Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 101-571

Near-Surface-Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer


Reinforcements for Flexural Strengthening of
Concrete Structures
by Raafat EI-Hacha and Sami H. Rizkalla

The use offiber~rejllforced polymer (FRP) materials for strength- prorrusmg technique for strengthening masonry walls and
ening bridges and buildings has been used extensively in the last reinforced concrete members. Design guidelines for this
decade. FRP has been used in different configurations and techniques technique are currently under consideration by ACI
to use the moten"at effectively and to ensure long service life of the Committee 440 for the coming version of the "Guide for the
selected system. One of these innovative strengthening techniques is
the near-surface mounted (NSM) that consists of placing FRP
Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems
reinforcing bars or strips into grooves precut into the concrete cover for Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI 440.2R-02)." The
in the tension region of the strengthened concrete member. This NSM reinforcement technique consists of placing the FRP
method is relatively simple Gild considerably enhances the bond 0/ reinforcing bars or strips into grooves precut into the concrete
the mounted FRP reinforcements, thereby using the material more cover in the tension region of the reinforced concrete member
effectively. This paper presents test results of reinforced concrete and bonded to the three sides of the groove using high-strength
T-beams strengthened in flexure with different strengthening systems epoxy adhesive or cementitious grout.
using FRP reinforcing bars and strips as NSM reinforcement and
The application of NSM FRP reinforcement does not
externally bonded FRP strips, The FRP reinforcements used in this
investigation include carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP)
requires surface preparation work as in the case of externally
reinforcing bars alld strips and glass fiber-reinforced polymer bonded FRP reinforcement. In addition, the NSM FRP
(GFRP) thennoplastic strips, The behavior and effectiveness of the strengthening technique is also very efficient and practical
materials used for the various strengthening systems are compared. for flexural strengthening of slabs and beams in the negative
The structural performance and modes offailure of the tested beams moment regions. Use of externally bonded FRP reinforcement in
are presented and discussed Test results indicated that using NSM such cases could be subjected to mechanical and envirorunental
FRP reinforcing bars and strips is practical, significantly improves damage and would require extensive protective cover that could
the stiffness, alld increases the flexural capacity of reinforced interfere with the presence of floor finishes. Configuration of the
concrete beams, The limitations of using NSM FRP reinforcing bars FRP reinforcements used for the NSM technique is controlled by
and strips are controlled by serviceability requirements ill tenns of
the depth of the concrete cover. After installation, the NSM FRP
overall deflections and crack widthr rather than delamination,
observed by many researchers, of externally bonded FRP reinforcements are protected against mechanical damage, wear,
reinforcement. Strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using NSM impact, and vandalism from vehicles. The technique could also
FRP strips provided higher strength capacity than externally bonded provide better fire resistance in the event of a fire; therefore, it
FRP strips using the same maten'al with the same axial stiffness. could reduce the cost of fire protection measures.

Keywords: bar; beam; carbon; concrete; fiber-reinforced polymer; glass; RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
groove; strength; thennoplastic.
The use ofNSM FRP reinforcement is currently emerging
as a promising strengthening technique and a valid alternative
INTRODUCTION
to externally bonded FRP reinforcement for increasing the
Recently, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcements
flexural strength of reinforced concrete members. The structural
have been used extensively as an alternative reinforcement
perfonnance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened in
material to steel for new construction as well as for strength-
flexure with NSM FRP reinforcement was examined and
ening and repair of existing concrete structures. Externally
compared with beams strengthened with externally bonded
bonded FRP sheets and strips are currently the most commonly
FRP reinforcement. The behavior prior to and after cracking,
used techniques for flexural and shear strengthening of
concrete beams and slabs. Several researchers reported that ultimate carrying capacity, and modes of failure of all tested
the failure of members strengthened with externally bonded beams are discussed in this paper. The variables investigated
were the type of fibers, including carbon fiber-reinforced
FRP sheets and strips could be brittle due to debonding and/or
peeling of the FRP reinforcements, especially in the zones of polymer (CFRP) and glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP)
high flexural and shear stresses (El-Racha, Wight, and Green thennoplastic, and the configuration of the FRP reinforcement,
2000). Externally bonded FRP reinforcements could be highly including reinforcing bars and strips. The effectiveness of
susceptible to damage from collision, fire and temperature, NSM FRP reinforcing bars and strips was examined and
ultraviolet rays, and moisture absorption (ACI Committee 440
1996). In some cases, insufficient protection may reduce the ACl SlruCl!Iral Journal, v, 101, No, 5, September-October 2004.
service life of the structure. To minimize these problems, and MS No. 03-257 received July 1,2003, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2004. American Concrete Institute, All rights reserved. including
to improve utilization of the FRP materials, near-surface- the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author's closure, if any, will be published in the July-August
mounted (NSM) reinforcement was recently introduced as a 2005 ACI Strnctuml Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2005.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 717


