See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260368357

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strengthening of Two-

Way Slabs

Article in Aci Structural Journal · September 2004

CITATIONS READS

59 912

2 authors:

Usama A Ebead Hesham Marzouk

Qatar University Ryerson University
81 PUBLICATIONS 778 CITATIONS 151 PUBLICATIONS 1,265 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable concrete using seawater, recycled aggregates, and non-corrosive reinforcement View project

Development of nuclear waste container using UHP-FRC View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Usama A Ebead on 27 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 101-S64
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strengthening of Two-Way Slabs
by U. Ebead and H. Marzouk
In this paper, the strengthening of two-way slabs using fiber-reinforced
polymers (FRPs) is evaluated experimentally. Two different types
of FRP materials were evaluated: carbon FRP strips and glass
FRP laminates. The dominating failure mode for two-way slab,
flexural, or punching shear is based on the slab steel reinforcement
ratio. The reinforcement ratios were chosen to serve the purpose of
demarcating the two possible modes of failure. The tested specimens
were classified according to the purpose of strengthening into
specimens strengthened in flexure and specimens strengthened in
punching shear.
Specimens strengthened in flexure had two steel reinforcement
ratios: 0.35 and 0.5%. Results show that the flexural capacity of
two-way slabs can increase to an average of 35.5% over that of the
reference (unstrengthened) specimen. An increase of the initial
stiffness was achieved for flexural specimens; however, an apparent
decrease in the overall ductility was evident. FRP materials can be
used to increase the flexural capacity of two-way slabs. However,
an average decrease in the values of the energy absorption of approxi-
mately 30% for flexural strengthening specimens was observed.
Specimens strengthened for punching shear have an original
slab reinforcement ratio of 1.0%. A strengthening technique that
combines the use of carbon FRP strips and steel bolts increases the
strength of the slab by 9.0%. An analytical model for the analysis of
FRP strengthening of two-way slabs under flexure or punching
shear is introduced.
Keywords: concrete; fibers; reinforcement; shear; slab; strength.
INTRODUCTION
Extensive applications of the fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) materials as new construction materials have been
recently accomplished. FRP materials are lightweight, high-
strength, noncorrosive, and nonmagnetic materials. By
virtue of these advantages, there is a wide range of recent,
current, and potential applications of these materials that
covers both new and existing structures. Among different
types of FRP materials, carbon fiber-reinforced polymers
(CFRPs) and glass fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRPs) are
used extensively in the structural engineering field.
FRP materials have been used for strengthening reinforced
concrete beams, columns, and one-way slabs. The flexural
capacity of concrete beams can be increased by bonding FRP
sheets, strips, or laminates to the tension side (Ritchie et al.
1991; Al-Sulaimani et al. 1994; Chaallal, Nollet, and Perraton
1998; GangaRao and Vijay 1998). In addition, the shear
strength of concrete beams can be increased by gluing FRP
laminates to the concrete web at locations of high shear
stresses (Triantafillou 1998; Norris and Saadatmanesh 1997).
Many research works have dealt with the debonding of
FRP sheets to concrete beams (Meier et al. 1993; Arduini et
al. 1994). In this regard, some mechanical and finite element
models have been developed to provide design guidelines
and to investigate theoretically possible modes of failure of
FRP-strengthened beams based on experimental data
650
TECHNICAL PAPER
(Malek, Saadatmanesh, and Ehsani 1998; Triantafillou 1998;
Nitereka and Neale 1999).
Several research programs have been conducted on
column strengthening. Concrete-wrapped columns with
GFRP laminates showed a considerable enhancement on the
column-carrying capacity (Jin, Saadatmanesh, and Ehsani
1994; Soudki and Green 1996).
The ease of handling FRP materials provides the means to
the extension of their applications for strengthening other
structural elements. Very little research has been conducted
on the strengthening of reinforced concrete slabs, especially
two-way slabs using FRP materials. Some research works
dealt with the strengthening of one-way slabs using FRP
materials in which slabs were treated in a very similar way to
beams (Karbhari et al. 1994; Kikukawa et al. 1998).
Two-way slabs with low or medium reinforcement ratios
tend to fail in flexure rather than in punching shear. For two-
way slabs that have reinforcement ratios of 1.0% and more,
the mode of failure tends to be the punching shear type of
failure (Marzouk and Hussein 1991). Using FRP materials to
enhance two-way slabs in flexure is very desirable from the
applicability point of view due to the ease of handling and
installing FRP materials. FRP materials are not subject to
either corrosion or rust in the long term.
The use of FRP materials for strengthening of flexural
members can lead to a decrease of the overall structural
member ductility, causing a more brittle failure.
For punching shear strengthening, an effective strength-
ening technique for a two-way slab system was developed in
an earlier investigation by the authors (Ebead and Marzouk
2002a,b). The technique uses a combination of horizontal
steel plates and vertical steel bolts. This technique was very
efficient in strengthening two-way slabs in punching shear.
The strengthening steel plates were extended twice as the
slab depth around the column to act as a drop panel. A
minimum of eight 19 mm bolts were required to transfer the
horizontal forces induced between the steel plates and
concrete. In addition, tightened steel bolts confine strengthened
concrete between the steel plates. A similar strengthening
technique is adopted in this study by replacing steel plates by
the CFRP strips.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The strengthening of two-way slabs using FRP materials
