Strengthening of RC Members Using Near-Surface

Mounted FRP Composites: Design Overview

Renato Parretti∗ and Antonio Nanni

(Received: 7 February 2004; Received revised form: 3 May 2004; Accepted: 4 May 2004)

Abstract: Strengthening of reinforced and prestressed concrete (RC and PC) members
using externally bonded FRP laminates is today a well-accepted technology that is
becoming popular among designers and contractors. Near-surface mounted (NSM) FRP
reinforcement represents an alternative way to improve flexural and shear performance
of concrete structures. In some instance, it is the only suitable technology that can be
efficiently applied, for example, when upgrading beam-column joints or for flexural
strengthening of compression members. In this paper, bond related issues, flexural and
shear design recommendations, and design examples are presented. The paper is an
attempt to provide designers with a comprehensive protocol for the rational
implementation of NSM technology.

Key words: bond, design, detailing, FRP, near-surface mounted reinforcement, reinforced concrete, strengthening.

1. INTRODUCTION providing either additional strength or ductility when

The use of Near-Surface Mounted (NSM) FRP moving the failure zone from the column to the beam
reinforcement is an attractive method for increasing (Prota et al. 2001).
flexural and shear strength of deficient reinforced Figure 1 shows a recent application of NSM
and prestressed concrete (RC and PC) members technology for silo strengthening (Emmons et al.
(Alkhrdaji et al. 1999, De Lorenzis et al. 2000) as well 2001) where FRP bars have been used to enhance both
as strengthening unreinforced masonry walls (Tumialan flexural and confinement capacity. Figure 2 illustrates
et al. 2001). Advantages with respect to externally the application of this technology for upgrading a solid
bonded FRP laminates include the possibility of RC bridge deck (Alkhrdaji et al. 2000), and Figure 3
anchoring the reinforcement into adjacent members, and represents a similar case where NSM FRP bars were
the opportunity of upgrading elements in their negative used to increase the bridge deck negative moment
moment region with the reinforcement not exposed to capacity (Warren 1998). Figure 4 shows the grooving of
potential mechanical damage typical of floor or deck RC joists to be strengthened in shear with carbon FRP
systems (Nanni et al. 1999). NSM FRP technique does bars used as NSM reinforcement (Hogue et al., 1999).
not require extensive surface preparation work and, after Figure 5 shows the application of rectangular-section
groove cutting, requires minimal installation time carbon FRP bars used to stitch a longitudinal crack on
compared to externally bonded FRP laminates because the soffit of a bridge deck (Casadei et al. 2003).
the use of primer and putty is normally not necessary. Even though there are no design guidelines for
NSM reinforcement technology becomes particularly the use of NSM technology in North America, ACI
interesting in seismic retrofit of RC column-beam joints Committee 440 is presently considering a revision of the

*Corresponding author. Email address: [email protected]; Fax: +39-081-768-3491 ; Tel: +39-081-768-3534.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004 1

 Strengthening of RC Members Using Near-Surface Mounted FRP Composites: Design Overview

Figure 3. Negative moments regions strengthening of bridge

deck with NSM bars

Figure 1. Strengthening of cement silos using NSM carbon

FRP bars

Figure 2. Strengthening of a bridge deck using NSM Figure 4. Shear strengthening of RC joist using carbon
carbon FRP NSM bars

(c) Insertion of NSM bar into the groove (d) Application completed

Figure 5. Stitching of crack with rectangular NSM FRP bars

2 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004

Renato Parretti and Antonio Nanni

document titled: “Guide for the Design and Construction Table 1. Environmental-reduction factor
of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening CE (ACI 440 2002)
Concrete Structures (ACI 440.2R-02),” to include such
Fiber and
technology. Exposure condition resin type CE
Interior exposure Carbon/epoxy 0.95
2. HISTORY OF THE TECHNOLOGY Glass/epoxy 0.75
The use of NSM reinforcement was developed in Europe Aramid/epoxy 0.85
for strengthening of RC structures in the early 1950s. Exterior exposure (bridges, Carbon/epoxy 0.85
In 1948, an RC bridge deck in Sweden needed to be piers, and unenclosed Glass/epoxy 0.65
upgraded in its negative moment region due to an parking garages) Aramid/epoxy 0.75
excessive settlement of the steel cage during construction. Aggressive environment Carbon/epoxy 0.85
(chemical plants and waste Glass/epoxy 0.50
This was accomplished by inserting steel reinforcement water treatment plants) Aramid/epoxy 0.70
bars in grooves made in the concrete surface and filling
it with cement mortar (Asplund 1949).
More recently, NSM reinforcement has been used other failure of the FRP system occur due to fire,
to upgrade masonry structures to increase their tensile vandalism, or other causes. The existing strength of the
strength and ductility (Atkinsosn and Schuller 1992). structure (φRn) should be sufficient to resist a level of
This technology is an effective and economical means load described by Eqn 1:
of repairing and strengthening low-rise masonry buildings (φRn )existing = (1.2 D + 0.85 L)new (1)
and arch bridges (Garrity 1995). Stainless steel has
replaced the original black steel adopted at the onset of Material properties of FRP reinforcement reported by
the development, while the cementitious grout used for manufacturers, such as ultimate tensile strength, typically
embedding the reinforcement has been partially replaced do not consider long-term exposure to environmental
by epoxy-based grouts. conditions, and should be considered as initial properties.
Today, FRP bars have became attractive for their non- FRP properties to be used in all design equations are
corrosive properties and the ability of tailoring the bar given as follows (ACI 440 2002 and 2003):
stiffness to the needs of the application. Epoxy-based
pastes or latex-modified cement grouts can be used for f fu = CE f fu*
(2)
their rapid setting and bond strength. ε fu = CE ε *fu

3. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY where ffu and εfu are the FRP design tensile strength and
The strength design approach with its strength reduction ultimate strain considering the environmental reduction
factors as used in ACI 318 (1999) is recommended for factor (CE) as given in Table 1, and f fu* and ε *fu represent
RC and PC members using NSM FRP reinforcement. the FRP guaranteed tensile strength and ultimate strain
Reference to this version of the Building Code rather as reported by the manufacturer. FRP design modulus
than the 2002 edition is necessary to remain consistent of elasticity is the guaranteed value reported by the
with the design guides issued by ACI on the use of FRP manufacturer.
for new construction and repair. Additional strength
reduction factors applied to the contribution of the NSM 4. FLEXURAL DESIGN
reinforcement are suggested to reflect the novelty of FRP Guidance for the calculation of the flexural strengthening
systems compared with traditional methods. effect resulting from longitudinal FRP reinforcement
The equations presented in this paper are based on mounted onto the tension face of an RC member is
principles of force equilibrium, strain compatibility, illustrated in Figure 6 for the case of a rectangular section.
constitutive laws of the materials, and make reference to Assumptions used in the design are: a) a plane section
the “Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally before loading remains plane after loading; b) the
Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete maximum usable compressive strain in the concrete is
Structures” reported by ACI Committee 440 (2002), and 0.003, and its tensile strength is neglected; c) FRP
the “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete reinforcement has a linear-elastic behavior up to failure;
Reinforced with FRP Bars” also reported by ACI and d) perfect bond exists between FRP reinforcement
Committee 440 (2003). and surrounding concrete.
Careful consideration should be given to determine The strength reduction approach follows the
a strengthening threshold. The threshold is imposed to philosophy of ACI 318 (1999) Appendix B, where a
guard against collapse of the structure should bond or member with low ductility should be compensated with

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004 3

 Strengthening of RC Members Using Near-Surface Mounted FRP Composites: Design Overview

b Ac C fc′ where:
fc'
> 1c ε c' = 1.71 (5)
c Ec
and tan −1 (ε c / ε c′ ) is computed in radians.
Neutral
axis
h df d The ultimate effective strain (εfe) that should be used
for FRP reinforcement is given below:
As As fs A s ε fe = κ m ε fu (6)
ffe Af
Af
Af
where κm is a bond dependent coefficient meant to limit
the strain in the FRP reinforcement to prevent debonding
Figure 6. Ultimate internal strain and stress distribution for or delamination. Debond and delamination usually take
rectangular sections place whenever a crack forms in the member. End points
of strengthening systems, representing singular points,
a higher reserve of strength. The higher reserve of strength could be more prone to debond. Limited experimental
is achieved by applying a factor of 0.70 to brittle members, evidences (De Lorenzis and Nanni 2002) indicate that
as opposed to 0.90 for ductile members. The strength- κm is highly affected by surface properties of the FRP
reduction factor (φ) given by Eqn 3 should be used bar (deformed or sandblasted), by groove size, by
(ACI 440 2002): properties of the epoxy paste, and concrete tensile
strength. Splitting of the epoxy cover, cracking of the
 0.90 for ε s ≥ 0.005
( )
 concrete surrounding the bar, and pull-out of the FRP
 0.20 ε s − ε y bar were the main failure modes experimented during
φ = 0.70 + for ε y < ε s < 0.005 (3)
 0.005 − ε y the laboratory tests reported in the literature. Experimental
 0.70 for εs ≤ ε y values of κm were found to vary between 0.60 and 0.84.
Further research should result in a more accurate method
where εs and εy is the strain in the reinforcing steel at for predicting the appropriate bond dependant factor.
ultimate and yielding, respectively. A value of κm=0.70 has been selected in the design
The calculation procedure used to arrive at the example (see Appendix I). This value is consistent with
nominal strength should consider the governing mode of both experimental data (De Lorenzis and Nanni 2002)
failure. The trial and error procedure presented in this and the approach followed by ACI 440 (2002) when
paper involves selecting a given neutral axis depth defining an equivalent strain reduction factor for
(c) and a failure mode (i.e. selecting εc = εcu or εf = εfe); externally bonded FRP laminates.
calculating the strain level in each material using strain Nominal tension strain attained in the concrete
compatibility; calculating the associated stress level in surrounding FRP bars can be expressed as:
each material from its stress-strain relationship; and
df − c
checking internal force equilibrium. If the internal force ε c, f = ε cu ≤ ε fe + ε bi (7)
resultants do not equilibrate, the depth to the neutral axis c
is revised and the procedure repeated. where df represents the depth to the FRP reinforcement
When failure is controlled by concrete crushing, the as illustrated in Figure 6.
Whitney stress block approach (ACI 318 1999) can be The initial strain εbi in Eqn 7 can be evaluated using
used without modifications. If FRP rupture or concrete an elastic analysis of the existing member, considering
cover delamination control failure, the stress resultant all loads present at the time of FRP installation. The first
for concrete should be determined from an appropriate term in Eqn 7, (( d f − c)/ c)ε cu, should be used when
non-linear stress-strain relationship or by a rectangular concrete crushing failure governs. The second term,
stress block suitable for the particular level of strain in ε fe + ε bi , should be used when FRP is the controlling
the concrete. Parameters for such a stress block are failure mode.
given in Eqns 4 and 5 (see also Figure 6) (Todeschini Assuming no compression steel reinforcement, the
et al. 1982). moment capacity of the strengthened member can be

β1 = 2 −
[
4 (ε c ε c′ ) − tan −1 (ε c ε c′ ) ] expressed as follows:
(ε c (
ε c′ )ln 1 + ε ε c′ 2
c
2
)  β c  β c
Mn = As fs  d − 1  + ψ f A f f fe  d f − 1 

(8)
(4) 2   2 
γ =
(
0.90 ln 1 + ε 2
c ε c′ 2
) where fs and ffe are taken from Eqn 9, and ψf is an
β1ε c ε c′ additional reduction factor of 0.85 recommended to take

