically satisfied because sfrpywfrp ysinbs0.
Therefore, Eq. (22) applies to all cases.
5.3. Comparison with experimental observations
Fig. 10 compares the above design proposal with all
the 46 experimental data of Table 1, including the one
which was treated as a statistical outlier. The partial
safety factor gb was set to 1. The strip spacing limit

Fig. 10. Predictions of design proposal vs. experimental observations.

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

was not imposed for the purpose of this comparison, as

this limit is taken only as a conservative design measure.
The predicted value exceeds the experimental observation only for the statistical outlier. The design proposal
is thus suitable for practical use.
6. Conclusions
FRP rupture and FRP debonding have been the two
main shear failure modes identified for RC beams shearstrengthened with externally bonded FRP reinforcement.
Separate treatments of the two failure modes are essential to develop accurate shear strength models. This
paper has been concerned with the development of a
new design proposal for FRP-strengthened RC beams,
which fail in shear by FRP debonding. A review of
existing research was first presented, which identified
the deficiencies of all existing approaches. Based on a
rational bond strength model between FRP and concrete,
a new shear strength model was then developed for
debonding failures in FRP shear strengthened RC beams.
This new model explicitly recognises the non-uniform
stress distribution in the FRP along a shear crack as
determined by the bond strength between FRP strips
and concrete. This new model has been found to
compare well with experimental data collected from the
literature based on an extensive review. A design proposal, which can be directly used in practical design,
was finally presented.
7. Notation
B:
bw:
Dfrp:
d:
dfrp,e:
dfrp:
dfrp,t:
Efrp:
f c9:
f frp:
f frp,e:
f frp,ed:
h:
hfrp,e:

width of flange of a T-beam

width of web of a T-beam
stress distribution factor for FRP intersected
by the shear crack
distance from beam compression face to
centroid of steel tension reinforcement for
flexure
depth from the upper edge of the shear
reinforcement to the centroid of the steel
tension reinforcement
distance from beam compression face to lower
edge of FRP on sides
distance from beam compression face to top
edge of FRP on sides
modulus of elasticity of FRP
concrete cylinder compressive strength
tensile strength of FRP in the main fibre
direction
averageyeffective stress of FRP intersected by
the shear crack at beam failure
averageyeffective design stress of FRP
intersected by the shear crack at beam failure
depth of beam
effective height of FRP

39

k:

test-to-predicted shear capacity ratio of

unstrengthened beam
sfrp:
centre-to-centre spacing of FRP strips
measured along the longitudinal axis
thickness of flange of a T-beam
T f:
thickness of FRP strip
tfrp:
V:
shear force
contribution of concrete to shear capacity
Vc:
experimental shear capacity of strengthened
Vexp:
test beam
Vexp,ref: experimental shear capacity of reference
unstrengthened beam
contribution of shear strengthening FRP to
Vfrp:
shear capacity
Vpre,ref: predicted shear capacity of unstrengthened
reference beam
Vpre,RC: predicted shear capacity of strengthened test
beam excluding FRP contribution
shear capacity of shear strengthened beam
V n:
contribution of steel shear reinforcement to
Vs:
shear capacity
width of FRP strip (perpendicular to the fibre
wfrp:
orientation)
co-ordinate of lower edge of effective FRP on
z b:
sides
co-ordinate of upper edge of effective FRP on
zt:
sides
b:
angle of first fibre orientation measured
clockwise from the horizontal direction for the
left side of a shear strengthened beam
frp,rup: ultimate tensile strain of FRP
f:
angle of second fibre orientation measured
clockwise from the horizontal direction for the
left side of a shear strengthened beam
partial safety factor for FRP debonding
gb:
u:
angle of critical shear crack to the longitudinal
axis of a beam
stress of FRP
sfrp:
sfrp,max: maximum stress in FRP intersected by the
shear crack
sfrp,max,d: maximum stress in FRP intersected by the
shear crack for design

Acknowledgments
The work presented here is the result of collaborative
research between the Department of Civil and Structural
Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong, China and the School of Engineering and
Electronics, Edinburgh University, UK. The authors
would like to thank The Hong Kong Polytechnic University for the financial support to their collaborative
research provided through the Area of Strategic Development (ASD) Scheme for the ASD in Advanced
Buildings Technology in a Dense Urban Environment.

