You are on page 1of 15

Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Interfacial stresses in plated beams


*
S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Received 2 May 2000; accepted 14 July 2000

Abstract

Fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP) or steel plates can be bonded to the soffit of a beam as a means of retrofitting the beam. In such
plated beams, tensile forces develop in the bonded plate and these have to be transferred to the original beam via interfacial shear
and normal stresses. Consequently, debonding failure may occur at the plate ends due to a combination of high shear and normal
interfacial stresses. This paper starts with a review of approximate closed-form solutions for interfacial stresses, identifying their
assumptions and limitations, thereby clarifying the differences between these solutions. This review also establishes the need for a
similar but more accurate solution, and such a solution is presented next in the paper. This new solution is intended for application
to beams made of all kinds of materials bonded with a thin plate, while all existing solutions have been developed focusing on the
strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) beams, which allowed the omission of certain terms. Finally, numerical comparisons
between the existing solutions and the present new solution enable a clear appreciation of the effects of various parameters. 
2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: FRP composites; Interfacial shear stresses; Interfacial normal/peeling stresses; Plate bonding; Beams; Retrofitting; Strengthening

1. Introduction minimal interference to the surrounding environment.


Consequently, many studies have been carried out on the
An existing beam can be retrofitted by bonding a behaviour and strength of such plated beams (e.g., [1–
fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP) or steel plate to its soffit 21]). In such retrofitted beams, debonding of the soffit
(Fig. 1). This plate bonding technique has been used plate from the beam is an important failure mode as it
widely to retrofit reinforced concrete (RC) beams, and prevents the full ultimate flexural capacity of the retro-
has also been used to retrofit beams of other materials. fitted beam from being achieved. It is thus important to
The technique has numerous advantages such as increas- be able to predict the debonding failure load. Debonding
ing the strength and stiffness of an existing beam with failures depend largely on the interfacial shear and nor-
mal stresses between the beam and the bonded plate.
The determination of interfacial stresses has thus been
researched for the last decade for beams bonded with
either steel or FRP plates. In particular, several relatively
simple approximate closed-form solutions for interfacial
stresses have been developed [2–4,9,14,16] based on a
simple assumption for the adhesive layer as discussed
later. Despite all of these studies, one striking fact is that
the relationship between these existing solutions has not
been established clearly in the existing literature. This
paper therefore starts with a review of these existing sol-
Fig. 1. Soffit-plated beam. utions, identifying their assumptions and limitations,
thereby clarifying the differences between them. This
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2766-6047; fax: +852-2334- review also establishes the need for a more accurate sol-
6389. ution of the same type, which is subsequently presented
E-mail address: cejgteng@polyu.edu.hk (J.G. Teng). in the paper. This new solution is intended for appli-

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 9 0 - 0
858 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

cation to beams made of all kinds of materials bonded mations to determine the interfacial stresses. A summary
with a thin plate, while all existing solutions have gener- of the main differences between these analytical sol-
ally been developed focusing on the strengthening of RC utions is given in Table 1. The solution of Malek et al.
beams, which allowed the omission of certain terms. [16] is general in terms of the applied load provided the
Finally, numerical comparisons between the existing sol- applied moment can be expressed by
utions and the present new solution enable a clear M(x)=a1x2+a2x+a3, where x=x+L0 and L0 is the distance
appreciation of the effects of various parameters. between the plate cut-off point and the origin of x, while
It should be noted that the type of analysis discussed the rest are restricted to certain loading conditions.
in this paper does not satisfy the zero shear stress con- Interfacial shear stresses in the adhesive layer are
dition at the end of the adhesive layer. This drawback related to the difference between the longitudinal dis-
is known to have only a limited effect in a very small placement at the base of the beam and that at the top of
zone near the end of the plate [3]. For this condition to the soffit plate. The differences between these solutions
be satisfied, a higher-order analysis has to be carried out. for interfacial shear stresses arise from the different
The first such analysis has just appeared [20]. This choices of terms for inclusion in determining these longi-
higher-order solution however does not provide explicit tudinal displacements. Bending deformations in the
expressions for the interfacial stresses, so numerical beam and axial deformations in the soffit plate are taken
results are not easily obtainable, which makes it difficult into account in all of these solutions. Liu and Zhu’s sol-
for exploitation in developing a design rule. The cor- ution [9] is the only one that considers the effects of
rectness of this analysis has also been questioned [21]. shear deformations of the beam, but the contributions to
In another higher-order analysis from the authors’ group shear deformations in both the beam and the plate by
yet to be published [21], explicit expressions have been the interfacial normal stresses are ignored.
obtained, but these are much more complex than the Interfacial normal stresses are related to vertical defor-
expressions from the type of analysis discussed in this mation compatibility between the beam and the bonded
paper. The simple approximate closed-form solutions plate. Vilnay [2] and Taljsten [14] derived the governing
discussed in this paper provide a useful but simple tool equation in terms of the vertical displacement of the
for understanding the interfacial behaviour and for bonded plate. Liu and Zhu [9] and Malek et al. [16]
exploitation in developing a design rule. The present derived the governing equation in terms of the interfacial
paper is concerned only with this simple type of analysis normal stress. Nevertheless, the governing equations
and, hereafter, no further reference to higher-order derived by Vilnay and Taljsten can be reduced to those
interfacial stress analysis is made. of Liu and Zhu and Malek et al. with some differences.
The main differences between these solutions for interfa-
cial normal stresses are also summarised in Table 1.
2. Review of existing solutions It should also be noted that the solution of Liu and
Zhu is incomplete in that the constants of integration
2.1. Assumptions and approaches were not given, instead only the boundary conditions
were listed.
All existing solutions are for linear elastic materials
only. The key assumption in all of these solutions is that
2.3. Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution
the adhesive layer is subject to shear and normal stresses
that are constant across the thickness of the adhesive
layer. It is this key assumption that enables relatively Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4] is for a uni-
simple closed-form solutions to be obtained, although formly distributed load (UDL) only. In the first stage of
this assumption is somewhat hidden in some of the sol- their solution, direct considerations of deformation com-
utions. patibility lead to the determination of the interfacial
In the existing solutions, two different approaches shear stress. Axial and bending deformations in both the
have been employed. Roberts [3] and Roberts and Haji- beam and the plate are considered. Free strains, which
Kazemi [4] used a staged analysis approach, while Vil- may arise due to shrinkage, creep or temperature, in both
nay [2], Liu and Zhu [9], Taljsten [14] and Malek et al. the beam and the plate are also included. If such free
[16] considered directly deformation compatibility con- strains are not present, then the boundary conditions
ditions. implemented in the first stage of analysis model the zero
axial force condition at the ends of the bonded plate. In
2.2. Solutions based on direct deformation this first stage, the beam and the plate are assumed to
compatibility consideration have identical vertical deflections. As a result, the
interfacial normal stress from the first stage has to be
Vilnay [2], Liu and Zhu [9], Taljsten [14] and Malek worked out from an equilibrium consideration of the
et al. [16] directly considered compatibility of defor- beam. This first-stage analysis leads to a non-zero bend-
Table 1
Comparison of assumptions in analytical solutions

