Flexural Behavior of Unbonded Posttensioned Concrete

Members Strengthened Using External FRP Composites

F. El Meski1 and M. Harajli2

Abstract: This paper presents the results of an experimental study for evaluating the use of external fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

laminates for strengthening unbonded posttensioned concrete members. Twenty-four full-scale simply supported beam and slab specimens
reinforced with an internal unbonded tendon system and strengthened using external FRP composites were tested. An additional 12
companion bonded prestressed concrete (PC) and reinforced concrete (RC) specimens were also tested for comparison. The test parameters
included area of internal tension reinforcement, area of external FRP reinforcement, span-to-depth ratio of the member (slab, beam), and
profile of the unbonded tendons. It was found that the use of FRP laminates increases the load capacity and postcracking stiffness of
unbonded members. The increase in load capacity was accompanied by a reduction in the deformation capacity. Failure of the specimens
occurred either by concrete crushing or by FRP debonding or FRP fracture. No distinct difference beyond expectation was observed between
the flexural responses of FRP-strengthened unbonded PC and those of bonded PC or RC systems. Provided a method is available for
calculating the strains or stresses in the unbonded tendons at ultimate flexural strength, the same standard guidelines for designing the
FRP system for flexural strengthening of RC and bonded PC members can be applied to unbonded members. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000330. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Fiber reinforced polymer; Flexural strength; Post tensioning; Prestressed concrete; Composite
materials; Bonding.
Author keywords: Fiber-reinforced polymers; Flexural behavior; Posttensioning; Prestressed concrete; Unbonded prestressing;
Strengthening.

Introduction This paper presents the results of an experimental evaluation of

Strengthening using external fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) com-
posites has evolved over the last two decades as a viable alternative
to traditional strengthening methods. The use of FRP composites
for strengthening reinforced concrete (RC) structures has been
extensively evaluated over the last two decades, and guidelines
for using this technology for strengthening RC members have
been developed. Recently, the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
Committee 440 [ACI 440.2R-08 (ACI 2008)] provided guidelines
for using FRP technology for flexural strengthening of postten-
sioned PC structural systems. However, unfortunately, because
of the difficulty in evaluating the strain and stress in unbonded ten-
dons at ultimate flexural strength due to the slip of the tendons rel-
ative to the surrounding concrete (Harajli 2006; Naaman et al.
2002), and also because of limited experimental data, no guidelines
are currently available for designing an external FRP system for
flexural strengthening of members with internal or external un-
bonded tendon systems.
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
American Univ. of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon. E-mail: fme09@
aub.edu.lb
2 A test to failure was conducted on 36 simply supported specimens.
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering and Architecture, American Univ. of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2020,
Lebanon (corresponding author). E-mail: mharajli@aub.edu.lb
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 27, 2012; approved on
August 16, 2012; published online on August 24, 2012. Discussion period
open until September 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con-
struction, Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/2013/
2-197-207/$25.00.
the flexural response of unbonded posttensioned members when
strengthened externally using FRP composites. Companion bonded
posttensioned and RC specimens were also tested for comparison.
Several parameters and their effect on the response were explored,
including area of internal tension reinforcement, area of external
FRP reinforcement, span-to-depth ratio of the unbonded member,
type of structural system, and profile of external tendons. Aspects
of the behavior investigated covered the mode of flexural failure,
ultimate load and deformation capacities, postcracking stiffness
of the load-deflection response, and strains/stresses in the internal
steel and external FRP reinforcement. This paper presents a dis-
cussion of the test results and reports major findings. A design
approach to evaluate the flexural strength of FRP-strengthened
unbonded members, consistent with ACI Committee 440 [ACI
440.2R-08 (ACI 2008)] guidelines, is presented elsewhere
(El Meski 2012).
Experimental Program
Test Specimens and Parameters
The specimens were composed of 18 beam specimens having a
rectangular cross section 150 mm wide by 250 mm deep and 18
slab specimens having a cross section 360 mm wide by 120 mm
deep. The span length of all specimens was set at 3.0 m. Consid-
ering the depth to center of steel, the span-to-depth ratios were
approximately 15 for the beam specimens and approximately 35 for
the slab specimens. Dimensions and steel layouts are given in Fig. 1.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2013 / 197

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:197-207.

 1250 500 1250

P/2 P/2
Shear reinforcement

125
125

50
FRP Reinforcing bars Prestressing steel
3000 (Horiz. or Parabolic Profile)
3250

dp=200

dp=200
ds=220

ds=220

ds=220
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

250
50 250

250
75 75 60 150
150 150

1250 500 1250

P/2 P/2

60
60

35
FRP Reinforcing bars Prestressing steel
3000 (Horiz. or Parabolic Profile)
3250
80 80 80 60 60 60 60

ds=100
ds=85

ds=85
120

120

120
360 360 360

Fig. 1. Typical dimensions and reinforcement details of test specimens

A summary of the specimens’ designation and test parameters is Materials

provided in Table 1.
Each of the 18 slab or beam specimens consisted of 3 dif-
ferent types of concrete structural systems: 12 were unbonded
posttensioned prestressed concrete (PC), three were bonded
posttensioned PC, and three were RC. For each combination of
test parameters, three specimens were tested: one control and two
FRP-strengthened specimens with different areas of FRP reinforce-
ment. For the unbonded PC beam and slab specimens, two tendon
profiles having similar depths (or eccentricities) at midspan were
used for each set of parameters: one horizontal and one parabolic.
The parabolic tendon profile in all specimens had zero eccentricity
at the support. Transverse shear reinforcement provided in the shear
span consisted of 2-leg ϕ 8 mm deformed steel stirrups spaced
at 150 mm for the PC beams and 100 mm for the RC beams.
The selected spacing of the shear stirrups satisfies the maximum
spacing requirements of ACI 318-11 (ACI 2011) of 0.75 h for
prestressed members, where h is the overall thickness of a member
and d=2 that of nonprestressed members, where d is the depth of
tension reinforcement. No shear reinforcement was provided in the
slab specimens.
In the specimens’ designation (Table 1), the first letter “U”
stands for unbounded, “B” for bonded, and “R” for reinforced.
The second letter “B” stands for beam, and “S” stands for slab.
The numerals 1 and 2 following the second letter designate two
different levels of prestressing or reinforcing steel areas. Letters
“H” and “P” designate “horizontal” and “parabolic” tendon pro-
files, respectively, whereas F1 and F2 denote two different levels
(areas or layers) of external FRP reinforcement.
The target cylindrical concrete compressive strength was 35 MPa
(at 28 days). Nine standard 150 × 300 mm cylinders were tested
at 7 days and 28 days to determine the compressive strength for
the different concrete batches used in casting the specimens. The
cylindrical concrete compressive strengths for the various speci-
mens obtained at the time of testing are provided in Table 1.
Grade 250 and Grade 270 seven-wire strands having diameters
of 8 mm (5=16 in.) and 9.5 mm (3=8 in.) and actual ultimate tensile
strength of 1,958 MPa and 1,978 MPa, respectively, were used
for prestressing. The stress-strain curves of the two types of the
prestressing steel measured using coupon tests were best sim-
ulated using the following expression developed by Menegotto and
Pinto (1973):
 