40

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741

References
w1x Alexander JGS, Cheng JJR. Shear strengthening of small scale
concrete beams with carbon fibre reinforced plastic sheets.
Proceedings of the First Structural Speciality Conference.
Edmonton (Alberta, Canada), 29 May1 June, 1996:16777.
w2x Al-Sulaimani GJ, Sharif AM, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH,
Ghaleb BN. Shear repair for reinforced concrete by fibreglass
plate bonding. ACI Struct J 1994;91(3):458 64.
w3x Araki N, Matsuzaki Y, Nakano K, Kataka T, Fukuyama H.
Shear capacity of retrofitted RC members with continuous
fibre sheets. Non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete
structures. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium,
vol. 1, Japan, 1997:51222.
w4x Arduini M, DAmbrisi A, Di Tommaso A. Shear failure of
concrete beams reinforced with FRP plates. Proceedings, Infrastructure: New Materials and Methods of Repair Proceedings
of the Materials Engineering Conference 804. New York:
ASCE, 1994. p. 123 30.
w5x Chaallal O, Nollet MJ, Perraton D. Strengthening of reinforced
concrete beams with externally bonded fibre-reinforced-plastic
plates: design guidelines for shear and flexure. Can J Civil
Eng 1998;25(4):692 704.
w6x Chajes MJ, Januszka TF, Mertz DR, Thomson TA Jr., Finch
WW Jr.. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams
using externally applied composite fabrics. ACI Struct J
1995;92(3):295 303.
w7x Chen JF, Teng JG. Shear capacity of FRP-strengthened RC
beams: FRP rupture. J Struct Eng ASCE (in press).
w8x Fanning P, Kelly O. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
beams: an experimental study using CFRP plates. Proceedings
of the Eighth International Conference on Advanced Composites for Concrete Repair (Part 1). London (UK), 7 pp.
w9x Funakawa I, Shimono K, Watanabe T, Asada S, Ushijima S.
Experimental study on shear strengthening with continuous
fibre reinforcement sheet and methyl methacrylate resin. Nonmetallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, vol. 1, Japan,
1997;47582.
w10x Hutchinson RL, Rizkalla SH. Shear strengthening of AASHTO
bridge girders using carbon fibre reinforced polymer sheets.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Fibre
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforcement Concrete Structures. ACI Publications SP-188, 1999. p. 945 56.
w11x Kachlakev DI, Barnes WA. Flexural and shear performance of
concrete beams strengthened with fibre reinforced polymer
laminates. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium
on Fibre Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced
Concrete Structures. ACI Publications SP-188, 1999. p. 959
71.
w12x Khalifa A, Tumialan G, Nanni A, Belarbi A. Shear strengthening of continuous reinforced concrete beams using externally
bonded carbon fibre reinforced polymer sheets. Proceedings of
the Fourth International Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforcement Concrete Structures.
ACI Publications SP-188, 1999. p. 995 1008.
w13x Khallifa A, Nanni A. Improving shear capacity of existing RC
T-section beams using CFRP composites. Cem Concr Compos
2000;22:165 74.
w14x Malek AM, Saadatmanesh H. Analytical study of reinforced
concrete beams strengthened with web-bonded fibre reinforced
plates or fabrics. ACI Struct J 1998;95(3):343 51.
w15x Mitsui Y, Murakami K, Takeda K, Sakai H. A study on shear
reinforcement of reinforced concrete beams externally bonded
with carbon fibre sheets. Compos Interfaces 1998;5(4):285
95.

