Analysis of Beams Strengthened with CFRP Laminates 1

International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Vienna, October 5-7, 2000.

ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS OF SIMPLY SUPPORTED AND
CONTINUOUS BEAMS STRENGTHENED WITH CFRP LAMINATES
7RPD 8ODJD
EMPA
Ueberlandstrasse 129
8600 Duebendorf
Switzerland
Phone: +41-1-823 40 33
Fax: +41-1-823 40 14
E-Mail: tomaz.ulaga@empa.ch
Supervisors:
Prof. T. Vogel, IBK, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Prof. U. Meier, EMPA Duebendorf, Switzerland
Abstract
The analysis of a reinforced concrete beam strengthened with externally bonded CFRP (carbon
fibre reinforced plastic) laminates and subjected to flexural loading can be performed analogously
to the analysis of an unstrengthened beam. Equilibrium of forces, deformation compatibility and
stress-strain relations of the materials are the tools that permit a reliable determination of the
systems response to any support and load configuration.
A simply supported beam is considered that way. The analytically found results correspond closely
to experimental data. A two-span continuous beam with various strengthening arrangements is
similarly analysed. According to those findings, continuous girders should be strengthened by
application of CFRP laminates in the spans only.
Keywords: Carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) laminates, continuous girder, reinforced
concrete, strengthening, structural analysis, flexure
1. Introduction
The first application of CFRP laminates to strengthen a concrete structure was the repair of the
Ibach bridge in Switzerland in 1991 (Meier [1]). The dimensioning and detailing was based on the
pioneering works of Kaiser [2] and Deuring [3]. Since then, research and application activities have
grown constantly, and today many publications and strengthened structures can be found (Meier
[4]). While the use of CFRP products for flexural strengthening of beams or wrapping of columns is
already well established, other possible uses (e.g. externally bonded shear reinforcement) are
becoming increasingly common.
Several gaps in knowledge have been recognized and systematically investigated. While some of
the problems were treated successfully and suitable explanations have been found (e.g. the
anchorage length, Holzenkmpfer [5]), other aspects require further research (e.g. the failure
criterion, Raoof [6]). There are many experimental and theoretical investigations on simply
supported beams (Meier [4]), but it is not obvious how to apply the conclusions of these studies to
real structures with different support systems and arbitrary loads. Since there are virtually no
studies on statically indeterminate structures (Rabinovitch [7]), questions regarding the
performance of strengthened continuous girders can hardly be answered satisfactorily.
This report aims to treat such problems theoretically. First, a simply supported beam is analysed.
The analytical treatment is fairly simple and the findings correspond closely to experimental results.
Second, a two-span continuous girder is analysed. The method of analysis used for the simply
supported beam can be applied analogously and conclusions are drawn on the ultimate load for
different strengthening arrangements.
1.1 Research Significance
The analytical analysis of a CFRP strengthened concrete beam presented here is easily
comprehensible because it is derived from well-known reinforced concrete principles. It provides
excellent results and is much more transparent than often used finite element approaches.
After consideration of a few basic examples, conclusions are drawn that justify simplified analysis
for some cases and therefore make it even more useful for practical dimensioning problems.
Analysis of Beams Strengthened with CFRP Laminates 2
International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Vienna, October 5-7, 2000.
2. General Basics
The subject of interest is a steel reinforced concrete beam strengthened with CFRP laminates that
serve as an additional tension chord in order to increase flexural resistance. The structure is mainly
subjected to flexural load, the influences of shear and normal force will not be considered.
Figure 1: Design fundamentals: a) stress-strain relations of materials; b) compatibility requirement
and equilibrium of forces in the cross-section
The design fundamentals are the elementary basics for the analysis of steel reinforced concrete
structures (Leonhard [8]):
- The materials are characterized by idealized stress-strain relations (SIA Norm [9]), (Figure 1a)).
- The cross-sections remain even (compatibility requirement), (Figure 1b)).
- Equilibrium of forces is connecting the applied load to the internal forces (Figure 1b)).
Unstrengthened, under-reinforced concrete members have a considerable rotation capacity due to
large deformation of yielding steel bars. Structural analysis based on the theory of plasticity can be
simply applied and provides good results for ultimate limit state considerations (Thrlimann [10]). It
is essential for the forces to be at equilibrium; deformation and compatibility aspects can often be
neglected.
When CFRP laminates are added, the response of a structure will change fundamentally. In
accordance with the perfectly elastic character of the laminate, only a limited flexural deformation of
a beam can be achieved. An increase in the cross-section rotation angle causes a proportional rise
in laminate stresses. Therefore, deformation and compatibility become of significant importance in
both cross-sectional and global structural analysis.
Strengthening a cross-section will often cause a reduction in deformation capacity and a modified
failure mode. When CFRP laminates are applied typical failure modes are:
- Peeling off of the laminate when the concrete shear capacity is achieved (premature failure).
- Rupture of the laminate.
- Crushing of the concrete compression zone.
Although several theories for the failure of CFRP strengthened structures have been proposed a
satisfactory criterion has not yet been identified.
3. The simply supported beam
3.1 Cross-sectional analysis
The cross-sectional analysis aims to find the corresponding strains and stresses when flexural
loading is applied.
The compatibility requirement in Figure 1b) is valid for average deformations. To formulate the
equilibrium of forces, the strains and stresses in the cracks must be determined. Therefore a
simple relation can be used:
Analysis of Beams Strengthened with CFRP Laminates 3
International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Vienna, October 5-7, 2000.
s
s
s
l
l
l