Theory Vilnay [2] Roberts [3] Roberts and Haji- Liu and Zhu [9] Taljsten [14] Malek et al. [16] Present solution
Kazemi [4]

Shear and normal stresses Load cases Point load at mid- General UDL UDL, point load at Single point load General with some General
span mid-span, two limitations
symmetric point
loads

Shear stress Axial deformations No Partially Yes No Yes Partially Yes


of beam considered* considered*

Bending No Partially Yes No No Partially Yes


deformations of considered* considered*
plate

Shear deformations No No No Yes but incorrectly No No Yes (in governing


equations only)

Boundary/continuity Zero shear stress – – Continuity in shear Zero shear stress Zero shear stress Continuity in shear
conditions at point stress and its first stress and its first
load derivative derivative

Other remarks – *Considered in – Only general – *Stress at base of Specific interfacial


stage 1 analysis solutions are given the original beam stress expressions
which is for a fully with boundary based on fully developed only for
composite section conditions composite action three load cases

Normal stress Bending No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes


deformations of
S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

beam

Shear deformations No No No Yes but incorrectly No No Yes (in governing


equations only)

Additional plate Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes


bending
deformations due to
interfacial shear
stresses
859
860 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

ing moment and a non-zero transverse shear force at beam, as in the case of an aluminium beam bonded with
each plate end. a carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic (CFRP) plate.
In the second stage of analysis, a bending moment and For interfacial normal stresses, the solution of Taljsten
a shear force equal to those from the first stage but [14] is expected to be the most accurate as both bending
opposite in direction are applied at each plate end. The deformations in the beam and additional bending defor-
plate is treated as a flexible beam on an elastic foun- mations of the plate due to interfacial shear stresses are
dation which represents the adhesive. The effect of any properly accounted for. This solution is for a single point
deflection of the beam on interfacial normal stresses is load. Liu and Zhu’s solution [9] also considers both fac-
ignored. The second stage leads to the determination of tors, but the constants of integration in their solution are
additional interfacial normal stresses, and also additional yet to be determined. Most solutions ignore the effect of
interfacial shear stresses due to the deflection of the plate bending deformations in the beam. This omission again
relative to the beam. The various assumptions of Roberts may be inappropriate when the flexural rigidity of the
and Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4] are given in Table 1. bonded plate becomes significant compared with that of
The final interfacial shear and normal stresses are the beam.
found by combining the results from both stages; how- While the assumptions adopted in these solutions are
ever, interfacial normal stresses from stage 1 and interfa- reasonable for RC beams bonded with a thin plate, which
cial shear stresses from stage 2 are, in general, rela- was the intended application, the above review does sug-
tively small. gest the need for a more accurate solution, both for appli-
cations to other situations where the flexural rigidity of
2.4. Roberts’ solution the beam and that of the bonded plate are more compara-
ble, and to assess the significance of the various terms
Roberts’ solution [3] is general in terms of loading that have been omitted by existing solutions. In addition,
conditions and consists of three stages. In the first stage, it should be commented that except for the works of
the interfacial shear stress in the adhesive layer is Roberts [3] and Roberts and Haji-Kazemi [4], all of the
determined for a fully composite section of infinite other solutions are based on the deformation compati-
length. For a soffit plate of finite length, stage 1 of the bility approach. From a physical point of view, interfa-
analysis produces an axial force at each end of the cial stresses in the adhesive layer are induced as the
bonded plate. As this force does not exist in practice, adhesive layer attempts to enforce deformation compati-
the second stage of the analysis is to apply an equal but bility between the RC beam and the soffit plate which
opposite axial force to either end of the plate. In the otherwise would deform without interaction. The defor-
second stage the soffit plate is treated as being an axial mation compatibility method which embodies a simple
member with no bending deformations on an elastic physical aspect is thus believed to be more advantageous
shear foundation representing the adhesive, with the over the staged analysis approach of Roberts and Roberts
beam assumed to be rigid. At the end of the stage 2 and Haji-Kazemi. In the following sections, a new sol-
analysis, there exist a non-zero moment and a non-zero ution that is based on the deformation compatibility
shear force at each end of the plate. In analysis stage 3, approach and fulfils the above-mentioned requirements
equal but opposite moments and shear forces are applied is presented. Governing equations and their general sol-
at the ends of the bonded plate with the plate assumed utions are derived for general loading conditions, while
to be a beam on an elastic foundation representing the specific interfacial stress expressions are given for three
adhesive, while the beam is assumed to be rigid. Final important load cases: an arbitrarily positioned point load,
interfacial shear stresses are obtained by combining the two symmetrically positioned point loads and a UDL. It
results from stages 1 and 2, while the interfacial normal may be noted that, among the existing solutions, the one
stresses are given by the stage 3 analysis only. likely to be the most accurate for the interfacial shear
stress is Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4] which
2.5. Need for a new solution is limited to a UDL, while Taljsten’s solution [14],
which is likely to be the most accurate for the interfacial
The above review suggests that the analysis of Roberts normal stress, is limited to a single point load.
and Haji-Kazemi [4] is likely to be the most accurate
for interfacial shear stresses as both axial deformations 3. Assumptions of the new solution
in the beam and bending deformations in the plate are
taken into account. This solution is however restricted The derivation of the new solution below is described
to a UDL only and is rather complex. Most solutions in terms of adherends 1 and 2, where adherend 1 is the
ignore the effects of axial deformations in the beam beam and adherend 2 is the soffit plate. Adherend 2 can
and/or bending deformations in the plate. Such solutions be either steel or FRP but not limited to these two. The
are expected to be unsuitable for cases when the bonded assumptions adopted in the present solution are summar-
plate has a significant flexural rigidity compared with the ised below.
S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871 861

Linear elastic behaviour of adherends 1 and 2, as well where u(x, y) and v(x, y) are the horizontal and vertical
as of the adhesive layer, is assumed. Deformations of displacements respectively at any point in the adhesive
adherends 1 and 2 are due to bending moments, axial layer as defined in Fig. 1. The corresponding shear stress
and shear forces. The adhesive layer is assumed to be is given as

冉 冊
subject to stresses invariant across its thickness. This is
du(x, y) dv(x, y)
the key assumption which enables relatively simple t(x)⫽Ga ⫹ , (2)
closed-form solutions to be obtained. dy dx
Under normal stresses in the thickness-wise direction, where Ga is the shear modulus of the adhesive layer.
the adhesive layer will deform, so the vertical displace- Differentiating the above expression with respect to x
ments at the bottom of adherend 1 and the top of gives

