22 views

Uploaded by Farhan Shahid

- FE-Lab-1.pdf
- 1745e5311c4a5edc90aef0c48df8435fed2b.pdf
- Training Report at Structural Consultancy
- Shear Stress
- Machine Design
- Phd Syllabus
- L5 Formula Sheet
- Syllabus
- AE310 Syllabus Schedule 2013
- trunnion.
- CVEN214- Lecture 1 Stress -Dr. Wael Alnahhal
- 53
- An Introduction to Mechanics of Solids>>>>
- Shear,Diag Tension in Rcc Beams
- GATE Paper Mechanical Engineering 2003
- Design a Strapped Footing - New
- lec1
- Design of Concrete Strctures
- 02. Beam_02
- 107

You are on page 1of 15

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

*

S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng

Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

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

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

of beam considered* considered*

deformations of considered* considered*

plate

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

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

deformations of

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

beam

equations only)

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)

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)

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

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

冊

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)

冕

x

0

(11) ⫽⫺ 冉

Ga y1+y2

V (x)⫺

ta E1I1+E2I2 T 冊

Ga y1 dq

ta G1aA1dx

(20)

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

⫽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

⫽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)

冊

⫹ 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)]

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

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.

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-

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

expression for the interfacial shear stress at any point

t(x)⫽ 冋

m2a

2

(L⫺a)⫺m1

l 册

q e−lx L

冉

⫹m1q ⫺a⫺x .

2 冊 (48)

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

冉 冊

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

冦

b

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

L

⫽

冉 冊 冉 冊

冦

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

⫽

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

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

冊

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

| |

冦

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)

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)

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.

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

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

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

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

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].

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

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.

- FE-Lab-1.pdfUploaded bykhudhayer1970
- 1745e5311c4a5edc90aef0c48df8435fed2b.pdfUploaded byJorge Gonzalez
- Training Report at Structural ConsultancyUploaded byKaushal Patel
- Shear StressUploaded byManoj Hande
- Machine DesignUploaded byKazi Mehdi
- Phd SyllabusUploaded byAnkush Pendhari Jain
- L5 Formula SheetUploaded bydaveasquith
- SyllabusUploaded byAnonymous SEDun6PW
- AE310 Syllabus Schedule 2013Uploaded byChristopher Daniel
- trunnion.Uploaded byGowtham Jayaprakash
- CVEN214- Lecture 1 Stress -Dr. Wael AlnahhalUploaded byNadeenMohamed
- 53Uploaded byMaddhu Dusari
- An Introduction to Mechanics of Solids>>>>Uploaded byRaushan Jha
- Shear,Diag Tension in Rcc BeamsUploaded bykrishna kumar
- GATE Paper Mechanical Engineering 2003Uploaded byMechmagics
- Design a Strapped Footing - NewUploaded byShubhankar Khare
- lec1Uploaded byThiaga Rajan
- Design of Concrete StrcturesUploaded byapi-3696315
- 02. Beam_02Uploaded byEngr Swapan
- 107Uploaded byFelipeAndrésArriagadaMartínez
- Nasa Double Lap BoltedUploaded byfrancesca
- Cypecad vs Etabs En2 BisUploaded byidalicar
- 6 1 Shearing StressesUploaded byAhmad Tamimi
- Cylinder BreeUploaded byMark Nassef Naguib
- ARE - Formulas to RememberUploaded byBhaiJan59
- <!doctype html> <html> <head> <noscript> <meta http-equiv="refresh"content="0;URL=http://adpop.telkomsel.com/ads-request?t=3&j=0&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribd.com%2Ftitlecleaner%3Ftitle%3DDESIGN%2BDETAILS%2BOF%2BTHE%2BGROUND%2BFLOOR.docx"/> </noscript> <link href="http://adpop.telkomsel.com:8004/COMMON/css/ibn_20131029.min.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> </head> <body> <script type="text/javascript">p={'t':3};</script> <script type="text/javascript">var b=location;setTimeout(function(){if(typeof window.iframe=='undefined'){b.href=b.href;}},15000);</script> <script src="http://adpop.telkomsel.com:8004/COMMON/js/if_20131029.min.js"></script> <script src="http://adpop.telkomsel.com:8004/COMMON/js/ibn_20131107.min.js"></script> </body> </html>Uploaded bySamban FC Barcelona Mania
- RACSOTUploaded byIonutRacanel
- Mech260 Final Exam 2Uploaded byAkshivBansal
- exp6_03Uploaded byRohit Sarode
- 14.2042012assignment07and08solutionsUploaded byAbdullrahman Ahmed

- AAB - Example Problems HandoutUploaded by700spymaster007
- design of single storey rcc framed buildingUploaded byBaba Maisam Shabir
- Me SyllabusUploaded bysyampnaidu
- Bridge Engineering Steel BridgeUploaded by최광민
- Comparison of Out-Of-plane Tensile Moduli of CFRP LaminatesUploaded bykishore
- Detailing of ReinforcementUploaded bysoroware
- Hicks Presentation at the IIE Conference 2012Uploaded byStephen Hicks
- U4_L21-SHAPE-FACTORS.pdfUploaded byDevesh Sharma
- CFD-TS-500-2000Uploaded bysertackcdg
- GODREJ - PART II.docUploaded byMari Muthu
- API 650 Tank DesignUploaded byBerk Koç
- Strength of MaterialsUploaded byyuva1431
- Wood Shear Wall and Diaphragm DeflectionUploaded byFranklin Garcia
- Rly_QuestionBankUploaded byVenkata Rao
- Peltola h.Uploaded byvfanghelina
- Tests of Knee Joints in Cold-Formed Rectangular Hollow SectionsUploaded bystevehuppert
- Bs 5268 Part 7 Sec 7.1Uploaded byPubudu
- RAPT Release NotesUploaded bySteve Taylor
- Fluctuating StressesUploaded bydvarsastry
- A Multi-fiber Approach for Modeling Corroded Reinforced Concrete StructuresUploaded byMehdi Kashani
- AWC-TR12-1510Uploaded byJelean Naval
- practical civil.pdfUploaded bymkrun2007
- Curriculum Civil Engineering(1)Uploaded byAnonymous mnyCjzP5
- Manual Beam.2dUploaded byAugus Vel Fernandez
- 2-45-1448527108-1. Ijams - Welded Beam Design Paper_1_ (1)Uploaded byHakan Gulcan
- MechanicsMaterials2MadhukarVable - By Www.easyengineering.netUploaded byepe civil
- Automobile Syllabus With Books 24 June 2010 From AryaUploaded byPrashant Mittal
- b.tech 2-1 r15 MeUploaded bysadiksnm
- MBA_MCA__Broucher_2016.pdfUploaded byRagunathan Narayanan
- IES OBJ Mechanical Engineering 2008 Paper IIUploaded byAnuj Sankaran