ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 101-571
Near-Surface-Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcements for Flexural Strengthening of
Concrete Structures
by Raafat EI-Hacha and Sami H. Rizkalla
The use offiber~rejllforced polymer (FRP) materials for strength-
ening bridges and buildings has been used extensively in the last
decade. FRP has been used in different configurations and techniques
to use the moten"at effectively and to ensure long service life of the
selected system. One of these innovative strengthening techniques is
the near-surface mounted (NSM) that consists of placing FRP
reinforcing bars or strips into grooves precut into the concrete cover
in the tension region of the strengthened concrete member. This
method is relatively simple Gild considerably enhances the bond 0/
the mounted FRP reinforcements, thereby using the material more
effectively. This paper presents test results of reinforced concrete
T-beams strengthened in flexure with different strengthening systems
using FRP reinforcing bars and strips as NSM reinforcement and
externally bonded FRP strips, The FRP reinforcements used in this
investigation include carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP)
reinforcing bars alld strips and glass fiber-reinforced polymer
(GFRP) thennoplastic strips, The behavior and effectiveness of the
materials used for the various strengthening systems are compared.
The structural performance and modes offailure of the tested beams
are presented and discussed Test results indicated that using NSM
FRP reinforcing bars and strips is practical, significantly improves
the stiffness, alld increases the flexural capacity of reinforced
concrete beams, The limitations of using NSM FRP reinforcing bars
and strips are controlled by serviceability requirements ill tenns of
overall deflections and crack widthr rather than delamination,
observed by many researchers, of externally bonded FRP
reinforcement. Strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using NSM
FRP strips provided higher strength capacity than externally bonded
FRP strips using the same maten'al with the same axial stiffness.
Keywords: bar; beam; carbon; concrete; fiber-reinforced polymer; glass;
groove; strength; thennoplastic.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcements
have been used extensively as an alternative reinforcement
material to steel for new construction as well as for strength-
ening and repair of existing concrete structures. Externally
bonded FRP sheets and strips are currently the most commonly
used techniques for flexural and shear strengthening of
concrete beams and slabs. Several researchers reported that
the failure of members strengthened with externally bonded
FRP sheets and strips could be brittle due to debonding and/or
peeling of the FRP reinforcements, especially in the zones of
high flexural and shear stresses (El-Racha, Wight, and Green
2000). Externally bonded FRP reinforcements could be highly
susceptible to damage from collision, fire and temperature,
ultraviolet rays, and moisture absorption (ACI Committee 440
1996). In some cases, insufficient protection may reduce the
service life of the structure. To minimize these problems, and
to improve utilization of the FRP materials, near-surface-
mounted (NSM) reinforcement was recently introduced as a
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
TECHNICAL PAPER
prorrusmg technique for strengthening masonry walls and
reinforced concrete members. Design guidelines for this
technique are currently under consideration by ACI
Committee 440 for the coming version of the "Guide for the
Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems
for Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI 440.2R-02)." The
NSM reinforcement technique consists of placing the FRP
reinforcing bars or strips into grooves precut into the concrete
cover in the tension region of the reinforced concrete member
and bonded to the three sides of the groove using high-strength
epoxy adhesive or cementitious grout.
The application of NSM FRP reinforcement does not
requires surface preparation work as in the case of externally
bonded FRP reinforcement. In addition, the NSM FRP
strengthening technique is also very efficient and practical
for flexural strengthening of slabs and beams in the negative
moment regions. Use of externally bonded FRP reinforcement in
such cases could be subjected to mechanical and envirorunental
damage and would require extensive protective cover that could
interfere with the presence of floor finishes. Configuration of the
FRP reinforcements used for the NSM technique is controlled by
the depth of the concrete cover. After installation, the NSM FRP
reinforcements are protected against mechanical damage, wear,
impact, and vandalism from vehicles. The technique could also
provide better fire resistance in the event of a fire; therefore, it
could reduce the cost of fire protection measures.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The use ofNSM FRP reinforcement is currently emerging
as a promising strengthening technique and a valid alternative
to externally bonded FRP reinforcement for increasing the
flexural strength of reinforced concrete members. The structural
perfonnance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened in
flexure with NSM FRP reinforcement was examined and
compared with beams strengthened with externally bonded
FRP reinforcement. The behavior prior to and after cracking,
ultimate carrying capacity, and modes of failure of all tested
beams are discussed in this paper. The variables investigated
were the type of fibers, including carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer (CFRP) and glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP)
thennoplastic, and the configuration of the FRP reinforcement,
including reinforcing bars and strips. The effectiveness of
NSM FRP reinforcing bars and strips was examined and
ACl SlruCl!Iral Journal, v, 101, No, 5, September-October 2004.
MS No. 03-257 received July 1,2003, 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 Strnctuml Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2005.
717