is presented. The behavior of two-way slabs strengthened in
flexure is discussed. CFRP strips and GFRP laminates can be
used to increase the flexural capacity of two-way slabs to an
average of 36% over that of the reference (unstrengthened)
ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 5, September-October 2004.
MS No. 03-114 received March 12, 2003, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2004, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the July-
August 2005 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2005.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
U. Ebead is a postdoctoral researcher at Sherbrooke University, Quebec, Canada and
Table 2—Compressive strength of concrete
an assistant professor at Helwan University, Egypt. He received his PhD from Memorial Cylinder
University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada. His research interests compressive Strengthening Reinforcement Preload,
include the use of fiber-reinforced materials for concrete structure strengthening and Specimen title strength, MPa material ratio kN
finite element modeling of fiber-reinforced polymer-strengthened structures.
Ref-0.35% 30.0 — 0.35% —
ACI member H. Marzouk is the Chair of the Civil Engineering Discipline at Memorial Ref-0.5% 35.0 — 0.5% —
University of Newfoundland. He received his MSc and PhD from the University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. He is a member of ACI Committees 209, Creep Ref-1.0% 36.0 — 1.0% —
and Shrinkage in Concrete, and 213, Lightweight Aggregate and Concrete. His GFRP-F-0.35% 29.0 GFRP laminates 0.35% 125
research interests include structural and material properties of high-strength concrete.
GFRP-F-0.5% 38.0 GFRP laminates 0.5% 165
CFRP-F-0.35% 35.0 CFRP strips 0.35% 125
Table 1—Mixture proportions for 1 m3 concrete CFRP-F-0.5% 34.0 CFRP strips 0.35% 165
Gravel 1160 kg CFRP1-S-1.0% 30.0 CFRP strips + 1.0% 210
steel bolts
Sand 690 kg
CFRP2-S-1.0% 29.0 CFRP strips + 1.0% 210
Cement 350 kg steel bolts
Water 175 L Steel plates +
Steel-1.0%* 34.0 steel bolts 1.0% 210
Water-cement ratio 0.5
*
High-range water-reducing admixture 440 mL Specimen A3—Ebead and Marzouk (2002a).
Air entrainment agent 68.3 mL
Table 3—Properties of steel reinforcement bars
Mean
specimen. An increase of the initial stiffness was achieved yield Mean Modulus of
for flexural specimens; however, an apparent decrease in the Diameter, Area, Yield stress, ultimate, elasticity
overall ductility was evident. Bar no. mm mm2 strain MPa MPa E, GPa
An implementation of the ACI 440.2R (ACI Committee 10 mm 11.3 100 0.00235 450 660 191
440 2002) is presented for the purpose of verification against 15 mm 16.0 200 0.0025 435 670 193
experimental results. The estimated ultimate load capacity 20 mm 19.5 300 0.0026 440 665 195
using the ACI Code is in an accepted level of agreement with
the experimental results.
Table 4—Properties of one layer of fiber-reinforced
polymer materials
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Materials Fiber
Thick- Tensile Elastic volume Fiber
The concrete mixture was designed for an average target ness, strength, modulus, Elongation Weight, fraction density
cylinder compressive strength of 35 MPa after 28 days. The FRP mm MPa GPa at break, % g/m2 content g/cm3
mixture proportion and the compressive strength are CFRP 1.2 2800 170 >1.7 2240 68% 1.5
summarized in Table 1 and 2. The steel reinforcement bars strips
were CSA Grade 400 deformed bars. The actual yield GFRP 50 to
lami- 1.0 600 26.13 2.24 913 2.54
strength of the steel reinforcement ranged from 435 to 450 MPa. nates 80%
Three different diameters were used: 10, 15, and 20 mm. The
properties of the utilized steel reinforcement are summarized
Table 5—Properties of epoxy adhesive
in Table 3. ASTM A 325, 19 mm diameter steel bolts were
used for the punching-shear-strengthening specimens. Property Epoxy for strips Epoxy for laminates
Unidirectional GFRP laminates and CFRP strips were used Tensile strength, MPa 24.8 72.4
for strengthening. The thicknesses of the GFRP laminates and Elongation at break, % 1.00 4.8
CFRP strips were 1.0 and 1.2 mm, respectively. Two different Elastic modulus, GPa 4.5 3.1
types of two-component adhesive epoxy resins were used with
each type of the FRPs as per the manufacturer’s specifica- the other hand, two-way slabs with reinforcement ratios of
tions. Epoxy resins were used for the CFRP strips and the 1.0% or more are likely to fail due to a punching shear mode
GFRP laminates, respectively. The properties of epoxy (Marzouk and Hussein 1991). Based on this observation, two
resins and FRP materials provided by the manufacturers are different reinforcement ratios were chosen to investigate the
listed in Table 4 and 5, respectively. effectiveness of the flexural strengthening technique: 0.35 and
0.5%. In addition, specimens with reinforcement ratios of
Test slabs 1.0% were used to evaluate the punching shear strengthening.
The tested specimens were square with a 1900 mm side Three unstrengthened specimens were used as reference
length and 150 mm thicknesses. The test specimens were specimens. These specimens are Ref-0.35%, Ref-0.5%, and
simply supported along the four edges with corners free to Ref-1.0% of reinforcement ratios of 0.35, 0.5, and 1.0%,
lift and were centrally loaded through the column stub. A respectively. Specimens CFRP-F-0.35% and CFRP-F-0.5%
layout of the tested slabs is shown in Fig. 1, which also had steel reinforcement ratios of 0.35 and 0.5%, respectively,
shows reinforcement details of the tested specimens. The strengthened with CFRP strips. Similarly, specimens GFRP-F-
selection of the reinforcement ratio of a slab was based on 0.35% and GFRP-F-0.5% had reinforcement ratios 0.35 and
previous studies on slabs of the same dimensions and tested 0.5%, respectively, and were strengthened using GFRP
in the same laboratory at the Memorial University of laminates. Specimens CFRP-F-0.35%, CFRP-F-0.5%,
Newfoundland. The failure mode of slabs with reinforcement GFRP-F-0.35%, and GFRP-F-0.5% will be referred to as
ratios less than or equal to 0.5% is normally a flexural mode. On flexural strengthening specimens. Specimens CFRP1-S-1.0%

