MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 4 of 21

TABLEOFCONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................6
2 REFERENCE GUIDELINES.....................................................................................................................6
3 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE..........................................................................................................................7
3.1 Reduction factors.............................................................................................................................8
4 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE.............................................................................................................8
4.1 Basis of calculation.........................................................................................................................9
4.1.1 Initial situation..........................................................................................................................9
4.1.2 Service stresses......................................................................................................................9
4.2 Verification of deflections............................................................................................................10
4.3 Verification of crack widths.........................................................................................................11
4.4 Verification of bond interface cracking....................................................................................12
4.4.1 Debonding...............................................................................................................................12
4.4.2 Concrete cover de-lamination............................................................................................13
4.5 Allowable stresses.........................................................................................................................13
5 PRE-STRENGTHENING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT....................................................................14
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................15
6.1 Ultimate Limit State.......................................................................................................................15
6.2 Serviceability Limit State..............................................................................................................15
7 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................17

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 5 of 21
NOTATION

y
]
= FRP safety coefficient
y
L
= coefficient accounting for bond characteristic of the
reinforcement and the type of loading
o = crack width
e
0
= initial strain level in concrete
e
c
= strain level in concrete
e
c0
= initial concrete strain
e
cu
= ultimate strain in concrete
e
]
= strain level in the FRP reinforcement
e
]u
= design rupture strain level in the FRP reinforcement
e
]d
= design strain level in the FRP reinforcement
e
]c
= effective strain level in the FRP reinforcement
e
s1
= tensile steel strain
e
s2
= compressive steel strain
= tension stiffening coefficient

m
= bond-dependent coefficient for flexure
p
]
= balanced reinforcement ratio
p
]b
= FRP reinforcement ratio
p
s
= steel reinforcement ratio
p
c,c]]
= ratio of effective concrete area in tension

b
= average bond strength

]
= FRP strength reduction factor
o
b
= thickness of the NSM CFRP plate
b = width of rectangular cross section
b
b
= width of the NSM CFRP plate
b
]
= width of the externally bonded CFRP plate
J = effective depth of the member
J
1
= distance from centroid of tensile steel to extreme
tensile fibre
J
2
= distance from centroid of compressive steel to
extreme compressive fibre
'
c
= specified compressive strength of concrete

cs
= stress level in concrete at service loads

ctm
= mean value of the concrete tensile strength

]
= stress level in the FRP reinforcement

]d
= design stress level in the FRP reinforcement

]s
= stress level in the FRP caused by a moment within
the elastic range of the member

]u
= FRP design ultimate strength

s
= stress in steel reinforcement

ss
= stress level in steel reinforcement at service loads

= specified yield strength of steel reinforcement

b = total depth of the member
b
c,c]]
= depth of the effective concrete area in tension
k
b
= size factor
l
d
= development length
n
s
= modular ratio of elasticity between steel and
concrete =E
s
/E
c

n
]
= modular ratio of elasticity between FRP and
concrete =E
f
/E
c

n
]s
modular ratio of elasticity between FRP and
steel =E
f
/E
s

t
]
= thickness of FRP
u
]
= bond perimeter of FRP
u
s
= bond perimeter of the reinforcing steel bar
x
0
= depth of the compression zone before strengthening
x
c
= depth of the compression zone from linear elastic
analysis
w
0
= deflection of the uncracked section
w
c
= deflection of the cracked section
A
c,c]]
= effective concrete area in tension
A
cq
= equivalent reinforcement area based on the
modular ratio of steel
A
]
= area of FRP reinforcement
A
s1
= area of tensile steel reinforcement
A
s2
= area of compressive steel reinforcement
C
L
= environmental reduction factor
C
S
= material safety coefficient
E
c
= elastic modulus of concrete
E
]
= elastic modulus of FRP
E
s
= elastic modulus of steel
H
0
= acting moment during strengthening
H
k
= characteristic value of moment
H
c
= cracking moment
N
c
= compression forces in the concrete
N
]
= force in FRP
N
],mux
= maximum anchorable FRP force
N
s1
= force in tensile steel reinforcement
N
s2
= force in compressive steel reinforcement

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 6 of 21
Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Bridges
Using Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Composites
1 INTRODUCTION
Although MRWA has undertaken bridge strengthening using Carbon Fibre Reinforced
Polymer (CFRP), there has been no review of the various existing design guidelines to
consider if they will be effective in meeting all the requirements of MRWA.
The Australian guideline for RC beams and slabs retrofitted with FRP and/or metal plates is
still in its draft version (Standards Australia, 2008). In the current version of the guideline,
strength analysis at both serviceability and ultimate limit states is yet to be addressed in
detail. Despite the availability of established international guidelines on the application of
FRP composites on concrete structures, a guideline that aligns with the AS 5100 design
provisions is yet to be drafted.
In the following, a review of both Australian and international guidelines on strengthening
design via externally bonded FRP systems is made. The guidelines are specifically
discussed in relation to strengthening interventions on RC flat slab bridges under sustained
service loads although it may have a wider application.
2 REFERENCE GUIDELINES
Within the last 10 years, many design guidelines have been published to provide guidance
not only for the selection and design but also for the installation and monitoring of FRP
systems for external strengthening of concrete structures. The guidelines considered herein
as reference for the design of FRP strengthening systems are the following:
ACI 440 by the American Concrete Institute
FIB 14 by the Fdration International du Bton, or European Concrete Task Group
TR 55 and TR 57 by the UK Concrete Society
ACI 440 is the most up to date guideline available for the design of RC section strengthened
via FRP composites (see latest version 2008) and is considered also the most
comprehensive.
In the following discussion, reference is also made to manufacturers guidelines, such as
BASF (MBrace systems)
SIKA (CarboDur systems).