4 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004

Renato Parretti and Antonio Nanni

into account for the novelty of FRP and it is not based groove size at least 1.5 times the bar diameter, a
on test data (ACI 440 2002): conservative value of τb=6.9 MPa (1.0 ksi) can be used
(De Lorenzis and Nanni 2001b).
fs = Es ε s < f y Ltot can be expressed as Ltot = ΣiLi where Li (Figure 7)
(9)
f fe = E f ε c, f ≤ E f ε fe represents the length of each single NSM bar crossed by
a 45-degree shear crack expressed as follows:
 s n
5. SHEAR DESIGN  cos α + sin α i ≤ l0.004 i = 1...
2
The approach used to calculate the nominal shear capacity Li = 
l net − s n
of a member strengthened using NSM bars is similar to i ≤ l0.004 i= + 1...n (12)
that used in ACI 440 (2002) for the case of externally  cos α + sin α 2
bonded FRP laminates. However, the design approach where α is the slope of the FRP bar with respect to the
here presented deviates from the standard equations longitudinal axis of the member (common values are 90º
practitioners are used to; it is envisioned that a more for vertical NSM bars, and 45º or 60º for inclined bars),
standardized approach could be pursued in future s is the FRP bar spacing, and lnet, defined as follows:
implementations.
Eqn 10 is applicable for NSM systems and the same 2c
l net = l b − (13)
strength reduction factor φ=0.85 suggested by ACI 318 sin α
is used. An additional reduction factor ψf = 0.85 is
represents the net length of a FRP bar as shown in
applied to the contribution of NSM FRP reinforcement
Figure 8 to account for cracking of the concrete cover
to the shear strength of the member, as previously
and installation tolerances. In Eqn 13, lb is the actual
suggested for flexural design.
length of a FRP bar, and c is the clear concrete cover
(
φVn = φ Vc + Vs + ψ f Vf ) (10) of the internal longitudinal reinforcement. It is to be
noted that c does not necessarily need to be considered
Several parameters influence the NSM FRP bars
as clear concrete cover; Figure 9 shows a T-shaped cross
contribution to the shear capacity (Vf), such as quality of
section where c represents a term to account for the
bond, FRP rebar type, groove dimensions, and quality of
development length of FRP bars.
substrate material. When computing Vf , two strain limits
The second limitation in Eqn 12, l0.004, takes into
need to be taken into account (De Lorenzis and Nanni
account the shear integrity of the concrete by limiting at
2001a) namely: strain from bond-controlled failure,
and maximum strain threshold of 0.004. The latter is Bond-controlled
suggested to maintain the shear integrity of the concrete failure
s s s s s s Li Li+1
(Khalifa et al. 1998), and to avoid large shear cracks that
could compromise the aggregate interlock mechanism. l0.004
The following assumptions are made: a) the slope of
the shear crack is assumed to be at 45 degrees; and
l net
b) bond stresses are constant along the effective length NSM bars

of the FRP bar at ultimate.

The shear strength provided by the NSM reinforcement l0.004
can be determined by calculating the force resulting from ac
k
cr L1 L L
the tensile stress in the FRP bars across the assumed Sh
ear 45˚ L2 L3 4 5
crack, and it is expressed by Eqn 11 for circular and
rectangular bars, respectively. Figure 7. Representation of bar lengths as used for shear
capacity computation
Vf = 2πdbτ b Ltot Circular Bars
(11) b
Vf = 4( a + b)τ b Ltot Rectangular Bars c db
NSM FRP bars
where db is the nominal FRP bar diameter, a and b
represent the cross-sectional dimension for rectangular net b Existing steel
FRP bar, and τb represents the average bond stress of the stirrups
bars crossed by a shear crack. Experimental data c c
available on 10-mm (#3) carbon FRP deformed bars
demonstrate that when using an epoxy based resin in a Figure 8. Relationship between lnet and length of the NSM bar lb

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004 5

 Strengthening of RC Members Using Near-Surface Mounted FRP Composites: Design Overview

when a rectangular bar with large aspect ratio is used,

the limit may loose significance due to constructability.
c In such a case, a minimum groove size of 3.0 a × 1.5b
db NSM FRP bars as depicted in Figure 10 could be suggested, where a is
d the smallest bar dimension. In other instances, the
net Existing steel
minimum groove dimension could be the result of
b
stirrups installation requirements rather than engineering. For
example a 5 mm (0.2 in) groove may be the smallest
c possible because of the saw blade size.
bw No data is available for maximum dimensions of the
groove at this time. Tests were conducted using the
Figure 9. Shear strengthening of T-shaped concrete suggested above mentioned dimensions. However,
cross-sections De Lorenzi and Nanni, 2002, suggest that increasing
groove size will increase bond strength when failure is
0.004 the maximum strain in the FRP reinforcement. controlled by splitting of epoxy paste. This effect does
From the force equilibrium condition, ( Ab (0.004 E f ) = not seem to appear when pullout failure occurs.
πdb l0.004τ b ), l0.004 can be determined as follows for Bond properties between FRP reinforcement and
circular and rectangular bars, respectively: concrete are similar to that of steel reinforcement,
db E f and depend on FRP type, elastic modulus, surface
l0.004 = 0.001 Circular Bars deformation, and shape of the FRP bar (Al-Zahrani
τb et al. 1996; Uppuluri et al. 1996; Gao et al. 1998). For
(14)
a ⋅ b Ef the case of RC beams strengthened using NSM CFRP
l0.004 = 0.002 Rectangular Bars
a + b τb rectangular bars, Hassan and Rizkalla (2002) found
that the development length is highly dependent on
where Ef represents Young’s modulus of FRP bars.
strip dimensions, groove size, concrete and adhesive
The first limitation in Eqn 12 takes into account bond
properties, internal steel reinforcement ratio, reinforcement
as the controlling failure mechanism, and represents the
configuration, and type of loading. They suggested that
minimum effective length of a FRP bar crossed by a
the development length increases by increasing the
shear crack. It is expressed by s ⋅ i /(cos α + sin α ) or
internal steel reinforcement ratio, and decreases with the
l net − s ⋅ i /(cos α + sin α ) depending on the value
increase of either the concrete compressive strength
assumed by the term
and/or the groove size.
l eff (1 + cot α ) Figure 11 shows the equilibrium condition of a FRP
n= (15)
s bar with an embedded length equal to its development
where n is taken as the smallest integer (e.g., length, ld. The force in the bar is resisted by the shear
n = 32 / 3 = 10.7 ⇒ n = 10 ), and leff represents the vertical stresses τb acting on the surface of the bar. Assuming a
length of lnet written as follows: triangular stress distribution (Ibell and Valerio 2002),
the average bond stress can be expressed as τb = 0.5τmax.
l eff = l b sin α − 2c (16)
Spacing of FRP shear reinforcement should not
exceed lnet /2, or 600 mm (24 in).
1.5db b 1.5b
To prevent crushing of concrete, the total reinforcement a
contribution taken as the sum of both steel and FRP 1.5db 3.0a
reinforcement, should be limited based on the criteria
given for steel alone in ACI 318, as suggested in Eqn 17 Figure 10. Minimum dimension of the grooves
for US and SI customary, respectively:
rmax
8 fc′bd US Customary 0.5rmax
Vs + Vf ≤  (17) rb
0.66 fc′bd SI Af,bar ffe