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 651


Fig. 1—Concrete dimensions and reinforcement details
of slabs.
Fig. 2—Steel gages arrangement of tested slabs.
and CFRP2-S-1.0% had reinforcement ratios of 1.0% and
were strengthened using different geometrical arrangements
of CFRP strips and steel bolts. Specimens CFRP1-S-1.0%
and CFRP2-S-1.0% will be referred to as punching-shear-
strengthening specimens.
A minimum concrete cover of 25 mm was maintained for
all specimens at compression and the tension sides. Column
stubs were square of 250 mm side-dimension and were
located at the slab center. The column stubs were extended
on the compression side at a distance 850 mm from the
concrete surface to allow for the application of the load.
Figure 2 shows the locations of steel reinforcement strain
gages for specimens of different reinforcement ratios. It is
652
worth mentioning that for the punching-shear strengthening,
the column stubs were extended on both sides.
Test setup and instrumentation
The specimens were tested using a large reaction steel
frame. A 10-ton capacity crane was used to lift and install the
specimens vertically inside the frame. Rubber pieces were
placed between the back surface of the tested slabs and the
supporting edges of the frame. A hydraulic actuator facing
the specimen was used to apply a uniform central load
through the column stub. A load cell was used to measure the
load using four calibrated electrical resistance strain gages
fixed to the inner cylinder of the load cell. The actuator had
a maximum load capacity of 700 kN and a maximum stroke
of 150 mm.
Linear variable displacement transformers (LVDTs) were
built in the front actuator to measure the central deflection of
slabs. The central loads were applied using displacement
control to avoid the uncontrolled failure at the maximum
loads. The displacement rate for the actuator was 0.25 mm/min.
A displacement function of the ramp type was applied
through a computerized function generator. Electrical resistance
strain gages, 8 mm in length, having a resistance of 120 ±
0.3% and a gage factor equal to 2.070 ± 0.5% were used to
measure the steel reinforcement strains at locations shown in
Fig. 2. The LVDTs and the electrical strain gages were
connected through a master panel to a data acquisition
system. The analog electrical signals of loads, deflections,
and steel strains were converted through the data acquisition
system to digital signals and were stored in digital computer
files. Equally spaced dial gages were placed along the width
of the specimens to measure the deflection profiles of the
specimens during the application of load. The positions of
the dial gages are shown in Fig. 1.
Load application and testing procedure
The unstrengthened reference specimens—Ref-0.35%,
Ref-0.5%, and Ref-1.0%—were loaded centrally through the
column stub until failure to estimate the ultimate load-
carrying capacity. The ultimate load-carrying capacity of the
reference specimens was 250, 330, and 420 kN, respectively.
Fifty percent of the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the
reference specimens was used as an initial loading for the
specimens prior to strengthening. Hence, the specimens with
reinforcement ratios of 0.35, 0.5, and 1.0% to be strengthened
were loaded prior to strengthening with initial loads of 125,
165, and 210 kN as initial loading. Fifty percent of the load
represents a level of load on a building in field where
strengthening may be required. The applied loads were
completely released to represent a state of shoring two-way
slabs in the field prior to strengthening. Afterward, the
specimens were removed from the loading frame for
strengthening according to the strengthening procedure
detailed as follows. After 1 week of curing, the specimens
were relocated at the loading frame and were subjected to the
central load until failure. Table 2 summarizes the values of
the preload of each specimen.
Strengthening procedure
The concrete surface to be strengthened was roughened
carefully using a vibrating hammer to improve the bond
characteristics between concrete and the CFRP strips and
GFRP laminates. Dust and fine materials caused from the
roughening process were removed carefully from the
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
Fig. 3—Details of flexural-strengthening specimens.