冉 冊
adherend 2 differ. As a result, the curvature of the beam
will differ from that of the soffit plate. These thickness- dt(x) d2u(x, y) d2v(x, y)
⫽Ga ⫹ . (3)
wise deformations of the adhesive are assumed to have dx dxdy dx2
a negligible effect on the interfacial shear stresses. That
The curvature of a differential element can be related to
is, in finding the interfacial shear stresses, the curvatures
the applied moment, MT(x), by the following
of both adherends are assumed to be the same. The same
assumption has been used by Roberts and Haji-Kazemi d2v(x) 1
2 ⫽⫺ M (x), (4)
[4]. This assumption is not used in the determination of dx (EI)t T
interfacial normal stresses.
where (EI)t is the total flexural rigidity of the composite
section considering the partial interaction between the
3.1. Interfacial shear stress: governing differential
two adherends. The adhesive layer is assumed to be sub-
equation
jected to uniform shear stresses and therefore u(x, y)
must vary linearly across the adhesive thickness ta, then
A differential segment of a plated beam is shown in
Fig. 2, where the interfacial shear and normal stresses du 1
are denoted by t(x) and s(x), respectively. Fig. 2 also ⫽ [u (x)⫺u1(x)] (5)
dy ta 2
shows the positive sign convention for the bending
moment, shear force, axial force and applied loading. and
The shear strain g in the adhesive layer can be written as

g⫽
du(x, y) dv(x, y)
⫹ , (1)
dxdy

ta dx
⫺冉
d2u(x, y) 1 du2(x) du1(x)
dx
, 冊 (6)

dy dx where u1(x) and u2(x) are the longitudinal displacements


at the base of adherend 1 and the top of adherend 2,
respectively, and ta is the thickness of the adhesive layer.
Eq. (3) can be rewritten as

dx

ta dx冉
dt(x) Ga du2(x) du1(x) ta

dx
⫺ M (x) .
(EI)t T 冊 (7)

In calculating (EI)t, interfacial shear stresses should


be considered but to do so would complicate the sol-
ution. The third term in parentheses in Eq. (7) is very
small and thus is ignored in the following derivation.
The strains at the base of adherend 1 and the top of
adherend 2, considering all three components of axial,
bending and shear deformations, are given as
du1 y1 1 y1
e1(x)⫽ ⫽ M (x)⫺ N (x)⫹ [q (8)
dx E1I1 1 E1A1 1 G1aA1
⫹b2s(x)]
and
du2 y2 1
e2(x)⫽ ⫽⫺ M2(x)⫹ N (x) (9)
dx E2I2 E2A2 2
y2
⫹ b s(x),
Fig. 2. Differential segment of a soffit-plated beam. G2aA2 2
862 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

where E is the elastic modulus, G the shear modulus, b2


the width of the soffit plate, A the cross-sectional area,
I the second moment of area and a the effective shear
d2t(x) Ga
dx 2

ta
⫺ 冉y2 dM2(x)
E2I2 dx

1 dN2(x)
E2A2 dx
area multiplier, which is equal to 5/6 for a rectangular y2 ds(x) y1 dM1(x) 1 dN1(x)
⫹ b2 ⫺ ⫹ (19)
section. The subscripts 1 and 2 denote adherends 1 and G2aA2 dx E1I1 dx E1A1 dx


2, respectively. M(x), N(x) and V(x) are the bending
y1 dq y1 ds(x)
moment, axial and shear forces in each adherend while ⫺ ⫺ b2 .
y1 and y2 are the distances from the bottom of adherend G1aA1 dx G1aA1 dx
1 and the top of adherend 2 to their respective centroid. Substitution of the shear forces [Eqs. (17) and (18)] and
Consideration of horizontal equilibrium gives axial forces (Eq. (11)) in both adherends into Eq. (19)
dN1(x) dN2(x) gives the following governing differential equation for
⫽ ⫽b2t(x) (10) the interfacial shear stress
dx dx
where
dx 2

ta 冉
d2t(x) Gab2 (y1+y2)(y1+y2+ta)
E1I1+E2I2

1

1
E1A1 E2A2 冊
t(x)


x

N1(x)⫽N2(x)⫽N(x)⫽b2 t(x) dx.


0
(11) ⫽⫺ 冉
Ga y1+y2
V (x)⫺
ta E1I1+E2I2 T 冊
Ga y1 dq
ta G1aA1dx
(20)

Assuming equal curvature in the beam and the soffit


plate, the relationship between the moments in the two
⫺ 冉
Gab2 y1

y2 ds(x)
ata G1A1 G2A2 dx
. 冊
adherends can be expressed as
M1(x)⫽RM2(x), (12)
with
4. Interfacial normal stress: governing differential
E1I1 equation
R⫽ . (13)
E2I2
The governing differential equation for the interfacial
Moment equilibrium of the differential segment of the normal stress is derived in this section. When the beam
plated beam in Fig. 2 gives is loaded, vertical separation occurs between adherends
MT(x)⫽M1(x)⫹M2(x)⫹N(x)(y1⫹y2⫹ta). (14) 1 and 2. This separation creates an interfacial normal
stress in the adhesive layer. The normal stress, s(x), is
The bending moment in each adherend, expressed as given as
a function of the total applied moment and the interfacial
shear stress, is given as Ea
s(x)⫽ [v2(x)⫺v1(x)], (21)
ta

冋 冕 册
x
R where v1(x) and v2(x) are the vertical displacements of
M1(x)⫽ M (x)⫺b2 t(x)(y1⫹y2⫹ta) dx (15)
(R+1) T adherends 1 and 2, respectively. The equilibrium of
0
adherends 1 and 2, neglecting second-order terms, leads
and to the following relationships.
Adherend 1:

冋 冕 册
x
1 d2v1(x) 1 1
M2(x)⫽ M (x)⫺b2 t(x)(y1⫹y2⫹ta) dx . (16) ⫽⫺ M (x)⫺ [q⫹b2s(x)], (22)
(R+1) T dx2 E 1 I1 1 G1aA1
0

The first derivative of the bending moment in each dM1(x)


⫽V1(x)⫺b2y1t(x) (23)
adherend gives dx
dM1(x) R and
⫽V1(x)⫽ [V (x)⫺b2t(x)(y1⫹y2⫹ta)] (17)
dx (R+1) T dV1(x)
⫽⫺b2s(x)⫺q. (24)
and dx
dM2(x) 1
⫽V2(x)⫽ [V (x)⫺b2t(x)(y1⫹y2⫹ta)]. (18) Adherend 2:
dx (R+1) T
Substituting Eqs. (8) and (9) into Eq. (7) and differen- d2v2(x) 1 1
⫽⫺ M (x)⫹ b s(x), (25)
tiating the resulting equation once yields dx2 E 2 I2 2 G2aA2 2
S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871 863

dM2(x) For simplicity, the general solutions presented below


⫽V2(x)⫺b2y2t(x) (26) are limited to loading which is either concentrated or
dx
uniformly distributed over part or the whole span of the
and beam, or both. For such loading, d 2VT(x)/dx2=0, and the
dV2(x) general solution to Eq. (31) is given by
⫽b2s(x). (27)
dx
t(x)⫽B1 cosh(lx)⫹B2 sinh(lx)⫹m1VT(x), (32)
Based on the above equilibrium equations, the governing
differential equations for the deflections of adherends 1 where

