ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 104-S41
Flexural Behavior of Concrete Beams Strengthened with
Near-Surface-Mounted CFRP Strips
by Joseph Robert Yost, Shawn P. Gross, David W. Dinehart, and Jason J. Mildenberg
Flexural strengthening using near-surface mounted (NSM) fiber-
reinforced polymer (FRP) materials is a promising technology. As
NSM reinforcement, the FRP is surrounded by concrete on three
sides so the bond and damage problems associated with externally
bonded FRP strengthening systems are reduced or eliminated. This
paper presents experimental results from 12 full-scale concrete
beams strengthened with NSM carbon FRP (CFRP) strips. Three
companion unstrengthened specimens were also tested to serve as a
control. Experimental variables include three different ratios of steel
reinforcement ρs and two different ratios of CFRP reinforcement
ρfrp . Yield and ultimate strengths, flexural failure modes, and ductility
are discussed based on measured load, deflection, and strain data.
Test results show measurable increases in yield and ultimate
strengths; predictable nominal strengths and failure modes; and
effective force transfer between the CFRP, epoxy grout, and
surrounding concrete. Also, strengthening with CFRP resulted in a
decrease in both energy ductility and deflection ductility.
Keywords: beam; polymer; reinforcement; strength.
INTRODUCTION
In-service steel-reinforced concrete flexural members may
require strengthening due to material decay of the internal
reinforcement and surrounding concrete, errant design and
construction practice, increased service loads, and unforeseen
settlement and structural damage. These conditions require
structural retrofit to increase the flexural strength of the
section. A popular method of increasing the flexural strength
of beams, walls, and slabs is through external bonding of
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) plates and sheets. FRP materials
are characterized by high tensile strength and low unit
weight, and they are noncorrosive when exposed to chloride
environments. An excellent summary of research in this area
is available by Teng et al. (2002) and ACI has published a
design guide for strengthening concrete structures with
externally-bonded FRP materials (ACI Committee 440 2002).
Premature failure of externally-bonded FRP plates and
sheets can occur before the ultimate flexural capacity of the
strengthened section is achieved. This is typically due to
bond failure between the FRP and concrete or tensile peeling
of the cover concrete. Available research documenting this
behavior is abundant. Brena et al. (2003) reported debonding
of longitudinal carbon FRP (CFRP) sheets at deformation
levels less than half the deformation capacity of control
specimens. Nguyen et al. (2001) observed only a limited
increase in flexural capacity for beams strengthened with
partial length longitudinal CFRP sheets due to premature
delamination, or ripping, of the concrete cover surrounding
the steel reinforcement. For beams strengthened with CFRP
plate and fabric systems, Grace et al. (2002) identified brittle
failure by shear tension and debonding, respectively. Shin
and Lee (2003) reported failure of beams held under
sustained load and strengthened with CFRP laminates due to
430
TECHNICAL PAPER
Fig. 1—Concrete member strengthened in flexure with
NSM FRP.
rip-off type failure of the CFRP at loads well below the ultimate
flexural capacity of the sections. Similar results have been
reported by Rahimi and Hutchinson (2001), Bencardino et al.
(2002), Arduini and Nanni (1997), Sharif et al. (1994),
Saadatmanesh (1994), and Mukhopadhyaya and Swamy
(1999). In addition to problems associated with bond failure,
external FRP plates are vulnerable to mechanical, thermal,
and environmental damage. It should be noted, however, that
mechanical anchors can be used to improve the peel resistance
of externally bonded FRP.
In response to the detrimental conditions associated with
externally bonded FRP, engineers have proposed relocating
the strengthening FRP material from the unprotected exterior of
the concrete to the protected interior. This technology is
referred to as near-surface mounted (NSM) strengthening
and is shown in Fig. 1. The surrounding concrete now protects
the FRP so that mechanical and thermal damage is unlikely.
Other advantages of using NSM FRP technology include
improved bond and force transfer with the surrounding concrete
and the ability to increase the negative bending strength of
bridge decks, pavements, and other structural riding surfaces.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This paper documents behavior of full-scale test beams
strengthened in flexure with NSM CFRP strips and tested to
failure in four-point bending. The parameters of steel and
FRP reinforcement ratios are investigated. Concrete strength,
shear span-to-depth ratio, and steel reinforcement ratios were
selected as typical for concrete flexural components in the
civil infrastructure. Theory related to failure modes and strength
models are evaluated based on comparison with the test data.
It is expected that the conclusions reported will ultimately
contribute to the development of a design guide for using NSM
FRP for flexural strengthening of concrete beams and slabs.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.
MS No. S-2006-212 received May 25, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-
June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007
Joseph Robert Yost is an Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
Villanova University, Villanova, Pa. His research interests include the use of innovative
materials in transportation infrastructure, nondestructive methods for health monitoring
of structures, and seismic design and analysis of bridges.
ACI member Shawn P. Gross is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at Villanova University. He is Secretary of Joint
ACI-ASCE Committee 423, Prestressed Concrete, and a member of ACI Committees 213,
Lightweight Aggregate and Concrete; 363, High-Strength Concrete; 435, Deflection of
Concrete Building Structures; 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; and
E803, Faculty Network Coordinating Committee. His research interests include the
design and behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, including the
use of high-strength concrete and fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement.
David W. Dinehart is an Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
Villanova University. His research interests include seismic evaluation of wood structures,
passive damping systems, and the design and behavior of concrete and steel structures.
Jason J. Mildenberg is a Structural Engineer with Schoor De Palma of Brick, Manalapan,
N.J. He received an MS in civil engineering from Villanova University.