concrete surfaces. In addition, for CFRP strips, a special

solvent was used to remove all grease, waxes, foreign particles,
and other bond-inhibiting materials from the bonded surface
as specified by the manufacturer. The two-part epoxy resin
was applied on both the concrete surfaces and the strength-
ening materials. Afterward, the FRP strengthening materials
were bonded to the concrete surface according to the type
of strengthening. Fig. 4—Details of steel plates’ strengthening technique
(Ebead and Marzouk 2002a).
Flexural strengthening specimens
The strengthening material was located at the tension side
of the slab and was extended to a location 50 mm before the
support. Two 300 mm-width layers of GFRP laminates were
bonded to the slab surface in both directions of specimens
GFRP-F-0.35% and GFRP-F-0.5%, as shown in Fig. 3.
Specimens CFRP-F-0.35% and CFRP-F-0.5% were
strengthened using three adjacent CFRP strips of 100 mm
width each so that the strengthened width is 300 mm.
Additional transverse layers of CFRP strips were bonded at
the end of the FRP materials to improve the end anchorage
of the FRP strips or laminates with concrete surface. The
anchorage layers were 100 mm wide and 500 mm long.
Figure 3 shows details of the flexural strengthening specimens.

Punching-shear-strengthening specimens
The size and configuration of the strengthening materials
were based on a similar successful strengthening technique
using steel for two-way slabs. That technique employed steel
plates and vertical steel bolts to strengthen a two-way slab
system. Details of this technique are shown in Fig. 4. The
two-way slab strengthening technique is based on a previous
three-dimensional finite element stress analysis study of the
shear and bending stress distribution in the slab to column
connections (Marzouk and Jiang 1996). The numerical study
was supported by experimental investigation (Marzouk and
Jiang 1997). Based on the recommendation of the two
aforementioned studies, the strengthening material was
extended around the column to a distance of twice the
concrete slab’s depth. The strengthening material was placed
on both sides of the slab. Holes were predrilled all the way
through the slab thickness and eight 19-mm diameter bolts
were installed. Steel bolts were inserted in the slab to provide
vertical shear reinforcement and to achieve full interaction
between the strengthening material and concrete. The bolts
were distributed so that four equi-spaced bolts were inserted
Fig. 5—Details of punching-shear-strengthening specimens.
on the inner circumference and four others were inserted on the
outer circumference. Using a calibrated torque wrench, the nuts
of the bolts were subjected to a specified torque equal to
441 kN.mm. Details of the punching-shear strengthening
specimens are shown in Fig. 5.
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Crack load and deflection
Cracks of all specimens prior to strengthening were traced
as the load was applied and the first crack load values were
recorded. Specimens with a reinforcement ratio of 0.35%
indicated the lowest first crack loads of 73, 70, and 68 kN for
specimens Ref-0.35%, CFRP-F-0.35%, and GFRP-F-0.35%,
respectively. The first crack loads of 84, 80, and 83 kN were

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 653

Table 6—Ultimate capacities and deflection characteristics of tested slabs
Cracking load Pcr , Deflection at cracking Ultimate Deflection at ultimate Energy absorption
Title kN load δcr , mm load Pu, kN load δu, mm Ψ, kN.mm Stiffness K, kN/mm Failure mode
Ref-0.35% 73 7.00 250 42.01 9346 8.42 Flexure
Ref-0.5% 84 6.25 330 35.57 9445 12.54 Flexure
Ref-1.0% 89 4.85 420 24.50 5950 20.08 Punching shear
CFRP-F-0.35% 70 7.25 361 18.08 7821 15.54 Flexure
GFRP-F-0.35% 68 7.69 345 27.72 4597 24.42 Flexure
CFRP-F-0.5% 80 6.03 450 21.03 6686 26.76 Flexure
GFRP-F-0.5% 83 6.35 415 26.71 7475 23.15 Flexure
CFRP1-S-1.0% 103 5.02 491 27.71 10,090 26.10 Punching shear
CFRP2-S-1.0% 96 4.59 425 24.51 7501 17.68 Punching shear
Steel-1.0%* 85 4.80 645 28.00 8862 35.90 Flexure
*
Specimen A3 (Ebead and Marzouk 2002a).