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 7 of 21
3 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE
The key to flexural strengthening via FRP systems is to understand the failure modes of the
strengthened structural system. According to ACI 440, for members strengthened in flexure
with FRP, the following flexural failure modes can be identified:
a) Concrete crushing before steel yielding
b) Steel yielding followed by concrete crushing
c) Steel yielding followed by FRP rupture
d) FRP rupture before steel yielding
e) Failure of the concrete substrate (debonding of the FRP)
f) Concrete cover delamination.
The design should determine the amount of CFRP such that the last two modes of failure do
not govern. This can be done by choosing appropriate CFRP strip dimensions (width,
thickness and cut off points) which will be discussed in Section 4.4. Concrete crushing or
CFRP rupture before steel yielding is a brittle failure and should be avoided or the safety
factors adjusted so that the chance of such a failure is acceptably improbable.
The optimum ULS design corresponds to simultaneous compressive failure (concrete
crushing at ( e
c
= e
cu
= u.uuSS) and FRP tensile failure (e
]
= e
]u
), after the internal steel has
yielded. Therefore, the design at the ULS should determine the amount of FRP such that
failure modes (b) or (c) govern the structural behaviour at failure. In particular, mode (b) is
the failure mode which is more often achieved. In this situation, as the reinforcing steel
yields before the FRP system fails, i.e. reaches the limiting strain e
]u
, the concrete member
undergoes large deflections and cracking.
The FRP system can detach in a number of modes. Failure in the concrete substrate (mode
e), defects in the adhesive layer, or high peeling and shearing stresses at the FRP-concrete
interface are all causes. Failure of the concrete cover (mode f) might be due to a
combination of flexural and shear cracking in the structural member which is likely at large
deflections. Analytical methods that predict the various detachment mechanisms of the FRP
system are still not fully developed, however flexural and flexural-shear crack-induced
debonding mechanisms have been investigated and discussed in detail by Teng et al. (2001,
2003).
ACI 440 (2008) includes various worked design examples. Specifically, Example 15.3 refers
to externally bonded FRP plates (or strips) and Example 15.4 refers to near-surface-
mounted (NSM) bars (or strips). In all cases, the first step is to find the initial strain, e
0
, that
develops in the extreme fibre of the cross section when the strengthening operations take
place. This strain is the result of a moment H
0
acting at the critical cross section during
strengthening (e.g. due to the self-weight of the structure), and may be calculated based on
equilibrium of internal forces and moments (see Section 4). The ensuing steps consist of
determining the design strain in the FRP system, e
]d
, and the effective level of strain in the
FRP, e
]c
, while checking that the service stresses in all materials do not exceed the
recommended limits. The service stresses are controlled by the ratios of the FRP and steel
reinforcement to the cross-sectional area of the strengthened structural member (see details
in Sections 4).
The ultimate strength analysis and design for the second and third listed modes of failure,
steel yielding followed by either concrete crushing or CFRP rupture, can be carried out in
MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 8 of 21
accordance with the detailed guideline recommended by Saadatmanesh and Malek (1998),
which has been summarised by the flow chart in Appendix B. Whilst concrete crushing can
be predicted by calculation, the member as constructed may not fail as expected. North
American research (Nanni 2003) established that a section controlled by concrete crushing
is characterised by the FRP reinforcement ratio p
]
1.4p
]b
, where p
]b
is the balanced
reinforcement ratio as defined by Saadatmanesh and Malek (1998).
3.1 Reduction Factors
To take account of durability considerations, in ACI 440 it is recommended to reduce the
FRP design ultimate strength
]u
and the design rupture strain e
]u
, by using the
environmental reduction factor, C
L
. The environmental reduction factor can be set to
C
L
= u.9S for interior exposure and to C
L
= u.8S for exterior exposure of the FRP system, the
latter being the case of applications on bridge decks and piers (ACI 440).
It is also recommended to further reduce
]u
by applying a material safety coefficient, C
S
, as
suggested in FIB 14. Values for the FRP material safety coefficient are mainly based on the
observed differences in the long-term behaviour of FRP as well as on the influence of the
application method. The safety coefficient is defined as C
S
= 1y
]
, where y
]
is the safety
factor proposed in FIB 14 for FRP systems. The safety factor can be taken as y
]
= 1.2 for
externally bonded reinforcement with application of wet lay-up systems in normal quality
control conditions. Under difficult on-site working conditions, it is suggested y
]
= 1.SS. It is
noted that these factors are subject to further study.
The strength reduction factor required by AS 5100.5 (Table 2.2) should be applied to the
design flexural capacity of the strengthened member, after factoring the flexural contribution
of the FRP only by the FRP strength reduction factor,
]
= u.9S, which is used to improve
the reliability of the strength prediction. It is noted that ACI 440 suggests a more
conservative value of
]
, while suggesting a value for the overall strength reduction factor
which is less conservative than AS 5100.5.
4 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE
As noted in the Introduction, the Australian guideline for retrofitting with FRP and/or metal
plates is still in its draft version and serviceability criteria is yet to be addressed in detail,
notwithstanding that serviceability criteria is important in the strengthening design.
When the reasons for strengthening are related to improved serviceability, the SLS will
govern for the design, rather than the ULS. This may also be true where the reason for
strengthening is for strength increase considerations. As FRP materials have high strength,
small cross-sectional areas of FRP are needed to achieve strength increases at ULS.
However, these areas may be insufficient to meet serviceability criteria.
As discussed in both ACI 440 and FIB 14, for SLS verifications, a linearly elastic behaviour,
i.e. linear stress-strain relationship, is considered for the constituent materials. In the case of
FRP, the stress-strain relationship is expressed as
]
= E
]
e
]
, where E
]
is the characteristic
value of the secant modulus of elasticity. FIB 14 notes that E
]
is determined between 10%
and 50% of the FRP ultimate strength. The safety factors, y
]
introduced for the materials in
FIB 14, are all set equal to 1.0 at SLS as well as for the calculation of the initial strain.
MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 9 of 21
4.1 Basis of Calculation
a) Initial Situation
Externally bonded and near-surface-mounted (NSM) FRP is typically installed unstressed.
However, the concrete and the reinforcement in the section where the FRP is to be bonded
are under stress due to the structures self weight and any other loads present at the time of
the installation. The strain corresponding to this pre-existing stress,
0
, should be calculated,
so that the effects can be included as appropriate in the Limit State assessments. As the
service bending moment acting on the critical RC section during strengthening is typically
greater than the cracking moment, H
c
the calculation is based on a cracked section (Fig. 1).
Based on the transformed cracked section, the neutral axis depth x
0
can be found as:
1
2
bx
0
2
+ (n
s
- 1)A
s2
(x
0
- J
2
) = n
s
A
s1
(J - x
0
) (1)
Where n
s
= E
s
E
c