(1)
l, s: strain of laminate and steel in the cracks;
l, s: average strain of laminate and steel;
l, s: bond coefficient of laminate and steel
The bond coefficient characterizes the quality of the bond between the reinforcement (steel bar or
CFRP laminate) and the concrete. It can vary from 0.0 (perfectly rigid bond) to 1.0 (poor bond). The
"real" value is virtually impossible to determine. However, since this is not of significant importance
for the following considerations, the following assumption will be used:
l
=
s
= 0.8.
The stresses and forces in Figure 1b) can be determined from the strains in the cracks, and the
equilibrium can be formulated. The mathematical treatment provides a set of equations and the use
of a computer with mathematical or spreadsheet software is recommended for numerical
evaluation.
beam: l =2100 mm, l = 810 mm
concrete: fc = 26 MPa, fct = 3 MPa, Ec = 35 GPa
steel: As = 252 mm
2
, As = 151 mm
2
,
fy = 548 MPa, Es = 210 GPa
cross-section: b = 500 mm,
h = 200 mm, c = 42 mm
CFRP laminate: Al = 115 mm
2
,
El = 127 GPa
b, h: cross-section width, height; c: cover to bar center; l: span length; l: shear span;
fc, fct: compressive, tensile strength of concrete; fy: yield stress of steel;
Ec, Es, El: modulus of elasticity of concrete, steel and laminate; As, As: cross-sectional area of
tensioned steel, in compression zone; Al: cross-sectional area of laminate
Figure 2: Example of a simply supported beam
Figure 2 shows as an example a simply supported beam subjected to two single loads. The system
corresponds to an experimentally tested beam and therefore permits comparisons of theoretical
and experimental data. The material properties result from specific tests or common assumptions.
A cross-sectional analysis has been performed for a load level of 2Q = 100 kN. This level is equal
to 90% of the experimentally measured ultimate load. Figure 3 shows the calculated response of
the system.
Figure 3: Cross-sectional analysis: a) Structure (corresponding to the example in Figure 2);
b) g) Diagrams derived from analysis; h) Interface shear stress
Analysis of Beams Strengthened with CFRP Laminates 4
International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Vienna, October 5-7, 2000.
Three different cross-sectional states can be distinguished along the beam axis (Figure 3b)): state I
(close to the supports, beam uncracked), state II (beam cracked) and state III (in the midspan area,
beam cracked, steel reinforcement yielding).
A study of the diagrams in Figure 3e) and f) provides some interesting conclusions on internal
stress and potential failure origins:
- When the steel yielding moment M
y
is exceeded (state III), the CFRP laminate must bear the
additional part of the flexural tension force. In this state a slight increase of the load can have a
considerable effect on the strain and stress to which the CFRP laminate is exposed.
- The stress in the CFRP laminate changes proportionally to the shear stresses
l
in the
laminate - concrete interface (Figure 3h)). The average shear stresses can be derived from:
l
l
l
t
x

(2)
l: interface shear stress; l: CFRP laminate stress increment;
x: x-axis increment corresponding to ;; tl: thickness of CFRP laminate
In the example, the maximum laminate stress gradient is located in the state III area adjacent
to the midspan (Figure 3f)). The corresponding shear stress is
l
= 2.5 MPa (Figure 3e)).
Shear stress will be even higher In the vicinity of the cracks and may reach the shear strength
of concrete.
Obviously several potential failure causes can be found in state III areas of the beam.
3.2 Deflection under two single loads
The results of the cross-sectional analysis can be used to determine the global response of the
structure. Figure 3g) shows the average curvature line. It can be computed using the following
relation:
z h
l

