SadikOmairey MSC 12055514

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/315113941
The Effect of Carbon Fibre Sheet Anchorage Length on Ductility and Flexural
Capacity in Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beams
Thesis · September 2014

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30300.80002
CITATIONS READS
0 215
1 author:
Sadik Omairey
Brunel University London
11 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
ABAQUS Plugin Tool for Periodic RVE Homogenisation (EasyPBC) View project
Novel out-of-autoclave multi-zone self-heated composites processing tool View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sadik Omairey on 16 March 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

University of South Wales
Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science
MSc Civil and Structural Engineering
The Effect of Carbon Fibre Sheet Anchorage Length on

Ductility and Flexural Capacity in Strengthened Reinforced
Concrete Beams
Author: Supervisor:
Sadik Omairey Dr. Paul Davies
September 2014
I
The Effect of Carbon Fibre Sheet Anchorage Length on Ductility and Flexural
Capacity in Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beams
A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science of

University of South Wales in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc
Degree in Civil and Structural Engineering.
By
Sadik Omairey
Supervised
By
Dr. Paul Davies
I
CERTIFICATE OF RESEARCH
I certify that the work in this dissertation has not previously been submitted or
presented for any degree award at any university.
I also certify that this research project has been written by me. And help that I have
received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been
acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used
are indicated in the dissertation.
Signature …………………………………………..(Sadik Omairey) September 2014
Supervisor…………………………………….…..(Dr. Paul Davies) September 2014
II
DATA PROTECTION
I Sadik Omairey hereby give my consent for data protection purposes to the release,
within the confines of the University of South Wales, of my dissertation “The Effect
of Carbon Fibre Sheet Anchorage Length on Ductility and Flexural Capacity in
Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beams” to students and others for inspection
and research.
I accept that all other legal rights pertaining to my thesis are hereby unaffected.
Sadik Omairey
III
Acknowledgments
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Paul Davies, for all guidance and
assistance from the very start of the MSc study and this dissertation.
I am very grateful to the staff in the structural laboratories for the helping hand and
constant support in every aspect of the experimental work; especially, Mr. Paul
Marshman, Mr. Stephen Ngigi, Mr. Daren Crocker and Mr. Huw Williams.
Words can’t describe my gratitude to my father, mother, brothers and sister, for doing
everything they can to support and motivate me all through my life with everything
the can.
Finally, I am glad to dedicate all my achievements to my wonderful wife Cinderella,

for lighting up my entire journey, even thousands miles away from Iraq, and for
giving us the most precious treasure in the world, our son Wadaq.
IV
Abstract
The recent rapid developments in fibre reinforced polymers (FRP) opened the doors
for a new era of concrete structure's rehabilitation. The low production costs, light
weight and durability of these products were the main properties that allowed using it
in many structural retrofitting and strengthening applications. However, the main
consequence of using the (FRP) is the overall reduction in the ductility, in other
words, the ability to deform and show failure signs before failure. Many studies
focused on strength gain performance of the concrete elements when using different
strengthening anchorage lengths. In addition to the strength gain, this study examined
the ductility performance of three categories of different unidirectional carbon fibre
strengthen lengths (full, intermediate and short) using three methods; these methods
were analysed to determine the most suitable approached to predict a ductility index.
Furthermore, the pre-failure behaviours of the strengthened beams were identified and
explained for all categories. Several tests were conducted to determine the concrete,
carbon fibre and steel properties, these results were used to check the reliability of the
data and used in some calculations. Elements testing findings showed that the full
length category reached an average of 24% strength gain, but showed poor ductility
performance. On the other hand, the intermediate length category achieved similar
strength gain 24% with improved ductility performance, however, the mode of failure
varied in all three elements. Finally, the short length category performed poor in
terms of strength gain and failed similarly to the control element but with far less
deflection. It was concluded that reducing the anchorage length up to a point before
the concrete will tear-off will improve the ductility and strength performance
compared will extended anchorage lengths, where further anchorage will not increase
the strength. In addition, using the (FRP) even with limited anchorage length can
reduce the element's deflection significantly.
V
Notations
La Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) anchorage length

Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) theoretical required anchorage length
Leff Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) effective strengthening length
Efrp Modulus of elasticity of the Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP)
tfrp Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) thickness after application
fcu Cube compressive strength
Econ Concrete modulus of elasticity
fck Cylinder compressive strength
Spadea ductility index
Bencardino ductility index
Three-slope ductility index
P Applied load on the beam
Mmax Maximum bending moment
fy Steel yielding stress
Mmid Bending moment in the Mid-span or (CMZ)
S1 First slope on Load/Deflection curve (Initial stage)
S2 Second slope on Load/Deflection curve (Elastic stage)
S3 Third slope on Load/Deflection curve (Beyond steel yielding stage)
The mid-span deflection at ultimate load.
The mid-span deflection at steel yielding point
The energy under the Load/Deflection curve up to the ultimate load
The energy under the Load/Deflection curve up to the steel yielding point
P1 Load at the intersection of slopes S1 and S2
Py Load at the intersection of slopes S2 and S3
Pu Ultimate load
As Cross-sectional area of the tensile steel reinforcement
Afrp Cross-sectional area of the fibre reinforced polymer (FRP)
The tensile splitting strength
The maximum failure load applied on the specimen
The length of the line of contact of the cylindrical specimen
The cross-sectional dimension of the cylindrical specimen
VI
Contents
Abstract ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V
Notations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI
Contents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VII
List of Figures --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
List of Tables -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- XV
List of Equations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- XV
Chapter 1 : Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1 Introduction to the deterioration of structure's --------------------------------------- 1
1.2 Repairing structures before developing fibre reinforced polymers --------------- 2
1.2.1 Providing additional concrete and steel sections ------------------------------- 2
1.2.2 Steel plate bonding------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
1.3 Strengthening using fibre reinforced polymers (FRP) ------------------------------ 4
1.4 Aim of this work ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
1.5 Structure of the dissertation ------------------------------------------------------------- 5
1.6 Overview ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
Chapter 2 : Literature review ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
2.1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
2.2 Anchorage length related studies ------------------------------------------------------ 7
2.3 Ductility performance related studies ------------------------------------------------- 8
2.4 Summary and overview ---------------------------------------------------------------- 11
Chapter 3 : Experimental Programme ------------------------------------------------------- 12
3.1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12
3.2 Element layout and loading configuration ------------------------------------------- 14
3.3 Materials properties --------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
3.3.1 Concrete ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
3.3.2 Aggregates -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
VII
3.3.3 Mixing water ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
3.3.4 Steel reinforcement ---------------------------------------------------------------- 16
3.3.5 Carbon fibre------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
3.3.6 Adhesive ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
3.4 Samples preparation -------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
3.4.1 Mix design -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
3.4.2 Reinforcement steel cages -------------------------------------------------------- 22
3.4.3 Mixing process --------------------------------------------------------------------- 24
3.4.4 Concrete placing and sampling -------------------------------------------------- 25
3.4.5 Strengthening procedure ---------------------------------------------------------- 31
3.5 Instrumentation -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34
3.5.1 Vertical deflection ----------------------------------------------------------------- 34
3.5.2 Concrete surface strains ----------------------------------------------------------- 34
3.5.3 Carbon fibre tape surface strains------------------------------------------------- 34
3.5.4 Cracks propagation ---------------------------------------------------------------- 34
3.6 Testing of elements --------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
3.6.1 Flexural strength test -------------------------------------------------------------- 36
3.6.2 Concrete compressive strength test ---------------------------------------------- 36
3.6.3 Concrete tensile strength test ----------------------------------------------------- 37
3.6.4 Concrete static modulus of elasticity test --------------------------------------- 38
3.6.5 Reinforcement steel tensile test -------------------------------------------------- 40
3.6.6 Carbon Fibre Tensile Test -------------------------------------------------------- 42
3.7 Overview --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44
Chapter 4 : Experimental Results and Elements Behaviour ------------------------------ 45
4.1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 45
4.2 Maximum deflections------------------------------------------------------------------- 46
4.2.1 Control Beam (CON) -------------------------------------------------------------- 46
VIII
4.2.2 Full length category (FCF) ------------------------------------------------------- 47
4.2.3 Intermediate length category (ICF) ---------------------------------------------- 49
4.2.4 Short length category (SCF) ------------------------------------------------------ 51
4.3 Deflection profile ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 54
4.4 Concrete surface strain ----------------------------------------------------------------- 58
4.5 Neutral axis depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 61
4.6 Carbon fibre surface strain results ---------------------------------------------------- 64
4.6.1 Full length category (FCF) ------------------------------------------------------- 64
4.6.2 Intermediate length category (ICF) ---------------------------------------------- 65
4.6.3 Short length category (SCF) ------------------------------------------------------ 67
4.7 Moment against curvature ------------------------------------------------------------- 70
4.7.1 Curvature based on deflection Kd------------------------------------------------ 70
4.7.2 Curvature based on strain Ks ----------------------------------------------------- 71
6.8 Cracks propagation---------------------------------------------------------------------- 75
4.9 Average cracks width ------------------------------------------------------------------- 78
4.10 Failure modes -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80
4.10.1 Control Beam (CON) ------------------------------------------------------------ 81
4.10.2 Full length category (FCF) ------------------------------------------------------ 82
4.10.3 Intermediate length category (ICF) -------------------------------------------- 86
4.10.4 Short length category (SCF) ---------------------------------------------------- 89
4.11 Ductility indices ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 94
4.12 Required anchorage length ----------------------------------------------------------- 98
4.13 Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99
Chapter 5 : Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations -------------------------- 100
5.1 Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100
5.2 Discussion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100
5.3 Conclusions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 108
IX
5.4 Recommendations --------------------------------------------------------------------- 108
References ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 109
Appendixes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113
Appendix 1: Modulus of elasticity data ------------------------------------------------ 113
Appendix 2: Concrete compression and tensile strength ----------------------------- 113
Appendix 3: Concrete surface strain ---------------------------------------------------- 114
List of Figures
Figure ‎1.1 : Flexural concrete elements deterioration effect on capacity and