e
c0
=
M
0
x
0
I
c0
L
c
(2)
Where I
c0
is the moment of inertia of the transformed cracked section and M
0
is the due to
the loads at the time of installation. The concrete strain at the extreme tension fibre can be
derived as:
e
0
=
c0
h-x

x
0
(3)

Figure 1: Initial situation (from FIB 14).
b) Service Stresses
Calculations to verify the serviceability limit state can be performed assuming an elastic
strain and stress distribution. Whereas the neutral axis depth of RC members, according to
a linear elastic calculation, is independent from the acting moment, this is no longer the case
for a strengthened section as a result of the initial strains before strengthening. Assuming
linear elastic material behaviour and that the concrete does not sustain tension, the cracked
section analysis can be based on Fig. 2.

From the equilibrium of forces (compression forces in the concrete, N
c
, and in the steel, N
s2
,
tension forces in steel, N
s1
, and in the FRP, N
]
) and strain compatibility, the depth of the
neutral axis x
c
can be derived from (see Fig. 2):
MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 10 of 21
1
2
bx
c
2
+(n
s
- 1)A
s2
(x
c
-J
2
) = n
s
A
s1
(J - x
c
) +n
]
A
]
jb - [1 +
s
0
s
c
x
c
[ (4)
where n
]
= E
]
E
c
.
The stresses in the component materials can be expressed as:

cs
= E
c
e
c
= H
k
j
1
2
bx
c
[b -
x
c
3
+ (n
s
-1)A
s2
[1 -
d
2
x
c
(b - J
2
) -n
s
A
s1
[
d
x
c
- 1 (b -J)[
-1
(5)
Eq (5) is the equilibrium equation with respect to the extreme compression fibre derived from
the balancing the moments about the concrete compressive force.

ss
= E
s
e
c
[
d
x
c
-1 (6)

]s
= E
]
je
c
[
h
x
c
- 1 - e
0
[ (7)
Noting that e
c
can be related to e
0
(Eq. 3) in the form: e
c
e
0
= (H
0
H
k
) (x
c
x
0
).
To comply with MRWA recommendations, the resultant stresses will have to satisfy the
limitations given in Section 6.

