04chapter5 1 PDF

CHAPTER
5 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON
MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION
CONTENTS
5 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION 277
5.1 Introduction 279
5.2 Literature Review 280

5.2.1 Definition of Ductility 280
5.2.2 Definition of Moment redistribution 281
5.2.3 Tests on Continuous Plated RC Beams 283
5.3 Experimental Studies on RC Beams with Externally Bonded Steel/FRP Plates 286
5.3.1 Geometry of Test Specimens 286
5.3.2 Test Setup and Instrumentation 288
5.3.3 Material Properties 290
5.3.4 Test Results 293
5.3.4.1 Beam SS1 (Steel 75x3) 294
5.3.4.2 Beam SS2 (Steel 112x2) 300
5.3.4.3 Beam SS3 (Steel 224x1) 306
5.3.4.4 Beam SF1 (CFRP 25x2.4) 312
5.3.4.5 Beam SF2 (CFRP 50x1.2) 317
5.3.4.6 Beam SF3 (CFRP 80x1.2) 322
5.3.4.7 Beam SF4 (CFRP 100x0.6) 327
5.3.5 Summary and Discussions 333
5.3.5.1 Journal Paper: Moment Redistribution in Continuous Plated RC Flexural Members Part 1 - Neutral Axis
Depth Approach and Tests 333
5.4 Experimental Studies on RC Beams with Near Surface Mounted Steel/FRP Strips 351
5.4.1 Geometry of Test Specimens 351
5.4.2 Test Setup and Instrumentation 355
5.4.3 Material Properties 359
5.4.4 Test Results 361
- 277 -
5.4.4.1 Beam NS_F1 (5 x CFRP1.2mm) 362
5.4.4.2 Beam NS_F2 (2 x CFRP1.2mm) 369
5.4.4.3 Beam NS_F3 (1 x CFRP1.2mm) 376
5.4.4.4 Beam NS_F4 (1 x 2CFRP1.2mm) 383
5.4.4.5 Beam NS_S1 (4 x Steel 0.9mm) 389
5.4.4.6 Beam NS_S2 (2 x 2 Steel 0.9mm) 394
5.4.4.7 Beam NB_F1 (2 x CFRP1.2mm) 400
5.4.4.8 Beam NB_F2 (2 x CFRP1.2mm) 407
5.4.4.9 Beam NB_F3 (2 x 2CFRP1.2mm) 414
5.4.5 Summary and Discussions 421
5.4.5.1 Journal Paper: Tests on the Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Beams Retrofitted with FRP and Steel
Near Surface Mounted Plates 421
5.5 Summary 441
5.6 References 442
5.7 Notations 444
- 278 -
Intermediate Crack Debonding of Plated RC Beams Experimental Investigation on Moment Redistribution
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete beams retrofitted with externally bonded (EB) or near surface mounted (NSM)
plates can effectively increase the strength of members (Oehlers & Seracino 2004; Swamy & Gaul
1996; Spadea et al. 2001), however, due to premature debonding of the plates as previously
discussed in Chapter 1, the ductility of plated beams can be severely reduced to such an extent that
plating guidelines often exclude moment redistribution (fib 2001; Concrete Society 2000). This
exclusion may reduce the application of plating, particularly when retrofitting buildings where ductility
is often a requirement.
It has been shown in Chapter 1 that plate end (PE) debonding can be prevented by the position of the
termination of the plates. Critical diagonal crack (CDC) debonding can also be prevented through
proper design using the passive prestressed model proposed in Chapter 4. The problem is
intermediate crack (IC) debonding, which is difficult to prevent even though an analytical model has
been proposed in Chapter 2 to model its behaviour. Studies conducted by various researchers have
showed that even though the use of end anchorage can prevent premature PE debonding, local
debonding, that is IC debonding, can still occur along the span of the beam and lead to premature
failure prior to achieving the desired strength or ductility (Ashour et al. 2004; Swamy &
Mukhopadhyaya 1999; Garden & Hollaway 1998; Spadea et al. 1998; Lamanna et al. 2001).
Therefore, the ductility, and consequently the moment redistribution capacity of plated continuous
members is dependent on the IC debonding resistance.
Very little research has been carried out on moment redistribution of EB or NSM beams, even though
many in-situ RC beams are continuous members (El-Rafaie et al. 2002, 2003; Khalifa et al. 1999). It is
suggested by both fib (2001) and Concrete Society (2000) that moment redistribution should not be
allowed for plated RC beams, however Mukhopadhyaya et al. (1998) showed that the ductility of a
plated beam could be higher than that of an unplated beam if designed properly, and from a few tests
carried out by various researchers (El-Rafaie et al. 2002, 2003; Ashour et al. 2004), moment
redistribution is observed. Tests on simply supported RC beams with NSM strips (Hassan & Rizkalla
2003; Taljsten & Carolin 2003; Blaschko 2003) have shown that NSM plates debond or fail at much
higher strains than EB plates, and, hence, it would be expected that NSM plated beams show
substantially greater ductility than EB plated beams. It is therefore necessary to perform further
research on the moment redistribution of EB and NSM members.
- 279 -
In this Chapter, a literature review is carried out on the existing tests performed by different
researchers on continuous plated RC beams. Through these limited test results, it is shown that
moment redistribution can be obtained in plated members, however further experimental studies are
needed to investigate the moment redistribution behaviour of plated members so that design
approaches can be developed to analyse the moment redistribution of continuous plated members. In
this research, an experimental program was carried out to investigate the behaviour of continuous RC
beams with EB and NSM plates. A series of seven full-scale tests on two span continuous beams with
EB steel or CFRP plates was performed and analysed, and is described in detail in Section 5.3 with a
summary and discussion of the test results presented in the journal paper Oehlers et al. (2004)
included in Section 5.3.5.1. In Section 5.4, nine two-span continuous beams retrofitted with NSM steel
or CFRP strips were tested to examine the ductility capacity as measured directly by the moment
redistributed. A summary and discussion of the test results are presented in the journal paper Liu et al.
(2005) included in Section 5.4.5.1. The test results presented in this Chapter will be used later in
Chapter 6 to verify the flexural rigidity approach developed in this research for analysing the moment
redistribution of plated members.
5.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

In this Section, the importance of ductility and how the member ductility can be affected by externally
bonded plates is first discussed. The definition and ways of measuring moment redistribution is
described in Section 5.2.2. Finally, a review of the existing literature of tests performed by various
researchers on continuous plated RC beams is presented in Section 5.2.3.
5.2.1 DEFINITION OF DUCTILITY

Ductility is an important property of structural members that allows large deformations and deflections
to occur under overload (plastic) conditions. It provides warning of the imminence of failure for
statically determinate beams, and it allows moment redistribution to occur in statically indeterminate
beam at overload (Warner et al. 1998). The ductility of a member can be determined from moment
curvature relation, where larger deformations indicate better ductility. Factors such as material ductility
and sectional properties influence the ductility of the member. For moment redistribution to occur,
- 280 -
sufficient ductility is required in the structure, hence it is a fundamental behaviour when designing for
continuous plated beams.
Ductility has always been a concern when retrofitting a beam using external plates, as it is widely
acknowledged that this retrofitting technique will reduce the ductility of the member due to the external
plate (Bencardino et al. 1996, 2002; Swamy et al. 1996; Spadea et al. 2001; El-Refaie et al. 2002,
2003). The ductility of a member is largely dependent on the material and the geometry of the plates
used. For beams externally bonded with FRP plates, because of the linear elastic stress-strain
behaviour of FRP and its high tensile strength and high strain at fracture, tests have shown that these
beams are prone to brittle premature debonding failure, well before the design capacity is reached
(Spadea et al. 2001; Ritchie et al. 1991; Saadatmanesh & Ehsani 1991). Beams plated with steel
plates can provide good ductility, but depending on the plating geometry, it is possible that brittle
debonding failure occurs prior to concrete crushing as have been shown by numerous tests performed
by different researchers (Mohamed Ali 2000; Ashrafuddin et al. 1999; Oehlers & Moran 1990; Nguyen
& Oehlers 1997).
Due to the additional plate and the bond in the plate/concrete interface, the strain at which failure of
the beam occurs is reduced, therefore the ductility of plated members and their ability to redistribute
moment is less than that of unplated RC beams. At present, there are only rules of thumb (i.e. fib
2001), such as ensuring that internal reinforcing bars yield before plates debond or fracture, to
guarantee that there is adequate amount of ductility. The ductility index used in many international RC
codes that places limits on the neutral axis depth dn cannot be used in plated beams. This is because
the curvature of an RC member is based on the strain in the concrete, whereas for plated members
the curvature is usually dependent on the strain in the plate. A few researchers have looked into
defining the ductility of plated RC beams based on deflection and energy. Although ductility indices
were found to give good representation of the physical aspects of the ductility of the beams (Spadea
et al. 2001; El-Refaie et al. 2002, 2003), how the concept of ductility indices can be applied in practice
is unclear.
5.2.2 DEFINITION OF MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION

Moment redistribution in a statically indeterminate beam is the transfer of moment between high
moment regions in the member, while maintaining the overall strength. At the initial stage of loading,
the continuous beam will behave linear elastically such that both span moments and support moments
- 281 -
will increase proportional to the increase in applied load. Eventually, the ultimate strength will be
reached at the maximum moment sections upon further increase in the applied moment. Now as the
load is increased further, the moments will redistribute from the maximum moment sections to other
parts of the beam, such that the total static moment in the beam remains unchanged.
There are various ways of measuring the degree of moment redistribution β as shown in Table 5.1
(Rebentrost 2003), and it is found that the majority of these methods are dependent on the
comparison of the plastic and elastic moments. Rebentrost (2003), Lin & Chien (2000) and many other
researchers relate the difference between the actual and elastic moments to the elastic moment as a
percentage (Table 5.1). An approach similar to Rebentrost’s (2003) is adopted in this research, where
it is assumed that the flexural rigidity of an RC beam is constant in order to determine the elastic
distribution of moments. Therefore, the moment redistribution is defined as the change in moment
from the elastic moment based on the flexural rigidity being constant throughout the beam, with the
percentage redistribution of moment from the hogging region given by Equation 5.1.
Table 5.1 Definitions of moment redistribution (Rebentrost 2003)
Reference Definition of moment redistribution

β, βp = moment redistribution
w
Trichy and β = ult wult = ultimate load
Rakosnik (1977) w pl
wpl = plastic failure load
M = actual moment
Cohn (1986) β = M el − M Mel = elastic moment due to ultimate
load
γ col − γ f PAR=plastic adaptation ratio; γf =load
Arenas (1985) PAR = factor at failure; γcol =collapse load
γ pl − γ f factor; γfpl=plastic failure load factor
wnl − wel
Bennett (1960); β= wel,pl,nl = loads based linear elastic,
Moucassian (1988) w pl − wel plastic and non-linear analysis
βmax = maximum % MR required for wpl

 M f − M ult  Mult = ultimate moment
Scholz (1990) β p = 1 −  β max
 M el + M pl − M ult  Mf = factor moment
Mpl = plastic moment
M − M el M = actual moment
Rebentrost et al. β=
(1999) Mel, Mpl =elastic M corresponding to
M el
P, Ppl
- 282 -
(M ) − (M )
% MR = × 100
hog EI .const hog test
(M ) hog EI .const
Equation 5.1
Where in Equation 5.1 for a specific static moment, (Mhog)EI.const is the theoretical hogging moment
from a linear elastic analysis which assumes that the flexural rigidity EI is constant and (Mhog)test is the
experimental hogging moment for the same static moment, that is for the same applied load.
5.2.3 TESTS ON CONTINUOUS PLATED RC BEAMS

The majority of existing research on plated structures focuses on the debonding mechanisms of
simply supported beams and very limited research has been carried out on continuous beams with
externally bonded plates. Park (Park & Oehlers 2000) performed tests on a series of continuous
beams with externally bonded steel or FRP plates over both the sagging and hogging regions. The
plates were applied on either the tension face or the side faces of the beam. For both steel and FRP
plated beams, plate debonding was observed. This indicates that although steel is a ductile material,
the EB steel plates can still reduce the ductility of the retrofitted beam depending on the plating
dimensions and positions. Due to the geometry of the beams and the test set-up, almost zero moment
redistribution was obtained in all the tests.
El-Refaie et al. (2002, 2003; Ashour et al. 2004) performed tests on sixteen RC continuous beams
with different arrangements of internal and external reinforcement. All beams were plated with CFRP
sheets or plates over the hogging and/or sagging regions as shown in Figure 5.1. The specimens
were classified into three groups: H, S, and E, where the beams within each group have the same
geometrical dimensions. For the three groups of beams tested, the length, thickness, form and
position of the CFRP plates were varied to investigate its effects on the strength and ductility of the
plated members. The dimensions of the plates are shown in Table 5.2 where Np, L1, and L2 are the
number of CFRP sheets; length of the plate over the hogging and sagging regions respectively. All
specimens were plated with CFRP sheets, each layer of 0.117mm thickness, except for beams E2,
E3, E4 which were strengthened with CFRP plates of 1.2mm thickness. The percentage of moment
redistribution for the maximum sagging %MRs and hogging %MRh moments at failure are shown in
Table 5.2, where %MR was calculated based on the definition adopted by Rebentrost et al. (1999) in
Table 5.1. Note that for beams with %MRh<0, moment was redistributed from the hogging to the
sagging region i.e. group H, while the reverse occurred for beams with %MRh>0 i.e. group S.
- 283 -
Figure 5.1 Tests performed by El-Refaie et al. (2002, 2003)
Table 5.2 Beam details and results of tests performed by El-Refaie et al. (2002, 2003)
Top Bottom hogging sagging %moment redistribution

specimen reinf. reinf.
Np L1 (m) Np L2 (m) %MRh %MRs
H1 - - - - -64 38
H2 2 2.0 - - -31 19
H3 2T8 2T20 6 2.0 - - -19 11
steel steel
H4 bars bars 10 2.0 - - -11 6
H5 6 1.0 - - -31 19
H6 2 3.0 2 1.0 -35 21
S1 - - - - 87 -52
S2 - - 2 2.0 61 -37
2T20 2T8
S3 steel steel - - 6 2.0 55 -33
bars bars
S4 - - 6 3.5 45 -27
S5 - - 10 3.5 21 -12
E1 - - - - -1 1
E2 1 2.5 - - -24 15
2T16 2T16
E3 steel steel - - 1 3.5 28 -17
bars bars
E4 1 2.5 1 3.5 7 -4
E5 6 2.5 - - -23 14
- 284 -
Through these tests, it was found that premature plate debonding was the dominant failure mode, and
significant amounts of moment redistribution were obtained in all the beams (Table 5.2). This
contradicts the existing design guidelines (fib 2001; Concrete Society 2000) which suggest that
moment redistribution should not be allowed for plated RC beams. The unplated control beams H1
and S1 showed significantly greater %MR than the plated beams, indicating reduction in ductility as a
result of plating. For the group E beams which had the same internal reinforcement at the top and
bottom of the beams, the unplated beam E1 had almost zero %MR, while moment redistribution was
observed in the plated beams in this test group, especially for the beams plated over either the
hogging or sagging region only (Table 5.2). This is because, when the hogging or sagging regions are
plated, the stiffness of this region was increased, which caused a variation of flexural stiffness along
the beam such that more moment was attracted to the strengthened region as compared to before the
region was plated. Therefore, the redistribution of the moments is largely dependent on the positions
and dimensions of the plates (Table 5.2), and consequently the variation in flexural stiffness along the
beam. The tests also showed that although CFRP was plated along the entire hogging or sagging
region, this did not prevent premature debonding of the plates. Therefore, further research into the
moment redistribution of EB beams is essential.
Tests on simply supported RC beams with NSM strips (Hassan & Rizkalla 2003; Taljsten & Carolin
2003; Blaschko 2003) have shown that NSM plates debond or fail at much higher strains than EB
plates, therefore in general NSM plated beams are expected to be more ductile than EB plated
beams. However, depending on the anchorage length of the NSM strips, premature debonding failure
prior to concrete crushing is possible (Hassan & Rizkalla 2003; Barros & Fortes 2005). This means
that the existing design approaches for ductility and moment redistribution of unplated RC beams
cannot be applied to NSM beams as the former requires that concrete crushing occurs. Most of the
tests carried out an NSM plated beams are simply support, there is no experimental nor theoretical
studies carried out on the moment redistribution of continuous NSM plated beams. As many in-situ RC
beams are of continuous construction, investigation is needed to examine the behaviour of continuous
beams with NSM plates.
- 285 -
5.3 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON RC BEAMS WITH EXTERNALLY BONDED