serviceability ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
Figure ‎1.2: Providing additional concrete and steel section. ------------------------------ 3
Figure ‎1.3: Steel plate bonding for bridge headstock using epoxy and bolts ----------- 3
Figure ‎1.4: Benefiting from the flexibility in the FRP strips to retrofit a concrete slab
with limited access------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
Figure ‎2.1: Comparison between the load/deflection curves for retrofitted beams with
different anchorage lengths and a control beam --------------------------------------------- 8
Figure ‎2.2: Three-slope ductility approach. ------------------------------------------------- 10
Figure ‎3.1: Testing setup, constant moment zone and anchorage length. -------------- 12
Figure ‎3.2: Carbon fibre and anchorage length for each category. ---------------------- 13
Figure ‎3.3: Four-point testing system forces analysis. ------------------------------------ 14
Figure ‎3.4: The Portland-fly ash cement used in the study. ------------------------------ 15
Figure ‎3.5: Aggregates used in the study. --------------------------------------------------- 16
Figure ‎3.6: Steel reinforcement bars used in the study. ----------------------------------- 17
Figure ‎3.7: Unidirectional carbon fibre tape ------------------------------------------------ 17
Figure ‎3.8: EL2 epoxy laminating resin and slow AT30 epoxy hardener. ------------- 18
Figure ‎3.9: The required specimens to be casted with each beam. ---------------------- 20
Figure ‎3.10: Weighted materials for two beams and a sample set. ---------------------- 21
Figure ‎3.11: Shape codes and dimensions for the main steel and shear links. --------- 22
Figure ‎3.12: Beams reinforcement details. -------------------------------------------------- 23
Figure ‎3.13: The process of placing shear links in alternative order. ------------------- 23
Figure ‎3.14: The plastic clip chair and circular spacers used in the study. ------------- 24
X
Figure ‎3.15: Materials adding order from 1 to 4.------------------------------------------- 25
Figure ‎3.16: 3D model of the used timber beam form. ------------------------------------ 26
Figure ‎3.17: Beams Form preparations and checks before casting. --------------------- 26
Figure ‎3.18: The electric internal (poker) vibrator and compacting process. ---------- 27
Figure ‎3.19: Aspects of beams casting and de-moulding. -------------------------------- 28
Figure ‎3.20: 3D model of the cubic mould used in the study. ---------------------------- 28
Figure ‎3.21: 3D model of the cylindrical moulds used in the study. -------------------- 29
Figure ‎3.22: The vibrating table used to compact the set of concrete samples.-------- 29
Figure ‎3.23: Specimens marking scheme. --------------------------------------------------- 30
Figure ‎3.24: All specimens placed in the curing bath for 10 beams. -------------------- 30
Figure ‎3.25: Before and after concrete protrusion and paint being removed from the
beam bottom surface. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
Figure ‎3.26: Carbon fibre tape cutting process. -------------------------------------------- 32
Figure ‎3.27: The strengthening process. ----------------------------------------------------- 33
Figure ‎3.28: The instrumentation placed on the beam in the flexural test -------------- 35
Figure ‎3.29: 3D model of the instrumentation placed on the beam in the flexural test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35
Figure ‎3.30: Concrete static modulus of elasticity element setup. ----------------------- 38
Figure ‎3.31: INSTRON 8502 tensile machine with an output unit. --------------------- 40
Figure ‎3.32: Measured reinforcement steel rebar diameter. ------------------------------ 40
Figure ‎3.33: Load/Elongation for tested ∅ 10mm and ∅ 6mm steel reinforcement bars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41
Figure ‎3.34: Carbon fibre specimens before and after testing. --------------------------- 42
Figure ‎3.35: The 50mm strain gauge placed upon the carbon fibre specimen. -------- 43
Figure ‎3.36: Load/Elongation curve for tested ∅ 10mm and ∅ 6mm steel
reinforcement bars. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
Figure ‎4.1: Maximum deflection against load for the control beam (CON). ----------- 46
Figure ‎4.2: Maximum deflection against load for (FCF1). ------------------------------- 48
Figure ‎4.5: Maximum deflection against load for the full length carbon fibre category
(FCF) and control beam (CON). -------------------------------------------------------------- 49
Figure ‎4.6: Maximum deflection against load for (ICF1). -------------------------------- 50
XI
Figure ‎4.9: Maximum deflection against load for the intermediate length carbon fibre
category (ICF) and control beam (CON). --------------------------------------------------- 51
Figure ‎4.10: Maximum deflection against load for (SCF1). ------------------------------ 52
Figure ‎4.13: Maximum deflection against load for the short length carbon fibre
category (SCF) and control beam (CON). -------------------------------------------------- 53
Figure ‎4.14: Deflection profile for the control beam (CON). ---------------------------- 54
Figure ‎4.15: Deflection profile for the full length category (FCF1). -------------------- 54
Figure ‎4.18: Deflection profile for the intermediate length category (ICF1). ---------- 55
Figure ‎4.21: Deflection profile for the short length category (SCF1). ------------------ 56
Figure ‎4.24: Average deflection profile at 50kN for all strengthened categories and
the control beam. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58
Figure ‎4.25: Concrete surface strain for the control beam (CON). ---------------------- 59
Figure ‎4.26: Concrete surface strain for the full length category beam (FCF1). ------ 59
Figure ‎4.27: Concrete surface strain for the intermediate length category (ICF3). --- 59
Figure ‎4.28: Concrete surface strain for the short length category beam (SCF1). ---- 60
Figure ‎4.29: Average concrete surface strain at 10kN for all categories. --------------- 60
Figure ‎4.30: Average concrete surface strain at 45kN for all categories. --------------- 61
Figure ‎4.31: Neutral axis depths for the full length category (FCF) elements. -------- 62
Figure ‎4.32: Neutral axis depths for the intermediate length category (ICF) elements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62
Figure ‎4.33: Neutral axis depths for the short length category (SCF) elements. ------ 63
Figure ‎4.34: Average neutral axis depths for all categories. ------------------------------ 63
Figure ‎4.35: Carbon fibre central strain gauge reading for the full length category
(FCF). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64
XII
Figure ‎4.36: Carbon fibre side strain gauge reading for the full length category (FCF).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65
Figure ‎4.37: Fibre ruptures at the strain gauge edge when 40kN was reached in
(ICF1). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65
Figure ‎4.38: Carbon fibre central strain gauge reading for the intermediate length
category (ICF). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66
Figure ‎4.39: Carbon fibre side strain gauge reading for the intermediate length
category (ICF). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66
Figure ‎4.40: Concrete cover failure caused stress dissipation at the strain gauge and
compressed it after certain point of failure due to concrete self-weight. --------------- 67
Figure ‎4.41: Carbon fibre central strain gauge for the short length category (SCF). - 68
Figure ‎4.42: Carbon fibre side strain gauge for the short length category (SCF). ----- 68
Figure ‎4.43: Average carbon fibre central gauge strain for all categories. ------------- 69
Figure ‎4.44: Average carbon fibre side gauge strain for all categories. ---------------- 69
Figure ‎4.45: Moment against curvatures for the control beam (CON). ----------------- 72
Figure ‎4.46: Moment against curvatures for element (FCF1). --------------------------- 72
Figure ‎4.49: Moment against curvatures for element (ICF1). ---------------------------- 73
Figure ‎4.52: Moment against curvatures for element (SCF1). --------------------------- 74
Figure ‎4.55: The cracks patterns for all elements. ----------------------------------------- 77
Figure ‎4.56: Bending cracks within the pure moment zone or constant moment zone
(CMZ). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78
Figure ‎4.57: A sketch showing the seven identified modes of failure. ------------------ 80
Figure ‎4.58: Control beam (CON) mode of failure (SY- LCC). ------------------------- 81
Figure ‎4.59: Full length beam (FCF1) mode of failure (CC). ---------------------------- 82
Figure ‎4.60: Full length beam (FCF1) minor fibre rupture at 50kN. -------------------- 82
Figure ‎4.62: Beam (FCF2) horizontal premature concrete tearing-off (PCTO83%) at the
carbon fibre plate end when load reached 50kN.------------------------------------------- 84
XIII
Figure ‎4.64: Beam (FCF3) diagonal premature concrete tearing-off (PCTO93%) at the
carbon fibre plate ends when load reached 60kN. ----------------------------------------- 85
Figure ‎4.65: Initial fibre rupture after 50kN in the full length beam (FCF3).---------- 85
Figure ‎4.66: Intermediate length beam (ICF1) mode of failure (FR).------------------- 86
Figure ‎4.67: Beam (ICF1) premature concrete tearing-off (PCTO76%) near the carbon
fibre plate ends when load reached 50kN and above. ------------------------------------- 87
Figure ‎4.68: Intermediate length beam (ICF2) mode of failure (PEDB).--------------- 88
Figure ‎4.69: The peeled off thin layer of the concrete in beam (ICF2). ---------------- 88
Figure ‎4.70: Beam (ICF2) premature concrete tearing-off (PCTO63%) near the carbon
Figure ‎4.71: Intermediate length beam (ICF3) mode of failure (CTO) and the
premature concrete tearing-off (PCTO83%) when load reached 50kN and above. ----- 89
Figure ‎4.72: Short length beam (SCF1) main mode of failure (CTO) followed by (SY)
and (LCC). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90
Figure ‎4.73: Beam (SCF1) premature concrete tearing-off (PCTO75%) near the carbon
Figure ‎4.74: Short length beam (SCF2) main mode of failure (CTO) followed by (SY)
and (LCC). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92
Figure ‎4.76: Short length beam (SCF3) main mode of failure (CTO) immediately
followed by (SY). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93
Figure ‎4.77: Screenshots showing slope lines equations and the area under
load/deflection curve. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95
Figure ‎4.78: Δ Ductility index against anchorage length for all elements. ------------ 97
Figure ‎4.79: 𝝁𝐄 Ductility index against anchorage length for all elements. ------------ 97
Figure ‎4.80: 𝝋𝟑𝐒 Ductility index against anchorage length for all elements. ---------- 97
Figure ‎5.1: The difference in plate end moment values between (ICF) and (SCF).- 101
Figure ‎5.2: A photograph of the short length beam (SCF1) showing the locations of
modes of failure (CTO), (SY) and (LCC). ------------------------------------------------ 102
Figure ‎5.3: Typical (FCF) and (ICF) cracks propagation showing different failure
patterns at the plate end. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 103
XIV
Figure ‎5.4: Ductility index and failure mode for all beams. ---------------------------- 104
Figure ‎5.5: Short length category three-slope diagrams showing the small value of the
third slope region in (SCF3) compared to both (SCF1) and (SCF2). ----------------- 105
Figure ‎5.6: Full length category three-slope diagram showing a smaller deflection
value within the third slope region in (FCF1) compared to (ICF1) due to the sudden
concrete crushing (CC). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 106
Figure ‎5.7: The relation between the strength gained against anchorage length. ---- 107
List of Tables
Table ‎3.1: Categories detail. ........................................................................................ 13

Table ‎3.2: Mixing weights details for each beam and samples set. ............................. 21
Table ‎3.3: Steel reinforcement detail. .......................................................................... 22
Table ‎3.4: Concrete test results. ................................................................................... 39
Table ‎3.5: Reinforcement steel tensile test result. ....................................................... 41
Table ‎3.6: Carbon tensile test result. ............................................................................ 43
Table ‎4.1: Average cracks width for all beams............................................................ 79
Table ‎4.2: Ductility indices and the required load/deflection curve data for all
elements. ...................................................................................................................... 96
Table ‎4.3: Theoretical anchorage length for all elements. ........................................... 98
Table ‎4.4: Results summary for all elements. .............................................................. 99
List of Equations
Equation ‎2.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

Equation ‎2.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
Equation ‎2.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
Equation ‎2.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
Equation ‎2.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
Equation ‎3.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
Equation ‎3.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37
Equation ‎4.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61
Equation ‎4.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71
Equation ‎4.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71
XV
Chapter 1 : Introduction
1.1 Introduction to the deterioration of structure's
Concrete structures are known to have a service life which limits the usage and
usually determines the feasibility of the structure existence, as degrading occurs even
if the structure was periodically maintained. In many cases demolition/rebuilding was
the most common action taken in reinforced concrete structural deterioration issues.
However, this option is often not sustainable, cost efficient and environmentally
friendly as it involves producing more waste materials and significant consumption of
raw materials. Therefore, alternatives such as upgrading structures to cope with the
required performance are more preferable.
The main deterioration factor in concrete structures is the environment, which can
attack the concrete and the steel. Steel corrosion is the main single cause of degrading
in concrete structures (Clarke, 2000). The steel corrosion will reduce the flexural
capacity of many concrete elements such as beams, slabs and columns where the steel
cross sectional area will be reduced gradually and the grip between the rebar and the
concrete will become weak as shown in Figure ‎1.1 (a). On the other hand, losing
strength in the concrete due to freeze/thaw, Alkali aggregate reaction and Sulphate
attack will result in reducing the structure's flexural capacity in carrying loads or
protecting the inner reinforcement steel as shown in Figure ‎1.1 (b).
In addition to the environmental factors, there are other reasons which force an
upgrade for an existing structure, such as increasing loads or errors in the initial
design.
1
(a) Steel corrosion (b) Concrete failure in compression
Figure ‎1.1 : Flexural concrete elements deterioration effect on capacity and serviceability
1.2 Repairing structures before developing fibre reinforced polymers
The most common structural failure mode in the concrete flexural members occurs in
the tension side; many techniques were developed to deal with this issue, yet every
method had its own disadvantages, below are the main retrofitting methods that were
used before the development of the fibre reinforced polymers (FRP):
1.2.1 Providing additional concrete and steel sections
Additional concrete and/or steel was to be add where required, for sections with
degrading compression zone the repair is rather easy, as concrete can be placed on the
top side along with additional shear if needed, however, in sections where the tensile
steel is insufficient, the repair requires placing more form work and surface
preparation before bonding the new and existing concrete; this repair method was not
very popular in the UK as it will eventually result in reducing the floor clearance, and
it can add significant dead load increase to the structure foundations. Figure ‎1.2
illustrates an example of providing additional concrete and steel section due to a load
increase.
2
Figure ‎1.2: Providing additional concrete and steel section (Enhancing the Capacity of
Concrete Bridges, 2008, P.17).
1.2.2 Steel plate bonding
This technique increases the element stiffness or capacity by bonding steel plate to the
concrete soffit using bolts or structural adhesive; the method was developed in the
1960s, however, the first application of this repair conducted in the UK was the
strengthening of four cracked bridges at the M5 Worcestershire, England in 1975
(Klaiber, 1987). Due to the minimal clearance loss, this method was more feasible
especially in the UK than providing additional concrete and steel sections, but it is far
more costly and requires constant steel maintenance service to reduce corrosion
chances, in addition, performing this technique often requires skilled staff and
machinery to specify the positions of the bolts, and place and hold the plates due to
the weight factor. Figure ‎1.3 shows strengthening a bridge headstock in Australia
using steel plate bonding.
Figure ‎1.3: Steel plate bonding for bridge headstock using structural epoxy and bolts
(Rutledge, 2014).
3
1.3 Strengthening using fibre reinforced polymers (FRP)
Recent developments and the mass production of the fibre polymers opened a new era
of structural strengthening, these polymers are far more easier to apply on the
structure than the steel plates due to the huge density difference, the ease to form in
curves or warp and having the flexibility allowed it to dominate in strengthening, such
as the case shown in Figure ‎1.4 where using steel plates was not possible.
Figure ‎1.4: Benefiting from the flexibility in the FRP strips to retrofit a concrete slab with
limited access (Design guidance for strengthening using FRP, 2012).
The fibre polymers provide almost zero reduction in headroom clearance, and overall
lower cost compared to the other solutions.
The main disadvantage in strengthening with fibre polymers is the overall stiffness
increase of the element, as it will have a direct impact on the existence of the pre-
failure structure warning signs due to the overall ductility/deformability decrease. The
high strength in the fibre reinforced polymers will reduce the element's ability to
deform and will result in a sudden energy dissipation; in other words, if the structure
reached the ultimate limit state it will fail catastrophically without showing sufficient
pre-failure warning which is against any safe structural design concepts.
In addition to the above disadvantage, there are other non-structural issues with the
fibre reinforced polymers, such as the vulnerability to vandalism or ripping out if not
protected sufficiently (Enhancing the Capacity of Concrete Bridges, 2008, P23), but
these disadvantages are often detectable and will only decrease the safety factor and
will not result in a catastrophic collapse.
4
1.4 Aim of this work
This study addresses the following main key points, which are related to the issues of
strengthening RC beams using fibre reinforced polymers (FRP):
 The efficiency of using unidirectional (single orientation fibres) carbon fibre

in strengthening RC beams.
 Anchorage length effect on the strength gain.
 Ductility performance for the flexural concrete beams with different

anchorage lengths.
 Examining failure modes for all strengthening lengths.
1.5 Structure of the dissertation
Chapter 1: A presentation to concrete structures deterioration and the main issues

during the service life. On the other hand, advantages and disadvantages of previous
strengthening methods and more recent techniques were examined. In addition, this
chapter highlights the main aim of this study.
Chapter 2: Literature review of previous studies, in particular, anchorage length

effect on strength gain for flexural concrete elements and ductility performance
determination methods.
Chapter 3: Illustrates all aspects of the experimental work, such as the three
categories details, preparing concrete elements (beams and samples), strengthening
process and testing procedure. Furthermore, all materials used in the study were
reviewed and tested to determine the actual properties.
Chapter 4: In this chapter, the data collected from the instruments attached to the
concrete beams were presented, analysed and compared. All key aspects in the results
were pinpointed; in addition, failure modes were identified and examined for all
elements.
Chapter 5: Mainly consists of an explanation and discussion for the experimental

results and elements behaviour. In addition, recommendations and conclusion were
prepared to summaries the findings in this study.
5
1.6 Overview
The most common degrade form in flexural concrete elements is due to environmental
and change of use aspects which requires higher strength capacity, however,
strengthening concrete structures to cope with that required capacity increase can be
far more sustainable solution compared to demolition/rebuilding.
Strengthening techniques such as providing additional concrete, steel sections and

bonding steel plates are less practical and economical compared to upgrading by using
fibre reinforced polymers (FRP).
The flexural concrete beam behaviour to different (FRP) anchorage lengths will be
examined in this study in terms of strength, ductility and failure modes.
6
Chapter 2 : Literature review
2.1 Introduction
The increasing demand for using reinforced fibre polymers (FRP) was the motivation
behind conducting studies on all aspects of strengthening reinforced concrete
structures with (FRP). Studies relevant to the main subjects of this study, namely
anchorage length and ductility were reviewed as following.
2.2 Anchorage length related studies
A study of the rehabilitation concrete chimneys, done by Kobatake, Kimura and