ACT member Raafat EI-Hacha is an assistant professor in the Department of Civil
Ellgineering, University of Calgary, Calgary. Alberta, Canada. He received his PhD
in civil engineering from Queen's University, Kingston, On/aria, Canada, ill 200}. He
is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement, alld
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 423, Prestressed Concrete. His research interests include
the application of memally prestressed wuJ nonprestressed fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) sheets and strips, memnlly prestressed FRP cables, and near-suiface-mounted
FRP strips and reinforcing barsfor strengthening concrete structures.
Sami H. Rizkalla, FACI, is a Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering and
Construction, Director of the COllstructed Facilities lAboratory (CFL) at North
Carolina State Universit)" Raleigh, N.c., and Director of the NSF IliduslrylUniversity
Cooperative Research Center. He is a past Chair of ACI Committee 440, Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. and a member of Joint ACl·ASCE Committee
550, Precast Concrete Structures.
compared with externally bonded FRP strips using the
same material and axial stiffness . The findings of this
research provide data for the design guidelines currently
under consideration by ACI Committee 440 for the NSM
FRP strengthening technique.
BACKGROUND
Published literature on the use of NSM FRP for structural
strengthening is very limited when compared with that of
externally bonded FRP laminates. Even though the use of
NSM FRP reinforcement for strengthening is relatively
recent, NSM steel bars were used in Europe for strength-
ening of reinforced concrete structures. Asplund (1949)
carried out tests on concrete beams strengthened with NSM
steel bars grouted into diamond-sawed grooves filled with
cement mortar and compared their behavior with that of
conventional concrete beams reinforced with steel bars.
Identical behavior for both sets of specimens was observed.
The same technique was used in strengthening a reinforced
concrete bridge deck in Sweden that experienced excessive
settlement of the negative moment reinforcement during
construction, so that the negative moment capacity needed to
be increased (Asplund 1949). The advantage of using FRP
instead of steel is primarily due to its corrosion resistance,
which is particularly important in this case due to the location
of the reinforcing bars or strips being very close to the
surface that could be exposed to aggressive environmental
attacks (De Lorenzis and Nanni 2002). Alkhrdaji et al.
(1999) conducted in-place tests on reinforced concrete
bridge decks strengthened with NSM sandblasted CFRP
rods. Test results showed an increase in the moment capacity
of 27% compared with the unstrengthened deck.
Research in Germany indicated that the bond characteristics
of NSM CFRP strips are superior to externally bonded CFRP
strips (Blaschko and Zilch 1999). NSM CFRP sandblasted
rods and deformed GFRP rods increased the flexural strength
of simply supported reinforced concrete T-beams by 30 and
26%, respectively (De Lorenzis, Nanni and La Tegola 2000).
Increasing the amount of NSM reinforcement did not produce
significant gain in the capacity. Arduini, Gottardo, and
DeRiva (2001) found that the use of high-strength mortar with
compensated shrinkage or epoxy putty guarantee full use of
the NSM FRP strengthening system. The ultimate load-
carrying capacity of beams strengthened with rectangular
NSM CFRP rods using epoxy adhesive and cement grout as
bonding agent has increased by 77 and 56%, respectively
(Tiiljsten and Carotin 2001). Using high-strength rectangular
NSM FRP rods and high modulus rectangular NSM FRP rods
increased the ultimate load capacity by !O8 and 93%,
respectively (Carolin, Hordin, and Tiiljsten 2001).
718
The performance of various NSM FRP reinforcing bars
and strips, as well as externally bonded FRP sheets on small-
scale concrete beams and slabs, was investigated by Hassan
(2002), including cost analysis for each of the FRP-
strengthening techniques. Test results showed that using
NSM CFRP reinforcing bars increased the strength by 36%.
Using NSM CFRP strips increased the strength by 43% in
comparison with an increase of only 11 % using the axial
stiffness used as externally bonded strips due to peeling
failure of the strips. Hassan (2002) reported that the efficiency
of using FRP reinforcing bars as NSM reinforcement is
controlled by the bond characteristics of the reinforcing bars
in addition to the bond between the epoxy adhesive material
and the surrounding concrete in the groove. Such behavior
has been confirmed and reported recently by other
researchers (De Lorenzis and Nanni 2002) . The maximum
tensile strain in the CFRP and GFRP bars used as NSM rein-
forcement did not exceed 33 and 60% of the rupture strain of
the bars at failure, respectively (De Lorenzis and Nanni
2002). Hassan (2002) reported that such a limiting value is
highly dependent on the configuration and the ratio of the
steel reinforcement inside the concrete beam as well as on
the stress level at the concrete-epoxy interface. The author
found that the maximum measured tensile strain in the CFRP
bars at failure is in the range of 40 to 45% of the rupture
strain of reinforcing bars, and that the rupture of CFRP
reinforcing bars is not likely to occur regardless of the
embedment or bond length or the type of epoxy adhesive used.
Recently, prestressed NSM CFRP rectangular rods have
been used as a bonded post-tensioned system to strengthen
concrete beams (Nordin, Tiiljsten, and Carolin 2001). The
initial strain was approximately 0.002, which is about 12% of
the ultimate strain. The beam strengthened with prestressed
NSM CFRP rods showed about a 100 and 37% increase in the
cracking and yielding load, respectively, compared with the
beam strengthened with nonprestressed NSM CFRP rods. The
ultimate loads and failure modes were the same with or
without prestress by rupture of the NSM FRP rods; however,
beams prestressed with NSM CFRP rods had smaller
deflections at failure.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test specimens and setup
A total of eight, simply supported, 2.7 m (9 ft) long,
concrete T-beams were constructed and tested under a
monotonically increasing concentrated load applied at
midspan of the beam. The test setup of aT-beam specimen
is shown in Fig. 1. The load was applied using a closed-loop
controller-testing machine operating using stroke-control
mode at a loading rate of 1.07 mmlmin (0.042 inlmin). One
beam was tested as a control specimen whereas the other
seven beams were strengthened using different FRP rein-
forcements including CFRP reinforcing bars and strips as
well as GFRP thermoplastic strips.
The bottom tension reinforcement consisted of two No. 13
deformed steel bars of nominal diameter 12.7 mm (1/2 in.)
running along the full length of the beams and two No. 16
deformed steel bars of nominal diameter 15.9 mm (5/8 in.)
terminated with a 90-degree bent at 100 mm (4 in.) away
from the midspan section on both sides, as shown in Fig. 1.
This arrangement of the bottom reinforcement was selected
to ensure that the flexural failure of the strengthened beam
will always occur at the midspan section and to simulate
field conditions where the bottom steel reinforcement is
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
corroded or damaged. The top compression reinforcement
consisted of two No. 13 defonned steel bars of nominal
diameter 12.7 mm (1/2 in.). The beams were designed to
avoid compression failure due to concrete crushing and shear
failure before failure of the strengthening system. Shear
reinforcement consisted of double-legged steel stirrups
No. 13 deformed steel bar of nominal diameter 12.7 mm
(112 in.) unifonnly spaced at 100 mm (4 in.) center to center.
The top flange was reinforced with a welded wire fabric
mesh, SI x SI MW5.6 x MW5.6, with a nominal diameter of
2.67 mm, a wire spacing of 51 mm center to center in both
the longitudinal and transverse direction, and a reinforcement
area of 110 mm 2/m. Reinforcement details of aT-beam
specimen are shown in Fig. 1. The specified yield strength -'+<:_
I' 300 - -+-
r - 51><51MW56~MW56 -"1<_
and modulus of elasticity of the tension and compression I ...... 1 so
reinforcements were 400 MPa (58 ksi) and 200 GPa I L-.: f;::--' - 1>-
(29,000 ksi), respectively. The concrete was designed for a
I -1-.•' ...... 211 13
300
nominal compressive strength of 45 MPa (6.5 ksi) at 28 days. . 1-#lJ@IOO
~j.t::...~:j::==
Test matrix
One beam was tested without strengthening (BO) and
served as the control specimen for comparison purposes.
Four beams (B 1, B2, B3, and B4) were strengthened with
1 ,
->I.