the load was largely dependent on the reinforcement ratio. For

Fig. 6—Load-deflection relationships of flexural
strengthening specimens.
recorded for the specimens with reinforcement ratios of
0.5% for Ref-0.5%, CFRP-F-0.5%, and GFRP-F-0.5%,
respectively. The highest first crack load was observed for
specimens with a reinforcement ratio of 1.0%. The first crack
loads were 89, 103, and 96 kN for specimens Ref-1.0%,
CFRP1-S-1.0%, and CFRP2-S-1.0%, respectively. The use
of CFRP and GFRP increased the equivalent reinforcement
ratio slightly compared with the reference specimens. In the
mean time, the associated deflection to the first crack load is
decreased as the reinforcement ratio is increased. First crack
loads Pcr and the associated deflection values δcr for all
specimens prior to strengthening are shown in Table 6.
Load-deflection relationships
The central load-deflection relationship was recorded using
the data acquisition system. In addition, the deflection profile at
nine different positions along each slab’s width was measured
using dial gages. The variation of the deflection values against
the reference specimens (Ref-0.35%, Ref-0.5%, and Ref-1.0%),
the deflection value decreased as the reinforcement ratio
increased. As shown in Fig. 6, the deflection at the ultimate load
was decreased from 42.01 to 24.50 mm as the reinforcement
ratio was increased from 0.35 to 1.0%.
For the flexural strengthening specimens (GFRP-F-0.35%,
CFRP-F-0.5%, GFRP-F-0.35%, and CFRP-F-0.5%), the
slope of the load-deflection curve was higher than that of the
corresponding reference specimens. Moreover, the average
deflection at the ultimate load of the flexural strengthening
specimens was approximately 0.61 that of the corresponding
reference specimens. In general, flexural strengthening
specimens experienced smaller deformation compared to the
corresponding reference specimens due to the effect of the
FRP materials on the overall behavior of the slabs.
Regarding the punching-shear-strengthening specimens
(CFRP1-S-1.0% and CFRP2-S-1.0%), a slight change in the
slope of the load-deflection relationship was noticed
compared with the reference specimen, Ref-1.0%. Figure 6
shows the load-deflection relationships for the flexural
strengthening specimens, including the associated reference
specimens. In addition, Fig. 7 shows the load-deflection
relationships for the punching-shear strengthening specimens.
Figure 7 also includes the load-deflections relationships for
the reference specimen and Specimen Steel-1.0% represented
from previous research on strengthening using steel plates
for comparison. Specimen Steel-1.0% is referred to as A3 in
the previous research (Ebead and Marzouk 2002 a,b). It is
clear that steel strengthening leads to a stiffer initial behavior
of slabs compared with CFRP strips strengthening. Table 6
summarizes the deflection values δu associated with the
ultimate load for all specimens. The deflection profile for
the flexural strengthened specimens is shown in Fig. 8.
Ultimate load-carrying capacity
The ultimate load-carrying capacity will be referred to as
the load capacity. The flexural strengthening specimen
showed higher load capacity than that of the corresponding
reference specimens. Specimens CFRP-F-0.35% and
GFRP-F-0.35% showed increases of 44.4 and 38%, respec-
tively, in the load capacity over that of the reference specimen,
Ref-0.35%. Moreover, Specimens CFRP-F-0.5% and
GFRP-F-0.5% showed increases of 36.4 and 25.8%,
respectively, in the load capacity over that of the reference
specimen, Ref-0.5%. The load capacity of the corresponding
reference specimens was influenced by the reinforcement

654 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004

ratio that is in accordance with previous research (Marzouk
and Hussein 1991). The load capacity of specimen Ref-0.5%
was 1.32 times that of Specimen Ref-0.35%. However, the
average increase of the punching-shear-strengthening
specimens, CFRP1-S-1.0% and CFRP2-S-1.0% gained over
the associated reference specimen, Ref-1.0%, was only 9%.
Referring to a previous study, the steel-strengthened specimen
gained an increase of 31.36 and 51.76% over that of Specimens
CFRP1-S-1.0% and CFRP2-S-1.0%, respectively. Table 6
summarizes the load capacity Pu of all specimens.
Stiffness characteristics
The stiffness of a slab at any loading point is the slope of
the load-deflection curve at that point. The initial stiffness K
was evaluated numerically as the slope of the load-deflection
curve within the first 5 mm deflection. This is an approximation
Fig. 7—Load-deflection relationships for punching-
shear-strengthening specimens.
Fig. 8—Deflection profiles of flexural strengthening specimens.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
made to avoid the misleading initial readings when there is a
relaxation of the load actuator.
The flexural strengthening specimens showed higher
initial stiffness over that of the reference specimens. The
average initial stiffness of Specimens CFRP-F-0.35% and
GFRP-F-0.35% was approximately 2.37 times that of the
reference specimen, Ref-0.35%. Moreover, the average
initial stiffness of Specimens CFRP-F-0.5% and GFRP-F-0.5%
was approximately 1.99 times that of the reference specimen,
Ref-0.5%.
Punching-shear-strengthening specimens, CFRP1-S-1.0%
and CFRP2-S-1.0%, gained an average increase in the initial
stiffness of 9% over that of the reference specimen, Ref-1.0%.
The specimen strengthened using steel plates, Steel-1.0%,
gained an average increase in the initial stiffness of 70% over
the average of that of the punching-shear-strengthening
specimens (Ebead and Marzouk 2002a). Table 6 shows the
initial stiffness K values of all specimens.
Energy absorption characteristics
The energy absorption is the area under the load-deflection
curve for a tested specimen. This area was evaluated
numerically based on the available values of load and the
corresponding values of deflection. At the maximum load, it
was clearly noticed that the strengthening technique contributed
to a decrease in the energy absorption of the flexural
strengthening specimens.
An average decrease in the values of the energy absorption
of approximately 30% for flexural strengthening specimens
was observed. An average increase of approximately 31%,
however, was recorded in the case of punching-shear-
strengthening specimens. Values of the energy absorption Ψ
for each slab are summarized in Table 6.
Steel reinforcement strains
Measurements were made to determine the steel strain
distribution at selected radii from the centers of the slabs.
The locations of the strain gages shown in Fig. 2 were chosen
to track the variation of the steel strain with the distance from
the center of the panel. Figure 9 shows the main reinforcement
strain gages distribution for specimens subjected to central
load with different reinforcement ratios at Location 1 of Fig. 2.
655