冉 冊
and 2, expressed in terms of the interfacial shear and
normal stresses, are given as follows. Gab2 (y1+y2)(y1+y2+ta) 1 1
l 2⫽ ⫹ ⫹ (33)
Adherend 1: ta E1I1+E2I2 E1A1 E2A2
d4v1(x) 1 1 d2s(x) y1 dt(x) and
⫽ b s(x)⫺ b ⫹ b (28)

冉 冊
2
dx4 E1I1 G1aA1 dx2 E1I1 2 dx
2

Ga 1 y1+y2
1 1 d 2q m1⫽ . (34)
⫹ q⫺ . ta l2 E1I1+E2I2
E1I1 G1aA1 dx2
The governing differential equation for the normal
Adherend 2: stress, with the effects of shear deformations neg-
lected, becomes
4
d v2(x) 1 1 d2s(x)
dx4
⫽⫺
E2I2
b

y2 dt(x)
2 s(x)⫹ b2
G2aA2 dx2
(29) d4s(x) Eab2 1
dx 4
⫹ ⫹
1
ta E1I1 E2I2 冉
s(x)⫹
Eab2 y1
ta E1I1 冊 冉 (35)


⫹ b .
E2I2 2 dx y2 dt(x) Ea 1
⫺ ⫹ q⫽0.
Substitution of Eqs. (28) and (29) into the fourth deriva- E2I2 dx ta E1I1
tive of the interfacial normal stress obtainable from Eq. The general solution to this fourth-order differential
(21) gives the following governing differential equation equation is
for the interfacial normal stress
d4s(x) Eab2 1
dx4 ⫺ ⫹冉
ata G1A1 G2A2 dx2
⫹ 冊
1 d2s(x) Eab2 1
ta E1I1 冉 s(x)⫽e−bx[C1 cos(bx)⫹C2 sin(bx)]

⫹ebx[C3 cos(bx)⫹C4 sin(bx)]⫺n1


dt(x)
⫺n2q.
(36)

冊 冉 冊
dx
1 Eab2 y1 y2 dt(x) Ea 1
⫹ s(x)⫽⫺ ⫺ ⫺ q (30)
E2I2 ta E1I1 E2I2 dx ta E1I1 For large values of x it is assumed that the normal stress
2 approaches zero, and as a result C3=C4=0. The general
Ea 1 d q
⫹ . solution therefore becomes
ta G1aA1dx2
dt(x)
s(x)⫽e−bx[C1 cos(bx)⫹C2 sin(bx)]⫺n1 ⫺n2q, (37)
dx

5. General solutions for the interfacial shear and where

冉 冊
normal stresses
冪 4t
Eab2 1 1
b⫽ 4 + , (38)
The governing differential equations for the interfacial a E1I1 E2I2
shear and normal stresses [Eqs. (20) and (30)] are
coupled and hence a solution is not easily found. To
uncouple the equations, the effects of shear deformations n 1⫽ 冉 y1E2I2−y2E1I1
E1I1+E2I2 冊 (39)
in both adherends are now neglected. The governing dif-
ferential equation for the interfacial shear stress then and
reduces to

冉 冊
E2I2
d2t(x) Gab2 (y1+y2)(y1+y2+ta) 1 1 n 2⫽ . (40)
b2(E1I1+E2I2)
2 ⫺ ⫹ ⫹ t(x) (31)
dx ta E1I1+E2I2 E1A1 E2A2

冉 冊
In deriving Eq. (37), it has been assumed that

Ga y1+y2
V (x)⫽0. d 5t/dx5=0, because d 5t/dx5 generally has negligible sig-
ta E1I1+E2I2 T nificance to the final answer.
864 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

6. Application of boundary conditions and the axial force of either the beam or the soffit plate
[N1(0)=N2(0)] are zero. As a result, the moment in the
Having derived the general solutions for the interfacial section at the plate curtailment is resisted by the beam
shear and normal stresses, three load cases are now con- alone and can be expressed as
sidered. A simply supported beam is investigated which
qa
is subjected to a uniformly distributed load, an arbitrarily M1(0)⫽MT(0)⫽ (L⫺a). (42)
positioned single point load, and two symmetric point 2
loads as shown in Fig. 3. This section derives the Substituting Eqs. (8) and (9) with the effects of shear
expressions of the interfacial shear and normal stresses ignored into Eq. (7) with the third term ignored, and
for each load case by applying suitable boundary con- applying the above boundary condition, gives
ditions.

6.1. Interfacial shear stress for a uniformly distributed


load
dt(x)
dx |
x=0
⫽⫺m2MT(0), (43)

where
By substituting the expression for the shear force in
Ga y1
a simply supported beam subjected to a uniformly dis- m2⫽ . (44)
tributed load into Eq. (32), the general solution for the ta E1I1
interfacial shear stress for this load case can be found as By substituting Eq. (32) into Eq. (43), B2 can be determ-

t(x)⫽B1 cosh(lx)⫹B2 sinh(lx)⫹m1q 冉 L


2 冊
⫺x⫺a , (41)
ined as

B2⫽⫺
m2qa m1
(L⫺a)⫹ q. (45)
0ⱕxⱕLP l 2 l
where q is the uniformly distributed load and x, a, L and
LP are defined in Fig. 1. The constants of integration The second boundary condition requires zero interfa-
need to be determined by applying suitable boundary cial shear stress at mid-span due to symmetry of the
conditions. applied load. B1 can therefore be determined as

冉 冊 冉 冊
The first boundary condition is the applied bending
m2qa lLP m1 lLP
moment at x=0. Here, the moment at the plate end M2(0) B1⫽ (L⫺a) tanh ⫺ q tanh . (46)
l 2 2 l 2
For practical cases lLP/2⬎10 and as a result
tanh(lLP/2)⬇1, so the expression for B1 can be simpli-
fied to
m2qa m1
B1⫽ (L⫺a)⫺ q⫽⫺B2. (47)
l 2 l

Substitution of B1 and B2 into Eq. (41) gives an


expression for the interfacial shear stress at any point

t(x)⫽ 冋
m2a
2
(L⫺a)⫺m1
l 册
q e−lx L

⫹m1q ⫺a⫺x .
2 冊 (48)