1−Q
fps ¼ Eps εps Q þ ð1Þ
ð1 þ ε
N
i Þ
1=N
where
εps Eps
ε
i ¼ ð2Þ
Kfpy
in which N, K, and Q are constants derived from the actual shape of
the stress-strain curve; Eps = modulus of elasticity; and fpy = yield
stress (stress at 1% strain). Values of N, K, Q, Eps , and f py for use
with Eqs. (1) and (2) are 14.84, 1.0, 0.0392, 195,130 MPa, and
1,670 MPa, for the 8-mm strands and 12.10, 1.011, 0.0301,
194,440 MPa, and 1,690 MPa for the 9.5-mm strands, respectively.

198 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:197-207.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Summary of Test Parameters

Prestressing Steel Reinforcing Steel FRP
Number and Number and Number and Diameter and
Specimen Tendon diameter of diameter of diameter of spacing of Af (mm2 )
Concrete system label profile strands dp (mm) fse (MPa) bottom bars d (mm) top bars shear stirrups f y (MPa) (nf ) f c0 (MPa)
Unbonded posttensioned
Beam UB1-H Horizontal 1 (8 mm) 200 813 2 (8 mm) 220 — φ8 at 150 560 — 42
UB1-H-F1 Horizontal 1 (8 mm) 200 962 2 (8 mm) 220 — φ8 at 150 612 150 (1) 36
UB1-H-F2 Horizontal 1 (8 mm) 200 963 2 (8 mm) 220 — φ8 at 150 612 300 (2) 36
UB1-P Parabolic 1 (8 mm) 200 815 2 (8 mm) 220 — φ8 at 150 560 — 42
UB1-P-F1 Parabolic 1 (8 mm) 200 971 2 (8 mm) 220 — φ8 at 150 612 150 (1) 36
UB1-P-F2 Parabolic 1 (8 mm) 200 781 2 (8 mm) 220 — φ8 at 150 612 300 (2) 37
UB2-H Horizontal 2 (9.5 mm) 200 778 2 (8 mm) 220 2 (8 mm) φ8 at 150 560 — 42
UB2-H-F1 Horizontal 2 (9.5 mm) 200 924 2 (8 mm) 220 2 (8 mm) φ8 at 150 612 150 (1) 36
UB2-H-F2 Horizontal 2 (9.5 mm) 200 896 2 (8 mm) 220 2 (8 mm) φ8 at 150 612 300 (2) 37
UB2-P Parabolic 2 (9.5 mm) 200 836 2 (8 mm) 220 2 (8 mm) φ8 at 150 560 — 42
UB2-P-F1 Parabolic 2 (9.5 mm) 200 936 2 (8 mm) 220 2 (8 mm) φ8 at 150 612 150 (1) 36
UB2-P-F2 Parabolic 2 (9.5 mm) 200 923 2 (8 mm) 220 2 (8 mm) φ8 at 150 612 300 (2) 37
Slab US1-H Horizontal 2 (8 mm) 85 927 2 (8 mm) 92.5 — — 560 — 42
US1-H-F1 Horizontal 2 (8 mm) 85 917 2 (8 mm) 92.5 — — 612 150 (1) 36
US1-H-F2 Horizontal 2 (8 mm) 85 964 2 (8 mm) 92.5 — — 612 300 (1) 36
US1-P Parabolic 2 (8 mm) 85 886 2 (8 mm) 98.5 — — 560 — 42
US1-P-F1 Parabolic 2 (8 mm) 85 949 2 (8 mm) 98.5 — — 612 150 (1) 36
US1-P-F2 Parabolic 2 (8 mm) 85 971 2 (8 mm) 98.5 — — 612 300 (1) 37
US2-H Horizontal 3 (9.5 mm) 85 804 2 (8 mm) 92.5 — — 560 — 42
US2-H-F1 Horizontal 3 (9.5 mm) 85 912 2 (8 mm) 92.5 — — 612 150 (1) 36
US2-H-F2 Horizontal 3 (9.5 mm) 85 858 2 (8 mm) 92.5 — — 612 300 (1) 37
US2-P Parabolic 3 (9.5 mm) 85 831 2 (8 mm) 98.5 — — 560 — 42
US2-P-F1 Parabolic 3 (9.5 mm) 85 921 2 (8 mm) 98.5 — — 612 150 (1) 36
US2-P-F2 Parabolic 3 (9.5 mm) 85 916 2 (8 mm) 98.5 — — 612 300 (1) 37

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:197-207.