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Nanni (2000) compared the behavior of full-scale simply
supported highway bridge deck panels strengthened in flexure
with either externally bonded CFRP laminates or internally
placed NSM CFRP bars. Failure of the CFRP laminate
reinforced deck spans was through a combination of rupture
and peeling of the CFRP laminates. The NSM CFRP-reinforced
span failed by tensile rupture of the CFRP bars. Relative to the
capacity of an unstrengthened control deck, moment strength
increases of 17 and 29% were reported for decks retrofitted
with externally bonded CFRP laminates and internally placed
NSM CFRP bars, respectively.
DeLorenzis et al. (2000) tested three steel-reinforced
concrete T-beams strengthened in flexure with NSM glass
FRP (GFRP) and NSM CFRP bars. The CFRP retrofitted
beams experienced increases in strength of 30% (two No. 3
CFRP bars) and 44% (two No. 4 CFRP bars) over an
unstrengthened control specimen. Both CFRP strengthened
beams failed due to debonding of the NSM rods. The specimen
strengthened with two No. 4 GFRP bars also failed due to
debonding of the NSM GFRP bars at a load 26% higher than
the control specimen. The authors reported that bond is critical
to using this technology effectively. Bond failure of the
NSM FRP bars was also identified by DeLorenzis and Nanni
(2001) as in need of further investigation. Debonding of the
NSM FRP bars due to splitting of the epoxy used for holding
the rod in place was reported. It was suggested that this
failure limit-state could possibly be avoided by increasing
bond lengths or anchoring the NSM rods in the flange.
Significantly, the authors reported that, where debonding of
the NSM FRP bars is prevented, splitting of the concrete
cover surrounding the longitudinal steel bars might become
the controlling ultimate limit-state. Loss of anchorage was
observed in several of their test specimens. In a related
experimental bond study, DeLorenzis et al. (2004) state that
epoxy is superior to cement paste as the groove filler material,
a groove size-to-bar diameter of 2.0 is optimal, and a smooth
grove surface yields slightly lower local bond strengths, but is
preferable because it yields a more ductile bond-slip behavior.
Taljsten and Carolin (2001) evaluated four rectangular
concrete beams subjected to four-point bending and
monotonically loaded in deformation control. Three of the
test beams were strengthened with NSM CFRP strips and the
fourth served as a control specimen. Two of the three
strengthened beams used an epoxy for bonding the FRP and
the third used a cement grout. Test results showed that two of
the three retrofitted beams failed due to anchorage loss
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007
Fig. 2—Test setup.
between the NSM FRP strips and concrete. The third
strengthened beam failed due to tensile rupture of the FRP
strip. Predicted failure loads overestimated measured strengths.
El-Hacha and Rizkalla (2004) compared the behavior of
beams strengthened on an equal axial stiffness basis using
NSM FRP bars and strips and externally bonded FRP laminates.
Their research showed that higher ultimate strengths and
increased ductility were achieved by the NSM strengthened
specimens. They also noted that bond integrity of NSM FRP
bars was less effective than for NSM FRP strips.
Together, these research findings demonstrate that bond
integrity can not be taken for granted and that bond related
limit states must also be considered for NSM FRP. DeLorenzis
and Nanni (2002) suggest that bond performance will be
influenced by multiple factors including bond length, NSM
FRP bar diameter and surface characteristic, material charac-
teristics of the FRP, groove geometry, and properties of the
epoxy grout. Their experimental bond tests showed three
bond related failure modes, namely, splitting of the epoxy
cover, cracking of the concrete surrounding the grove, and
pullout of the NSM FRP rod.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
This experimental investigation consisted of testing 15 simply
supported full-scale concrete beams in flexure and material
characterization of the CFRP, steel reinforcement, and concrete.
All test beams had a shear-span-to-steel-reinforcement-depth
ratio av /ds of 8.4. This ratio was intentionally selected so that
ultimate strength would be controlled by flexural failure and
not shear failure. The test setup and associated specimen
details are shown in Fig. 2.
The 15 test beams were separated into three groups of five
beams, with all beams in a given group having the same
cross section and steel reinforcement ratio ρs. Within each
group of five beams, two beams had one CFRP strip
(designated 6-1Fa&b, 9-1Fa&b, and 12-1Fa&b), two beams
had two CFRP strips (designated 6-2Fa&b, 9-2Fa&b, and
12-2Fa&b), and one beam acted as a control with no CFRP
(designated 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C). Note that beams identified as
a and b are replicate specimens. Thus, the two parameters
investigated in the study are the amount of steel and CFRP
reinforcements. Table 1 presents the unstrengthened steel
reinforcement ratio ρs relative to a balanced design ρs /ρsb.
431
Table 1—Specimen design and predicted strength parameters
Specimen ρs/ρsb* Afb, mm2 (in.2) Af /Afb Failure type†‡ ff-ult, MPa (ksi) Mn, kN-mm (kip-in.) Pn , kN (kip)§ Pn/PnC
6-C NA SY/CC NA 23,068 (204.2) 18.92 (4.25) 1
6-1Fa&b 0.684 –38.86 (–0.060) –0.85 CC 810 (117.4) 26,606 (235.5) 21.82 (4.91) 1.15
6-2Fa&b –1.69 CC 709 (102.8) 29,168 (258.2) 23.92 (5.38) 1.26
9-C NA SY/CC NA 25,104 (222.2) 20.59 (4.63) 1
9-1Fa&b 0.470 –1.04 (–0.0016) –31.66 CC 1276 (185) 31,221 (276.3) 25.61 (5.76) 1.24
9-2Fa&b –63.31 CC 1091 (158) 35,415 (313.5) 29.05 (6.53) 1.41
12-C NA SY/CC NA 25,790 (228.3) 21.15 (4.76) 1
12-1Fa&b 0.353 38.94 (0.060) 0.84 TR 1648 (239) 34,071 (301.6) 27.95 (6.28) 1.32
12-2Fa&b 1.69 CC 1436 (208.2) 40,023 (354.2) 32.83 (7.38) 1.55
*ρ = As /bds and ρsb = 0.85(fc′/fy)β1(εcu)/(εcu + εsy) is unstrengthened balanced reinforcement ratio.
s
†
SY = steel yield, CC = concrete compression failure, TR = tensile rupture of FRP.
