Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Arches

with Externally Bonded Composite Materials:

Testing and Analysis
Ehab Hamed 1; Zhen-Tian Chang 2; and Oded Rabinovitch 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: An experimental and analytical study that includes testing to failure of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) strengthened medium-
scaled reinforced concrete shallow arches and the application of a specially tailored high-order finite element for their analysis is presented.
Three arches are tested. One is used as a control arch, whereas the other two are strengthened with externally bonded FRP strips in different
patterns. The loading system includes six nonsymmetric vertical point loads equally spaced along the arch. The theoretical study is based on a
multilayered finite-element approach, which accounts for the deformability of the adhesive layer and its shear and radial normal (through the
thickness) stiffness. The arch is modeled as a polygon that consists of inclined specially tailored high-order finite elements. The results show
that applying the FRP strips leads to an increase of about 40% in the failure load of the arch, changes to the cracking pattern, and a significant
increase in deflection capacity. Edge debonding of the FRP strip is observed during the test but without causing total failure of the arch. The
ability of the theoretical model to describe the overall structural response, the stress transfer mechanism in the strengthened arch, and the
interfacial stresses and the local stress concentrations near irregular points are also demonstrated. Together they throw light on the behavior of
the FRP-strengthened arch and on the evolution of its failure mechanism. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000495. © 2014 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Arches; Composite materials; Concrete; Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP); Strengthening.

Introduction Externally bonded composite materials in the form of fiber-

Reinforced concrete (RC) arches can be found in many structures,
but they have been mainly used historically in bridge constructions
because of the superiority of the arch shape that allows spanning
over large distances. In most cases, the arch is built with spandrel
columns, and it is designed to act largely in compression under
symmetric vertical loads. Nevertheless, because of the many non-
symmetric actions that induce significant bending in the arch, many
of the existing arch bridges suffer from structural deteriorations in
the form of cracks and corrosion (Zanardo et al. 2004; Avossa et al.
2008; Dym and Williams 2011). The nonsymmetric actions mainly
include high levels of nonuniform traffic conditions, settlement of
supports, seismic actions, construction errors, and fatigue under re-
peated loads. These effects may also be combined with aggressive
environmental effects. Therefore, retrofitting of such arch bridges is
required to increase their service life and to provide them with the
required level of safety.
1
Senior Lecturer, Center for Infrastructure Engineering and Safety,
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of New South
Wales, Univ. of New South Wales Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
(corresponding author). E-mail: e.hamed@unsw.edu.au
2
Senior Research Fellow, Center for Infrastructure Engineering
and Safety, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ.
of New South Wales, Univ. of New South Wales Sydney, NSW 2052,
Australia.
3
Professor, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion-
Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 3, 2013; approved
on April 8, 2014; published online on June 16, 2014. Discussion period
open until November 16, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites
for Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/04014031(15)/$25.00.
reinforced polymers (FRPs) are being used in recent years for
the strengthening of concrete and masonry structures, with many
applications being reported worldwide. The ongoing research in
this field points in favor of using this strengthening technique also
for RC arches. In addition to its general advantages over other tradi-
tional strengthening techniques, this strengthening system in par-
ticular is attractive for RC arches because it can easily follow the
curved geometry of the arch. If access is available, which is typ-
ically the case in arch bridges, FRP can be used to strengthen both
faces of the arch. By means of this advantage, this technique can
easily follow the bending moment diagram (potential tension at
both faces) and can provide anchoring to the FRP at the edges
by wrapping composite sheets around the arch section.
Many theoretical and experimental studies were devoted to
investigate the behavior of RC beams that are strengthened with
externally bonded FRP (Bakis et al. 2002; Rizkalla et al. 2003;
Teng et al. 2003). Despite the experimentally proved advantages
of using FRP for the strengthening of RC beams, very few appli-
cations or experimental investigations of using FRP for the repair
and strengthening of RC arches could be found (Zanardo et al.
2004). The curved geometry of the arch, its load resistance mecha-
nism (combined membrane and flexural actions), cracking pattern,
and failure mechanisms highlight the need for an experimental
investigation of using FRP for the strengthening of RC arches.
This is because both experimental findings and theoretical models
for FRP-strengthened RC beams cannot be directly applied to RC
arches because they are specific to the flat geometry of the beam
and its flexural action which are different in arches. Nevertheless,
applications and research have been widely conducted on masonry
arches with clear advantages of this technique over others and
with significant improvement of the structural performance (Borri
et al. 2011; Tao et al. 2011; Rovero et al. 2013). Despite the
substantial difference between the behavior of RC arches to that