6. DETAILING ld
The minimum dimension of the grooves should be taken
at least 1.5 times the diameter of the FRP bar. However, Figure 11. Transfer of force in an FRP bar

6 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004

Renato Parretti and Antonio Nanni

Via equilibrium, the following equations can be derived Alkhrdaji, T., Nanni, A. and Mayo, R., (2000). “Upgrading missouri
for circular and rectangular bars, respectively: transportation infrastructures: solid RC decks strengthened with
FRP”, Transportation Research Record, No. 1740, pp. 157-169.
db
ld = f fe Circular Bars (also available in: Proceedings, 79th Annual Transportation
4(0.5τ max ) Research Board, Jan. 9-13, 2000, Washington, DC, CD-ROM
(18)
a⋅b version, paper 00-1177, 24 pp.)
ld = f fe Rectangular Bars Al-Zahrani, M. M., Nanni, A., Al-Dulaijan, S. U. and Bakis, C. E.
2( a + b)(0.5τ max )
(1996). “Bond of FRP to concrete for bars with axisymmetric
Hassan and Rizkalla (2002) suggest an expression for deformations”, Proceedings of the Second International
τmax when concrete crushing is the controlling failure Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and
mode. When the controlling failure mode is not known, Structures (ACMBS-II), Montreal, Canada, pp. 853-860.
a conservative value of τmax=3.5 MPa (0.50 ksi) is Asplund, S. O. (1949). “Strengthening of bridge slabs with grouted
suggested. reinforcement”, Journal of the American Concrete Institute,
Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 397-406.
7. CONCLUSIONS Atkinson, R. H. and Schuller, M. P. (1992). “Development of
Near-surface mounted reinforcement is an old technology injectible grouts for the repair of unreinforced masonry”,
used over more than half a century to enhance flexural Proceedings of the Workshop on Effectiveness of Retrofitting of
capacity of existing RC and masonry structures. Today, Stone and Brick Masonry Walls in Seismic Areas, Dept. of Struct.
thanks to the availability of FRP composites, it is Engrg., Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
becoming increasingly more attractive and sometimes Casadei, P., Galati, N., Parretti, R. and Nanni A. (2003).
even more promising than the use of externally bonded “Strengthening of a bridge using two FRP technologies”, Field
FRP laminates. Application of FRP Reinforcement: Case Studies, ACI
In this paper, an overview of flexural and shear design Convention, Boston, Sept. 27-Oct. 1, Rizkalla, S., and Nanni A.,
of RC members strengthened with NSM FRP bars was Editors, ACI Special Publication No. 215, American Concrete
presented. The proposed procedure reflects the framework Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 219-237.
used in the two guides published by ACI (ACI 440.2R-02, De Lorenzis, L., Nanni, A. and La Tegola, A. (2000). “Flexural and
2002, and ACI 440.1R-03, 2003) with adjustment coming shear strengthening of reinforced concrete structures with near
from experimental evidences. surface mounted FRP bars”, Proceedings of the Third
Unresolved issues requiring additional experimental International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in
work include properties and quality of bond between Bridges and Structures, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 521-528.
FRP bars, paste and concrete, as well as a better De Lorenzis, L. and Nanni, A. (2001a). “Strengthening of reinforced
understanding of the importance of groove size, especially concrete beams with near-surface mounted fiber-reinforced
when using rectangular bars. Limited experience is polymer bars”, Structural Journal, ACI, V. 98, No. 1, pp. 60-68.
available on shear strengthening with NSM bars, and De Lorenzis, L. and Nanni, A. (2001b). “Characterization of FRP bars
more data are needed to better validate the analysis here as near surface mounted reinforcement”, Journal of Composites for
presented. Construction, ASCE, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 114-121.
De Lorenzis, L. and Nanni, A. (2002). “Bond between near surface
REFERENCES mounted FRP bars and concrete in structural strengthening”,
ACI Committee 318 (1999). Building Code Requirements for Structural Journal, ACI, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp. 123-133.
Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (ACI 318R-99), Emmons, P., Thomas, J. and Sabnis, G.M. (2001). “New
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 391 pp. strengthening technology for blue circle cement silo repair and
ACI Committee 440 (2002). Guide for the Design and Construction upgrade”, Proceedings of FRP Workshop US-AID, Cairo, Egypt.
of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Gao, D., Benmokrane, B. and Tighiouart, B. (1998). Bond
Structures (ACI 440.2R-02), American Concrete Institute, Properties of FRP Rebars to Concrete, Technical Report,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, 45 pp. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke,
ACI Committee 440 (2003). Guide for the Design and Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, 27 pp.
Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI Garrity, S. W. (1995). “Retro-reinforcement – a proposed repair
440.1R-03), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, system for masonry arch bridges”, Proceedings of the First
Michigan, 42 pp. International Conference on Arch Bridges, Bolton, UK,
Alkhrdaji, T., Nanni, A., Chen, G. and Barker, M. (1999). pp. 557-566.
“Upgrading the transportation infrastructure: solid RC decks Hassan, T. and Rizkalla, S. “Investigation of bond in concrete
strengthened with FRP”, Concrete International, American structures strengthened with near surface mounted CFRP strips”
Concrete Institute, Vol. 21, No. 10, pp. 37-41. (in press).