Katsumata in 1993 considered the length of (FRP) needed to be bonded to the
concrete in order to provide sufficient anchorage. Carbon fibre tape was fixed to a
concrete block where the tensile load was applied via the internal rebar in the block.
The composite debonded away from the concrete when the anchorage length was
short, but the failure mode changed to composite tensile failure above a certain
bonded length. The anchorage length required to reach composite failure was unique
to the particular specimen geometry used, however, the test results showed that an
undesirable premature failure occurs if the bonded length of plate is insufficient
(Garden et al., 1998, P.4).
Obaidat investigated the behavior of structurally damaged full-scale reinforced

concrete beams retrofitted with CFRP laminates in shear or in flexure. The main
variables considered were the internal reinforcement ratios, position of retrofitting and
the length of CFRP. The study results indicated that beams retrofitted in shear and
flexure by using CFRP laminates are structurally efficient and are restored to stiffness
and strength values nearly equal to or greater than those of the control beams.
Regarding the strengthening length of the CFRP, it was found that the efficiency of
the strengthening in flexure highly depending on the length (see Figure ‎2.1), as
Obaidat concluded that the shorter the CFRP the more shear concentration will occur
on the ends. However, only one failure mode was experienced in his study which was
fibre debonding (Obaidat et al., 2011).
7
Figure ‎2.1: Comparison between the load/deflection curves for retrofitted beams with different
anchorage lengths and a control beam (Obaidat et al., 2011).
According to Neubauer and Rostasy, the increase of anchorage length will result in a
bond strength increase up to a specific length where the maximum bond strength is
gained, that length is calculated using Equation ‎2.1 (Neubauer and Rostasy,
1997),(Teng, 2002, P.24).
Equation ‎2.1
√
√
: The modulus of elasticity of the carbon fibre (MPa).
: Carbon fibre thickness (mm).
: Cubes compressive strength (MPa)
2.3 Ductility performance related studies
The expected significant change in the stiffness of a retrofitted concrete element

became a study subject for many researchers, aiming to determine the effect of
strengthening on ductility performance. Many studies were conducted to estimate an
index that can predict the ductility of strengthened concrete elements.
In 1998, Spadea came up with a deflection approach to determine a ductility index for
beams with externally bonded CFRP. The approach considered the maximum mid-
8
span deflection at ultimate limit state to the maximum mid-span deflection at the point
of reinforcement steel yielding (Spadea, Bencardino and Swamy, 1998). Equation ‎2.2
illustrates Spadea ductility index ).
Equation ‎2.2
: The mid-span deflection at ultimate load.
: The mid-span deflection at steel yielding point.
Another method was developed by Bencardino in 2002, but this time it was based on
energy instead of deflection. The index was determined from the area under the
load/deflection curve up to the yielding point divided by the total area when reaching
failure as in Equation ‎2.3 (Bencardino, 2002).
Equation ‎2.3
: The energy (area) under the Load/Deflection curve up to the ultimate load.
: The energy (area) under the Load/Deflection curve up to the steel yielding
point.
A recent work done by Davies and Tann in (2011), developed a new energy based
method for determining the ductility of reinforced concrete flexural elements, which
can produce consistent results compared to earlier deflection and energy based
methods. This approach is a modification of Naaman and Jeong method, which was
established to measure the ductility for internally fibre polymer reinforced sections
(Naaman and Jeong, 1995). The modification introduced calculating the unloading
path using the three developed slopes in load/deflection curve (see Equation ‎2.4,
Equation ‎2.5 and Figure ‎2.2) that can estimate the elastic energy stored at failure.
9
Davies and Tann recommended a minimum value of 1.7 for the ductility index at
which the beam will show ductile failure behavior at the ultimate limit state (Davies
and Tann, 2011). This method was used for constant full length strengthening;
however in this study the method was to be used to check the ductility for all three
different length categories, full, intermediate and short length.
Figure ‎2.2: Three-slope ductility approach.
Equation ‎2.4
( ) ( )
Equation ‎2.5
( )
: The estimate elastic energy (area) under the slope up to the ultimate load.
10
2.4 Summary and overview
Previous studies concluded that the increase of the anchorage length will improve the
strength gain in general, but this gain continued up to a certain anchored length, where
beyond that point no further strength gain was established. However, none of the
studies analyzed the nature of the failure, the ductility performance or the nature of
the energy dissipations due to the lack of failure mode variations.
On the other hand, several studies were conducted to estimate the ductility of (FRP)
strengthened RC elements, where the researchers approached the determination of
ductility using different concepts, such as deflection based and energy based methods.
11
Chapter 3 : Experimental Programme
3.1 Introduction
To examine retrofitting reinforced concrete elements with different carbon fibre

strengthening lengths; beams were tested under a four-point loading system to
produce a constant moment zone (CMZ). This system was necessary in this study, in
order to set a constant effective strengthening length (L eff) for all categories
regardless to the difference of failure loads. The anchorage length (L a) will be
constant in each category, which is up to the load application point from each side as
shown in Figure ‎3.1.
Figure ‎3.1: Testing setup, constant moment zone and anchorage length.
12
The reinforced concrete beams were strengthened using unidirectional carbon fibre
tape; ten beams were prepared using one concrete mix design. Beams were divided
into three categories of strengthening length, plus one control beam to provide a
comparison reference. Each category consists of three beams, which are illustrated in
Table ‎3.1 and Figure ‎3.2. The beams were 2600mm x 200mm x 100mm (2400mm
effective spam), and reinforced using 2∅10mm high yield steel bars and
6mm@100mm shear links in the shear zone which will be illustrated in 3.4.2
Reinforcement steel cages. Sets of cubes and cylinders were prepared with each beam
and tested on the beam testing date to determine the compressive strength, tensile
strength and modules of elasticity.
Table ‎3.1: Categories detail.
Category Ref. Number of beams Carbon fibre length Anchorage length (La)
Control CON 1 N/A N/A
Full length FCF 3 2200mm 475mm
Intermediate length ICF 3 1800mm 275mm
Short length SCF 3 1450mm 100mm
Figure ‎3.2: Carbon fibre and anchorage length for each category.
13
3.2 Element layout and loading configuration
The four-point loading system was adopted in the study to develop a constant moment
zone (CMZ) along the 1.25m mid sector of the beam (see Figure ‎3.1 and Figure ‎3.3).
Within the constant moment zone (CMZ), the shear force will be equal to zero as
illustrated in the analysis below:
Figure ‎3.3: Four-point testing system forces analysis.
Moment at section A-A (Ma-a):
Moment at section Mid-span (Mmid):
14
Based on the above, the constant moment zone (CMZ) between the load application
points will have constant maximum moment of:
Equation ‎3.1
The self-weight of the elements was neglected, as it represents small value compared
to the applied load and it interferes with the (CMZ) assumption.
3.3 Materials properties
3.3.1 Concrete
Packed 25kg bags of general purpose Portland-fly ash cement by Lafarge Cement UK
Ltd. were used in the study. This cement complies with the British Standard (BS EN
197-1:2011) with CEM II/B-V notation.
Figure ‎3.4: The Portland-fly ash cement used in the study.
3.3.2 Aggregates
The fine aggregate used was natural sea-dredged sand, processed from the Bristol
Channel, with maximum particles size of 4 mm. Crushed limestone aggregates used
15
were 10mm to 4mm in size, which were supplied by a local quarry. Both the fine and
coarse aggregates were air dried.
Figure ‎3.5: Aggregates used in the study.
3.3.3 Mixing water
Mix water used was drinkable tap water, added in the room temperature
(approximately 160 C). Drinkable water complies with the British Standard (BS EN
1008:2002) as potable water that can be used in the concrete mix without further
testing.
3.3.4 Steel reinforcement
The steel used in this study was supplied by Derim Steel (Derimsteels.co.uk, 2014).
10mm (H10) ribbed bars grade 500 were used for the longitudinal tensile steel. On the
other hand, smooth 6mm (R6) grade 250 bars formed the shear links (see Figure ‎3.6).
Steel reinforcement bars were tested to determine the yield and ultimate strength.
16
Figure ‎3.6: Steel reinforcement bars used in the study.
3.3.5 Carbon fibre
The unidirectional carbon fibre tape was supplied by Easy Composites Ltd.. The tape
width was 100mm with estimated thickness of 1.0 mm after epoxy application. The
fibres were aligned in the longitudinal direction and held together by a very
lightweight stitching, that keeps the carbon fibres perfectly flat without the crimp of
passing over and under horizontal weft fibres (Easycomposites.co.uk, 2014).
Figure ‎3.7: Unidirectional carbon fibre tape (Easycomposites.co.uk, 2014).
17
3.3.6 Adhesive
EL2 epoxy laminating resin was used along with slow AT30 epoxy hardener (see
Figure ‎3.8) to fix the carbon fibre tape to the soffit surface of the beam. This adhesive
mix has a medium viscosity, which exhibits excellent wetting characteristics
especially when used with carbon fibre. According to the producer
(Easycomposites.co.uk, 2014) the mixing ratio of the resin to hardener is 100 to 30
(weight ratio) and has a 95-115mins pot life, and a demoulding/curing time of 20-30
hours (for slow hardener at temperatures lower than 25oC). The adhesive application
process is illustrated in 3.4.5 Strengthening procedure.
Figure ‎3.8: EL2 epoxy laminating resin and slow AT30 epoxy hardener.
3.4 Samples preparation
3.4.1 Mix design
In order to prepare typical concrete for the study, the mix design selected was based
on weight ratios of 1:2:3 cement, sand and aggregates respectively. A water/cement
ratio (W/C) of 0.5 was used for the following reasons:
1- 0.5 W/C ratio is sufficient to allow the concrete reaction to stay active even
with no further curing (Omairey and Hassan, 2010), as the beams will not be
submerged in water. In addition, this ratio is usually used in concrete exposed
18
to freezing and thawing in a saturated condition but not to chlorides and
targets 30 MPa 28 days compressive strength (CSA Standard A23.1-00/A23.2-
00).
2- It is a widely used ratio in the industry; therefore the concrete soffit roughness
will highly stimulate actual existing concrete elements.
The required materials for each mix were calculated as illustrated below:
Concrete density = 2400 kg/m3 (Assumed and check against actual density in
Table ‎3.4)
Total volume m3= is the total concrete volume required to fill the beam form and
samples set for each mix plus 10% waste.
Three cubes Two cylinders Beam
𝟑
( )
Therefore:
19
As illustrated above, the mix of 1:2:3 cement, sand and aggregates respectively plus
0.5 water presented below:
By putting the above in an equation in terms of cement weight (C), the total weight
will equal:
To get:
The above materials were calculated to cast one beam, two cylinders and three cubes
as shown below:
Figure ‎3.9: The required specimens to be casted with each beam.

20
The total weight of the materials required exceeded the capacity of the pan mixer
used; therefore, each beam was to be casted in two stages by dividing the weights in
half as illustrated in Table ‎3.2 below:
Table ‎3.2: Mixing weights details for each beam and samples set.
Ingredient Ingredient Required weight for each Mixing weight

Ingredient
contribution Percentage beam and sample set (Required weight/2)
Cement 1 15.38% 25.018 kg 12.51 kg
Sand 2 30.76% 50.036 kg 25.018 kg
Limestone 3 46.15% 75.054 kg 37.527 kg
Water 0.5 7.69% 12.5 kg 6.25 kg
Total 6.5 100% 162.62 kg 81.31 kg
The weights above were prepared using the single material batch for all beams. The
weighting process was performed on the same day of mixing using 0.5g accuracy
electronic scale, and placed in clean dry buckets as shown in Figure ‎3.10.
Figure ‎3.10: Weighted materials for two beams and a sample set.
21
3.4.2 Reinforcement steel cages
The details of the steel cages used in the study are illustrated in Table ‎3.3 using the
British Standard (BS 8666:2005) labelling scheme.
Table ‎3.3: Steel reinforcement detail.
Member Beam Cage

Type and size R6 H10
Number of members 10
Number of bars in each cage 12 2
Total number of bars used 120 20
Length of each bar (mm) 625 4175
Shape code* 51 41
A (mm) 180 675
B (mm) 80 170
C (mm) 70 2550
D (mm) 70 170
*The two shape codes used in the steel detailing for the shear links and the
longitudinal tensile steel are shown in Figure ‎3.11.
Figure ‎3.11: Shape codes and dimensions for the main steel and shear links.
22
The cages were assembled according to Figure ‎3.12, where six shear links from each
side were presented within the shear zones. In addition, two main tensile bars were
placed under the whole length of the beam and bended to cover the shear zone only in
the beam top. This was necessary for the following reasons:
1- To prevent concrete compression failure within the compression zone.
2- To provide hangers for the shear links.
Figure ‎3.12: Beams reinforcement details.
Shear links were arranged in a specific pattern that provides alternative 90o degree
bent location (facing top and bottom alternate) to avoid lumping more than two
adjacent bents together (see Figure ‎3.13) to reduce chances of concrete segregation
and provide a similar arrangement in all specimens.
Figure ‎3.13: The process of placing shear links in alternative order.
23
20mm clip chair plastic spacers were used to support the longitudinal steel
reinforcement to achieve the desired steel depth, and circular 10mm bar spacers were
placed on the cage sides to centre it and avoid contact with the form.
*Placed on the Shear
links or main bar
Figure ‎3.14: The plastic clip chair and circular spacers used in the study.
3.4.3 Mixing process
Casting a beam required two mixes as illustrated earlier in Table ‎3.2 due to the limited
rotating pan mixer capacity. The mixing process was conducted in accordance with
the British Standard (BS 1881-125:2013), meeting the general mechanical mixing
requirements, where the mixer pan was cleaned and dried by removing remaining free
water before adding the materials. The weighted coarse aggregates, cement and sand
were placed in the mixer pan respectively to distribute the cement particles evenly
with the other ingredients, then water was added gradually allowing it to mix
homogenously in the batch (see Figure ‎3.15).
24
1 2
3 4
Figure ‎3.15: Materials adding order from 1 to 4.
3.4.4 Concrete placing and sampling
Timber beam forms of 2600mm x 200mm x 100mm in dimension were used to

prepare the beam elements. Each form consists of four sides and a base. The sides
were locked into the base grove and fixed with bolts. Both sides were tightened to
each other (allowing exact 100mm width) using adjustable pins that run through six
side posts on each side as shown in Figure ‎3.16. Before placing the steel
reinforcement cages into the form, a thin oil layer was applied to coat inner sides to
ease the demoulding process. After placing the steel reinforcement, the width was
checked and adjusted upon the final form location before casting using the post pins.
The side spacing and steel depth were checked before casting to ensure that the steel
cages were placed correctly with no contact with the form sides or bottom (see
Figure ‎3.17).
25
Figure ‎3.16: 3D model of the used timber beam form.
Figure ‎3.17: Beams Form preparations and checks before casting.
26
Following form preparations, the fresh concrete was transferred manually using hand
scopes and placed in the beam forms as illustrated in Figure ‎3.19.
Concrete compaction was performed in accordance with the British Standard (BS EN
12390-2:2009), where an electric internal (poker) vibrator was used to compact the
concrete. The internal vibrator compacted the concrete immediately after placing in
the form with neither excessive segregation nor laitance as shown in Figure ‎3.18. In
addition, hitting the form sides, bottom and reinforcement bars was avoid as much as
possible during compacting.
Figure ‎3.18: The electric internal (poker) vibrator and compacting process.
The concrete surface was then level with the form edge using a steel trowel to reach
the required 200mm beam depth and provide a smooth finish surface. The casted
beams remained in the form for at least 24 hours to minimize damaging during
demoulding and transporting to work platforms for further process. Figure ‎3.19 below
shows some aspects of casting and demoulding beams.
27
Figure ‎3.19: Aspects of beams casting and de-moulding.
Sets of concrete samples were prepared while the beams were being casted. The
moulds types and sizes were selected to meet the British Standard (BS EN 12390-
1:2012), and appropriate to the maximum aggregate size used. The compressive
strength cubes selected were 100mmx100mmx100mm with two split sides and
removable base as shown in (see Figure ‎3.20).
Figure ‎3.20: 3D model of the cubic mould used in the study.