© ASCE 04014031-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031

 of unreinforced masonry arches, the physical phenomena that were
observed in the testing and analysis of strengthened masonry arches
are outlined below because some of these phenomena are likely to
occur in strengthened RC arches as well (Valluzzi et al. 2001;
Foraboschi 2004; Elmalich and Rabinovitch 2010). These include
cracking and crushing of the substrate, detachment of the strength-
ening system, and buckling or rupture of the FRP strips. Unlike
masonry arches, RC arches are typically shallow ones with a
span-to-rise ratio of about 5–10 (Dym and Williams 2011). In such
configurations, buckling and geometrical nonlinearities that are
sensitive to geometric imperfections become critical aspects of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the structural behavior. Therefore, the role of the FRP strips in such
strengthened RC arches is mainly to minimize the influences of
geometric imperfections and to restrain/delay severe cracking
and failure as a result of nonsymmetric loading. These aspects
and the potential physical phenomena mentioned above set the
challenges to be met by the analysis and design of strengthened
RC arches.
The literature survey reveals that there are only few reported test
results, even for unstrengthened RC arches. Zhang et al. (2007)
tested two arch ribs taken from a 28-year old bridge under service
and highlighted the sensitivity of the behavior to the initial cracks,
corrosion, and geometric imperfections. Other tests on an existing
railway arch bridge were conducted by Marefat et al. (2004).
Opposed to the limited information on RC arches, many experi-
mental studies were reported in the literature regarding masonry
arches that are strengthened with externally bonded composite
materials (e.g., Foraboschi 2004; Borri et al. 2011; Tao et al.
2011; Rovero et al. 2013). In these studies, it was mainly observed
that FRP strengthening restrained flexural crack opening in the ma-
sonry and prevented a four-hinge collapse mechanism. Instead,
failure occurred when the FRP debonded from the masonry adja-
cent to an existing intrados hinge crack or by material failure in
terms of crushing of the masonry units. Yuan and Li (2010) exper-
imentally and theoretically investigated the spalling and debonding
behavior in FRP-strengthened concrete members with curved
surface. As expected, the results showed a strong dependency of
the peeling load upon the radius of curvature.
Analytical models for the stress analysis of general strengthened
arches can be found, for example, in Valluzzi et al. (2001) and
Chen (2002). In these models, a linear strain distribution through
the entire depth of the strengthened cross section is assumed.
This approach is suitable for describing the global response of
the arch, but it does not take into account the influence of the
adhesive interfacial stresses on the localized response of stress
concentrations near the edges of the adhesive. The latter aspect
is particularly important, mainly because of its tendency to initiate
FRP debonding failures. De Lorenzis and Zavarise (2009) theoreti-
cally investigated the interfacial stress distribution and the debond-
ing mechanisms in curved members with bonded thin plates. Yet,
both the normal and tangential interfacial stresses were considered
uniform through the thickness of the adhesive, and the geometrical
nonlinearity was not accounted for. Wang and Zhang (2010)
developed a three-parameter elastic foundation model for estimat-
ing the interfacial stresses in FRP-strengthened curved beams.
This model divided the adhesive layer into two parts and assumed
that the normal stresses are constant through the upper and lower
parts of the layer.
Limit state analyses of strengthened masonry arches are
found in Caporale et al. (2012) and Briccoli Bati et al. (2013).
Drosopoulos et al. (2007) developed a unilateral contact-friction
finite- element model for the limit state analysis of masonry arches.
These models are based on the brittle response and the geometric
configuration of the masonry arch (mortar/brick) by means of a
© ASCE 04014031-2
J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031
rigid block approach. This approach cannot be directly applied
to the analysis of RC arches. Using similar approaches, Rovero et al.
(2013) theoretically and experimentally investigated the behavior
of strengthened masonry arches under horizontal forces. The results
showed that increasing the overall carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer
(CFRP) length leads to an increase in the collapse load but a
decrease in the displacement capacity. Other studies also focused
on the overall global blast analysis of retrofitted arches (Nam
et al. 2009).
An analytical model for the stress analysis of FRP-strengthened
monolithic arches was presented by Elmalich and Rabinovitch
(2009b). This model describes the high-order stress field through
the depth of the adhesive layer and the corresponding local behav-
ior through a set of differential equations. The extension of such
analytical solution to the nonlinear case and to the general analysis
of large arches with various segments (strengthened on the intrados,
or the extrados, unstrengthened segments) is somewhat problem-
atic. Conversely, the use of standard finite-element (FE) modeling
of the FRP-strengthened arch (by itself or as an alternative to the
analytical modeling) is also problematic and challenging. This is
mainly because of the extensive computational efforts required with
at least 2 or 3 elements through the thickness of the adhesive layer
for capturing the localized effects in terms of stress concentrations
near the edges and other irregular points along the structure. In
many cases, FE analysis is negatively affected by the free-edge
boundary conditions, whereas the normal stresses at the edge of
the adhesive interfaces tend to diverge (Rabinovitch and Frostig
2000; Teng et al. 2002; Hamed and Rabinovitch 2007; Yang
and Ye 2010). In an attempt to overcome these obstacles, a spe-
cially tailored finite element for the analysis of layered curved
structures was developed by Elmalich and Rabinovitch (2009a)
based on the analytical model of Elmalich and Rabinovitch
(2009b). In Elmalich and Rabinovitch (2010), the model was fur-
ther extended for the nonlinear analysis of masonry arches. This
model combined the advantages of the FE method with the ability
to describe the local behavior near irregular points. Yet, the high-
order formulation in the framework of a polar coordinate system
led to stress and displacement fields that have the shape of natural
logarithm functions (ln) through the depth of the adhesive layer.
This introduces more than a few computational difficulties to
the analysis, somewhat complicates the efficient assessment of the
Jacobian matrix and the residual vector, and negatively affects the
computational efficiency of the model.
The main aim of this paper is to experimentally and theoretically
investigate the behavior of RC arches that are strengthened with
externally bonded composite materials. An experimental study that
includes loading to failure of three medium-scaled RC arches (one
control and two strengthened with FRP) is conducted. In addition, a
physical model that is based on the use of straight multilayered FE
modeling approach is developed. The multilayered high-order
straight FE was developed in Rabinovitch and Madah (2012a)
for the dynamic analysis of flat strengthened masonry walls.
The modeling approach takes advantage of the versatility of the FE
method and at the same time, enables the description of the local-
ized effects (stress concentrations) near irregular points without
significant computational effort and without meshing through
the thickness. Based on this approach, the arch is modeled as a
polygon with a sufficient number of inclined flat elements that
closely match the geometry of the arch and its curvature. Using
this simplified modeling approach, the arch is modeled in the global
Cartesian coordinate system and the numerical difficulties stem-
ming from the logarithmic patterns of the closed-form polar
displacement fields are eliminated.
J. Compos. Constr.
 Experimental Program
The tested RC arches and the loading scheme are illustrated in
Fig. 1. All arches have a constant radius of curvature of
4,098 mm with a rise of 600 mm (measured from the centerline).
The rectangular cross-section of the arch is 300 mm wide and
80 mm deep. The rise-to-span ratio, thickness-to-radius ratio,
and thickness-to-span ratio of the arch were chosen to fall within
a range of typical values reported from existing RC arches
(Billington 1979; Dym and Williams 2011; Salonga and Gauvreau
2014). Each arch has six short spandrel columns cast together with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the arch. These rectangular columns have the same width (300 mm)
as the arch, and their depth is 100 mm. The cross-section of the
arches contains six longitudinal round steel bars of 6 mm in diam-
eter and 4 mm steel wire stirrups at 100 mm spacing along the arch
and at 50 mm spacing within 100 mm of each side of the spandrel
columns. The thickness of the concrete cover layer is 10 mm.
Because of the lack of specific guidelines for RC arches and based
on the beam-column behavior of the arch under the combined
action of flexure and membrane compression, the amount of
reinforcement was taken between the minimum reinforcement
required in columns and the minimum required in beams.
Under a symmetric loading scheme, the arch acts mainly in
compression and the effectiveness of the bonded FRP can be
relatively small. Strengthening of the arch in such cases might
be needed to avoid any future damage because of unexpected load,
which is unlike the case for RC beams where cracks would nor-
mally exist before the application of the FRP. However, to inves-
tigate the behavior of the arch affected by uneven loads and
geometric imperfections, the arches were loaded under a nonsym-
metric pattern with the magnitude of two-point loads designed to be
approximately 70% of the magnitude of the other four. The non-
symmetric loading is shown in Fig. 1. The loads were applied syn-
chronously using three hydraulic jacks under the same oil pressure
and through specially designed loading frames that are anchored to
the structural floor. A universal steel I-beam (150 UC 23.4) was
Fig. 1. Experimental setup: geometry, loading, and supporting conditions (all dimensions are in mm)
© ASCE 04014031-3
J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031
used to distribute the load from each jack to the arch at two points
through two spandrel columns via pinned supports. Fig. 2(a) shows
a picture of one of the arches under loading.
Arch A1 is the control specimen, which was tested without
strengthening. Arch A2 was strengthened with CFRP strips located
at the center of the arch width on the intrados and extrados. FRP
plates were preferred over sheets because their application provides
a better quality control, and they are easier to be applied on site.
Further, the flexural stiffness of the plates provides an advantage
over impregnated sheets, especially for application at the intrados
of the arch. The locations of the strips follow the bending moment
diagram that results from the nonsymmetric loading but maintain a
symmetric strengthening pattern. The CFRP strips are 100 mm
wide and 1.2 mm thick. These values were chosen to approximately
match the amount of internal tensioned steel reinforcement. The
strips were discontinued at the edges of the spandrel columns. Arch
A3 was strengthened with the same pattern as A2, but to avoid pre-
mature debonding, it includes anchoring of the strip ends with an
80 mm wide CFRP fabric wrap system. To maintain a continuity of
the force carried by the CFRP strips at the critical sections, narrow
CFRP strips (70 mm wide, 400 mm long, and 1.2 mm thick) were
bonded on both sides of the arch at the locations of the spandrel
columns that are subjected to the reduced load (0.7P). These addi-
tional CFRP components are also shown in Fig. 1. This additional
strengthening pattern was designed following the results observed
in testing of arch A2, where a significant crack developed at the left
column-arch joint line.
The arches were pin supported at both ends as shown in the de-
tail provided in Fig. 1. The end supporting system was connected to
a steel channel that was anchored to the floor at the left end of the
arch but left free at the right end. To restrain the horizontal displace-
ment at the supports, two 60 mm diameter steel bars were used to
connect the two supports. The connection detail uses threaded nuts.
The length of each bar is 4,960 mm. This includes a 4,460 mm long
part with a diameter of 60 mm and two 250 mm long threaded ends
with a diameter of 39 mm.
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Sensing and monitoring devices for the control arch A1; (a) control arch under testing; (b) displacement laser sensors and digital linear strain
conversion transducers; (c) strain gauges on the concrete surfaces; (d) strain gauges bonded to the steel reinforcement (all dimensions are in mm)
(images by authors)