~~'---'
. +- IS. -+
Section a-a
2# 16
211 IJ

different NSM FRP systems using CFRP reinforcing bars,
two types of CFRP strips, and thennoplastic GFRP strips.
Three beams (B2a, B2b, and B4a) were strengthened with
different externally bonded CFRP and GFRP strips.
Beam B 1 was strengthened with one 9.5 mm (3/8 in.)
diameter NSM CFRP reinforcing bar (Hughes Brothers
2002). BeamB2 was strengthened with two Type 1 2x 16 mm
(0.078 x 0.63 in.) NSM CFRP strips (Hughes Brothers
2002) . Beam B3 was strengthened with two Type 2 1.2 x
25 mm (0.05 x 1.0 in.) NSM CFRP strips (Structural
Composites, Inc. 2002). Beam B4 was strengthened with five
2 x 20 mm (0.078 x 0.78 in.) NSM GFRP thennoplastic strips
(Dow Plastics Chemical 2000).
Beams B2a and B2b were each strengthened with two
Type 1 2 x 16 mm (0.078 x 0.63 in.) externally bonded CFRP
strips (Hughes Brothers 2002). Beam B2b was severely
damaged before strengthening. Beam B4a was strengthened
with five 2 x 20 mm (0.078 x 0.78 in.) externally bonded
GFRP thermoplastic strips (Dow Plastics Chemical 2000).
The embedment length of all the NSM FRP reinforcing bars
and strips and the length of the externally bonded FRP strips
were kept constant in all beams as 2400 mm (7 ft, 10-112 in.).
The same axial stiffness (EA)FRP for all FRP reinforcement
used in this study was kept constant, hence, according to the
classical beam theory, the load-deflection behavior of all
strengthened beams is anticipated to be identical, where E
and A are the modulus of elasticity and cross-sectional area
of the FRP reinforcement, respectively. A summary of these
beams is given in Table 1.
Instrumentation
The beams were instrumented, as shown in Fig. I, to
measure applied load, deflection, and strain in the concrete
and in the FRP reinforcement during testing. The concrete
strains in the compression zone at the top surface of the
beams were measured using two displacement transducers
(DT) placed at 100 mm (4 in.) from the midspan on both
sides of the beam. In addition, three DT gages were installed
in the midspan zone along the front face on one side of the
beam centerline to measure the strain distribution in concrete
over the depth of the beam. The DT gages were placed at 65,
Fig. i-Test setup, beam details, and instrumentation of
beam specimens_
Table 1-Test matrix for T-beam specimens
Beam no. FRP strengthening system
BO No strengthening
Bl One NSM CFRP reinforcing bar
B2 1\vo Type 1 NSM CFRP strips
B3 1\vo Type 2 NSM CFRP strips
B4 Five NSM GFRP thennoplastic strips
B2a 1\vo Type 1 eXlernally bonded CFRP strips
B2b Two Type 1 externally bonded CFRP strips
B4a Five externally bonded GFRP thermoplastic strips
ISO, and 275 mm (2.6, S.9, and 10.8 in.) from the bottom
surface of the concrete beam. The strains in the NSM FRP
reinforcing bars and strips and the externally bonded FRP
strips at three different locations were monitored during
testing using three electrical resistance 120 ohms strain
gages. The strain gages were installed on all FRP reinforcing
bars or strips at midspan, at 400 and 800 mm (lS.7S and 31.S in.)
from the midspan on one side of the FRP reinforcing bars or
strips. The deflections at midspan, at the supports, and at 400
and 800 mm from midspan on both sides of the beam were
measured using linear variable displacement transducers
(LVDTs). One LVDT was placed at each location except at
midspan where two LVDTs were used and averaged. The slip
at the free ends of the NSM FRP reinforcing bars and strips
was measured using two LVDTs. The data were automati-
cally collected. The location of cracks and their propagation
was clearly marked on both sides of the beams. Crack widths
were also measured at every 4.5 kN (1.0 kips).
Fiber-reinforced polymer strengthening systems
Four products, provided by three manufacturers (Mant.-I to
Manf.-3) were investigated. Product-l = Asian 200 CFRP
reinforcing bars (Manf.- l = Hughes Brothers 2002);
Product-2 = Asian 500 CFRP strips (Manf.-l = Hughes
Brothers 2002); Product-3 = unidirectional pultruded laminate