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004 7

 Strengthening of RC Members Using Near-Surface Mounted FRP Composites: Design Overview

Hogue, T., Cornforth, R.C. and Nanni, A. (1999). “Myriad Uppuluri, V. S., Bakis, C. E., Nanni, A. and Boothby, T. E. (1996).
convention center floor system reinforcement”, Proceedings of “Analysis of the bond mechanism in FRP reinforcement bars: the
the FRPRCS-4, C.W. Dolan, S. Rizkalla and A. Nanni, Editors, effect of bar design and properties”, Proceedings of the Second
ACI, Baltimore, MD, pp. 1145-1161. International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials
Ibell, T.J. and Valerio, P. (2002). “Shear strengthening of existing in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS-II), Montreal, Canada,
concrete bridges”, Proceedings of ICE Structures and Buildings, pp. 893-900.
UK, in press. Warren, G. E. (1998). “Waterfront repair and upgrade”, Advanced
Khalifa, A., Gold, W. J., Nanni, A. and Abdel Aziz, M. I. (1998). Technology Demonstration Site No. 2: Pier 12, NAVSTA San
“Contribution of externally bonded FRP to shear capacity of RC Diego, Site Specific Report SSR-2419-SHR, Naval Facilities
flexural member”, Journal of Composites for Construction, Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA.
ASCE, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 195-202. Whitney, C. S. and Cohen, E. (1956). “Guide for the ultimate strength
MacGregor, J. G. (1997a). Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and design of reinforced concrete”, ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 53,
Design, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, NJ, pp. 388-392. November, pp. 455-475.
MacGregor, J. G., (1997b). Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and
Design, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, NJ, pp. 215-218. APPENDIX I. EXAMPLE OF
Nanni, A., Alkhrdaji, T., Barker, M., Chen, G., Mayo, R. and FLEXURAL DESIGN
Yang, X. (1999). “Overview of testing to failure program of a Introduction
highway bridge strengthened with FRP composites”, Proceedings Flexural strengthening of a one-way RC slab supported
of Fourth International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) by RC joists will be designed in this section. The eight-
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-4), SP-188, span floor slab was originally designed using a concrete
C. W. Dolan, S. Rizkalla, and A. Nanni, Eds., American Concrete compressive strength of 25.9 MPa (3750 psi) and steel
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 69-75. reinforcement strength of 413.7 MPa (60 ksi). The slab
Prota, A., Nanni, A., Manfredi G. and Cosenza E. (2001). “Design thickness was selected equal to h=180 mm (7.25 in),
criteria for RC beam-column joints seismically upgraded with using the dead and live loads reported in Table 2
composites”, Proceedings of the International Conference on (MacGregor 1997a). The owner needs to modernize
FRP Composites in Civil Engineering - CICE 2001, J.-G. Teng, some mechanical equipment that becomes an integral
Ed., Hong Kong, China, Vol. 1, pp. 919-926. part of the structure in the four central spans of the
Todeschini, C., Bianchini, A. and Kesler, C. (1982). “Behavior of building (Figure 12). The new loads resulting from this
concrete columns reinforced with high strength steels”, ACI equipment are shown in Table 2.
Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp 701-716, November- New moments due to the new loads are shown in
December. Table 3. The moment in place (Mip) at the time of FRP
Tumialan, G., Morbin, A., Nanni, A. and Modena, C. (2001). “Shear installation is calculated using the slab self weight and
strengthening of masonry walls with FRP composites”, the weight due to the floor cover and ceiling. Mnew
COMPOSITES 2001 Convention and Trade Show, Composites represents the factored moment due to new loads to be
Fabricators Association, October 3-6, Tampa, FL, CD-ROM, resisted by the existing structure prior to the
6 pp. strengthening.

Table 2. Existing and new loads

US units SI units

Existing loads New loads Existing loads New loads

[psf] [psf] [kN/m2] [kN/m2]
Slab self weight 90.6 90.6 4.34 4.34
Floor cover 0.5 0.5 0.024 0.024
Mechanical equipment 4.0 95.0 0.192 4.55
Ceiling 2.0 2.0 0.096 0.096
Dead load, ωd 97.1 188.1 4.65 9.00
Live load, ωl 100.0 100.0 4.80 4.80
Factored load, ωu 306 433 14.66 20.74
Service load, ωs 197 288 9.44 13.80
In place load, ωip — 93 — 4.46
New load from Eqn 1, ωnew — 310 — 14.85

8 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004

Renato Parretti and Antonio Nanni

Slabs
Heavy new equipment
placed in the shaded area

Slab
Design
Beam

Joist

Joist

Joist
strip

Joist

Joist
Joist
Joist
Beam

Beam

Groove dl dl New load 3.80 m

NSM FRP
FRP bars Laminates

Figure 12. Typical floor plan and cross-section

Table 3. Original and strengthening design

US units SI units

M+ [k-ft] M− [k-ft] M+ [kN?m] M− [kN?m]

Existing Load
Service Moment, Ms 2.36 3.43 3.20 4.65
Ultimate Moment, Mu 3.66 5.32 4.96 7.21
Flexural Capacity, φMn 4.40 5.50 5.96 7.45
New Loads
Service Moment, Ms 3.44 5.01 4.66 6.79
Moment in Place, Mip 1.11 1.62 1.50 2.19
Moment from Eqn 1, Mnew 3.71 5.40 5.03 7.32
Ultimate Moment, Mu 5.18 7.53 7.02 10.20
Flexural Capacity, φMn 7.07 8.03 9.58 12.10

The original design called for 12-mm (#4) steel bars spaced 380 mm (15 in) on centers for positive moment
regions, and 12-mm (#4) spaced at 300 mm (12 in) on centers for negative moment regions. Effective depth d and
clear concrete cover were assumed equal to 160 mm (6.25 in) and 20 mm (0.75 in), respectively.
A 6-mm (#2) Carbon FRP bar is adopted for strengthening in the negative moment regions.
FRP guaranteed material properties and corresponding design values are shown in Eqn 2 based on the appropriate
CE factor (Table 1):

f fu = CE f fu* = 0.95(1380 MPa) = 1311 MPa

ε fu = CE ε *fu = 0.95(0.01) = 9.5 × 10 −3
E f = 138 GPa

Assuming 4 mm (0.125 in) clear cover, the effective depth is df=173 mm (6.8 in).
For positive moment regions, externally bonded FRP laminates will be used. This second technique is already
well-known and outside the scope of this paper so that only the final results will be shown in this example.

