Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no.

2, e15204, 2022

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Reinforced concrete structures strengthened with CFRP (ACI x

FIB) - Recommendations for bending design criteria
Reforço de estruturas de concreto armado com CFRP (ACI x FIB) - Recomendações
para dimensionamento à flexão
Igor Del Gaudio Orlandoa 
Túlio Nogueira Bittencourta 
Leila Cristina Meneghettia 

a
Universidade de São Paulo – USP, Escola Politécnica, Departamento Engenharia de Estruturas e Geotécnica, São Paulo, SP, Brasil

Received 14 December 2020 Abstract: This work deals with the evaluation of the design criteria and security check (Ultimate Limit State
Accepted 06 August 2021 - ULS) of the American (ACI-440.2R, 2017) and European (FIB Model Code, 2010) standards of reinforced
concrete structures strengthened with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers (CFRP), by the technique of
Externally Bonded Reinforcement (EBR). It is intended to evaluate if, for a given database of 64 experimental
tests of beams and slabs, the obtained results respect the safety conditions according to the mentioned
standards, to increase the efficiency of this reinforcement technique and to lead to the establishment of
regulatory design criteria in Brazil. Results show a conservative match among experimental and theoretical
values calculated according to the two guidelines and it is concluded that a future regulation in Brazil on this
subject should be based on the FIB Model Code.
Keywords: carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP), bending strengthening, ACI-440 (2017), FIB Model
Code (2010), regulation in Brazil.

Resumo: Este trabalho trata da avaliação dos critérios de dimensionamento e verificação de segurança ao
Estado Limite Último (ELU) da norma americana (ACI-440.2R, 2017) e europeia (FIB Model Code, 2010)
de estruturas de concreto armado reforçadas à flexão com Polímeros Reforçados com Fibras de Carbono
(CFRP), pela técnica de colagem externa (EBR). Considerando uma dada base de 64 dados de ensaios
experimentais de vigas e lajes, avaliou-se se os resultados obtidos respeitam as condições de segurança
segundo as normas referidas, com o propósito de aumentar a eficiência dessa técnica de reforço e conduzir ao
estabelecimento de critérios regulamentares de dimensionamento no Brasil. Os resultados obtidos mostram
uma proximidade conservadora entre valores experimentais e teóricos calculadas de acordo com as duas
recomendações e conclui-se que uma futura regulamentação no Brasil sobre esse tema deve-se ter como
premissa o modelo do FIB Model Code.
Palavras-chave: polímeros reforçados com fibras de carbono (CFRP), reforço à flexão, ACI-440 (2017), FIB
Model Code (2010), regulamentação no Brasil.

How to cite: I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti, “Reinforced concrete structures strengthened with CFRP (ACI x FIB) -
Recommendations for bending design criteria,” Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-
41952022000200004

1 INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the development of new materials, the improvement of execution techniques, and the greater
knowledge about the behavior of structures, in conjunction with a greater concern about the durability of constructions,
have made repair, strengthening, and retrofit of concrete elements one of the most evolved areas in engineering.
Structures are required to sustain critical loads under challenging environmental conditions such as heavy traffic
Corresponding author: Igor Del Gaudio Orlando. E-mail: [email protected]
Financial support: CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) - scholarship number 152486/2016-0.
Conflict of interest: Nothing to declare.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022| https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-41952022000200004 1/15
I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

density, impact from debris flow and highly corrosive environments. Therefore, strengthening is frequently required in
reinforced concrete (RC) structures to meet the adequate strength requirements and extend the service life [1].
As described by Toutanji et al. [2], one of the techniques developed during the last decades to strength reinforced
concrete beams in bending is the use of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) through the externally bonded reinforcement
(EBR) technique. Increases in the strength of global flexion from 10 to 160% were reported in prior studies [3]–[8].
These materials feature good properties of non-corrosiveness; high longitudinal tensile strength, high stiffness, high
strength-to-weight ratio, insect and fungal resistance chemical attack resistance, low thermal transmissibility, and
simple installation; which supported their popularization in the structural reinforcement market [9]–[13].
Currently, the use of FRPs in buildings and bridge repair, strengthening and maintenance is most pronounced due
to their efficient and economical nature [14], [15]. In recent years, the construction sector has become one of the world’s
largest consumers of polymer composites [16]–[20], indicating that FRP materials are part of the modern construction
industry.
However, in Brazil there is still no specific standard for strengthening projects related to the use of composite
materials. Strengthening concrete structures with FRP are carried out following international standards and
recommendations, as well as manufacturer specifications [21]. The main design recommendations for strengthening
with FRP are the American Concrete Institute (ACI) - Committee 440 [22] and the European standard “FIB Model
Code - Task Group 9.3” [23].
To resolve this issue and propose a Brazilian guideline, it is necessary to evaluate and discuss the design parameters
and methodologies suggested in the literature and compare them with a variety of experimental results.
This study aims to provide fundamentals to assist in deciding about the design procedures to be adopted in Brazil
in structural strengthening projects with FRP composites. Therefore, discussion and evaluation of both design criteria
and safety factor assessment (Ultimate Limit State - ULS) of ACI-440 [22] and FIB Model Code [23] are presented
and some parameters and methodology highlighted as important to be considered in the future development of code
design criteria in Brazil.

2 STATE OF THE ART

This section discusses analytical design models applied to projects of concrete beams bending strengthening with
FRP.

2.1 Basic design assumptions

According to ACI 440 [22] and FIB [23], the following assumptions are applied in the strengthening of bending
design elements:
• The strain in the concrete and reinforcement are directly proportional to their respective distances to the neutral axis
of the section. Flat sections before loading remain flat after loading (Euler-Bernoulli's assumption);
• The maximum compression strain in the concrete is 0.003 (ACI) or 0.0035 (FIB);
• The tensile strength of concrete is neglected;
• The stress vs. strain diagram of the steel is elastic-linear until its yield point, followed by perfectly plastic behavior;
• It is admitted that FRP are characterized by an elastic-linear stress-strain behavior to rupture;
• The shear strain in the adhesive layer is neglected, given that this layer is very thin with small variation in its
thickness.