The performance of various NSM FRP reinforcing bars
ACT member Raafat EI-Hacha is an assistant professor in the Department of Civil
Ellgineering, University of Calgary, Calgary. Alberta, Canada. He received his PhD and strips, as well as externally bonded FRP sheets on small-
in civil engineering from Queen's University, Kingston, On/aria, Canada, ill 200}. He scale concrete beams and slabs, was investigated by Hassan
is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement, alld (2002), including cost analysis for each of the FRP-
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 423, Prestressed Concrete. His research interests include
the application of memally prestressed wuJ nonprestressed fiber-reinforced polymer strengthening techniques. Test results showed that using
(FRP) sheets and strips, memnlly prestressed FRP cables, and near-suiface-mounted NSM CFRP reinforcing bars increased the strength by 36%.
FRP strips and reinforcing barsfor strengthening concrete structures.
Using NSM CFRP strips increased the strength by 43% in
Sami H. Rizkalla, FACI, is a Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering and comparison with an increase of only 11 % using the axial
Construction, Director of the COllstructed Facilities lAboratory (CFL) at North stiffness used as externally bonded strips due to peeling
Carolina State Universit)" Raleigh, N.c., and Director of the NSF IliduslrylUniversity
Cooperative Research Center. He is a past Chair of ACI Committee 440, Fiber-
failure of the strips. Hassan (2002) reported that the efficiency
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement. and a member of Joint ACl·ASCE Committee of using FRP reinforcing bars as NSM reinforcement is
550, Precast Concrete Structures. controlled by the bond characteristics of the reinforcing bars
in addition to the bond between the epoxy adhesive material
compared with externally bonded FRP strips using the and the surrounding concrete in the groove. Such behavior
same material and axial stiffness . The findings of this has been confirmed and reported recently by other
research provide data for the design guidelines currently researchers (De Lorenzis and Nanni 2002) . The maximum
under consideration by ACI Committee 440 for the NSM tensile strain in the CFRP and GFRP bars used as NSM rein-
FRP strengthening technique. forcement did not exceed 33 and 60% of the rupture strain of
the bars at failure, respectively (De Lorenzis and Nanni
2002). Hassan (2002) reported that such a limiting value is
BACKGROUND highly dependent on the configuration and the ratio of the
Published literature on the use of NSM FRP for structural steel reinforcement inside the concrete beam as well as on
strengthening is very limited when compared with that of the stress level at the concrete-epoxy interface. The author
externally bonded FRP laminates. Even though the use of found that the maximum measured tensile strain in the CFRP
NSM FRP reinforcement for strengthening is relatively bars at failure is in the range of 40 to 45% of the rupture
recent, NSM steel bars were used in Europe for strength- strain of reinforcing bars, and that the rupture of CFRP
ening of reinforced concrete structures. Asplund (1949) reinforcing bars is not likely to occur regardless of the
carried out tests on concrete beams strengthened with NSM embedment or bond length or the type of epoxy adhesive used.
steel bars grouted into diamond-sawed grooves filled with Recently, prestressed NSM CFRP rectangular rods have
cement mortar and compared their behavior with that of been used as a bonded post-tensioned system to strengthen