Figure 2: Elastic strain and stress distribution (from FIB 14).
4.2 Verification of Deflections
Given the relatively small cross-section of the externally added FRP material required to
achieve the required increase of the flexural capacity, the stiffness of the strengthening
system is usually insufficient to limit curvatures and deflections of the strengthened structural
member under service loads. Hence deflection is not considered as a controlling criterion in
preparing the strengthening design. However for completeness the following information on
various deflection calculation methods is included.
FIB14 discusses the early method introduced by CEB (Comit Euro-International du Bton)
in 1993, called CEB bilinear method, for predicting deflections at SLS. According to this
method, the mean deflection of the strengthened member can be calculated as:
w = w
0
+ w
0
[
w
cr
w
0
- 1 (8)
MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 11 of 21
where w
0
and w
c
are the deflections in the uncracked and fully cracked state, respectively,
and is a distribution coefficient. Such coefficient can be introduced only if H
k
> H
c
, with
H
c
the cracking moment. For a rectangular beam, the cracking moment can be
approximately be expressed as H
c
=
ctm
(bb
2
)6, where
ctm
is the mean value of the
concrete tensile strength. Then can be derived as
= 1 - y
L
[
H
c
H
k
,
u
(9)
where u.S y
L
1, and equal to 0.5 in poor bonding condition and short term loads and
equal to unity in good bonding condition and long-term loading; the exponent o is set to
unity for normal strength concrete, and to 1.5 for high strength concrete.
For H
k
> H
0
, by classical elasticity analysis, considering identical loading type in both the
uncracked and fully cracked scenarios, the ratio w
c
w
0
can be expressed as:
w
cr
w
0
= [
M
0
L
c
I
c0
+
M
k
-M
0
L
c
I
cr
[
M
k
L
c
I
0
(10)
where: E
c
I
0
is the flexural stiffness in the uncracked state, being I
0
the moment of inertia of
the transformed uncracked section, and E
c
I
c
is the flexural stiffness in the fully cracked
state, being I
c
is the moment of the inertia of the transformed cracked section after
strengthening; I
c0
is the moment of inertia of the transformed cracked section before
strengthening.
4.3 Verification of Crack Widths
It is expected that the application of FRP will affect the crack spacing and width. In
particular, for RC members strengthened with externally bonded FRP, it is likely that new
cracks will appears between existing cracks. A consequence of an increased frequency of
cracking is a reduction of the crack widths and most guidelines do not consider it necessary
to verify the crack widths.
It is noted that the crack width limit is set to 0.3mm in both Eurocode 2 (EC2) and ACI318,
and, accordingly in ACI440. No reference has been made to the calculation of the crack
width of a FRP strengthened reinforced concrete flexural element in the Australian draft
guideline. TR55 indicates that in all normal cases, crack widths will not be excessive in case
where the FRP system has been properly installed (see TR57). TR55 refers to the crack
width formulations given in BS5400.4, which depend on the strain in the reinforcement, after
taking into account the transformed area of the FRP to evaluate the stress in the tension
steel.
From experimental studies (Nanni 2003), it has been established that there is an association
between the crack width, o, the degree of bond or bonded area between the FRP plate/strip
and the concrete, and the reinforcement ratios. In particular, in FIB14 the proposed
formulations for o demonstrate that the crack width is directly proportional to the effective
concrete tension area, A
c,c]]
, defined in EC2 as the area of concrete surrounding the tension
reinforcement, and inversely proportional to the degree of bonding of the reinforcement and
the effective area of reinforcement (A
cq
= A
s
+ n
]s
A
]
, with n
]s
= E
]
E
s
), in the form of
o = c
2
A
c,c]]
A
cq
v
(u
]
)
M
k
L
s
d
(11)
MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 12 of 21
where A
c,c]]
= b
c,c]]
b, with b
c,c]]
the lesser between 2.S(b -J)b, (b -x)bS or b2 (EC2);
c
2
is a calibration factor set as 2.1; v
(u
]
)
= u
]
+ c
3
u
s
, with c
3
equal to 0.7, u
]
the bond
perimeter of the FRP strip/plate, and u
s
the bond perimeter of the reinforcing steel bar.
Following EC2 recommendation to fix o 0.3 mm, u
]
is derived as
u
]
c
4
A
c,c]]
A
cq
H
k
E
s
J
-c
5
u
s
(12)
where the calibration factors c
4
and c
5
are set as 10.1 and 1.4, respectively. FIB14 also
notes that sufficient bond area should be provided to bridge the cracks in such a way that
the crack width is limited under service load. For a constant reinforcement ratios p
]
=
A
]
(bJ) and, therefore, p
cq
= A
cq
(bJ) , the crack widths are likely to be smaller for FRP
strips of larger width and smaller thickness.
4.4 Verification of bond interface cracking
a) Debonding and development length
Teng et al (2001), ACI440 (2002) provide guidelines limits to the tensile strain level in the
FRP system to prevent delamination failure, in the form e
]c

m
e
]d
, i.e. the effective strain
level in the FRP, e
]c
, should not exceed the debonding strain, e
]d
, factored by the
empirically obtained bond-dependent coefficient
m
, which is a function of the unit stiffness
of the FRP system (Teng et al. 2001). The bond-dependent coefficient
m
should not
exceed 0.9, but can be limited to values as low as 0.7 by manufacturers guidelines. A
guidance to avoid debonding and delamination for both externally bonded FRP strips and
NSM bars is given in ACI440 (2008).
The bonding strength can be maximised by increasing the anchorage length (see Teng et
al., 2003, ACI440). The bond capacity of the FRP is developed over a critical length l
d
,
which is also known as anchorage length. While the anchorage length should not be less
than 150 mm, it is a function of the strip/plate/bar thickness t
]
and can be expressed in
empirical form proposed by Teng et al. (2001)
l
d
= (
c
i
)
-0.25