STEEL/FRP PLATES
In this test program, seven continuous RC beams with externally bonded steel or CFRP plates of
various dimensions were tested. The specific aim of these tests was to both demonstrate and
measure moment redistribution in externally bonded plated flexural members and not to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the strengthening method. In this Chapter, the specimens, the test set-up and the
material properties are first described, followed by thorough descriptions of the results from each test.
Finally in Section 5.3.5, a summary of the test results are presented in the attached journal paper,
along with a comparison between the results for the different beams to illustrate the effectiveness of
the various plating systems.
5.3.1 GEOMETRY OF TEST SPECIMENS

Each of the seven specimens tested consists of the two spans of length L=2400mm as illustrated in
Figure 5.2 with the cross-section of the beams shown in Figure 5.3 and the geometry of the plates
given in Table 5.3, where tp, bp and be are the plate thickness, plate width, and the distance from the
edge of the plate to the side of the beam. The three steel plated test beams are denoted as SS1, SS2,
and SS3; and the four CFRP plated specimens are denoted as SF1, SF2, SF3, and SF4. The hogging
regions of each beam was plated over the tension face with steel or FRP plates of length Lp=2200mm,
and the sagging regions were left unplated as in Figure 5.2. The internal reinforcement is the same
throughout the beam, where two mild steel bars of diameter 12mm were placed at the top of the
beam, and four mild steel bars of diameter 16mm were placed at the bottom of the beam. Therefore,
the tensile reinforcement in the hogging region, 2Y12 bars, was much less than the tensile
reinforcement in the sagging region, 4Y16 bars, to ensure that the plated hogging region reached its
moment capacity first; this then allowed the hogging region to shed moment, or redistribute moment,
to the sagging region as the static moment was being increased, thereby, increasing the sagging
moment. The internal bars were equally spaced with a distance of 20mm from the edge of the
concrete to the centre of the bars as illustrated in Figure 5.3. All beams tested had W10 stirrups
placed at 1200mm centre to centre (c/c) to hold the longitudinal bars in position.
- 286 -
P P
1200 1100 1100 1200
2Y12
Plate
East W10 stirrup @1200c/c West
support Interior support support 4Y16
100 100
2400 2400
5000
All dimensions in mm
Figure 5.2 Two span continuous beam specimens

be bp be
375
2Y12 2Y12
20
tp
120 120
20 4Y16 4Y16
W10 @
1200c/c
W10 @ 1200c/c 375
Sagging region Hogging region
Figure 5.3 Cross-sectional details of EB test series
Table 5.3 Geometrical properties of externally bonded plates
Specimen material tp (mm) bp (mm) be (mm)

SS1 Steel plate 3 75 150
SS2 Steel plate 2 112 131.5
SS3 Steel plate 1 224 75.5
SF1 CFRP plate 2.4 25 175
SF2 CFRP plate 1.2 50 162.5
SF3 CFRP plate 1.2 80 147.5
SF4 3 x CFRP sheeta 2.44b 100 137.5
a 0.2mm thick carbon FRP fabric
b measured thickness
The main variable of the different specimens was the plate properties with details of the plate
geometry given in Table 5.3. Specimens SS1 to SS3 used adhesively bonded mild steel plates with
plate thicknesses tp that varied from 1 mm to 3 mm. The plate widths (bp ) were varied to ensure
virtually the same cross-sectional area and, hence, the same axial rigidity (EA) so that the theoretical
- 287 -
moment-curvature relationships, ignoring intermediate crack debonding, would be identical.

Specimens SF1 to SF3 used adhesively bonded pultruded carbon FRP plates of thicknesses 1.2 mm
and 2.4 mm. Whereas, Specimen SF4 used three layers of carbon FRP fabric, each with a thickness
of 0.2mm, that was applied using the wet lay-up procedure; its thickness and Young’s modulus were
measured directly from specimens that were taken from the plated beam. The plate widths were
varied from 25 mm to 100 mm and specimens SF1 and SF2 had plates of the same axial rigidity.
The specimens were designed such that CDC and PE debonding did not precede IC debonding. PE
debonding was prevented by terminating the plate beyond the point of contraflexure and onto the
compression faces of the sagging regions. CDC debonding was prevented by ensuring that a critical
diagonal crack, associated with the concrete component of the vertical shear capacity Vc, did not
occur prior to plate debonding; because of the CDC requirement the slab shaped cross-section was
used.
To explain the reason for the slab shaped cross-section shown in Figure 5.3, let us consider the
capacity of a beam or slab without stirrups so that the strength is controlled by either the flexural
capacity or the concrete component of the shear capacity Vc, as the latter controls CDC debonding.
Let us consider a rectangular beam or slab which has the same cross-sectional area of concrete and
the same cross-sectional area of longitudinal tension reinforcing bars. The beam shaped cross-
section, in which the width is less than the depth, is more prone to vertical shear failure, and CDC
debonding at Vc, than the slab shaped cross-section, in which the width is greater than the depth. This
is because the concrete component of the vertical shear capacity of these two shapes Vc is roughly
equal and, hence, their resistance to CDC debonding. However, the beam shaped cross-section will
have a higher flexural capacity than the slab shaped cross-section due to the increased depth (lever
arm) and, consequently, can resist a greater applied load at flexural failure with its associated greater
vertical shear force. Therefore, beam shapes without stirrups are more prone to shear failure at Vc and
consequently CDC debonding than slab shapes. Hence a relatively large but realistic span-to-depth
ratio of 20 was required and the use of a slab shaped cross-section in which the width was greater
than the depth as shown in Figure 5.3.
5.3.2 TEST SETUP AND INSTRUMENTATION

Identical test setup and instrumentation was used in all seven specimens. The concentrated loads P
were applied at mid-span as in Figure 5.4 so that, for an elastic distribution of moment with an
- 288 -
assumed constant flexural rigidity, the maximum hogging moment would be 20% greater than the
maximum sagging moment. As the system is symmetrical, the specimen can be analysed as a single
span with the moment distribution illustrated in Figure 5.5, where Mstatic, Mhog, and Msag are the static,
hogging and sagging moments respectively. From similar triangles, Mstatic is also given by Equation
5.2. The loads were applied on the top of the beam by hand operated hydraulic jack through load cells
and knife edge bearings of 100mm in width. The test rig over one span is shown in Figure 5.6.
Deflections were measured under the applied loads P using LVDTs, load cells were placed at the
applied loads and at the west support in Figure 5.4 so that the distribution of forces could be
determined directly. Two LVDTs were placed over the externally bonded plate at 100mm from the
interior support as illustrated in Figure 5.7 to measure the slip between the concrete and the plates.
P P
1200 1100 1100 1200
LC1 LC2
East 100 100 West

Plate
LVDT 1 LVDT 1 LC3

100 100
2400 2400
5000
Figure 5.4 Test set-up
L
L/2
Mhog
P
Msag
R Mstatic=PL/4
Figure 5.5 Moment distribution
PL M hog
M static = = M sag + Equation 5.2
4 2
- 289 -
Hydraulic jack
Interior support
Figure 5.6 Test rig
1100 1100
Plate
LVDT 3 LVDT 4
900 100 100 100 100 900
Figure 5.7 LVDT positions for slip between concrete and EB plates
Seven strain gauges (SG) were bonded along the centre of the external plate of each specimen over
the interior support at 200mm centre to centre spacing, and two strain gauges were placed at 100mm
from each end of the plate as illustrated in Figure 5.8. These strain gauges were used to measure the
strains in the plates, as well as to detect the propagation of the debonding cracks.
1100 1100
Plate
SG1 SG3 SG5 SG7 SG9
SG2 SG4 SG6 SG8
100 100
400 200 200 200 200 200 200 400
Figure 5.8 Strain gauges positions for externally bonded plated
5.3.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

The test beams were cast from a single concrete pour, but because the specimens where tested at
different times, the concrete properties for the specimens were substantially different. The concrete
- 290 -
properties of specimens SS1, SF1, SF2 and SF3 are given in Table 5.4, where Ec and fc are the
Young’s modulus and the cylinder compressive strength respectively. The remaining specimens had
concrete properties given in Table 5.5, where indirect tensile tests were also carried out to measure
the tensile strength ft of the concrete.
Table 5.4 Concrete properties for beams SS1, SF1, SF2, SF3
Age Sample No. Ec (MPa) fc (MPa) Density (x10-3 g/mm3)

1 36,327 39.1 2.33
2 35,251 38.8 2.32
50a
3 35,705 39.8 2.36
(Days)
Average 35,761 39.2 2.34
1 33,797 35.9 2.32
2 35,661 38.2 2.32
59b
3 35,626 40.8 2.33
(Days)
Average 35,028 38.3 2.32
Average 35,394 38.8 2.33
a Concrete age of the first test
b Concrete age of last test
Table 5.5 Concrete properties for beams SS2, SS3, SF4
Age Sample No. Ec (MPa) ft (MPa) fc (MPa) Density (x10-3 g/mm3)

1 39814 4.39 48.03 2.31
2 44597 4.98 49.29 2.36
330
3 39578 4.96 47.49 2.32
(Days)
4 39023 - 48.27 2.33
Average 40753 4.78 48.27 2.33
Tensile tests were performed on the internal reinforcing bars used in the test specimens to obtain the
yield fy and fracture frac strengths of the bars as given in Table 5.6. Being mild steel, the bar’s Young’s
modulus Eb can be assumed to be 200GPa.
The material properties of the externally bonded plates were obtained from tensile tests and are given
in Table 5.7. For the mild steel plates, a Young’s modulus Ep of 200GPa is assumed. Being FRP
plates, the plates do not yield and the longitudinal Young’s modulus (i.e. parallel to the directions of
the fibres) was measured directly. For the CFRP wet lay-up used in specimen SF4, its thickness and
material properties were measured directly from specimens that were taken from the plated beam.
- 291 -
Table 5.6 Material properties of reinforcing bars for EB test series
Bars Sample no. fy (MPa) fu (MPa)

1 592 711
2 592 720
Y12
3 619 714
Average 601 715
1 532 686
2 549 679
Y16
3 537 674
Average 540 680
Table 5.7 Properties of EB plates
Material Sample no. tp (mm) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) Ep (GPa)

1 3 331 462 -
2 3 340 468 -
3 3 340 466 -
average 3 337 466 200
1 2 245 317 -
2 2 244 317 -
Steel
3 2 243 319 -
average 2 244 (223a) 318 200
1 1 247 302 -
2 1 248 304 -
3 1 248 303 -
average 1 248 (211a) 303 200
Pultruded 1 2.4 - 2800 144

CFRP 1 1.2 - 2800 144
1 2.35 - 398 43843
CFRP wet 2 2.38 - 336 45202
lay-up 3 2.60 - 317 40618
average 2.44b - 350 43221
a Proof stress
b tp is the measured thickness of 3 layers of 0.2mm thick CFRP fibres plus the adhesive
Proper preparation of the plates and the concrete surface before application is necessary to allow a
good bond to form between the plate and the concrete. Before adhesively bonding the plates to the
- 292 -
concrete surface, the surface was prepared by grit blasting to remove laitance and expose the
aggregates. The surface was then brushed mechanically to remove all loose particles. The remaining
dust and debris was then removed by blowing air. The steel plates were sand blasted to remove rust
or loose particles, and any grease or oil was removed by applying non-inflammable solvents. The
CFRP pultruded plates were cleaned with any grease or oil removed using a solvent prior to
application.
Araldite K340 and MBrace Laminate adhesive were the epoxy resins used for the steel and CFRP
plates respectively. The manufacturer’s specifications of the material properties of the epoxy resins
are given in Table 5.8. The tensile strength, longitudinal (i.e. parallel to the directions of the fibres)
Young’s modulus (Ea)l, and the perpendicular (i.e. perpendicular to the directions of the fibres)
Young’s modulus (Ea)p of the adhesives tested in this research are also shown in Table 5.8. The
adhesives used were mixed according to the specifications recommended by the resin manufacturer,
which ensured that no air bubbles or voids were entrapped in the adhesive when cured. For steel
plates, the adhesive was applied to the beam surface and the plate was pressed onto concrete all
over, and surplus adhesive was squeezed out at the edges. For CFRP plates, a coat of MBrace
Primer was applied on the bonding surface using a roller or brush and when it was tack-free the plate
was adhesively bonded as follows: the laminate surface was cleaned with MBT Thinner and a 1.5mm
thick layer of MBrace Laminate Adhesive was applied on both the concrete and laminate surfaces;
then a layer of laminate was applied to the concrete substrate by hand and pressed onto the adhesive
with a rubber roller. Additional CFRP layers were applied the same way on the uncured wet adhesive,
and finally, the plates were left for curing for at least seven days.
Table 5.8 Properties of adhesives from manufacturer’s specifications
Manufacturer’s specifications From tests

Epoxy Tensile
Compressive Tensile Flexural Max. Tensile
resin bond (Ea)l (Ea)p
strength strength strength operating strength
strength (MPa) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) temp. (MPa)
(MPa)
Araldite
100-120 30-40 20-30 15-17 85oC 24.7 4538 12109
K340
MBrace >60 N/A >30 >3.5 N/A 16.1 5352 17030
5.3.4 TEST RESULTS