6.2. Interfacial shear stress for a single point load

Two scenarios are considered and they are: (1) the left
end of the plate is terminated to the left of the point load
(a⬍b) and (2) the left end of the plate is terminated to
the right of the point load (a⬎b). By substituting the
specific expressions for the shear force in a simply sup-
ported beam subjected to a point load into Eq. (32), the
general solution for the interfacial shear stress for this
Fig. 3. Load cases. load case can be found as
S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871 865

a⬍b: t(x) (49) where k=l(b⫺a). Substitution of the constants of inte-

冉 冊
gration into Eqs. (49) and (50) gives


b
B3 cosh(lx)+B4 sinh(lx)+m1P 1− , 0ⱕxⱕ(b−a) a⬍b: t(x) (54)
L

冉 冊 冉 冊

b m2 b b
B5 cosh(lx)+B6 sinh(lx)−m1P , (b−a)ⱕxⱕLP Pa 1− e−lx+m1P 1− −m1P cosh(lx) e−k, 0ⱕxⱕ(b−a)
L l L L

a⬎b: t(x)⫽B7 cosh(lx)⫹B8 sinh(lx) (50)


m2
l
b
L 冉 冊 Pb
Pa 1− e−lx−m1 +m1P sinh(k) e−lx,
L
(b−a)ⱕxⱕLP

b
⫺m1P , 0ⱕxⱕLP
L a⬎b: t(x)⫽
m2
l 冉 冊 a
L
b
Pb 1⫺ e−lx⫺m1P ,
L
0ⱕxⱕLP (55)
The constants can be evaluated using boundary con-
ditions. The two existing solutions [2,14] derived also using
For a⬍b the boundary conditions are the deformation compatibility approach for interfacial
at x=0, M1(0)=MT(0)=Pa 1−
L
b
冉 冊 shear stresses for a point load case can be found by elim-
inating certain terms from the first part of Eq. (54), as
ab
these two solutions cover only the region 0ⱕxⱕ(b⫺a).
at x=LP, M1(LP)=MT(LP)=P Part 1 of Eq. (54) differs from that of Taljsten [14] in
L
two aspects: the inclusion of the bending deformations
at x=(b−a), t(x) is continuous, i.e., t1(x)兩x=b−a=t2(x)兩x=b−a in adherend 2 and a different implementation of the
at x=(b−a),
dt(x)
dx
is continuous, i.e.,
dt1(x)
dx | x=b−a
=
dx |
dt2(x)
x=b−a
boundary/continuity condition under the point load
which leads to the additional term in the present solution
m1P cosh(lx) e⫺k . At the point load, Taljsten as well as
(51) Vilnay [2] specified zero interfacial shear stress while
The first two boundary conditions are applied in the the present solution specifies continuity of interfacial
same manner as the first boundary condition of the uni- shear stress and its first derivative. At the plate end the
formly distributed load case. The third and fourth bound- effect of this extra term is generally small in comparison
ary conditions require continuity of the interfacial shear with the other terms but it does lead to a more realistic
stress and its first derivative under the point load. interfacial shear stress distribution under the point load.
For a⬎b the boundary conditions are given as follows If these two differences together with the effect of the
and can be applied in the same manner as the first bound- axial deformation of adherend 1 are eliminated from the
ary condition for the uniformly distributed loading case present solution and if b is set equal to LP/2 to represent

冉 冊
a point load at mid-span, the present solution reduces to
a that of Vilnay.
at x=0, M1(0)=MT(0)=Pb 1−
L
(52) 6.3. Interfacial shear stress for two point loads
ab
at x=LP, M1(LP)=MT(LP)=P
L The two point loads are symmetrically positioned.
Two cases are considered: (1) the plate extends beyond
In all cases, both the axial force and the moment at the constant moment region (a⬍b) and (2) the plate is
the ends of the soffit plate are zero, so the beam resists terminated within the constant moment region (a⬎b).
the total applied bending moment here [Eq. (42)]. Once Using Eq. (32), the general solution for the interfacial
the boundary conditions are applied, the constants of shear stress for this load case is given by
integration can be found as follows a⬍b: t(x) (56)
m2 b
冉 冊
B3⫽ Pa 1⫺ ⫺m1P e−k,
l L
m2 b
B4⫽⫺ Pa 1⫺ ,
l L 冉 冊
冉 冊 冦
B9 cosh(lx)+B10 sinh(lx)+m1P, 0ⱕxⱕ(b−a)
m2 b ⫽
B5⫽ Pa 1⫺ ⫹m1P sinh(k), (53) B11 cosh(lx)+B12 sinh(lx), (b−a)ⱕxⱕ
LP
l L 2
m2
l
b
L 冉 冊
B6⫽⫺ Pa 1⫺ ⫺m1P sinh(k), a⬎b: t(x)⫽B13 cosh(lx)⫹B14 sinh(lx), 0ⱕx (57)

m2 a
B7⫽ Pb 1⫺ ,
l L 冉 冊 m2
l
a
B8⫽⫺ Pb 1⫺ ,
L 冉 冊 ⱕLP
866 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

For a⬍b the boundary conditions are


at x=0, M1(0)=MT(0)=Pa
d2s(x)
dx2 | 冉 ⫽
Ea 1
ta E1I1
M1(0)⫺
1
M (0) .
E2I2 2 冊 (63)

冉冊
x=0
LP LP
at x= , t =0 Since it has been established that M2(0)=0,
2 2
N1(0)=N2(0)=0 and M1(0)=MT(0) at the end of the soffit
at x=(b−a), t(x) is continuous, i.e., t1(x)兩x=b−a=t2(x)兩x=b−a plate, the above relationship can be expressed as
at x=(b−a),
dt(x)
dx
is continuous, i.e.,
dt1(x)
dx | x=b−a
=
dx |
dt2(x)
x=b−a
d2s(x)
dx2 | ⫽
Ea 1
M (0).
ta E1I1 T
(64)
x=0
(58)
Boundary condition 2 concerns the shear force at the
The first two boundary conditions are applied in the end of the soffit plate in the beam and the soffit plate.
same manner as those for the uniformly distributed load Differentiating Eq. (21) three times and substituting Eqs.
case. The third and fourth boundary conditions require (23) and (26) into the resulting expression lead to the
continuity of the interfacial shear stress and its first following relationship at the plate end:

| 冉 冊 冉
derivative under the point loads and are applied in the
same manner as for the single point load case. d3s(x) Ea 1 1 Eab2 y1
⫽ V (0)⫺ V (0) ⫺ (65)
For a⬎b the boundary conditions are as follows: dx3 ta E1I1 1 E2I2 2 ta E1I1
x=0


at x=0, M1(0)=MT(0)=Pb
(59) y2
at x=LP, M1(LP)=MT(LP)=Pb ⫺ t(0).
E2I2

The constants are consequently determined to be As the applied shear force at the end of the plate is
zero [i.e., V2(0)=0], V1(0)=VT(0). The second boundary
m2 m2 m2 condition can therefore be expressed as
B9⫽ Pa⫺m1P e−k, B10⫽⫺ Pa, B11⫽ Pa
l l l
d3s(x)
m2
⫹m1P sinh(k), B12⫽⫺ Pa⫺m1P sinh(k),
l
(60)
dx3 | ⫽
x=0
Ea 1
V (0)⫺n3t(0),
ta E1I1 T
(66)

where
m2 m2
B13⫽ Pb, B14⫽⫺ Pb.
l l n 3⫽
Eab2 y1
⫺冉y2
ta E1I1 E2I2
. 冊 (67)