Fig. 9—Load-steel reinforcement strain relationships for
tested specimens.
Fig. 10—Typical layout of flexural failure of unstrengthened
specimens.
Location 1 is 170 mm from the center of the slab. Figure 9
combines the steel strain distribution for all specimens at this
location. The recorded steel strain indicated that for CFRP
strip specimens, the steel reached the yield strain at the
failure load. For the specimen strengthened with GFRP,
however, the steel strain at failure load was approximately
four times the yield strain.
As shown in Fig. 9(a), a stiffer behavior was noticed for
the flexural-strengthened specimens compared with the
associated unstrengthened specimens. In addition, specimens
656
Fig. 11—Typical layout of GFRP flexural strengthened
specimen at failure.
with reinforcement ratios of 0.5% showed stiffer behavior
compared with those with 0.35% reinforcement ratios for the
same strengthening material.
The punching-shear-strengthened specimens showed
lower stiffness compared with the reference unstrengthened
specimens, as shown in Fig. 9(b). The lower stiffness can be
explained due to the stress concentration effect around the
bolts locations. In addition, there was not enough confinement
to enhance the behavior of these specimens.
Failure characteristics
For reference specimens, Ref-0.35% and Ref-0.5%, failure
mode was classified as flexural-ductile. Flexural reinforcement
yielded and the two specimens showed relatively large
deflection values before reaching the ultimate load. Specimen
Ref-1.0% showed a more brittle failure due to punching
shear mode of failure. Figure 10 shows the failure of the
reference specimen, Ref-0.5%, showing the typical flexural
failure mode for unstrengthened specimens.
The typical flexural failure modes of GFRP and CFRP
flexural strengthened specimens are shown in Fig. 11 and 12,
respectively. It is evident that the FRP materials contributed
to an increase of the capacity until the bond between the FRP
material and concrete failed. Debonding cracks appeared at
a late stage of loading that resulted in a separation of the
strengthening materials. These cracks were located along the
edges of the strengthening material length. This indicates
that end anchoring severed to a certain extent, preventing a
premature bond failure at the cutoff end of FRP materials.
After the appearance of these cracks, the specimens failed
due to accelerated concrete flexural failure after the FRP
debonded from the slabs without rupture of the FRP material.
Punching-shear-strengthening specimens failed in a
punching shear mode of failure as that of the corresponding
reference specimen, Ref-1.0%. A local failure at one of the
outer diameter bolt locations occurred at late stages of the
application of load followed by a sudden punching shear
failure of concrete, as shown in Figure 13. It is important to
point out that when steel plates were used for the same
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
strengthening technique, the punching failure was eliminated
and transferred to a more ductile flexure failure.

Numerical code evaluation and

load-carrying capacity
A simplified method for the code evaluation of the load-
carrying capacity for a two-way slab strengthened with steel
plates and bolts was suggested previously (Ebead and
Marzouk 2002a). This method is based on the analysis of
two-way slab recommended by Rankin and Long (1987).
This approach is based on the following

P flex = 8M b  ---------
S
- – 0.172 (1)
l – c 

Equation (1) is based on the virtual work done by the

action of the yield lines. The value of Mb in Eq. (1) is the
radial moment capacity of the slabs. For the original concrete Fig. 12—Typical layout of CFRP flexural strengthened
specimens, ACI 318-99 is used to evaluate Mb. The same specimen at failure.
equation can be used for the analysis of strengthened two-
way slab using approximated evaluations of some of the
parameters of Eq. (1) according to the type of the strengthening.

Punching-shear-strengthened slabs
CFRP strips’ contribution in increasing the flexural
capacity Mb is limited due to the discontinuity of CFRP
strips. The experimental results indicated that the punching
failure was initiated on the compression face of the slab at a
distance equal to half the slab depth, as shown in Fig. 13, and
not at the usual column face as for the case for un-strengthened
slabs. The value of c in Eq. (1) for the strengthened slabs can
be taken as the side length of the column plus the slab depth.
This is an approximated estimation of the contribution of the Fig. 13—Failure of punching-shear-strengthening specimens.
strengthening system. Hence

ceq = c + d (2) Table 7—Comparison with theoretical evaluation

Specimen Pexp Ptheo Ptheo /Pexp
where d is the slab depth. For this case, Mb1 is the CFRP-F-0.35% 361 332 0.92
unstrengthened capacity of the slab. According to ACI 318-99, GFRP-F-0.35% 345 323 0.94
Mb1 is evaluated according to the following expression CFRP-F-0.5% 450 420 0.93
GFRP-F-0.5% 415 411 0.99
2 ( ρ – ρ′ )
M b1 = bd ( ρ – ρ′ )f y 1 – 0.59 ------------------- f y (3) CFRP1-S-1.0% 491 491 1.00
fc ′ CFRP2-S-1.0% 425 491 1.16