28
As for the cylinders, the moulds were again selected in accordance with the British
Standard (BS EN 12390-1:2012) (see Figure ‎3.21):
Figure ‎3.21: 3D model of the cylindrical moulds used in the study.
The moulds were oiled lightly before concrete placing. The concrete compacting was
done using a vibrating table shown in Figure ‎3.22, which complies with the British
Standard (BS EN 12390-2:2009), then the top concrete surface was levelled using a
steel trowel.
Figure ‎3.22: The vibrating table used to compact the set of concrete samples.
29
The concrete sample sets were demoulded after 24 hours of casting, and marked
before placing in water. A marking scheme used in the study indicating the researcher
initials, beam mix number and date of casting (see Figure ‎3.23).
Figure ‎3.23: Specimens marking scheme.
Following marking, specimens were placed in a curing bath (20 ± 2) °C (see

Figure ‎3.24), which complies with the British Standard (BS EN 12390-2:2009) and
(BS 1881-111:1983) for the method of normal curing of test specimens (20 °C
method). In the curing bath, the specimens were placed on a steel mesh allowing
water to submerge all sides of the specimens evenly until the testing date.
Figure ‎3.24: All specimens placed in the curing bath for 10 beams.
30
3.4.5 Strengthening procedure
The soffit surfaces of all beams were cleaned of any dust, concrete protrusion and
paint residuals (see Figure ‎3.25) to provide an even surface for the carbon fibre to be
glued on.
Before
After
Figure ‎3.25: Before and after concrete protrusion and paint being removed from the
beam bottom surface.
31
Figure ‎3.26 below shows the carbon fibre tapes placed on the beam soffit surfaces and
cut to the required lengths.
Figure ‎3.26: Carbon fibre tape cutting process.
The process of fixing the carbon fibre tap to the beam surface went through several
steps similarly to previous work by (Davies, 2010). In the first step, the epoxy
(adhesive) was applied to the beam surface allowing it to saturate the concrete (see
Figure ‎3.27 (a)). In the second step, pre-cut carbon fibre was rolled on the applied
epoxy, allowing it to be saturated with the excess applied epoxy (see Figure ‎3.27 (b)).
However, this epoxy was not sufficient to provide the required bond, therefore, a
second layer of epoxy was applied on the fibre to allow it to saturate more. Finally,
the layer was lifted and turned 180o then replaced again (Figure ‎3.27 (c)). More epoxy
layers were placed upon the final carbon fibre placement allowing it to be fully
saturated (Figure ‎3.27 (d)). Then excess epoxy on the sides was cleaned off.
32
a b
c d
Figure ‎3.27: The strengthening process.
33
3.5 Instrumentation
3.5.1 Vertical deflection
Ten Linear Variable Displacement Transducers (LVDT) were positioned below the
beam with specific spacing (see Figure ‎3.28 and Figure ‎3.29). These (LVDT) monitor
and record the deflection values during loading process in the critical locations (beam
mid-span, under point loads). The (LVDT) were used instead of the built in deflection
transducer in the loading mechanism, because the built in transducer would have been
inaccurate due to the internal deflections, sagging in the mechanism arms and
connections (Davies, 2013). Furthermore, because the mid-span deflection was very
important, it was essential to place two transducers as close as possible to the beam
mid-point (Davies, 2013). Live readings of the (LVDT) and loading were recorded by
a data logger.
3.5.2 Concrete surface strains
At the centre of each side of the beam, two columns each consist of six rows of
Demountable Mechanical strain gauges (DEMEC) which were glued to the concrete
(see Figure ‎3.28 and Figure ‎3.29). The displacement of these buttons (after applying
gauge factors) will represent the concrete surface strain. (DEMEC) readings were
taken after every loading cycle up to beam failure.
3.5.3 Carbon fibre tape surface strains
20mm stain gauges were placed on the carbon fibre outer face in two positions,
namely the beam centre and under a loading point (one loading point side only, see
Figure ‎3.28 and Figure ‎3.29). The aim of these surface strain gauges was to monitor
and record the strain values within the carbon fibre tape against loading increase.
3.5.4 Cracks propagation
In order to study the cracks propagation during loading, a thin inelastic white paint
was used to coat the beam sides, which enhances cracks visibility and provides a clear
surface to mark all cracks developed with load values (see Figure ‎3.29).
34
LVDTs
FRP surface strain gauge position
Figure ‎3.28: The instrumentation placed on the beam in the flexural

test
Figure ‎3.29: 3D model of the instrumentation placed on the beam in the flexural test.
35
3.6 Testing of elements
All tests were conducted in the University of South Wales laboratories and according
to the British Standard. Performed tests illustrated and detailed below:
3.6.1 Flexural strength test
The testing layout was very similar to the British Standard (BS 1881 – 118: 1983)
layout; but the distance between the supporting rollers was equal for all three spans as
in the British Standard (0.575m, 1.25m and 0.575m, see Figure ‎3.3 and Figure ‎3.28),
because in this study, a wider mid-span length was needed to achieve relatively short
anchorage length (La) compared to the effective strengthening length (Leff). In
addition, the wider mid-span allowed higher deformation values to be reached, which
was more useful to study the flexural behaviour.
Test process started after calibrating the instrumentation sensors, and then the loading
increments were as following:
1- 0-10 kN at increment of 1.0 kN: to record the beam behaviour in terms of

surface strain carefully as the beams were in pure elastic stage (Davies, 2010).
2- 10-20 kN at increment of 2.5 kN: to start marking cracks propagation.
3- +20 kN at increment of 5.0 kN: all sensors reading were recorded with each
increment or behaviour change, but if any element showed signs of failure after
the loading halts, lesser increments were applied until reaching failure (Davies,
2010).
Testing continued until failure was detected (losing resistance with significant
deflection), then the beam failure modes were to be examined. The test results are
illustrated in ‎Chapter 4.
3.6.2 Concrete compressive strength test
A compressive strength test was performed on the same day with the flexural strength
test (28 days ±1 day). The test complied with the British Standard (BS EN 12390-
3:2009). The compressive test machine specifications met the British Standard (BS
EN 12390-4:2000) requirement.
36
Cubes were tested after determining the concrete density; on the other hand, cylinders
compressive strength was performed only to check the consistency with the average
cubes strength. The cylinders compressive strength was performed using the same
cylindrical sample after completing a modulus of elasticity test. The compressive test
results are illustrated in Table ‎3.4 and detailed data in Appendix 2.
3.6.3 Concrete tensile strength test
This test was performed on the same day of the flexural strength test, using the
cylindrical specimens with length/diameter ratio of 2 and conforming to (BS EN
12390-1:2012) and (BS EN 12390-2:2009). None of the specimens required cutting
and/or grinding. The test was performed in accordance with the British Standard (BS
EN 12390-6:2009). The tensile splitting test machine specifications met the British
Standard (BS EN 12390-4:2009) requirement.
According to the above British Standard (BS EN 12390-4:2009), the tensile strength
of the concrete was calculated using the Equation ‎3.2:
Equation ‎3.2
The concrete tensile strength results are illustrated in Table ‎3.4 and the detailed data
attached in Appendix 2.
37
3.6.4 Concrete static modulus of elasticity test
This test was performed in accordance with (BS 1881-121:1983). The concrete
sample setup is illustrated in Figure ‎3.30. The compression machine comply with (BS
1881-115:1986) and capable of applying the load at the specified rate and maintaining
it at a required value. The test specimen was selected (as two cylinders were prepared
for each beam) and check in terms of flatness, parallelism and cylindricity to ensure
satisfying the tolerance limits in the standards.
Modulus of elasticity was calculated using the average of three strain values against
the third of the average cubes failure stress (see Appendix 1). The test results are
illustrated in Table ‎3.4.
Figure ‎3.30: Concrete static modulus of elasticity element setup.
38
Table ‎3.4: Concrete test results.
Average cube Average cube Cylinder Tensile Elastic

Beam Cube strength
strength density strength strength Modulus
code (N/mm2)
(N/mm2) (kg/m3) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (kN/mm2)
Cube 1 41.0
CON Cube 2 40.1 41.0 2376.6 36.54 2.40 56.02
Cube 3 41.8
Cube 1 44.4
FCF1 Cube 2 43.7 44.6 2396.6 38.92 3.61 49.75
Cube 3 45.7
Cube 1 44.5
FCF2 Cube 2 44.6 45.0 2390.0 39.74 2.68 51.54
Cube 3 46.0
Cube 1 41.8
FCF3 Cube 2 42.4 42.7 2376.6 40.24 1.98 50.72
Cube 3 44.1
Cube 1 46.1
ICF1 Cube 2 45.0 45.8 2376.6 41.78 2.47 53.62
Cube 3 46.3
Cube 1 43.6
ICF2 Cube 2 43.6 43.4 2373.3 42.88 2.59 59.42
Cube 3 43.2
Cube 1 47.5
ICF3 Cube 2 49.2 48.6 2380.0 38.69 3.20 53.25
Cube 3 49.0
Cube 1 41.3
SCF1 Cube 2 45.8 45.1 2380.0 36.89 2.82 49.39
Cube 3 48.4
Cube 1 43.2
SCF2 Cube 2 45.6 45.1 2367.6 39.68 2.66 50.15
Cube 3 46.4
Cube 1 46.6
SCF3 Cube 2 46.5 46.6 2370.0 39.26 3.31 45.58
Cube 3 46.7
39
3.6.5 Reinforcement steel tensile test
For each rebar diameter used in the study, two specimens were cut to a sufficient
length to fit in the tensile testing machine. The test machine was connected to an
output unit to produce load/elongation data log (see Figure ‎3.31 and Figure ‎3.33). The
test procedure was performed with accordance with (BS EN ISO 15630-1:2010)
under displacement control condition (displacement rate of 1mm/min). the steel rebar
tensile test results illustrated in Table ‎3.5.
Figure ‎3.31: INSTRON 8502 tensile machine with an output unit.
In Table ‎3.5, a nominal rebar diameter was used to calculate the steel cross-sectional
area, as the average measured readings were almost equal to the nominal diameters
(see Figure ‎3.32).
Figure ‎3.32: Measured reinforcement steel rebar diameter.

40
Table ‎3.5: Reinforcement steel tensile test result.
Area Load (kN) Yield Stress (N/mm2)

Steel specimens
(mm2) Yield Peak Elongation (mm) Yield Max.
∅ 10 sample No. 1 78.53 42.78 50.39 1.48 544.7 641.6
∅ 10 sample No. 2 78.53 42.38 50.58 1.26 539.6 644.0
∅ 10 mm Average 42.58 50.48 1.37 542.1 642.8
∅ 6 sample No. 1 28.27 13.11 15.33 0.38 463.7 542.2
∅ 6 sample No. 2 28.27 12.75 15.07 0.34 451.0 533.0
∅ 6 mm Average 12.93 15.2 0.36 457.3 537.6
Load/Elongation graph for 10 mm reinforcment steel
50.00
40.00
30.00
Load kN
20.00 Steel sample No.1
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
Elongation mm
Load/Elongation graph for 6mm reinforcement steel

16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
Load (kN)

6.00
Steel sample No.2
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Elongation (mm)
Figure ‎3.33: Load/Elongation for tested ∅ 10mm and ∅ 6mm steel reinforcement bars.
41
3.6.6 Carbon Fibre Tensile Test
This test was conducted using three fibre specimens to determine an average fibre
elastic modulus (Efrp). The specimens were prepared by applying a layer of epoxy
following the same process used in the strengthening process; the process involved
placing a carbon fibre sheet (30cm in length) on a flexible plastic panel that can be
bended after the adhesive cures to allow it to debonded. The sheet then shredded to
the required testing width (see Figure ‎3.34).
Figure ‎3.34: Carbon fibre specimens before and after testing.
Testing the carbon fibre with epoxy was done to stimulate results which are more like
the actual fibre properties when it is epoxied to the beam. The test was conducted
using the same machine showed in Figure ‎3.31. In addition, a 50mm strain gauge was
placed on the tested specimens (see Figure ‎3.35) to record the strain values against the
applied stress. Test results were relatively consistent as can be seen in Table ‎3.6 and
Figure ‎3.36.
42
Figure ‎3.35: The 50mm strain gauge placed upon the carbon fibre specimen.
Table ‎3.6: Carbon fibre tensile test result.
Ultimate Ultimate Modulus of

Carbon fibre Thickness Width Area
stress strain elasticity
specimens (mm) (mm) (mm2)
(MPa) (mm/mm) (MPa)
Sample No. 1 1.08 14.56 15.724 800.01 0.0112 71546
Sample No. 2 1.23 12.69 15.608 694.48 0.0118 67746
Sample No. 3 0.97 14.15 13.725 789.77 0.0118 59573
Av. Thickness 1.09 Average modulus of elasticity (MPa) 66288.3
Carbon Fibre Stress/Strain

900.00
y = 71546x
800.00
y = 67746x
700.00 y = 59573x
600.00
Stress (MPa)
CF Sample No.1
500.00
CF Sample No.2
400.00
CF Sample No.3
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Strain (mm/mm)
Figure ‎3.36: Load/Elongation curve for tested ∅ 10mm and ∅ 6mm steel reinforcement
43
bars.
3.7 Overview
Three categories of different unidirectional carbon fibre tape strengthening lengths

