Strengthening Timber Bridge Beams Using Carbon Fiber

Ted W. Buell, P.E.1 and Hamid Saadatmanesh, P.E.2

Abstract: This research project demonstrates how advanced composite materials can be used to strengthen existing timber bridge beams
in order to increase the load capacity of the bridge. Many times, the timber bridges were not designed to withstand the heavy truck traffic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

that they are currently carrying, and are therefore replaced in favor of modern concrete or steel bridges. Current methods of strengthening
timber bridges are not always practical or economical and so these bridges are simply replaced at a high cost to the public. This project
investigated whether applying composites in the form of either a fabric wrap or laminate strips to timber beams would increase the load
capacity of the beams. Bidirectional carbon fabric was the primary strengthening material used. A total of 10 solid-sawn Douglas Fir
timber beams were taken from a timber stringer bridge in Yuma, Ariz. that was replaced in 1999. Seven of the 10 creosote-treated beams
were reinforced with carbon fiber and then tested for bending strength, shear strength, and stiffness. Three of the beams were tested as
unreinforced control specimens. The results show that applying carbon fabric to the timber beams provides significant increases in the
bending and shear capacity, and nominal increases in the stiffness of the beams. Allowable stress modification factors are conceptually
discussed that could potentially be used by engineers to determine the safe load-carrying capacity of beams reinforced with carbon fiber.
However, a statistically significant number of timber beams strengthened with carbon fiber need to be tested to arrive at definitive stress
modification factors.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:1(173)
CE Database subject headings: Bridges, wooden; Beams; Fibers; Composite materials; Reinforcement.

Introduction
The first bridges ever built were most likely built of timber, one
of the oldest building materials known to man. Steel and concrete
replaced wood as the major building material for bridge construc-
tion in the 20th century, however, in the 21st century, wood is still
being used for many short-span bridges. Of bridges in the United
States that have a span of more than 6.1 m 共20 ft兲, approximately
7% (or 40,380) are made of timber. In addition, another 7.3% of
the bridges have timber decks supported by steel stringers and
are, therefore, classified as steel bridges (Duwadi and Ritter
1997). “In the Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture)
alone, approximately 7,500 timber bridges are in use, and more
are being built each year. The railroads have more than 1,500
miles of timber bridges and trestles in service” (Ou and Weller
1986). It has been estimated that more than 110,000 bridges in the
United States are structurally deficient and are in need of major
repairs, and that another 51,000 are functionally obsolete, that is,
they have narrow widths, poor clearances, and dangerous ap-
proaches. It is also estimated that 150 bridge failures occur in the
United States each year (NCHRP Report 222 1980). A major
contributing factor to structurally deficient bridges is that vehicle
1
Structural Engineer, HDR Engineering, Inc., 378 North Main Ave.,
Tucson, AZ 85701.
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.
Note. Associate Editor: David V. Rosowsky. Discussion open until
June 1, 2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual pa-
pers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on June 21, 2002; approved
on June 23, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 131, No. 1, January 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2005/1-173–187/$25.00.
loads have increased since the bridges were built. It is common to
see bridges that were designed for a 134 kN 共15 ton兲 truck now
having to be rehabilitated in order to carry the more modern
tractor-trailer rig which has a design load of 320 kN 共36 t兲.
Due to budget constraints of the agencies responsible for the
maintenance and replacement of bridges, it is not feasible to re-
place every deficient bridge. There are many deficient timber
bridges on rural roads that are owned by small agencies that do
not have the money for major bridge rehabilitation or replacement
projects. The major priority of these bridge owners is not to
strengthen the bridges so that they meet all AASHTO standards
and carry HS20 共320 kN, 36 t兲 trucks, but simply to strengthen
the bridges so that school buses can cross them twice a day.
The method that was studied in this project was that of
strengthening timber bridge stringers with advanced fiber com-
posites. Fiber composites were originally developed for the aero-
space industry but are now becoming more widely used for reha-
bilitation of civil engineering projects. Fiber-composite laminates
can be epoxy-bonded to the underside of concrete and steel beams
to increase the stiffness and tensile strength of the beams (Saadat-
manesh and Ehsani 1991; Saadatmanesh 1994). Concrete col-
umns can be wrapped with fiber composites to improve the col-
umn’s ductility and load capacity during seismic events
(Saadatmanesh et al. 1994, 1996, 1997). Fiber composites were
investigated to reinforce wood as early as 1964 when E. J. Biblis
tested very small beams that were faced with fiberglass. Theak-
ston (1965) performed a feasibility study for reinforcing timber
beams with fiberglass. Spaun (1981) undertook a study to inves-
tigate the potential of fiberglass reinforcement to improve the ten-
sile strength and bending stiffness of wood members. Plevris and
Triantafillou (1992) investigated wood beams that were rein-
forced with non-prestressed carbon sheets and Triantafillou and
Deskivic (1992) investigated wood beams that were reinforced
with prestressed carbon sheets. Dorey and Cheng (1996) investi-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 173