2.2 Rupture modes of FRP systems

The bending capacity of a reinforced member is related to its rupture mode. The following rupture modes may occur
in a bending member strengthened with FRP:
• Crushing of the compressed concrete (CC) before the yielding of reinforcement;
• Yielding of reinforcement (FY) followed by the failure of the FRP system (FR);
• Yielding of reinforcement (FY) followed by the concrete crushing (CC);
• Debonding of the FRP (FD);
• Delamination of the FRP system from concrete substrate (FD).
According to Juvandes [24], the first three types constitute the group of modes where the section presents a perfect
bond between adhesive, FRP and concrete interfaces until rupture (classic rupture - RC). The two remaining cases (FD)

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 2/15
 I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

define the group of premature failure of the FRP (premature rupture - RP). Debonding is known to occur at low axial
strain level of FRP, thus externally bonded systems often do not yield full tensile strength of FRP [25]–[27].
As shown by Kalfat et al. [28], different types of intermediate anchorages, including U-jacket anchors, mechanically
fastened anchors, and FRP anchors, have been used to prevent early debonding failure. Metallic clamps have been used
to prevent delamination and to increase ductility [29]. These anchors delay debonding by enabling the continuation of
the load path between FRP concrete and increasing bond strength [30].

2.3 ACI-440.2R-17 model [22]

The strength design approach requires that the design flexural strength of a member exceed its required factored
moment, as indicated by Equation 1:

ØM n ≥ M u (1)

where Ø = strength reduction factor; M n = nominal flexural strength; and M u = factored moment at a section.
As described previously, one of the consequences of the use of FRP in strengthened concrete structures is the
reduction of the ductility of the original element. In some cases, this loss is negligible, but sections that may have
significant ductility losses should be checked. For reinforced concrete elements, adequate ductility is achieved if the
strain in the steel is at least equal to 0.005 at the instant of the concrete rupture or the debonding/delamination of the
FRP system,
ACI-440 [22] recommends using the strength reduction factor ( Ø ), which is a function of the yielding strain of the
steel ( ε sy ) and the unitary net tensile strain in steel ( ε t ) according to Equation 2, 3 and 4:

=Ø 0.90 para ε t ≥ 0.005 (2)

(
0.25 ε t − ε sy )     to     ε (3)
Ø = 0.65 + sy < ε t < 0.005
0.005 − ε sy

=Ø 0.65 to ε t ≤ 0.005 ε sy (4)

The bending strength capacity of the section of an element strengthened with FRP can be determined through the
compatibility of strain, balance of internal forces and control of the failure mode. The nominal flexural strength capacity
of the section ( M n ) can be calculated as Equation 5:

 β    
c  β c β c 
M n=    f s  d − 1  + ψ f A f f fe  h − 1  + A 's f 's  1 − d ' 
As     (5)
 2   2   2 

where As = area of nonprestressed steel reinforcement; A 's = area of the compression reinforcement of the section;
f s = stress in steel reinforcement; h = total height of the section; d = useful height of section; c = position of the neutral
axis; A f = FRP area; and f fe = effective stress in FRP.
The application of the coefficient of reduction in the strength of the FRP, denoted by ψ f , in the portion that
simulates the contribution of FRP to the resistant moment is defined in ACI 440 [22], item “10.2.10”. According to
Okeil et al. [31] it is based on reliability analyses that in turn is based on the statistically calibrated properties of the
bending strength.
The terms α1 and β1 in the equations below are parameters that define a rectangular stress block in concrete
equivalent to a non-linear stress distribution. Considering α1 = 0.85 (Whitney stress block) it is possible to obtain
reasonably accurate results for a rectangular section. In addition, β1 = 0.85, when 17MPa < f’c < 28MPa. For
f’c > 28MPa, the value of β1 is provided by the general expression (ACI-318), presented in Equation 6:

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 3/15
 I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

 f' 
β1 1.05 − 0.05  c 
= (6)
 7 

Where β1 > 0,65. The depth of the neutral axis (c) is found by satisfying the internal balance of forces and the
compatibility of strain according to the following Equation 7:

 As f s + A f fe − A 's f 's 
c =
  (7)
 α1 f 'c   
βb 

The effective strain (εfe) that can be achieved by the FRP is defined as Equation 8:

 df −c 
=ε fe ε cu 
 c  bi
− ε ≤ ε fd (8)
 

Where ε bi = pre-existing strain when the FRP is installed; d f = effective depth of FRP; ε cu = ultimate axial strain of
the unconfined concrete corresponding to 0.85 f 'c0 ; and ε fe = effective strain in FRP reinforcement attained at failure.
Regardless of where the neutral axis of the analyzed section is, the failure controlled by the FRP debonding may
govern the procedures. Thus, to prevent crack induced debonding failure mode, the effective strain in FRP should be
limited to the strain at which debonding may occur as defined in Equation 9:

f 'c
=ε fd 0.412 ≤ 0.9ε fu (9)
nEf tf

where the maximum allowable strain in FRP ( ε fd ) is a function of the thickness of each layer of FRP ( t f ), the number
of layers of FRP (n) and the modulus of elasticity of FRP ( E f ).
As reported by Arduini and Nanni [32], it’s important to note that carbon fiber stiffness, fiber direction, and number
of plies can significantly affect the performance of strengthened beams. Toutanji et al. [33] observed that not only
ductility of strengthened beams tends to significantly reduce with the increase on the number of bonded sheets, but also
the failure mode of strengthened-specimens changes. For instance, wrapping of FRP sheets perpendicular to edges of
strengthened beam (and on top of longitudinally applied FRP sheets) can be effective in anchoring bonded CFRP sheets
and delays debonding of FRP strengthening system. However, though anchor system enhanced the capacity of the
strengthened beam significantly, it reduces the overall ductility [34].