conventional concrete beams reinforced with steel bars. concrete beams (Nordin, Tiiljsten, and Carolin 2001). The
Identical behavior for both sets of specimens was observed. initial strain was approximately 0.002, which is about 12% of
The same technique was used in strengthening a reinforced the ultimate strain. The beam strengthened with prestressed
concrete bridge deck in Sweden that experienced excessive NSM CFRP rods showed about a 100 and 37% increase in the
settlement of the negative moment reinforcement during cracking and yielding load, respectively, compared with the
construction, so that the negative moment capacity needed to beam strengthened with nonprestressed NSM CFRP rods. The
be increased (Asplund 1949). The advantage of using FRP ultimate loads and failure modes were the same with or
instead of steel is primarily due to its corrosion resistance, without prestress by rupture of the NSM FRP rods; however,
which is particularly important in this case due to the location beams prestressed with NSM CFRP rods had smaller
of the reinforcing bars or strips being very close to the deflections at failure.
surface that could be exposed to aggressive environmental
attacks (De Lorenzis and Nanni 2002). Alkhrdaji et al. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
(1999) conducted in-place tests on reinforced concrete Test specimens and setup
bridge decks strengthened with NSM sandblasted CFRP A total of eight, simply supported, 2.7 m (9 ft) long,
rods. Test results showed an increase in the moment capacity concrete T-beams were constructed and tested under a
of 27% compared with the unstrengthened deck. monotonically increasing concentrated load applied at
Research in Germany indicated that the bond characteristics midspan of the beam. The test setup of aT-beam specimen
of NSM CFRP strips are superior to externally bonded CFRP is shown in Fig. 1. The load was applied using a closed-loop
strips (Blaschko and Zilch 1999). NSM CFRP sandblasted controller-testing machine operating using stroke-control
rods and deformed GFRP rods increased the flexural strength mode at a loading rate of 1.07 mmlmin (0.042 inlmin). One
of simply supported reinforced concrete T-beams by 30 and beam was tested as a control specimen whereas the other
26%, respectively (De Lorenzis, Nanni and La Tegola 2000). seven beams were strengthened using different FRP rein-
Increasing the amount of NSM reinforcement did not produce forcements including CFRP reinforcing bars and strips as
significant gain in the capacity. Arduini, Gottardo, and well as GFRP thermoplastic strips.
DeRiva (2001) found that the use of high-strength mortar with The bottom tension reinforcement consisted of two No. 13
compensated shrinkage or epoxy putty guarantee full use of deformed steel bars of nominal diameter 12.7 mm (1/2 in.)
the NSM FRP strengthening system. The ultimate load- running along the full length of the beams and two No. 16
carrying capacity of beams strengthened with rectangular deformed steel bars of nominal diameter 15.9 mm (5/8 in.)
NSM CFRP rods using epoxy adhesive and cement grout as terminated with a 90-degree bent at 100 mm (4 in.) away
bonding agent has increased by 77 and 56%, respectively from the midspan section on both sides, as shown in Fig. 1.
(Tiiljsten and Carotin 2001). Using high-strength rectangular This arrangement of the bottom reinforcement was selected
NSM FRP rods and high modulus rectangular NSM FRP rods to ensure that the flexural failure of the strengthened beam
increased the ultimate load capacity by !O8 and 93%, will always occur at the midspan section and to simulate
respectively (Carolin, Hordin, and Tiiljsten 2001). field conditions where the bottom steel reinforcement is