were prepared; namely full (FCF), intermediate (ICF) and short (SCF). Each category
consisted of three steel reinforced concrete beams with a constant steel/concrete ratio;
one additional beam was prepared without strengthening, which represented the
control (CON). On the other hand, sets of concrete samples were taken with each
beam (three cubes and two cylinders) to test for concrete density, compressive
strength, tensile strength and modulus of elasticity. Furthermore, the steel and carbon
fibre tape were tested to determine the tensile capacity and modulus of elasticity.
Strengthening the concrete beams was performed using wet layup application process;
where the carbon fibre tape was fixed to the concrete beams tension side soffit
surface.
The four-point loading system was adopted in the flexural test setup, which was
necessary to produce 1.25m wide mid-span constant moment zone (CMZ), and to set
a constant effective strengthening length (L eff) for all categories regardless of the
difference in failure loads.
Three main instruments were attached to the strengthened concrete elements, namely
deflection transducers, concrete surface strain and carbon fibre surface strain. The
data collected from these instruments were necessary to study the beam behaviours
through the entire loading process.
44
Chapter 4 : Experimental Results and Elements
Behaviour
4.1 Introduction
The instrumentation data were used to present several key aspects of the concrete
beam behaviours during loading. The following subjects were presented using the
above data which will be used further on in the discussion:
 Elements maximum deflection against load
 Elements deflection profiles
 Concrete surface strain
 Neutral axis depth
 Carbon fibre surface strain
 Moment against curvature
 Cracks propagation
 Average cracks width
 Modes of failure
 Ductility indices
 Required anchorage length.
Results were presented to show the main differences between the three categories and
the control. In addition, for each possible aspect, a behaviour summarization of the
three categories was illustrated in a single figure.
45
4.2 Maximum deflections
The maximum deflection reading from the two traducers placed under the beam
centre was used to prepare load/deflection figure for each beam as illustrated next.
4.2.1 Control Beam (CON)
Loading against maximum deflection curve showed two clear stages, in the first stage,
the beam expressed consistent resistance to the applied load with semi-constant slope
(the elastic stage). In the second stage, the beam started to deflect more against
loading (after 45kN), which indicates the start of steel yielding; still the beam
managed to carry more loadings up to 51kN where loss of strength occurred. The
maximum deflection value recorded just before failure was 25.4mm (see Figure ‎4.1).
70000
60000
50000
40000
Applied load (N)
30000
CON
20000
10000
0
0 10 20 30
Maximum deflection (mm)
Figure ‎4.1: Maximum deflection against load for the control beam (CON).
46
4.2.2 Full length category (FCF)
Element FCF1: The load/deflection curve showed steeper slope in all loading stages
compared to the control beam (CON) curve. At 55kN, the steel
started to show yielding as the beam started to deflect more against
loading. Shortly after yielding, the beam failed at 65kN with
maximum deflection value of 23.2mm (see Figure ‎4.2).
Element FCF2: Reached lowest ultimate load in the category, which was 60kN with
maximum deflection of 21.0mm. The load/deflection curve
maintained considerable gap with the control beam curve, a slight
loss of resistance was observed at 50kN due to the initiation of
premature concrete tearing-off cracks at the anchorage edge (see
Figure ‎4.62). The steel yielding point was not very clear, as gradual
loss of resistance was observed between 40kN to 50kN (see
Figure ‎4.3).
Element FCF3: The load/deflection curve trend was similar to (FCF1). Yielding
occurred around 57kN. The curve showed continuously increasing
gap with the control beam (CON) during the whole loading process.
The ultimate load recorded was 65kN with 24.7mm maximum
deflection value (see Figure ‎4.4).
The load/deflection curves were presented with the control in Figure ‎4.5; from this
figure, it can be seen that all three beams showed consistent trends and maintained
higher resistant to loading compared to the control beam (CON). Although beam
(FCF2) showed lower ultimate load, the deflection value at failure was close to both
(FCF1) and (FCF2), which indicates that this beam showed similar load resisting
pattern during the whole process up to the failure point.
47
60000
50000
Applied load (N) 40000
30000 CON
20000 FCF1
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure ‎4.2: Maximum deflection against load for (FCF1).
60000
50000
Applied load (N)
40000
30000 CON
20000 FCF2
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
60000
50000
Applied load (N)
40000
30000 CON
20000 FCF3
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
48
60000
50000
Applied load (N)
40000
CON
30000 FCF1
FCF2
20000
FCF3
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure ‎4.5: Maximum deflection against load for the full length carbon fibre
category (FCF) and control beam (CON).
4.2.3 Intermediate length category (ICF)
Element ICF1: The load/deflection curve for this element showed higher slope value
compared to the control beam (CON) curve. At 55kN, the element
showed continues deflection with the constant load due to steel
yielding; after applying more loads, the beam showed considerable
resisting and reached ultimate failure load of 65kN with 28.3mm
deflection (see Figure ‎4.6).
Element ICF2: The pattern of the load/deflection curve was similar to the previous
element. The internal steel showed yielding signs at 57kN; the
element continued to resist the increasing applied load until reaching
63.2kN when failure occurred. Maximum deflection at failure point
was 27.9mm (see Figure ‎4.7).
Element ICF3: The ultimate failure load in this element was 60kN with 20.9mm
maximum deflection (see Figure ‎4.8). From the load/deflection curve
it can be seen that failure occurred immediately after steel yielding
due to concrete cover tearing-off at the fibre tape end (see
Figure ‎4.71).
49
Figure ‎4.9 illustrates all three elements of the intermediate length category (ICF) with
the control (CON). The figure shows very similar pattern that all intermediate length
(ICF) elements followed. A slight drop in strength resistant of the element (ICF1) was
seen, but the element retreated same category pattern and joined the other beams until
failure. The third slope (after yielding S3) for all intermediate length beams (ICF)
showed similar value compared to the control beam (CON) but at higher load range.
60000
50000
Applied load (N)
40000
30000 CON
20000 ICF1
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure ‎4.6: Maximum deflection against load for (ICF1).
60000
50000
Applied load (N)
40000
30000 CON
ICF2
20000
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
50
60000
50000
Applied load (N)
40000
30000 CON
ICF3
20000
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
60000
50000
:
Applied load (N)
40000
CON
30000 ICF1
ICF2
20000
ICF3
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure ‎4.9: Maximum deflection against load for the intermediate length carbon
fibre category (ICF) and control beam (CON).
4.2.4 Short length category (SCF)
Element SCF1: The load/deflection curve for this element showed higher slope value
compared to the control beam (CON) curve in all loading stages. At
45kN, the element started to show steel yielding signs. After
applying more loads, the beam resisted more loads with less steeper
increase, and eventually the beam reached 53kN and maximum
51
deflection of 21.15mm. The element maintained considerable gap
with the control beam (CON) (see Figure ‎4.10).
Element SCF2: Similarly to the previews beam, the load/deflection curve for this
element maintained clear gap compared to the control beam (CON)
curve in all loading stages. At 45kN, yielding started to occur, after
applying more loads, the beam failed at 52.5kN with maximum
deflection of 20.0mm (see Figure ‎4.11).
Element SCF3: This beam reached the highest failure load in this category, which
was 57.1kN and deflected 17.7mm. No signs of steel yielding were
clear on the curve as the beam continued to resist loading with
constant slope up to failure (see Figure ‎4.12).
By plotting the three curves of the short length category (SCF) with the control
(CON), it can be seen that both (SCF1) and (SCF2) followed almost identical pattern
and showed clear deformation due to internal steel yielding; on the other hand, the
third element (SCF3) did not yield like the other beams, and continued to resists
loading with the same elastic slope (S2). This behaviour delayed steel yielding which
allowed the beam to fail at higher load (see Figure ‎4.13).
60000
50000
Applied load (N)
40000
30000 CON
SCF1
20000
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure ‎4.10: Maximum deflection against load for (SCF1).
52
60000
50000
Applied load (N)

40000
30000 CON
20000 SCF2
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
60000
50000
Applied load (N)
40000
30000 CON
20000 SCF3
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
60000
50000
Applied load (N)
40000
CON
30000 SCF1
20000 SCF2
SCF3
10000
0
10 0 5
15 20 25 30
Figure ‎4.13: Maximum deflection against load for the short length carbon fibre category
(SCF) and control beam (CON).
53
4.3 Deflection profile
Using the ten linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT) that were placed under
the entire beam clear span (see Figure ‎3.28 and Figure ‎3.29); the deflection profiles
were prepared for all elements showing deflection values during the loading process.
Deflection profiles were presented for loads above 10kN (below 10kN, deflection
values were relatively small) up to last recorded data before or at failure. Figure ‎4.14
to Figure ‎4.23 illustrates all deflection profiles.
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 10kN
-5 15kN
Deflection (mm)
20kN
-10
25kN
-15 30kN
35kN
-20
40kN
-25 45kN
50kN
-30
Transducer location (mm)
Figure ‎4.14: Deflection profile for the control beam (CON).
10kN
-2 0 500 1000 1500 2000
15kN
20kN
Deflection (mm)
-7 25kN
30kN
-12 35kN
40kN
-17 45kN
50kN
55kN
-22
Figure ‎4.15: Deflection profile for the full length category (FCF1).
54
0 10kN
-2 0 500 1000 1500 2000
15kN
-4 20kN
-6 25kN
Deflection (mm)
-8 30kN
-10 35kN
-12 40kN
-14 45kN
-16 50kN
-18 55kN
0 10kN
-2 0 500 1000 1500 2000
15kN
-4 20kN
-6 25kN
Deflection (mm)
-8 30kN
-10 35kN
-12 40kN
-14 45kN
-16 50kN
-18 55kN
60kN
-20
0 10kN
0 500 1000 1500 2000 15kN
-5 20kN
25kN
-10 30kN
Deflection (mm)
35kN
-15 40kN
* 45kN
-20
50kN
55kN
-25
60kN
65kN
-30
Figure ‎4.18*: Deflection profile for the intermediate length category (ICF1).
55
10kN
-2 0 500 1000 1500 2000 15kN
20kN
25kN
-7
Deflection (mm)
30kN
35kN
-12 40kN
45kN
-17 50kN
**
55kN
60kN
-22
Figure ‎4.19**: Deflection profile for the intermediate length category (ICF2).
0
10kN
-2 0 500 1000 1500 2000
15kN
-4
20kN
-6
25kN
Deflection (mm)
-8
30kN
-10
35kN
-12
40kN
-14 45kN
-16 50kN
-18 55kN
-20 60kN
Figure ‎4.20: Deflection profile for the intermediate length category (ICF3).
-1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 10kN

-3 15kN
-5 20kN
Deflection (mm)
-7 25kN
-9 30kN
35kN
-11
40kN
-13
45kN
-15 50kN
-17
Figure ‎4.21: Deflection profile for the short length category (SCF1).
56
0
10kN
-2 0 500 1000 1500 2000
15kN
-4
20kN
-6
25kN
-8
Deflection (mm)
30kN
-10
35kN
-12
40kN
-14
45kN
-16
50kN
-18
0
10kN
0 500 1000 1500 2000
-2 15kN
-4 20kN
-6 25kN
30kN
Deflection (mm)
-8
35kN
-10 40kN
-12 45kN
-14 50kN
55kN
-16
* The fourth transduce from the left stuck during the last three loading increments
which showed fixed deflection reading.
** The fourth transduce from the left failed to give any reading, therefore this
transducer did not present any data in this element.
In order to compared deflection behaviour in all strengthening lengths, deflection

profiles were presented in Figure ‎4.24 for all elements; using only the average of the
50kN profile curve of each category, as the 50kN represents the ultimate control beam
(CON) deflection values (which were recorded during steel yielding stage).
57
-1 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-6
CON @ 50kN
-11
Deflection (mm)
FCF Average @ 50kN
-16 ICF Average @ 50kN
SCF Average @ 50kN

-21
-26
Figure ‎4.24: Average deflection profile at 50kN for all strengthened categories and the control beam.
The above Figure shows that the control beam (CON) deflected significantly
compared to all three categories. The short length category (SCF) recorded more
deflection in all transducers compared to both (ICF) and (FCF), but that increase in
deflection was relatively small. On the other hand, the intermediate length category
(ICF) average deflection profile showed a distinct pattern, where the profile tended to
be identical with the full length category up to the strengthening zone (second
transducer from both sides), but within the strengthening zone the average showed
that beams resisted deflection and performed better than the full length category
(FCF).
4.4 Concrete surface strain
Readings from Demountable Mechanical strain gauges (DEMEC) were used to show
the concrete surface strain as illustrated earlier in (see Figure ‎3.28 and Figure ‎3.29).
DEMECs readings were recorded through the entire loading process, but only
readings up to 10kN (at each 1kN load increment) are presented to show the concrete
the average concrete surface strain of the two sides of each beam. Typical strain
readings for each category were illustrated in Figure ‎4.25 to Figure ‎4.28, the
remaining strain figures were attached in Appendix 3. Strain readings above 10kN
were used to calculate the neutral axis depth as it will be illustrated further on.
58
200 1.0kN
180
2.0kN
160
3.0kN
140
4.0kN
120
5.0kN
100
6.0kN
80
7.0kN
60
8.0kN
40
20 9.0kN
0 10kN
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Figure ‎4.25: Concrete surface strain for the control beam (CON).
200
1.0kN
180
2.0kN
160
3.0kN
140
4.0kN
120
5.0kN
100
80 6.0kN
60 7.0kN
40 8.0kN
20 9.0kN
0 10kN
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure ‎4.26: Concrete surface strain for the full length category beam (FCF1).
200
1.0kN
180
2.0kN
160
3.0kN
140
4.0kN
120
5.0kN
100
6.0kN
80
7.0kN
60
40 8.0kN
20 9.0kN
0 10kN
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure ‎4.27: Concrete surface strain for the intermediate length category (ICF3).
59
200
1.0kN
180
2.0kN
160
3.0kN
140
4.0kN
120
5.0kN
100
6.0kN
80
7.0kN
60
40 8.0kN
20 9.0kN
0 10kN
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Figure ‎4.28: Concrete surface strain for the short length category beam (SCF1).
Strain readings in all beams tended to show more consistent and almost semi-straight
composite action line as the loading increases. On the other hand, neutral axis depth
showed moderate variation from beam to another. The neutral axis depth will be
illustrated next using the same DEMECs readings for all loadings up to failure or last
recorded data.
The carbon fibre tape effected the strain readings, mostly in the lower part of the
beam (closer to the soffit). In the strengthened categories, the strain at the soffit was
lower than the control beam as a result of the fibre contribution in the resistant; on the
other hand, the strain above the neutral axis for the control beam was more than the
other categories due to lack of strengthening and the need for less concrete within the
compressive zone (see Figure ‎4.29).
200
180
160
140
120 CON @ 10 kN
100 FCF Average @ 10 kN
80 ICF Average @ 10 kN
60 SCF Average @ 10 kN
40
20
0
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Figure ‎4.29: Average concrete surface strain at 10kN for all categories.
60
The above behaviour changed dramatically at higher loads, as the strain readings at
45kN (last recorded strain values for the control beam) showed very similar strain
values and neutral axis depth (see Figure ‎4.30); this indicates that the strain value at
higher loads is more proportional to the steel reinforcement than the carbon fibre.
200
180
160
140
CON @ 45 kN
120
100 FCF Average @ 45 kN
80 ICF Average @ 45 kN
60
SCF Average @ 45 kN
40
20
0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Figure ‎4.30: Average concrete surface strain at 45kN for all categories.
4.5 Neutral axis depth
Using the concrete surface strain data, the neutral axis depth was determined by
substituting strain value equal to zero in the strain Equation ‎4.1 as below:
Assuming strain line formula is:
Equation ‎4.1
Where:
x : Strain value
Y : The depth of the N.A from the soffit (mm)
61
Substituting (x = 0) to find Y at zero strain:
Y= b
X= 200 – b
Where:
X = depth from the beam top (mm)
Based on the above equations, the neural axis depth for each was category illustrated
in Figure ‎4.31 to Figure ‎4.33.
Load (kN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
50
60
Neutral axis depth (mm)
CON
70
FCF1
80 FCF2
90 FCF3
100
110
120
Figure ‎4.31: Neutral axis depths for the full length category (FCF) elements.
Load (kN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
50
60
CON
70
ICF1
80 ICF2
90 ICF3
100
110
120
Figure ‎4.32: Neutral axis depths for the intermediate length category (ICF) elements.
62
Load (kN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
50
60
CON
70 SCF1
80 SCF2
90 SCF3
100
110
120
Figure ‎4.33: Neutral axis depths for the short length category (SCF) elements.
In all elements, at the start of the loading the neutral axis rose as the extreme fibre was
subjected to tensile strength, which increased the lower lever arm length. Elements
with concrete crushing failure showed slight drop in the axis depth (CON, FCF1,
FCF2 and FCF3). Furthermore the drop in (FCF2) between 20kN to 30kN was an
indication of an early/significant concrete failure (see Figure ‎4.63), where relatively
long compressive zone started to fail, which decreased the neutral axis depth.
The average neutral axis depths shows very similar patterns. However, the control
beam (CON) almost maintained shallower axis depth in all loading stages, because
the steel reinforcement in the (CON) needed longer lever arm compared with the
other elements to equalize the applied moment on the section (see Figure ‎4.34).
Load (kN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
50
60 CON
70 FCF Average
ICF Average
80
SCF Average
90
100
110
Figure ‎4.34: Average neutral axis depths for all categories.
63
4.6 Carbon fibre surface strain results
In the following, the carbon fibre strain readings against the applied load for each
category were illustrated based on the data collected from the central and side strain
gauge.
Central gauge: The readings showed that for (FCF1) and (FCF2) the strain remained
almost constant after 25kN and 35kN respectively, as for the third
element (FCF3), the strain curve maintained same slope up to 50kN
where the gauge feed discontinued (see Figure ‎4.35).
Side gauge: Lower strain readings for (FCF2) were observed compared to both
(FCF1) and (FCF3), where both followed consistent pattern (see
Figure ‎4.36).
60
50
40
Load (kN)
30 FCF1 Central
FCF2 Central
20 FCF3 Central
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Crabon Fibre Strain (MicroStrain)
Figure ‎4.35: Carbon fibre central strain gauge reading for the full length category (FCF).
64
60
50
40
Load (kN)
30 FCF1 Side
FCF2 Side
20 FCF3 Side
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Figure ‎4.36: Carbon fibre side strain gauge reading for the full length category (FCF).
Central gauge: All three elements showed consistent strain readings (see
Figure ‎4.38). However, the change of (ICF1) curve after 40kN was a
result of a fibre rupture at the gauge tip; this was observed before
the full fibre rupture failure and during loading process (see
Figure ‎4.37).
Figure ‎4.37: Fibre ruptures at the strain gauge edge when 40kN was reached in (ICF1).
65
Side gauge: Similarly to the central gauges readings, consistent patterns for all
elements in this category occurred (see Figure ‎4.39).
60
50
40
Load (kN)
30 ICF1 Central
ICF2 Central
20 ICF3 Central
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Figure ‎4.38: Carbon fibre central strain gauge reading for the intermediate length category (ICF).
60
50
40
Load (kN)
ICF1 Side
30 ICF2 Side
ICF3 Side
20
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Figure ‎4.39: Carbon fibre side strain gauge reading for the intermediate length category (ICF).
66
4.6.3 Short length category (SCF)
Central gauge: The strain readings for this category showed that all three elements
started to strain in the same way against loading, but after 35kN,
element (SCF3) showed lower strain against loading increase (see
Figure ‎4.41).
Side gauge: Due to the height stress concentration close to the side gauges, the
strain gain against loading was high especially between 10kN to
25kN as the concrete cover have not failed or dissipated any energy
yet (see Figure ‎4.42). The reason behind element (SCF1) loss of
strain (shown in grey line in Figure ‎4.42) was the concrete cover
failure; this allowed the energy to dissipate the applied stresses on
the gauge or even compresses the fibre due to the failed concrete
cover self-weight as illustrated in Figure ‎4.40 below:
Failed concrete compresses
the strain gauge
Strain gauge position
Figure ‎4.40: Concrete cover failure caused stress dissipation at the strain gauge and compressed
it after certain point of failure due to concrete self-weight.
67
60
50
40
Load (kN)
30 SCF1 Central
SCF2 Central
20
SCF3 Central
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Figure ‎4.41: Carbon fibre central strain gauge for the short length category (SCF).
60
50
40
Load (kN)
30 SCF1 Side
SCF2 Side
20 SCF3 Side
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Figure ‎4.42: Carbon fibre side strain gauge for the short length category (SCF).
The average of the above readings for all categories were used in Figure ‎4.43 and
Figure ‎4.44 to show the overall carbon fibre strain behaviour (curves were curtailed
up to 35kN as most strain gauges started to fail after this loading value).
The central strain averages showed that all categories followed the same pattern; this
indicates that the central zone of the beam was strained in the same amount in all
elements. On the other hand, the side strain gauge average showed various trends. The
68
full length category (FCF) scored lowest in strain gain against loading; due to the
fewer stresses at that part of the carbon fibre (stresses distributed more along the
relatively long anchorage length). As for both the intermediate (ICF) and short (SCF)
category, same patterns were observed up to 25kN. These patterns showed more strain
gain compared to the full length category (FCF) due to higher stresses concentration
in the side gauge region (as the anchorage was shorter); however, the short length
category (SCF) started to strain less in late stages, as a result of the energy dissipation
due to the initiation of concrete cover tearing-off failure after 25kN.
35
30
25
Load (kN)
20
FCF Central
15
ICF Central
10 SCF Central
5
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Carbon fibre strain (MicroStrain)
Figure ‎4.43: Average carbon fibre central gauge strain for all categories.
35
30
25
Load (kN)
20
FCF Side
15
ICF Side
10 SCF Side
5
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Carbon fibre strain (MicroStrain)
Figure ‎4.44: Average carbon fibre side gauge strain for all categories.
69
4.7 Moment against curvature
Due to the sensitivity of the strain and deflection data, it was necessary to verify the
reliability of the recorded readings; this was done by plotting moment against
curvature for both the deflection and strain for all beams. The deflection and strain
curvature were calculated as below:
4.7.1 Curvature based on deflection Kd
Based on the above:
∆= ∆max – (∆1 + ∆2)/2
a x a = 2 x R - ∆max2
R= ( a2 + ∆max2 ) / 2 x ∆
Curvature based on deflection Kd = 1 / R
70
4.7.2 Curvature based on strain Ks
Therefore:
Equation ‎4.2
Based on the above Figure:
Equation ‎4.3
R can be calculated by substituting Equation ‎4.3 in Equation ‎4.2.
Curvature based on strain Ks = 1 / R
According to the above formulas, the curvatures based on deflection and strain were
both calculated for all beams and illustrated in Figure ‎4.45 to Figure ‎4.54. From the
figures it was seen that all elements showed acceptable similarity between deflection
and strain curvatures.
71
16
14
12
10
Moment (kNm)
2
Deflection Strain
0
0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025 0.00003 0.000035 0.00004 0.000045
Curvature (mm-1)
Figure ‎4.45: Moment against curvatures for the control beam (CON).
20
18
16
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
8
6
4
2
Deflection Strain
0
0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025 0.00003 0.000035
Curvature (mm-1)
Figure ‎4.46: Moment against curvatures for element (FCF1).
18
16
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
2
Deflection Strain
0
0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025 0.00003
Curvature (mm-1)
72
20
18
16
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
8
6
4
2
Deflection Strain
0
0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025 0.00003 0.000035 0.00004 0.000045 0.00005
Curvature (mm-1)
20
18
16
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
8
6
4
2
Deflection Strain
0
0 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005 0.00006 0.00007
Curvature (mm-1)
Figure ‎4.49: Moment against curvatures for element (ICF1).
20
18
16
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
8
6
4
2
Deflection Strain
0
0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025 0.00003 0.000035 0.00004
Curvature (mm-1)
73
18
16
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
2
Deflection Strain
0
0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025
Curvature (mm-1)
16
14
12
10
Moment (kNm)
2
Deflection Strain
0
0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025
Curvature (mm-1)
Figure ‎4.52: Moment against curvatures for element (SCF1).
16
14
12
10
Moment (kNm)
2
Deflection Strain
0
0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025
Curvature (mm-1)