‡For all samples with CC failure, steel has yielded at ultimate as per analysis of Eq. (4).
§P = M /1219 mm (M /48 in.).
n n n

(PennDOT 2001). The mixture design was selected as typical

Fig. 3—CFRP and tensile test results.
Fig. 4—Specimen preparation.
The ratios of 0.353, 0.470, and 0.684 were selected as typical
for existing structures.
All specimens were instrumented with a concrete strain
gauge located on the top compression fiber at the center
span. Strengthened Specimens 6-1Fb, 6-2Fb, 9-1Fb, 9-2Fb,
12-1Fb, and 12-2Fb had an additional strain gauge bonded to
the CFRP at the center span. Linear variable displacement
transducers (LVDTs) were used to measure displacement at
the center span.
Concrete for the test specimens was delivered to the
laboratory by a concrete supplier. The concrete was in
accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT) Class AAA, Concrete for Bridge Decks, with
design specifications and properties given in BD-601M
for bridge decks and is given as follows: water 1530 N/m3
(263 lb/yd3), cement 3967 N/m3 (682 lb/yd3), coarse aggregate
1784 lb/yd3, fine aggregate 7242 N/m3 (1245 lb/yd3), air entrain-
ment 30 N/m3 (3 oz/yd3), and retarder 196 N/m3 (20 oz/yd3). The
slump at specimen casting was 101.6 mm (4 in.), and the
33-day compressive strength as determined by ASTM C 684-99
(ASTM 1999) using 100 mm (4 in.) diameter by 200 mm (8 in.)
high cylinders was 37.2 MPa (5.4 ksi) for all beams. Yield
strength of the steel reinforcement was determined from
uniaxial coupon testing to be 510 MPa (74 ksi) for No. 4 bars
and 490 MPa (71 ksi) for the No. 5 bars. Elastic modulus Es
is taken as 200 GPa (29,000 ksi).
The CFRP strips have a thin rectangular cross section that
measures approximately 15 x 2.5 mm (0.60 x 0.10 in.), and the
surface of the wide face is roughened to enhance force
transfer with the concrete epoxy grout. A photo of the CFRP
reinforcement with associated instrumentation detail can be
seen in Fig. 3(a). The material composition is 60% 4137 MPa
(600 ksi) carbon fiber by volume in a bisphenol epoxy
vinylester resin matrix. The CFRP elastic modulus Ef and
ultimate tensile strength ffu were determined from testing
uniaxial coupon specimens according to ACI Committee
440 (2004). Test results are shown in Fig. 3(b) from which
Ef and ffu were determined to be 136 GPa and 1648 MPa
(19,765 and 239 ksi), respectively.
Installation of the NSM CFRP strips is shown in Fig. 4 and
described as follows. First, the beams were rotated 180 degrees
about the long axis so that the steel reinforcement was at the
top of the beam. Next a rectangular groove approximately
6.4 mm (1/4 in.) wide by 19 mm (3/4 in.) deep was cut
longitudinally in the concrete where the CFRP was to be
installed. The groove was cut using a hand-held circular with
an 18 cm (7 in.) diameter diamond-tooth, abrasive cutting
blade. The saw was fitted with a rip guide, so that the distance
from the edge of the beam to the blade could be set and
maintained during cutting. The depth of the blade was set to
19 mm (3/4 in.) by adjusting the saw. The saw blade was just
over 3.2 mm (1/8 in.) wide so that two passes were made to
achieve the required width. For test specimens having one
CFRP strip, the longitudinal groove was located at the center
of the cross section; and for specimens having two CFRP
strips, the grooves were located at the 1/3 points in the cross
section. Next, the groove was thoroughly cleaned of debris
with compressed air and then partially filled with a structural
epoxy material that bonds with the concrete and FRP to

432 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

provide a mechanism for force transfer. The epoxy grout
used was a two-part epoxy. Finally, the FRP was depressed
into the groove, where care was taken to ensure that no air
voids were trapped within the epoxy gel. Excess epoxy gel
was then cleaned from the concrete surface and curing was
done for a minimum of 2 weeks.
All beams were tested monotonically from an uncracked
condition. Two 90 kN (10 ton) hydraulic cylinders, located
152 mm (6 in.) on either side of center span and controlled
by a manually-operated pump, were used to apply load at an
approximate rate of 4.5 kN/minute (1 kip/minute). A load
cell was located under each hydraulic cylinder to measure
applied load. Electronic signals from the strain gauges
(concrete and CFRP), LVDTs, and load cell were recorded
by a 16-bit data acquisition system at a frequency of 1 Hz.
ANALYTICAL STRENGTH
Figure 5 illustrates the assumed basic analytical conditions
of internal strain, stress, and resultant force for a cracked
section at ultimate that is under-reinforced with steel (ρs < ρsb)
and strengthened with FRP. From Fig. 5, the following
assumptions are implicit: strain varies linearly through the
cross section, the section is initially uncracked, perfect bond
exists between the steel and FRP reinforcements and
concrete, the concrete strain at compression failure is 0.003,
the Whitney rectangular stress block in the compression
zone is a valid substitution for a nonlinear stress distribution
at ultimate, and the steel stress-strain behavior is assumed to
be elastic-plastic. Also noted in Fig. 5, because the section is
initially uncracked and df > ds, the FRP strain εf will slightly
exceed the steel strain εs.