Figs. 2(b–d) show the strain gauges and the monitoring devices. and Madah (2012a). This FE, which is based on the high- order
The vertical displacements of all arches were measured by six modeling approach, is modified here for the analysis of the
laser displacement sensors (La-1 to La-6) and five digital linear FRP-strengthened arches. The high- order modeling approach
strain conversion transducers (Ls-1 to Ls-5) at five points symmet- and its tailored FE modeling were validated in a spectrum of studies
rically located along the arch as shown in Fig. 2(b). In addition, through comparison with experimental, analytical, and standard
six digital linear strain conversion transducers (Ls-6 to Ls-11) were finite-element results obtained for RC beams, steel beams, and ma-
set at the two supports to measure any potential horizontal or sonry structures (e.g., Rabinovitch and Frostig 2000, 2003; Hamed
vertical movements. Three load cells (LC-1 to LC-3) were used and Rabinovitch 2007, 2010; Czaderski and Rabinovitch 2010;
to measure the loads at the locations shown in Fig. 2(b). The strains Rabinovitch and Madah 2012b; Elmalich and Rabinovitch 2010,
were measured with a total of 40 strain gauges, 18 of which 2012). This spectrum of analytical, numerical, and experimental
(SG-C1 to SG-C18) were mounted on the concrete or CFRP comparisons demonstrate the validity and highlight the reliability
surface at the locations shown in Fig. 2(c). The other 22 were of this modeling approach.
mounted on the steel reinforcements before casting (SG-S1 to The arch is modeled as a polygon made of an assembly of
SG-S16) and on the steel tie bars (SG-S17 to SG-S22) as shown inclined straight segments that match the geometry of the arch.
in Fig. 2(d). For completeness and clarity, the main modeling approach and
All three arches and all specimens needed for material testing the assumptions that are used in the derivation of the basic FE
were cast using a commercial ready-mixed concrete. After casting, are briefly discussed in the subsequent section. The model is used
the arches and the specimens were covered with wet hessian and to quantify and describe the structural response and the stress
plastic sheets. They were kept moist in moulds for 14 days before transfer mechanism between the RC arch and the FRP strengthen-
stripped from the formworks. Then, they were stored at the ing system, but without reference to the failure behavior of
laboratory ambient condition until testing of the arches, starting the arch.
at the age of 46 days. The material properties of the concrete, steel,
adhesive, and CFRP strips appear in Table 1. The properties of the
CFRP and adhesive are based on the materials’ manufacturer. Table 1. Mechanical Properties of the Materials
The properties of the concrete and steel were experimentally mea-
sured according to Australia Standards AS1012 (SAA 1993) and Elastic Shear Tensile Compressive
modulus modulus strength strength
AS1391 (SAA 2007), respectively.
Material (GPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Concrete 27.8 11.88 3.6 44
High-Order Finite-Element Model Epoxy adhesive 11.5 4.42 33.7 —
CFRP strip 159.5 7.98 2,695 —
The numerical analysis uses the specially tailored FE approach de- Steel 207 — 540 —
reinforcement
veloped for straight FRP- strengthened wall panels in Rabinovitch

© ASCE 04014031-4 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031

 Assumptions
Figs. 3(a–c) show the sign conventions of the high-order modeling
approach. The sign convention refers to the local Cartesian coor-
dinate system (x̄, z̄) of a segment taken out of the polygonal
approximation of the arch. Fig. 3(d) shows the specially tailored
FE in its inclined position and its transformation to the global
coordinate system (x; z). The element combines five layers that in-
clude two FRP layers (indicated by subscripts or superscripts frp1
and frp2), two adhesive layers (indicated by subscripts or super-
scripts a1 and a2), and the RC member (indicated by subscripts or
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
[indicated by qz̄ and nx̄ , respectively, in Fig. 3(a)] are applied to
the RC arch only and that the stress and displacement fields are
uniform through the width of each component.
Mathematical Formulation
Following the modeling assumptions mentioned above, N ix̄ x̄ ; V ixx ,
and M ix̄ x̄ (i ¼ frp1; frp2 or c) stand for the axial force, shear
force, and bending moment, respectively, in the FRP strips and
the RC arch [Fig. 3(c)]; σjz̄ z̄ and τ jx̄ z̄ (j ¼ a1 or a2) stand for

superscripts c). The two FRP strips are modeled using first-order the out-of-plane normal stresses and the shear stresses, respectively,
shear deformation beam theory (Timoshenko beams) with an in the adhesive layers; u0i , wi , ϕi (i ¼ frp1, frp2 or c) are the in-
intermediate class of deformations (large deflections, moderate ro- plane displacement, out-of-plane displacement, and rotation of the
tations, small strains). They are also assumed linear elastic and their cross-sections, respectively, of the FRP strips and the RC member,
constitutive behavior is governed by the classical lamination theory. whereas uaj and waj (j ¼ 1 or 2) are the in-plane and out-of-plane
The RC layer is modeled using the first-order Timoshenko beam displacements, respectively, of the adhesive layers [Fig. 3(a)].
theory with large deflections, moderate rotations, and small strains. Based on the high-order modeling approach (Rabinovitch and
A linear elastic behavior is assumed for the RC arch. Frostig 2000), the out-of-plane and the in-plane displacements of
The FRP layers are attached to the RC member using adhesive the adhesive layer are assumed to take parabolic and cubic poly-
layers. These layers are modeled as 2D elastic media that resist nomial forms, respectively, as follows:
shear and out-of-plane (through the thickness or radial, in the con-

2
text of the arch geometry) normal stresses. Their in-plane rigidities, z̄aj z̄aj
waj ðx̄; z̄aj Þ ¼ w0j ðx̄Þ þ w1j ðx̄Þ þ w2j ðx̄Þ ð1Þ
which by means of the polygon approximation reflect the tangential caj caj
rigidities, are significantly lower (in the order of 10–1,000 times
smaller) than those of the adjacent components (RC arch and

2
z̄aj z̄aj
FRP). Therefore, they are neglected (Rabinovitch and Frostig uaj ðx̄; z̄aj Þ ¼ u0j ðx̄Þ þ u1j ðx̄Þ þ u2j ðx̄Þ
2000). Note that the in-plane rigidity of the adhesive depends caj caj

3
on both its thickness and its modulus of elasticity. For most z̄aj
þ u3j ðx̄Þ ð2Þ
FRP strengthening systems, the former is significantly smaller than caj
the thickness of a typical RC member and the latter is significantly
smaller than the modulus of the FRP. The modeling of the adhesive where j ¼ 1 for the upper adhesive layer and j ¼ 2 for the lower
layers assumes that the material is linear and that the strains are adhesive layer as shown in Fig. 3; wkj (x̄) and ukj (x̄) (k ¼ 0, 1, 2, 3,
small. The deformations may be large but mainly because of a rigid j ¼ 1; 2) are unknown functions of x̄ only; z̄aj are the out-of-plane
body component involved with the global deformation of the arch. coordinates of the adhesive layers that are measured from the
It is also assumed that the external transverse and axial loads midthickness of each layer; and caj is the thickness of each layer,

Ls
frp1 s
frp1 M xx frpx1
V xx Nx
h
u 0frp1 /2)
L
nx RP a1 (x,-c a1
w rp1
z rp1, f er F
Upp trip a1 (x,-c a1/
2) τ xz d16,d14 d 12
ua1 f
qz S σz d14
z a1,wa
1 z
e /2) d 13
x u 0c
, esiv a1 (x,c a1
ua2 r Adher /2) τ xz
d15 d17
,w c u 0frp2 pe a1 x,c a1
zc
w rp2 Up Lay σ zz( c d3,d 3 d 1 d18
d 15
z r 2, f
f p M xx c d1
z a2,wa
2
N xx d2 d21,d18 d 16
(a) d2 d19
c d4
Cross-Section crete Vxx d4 d 17
Con ber d20
bfrp1 Mem /2) d5 θ
h frp1 a2 (x,-c a2 d 22
ca1 /2) τxz d8,d 7 d 5
d6 d 19
a2 (x,-c a2 d23
A's σzz
/2)
d6 d26,d22 d 20
a2 (x,c a2 d7
As hc ve
τxz frp2 x d24
i d9
dhes /2) M xx frp2
θ
d 21
ower A er σ zz
a2 (x,c a2 N xx x d8 d25
ca2 L Lay d 10
bfrp2 frp2 d13,d11 d d
hfrp2 9
le
RP Vxx θ
bc er F z 11
Low trip z d 10
S d 12
(c) (d)
(b)