2.4 FIB Model Code (2010) [23]

In the FIB Model Code 2010 [23], the calculation of the resistance design moment ( M Rd ) of the strengthened section
is also based on the design principles of reinforced concrete, according to the Equation 10:

M
= Rd AS1 f yd ( d − λ x ) + A f E f ε f ( h − λ x ) + AS 2 Esε S 2 ( λ x − d 2 )    (10)

The neutral axis is determined from the compatibility of the strains and internal equilibrium of forces as
Equation 11:

η fcd bx + As 2 Esε s 2 =As1 f yd + A f E fu ε f (11)

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 4/15
 I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

where the terms λ e η in Equations 10 and 11 are parameters that define a rectangular stress block in the concrete
equivalent to a non-linear stress distribution, according to Equations 12 and 13 below. These equations provide
reasonably accurate results for a rectangular section.

0.8                                             
to fck ≤ 50                     
MPa

λ= fck − 50 (12)
 0.8 − 400                              to 50 ≤ fck ≤ 100        
MPa


1.0                                            
to fck ≤ 50                   
MPa

η = fck − 50    (13)
 1.0 − 200                            to 50 ≤ fck ≤ 100     
MPa


As sudden failures with little or no warning are undesirable, the ductility index of the strengthened element must
exceed a certain value. With respect to this issue, the FIB Model Code [23] gives the following limitation on the depth
of the compression zone at ultimate: ξ ≤ 0, 45 (for concrete type C50⁄60 or lower) or ξ ≤ 0,35 for concrete above C55⁄67,
where:

c
ξ= (14)
d

The maximum allowable strain in the FRP to prevent debounding failure due to concrete crack may not exceed the
limit indicated by the FIB Model Code [23] and supplemented by the FIB-14 [35] through the Equations 15 and 16:

ε fd ≤ 0.9ε fu (15)

f fk
f fd =
yf
(16)

Where y f (FRP material partial safety factor) is given in Table 3.1 of FIB-14 [35], with y f =1.35 for any strengthening
system with low-quality control of the application on the construction site.
The maximum tensile stress in the FRP limited by the connection to concrete in a single anchorage zone
(not cracked) is given by Equations 17 and 18 of FIB Model Code, 2010 [23]:

2E f
=f fbm K m Kb β L 2 ⋅ fcm 2/3 (17)
tf

2 − bf / b
=kb 2   ≥ 1 (18)
1+ bf / b

where t f = thickness of the FRP layer FRP; β L = is the anchorage length factor of the FRP; Kb : structure shape factor;
bf : FRP section width; b: width of the concrete section; and E f : the modulus of elasticity of the FRP.

3 DESCRIPTION OF DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE LITERATURE

For further investigation of the design parameters, a set of 64 experimental data were selected according to the
following criteria:
• Type of structural element: slab and beam;

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 5/15
I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

• Reinforcement technique: EBR;

• Type of reinforcement: carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP) (sheet and laminates).
The data, which are shown in Tables 1 and 2, were collected from the following experimental studies:
• Slabs: Juvandes [24], Dias [37].
• Beams: Gamino et al. [21], Dias [37], Beber [38], Brosens [39], Matthys [40], Pinto [41], Travassos [42].
Note that CFRP was employed because this type of reinforcement is widely used and studied, resulting in a greater
sampling of available experimental elements. Tables 1 and 2 include the failure modes observed for the 64 collected
data and the level of strain of the CFRP at the moment of rupture ( ε fu ). For 12 experimental beam data, these strain
values are unknown. It can be observed that in both slabs and beams, approximately 40% of the samples presented
classic ruptures.

Table 1. Summary of the 12 experimental slab data used in this study*.

Reinforced concrete element CFRP System

Exp.
Author Type
Data b h As ρs fcilcm Ef1 εfk1 bf1 tf1 Af1 ρf εfu Type
nbf1 nlf1
(cm) (cm) (cm2) (%) (MPa) (GPa) (‰) (mm) (mm) (cm2) (%) (‰) Rupt.
LA3R S. 44.0 7.6 0.85 0.31% 63.3 230 15 140 0.11 1 2 0.311 0.09% 11.1 RC
LB1R S. 44.0 8.1 0.85 0.28% 63.3 230 15 140 0.11 1 2 0.311 0.09% 12.0 RC
LA4S L. 44.0 8.0 0.85 0.29% 63.3 160 20 32 1.20 1 1 0.384 0.11% 9.7 RP
Dias [37]

LB2S L. 44.0 8.5 0.85 0.27% 63.3 160 20 32 1.20 1 1 0.384 0.10% 9.2 RP
LD3BL L. 44.0 8.5 0.85 0.27% 49.7 150 14 32 1.40 1 1 0.448 0.12% 9.6 RP
LD4BL L. 44.0 8.1 0.85 0.28% 49.7 150 14 32 1.40 1 1 0.448 0.13% 10.4 RP
LE3I L. 44.0 8.2 0.85 0.28% 49.7 160 15 32 1.40 1 1 0.448 0.12% 8.6 RP
LE4I L. 44.0 7.8 0.85 0.30% 49.7 160 15 32 1.40 1 1 0.448 0.13% 10.2 RP
LC3R S. 44.0 8.1 0.85 0.28% 63.3 230 15 140 0.11 1 2 0.311 0.09% 10.9 RC
Juvandes [24]

LC4R S. 44.0 7.7 0.85 0.30% 63.3 230 15 140 0.11 1 2 0.311 0.09% 10.3 RC
LC1S L. 44.0 8.1 0.85 0.28% 63.3 160 20 32 1.20 1 1 0.384 0.11% 10.3 RP
LC2S L. 44.0 8.4 0.85 0.27% 63.3 160 20 32 1.20 1 1 0.384 0.10% 11.8 RP
* RC = classical failure; RP = premature failure; εfu = ultimate FRP strain during tests; ρf = FRP reinforcement ratio; ρs = reinforcement ratio; fcilcm = mean
compressive strength of concrete cylinders; L = Laminate; S = Sheet

Table 2. Summary of the 52 experimental beams data used in this study.