718 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004


corroded or damaged. The top compression reinforcement
consisted of two No. 13 defonned steel bars of nominal
diameter 12.7 mm (1/2 in.). The beams were designed to
avoid compression failure due to concrete crushing and shear
failure before failure of the strengthening system. Shear
reinforcement consisted of double-legged steel stirrups
No. 13 deformed steel bar of nominal diameter 12.7 mm
(112 in.) unifonnly spaced at 100 mm (4 in.) center to center.
The top flange was reinforced with a welded wire fabric
mesh, SI x SI MW5.6 x MW5.6, with a nominal diameter of
2.67 mm, a wire spacing of 51 mm center to center in both
the longitudinal and transverse direction, and a reinforcement
area of 110 mm 2/m. Reinforcement details of aT-beam
specimen are shown in Fig. 1. The specified yield strength -'+<:_
I' 300 - -+-
r - 51><51MW56~MW56 -"1<_
and modulus of elasticity of the tension and compression I ...... 1 so
reinforcements were 400 MPa (58 ksi) and 200 GPa I L-.: f;::--' - 1>-
(29,000 ksi), respectively. The concrete was designed for a
I -1-.•' ...... 211 13
300
nominal compressive strength of 45 MPa (6.5 ksi) at 28 days. . 1-#lJ@IOO
~j.t::...~:j::==
Test matrix
One beam was tested without strengthening (BO) and
served as the control specimen for comparison purposes.
Four beams (B 1, B2, B3, and B4) were strengthened with
1 ,
->I.

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

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

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 719


Table 2-FRP material mechanical properties as reported by manufacturer
Ultimate
Area, mm2
Elastic modulus, Ultimate tensile tensile
FRP products Dimensions. nun (in.) (inh GPa (ksi) strength, MPa (ksi) straln, %
CFRP bars (Manf.-I ) 9.5 (3/8) 71.3 (O.Il ) 122.5 (17,770) 1408 (204) 1.14
CFRP strips (Manf.-2) 2 x 16 (5/64 x 518) 32 (0.05) 140 (20,300) 1525 (221) 1.08
CFRP strips (Manf.-2) 1.2 x 25 (3/64 x 1.0) 30 (0.047) 150 (21,770) 2000 (290) 1.33
GFRP strips (Mant,-3) 2 x 20 (5/64 x 50/64) 40 (0.062) 45 (6530) 1000 (145) 2.22

., . completely with the appropriate epoxy adhesive paste

It
1
iiii
using a manual epoxy gun to provide the necessary bond
with the surrounding concrete. Then the FRP reinforcements
I -A-II-dim-~-'-if)I1S-0-~-'"-m-m--- 2400 - - - - -- ---->; (reinforcing bars and strips) were inserted inside the grooves
ensuring that they were completely covered with epoxy and
lightly pressed to displace the bonding agent. This action