Substitution of these expressions into Eqs. (56) and Further differentiation of Eq. (37) leads to the follow-
(57) gives ing expressions for the second and third derivatives of
a⬍b: t(x) (61) the interfacial normal stress at the plate end
d2s(x) d3t(x) d 2q
| |

m2 ⫽⫺2b2C2⫺n1 ⫺n2 2 (68)
Pa e−lx+m1P−m1P cosh(lx) e−k, 0ⱕxⱕ(b−a) dx2 dx3 dx
l x=0 x=0

m2 LP and
Pa e−lx+m1P sinh(k) e−lx, (b−a)ⱕxⱕ
l 2
d3s(x) d4t(x) d3q
a⬎b:
m2
t(x)⫽ Pb e−lx,
l
0ⱕxⱕLP (62)
dx3 | ⫽2b3C1⫹2b3C2⫺n1
x=0
dx4 | x=0
⫺n2
dx3
. (69)

Since the loading is limited to either uniformly distrib-


uted or point loads, the second- and higher-order deriva-
tives of q become zero. Substituting the boundary con-
6.4. Interfacial normal stress: general expression for
ditions into the above two equations then leads to the
all three load cases
determination of C1 and C2 as follows:
The constants C1 and C2 in Eq. (37) are determined by Ea 1 n3
considering appropriate boundary conditions. The first C1⫽ 3 [VT(0)⫹bMT(0)]⫺ 3t(0) (70)
2b taE1I1 2b

冉 | |冊
boundary condition is the zero bending moment at the
ends of the soffit plate. Differentiating Eq. (21) twice n1 d4t(x) d3t(x)
⫹ ⫹b
and substituting Eqs. (22) and (25) into the resulting 2b3 dx4 dx3
x=0 x=0
expression yields the following relationship at the plate
end (neglecting the effects of shear deformations): and
S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871 867

n1 d3t(x)
C2⫽⫺
Ea 1
2
2b taE1I1
MT(0)⫺ 2 3
2b dx |
x=0
. (71)

The above expressions for the constants C1 and C2 have


been left in terms of the bending moment MT(0) and
shear force VT(0) at the end of the soffit plate. With the
constants C1 and C2 determined, the interfacial normal
stress can then be found using Eq. (37) for all three
load cases.

7. Comparison of analytical solutions

A comparison of the interfacial shear and normal Fig. 4. Comparison of interfacial shear and normal stresses for an RC
stresses from the different closed-form solutions beam with a bonded CFRP soffit plate subjected to a mid-point load.
reviewed earlier is undertaken in this section. Two
example problems are considered. The first is an RC
beam bonded with a glass-fibre-reinforced plastic
(GFRP), CFRP or steel soffit plate. The second is a hol-
low aluminium (AL) beam with a bonded CFRP soffit
plate. In both examples, the beams are simply supported
and subjected to a central point load or a uniformly dis-
tributed load. A summary of the geometric and material
properties is given in Table 2. The span of the RC beam
is 3000 mm, the distance from the support to the end of
the plate is 300 mm, the mid-point load is 150 kN and
the UDL is 50 kN/m. The span of the aluminium beam
is 500 mm, the distance from the support to the plate
end is 50 mm, the mid-point load is 1 kN and the UDL
is 2 kN/m. The geometric properties of the aluminium
beam are taken from a study undertaken by Broughton Fig. 5. Comparison of interfacial shear and normal stresses for an
et al. [22] although the distance from the support to the RC beam with a bonded CFRP soffit plate subjected to a UDL.
soffit plate has been changed from 20 to 50 mm. The
same elastic modulus for the AL beam has been used is a similar plot for the UDL case. Overall, the predic-
and similar properties have been used for the adhesive tions of the different solutions agree closely with each
layer and CFRP soffit plate. other. This indicates that the bending deformations in
the beam and the axial deformations in the bonded plate
7.1. RC beam with GFRP, CFRP and steel soffit are the dominant actions determining the interfacial
plate: mid-point load and UDL stresses, including the peak values occurring at the plate
end, and the omission or inclusion of other terms such
Fig. 4 plots the interfacial shear and normal stresses as the bending deformations in the bonded plate has only
near the plate end for the example RC beam bonded with a very small effect. The results in Fig. 5 show that in
a CFRP plate for the mid-point load case, while Fig. 5 Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4], the second stage

Table 2
Geometric and material properties

Component Width (mm) Depth (mm) Young’s modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio

RC beam b1=200 d1=300 E1=30,000 –


AL beam (wall thickness=2 mm) b1=20 d1=30 E1=65,300 –
Adhesive layer (RC beam) ba=200 ta=2.0 Ea=2000 na=0.35
Adhesive layer (AL beam) ba=20 ta=2.0 Ea=2000 na=0.35
GFRP plate (bonded to RC beam) b2=200 t2=4.0 E2=50,000 –
CFRP plate (bonded to RC beam) b2=200 t2=4.0 E2=100,000 –
Steel plate (bonded to RC beam) b2=200 t2=4.0 E2=200,000 –
CFRP plate (bonded to AL beam) b2=20 t2=2.0 E2=100,000 –
868 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

Table 3
Comparison of peak interfacial shear and normal stresses: mid-point load

Theory RC beam with GFRP plate RC beam with CFRP plate RC beam with steel plate AL beam with CFRP plate

t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa)