In the following section, descriptions of the behaviour of the beams as loads were gradually applied,
and analyses of the test results are presented for each test specimen.
- 293 -
5.3.4.1 BEAM SS1 (STEEL 75X3)

The beam was plated with a 3mm thick steel plate on the tension face over the interior support. As the
hogging region of the beam is much weaker than the sagging region, failure was expected in the
hogging region. The test specimen was designed against CDC and PE debonding failure, therefore IC
debonding failure was expected to occur. The beams were initially tested under load control where a
load P was applied at small increments at each span as shown in Figure 5.4 until the maximum
applied load was obtained, and thereafter the beam was loaded under deflection control up to failure.
As the beam was gradually loaded, the first flexural crack was found at the interior support at an
applied load P of 9kN, with an average reaction force R of 2.9kN at the external supports. This caused
a maximum moment at the hogging Mhog and sagging Msag regions of 3.72kNm and 3.45kNm
respectively. As the beam was further loaded, more flexural cracks formed over the hogging region as
shown in Figure 5.9, where the cracks were marked by the black lines and the numbers denote the
load P at which the crack formed. At P=30kN (R=9.9kN, Mhog=12.2kNm, Msag=11.9kNm), the plate
yielding strain was recorded at SG5 and still no sign of debonding was observed.
Figure 5.9 Beam SS1: Prior to debonding (P=32kN)
Initial debonding occurred at a load P of 37kN (R=12.6kN, Mhog=14.2kNm, Msag=15.1kNm), as shown

by the formation of the IC interface cracks propagating from the root of the flexural crack over the
interior support in Figure 5.10. Upon further loading, more IC interface cracks formed at the roots of
the flexural cracks near the interior support as shown in Figure 5.11 for an applied load of 47kN
(R=16.6kN, Mhog=16.7kNm, Msag=19.9kNm). Initially, the IC interface cracks propagated gradually
towards the plate end, joining other IC interface cracks as they moved along. When a load P=48kN
(R=17kN, Mhog=16.9kNm, Msag=20.3kNm) was applied, the IC interface cracks propagated very rapidly
- 294 -
to the east plate end, causing sudden complete debonding of the plate at a displacement of 10.3mm
in the east span as shown in Figure 5.12. A maximum plate strain of 0.004446 at SG5 was measured
just prior to IC debonding failure.
After the plate completely debonded, the beam continued to be loaded until vertical shear failure
occurred at a load P=76.45kN, at a maximum displacement of 45.84mm. Based on the measured
plate strain and from full interaction analysis, it is estimated that the tensile bars yielded at a load of
44.9kN, before complete debonding of the plate. The distribution of flexural cracks in the hogging
region over the east span is shown in Figure 5.12, where it is evident that the cracks spacings varied,
with the last flexural crack in the region, crack D, at approximately 400mm from the interior support.
IC Interface cracks
Figure 5.10 Beam SS1: Initial debonding (P=37kN)
Debonding propagation
Interior support
Figure 5.11 Beam SS1: Debonding propagation (P=47kN)
- 295 -
East Debonding propagation D C B A
support
Figure 5.12 Beam SS1: Debonding failure (P=48kN)
The variation of moment, at the position of maximum hogging Mhog and sagging Msag moments as
shown in Figure 5.5, with the mean deflection under the applied loads at mid-spans, are plotted in
Figure 5.13. It can be seen that near the start, in region A, the hogging moment was slightly greater
than the sagging moment as would be expected from an elastic analysis. After the plate yielded at
point B, the hogging moment then reduced relative to the sagging moment. Initial debonding occurred
at point C, and it was estimated that the tensile bars yielded at point D. The maximum hogging
moment and the maximum plate strain were obtained just prior to IC debonding failure, after which a
sudden reduction in Mhog occurred and the behaviour of the hogging region reverts back to that of the
unplated section at E.
45
40 Msag
35
Moment (kNm)
30
shear failure
25 D
C
20
B IC debonding failure
15
10 A Mhog
5 E
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
displacement (mm)
Figure 5.13 Beam SS1: Moment vs displacement
After the plate completely debonded at point E, the sagging moment continually increased relative to
the hogging moment which signifies moment redistribution; it was for this reason that the sagging
region was made much stronger than the hogging region in order to achieve as much moment
- 296 -
redistribution as possible. It is worth noting that the continuous beam eventually failed by vertical
shear failure in Figure 5.13. However, this occurred well after the plate had IC debonded so that the
vertical shear failure had no effect on the redistribution of moment.
Figure 5.14 shows the plate strains measured along the plate as the moment over the interior support
increased up to IC debonding failure, where the positions of the strain gauges SG are given in Figure
5.8. The steel plate first yielded at strain gauge SG5 over the interior support at a moment
Mhog=12.2kNm. After the plate yielded, the plate strain at SG5 increased rapidly due to the ductile
behaviour of steel. When the moment at interior support Mhog was 15.6kNm, the plate yielding strain
εp.y was also reached at SG4. The strain along the plate continued to increase as Mhog increased up to
IC debonding failure. This shows that the bond at the plate/concrete interface remained strong along
the beam until rapid debonding occurred, which resulted in zero bond at the interface. Therefore, the
maximum plate strain was achieved just prior to debonding failure.
18
SG6 SG4
moment at interior support (kNm)
16 SG5
SG7
14
12 SG1 SG2
SG3 SG3 SG4
10
SG5 SG6
8 SG7 SG8
6 SG9
EAST WEST
4
SG1 SG2 SG3 SG4 SG5 SG6 SG7 SG8 SG9
2
0
ε p.y
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
strain (x10-6)
Figure 5.14 Beam SS1: Moment vs plate strain
The variation of the maximum hogging moment in the beam Mhog as a proportion of the maximum
sagging moment in the beam Msag is shown in Figure 5.15. From an elastic analysis in which EI is
assumed to be constant, Mhog/Msag = 1.2 which is shown as line A in Figure 5.15. The abscissa in
Figure 5.15 is the applied static moment, Mstatic given by Equation 5.2, as a proportion of the ultimate
maximum static moment, (Mstatic)u = (Msag)u + (Mhog)u/2, based on nonlinear full interaction analysis of
the ultimate capacity of the hogging and sagging sections, (Mhog)u and (Msag)u, and ignoring IC
debonding in the case of the hogging region; hence the upper limit of Mstatic/(Mstatic)u = 1.0. For the
plated beam considered, (Mstatic)u=47.1kNm. The line marked B is the maximum redistribution
- 297 -
assuming the sagging region achieved its theoretical moment capacity Msag=(Msag)u, while the capacity
of the hogging region is the moment experimentally measured at failure Mhog=(Mhog)fail; and the line
marked C is the maximum redistribution after plate debonding that is when (Mhog)u is the theoretical
ultimate capacity of the unplated section.
1.4
1.2 A elastic (EI constant)

test results F
1 D E G bar yield
IC debonding failure
plate yield
Mhog/Msag
0.8 H
1st debonding
0.6
B I
0.4
C J
0.2
shear failure
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
MMstatic / static
static/(M (M)static
ult )u
Figure 5.15 Beam SS1: hogging-moment/sagging-moment
When the load was first applied Mhog/Msag approaches 1.2 in region D in Figure 5.15; one can still
notice a slight divergence from this value because the beam was bedding or settling down under very
small loads. Soon after, Mhog/Msag reduced gradually and the divergence from Mhog/Msag equal to 1.2
signifies moment redistribution. The first flexural crack was observed at point E, and at point F yielding
of the plate occurred over the interior support. This was shortly followed by the appearance of the first
IC interface crack at G and eventually IC debonding failure at point H which coincided with the
maximum plate strain. After the plate completely debonded in region I, the behaviour of the hogging
region reverts back to that of the unplated section. The unplated beam eventually failed in shear at
point J. It can be seen from Figure 5.15 that due to premature debonding, the maximum allowable
moment redistribution of the plated beam, line B, could not be achieved.
Figure 5.16 shows the variation of the maximum hogging Mhog and sagging Msag moments as the
applied loads P increased. (Mhog)el and (Msag)el are the hogging and sagging moments obtained based
on elastic analysis of constant EI. The greater the divergence from the elastic moments means that
more moment is being redistributed. It can be seen from Figure 5.16 that the beam behaved elastically
until the first flexural crack occurred at point A, after which small amounts of hogging moment were
redistributed to the sagging regions. It was after the yielding of the plate at point B when significant
amounts of moment redistribution were observed. When the plate debonded at point E, a sudden
- 298 -
reduction in applied load, and hence the moments, was observed. However, as the unplated RC beam
had not yet failed, the load increased again with the behaviour of the hogging region now that of the
unplated section, such that Mhog is now significantly less than prior to debonding. Mhog remained
roughly constant up to shear failure at point F, while much moment was taken up by the sagging
region, indicating that the flexural capacity of the unplated hogging section was reached.
30 45
(Mhog)el 40
shear
25 bar failure
35 F
Mhog (kNm)
yield IC debonding
Msag (kNm)
20 30
plate D failure
yield E 25
15 F E
1st flexural 20
C (Msag)el
10 crack 15
shear B
5 failure 10
1st debonding 5 A
0 0
A B C
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 D 60 80
applied load P (kN) applied load P (kN)
Figure 5.16 Beam SS1: Maximum hogging and sagging moments
The variation of percentage of moment redistribution %MR, calculated using Equation 5.1, is shown in
Figure 5.17 for different Mstatic applied. As the applied load, and hence Mstatic increased, the %MR
increased up to a maximum of 20% at IC debonding failure. After the plate debonded, the flexural
strength of the hogging region reduced, therefore the hogging moment had to redistribute to the
sagging region to allow for this reduction in strength as shown in Figure 5.16. This resulted in a
sudden increase in %MR as shown by region A in Figure 5.17. As the ductility of the unplated hogging
region is much greater than before, large %MR occurred and a maximum of 62% moment
redistribution was obtained at shear failure of the unplated beam.
70
60
% Moment redistribution
50 shear
A failure
40
30 1st debonding IC debonding

failure
20 1st flexural plate yield
crack
10 bar
yield
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)ult
u
Figure 5.17 Beam SS1: percentage of moment redistribution
- 299 -

No sign of cracking was observed until, at an applied load P of 14.8kN, three flexural cracks appeared
near the interior support. A resultant reaction force R of 4.6kN was measured at the external supports,
which caused a maximum moment at the hogging Mhog and sagging Msag regions of 5.5kNm and
6.7kNm respectively. As the beam was further loaded, more flexural cracks formed over the hogging
region. At P=19.8kN (R=6.38kN, Mhog=8.4kNm, Msag=7.65kNm), the plate reached the yielding strain
at SG5.
IC debonding first occurred at a load P of 29.8kN (R=10 kN, Mhog=11.8kNm, Msag=12kNm) near the
interior, as shown by the formation of the IC interface cracks propagating from the root of the flexural
cracks in Figure 5.18, where the cracks were marked by the black lines and the numbers denote the
load P at which the crack formed. The IC interface cracks that formed between cracks B and C in
Figure 5.18 were propagating in opposite directions, as shown by the arrows, which indicate that there
was a reverse in slip in between the two cracks. Upon further loading, more IC interface cracks formed
at the roots of the flexural cracks near the interior support as shown in Figure 5.19 for an applied load
of 38kN. These debonding cracks propagated mainly towards the plate end, joining other IC interface
cracks as they moved along, such as between cracks A, B and C in Figure 5.20. It is worth noting that
eventually no more flexural cracks formed as more load was applied, and cracks D and E in Figure
5.20 are the last flexural cracks in the hogging region, i.e. no further flexural cracking occurred in the
hogging region beyond cracks D and E.
East
IC interface cracks
A West
C B
D
Interior support
- 300 -
East
West
D C B A
Interior support
East D C B A E
Interior support
The IC interface cracks propagated rather gradually until they reached the last flexural crack, crack D
in Figure 5.21, after which the cracks propagated rapidly towards the plate end causing complete
debonding of the plate at P=64.5kN (R=24.2kN, Mhog=19.3kNm, Msag=29kNm) as shown in Figure
5.22. A maximum displacement of 17.3mm was recorded in the east span beneath the applied load at
failure. Just prior to IC debonding failure, the plate reached a maximum strain of 0.005926 at SG5.
Based on the measured plate strain and from full interaction analysis, it is estimated that the tensile
bars yielded at a load of 46.8kN, before complete debonding of the plate. Irregular flexural crack
spacings were observed in the test. The distribution of flexural cracks was similar to Specimen SS1,
- 301 -
where four cracks formed in the hogging region of the east span as shown in Figure 5.22, with the last
crack, crack D, at approximately 300mm from the interior support.
East D C B A E
Interior support
East
D C B A
Interior support
Figure 5.23 shows the variation of moment, at the position of maximum hogging Mhog and sagging
Msag moments, with the mean deflection under the applied loads at mid-spans. It can be seen that
near the start, in region A, the hogging moment was greater than the sagging moment as would be
expected from an elastic analysis. After flexural cracking (point B) occurred and the plate yielded
(point C), the hogging moment then reduced relative to the sagging moment. Once IC debonding
began at point D, the divergence between Mhog and Msag becomes greater, indicating that more
moment is being redistributed from the hogging to the sagging region. The maximum hogging moment
and the maximum plate strain were obtained just prior to IC debonding failure.
- 302 -
35
30
Msag
25 IC debonding failure
Moment (kNm)
20 1st IC
plate debonding
15 yield Mhog
10 C D bars
B
A yield
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
displacement (mm)
increased up to IC debonding failure, with the positions of the strain gauges SG given by Figure 5.8.
The steel plate first yielded at strain gauge SG5 over the interior support at a moment Mhog=8.4kNm.
Soon after, the plate yielding strain εp.y was reached at SG6 and SG4 at moments Mhog of 10kNm and
10.3kNm respectively. After the plate yielded, the plate strains at SG4, SG5 and SG6 increased more
rapidly due to the ductile behaviour of steel. The strain along the plate continued to increase as Mhog
increased up to IC debonding failure, and a maximum plate strain of 0.0059 was achieved just prior to
debonding failure at Mhog=19.3kNm.
25
SG3
SG9 20 SG6
SG7
SG1 SG5
SG4
Mhog (kNm)
15
SG1 (east)
SG2
10 SG3
SG4
SG5 (centre)
5
SG6
SG7
SG8
SG9 (west)
0 ε p.y
-1500 0 1500 3000 4500 6000
plate strain (x10-6)
- 303 -
sagging moment in the beam Msag is shown in Figure 5.25, where the ultimate maximum static
moment (Mstatic)u=47.8kNm for the plated beam considered. Line A in Figure 5.25 is the elastic
distribution assuming EI is constant i.e. Mhog/Msag = 1.2, line marked B is the maximum redistribution
for the plated section and the line marked C is the maximum redistribution for the unplated section.
When the load is first applied Mhog/Msag approaches 1.2 in region D in Figure 5.25. The slight
divergence from this value is because the beam was bedding or settling down under very small loads.
Soon after, Mhog/Msag reduces gradually and the divergence from Mhog/Msag equal to 1.2 signifies
moment redistribution. The first flexural crack is observed at point E, this is shortly followed by the
appearance of the first IC interface crack at F and eventually IC debonding failure at point G which
coincided with the maximum plate strain. From Figure 5.25, it can be seen that the beam was
relatively close to reaching the maximum allowable moment redistribution, Line B.
1.4
D test results elastic (EI constant) A
1.2
E 1st IC interface IC debonding max
1 1st flexutral crack crack
Mhog/Msag
plate strain reached