".Y 6ATF .AM .AIr


- 1,,1+-
I NSM CFRP rchar
<19.li"J
2 NSM CFRP strips
type I
- 1,,1+-
2 NSM CFRP strips
type 2
_ 11+-38
5 NSM GFRP strips
forces the epoxy paste to flow around the FRP reinforcement
and completely fill the space between the FRP and the sides
of the groove, The groove was then filled with more paste if
needed and the surface was leveled, The excess adhesive
was removed with a spatula. The surface was smooth finished
to achieve uniform distribution. The same procedures in terms
Fig. 2- Groove dimensions for various NSM FRP of cutting the groove, injecting the epoxy, and placing the
strengthening systems. FRP reinforcing bars and strips were applied. The epoxy
adhesive was allowed to fully cure at room temperature for at
CFK 150/2000 CFRP strips (Manf.-2 = Strucrural Composites, least 1week before testing of the bearns.
Inc. 2002); and Product-4 = thermoplastic GFRP strips
(Manf,-3 = Dow Plastic Chemical 2000). The GFRP strips
Dimensions of grooves
are manufactured using the thermoplastic composite
The grooves cut at the bottom surface of the concrete
technology, which enables the production of high-performance
beams had different cross sections depending on the type of
unidirectional pultruded composites based on a thennoplastic
FRP reinforcements used as shown in Fig, 2. For the 9.5 mm
matrix with continuous fiber reinforcement. The material
(3/8 in.) NSM CFRP reinforcing bar, the groove was
properties of the different FRP strengthening systems are
approximately 18 mm (0.708 in.) wide and 30 mm (1.18 in,)
given in Table 2 as reported by the manufacturers with linear
deep cut at the middle of the bottom width of the beam
stress-strain behavior up to failure.
specimen. For the Type 1 2 x 16 mm (0.078 x 0.63 in.) NSM
Commercially available epoxy adhesives were used for CFRP strip, two grooves, 75 mm (3,0 in.) apart, were cut at
bonding the FRP reinforcing bars and strips. A two-component the bottom width of the beam specimen; each groove was
adhesive with a mixture ratio of 1 (resin) : 1 (hardener) by approximately 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) wide and 19 mm (3/4 in.)
volume was used for bonding the NSM CFRP reinforcing deep, For the Type 21.2 x 25 mm (0.05 x 1.0 in.) NSM CFRP
bars to the surrounding concrete (ChemCo Systems, Inc, strip, two grooves, 75 mm (3,0 in.) apart, were cut at the
1995). As reported by the manufacturer, the adhesive has a bottom width of the beam specimen; each groove was
modulus of elasticity of 1200 MPa (174 ksi), an ultimate approximately 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) wide and 25 mm (1.0 in.)
tensile strength of 48 MPa (6,96 ksi), a compressive yield deep. For the 2 x 20 mm (0.078 x 0.78 in.) NSM GFRP
strength of71.7 MPa (10.4 ksi), and a compressive modulus strip, three grooves, 38 mm (1.5 in.) apart, were cut at the
of 3378 MPa (490 ksi). Another type of high-strength epoxy bottom width of the beam specimen; each groove was
adhesive was used to bond the CFRP and GFRP strips to the approximately 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) wide and 25 mm (1.0 in.)
concrete and consisted of a two-component adhesive with a deep, One GFRP strip was inserted into the middle
mixture ratio of 2: 1 by volume (Structural Components, Inc. groove and two strips bonded together side by side were
2002). As reported by the manufacturer, the adhesive has a placed in each of the outer two grooves.
modulus of elasticity of 3500 MPa (507.6 ksi), an ultimate
tensile strength of 70 MPa (10.2 ksi), and a compressive
Installation of externally bonded
strength of 82.7 MPa (12 ksi),
FRP reinforcements
To ensure a good, strong bond, the bottom surface of the
Installation of NSM FRP reinforcements concrete beams was prepared by grinding until the coarse
Installation of the NSM FRP reinforcing bars and strips aggregates were exposed, then cleaned by washing and air-
begins by making a series of grooves with specified dimensions brushing to remove dust or debris and fine particles. Care
cut into the concrete cover in the longitudinal direction at the was taken to ensure that the resulting concrete surface after
tension side of the beam specimens. A special concrete saw grinding was unifonn. Following cleaning, a unifonn 2 mm
with a diamond blade was used to cut the grooves with the (0.078 in.) thin layer of the two-part epoxy-based adhesive
dimensions shown in Fig. 2. The grooves were cleaned from was applied by palette knife to the bottom surface of the
any dust and air-brushing pressure was used to remove concrete beam. The FRP strips were placed in position on the
debris and fine particles to ensure proper bonding between concrete surface and pressed onto the epoxy by hand, To
the epoxy adhesive and the concrete. ensure a good bond with concrete, a uniform pressure was
The adhesive was applied into the groove before inserting applied along the entire length of the strips, AU-shaped
the FRP reinforcing bars or strips, Each groove was filled wrap CFRP sheet with 100 mm (4,0 in.) width was placed