74
18
16
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
2
Deflection Strain
0
0 0.000005 0.00001 0.000015 0.00002 0.000025
Curvature (mm-1)
6.8 Cracks propagation
Recorded cracks patterns were plotted using coloured loading legend in order to ease
examining the propagation behaviour. Figure ‎4.55 illustrates these crack patterns for
both sides of all elements.
75
Please see page No. 76 file.
76
Please see page No. 77 file.
Figure ‎4.55: The cracks patterns for all elements.
77
4.9 Average cracks width
The average crack width within the pure moment zone or (CMZ) was calculated at
45kN (last recorded strain values for the control beam). This average width was
estimated to understand the fibre reinforcement polymer (FRP) effect on the cracks
width as it plays an important factor in structural degrading (Sherwood, 2008). The
cracks width were determined using the strain value from (DEMEC) readings at
H=10mm to find the strain at the beam soffit level; this strain value was used to find
the actual deformation in the (CMZ), which equals the total cracks widths, then the
average crack width was determined by dividing the total deformation to the number
of cracks within the (CMZ) as shown in Figure ‎4.56.
Figure ‎4.56: Bending cracks within the pure moment zone or constant moment zone
(CMZ).
78
The average crack widths were calculated as below:
Equation ‎4.3
Both Y and were determined using the DEMEC data and the 45kN strain trend
line equation. By using these data in Equation ‎4.3, the strain value at the soffit can
be determined.
ε : Strain value in the soffit level.
: The total deformation or elongation in the constant moment zone (CMZ).
: Constant moment zone length = 1250 mm.
The average cracks width was found by dividing to the average number of cracks
within the constant moment zone (CMZ) from Figure ‎4.55. Table ‎4.1 illustrates the
data used to calculate the cracks width for all beams.
Table ‎4.1: Average cracks width for all beams.
Elongation Number of
Strain value at the Average
Ref. within CMZ cracks within
soffit level ε (με) cracks width
(mm) CMZ
CON 2769.26 3.46 22.00 0.16
FCF1 2458.90 3.07 18.00 0.17
FCF2 2083.26 2.60 19.00 0.14
FCF3 2643.81 3.30 25.00 0.13
ICF1 2897.26 3.62 24.00 0.15
ICF2 3361.76 4.20 19.00 0.22
ICF3 2893.77 3.62 22.00 0.16
SCF1 2966.82 3.71 22.00 0.17
SCF2 2832.28 3.54 27.00 0.13
SCF3 2335.63 2.92 29.00 0.10
79
4.10 Failure modes
Seven main modes of failure were identified in the study as illustrated in Figure ‎4.57.
The detailed examination of the modes of failure for each element was presented next.
Failure mode Code

Steel Yielding SY
Local Concrete Crushing LCC
Concrete Crushing CC
Premature Concrete Tearing-Off PCTO
Concrete Tearing-Off CTO
Fibre Rupture FR
Plate End Debonding PEDB
Figure ‎4.57: A sketch showing the seven identified modes of failure.
80
4.10.1 Control Beam (CON)
The main mode of failure in this element was steel yielding (SY), however, a
shallow/local concrete crushing (LCC) 30mm in depth occurred due to extensive
bending. The energy dissipation was moderate as the failure was not explosive. Both
the main and minor failure modes occurred within the maximum moment zone as
illustrated in Figure ‎4.58.
CON (SY-LCC)
CON (SY-LCC)
Figure ‎4.58: Control beam (CON) mode of failure (SY- LCC).
81
Element (FCF1): The failure mode in this beam was concrete crushing (CC) 60mm
in depth as shown in Figure ‎4.59. No premature failure signs
developed before ultimate failure, some bending cracks and two
ruptured carbon fibre strands were seen (at 50kN, see Figure ‎4.60),
but it did not represent the main failure mode, as the last was
sudden and explosive to some extent.
FCF1 (CC)
Figure ‎4.59: Full length beam (FCF1) mode of failure (CC).
Figure ‎4.60: Full length beam (FCF1) minor fibre rupture at 50kN.
82
Element (FCF2): The main mode of failure in this beam was concrete crushing (CC),
as a large area of the concrete had been crushed (see
Figure ‎4.61), but premature concrete tearing-off signs were
clearly seen before failure at 50kN (see Figure ‎4.62); this mode
of was referred as a percentage of the load at which the sign was
seen divided by the ultimate load reached such as:
)
)
PCTO83%
The energy dissipation was poor as failure occurred with late pre-
failure signs and was relatively explosive.
FCF2 (CC)
83
Fibre plate end mark
FCF2 (PCTO83%)
Figure ‎4.62: Beam (FCF2) horizontal premature concrete tearing-off (PCTO83%) at the
carbon fibre plate end when load reached 50kN.
Element (FCF3): Similarly to (FCF2), this element failed due to concrete crushing
(CC) as shown in Figure ‎4.63; but it showed late pre-failure
signs/cracks of premature concrete tearing-off at 60kN (PCTO93%);
although these cracks were diagonal and seem as shear cracks, it
were identified as it initiated precisely at the plate end (see
Figure ‎4.64). More than 30% of the carbon fibre failed or started to
fail near the widest bending crack (see Figure ‎4.65).
This is crack was widened due to
FCF3 (CC) handling and transporting the element
84
Diagonal premature concrete tearing-off cracks extending along the plate end
FCF3 (PCTO93%)
Figure ‎4.64: Beam (FCF3) diagonal premature concrete tearing-off
(PCTO93%) at the carbon fibre plate ends when load reached 60kN.
Figure ‎4.65: Initial fibre rupture after 50kN in the

full length beam (FCF3).
85
Element (ICF1): Failed due to complete carbon fibre rupture (FR) at the centre of the
beam (see Figure ‎4.66). On the other hand, horizontal cracks of
premature concrete tearing-off started to initiate after 50kN, which
again referred as:
)
)
PCTO76%
The premature concrete tearing-off signs in this element (and

category) were the distinct horizontal lines as shown in
Figure ‎4.67; not like the full length category were the lines were
incline and hard to tell from shear cracks (see Figure ‎4.64).
ICF1 (FR)
Figure ‎4.66: Intermediate length beam (ICF1) mode of failure (FR).
86
ICF1 (PCTO76%)
Figure ‎4.67: Beam (ICF1) premature concrete tearing-off (PCTO76%) near the
carbon fibre plate ends when load reached 50kN and above.
Element (ICF2): Showed similar behaviour to (ICF1), but with plate end debonding
(PEDB) instead of fibre rupture as shown in Figure ‎4.68. On the
other hand, a thin layer of the concrete peeled off with the
debonded fibre (see Figure ‎4.69). The horizontal cracks of the
premature concrete tearing-off were seen at 40kN and more, which
referred as (PCTO63%) compared to the ultimate strength (see
Figure ‎4.70).
87
ICF2 (PEDB)
Figure ‎4.68: Intermediate length beam (ICF2) mode of failure (PEDB).
Figure ‎4.69: The peeled off thin layer of the concrete in beam (ICF2).
ICF2 (PCTO63%)
Figure ‎4.70: Beam (ICF2) premature concrete tearing-off (PCTO63%) near the
carbon fibre plate ends when load reached 40kN and above.
88
Element (ICF3): Failed at 60kN with pure concrete tearing-off (CTO) as shown in
Figure ‎4.71. Signs of failure were seen when loading reached
50kN (PCTO83%); these signs kept on propagating until the mode
of failure was reached.
ICF3 (CTO) and (PCTO83%)

Figure ‎4.71: Intermediate length beam (ICF3) mode of failure (CTO) and the premature
83%
concrete
4.10.4 Short lengthtearing-off (PCTO
category (SCF) ) when load reached 50kN and above.
Element (SCF1): This element failed mainly due to concrete tearing-off, which
occurred at 50kN (CTO94%), and immediately followed by steel
yielding (SY) that initiated from concrete crack tip when the last
propagated into the maximum moment zone (CMZ). In addition, a
local concrete crushing (LCC) occurred due to the extensive
bending in the element; Figure ‎4.72 illustrate the above failure
modes. As for pre-failure signs, the distinct premature concrete
tearing-off cracks were seen at the fibre edge at 40kN (PCTO75%)
before failure as shown in Figure ‎4.73.
89
SCF1 Stage1: starts of (CTO94%) and (SY)
SCF1 Stage 2: failure (CTO), (SY) and (LCC)
Figure ‎4.72: Short length beam (SCF1) main mode of failure (CTO) followed by
(SY) and (LCC).
90
Side A Side B
Side A Side B
fibre plate ends when load reached 40kN and above.
Element (SCF2): This element behaved in the same way as (SCF1) to some extent,
as it started to fai at 48.5kN with a concrete tearing-off (CTO92%);
this mode was followed by steel yielding (SY) and local concrete
crushing (LCC), both within the constant moment zone (CMZ) as
shown in Figure ‎4.74. The pre-failure signs were visible after
45kN (PCTO85%) as shown in Figure ‎4.75.
91
Side A Side B
SCF2: Stage1: starts of (CTO92%) and

(SY)
Side A Side B
SCF2 Stage 2: failure (CTO), (SY) and

(LCC)
Figure ‎4.74: Short length beam (SCF2) main mode of failure (CTO) followed by (SY) and (LCC).
fibre plate ends when load reached 45kN and above.
92
Element (SCF3): Unlike the previous elements, this beam resisted loads up to
57.1kN due to delayed failure in the concrete cover (CTO). The
concrete cover failure was not accommodated with steel yielding
(occurred immediately after the concrete cover failure) or concrete
crushing. The element showed immediate loss of resistance the
moment when the sudden concrete tearing-off failure took place
without clear warning signs (see Figure ‎4.76).
SCF3: failure (CTO) and