Computations
As a first step, initial strain under the in-place moment needs to be evaluated. Neutral axis position before cracking
(cb_cr) and gross moment of inertia (Ig) of the concrete section are shown below (calculations are carried out for a

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004 9

 Strengthening of RC Members Using Near-Surface Mounted FRP Composites: Design Overview

strip of 300 mm (1 ft)):

0.5bh 2 + (n − 1) As d
cb _ cr =
bh + (n − 1) As

=
2
(
0.5(300 mm)(180 mm) + (8.27 − 1) 129 mm 2 (160 mm) ) = 91 mm
300 mm(180 mm) + (8.27 − 1) 129 mm 2 ( )
bh 3
+ (n − 1) As (cb _ cr − d )
2
Ig =
12
300 mm(180 mm)
3
=
12
( 2
)
+ (8.27 − 1) 129 mm 2 (91 mm − 160 mm) = 150, 265, 008 mm 4

where:
Es Es 200, 000 MPa
n= = = = 8.27
Ec 4750 25.9 MPa 24, 174 MPa

Cracking moment is then obtained as:

Mcr =
0.62 fc′Ig
=
(
1 0.62 25.9 MPa 150, 265, 009 mm
4

= 5.33 kN ⋅ m
)
h − cb _ cr 1 × 10 6 180 mm − 91 mm

Since service moment due to existing loads on the structure (4.65 kN?m, Table 3) is smaller than Mcr analysis can
be carried out referring to an uncracked cross-section. Consequently, initial strain in the bottom concrete fiber can
be expressed as:

2, 190, 000 N ⋅ mm
(d )
Mip
ε bi = − cb _ cr = (173 mm − 91 mm) = 4.944 × 10 −5
(150, 265, 008 mm )(24, 174 MPa)
f 4
Ig Ec

As a first trial, assume for the neutral axis position c1=0.1h=18 mm, and that failure is controlled by FRP rupture,
so that the maximum strain in the concrete surrounding FRP bars is given by the second term of Eqn 7:

ε c, f = ε fe + ε bi = 6.650 × 10 −3 + 4.944 × 10 −5 = 6.699 × 10 −3

where εfe is taken from Eqn 6:

ε fe = κ m ε fu = 0.7(9.50 × 10 −3 ) = 6.650 × 10 −3

Strain level in both concrete and steel can be found using strain compatibility:

εc =
c1
d f − c1
ε c, f =
18 mm
173 mm − 18 mm
(
6.699 × 10 −3 = 7.779 × 10 −4 )
d − c1 160 mm − 18 mm
εs =
d f − c1
ε c, f =
173 mm − 18 mm
(
6.699 × 10 −3 = 6.137 × 10 −3 )
Since ε s > ε y = 2.07 × 10 −3 , fs=fy=413.7 MPa, and the tensile forces in both steel and FRP reinforcement as well
as the compression force in the concrete can be expressed as follows:

( )( )(
Tf = A f E f ε fe = 32.3 mm 2 1.38 × 10 5 MPa 6.650 × 10 −3 = 29, 642 N )
( )
Ts = As f y = 129 mm 2 ( 413.7 MPa) = 53, 367 N
Cc = γ fc′β1c1b = 0.51(25.9 MPa)(0.85)(18 mm)(300 mm) = 60, 629 N

10 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 4 No. 3 2001

Renato Parretti and Antonio Nanni

where (Eqns 4 and 5):

fc' 25.9 MPa
ε c' = 1.71 = 1.71 = 1.832 × 10 −3
Ec 24, 174 MPa

β1 = 2 −
[( ) (
4 7.79 × 10 −4 1.832 × 10 −3 − tan −1 7.79 × 10 −4 1.832 × 10 −3 )] = 0.689
(7.79 × 10 −4
1.832 × 10 −3
)ln(1 + (7.79 × 10 −4
1.832 × 10 ) )
−3 2

γ =
(
0.90 ln 1 + ( 7.79 × 10 −4 1.832 × 10 −3 )2 ) = 0.51
(
(0.689) 7.79 × 10 −4
1.832 × 10 −3
)
Via equilibrium, one can find another position for the neutral axis:
Ts + Tf = Cc = γ fc′β1c1′b
Ts + Tf 53, 367 N + 29, 642 N
c1′ = = = 30 mm
γ fc′β1b (0.51)(25.9 MPa)(0.689)(300 mm)

As a second trial, a new neutral axis depth is assumed:

c1 + c1′ 18 mm + 30 mm
c2 == = 24 mm
2 2
Repeating the calculations shown so far, using the value c2, one can find that equilibrium is satisfied and no
further iterations are needed. Ultimate strain in concrete and steel are 1.06 × 10-3 and 7.13 × 10-3, respectively; tensile
force in FRP and steel reinforcement and compressive force in the concrete are 29,580 N, 53,379 N, and 82,959 N,
respectively. To check whenever the original assumption of FRP rupture is correct the following shall be verified:

ε cu 0.003
c < cb = df = (173 mm) = 54 mm
ε cu + ε c, f 0.003 + 6.699 × 10 −3

where cb represents the neutral axis position for balanced failure. Being it verified, the initial assumption was correct.
The moment capacity can now be expressed as:
 β c  β c
Mn = As fs  d − 1  + ψ f A f f fe  d f − 1 
 2   2 