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 719

 Table 2-FRP material mechanical properties as reported by manufacturer
FRP products Dimensions. nun (in.)
CFRP bars (Manf.-I ) 9.5 (3/8)
CFRP strips (Manf.-2) 2 x 16 (5/64 x 518)
CFRP strips (Manf.-2) 1.2 x 25 (3/64 x 1.0) 30 (0.047)
GFRP strips (Mant,-3) 2 x 20 (5/64 x 50/64) 40 (0.062)
., .
It
I -A-II-dim-~-'-if)I1S-0-~-'"-m-m--- 2400 - - - - -- ---->;
".Y 6ATF .AM .AIr
- 1,,1+-
I NSM CFRP rchar
<19.li"J
2 NSM CFRP strips
type I
- 1,,1+-
2 NSM CFRP strips
type 2
_ 11+-38
5 NSM GFRP strips
Fig. 2- Groove dimensions for various NSM FRP
strengthening systems.
CFK 150/2000 CFRP strips (Manf.-2 = Strucrural Composites,
Inc. 2002); and Product-4 = thermoplastic GFRP strips
(Manf,-3 = Dow Plastic Chemical 2000). The GFRP strips
are manufactured using the thermoplastic composite
technology, which enables the production of high-performance
unidirectional pultruded composites based on a thennoplastic
matrix with continuous fiber reinforcement. The material
properties of the different FRP strengthening systems are
given in Table 2 as reported by the manufacturers with linear
stress-strain behavior up to failure.
Commercially available epoxy adhesives were used for
bonding the FRP reinforcing bars and strips. A two-component
adhesive with a mixture ratio of 1 (resin) : 1 (hardener) by
volume was used for bonding the NSM CFRP reinforcing
bars to the surrounding concrete (ChemCo Systems, Inc,
1995). As reported by the manufacturer, the adhesive has a
modulus of elasticity of 1200 MPa (174 ksi), an ultimate
tensile strength of 48 MPa (6,96 ksi), a compressive yield
strength of71.7 MPa (10.4 ksi), and a compressive modulus
of 3378 MPa (490 ksi). Another type of high-strength epoxy
adhesive was used to bond the CFRP and GFRP strips to the
concrete and consisted of a two-component adhesive with a
mixture ratio of 2: 1 by volume (Structural Components, Inc.
2002). As reported by the manufacturer, the adhesive has a
modulus of elasticity of 3500 MPa (507.6 ksi), an ultimate
tensile strength of 70 MPa (10.2 ksi), and a compressive
strength of 82.7 MPa (12 ksi),
Installation of NSM FRP reinforcements
Installation of the NSM FRP reinforcing bars and strips
begins by making a series of grooves with specified dimensions
cut into the concrete cover in the longitudinal direction at the
tension side of the beam specimens. A special concrete saw
with a diamond blade was used to cut the grooves with the
dimensions shown in Fig. 2. The grooves were cleaned from
any dust and air-brushing pressure was used to remove
debris and fine particles to ensure proper bonding between
the epoxy adhesive and the concrete.
The adhesive was applied into the groove before inserting
the FRP reinforcing bars or strips, Each groove was filled
720
Ultimate
Area, mm2
Elastic modulus, Ultimate tensile tensile
(inh GPa (ksi) strength, MPa (ksi) straln, %
71.3 (O.Il ) 122.5 (17,770) 1408 (204) 1.14
32 (0.05) 140 (20,300) 1525 (221) 1.08
150 (21,770) 2000 (290) 1.33
45 (6530) 1000 (145) 2.22
completely with the appropriate epoxy adhesive paste
1
iiii
using a manual epoxy gun to provide the necessary bond
with the surrounding concrete. Then the FRP reinforcements
(reinforcing bars and strips) were inserted inside the grooves
ensuring that they were completely covered with epoxy and
lightly pressed to displace the bonding agent. This action
forces the epoxy paste to flow around the FRP reinforcement
and completely fill the space between the FRP and the sides
of the groove, The groove was then filled with more paste if
needed and the surface was leveled, The excess adhesive
was removed with a spatula. The surface was smooth finished
to achieve uniform distribution. The same procedures in terms
of cutting the groove, injecting the epoxy, and placing the
FRP reinforcing bars and strips were applied. The epoxy
adhesive was allowed to fully cure at room temperature for at
least 1week before testing of the bearns.
Dimensions of grooves
The grooves cut at the bottom surface of the concrete
beams had different cross sections depending on the type of
FRP reinforcements used as shown in Fig, 2. For the 9.5 mm
(3/8 in.) NSM CFRP reinforcing bar, the groove was
approximately 18 mm (0.708 in.) wide and 30 mm (1.18 in,)
deep cut at the middle of the bottom width of the beam
specimen. For the Type 1 2 x 16 mm (0.078 x 0.63 in.) NSM
CFRP strip, two grooves, 75 mm (3,0 in.) apart, were cut at
the bottom width of the beam specimen; each groove was
approximately 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) wide and 19 mm (3/4 in.)
deep, For the Type 21.2 x 25 mm (0.05 x 1.0 in.) NSM CFRP
strip, two grooves, 75 mm (3,0 in.) apart, were cut at the
bottom width of the beam specimen; each groove was
approximately 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) wide and 25 mm (1.0 in.)
deep. For the 2 x 20 mm (0.078 x 0.78 in.) NSM GFRP
strip, three grooves, 38 mm (1.5 in.) apart, were cut at the
bottom width of the beam specimen; each groove was
approximately 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) wide and 25 mm (1.0 in.)
deep, One GFRP strip was inserted into the middle
groove and two strips bonded together side by side were
placed in each of the outer two grooves.
Installation of externally bonded
FRP reinforcements
To ensure a good, strong bond, the bottom surface of the
concrete beams was prepared by grinding until the coarse
aggregates were exposed, then cleaned by washing and air-
brushing to remove dust or debris and fine particles. Care
was taken to ensure that the resulting concrete surface after
grinding was unifonn. Following cleaning, a unifonn 2 mm
(0.078 in.) thin layer of the two-part epoxy-based adhesive
was applied by palette knife to the bottom surface of the
concrete beam. The FRP strips were placed in position on the
concrete surface and pressed onto the epoxy by hand, To
ensure a good bond with concrete, a uniform pressure was
applied along the entire length of the strips, AU-shaped
wrap CFRP sheet with 100 mm (4,0 in.) width was placed
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
Table 3-Summary of significant test results'
Strengthening Beam Percent
systems no. PeT' kN (kips) IJ. cr • nun (in.) P" kN (kips) 6.Y' mm (in.) P" kN (kips) Au. nun (in.) eu' % Failure mode increase in Pit
Crushing of concrete
- BO 21.98 (4.94) 1.35 (0.053) 38.11 (8.57) 8.88 (0.35) 55.4 (12.5) 64.4 (2.54) -
and steel yielding -
Debonding of NSM
Bl 24.7 (5.55) 1.27 (0.05) 47.94 (10.78) 4.85 (0 .19 1) 93.8 (21.0) 29.2 (1.15) 0.88 CFRP reinforcing bar 69.3
(epoxy split failure)
Rupture of NSM
Near~surface- B2 22.24 (5.9) 1.08 (0.043) 48.62 (10.93) 5.61 (0.221) 99.3 (22.3) 30.5 (1.20) 1.34 79 .2
CFRP strips
mountedFRP
reinforcement 30.11 (6.77) 1.702 (0.067) 49.16 (11.05) 5.25 (0.207) 110.2 (24.7) 50.8 (2.00) 1.38
Rupture of NSM 98.9
B3 CFRP strips
Debonrling of NSM
B4 24.46 (5.50) 1.6 (0.063) 48.17 (10.83) 5.67 (0.223) 102.7 (23.1) 44.3 (1.75) 1.35 GFRP strips 85.4
(concrete split failure)
Debonding of
B2a 22.46 (5.05) 1.22 (0.048) 44.88 (10.09) 4.42 (0.174) 64.6 (14.5) 43.7 (1.71) 0.48 externally bonded 16.6
CFRP strips
Externally Debonding of
bonded FRP B2b - - - - 64.3 (14.5) 2\.7 (0.85) 0.44 externally bonded 16.1
reinforcement CFRP strips
Debonding of
B4a 29.13 (6.55) 0.95 (0.037) 48.16 (10.82) 4.39 (0.173) 71.1 (15.9) 22.2 (0.87) 0.62 externally bonded 28.3
GFRP strips
· Where Per = cracking load; tlu = midspan deflection at cracking; Py = yield load; lly = midspan deflection at yielding; Pu. = ultimate load failure; .6.u :::: midspan deflection at failure;
and e" = maximum tensile strain in FRP reinforcing bar or strip at failure.