Fig. 3. Notation and sign convention: (a) deformations and coordinate system; (b) cross section; (c) stress resultants; (d) degrees of freedom in the
local and global coordinate systems

© ASCE 04014031-5 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031

 respectively. The displacement field of the upper FRP layer, the RC
layer, and the lower FRP layer take the following form:
wi ðx̄; z̄i Þ ¼ wi ðx̄Þ
ui ðx̄; z̄i Þ ¼ u0i ðx̄Þ − z̄i ϕi ðx̄Þ
where i ¼ frp1; frp2, or c and z̄i is measured from the reference
axis in each layer (Fig 1).
The displacement fields of the adhesive layer include 14 un-
known functions (7 for each layer) that need to be determined.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The analysis of the arch is conducted in the global Cartesian
coordinate system (x; z). To do so, the elemental degrees of free-
dom are transformed from the local coordinate system into the
ð3Þ global one. This leads to an inclined element with 26 degrees of
freedom (DOF) (denoted by di, i ¼ 1; : : : ; 26) in the global coor-
ð4Þ dinate system as shown in Fig. 3(d). The relation between the local
DOF and the global ones is given by
d̄ ¼ Cd ð10Þ
where C is a 22 by 26 transformation matrix that takes this form

Eight out of the 14 unknown functions are determined by means  

B 011×13
of the compatibility of the in-plane and out-of-plane displacements C¼ ð11Þ
at the interfaces of the adhesive layers and the adjacent compo- 011×13 B
nents. Four of the remaining six unknown functions are determined
by introducing the displacement fields into the variational principle where 0 is a zero matrix with the subscript dimension, and the
and by applying the basic lemma of the calculus of variations matrix B takes this form
(see Rabinovitch and Madah 2012a for more details). This pro- 2 ca ··· ··· ··· ··· 3
cedure leaves only two functions (w01 and w02 ) out of the 14
6 ··· ··· 7
that remain as unknowns. Along with the three unknown displace- 6 cb ··· 01×2 7
ment functions of each FRP layer and the three unknown displace- 6 7
B¼6
6 ··· ··· ca ··· ··· 7
7 ð12Þ
ment functions of the RC layer [wi ðx̄Þ, uoi ðx̄Þ, and ϕi ðx̄Þ, 6 7
i ¼ frp1; frp2; c], the total number of unknown displacements 4 ··· 01×2 ··· cb ··· 5
is 11. Note that the above displacement fields differ from the ones ··· ··· ··· ··· ca
given in Elmalich and Rabinovitch (2009a, 2010). They avoid the
use of the polar coordinate representation and the logarithmic The matrixes ca and cb are given as follows, while the rest of
kinematics, and simplify the formulation. the terms are zero:
Applying the FE approximation of the displacements at the
2 3
element level in its local coordinate system leads to λx λy 0
X 6 7
vi ≈ vhi ¼ N A ðx̄Þd̄A ð5Þ ca ¼ 4 −λy λx 0 5 ð13Þ
A∈Svi 0 0 1
X
δvi ≈ δvhi ¼ N A ðx̄Þδd̄A ð6Þ cb ¼ ½ λy λx
ð14Þ
A∈Svi
where λx ¼ cosðθÞ; λy ¼ sinðθÞ; and θ = angle of the inclined
where d̄A = generalized unknown displacements; δ d̄A = virtual dis- element that is measured positive in the clockwise direction
placements; N A (x̄) = shape functions; vi = ith term of the unknown [Fig. 3(d)].
displacement vector The original (basic) element derived in Rabinovitch and Madah
(2012a) includes 22 global DOF whereas the inclined element
v ¼ ½u0frp1 ; u0c ; u0frp2 ; wfrp1 ; wc ; wfrp2 ; ϕfrp1 ; ϕc ; ϕfrp2 ; w01 ; w02
T
derived here includes 26 DOF. This is attributed to the unique
ð7Þ behavior of the adhesive layers and to their negligible in-plane stiff-
ness. In the basic reference layout, where all elements are parallel to
and Svi = group of shape functions that correspond to the unknown the x̄ direction, each adhesive layer includes only one DOF that
function vi . Introducing the FE into the variational principle corresponds to the out-of-plane displacement at the middle of
(Rabinovitch and Madah 2012a) and applying the basic lemma the adhesive [w01 (x̄) or w02 (x̄)]. Since the stiffness of the adhesive
of the calculus of variations yields the following nonlinear set of layer in the longitudinal direction is neglected, such formulation
algebraic equations in terms of the unknown displacements at the does not include longitudinal DOF. In the global framework of
element level: an inclined element, the vertical DOF (which is associated with
ḡe ðd̄e Þ ¼ 0 ð8Þ a stiffness term) and the degenerated longitudinal DOF (which
is not associated with a stiffness term) are converted into two global
where ḡe = set of nonlinear functions of the unknown displace- components that correspond to the global x and z directions. There-
ments d̄e . The formulation uses the simplest linear (tent) shape fore, in the framework of the 2D topology, the element includes
functions for all 11 unknowns as follows: 26 DOF.
 The set ge is evaluated at the element level, and it is then trans-
N i ¼ 1 − ðx̄ − x̄e Þ=le formed into the global coordinate system and assembled to yield a
for x̄ ∈ ½x̄e ; x̄e þ le
ð9Þ global nonlinear set g as follows:
N j ¼ ðx̄ − x̄e Þ=le

where x̄e = coordinate of the left end of the element; le = length of gðdÞ ¼ 0 ð15Þ
the element; N i corresponds to the left (ith) node; N j corresponds
to the right (jth) node, and the terms left or right refer to the local- gðdÞ ¼ Ae ½CTe · ḡe ðd̄e Þ
ð16Þ
ized coordinate system. The element includes 22 degrees of free-
dom (denoted by d̄i, i ¼ 1–22) in its own coordinate system (x̄; z̄) where Ae = assembly operator. The boundary conditions are
as shown in Fig. 3(d). introduced by replacing the Ath equation in Eq. (15) with

© ASCE 04014031-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031

 dA − d̂A ¼ 0 ð17Þ
where d̂A = prescribed displacement.
The nonlinear equations [Eq. (15)] are solved using the Newton
method, for which
  −1
∂gðdÞ
dn ¼ dn−1 − · gðdn−1 Þ
∂d d¼dn−1
¼ dn−1 − ½KðdÞjd¼dn−1
−1 · gðdn−1 Þ ð18Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where n = number of Newton iteration, and K = Jacobian
(tangent) matrix, which is evaluated at the element level and then
transformed into the global coordinate system and assembled as
follows:
 