Reinforced concrete element CFRP System

Exp.
Author Type b h As ρs fcilcm Ef1 εfk1 bf1 tf1 Af1 ρf εfu Type
Data
nbf1 nlf1
(cm) (cm) (cm2) (%) (MPa) (GPa) (‰) (mm) (mm) (cm2) (%) (‰) Rupt.
V2 S 12.0 18.0 1.01 0.52% 41.0 240 15 70 0.11 1 2 0.155 0.07% 8.1 RP
Dias [37]

V3 S 12.0 18.0 1.01 0.52% 41.0 240 15 70 0.11 1 2 0.155 0.07% 8.1 RC
V4 L 12.0 18.0 1.01 0.52% 41.0 200 11 20 1.40 1 1 0.280 0.13% 6.9 RP
V6 L 12.0 18.0 1.01 0.52% 41.0 200 11 20 1.40 1 1 0.280 0.13% 7.2 RP
V1 L 15.0 45.0 6.03 0.98% 34.8 165 17 50 1.20 2 1 1.200 0.18% 5.2 RP
Pinto
[41]

V3 L 15.0 45.0 6.03 0.98% 38.3 165 17 50 1.20 3 1 1.800 0.27% 5.4 RP
V5 L 15.0 45.0 6.03 0.97% 34.7 165 17 50 1.20 3 1 1.800 0.44% 4.6 RC
VR3 L 12.0 25.0 1.57 0.57% 33.6 230 15 100 0.11 1 1 0.111 0.04% 5.6 RC
Beber [38]

VR4 L 12.0 25.0 1.57 0.57% 33.6 230 15 100 0.11 1 1 0.111 0.04% 7.1 RC
VR5 L 12.0 25.0 1.57 0.57% 33.6 230 15 100 0.11 1 4 0.444 0.15% 7.1 RP
VR6 L 12.0 25.0 1.57 0.57% 33.6 230 15 100 0.11 1 4 0.444 0.15% 7.5 RP

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 6/15
I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

Table 2. Continued...

Reinforced concrete element CFRP System

Exp.
Author Type b h As ρs fcilcm Ef1 εfk1 bf1 tf1 Af1 ρf εfu Type
Data
nbf1 nlf1
(cm) (cm) (cm2) (%) (MPa) (GPa) (‰) (mm) (mm) (cm2) (%) (‰) Rupt.
VR7 L 12.0 25.0 1.57 0.57% 33.6 230 15 100 0.11 1 7 0.777 0.26% 5.2 RP
VR8 L 12.0 25.0 1.57 0.57% 33.6 230 15 100 0.11 1 7 0.777 0.26% 5.6 RP
VR9 L 12.0 25.0 1.57 0.57% 33.6 230 15 100 0.11 1 10 1.110 0.37% 4.8 RP
VR10 L 12.0 25.0 1.57 0.57% 33.6 230 15 100 0.11 1 10 1.110 0.37% 4.7 RP
A12 L 20.0 40.0 4.02 0.59% 38.5 242 16 200 0.11 1 3 0.666 0.08% 8.0 RP
A14 L 20.0 40.0 4.02 0.59% 38.5 242 16 200 0.11 1 1 0.222 0.03% 6.2 RC
Travassos [42]

A32 L 20.0 40.0 4.02 0.59% 38.5 242 16 200 0.11 1 3 0.666 0.08% 7.2 RP
A33 L 20.0 40.0 4.02 0.59% 38.5 242 16 200 0.11 1 1 0.222 0.03% 3.2 RC
A11 L 20.0 40.0 4.02 0.59% 34.4 242 16 200 0.11 1 1 0.222 0.03% 6.7 RC
A21 L 20.0 40.0 9.42 1.39% 34.4 242 16 200 0.11 1 1 0.222 0.03% 9.2 RC
A31 L 20.0 40.0 4.02 0.59% 34.4 242 16 200 0.11 1 3 0.666 0.08% 10.6 RP
A34 L 20.0 40.0 4.02 0.59% 34.4 242 16 200 0.11 1 1 0.222 0.03% 8.4 RC
BF2 L 20.0 45.0 8.04 0.96% 36.5 159 19 100 1.20 1 1 1.200 0.13% 6.7 RP
BF3 L 20.0 45.0 8.04 0.96% 34.9 159 19 100 1.20 1 1 1.200 0.13% 7.2 RP
Matthys [40]

BF4 L 20.0 45.0 8.04 0.96% 30.8 159 19 100 1.20 1 1 1.200 0.13% 6.8 RP
BF5 L 20.0 45.0 8.04 0.96% 37.4 159 19 100 1.20 1 1 1.200 0.13% 5.7 RP
BF6 L 20.0 45.0 8.04 0.96% 35.9 159 19 100 1.20 1 1 1.200 0.13% 7.1 RP
BF8 L 20.0 45.0 4.02 0.48% 39.4 159 19 100 1.20 1 1 1.200 0.13% 5.8 RC
BF9 S 20.0 45.0 4.02 0.48% 33.7 233 13 100 0.11 1 2 0.222 0.02% 10.0 RP
A1 S 12.5 22.5 1.01 0.41% 41.0 235 15 75 0.17 1 2 0.251 0.09% - RP
B1 S 12.5 22.5 1.51 0.62% 46.0 235 15 75 0.17 1 2 0.251 0.09% - RP
C1 S 12.5 22.5 1.51 0.62% 43.0 235 15 75 0.17 1 2 0.251 0.09% - RP
Brosens [39]

C2 S 12.5 22.5 1.51 0.62% 43.0 235 15 75 0.17 1 2 0.251 0.09% - RP

D1 S 12.5 22.5 1.51 0.62% 38.0 235 15 75 0.17 1 2 0.251 0.09% - RP
E1 S 12.5 22.5 1.51 0.62% 33.0 235 15 75 0.17 1 2 0.251 0.09% - RP
F1 S 12.5 22.5 1.29 0.52% 43.0 235 15 75 0.17 1 2 0.251 0.09% - RP
G1 S 12.5 22.5 2.07 0.85% 43.0 235 15 75 0.17 1 2 0.251 0.09% - RP
VR01 L 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 230 15 75 0.13 1 1 0.098 0.09% 13.3 RC
VR02 L 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 230 15 75 0.13 1 1 0.098 0.09% - RC
VR03 L 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 230 15 75 0.13 1 1 0.098 0.09% 11.8 RC
VR04 L 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 230 15 75 0.13 1 1 0.098 0.09% 12.6 RC
VR05 L 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 230 15 75 0.13 1 1 0.098 0.09% 11.4 RC
Gamino et al. [21]