occurred F
0.8
G
0.6 max. moment redistribution for plated structures B
0.4 C
maximum moment redistribution for unplated structures
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
on elastic analysis of constant EI. It can be seen from Figure 5.26 that the beam behaved elastically
until the plate yielded at point B, after which the moments obtained diverged from the elastic
moments, indicating that moment is being redistributed. After the yielding of the tensile reinforcing
bars in the hogging region at point D, much of the load was taken by the sagging region, as indicated
by the rapid increase in Msag. This shows that more moment is being redistributed from the hogging to
the sagging region.
- 304 -
30
35
bar bar IC debonding
25 1st debonding yield (Mhog)el 30 1st debonding yield failure
25 (Msag)el
Mhog (kNm)
20 E
Msag (kNm)
plate 20 plate
15 yield yield
15
IC debonding
1st flexural 1st flexural
10 failure 10
crack crack
5 A 5
A
B
B 0
0 D
C D 0 20 C 40 60 E 80
0 20 40 60
applied load (kN)
applied load (kN)
The variation of percentage of moment redistribution %MR calculate ed using Equation 5.1 is shown
in Figure 5.27 for different Mstatic applied. Initially, before flexural cracking, the beam behaved
elastically such that there is zero moment redistribution. The discrepancy of results before flexural
cracking is because the beam was bedding or settling down under very small loads. As the applied
load, and hence Mstatic increased, the %MR increased up to a maximum of 33% at IC debonding
failure. This shows that although premature debonding occurred in the beam, large moment
redistribution still occurred, and the beam achieved 80% of the ultimate static moment.
50
40
30
20 plate yield IC debonding

failure
bar
10 1st flexural yield
crack
1st debonding
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-10
Mstatic/(Mstatic)ult
u
- 305 -

The externally bonded steel plate used in this specimen had a low yielding strain εp.y of 0.00124.
Therefore, the yielding strain was recorded at the centre of the interior support even before any
flexural cracks were visible. The plate first yielded at SG5 at an applied load P of 13.6kN, with a
reaction force R of 4.25kN measured at the external supports, resulting in maximum moments at the
hogging Mhog and sagging Msag regions of 6.12kNm and 5.1kNm respectively. Flexural cracks formed
soon after the yielding of the plate at an applied load P of 17.7kN (R=5.65kN, Mhog=7.68kNm,
Msag=6.78kNm), where two cracks, cracks A and B in Figure 5.28 appeared near the interior support.
East B A West
IC interface cracks
B A
Interior support
The formation of herringbone cracks close to the plate/concrete interface in Figure 5.28 indicates that
IC debonding occurred at a load P of 24.5kN (R=8.28kN, Mhog=9.48kNm, Msag=9.93kNm) near the
interior.
A secondary crack, crack C in Figure 5.29, formed in between cracks A and B, which caused IC
debonding to occur propagating from the roots of the crack. The IC interface cracks that formed
between cracks B and C in Figure 5.29 were propagating in opposite directions, as shown by the
arrows, which indicate that there was a reverse in slip in between the two cracks. However, the
dominant direction of propagation was towards the plate end as evident from the extent of propagation
of the IC interface cracks east of crack B in Figure 5.29. Figure 5.30 shows a close up of IC debonding
- 306 -
of the plate. It is interesting to note how ripples appeared in the plate where the flexural cracks
intercepted, which indicates that the plate had been stretched.
East West
B C A
Interior support
IC debonding Intermediate crack
Figure 5.30 Beam SS3: IC debonding
Upon further loading, the IC interface cracks continued to propagate towards the plate end, however
at P=78.4kN (R=31.1kN, Mhog=19.4kNm, Msag=37.7kNm) a critical diagonal crack formed near the
applied load in the east span resulting in shear failure of the beam as shown in Figure 5.31. A
maximum displacement of 28.2mm was recorded in the east span beneath the applied load at failure.
- 307 -
A maximum plate strain of 0.015 was reached at SG5 upon failure. Figure 5.32 shows the extent of IC
debonding over the hogging region at failure. It can be seen from the test that, although the low
stiffness and high ductile nature of the steel plate prevented premature IC debonding failure from
occurring, severe debonding was still evident in the beam. The extent of the permanent elongation of
the steel plate due to yielding can be seen from Figure 5.33 when the beam was unloaded after
failure.
bars yielded at a load of 34.5kN. From the test, it can be seen that as secondary cracks form in
between cracks, it affects the debonding behaviour of the beam. The flexural cracks of this Specimen
were more closely spaced than Specimen SS1 and SS2, where three cracks formed in the hogging
region of the east span as shown in Figure 5.22, with the last crack, crack B, at less than 200mm from
the interior support as shown in Figure 5.32.
East
P EB plate
Critical diagonal crack
Figure 5.31 Beam SS3: shear failure in sagging region (P=81kN)
East West
IC interface cracks
B C A
Interior support
Figure 5.32 Beam SS3: hogging region at failure (P=81kN)
- 308 -
EB steel plate
west east
Interior support
Figure 5.33 Beam SS3: deformation of EB plate (P=81kN)
Msag moments, with the mean deflection under the applied loads at mid-spans. At initial stages of
loading, the beam behaved elastically, i.e. region A in Figure 5.34, so the hogging moment was
greater than the sagging moment. Yielding of the plate was found to occur while the beam was still
linear elastic as shown by point B in Figure 5.34. Soon after, flexural cracking (point C) occurred and
the hogging moment then reduced relative to the sagging moment. After IC debonding began at point
D, the moment in the hogging region became less than that in the sagging region, indicating that
moment is being redistributed from the hogging to the sagging region. Upon further loading, the tensile
bars yielded at point E, and soon after, Mhog began to level off, which suggests that the flexural
capacity has been reached in the hogging region and additional moments were redistributed to the
sagging region until shear failure occurred.
40
35 Msag
30 shear failure at
moment (kNm)
midspan (east)
25
20 1st flexural
crack
15 Mhog
B
bars
10 C E yield
D
5 1st IC
debonding
0
0 A 10 20 30 40
displacement (mm)
- 309 -
increased up to shear failure, with the positions of the strain gauges SG given by Figure 5.8. The steel
plate first yielded at strain gauge SG5 over the interior support at a moment Mhog=6.12kNm. At
Mhog=8kNm the plate yielding strain εp.y was reached at SG6, and SG4 at moments Mhog=11kNm. After
the plate yielded, the plate strains at SG4, SG5 and SG6 increased very rapidly due to the ductile
behaviour of steel. The strain along the plate continued to increase as Mhog increased up to shear
failure. The strains at SG4, SG5 and SG6 intercepted at point A in Figure 5.35 , after which the strains
at SG4 and SG5 began to converge. This suggests that major debonding occurred between SG4 and
SG5 at A, which caused a loss of bond, and hence, resulted in rapid increases in plate strains and the
convergence of strains at SG4 and SG5. It is worth noting that although the plate strains obtained at
SG4, SG5, and SG6 were much higher than those achieved in specimens SS1 (Figure 5.14) and SS2
(Figure 5.24), the plate strains at 400mm from the interior support (SG3 and SG7) were significantly
less than SS1 and SS2.
25
SG1 &
SG9
20 SG6 SG4
SG3 &
SG7 SG5
Mhog (kNm)
15 SG1 (east)
SG2
A SG3
10 SG4
SG5
SG6
5 SG7
SG8
SG9 (west)
0
ε p.y
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
-6
strain (x10 )
sagging moment in the beam Msag is shown in Figure 5.36, where for the plated beam considered
(Mstatic)u=47.6kNm. Line A in Figure 5.36 is the elastic distribution assuming EI is constant i.e.
Mhog/Msag = 1.2, the line marked B is the maximum redistribution for the plated section and the line
marked C is the maximum redistribution for the unplated section. When the load is first applied
Mhog/Msag approaches 1.2 in region D in Figure 5.36. The slight divergence from this value is because
- 310 -
the beam was bedding or settling down under very small loads. After the plate yields at point E, and
the flexural cracks forms at point F, Mhog/Msag reduces gradually and the divergence from Mhog/Msag
equal to 1.2 signifies moment redistribution. From Figure 5.36, it can be seen that the beam achieved
the maximum allowable moment redistribution, Line B, at failure at Mstatic/(Mstatic)u=1.0, i.e. the ultimate
static moment was achieved.
1.4 plate yield

A elastic (EI constant)
1.2 F
E bar yield
1 G
Mhog/Msag
D shear failure
test results
0.8 H
1st debonding
0.6 B
0.4 I
C
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
on elastic analysis of constant EI. It can be seen from Figure 5.37 that the beam behaved elastically
until the flexural cracks occurred at point B, after which the moments obtained diverged from the
elastic moments, indicating that moment is being redistributed.
40 40
35
(Mhog)el 35 E
30 30
Msag (kNm)
1st debonding
Mhog (kNm)
25 bar 25
E
20 1st flexural yield 20 (Msag)el
15 plate crack 15
10 yield 10 B
5 A 5
0 0
B C D C D
0 20 40 60 80 0 A 20 40 60 80
applied load (kN) applied load (kN)
- 311 -
The variation of percentage of moment redistribution %MR calculated using Equation 5.1 is shown in
Figure 5.38 for different Mstatic applied. Initially, before flexural cracking, the beam behaved elastically
such that there is zero moment redistribution. The discrepancy of results at initial loading is because
the beam was bedding or settling down under very small loads. As the applied load, and hence Mstatic
increased, the %MR increased up to a maximum of 45% at shear failure. It is interesting to note how
the %MR obtained in SS3 was much greater than SS1 and SS2, however the length of the cracked
region, which is also defined as the partial interaction or hinge region as previously discussed in
Chapter 2, is significantly less than in SS1 and SS2, which suggests that the hinge length, i.e. the
region where large rotation occurs, reduces as more moment is redistributed.
100
90
80
70
60
50 bar
40 1st flexural yield
crack
30
shear
20 plate yield failure
10
1st debonding
0
-10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
5.3.4.4 BEAM SF1 (CFRP 25X2.4)

This beam was externally bonded with a 2.4mm thick CFRP pultruded plate. As the beam was
gradually loaded, the first flexural crack, crack A in Figure 5.39, formed at an applied load P of 8kN
(R=2.53kN, Mhog=3.12kNm, Msag=3.0kNm) at the interior support. At P=14.6kN (R=4.8kN, Mhog=6kNm,
Msag=5.76kNm), IC debonding was initiated at the plate/concrete interface as indicated by the
formation of IC interface crack, D in Figure 5.39, which propagated from the root of crack A towards
the west plate end as indicated by the arrows. This IC interface crack propagated gradually along the
beam upon further loading, until at P=23kN (R=8.2kN, Mhog=8.6kNm, Msag=9.9kNm) when the second
flexural crack, crack B, formed east of crack A, followed almost immediately by the formation of
another flexural crack, crack C, west of crack A as shown in Figure 5.39. Formation of IC interface
cracks E and F were then observed, propagating from the roots of crack B and C respectively as more
load was applied, while IC interface crack D did not propagate any further. A maximum plate strain of
- 312 -
0.00203 was recorded at strain gauge SG6, 200mm from interior support, at P=32.5kN (R=11.9kN,
Mhog=10.4kNm, Msag=14.3kNm).
East West
D
E Debonding F
propagation
B A C
Interior support
Figure 5.39 Beam SF1: Debonding propagation (P=31kN)
The debonding propagation was gradual at first, with the debonding at the east span being more
severe. However, as the IC interface crack E propagated to approximately 400mm from the interior
support (near SG3) at P=32.5kN, the debonding propagation became very rapid as shown in Figure
5.40, where crack E travelled a long distance along the beam as the load was increased from 33kN to
34kN. Eventually complete debonding of the east plate end occurred at P=39.5kN (R=14.8kN,
Mhog=12kNm, Msag=17.7kNm) in Figure 5.41.
West
East
Debonding
propagation A
B
Interior support
- 313 -
E
Debonding
propagation
East
Figure 5.41 Beam SF1: IC debonding failure (P=40kN)
After the plate completely debonded, the beam continued to be loaded until vertical shear failure
occurred at a load P=76.5kN, at a maximum displacement of 45.8mm. Only two flexural cracks formed
in the hogging region of the east span as shown in Figure 5.40, with the last crack, crack B, at
approximately 200mm from the interior support.
loading the beam behaved elastically, i.e. region A in Figure 5.42, and so the hogging moment was
greater than the sagging moment. After crack B and IC interface crack E in Figure 5.40 formed (point
F in Figure 5.42), the moment in the hogging region became less than that in the sagging region,
indicating that moment is being redistributed from the hogging to the sagging region. Maximum plate
strain was achieved at point G in Figure 5.42, and soon after, IC debonding failure occurred which
caused a reduction in Mhog as shown by point H in Figure 5.42.
45
40
Msag
I
35
Moment (kNm)
30
shear failure
25
major
20 debonding IC debonding failure
15 H
10
G
Mhog
5 max ε p
F
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
displacement (mm)
Figure 5.42 Beam SF1: Moment vs displacement
- 314 -
When the IC interface crack D in Figure 5.39 propagated towards the west plate end, it caused a rapid
increase in the plate strain at SG6 as indicated by point A in Figure 5.43a. As IC interface cracks E
and F in Figure 5.39 formed and propagated to distances 200mm and 400mm from the east and west
of the interior support respectively, this caused a rapid increase in SG4 (point B in Figure 5.43b) and
SG7 (point C in Figure 5.43a). As IC interface crack E propagated further towards the east plate end,
this caused a rapid increase in strain at SG3 (point D in Figure 5.43b). At Mhog=10.4kNm, the
maximum plate strain of 0.002027 was obtained at SG6 (point D in Figure 5.43a). Soon after, due to
severe debonding occurring in the region between SG3 and SG7 (Figure 5.39), this caused a sudden
reduction in plate strain at SG3 to SG7 while a sudden increase in SG1 and SG2 was observed, as
denoted by E and F in Figure 5.43 respectively. Eventually, IC debonding failure occurred with a
maximum plate strain of 0.00116 recorded at SG6. Note that at approximately Mhog=8kNm, the strains
at SG4, SG5 and SG6 began to converge. This indicates that there is almost zero resultant bond force
between SG4 to SG6 due to debonding. However, as the bond at the plate/concrete interface was still
strong further along the beam, this allowed the plate strains to continue to increase until at point D,
where debonding propagated further along the beam, causing the plate strains to reduce.
14
(a) SG7 SG6
12
SG9 SG8 E
10 D
Mhog (kNm)
C
8
A
6
SG5 (centre)
4 SG6
SG5 SG7
2 SG8
SG9 (west)
0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
strain (x10-6)
14
(b) 12
SG1 F E
10 E
SG3
Mhog (kNm)
SG2
8 B
6
SG4
4 SG1 (east)
SG2
SG5 SG3
2 SG4
SG5 (centre)
0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
strain (x10-6)
Figure 5.43 Beam SF1: Moment vs plate strain
- 315 -
sagging moment in the beam Msag is shown in Figure 5.44. For the plated beam considered,
(Mstatic)u=49.2kNm. Line A in Figure 5.44 is the elastic distribution assuming EI is constant i.e.
Mhog/Msag = 1.2, line marked B is the maximum redistribution for the plated section and the line marked
C is the maximum redistribution for the unplated section. From Figure 5.44, it can be seen that the
plated beam only reached approximately 50% of the ultimate static moment when IC debonding failure
occurred.
1.4
1.2
major
1 debonding max ε p reached
Mhog/Msag
0.8 1st flexural
crack shear failure
0.6
1st debonding test results
0.4 C
B
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
Figure 5.44 Beam SF1: hogging-moment/sagging-moment
on elastic analysis of constant EI.
20 40
18
(Mhog)el shear failure
35
16 IC debonding
30
Msag (kNm)
14 failure
Mhog (kNm)
major
12 debonding 25
10 20 (Msag)el
8 15
6 max ε p reached 10
4
2 5
1st debonding
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
load (kN) load (kN)
Figure 5.45 Beam SF1: Maximum hogging and sagging moments
- 316 -
increased up to a maximum of 32.5% at IC debonding failure. After the plate debonded the flexural
strength of the hogging region is reduced, therefore the hogging moment had to be redistributed to the
sagging region to allow for this reduction in strength as shown in Figure 5.45. This resulted in a
sudden increase in %MR as shown by region A in Figure 5.46. As the ductility of the unplated hogging
region is much greater than before, large %MR was allowed and a maximum of 62% moment
70
60
50 shear failure
40 max ε p reached A
30 1st flexural
crack
20
major debonding
10
1st debonding
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
Figure 5.46 Beam SF1: percentage of moment redistribution
5.3.4.5 BEAM SF2 (CFRP 50X1.2)

