Accepted Manuscript

Repair of reinforced concrete deep beams using post-tensioned cfrp rods

Clayton A. Burningham, Chris P. Pantelides, Lawrence D. Reaveley
PII:
DOI:
Reference:

S0263-8223(15)00107-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.01.054
COST 6213

To appear in:

Composite Structures

Please cite this article as: Burningham, C.A., Pantelides, C.P., Reaveley, L.D., Repair of reinforced concrete deep
beams using post-tensioned cfrp rods, Composite Structures (2015), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.
2015.01.054

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

REPAIR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DEEP BEAMS

USING POST-TENSIONED CFRP RODS
Clayton A. Burningham1, Chris P. Pantelides2, and Lawrence D. Reaveley3

ABSTRACT: A repair method for reinforced concrete deep beams with external unbonded posttensioned carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) rods is presented. Reinforced concrete deep
beams in this research were pre-damaged to simulate reinforced concrete girder webs with
diagonal cracks. Experimental data and analytical methods for predicting the ultimate capacity of
reinforced concrete deep beams which include the effect of externally post-tensioned CFRP rods
are examined. The ultimate load capacity of the repaired beams was increased compared to the
nominal capacity of the control beam while the deflection capacity remained the same. Strut-andtie models of the control and repaired reinforced concrete deep beams predicted the ultimate load
capacity with reasonable accuracy. The strut-and-tie models were optimized to reduce the ratio
of experimental to analytical ultimate load capacity.
Keywords: CFRP rod, concrete, deep beam, post-tensioning, repair, shear.
----------------------------------------------1

PhD, Engineer, Reaveley and Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102, USA, email:

cburningham@outlook.com; Tel.: 1 (801) 486-3883

2

PhD, Professor, Dept. of Civil and Envir. Eng., Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112,

USA; Corresponding author; email: c.pantelides@utah.edu; Tel.: 1 (801) 585-3991

3

PhD, Professor, Dept. of Civil and Envir. Eng., Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112,

USA; email: larry.reaveley@utah.edu; Tel.: 1 (801) 581-6931

1. Introduction
In recent years, attention has been given to the maintenance and repair of the aging
transportation infrastructure, which includes bridges. Reinforced concrete (RC) or prestressed
concrete (PC) bridge girders exhibiting moderate to severe damage in the form of diagonal
cracks and corrosion of the reinforcement require repair, strengthening, or replacement. When
the structure is otherwise able to adequately carry the imposed loads, repair rather than
replacement of bridge girders is the preferred option since it reduces construction time and traffic
disruption, and costs less. One method of repairing diagonal cracks in webs of RC or PC deep
girders is external post-tensioning, which can close cracks, arrest further crack development, and
improve shear-friction through aggregate interlock to increase the overall shear capacity.
External post-tensioning has traditionally been accomplished using high strength steel tendons
which are susceptible to corrosion.
The advantage of CFRP rods is that they are corrosion resistant and have a high specific
strength. Moreover, post-tensioned CFRP tendons resist not only live load but also dead load;
post-tensioning of the CFRP tendons closes existing cracks and reduces deflections. Previous
research has shown that CFRP tendons can be used in new construction [1, 2]; hybrid FRP
composite tendons have also been used for post tensioning concrete beams [3]. Limited research
has been conducted using external post-tensioned CFRP sheets [4, 5], CFRP straps [6], or CFRP
tendons for repair of RC or PC beams [7-11]. Recently, a new unibody clamp anchor and
mechanical stressing system have been developed for post-tensioning CFRP rods [12]. The
unibody clamp anchor has been used successfully to repair slender PC beams with damaged high
strength steel strands using external post-tensioned CFRP rods [13].

The focus of this paper is the repair of RC deep beams pre-damaged with diagonal cracks
in the web. There are several approaches for determining the ultimate load carrying capacity of
RC or PC deep beams; these include the softened truss model [14], the ACI 318 strut-and-tie
model [15], and the softened strut-and-tie model [16]. Concerning the shear behavior of short
span deep beams, the AASHTO-LRFD and Canadian CSA sectional and strut-and-tie provisions
have been found to provide a uniform level of safety for all member types [17].
There is a lack of research regarding the repair of RC or PC deep beams using external
post-tensioned CFRP tendons. This paper presents the implementation of unibody clamp anchors
and a mechanical stressing device for repairing RC deep beams with diagonal cracks using posttensioned CFRP rods. The applicability of analytical methods for predicting the ultimate capacity
of RC deep beams with externally applied post-tensioned CFRP tendons is also explored. The
strut-and-tie model in the ACI 318 Code [15] is used directly for the control deep beam. In
addition, a modified strut-and-tie model is proposed to predict the ultimate capacity of the
repaired deep beams with post-tensioned CFRP rods.