I I ,
'.~
'..
. .,
"
. ,
. "
11 0 0.5
Midspan Deflection (In)
1 1.5 2

.3
2.5
24

lt1 k-iOO
2400
___~ll!It '00

lIf· U'
20
All di"'~Mi(ms are ill mm

[
80
."-
~

.,
16
':' ~;;:p ' ..
... sheet '-.." ..
~
~

"
~
~
60 •
~
. . 11 " ~

32 HH43
2 Externally Bonded
CFRP strips type I
2S
S Externally Bonded
GFRP strips
..§: 40

Beam BO: Unstrengthened

.2
~
Load
8
~

..
0.
~

Beam B1: 1 NSM CFRP Rebar - - ~--

20
Beam 82: 2 NSM CFRPStripSI\l".l - ~- 4
Fig. 3-Externally bonded FRP strengthening systems. Beam 83: 2 NSM CFRP Stripsly"' ~ 81, B2, and Bl

o~--~~~~----~--~--~~--~~ 0
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
around the web of the concrete beams at both ends of the Midspan Deflection (mm)

externally bonded FRP flexural reinforcements, with the

direction of the fibers perpendicular to the longitudinal axis
of the member, to improve the anchorage of the FRP
strengthening system (Fig. 3). The externally bonded CFRP
strips (Type I) were placed at the bottom surface of the
concrete beams (B2a and B2b) with spacing in between
equal to twice the width of the strip (Fig. 3). The externally
bonded GFRP strips were placed side by side at the bottom
surface of the concrete beam (B4a) leaving 25 mm (LO in.)
from each side of the beam (Fig. 3).
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A summary of significant test results describing the flexural
behavior of all tested beams is presented in Table 3. The
concrete compressive strength when the beams were tested
was detennined according to ASTM C 39-01, using three
standard concrete cylinders and ranged between 48 MPa
(6962 psi) for Beams BO, BI, B3, and B4. and 57 MPa
(8267 psi) for Beams B2, B2a, B2b, and B4a. Beam BO was
tested without strengthening and used as a control specimen
for comparison purposes to evaluate the improvement in flexural
strength provided by the various NSM and externally bonded
Fig. 4- Load-midspan deflection of beams strengthened
with NSM CFRP reinforcing bar and strips.
FRP reinforcements. The un strengthened control beam
failed by crushing of the concrete after yielding of the steel
tension reinforcement.
Effectiveness of NSM CFRP reinforcing bars
and strips
The load-midspan deflection behavior of the strengthened
beams with NSM CFRP reinforcing bars (Beam BI) and
strips (Beams B2 and B3) in comparison with the
unstrengthened control beam (BO) is shown in Fig. 4. Prior
to cracking, the load-deflection behavior for all strengthened
beams was similar to that of the unstrengthened beam. This
behavior indicates that using NSM FRP reinforcements did
not contribute to increasing the stiffness and strength in the
elastic range. After cracking, however, the flexural stiffness
and strength of the strengthened beams with NSM FRP rein-
forcements were significantly improved compared with the

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 721


,,
I failure occurred.
Fig. 5-Debonding failure of Beam B1 strengthened with
NSM CFRP reinforcing bar.
Fig. 6-Rupture failure of Beam B2 strengthened with two
NSM CFRP strips Type 1.
un strengthened beam. After cracking, a nonlinear behavior
was observed up to failure.
In general, the behavior of the strengthened beams indicated
a significant increase in the stiffness and strength in comparison
with the unstrengthened beam. Using the same axial stiffness
of CFRP reinforcement, an increase in the ultimate strength
of 69, 79, and 99% were measured for Beams B I, B2, and
B3, respectively. The significant increase in ultimate load-
carrying capacity of Beam B3 strengthened with NSM CFRP
strips (Type 2) compared with Beam B2 strengthened with
NSM CFRP strips (Type I) is due to the high ultimate tensile
strength of the material used in this case as well as to the
thinner Type 2 versus Type I strips, which reduce the risk of
delamination. Beam B I with NSM CFRP reinforcing bars
showed a smaller increase in strength due to early debonding
722
of the CFRP reinforcing bars at failure and the smaller
bonding surface of the NSM CFRP reinforcing bars with
respect to the NSM CFRP strips (Types I and 2).
Using NSM FRP reinforcement resulted in a significant
reduction of the deflection and crack widths and delayed
formation of new cracks in the strengthened beams. The
formation of cracks followed a typical crack pattern of flex-
ural members. The first flexural crack occurred at the
midspan of the beam directly under the location of the
applied load. Under further increase in the load, the cracks
became wider and new flexural cracks started to initiate.
Many uniformly distributed cracks of small widths were
observed along the full length of the strengthened beams that
were symmetric about their midspan. whereas fewer cracks
of greater width were observed in the unstrengthened control
beam. This behavior indicates that complete bond of the FRP
materials, even after yielding of the steel reinforcement,
controlled crack widths and their distribution along the span.
As the load approached failure stage, the flexural stiffness
decreased further until the ultimate load was reached and
Failure of Beam B I was due to splitting of the epoxy
cover in the groove followed by complete debonding of the
reinforcing bar at the CFRP-epoxy interface and cracking of
the concrete surrounding the epoxy in the groove as shown
in Fig. 5. This type of failure is categorized as epoxy split
failure. Initiation of the crack in the epoxy was accompanied
by a distinct noise followed by progressive cracking of the
epoxy paste. Longitudinal splitting cracks, which developed
in the epoxy cover, led to the loss of bond of the NSM CFRP
reinforcing bars. After debonding, the load dropped to a load
level equivalent to the measured yielding load and the
deflection kept on increasing until failure occurred due to
crushing of the concrete in the compression zone-then the
test was stopped as shown in Fig. 4. The debonding initiated
at the concrete section where 39% of the bottom flexural
reinforcement was terminated (Fig. I). Splitting of the epoxy
is the result of high tensile stresses at the CFRP reinforcing
bar-epoxy interface. It has been reported that to reduce the
induced tensile stresses at the FRP-epoxy interface, the
thickness of the epoxy cover must be increased andior high
tensile adhesive must be used to shift the location of failure
to the concrete-epoxy interface (Hassan 2002). Increasing
the thickness of the adhesive will reduce the shear deformation
within the adhesive layer and therefore results in a significant
increase in debonding loads. De Lorenzis and Nanni (2002)
reported that increasing the groove size and the cover thickness
leads to higher bond strength when failure is controlled by
splitting of the epoxy cover.
The failure of Beams B2 and B3 was due to rupture of the
NSM CFRP strips at midspan as shown in Fig. 6 and 7,
respectively. After rupture of the NSM CFRP strips, the load
dropped to a load level equivalent to the yielding load of the
cross section and the beam behaved as conventional concrete
beams reinforced with steel bars as shown in Fig. 4.
The load-tensile strain behavior of the NSM CFRP
reinforcing bars and strips is linear up to cracking of the
concrete as shown in Fig. 8. At the onset of cracking, a
significant increase in the measured tensile strain was
observed for all tested beams measured by the strain gage
attached to the NSM CFRP reinforcing bars or strips. At
failure, the maximum measured tensile strain in the NSM
CFRP reinforcing bars prior to debonding was 0.88%, which
is 77% of the rupture strain of the CFRP reinforcing bar. The
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
 Midspan can.cuon (In)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

100 . S.am 80: Unstrengthened :

Bea~' ffi'2"N'SM CFRP Strip,rrpe i
24

Beam 82a : 2 EB CFRP StrIP9~,.t 20

60 Beam B2b: 2 EB CFRP Strip~""' 1

~
.2
~ 16

~ '" .... ,····80

12
'!
J

~ . I•

m
~40

~
• 8 •
20 . ._- ..
:uacu 4
MV.rt~ dl .... ~ :
~a S"
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Midspan O,fl,etloll (mm)

Fig. 9- Load-midspan deflection of beams strengthened

with NSM and externally bonded CFRP strips.