The theoretical nominal flexural strength Mn of an initially
uncracked beam that is under-reinforced with steel (ρs < ρsb)
and strengthened with FRP is dependent on the amount of
FRP provided (Af) relative to the FRP area corresponding to
a balanced-strengthened strain condition (Afb). In this context,
balanced-strengthened represents simultaneous tensile rupture
of the FRP and compression failure of the concrete. Again,
for an initially uncracked section with df > ds and εf = εfu in
Fig. 5, by default the steel for a balanced-strengthened
design will have yielded (εs > εsy). Using these assumptions
and strain limits, and considering compatibility and equilibrium,
the theoretical balanced-strengthened area of FRP is
⎧ ε cu ⎫
0.85f′ c bβ 1 d f ⎨ -------------------
⎩ ε cu + ε fu ⎭
A fb = -------------------------------------------------------------------------
f fu
Using Eq. (1) as a theoretical FRP reinforcement limit, failure
will be tensile rupture of the FRP when Af > Afb , or compression
failure of the concrete, when Af < Afb. It is noted that Afb can be
either positive or negative, depending on the existing amount of
steel reinforcement present (As). For a negative result from
Eq. (1), Af provided will always be greater than Afb, indicating a
compression failure of the concrete. Strain distributions for FRP
failure, balanced-strengthened, and compression failure are
shown in Fig. 5(b). For sections controlled by FRP failure, the
compression block depth a and nominal moment strength at
ultimate Mn are calculated from equilibrium as follows
Af f fu + As f y
a = -------------------------- for A f < A fb
0.85f c ′b
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007
Fig. 5—Analytical model at ultimate.
M n = Af f fu ⎛ d f – a
---⎞ + As f y ⎛ d s – a
---⎞ for A f < A fb (2b)
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
For sections controlled by concrete crushing, the stress level
in the steel is initially unknown, as is shown in Fig. 5(b). It
can be determined by fixing the steel and concrete strains at
yield εsy and crushing εcu, respectively, calculating the steel
area corresponding to yield Asy, and comparing this with the
area of steel present As. From Fig. 5(b), this is as follows
ε cu ⎞ d
0.85f c ′bβ 1 d s ⎛ ------------------- - – A f E f ε sy ⎛ ----f ⎞
⎝ ε cu + ε sy⎠ ⎝ d s⎠
A sy = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3)
fy
Accordingly, for As ≤ Asy, the steel stress is equal to fy. Likewise,
for As > Asy, the steel stress is less than fy and must be determined
from compatibility and equilibrium. Using this procedure,
the steel stress at ultimate for all specimens controlled by
concrete failure in this study was equal to yield. With the
steel stress at yield, the compression block a, stress in the
FRP reinforcement ff, and nominal moment capacity Mn for
sections controlled by concrete failure are found from
compatibility and equilibrium as follows
2
( A f E f ε cu – A s f y ) + 4 ( 0.85 )f c ′bβ 1 A f E f ε cu d f – ( A f E f ε cu – A s f y ) (4a)
a = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( 2 )0.85f c ′b
( df – α ⁄ β1 )
f f = E f ε cu ---------------------------
- ≤ f fu (4b)
α ⁄ β1
⎬ – As fy Mu = Af ff ⎛ df – a
---⎞ + A s fy ⎛ d s – a
---⎞ (4c)
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
(1)
The preceding analysis is offered as an alternative to the trial
and error procedure set forth by ACI Committee 440 (2002)
and yields identical results as would be obtained using the
ACI 440.2R procedure. Table 1 summarizes relevant design
and strength parameters. Moment strength Mn was calculated
using the measured material strengths for the steel, CFRP,
and concrete. It is evident from Table 1 that, for a given area
of FRP Af , the relative increase in strength Pn/PnC is
inversely proportional to the amount of steel reinforcement.
TEST RESULTS
Load-deflection and load-strain results are shown in Fig. 6 and
summarized in Table 2. Typical photos at failure are shown in
Fig. 7. The applied cylinder loads plotted in Fig. 6 and recorded
in Table 2 have been corrected to include the self-weight
(2a) bending effects of the beam. Moment equivalence at center span
433
Fig. 6—Load-deflection and load-strain results. Fig. 7—Test specimens at failure.

Table 2—Summary of test results

Measured
Theory Yield Ultimate Comparison
Sample ID Pn, kN (kip) Py, kN (kip) Mechanism type* Pmax, kN (k) Py /PyC Average Pmax/PmaxC Average Pmax/Py Average Pmax/Pn
6-C (control) 18.9 (4.25) 19 (4.28) SY/CC 21.12 (4.75) 1 1 1 — 1.11 — 1.12
6-1Fa 20.9 (4.69) CC 24.83 (5.58) 1.10 1.18 1.19 1.14
21.8 (4.91) 1.11 1.14 1.14
6-1Fb 21.3 (4.78) CC 23.24 (5.23) 1.12 1.10 1.09 1.06
6-2Fa 24.4 (5.48) CC 24.99 (5.62) 1.28 1.18 1.02 1.04
23.9 (5.38) 1.29 1.23 1.06
6-2Fb 24.7 (5.56) CC 26.94 (6.06) 1.30 1.28 1.09 1.13
9-C (control) 20.6 (4.63) 22.4 (5.03) SY/CC 25.29 (5.69) 1 1 1 — 1.13 — 1.23
9-1Fa 25.3 (5.70) CC 28.22 (6.34) 1.13 1.12 1.11 1.10
25.6 (5.76) 1.11 1.11 1.13
9-1Fb 24.5 (5.50) CC 27.93 (6.28) 1.09 1.10 1.14 1.09
9-2Fa 27.7 (6.22) CC 37.05 (8.33) 1.24 1.47 1.34 1.28
29.0 (6.53) 1.18 1.44 1.38
9-2Fb 25.0 (5.63) CC 35.82 (8.05) 1.12 1.42 1.43 1.23
12-C (control) 21.2 (4.76) 21.5 (4.84) SY/CC 23.52 (5.29) 1 1 1 — 1.09 — 1.11
12-1Fa 24.7 (5.56) TR 29.59 (6.65) 1.15 1.26 1.20 1.06
27.9 (6.28) 1.18 1.29 1.20
12-1Fb 25.9 (5.81) TR 31.01 (6.97) 1.20 1.32 1.20 1.11
12-2Fa 26.5 (5.97) CC 33.80 (7.60) 1.23 1.44 1.27 1.03
32.8 (7.38) 1.27 1.61 1.38
12-2Fb 28.0 (6.30) CC 41.77 (9.39) 1.30 1.78 1.49 1.27
*
SY = steel yield, CC = concrete crushing, TR = CFRP tensile rupture.