(3)
: average curvature; h: beam height;
z: compression zone depth (Figure 3g))
The midspan deflection can be determined by integrating the curvatures and considering the
appropriate boundary conditions. The three different cross-sectional states cause discontinuities in
the curvature line and the resulting expression is therefore somewhat complicated:
( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) [ ]

'

+ + + +

+ + + +

+

+ +
2
2
2
3
1
2 2
6
2 2
6
4 1
8
1
cr y cr y cr
ms y ms y ms
ms
l w (4)
wms: midspan deflection; ms: midspan curvature; y: curvature at yielding;
cr+, cr-: curvature above, below cracking; l: span length; ,,: location parameters
Evaluation of the formula requires a large number of parameters that have to be derived from
cross - sectional analysis. In Figure 3g) a simplified curvature line is proposed: a linear drop from
the midspan curvature to zero at the support neglects state I and the transition from state II to state
III. The resulting curvature function is similar to the bending moment line. The following formula can
be derived from its integration:

,
_

6 8
1
2
2
ms ms
l w (5)
The formula requires only the midspan curvature; no detailed cross-sectional analysis is needed.
Analysis of Beams Strengthened with CFRP Laminates 5
International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Vienna, October 5-7, 2000.
0 25 w
ms
[mm]
0
150
2Q [kN]
PS 1
0 25
w
ms
[mm]
0
150
2Q [kN]
experiment
simplified formula
detailed formula
PS 2
Figure 4 Experimantally and theoretically determined responses of simply supported beams
The results of the experimentally and theoretically determined deflection curves are shown in
Figure 4. Beam PS 1 corresponds to the example given in Figure 2 which has been used for the
cross-sectional analysis in Figure 3. Beam PS 2 was an identical concrete beam strengthened with
a different laminate (A
l
= 260 mm
2
, E
l
= 161 GPa). Obviously both the detailed and simplified
deflection function generate satisfactory approaches to the actual response. The variation between
the theoretical and test data is influenced more by the inaccuracy of the material parameters than
by the calculation method. Hence, the simplified version of the deflection formula will provide
sufficient accuracy for most practical applications.
Figure 5: Simply supported beam under distributed load: a) structure; b) bending moment;
c) curvatures
3.3 Deflection under distributed load
A simply supported beam under distributed load can be treated analogously to the example above:
a cross-sectional analysis provides the strains and stresses and the curvature can be derived.
Figure 5 shows the bending moment and curvature line. Again, the midspan deflection can be
determined by integration of the curvatures. Consideration of state I, II and III yields the following
expression:
Analysis of Beams Strengthened with CFRP Laminates 6
International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Vienna, October 5-7, 2000.
( )

'