The flexural crack marked A in Figure 5.47 first occurred immediately over the hogging support at an
applied load P=9kN (R=2.9kN, Mhog=3.6kNm, Msag=3.48kNm). This induced, at a higher load, the IC
interface cracks that are parallel to the plate and propagate in both directions that is B-C and B-D.
First sign of debonding was observed at P=16.8kN (R=5.57kN, Mhog=6.72kNm, Msag=6.69kNm). On
further loading in Figure 5.48, the IC interface cracks gradually propagated away from the position of
maximum moment such as from C to E and from F to G until there was rapid crack propagation at
which IC debonding occurred in Figure 5.49 from H to I which caused the plate strains to reduce which
signified IC debonding. The maximum plate strain of 0.00292 was obtained at strain gauge SG6 at
P=42kN (R=15.4kN, Mhog=13.4kNm, Msag=18.5kNm), and soon after, IC debonding failure occurred at
the east plate end at P=49kN (R=18.6kN, Mhog=14kNm, Msag=22.3kNm) with a recorded maximum
plate strain of 0.00262 at SG6 and a maximum displacement of 12.3mm in the east span. After
complete debonding of the plate, loading of the beam was continued until shear failure occurred in the
- 317 -
sagging region at P=76.5kN (R=32.7kN, Mhog=13.2kNm, Msag=39.3kNm). Like specimen SF1, in the
hogging region of the east span, where failure occurred, only two flexural cracks formed (Figure
5.49)at approximately 150mm spacing.
Figure 5.47 Beam SF2: Flexural crack and IC interface cracking (P=24kN)
Figure 5.48 Beam SF2: IC interface cracks propagation (P=35kN)
- 318 -
Msag moments, with the mean deflection under the applied loads at mid-spans. Mhog reduced relative
to Msag after the first appearance of the IC interface cracks at point A in Figure 5.50, which indicates
that moment is being redistributed from the hogging to the sagging region. Maximum plate strain was
achieved at point B, and soon after, IC debonding failure occurred at point C which caused a reduction
in Mhog. As loading was continued after the plate completely debonded, Msag continued to increase
while Mhog remained constant until shear failure in the sagging region at point D.
45
40
Msag
D
35
Moment (kNm)
30
shear failure
25 1st
20 debonding IC debonding failure
15 B C
10
A Mhog
5 max ε p
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
displacement (mm)
increased up to shear failure, with the positions of the strain gauges SG given by Figure 5.8. The
behaviour was similar to that observed in specimen SF1 (Section 5.3.4.4). When a flexural crack
formed in between SG5 and SG6 at P=17kN (Figure 5.47), large increases in the plate strain occurred
at SG6 as marked by A in Figure 5.51a. As IC interface cracks formed and propagated towards SG4
at P=19.7kN, i.e. from B-C-E in Figure 5.48, this caused a rapid increase in SG4 (B in Figure 5.51b),
eventually causing strains at SG4 and SG5 to converge. As the IC interface crack propagated further
towards the SG3 (i.e. from F to G in Figure 5.48), sudden increases in strain at SG3 was observed (C
in Figure 5.51b). At Mhog=13.4kNm, the maximum plate strain of 0.00292 was obtained at SG6 (D in
Figure 5.51a). Soon after, due to severe debonding in the region between SG3 and SG5 (from interior
support to H in Figure 5.49), this caused a sudden drop in plate strains at SG3, SG4 and SG5, while
a rapid increase in SG1 and SG2 was observed, as denoted by E and F in Figure 5.51 respectively.
Eventually, IC debonding failure occurred with a maximum plate strain of 0.00262 recorded at SG6. It
is worth noting that sudden reductions in plate strains due to debonding propagation did not occur in
- 319 -
the EB steel plated specimens tested, even when severe debonding was observed i.e. specimens
SS1 (Section 5.3.4.1)and SS2 (Section 5.3.4.2). It is interesting to note that the strains at SG5 and
SG6 intercepted at point G in Figure 5.51a, after which the strains at SG6 became greater than that at
SG5. This may be because of the flexural crack that formed near SG6, i.e. crack J in Figure 5.48,
which caused large plate strains to develop as the crack widened.
16
(a) SG7 SG5 D
SG8 E
12
SG9 SG6
Mhog (kNm)
G
8 A
SG5 (centre)
SG6
4
SG7
SG8
SG9 (west)
0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
strain (x10-6)
16
F
(b) F E
SG1 12 C
SG2
Mhog (kNm)
SG3 SG4
8 B
SG1 (east)
SG2
4 SG5
SG3
SG4
SG5 (centre)
0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
strain (x10-6)
sagging moment in the beam Msag is shown in Figure 5.52. In this case, (Mhog)u is the experimentally
measured moment at plate debonding and (Msag)u is the rigid plastic strength and from which (Mstatic)u
and line B were calculated. The first IC interface crack at F occurred at a very early stage of loading.
The maximum plate strain of 0.00292 occurred at H prior to IC debonding at I. After IC debonding of
the plate, the beam behaves as an unplated beam and the test was continued until the beam failed in
shear at point J just short of its theoretical unplated flexural capacity allowing for full moment
redistribution.
- 320 -
1.4
elastic (constant EI) A
1.2
1st IC interface
crack max plate strain
1 test
Mhog/Msag
F reached
results
0.8
I
H
0.6 IC debonding
max. redistribution for plated structure B
0.4
maximum moment redistribution for unplated J C
0.2 structure
shear failure
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
Figure 5.52 Beam SF2: hogging- moment / sagging-moment
25 40
(Mhog)el IC debonding shear failure
20
failure 30
Msag (kNm)
Mhog (kNm)
15
20 (Msag)el
10
max ε p reached 10
5
1st debonding
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
load (kN)
load (kN)
Figure 5.54 for different Mstatic applied. The initial divergence from zero moment redistribution is due to
bedding of the beam. At the first sign of debonding, there was already 11% of moment redistribution,
and as more load was applied such that the maximum plate strain was obtained in the plate, 29% of
moment redistribution was recorded. Upon further loading, the strain in the plate began to reduce due
to severe debonding, but the %MR continued to increase as the stiffness in the hogging region was
less than before. At IC debonding failure, 36% moment redistribution was recorded, which is greater
- 321 -
than that obtained in Specimen SF1 as premature debonding occurred at a higher load. After the plate
debonded the flexural strength of the hogging region is reduced, therefore the hogging moment had to
be redistributed to the sagging region to allow for this reduction in strength as shown in Figure 5.53.
This resulted in a sudden increase in %MR as denoted by region A in Figure 5.54. A maximum of 62%
moment redistribution was obtained at shear failure of the unplated beam.
70
60
50 shear failure
A
40
max ε p reached
30 1st flexural IC debonding failure

crack
20
10
1st debonding
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
5.3.4.6 BEAM SF3 (CFRP 80X1.2)

As the beam was gradually loaded, the first flexural crack, crack A in Figure 5.55, formed at an applied
load P of 9.8kN (R=3.35kN, Mhog=3.72kNm, Msag=4.0kNm) at the interior support. Upon further
loading, two flexural cracks, crack B and C in Figure 5.55, formed at approximately 200mm on the
east and west of the interior support. When two secondary cracks formed between crack A and C and
crack A and B, the cracking spacing was reduced to approximately 100mm. At P=28kN (R=10.1kN,
Mhog=9.36kNm, Msag=12.1kNm), the first IC interface crack, D in Figure 5.55, was found propagating
from the root of crack A towards the west plate end. At P=34kN, IC interface cracks F and G formed
from the roots of crack A and crack B respectively. As more load was applied, IC interface crack G in
Figure 5.56 started to gradually propagate towards the west plate end to point H at P=38kN, while no
further propagation was observed at other IC interface cracks. Eventually IC debonding failure
occurred from the last flexural crack, crack B in Figure 5.56, to the west plate end at P=40.9kN
(R=14.9kN, Mhog=13.3kNm, Msag=17.9kNm) in Figure 5.57 with a deflection of 9.7mm beneath the
applied load. A maximum plate strain of 0.00249 was recorded at strain gauge SG5 immediately prior
to IC debonding failure. After the plate completely debonded, the beam continued to be loaded until
- 322 -
vertical shear failure occurred at a load P=77.4kN, at a maximum displacement of 35.65mm. Three
flexural cracks formed in the hogging region of the west span, where failure occurred, (Figure 5.55) at
approximately 100mm spacing.
east west
F D G
C
A B
west
G H
west
- 323 -
loading the beam behaved elastically. After the first flexural crack formed, the moment in the hogging
region became less than that in the sagging region, indicating that moment is being redistributed from
the hogging to the sagging region. Maximum plate strain was achieved just prior to IC debonding
failure, after which a reduction in Mhog occurred as shown by point A in Figure 5.58.
45
40
Msag
35
30
Moment (kNm)
shear failure
25
1st
20 flexural crack IC debonding failure
& max ε p reached
15
A
10 Mhog
5 1st
debonding
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
displacement (mm)
increased up to IC debonding failure, with the positions of the strain gauges SG given by Figure 5.8. It
can be seen that after the first flexural crack formed, the plate strain at SG4 and SG6 increased much
more rapidly, as shown by A in Figure 5.59. When the IC interface crack G in Figure 5.55 formed near
SG6 at Mhog=11.4kNm and propagated towards the west plate end, this caused the plate strain at SG6
to reduce (B in Figure 5.59), while a rapid increase in the plate strain at SG7 was observed (C in
Figure 5.59). IC debonding failure then followed (at Mhog=13.3kNm) with a maximum plate strain of
0.00249 recorded at SG5 as denoted by point D in Figure 5.59. It is worth noting that because IC
debonding propagated from SG6 to the west plate end and not from the interior support, therefore the
plate strain at SG4 and SG5 did not reduce prior to debonding failure.
- 324 -
18
16
SG2&SG8 SG7 SG6
14 SG3 SG4 SG5
12 D
Mhog(kNm)
C B
10
SG1 (east)
8 SG2
SG1&SG9 SG3
6 SG4
A SG5 (centre)
4 SG6
SG7
2 SG8
SG9 (west)
0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-6
strain (x10 )
(Mstatic)u=51.8kNm. Line A represents the elastic distribution assuming EI is constant i.e. Mhog/Msag =
1.2, line marked B is the maximum redistribution for the plated section and the line marked C is the
maximum redistribution for the unplated section. From Figure 5.60, it can be seen that the plated
beam only reached approximately 50% of the ultimate static moment when IC debonding failure
occurred.
1.4
1.2
1
Mhog/Msag
& max ε p reached

0.8
1st flexural shear failure
0.6 crack
test results
1st debonding
0.4
B&C
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
- 325 -
40 40
(Mhog)el shear failure
35 35
30 30
Mhog (kNm)
Msag (kNm)
25 25
20 IC debonding 20 (Msag)el
1st flexural failure
15 crack 15
10 10
5 5
1st debonding
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
load (kN) load (kN)
increased up to a maximum of 27.6% at IC debonding failure. After the plate debonded, much of
hogging moment was redistributed to the sagging region to allow for this reduction in strength as
shown in Figure 5.61. This resulted in a sudden increase in %MR as shown by region A in Figure
5.62, and 56% moment redistribution was obtained at shear failure of the unplated beam.
70
60
50
shear failure
40 1st debonding
1st flexural A
crack
30
& max ε p reached
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
- 326 -
5.3.4.7 BEAM SF4 (CFRP 100X0.6)