Bonded posttensioned
Beam BB2-P Parabolic 2 (9.5 mm) 200 884 2 (6 mm) 220 2 (8 mm) φ8 at 150 0 — 37
BB2-P-F1 Parabolic 2 (9.5 mm) 200 894 2 (6 mm) 220 2 (8 mm) φ8 at 150 0 150 (1) 37
BB2-P-F2 Parabolic 2 (9.5 mm) 200 885 2 (6 mm) 220 2 (8 mm) φ8 at 150 0 300 (2) 37
Slab BS2-P Parabolic 3 (9.5 mm) 85 970 2 (8 mm) 98.5 — — 0 — 37
BS2-P-F1 Parabolic 3 (9.5 mm) 85 915 2 (8 mm) 98.5 — — 0 150 (1) 37
BS2-P-F2 Parabolic 3 (9.5 mm) 85 892 2 (8 mm) 98.5 — — 0 300 (1) 37
Reinforced concrete
Beam RB2 2 (16 mm) 220 — φ8 at 100 530 — 37
RB2-F1 2 (16 mm) 220 — φ8 at 100 530 150 (1) 37
RB2-F2 2 (16 mm) 220 — φ8 at 100 674 300 (2) 37
Slab RS2 4 (12 mm) 100 — — 555 — 37
RS2-F1 4 (12 mm) 100 — — 555 150 (1) 37
RS2-F2 4 (12 mm) 100 — — 624 300 (1) 37

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2013 / 199

 Grade 60 deformed steel bars having 8-, 12-, and 16-mm diam-
eters, and Grade 40 plain ϕ 6 mm steel bars were used as ordinary
reinforcement (Table 1). The actual yield strengths of the deformed
bars, determined in compliance with ASTM A615 (ASTM 2009),
are summarized in Table 1. The ϕ 8 mm bars (ϕ 6 mm bottom bars
for the bonded beam specimens) were used for different strength
and construction purposes. These include shear reinforcement;
minimum bottom bonded reinforcement for the unbonded PC
beam and slab specimens required in accordance with the ACI
building code ACI 318 (ACI 2011) (equal to 0.004A, where A
is that part of the cross section between the flexural tension face
and the center of gravity of the gross section); top reinforcement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
to support shear stirrups or to reduce the tension stress in the
top concrete fiber when the prestressing force is applied; or bottom
reinforcement in the bonded PC slabs to support and align the pre-
stressing duct. No top or shear reinforcement was provided for all
slab specimens. For the beam specimens, the fact that the number
and diameter of top steel bars used to support the shear stirrups are
not listed in Table 1 implies that the top steel bars were discon-
tinued within the constant moment region and therefore have no
effect on the flexural strength of the specimens within that region.
The carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) laminates used
for strengthening consisted of unidirectional flexible sheets with
glass cross fiber for added strength and fabric stability during
installation. The design thickness, modulus of elasticity, ultimate
tensile strength, and ultimate strain of the dry fibers provided by
the manufacturer are 0.37 mm, 230,000 MPa, 3,800 MPa, and
1.7%, respectively. The manufacturer’s design properties for the
fiber-epoxy composite are 1.0 mm, 95,800 MPa, 986 MPa, and
1.0%, respectively.
The ducts for the posttensioned steel consisted of galvanized
flexible tubes with 20-mm diameter. For the bonded posttensioned
slab and beam specimens, cement-based grout was injected inside
the ducts after the tendons were stressed to provide a bond between
the strands and concrete. The grout mix was prepared using Type I
Portland cement and proportioned in accordance with the ACI
building code ACI 318 (ACI 2011) with a water-cement ratio
of 0.40.
Specimen Construction and Instrumentation
Before the specimens were cast, the steel cages were instrumented
with electric strain gages and then placed in wood form for concrete
casting. The specimens were cast in 3 batches (12 specimens in
each batch) using ready-mixed concrete.
The CFRP sheets were attached to the bottom tension face of the
beam and slab specimens in accordance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations and in compliance with the ACI Committee
440 [ACI 440.2R-08 (ACI 2008)] recommendation for securing
proper development length. No particular measures were taken
to improve the bond strength between the CFRP and the substrate.
One or two layers of 150-mm-wide CFRP strips were applied to the
beam specimens, whereas only one layer of 150- or 300-mm-wide
strips were applied to the slab specimens.
Test measurements included strains and stresses in the tension
reinforcement (prestressing strands, CFRP laminates, and reinforc-
ing bars of the reinforced concrete specimens) within the con-
stant moment region close to midspan, applied actuator load, and
deflection at midspan of the specimens. Crack patterns were also
monitored throughout the test for each specimen. Strains were mea-
sured using electric strain gages, whereas deflection was measured
using a linear voltage differential transformer (LVDT). All test
measurements were automatically collected and recorded using a
data acquisition and control system.
200 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2013
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:197-207.
Test Setup and Procedure
While mounted on the testing machine and just before testing, each
prestressing strand was anchored at the far end and then tensioned
individually from the prestressing end using a center hole hydraulic
ram. The average jacking stress for all beams and slabs, which was
monitored using both the strain gage reading as well as the pressure
gage of the hydraulic ram, varied between approximately 48 and
57% of the ultimate strength of the strands. This range of tension
stress is representative of the effective stress fse available in the
prestressing steel during the service life of PC members after
accounting for long-term prestress losses.
All specimens were loaded with two concentrated point loads
applied symmetrically relative to the middle of the span and sep-
arated by a distance equal to one-sixth the span length or 500 mm
(Fig. 1). The applied load was intended to simulate as closely as
possible uniform load application. Also, to simulate the actual con-
ditions of concrete flexural members that require strengthening, all
specimens (control and strengthened) were first subjected to cyclic
loading consisting of six cycles before the FRP application and an-
other six cycles after FRP application ranging between a minimum
load Pmin , representing dead load, and a maximum load Pmax , rep-
resenting dead plus live load. The loads Pmin and Pmax corre-
sponded to approximately 30 and 70%, respectively, of the
estimated nominal moment capacity of the unstrengthened speci-
mens. Note that the selection of a large load range between
Pmin and Pmax is intended to induce a reasonable amount of con-
trolled damage in the specimens with a small number of cycles (six
cycles), which would simulate the damage conditions of real flexu-
ral members before strengthening. The cyclic load and monoton-
ically increasing load to failure were applied at a rate of 0.3 mm=s.
For the control (unstrengthened) specimens, the cyclic loading
stage was followed immediately by a stage of monotonically increas-
ing load until complete flexural failure of the specimens. The spec-
imens that were to be strengthened using CFRP were first subjected
to the same cyclic loading protocol as the control specimens but then
unloaded at the end of the cyclic loading stage to prepare them for
CFRP application. Note that to simulate real structures, the applica-
tion of the FRP reinforcement should have been carried out while the
specimens were loaded with Pmin . However, unfortunately this was
not possible due to the difficulty in applying the FRP at the bottom
face of the specimens while the specimens were mounted on the test-
ing machine. Nevertheless, the sizes of the flexural cracks under
Pmin , based on visual inspection, were hairline cracks, and therefore
the effect of FRP application, whether the specimens were loaded
with Pmin or completely unloaded, is believed not to have a signifi-
cant effect on the overall flexural response.
After at least 7 days of CFRP application, the strengthened
specimens were subjected to a loading protocol consisting of cyclic
loading and monotonically increasing load to failure, similar to the
control specimens.
Discussion of Test Results
Cracking Pattern and Failure Mode
The typical failure mode of the FRP-strengthened unbonded
beam and slab specimens is shown in Fig. 2. Representative
crack patterns at the conclusion of the test for the beam and slab
specimens in the various test series are given in Figs. 3 and 4,
respectively.
The cracking patterns for the specimens were quite similar and
typical of flexural members when subjected to externally applied
load. All specimens (control and strengthened) developed their
 Mode of Failure :
P/2 P/2
Concrete crushing