(SY)
Figure ‎4.76: Short length beam (SCF3) main mode of failure (CTO) immediately followed by (SY).
The summary illustrating all failure modes and pre-failure signs is given in Table ‎4.4.
93
4.11 Ductility indices
Ductility performance was measured using the three approaches that were illustrated
earlier in ‎Chapter 2, which are:
 Deflection based approach by Spadea (1998):
Equation 2.2
: The mid-span deflection at ultimate load.
: The mid-span deflection at steel yielding point.
 Energy based approach by Bencardino (2002):
Equation 2.3
𝝁𝐄
: The energy (area) under the Load/Deflection curve up to the steel yielding
point.
 Energy based three-slope approach by Davies and Tann (2011):
Equation 2.4
( ) ( )
Equation 2.5
( )
: The estimate elastic energy (area) under the slope up to the ultimate load.
94
In order to determine the area under the load/deflection curve and slope lines
equations, a computer-aid programs were used, namely Advanced Grapher version
2.2 and Graph version 4.4.2 (see Figure ‎4.77).
Figure ‎4.77: Screenshots showing slope lines equations and the area under load/deflection curve.
The ductility indices were calculated using the above ductility equations and the data
extracted from the software for all elements; these values are illustrated in Table ‎4.2
next.
95
Table ‎4.2: Ductility indices and the load/deflection curve data for all elements.
Anchorage
Ref. length 𝝁 𝝁𝐄 𝝋𝟑𝐒
(mm) (mm) (N*m) (N*m) (N*m)
(mm)
CON 0 16.10 25.40 1.58 407.76 874.70 2.15 378.40 1.66
FCF1 15.80 23.20 1.47 486.88 1032.93 2.12 527.80 1.48
FCF2 475 11.20 21.00 1.88 259.18 699.34 2.70 351.26 1.50
FCF3 17.30 24.70 1.43 583.52 1049.35 1.80 477.40 1.60
ICF1 13.35 28.30 2.12 385.77 1297.30 3.36 530.41 1.72
ICF2 275 16.70 27.90 1.67 527.96 1206.16 2.28 469.46 1.78
ICF3 18.25 20.90 1.15 621.03 798.90 1.29 375.45 1.56
SCF1 12.70 21.15 1.67 331.92 749.73 2.26 276.29 1.86
SCF2 100 14.30 20.00 1.40 399.04 685.06 1.72 232.89 1.97
SCF3 16.10 17.70 1.10 513.39 602.76 1.17 300.84 1.50
From the above ductility indices, there was no specific pattern between the three
ductility approaches for any element; therefore, it was necessary to specify which
ductility approach represents the most consistent values; to do so, ductility indices for
each element were linked with the anchorage lengths of the same element to produce
a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system. Each index set of (x,y) points were
graphed with a polynomial trendline as shown in Figure ‎4.78 to Figure ‎4.80. The most
consistent approach was selected based on R2 or coefficient of determination value,
where “an R2 of 1 indicates that the regression line perfectly fits the data” (Wikipedia,
2014). This approach was the three-slope with R2=0.37, whereas, the other methods
expressed far less consistent data of which R2=0.044 and R2=0.062, therefore, the
three-slope method was used in the summary Table ‎4.4 and ‎Chapter 5.
96
𝜇Δ Ductility index /Anchorage length
475 FCF1
2.5
475 FCF2
2 FCF3
475
𝜇Δ Ductility index 1.5
275 ICF1
R² = 0.0448
275 ICF2
1 275 ICF3
100 SCF1
0.5
100 SCF2
0 100 SCF3
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 CON
Anchorage length L a (mm)
Figure ‎4.78: Δ Ductility index against anchorage length for all elements.
𝝁𝐄 Ductility index/Anchorage length FCF1

4 475
3.5 475 FCF2
3 475 FCF3
𝝁𝐄 Ductility index
2.5 275 ICF1

2 R² = 0.0621 275 ICF2
1.5 275 ICF3
1 100 SCF1
0.5 100 SCF2
0 100 SCF3
0 100 200 300 400 500
Anchorage length L a (mm) 0 CON
Figure ‎4.79: 𝝁𝐄 Ductility index against anchorage length for all elements.
𝝋𝟑𝐒 Ductility index /Anchorage length 475 FCF1

2.5 475 FCF2
475 FCF3
2
𝝋𝟑𝐒 Ductility index
275 ICF1
1.5 275 ICF2
R² = 0.3702
275 ICF3
1
100 SCF1
100 SCF2
0.5
100
SCF3
0 CON
0 100 200 300 400 500 0
Anchorage length L a (mm)
Figure ‎4.80: 𝝋𝟑𝐒 Ductility index against anchorage length for all elements.
97
4.12 Required anchorage length
A theoretical anchorage length was estimated using Equation ‎2.1 by Neubauer and
Rostasy as shown below:
Equation 2.1
√
√
: Modulus of elasticity of the carbon fibre = 66288.3 MPa (see Table ‎3.6).
: Carbon fibre thickness = 1.09 mm (see Table ‎3.6).
: Average cubes compressive strength (MPa).
The modulus of elasticity and the fibre thickness were assumed to be constant in all
elements because same carbon fibre type was used with the properties illustrated
in ‎Chapter 3, Table ‎3.6. Therefore, the only variable in Equation ‎2.1 was the average
cubes compressive strength, which was illustrated earlier in Chapter 3, Table ‎3.4.
Based on the above, the theoretical anchorage lengths are illustrated in Table ‎4.3
below:
Table ‎4.3: Theoretical anchorage length for all elements.
Provided Average cubes Theoretical Average theoretical

Ref. Anchorage compressive anchorage length anchorage required
length (mm) strength (MPa) required (mm) (mm)
FCF1 41.0 224.13
FCF2 475 44.6 219.47
FCF3 45.0 218.98
ICF1 42.7 221.87
ICF2 275 45.8 218.02 219.55
ICF3 43.4 220.97
SCF1 48.6 214.81
SCF2 100 45.1 218.86
SCF3 45.1 218.86
98
4.13 Summary
Key behaviours of all elements were illustrated in Table ‎4.4, where it can be seen that
the full length category (FCF) showed an average of 24% strength gain compared to
the control beam (CON); and showed consistent failure mode which was (CC). Again
the intermediate category (ICF) achieved similar strength gain of (24%) with various
failure modes, but with earlier pre-failure signs. Finally, the short length category
performed poorly in terms of strength gain and failed similarly to the control element,
but with far lower deflection, and mainly failed due to the concrete cover tearing-off
(CTO).
Table ‎4.4: Results summary for all elements.
Average
Pre- Max. Ultimate cracks width
Ductility Strength
Ref. Failure Failure mode deflection load (mm)
index 𝝋𝟑𝐒 gained
signs (mm) (kN)
CON 1.66 None SY-LCC 25.40 51.0 N/A 0.16
FCF1 1.48 None CC 23.20 65.0 27.5% 0.17
FCF2 1.50 PCTO83% CC 21.00 60.0 17.6% 0.14
FCF3 1.60 PCTO93% CC 24.70 65.0 27.5% 0.13
ICF1 1.72 PCTO76% FR-PCTO 28.30 65.5 31.0% 0.15
ICF2 1.78 PCTO63% PEDB 27.90 63.2 24.0% 0.22
ICF3 1.56 PCTO83% CTO 20.90 60 17.6% 0.16
SCF1 1.86 PCTO75% CTO-SY-LCC 21.15 53 4.0% 0.17
SCF2 1.97 PCTO85% CTO-SY-LCC 20.00 52.5 3.0% 0.13
SCF3 1.50 None CTO 17.70 57.1 12.0% 0.10
99
Chapter 5 : Discussion, Conclusions and
Recommendations
5.1 Introduction
Based on the experimental work findings, further analysis was done to highlight and
summarize the outcomes. The main interest was to examine the fibre reinforced
polymer (FRP) length effect on both the strength gain and predictability of the failure
mode, as those two aspects are equally important in order to producing an effective
strengthened concrete system.
Results were discussed and explained in this chapter to illustrate and understand the
key differences between elements and categories behaviour. In addition, the main
outcomes of this study were summarized in a number of conclusions; furthermore,
recommendations were prepared based on the study findings for practical application
and further future studies.
5.2 Discussion
In all tested elements, concrete properties figures showed relatively consistent

compressive strength, tensile strength and modulus of elasticity as illustrated in
Table ‎3.4. Therefore, no results were underrated nor neglected. The same applied for
the other tested materials, namely steel and carbon fibre, as presented earlier in
Table ‎3.3 and Table ‎3.6 respectively.
After examining the load/deflection curves (Figure ‎4.5, Figure ‎4.9 and Figure ‎4.13), it
can be seen that all strengthened elements showed very similar behaviour up to
reaching the steel yielding region. For the short length category (SCF), this behaviour
can indicate that even with insufficient strengthening length there was significant
maximum deflection reduction compared with the control beam (CON). The lower
failure load for this category (SCF) was a result of the extensive steel yielding at the
fibre sheet end (see Figure ‎4.72 and Figure ‎4.74). This early steel yielding occurred
due to insufficient strengthening within that zone compared to other longer anchorage
length categories such as the intermediate category (ICF) by keeping the non-
100
retrofitted steel section within the steel elastic limits, which managed to avoid leading
the steel to yield even up to a 31% strength gain (see Figure ‎4.67). Figure ‎5.1
illustrates the role of the anchorage length in keeping the exposed steel reinforcement
(at none strengthened sections) away from reaching higher moments.
Figure ‎5.1: The difference in plate end moment values between (ICF) and (SCF).
Although the none strengthened section was 100mm away from where the yielding
seemed to occur in the short length category (see Figure ‎5.2), the propagation of the
concrete cover tearing-off allowed the steel to show that significant yielding occurred
immediately when it reached the constant moment zone (CMZ).
101
Figure ‎5.2: A photograph of the short length beam (SCF1) showing the locations of
modes of failure (CTO), (SY) and (LCC).
Even though the yielding of reinforcement steel was not the main failure mode in both
the full length (FCF) and intermediate length (ICF), it did occur within the maximum
moment zone not close to the plate end. The steel yielded when the fibre stretched
beyond the steel elastic capacity, resulting in considerably wide cracks before failure
as can be seen in Figure ‎4.61 and Figure ‎4.66. In addition, the third slope of the
load/deflection figures after 50kN reflects typical steel yielding behaviour.
Furthermore, Teng stated that fibre rupture is often followed by steel yielding (Teng,
2002, P.38), and this agrees with element (ICF1) and indicates that steel yielding
already occurred (see Figure ‎4.66).
As for pre-failure signs, the full length category elements were relatively poor or did
not exist (see Table ‎4.4). This behaviour was a result of the low interfacial shear
stresses concentration at the fibre ends that reduced the possibility of concrete cover
failure at the carbon fibre ends. This stress reduction was clearly seen in Figure ‎4.43
where lower strain was observed in the side fibre gauges compared to intermediate
(ICF) and short length (SCF) category in the same figure.
For both the short (SCF) and intermediate category (ICF) more visible pre-failure
signs were observed, represented by horizontal cracks between 40kN to 50kN. But the
intermediate length category (ICF) showed earlier pre-failure sign. This was due to
102
the higher achieved failure load, which allowed these cracks to propagate more,
becoming more visible before reaching failure load (see Table ‎4.4 and Figure ‎4.67).
The cracks propagation inclination pattern at the plate ends were similar to a study
done by Smith and Teng in 2001, which examined the concrete cover separation
behaviour with different fibre end distance from the support, and showed that the
closer the plate end is to the support, the more inclination will occur in the crack, as it
will behave the same as shear cracks without a clear horizontal propagation (Teng,
2002, P.41). This agrees with the experimental findings, where in Figure ‎4.55 and the
typical presentation in Figure ‎5.3 below it can be seen that cracks tended to be more
horizontal as the anchored end shifts away from the supports. The horizontal cracks
can be identified more easily without confusing with the shear cracks and represent a
good example of pre-failure signs.
Figure ‎5.3: Typical (FCF) and (ICF) cracks propagation showing different failure patterns
at the plate end.
Smith and Teng also concluded that when the plate end closer to the support, the
beam will become less ductile and can support more load (Teng, 2002, P.41), which is
similar to the findings in this study, as it can be seen in Table ‎4.4 that the full length
category (FCF) showed lower ductility indices and behaved more brittle in terms of
fewer pre-failure signs compared to the intermediate length group (ICF).
103
The results showed that the most consistent ductility approach in this study was the
three-slope method (highest R2 value, see Figure ‎4.80), therefore the other approaches
will not be considered in the discussion. The three-slope ductility indices values
showed that both the intermediate (ICF) and short length category (SFC) were
considered to be more ductile compared to the full length category (FCF) as the
indices were more than 1.7, which is the recommended value for this method to
produce ductile failure (Davies and Tann, 2011); On the other hand, the full length
category (FCF) scored lower than the recommended 1.7 value.
In order to link the predicted ductility values (three-slope method ductility indices)
with the actual failure modes, the values were presented by a bar chart along with the
mode of failure for each elements as shown in Figure ‎5.4 below:
Figure ‎5.4: Ductility index and failure mode for all beams.
104
Two categories, the intermediate and short, showed one inconsistent element ductility
index (see Figure ‎5.4), the reasons were as following:
 The Higher ductility indices found in (SFC1) and (SFC2), compared to lower
values for (SCF3) were due to the following:
1- The main failure mode was ductile (SY) for both beams.
2- The low third slope accompanying relatively significant deflection led to

increase ( ) far more than ( ) as circled in Figure ‎5.5.
3- The low ductility index in (SCF3) was a result of the sudden failure, that did not
allow the element load/deflection curve to show clearly the third slope, due to
the low accompanied deflection, that resulted in low ( ) compared to
( ) as circled in Figure ‎5.5.
Figure ‎5.5: Short length category three-slope diagrams showing the small value of the third slope
region in (SCF3) compared to both (SCF1) and (SCF2).
105
 The same was for (ICF3) compared to both (ICF1) and (ICF2) as it failed
suddenly due to concrete tearing-off (CTO) without showing wide
deformation region.
The full length category (FCF) showed high strength gain; but on the other hand, low
ductility indices (see Table ‎4.4 and Figure ‎5.4). This category benefited from the
extensive anchorage length which reduced the plate end stress avoiding any concrete
tearing-off. Avoiding such failure in the plate ends led to causing the concrete to
crush in the compression zone. This failure is sudden and usually occurs without any
pre-failure signs and tends to fail with poor energy dissipation (more brittle). In terms
of ductility index, concrete crushing failure (CC) did not allow the beam to deflect
further, resulting in low total energy ( ) compared to other categories as
shown in Figure ‎5.6, leading to ductility indices less than the recommended 1.7 value.
Figure ‎5.6: Full length category three-slope diagram showing a smaller deflection value within the
third slope region in (FCF1) compared to (ICF1) due to the sudden concrete crushing (CC).
106
Presenting the strength gain percentage against the anchorage can show the effect of
the anchorage length on the strength achieved. A polynomial curve was used to show
the general anchorage and strength gain data trend as illustrated in Figure ‎5.7. The
figure shows that the increase of the anchorage length from zero (in CON) up to
100mm (in SCF) and 275mm (in ICF) led to a significant semi constant strength gain
line. On the other hand, it can be seen that after 300mm, the curve tended to level
showing no further strength gain in 475mm (in FCF). This behaviour indicates that
after the intermediate length anchorage (275mm) further anchorage will not contribute
in gaining more strength.
Strengh gain/Anchorage length