2. Experimental investigation
2.1 Specimen Fabrication
Three reinforced concrete (RC) deep beams 254 mm wide x 610 mm tall x 2.74 m long were
designed and built. Figure 1 shows the geometry and reinforcement layout. The beams had an
identical steel tension tie consisting of six 16 mm bars, which satisfies the ACI 318 Code
minimum flexural reinforcement [15]:

(1)

where fc is the concrete compressive strength and fy is the yield strength of steel reinforcement
(MPa); b is the beam web width and d is the beam effective depth.
The three beams satisfy the minimum distributed steel reinforcement requirement for
bottle shape struts of strut-and-tie models given in the ACI 318 Code [15] as:

sin 0.003

(2)

where Asi is the area of vertical and horizontal distributed steel reinforcement on the two faces of
the web, si is the spacing of vertical and horizontal steel, and i is the angle between strut axis
and vertical or horizontal steel. Equation (2) must be satisfied in order to resist the transverse
tensile force resulting from the compression force spreading in the strut. The vertical and
horizontal distributed steel reinforcement was constructed with 10 mm bars as shown in Fig. 1.
Two of the RC deep beams (RB and RST) were strengthened with external post-tensioned
CFRP rods. The third deep beam (B) was used as the control. The steel reinforcement details of
RB and RST were identical except for four additional 10 mm horizontal distribution steel bars;
this is demonstrated in Fig. 2. Beam B had steel reinforcement similar to beam RB. Once the
external CFRP rods for beams RB and RST fractured, they were removed and the tests continued
until beam failure occurred; thus, the remaining capacity of beams RB and RST was obtained.
2.2 Post-tensioning of CFRP rods and Clamping/Stressing Mechanism
Post-tensioning of the CFRP rods was achieved by using a new anchor and
clamping/mechanical stressing system [12, 13]. The unibody steel clamp anchor consists of a flat
steel bar with a hole for accommodating the CFRP rod, bolt holes, an inner slot, and an outer
slot, as shown in Fig. 3(a). The rod hole is positioned longitudinally along the anchor block with
4

the inner and outer slots running parallel to the rod hole. The bolts are perpendicular to the rod to
provide the clamping force. As the bolts are tightened, the outer and inner slot widths are
reduced and the cantilevered anchor sides are pushed inward, as shown in Fig. 3(b), resulting in
contact pressure on the CFRP rod. The tapered steel washers shown in Fig. 3(b) assist in
tightening the bolts. Pressure on the CFRP rod is due to a combination of direct lateral contact
pressure and flexure- induced contact pressure on the rod from several bolts, as shown in Fig.
3(c); the anchors in this research were clamped with four 19 mm ASTM A325 steel bolts.
Each CFRP rod requires two anchors, one on each end of the beam to be secured, as
shown in Fig. 4. A two-level stressing system for tensioning the CFRP rods is shown in
Fig. 4(a). There are two stressing devices and each device stresses two CFRP rods, one on each
side of the beam, for a total of four CFRP rods per beam. The stressing device consists of a
slotted square hollow structural steel (HSS) tube section perpendicular to the beam axis at the
live stressing end of the beam, as shown in Fig. 4(b). The rods pass through slots and the
unibody clamp anchors make contact with the back side of the HSS tube. The following
sequence is used to mechanically stress the CFRP rods and clamp the system, as shown in Fig. 5:
(a) the CFRP rod is clamped to the unibody anchors and 25 mm bolts are inserted into
hexagonal sleeve nuts at the live end; (b) the 25 mm bolts are screwed into hexagonal sleeve
nuts welded to the HSS tube, thus reacting against the side steel plate; (c) the CFRP rod
elongates until the target post-tensioning strain is achieved; (d) steel shims are inserted between
the side steel plate and steel tube; (e) steel shims are anchored in place between the side steel
plate and steel tube; and (f) the 25 mm bolts are unscrewed from the sleeve nuts. A total of
eight 25 mm bolts were required to stress the four CFRP rods, as shown in Fig. 4(a).