E
]
t
]
(13)
With reference to the notation used in Fig. 3, for NSM mounted rectangular plates, the
expression for the development length becomes (ACI440)
l
d
=
u
b
b
b
2(u
b
+b
b
):
b

]d
(14)
with
b
the average bond strength (reported in the range between 3.5 and 20.7 MPa in
ACI440), and
]d
the design stress of the FRP reinforcement. It should also be checked
that the maximum axial force, N
mux
, that can be carried out by the total number of strips, i.e.
N
mux
= A
]
E
]
e
]
, with A
]
the total cross sectional area of the applied FRP and e
]
as derived
from cross section equilibrium and strain compatibility, does not exceed the sum of the
tensile forces carried by each strip (FIB 14), i.e
N
],mux
=
m
c
1
k
b
b
b

E
]
t
]

ctm
(15)

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 13 of 21

Figure 3: Minimum grooves dimensions for NSM plates/bars (from ACI440).
With c
1
a calibration factor set as 0.64 for CFRP, and 1.u k
b
1.S, being the highest
value related to strips of larger width. If the total force N
mux
N
],mux
i

the bond check is

already verified, that is failure of the anchorage is not expected provided that the appropriate
bond length, l
d
, is available (Sika, 2002). It is noted that as the characteristic value of the
crack width under service is limited to a maximum of 0.30 mm, the local debonding is
unlikely to occur at SLS.
b) Concrete cover delamination
Delamination, also known as peeling failure (TR55, TR57), is most likely to occur where the
FRP system is applied with insufficient development length.
The Australian draft guideline recommends:
To terminate the FRP strips at the contraflexural point or where curvature is low;
To extend the FRP strips by a distance equal to 2l
d
or, alternatively, equal to the
effective depth d, beyond the region that requires strengthening. The bonding
strength is calculated by solving equations provided in the guideline.

ACI440 provides the following general rules for the location of cut-off points:
for simply supported spans, the FRP should extend a distance of d beyond the
point where cracking moment equals to the factored load effect;
for continuous spans, the FRP should extend a distance of 0.5d or 150 mm
minimum beyond that contraflexural point under factored loads.
Both guidelines are considered suitable for externally bonded FRP in sag regions. The
specific application of NSM FRP for hog strengthening of MRWA flat slab bridges is
discussed by Zanardo et al. (2006, 2007).
4.5 Allowable Stresses
Working stress limits are defined to control deflection, cracking, fatigue and/or FRP creep
rupture under a working state. There is some inconsistency in the guidance provided in
literature on working stress limits to be used in conjunction with FRP and little in the way of
discussion. The allowable stress limits at serviceability from ACI 440, FIB 14 and TR 55 are
compared to the values given in AS5100 in Table 1.
The common limitation shown in Table 1 for steel in tension of 0.8f
y
is not a genuine
serviceability limit in terms of SLS criteria such as deflection and cracking. Rather it appears
to be a 1.25 factor of safety provided against the steel yielding at service loads.

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 14 of 21

Table 1: SLS Stress Limits
Material ACI 440 FIB 14 TR 55 AS 5100
(1)

Concrete
(compression)
0.45 f
c

0.60 f
c
under rare LC
0.45 f
c
under quasi-
permanent LC
0.60 f
c


0.45 f
c
18 MPa
Steel
(tension)
0.80 f
y

0.80 f
y
0.80 f
y

0.8f
y

Various stress limits
depending on
diameter
CFRP
(tension)
0.55 f
fu

E
]
_e
c
b - x
c
x
c
-e
0
] p
]u

p = u.8u indicative and
under quasi- permanent LC
0.65 f
fu
Not included

SLS Verification
Deflection,
Fatigue and
FRP creep
rupture
Since relative low FRP
strains at service load are
likely to be expected, the
FRP creep rupture is
typically not of concern
Cracking,
deflection,
fatigue and FRP
creep rupture
Fatigue and cracking


Notes:
LC load combination.
(1) No FRP application.
AS5100 specifies stress limits for tension steel (Grade 500 Class N) for the control of cracks
in reinforced concrete sections. The stress limits vary with bar diameter and depth of slab.
The stress limit at serviceability limit state combinations for example a 24mm diameter bar
which is common in flat slabs, is put as 210MPa. Similarly, Eurocode 2 (EC2) for 24 mm
bars and for 0.3 mm crack limit, sets the SLS stresses at 200 Mpa, while providing
guidelines for the calculation of crack widths and reinforcement detailing. The given SLS
steel stress limits here relate to permanent or effectively permanent loads.