UB2-H-F1 UB2-P

Simultaneous partial FRP P/2 P/2

debonding and concrete crushing
UB2-P-F1

FRP debonding P/2 P/2

FRP Debonding (followed by concrete crushing)
UB2-P-F2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

P/2 P/2
Yielding of PS
and concrete crushing
BB2-P

Yielding of PS P/2 P/2

and FRP rupture
US1-H-F1 BB2-P-F1

Yielding of PS P/2 P/2

and FRP debonding
BB2-P-F2
FRP Rupture
P/2 P/2
Yielding of RS
and concrete crushing
Fig. 2. Photos of typical specimens at end of test RB2

first flexural cracks within the constant moment region during
initial cyclic loading between Pmin and Pmax . The cracking loads
Pcr for the various specimens before FRP application are given
in Table 2. As the applied load increased, the cracks increased in
number and started to develop within the shear span.
As the load increased to failure, the cracks tended to fork
out, and additional flexural cracks formed. Unlike members with
fully unbonded reinforcement, which tend to develop few cracks
and a concentration of deformation at a single crack (Warwaruk
et al. 1962), the presence of 2ϕ8 mm bottom steel bars in the
unbonded PC specimens, which were provided as minimum
bonded reinforcement in accordance with the ACI building code
ACI 318 (ACI 2011), helped the unbonded PC specimens, particu-
larly the control ones, to develop well-distributed cracks along their
length. Consequently, the crack pattern and distribution in the un-
bonded control and FRP-strengthened specimens were comparable
to those in their companion bonded PC specimens. Note that the
RC beam and slab specimens developed the largest number of
cracks and the most even crack distribution when compared to their
companion bonded or unbonded PC specimens.
A summary of the specimens’ modes of failure is provided in
the last column of Table 2. Failure of the unbonded PC specimens
occurred by concrete crushing, FRP rupture, FRP debonding, or a
combination of these modes. These modes of failure, which depend
on the area of external FRP reinforcement relative to the area of
internal tension reinforcement, are consistent with the possible
modes of failure of FRP-strengthened flexural members recognized
by ACI Committee 440 [ACI 440.2R-08 (ACI 2008)]. Signs of
FRP debonding failure were observed by the propagation of inter-
face cracks in the concrete just above the FRP in a horizontal di-
rection along the internal tension reinforcement until joining the
vertical flexural cracks causing peeling off of concrete cover.
P/2 P/2
Yielding of RS and
progressive FRP rupture
RB2-F1
Yielding of RS and concrete
crushing (followed by P/2 P/2
FRP debonding)
RB2-F2
Fig. 3. Representative crack pattern and failure mode of beam
specimens
The mode of failure of the strengthened bonded PC spec-
imens varied between concrete crushing, FRP rupture, and FRP
debonding. For the strengthened RC specimens, the mode of failure
occurred mainly by FRP rupture.
Failure by FRP debonding was followed by immediate and
sudden concrete crushing, whereas failure by concrete crushing
was followed in most specimens by sudden FRP debonding or FRP
rupture. Consequently, all strengthened specimens, regardless of
the mode in which they failed (concrete crushing, FRP debonding,
or rupture), experienced brittle failure followed by a sudden drop
in load resistance.
Load-Deflection Response
Figs. 5–7 show representative load-deflection responses of the
FRP-strengthened unbonded beam specimens, unbonded slab
specimens, and bonded PC and RC beam specimens, respectively,
in comparison with the control specimens in each test series.
For clarity in presentation, the load-deflection response of the

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2013 / 201

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:197-207.

 Mode of Failure :
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing
(followed by FRP debonding)
Concrete crushing
(followed by FRP debonding)
Yielding of PS and
concrete crushing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
P/2 P/2 the strengthened PC specimens tended generally to increase with
increase in the area of FRP reinforcement, but were slightly lower
US2-P or close to the loads Pcr (Table 2) at which the first flexural cracks
developed before FRP application. The FRP reinforcement must
P/2 P/2
have delayed slightly the reopening of the flexural cracks, but not
US2-P-F1 as significantly as the effect of the prestressing force. Note that be-
cause the flexural cracks never closed, the loads at which the cracks
P/2 P/2 reopened for the FRP-strengthened RC specimens are equal to zero.
For the strengthened specimens that experienced FRP debond-
US2-P-F2 ing before concrete crushing, the load-deflection response follow-
ing failure encountered sudden or progressive descent (depending
P/2 P/2
on whether FRP debonding was sudden or progressive) to coincide