Fig. 7- Rupture failure of Beam B3 strengthened with two

NSM CFRP strips Type 2.

r------------------,--------~~~"

100

20
80 ..... " ..... ~ ...

I "1
Beam 81: 1NS-M"6FRP Rebar '
Beam 82: 2 NSM CFRP Strlps~ 1
Beam 83: 2 NSM CFRP StripslyPOZ

4 LOild

20 4
•Sl!1olnGau
..I NSM:::r
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Tensile Strain In Near-Surface Mounted FRP at Midspan (%)

Fig. 8-Load-tensile strain in NSM CFRP reinforcing bar

and strips.
maximum measured tensile strain in Types 1 and 2 CFRP
strips at failure for Beams B2 and B3 were 1.34 and 1.38%,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 8, indicating full use of the
tensile strength of the two types of CFRP strips used.
NSM versus externally bonded CFRP strips
Beam B2a, strengthened with externally bonded CFRP
strips (Type 1) exhibited similar behavior to that of the
unstrengthened control beam up to cracking. This behavior
indicates that using externally bonded FRP reinforcements
did not contribute significantly to the stiffness and strength
in the elastic range. After cracking, the load-deflection
response of the beam strengthened with externally bonded
CFRP strips followed the same behavior of beams strengthened
with NSM CFRP strips up to yielding of the flexural reinforce-
ment as shown in Fig. 9. After yielding of the internal steel rein-
forcement, and under further increase of the applied load, the
cracks continued to widen and failure occurred due to
debonding of the externally bonded strips as shown in Fig. 10.
Using the same axial stiffness (EA)FRP of the CFRP strips
used as NSM for Beam B2, externally bonded CFRP strips
increased the strength by only 16.6% compared with the
Fig. 10-Debonding failure of Beam B2a strengthened with
two externally bonded CFRP strips Type 1.
unstrengthened beam due to debonding failure of the externally
bonded strips from the concrete surface. However, as shown
in Fig. 9, the NSM CFRP strips (Type I) increased the
strength by 79%. Therefore, the strength increase using the
same CFRP strips as NSM was approximately 4.8 times that
obtained using externally bonded strips. Another beam, B3a,
strengthened with two externally bonded CFRP strips (Type 2),
was tested and achieved a 25% increase in strength and failed by
debonding of the CFRP strips from the concrete at maximum
measured tensile strain in the strips of 0.42% (EI-Racha et al.
2004). Thus, the NSM strengthening technique using CFRP
strips is more effective than the externally bonded one.
The load-tensile strain behavior of the CFRP strips was
similar for Beams B2 and B2a until debonding occurred for
the externally bonded CFRP strips as shown in Fig. 11. At
the onset of delamination, the maximum measured tensile

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 723

 24
100

20

80

.2. .2

. . Beam 82: 2 NSM CFRP StripS'"'"'

8eam 82a: 2 EB CFRP Strlps!rP"
Beam B2b: 2 EB CFRP Stripsl)'Po 1

20
., ~"d'
--_.
. - 4
: B.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

TensUa Strain In NSM and EB CFRP Strip~l at Midspan ("ii)

Fig. ii-Load-tensile strain in NSM and externally bonded

CFRP strips Type i.
Fig. 13-Debonding failure of Beam B4 strengthened with
Midspan Deflection (In) five NSM thermoplastic GFRP strips.
0 0.' 1 1.' 2 2.'
24
100 .3.

20 debonding of the CFRP strips from the concrete substrate.

Z
80
16
.-
~
The maximum measured tensile strain in the CFRP strips
was 0.44%, as shown in Fig. 11, indicating that only 39% of
"- ~
~
•0 60 ii0 the rupture strain reported for the CFRP strips was used. This
....•
~ 12
~
~
~
measured strain is 83% of the strain limitations recommended
.!
1: 40 by ACI 440.2R (2002) to prevent debonding of the CFRP

~i
« 8 ~

Beam BO: Unsuengthened

20 ..... Beam 82: 2 NSM CFRP Strlps-'
Beam 83: 2 NSM CFRP Strlps 'Y1>oZ
Beam 84: 5 NSM GfRP Strips
0 0
0 10 20 J<) 40
Midspan Oeflection emm)
Fig. 12-Load-midspan deflection of beams strengthened
with NSM CFRP and thermoplastic GFRP strips.
strain in the externally bonded CFRP strips was 0.48% for
Beams B2a as shown in Fig. II. This represents only 44% of
the rupture strain reported by the manufacturer for the CFRP
strips; therefore, the externally bonded strengthening system
did not use the full tensile strength of the CFRP strips. The
maximum measured tensile strain in the externally bonded
CFRP strips at failure, Beam B2a, is 36% of the strain
measured by using the same type of strips as NSM reinforce-
ment for Beam B2 as shown in Fig. II. It should be noted
that the measured strain at debonding of the strips is 91 % of
the strain limitation recommended by ACI 440.2R (2002) to
prevent debonding of the FRP at the ultimate-limit state.
Strengthening of severely damaged beam
A severely damaged reinforced concrete beam due to
impact load beyond cracking strength, Beam B2b, was
strengthened using externally bonded Type 1 CFRP strips. In
comparison with control Beam BO, the load-deflection
response of retrofitted Beam B2b was improved as indicated
by the increase in stiffness and strength of the beam as shown
in Fig. 9. The behavior of retrofitted Beam B2b was similar
to that of undamaged, strengthened Beam B2a. The externally
bonded CFRP strips were capable of restoring the original
stiffness and increasing the load-carrying capacity of the
severely damaged beam and at the same time to approach the
ultimate capacity of undamaged, strengthened Beam B2a.
The failure of Beam B2b was similar to Beam B2a due to
« strips at the ultimate-limit state.
4
82.:83, and 54 ! Effect of material type of fiber
Beam B4, strengthened with GFRP thermoplastic strips as
50 60 NSM reinforcement, exhibited significant enhancement in
strength and stiffness in comparison with the unstrengthened
beam as shown in Fig. 12. An increase in the ultimate
strength of 85% was observed. The failure of Beam B4, due
to cracking of the concrete surrounding the epoxy in the
groove, occurred at the concrete-epoxy interface known as
"concrete split failure" as shown in Fig. 13. Debonding
started to occur at the location where 39% of the bottom steel
reinforcement was terminated as shown in Fig. 1. This
failure is the result of the high shear stress concentration in
this zone as discussed previously. Debonding of the concrete
and the split failure occurred when the tensile stresses at the
concrete-epoxy adhesive interface reached the tensile
strength of concrete. This failure mode is greatly influenced
by the groove dimensions as well as the mechanical charac-
teristics of the materials (De Lorenzis and Nanni 2002;
Hassan 2002). Debonding extended as a horizontal splitting
crack along the concrete cover toward the ends of the beam.
Under further increase of the applied load, the horizontal
split crack became wider and extended into the end of the
NSM GFRP strips causing severe cracking in the concrete
cover. At the onset of failure, the load dropped to the yielding
load level of the beam cross-section and the deflection kept on
increasing until failure occurred due to crushing of the
concrete in the compression zone. After complete failure, the
concrete cover to the intemal steel separated from the steel.
It was observed that the NSM GFRP strips had adhered well
to the concrete of the strengthened beam. The amount of
concrete adhered to the GFRP strips varied considerably. In
examining the concrete surface of the failed member,
aggregate pullout was noted without any sign of damage of
the NSM GFRP strips.