=
1
1 × 10 6
[
129 mm 2 ( 413.7 MPa)(160 mm − 0.85(24 mm) 2)

( )
+0.85 32.3 mm 2 (917.7 MPa)(173 mm − 0.85(24 mm) 2) = 12.10 kN ⋅ m ]
where:
fs = Es ε s < f y = 413.7 MPa
f fe = E f ε fe = (1.38 × 10 5 MPa)(6.650 × 10 −3 ) = 917.7 MPa

Because εs>0.005, from Eqn 3 the strength reduction factor is φ=0.9. Finally,

φMn = 0.9(12.10 KN ⋅ m) = 10.89 KN ⋅ m > Mu = 10.2 kN ⋅ m

NSM bars used as reinforcement in negative moment regions will be extended for a length equal to their
development length ld beyond the point of zero moment; ld can be evaluated using Eqn 18:

db 1 6 mm
ld = f fe = 1237 MPa = 1.0 m
4(0.5τ max ) 1000 4(0.5(3.5 MPa))

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004 11

 Strengthening of RC Members Using Near-Surface Mounted FRP Composites: Design Overview

The point of zero is given at approximately 0.2l, where l=4.2 m (13.83 ft). The total length of a FRP bar is given
as: 2(0.2 l) + 2 l d = 3.7 m (12 ft).
For positive moment regions, design can be carried out using externally bonded CFRP laminates 100 mm (4 in)
wide with strips clear spacing of 500 mm (20 in), having the following properties:
f fu = CE f fu* = 0.95(3800 MPa) = 3610 MPa
ε fu = CE ε *fu = 0.95(0.0167) = 0.0159
E f = 228 GPa
The final strengthening design is reported in Table 3 and compared with the original design. Note that Eqn 1 is
verified since φMn of the existing member is larger than Mnew calculated with the new loads in both positive and
negative moment regions.

APPENDIX II. EXAMPLE OF SHEAR DESIGN

An existing simply supported 30 ft long T-beam supports a uniformly distributed service (unfactored) dead load
of 19.0 N/mm (1.3 kips/ft), including its own weight and a uniformly distributed service live load of 23.4 N/mm
(1.6 kips/ft), (MacGregor, 1997b). The concrete strength is 27.6 MPa (4000 psi), and the yield strength of the steel
stirrups is 276 MPa (40 ksi). Overall height is h=650 mm (26 in), flange width is 910 mm (36 in), stem width is
300 mm (12 in), slab thickness is 150 mm (6 in), effective depth is d=610 mm (24 in), and clear concrete cover
c = 40 mm (1.5 in). The original shear design called for 10-mm (#3) double-leg stirrups with the following spacing:
a) one at 75 mm (3 in) from the support; b) seven at 150 mm (6 in); c) three at 200 mm (8 in); and d) nine at 300 mm
(12 in) as shown in Figure 13.
The original flexural design called for two layers of longitudinal grade 60 steel bars used as main reinforcement;
the bottom layer includes three 35-mm (#11) steel bars; the top layer includes two 25-mm (#8) steel bars. Two
12-mm (#4) steel bars were used as compression reinforcement to hold the stirrups.
Service live load needs to be increased from 23.4 to 32.0 N/mm. Flexural capacity of the beam does not need to
be improved, while an upgrading is needed in shear. The new ultimate shear value calculated at d from the support
is 324.7 kN (73.0 kips).
Strengthening design will be carried out using 6.35-mm (No. 2) NSM CFRP bars 580 mm (23 in) long, having
ultimate guaranteed tensile strength f fu* = 2, 068 MPa (300 ksi ) , modulus of elasticity E f = 124 GPa (18, 000 ksi ) ,
and ultimate guaranteed elongation strain ε *fu = 0.017.
FRP contribution to the shear capacity of the beam is expressed by Eqn 11; FRP bars will be inserted between the
existing steel stirrups leading to a center-to-center spacing of sf = 80 mm (3 in).
The number of FRP bars crossed by a 45-degree shear crack is (Eqns 15 and 16):
l eff (1 + cot α )
(l b sin α − 2c)(1 + cot α )
n= =
s s
(500 mm ⋅ sin(90) − 2( 40 mm))(1 + cot(90))
= = 5.25 ⇒ n = 5
80 mm
and the length where FRP bar strain governs (l0.004) is (Eqn 14):
db E f (6.35 mm)(124, 000 MPa)
l0.004 = 0.001 = 0.001 = 114 mm
τb 6.9 MPa

No. 7, 10-mm No. 9, 10-mm

Stirrups @ 150 mm Stirrups @ 300 mm
No. 3, 10-mm CL 910 mm
3″ Stirrups @ 200 mm As′=260 mm2 150 mm

610 mm

Stirrups As=4038 mm 2

10-mm
300 mm

Figure 13. Steel stirrups in beam

12 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004

Renato Parretti and Antonio Nanni

Slab thickness

k
ac
cr
l0.004=114

r
L5= 20 hea
S
L2= 114
L3= 114
L4= 100
L1= 80
b=500 net
=420

l0.004=114

FRP NSM bar

Steel longitudinal reinforcement

Figure 14. Definition of Li for a 80 mm bar spacing (only NSM bars are shown)

Finally from Eqn 12 and Figure 14 ( n / 2 = 5 / 2 = 2.5 ⇒ n / 2 = 2 ):

L1 = min(l0.004 , s ⋅ 1) = min(114 mm, (80 mm)(1)) = 80 mm

L2 = min(l0.004 , s ⋅ 2) = min(114 mm, (80 mm)(2)) = 114 mm
L3 = min(l0.004 , l net − s ⋅ 3)
= min[114 mm, 420 mm − (80 mm)(3)] = min(114 mm, 180 mm) = 114 mm
L4 = min(l0.004 , l net − s ⋅ 4)
= min[114 mm, 420 mm − (80 mm)( 4)] = min(114 mm, 100 mm) = 100 mm
L5 = min(l0.004 , l net − s ⋅ 5)
= min[114 mm, 420 mm − (80 mm)(5)] = min(114 mm, 20 mm) = 20 mm

and
Ltot = L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 + L5 = 80 + 114 + 114 + 100 + 20 = 428 mm