∂gðdÞ ∂g ðd̄e Þ
KðdÞ ¼ ¼ Ae CTe · e e · Ce ð19Þ
∂d ∂ d̄
The formulation presented above focuses only on inclined
elements with five layers. Yet, the strengthened RC arch may also
include regions that are strengthened only at the intrados or the ex-
trados. These elements and the one of the unstrengthened regions
that include only 6 DOF per element are developed by following
the steps of the formulation presented above.
The FE model developed here can be easily implemented as a
subroutine in most FE packages that allow access to the code or in
basic in-house FE codes. In this study, a general in-house code was
developed using MATLAB, which can also be used to analyse other
curved FRP-strengthened members and any strengthened frame
structure. Despite being a materially linear FE, cracking and
material nonlinearity can be included in the model through the
use of nonlinear constitutive relations, where the nonlinearity
can be solved through the same Newton method described earlier
(Rabinovitch and Madah 2012a). This aspect is, however, beyond
the scope of the present paper.
In most mathematical models for FRP-strengthened RC struc-
tures, the adhesive layer and its interfaces are modeled as an ar-
tificial interface that is governed by a linear or nonlinear relation
between the slip and the interfacial shear stress (Teng et al.
2003), where slip is defined as the relative longitudinal displace-
ment between the RC member and the FRP. Using the modeling
assumptions of the high-order model as outlined above, which
account for the actual thickness of the adhesive layer and its
shear and out-of-plane normal deformations, the slip becomes
an automatic outcome of the analysis in terms of elastic defor-
mations of the FRP, the RC member, and the 2D adhesive layer.
Although being linear, this provides a platform that can be fur-
ther enhanced to account for nonlinearity of the adhesive layer
and the bond-slip behavior. For example, see Rabinovitch (2005,
2008, 2014), respectively, for the handling of such effects in
FRP-strengthened beams. In addition, the model is capable of
describing the out-of-plane normal stress concentrations near
the edges of the adhesive layer, which together with the shear
stresses govern the debonding failure mechanisms.
Finally, the data needed to apply the model and evaluate its
parameters is based on the geometric and mechanical properties
of all components (RC arch, FRP, adhesive) including the thickness
of the adhesive layer and the shear and elastic modulus of the ma-
terials. The latter can be evaluated experimentally using simple
material testing or can be taken from manufacturer data.
© ASCE 04014031-7
J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031
Results and Discussion
The experimental results are presented and discussed here along
with the results of the theoretical model. The analysis models
the arch as a polygon with 1,200 segments and uses 1,200 elements,
each element with a different θ. In all cases studied here, the num-
ber of segments and elements was determined after a convergence
study. A pin boundary condition (with zero vertical and horizontal
displacements) is implemented at the left end of the arch. The right
end is modeled with a horizontal spring that introduces the axial
rigidity of the steel bars and a roller with zero vertical displacement.
The calculation of the spring stiffness is based on the equivalent
axial rigidity of the bars, which accounts for the variable diameter
through their length. The mechanical properties used for the analy-
sis are taken from Table 1, and the thickness of the adhesive layer is
taken as 2.0 mm based on the actual thickness measured in the
tested arches.
In general, the response of curved structures and especially shal-
low ones is very sensitive to any geometric imperfections, local
defects, small changes to the loading pattern, cracking, or lack
of homogeneity of the materials involved. Therefore, the analysis
of such structures must take into account different reasonable im-
perfections, and it should account for the potential nonlinear physi-
cal behavior of the materials. In the light of that, the analysis
conducted here considers three different scenarios, which aim to
show and to investigate the sensitivity of the structural response
to imperfections and to cracking in an approximate way. The first
one (case I) assumes a perfect arch as shown in Fig. 1 with a linear
elastic material behavior. The second scenario (case II) considers an
imperfect loading pattern, which takes into account small changes
to the magnitudes of the applied loads. This effect is inspired by the
experimental results, where it has been observed that the ratio be-
tween the loads measured by the load cells slightly deviated from
the designed one. Throughout the test, the load distribution
changed by about 7%. Therefore, the second scenario assumes
that all three loads to the right side of the centerline of the arch
are increased by 0.05P while the ones left to the centerline are re-
duced by 0.05P (thus maintaining a total load of 5.4P). The third
scenario (case III) takes into account a different (and more realistic)
physical behavior of the concrete material, which accounts for its
cracking. This is achieved by introducing a reduced effective cross-
section area and moment of inertia for the RC arch between the
most left spandrel column and the left end support. This pattern
corresponds to the one observed during the test where cracks were
first developed at this region. Because the idea of investigating this
scenario is to approximately show the sensitivity of the behavior to
changes in the effective rigidities along the arch (and not to accu-
rately model the effect of cracking), the effective area and moment
of inertia were taken as 0.216 and 0.152, the gross properties based
on calculating the second moment of area of the fully-cracked
section using modular ratio concepts.
The second and third scenarios are only an estimate of the actual
imperfect loading and cracking pattern because of uncertainties and
difficulties in obtaining the real scenarios. In most cases, the de-
signer/analyst of RC arches has to deal with the major uncertainty
regarding the qualitative and quantitative estimation of these imper-
fection and defect scenarios and with the accurate modeling of
cracking. No doubt that other cracking scenarios may also be con-
sidered for the aim of investigating the sensitively of the response,
especially if crack observations are not available. For brevity, how-
ever, other scenarios are not investigated here.
The three cases mentioned above are examined for the control
arch A1 only. The results of such comparative analysis provide a
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

, ,
(a) (b)

,
(c) (d)

Fig. 4. Equilibrium paths in the control arch A1: (a–c) load versus vertical displacement at different locations; (d) load versus axial force in the tie bars

basis for calibration and verification of the model to be used for the
analysis of the strengthened arches in the subsequent section.
Control Arch
Figs. 4(a–c) show the curves of the load P versus the vertical
deflection of the control arch A1 at three different locations.
The coordinate h, which designates these locations, is measured
horizontally from the left end of the arch [Fig. 3(d)]. Fig. 4(d)
shows the load P versus the axial load in the horizontal tie bars
N bar . The experimental results are presented along with the theo-
retical ones obtained with the three cases mentioned above. As in-
dicated earlier, only the structural response is described through the
model with no reference to the failure behavior. The latter can be
described for the control arch through a limit analysis or through
available models of RC structures. However, such models would
require significant modifications to be used for FRP-strengthened
arches, and hence, they are not considered here. Therefore, the
theoretical curves are intentionally plotted until the experimental
failure load is reached.
It is shown that the structural behavior of the arch is almost bi-
linear up to approximately 85% of the maximum load (∼30 kN),
with cracking at a low load level of about 4.5 kN. Several cracks
have developed in the arch extrados between the left support and
the first loading point (h ¼ 0–610 mm). Additional cracks have de-
veloped in the arch intrados between the fourth and fifth loading
points (h ¼ 2,440–3,050 mm). After the bilinear part, a consider-
able nonlinear behavior is observed because of a significant
opening of a main crack in the arch extrados approximately at
h ¼ 450 mm. The failure mode, which is shown in Fig. 5, is char-
acterized by the opening of this main crack and the subsequent
crushing of the intrados concrete at this location. The comparison

Fig. 5. Failure mode of the control arch A1 (images by authors)