724 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004

 r-----------~--------_=--~~~~ Midspan Deflection (In)
a

..
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
100
24
20 100 .--.- .....
80 20
60 Beam 80: Uns engthened
: ! Z Beam 84: 5 NS GFRP Strips 16 "~
Beam 82: 2 NSM CFRP' St~;PS"'~1
Beam 83: 2 NSM CFRP Strlps"'"~
"j•
~
60
Beam 84a: 5 E GFRP Strip. ~
•
0
12 ~
f--..- _Beam 84: 5 NSM GFRP Strips ~
:!
g:
¥
~
40
• "•
~

20
.S\l'aln Daug
/ NSM if
4 20
~ :'~
..... - - - _ . -- ... .....•..•
~. ":" ~
' j
;
4

a a
0.0 0.2 0.4 a.' a.' 1.0 1.2 1.4
a 10 20 30 40 50 60
Tensile Strain In Near-5urface Mounted FRP at Midspan(-t. ) MIdspan Daneetlon (mm)

Fig. i4-Load-tensile strain in NSM CFRP and thermoplastic Fig. i5- Load-midspan deflection of beams strengthened with
GFRP strips. NSM and externally bonded thermoplastic GFRP strips.

It should be noted that using the same axial stiffness for

strengthening Beam B4 with five NSM GFRP thermoplastic
strips exhibited sintilar load-deflection behavior as Beam B2
strengthened with two Type I NSM CFRP strips up to failure
of Beam B2 as shown in Fig. 12.
The load-tensile strain behavior of the NSM CFRP strips
(Types I and 2) was similar to the NSM GFRP thermoplastic
strips as shown in Fig. 14. As presented previously, failure
of the NSM CFRP strips (Types I and 2) occurred by rupture
of the strips when the strain in the strips reached the ultimate
tensile strain capacity reported by the manufacturers (1.12%
for Type 1 CFRP and 1.34% for Type 2 CFRP). These ultimate
strain capacities are significantly less than the 2.2% ultimate
tensile strain capacity of the GFRP thermoplastic strips as
reported by the manufacturer. Because the GFRP thermo-
plastic strips possess large ultimate strain capacity and Fig. i6-Debonding failure of Beam B4a strengthened with
because the thickness of the epoxy in the outer grooves was five externally bonded thermoplastic GFRP strips.
almost half that of the epoxy in the ntiddle groove, failure was
dontinated by the higher shear stresses at the concrete-epoxy
interface. Therefore, increasing the thickness of the epoxy 100

(that is, increasing the groove size) will reduce the shear 20
stresses at the concrete-epoxy interface and could result in an 60
.-•
'''''' (

increase in debonding load. This has been confirmed by 16

De Lorenzis and Nanni (2002) and Hassan (2002). a
~

Beam 84: 5 NSM GFRP StrIps

•
12 ..3
Beam 84a: 5 EB GFRP Strips ~

NSM versus externally bonded GFRP strips •

The ultimate load-carrying capacity of Beam B4a . .
•" •
~

strengthened using externally bonded thermoplastic GFRP

strips increased by 28%. Beam B4a showed similar 20 '~
~ "" ' . .- .-.a
_.-=-=-- --: -.,~.--'. . .
~ 4
behavior compared with Beam B4 up to a load level of 66 : S4 . i a4. '
kN at which debonding of the externally bonded GFRP o~~~~~~~~~~~~--~--~ a
strips occurred as shown in Fig. 15. Debonding of the M ~ U M M ,. 12 1.4
Tensile Strain In GFRP Strips at MIdspan ("I.)
externally bonded GFRP strips involved separation of the
strips from the concrete substrate in the form of adhesive Fig. i7- Load-tensile strain in NSM and extemally bonded
shear failure at the concrete-adhesive interface (interfacial thennoplastic GFRP strips.
failure) as shown in Fig. 16. At failure, the externally bonded
GFRP strips slipped instantaneously from the end anchorages. tensile strain of the GFRP strips was 50% less than the
A more ductile behavior was observed in Beam B4 maximum limit specified by ACr 440.2R (2002) to prevent
compared with Beam B4a. debonding of the FRP at ultimate. The results indicate that
The maximum measured tensile strain at failure of the the ACr 440.2R equation for strain lintitation to avoid
NSM GFRP strips and externally bonded GFRP strips were debonding should be reexantined.
approximately 1.35 and 0.62%, respectively, as shown in
Fig. 17. The measured strain is 61 and 28% of the rupture CONCLUSIONS
strain of the GFRP strips. At the onset of delamination of the The effectiveness of using near-surface-mounted FRP
externally bonded GFRP strips, the maximum measured reinforcing bars or strips for strengthening concrete beams