Yielding of PS and partial
FRP debonding and rupture
Concrete crushing
(followed by FRP debonding)
Yielding of RS
and concrete crushing
Yielding of RS
and FRP rupture
BS2-P with the response of the control specimens beyond the deflection at
which the FRP reinforcement failed (Figs. 5–7). Consequently, the
P/2 P/2 drop in load resistance following FRP failure was more adverse for
the specimens (bonded or unbonded) strengthened using level
BS2-P-F1 F2 of FRP reinforcement when compared to those strengthened
using level F1 in the same test series. On the other hand,
P/2 P/2
partial rupture or debonding of the FRP reinforcement resulted
BS2-P-F2 in a progressive drop of the load resistance until complete failure
(Specimens UB2-P-F1 and UB2-H-F1 in Fig. 5). For the strength-
P/2 P/2 ened specimens that failed first due to concrete crushing, as a
result of FRP debonding (or rupture) immediately after failure
RS2 (US2-H-F2, US2-P-F1, US2-P-F2), the load resistance dropped
suddenly to zero, producing in effect the most brittle type of
P/2 P/2
flexural failure.
RS2-F1

P/2 P/2 Ultimate Load and Deformation Capacities

Yielding of RS
and FRP rupture
RS2-F2
Fig. 4. Representative crack pattern and failure mode of slab
specimens
strengthened specimens was only shown for the second testing
phase or after FRP application.
It can be seen that the load-deflection response of the control
beam and slab specimens followed a three-stage behavior which
is typical of concrete flexural members when loaded to failure: pre-
cracking stage, postcracking elastic stage, and a stage of postelastic
response associated with a materials’nonlinearity.
For the strengthened unbonded or bonded PC specimens, which
had been precracked prior to FRP application, the load-deflection
response was characterized by an initial stiff response in the early
stage of loading until the critical cracks that formed earlier
reopened. Note that these critical cracks developed during the first
loading stage and then closed under the effect of the prestressing
force when the specimens were completely unloaded to prepare
them for FRP application. The reopening of the cracks gave rise
to a second stage of behavior characterized by a progressively and
gradually diminishing stiffness until flexural failure. For the rein-
forced concrete specimens, because the cracks that had developed
earlier did not close, the load-deflection response was character-
ized by an initial linear elastic response until yielding of the steel
reinforcement, followed by a stage of inelastic response until failure
(Fig. 7). Due to FRP strengthening, the postcracking stiffness
increased relative to the stiffness of the control specimens, particu-
larly the PC specimens.
The loads (Pcrr ) at which the flexural cracks reopened in the
FRP-strengthened specimens were approximated from the intersec-
tion point between the first and second stages of the load-deflection
response. Results are given in Table 2. It can be seen that Pcrr for
Table 2 provides a summary of the peak loads or load capacities Pu
and deflections at peak loads Δu for the various specimens, per-
centage increase in load capacities due to FRP application relative
to the control specimens, and the ratio (in percentage) of the de-
flection at peak load developed by the FRP-strengthened specimens
to that developed by the control specimens, Δu =ðΔu Þcontrol , in each
test series. The load capacities of the strengthened unbonded spec-
imens increased substantially relative to the control specimens.
This increase was accompanied by a reduction in ductility or maxi-
mum deflection capacity Δu, as expected. Because the beam spec-
imens failed mostly due to FRP debonding and the slab specimens
failed mainly due to concrete crushing, the reduction in deforma-
tion capacity was more pronounced for the beam specimens com-
pared to the slab specimens. Also, due to the FRP debonding mode
of flexural failure, the deformation capacities for the beam speci-
mens strengthened using Level F2 were close to those strengthened
using Level F1 of FRP reinforcement.
It is clear from the results summarized in Table 2 that the
increase in ultimate load capacity (peak load) of the strengthened
unbonded PC specimens relative to the control ones in the same
test series depended on the area of internal reinforcement, area of
external FRP reinforcement, and, to a lesser extent, on the profile of
prestressing tendons. The corresponding increases varied between
a minimum of 24% (UB2-P-F1) and a maximum of 105% (UB1-
H-F2) for the unbonded beam specimens and between a minimum
of 21% (US1-H-F1) and a maximum of 126% (US1-P-F2) for
the unbonded slab specimens. The maximum deflection attained
relative to the control specimens in the same test series varied
between a minimum of 34% (UB2-P-F2) and a maximum of
72% (UB2-H-F2) for the unbonded beam specimens and between
a minimum of 68% (US1-P-F1) and a maximum of 100 to 107%
(US1-H-F1, US1-H-F2, US2-P-F1, US2-P-F2) for the unbonded
slab specimens.
It can be observed in Table 2 that the percentage increases in
load capacity for the FRP-strengthened unbonded beam specimens

202 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:197-207.

 Table 2. Summary of Test Results
Specimen Increase in load Δu =ðΔu ÞControl Postcracking Strain in
label Pcr a (kN) Pcrr a (kN) Pu a (kN) Δu a (mm) capacity (%) (%) stiffness ratio FRP μεf Failure modeb
UB1-H 17.0 — 42.3 64.0 — — — — CC
UB1-H-F1 14.7 12.0 66.9 31.0 58 50 1.67 7122 D
UB1-H-F2 16.0 15.0 86.9 33.0 105 52 2.00 5378 D
UB1-P 17.5 — 46.8 81.0 — — — — Y of PS + CC
UB1-P-F1 15.1 13.0 66.3 35.0 42 44 1.67 4556 D
UB1-P-F2 16.0 15.0 89.0 36.0 90 44 2.08 5604 D
UB2-H 27.4 — 63.6 43.0 — — — — CC
UB2-H-F1 29.8 25.0 80.8 26.0 27 61 1.50 6934 PR + PD
UB2-H-F2 29.2 25.0 104.8 31.0 65 72 1.78 5329 D
UB2-P 30.0 — 75.2 88.0 — — — CC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