VR06 L 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 230 15 75 0.13 1 1 0.098 0.09% - RP
VR07 L 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 230 15 75 0.13 1 1 0.098 0.09% - RP
VR08 L 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 230 15 75 0.13 1 1 0.098 0.09% - RP
VR09 S 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 235 15 75 0.11 1 1 0.083 0.07% 5.3 RC
VR10 S 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 235 15 75 0.11 1 1 0.083 0.07% 6.4 RC
VR11 S 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 235 15 75 0.11 1 2 0.165 0.15% 6.6 RC
VR12 S 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 235 15 75 0.11 1 1 0.083 0.07% 4.3 RC
VR13 S 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 235 15 75 0.11 1 1 0.083 0.07% 4.4 RC
VR14 S 7.5 15.0 0.62 0.62% 45.0 235 15 75 0.11 1 1 0.083 0.07% 3.9 RC

3.1 Design model in ULS

The calculation methodology indicated in the ACI440.2R-17 [22] and FIB Model Code [23] standards was used to
evaluate the bending safety factor of experimental data of reinforced concrete strengthened with CFRP.
Table 3 presents the criteria defined for such analysis, with 2 cases without partial safety factors (for comparison
with the experimental data collected) and 2 cases with partial safety factors (verification of global safety).

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 7/15
I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

Table 3. Criteria defined for analysis.

Parameters established for the analysis criteria

Partial safety factor
C.1 C.2 C.5 C.6
Design equations. (ACI) (FIB) (ACI) (FIB)
Material properties (ACI) (FIB) (ACI) (FIB)
Ultimate compressive strain of concrete; (εcu) 3‰ 3.5‰ 3‰ 3.5‰
Limit of tensile strain in steel (εs,lim) - - - -
Strength reduction factor (ф) 1 1 (Δεs) Verification
FRP Strength reduction factor (ѱf) 1 1 0.85 -
Partial safety factor for steel (γs) 1 1 1.10 1.15
Environmental reduction factor (CE) 1 1 0.85 0.74

As indicated in Figure 1, by imposing one of the failure modes and limiting the strain in the conditioning material,
it is possible to determine the position of the neutral axis and obtain the effective strain in the FRP. Furthermore, the
stresses and strains in the internal reinforcement in the FRP and in the concrete can be determined. However, in these
calculations, it is necessary to consider the hypothesis of occurrence of premature failure characteristic in structures
strengthened through EBR technique. Owing to the difficulty in detecting them, ACI440 [22] and FIB [23] limit the
strain of FRP ( ε fd ) to increase the reliability of the reinforcement.

Figure 1. Flowchart of the calculation methodology adopted for the FIB and ACI models.

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 8/15
I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Analysis of collected experimental data

Note in Tables 1 and 2 that both for the slabs and for the beams, approximately 60% of the experimental data present
premature rupture. The experimental data show that the slabs present larger strain values ( ε fu ) when compared to
beams strengthened by the same externally bonded technique (EBR).
In the slabs case, given that the shear is not very pronounced in these models, the strain in CFRP shows high values
( ε med ≈ 11‰), especially when rupture is controlled by classical failure. However, even in situations of premature
failure, accurate results can be observed from these experimental data ( ε med ≈ 9‰).
These results are evidenced in studies of several authors, namely ACI-440 [22], Juvandes [24], FIB-14 [35], Brosens [39],
Matthys [40], and Azevedo [43], concluding that in beam models the develops lower strain values than in the slab models.
Important to note that the collection of data presented in this paper reveals an interesting variation in reported test
results. As presented by Naser et al. [15], this can be attributed to significant variation in tested specimens, material
types, loading configurations, experimental procedures, and test arrangements, etc., which make interpretation of test
results complex. This demanded a standardization on testing procedures, and some tests are published, [44] and [45].

4.2 Ultimate flexural strength analysis (ACI x FIB)

To perform the statistical analysis of the ratio between the ultimate theoretical and experimental moments, the
proportion ( M theoretical / M exp. ) of the 64 experimental data was assessed in this study for the corresponding criteria (C.1
and C.2). Such values are plotted in Figure 2, 3 and 4. The mean, standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation
(CV) were calculated; they are presented in Table 4.

Figure 2. ACI440 x FIB - Analysis of the ultimate strain ( theoretical / exp ) for slabs (a).

Figure 3. ACI440 x FIB - Analysis of the ultimate strain ( theoretical / exp ) for beam (b).

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 9/15
I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

Figure 4. ACI440 x FIB - Analysis of the ultimate moment of the 64 experimental data ( M theoretical / M exp ).

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 10/15
I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

Table 4. Mean, standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation (CV) of the ratios ( M theoretical / M exp ) and (theoretical / exp ) -
FIB x ACI.

( M theoret. / M exp .) of 64 experimental data

ACI FIB
(C.1) (C.2)
ACI FIB Mean 0.75 0.82
Slab
(C.1) (C.2) SD 0.05 0.05
(Laminates)
Mean 0.88 0.92 CV(%) 6.28 5.71
Total
ACI FIB SD 0.21 0.17 Mean 1.15 1.14
Slab
(C.1) (C.2) CV(%) 23.31 18.19 Slab (Sheet) SD 0.08 0.08
Mean 0.92 0.95 CV(%) 7.23 7.23
Total SD 0.15 0.15 Mean 0.93 0.96 Mean 0.97 0.98
Total Beam
CV(%) 16.73 16.04 SD 0.15 0.15 SD 0.15 0.13
Beam (Laminates)
CV(%) 16.02 15.71 CV(%) 15.11 13.73
Mean 0.85 0.86
Beam (Sheet) SD 0.13 0.16
CV(%) 14.88 18.20
( ε theoret. / ε exp . ) of 52 experimental data*
ACI FIB
(C.1) (C.2)
ACI FIB Mean 0.69 0.81
Slab
(C.1) (C.2) SD 0.08 0.08
(Laminates)
Mean 0.89 0.97 CV(%) 11.39 10.17
Total
ACI FIB SD 0.31 0.24 Mean 1.30 1.27
Slab
(C.1) (C.2) CV(%) 34.65 24.89 Slab (Sheet) SD 0.08 0.08
Mean 1.32 1.38 CV(%) 6.27 6.27
Total SD 0.79 0.84 Mean 1.44 1.50 Mean 1.29 1.28
Total Beam
CV(%) 60.19 61.08 SD 0.85 0.92 SD 0.83 0.78
Beam (Laminates)
CV(%) 58.82 61.09 CV(%) 64.21 60.62
Mean 1.99 2.27
Beam (Sheet) SD 0.73 1.00
CV(%) 36.53 43.99
* 12 of 64 experimental strain data collected (εexp) are unknown.