The actual contribution that the FRP reinforcing will provide to limit cracking at serviceability
is not known although it is considered to have a positive effect. Hence it seems reasonable
that a higher stress can be allowed in the tension steel after FRP strengthening in
recognition of the contribution of the FRP to control cracks.
The SLS limit set by the majority of considered guidelines corresponds to 0.45 f
c
. The SLS
stresses in the CFRP are limited to 0.55 f
fu
(ACI 440).
5 PRE-STRENGTHENING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
An initial assessment should be carried out to ensure that neither the deflection limitation nor
the allowable compression stress in concrete controls the capacity of the bridge.
MRWA site testing on Bridge No.3014 before and after strengthening application via CFRP
plates, evidenced an average increase of longitudinal flexural stiffness of 20% (Zanardo et
al. 2006), which corresponded to an average increase of the bridge capacity in longitudinal
bending between 23 and 25% (Zanardo et al. 2007). The stiffness increase can be attributed
to the restraining effect of the applied FRP on the movements along the pre-existing cracks.
The application of CFRP plates therefore restored the stiffness of the slab to values close to
that characterizing the uncracked slab. CFRP is currently not recommended as an effective
solution to reduce the deflection.
MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 15 of 21
The use of CFRP for strengthening in flexure is most effective in sections where the
concrete compression stresses will not be the controlling factor. If the serviceability stresses
in the concrete exceed the allowable value, the smaller of 0.45f
c
and 18MPa (AS5100.5 for
fatigue design), the reinforcement via CFRP composites might not be effective and,
therefore, not suitable for improving the structural capacity.
ACI 440 recommends that the structural member without FRP reinforcement should be
sufficient to resist a load level of 1.2S
DL
+ 0.85S
LL,
where S
DL
and S
LL
are dead load and live
load effect respectively. This limit is imposed to guard the structure against collapse in the
event of the failure of FRP system through fire, vandalism and other environmental reasons.
Fire or elevated temperatures close to the Glass Transition Temperature of the epoxy will
soften the adhesive and reduce the structure to an unstrengthened state.
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Ultimate Limit State
In calculating the ultimate strength capacity, it is recommended that the approach suggested
by ACI 440 (2002) is used in conjunction with the applied ductility control and a strength
reduction factor required by AS 5100. See worked examples 15.3 and 15.4, ACI 440, 2008
and the flow chart at Appendix A. The flow chart at Appendix B, which is based on
Saadatmanesh and Malek (1998), is based on FRP rupture or concrete crushing.
To avoid CFRP debonding or concrete cover de-lamination, CFRP plate dimensions (width,
thickness and cut off points) should be specified in accordance with The Australian draft
guideline (2008) or ACI 440 (2002) where appropriate.
6.2 Serviceability Limit State
MRWA requires that the structures performance under serviceability limit state loading
combinations be considered. Serviceability limit state may control the strengthening design
using CFRP through either a limitation in the tensile steel or compressive stress in the
concrete.
Until further and better research information is available, the serviceability stresses in
different materials after strengthening should be limited.
The Bridge Branch Design Information Manual (3912/02-6) provides supplementary
information on serviceability stress limits for steel grades of 200 MPa, 230 MPa and
400 MPa, which are normally encountered in slab bridge refurbishment design.

MRWA recommended values for SLS stress limits are given in Table 2. The given values
vary depending on the vehicle type and to reflect their frequency of occurrence. These are
indicative values for mid range bar sizes (eg 20 to 28mm diameters) and detailing that will
have been typical for many MRWA designed reinforced slab decks. The SLS values given
in Table 2 will be deemed as satisfying crack and deflection design requirements. Bars of
larger sizes should be assessed from first principles.



MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 16 of 21

Material Serviceability Stress Limits
Concrete (compression) 0.45f
c
18 MPa
CFRP (tension) 0.55f
pu

Steel
Reinforcement
(tension)

Nominal Steel
Grade (MPa)
T44 & Group 1
Vehicles
SM1600 HLP & Special
Vehicle
200 130 140 150
230 140 160 175
400/410 220 250 270
Table 2: Recommended Serviceability Stress Limits



MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 17 of 21
REFERENCES
ACI (2002), Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for
Strengthening Concrete Structures, ACI 440.2R-02, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI (2008), Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for
Strengthening Concrete Structures, ACI 440.2R-08, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI 318 (2008), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, ACI
318-08, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
FIB (2001), Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement for RC Structures. Technical Report,
Bulletin 14, International Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Hota V. S. GangaRao, Vijay P. V., & Taly Narendra (2007). Reinforced Concrete Design
with FRP Composites. CRC Press 2007.
Saadatmanesh, H. & Malek, A. M. (1998), Design Guidelines for Flexural Strengthening of
RC Beams with FRP Plates, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 2 (4), ASCE.
Standards Australia (2008), Design Guideline for RC Structures Retrofitted with FRP and
Metal Plates Beams and Slabs, Draft
Standards Australia AS 5100 (2004); Bridge Design.
Teng, J. G., Smith, S. T., Yao J., & Chen, J.F. (2003), Intermediate Crack Induced
Debonding in RC Beams and Slabs, Construction and Building Materials, 17: 447-462.
Teng, J. G., and Chen, J.F., Smith, S. T., & Lam L. (2001), FRP Strengthened RC
structures, Wiley, New York.
TR 55 (2001), Design Guidance for Strengthening Concrete Structures Using Fibre
Composite Materials. Technical Report 55, The Concrete Society, Camberley, Surrey,
England.
TR 57 (2003), Strengthening Concrete Structures with Fibre Composite Materials:
Acceptance, Inspection and Monitoring. Technical report 57, The Concrete Society,
Camberley, Surrey, England.
Warner, R. F., Rangan, B. V. and Hall A. S. (1998); Concrete Structures, Addison Wesley
Longman Australia Pty Limited, Melbourne.
MBrace (1998), MBrace Composite Strengthening System: Engineering Design Guidelines,
Master Builders, OH. Current edition at www.mbrace.com.
Sika (1997), Sika Carbodur: Engineering Guidelines for the Use of Sika Carbodur (FRP)
Laminates for Structural Strengthening of Concrete Structures, Sika Corporation, Lyndhurst,
NJ. Current edition at www.sikaconstruction.com/.
Watson Bowman Acme Corp (2002); Engineering Design Guidelines: Wabo MBrace
Composite Strengthening System, New York.
MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 18 of 21
Zanardo G, Hao H, Xia Y, Deeks AJ. Condition Assessment through Modal Analysis of a RC
Slab Bridge Before and After Strengthening. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering 2006, 11
(5): 590-601.
Zanardo G, Hao H, Xia Y, Deeks AJ. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Strengthening
Intervention by FRP on MRWA Bridge No. 3014. ASCE Journal of Composites for
Construction 2007, 11(4): 363-374.
MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 19 of 21
APPENDIX A
ACI 440.2R example - Flow Chart for strengthening of a reinforced concrete beam with
FRP laminates

Step 1 Calculate the FRP system design
material properties. A reduction factor C
E
is
applied to allow for long term strength loss
and is dependent on the environment.
Step 3 Determine the existing state of
strain on the soffit. The only loads acting on
the beam at the time of installation of the FRP
is the dead load.
Step 2 Preliminary calculations. Determine
the properties of concrete, existing reinforcing
steel and externally bonded FRP.
Strengthening of a reinforced concrete beam with FRP laminates
(For complete description and notation refer to ACI 440.2R)
Step 4 Determine the design strain on the
FRP system. Calculate the de-bonding mode
of failure e
]d
. Because the design strain is
smaller than the rupture strain, de-bonding
controls the design of the FRP
Step 5 Estimate c, the depth to the neutral
axis. Assume a reasonable initial value.
Step 6 Determine the effective level of
strain in the FRP reinforcement.
If FRP controls the failure of the section, the
concrete strain e
c
at failure may be less than
0.003 and may be calculated using similar
triangles.
Step 7 Calculate the strain in existing the
existing reinforcing steel.
Step 8 Calculate the stress level in
existing the existing reinforcing steel and
FRP.

]u
= C
L

]u
-

e
]u
= C
L
e
]u
-

e
b
=
H
L
(J
]
-kJ)
I
c
E
c

e
]d
= u.41_
]
c

nL
]
t
]
u.9e
]u

e
]c
= u.uuS _
J
]
- c
c
_ - e
b
e
]d

e
c
= (e
]c
+e
b
) _
c
J
]
- c
_

e
s
= (e
]c
+e
b
) _
J -c
J
]
- c
_

s
= E
s
e
s

]c
= E
]
e
]c

E
c,
A
s
, A
f


c ~ 0.20d

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 20 of 21

Step 9 Calculate the internal force
resultants and check equilibrium.
Concrete stress block calculated using
ACI318-05. Approx. stress block factors may
also be calculated based on the parabolic
stress-strain relationship for concrete as
shown.

Force equilibrium is verified by checking the
initial estimate of c.
Step 11 Calculate flexural strength
components.
Steel contribution to bending:

FRP contribution to bending:

Step 10 Adjust c and repeat steps 6 to 9
until force equilibrium is satisfied.
[
1
=
4e
c
i
-e
c
6e
c
i
-2e
c

o
1
=
Se
c
i
e
c
-e
c
2
S[
1
e
c
i2

c =
A
s

s
+A
]

]c
o
1

c
i
[
1
b

Wheree
c
i
isthestraincorrespondingto
c

calculatedase
c
i
=
1.7
c
i
E
c
,

H
ns
= A
s

s
(J -
[
1
c
2
)
H
n]
= A
]

]c
(J
]
-
[
1
c
2
)
Step 12 Calculate design flexural strength
of the section. Select the appropriate
strength reduction . An additional strength
reduction factor is applied to the contribution
of the FRP system
]

Step 13 Check serviceability stresses in
the reinforcing steel and FRP
Calculate elastic depth to the cracked neutral
axis.
Calculate the stress level in the reinforcing
steel
H
n
= (H
ns
+
]
H
n]
)
Step 14 Check creep rupture limit at
service of FRP. Confirm that it is less than
allowable. Assume that the full service load is
sustained.
The sustained plus cyclic stress limit for FRP
is 0.55
]u

],s
=
s,s
_
E
]
E
s
] _
J
]
-kJ
J -kJ
_ -e
b
E
]