© ASCE 04014031-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
, , , , , ,
Fig. 6. Theoretical and experimental vertical deflection diagrams in the
control arch A1 at two load levels
of the three numerical results (case I–III) with the experimental
results in Fig. 4 shows that all three theoretical curves are in rea-
sonable agreement with the experimental ones, but it can be seen
that small changes to the loading pattern (case II) or cracking (case
III) can significantly change the load-deflection behavior at some
locations. However, the second and third scenarios are only an
estimate of the actual imperfect loading and cracking pattern,
and one would expect a better or less agreement with the test results
should other reasonable scenarios be considered. Yet, in all three
cases, a good agreement is found with the load versus tie-bar axial
force curves [Fig. 4(d)]. The differences in terms of this aspect are
negligible. This indicates that the level of tensile forces in the tie
bars is significantly less sensitive than the deflection response.
To shed more light on the behavior of the arch and to further
highlight the differences between the three cases, Fig. 6 shows
the experimental and the theoretical deflection shape of the arch
(a)
(c)
Fig. 7. Theoretical and experimental axial strains in the control arch A1: (a) strains of bottom reinforcement; (b) strains of top reinforcement;
(c) strains at the bottom concrete surface; (d) strains at the top concrete surface
© ASCE 04014031-9
J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031
at an intermediate load level of P ¼ 15 kN and at a load level
of P ¼ 30 kN that is close to failure. It is shown that because
of the nonsymmetrical loading pattern, the left side of the arch ac-
tually moves upwards, while the right side moves downwards. This
pattern is well captured by the theoretical model with a reasonable
correlation with the experimental results. Yet, because of the sen-
sitivity of the arch response to any changes to the loading pattern or
to cracking, it is shown that the differences between the theoretical
deflection shape and the experimental one strongly depend on the
examined scenario. This means that minor changes to the geometry
of the arch, its cracking, or changes to the test setup, even below the
resolution associated with the manufacturing, documentation, or
testing of the arches, notably affect some aspects of its analysis.
In light of that, the analysis of such arches and, particularly,
analysis oriented towards design must consider the scatter of the
properties and the sensitivity of the response.
Fig. 7 shows the measured and theoretical strains on the con-
crete and steel bars at different locations obtained with P ¼
15 kN [s is a coordinate that runs along the arch and Ls is the length
of the arch, Fig. 3(d)]. The strains of the steel reinforcement were
calculated assuming a linear strain distribution through the depth of
the RC arch and assuming full bonding between the concrete and
steel. Because the structural response was close to linear up to ap-
proximately 85% of the failure load of 30 kN, the results are shown
only for a typical intermediate load level of 15 kN. The results show
that the agreement of the theoretical model and the test results is
good, and the differences between the three examined analytical
scenarios are small. The results also show that little changes to
the magnitude of the applied loads (case II), which are within
the tolerances of any testing of RC structures, can lead to notable
changes to the deflection shape (Figs. 4 and 6), but with smaller
influence on the strains compared with the case of perfect loading
(case I). Similar trend can also be observed with consideration of
cracking in the model even in the approximate way adopted here.
(b)
(d)
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8. Internal forces diagrams of the control arch A1 obtained by a materially linear analysis with imperfect loading (case II) at a load of P ¼ 15 kN:
(a) axial force; (b) shear force; (c) bending moments

The internal axial forces, shear force, and bending moment
diagrams obtained with this case are shown in Fig. 8 under
P ¼ 15 kN. It is shown that the nonsymmetric type of loading
investigated here results in significant bending in the arch. This
bending motivates the need for strengthening using the FRP
system.
Based on the experimental results and the three numerical cases
examined here, it can be concluded that the influences of imperfect
loading and cracking of the concrete on the structural behavior of
the arch are of similar orders. Therefore, for simplicity, only the
linear elastic analysis with imperfect loading (case II) is adopted
for the subsequent analysis of the FRP-strengthened arches.
Strengthened Arches
The curves of the load versus the maximum downwards deflection
at h ¼ 3,050 mm in the strengthened arches (A2 and A3) are
shown in Fig. 9. These results are also compared with those of
the control arch (A1) and the theoretical curves. As the FE model
presented in section 3 mainly focuses on FRP bonding at the top
and bottom faces of the RC arch, the strengthening pattern of arch
A3, which includes short and narrow FRP strips that are bonded to
the sides of the arch in an attempt to maintain continuity of the force
in the FRP (Fig. 1), is approximately modeled by assuming a
continuous FRP strip over the region of the spandrel column.
The results show that the FRP strengthening pattern for arch A2
(Fig. 1) increases the peak load from P ¼ 30.6 kN of the control
arch A1 to P ¼ 37.1 kN, an increase of 21% together with an
increase in the deflection at the peak load. When additional strips
are added at the spandrel columns to the sides of arch A3, along
with anchoring of the ends of the CFRP strips, the peak load is
further increased to P ¼ 42.8 kN, an increase by about 40% over
that of the control arch. In addition, a significant increase in the
peak deflection is observed. Although RC arches are mainly de-
signed to act in compression, nonsymmetric loading, cracking,
and other imperfect effects lead to significant bending, especially
in slender and shallow arches. In these cases, the contribution of the
bonded CFRP becomes very significant and the CFRP system
becomes an effective solution to the strengthening need. Yet, it
is worth noting that the increase in the failure load of the arch
is smaller than the values reported in the literature for flexural
RC beams (more than 100% increase in some cases) because of
differences in the load resistance mechanism between the arch
and flexural RC beams or slabs.
The load-deflection curves in Fig. 9 are almost bilinear up to
approximately 85% of the maximum load. First, cracking of the
concrete is observed at a load level of about 6 kN. The failure
modes of the arches are characterized by crushing failure of the
concrete near the most left point load following a significant open-
ing of two major cracks (near the first and the fourth point loads
from the left). The locations of these two major cracks well corre-
late to those of the maximum negative and positive bending
moments in the arch as identified by the analysis in Fig. 8. The
failure modes of the arches are shown in Fig. 10.

, ,
(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Load versus maximum vertical displacements of strengthened arches A2 and A3 compared with the control arch A1 and the model analysis
with imperfect loading

© ASCE 04014031-10 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Failure mode of strengthened arches: (a) arch A2; (b) arch A3 (images by authors)

Fig. 9 also shows that the theoretical model well captures the
load-deflection behavior before cracking, whereas it describes a
stiffer structural response after cracking. It should however be men-
tioned that, as shown in Fig. 4, the correlation between the theo-
retical and the experimental load-deflection curves can be different
at different locations along the arch, which can also be affected by
minor changes to the geometry of the test setup. Unlike the case for
flexural RC beams and slabs where cracks typically exist before the
application of FRP, the influence of the FRP strengthening on
the stiffness of the arch is minor. It is clear that the contribution
of the FRP at the uncracked stage of the arch is negligible, but
it remains small even after cracking because of the different crack-
ing pattern (compared to RC beams) that is influenced by the
curved geometry of the arch and the existence of membrane forces.
Once the cracks become considerably wide, which is when the
structure approaches its failure load, the FRP strips enter into action
and increase the failure load. As seen in the experimental study,
because of the existence of only minor cracks before strengthening
(or absence of cracks), the location of the main crack depends on
the strengthening pattern in case of RC arches. Fig. 11 shows the
cracking pattern in arches A2 and A3 and the CFRP debonding
mechanism observed in arch A2. While a main crack in the control
arch A1 had developed to the left of the first spandrel column
(Fig. 5), the application of the FRP system to arch A2 has shifted
the location of the main crack to the cut off point of the FRP at the
left edge of the spandrel column as shown in Fig. 11. After wrap-
ping the FRP ends and adding CFRP strips on the sides of arch A3
at the joints with the spandrel columns, the weakest section shifted
adjacent to the left end of the CFRP side strips and the left edge of
the wrapping fabric (as it has less FRP layers). At this location, a

Fig. 11. Cracking in FRP strengthened arches A2 and A3 and debonding in A2 (images by authors)