Tightening the 25 mm bolts in an alternating star pattern ensures the tendons are stressed
uniformly.
2.3 Instrumentation
Instrumentation varied depending on the phase of testing, which included an initial
damage test phase to induce diagonal cracks followed by a test phase to failure. For the initial
damage test phase, the instrumentation included inclined Linear Variable Differential
Transformers (LVDTs) in the shear span to measure diagonal displacements and three LVDTs at
the bottom of the beam at 635 mm from both beam supports and at midspan to measure vertical
displacements, as shown in Fig. 6(a). Strain gauges were placed on the steel reinforcement as
shown in Fig. 1; specimens B and RB had 42 strain gauges each and specimen RST had 70 strain
gauges. For the test phase to failure, in addition to instrumentation used in the initial damage test
phase, three 51 mm long concrete strain gauges were placed on the beams top surface at 635
mm from the supports and at midspan to measure compressive strain on the beam top fiber, as
shown in Fig. 6(b). In addition, all CFRP rods were instrumented with strain gauges for
specimens RB and RST, as shown in Fig. 6(b). The top CFRP rods had a strain gauge at midspan
and one strain gauge close to the anchor near the two supports; the bottom CFRP rods had two
strain gauges near the two supports and one at midspan. An electronic data acquisition system
was used to collect LVDT, strain gauge, and load cell data at a rate of two data points per
second.
2.4 Material Properties
All longitudinal 16 mm steel bars had a tensile strength of 469 MPa, and all vertical and
horizontal distributed 10 mm steel bars had a tensile strength of 441 MPa. Concrete
compressive strength was 59 MPa at 28 days and 64 MPa on the day of the test. The CFRP rods
6

used in this research are pultruded carbon fiber reinforced polymer rods cured with an epoxy
resin matrix, designed for strengthening concrete, timber, and masonry structures. The CFRP
rods had the following manufacturer-specified properties: rod diameter = 9.5 mm, tensile
strength = 122 kN, tensile modulus = 155 GPa, and tensile strain at break = 1.11%. In laboratory
tensile tests of CFRP rods from the same lot, carried out using unibody clamp anchors [12], the
average measured quantities were: tensile strength = 154 kN, tensile modulus = 155 GPa, and
ultimate tensile strain = 1.40%.
2.5 Experimental Design
The setup for the initial damage tests and the tests to failure is shown in Fig. 7. A 2.2 MN
hydraulic actuator with a load cell and a steel spreader beam were used to apply a two point load
spaced 762 mm apart. The specimens were tested with an unbraced length of 2.29 m, also known
as the effective span (le). This configuration has a shear-span-to-depth ratio (a/d) equal to 1.40
and an effective span-depth ratio (le /d) equal to 3.75; thus the RC beams are classified as short
and the failure mode is controlled by either shear-tension or shear-compression failure [18].
2.6 Test Methods and Initial Damage
There were two test phases for beam (B): initial damage, and test to failure. For beams
(RB) and (RST) there were three test phases: initial damage, repair and test until failure of the
post-tensioned CFRP rods, and test to failure of the beam after the CFRP rods were removed.
Initial damage was induced by a half-cyclic quasi-static load which generated diagonal
cracks in the three beams, simulating field-observed cracking. The load was displacement
controlled to induce similar damage to all beams and avoid sudden failure. Displacement halfcycles were applied in increments of 1.6 mm at a constant rate of 1.6 mm/min. Initial damage
consisted of diagonal cracks in the shear span. The maximum observed crack widths after initial
7

damage for beams RB and RST were 1.0 mm, and 0.9 mm, respectively; the maximum crack
width for beam B was 0.5 mm. The damage and cracks after the initial loading phase for beams
RB and RST are shown in Fig. 8.
Beams RB and RST were then repaired with a system of unibody clamp anchors, a
mechanical stressing device, and external post-tensioned CFRP rods, as described in Figs. 3-5.
Both beams were repaired with four CFRP rods, two on each side of the beam, as shown in
Fig. 8. The top and bottom rods, two CFRP rods per each level, were located at a depth of 279
mm and 483 mm from the beam top, respectively. Each CFRP rod was post-tensioned to a strain
of 0.48%. This level of initial post-tensioning was selected based on the recommended range of
40% to 65% of the design ultimate strength of the FRP composite tendons as specified in ACI
440.4R-04 [19]. Stress levels in the CFRP rods were determined from strain readings of gauges
applied on the CFRP rods as described in Section 2.3.
After repairing beams RB and RST with external post-tensioned CFRP rods, the control
and repaired beams were loaded to failure monotonically at a rate of 1.6 mm/min. Once the four
CFRP rods for beams RB and RST failed in tension, they were removed and the tests were
continued to obtain the residual capacity.