According to Figure 4 and Table 4, concerning the cases of slabs, it is observed that the FIB model code [23] yields more
consistent results (ratio near to 1.0) than the ACI440 model [22]. In the case of slabs strengthened with laminate, the prediction
of the moment capacity of the slab is quite conservative according to these two philosophies, and the ACI440 [22] proved to
be more conservative than FIB [23]. Note that while the ACI [22] criterion is generally more conservative than FIB [23], both
seem to better reflect the behavior of beams than the behavior of slabs (expressed by a ratio M theoretical / M exp <1,00, and by
values closer to the experimental results and with less dispersion). This can be explained by the fact that in slabs the shear is not
pronounced, making the FRP more effective in these cases. Since two guidelines do not differentiate between beams and slabs;
the estimated failure moment values are over conservative for the slabs case. Itis also noted a difference in the behavior between
sheets and laminates, demonstrating the need to separate their specification in a future code.
Concerning beams strengthened with laminates, the ultimate behavior of design models is foreseen with high accuracy
( M theoretical / M exp ≈ 1.0) and low dispersion (CV ≈ 15%) according to the ACI and FIB criteria. In contrast, the models
reinforced with sheets lead to more conservative ultimate moments average.
As observed in Table 4, the increase on the concrete ultimate strain from 3.0 ‰ (ACI [22]) to 3.5 ‰
(FIB [23]), set out in criterion C.2, resulted in a small increase in the mean ratio ( M theoret. / M exp ) of the 64
elements, due considering the remaining resistance in the compression of the reinforced element. This
demonstrates the importance of assessing the strength reserve in the compression of a structure to be
strengthened, being, in most cases, the mandatory factor of design to strength a structure. To be noted that
ABNT NBR6118 [36] specifies the same concrete ultimate strain value as FIB [23].

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 11/15
I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

In general, when compared to the ACI440.2R-17 model, the FIB model code [23] presents a smaller dispersion of
values and analytical results closer to the experimental values, expressed by the ratio M theoretical / M exp near 1 presented
on Table 4. Some of these evidences agrees with the studies by Pham and Al-Mahaidi [46] and Toutanji et al. [47].

4.3Analysis of maximum strain of FRP (ACI x FIB)

From Figure 2, Figure 3, and Table 4, comparing beams and slabs, it can be concluded that in both codes
the slabs presented ultimate strain with a closer and conservative approximation of the theorical results when
compared to experimental results, and with a reasonable dispersion of values, reflected by an average value of
0.89 (ACI) / 0.97 (FIB) and a CV of 34.65% (ACI) / 24.89% (FIB). The beams analyses led to theoretical values
higher than those obtained in the experimental tests. This difference in behavior between beams and slabs can
be explained because of the occurrence of premature failures earlier than expected in the beam models.
When compared to the FRP sheet models, the FRP laminates showed a better approximation on the ultimate
theorical strain compared with experimental results (for beams and slabs).
Comparing the ACI and FIB models, it can be concluded that for slabs the FIB model fits better to the maximum
strain of the FRP, with an average of the ratio ( ε theoretical / ε exp ) closer to 1 and a smaller dispersion of results than the
ACI model. However, in general, as observed in Figure 2 and 3, different from the relation between the ultimate
moments ( M theoretical / M exp ), the strain shows remarkable dispersion of values (CV>50%), proving not to be a good
parameter for analysis and convergence of values.

4.4 Analysis of the global safety factor (ACI x FIB)

To carry out the analysis of the global safety factor, it was calculated the ratio C.1/C.5 for ACI and C.2/C.6 for FIB,
where C.1 and C.2 are the ultimate moment of the strengthened member without consideration of partial safety factor and
C.5 and C.6 are the same moment including partial safety factors, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Global safety factor obtained - FIB x ACI.

Global safety factor (C.1/C.5) - ACI

Mean 1.35
Mean 1.31 FR SD 0.06
Slab SD 0.07 CV(%) 4.19
Mean 1.28 CV(%) 5.66 Mean 1.27
Total SD 0.05 FD SD 0.04
CV(%) 3.97 Mean 1.27 CV(%) 3.20
Beam SD 0.04 Mean 1.25
CV(%) 3.12 CC SD 0.02
CV(%) 1.24
Global safety factor (C.2/C.6) - FIB
Mean 1.35
Mean 1.26 FR SD 0.03
Slab SD 0.09 CV(%) 2.40
Mean 1.32 CV(%) 7.25 Mean 1.24
Total SD 0.08 FD SD 0.06
CV(%) 5.88 Mean 1.33 CV(%) 5.01
Beam SD 0.07 Mean 1.37
CV(%) 5.40 CC SD 0.03
CV(%) 2.47

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 12/15
I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

Table 5 shows an average value of 1.28 for the global safety factor obtained for the ACI (C.1/C.5). However, when
comparing the global safety factors of ACI440, and separating them by the type of failure, note that the largest global
safety factor occurs when the analytical mode failure is due to the rupture of the FRP (FR). This can be explained by
the environmental reduction factor (CE) being directly associated with this mode of failure. Concrete crushing presented
the lowest global safety factor, but still with values within the parameters found in the literature.
From Table 5, the global safety factor obtained (C.2/C.6) for the FIB Model Code [22] is a mean value of 1.32.
However, the highest global safety factor occurs when the failure mode of the structure is due to the rupture of the FRP
and concrete crushing. This can be explained due to the partial safety factor of the FRP material ( y f ), which limits the
maximum strain of the FRP, being directly associated with this mode of failure (FR). For concrete crushing, the partial
safety factor of concrete yc is directly associated with the global safety factor values, and according to FIB-14 [35],
this value is set as yc = 1.5.