was used to calculate an equivalent concentrated force Peq that
was added to all laboratory measured load data. Moment
equivalence at center span is expressed as {1/8wbeamL2} =
{Peqav}. From Fig. 3, Peq for the 152, 230, and 305 mm (6,
9, and 12 in.) wide specimens is calculated to be 0.50, 0.77,
and 1.0 kN (0.115, 0.172, and 0.230 kips), respectively.
From Fig. 6, the physical effects of supplemental strengthening
with CFRP are clearly evident when strengthened specimens
are compared with companion control (unstrengthened)
specimens. All specimens strengthened with CFRP showed
a significant increase in ultimate strength when compared
with the companion control specimens. To a lesser degree,
strengthening with CFRP increased stiffness and yield load.
Detailed discussions of the test results for control and
strengthened specimens are presented in the following sections.
Control specimens: 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C
Referring to the load-deflection behavior of control
Specimens 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C, the ductile behavior charac-
teristic of under-reinforced steel flexural (ρs < ρsb) members

434 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

is apparent. Initially, all sections are uncracked and gross
section properties apply (Ig). At the cracking load Pcr,
behavior changes from uncracked to cracked-elastic. As load
is increased further, the section responds elastically until the
yield strength of the steel reinforcement fy is reached. At the
yield load Py, behavior changes from cracked-elastic to
inelastic. For Specimens 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C, steel yield
occurred at 19, 22.4, and 21.5 kN (4.28, 5.03, and 4.84 kips),
respectively. The yield load corresponds to a flattening of the
load-deflection trace and simultaneous inflection in the
concrete load-strain response. Yield is followed by a load plateau
where the moment capacity of the section remains roughly
constant. The load plateau is clearly visible for Specimens 9-C
and 12-C, and to a lesser degree for Specimen 6-C.
At the ultimate load Pmax, failure occurred by concrete
crushing. Ultimate load for Specimens 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C
was 21.1, 25.3, and 23.5 kN (4.75, 5.69, and 5.29 kips),
respectively. For all control specimens, the ultimate load
Pmax was approximately 12% greater than the yield load Py.
The measured failure loads for Specimens 6-C, 9-C, and 12-C
were 12, 23, and 11%, respectively, greater than the theoretical
nominal capacity Pn.
Specimens strengthened with one CFRP strip:
6-1Fa&b, 9-1Fa&b, and 12-1Fa&b
For specimens strengthened with one CFRP strip, the change
from cracked-elastic to inelastic behavior (yield point) is less
abrupt and the associated reduction in the slope of the load-
deflection curve is less than for the control specimens. This
is especially true for specimens with a large relative amount of
steel reinforcement ρs/ρsb. Referring to Fig. 6, for Specimens
6-1Fa&b, the change in stiffness at ensuing nonlinear load-
deflection response associated with steel yielding is negligible.
These specimens have the largest relative area of steel
reinforcement equal to 0.68ρsb. For Specimens 9-1Fa&b and
12-1Fa&b, however, the change in stiffness after steel yield
is more apparent. These specimens were reinforced with
0.47ρsb and 0.34ρsb, respectively.
The mechanism of failure at ultimate for all specimens in
this group is consistent with that predicted using the theory
outlined previously and summarized in Table 1. As can be
seen in Table 2, all 152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in.) wide specimens
strengthened with one CFRP strip failed by crushing of the
concrete. For these specimens, the CFRP did not rupture
prior to concrete crushing, indicating that the strain level was
less than the ultimate material strength. For the 305 mm (12 in.)
wide specimens with one CFRP strip, however, the CFRP
reinforcement did rupture at ultimate. This was followed by
compression failure in the concrete. Thus, the bond between
the CFRP and concrete for Specimens 12-1Fa&b was able to
develop the tensile strength of the CFRP strip. Also, for all
samples in this group, no debonding or slip between the
CFRP strip and concrete was observed (refer to Fig. 7(b)).
When compared with control specimens, the average yield
and ultimate loads for Specimens 6-1Fa&b, 9-1Fa&b, and
12-1Fa&b increased by 11%, 11, and 18%, and 14%, 11, and
29%, respectively. Thus, the relative increase in yield Py and
ultimate Pmax loads for the 152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in.)
wide specimens strengthened with one CFRP strip relative to
the respective control specimens (PyC and PmaxC) was roughly
the same and taken approximately as 11%. For the 305 mm
(12 in.) wide specimens, the yield load increased by 18% and
the ultimate load increased by 29%. Therefore, a greater
increase in both yield and ultimate load capacities was
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007
achieved for the 305 mm (12 in.) wide specimens than for the
152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in.) wide specimens. This is
verification that the increase in strength is inversely
proportional to the relative area of steel reinforcement (ρs/ρbs).