UB2-P-F1 32.1 24.0 93.6 37.0 24 43 1.70 5393 PD + CC

UB2-P-F2 30.0 24.0 101.2 30.0 35 34 1.86 4285 D
US1-H 14.7 — 22.7 62.0 — — — — CC
US1-H-F1 9.3 7.0 34.3 63.0 52 100 1.59 8309 R
US1-H-F2 10.0 9.0 43.0 66.0 90 107 3.96 6074 PR + PD
US1-P 11.0 — 21.3 100.0 — — — — CC
US1-P-F1 9.0 8.0 34.5 68.0 62 68 1.83 5770 D
US1-P-F2 12.0 8.0 48.1 75.0 126 75 2.11 6280 R + CC
US2-H 16.8 — 35.1 87.0 — — — — CC
US2-H-F1 15.0 13.0 42.6 62.0 21 71 1.57 6277 CC + PD
US2-H-F2 15.4 15.0 57.2 75.0 63 86 2.29 5517 CC
US2-P 19.3 — 36.9 66.0 — — — — CC
US2-P-F1 17.8 15.0 47.6 68.0 29 103 1.71 7554 CC
US2-P-F2 15.8 16.0 59.8 67.0 62 100 3.00 5570 CC
BB2-P 31.7 — 63.4 44.0 — — — — Y of PS + CC
BB2-P-F1 31.0 30.0 87.0 35.0 38 81 1.30 5906 Y of PS + R
BB2-P-F2 31.5 32.0 107.8 30.0 70 68 1.74 4781 D
BS2-P 16.7 — 33.9 71.0 — — — — Y of PS + CC
BS2-P-F1 13.9 12.0 44.3 67.0 31 94 1.93 7834 Y of PS + D & R
BS2-P-F2 15.2 13.0 59.7 70.0 76 100 2.11 5701 CC
RB2 8.6 — 72.5 46.0 — — — — Y of RS + CC
RB2-F1 10.8 0.0 98.6 35.0 36 76 1.19 7608 Y of RS + R
RB2-F2 7.8 0.0 110.8 33.0 53 73 1.13 5003 Y of RS + CC
RS2 4.7 — 37.0 77.0 — — — — Y of RS + CC
RS2-F1 6.0 0.0 48.5 60.0 31 78 0.71 — Y of RS + R
RS2-F2 3.5 0.0 66.7 77.0 80 100 2.83 5834 Premature failure
a
Pcr = cracking load before FRP application; Pcrr = load at which cracks reopened; Pu = peak or ultimate load; Δu = deflection at peak load.
b
CC = concrete crushing, D = FRP debonding, R = FRP rupture, Y = yielding, PS = prestressing steel, RS = reinforcing bar, PD = partial FRP debonding,
PR = partial FRP rupture.

were higher for the specimens with horizontal tendon profile
when compared with those having parabolic profile, as would be
expected. However, for the unbonded slabs, because of the insig-
nificant difference between the two profiles due to the small section
height, the corresponding percentage increases were almost iden-
tical. Also, it is clear from the summary provided in Table 2 that the
unbonded PC specimens with horizontal tendon profile developed
smaller net deflections at ultimate than their companion specimens
with parabolic profile, particularly for the control specimens. This
observation is attributed to the fact that the tendons with horizontal
profile are on average closer to the bottom tension surface than the
tendons with a parabolic profile. Consequently, the specimens with
horizontal tendon profile are more effective in controlling cracking
and crack widths along their length when compared to the speci-
mens with a parabolic profile, leading to lower deflections.
It should be noted that everything else is similar; because the
stress increases in the prestressing steel are smaller in unbonded
members when compared to bonded ones, the ultimate load capac-
ity of bonded members is expected to be larger than the load
capacity of unbonded ones for the same reinforcement areas and
materials strength. The fact that the ultimate moment capacities of
the unbonded and bonded specimens in test series UB2-P/BB2-P
and US2-P /BS2-P were close is attributed to the sizable percentage
contribution of the additional bottom 2ϕ8 mm steel bars (provided
as minimum bonded reinforcement in accordance with the require-
ment of the ACI building code) (of approximately 35%) to the
overall flexural strength of the unbonded specimens.
Comparing the results (Table 2) of the unbonded PC specimens
with their companion bonded PC specimens, which were identical
in reinforcement and tendon profile, and also to the RC ones, which
were designed such that they develop an approximately similar
load capacity to the unbonded specimens in series UB2 and US2,
it can be seen that the net increases in load capacities and net
reductions in deflection due to FRP strengthening were almost
identical. Note that Specimen RS2-F1 failed prematurely due to
FRP early detachment associated with improper FRP application
for this particular specimen.
Based on the results, it can be concluded that the effect of FRP
strengthening on the flexural response of unbonded PC members
is not different from its effect on the response of bonded PC or
RC members. Consequently, in designing the FRP system for
flexural strengthening of unbonded posttensioned members, except
for the method by which the strain or stress in the unbonded ten-
sion reinforcement at ultimate is calculated, which differs substan-
tially (because of the bond aspect) from the method used for
bonded PC or RC members, the same guidelines recommended

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2013 / 203

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:197-207.

 105 60
UB1-P US1-P
90 UB1-P-F1 50 US1-P-F1
UB1-P-F2 US1-P-F2
75
40

Load (kN)

Load (kN)
60
30
45
20
30

15 10

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Central Deflection (mm) Central Deflection (mm)
105 60
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

90 50
75
40

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

60
30
45 UB2-P US2-P
UB2-P-F1 20 US2-P-F1
30 UB2-P-F2 US2-P-F2
15 10

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Central Deflection (mm) Central Deflection (mm)
105 60
UB2-H
90 UB2-H-F1
50
UB2-H-F2
75
40
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
60
30
45

30 20
US2-H
US2-H-F1
15 10
US2-H-F2
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Central Deflection (mm) Central Deflection (mm)