5 CONCLUSIONS
• The design procedures presented in the ACI440 and FIB Model Code design guides have differences in the approach
of the FRP subject, however, without large discrepancies of results, considering the FRP to be a recent reinforcement
system. The importance of this topic demonstrates the need to create codes on these matters in Brazil.
• The FRP strain analysis ( ε theoretical / ε exp ) presented large coefficient of variation, proving not to be a good parameter
to be assessed for convergence of values. Therefore, future regulation in Brazil should be mainly based on flexural
strength principles.
• For structures strengthened with FRP by the EBR technique, when compared to ACI440 design guide, the design
methodology specified by FIB Model Code leads to analytical results closer to the experimental values, with smaller
results dispersion, expressed as the ratio M theoret. / M exp close to 1.0.
• Both design models (ACI440 and FIB) seem to better reflect the behavior of beams than slabs. The account for the
different element types (slabs/beams and laminates/sheets) is not considered in the FIB neither ACI models nor
should be developed in future studies in Brazil.
• It is noted that in 9 of 64 experimental data that the rupture of the member started after excessive steel yielding, and
in one of these cases the failure was due only to excessive plastic deformation of steel, pointing to a need to limit
the excessive steel yielding, especially in cases where the amount of reinforcement is an important factor for the
service life of the structure. ABNT NBR6118 limits the strain of the reinforcement to ( ε sy,lim = 10‰), and this may
be an important factor to be adopted in a future Brazilian codes on FRP;
• In general, the Brazilian code for Concrete Structures is like the European standard (Eurocode) one. Therefore, the
FIB Model Code 2010 model presents a calculation methodology and partial safety factors that can be more easily
related to the future Brazilian code on Reinforced Concrete Structures Strengthened With CFRP.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for the support of Brazilian Research Funding Agencies - CNPq (Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) - scholarship number 152486/2016-0.

REFERENCES
[1] A. Siddika, M. A. A. Mamun, W. Ferdous, and R. Alyousef, "Performances, challenges and opportunities in strengthening reinforced
concrete structures by using FRPs: a state-of-the-art review," J. Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 111, pp. 104480, 2020,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104480.
[2] H. Toutanji, L. Zhao, and E. Anselm, "Verifications of design equations of beams externally strengthened with FRP composites," J.
Compos. Constr., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 254–264, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2006)10:3(254).
[3] U. Meier and H. Kaiser, “Strengthening of structures with CFRP laminates,” in Proc. Adv. Compos. Mater. Civ. Eng. Struct., New
York, 1991, pp. 224–232.
[4] P. Ritchie, D. Thomas, L. Lu, and G. Conneley, "External reinforcement of concrete beams using fiber reinforced plastics," ACI
Struct. J., vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 490–500, 1991, http://dx.doi.org/10.14359/2723.
[5] A. Sharif, G. Al-Sulaimani, I. Basunbul, M. Bakuch, and B. Ghaleb, "Strengthening of initially loaded reinforced concrete beams
using FRP plates," ACI Struct. J., vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 160–168, 1994, http://dx.doi.org/10.14359/4594.

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 13/15
I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

[6] A. Siddika, M. A. A. Mamun, R. Alyousef, and Y. H. M. Amran, "Strengthening of reinforced concrete beams by using fiber-
reinforced polymer composites: a review," J. Build. Eng., vol. 25, pp. 100798, 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100798.
[7] L. Huang, C. Zhang, L. Yan, and B. Kasal, "Flexural behavior of U-shape FRP profile-RC composite beams with inner GFRP tube
confinement at concrete compression zone," Compos. Struct., vol. 184, pp. 674–687, 2018,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.10.029.
[8] U. Meier, "Carbon fiber-reinforced polymers: modern materials in bridge engineering," Struct. Eng. Int., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 7–12, 1992,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2749/101686692780617020.
[9] L. Sorrentino, S. Turchetta, and C. Bellini, "In process monitoring of cutting temperature during the drilling of FRP laminate,"
Compos. Struct., vol. 168, pp. 549–561, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.02.079.
[10] J. Huo, Z. Li, L. Zhao, J. Liu, and Y. Xiao, "Dynamic behavior of CFRP-strengthened reinforced concrete beams without stirrups
under impact loading," ACI Struct. J., vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 775–787, 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.14359/51701283.
[11] Y. Ou and D. Zhu, "Tensile behavior of glass fiber reinforced composite at different strain rates and temperatures," Constr. Build.
Mater., vol. 96, pp. 648–656, 2015., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.044.
[12] D. A. Bournas, A. Pavese, and W. Tizani, "Tensile capacity of FRP anchors in connecting FRP and TRM sheets to concrete," Eng.
Struct., vol. 82, pp. 72–81, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.031.
[13] B. H. Osman, E. Wu, B. Ji, and S. S. Abdulhameed, "Repair of pre-cracked reinforced concrete (RC) Beams with openings
strengthened using FRP sheets under sustained load," Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 171–183, 2017.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40069-016-0182-3.
[14] Y. H. Mugahed Amran, R. Alyousef, R. S. M. Rashid, H. Alabduljabbar, and C.-C. Hung, "Properties and applications of FRP in
strengthening RC structures: a review," Structures, vol. 16, pp. 208–238, 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.09.008.
[15] M. Z. Naser, R. A. Hawileh, and J. A. Abdalla, "Fiber-reinforced polymer composites in strengthening reinforced concrete structures:
a critical review," J. Eng. Struct., vol. 198, pp. 109542, 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109542.
[16] L. Czarnecki, M. Kaproń, and D. Van Gemert, "Sustainable construction: challenges, contribution of polymers, research arena,"
Restor. Build Monuments, vol. 19, no. 2–3, pp. 81–96, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/rbm-2013-6583.
[17] M. F. Humphreys, “The use of polymer composites in construction,” in Int. Conf. Smart & Sustain. Built Environ., Brisbane,
Australia, 2003.
[18] R. A. Hawileh, W. Nawaz, and J. A. Abdalla, "Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams externally strengthened with Hardwire
Steel-Fiber sheets," Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 172, pp. 562–573, 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.225.
[19] R. A. Hawileh, J. A. Abdalla, and M. Z. Naser, "Modeling the shear strength of concrete beams reinforced with CFRP bars under
unsymmetrical loading," Mech. Adv. Mater. Structures, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2018.
[20] H. Rasheed, J. A. Abdalla, R. Hawileh, and A. Al-Tamimi, "Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
externally bonded aluminum alloy plates," Eng. Struct., vol. 147, no. 15, pp. 473–485, 2017,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.067.
[21] A. L. Gamino, T. N. Bittencourt, and J. L. A. O. Sousa, "Estruturas de concreto reforçadas com PRFC. Parte I: análise dos modelos
de flexão," Rev. IBRACON, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 326–355, 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1983-41952009000400003.
[22] American Concrete Institute, Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete
Structure, ACI 440.2R-17, 2017.
[23] Federation International Du Béton, FIB Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010, 2010.
[24] L. F. P. Juvandes, “Reforço e reabilitação de estruturas de betão usando materiais compósitos de CFRP,” Ph.D. dissertation, Fac.
Eng., Univ. Porto, 1999.
[25] H. A. Rasheed, Strengthening Design of Reinforced Concrete with FRP. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2014.
[26] L. C. Hollaway, "A review of the present and future utilization of FRP composites in the Civil infrastructure with reference to their
important in service properties," Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 2419–2445, 2010,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.062.
[27] L. De Lorenzis and J. G. Teng, "Near-surface mounted FRP reinforcement: an emerging technique for strengthening structures,"
Compos. B. Eng., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 119–143, 2007., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.08.003.
[28] R. Kalfat, R. Al-Mahaidi, and S. T. Smith, "Anchorage devices used to improve the performance of reinforced concrete beams
retrofitted with FRP composites: stateof- the-art review," J. Compos. Constr., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 14–33, 2013.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000276.
[29] H. Pham and R. Al-Mahaidi, "Experimental investigation into flexural retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridge beams using FRP
composites," Compos. Struct., vol. 66, no. 1–4, pp. 617–625, 2004., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.05.010.
[30] E. del Rey Castillo, M. Griffith, and J. Ingham, "Straight FRP anchors exhibiting fiber rupture failure mode," Compos. Struct., vol.
207, pp. 612–624, 2019.