+
1
]
1

,
_

+ +
,
_

+
+
,
_

1
]
1

,
_

+ +
,
_

+

+
2
2
6
5
3
1
3
5
8
1
2
1
6
1
6
5
8
1
cr cr y
y ms
ms
l w (6)
Once again, the simplified version appears to be much more comfortable for practical use:
ms ms
l w
2
48
5
(7)
4. Strengthening of a two-span continuous beam
The majority of laboratory investigations of CFRP strengthened concrete systems test simply
supported beams. When CFRP laminates are used for real strengthening of existing buildings the
structure is given, and the object of interest will often be a statically indeterminate structure.
Different strengthening concepts are possible and the most appropriate method should be found.
When dealing with statically indeterminate systems deformation compatibility has to be considered
in order to determine the bending moment diagram. The basics for analysis are as listed above.
Several additional assumptions will also be required:
- The whole structure is cracked, i.e. only state II and III are possible.
- CFRP laminates on the compression side of the beam can be neglected.
- There are no initial strains that have to be considered; i.e., the structure has been strengthened
in a completely load relieved state.
- A laminate strain restriction is regarded as a failure criterion:
l
<
lmax
= 0.5 %. The
corresponding moment is the flexural resistance M(
lmax
).
- Anchorage problems will not be considered.
The example structure consists of two spans of 6.00 m, both carrying a distributed load q. Figure 6
gives the cross-section i) and three different strengthening arrangements ii) - iv). As the CFRP
laminates have no influence on the compression side of the beam, the given cross-section can be
considered as constant throughout the entire length of the beam. The diagrams in Figure 6 show
the relationship between flexural moment and curvature for the cases i) iv) derived from cross-
sectional analysis. The beam will not necessarily respond symmetrically on positive and negative
bending moment. Hence, a detailed analysis requires a distinction to be drawn between state II and
III and between positive and negative flexural sections (Figure 7c)). Consistent with the
assumptions mentioned above the uncracked part (state I) will not be taken into account.
Two-span continuous beam
span length: l = 6000 mm
cross-section: b = 1000 mm, h = 200 mm,
c = 35 mm
concrete: fc = 20 MPa, Ec = 35 Gpa
steel: As = 393 mm
2
, As = 393 mm
2
,
fy = 500 MPa, Es = 210 GPa
CFRP-laminate: Al = 60 mm
2
, El = 161 GPa (per
laminate)
Characteristic moments [kNm]
case
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
in positive moment
region (in span)
Mpl = 34.8
M(lmax) = 53.2
M(lmax) = 53.2
M(lmax) = 53.2
in negative moment
region (at support)
Mpl = -34.8
Mpl = -34.8
M(lmax) = -53.2
M(lmax) = -75.2
b, h: cross-sectional width, height; c: cover to bar
center; Mpl: positive, negative plastic bending moment;
M(lmax): flexural resistance in strengthened area
Analysis of Beams Strengthened with CFRP Laminates 7
International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Vienna, October 5-7, 2000.
Figure 6: Response of differently strengthened cross-sections
Figure 7: Two-span continuous beam: a) structure; b) consideration of one span; c) bending
moment; d) curvatures
A possible analytical procedure is given in Figure 7. A simply supported beam with a distributed
load and an external bending moment at one end can be considered as one span of the original
system. The task is to find the ultimate load q
u
and the corresponding bending moment diagram for
the cases i) - iv) in Figure 6.
Case i) is an unstrengthened steel reinforced concrete beam. The ultimate load can be determined
by application of classical ultimate limit analysis based on the theory of plasticity (Thrlimann [10]).
In case ii) a plastic hinge with moment M
pl
can be inserted at the support in B. Hence, the
corresponding Moment M
B
is defined and the ultimate load q
u
can be found.
In cases iii) and iv) the support area is strengthened and the ultimate state is represented by the
strain restriction
l
=
lmax
= 0.5 %. The corresponding moment M
B
= M(
lmax
) can be determined and
an iterative procedure for the finding of q
u
is recommended:
1. Estimate load q
u
2. Determine the structure's response under q
u
and M
B
= M(
lmax
)
3. Perform cross-sectional analysis in order to find the characteristic locations and curvatures
(Figure 7d)).
4. Determine the angle
B
by integrating the curvatures (eq. (8)).
( )
( )

'

'