MAIN ROADS Western Australia Page 21 of 21

Appendix B
Flow Chart for Ultimate Strength Analysis and Design
(ForRuptureofFRPorCompressionofConcreteastheModeofFailure)




































Notes
(1) The above flow chart has considered the contribution of the compression steel. If the area of compression steel A
s

is set to 0, then the procedure and

equations will be much simpler.
(2) Additional notations:
- rectangular stress block parameter , , and
p
- area ratio of compression steel reinforcement, tension steel reinforcement and FRP respectively,
calculated as p

=
A
st

bd

, p =
A
st
bd

, p
p
=
A
p
bd
, A
st
, A
st,
and

A
p
- the area of compression steel reinforcement, tension steel reinforcement and FRP.

u
,
y
and
r
- ultimate strain of concrete at crushing, yield strain of steel, and ultimate strain of FRP at rupture respectively.
f
pr
- design stress of FRP at rupture,
p
= C
L

]u
-
, where
]u
-
is the characteristic strength provided by the manufacturer, C
E
is the environmental reduction
factor, 0.95 for interior exposure, and 0.85 for exterior exposure (Australian Draft Guideline, 2008) .
- bending strength reduction factor, decided according to AS 5100 (2004).
D,d and d are the depth of the slab, depth to tension steel and depth to compression steel respectively
H
u
= (e
u
J
n
-J

J
n
)E
s
A
s

_
yJ
n
2
-J

] +A
s

_J -
yJ
n
2
]
+(
-J
n
J
n
e
u
-e
p
)A
p
E
p
( -
yJ
n
2
)
A

= u.8S
c

yb
B

= E
s
e
u
A
s

-A
s

+(e
u
+e
p
)E
p
A
p

C

= -e
u
A
p
E
p
-e
u
J

A
s

E
s
where J
n
satisfies A

J
n
2
+B

J
n
+C

= u and
N
o
,

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

s
t
e
e
l

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

y
i
e
l
d

No
(Concrete
Crushing)
Yes, compression steel yields
No
Calculate maximum area ratio of FRP. To ensure yielding of the tension steel at the time of
concrete crushing,
max
= 0.75
p,b
p
p,b
=
c
s

+0.85]
c

yq
1
-p]
j
(s
u
D-q
1
d
q
1
d
-s
pi
)L
p

, where p
1
=
s
u
s
u
+s
j

and

o
s

= _

s
u
-s
j
s
u
+s
j
J
q
1
d-d

q
1
d
E
s
J

>
s
u
-s
j
s
u
+s
j
J

Calculate area ratio of FRP for balanced failure when FRP rupture and concrete crushing
occur simultaneously,
p,bb
p
p,bb
=
0.85]
c

y
q
3
D
d
+p

s
s

L
s
-p]
j
]
pr
, where p
3
=
s
u
s
u
+s
r
+s
pi
, and e
s

is strain in compression steel

reinforcement e
s

= (1 -
d

q
3

)e
u
e

Try a cross section area ratio of FRP,
p
= A
p
/bd <
max
A

= u.8S
c

yb
B

= -u.8S
c

yb -(e

+e
p
)A
s

E
s
-A
s

-A
p

p

C

= (e

+e
p
)E
s
A
s

+(A
s

+A
p

p
)
H
u
= [
d
n
-d
|
-d
n
(e

+e
p
)A
s
i
E
s
[
yd
n
2
-J
i
+
A
s

[J -
yd
n
2
+A
p

p
[ -
yd
n
2

where J
n
satisfies A

J
n
2
+B

J
n
+C

= u and
H
u
= A
s
i

_
yJ
n
2
-J
i
] +A
s

_J -
yJ
n
2
]
+A
p

p
( -
yJ
n
2
)
Where J
n
= (A
s

+A
p

p
-A
s
i

)
H
u
= A
s
i

_
yJ
n
2
-J
i
] +A
s

_J -
yJ
n
2
]
+(
-J
n
J
n
e
u
-e
p
)A
p
E
p
( -
yJ
n
2
)
A

= u.8S
c
i
ybB

= (A
s
i
-A
s
)

+(e
u
+e
p
)E
p
A
p

= -e
u
A
p
E
p

where J
n
satisfiesA

J
n
2
+B

J
n
+C

= uand
Calculate M
u


p
p,cj
=
0.85]
c

y
d
n
d
+(p

-p)]
j


]
pr


J
n
= (e

+e

J)(e

+e

)
Calculate minimum area ratio of
FRP for yielding of the compression
steel,
p,cy
where d
n
is the depth of neutral axis

p
p,cj
=
0.85]
c

yq
2
d

d
+(p

-p)]
j


L
p
(s
p
-s
pi
)


e
p
= e
u
( -p
2
J

)p
2
J

Calculate minimum area ratio of
FRP for yielding of the
compression steel,
p,cy
where
p
2
= e
u
(e
u
-e

), and
Yes
(FRP
Rupture)
p
p
p
p,bb
?
N
o
,

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

s
t
e
e
l

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

y
i
e
l
d

Does M
u
meet strengthening
requirement?
Yes
Finish
p
p
p
p,c
? p
p
p
p,c
?