This beam was externally bonded with three CFRP fibre sheets of 0.2mm thickness each using the
wet lay-up technique. The behaviour of the beam was similar to the other specimens with CFRP
pultruded plates, but was more ductile due to the low stiffness of the plate. As the beam was gradually
loaded, the first flexural crack, crack B in Figure 5.63, formed near strain gauge SG6 at an applied
load P of 15kN (R=5.03kN, Mhog=5.76kNm, Msag=6.03kNm). Note that crack A in Figure 5.63 is a pre-
existing crack which formed over the interior support during preparation. Upon further loading, several
primary cracks, cracks C and D, and secondary cracks, cracks E, F and G, were found. The adhesive
over the surface of the plate made it difficult to see the formation of IC interface cracks. The first
visible sign of debonding occurred near SG6, marked H in Figure 5.63, when small herringbone
cracks were found propagating from the root of crack B at P=30kN (R=10.7kN, Mhog=10.3kNm,
Msag=12.8kNm). Debonding was also observed at the roots of flexural cracks F and C, denoted by I
and J in Figure 5.63. The arrows in the Figure 5.63 represent the directions of debonding propagation.
bars yielded at P=56.9kN (R=21.2kN), before complete debonding of the plate.
east west
J H
E I
G B
C F D
A
Interior support
Upon further loading, IC interface crack H in Figure 5.64 started to gradually propagate towards the
west plate end to point K at P=62kN, and from J to L in the east span. When the load was further
increased to P=63.4kN, a rapid debonding propagation in the west span occurred, as denoted by I-H-
K-M in Figure 5.65. Eventually the IC interface crack propagated to the plate end, from M to N in
- 327 -
Figure 5.66, to cause IC debonding failure to occur at P=64.8kN (R=25.6kN, Mhog=16.3kNm,

Msag=30.7kNm) with a deflection of 15.9mm beneath the applied load. A maximum plate strain of
0.0042 was recorded at strain gauge SG6 prior to IC debonding failure at P=62.7kN (R=23.7kN,
Mhog=18.2kNm, Msag=28.5kNm). After the plate completely debonded, loading continued until vertical
shear failure occurred at a load P=82kN in the east span near the applied load, at a maximum
displacement of 45.2mm. Figure 5.67 shows the hogging region over the interior support upon shear
failure occurring, where it can be seen that the plate has completely detached from the beam in the
west span.
east west
H K
L J I
C A B D
Interior support
I H K
M
A B D
Interior support
Figure 5.65 Beam SF4: Debonding propagation before failure (P=63.4kN)
- 328 -
H K M N
east west
D
C A B
Interior support
Figure 5.67 Beam SF4: Hogging region at shear failure (P=82kN)
The variation of the moment, at the position of the maximum hogging and sagging moments, with the
mean deflection under the applied loads at mid-spans, are plotted in Figure 5.68. It can be seen that
near the start, in region A, the hogging moment was slightly greater than the sagging moment as
would be expected from an elastic analysis. The hogging moment then reduced relative to the sagging
moment and they have an equal magnitude at point B. The maximum hogging moment and the
maximum plate strain occurred at the same applied load at C, although the plate did not debond until
after both the plate strain and hogging moment had reduced slightly at D. It is felt that this reduction in
moment and plate strain from C to D, just prior to IC debonding, may have been partly due to the slip
between the plate and the beam, that is partial interaction, which would reduce the flexural rigidity as
well as the plate strain in the hogging region. After IC plate debonding, the behaviour of the hogging
region reverts back to that of the unplated section at E.
- 329 -
F
40
Msag
Moment (kNm)
30
shear failure
max plate strain
plate IC debonding
20 C
D F
E Mhog
10 B
A
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (mm)
It is worth noting that the continuous beam eventually failed by vertical shear failure at point F in
Figure 5.68. However, this occurred well after the plate had IC debonded so that the vertical shear
failure had no effect on the redistribution of moment. It is also worth noting that the sagging moment is
continually increasing relative to the hogging moment which signifies moment redistribution; it was for
this reason that the sagging region was made much stronger than the hogging region in order to
achieve as much moment redistribution as possible.
After flexural cracks B and C in Figure 5.63 formed near SG6 and SG4 respectively, large increases in
plate strains at SG4 and SG6 were observed, as marked by A and B in Figure 5.69, and upon further
loading, the flexural cracks widened, inducing slip at the interface and causing convergence in strains
at SG5 and SG6. That is the resultant bond force between SG5 and SG6 is zero. When the IC
interface crack near SG4 propagated from J to L in Figure 5.64 at Mhog=17.6kNm, this caused the
plate strain at SG3 to increase (C in Figure 5.69). After the maximum plate strain was reached, small
reductions in SG3 and SG4 was observed. The same happened in the west span, where after the
maximum plate strain was reached at SG6 (D in Figure 5.69), the IC interface crack near SG6
propagated from H to K in Figure 5.64 which caused the plate strain at SG7 to increase rapidly (E in
Figure 5.69) and the plate strain at SG5 and SG6 reduced (F in Figure 5.69). As the debonding
propagated further from I to M in Figure 5.65, this caused sudden reductions in plate strains between
SG5 and SG8. IC debonding failure soon followed (at Mhog=16.3kNm) with a maximum plate strain of
0.00218 recorded at SG6.
- 330 -
SG2
20
SG1 SG8 E SG7 SG3 F
D
C
16
SG4
Mhog (kNm) 12
SG9
SG1 (east)
SG6 SG2
8 B SG3
SG4
SG5 (centre)
A SG6
4 SG7
SG5 SG8
SG9 (west)
0
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
strain (x10-6)
(Mstatic)u=51.8kNm. Line A represents the elastic distribution assuming EI is constant i.e. Mhog/Msag =
1.2, line marked B is the maximum redistribution for the plated section and the line marked C is the
maximum redistribution for the unplated section. The initial discrepancy is because the beam was
bedding or settling down under very small loads. After the flexural cracks forms, Mhog/Msag reduces
gradually and the divergence from Mhog/Msag equal to 1.2 signifies moment redistribution. It can be
seen that IC debonding failure occurred close to B, and 80% of the ultimate static moment was
achieved.
1.6
1.4 test results

1.2
Mhog/Msag
1
max ε p reached
bar yield
0.8 1st flexural
crack
0.6 1st debonding
B
0.4
C
0.2
shear failure
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
- 331 -
30 45
(Mhog)el 40 shear failure
25
max ε p reached 35
IC debonding
Mhog (kNm)
20 30
Msag (kNm)
failure
25
15
20
bar yield (Msag)el
10 15
1st debonding 10
5
5
1st flexural crack
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
load (kN) load (kN)
Figure 5.72 for different Mstatic applied. The initial discrepancy from zero moment redistribution is due
to the beam still settling. When flexural and debonding cracks formed the %MR increased up to 35.3%
as the maximum plate strain of 0.0042 was reached, and a maximum of 44% moment redistribution
was obtained at IC debonding failure. After the plate debonded, much of hogging moment was
redistributed to the sagging region to allow for this reduction in strength as shown in Figure 5.71. This
resulted in a sudden increase in %MR as shown by region A in Figure 5.72, and 60.3% moment
70
60
50
bar yield A shear failure
30 1st flexural
crack
max ε p reached
20
10 1st debonding
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
-10
-20
M static/(M static)u
- 332 -
5.3.5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS

A summary of the test results is presented in the following journal paper along with a comparison of
results for the different specimens.
5.3.5.1 JOURNAL PAPER: MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION IN CONTINUOUS PLATED RC FLEXURAL

MEMBERS PART 1 - NEUTRAL AXIS DEPTH APPROACH AND TESTS
This paper focuses on the moment redistribution behaviour of beams with externally bonded plates,
where the series of tests on EB beams carried out in this research are presented. The applicability of
the commonly used neutral axis depth approach for moment redistribution in RC flexural members on
plated structures was also assessed in this paper. Further discussion on the neutral axis depth
approach can be found in the literature review in Chapter 6 of this thesis.
- 333 -
- 334 -
Moment redistribution in continuous plated RC flexural members. Part 1: neutral axis depth approach and tests
Moment redistribution in continuous plated RC flexural members. Part

1: neutral axis depth approach and tests
*Oehlers, D.J., **Ju, G., ***Liu, I., and ****Seracino, R.
Corresponding author
*Dr. D.J. Oehlers
Associate Professor
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Centre for Infrastructure Diagnosis, Assessment and Rehabilitation
The University of Adelaide
Adelaide
SA5005
AUSTRALIA
Tel. 61 8 8303 5451
Fax 61 8 8303 4359
email doehlers@civeng.adelaide.edu.au
**Dr. G. Ju
Lecturer
Department of Architectural Engineering
University of Yeungnam
South Korea
***Ms. I. Liu
Postgraduate student
****Dr. R. Seracino
Senior Lecturer
Published in Engineering Structures 2004, vol. 26, pg.2197-2207
- 335 -
Statement of Authorship
MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION IN CONTINUOUS PLATED RC FLEXURAL MEMBERS. PART

1: NEUTRAL AXIS DEPTH APPROACH AND TESTS
Published in Engineering Structures 2004, vol. 26, pg.2197-2207
LIU, I.S.T. (Candidate)

Performed all analyses, interpreted data and co-wrote manuscript.
Signed Date
OEHLERS, D.J.
Supervised development of work, co-wrote manuscript and acted as corresponding author.
Signed Date
SERACINO, R.
Supervised development of work, and manuscript review.
Signed Date
- 336 -
MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION IN CONTINUOUS PLATED RC FLEXURAL MEMBERS. PART

1: NEUTRAL AXIS DEPTH APPROACH AND TESTS
Oehlers, D.J., Ju, G., Liu, I., and Seracino, R.
ABSTRACT
It is now common practice to retrofit or rehabilitate existing reinforced concrete beams and slabs by
adhesively bonding fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) or metal plates to their surfaces. Advanced design
rules are available for quantifying the various plate debonding mechanisms and consequently the
shear and flexural capacities of the plated sections. These design rules show that even though the
required increase in strength can be obtained by plating, plate debonding can severely reduce the
ductility of a flexural member to such an extent that plating guidelines often exclude moment
redistribution. This exclusion may reduce the application of plating, in particular to retrofitting buildings
where ductility is often a requirement, or it may require the development of a radically different
approach to design that does not rely implicitly on ductility. In this paper, it is shown that the commonly
used neutral axis depth approach for moment redistribution in RC flexural members cannot be used
for most plated structures because plate debonding often occurs before the concrete crushes. Tests
on plated flexural members are also reported which show that moment redistribution can occur. In
Part 2 of this paper, a moment redistribution analysis procedure is developed that can cope with plate
debonding of externally bonded plates.
Keywords: Retrofitting; reinforced concrete beams; externally bonded plates; ductility; moment
redistribution
1. INTRODUCTION
Let us consider the plated continuous beam in Fig.1; the term beam will be used in this paper in a
generic sense for both beams and slabs, that is for flexural members. Plates can be adhesively
bonded to any face, as shown, and it is now widely recognised1-6 that these plates are susceptible to
three major modes of debonding, that will be referred to as intermediate crack (IC) debonding, critical
diagonal crack (CDC) debonding and plate end (PE) debonding. PE debonding is induced by the
curvature in the beam and can be easily prevented by terminating the plate near a point of
contraflexure, so that this form of debonding should not affect the ductility of the continuous beam.
CDC debonding is induced by the shear deformation in the beam and it is a rapid and brittle form of
debonding which would prevent significant moment redistribution. Hence, it will be assumed in the
following approach that the continuous beam is designed against both CDC and PE debonding and,
therefore, the ductility, and consequentially the moment redistribution, depends on the IC debonding
resistance4,7. The tests reported in this paper were also designed not to fail prematurely by CDC and
PE debonding6 so that the effect of IC debonding on the moment redistribution was measured.
- 337 -
-ve +ve -ve

hogging sagging hogging
(c) tension face plates
PE IC IC PE
CDC CDC CDC
PE IC
(b) side plates
CDC IC PE
IC IC CDC PE
CDC PE
Figure 1. Plate debonding mechanisms
In this paper, existing design rules for moment redistribution in RC beams that are based on the well
known neutral axis depth factor ku (defined as the distance of the neutral axis from the compression
face as a proportion of the effective depth of the beam) is first related to the IC debonding resistance
to show why existing guidelines for external or surface plating often preclude moment redistribution. A
series of seven full-scale tests on two span continuous plated beams is then described in which it is
shown that substantial moment redistribution can occur. In Part 2 of this paper8, a moment
redistribution analysis procedure for plated beams is developed which calibrates well with the test
results in Part 1. This moment redistribution procedure is then applied to plating structures and it is
shown that through moment redistribution and through the judicious choice of the plating system a
substantial increases in strength and ductility can be achieved.
2. MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION IN NATIONAL STANDARDS

2.1 Neutral axis depth approach ku
International standards tend to base the ability of (unplated) reinforced concrete beams and slabs to
redistribute moment on the neutral axis parameter ku. Typical examples from five standards9-13 are
given in Fig.2 for, the commonly used, high ductility reinforcing bar steels. For these high ductility
steels, it can be assumed that the strain capacity of the steels is sufficiently large to ensure that they
never fracture prior to concrete crushing. Therefore, the ultimate failure of the RC beam is always
governed by concrete crushing at a strain εc that is often assumed to range between 0.003 to 0.004.
As shown in Fig.2, it can be seen that there is a general agreement for an upper bound of 30% to the
amount of moment redistribution that can occur. However, there is a fairly wide divergence between
predictions. For example, no moment redistribution is allowed when ku ≥ 0.4 for the Australian
Standard requirements but this is substantially increased to ku ≥ 0.6 for both the Canadian and British
Standards; the mean value for no moment redistribution from the five approaches is ku ≥ 0.48 and is
shown as point A. At the other extremity, the British Standard approach allow 30% redistribution when
ku ≤ 0.3 whereas the Canadian approach uses 30% as an upper bound as ku → 0; the mean value for
30% redistribution is ku ≤ 0.15 and is shown as point B. A line joining these mean values at the
extremities is shown as the mean value in Fig.2.
- 338 -
B
30% German
moment
mean value
redistribution
European
20 %
British
Canadian
10 %
Australian
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 A 0.6

neutral axis parameter ku
Figure 2. Moment redistribution dependence on neutral axis parameter ku
The effect of the variation A-B in Fig.2 of the neutral axis parameter ku on the strain profile of a
reinforced concrete (RC) section at failure is illustrated in Fig.3. For ease of explanation, let us
consider the case of a deep RC beam in which the effective depth d approaches the depth of the
beam h as shown in Fig.3(a) (which is the cross-section of a beam in the hogging or negative region).
It has been assumed that the concrete crushing strain εc is 0.0035, as shown in Fig.3(b). As the strain
capacity of the reinforcing bars is assumed to be very large, as previously explained, concrete
crushing always controls failure so that the strain at the compression face of εc = 0.0035 is common to
all the strain profiles shown and can be considered to be a pivotal point. It can be seen in Fig.3(b) that
the neutral axis parameter ku controls the maximum tensile strain at the tension face εtf for any depth
of beam d, as εtf = εc(1-ku)/ku and, hence, independent of d. It needs to be pointed out that the neutral
axis parameter ku does not control the curvature χ for any beam depth as this depends on the actual
depth of the beam, that is χ = εc/kud and, hence, it depends on d. However, the ku factor controls the
rotation of the plastic hinge, of length Lhinge, as this is given by χLhinge where the curvature at failure χ
= εc/kud; for example, if Lhinge ≈ d then the rotation is equal to εc/ku. It can, therefore, be seen that the
ability to redistribute moment depends on the maximum tensile strain εtf.
(εtf)0.15d=0.020 (εtf)0.48d=0.0038
ε
30% 0% to 30% 0%
tension
face 1.2 mm
CFRP plates
ductile d=h 3 mm
steel plates mean 0%
reinforcing (point A in Fig.2)
bars
mean 30% kud =
(point B in Fig.2) 0.48d kud = pivotal
compression point
face 0.15d
(a) (b) εc = 0.0035