3. Experimental Results
3.1 Repaired beams RB and RST with post-tensioned CFRP rods
The applied load versus midspan deflection during initial damage cyclic loading and
monotonic loading to failure is shown in Figs. 9(a) and 10(a) for beams RB and RST,
respectively. The ultimate load for beams RB and RST which were repaired with CFRP rods was
1695 kN, and 1668 kN, respectively. Figure 9(a) shows the drop in applied load when the
8

bottom CFRP rods ruptured for beam RB at a midspan deflection equal to 24 mm; at a deflection
of 39 mm the top CFRP rods ruptured. Figure 10(a) shows the drop in applied load when the
bottom CFRP rods ruptured for beam RST at 24 mm midspan deflection; at 38 mm the tension in
the top CFRP rods was lost.
After rupture of the CFRP rods, the rods and anchors were removed and testing of beams
RB and RST continued, as shown in Figs. 9(a) and 10(a) to determine their residual capacity.
This is equivalent to the residual capacity of the beams without CFRP rods. Beam RB exhibited a
residual capacity of 1410 kN and beam RST a residual capacity of 1303 kN. Even though the
CFRP rods ruptured in a brittle manner, catastrophic failure of the repaired beams did not occur
because of the reserve ductility of the original steel reinforced beams. The strain in the
longitudinal tension steel bars of beams RB and RST reached an average of 3.0 times the yield
strain, and the strain in the stirrups reached 1.2 times the yield strain for beam RB and 1.1 times
the yield strain for beam RST.
Table 1 compares the experimental capacity of the two beams repaired with CFRP rods
versus the residual capacity after the CFRP rods had ruptured. It is observed that beam RB had
achieved 1.20 times its residual load capacity, whereas beam RST had achieved 1.28 times its
residual load capacity.
Beams RB and RST are shown after failure in Figs. 9(b) and 10(b), respectively. The two
repaired beams developed many more cracks, several of which were flexural, before failure.
Beam RB ultimately failed in a shear-compression failure mode [18], due to concrete crushing
between the two loading points at the top compression fiber, after rupture of the bottom and top
external CFRP rods had taken place. Beam RST also failed in shear-compression due to concrete
crushing between the two loading points after the external CFRP rods had ruptured.
9

3.2 Control Beam B

The ultimate load experimental capacity for control beam B, which was not repaired with
CFRP rods, measured 1339 kN, as shown in Fig. 11(a). Beam B also failed in a shearcompression failure mode; concrete crushed between the interior loading points at the top
compression fiber, as shown in Fig. 11(b). The strain in the longitudinal steel bars of beam B
reached an average of 1.3 times the yield strain, and the strain in the stirrups reached 2.3 times
the yield strain.
Table 2 compares the experimental load capacity of the two beams repaired with CFRP
rods versus the capacity of control beam B. Beam RB had a load capacity 1.27 times that of beam
B, whereas beam RST had a capacity 1.25 times that of beam B. Comparing Tables 1 and 2 it is
seen that the increase in ultimate load capacity of repaired beams RB and RST from their residual
load capacity is similar to the load capacity increase of RB and RST with respect to control
beam B.
3.3 Comparison of Beam Tests
Figure 12 shows that failure of the bottom CFRP rods for beams RB and RST occurred at
deflections eight times the maximum allowable for concrete bridge girders, equal to span/800
(3 mm) [20]. Although failure of the bottom CFRP rods was brittle, it occurred at a deflection
much greater than anticipated deflections under service load conditions. The two beams repaired
with post-tensioned CFRP rods, RB and RST, behaved in a similar manner. The ultimate capacity
of beams RB and RST was reached at a midspan deflection of 22 mm; at a deflection of 24 mm
the bottom CFRP rods ruptured; once this occurred, the load capacity of both repaired beams
dropped to a level similar to that of control beam B; the load capacity of the repaired beams
started to increase when the tensile stress in the top CFRP rods exceeded the stress level they had
10

reached at the ultimate load; at a deflection of 38 mm to 39 mm the top CFRP rods ruptured.
Figure 12 shows that after all CFRP rods had fractured and deflection exceeded 41 mm, the
residual load capacity of repaired beams RB and RST was very similar to the ultimate load
capacity of control beam B.
The concrete compressive strain for the three beams was highest near midspan as shown
in Fig. 13. The three beams reached compressive strains approaching 0.30% at the specific
locations where the strain gauges were installed. From the damage observed it is assumed that
peak stresses had occurred at a location near midspan. This confirms the compressive failure
from concrete strut crushing, as shown in Figs. 9(b), 10(b), and 11(b). Figure 13 shows that the
change in compressive strain was more gradual for repaired beams RB and RST as compared to
control beam B.
The strains in the CFRP rods for repaired beams RB and RST were monitored during
testing. Figure 14(a) shows the strain in the bottom CFRP rods, and Figure 14(b) shows the
strain in the top CFRP rods of specimen RB. Before application of external load, the strain in all
CFRP rods from post-tensioning alone was 0.48%. At the time of rupture, the average strain in
the bottom CFRP rods for beams RB and RST increased to a maximum of 0.85% and 0.88%,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 14(a). For beam RB, the average strain in the top CFRP rods at the
time of rupture was 0.79%, as shown in Fig. 14(b). Since the measured average ultimate tensile
strain of the rods in pure tension tests was 1.40% [12], stress concentrations at a point other than
midspan caused CFRP rod rupture. Stress concentrations are caused by the geometric effect of
large deflections, at which the beam ends rotate while the CFRP rods and anchors try to maintain
a level horizontal position. Rotation at the beam ends causes flexure to be introduced into the
rods in addition to tension.
11