For the strengthened specimens in this group, the average
ultimate loads Pmax were between 13 and 20% greater than
the average yield loads Py. Thus, the strength increase
between yield and ultimate limit states is slightly greater for
these specimens than for the control specimens (which was
approximately 12%). This is expected and represents the
additional tensile capacity provided by the CFRP after steel
yield, which is not available for the control specimens.
All specimens failed at loads slightly in excess of their
respective predicted nominal flexural strength Pn. Referring
to Table 2, the measured failure loads Pmax were between 6%
(6-1Fb) and 14% (6-1Fa) greater than the theoretical strength
Pn. The magnitude and range of this comparison suggest that
the analytical model and associated assumptions used in Eq. (2)
and (4) are acceptable for predicting the flexural capacity of
these four test specimens.
Specimens strengthened with two CFRP strips:
6-2Fa&b, 9-2Fa&b, and 12-2Fa&b
Referring to Fig. 6, the change from cracked-elastic to
inelastic behavior for the 230 and 305 mm (9 and 12 in.)
wide specimens reinforced with two CFRP strips can still be
seen. For the 152 mm (6 in.) wide specimens strengthened
with two CFRP strips, however, this change from elastic to
inelastic behavior is much less obvious from the load-deflection
graphs. The load-strain curve for Specimen 6-2Fb, however,
shows a clear redistribution of tensile force to the CFRP as a
result of steel yield. It is therefore concluded that the steel
did yield for these specimens (6-2Fa&b).
Failure of all 152, 230, and 305 mm (6, 9, and 12 in.) wide
specimens reinforced with two CFRP strips occurred by
concrete crushing. This is consistent with the failure mode
predicted in Table 1. After concrete crushing, the 305 mm
(12 in.) wide specimens were further deformed until rupture
of the CFRP occurred. This rupture is significant in that it
again confirmed that force transfer is sufficient to develop
the full tensile capacity of the CFRP strip.
For all specimens, there was a significant increase in yield
load Py relative to the respective companion control specimens
PyC. Referring to Table 2, the yield loads for 152, 230, and
305 mm (6, 9, and 12 in.) wide specimens reinforced with
two CFRP strips increased by 29, 18, and 27% over the
control, respectively. Comparing results, the yield load
increase for specimens with two CFRP strips was significantly
higher than for specimens with one CFRP strip. Relative to the
control specimens, the increase in ultimate load Pmax for the
152, 230, and 305 mm (6, 9, and 12 in.) wide specimens was
23, 44, and 61%, respectively. The trend in these values is
consistent with those listed in Table 1, where the gain in
ultimate strength increases with decreasing steel reinforcement
ratio. Thus, in design, the expected additional strength from
the CFRP must consider the existing relative amount of steel
in the unstrengthened condition.
For the 152 mm (6 in.) wide specimens with two CFRP
strips, the average ultimate load was only 6% greater than the
yield load. This indicates that at steel yield, the concrete
strain was near ultimate so that any increase in strength is
limited by the threshold level corresponding to concrete
compression failure. For the 230 and 305 mm (9 and 12 in.)
wide specimens, the average ultimate loads increased by
435
Table 3—Ductility results
Yield Ultimate Deflection ductility Energy ductility
Sample ID Δy , mm (in.) Ey*, kN-mm (kip-in.) Δu, mm (in.) *,
Eu kN-mm (kip-in.) μd = Δu/Δy Ratio† μE = Eu/Ey Ratio†
6-C 22.17 (0.87) 233 (2.07) 30.23 (1.19) 395 (3.50) 1.36 1.00 1.69 1.00
6-1Fa 19.51 (0.77) 235 (2.08) 28.98 (1.14) 455 (4.02) 1.49 1.09 1.93 1.14
6-1Fb 23.06 (0.91) 2823 (2.50) 29.30 (1.15) 423 (3.74) 1.27 0.93 1.50 0.88
6-2Fa 24.66 (0.97) 353 (3.12) 26.19 (1.03) 389 (3.45) 1.06 0.78 1.10 0.65
6-2Fb 25.26 (0.99) 354 (3.13) 31.04 (1.22) 503 (4.45) 1.23 0.90 1.42 0.84
9-C 21.05 (0.83) 280 (2.48) 47.03 (1.85) 909 (8.05) 2.23 1.00 3.24 1.00
9-1Fa 21.14 (0.83) 323 (2.86) 36.80 (1.45) 729 (6.46) 1.74 0.78 2.26 0.70
9-1Fb 24.16 (0.95) 331 (2.93) 44.45 (1.75) 863 (7.64) 1.84 0.82 2.61 0.80
9-2Fa 20.76 (0.82) 344 (3.05) 40.81 (1.61) 989 (8.75) 1.97 0.88 2.87 0.88
9-2Fb 22.15 (0.87) 323 (2.86) 47.87 (1.88) 1125 (9.96) 2.16 0.97 3.49 1.08
12-C 17.55 (0.69) 228 (2.02) 44.68 (1.76) 845 (6.80) 2.55 1.00 3.70 1.00
12-1Fa 19.50 (0.77) 296 (2.62) 44.09 (1.74) 976 (8.64) 2.26 0.89 3.29 0.89
12-1Fb 20.56 (0.81) 317 (2.80) 47.36 (1.86) 1081 (9.50) 2.30 0.90 3.42 0.92
12-2Fa 20.23 (0.80) 334 (2.96) 46.10 (1.81) 1147 (10.15) 2.28 0.89 3.43 0.93
12-2Fb 19.90 (0.78) 334 (2.95) 58.55 (2.31) 1732 (15.33) 2.94 1.16 5.19 1.40

∫ P dΔ .
*
E =
†
Ratio = {strengthened sample}/{control sample}.