+ ρ′f y d ( d – d′ ) where Mb2 is the contribution of the strengthening material

A comparison between the experimental results and
theoretical estimation in terms of the ultimate load-carrying
capacity is shown in Table 7. An accepted level of agreement
is reached between the experimental results and the
suggested theoretical estimation.
Flexural strengthened slabs
In this case, the contribution of the strengthening materials
is taken into account when evaluating the radial moment
capacity Mb
M b = M b1 + M b2
and is evaluated according to the following equation,
assuming full bonds between FRP and concrete
w FRP
M b2 = E FRF t FRP ε FRP  h – a--- -----------
- (5)
 2 ηl
Equation (5) is based on the FRP section analysis as
recommended by ACI 440.2R (ACI Committee 440 2002).
The term wFRP /ηl is introduced for the two-way slab equation
to take into account the ratio between the width of the
strengthening material and the slab width l. The factor η is
the strengthening efficiency factor and is taken as 0.75 for
two-way slabs as recommended by Ebead (2002).
(4) The strain in FRP strips layer can be evaluated as

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 657


ε FRP =  --- – 1 ε cu + --- ε s
h h
(6)
d  d Sika Canada Inc. for supplying the fiber reinforcement plastic materials and
The distance of the neutral axis from the top of slab a can
be calculated as follows
d c
a = 0.8 ------------------ ε cu (7)
ε cu + ε y
The test results indicated that, for CFRP strips, it could be
assumed that at failure, concrete reached the ultimate strain
and the steel reached the yield strain. For the specimen
strengthened with GFRP, however, the concrete strain
reached the ultimate value and the steel strain at failure
reached four times the yield strain. Once the FRP strain and
the location of neutral axis are determined, the strengthened
moment contribution to the slab can be evaluated from Eq. (5).
For the evaluation of the total load capacity, Eq. (1) is used
and replacing the value of c by the FRP width wFRP. Hence,
in the case of FRP flexural strengthening
P flex = 8M b  -------------------- – 0.172
S (8)
 l – w FRP  δcr
The implementation of the prescribed analytical method
showed a good agreement with the experimental results as
shown in Table 7.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were drawn for the strengthened
two-way slabs using GFRP laminates and CFRP strips:
1. Flexural strengthening specimens using CFRP strips
showed an average gain in the load capacity of approximately
40% over that of the reference (unstrengthened) specimens;
2. Flexural strengthening specimens using GFRP laminates
showed an average gain in the load capacity of approximately
31% over that of the reference specimens;
3. The flexural strengthening specimens showed a stiffer
behavior than that of the reference specimens. A decrease in
ductility and energy absorption was recorded, however, due
to the brittle nature of the strengthening of the FRP materials.
The average energy absorption of the strengthened specimens
using CFRP strips and GFRP laminates were 0.77 and 0.64,
respectively, of that of the reference specimens;
4. For the suggested flexural strengthening technique,
debonding between FRP materials and concrete was the
main cause of failure. Slabs failed soon after debonding
occurred due to exceeding flexural capacity. No FRP tensile
rupture was observed;
5. The test results of the CFRP strips used for punching-
shear-strengthening specimens indicated a small average
increase within 9% over the unstrengthened specimens. In
addition, the strengthened specimens failed under the
undesirable sudden punching shear failure mode; and
6. The recommended theoretical analysis used for FRP
strengthening of two-way slabs showed a good agreement
with experimental test results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC) for providing the funds for the project. Sincere
thanks are due to the Technical Staff of the Structural Engineering Laboratory
658
of Memorial University of Newfoundland for their assistance during the
preparation of the specimens and during testing. Sincere thanks are extended to
the epoxies, and to Capital Ready Mix Ltd., Newfoundland, for providing
the concrete for this project.
NOTATION
a = distance from top of slab to neutral axis, mm
= side length of square column, mm
cequ = equivalent side length due to strengthening, mm
d = distance from compression face to center of tension reinforce-
ment, mm
d′ = distance from compression face to center of compression
reinforcement, mm
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, MPa
EFRP = the modulus of elasticity of FRP materials, MPa
fc′ = compressive strength of concrete, MPa
fy = yield stress of the slab reinforcement, MPa
h = overall slab thickness, mm
K = initial stiffness of specimen, kN/mm
l = side length of square slab, mm
lp = length of strengthening steel plates, mm
Mb = radial moment of resistance of strengthened section, N.mm/mm
Mb1 = radial moment of resistance of unstrengthened section, N.mm/mm
Pcr = first crack load of slab before strengthening, kN
Pflex = flexural load-carrying capacity, kN
Pu = ultimate load of specimen, kN
tFRP = total thickness of FRP material, mm
wFRP = width of FRP materials, mm
= deflection at slab center at first crack load, mm
δu = deflection at slab center at ultimate load, mm
Ψ = energy absorption of specimen, kN/mm
ρ = tension reinforcement ratio of slab