4. Analytical investigation
This section will assess the applicability of shear capacity prediction methods for the
deep beams tested in this research. The strut-and-tie model (STM) of ACI 318 Code [15] is
implemented for the control deep beam. The STM method was modified and implemented for
the repaired deep beams with post-tensioned CFRP rods. The STM model predictions are
compared to the experimental capacity of control deep beam B and repaired deep beams RB and
RST with post-tensioned CFRP rods.
4.1 Shear capacity of control deep beam B using the Strut-And-Tie Method
The strut-and-tie method is allowed for deep beam design according to ACI 31814 and the control deep beam B is analyzed according to this provision [15]. The model for
control deep beam B and the corresponding force distribution in the struts and ties are shown in
Fig. 15(a) and Table 3. The yield stress was used to obtain the steel tension tie forces. The STM
model is a combination of arch and truss action [21]. The layout of the STM model in Fig. 15(a)
is such that the minimum angle between a strut and a tie is 25 degrees [15]; this determines the
location of tie (BC) with respect to strut (AC) which results in the smallest ratio of experimental
to analytical ultimate load. The strength of all nodes and struts and the bearing capacity of the
nodes at the supports and load application points were checked following ACI 318-14. The
capacity of this model was limited by crushing of the horizontal compression strut (DD), which
is given in ACI 318-14 as:

= 0.85

(3)

where s is the strut coefficient assumed as 1.0 for strut (DD) and Acs is the cross-sectional area
at the end of the strut. The force distribution in the struts and ties is shown in Table 3. This
12

model predicts an ultimate shear capacity for beam B of 617 kN or an ultimate load equal to
1234 kN. The ratio of experimental to analytical ultimate load for beam B obtained from the
STM model of Fig. 15(a) is given in Table 4 as 1.08.
4.2 Shear capacity of repaired beams RB and RST with post-tensioned CFRP rods using the
Strut-and-tie Method
A strut-and-tie model (STM) was developed for repaired beams RB and RST by
accounting for the externally post-tensioned CFRP rods. The STM was developed based on the
recommendations of the ACI 318 Code [15] and was modified to include the effect of external
post-tensioned CFRP rods. The same strut-and-tie model was used for RB and RST since the two
beams were similar - the only difference was the inclusion of additional horizontal steel bars for
beam RST. The upper layers of horizontal steel bars have little effect on the ultimate load
capacity [22]. In the STM model for beams RB and RST, the experimental average strains in the
CFRP rods were used in the development of the CFRP induced tie forces. However, it should be
noted that the stress in the CFRP rods at ultimate could also be predicted analytically [13]. The
yield stress was used to obtain the steel tension tie forces.
Figure 15(b) illustrates this model, where dashed lines represent concrete compression
struts and solid lines represent tension ties; vertical ties (BC, BC) represent stirrups in the shear
span, the top horizontal tie (EE) represents the two top CFRP post-tensioned rods, and the
bottom horizontal tie (AA) represents the six 16 mm longitudinal steel bars and two bottom
CFRP post-tensioned rods. The model is a combination of arch and strut action [21]. The layout
of the STM model in Fig. 15(b) is such that the minimum angle between a strut and a tie is 25
degrees [15]; this determines the location of tie (BC) with respect to strut (AC) which results in
the smallest ratio of experimental to analytical ultimate load. The strength of all nodes and struts
13

and the bearing capacity of the nodes at the supports and load application points were checked
following ACI 318-14. The bottom tie (AA) in Fig. 15(b) represents both the steel
reinforcement and external CFRP rods. To evaluate the tensile force in the tie, Eq. (4) is used,
which is similar to the equation given in ACI 318-14 for beams reinforced with mild steel and
post-tensioning steel:

(4)

where Ats is the tension tie steel reinforcement, ACFRP, ECFRP, and CFRP are the area, modulus of
elasticity and effective strain in the bottom two CFRP rods. The tension tie for the top tie (EE)
in Fig. 15(b) was evaluated similarly using only the second term in Eq. (4). The effective tensile
strain for the bottom CFRP rods used in Eq. (4) was the measured strain at failure shown in
Fig. 14(a) of 0.88%, and for the top CFRP rods the measured strain of 0.64%, which was the
corresponding strain at the time of failure of the bottom CFRP rods, as shown in Fig. 14(b). The
capacity of the model was limited by tensile fracture of the CFRP rods; the corresponding force
distribution in the struts and ties is shown in Table 3. The model predicts an average shear
capacity of 763 kN, or an ultimate load of 1526 kN for beams RB and RST. The ratio of
experimental to analytical ultimate load obtained from the STM model of Fig. 15(b) is shown in
Table 4 as 1.11 for beam RB and 1.09 for beam RST.
Table 4 suggests that the analytical STM method is suitable for predicting the ultimate
load for the beams repaired with CFRP post-tensioned rods and the control beam. The
experimental to theoretical capacity is greater than unity which shows that the method is
conservative as expected from the lower bound theorem of plasticity. The ratio of experimental
to STM capacity prediction for repaired deep beams RB and RST is similar to that for the control
14

deep beam B. Since the strut-and-tie model can be used for analyzing the control deep beam B
per ACI 318 provisions, strut-and-tie models could be an appropriate method for the design of
the repaired deep beams with external post-tensioned CFRP rods, RB and RST.

5. Conclusions
The experiments carried out in this research show that reinforced concrete deep beams
with diagonal cracks were successfully repaired with unibody clamp anchors, a mechanical
stressing device, and post-tensioned CFRP rods. The repaired beams developed multiple cracks
before failure as compared to the control beam. The repaired beams had an ultimate load
capacity 1.20 to 1.28 times their residual capacity, and 1.25 to 1.27 times the capacity of the
control beam. After the CFRP rods had fractured, the residual load capacity and midspan
deflection of the repaired beams was similar to the ultimate load capacity and deflection of the
control beam.
A strut-and-tie model (STM) was developed according to the ACI 318-14 provisions for
the control deep beam representing a combination of arch and truss action. The strut-and-tie
model was extended for including the repaired deep beams with external post-tensioned CFRP
rods. The capacity of the STM model for the repaired deep beams was limited by tensile fracture
of the CFRP rods. The capacity of the STM model for the control deep beam was limited by
crushing of the compression strut in the equivalent stress block compression zone. The layout of
the STM model for both the control and repaired beams was such that the minimum angle
between a strut and tie had a value of 25 degrees; this resulted in the lowest ratio of experimental
to analytical capacity. The ratio of experimental to analytical capacity was 1.09 and 1.11 for the
repaired deep beams and 1.08 for the control deep beam. This research indicates that a STM
15

model could be used to design the repair system of unibody clamp anchors and external posttensioned CFRP rods applied to deep beams.
Further studies should be carried out to determine the suitability of the unibody clamp
anchor as a coupling device for CFRP rods. This will facilitate the use of CFRP rods for posttensioning applications for girders with long spans. In addition, studies should be carried out
regarding the long term behavior of the system and the effects of creep on the concrete and
CFRP rods.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Utah Department of
Transportation and the University of Utah, as well as in-kind contributions from Geneva Rock
Products, Inc., and Sika, Inc. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Ruifen Liu, Mark Bryant,
Mike Gibbons, and Brett Raddon for their assistance in specimen fabrication and testing. The
authors acknowledge the comments of the reviewers.

6. Notation
= shear span
ACFRP = area of CFRP rods
Acs = cross-sectional area at end of strut
Asi = area of vertical and horizontal distributed steel reinforcement on two web faces
,

= minimum area of flexural steel reinforcement

Ats = tension tie steel reinforcement

= beam width
16

= depth to longitudinal steel reinforcement

ECFRP = modulus of elasticity of CFRP rods
= concrete compressive strength

= yield strength of longitudinal steel

Fns = compression strut capacity

Fnt = tensile tie force
le = effective span
si = spacing of the vertical and horizontal distributed steel reinforcement
s = strut coefficient
i = angle between strut axis and the vertical or horizontal distributed steel reinforcement
CFRP = effective strain in CFRP rods

References
1. Abdelrahman AA, Tadros G, Rizkalla SH. Test model for the first Canadian smart highway
bridge, ACI Structural Journal 1995; 92(4): 451-458.
2. Abdel Aziz M, Abdel-Sayed G, Ghrib F, Grace N, Madugula M. Analysis of
concrete beams prestressed and post-tensioned with externally unbonded carbon fiber
reinforced polymer tendons, Canadian J. Civil Engineering 2005; 32(6): 1138-1151.
3. Liang Y, Sun C, Ansari F. Damage assessment and ductility evaluation of post tensioned
beams with hybrid FRP tendons, J. of Composites for Construction 2011; 5(3): 274-283.
4. Triantafillou TC, Deskovic N, Deuring M. Strengthening of concrete structures with
prestressed fiber reinforced plastic sheets, ACI Structural Journal 1992; 89(32): 235-244.