38% over the yield loads. This is expected and represents the
increased available capacity in the concrete at steel yield. This
behavior is reflective of the relative amounts of both steel and
CFRP reinforcement and how these reinforcement areas
compare with that required for a balanced-strengthened design.
Predicted flexural strength of all specimens with two
CFRP strips was less than measured values, indicating the
analytical model is conservative. Referring to Table 2, the
measured loads were between 3 and 28% greater than
predicted strengths. Thus, the model is an acceptable analytical
tool for strength prediction in design.
Ductility and energy
The reported effect of flexural strengthening with external
FRP reinforcement is a reduction in flexural ductility relative
to the unstrengthened condition (ACI Committee 440 2002,
Bencardino et al. 2002). Typically, ductility is calculated in terms
of dimensionless deflection or energy ratios. Using these param-
eters ductility μ relative to the yield condition is defined as
Deflection ductility: μd = Δu /Δy
Energy ductility: μE = Eu /Ey
In Eq. (5) Δu and Δy are the ultimate and yield center-span
deflections, respectively, and Eu and Ey are the areas under
the load-deflection diagrams at ultimate and yield, respectively.
Numerical integration of the measured load-deflection
diagrams was used to determine Eu and Ey. Ductility results
are summarized in Table 3 where it is observed that most
specimens experience a decrease in both deflection ductility and
energy ductility relative to the control beams. The exceptions
are Specimens 6-1Fa and 12-2Fb, which experienced an
increase in both deflection and energy ductilities, and
Specimen 9-2Fb, which experienced a slight increase in
energy ductility. Under closer scrutiny, Specimen 12-2Fb,
experienced a major crack at approximately 35 kN (7.84 kips).
It could be argued that in a load controlled test this would have
been the ultimate limit state for which Δu, Eu, μd , and μE are
32.3 mm (1.27 in.), 724.2 kN-mm (6.41 k-in.), 1.62, and
2.17, respectively. This reduces the deflection ductility and
energy ductility ratios to 0.64 and 0.60, respectively,
resulting in a decrease in both ductility indexes.
The experimental ductility analysis presented previously
is subjective for two reasons. First, for some specimens, the
yield limit state is not an instantaneous condition that occurs
at a clearly defined load, deflection, or strain. Secondly, the
ultimate limit state is also subject to interpretation. Thus,
depending on the selection for the yield and ultimate limit
states, a range of ductility results can be expected that may
be slightly different from those reported in Table 3. The
general conclusion, however, must be that ductility is
decreased relative to the unstrengthened condition. Further
parametric investigation of ductility using theoretical
modeling to calculate deflection and strain is recommended.
CONCLUSIONS
The research presented in this study evaluated strength and
ductility of steel reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
near surface mounted CFRP strips. Experimental variables
were the amount of steel and CFRP reinforcements. Steel
(5a) reinforcement ratios ρs and concrete strength were selected
as typical for existing concrete flexural members that would
be found in nonprestressed bridge and building flexural
(5b) members. The conclusions reported are restricted to the
material properties (for concrete and CFRP), reinforcement
ratios (ρs and ρf), type of CFRP (thin rectangular strips), and
testing procedures that were used in this study. From the data
presented, the following conclusions are made.
1. The strengthened beams failed in flexure as predicted
according to the amounts of steel and CFRP reinforcement.
All 152 and 230 mm (6 and 9 in.) wide specimens, and 305 mm
(12 in.) wide specimens with two CFRP strips failed by steel
yield followed by concrete crushing. The CFRP remained
intact at concrete failure and no debonding was detected.
These beams were predicted to fail in compression. The
305 mm (12 in.) wide specimens strengthened with one
CFRP strip failed by steel yield followed by CFRP rupture.
These beams were predicted to fail by CFRP rupture. In all
cases, no debonding of the CFRP was detected;
2. All beams strengthened with CFRP failed at loads
greater than their respective control beams. Relative to
control specimen capacity, CFRP strengthened specimens

436 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

had measured increases in yield strength ranging from 9 to
30%, and measured increases in ultimate strength ranging
from 10 to 78%. In general, the increase in strength was
inversely proportional to the relative amount of steel
reinforcement normalized to a balanced design ρs /ρsb;
3. The measured ultimate capacity of CFRP strengthened
beams was between 6 and 28% greater than the respective
predicted nominal strength. Nominal strength was calculated
using a simplified closed-form analysis that yields identical
results to the trial and error procedure given in ACI 440.2R-02.
For unstrengthened beams, the measured ultimate strength was
between 11 and 23% greater than the section’s predicted nominal
strength. These ratios suggest that the CFRP strengthened
section nominal flexural capacity is appropriately predicted using
the simplified closed-form or ACI 440.2R-02 methodologies;
4. Force transfer between the CFRP, epoxy grout, and
surrounding concrete was able to develop the full tensile strength
of the CFRP strips. Tensile rupture of the single CFRP strip was
achieved in the 305 mm (12 in.) wide specimens with no
apparent slip or damage to the concrete cover or epoxy grout.
For all other specimens where the CFRP did not fail, there
was no apparent loss in force transfer between the CFRP,
epoxy grout, and surrounding concrete. Thus, the CFRP strip’s
thin rectangular cross section and roughened surface provide
an effective mechanism of force transfer with this epoxy; and
5. For the specimens tested, there was no discernable trend
between the change in ductility (energy and deflection) and
the relative amount of steel reinforcement ρs/ρsb or CFRP
strengthening reinforcement Afrp. With the exception of two
strengthened beam, energy and deflection ductilities were
reduced for CFRP strengthened beams.