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 725

I
 has been illustrated. The following observations and
conclusions can be drawn from the experimental results:
1. Strengthening with NSM FRP reinforcing bars or strips
improved the load deflection response of the reinforced
concrete beams. The use of NSM FRP reinforcements
enhanced the flexural stiffness and significantly increased
the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the strengthened
concrete beams. The difference in the behavior prior to
cracking was insignificant. After cracking, the behavior of
the strengthened beams significantly improved. The NSM
FRP reinforcing bars or strips limited the deflections and
crack widths. At any load level, the deflections of the
strengthened beams were significantly less than that of the
unstrengthened beam;
2. The ultimate strength of the strengthened beams with
NSM CFRP strips was governed by the tensile rupture
strength of the CFRP strips. A full composite action between
the NSM CFRP strips and concrete was achieved;
3. FRP-epoxy-split failure was the dominant mode of
failure for the beam strengthened with NSM CFRP reinforcing
bars as a result of high tensile stresses at the CFRP reinforcing
bar-epoxy interface;
4. Concrete split failure was the goveming mode of failure for
the beam strengthened with NSM GFRP thermoplastic strips;
5. Failure of beams strengthened with externally bonded
CFRP or thermoplastic GFRP strips was due to debonding
between the strips and the concrete. The debonding failure of
the externally bonded FRP strips was brittle and occurred at
a load level significantly lower than the ultimate load
measured for beams strengthened with NSM CFRP reinforcing
bars or strips and NSM GFRP thermoplastic strips;
6. Strengthening a concrete beam with NSM CFRP
reinforcing bars provided a considerably less increase of the
load-carrying capacity compared with similar beams
strengthened with NSM CFRP strips with the same axial
stiffness due to possible early debonding failure that
occurred at the CFRP reinforcing bar-epoxy interface and to
the smaller bonding surface of the NSM CFRP reinforcing
bars with respect to the NSM CFRP strips;
7. No slip was observed for the different NSM FRP
reinforcing bars and strips strengthening techniques up to
ultimate load-carrying capacity;
8. The strength of the reinforced concrete beam strengthened
with the NSM technique provided a significant increase of
the overall ductility of the member when compared with
externally bonded FRP strips; and
9. Using the same axial stiffness of FRP to strengthen
reinforced concrete beams, the beams strengthened with
NSM FRP reinforcement achieved higher ultimate load than
beams strengthened with externally bonded FRP reinforce-
ment. This is due to the high utilization of the tensile strength
of the FRP reinforcement. The NSM FRP strips have double
the bond area compared with an externally bonded FRP
strips. It should be noted that the thickness could affect the
debonding phenomena.
In summary, the NSM FRP strengthening technique could
be considered as a valid alternative to an externally bonded
FRP strengthening system and an attractive, efficient method
for enhancing the stiffness and increasing the flexural
strength of deficiently reinforced concrete members.
726
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the technical staff at the Constructed
Facilities Laboratory at North Carolina State University and J. N. da Silva
Filho for their help with the laboratory work. The authors are grateful to the
support provided by Hughes Brothers and Dow Chemica] Co. for donating the
FR.P materials. The authors would like to thank. T. Hassan for designing and
constructing the beams during his PhD studies at the University of Manitoba.
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Networks of Centres of
Excellence Program of the Government of Canada and the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
REFERENCES
ACT Committee 440, 2002, "Design and Construction of Externally
Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures (440.2R-02),"
American Concrete Institute, Fannington Hills, Mich., 45 pp.
ACI Committee 440, 1996, "State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber Reinforced
Plastic Reinforcement for Concrcte Structures (440R-96) (Reapproved 2002),"
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 68 pp.
Alkhrdaji, 1:; Nanni, A.; Chen, G.; and Barker, M., 1999, "Solid RC Decks
Strengthened with FRP," Concrete International, V. 21, No. 10, Oct., pp. 37-41.
Arduini, M.; Gottardo, R.; and De Riva, E, 2001, "FRP Rods for
Flexural Reinforcement of Existing Beams: Experimental Research and
Applications," Proceedings of the International Conference on FRP
ComposiJes in Civil Engineering (CICE), V. 2, Hong Kong, China, Dec. 12-15,
pp. 1051-1058.
Asplund, S. Q., 1949, "Strengthening Bridge Slabs with Grouted
Reinforcement," ACT JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 52, No.6, Jan., pp. 397-406.
AS1M C 39-01, 2001, "Standard Thst Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens," ASTM International, West Consohocken,
Fa., 5 pp.
Blaschko, M., and Zilch, K., 1999, "Rehabilitation of Concrete SlIUctures
with CFRP Strips Glued Into Slits," Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Composite Materials, Paris, July 5-9. (CD-ROM)
Carolin, A.; Hordin, H.; and T1Ujsten, B., 2001, "Concrete Beams
Strengthened with Near Surface Mounted Reinforcement of CFRP,"
Proceedings of the International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil
Engineering (CICE), V. 2, Hong Kong, China, Dec. 12-15, pp. 1059-1066.
ChemCo Systems, Inc., 1995, "Kemko® 040 Dowel RegSety Grout,"
Technical Data Sheet, Nov., htlp:llwww.chemcosystems.com.
De Lorenzis. L.; Nanni, A.; and La Tegola, A., 2000, "Flexural and
Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Near Surface
Mounted FRP Rods," Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Stru.ctures (ACMES Ill),
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Aug. 15- 18, pp. 521-528.
De Lorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., 2002, "Bond Between Near-Surface
Mounted FRP Rods and Concrete in SlIUcturaJ Strengthening," ACI Strnctural
Journal, V. 99, No.2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 123·1 32.
Dow Plastic Chemical, 2000, "Fulcrum Thennoplastic Composite Tech-
nology," Technical Data Sheer, Dec., hUp:llwww.dowfulcrum.com.
EI-Hacha, R.; Wight, R. G.; and Green, M. F., 2001, "Prestressed Fibre-
Reinforced Polymer Laminates for Strengthening Structures," Progress in
Structu.ral Engineering and Materials Journal, pp. 111-121.
EI-Hacha, R.; da Silva Filho, J. N.; Melo, G. S.; and Rizkalla, S. H.,
2004, "Effectiveness of Near-Surface Mounted FRP Reinforcement for
Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams," Proceedings of 'he
4th International COliference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and
S<rncru",s (ACMBS /V), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, July 2{}-23. (CD· ROM)
Hassan, T. K., 2002, "Flexural Perfonnance and Bond Characteristics of
FRP Strengthening Techniques for Concrete Structures," PhD thesis,
Department of Civil and Geological Engineering, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 304 pp.
Hughes Brothers, 2002, "AsIan 200 CFRP Bars, and AsIan 500 CFRP
Tape," Technical Information, Dec., http://www.hughesbros.com.
Nordin, R; TaIjsten, B.; and Carolin, A., 2001, "Concrete Bcams
Slrengthened with Prestressed Near Surface Mounted Reinforcement
(NSMR)," Proceedings of the International Conference on FRP Composites in
Civil Engineering (CICE), V. 2, Hong Kong, China, Dec. 12-15, pp. 1067-1075.
Structural Composites Inc. (SCI), 2002, '"Technical Guide for the Selection,
Design and Insta11ation of Ihe En-Force FRP Systems: En-Force: Thc
Future of Concrete Strengthening," Waller, Tex.
TiiJjslen, B., and Carotin, A., 2001, "Concrete Beams Strengthened wilh
Near Surface Mounted CFRP Laminates," Proceedings of the 51h Internatiollal
Conference 011 Fibre-Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced Concrete Struclllres
(FRPRCS·5), V. I, Cambridge, UK, July 16·18, pp. 107- 116.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004