17

5. Kim Y, Green M, Fallis G. Repair of bridge girder damaged by impact loads with prestressed
CFRP sheets, J. Bridge Engineering 2008; 13(1): 1523.
6. Lees J, Winistrfer A, Meier U. External prestressed carbon fiber-reinforced polymer straps
for shear enhancement of concrete, J. Composites for Construction 2002; 6(4): 249256.
7. El-Hacha R, Elbadry M. Strengthening concrete beams with externally prestressed carbon
fiber composite cables: experimental investigation, Post Tensioning Institute Journal 2006: 4(2),
53-70.
8. Tljsten B, Nordin H. Concrete beams strengthened with external prestressing using external
tendons and near-surface-mounted reinforcement, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 2007; SP-245: 143-164.
9. Ng S. Shear behaviour of RC beams externally prestressed with CFRP rods. Masters thesis;
University of Waterloo, Waterloo: Ontario, 2005.
10. Ng S, Soudki K. Shear behavior of externally prestressed beams with carbon fiber reinforced
polymer tendons, ACI Structural Journal 2010; 108(4): 443-450.
11. El Meski F, Harajli M. Flexural capacity of fiber-reinforced polymer strengthened unbonded
post-tensioned members, ACI Structural Journal 2014; 111( 2): 407-418.
12. Burningham CA, Pantelides CP, Reaveley LD. New unibody clamp anchors for
posttensioning carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer rods, PCI Journal 2014; 59(1): 103-113.
13. Burningham CA, Pantelides CP, Reaveley LD. Repair of prestressed concrete beams with
damaged steel tendons using post-tensioned carbon fiber-reinforced polymer rods, ACI
Structural Journal 2014; 111(2): 387-395.
14. Mau ST, Hsu TTC. Shear strength prediction for deep beams with web reinforcement, ACI
Structural Journal 1987; 84(6): 513-523.
18

15. American Concrete Institute Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced
concrete (ACI 318-14) and commentary (ACI 318R-14), American Concrete Institute;
Farmington Hills, MI, 2014.
16. Hwang SJ, Lu WY, Lee HJ. Shear strength prediction for deep beams, ACI Structural Journal
2000; 97(3): 367-376.
17. Collins MP, Bentz EC, Sherwood EG. Where is shear reinforcement required? review of
research results and design procedures, ACI Structural Journal 2008; 105(5): 590-600.
18. American Concrete Institute American Society of Civil Engineers Committee 426. The
shear strength of reinforced concrete members, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1973;
99(ST6): 1091-1187.
19. American Concrete Institute Committee 440. Prestressing concrete structures with FRP
tendons (ACI 440.4R-04), American Concrete Institute; Farmington Hills, MI, 2004.
20. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO LRFD
bridge design specifications (6th Ed.), Washington DC, 2012.
21. Reineck KH. Strut-and-tie models versus sectional design? a discussion contribution. Further
examples for the design of structural concrete with strut-and-tie models, eds. KH Reineck and
LC Novak, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014; SP-273: Paper 15.
22. Rogowsky DM, MacGregor JG. Design of deep reinforced concrete continuous beams.
Concrete International: Design and Construction 1986; 8(8): 49-58.

19

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. Reinforcement layout and strain gauge locations for RC deep beams: (a) RB, (b) RST.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2. Steel reinforcement details for repaired deep beams: (a) RB; (b) RST.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 3. CFRP rod unibody steel clamp anchor: (a) longitudinal rod hole, inner and outer slots
and bolt holes; (b) end view of anchor with rod, bolts and tapered washers; (c) rod lead and nub
end, bolts and washers.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. Live end of clamping/mechanical stressing system for post-tensioning CFRP rods:
(a) end view; (b) side view.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Fig. 5. Mechanical clamping/stressing system: (a) anchor, HSS tube and sleeve nut; (b) bolts
through hexagonal sleeve nuts; (c) CFRP rod elongation to target strain; (d) steel shims between
side steel plate and HSS tube; (e) steel shims anchored; (f) bolts removed from hexagonal sleeve
nuts.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6. Instrumentation of deep beams for: (a) initial loading phase; (b) load to failure phase.

0 = LVDT;

= STRAIN GAUGE

Elastomeric
Pad
762 mm
(30 in.)

610 mm
(24 in.)

Elastomeric
Pad

2.29 m
(90 in.)
2.54 m
(108 in.)

Fig. 7. Test setup.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 8. Repaired deep beams with post-tensioned CFRP rods with live end at left: (a) RB;
(b) RST.