The authors suggest that additional research is required to
study the strength and ductility behavior of a beam strengthened
with wider range of combinations of steel and FRP reinforce-
ment ratios. Furthermore, NSM FRP splice and bond behavior,
appropriate code mandated design limitations for strength,
deflection, and ductility need to be investigated.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Hughes Brothers, Inc., for donating the CFRP
reinforcement and the Office of Research and Sponsored Projects at Villanova
University for providing financial support for this research.
NOTATION
Af , As = area of CFRP and steel reinforcement, respectively
Afb = balanced-strengthened area of CFRP
Asy = steel area corresponding to simultaneous concrete crushing
and steel yielding
a, av = depth of compression block at ultimate and shear span,
respectively
b, c = beam width and depth on neutral axis, respectively
df , ds = depth to CFRP and steel reinforcement, respectively
Ef , fc′ = FRP elastic modulus and concrete strength, respectively
ff , fs = stress in CFRP and steel, respectively
ffu, fy = ultimate strength of FRP (1648 MPa [239 ksi]) and steel
yield strength, respectively
ff-ult = calculated CFRP stress at sections theoretical moment strength
Mn = theoretical nominal moment strength
Pn = theoretical applied load corresponding to Mn
PnC = theoretical applied load for control specimens correspond-
ing to Mn
Py , Pmax = measured load at steel yield and ultimate, respectively
PyC, PmaxC = measured load for control specimen at steel yield and ultimate,
respectively
Tf , T s = tensile force in CFRP and steel, respectively
wbeam = self-weight of beam
β1 = ratio of a/c
εf, εs = strain in CFRP and steel, respectively
εcu, εfu = ultimate strain of concrete (0.003) and FRP (0.012), respectively
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007
ρs, ρf = steel As/bds and CFRP Af /bdf reinforcement ratio, respectively
ρsb = balanced steel reinforcement ratio for unstrengthened section
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 440, 2002, “Design and Construction of Externally
Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI 440.2R-02),”
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 45 pp.
ACI Committee 440, 2004, “Guide Test Methods of Fiber-Reinforced
Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI
440.3R-04),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 40 pp.
ASTM C 684-99, 1999, “Standard Test Method for Making, Accelerated
Curing, and Testing Concrete Compression Test Specimens,” ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, Pa., 10 pp.
Arduini, M., and Nanni, A., 1997, “Behavior of Precracked RC Beams
Strengthened with Carbon FRP Sheets,” Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, V. 1, No. 2, pp. 63-70.
Bencardino, F.; Spadea, G.; and Swamy, R., 2002, “Strength and Ductility of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Externally Reinforced with Carbon Fiber Fabric,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 163-171.
Brena, S. F.; Bramblett, R. M.; Wood, S. L.; and Kreger, M. E., 2003,
“Increasing Flexural Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Carbon
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 36-46.
DeLorenzis, L. A.; Nanni, A.; and Tegila, A. L., 2000, “Flexural and
Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Near Surface
Mounted FRP Bars,” Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Ottawa, Canada,
Aug. 15-18, pp. 521-528.
DeLorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., 2001, “Shear Strengthening of Reinforced
Concrete Beams with Near-Surface Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Rods,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 60-68.
DeLorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., 2002, “Bond between Near-Surface
Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Rods and Concrete in Structural
Strengthening,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 123-132.
DeLorenzis, L.; Lundgren, K.; and Rizzo, A., 2004, “Anchorage Length
of Near-Surface Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars for Concrete
Strengthening—Experimental Investigation and Numerical Modeling,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 269-278.
El-Hacha, R., and Rizkalla, S., 2004, “Near-Surface-Mounted Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcements for Flexural Strengthening of Concrete
Structures,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, V. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 717-726.
Grace, N.; Abdel-Sayed, G.; and Ragheb, W., 2002, “Strengthening of
Concrete Beams Using Innovative Ductile Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Fabric,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 692-700.
Mukhopadhyaya, P., and Swamy, R. N., 1999, “Critical Review of Plate
Anchorage Stresses in Premature Debonding Failures of Plate Bonded
Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Fourth International Symposium on Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, SP-188,
C. W. Dolan, S. H. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 359-368.
Nanni, A., 2000, “FRP Reinforcement for Bridge Structures,” Proceedings,
Structural Engineering Conference, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kans., Mar. 16, pp. 1-5.
Nguyen, D.; Chan, T.; and Cheong, H., 2001, “Brittle Failure and Bond
Development Length of CFRP-Concrete Beams,” Journal of Composites
for Construction, ASCE, V. 5, No. 1, pp. 12-17.
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), 2001, “The
Bridge Design Specification Sheet, BD-601M,” Specifications for the
Concrete, Class AAA.
Rahimi, H., and Hutchinson, A., 2001, “Concrete Beams Strengthened
with Externally Bonded FRP Plates,” Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, V. 5, No. 1, Jan., pp. 44-55.
Saadatmanesh, H., 1994, “Fiber Composites for New and Existing
Structures,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 3, May-June, pp. 346-354.
Sharif, A.; Al-Sulaimani, G. J.; Basunbul, I. A.; Baluch, M. H.; and
Ghaleb, B. N., 1994, “Strengthening of Initially Loaded Reinforced
Concrete Beams Using FRP Plates,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr., pp. 160-168.
Shin, Y. S.; and Lee, C., 2003, “Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Beams Strengthened with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Laminates at
Different Levels of Sustaining Load,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2,
Mar.-Apr., pp. 231-239.
Taljsten, B., and Carolin, A., 2001, “Concrete Beams Strengthened with
Near Surface Mounted CFRP Laminates,” Proceedings of the Non-Metallic
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRP RCS-5 Conference, July 16-18,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 107-116.
Teng, J. G.; Chen, J. F.; Smith, S. T.; and Lam, L., 2002, FRP-Strengthened
RC Structures, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, UK, 266 pp.
437