© ASCE 04014031-11 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Theoretical and experimental vertical deflection diagrams for
the strengthened arch A2 at two load levels
main crack had developed. Thus, careful attention should be payed
to these aspects in the design of FRP-strengthened RC arches.
Despite the increases in the load and deformation capacities, the
strengthening with FRP strips may shift the location of the weakest
link in the structural system and the location of the main crack.
This effect is unique to arches, which opposed to other FRP-
strengthened elements, are very sensitive to any changes to the
stiffness distribution along the structure.
Fig. 11 shows that the debonding of the FRP strips in arch A2
has stopped after 10–15 cm from their ends. Unlike the case of edge
debonding in RC beams (Bakis et al. 2002; Rizkalla et al. 2003;
Teng et al. 2003), which normally leads to a total failure, the experi-
ment reported here reveals a stabilizing pattern and an arrest of
the debonding crack. Such different FRP-debonding phenomena
could be related to the distributions of the shear force in the arch
(a)
(c)
Fig. 13. Theoretical and experimental axial strains in the strengthened arch A2 at two load levels: (a) strains of upper FRP layer; (b) strains of bottom
FRP layer; (c) strains of top reinforcement; (d) strains of bottom reinforcement
© ASCE 04014031-12
J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031
examined here and mainly its significant variation as in Fig. 8(b).
This pattern leads to a unique distribution of the interfacial stresses
at the adhesive layers that govern the debonding failures. Other
possible causes to the unusual stable mechanism and crack arrest
are attributed to the static indeterminacy of the arch and its ability to
develop redundancy. In that context, opposed to what is observed
in FRP-strengthened RC beams, the debonding observed in the
experiments was not associated with a notable drop in the load.
During and even after the debonding, the structure was still able
to resist higher loads. This observation designates the stability
features of the debonding process, its potential arrest, and its han-
dling using fracture mechanics or cohesive zone approaches
(e.g., Rabinovitch 2008) as interesting fields for future study.
The theoretical deflection diagrams of arch A2 at two different
load levels along with the measured values at some specific points
are shown in Fig. 12. The comparison of the two reveals a reason-
ably good agreement. Again, the degree of agreement between the
theoretical and the experimental results depends on the load level
and on the location of the investigated section. Nevertheless, it is
shown that even a linear elastic analysis with introduction of im-
perfections in terms of the loading can effectively explain the struc-
tural response of the FRP-strengthened RC arch. This is also
supported by Fig. 13, which shows the theoretical and the measured
strains in the FRP strips and in the internal steel reinforcement. The
results show that at some locations, the measured tensile strains are
much greater than the tensile strain capacity of the concrete, which
can be calculated from Table 1 as 130 × 10−6 . This is indicated by
the cracks in the arch. Because of the nonsymmetric loading, parts
of the bonded FRP strips are under compression, which can lead to
buckling or wrinkling of the FRP, especially with the influence of
some local defects. Such effect can potentially lead to total failure
of the strengthened arch or to a significant loss of the efficiency of
the FRP system. This should also be carefully considered in the
(b)
(d)
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 14. Internal forces diagrams of the strengthened arch A2 under an imperfect loading (case II) with P ¼ 15 kN: (a) axial forces; (b) shear forces;
(c) bending moments

design of FRP-strengthened arches, by limiting the design com-
pression force in the FRP plates and/or by adding vertical FRP
wraps that can potentially reduce the effective buckling length.
The distribution of the internal forces and bending moments in
arch A2 are shown in Fig. 14. This figure shows the axial forces in
the FRP strips and the RC arch and the disturbance to the shear
force diagram of the RC arch as a result of significant shear and
radial (through the thickness) stresses at the edges of the adhesive
layer. These stresses are shown in Fig. 15 for the upper adhesive
layer (as an example). As shown in Fig. 1, some regions along arch
A2 are strengthened at the upper surface only, i.e., between the
edges and the first spandrel column from both sides (left and right)
and between the first and second spandrel columns from both sides.
The results are only presented along these regions, which show
high stress concentrations near the free edges of the adhesive layer
that are close to the supports or to the sides of the spandrel columns.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 15. Interfacial stresses at the top adhesive layer under an imperfect loading (case II) of the strengthened arch A2 with P ¼ 15 kN: (a) shear stress;
(b) radial (through the thickness) stress at the top interface; (c) radial (through the thickness) stress at the bottom interface

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 16. Interfacial stresses in the adhesive layer near the right edge of the bottom FRP strip under an imperfect loading (case II) of the strengthened
arch A2 with P ¼ 15 kN: (a) shear stress; (b) radial (through the thickness) stress at the top interface; (c) radial (through the thickness) stress at the
bottom interface