ρ′ = compression reinforcement ratio of slab
η = effective strengthening width coefficient
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 1999, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, 391 pp.
ACI Committee 440, 2002, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI
440.2R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 45 pp.
Al-Sulaimani, G. J.; Sherif, A.; Basunbul, I. A.; Blunch, M. H.; and Ghalab,
B. N., 1994, “Shear Repair for Reinforced Concrete by Fiberglass Plate
Bonding,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 458-464.
Arduini, M.; D’Amrisi, A.; and Tommaso, A. D., 1994, “Shear Failure
of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Plates,” Infrastructure: A New
Materials and Methods of Repair, Proceedings of the Third Materials
Engineering Conference, San Diego, Calif., pp. 123-130.
Chaallal, O.; Nollet, M.; and Perraton, D., 1998, “Strengthening of
Reinforced Concrete Beams with Externally Bonded Reinforced Plastic
Plates: Design Guidelines for Shear and Flexure,” Canadian Journal for
Civil Engineering, V. 25, pp. 692-704.
Ebead, U., 2002, “Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Two-Way
Slabs,” PhD Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s,
Newfoundland, Canada, 245 pp.
Ebead, U., and Marzouk, H., 2002a, “Strengthening of Two-Way Slabs
Using Steel Plates,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 23-31.
Ebead, U., and Marzouk, H., 2002b, “Strengthening of Two-Way Slabs
Subjected to Moment and Cyclic Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99,
No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 435-444.
GangaRao, H. V. S., and Vijay, P. V., 1998, “Bending Behavior of Concrete
Beams Wrapped with Carbon Fabric,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
V. 124, No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Jin, L.; Saadatmanesh, H.; and Ehsani, M. R., 1994, “Seismic Retrofit of
Existing Reinforced Concrete Columns By Glass-Fibre Composites,”
Infrastructure: A New Materials and Methods of Repair, Proceedings of the
Third Materials Engineering Conference, San Diego, Calif., pp. 758-763.
Karbhari, V. M.; Seible, F.; Seim, W.; and Vasquez, A., 1994,
“Strengthening of Concrete Slabs,” Infrastructure: A New Materials and
Methods of Repair, Proceedings of the Third Materials Engineering
Conference, San Diego, Calif., pp. 1163-1172.
Kikukawa, K.; Mutoh, K.; Ohya, H.; Ohyama, Y.; and Tanaka, H., 1998,
“Flexural Reinforcement of Concrete Floor Slabs by Carbon Fiber Textiles,”
Composite Interfaces, V. 5, No. 5, pp. 469-478.
Malek, M. A.; Saadatmanesh, H.; and Ehsani, M. R., 1998, “Prediction
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
 of Failure Load of R/C Beams Strengthened with FRP Plate Due to Stress
Concentration at the Plate End,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 2, Mar.-
Apr., pp. 142-152.
Marzouk, H.; Emam, M.; and Hilal, M. S., 1996, “Effect of High-
Strength Concrete Columns on the Behavior of Slab-Column Connections,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 545-554.
Marzouk, H., and Hussein, A., 1991, “Experimental Investigation on the
Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 701-713.
Marzouk, H., and Jiang, D., 1996, “Finite Element Evaluation of Shear
Enhancement for High-Strength Concrete Plates,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 667-673.
Marzouk, H., and Jiang, D., 1997 “Experimental Investigation on Shear
Enhancement Types for High-Strength Concrete Plates,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 49-58.
Meier, U.; Deuring, M.; Meier, H.; and Schwegler, G., 1993, “CFRP
Bonded Sheets,” Fibre-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures: Properties and Applications, A. Nanni, ed., CH-8600, Elsevier
Science Publishers B. V., Duebendof, Switzerland, pp. 423-434.
Nitereka, C., and Neale, K. W., 1999, “Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Strengthened in Flexure with Composite Laminates,” Canadian
Journal for Civil Engineering, V. 26, pp. 646-654.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
View publication stats
Norris, T., and Saadatmanesh, H., 1997, “Shear and Flexural Strengthening
of R/C Beams with Carbon Fiber Sheets,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 123, No. 7, July, pp. 903-911.
Osman, M.; Marzouk, H.; and Helmy, S., 2000, “Behavior of High-
Strength Lightweight Concrete Slabs under Punching Loads,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 97, No. 3, May-June, pp. 492-498.
Rankin, G. I. B., and Long, A. E., 1987, “Predicting the Punching Strength
of Conventional Slab-Column Specimen,” Proceedings, Part 1: Design and
Construction, Institution of Civil Engineers, V. 82, pp. 327-346.
Ritchie, P. A.; Thomas, D. A.; Lu, L.-W.; and Connelly, G. M., 1991,
“External Reinforcement of Concrete Beams Using Fiber Reinforced Plastics,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 490-500.
Soudki, K. A., and Green, M. F., 1996, “Performance of CFRP Retrofitted
Concrete Columns at Low Temperature,” Advanced Composite Materials
in Bridges and Structures, Proceedings, M. M. Le-Badri, ed., Elsevier Science
Publishers B.V., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 427-434.
Triantafillou, T. C., 1998, “Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Using Epoxy-Bonded FRP Composites,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 95,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 107-115.
659