Midspan LVDT Deflection (mm)

0

12.7

25.4

38.1

400

50.8
1779
1557

Initial Damage
Cycles

300

1334
Loading To Failure

250

1112

200

890

150

667

100

445

50

222

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kip)

350

0
0

0.5
1
1.5
Midspan LVDT Deflection (in.)
(a)

(b)

Fig. 9. Repaired deep beam RB: (a) applied load vs. midspan deflection; (b) condition at failure.

Midspan LVDT Deflection (mm)

12.7

25.4

38.1

50.8
1779
1557

Applied Load (kip)

350 Initial Damage

Cycles

300
250

1334
1112

Loading To Failure

200

890

150

667

100

445

50

222

Applied Load (kN)

0
400

0
0

0.5
1
1.5
Midspan LVDT Deflection (in.)
(a)

(b)

Fig. 10. Repaired deep beam RST: (a) applied load vs. midspan deflection; (b) condition at
failure.

Midspan LVDT Deflection (mm)

300

25.4

38.1

50.8
1334

Initial Damage
Cycles

250
Applied Load (kip)

12.7

1112
Loading To Failure

200

890

150

667

100

445

50

222

Applied Load (kN)

0
0

0.5
1
1.5
Midspan LVDT Deflection (in.)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 11. Control deep beam B: (a) applied load vs. midspan deflection; (b) condition at failure.

Midspan LVDT Deflection (mm)

12.7
RST (repaired)

25.4

38.1
RB (repaired)

Applied Load (kip)

350

NO CFRP
RODS

50.8
1779
1557

300

1334

250

1112

200

890

150

667

100

445

50

222

0 L/800

Applied Load (kN)

0
400

0
0.5
1
1.5
Midspan LVDT Deflection (in.)

Fig. 12. Envelope of applied load vs. midspan deflection for deep beams.

Applied Load (kN)

Concrete Compressive Strain

0.003

222

445

667

890

1112

1334

1557

1779

RST (repaired)
B

0.002

RB (repaired)

0.001

50

100

150
200
250
Applied Load (kip)

300

350

400

Fig. 13. Concrete compressive strain at midspan vs. applied load for deep beams.

Applied Load (kN)

CFRP Rod Tensile Strain

0.010

222

445

667

0.008

890

1112

1334

1557

1779

RST Bottom Rods

0.006
RB Bottom Rods

0.004
0.002
0

50

100

150
200
250
Applied Load (kip)
(a)

300

350

400

Applied Load (kN)

0.010

222

445

667

890

1112

1334

1557

1779

CFRP Rod Tensile Strain

RB Top Rod #1

0.008
0.006

RB Top Rod #2

0.004
0.002
0

50

100

150
200
250
Applied Load (kip)
(b)

300

350

400

Fig. 14. CFRP rod strains at midspan vs. applied load: (a) bottom CFRP rods for deep beams RB
and RST; (b) top CFRP rods for deep beam RB.

45
234
260
71

D'

C'

E'
B

A
230

B'

532
762

A'

762

762
(a)

D'

32

C'

530
48

B
248

B'

514
762

762

A'

762

(b)

Fig. 15. Strut-and-tie models: (a) deep beams RB and RST repaired with post-tensioned CFRP
rods; (b) control beam B.

Table 1 - Experimental results for repaired beams with CFRP rods versus residual capacity.
Specimen
RB
RST

Capacity with
CFRP rods
(kN)
1695
1668

Residual capacity after

CFRP rods failed
(kN)
1410
1303

Capacity with CFRP

rods/
Residual capacity
1.20
1.28

Table 2 - Experimental results for repaired deep beams with CFRP rods and control deep beam.

Specimen
RB
RST
B

Experimental capacity
of deep beams with
CFRP rods
(kN)
1695
1668
-

Experimental capacity
of control beam
(kN)
1339

Capacity of deep beams

with CFRP rods/
Capacity of control beam
1.27
1.25
-

Table 3 - Analysis results of force distribution in struts and ties of STM models.
Control deep
beam
Fig. 15(a)
Force (kN)
AB
+619
AC
-305
AD
-597
BB
+887
BC
+276
BD
-384
DD
-887

Note: + = Tension tie; - = Compression strut

Deep beam with

CFRP rods
Fig. 15(b)
Force
(kN)
AB
+813
AC
-147
AD
-895
AE
-142
BB
+1110
BC
+276
BD
-406
CD
-202
CE
-200
DD
-1250
EE
+140

Table 4 - Comparison of experiments to STM model analysis results.

Specimen
RB
RST
B

Experimental
capacity
(kN)
1695
1668
1339

Analytical
capacity
(kN)
1526
1526
1234

Experimental/
analytical capacity
1.11
1.09
1.08