FRP contribution to the shear capacity can now be expressed as (Eqn 11):
Vf = 2πdbτ b Ltot = (2)(3.14)(6.35 mm)(6.89 MPa)( 428 mm) = 117.6 kN
To prevent concrete crushing, Eqn 17 shall be verified:
As f y d (142 mm 2 )(276 MPa)(610 mm)
Vs = = = 159.4 kN
s 150 mm
Vs + Vf = 159.4 kN + 117.6 kN = 277 kN

< 0.66 fc' bd = 0.66 27.6 MPa (300 mm)(610 mm) = 634.5 kN

Design shear capacity can be obtained using Eqn 10; a sketch showing the number and spacing of NSM CFRP
bars selected for the shear strengthening is reported in Figure 15.
φVn = φ (Vc + Vs + ψ f Vf )
= 0.85[160.2 kN + 159.4 kN + 0.85(117.6 kN )]
= 356.6 kN > Vu = 324.7 kN

where:

fc′ 27.6 MPa

Vc = bd = (300 mm)(610 mm)
6 6
= 160.2 kN

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004 13

 Strengthening of RC Members Using Near-Surface Mounted FRP Composites: Design Overview

No. 17, 6-mm

CFRP bars @ 80 mm C
L

2.55 m
New load shear diagram (envelope)
375 kN (Not to scale)
325 kN 200 kN 62 kN
d=610 mm
62 kN

Figure 15. Shear upgrading using NSM CFRP bars (only NSM bars are shown)

NSM reinforcement is no longer needed 2.55 m (8.3 ft) ld = Development length of FRP bars;
apart from the support (Figure 15) since the existing steel leff = Vertical length of FRP NSM bar used as shear
stirrups are capable to carry the additional shear due to reinforcement;
new loads. lnet = Net length of a FRP NSM bar used as shear
reinforcement;
APPENDIX III. NOTATION l0.004 = Length of FRP bar to maintain shear integrity
a = Smallest dimension of a rectangular FRP bar; of concrete;
Af = Area of FRP reinforcement; L = Live load;
As = Area of steel reinforcement; Li = Length of each FRP bar crossed by a
b = Larger dimension of a rectangular FRP bar, 45-degrees shear crack;
and cross-section width; Ltot = Total length of FRP bars crossed by a
c = Neutral axis depth, Clear concrete cover; 45-degrees shear crack;
cb = Neutral axis depth for balanced failure; Mn = Nominal moment strength at section;
cb_cr = Neutral axis depth before cracking of the Mip = Moment in place at the time of FRP
cross-section; installation;
CE = Environmental reduction factor; n = Modular ratio of elasticity Es/Ec, and ratio
d = Effective depth of steel reinforcement; defined by Eqn 15;
D = Dead Load; Rn = Nominal strength of the structure;
db = Diameter of FRP bar; s = Spacing of steel and FRP shear reinforcement;
df = Effective depth of FRP reinforcement; Tf = Tensile force in FRP reinforcement;
dnet = Reduced value of the effective length of a Ts = Tensile force in steel reinforcement;
FRP bar; Vc = Nominal shear strength provided by concrete;
db = Length of a FRP NSM bar; Vf = Nominal shear strength provided by FRP
Ec = Modulus of elasticity of concrete; reinforcement;
Ef = Modulus of elasticity of FRP reinforcement; Vn = Nominal shear strength at section;
Es = Modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement; Vs = Nominal shear strength provided by steel
fc′ = Compressive strength of concrete; reinforcement;
ffe = Effective tensile strength of FRP α = Angle between inclined FRP stirrups and
reinforcement; longitudinal axis of member;
ffu = Ultimate design tensile strength of FRP γ = Coefficient of the Whitney stress block;
reinforcement; β1 = Coefficient of the Whitney stress block;
f fu* = Guaranteed tensile strength of FRP εbi = Initial strain in the concrete before FRP
reinforcement; installation;
fs = Tensile strength of steel reinforcement; εc = Concrete compressive strain;
fy = Yielding strength of steel reinforcement; εc,f = Nominal tensile strain in concrete surrounding
h = Cross-section height; FRP bars;
Ig = Gross moment of inertia; εcu = Maximum permissible compressive strain in
l = Length of the beam; concrete (0.003);
lb = Length of FRP NSM bar; εfe = Effective tensile strain in FRP reinforcement;

14 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004

Renato Parretti and Antonio Nanni

εfu = Ultimate design tensile strain of FRP κm = FRP Bond dependent coefficient for flexure;
reinforcement; φ = Strength-reduction factor;
ε *fu = Guaranteed tensile strain of FRP ψf = Additional strength-reduction factor for FRP
reinforcement; reinforcement;
εs = Tensile strain of steel reinforcement; τb = Average bond stress for FRP reinforcement;
εy = Yielding tensile strain of steel reinforcement; τmax = Maximum bond stress for FRP reinforcement.

Antonio Nanni is the V & M Jones Professor of Civil Engineering at University of Missouri-
Rolla. He is an active member in the technical committees of ACI (Fellow), ASCE (Fellow),
ASTM and TMS. He was the founding Chairman of ACI Committee 440 - FRP Reinforcement
and is the current Chairman of ACI Committee 437 – Strength Evaluation of Existing
Concrete Structures. Dr. Nanni is the Editor-in-Chief of the ASCE Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering.

Renato Parretti is a senior structural engineer with Co-Force America, Rolla, MO

responsible for numerous FRP design projects throughout the world. He is a member of ACI
and ASCE and serves as an active member on ACI Committee 437, Strength Evaluation of
Existing Concrete Buildings, and ACI Committee 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement. Mr. Parretti holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of
Florence, Italy. He is a registered PE in Italy.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004 15

16 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 7 No. 5 2004