Vilnay 2.240 1.381 3.152 1.669 4.350 1.967 2.440 1.109


Roberts 2.179 1.553 2.925 1.761 3.725 1.899 1.788 1.041
Taljsten 2.215 1.397 3.087 1.674 4.188 1.944 2.172 1.122
Malek et al. 2.179 1.553 2.925 1.761 3.725 1.899 1.787 1.040
Present 2.214 1.396 3.083 1.671 4.176 1.938 2.091 1.081

interfacial shear stress and the first stage interfacial nor- the UDL case, the present solution gives results which
mal stress are both small. generally agree better with those from Roberts and Haji-
The interfacial normal stress is seen to change sign at Kazemi’s solution [4] than with those from Roberts’ and
a short distance away from the plate end. In the region Malek et al.’s solutions. The latter two again give simi-
of negative interfacial normal stress, the predictions of lar results.
those solutions which take into account the additional Relating the above observations to the different
bending deformations in the plate due to interfacial shear assumptions adopted in these solutions (Table 1), the
stresses are similar and differ from the predictions of effects of various terms can be clarified. In short, it may
those ignoring these deformations. The former includes be concluded that all solutions are satisfactory for RC
Vilnay’s [2] and Taljsten’s [14] solutions for the mid- beams bonded with a thin plate as the rigidity of the
point load case, Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4] soffit plate is small in comparison with the that of the
for the UDL case and the present solution for both load RC beam. Those solutions which consider the additional
cases, while the latter includes Roberts’ [3] and Malek bending deformations in the soffit plate due to the
et al.’s [16] solutions for both load cases, as detailed in interfacial shear stresses give more accurate results. The
Table 1. Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s solution ignoring present solution is the only solution which covers both
the contribution from the first stage predicts interfacial point loads and uniformly distributed loads and con-
normal stresses similar to those from Roberts’ and Malek siders this effect and the effects of other parameters.
et al.’s solutions, indicating that the first stage contri-
bution is equivalent to the inclusion of the additional 7.2. Hollow aluminium beam with CFRP soffit plate:
bending deformations in the bonded plate due to interfa- mid-point load
cial shear stresses.
The results of the peak interfacial shear and normal Figs. 6 and 7 plot the interfacial shear and normal
stresses (at the end of the soffit plate) are given in Tables stress distributions in the example aluminium beam
3 and 4 for the example RC beam with a GFRP, CFRP bonded with a CFRP plate subject to a mid-point load.
or steel soffit plate. Table 3 shows that, for the mid-point For this problem, the rigidity of the soffit plate is of
load case, the predictions of Roberts’ [3] and Malek et much greater significance than in the RC beam problem.
al.’s [16] solutions are identical, while the present and The effects of bending deformations in the plate and
Taljsten’s [14] solutions give very similar results. Vil- axial deformations in the beam are therefore expected to
nay’s solution [2] leads to results closer to those of the become significant.
latter two solutions than those of the former two. For For the interfacial shear stress, the difference between

Table 4
Comparison of peak interfacial shear and normal stresses: UDL

Theory RC beam with GFRP RC beam with CFRP RC beam with steel AL beam with CFRP
plate plate plate plate

t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa) t (MPa) s (MPa)

Roberts and Haji-Kazemi (t — Stage 1; 2.001 1.425 2.776 1.668 3.745 1.902 2.079 1.153
s — Stage 2)
Roberts and Haji-Kazemi (Stage 1+2) 1.813 1.256 2.591 1.500 3.567 1.733 1.962 1.060
Roberts 1.945 1.386 2.604 1.567 3.302 1.683 1.552 0.910
Malek et al. 1.943 1.384 2.597 1.563 3.287 1.675 1.499 0.871
Present 1.975 1.244 2.740 1.484 3.696 1.713 1.796 0.930
S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871 869

current solution tends to zero under the point load. This


is due to the continuity conditions enforced under a point
load. The solutions of Vilnay [2], Taljsten [14] and
Malek et al. [16] employ various simplifications such as
rounding cosh and tanh terms in their derivation. As a
result of such simplifications, the interfacial shear stress
does not tend to zero at the point load even though zero
interfacial shear stress beneath a point load is a boundary
condition in these solutions.
The normal stress results from the solutions of Roberts
[3] and Malek et al. [16] are very similar to each other
but differ from those from the solutions of Vilnay [2]
and Taljsten [14] and the present solution (Fig. 7). The
difference is mainly in the region of negative interfacial
Fig. 6. Comparison of interfacial shear stresses for a hollow alu-
minium beam bonded with a CFRP soffit plate subjected to a mid- normal stress and is due to the consideration of the plate
point load. bending deformations induced by interfacial shear
stresses in the latter three solutions.
The peak values of the interfacial stresses are given
in Table 3. Significant differences exist between the peak
values of interfacial shear and normal stresses. For the
interfacial shear stress, the largest value, which is from
Vilnay’s solution [2], is 1.37 times the lowest value
which is from Malek et al.’s solution [16]. The corre-
sponding difference for the interfacial normal stress is
smaller. The present solution, being the most accurate
solution, gives results similar to those of Taljsten’s sol-
ution [14].

7.3. Hollow aluminium beam with CFRP soffit plate:


UDL

Fig. 7. Comparison of interfacial normal stresses for a hollow alu- Figs. 8 and 9 plot the interfacial shear and normal
minium beam with a bonded CFRP soffit plate subjected to a mid-
stresses for the example aluminium beam bonded with
point load.
a CFRP plate subjected to a UDL. The results from the
solutions of Roberts [3] and Malek et al. [16], for both
the results of Vilnay’s [2] and Taljsten’s [14] solutions the interfacial shear and normal stresses, are very simi-
seen in Fig. 6 is due to Taljsten considering axial defor- lar.
mations in the beam. The current solution considers one The reason for the difference between Roberts and
extra term to Taljsten — the bending deformations of Haji-Kazemi’s solution [4] and the present solution for
the soffit plate — and this accounts for the small differ-
ence in the results (Fig. 6). The solutions of Roberts [3]
and Malek et al. [16] give lower peak values but higher
results away from the plate end compared with the
present accurate solution (Fig. 6). This is due to the fact
that in these two solutions, the axial deformations in the
beam and the bending deformations in the plate are only
partially considered through the use of the transformed
section properties. These two solutions give very simi-
lar results.
The interfacial shear stress at the mid-thickness point
of the adhesive layer, based on fully composite action
between the beam and the plate, is also plotted in Fig.
6. At a suitable distance from the end of the soffit plate
(approximately 60 mm), the predictions of all solutions
converge to the results obtained from this simple beam Fig. 8. Comparison of interfacial shear stresses for a hollow alu-
theory. The interfacial shear stress calculated from the minium beam with a bonded CFRP soffit plate subjected to a UDL.
870 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871

stresses provide the basis for understanding debonding


failures in such beams and for the development of suit-
able design rules. Six existing approximate closed-form
solutions for interfacial stresses in such beams have been
reviewed, identifying their assumptions and limitations,
thereby clarifying the differences between these sol-
utions for the first time. All of these solutions are based
on the assumption that the interfacial stresses do not vary
across the adhesive layer thickness, a key assumption
which enabled relatively simple explicit expressions for
interracial stresses to be found. A new similar but more
accurate solution was then presented. Numerical com-
parisons between the existing solutions and the present
Fig. 9. Comparison of interfacial normal stresses for a hollow alu- new solution have also been carried out. The following
minium beam with a bonded CFRP soffit plate subjected to a UDL. conclusions can be drawn from the present study.