w16x Mutsuyoshi H, Ishibashi T, Okano M, Katsuki F. New design

method for seismic retrofit of bridge columns with continuous
fiber sheetperformance-based design. Proceedings of the
Fourth International Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement for Reinforcement Concrete Structures. ACI
Publications SP-188, 1999. p. 229 41.
w17x Sato Y, Ueda T, Kakuta Y, Ono S. Ultimate shear capacity of
reinforced concrete beams with carbon fibre sheet. NonMetallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the Third Symposium, vol. 1, Japan, 1997:499
505.
w18x Sato Y, Ueda T, Kakuta Y, Tanaka T. Shear reinforcing effect
of carbon fibre sheet attached to side of reinforced concrete
beams. In: El-Badry MM, editor. Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures. 1996. p. 621 7.
w19x Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. RC structures strengthened with FRP composites. Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, 2000. (134 pp).
w20x Triantafillou TC. Shear strengthening of concrete members
using composites. Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the Third Symposium, vol. 1,
Japan. 1997. p. 523 30.
w21x Triantafillou TC. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
beams using epoxy-bonded FRP composites. ACI Struct J
1998;95(2):107 15.
w22x Uji K. Improving shear capacity of existing reinforced concrete
members by applying carbon fibre sheets. Trans Jpn Concr
Institute 1992;14:253 66.
w23x Taerwe L, Khalil H, Matthys S. Behaviour of RC beams
strengthened in shear by external CFRP sheets. 1997. p. 483
90.
w24x Kage T, Abe M, Lee HS, Tomosawa F. Effect of CFRP sheets
on shear strengthening of RC beams damaged by corrosion of
stirrup. Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium,
Sapporo, Japan. 1997. p. 443 50.
w25x Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP strengthened RC
structures. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2002.
w26x Triantafillou TC, Antonopoulos CP. Design of concrete flexural
members strengthened in shear with FRP. ASCE J Compos
Constr 2000;4(4):198 205.
w27x Khalifa A, Gold WJ, Nanni A, Aziz A. Contribution of
externally bonded FRP to shear capacity of RC flexural
members. ASCE J Compos Constr 1998;2(4):195 203.
w28x Chen JF, Teng JG. Anchorage strength models for FRP and
steel plates bonded to concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE
2001;127(7):784 91.
w29x FIB. Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures.
Lausanne, Switzerland: The International Federation for Structural Concrete, 2001.
w30x Maeda T, Asano Y, Sato Y, Ueda T, Kakuta Y. A study on
bond mechanism of carbon fiber sheet. 1997. p. 279 85.
w31x Concrete Society. Design guidance for strengthening concrete
structures using fibre composite materials. Concrete society
technical report no. 55, Berkshire, UK. 2000.
w32x Triantafillou TC, Plevris N. Strengthening of RC beams with
epoxy-bonded fibre-composite materials. Mater Struct
1992;25:201 11.
w33x Yuan H, Wu ZS, Yoshizawa H. Theoretical solutions on
interfacial stress transfer of externally bonded steelycomposite
laminates. J Struct Mech Earthquake Eng JSCE 2001;675y155:27 39.
w34x Bizindavyi L, Neale KW. Transfer lengths and bond strengths
for composites bonded to concrete. ASCE J Compos Constr
1999;3(4):153 60.

J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng / Construction and Building Materials 17 (2003) 2741
w35x Brosens K, van Gemert D. Anchoring stresses between concrete
and carbon fibre reinforced laminates. Sapporo, Japan: Japan
Concrete Institute, 1997. p. 271 8.
w36x Fukuzawa K, Numao T, Wu Z, Yoshizawa H, Mitsui M.
Critical strain energy release rate of interface debonding
between carbon fibre sheet and mortar. Sapporo, Japan: Japan
Concrete Institute, 1997. p. 295 302.
w37x Hiroyuki Y, Wu Z. Analysis of debonding fracture properties
of CFS strengthened member subject to tension. Sapporo,
Japan: Japan Concrete Institute, 1997. p. 287 94.
w38x Holzenkampfer

O. Ingenieurmodelle des verbundes geklebter

betonbauteile. Dissertation. TU Braunschweig,
bewehrung fur
1994.
w39x Kobatake Y, Kimura K, Ktsumata H. A retrofitting method for
reinforced concrete structures using carbon fibre. In: Nanni A,
editor. Fibre-reinforced-plastic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures: properties and applications. Elsevier Science
Publishers, 1993. p. 435 50.

41

w40x Neubauer U, Rostasy

FS. Design aspects of concrete structures
strengthened with externally bonded CFRP plates. Edinburgh:
ECS Publications, 1997. p. 109 18.
w41x Taljsten
B. Plate bonding. Strengthening of existing concrete

structures with epoxy bonded plates of steel or fibre reinforced

plastics. Doctoral thesis. Sweden: Lulea University of Technology, 1994.
w42x Taljsten
B. Defining anchor lengths of steel and CFRP plates

bonded to concrete. Int J Adhesion Adhes 1997;17(4):319

27.
w43x Yuan H, Teng JG. Debonding of FRP-to-concrete joints: a
fracture mechanics analysis of loaddeflection behaviour (to
be published).
w44x BSI. BS 8110: Structural use of concrete, part 1. Code of
practice for design and construction. London, UK: British
Standards Institution, 1997.