Fig. 5. Typical load-deflection response of unbonded beam specimens Fig. 6. Typical load-deflection response of unbonded slab specimens

by ACI Committee 440 [ACI 440.2R-08 (ACI 2008)] for bonded
PC or RC members can be extended to unbonded PC members.
A model for predicting the strain and stress in unbonded tendons
as well as the nominal moment capacity of FRP-strengthened
unbonded members, consistent with the guidelines proposed by
ACI 440 [ACI 440.2R-08 (ACI 2008)], has been developed by
El Meski (2012).
Flexural Stiffness
As a result of increased load capacity due to FRP reinforcement,
the FRP-strengthened specimens developed a considerably stiffer
load-deflection response than the control specimens in the post-
cracking stage, as would be expected (Figs. 5–7). However, to
illustrate the effectiveness of the external FRP reinforcement in
improving the service load behavior of the unbonded members,
the postcracking flexural stiffness of the specimens during the last
cycle between minimum load Pmin and maximum load Pmax was
estimated from the load-deflection response of the same strength-
ened specimen before and after FRP application. Ratios of the
stiffness after FRP application to that before FRP application are
summarized in Table 2.
It can be seen that using external FRP reinforcement led to
sizable increases in the postcracking flexural stiffness of the
specimens. These increases, which grew larger as the area of FRP
reinforcement increased, were higher for the slab specimens when
compared to the beam specimens and higher for the unbonded
and bonded PC specimens when compared to the RC specimens.
Considering that strengthened members are supposed to resist
upgraded service loads (dead load plus live load) that are larger
than the loads before strengthening, this enhanced stiffness helps
in controlling the service load deflections that develop under up-
graded applied service loads in real applications and, therefore, has
positive implications on the service load behavior of unbonded or
bonded posttensioned slabs or beams.
Load-Strain Response in Internal Tension
Reinforcement
The strains in the prestressing steel were measured using at least
two electric strain gages for each specimen close to the middle
of the span. Typical variations of applied load versus increase in
strain in the prestressing steel above effective prestrain are provided
in Fig. 8.
It can be seen that the response of applied load versus strain
increase followed the same trend as the load-deflection response,
which indicates a close relationship between deflection and stress
increases in the unbonded prestressing tendons.
While only two control unbonded beam specimens (UB2-H)
and (UB2-P) developed strains close to yield at the onset of failure,

204 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:197-207.

 120
BB2-P
different test series or with increasing area of external FRP rein-
100 BB2-P-F1 forcement within the same series. Also, the corresponding stress
BB2-P-F2 decreased with an increasing span-to-depth ratio of the specimens
80 (slabs as opposed to beams). The total stress in the prestressing
Load (kN) steel at ultimate varied between a minimum and a maximum of
60
1,120 (UB2-H-F2) and 1,413 MPa (UB1-P-F1) for the strength-
40 ened unbonded beam specimens and between 1,065 (US2-H-F2)
and 1,195 MPa (US1-H-F1) for the strengthened unbonded
20 slab specimens. A detailed discussion of the stresses developed
in the unbonded steel at ultimate flexural strength of the speci-
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 mens along with analysis of test data are reported elsewhere
Central Deflection (mm) (El Meski 2012).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Being bonded, the stresses in the prestressing steel for the

120
RB2
control as well as the strengthened bonded PC specimens (except
100 RB2-F1 BS2-P-F2) attained or exceeded yield at flexural failure. The
RB2-F2 corresponding measured stresses were 1,738 MPa (BB2-P),
80 1,710 MPa (BB2-P-F1), 1,680 MPa (BB2-P-F2), 1,662 MPa
Load (kN)

(BS2-P), 1,702 MPa (BS2-P-F1), and 1,429 MPa (BS2-P-F2),

60
respectively. Also, all RC specimens experienced yielding before
40 flexural failure. The measured strains in the reinforcing steel at
peak load were, respectively, 8;120 με (RB2), 6;735 με (RB2-F1),
20 5;000 με (RB2-F2), 22;800 με (RS2), 3;135 με (RS2-F1 which
failed prematurely), and 10;120 με (RS2-F2).
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Central Deflection (mm)
Load-Strain Response in FRP Reinforcement
Fig. 7. Load-deflection response of bonded PC and RC beam
The strain in the FRP sheets was measured within the constant
specimens
moment region using two electric strain gages. Typical plots illus-
trating the variation in FRP strain with applied load are given in
Fig. 9. A summary of the measured FRP strain at flexural failure
none of the FRP strengthened unbonded beam and slab specimens
for all FRP-strengthened specimens is provided in Table 2.
experienced yielding of the prestressing steel at failure. The strain
The FRP strain with applied load including ultimate generally
or stress in the unbonded prestressing steel at peak load generally
decreased with increasing area of FRP reinforcement within the
decreased with increasing area of internal reinforcement in the
same test series. Also, because the unbonded tendons develop less
tension stress than bonded ones under the same applied load,
105
the tension stress developed in the FRP reinforcement under a
UB2-H
90 UB2-H-F1 given load during the response was generally slightly larger for the
UB2-H-F2 unbonded specimens compared to their companion bonded ones
75
(compare UB2-P-F2 and BB2-P-F2 in Fig. 9). However, because
Load (kN)

60 failure in most specimens is governed by FRP debonding, no dis-

45 tinct trend can be observed regarding the variation of maximum
FRP strain with variation in the remaining parameters investigated
30 in this study (area of internal reinforcement, area of external FRP
15 reinforcement, tendon profile, type of posttensioned construction,
and type of structural system). For the unbonded beam specimens,
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 the strain in the FRP reinforcement at peak load as a percentage of
Strain increase in prestressing steel (µε) the ultimate breaking strain (of 10;000 με) varied between a mini-
60
mum of 43% (UB2-P-F2) and a maximum of 71% (UB1-H-F1).
US1-P For the unbonded slab specimens, the corresponding percentage
50 US1-P-F1 varied between a minimum of 55% (US2-P-F2) and a maxi-
US1-P-F2 mum of 83% (US1-H-F1). Considering the specimens combined,
40 the average measured FRP strains at flexural failure for the
Load (kN)

30
specimens reinforced with Levels F1-F2 of FRP reinforcement
were respectively 5;550 με [standard deviation ðSDÞ ¼ 1;100 με] -
20 5;112 με ðSD ¼ 574 μεÞ for the unbonded beam specimens
and 6;975 με ðSD ¼ 1165 μεÞ − 5;686 με ðSD ¼ 528 μεÞ for
10
the unbonded slab specimens. The overall average FRP strains
0
at ultimate for the combined specimens (beams and slabs)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 strengthened using level F1-F2 of FRP reinforcement were
Strain increase in prestressing steel (µε) 6;260 με ðSD ¼ 1295 μεÞ − 5;400 με ðSD ¼ 595 μεÞ for the un-
bonded specimens, 6;875 με ðSD ¼ 1370 μεÞ − 4;970 με ðSD ¼
Fig. 8. Representative response of load versus strain increase in
1032 μεÞ for the bonded specimens, and 7;608 μϵ −
unbonded prestressing steel
5;419 μϵ ðSD ¼ 588 μϵÞ for the RC specimens, respectively.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2013 / 205

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:197-207.