the interfacial shear stress is believed to be due to small 1. All of the existing solutions include the bending
differences in secondary assumptions. One of these dif- deformations in the beam and the axial deformations
ferences is the assumption in Roberts and Haji-Kazemi in the bonded plate. These two actions dominate the
that the applied bending moment is resisted by both the interfacial stresses in RC beams with a bonded plate.
beam and the plate without shear interaction [i.e., The differences between the existing solutions are due
(EI)total=E1I1+E2I2] in determining the curvature of the to the different choices in the inclusion of other terms,
beam at the plate end. In the present solution, the applied of which the additional bending deformations in the
moment here is assumed to be taken up by the beam bonded plate due to interfacial shear stresses is the
only. The difference in the interfacial normal stress is most significant for RC beams.
expected to be due mainly to the difference in bending 2. The new solution includes the effects of all defor-
deformations induced by the interfacial shear stress. mation terms except shear deformations whose
Even though Roberts and Haji-Kazemi and the present inclusion would complicate the solution. Neverthe-
solution both consider the effect of the interfacial shear
less, governing equations considering the effects of
stress on the interfacial normal stress, the shear stresses
shear deformations have been derived. The new sol-
are different near the plate end and this accounts for the
ution can be applied to beams made of all kinds of
difference in the interfacial normal stress near the plate
materials bonded with a plate where the rigidity of
end. The interfacial shear stress along the mid-thickness
the beam and the plate are more comparable.
line of the adhesive layer, based on a simple fully com-
3. For plated beams with a relatively stiff plate, signifi-
posite beam analysis, is plotted and a good correlation
cantly different results have been obtained from dif-
is evident with all solutions at a suitable distance from
the end of the plate. ferent solutions. Two existing solutions give predic-
The peak values of the interfacial shear and normal tions relatively close to those from the present
stresses are given in Table 4. Significant differences solution: Taljsten’s solution [14], which is limited to
exist between the various solutions, particularly for the a single point load, and Roberts and Haji-Kazemi’s
interfacial shear stress. The highest value for the peak solution [4], which is for a uniformly distributed load
interfacial stress, which is given by Roberts and Haji- and significantly more complicated than the present
Kazemi’s solution [4], is 1.31 times the lowest value solution. The solutions of Roberts [3] and Malek et
which is from Malek et al.’s solution [16]. For the peak al. [16], which are general in terms of loading, are
interfacial normal stress, the corresponding number is the more approximate among the available solutions,
1.22. The results of the present solution differ from those and they give results almost identical to each other.
of Roberts and Haji-Kazemi by about 10% for both The present solution covers all three common load
stresses. cases (single point load, double point load and UDL),
and is based on the more direct and simpler approach
of deformation compatibility rather than the staged
8. Conclusions approach of Roberts and Haji-Kazemi. The present
solution is thus recommended as a widely applicable
This paper has been concerned with the prediction of and accurate solution with due simplicity for appli-
interfacial shear and normal stresses in beams strength- cation to beams bonded with a soffit plate, particularly
ened by an externally bonded plate. Such interfacial when the plate is relatively stiff.
S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 857–871 871

Acknowledgements [10] Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. Experimental and ana-
lytical investigations of FRP-strengthened beam response: Part I.
Mag Concrete Res 1996;48(177):331–42.
Both authors wish to thank The Hong Kong Polytech-
[11] Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. Predictions of the
nic University for the provision of a postdoctoral fellow- maximum plate end stresses of FRP-strengthened beams: Part II.
ship to the first author. Mag Concrete Res 1996;48(177):343–51.
[12] Arduini M, Nanni A. Parametric study of beams with externally
bonded FRP reinforcement. ACI Struct J 1997;94(5):493–501.
References [13] Raoof M, Zhang S. An insight into the structural behaviour of
reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded plates. Proc
[1] Jones R, Swamy RN, Charif A. Plate separation and anchorage Instn Civil Engrs — Struct Bldgs 1997;122:477–92.
of reinforced concrete beams strengthened by epoxy-bonded steel [14] Taljsten B. Strengthening of beams by plate bonding. J Mater
plates. The Struct Engr 1988;66(5):85–94. Civil Eng, ASCE 1997;9(4):206–12.
[2] Vilnay O. The analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened [15] Buyukozturk O, Hearing B. Failure behaviour of pre-cracked con-
by epoxy bonded steel plates. Int J Cement Compos Lightweight crete beams retrofitted with FRP. J Compos Construct, ASCE
Concrete 1988;10(2):73–8. 1998;2(3):138–44.
[3] Roberts TM. Approximate analysis of shear and normal stress [16] Malek AM, Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. Prediction of failure
concentrations in the adhesive layer of plated RC beams. The load of R/C beams strengthened with FRP plate due to stress
Struct Engr 1989;67(12):229–33. concentration at the plate end. ACI Struct J 1998;95(1):142–52.
[4] Roberts TM, Haji-Kazemi H. Theoretical study of the behaviour [17] Saadatmanesh H, Malek AM. Design guidelines for flexural
of reinforced concrete beams strengthened by externally bonded strengthening of RC beams with FRP plates. J Compos Construct,
steel plates. Proc Instn Civil Engrs 1989;87(Part 2):39–55. ASCE 1998;2(4):158–64.
[5] Oehlers DJ, Moran JP. Premature failure of externally plated [18] Swamy RN, Mukhopadhyaya P. Debonding of carbon-fibre-
reinforced concrete beams. J Struct Eng, ASCE reinforced polymer plate from concrete beams. Proc Instn Civil
1990;116(4):979–95. Eng — Struct Bldgs 1999;134:301–17.
[6] Oehlers DJ. Reinforced concrete beams with plates glued to their [19] Raoof M, El-Rimawi JA, Hassanen MAH. Theoretical and
soffits. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1992;118(8):2023–38. experimental study on externally plated RC beams. Eng Struct
[7] Sharif A, Al-Sulaimani GJ, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Ghaleb 2000;22(1):85–101.
BN. Strengthening of initially loaded reinforced concrete beams [20] Rabinovich O, Frostig Y. Closed-form high-order analysis of RC
using FRP plates. ACI Struct J 1994;91(2):160–8. beams strengthened with FRP strips. J Compos Construct, ASCE
[8] Chajes MJ, Thomson TA Jr., Januszka TF, Finch WW Jr.. Flex- 2000;4(2):65–74.
ural strengthening of concrete beams using externally bonded [21] Shen HS, Teng JG, Yang J. Interfacial stresses in beams and slabs
composite materials. Construct Bldg Mater 1994;8(3):191–201. bonded with a thin plate. J Eng Mech, ASCE, (in press).
[9] Liu Z, Zhu B. Analytical solutions for R/C beams strengthened [22] Broughton JG, Beevers A, Hutchinson AR. Carbon-fibre-
by externally bonded steel plates. J Tongji Univ 1994;22(1):21– reinforced plastic (CFRP) strengthening of aluminium extrusions.
6 (in Chinese). Int J Adhes Adhes 1997;17:269–78.