1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

,
_

1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

+

+

1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

l x l
x x l
l
x
x
x
l
x
l
l
x l
x
x
x
x x
x x
x
l l
l x
l x x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
l x
x
l
y
y y
y
s
y B
y y
y
s
y
y y
s
y
y y
y
y
s
y
y y
s
s
s
s
B
6 2 3
1 1
4
2
1
4
4 3 4 3
4
6 2 3
1
4
12 4 3
4
3
3 2
3
0 0 0
2 2
0 0 0
4 3
0
4 3
0
0
3
0
2
0
3
0 0
3
0
0
4 3
2
(8)
s, y, B: curvature in span, at yielding, at support B (Figure 7d));
xs, xy, x0, xB: characteristic locations on x-axis (Figure 7d)); l: span length
5. Repeat procedure steps 1. 4. until the compatibility requirement
B
= 0 is fulfilled.
The diagrams in Figure 8 show the ultimate distributed load q
u
and the corresponding bending
moment diagram for cases i) iv) in Figure 6. Some interesting conclusions can be drawn:
- In cases iii) and iv) the whole structure is strengthened with CFRP laminates. In spite of the
presence of cracks and local yielding of the steel bars, the moment curve hardly deviates from
the elastically determined line. Therefore the labour-intensive procedure mentioned above can
be replaced by a simple elastic treatment of the global structure. This corresponds to the
Analysis of Beams Strengthened with CFRP Laminates 8
International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Vienna, October 5-7, 2000.
finding from the simplified determination of the deflection of a simply supported beam.
Obviously the bending moment diagram can be determined by using elastic methods for
structures that are strengthened with CFRP laminates in all bending areas.
- In cases iii) and iv) the flexural resistance M(
lmax
) in the midspan can not be achieved.
Theoretically the appropriate ratio of strengthening in the midspan to strengthening over the
support can be easily determined. This is only of limited significance for the strengthening of
old structures, because restraints may cause completely different states to those assumed in
the calculation.
- In spite of more strengthening in case iii) the ulimate load q
u
is lower than in case ii). The
collapse over the support may possibly turn case iii) into case ii) and the corresonding ultimate
load can be reached in a second phase.
- Case ii) appears to represent a good concept for the strengthening of continuous girders. A
plastic hinge over the support permits large global deformations and the flexural resistance
M(
lmax
) in the midspan can be achieved. Hence, a good exploitation of the system reserves is
possible. In case of restraints the plastic hinge can deform without affecting the strengthened
midspan.
Figure 8: Two-span continuous beam at ultimate load: cases i) iv)
5. Conclusions
CFRP strengthened structures can in most cases be analysed by applying a transparent analytical
model. A high level of consistency between the theoretical and experimental response of a simply
supported beam was found. The analogous analysis of a two-span continuous beam permits a
theoretical study of the structural response.
In areas where the steel yielding moment M
y
is exceeded, the CFRP laminate must bear the
additional part of the flexural tension force. The resulting laminate and shear stresses rise and, as
a result, this state III area contains considerable potential for causing failures.
Concrete structures that are strengthened with CFRP laminates in all flexural areas show a linear
response character up to system failure. Hence, simplified analytical considerations can be applied
to many practical problems:
- The bending moment diagram of statically indeterminate systems can be obtained by using
common elastic methods.
- Deflections can be derived from curvature lines that display an affinity to the bending moment
line.
Analysis of Beams Strengthened with CFRP Laminates 9
International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Vienna, October 5-7, 2000.
Regarding ultimate limit aspects, continuous girder structures should be strengthened by the
application of CFRP laminates in the spans only. Then plastic hinges can occur at the
unstrengthened support areas to permit a good exploitation of the system reserves.
Notation
A cross-sectional area shear stress
B support indication angle
E modulus of elasticity curvature
F force
M bending moment
Q single load Subscripts
b width B support indication
c cover to bar center c concrete
f strength cr crack
h height l CFRP laminate
l span length max maximum
q distributed load ms midspan
w deflection pl plastic
x coordinate s steel, span
z compression zone depth s steel at compression
t tension
difference u ultimate
location parameter y yield
location parameter
location parameter
strain Superscripts
coefficient
normal stress in the cracks
References
[1] Meier, U.: Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymers: Modern Materials in Bridge Engineering.
Structural Engineering International 1 (1992), pp. 7 12.
[2] Kaiser, H.: Bewehren von Stahlbeton mit kohlenstoffaserverstrkten Epoxidharzen. Diss.
ETH Nr. 8918, Zrich (Schweiz) 1989.
[3] Deuring, M.: Verstrken von Stahlbeton mit gespannten Faserverbundwerkstoffen. EMPA
Bericht Nr. 224, Dbendorf (Schweiz), 1993.
[4] Meier, U., Betti, R. (Eds.): Recent Advances in Bridge Engineering. First edition, EMPA
Duebendorf (Switzerland) 1997.
[5] Holzenkmpfer, P.: Ingenieurmodelle des Verbunds geklebter Bewehrung fr
Betonbauteile. Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, Heft 473, Berlin (Deutschland) 1997.
[6] Raoof, M., Hassanen, M.A.H.: Reinforced concrete beams upgraded with externally
bonded steel or FRP plates. Bridge Management 4, Thomas Telford, London (UK) 2000,
pp. 508 515.
[7] Rabinoviotch, O., Frostig, Y.: Edge Effects in Retrofitting of Concrete Beams Using Fiber
Reinforced Polymer StripesClosed Form, High-Order Theory Approach. Fourth
International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement fpr Reinforced
Concrete Structures, Baltimore (USA) 1999, pp. 179 191.
[8] Leonhard, F., Mnnig, E.: Vorlesung ber Massivbau, Teil 1, 3. Auflage, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York: Springer Verlag 1984.
[9] SIA Norm 162: Betonbauten. Ausgabe 1989, Zrich (Schweiz), 85 pp.
[10] Thrlimann, B., Marti, P., Pralong, J., Ritz, P., Zimmerli, B.: Anwendung der
Plastizittstheorie auf Stahlbeton. Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zrich
(Schweiz) 1983.