© ASCE 04014031-13 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031

 Fig. 15 reveals one of the unique capabilities of the model to locally
describe the distribution of these stresses and their influence on the
global response. The shear stresses are constant through the thick-
ness of the adhesive, whereas the radial normal stresses vary at the
same section between the top and the bottom interfaces.
In the context of the FRP-strengthened RC arch studied here, the
above observations contribute to the understanding of the physics
of the problem at hand. For example, because debonding was only
observed at the edges of the lower FRP strip in arch A2, the dis-
tribution of the interfacial stresses at the vicinity of the right end of
the adhesive layer are shown in Fig. 16. This result shows that the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
interface between the concrete and the adhesive is the one that is
subjected to the relatively high shear stresses in combination with
relatively high out-of-plane tensile (peeling) stresses. Together,
these stress components initiate the edge debonding failure mecha-
nism observed at the experiment.
Conclusions
An experimental and a theoretical study on the potential use of FRP
composite materials for the external strengthening of RC arches
and the structural behavior of such arches have been presented
in this paper. The experimental study has included testing to failure
of three medium-scaled RC arches, two of them strengthened with
FRP and one tested as a control specimen. All arches have been
tested under six nonsymmetric point loads equally spaced along
the arch. The theoretical model has been based on a specially tail-
ored multilayered finite element along with modeling the arch as a
polygon with inclined segments. A transformation matrix has been
used to convert the finite element from its basic local geometry to
the global system. The finite element accounts for the ability of the
adhesive layer to transfer shear (tangential) and through the thick-
ness (radial) normal stresses, for the variation of the latter through
the thickness and for the bending, shear, and axial rigidities of the
RC arch and the FRP strips. Compatibility and continuity condi-
tions have been used to join the different layers together and stan-
dard FE and numerical procedures have been used for the assembly
and solution of the problem. The abilities of the model to capture
and describe the overall structural behavior as well as the localized
one near the edges of the FRP strips have been demonstrated. The
sensitivities of the arch response to realistic uncertainties in the load
distribution and to cracking have also been highlighted by the
theoretical model.
The test results have shown that the FRP system can effectively
increase the load-carrying capacity of RC arches. The control arch
has failed by crushing of concrete associated with a main crack
developed at the location with the maximum bending moment.
The two strengthened arches have failed with an increase of the
peak load by 21 and 40% and a notable increase of the deformabil-
ity at failure. In contrast, the application of the FRP has shifted the
location of the critical crack to the weakest section that has less or
no bonded FRP strips. Among the two strengthened arches, the
stronger one included FRP-end anchoring and additional FRP
strips bonded to the arch sides at two spandrel columns. This struc-
tural layout contributes to the continuity of the force taken by the
FRP strips. Based on that, the consideration of such overlapping
pattern over critical sections is found positive.
Another interesting phenomenon that has been observed in the
tests is the stable debonding mechanism of the FRP strip that was
bonded to the intrados of the arch. Debonding of the FRP strip has
started at its end but has stopped after about 10–15 cm. Although
being limited to one specimen that has been tested in this study, it
can be observed that this effect is notably different from that in
© ASCE 04014031-14
J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031
FRP-strengthened beams or slabs where the FRP debonding rapidly
propagates from the edge towards midspan in an unstable mode.
The reasons for this can be attributed to the significant change
of the shear force diagram of the arch through its length in the case
of nonsymmetric loading and to the different load-resistance
mechanism of the arch structure compared to flexural members.
These aspects influence the associated interfacial stresses at the
adhesive layer and affect the failure mechanism. The ability of
the model to quantify such local effects, which cannot be captured
via a global structural model with equivalent section properties,
contributes to their effective handling. Yet, further experimental
investigations and deeper analyses that consider the unique aspects
of the curved RC member and further explain the debonding
mechanism observed in this experimental study are called for.
The comparison of the theoretical and the experimental results
has clarified some additional aspects of the structural response
and has provided a sound level of validation of the theoretical
model. In addition, it has well designated some aspects that need
to be further elucidated. These include the consideration of various
imperfection scenarios, the effects of cracking and material nonli-
nearity, and the features that govern the stable debonding process.
Nevertheless, the experimental and theoretical results shed light on
the failure behavior of FRP-strengthened RC arches and contribute
to the establishment of the theoretical background and computa-
tional tools required for their efficient analysis, effective design,
and safe use.
Acknowledgments
The work reported in this paper was supported by the Australian
Research Council (ARC) through a Discovery Project
(DP0987939).
References
Avossa, A. M., Famigliuolo, P., and Malangone, P. (2008). “Structural
safety evaluation of a R.C. arch bridge.” Life-cycle Civil Engineering—
Proc., 1st Int. Symp. on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering, CRC Press,
697–702.
Bakis, C. E., et al. (2002). “Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for con-
struction—State-of-the-art review.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:2(73), 73–87.
Billington, D. P. (1979). Robert Maillart’s bridges: Art of engineering,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Borri, A., Castori, G., and Corradi, M. (2011). “Intrados strengthening
of brick masonry arches with composite materials.” Composites Part
B, 42(5), 1164–1172.
Briccoli Bati, S., Fagone, M., and Rotunno, T. (2013). “Lower bound limit
analysis of masonry arches with CFRP reinforcements: A numerical
method.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614
.0000350, 543–553.
Caporale, A., Feo, L., and Luciano, R. (2012). “Limit analysis of FRP
strengthened masonry arches via nonlinear and linear programming.”
Composites Part B, 43(2), 439–446.
Chen, J. F. (2002). “Load-bearing capacity of masonry arch bridges
strengthened with fibre reinforced polymer composites.” Adv. Struct.
Eng., 5(1), 37–44.
Czaderski, C., and Rabinovitch, O. (2010). “Structural behavior and inter-
layer displacements in CFRP plated steel beams—Optical measure-
ments, analysis, and comparative verification.” Composites Part B,
41(4), 276–286.
De Lorenzis, L., and Zavarise, G. (2009). “Interfacial stress analysis and
prediction of debonding for a thin plate bonded to a curved substrate.”
Int. J. Non Linear Mech., 44(4), 358–370.
J. Compos. Constr.
 Drosopoulos, G. A., Stavroulakis, G. E., and Massalas, C. V. (2007). “FRP
reinforcement of stone arch bridges: Unilateral contact models and limit
analysis.” Composites Part B, 38(2), 144–151.
Dym, C. L., and Williams, H. E. (2011). “Stress and displacement estimates
for arches.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000267,
49–58.
Elmalich, D., and Rabinovitch, O. (2009a). “Masonry and monolithic cir-
cular arches strengthened with composite materials—A finite element
model.” Comput. Struct., 87(9–10), 521–533.
Elmalich, D., and Rabinovitch, O. (2009b). “Stress analysis of monolithic
circular arches strengthened with composite materials.” J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2009)13:5(431), 431–441.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute Technology - Suratkal on 03/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Elmalich, D., and Rabinovitch, O. (2010). “Nonlinear analysis of masonry
arches strengthened with composite materials.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/
(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000140, 996–1005.
Elmalich, D., and Rabinovitch, O. (2012). “In-plane dynamic excitation of
AAC masonry walls patched with FRP—Dynamic testing and analy-
sis.” J. Mech. Mater. Struct., 7(7), 657–686.
Foraboschi, P. (2004). “Strengthening of masonry arches with fiber-
reinforced polymer strips.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0268(2004)8:3(191), 191–202.
Hamed, E., and Rabinovitch, O. (2007). “Geometrically nonlinear effects in
the flexural response of masonry walls strengthened with composite
materials.” J. Mech. Mater. Struct., 2(5), 829–855.
Hamed, E., and Rabinovitch, O. (2010). “Failure characteristics of FRP-
strengthened masonry walls under out-of-plane loads.” Eng. Struct.,
32(8), 2134–2145.
Marefat, M. S., Ghahremani-Gargary, E., and Ataei, S. (2004). “Load test
of a plain concrete arch railway bridge of 20-m span.” Constr. Build.
Mater., 18(9), 661–667.
Nam, J. W., Kim, H. J., Yi, N. H., Kim, I. S., Kim, J. H. J., and Choi, H. J.
(2009). “Blast analysis of concrete arch structures for FRP retrofitting
design.” Comput. Concr., 6(4), 305–318.
Rabinovitch, O. (2005). “Bending behavior of RC beams strengthened with
composite materials using inelastic and nonlinear adhesives.” J. Struct.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:10(1580), 1580–1592.
Rabinovitch, O. (2008). “Debonding analysis of fiber-reinforced-polymer
strengthened beams: Cohesive zone modeling versus a linear elastic
fracture mechanics approach.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 75(10), 2842–2859.
Rabinovitch, O. (2014). “An extended high order cohesive interface
approach for the debonding analysis of FRP strengthened beams.”
Int. J. Mech. Sci., 81, 1–16.
Rabinovitch, O., and Frostig, Y. (2000). “Closed-form high-order analysis
of RC beams strengthened with FRP strips.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2000)4:2(65), 65–74.
Rabinovitch, O., and Frostig, Y. (2003). “Experiments and analytical com-
parison of RC beams strengthened with externally bonded CFRP
strips.” Composites Part B, 34(8), 663–667.
© ASCE 04014031-15
J. Compos. Constr., 2015, 19(1): 04014031
Rabinovitch, O., and Madah, H. (2012a). “Dynamics of FRP strengthened
unidirectional masonry walls I: A multilayered finite element.” J. Mech.
Mater. Struct., 7(1), 1–28.
Rabinovitch, O., and Madah, H. (2012b). “Dynamics of FRP strengthened
unidirectional masonry walls II: Experiments and comparison.”
J. Mech. Mater. Struct., 7(1), 29–44.
Rizkalla, S., Hassan, T., and Hassan, N. (2003). “Design recommendations
for the use of FRP for reinforcement and strengthening of concrete
structures.” Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater., 5(1), 16–28.
Rovero, L., Focacci, F., and Stipo, G. (2013). “Structural behavior of
arch models strengthened using fiber-reinforced polymer strips of
different lengths.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000325, 249–258.
Salonga, J., and Gauvreau, P. (2014). “Comparative study of the propor-
tions, form, and efficiency of concrete arch bridges.” J. Bridge Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000537, 4013010.
Standards Association of Australia (SAA). (1993). “Methods of testing
concrete.” AS1012, Sydney, Australia.
Standards Association of Australia (SAA). (2007). “Metallic materials—
Tensile testing at ambient temperature.” AS1391, Sydney, Australia.
Tao, Y., Stratford, T. J., and Chen, J. F. (2011). “Behavior of a masonry
arch bridge repaired using fibre-reinforced polymer composites.”
Eng. Struct., 33(5), 1594–1606.
Teng, J. G., Chen, J. F., Smith, S. T., and Lam, L. (2003). “Behaviour and
strength of FRP- strengthened RC structures: A state-of-the-art review.”
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build., 156(1), 51–62.
Teng, J. G., Zhang, J. W., and Smith, S. T. (2002). “Interfacial stresses in
reinforced concrete beams bonded with a soffit plate: A finite element
study.” Constr. Build. Mater., 16(1), 1–14.
Valluzzi, M. R., Valdemarca, M., and Modena, C. (2001). “Behavior of
brick masonry vaults strengthened by FRP laminates.” J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2001)5:3(163), 163–169.
Wang, J., and Zhang, C. (2010). “A three-parameter elastic foundation
model for interface stresses in curved beams externally strengthened
by a thin FRP plate.” Int. J. Solids Struct., 47(7–8), 998–1006.
Yang, J., and Ye, J. (2010). “An improved closed-form solution to interfa-
cial stresses in plated beams using a two-stage approach.” Int. J. Mech.
Sci., 52(1), 13–30.
Yuan, H., and Li, F. (2010). “Peeling behavior and spalling resistance of
CFRP sheets bonded to bent concrete surfaces.” Acta Mech. Sin., 26(2),
257–264.
Zanardo, G., Pellegrino, C., Bobisut, C., and Modena, C. (2004).
“Performance evaluation of short span reinforced concrete arch
bridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2004)9:5(424),
424–434.
Zhang, J., Li, C., Xu, F., and Yu, X. (2007). “Test and analysis for
ultimate load-carrying capacity of existing reinforced concrete
arch ribs.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:1(4),
4–12.
J. Compos. Constr.