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 14/15
I. D. G. Orlando, T. N. Bittencourt, and L. C. Meneghetti

[31] A. M. Okeil, Y. Bingol, and T. Alkhrdahi, Analyzing Model Uncertainties for Concrete Beams Flexurally Strengthened with FRP
Laminates. Washington, DC., 2007.
[32] M. Arduini and A. Nanni, "Parametric study of beams with externally bonded FRP reinforcement," ACI Struct. J., vol. 94, no. 5, pp.
493–501, 1997, http://dx.doi.org/10.14359/499.
[33] H. Toutanji, L. Zhao, and Y. Zhang, "Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams externally strengthened with CFRP sheets
bonded with an inorganic matrix," Eng. Struct., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 557–566, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.09.011.
[34] A. K. Al-Tamimi, R. Hawileh, J. Abdalla, and H. A. Rasheed, "Effects of ratio of CFRP plate length to shear span and end anchorage
on flexural behavior of SCC RC beams," J. Compos. Constr., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 908–919, 2011,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000221.
[35] Federation International Du Béton, Bulletin 14: Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures, 2001.
[36] Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Projeto de Estruturas de Concreto, NBR 6118, 2014.
[37] S. Dias, “Verificação experimental do reforço com CFRP de estruturas de betão à flexão,” M.S. thesis, Fac. Eng., Univ. Porto
(FEUP), Porto, 2001.
[38] A. Beber, “Avaliação do Desempenho de Vigas de Concreto Armado Reforçadas com Lâminas de Fibra de Carbono,” Ph.D.
dissertation, Univ. Fed. Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, 1999.
[39] K. Brosens, “Anchorage of externally bonded steel plates and CFRP laminates for the strengthening of concrete elements,” Ph.D.
dissertation, Katholieke Univ. Leuven, Leuven, Bélgica, 2001.
[40] S. Matthys, “Structural behaviour and design of concrete members strengthened with externally bonded FRP reinforcement,” Ph.D.
dissertation, Ghent Univ., Ghent, 2000.
[41] C. Pinto, “Reforço à flexão de vigas de concreto armado com fibras de carbono,” M.S. thesis, Univ. Fed. Rio de Janeiro, Rio de
Janeiro, 2000.
[42] N. Travassos, “Caracterização do comportamento da ligação CFRP-Betão,” M.S. thesis, Inst. Superior Técnico (IST), Lisboa, 2005.
[43] D. M. M. Azevedo, “Reforço de estruturas de betão com colagem de sistemas compósitos de CFRP - Recomendações para
dimensionamento,” M.S. thesis, Fac. Eng., Univ. Porto (FEUP), Porto, 2008.
[44] American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Guide for Testing Polymer Matrix Composite Materials, ASTM D4762-16,
2016.
[45] International Organization for Standardization, Fibre-Reinforced Plastics – Methods of Producing Test Plates – Part 1: General
Conditions, ISO 1268-1:2001, 2001.
[46] H. Pham and R. Al-Mahaidi, "Assessment of available prediction models for the stength of FRP retrofitted RC beams," Compos.
Struct. J., vol. 66, no. 1–4, pp. 601–610, 2004.
[47] H. Toutanji and L. Zhao, “Review of design equations of beams externally strengthened with FRP composites,” in Intl. Wksh. Innov.
Mater. Des., Cairo, Egypt, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2006)10:3(254).

Author contributions: IDGO: conceptualization, analysis, methodology, data curation, writing, TNB and LCM: conceptualization, analysis,
methodology, reviewer, supervision;

Editors: Mark Alexander, Guilherme Aris Parsekian.

Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 15, no. 2, e15204, 2022 15/15