720 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004


Table 3-Summary of significant test results'
Strengthening Beam Percent
systems no. PeT' kN (kips) IJ. cr • nun (in.) P" kN (kips) 6.Y' mm (in.) P" kN (kips) Au. nun (in.) eu' % Failure mode increase in Pit
Crushing of concrete
- BO 21.98 (4.94) 1.35 (0.053) 38.11 (8.57) 8.88 (0.35) 55.4 (12.5) 64.4 (2.54) -
and steel yielding -
Debonding of NSM
Bl 24.7 (5.55) 1.27 (0.05) 47.94 (10.78) 4.85 (0 .19 1) 93.8 (21.0) 29.2 (1.15) 0.88 CFRP reinforcing bar 69.3
(epoxy split failure)
Rupture of NSM
Near~surface- B2 22.24 (5.9) 1.08 (0.043) 48.62 (10.93) 5.61 (0.221) 99.3 (22.3) 30.5 (1.20) 1.34 79 .2
CFRP strips
mountedFRP
reinforcement 30.11 (6.77) 1.702 (0.067) 49.16 (11.05) 5.25 (0.207) 110.2 (24.7) 50.8 (2.00) 1.38
Rupture of NSM 98.9
B3 CFRP strips
Debonrling of NSM
B4 24.46 (5.50) 1.6 (0.063) 48.17 (10.83) 5.67 (0.223) 102.7 (23.1) 44.3 (1.75) 1.35 GFRP strips 85.4
(concrete split failure)
Debonding of
B2a 22.46 (5.05) 1.22 (0.048) 44.88 (10.09) 4.42 (0.174) 64.6 (14.5) 43.7 (1.71) 0.48 externally bonded 16.6
CFRP strips
Externally Debonding of
bonded FRP B2b - - - - 64.3 (14.5) 2\.7 (0.85) 0.44 externally bonded 16.1
reinforcement CFRP strips
Debonding of
B4a 29.13 (6.55) 0.95 (0.037) 48.16 (10.82) 4.39 (0.173) 71.1 (15.9) 22.2 (0.87) 0.62 externally bonded 28.3
GFRP strips
· Where Per = cracking load; tlu = midspan deflection at cracking; Py = yield load; lly = midspan deflection at yielding; Pu. = ultimate load failure; .6.u :::: midspan deflection at failure;
and e" = maximum tensile strain in FRP reinforcing bar or strip at failure.

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

.3
2.5
24

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

lIf· U'
20
All di"'~Mi(ms are ill mm

[
80
."-
~

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

"
~
~
60 •
~
. . 11 " ~

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

Beam BO: Unstrengthened


.2
~
Load
8
~

..
0.
~

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


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

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

externally bonded FRP flexural reinforcements, with the


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

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 721


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

722 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004


Midspan can.cuon (In)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

100 . S.am 80: Unstrengthened :


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

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


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

~
.2
~ 16

~ '" .... ,····80


12
'!
J

~ . I•

m
~40

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

Fig. 9- Load-midspan deflection of beams strengthened


with NSM and externally bonded CFRP strips.

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


NSM CFRP strips Type 2.

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

100

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

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

4 LOild

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

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


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

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 723


24
100

20

80

.2. .2

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


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

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

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4


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

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


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

20 debonding of the CFRP strips from the concrete substrate.


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

~i
« 8 ~

Beam BO: Unsuengthened


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

724 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004


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

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

0
12 ~
f--..- _Beam 84: 5 NSM GFRP Strips ~
:!
g:
¥
~
40
• "•
~

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

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

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

It should be noted that using the same axial stiffness for


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

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

increase in debonding load. This has been confirmed by 16


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

Beam 84: 5 NSM GFRP StrIps



12 ..3
Beam 84a: 5 EB GFRP Strips ~

NSM versus externally bonded GFRP strips •


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

strengthened using externally bonded thermoplastic GFRP


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

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 725


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

726 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004