Figure 3. Dependence of moment redistribution on tension face strains
The strain profile associated with the mean 0% redistribution, that is point A in Fig.2, is shown in
Fig.3(b) as the line mean 0%; as the depth of the neutral axis from the compression face is 0.48d, the
strain at the tensile face is (εtf)0.48d = 0.0038. The strain profile for the mean 30% redistribution at point
B in Fig.2 is also shown in Fig.3 and this requires a tensile face strain of (εtf)0.15d = 0.020. Hence,
- 339 -
when the concrete crushes and the tensile face strain εtf < 0.0038 then no moment redistribution is
allowed, when 0.0038 < εtf < 0.020 then between 0% and 30% redistribution is allowed, and when εtf >
0.020 then 30% redistribution is allowed. Generally speaking, ductile reinforcing bars can easily
accommodate these strains. However, if a plate is adhesively bonded to the tension face as shown in
Fig.3(a), then these strains have also to be accommodated by the plate.
The strain capacity of an FRP tension face plate depends on either its fracture strength or its IC
debonding resistance4,7. For most cases, IC debonding controls the strain capacity of FRP plates
which commonly debond at less than half of the fracture capacity, except for very thin plates used in
the wet lay up process. Tests, reported in this paper and also those published elsewhere5, conducted
on 1.2 mm pultruded carbon FRP (CFRP) plated beams found that the IC debonding strains ranged
from 0.0025 to 0.0052. This range of strains is shown as the shaded region labelled 1.2 mm CFRP
plates in Fig.3(b). The bounds of this range just fall either side of the mean 0% profile which suggests
that in general pultruded carbon FRP plated structures have little capacity for moment redistribution.
Metal plates can be designed to IC debond prior to yielding in which case the behaviour is similar to
that of FRP plates. However, and in contrast to FRP plates, metal plates can be designed to yield prior
to IC debonding; although it should be remembered that tests have shown that in the majority of cases
the metal plated beam will still eventually debond but at a much larger strain than if it remained elastic.
Beam tests, in this paper and others5,6 by the authors, have shown that the IC debonding strains for 3
mm steel plates range from 0.0045 to 0.021 which is shown as the hatched region in Fig.3(b), and
which suggests that metal plates that have been designed to yield prior to IC debonding may have
adequate capacity to redistribute moment.
3. MOMENT/TENSION-FACE-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP
It was shown in the previous section that moment redistribution based on the neutral axis depth, ku
approach, is controlled by the strain at the tension face εtf when the concrete crushes at εc. Hence, it
is not the moment/curvature, M/χ, relationship that is important in moment redistribution but the
moment/tension-face-strain, M/εtf, relationship such as those shown in Fig.4; Fig.4 was derived from a
standard non-linear full-interaction sectional analysis of the plated beams reported in this paper.
30
CFRP plated J
Plate concrete crushes at εc
plate fracture εp.fr
25 yield steel plated I
F
D
Moment (kNm)
20 E concrete crushes
G H IC debonding εp.db at εc
15 IC debonding εp.db B
C
concrete crushes
A
10 unplated at εc
5
yield of reinforcing bars εy
0
O
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
tension face strain (εtf)

Figure 4. Typical moment/tension-face-strain behaviours
- 340 -
The M/εtf relationship for the unplated RC beam is shown as O-A-B in Fig.4. As the ductile reinforcing
bars are assumed to have almost unlimited strain capacity in comparison with the finite concrete strain
capacity εc, the beam can only fail by concrete crushing at point B. Hence, there is typically a very
long tensile strain plateau commencing at yield of the reinforcing bars εy at point A and terminating
when the concrete crushes at a strain εc at point B. Over this plateau, A-B, the moment capacity
remains almost constant. It may be worth noting that the national standards use of ku to control the
amount of moment redistribution implicitly applies to sections with the behaviour represented by the
curve O-A-B, that is a long tensile strain plateau that is terminated by concrete crushing.
The M/εtf relationship O-C-D-E-F in Fig.4 applies to a steel plated beam in which IC debonding has
not occurred prior to concrete crushing at F. The plate yields at C and the reinforcing bars at D, after
which the moment remains fairly constant until the concrete crushes at F. This steel plated beam
behaviour, O-C-D-E-F has almost identical characteristics to that of the unplated beam O-A-B and,
hence, the ku factor used in standards can be used to control the moment redistribution.
Let us now assume that IC debonding occurs at point E in Fig.4 that is prior to concrete crushing at F
but after yielding of both the tension face plate and tension reinforcing bars at D. In this case, ku
cannot be used to control the moment redistribution as the ku approach implicitly requires the concrete
to crush as illustrated in Fig.3(b). If the steel plate debonds prior to yielding at point C, then the
behaviour is similar to that of an FRP plated section described in the following paragraph.
The M/εtf relationship for an FRP plated slab in which debonding, that is IC, PE and CDC, does not
occur prior to concrete crushing is given by O-G-H-I-J in Fig.4. The moment continues to increase
after the reinforcing bars yield at point G because FRP is a linear elastic material that does not yield
prior to fracturing, so that the plate keeps attracting more force, thereby, increasing the moment.
Hence, an FRP plated section does not have a near horizontal plateau, such as D-E-F or A-B, that is
ideal for accommodating moment redistribution away from the plated section. For this reason, the FRP
plated section keeps attracting more moment even though the moment is being redistributed. Because
of this rising plateau (G-I-J in Fig.4), FRP plated sections are less capable of redistributing moment as
compared to metal plated sections with a horizontal plateau. Furthermore, IC debonding of FRP plates
such as at point H often occurs soon after the reinforcing bars yield and generally well before the plate
fractures at point I in Fig.4 or the concrete crushes at point J so that the length of the rising plateau is
relatively short.
In conclusion, it is suggested that the use of the ku factor in standards to control moment redistribution
should not be applied to FRP plated structures because invariably the concrete does not crush and
there is no ductile horizontal plateau; both of which are implicitly required in national standards.
Furthermore, there is usually only a short rising plateau. Hence, it is suggested that the ku factors in
national standards for controlling moment redistribution should only be used for metal plated sections
in which the concrete crushes prior to the plate debonding.
4. SPECIMENS, TEST RIG AND INSTRUMENTATION
The specific aim of these tests was to both demonstrate and measure moment redistribution in
externally bonded plated flexural members and not to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
strengthening method. The specimens consisted of the two span continuous beams in Fig.5 with the
cross-sections in Fig.6. The test rig over one span is shown in Fig.7. The hogging regions of the
beams were plated and the sagging regions were left unplated as in Fig.5. The tensile reinforcement
- 341 -
in the hogging region, 2Y12 bars, was much less than the tensile reinforcement in the sagging region,
4Y16 bars, to ensure that the plated hogging region reached its moment capacity first; this then
allowed the hogging region to shed moment, or redistribute moment, to the sagging region as the
static moment was being increased, thereby, increasing the sagging moment.
P P
1200 1100 1100 1200
2Y12
Plate
120 East W10 stirrup @1200mm West
4Y16
LVDT LVDT
100 100
L=2400 L=2400
5000
Figure 5. Two span continuous beam specimens
375 bp
plate
2Y12 2Y12
tp
120 120
4Y16
4Y16
W10 at
1200mm
centres
W10 at 1200mm centres 20mm cover 375
(a) Sagging region (b) hogging region

Figure 6. Specimen cross-sectional details
Figure 7. Test rig
Advanced analysis techniques6,14-16 were used to design a specimen in which CDC and PE debonding
did not precede IC debonding. The specimens are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. PE debonding was
prevented by terminating the plate beyond the point of contraflexure and onto the compression faces
of the sagging regions. CDC debonding was prevented by ensuring that a critical diagonal crack,
associated with the concrete component of the vertical shear capacity Vc, did not occur prior to plate
debonding; because of the CDC requirement the slab shaped cross-section in Fig.6 was used.
To explain the reason for the slab shaped cross-section in Fig.6, let us consider the capacity of a
beam or slab without stirrups so that the strength is controlled by either the flexural capacity or the
- 342 -
concrete component of the shear capacity Vc, as the latter controls CDC debonding. Let us consider a
rectangular beam or slab which have the same cross-sectional area of concrete and the same cross-
sectional area of longitudinal tension reinforcing bars. The beam shaped cross-section, in which the
width is less than the depth, is more prone to vertical shear failure, and CDC debonding at Vc, than the
slab shaped cross-section, in which the width is greater than the depth. This is because the concrete
component of the vertical shear capacity of these two shapes Vc is roughly equal and, hence, their
resistance to CDC debonding. However, the beam shaped cross-section will have a higher flexural
capacity than the slab shaped cross-section due to the increased depth (lever arm) and,
consequently, can resist a greater applied load at flexural failure with its associated greater vertical
shear force. Therefore, beam shapes without stirrups are more prone to shear failure at Vc and CDC
debonding than slab shapes. Hence a relatively large but realistic span-to-depth ratio of 20 was
required and the use of a slab shaped cross-section in which the width was greater than the depth as
shown in Fig.6.
The concentrated loads P were applied at mid-span as in Fig.5 so that, for an elastic distribution of
moment with an assumed constant flexural rigidity, the maximum hogging moment would be 20%
greater than the maximum sagging moment. Deflections were measured under the applied loads P,
load cells were placed at the applied loads and at the west support in Fig.5 so that the distribution of
forces could be determined directly. Nine strain gauges were placed over the central support and
along the length of the adhesively bonded plate not only to measure the strains but also to detect IC
debonding.
Seven specimens were tested and these are listed in Table 1. The main variable was the plate
properties. Specimens SS1 to SS3 used adhesively bonded mild steel plates with plate thicknesses tp
that varied from 1 mm to 3 mm. The plate widths (bp ) were varied to ensure virtually the same cross-
sectional area and, hence, the same axial rigidity (EA) so that the theoretical M/χ relationships,
ignoring IC debonding, would be identical. The yield capacities of the plates fp.y were measured
directly and being mild steel the plate’s Young’s modulus Ep can be assumed to be 200 GPa.
Specimens SF1 to SF3 in Table 1 used adhesively bonded pultruded carbon FRP plates of
thicknesses 1.2 mm and 2.4 mm. Whereas, Specimen SF4 used three layers of carbon FRP fabric
that was applied using the wet lay-up procedure; its thickness and Young’s modulus were measured
directly from specimens that were taken from the plated beam. The plate widths were varied from 25
mm to 100 mm and specimens SF1 and SF2 had plates of the same axial rigidity. Being FRP plates,
the plates do not yield and the on-axis (longitudinal) Young’s modulus was measured directly.
Table 1 Plate properties

Test Plate tp fp.y fp.frac Ep
Bonding technique b (mm)
Specimens material (mm) p (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
SS1 steel adhesive 3 75 337 466 200
SS2 steel adhesive 2 112 223* 318 200
SS3 steel adhesive 1 224 211* 303 200
SF1 CFRP adhesive 2.4 25 - 2800 144
SF4 CFRP Wet lay-up (3 layers) 2.44 100 - 350 43
* proof stress
Near the time of testing, specimens SS1, SF1, SF2 and SF3 had a concrete cylinder compressive
strength of 39 MPa and a concrete Young’s modulus of 35 GPa, the remaining specimens had a
- 343 -
cylinder compressive strength of 48 MPa and Young’s modulus of 41 GPa. The yield strength of the
Y12 reinforcing bars was 601 MPa and that of the Y16 bars was 540 MPa.
5. TYPICAL BEHAVIOUR IN TESTS
Typical examples of the beam behaviour during testing are given in the following section.
5.1 Moment/deflection
The variation of the moment, at the position of the maximum hogging and sagging moments, with the
mean deflection under the applied loads at mid-spans, are plotted in Fig.8 for specimen SF4 which
had a wet lay-up composite laminate plate. It can be seen that near the start, in region A, the hogging
moment was slightly greater than the sagging moment as would be expected from an elastic analysis.
The hogging moment then reduced relative to the sagging moment and they have an equal magnitude
at point B (It will be shown later from Eq.2 that for this loading configuration there is 17% moment
redistribution at point B). The maximum hogging moment and the maximum plate strain occurred at
the same applied load at C, although the plate did not debond until after both the plate strain and
hogging moment (see Table 2) had reduced slightly at D. It is felt that this reduction in moment and
plate strain from C to D, just prior to IC debonding, may have been partly due to the slip between the
plate and the beam, that is partial interaction, which would reduce the flexural rigidity as well as the
plate strain in the hogging region. After IC plate debonding the behaviour of the hogging region reverts
back to that of the unplated section at E.
F
40
Msag
Moment (kNm)
30
max plate strain shear failure
plate IC debonding
20 C
D F
E Mhog
10 B
A
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 8. Moment/deflection for specimen SF4 (CFRP wet lay-up plate)
It is worth noting that the continuous beam eventually failed by vertical shear failure at point F in Fig.8.
However, this occurred well after the plate had IC debonded so that the vertical shear failure had no
effect on the redistribution of moment. It is also worth noting that the sagging moment is continually
increasing relative to the hogging moment which signifies moment redistribution; it was for this reason
that the sagging region was made much stronger than the hogging region in order to achieve as much
moment redistribution as possible.
- 344 -
Table 2 Test results