35.00%
475
30.00%
475
R² = 0.7643 Average theoretical
25.00% 475
Strength gained (%)
anchorage length
275
20.00% 275 (Table ‎4.3)
15.00% 275
100
10.00% 100
100
5.00%
La theoretical = 219.55mm
0
0.00%
0 100 200 300 400 500
Anchorage length La (mm)
Figure ‎5.7: The relation between the strength gained against anchorage length.
The curve pattern agrees with Neubauer and Rostasy (Neubauer and Rostasy, 1997)
and Teng (Teng, 2002, P.24) findings regarding the effect of the anchorage length on
the strength gain. However, the curve would have been more accurate if more if more
data were available around the average theoretical anchorage length (219.5mm shown
in Table ‎4.3).
107
5.3 Conclusions
 Anchorage length has a direct effect on the strength gain up to a point where
further anchorage will not increase the ultimate strength
 Decreasing the anchorage length will produce unpredictable failure as in the

intermediate length (ICF) and insufficient anchorage as in the short length
category (SCF)
 In the short length category (SFC), failure tends to occur at the plate end section
due to the high shear stress concentration compared to the longer anchorage
categories
 The three-slope ductility index method showed consistent values in this study,
with values that corresponds with the mode of failure energy dissipation
behaviour
 Ductility performance for beams with full carbon fibre length (FCF) was low
due to fewer pre-failure signs and sudden compression zone failure.
 The intermediate length category (ICF) showed better overall performance in

terms of strength, pre-failure signs and recommended ductility index.
5.4 Recommendations
 For structures suffering from excessive deflection in the service limit state,
retrofitting can be done even with limited anchorage (such as the short length
category) to reduce the deflection with minor strength gain while maintaining
ductile failure, but with fewer pre-failure signs
 Extending anchorage length is not recommended as it will reduce the ductility

significantly and adds more unnecessary costs
 In further studies, testing a greater number of elements will provide more

accurate strength gain against anchorage length curve, which can be used to
determine the recommended anchorage length that provides an acceptable
ductility index.
108
References
Bencardino, F., Spadea, G. and Swamy, R. (2002). Strength and ductility of

reinforced concrete beams externally reinforced with carbon fiber fabric. ACI
Structural Journal, 99(2).
BS EN 1008 (2002). Mixing water for concrete, Specification for sampling, testing
and assessing the suitability of water, including water recovered from processes in
the concrete industry, as mixing water for concrete, British Standards Institution,
London, UK.
BS 1881 – 118 (1983). Testing concrete, Method for determination of flexural

strength, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
BS EN 1008 (2002). Mixing water for concrete —Specification for sampling, testing
and assessing the suitability of water, including water recovered from processes in
the concrete industry, as mixing water for concrete, British Standards Institution,
London, UK.
BS EN 197-1(2011). Cement Part 1, Composition, specifications and conformity

criteria for common cements, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
BS 1881-121 (1983). Testing concrete, Part 121, Method for determination of static
modulus of elasticity in compression, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
BS 1881-125 (2013). Testing concrete, Part 125, Methods for mixing and sampling
fresh concrete in the laboratory, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
BS EN 12390-1 (2012). Testing hardened concrete, Part 1: Shape, dimensions and

other requirements for specimens and moulds, British Standards Institution,
London, UK.
BS EN 12390-2 (2009). Testing hardened Concrete Part 2, Making and curing

specimens for strength tests, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
BS EN 12390-3 (2009). Testing hardened Concrete Part 3, Compressive strength of

test specimens, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
109
BS EN 12390-4 (2000). Testing hardened Concrete Part 4, Compressive strength,
Specification for testing machines, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
BS EN 12390-6 (2009). Testing hardened Concrete Part 6, Tensile splitting strength

of test specimens, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
BS 1881-111 (1983). Testing concrete, Part 111, Method of normal curing of test
specimens (20 °C method), British Standards Institution, London, UK.
BS 1881-115 (1986). Testing concrete, Part 115, Specification for compression

testing machines for concrete, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
BS EN ISO 15630-1 (2010). Steel for the reinforcement and prestressing of concrete,
Test methods Part 1, Reinforcing bars, wire rod and wire, British Standards
Institution , London, UK.
BS 8110-1 (1997). Structural use of concrete, Part 1, Code of practice for design and
construction, British Standards Institution , London, UK.
BS 8666 (2005). Scheduling, dimensioning, bending and cutting of steel

reinforcement for concrete - Specification, British Standards Institution, London,
UK.
Clarke, J. (2000). The use of fibre composites in concrete bridges. 1st ed. Crowthorne:
Concrete Bridge Development Group.
Chikh, N., Merdas, A., Laraba, A. and Benzaid, R. (2013). Study of the Bond
Behavior of Concrete Beam Strengthened with NSM-CFRP. 3.
CSA Standard A23.1-00/A23.2-00, Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete

Construction/Methods of Test for Concrete, Canadian Standards Association,
Toronto, 2000.
Davies, P. and Tann, D. (2011). Determination of ductility of FRP-strengthened RC

beams. In: Advanced Composites in Construction ACIC. Warwick: NetComposites,
pp.214-225.
Davies, P. (2010). Ductility and deformability of FRP strengthened reinforced

concrete structures. Ph.D. University of Glamorgan.
110
Davies, P. 2013. Advanced structural design laboratory. [in person] University of
South Wales,Treforest,Mid-glam, 09/12/2013.
Davies, P. 2014. Advanced structural design class. [in person] University of South
Wales,Treforest,Mid-glam, 13/01/2014.
Derimsteels.co.uk, (2014). Derim Steels Ltd - Bar, Mesh & Accessories for
Reinforcing Concrete. [online] Available at: http://www.derimsteels.co.uk/
[Accessed 6 Jun. 2014].
Design guidance for strengthening concrete structures using fibre composite

materials. (2012). 3rd ed. Surrey: The Concrete Society.
Easycomposites.co.uk, (2014). Unidirectional Carbon Fibre Tape (None Crimp) 600g

100mm - Easy Composites. [online] Available at:
http://www.easycomposites.co.uk/carbon-fibre-reinforcement/unidirectional-
carbon-fibre-tape-none-crimp-600g-100mm.aspx [Accessed 8 Jun. 2014].
Easycomposites.co.uk, (2014). [online] Available at:

http://www.easycomposites.co.uk/images/products/large/Uni-directional-carbon-
fibre-tape-600g-100mm-wide-in-hand.jpg [Accessed 1 Sep. 2014].
Easycomposites.co.uk, (2014). EL2 Epoxy Laminating Resin for use with Carbon
Fibre, Kevlar or Glass Reinforcement. - Easy Composites. [online] Available at:
http://www.easycomposites.co.uk/products/epoxy-resin/EL2-epoxy-laminating-
resin.aspx [Accessed 16 Jun. 2014].
Enhancing the Capacity of Concrete Bridges. (2008). 1st ed. Surrey: The Concrete
Society.
Garden, H., Quantrill, R., Hollaway, L., Thorne, A. and Parke, G. (1998). An
experimental study of the anchorage length of carbon fibre composite plates used
to strengthen reinforced concrete beams. Construction and Building Materials,
12(4), pp.203-219.
Klaiber, F. (1987). Methods of strengthening existing highway bridges. 1st ed.

Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
111
Naaman, A. E. and Jeong, S. M. (1995). Structural ductility of concrete beams
prestressed with FRP tendons. Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures.
Nanni, A. (1993). Fiber-reinforced-plastic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete

structures. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Neubauer, U. and Rostasy, F. (1997). Design aspects of concrete structures

strengthened with externally bonded CFRP-plates.
Obaidat, Y., Heyden, S., Dahlblom, O., Abu-Farsakh, G. and Abdel-Jawad, Y. (2011).
Retrofitting of reinforced concrete beams using composite laminates. Construction
and Building Materials, 25(2), pp.591-597.
Omairey, S. and Hassan, A. (2010). Economical Methods of Concrete Curing. BSc.

Tikrit University.
Rutledge, A. (2014). Higgins Creek Bridge. [online] Rms.nsw.gov.au. Available at:

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/environment/heritage/heritageconservreg/data_files/43
09518.html [Accessed 26 Jul. 2014].
Sherwood, E. (2008). One-way shear behaviour of large, lightly-reinforced concrete

beams and slabs. 1st ed.
Spadea, G., Bencardino, F. and Swamy, R. (1998). Structural Behavior of Composite

RC Beams with Externally Bonded CFRP. Journal of Composites for
Construction, 2(3), pp.132-137.
Teng, J. (2002). FRP-strengthened RC structures. 1st ed. West Sussex, England:

Wiley.
Wikipedia, (2014). Coefficient of determination. [online] Available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination [Accessed 25 Aug.
2014].
112
Appendixes
Appendix 1: Modulus of elasticity data
Strain
Load Load Load Stress readings Av. Modulus
Ref. Reading kN N N/mm2 (gauge) Strain(gauge) Strain kN/mm2
CON 241 231 231000 13.1 35 35 35 35.0 0.000233 56.0
FCF1 262 252 252000 14.3 43 43 43 43.0 0.000287 49.7
FCF2 265 255 255000 14.4 42 42 42 42.0 0.000280 51.5
FCF3 251 241 241000 13.6 40 41 40 40.3 0.000269 50.7
ICF1 269 259 259000 14.7 41 41 41 41.0 0.000273 53.6
ICF2 255 245 245000 13.9 34 35 36 35.0 0.000233 59.4
ICF3 286 276 276000 15.6 44 44 44 44.0 0.000293 53.2
SCF1 266 256 256000 14.5 43 44 45 44.0 0.000293 49.4
SCF2 266 256 256000 14.5 43 43 44 43.3 0.000289 50.1
SCF3 257 247 247000 14.0 46 46 46 46.0 0.000307 45.6
Appendix 2: Concrete compression and tensile strength
Ref. Tensile failure Tensile failure Compression Compression

load (kN) stress (MPa) failure load (kN) strength (MPa)
CON 169.7 2.40 645.3 36.54
FCF1 255 3.61 687.5 38.92
FCF2 189 2.68 701.9 39.74
FCF3 140 1.98 710.8 40.24
ICF1 174.3 2.47 737.9 41.78
ICF2 183.3 2.59 757.4 42.88
ICF3 226 3.20 683.4 38.69
SCF1 199.1 2.82 651.6 36.89
SCF2 187.7 2.66 700.9 39.68
SCF3 234 3.31 693.4 39.26
113
Appendix 3: Concrete surface strain (none presented earlier)
200 1.0kN
180
2.0kN
160
3.0kN
140
4.0kN
120
100 5.0kN
80 6.0kN
60 7.0kN
40 8.0kN
20
9.0kN
0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 10kN
Concrete surface strain for the full length category beam (FCF2).
200 1.0kN
180
2.0kN
160
3.0kN
140
4.0kN
120
100 5.0kN
80 6.0kN
60 7.0kN
40 8.0kN
20
9.0kN
0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 10kN
Concrete surface strain for the full length category beam (FCF3).
200 1.0kN
180
2.0kN
160
3.0kN
140
4.0kN
120
5.0kN
100
6.0kN
80
7.0kN
60
8.0kN
40
20 9.0kN
0 10kN
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Concrete surface strain for the intermediate length category (ICF1).
114
200 1.0kN
180 2.0kN
160
3.0kN
140
4.0kN
120
5.0kN
100
6.0kN
80
7.0kN
60
8.0kN
40
9.0kN
20
0 10kN
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Concrete surface strain for the intermediate length category (ICF2).
200
1.0kN
180
2.0kN
160
3.0kN
140
4.0kN
120
5.0kN
100
6.0kN
80
7.0kN
60
40 8.0kN
20 9.0kN
0 10kN
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Concrete surface strain for the short length category beam (SCF2).
200
1.0kN
180
2.0kN
160
3.0kN
140
4.0kN
120
5.0kN
100
6.0kN
80
7.0kN
60
8.0kN
40
20 9.0kN
0 10kN
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Concrete surface strain for the short length category beam (SCF3).
115
116
View publication stats

SadikOmairey MSC 12055514

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SadikOmairey MSC 12055514

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Thesis · September 2014

Novel out-of-autoclave multi-zone self-heated composites processing tool View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science

MSc Civil and Structural Engineering

The Effect of Carbon Fibre Sheet Anchorage Length on

Sadik Omairey Dr. Paul Davies

A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science of

Dr. Paul Davies

Signature …………………………………………..(Sadik Omairey) September 2014

Supervisor…………………………………….…..(Dr. Paul Davies) September 2014

Finally, I am glad to dedicate all my achievements to my wonderful wife Cinderella,

La Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) anchorage length

Contents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VII

List of Figures --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

List of Tables -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- XV

List of Equations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- XV

Chapter 1 : Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

1.1 Introduction to the deterioration of structure's --------------------------------------- 1

1.2 Repairing structures before developing fibre reinforced polymers --------------- 2

1.2.1 Providing additional concrete and steel sections ------------------------------- 2

1.2.2 Steel plate bonding------------------------------------------------------------------ 3

1.3 Strengthening using fibre reinforced polymers (FRP) ------------------------------ 4

1.4 Aim of this work ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

1.5 Structure of the dissertation ------------------------------------------------------------- 5

1.6 Overview ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

Chapter 2 : Literature review ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

2.1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

2.2 Anchorage length related studies ------------------------------------------------------ 7

2.3 Ductility performance related studies ------------------------------------------------- 8

2.4 Summary and overview ---------------------------------------------------------------- 11

Chapter 3 : Experimental Programme ------------------------------------------------------- 12

3.1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12

3.2 Element layout and loading configuration ------------------------------------------- 14

3.3 Materials properties --------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

3.3.1 Concrete ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

3.3.2 Aggregates -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

3.3.4 Steel reinforcement ---------------------------------------------------------------- 16

3.3.5 Carbon fibre------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

3.3.6 Adhesive ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

3.4 Samples preparation -------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

3.4.1 Mix design -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

3.4.2 Reinforcement steel cages -------------------------------------------------------- 22

3.4.3 Mixing process --------------------------------------------------------------------- 24

3.4.4 Concrete placing and sampling -------------------------------------------------- 25

3.4.5 Strengthening procedure ---------------------------------------------------------- 31

3.5 Instrumentation -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34

3.5.1 Vertical deflection ----------------------------------------------------------------- 34

3.5.2 Concrete surface strains ----------------------------------------------------------- 34

3.5.3 Carbon fibre tape surface strains------------------------------------------------- 34

3.5.4 Cracks propagation ---------------------------------------------------------------- 34

3.6 Testing of elements --------------------------------------------------------------------- 36

3.6.1 Flexural strength test -------------------------------------------------------------- 36

3.6.2 Concrete compressive strength test ---------------------------------------------- 36

3.6.3 Concrete tensile strength test ----------------------------------------------------- 37

3.6.4 Concrete static modulus of elasticity test --------------------------------------- 38

3.6.5 Reinforcement steel tensile test -------------------------------------------------- 40

3.6.6 Carbon Fibre Tensile Test -------------------------------------------------------- 42

3.7 Overview --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44

Chapter 4 : Experimental Results and Elements Behaviour ------------------------------ 45

4.1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 45

4.2 Maximum deflections------------------------------------------------------------------- 46