 100
UB1-H-F1 reinforced), the increase in load capacity varied between a
80 UB1-H-F2 minimum of 24% and a maximum of 105% for the beam
specimens and between 21 and 126% for the slab specimens
of the current investigation.
Load (kN)
60
4. The use of FRP reinforcement increased the postcracking
40 stiffness of the specimens. This increase, which grew larger
with an increasing area of FRP reinforcement, was greater for
20 the unbonded and bonded PC specimens compared to the RC
specimens.
0 5. The reduction in deflection at peak load due to FRP applica-
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000
Strain in FRP (µε) tion was large for the beam specimens but almost insignificant
for the slab specimens.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

60
US1-H-F1
6. The strain in the unbonded prestressing tendons at peak load
50 US1-H-F2
in all strengthened unbonded PC beam and slab specimens
was below yield. On the other hand, the tendons in all bonded
40 PC specimens (except BS2-P-F2) and the steel bars in all RC
Load (kN)

30
specimens experienced yield before flexural failure.
7. Depending on the mode of flexural failure and area of FRP
20 reinforcement, the strain in the FRP reinforcement varied
between a minimum of 40% and a maximum of 85% of the
10
specified rupture strain (of 1.0%). The overall average FRP
0 strains at ultimate for the combined specimens (beams and
0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 slabs) strengthened using the two different areas or levels
Strain in FRP (µε)
(F1-F2) of FRP reinforcement were 6;260 − 5;400 με
120 for the unbonded PC specimens, 6;875 − 4;970 με for
UB2-P-F2 the bonded PC specimens, and 7;608 − 5;419 με for the
100 RC specimens.
BB2-P-F2
80 8. Except for the development of slightly larger deflections at
Load (kN)

ultimate, specimens with a parabolic tendon profile behaved

60
40
20
0
0 1500 3000 4500
Strain in FRP (µε)
Fig. 9. Typical response of load versus FRP strain for unbonded and
bonded PC specimens
Summary and Conclusions
Twenty-four full-scale unbonded PC beam and slab specimens
were tested to evaluate the flexural response of unbonded members
when strengthened using external FRP composites. An ddditional
six bonded PC (posttensioned) and six RC specimens were tested
for comparison. In addition to the type of structural system and
span-to-depth ratio of the specimens (beams, slabs), the test param-
eters included the area of internal tension reinforcement (prestress-
ing steel, reinforcing steel), area of external FRP reinforcement
(Levels F1 and F2), and tendon profile (parabolic, horizontal).
Based on the test results of this investigation, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1. Failure of the specimens occurred by concrete crushing within
the constant moment region, FRP debonding, FRP rupture,
or a combination of these modes.
2. Most FRP-strengthened beam and slab specimens failed in a
brittle manner associated with FRP debonding or FRP rupture
before or immediately after concrete crushing.
3. External FRP reinforcement increased significantly the flex-
ural capacity of unbonded posttensioned members. Depending
on the area of external FRP reinforcement relative to the
area of internal tension reinforcement (prestressed or ordinary
similarly to specimens with a horizontal profile.
This study clearly showed that there is no distinct differ-
ence beyond expectation between the flexural response of FRP-
strengthened unbonded PC members and that of FRP- strengthened
bonded PC or RC members. Therefore, in designing an FRP system
6000 for flexural strengthening of unbonded posttensioned members,
except for the method by which the strain or stress in the unbonded
tension reinforcement at ultimate is calculated, which differs sub-
stantially (because of the bond aspect) from that used for bonded
PC or RC members, the same guidelines recommended by ACI
Committee 440 [ACI 440.2R-08 (ACI 2008)] for bonded PC or
RC members can be extended for unbonded PC members. A model
for predicting the stress in unbonded tendons, the mode of flexural
failure, and the nominal moment capacity for FRP-strengthened
unbonded members has been developed by El Meski (2012).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge FyFe Europe for providing
the CFRP reinforcement and Darwiche Haddad for assisting in the
construction of the specimens. Acknowledgment is also due to the
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture at the American Univer-
sity of Beirut for providing the laboratory test facilities.
References
American Concrete Institute. (2011). “Building code requirements for
reinforced concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-2011/ACI 318R-11,
Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute. (2008). “Guide for the design and construc-
tion of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
structures.” ACI 440.2R-08, Detroit.
ASTM. (2009). “Standard specifications for deformed and plain
carbon-steel bars for concrete reinforcement.” A615/A615M-09,
West Conshohocken, PA.

206 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:197-207.

 El Meski, F. (2012). “Flexural behavior of unbonded post-tensioned
concrete members strengthened using external FRP composites:
Experimental evaluation and analytic modeling.” Ph.D. dissertation,
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, American Univ. of
Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Harajli, M. H. (2006). “On the stress in unbonded tendons at ultimate: Criti-
cal assessment and proposed changes.” ACI Struct. J., 103(6), 803–812.
Menegotto, M., and Pinto, P. E. (1973). “Method of analysis for cyclically
loaded reinforced concrete plane frames.” IABSE preliminary rep. for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MARRIOTT LIB-UNIV OF UT on 11/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
symp. on resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on
well-defined repeated loads, Lisbon, 15–22.
Naaman, A. E., Burns, N., French, C., Gamble, W. L., and Mattock, A. H.
(2002). “Stresses in unbonded prestressing tendons at ultimate:
Recommendation.” ACI Struct. J., 99(4), 518–529.
Warwaruk, J., Sozen, M. A., and Siess, C. P. (1962). “Investigation of
prestressed concrete for highway bridges. III: Strength and behavior in
flexure of prestressed beams.” Bulletin 464, Engineering Experiment
Station, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2013 / 207

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:197-207.