Maximum plate strain Plate debonded at one
First IC interface crack
bpxtp reached end
Spec.
(mm) Msag Mhog Msag Mhog Msag Mhog
εp εp.max εp.db
(kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm)
SS1 75x3 0.00290 15.1 14.2 0.00445 20.4 16.9 0.00445 20.4 16.9
SS2 112x2 0.00241 12.0 11.8 0.00593 29.0 19.3 0.00593 29.0 19.3
SS3 224x1 0.00270 9.8 9.7 0.01486 37.9 18.2 0.01486 37.9 18.2
SF1 25x2.4 0.00099 5.8 6.0 0.00203 14.4 10.2 0.00116 17.9 11.6
SF2 50x1.2 0.00134 6.7 6.7 0.00292 18.5 13.4 0.00262 22.3 14.0
SF3 80x1.2 0.00199 12.1 9.4 0.00249 17.9 13.3 0.00249 17.9 13.3
SF4 100x2.44 0.00191 13.3 10.4 0.00414 28.4 18.3 0.00168 30.7 16.3
5.2 IC interface crack propagation
A typical sequence of crack propagation leading to IC debonding is illustrated in Figs. 9 to 11 for

specimen SF2 which had a 1.2 mm pultruded carbon FRP plate; the numbers in the figures refer to
the applied loads. The flexural crack marked A in Fig.9 first occurred immediately over the hogging
support and this induced, at a higher load, the IC interface cracks that are parallel to the plate and
propagate in both directions that is B-C and B-D. On further loading in Fig.10, the IC interface cracks
gradually propagated away from the position of maximum moment such as from C to E and from F to
G until there was rapid crack propagation at which IC debonding occurred in Fig. 11 from H to I which
caused the plate strains to reduce which signified IC debonding.
Figure 9. Flexural crack and IC interface cracking (SF2, 1.2 mm CFRP)
Figure 10. Propagation of IC interface cracks (SF2, 1.2 mm CFRP)
- 345 -
Figure 11. IC debonding (SF2, 1.2 mm CFRP)
5.3 Hogging moment as a proportion of the sagging moment
sagging moment in the beam Msag is shown in Fig.12 for specimen SS2 which had a 2 mm thick steel
plate. For the test set up in Fig.5 and from an elastic analysis in which EI is assumed to be constant,
Mhog/Msag = 1.2 which is shown as line A in Fig.12. The abscissa in Fig.12 is the applied static
moment, Mstatic = PL/4 in Fig.5, as a proportion of the ultimate maximum static moment, (Mstatic)u =
(Msag)u + (Mhog)u/2, based on rigid plastic analysis principles in which both the hogging and sagging
sections achieve their theoretical ultimate capacities when the tension reinforcement has yielded,
(Mhog)u and (Msag)u, and ignoring IC debonding in the case of the hogging region; hence the upper limit
of Mstatic/(Mstatic)u = 1.0. The line marked B is the maximum redistribution assuming both regions
achieve their theoretical moment capacities (Mhog)u and (Msag)u and the line marked C is the maximum
redistribution after plate debonding that is when (Mhog)u is that of the unplated section.
1.4
D test results elastic (EI constant) A
1.2
E 1st IC interface IC debonding max
1 1st flexutral crack crack
Mhog/Msag
plate strain reached

occurred F
0.8
G
0.6 max. moment redistribution for plated structures B
0.4 C
maximum moment redistribution for unplated structures
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
Figure 12. Hogging-moment/sagging-moment (SS2, 2mm steel plate)
When the load is first applied Mhog/Msag approaches 1.2 in region D in Fig.12; one can still notice a
slight divergence from this value because the beam is bedding or settling down under very small
loads. Soon after, Mhog/Msag reduces gradually and the divergence from Mhog/Msag equal to 1.2 signifies
moment redistribution. The first flexural crack is observed at point E, this is shortly followed by the
appearance of the first IC interface crack at F and eventually IC debonding at point G which coincided
with the maximum plate strain.
- 346 -
The results for specimen SF2 which had a 1.2 mm carbon FRP pultruded plate are shown in Fig.13. In
this case, (Mhog)u is the experimentally measured moment at plate debonding and (Msag)u is still the
rigid plastic strength and from which (Mstatic)u and line B were calculated. As with the steel plated beam
in Fig.12, the first IC interface crack at F occurred at a very early stage of loading. However, unlike the
steel plated specimen in Fig.12, the maximum plate strain of 0.00292 (see Table 2) occurred at H prior
to IC debonding at I. After IC debonding of the plate, the beam behaves as an unplated beam and the
test was continued until the beam failed in shear at point J just short of its theoretical unplated flexural
capacity allowing for full moment redistribution.
1.4
elastic (constant EI) A
1.2
1st IC interface
crack max plate strain
1 test
Mhog/Msag
F reached
results
0.8
I
0.6 H
IC debonding
max. redistribution for plated structure B
0.4
maximum moment redistribution for unplated J C
0.2 structure
shear failure
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mstatic/(Mstatic)u
Figure 13. Hogging-moment/sagging-moment (SF2, 1.2mm pultruded CFRP plate)
6. TEST RESULTS
The results from all seven tests are summarised in Table 2 where the measured plate strains εp,
hogging moments Mhog and sagging moments Msag are tabulated at the first appearance of an
interface IC crack in columns 3 to 5, at the maximum plate strain in columns 6 to 8 and at plate
debonding in columns 9 to 11. It may be worth noting that the maximum strain εp.max for the CFRP
plates are considerably less than the CFRP fracture strain of 0.019 as commonly occurs in externally
bonded plates4.
7. MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION IN TEST SPECIMENS
It is common design practice in a frame or beam analysis to assume that the flexural rigidity of an RC
beam is constant in order to determine the elastic distribution of moments. Let us, therefore, define
moment redistribution as the change in moment from the elastic moment based on the flexural rigidity
being constant throughout the beam. Hence the percentage redistribution of moment from the hogging
region is given by
(M ) − (M )
% MR = × 100
hog EI .const hog test
(M ) hog EI .const
(1)
where for a specific static moment, (Mhog)EI.const is the theoretical hogging moment from a linear elastic
analysis which assumes that the flexural rigidity EI is constant and (Mhog)test is the experimental
- 347 -
hogging moment for the same static moment, that is the same applied load. For the loading
configuration in these tests, as shown in Fig.5, the percentage moment redistribution from Eq.1
becomes
0.75(M static )tests − (M hog )tests

% MR = × 100 (2)
0.75(M static )tests
where (Mstatic)test is the static moment induced by the applied load in the test.
The variation of the percentage moment redistribution with the static moment is shown up to plate
debonding in Fig.14 for all seven tests. The large scatter at the start is due to the beam settling down
on its supports and also because the applied loads are very small. Apart from specimen SF3, the
remaining six beams appear to settle down at about the load at A after which there is a gradual
increase in the percentage moment redistribution. All of the beams achieved at least 20%
redistribution before debonding and five beams achieved a redistribution of greater than the upper
limit of 30% that international standards use as shown in Fig.2.
50
plate
%Moment redistribtuion
40 debond shear
30 failure
SS1
20 SS2
SS3
10 plate SF1
debond SF2
0 SF3
SF4
A
-10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
M /(M )
static static u
Figure 14. Variation of % moment redistribution with static moment
The variation of moment redistribution with plate strains is shown in Fig.15. In general for the FRP
plated beams, the strain reduces prior to debonding such as from A to B which is an additional safety
mechanism, whereas for the steel plated beams debonding and the maximum strain tend to coincide
such as at point C, although there is a reduction in the increase in the plate strain prior to debonding.
50
B C
%Moment redistribution
40
B B A C
30 A
A SS1
20 SS2
SS3
10 SF1
SF2
0 SF3
SF4
-10
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Plate strain (at centre)
Figure 15. Variation of % moment redistribution with plate strain
- 348 -
The percentage moment redistribution at the maximum plate strain εp.max and at debonding εp.db are
listed in Table 3. It can be seen that substantial amounts of redistribution have occurred in both the
steel and FRP plated specimens. For example at the maximum plate strains the percentage moment
redistribution ranges from 22% to 48%. It is also worth noting that in general the FRP plated
specimens have a lower percentage redistribution at the maximum plate strains which range from
28% to 35% than at debonding where the plate strains have reduced which range from 35% to 44%.
As design is generally based on the maximum plate strain that can be achieved prior to debonding, it
is felt that the moment redistributions at the maximum strains should be used to represent the moment
redistribution and those at debonding represent an additional factor of safety.
Table 3 Percentage moment redistribution

bpxtp plate %MR at %MR at
Specimen εp.max εp.db
(mm) material εp.max εp.db
SS1 75x3 steel 0.00445 22 0.00445 22
SS2 112x2 steel 0.00593 33 0.00593 33
SS3 224x1 steel 0.01486 48 0.01486 48
SF1 25x2.4 CFRP 0.00203 30 0.00116 35
SF2 50x1.2 CFRP 0.00292 29 0.00262 36
SF3 80x1.2 CFRP 0.00249 28 0.00249 28
SF4 100x2.44 CFRP 0.00414 35 0.00168 44
8. SUMMARY
From a consideration of the moment redistribution allowances in international standards that are
based on the neutral axis parameter ku, it is suggested that the ku approach should only be used for
metal plated beams in which concrete crushing precedes debonding. Tests on seven plated beams
have shown that substantial amounts of moment redistribution can occur. For carbon FRP plated
beams this ranged from 28% to 35% and for steel plated beams from 22% to 48%. Hence plated
beams have a scope for moment redistribution.
9. REFERENCES
1) ACI 440.2R-02 (2002). “Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems
for Strengthening Concrete Structures”. Reported by ACI Committee 440. American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA.
2) Blaschko, M., Nierdermeier, R., and Zilch, K. (1998). “Bond failure modes of flexural members
strengthened with FRP”. Proceedings of Second International Conference on Composites in
Infrastructures, Saadatmanesh, H. and Ehsani, M. R., eds., Tucson, Arizona, 315-327.
3) fib bulletin 14 (2001). “Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures. Design and use of
externally bonded fibre reinforced polymer reinforcement (FRP EBR) for reinforced concrete
structures”. Task Group 9.3 FRP reinforcement for concrete structures. Lausanne, Switzerland.
4) Teng, J.G., Chen, J.F,. Smith, S.T., and Lam, L. (2002). “FRP Strengthened RC Structures”. John
Wiley and Sons. Ltd. Chichester, England.
5) Oehlers D.J., Park S.M. and Mohamed Ali, M.S. (2003) “A Structural Engineering Approach to
Adhesive Bonding Longitudinal Plates to RC Beams and Slabs.” Composites Part A, Vol. 34, pp 887-
897.
- 349 -
6) Oehlers, D.J. and Seracino, R. (2004) “Design of FRP and Steel Plated RC Structures: retrofitting
beams and slabs for strength, stiffness and ductility.” Elsevier. September.
7) Teng, J.G., Smith, S.T., Yao, J. and Chen, J.F. (2003) “Intermediate crack-induced debonding in
RC beams and slabs.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol.17, No.6-7, pp 447-462.
8) Oehlers, D.J., Liu, I., Ju,G., and Seracino, R., “Moment redistribution in continuous plated RC
flexural members. Part 2: flexural rigidity approach.” Submitted to Engineering Structures (2004).
9) Deutsches Institut fur Normung - German Intstitute of Standards; (1997). DIN1045
10) International System of Unified Standard Codes of Practise for Structures; (1990) “Model code for
concrete structures - Europe.” CEB-FIP
11) British Standards Institution; (1995) “Structural use of concrete – Part 1.” BS 8110
12) Canadian Standards Association; (1994) “Code for the design of concrete structures for buildings.”
CAN-A23.2
13)Standards Australia; (1994) “Australian Concrete Structures Standard” AS 3600, Sydney, Australia.
14)Mohamed Ali M.S., Oehlers D.J. and Bradford M.A. (2001). “ Shear peeling of steel plates bonded
to the tension faces of RC beams” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. Dec. Vol.127 No.12,
pp1453-1460.
15)Mohamed Ali M.S., Oehlers D.J. and Bradford M.A. (2002). “Interaction between flexure and shear
on the debonding of RC beams retrofitted with compression face plates” Advances in Structural
Engineering. Vol.5 No.4, pp223-230
16)Smith, S.T. and Teng, J.G. (2003) “Shear-bending interaction in debonding failures of FRP-plated
RC beams.” Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol.6. No. 3, August, pp183-200.
- 350 -

04chapter5 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

04chapter5 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER

5 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION 277

5.1 Introduction 279

5.2 Literature Review 280

5.5 Summary 441

5.6 References 442

5.7 Notations 444

5.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

5.2.1 DEFINITION OF DUCTILITY

5.2.2 DEFINITION OF MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION

Table 5.1 Definitions of moment redistribution (Rebentrost 2003)

Reference Definition of moment redistribution

βmax = maximum % MR required for wpl

5.2.3 TESTS ON CONTINUOUS PLATED RC BEAMS

Figure 5.1 Tests performed by El-Refaie et al. (2002, 2003)

Top Bottom hogging sagging %moment redistribution

5.3 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON RC BEAMS WITH EXTERNALLY BONDED

5.3.1 GEOMETRY OF TEST SPECIMENS

East W10 stirrup @1200c/c West

support Interior support support 4Y16

Figure 5.2 Two span continuous beam specimens

Figure 5.3 Cross-sectional details of EB test series

Table 5.3 Geometrical properties of externally bonded plates

Specimen material tp (mm) bp (mm) be (mm)

moment-curvature relationships, ignoring intermediate crack debonding, would be identical.

5.3.2 TEST SETUP AND INSTRUMENTATION

East 100 100 West

LVDT 1 LVDT 1 LC3

Figure 5.4 Test set-up

Figure 5.5 Moment distribution

Figure 5.6 Test rig

900 100 100 100 100 900

Figure 5.8 Strain gauges positions for externally bonded plated

5.3.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Age Sample No. Ec (MPa) fc (MPa) Density (x10-3 g/mm3)

Table 5.5 Concrete properties for beams SS2, SS3, SF4

Age Sample No. Ec (MPa) ft (MPa) fc (MPa) Density (x10-3 g/mm3)

Table 5.6 Material properties of reinforcing bars for EB test series

Bars Sample no. fy (MPa) fu (MPa)

Table 5.7 Properties of EB plates

Material Sample no. tp (mm) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) Ep (GPa)

Pultruded 1 2.4 - 2800 144

Table 5.8 Properties of adhesives from manufacturer’s specifications

Manufacturer’s specifications From tests

5.3.4 TEST RESULTS

5.3.4.1 BEAM SS1 (STEEL 75X3)

Figure 5.9 Beam SS1: Prior to debonding (P=32kN)

Initial debonding occurred at a load P of 37kN (R=12.6kN, Mhog=14.2kNm, Msag=15.1kNm), as shown

Figure 5.10 Beam SS1: Initial debonding (P=37kN)

Figure 5.11 Beam SS1: Debonding propagation (P=47kN)

East Debonding propagation D C B A

Figure 5.12 Beam SS1: Debonding failure (P=48kN)

Figure 5.13 Beam SS1: Moment vs displacement

Figure 5.14 Beam SS1: Moment vs plate strain

1.2 A elastic (EI constant)

Figure 5.15 Beam SS1: hogging-moment/sagging-moment

Figure 5.16 Beam SS1: Maximum hogging and sagging moments

30 1st debonding IC debonding

Figure 5.17 Beam SS1: percentage of moment redistribution

5.3.4.2 BEAM SS2 (STEEL 112X2)

Figure 5.18 Beam SS2: Initial debonding (P=30kN)

Figure 5.19 Beam SS2: Debonding propagation (P=38kN)

Figure 5.20 Beam SS2: Debonding propagation (P=55kN)

Oehlers, D.J., Ju, G., Liu, I., and ****Seracino, R.