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Avenue 22E Bridge over the Wellton Mohawk Main Channel,
Structure No. 8394. Bridge was posted for a weight limit of
89 kN 共10 t兲 prior to being replaced
gated glulam beams strengthened with glass fiber reinforced poly-
mer. GangaRao and Sonti (1996) investigated the strength en-
hancements achievable by wrapping wood railroad cross-ties with
composite fabrics. Sonti et al. (1996) performed a study to deter-
mine the influence of different fiber wraps and wrapping configu-
rations on the strength, stiffness, and failure modes of wrapped
laminated timber beams. The bond strength between fiber com-
posites and wood was investigated by Abdel-Magid et al. (1996).
The purpose was mainly for determining the bond strength be-
tween the laminations of glue laminated beams that are reinforced
with fiber composites.
The goals of this research project were twofold. The primary
goal was to determine if wrapping timber stringers with carbon
fabric would increase the stiffness, bending, and shear strength of
the stringers. The secondary goal was to conceptually develop
preliminary stress modification factors that could be applied to the
tabulated allowable design stress values for the bending, shear,
and stiffness of wood beams. With additional research, testing,
and mathematical modeling, modification factors could poten-
tially be used by engineers to determine the safe load-carrying
capacity of wood beams reinforced with carbon fiber.
Fig. 2. Cross section of the Avenue 22E Bridge over the Wellton Mohawk Main Channel, Structure No. 8394
174 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.
Description of the Avenue 22E Bridge
The timber stringers used for this project were taken from the
Avenue 22E Bridge in Yuma County, Ariz. The Avenue 22E
Bridge, Structure No. 8394, crossed the Wellton Mohawk Main
Channel between County 8th Street and 9th Street. Avenue 22E is
a two lane gravel road, one lane in each direction, that is used
mainly for hauling agricultural products from the fields to the
markets and moving farm equipment between fields. This bridge
was a good example of a typical timber stringer bridge located on
a rural farm road that could be found almost anywhere in the
United States, see Fig. 1.
The structure was a two-lane, single-span timber bridge with a
total length of 9.1 m 共30 ft-0 in.兲 and a clear roadway width of
7.8 m 共25 ft-8 in.兲. The bridge superstructure consisted of wood
planks over a nail-laminated timber deck supported by 203 mm
⫻ 483 mm⫻ 9.1 m 共8 in.⫻ 19 in.⫻ 30 ft兲 long solid-sawn timber
stringers supported on concrete abutments, see Fig. 2.
Bridges are assigned a rating based on an AASHTO Suffi-
ciency Rating Formula. This method is used to establish the ad-
equacy of the bridge to serve the public. An entirely sufficient
structure is given a rating of 100. An entirely insufficient or de-
ficient structure is given a rating of 0. At the time the bridge was
replaced, it was posted for a weight limit of 89 kN 共10 t兲 and had
a sufficiency rating of 45.3. Based on this low sufficiency rating,
Yuma County decided to replace the bridge. They obtained fund-
ing for a new timber bridge through the Federal “Wood in Trans-
portation Program,” formerly known as the Timber Bridge Initia-
tive (TBI), passed by the U.S. Congress in 1988.
On February 11, 1999, shortly after the construction contract
for the replacement bridge was awarded, the timber stringers were
shipped to the University of Arizona Department of Civil Engi-
neering. It should be noted that the timber stringers were in very
good shape. Only one of the 10 beams showed signs of decay, and
this decay was very minor.
Properties of Test Materials
Timber Beams
The beams were 203 mm wide⫻ 483 mm deep⫻ 9.1 m long
共8 in.⫻ 19 in.⫻ 30 ft兲 solid-sawn Douglas Fir. Fig. 3 shows some

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Timber stringers removed from the Avenue 22E Bridge sit on
a flat-bed truck at the University of Arizona, February 1999
of the typical stringers removed from the bridge. The unit weight,
moisture content, and specific gravity of the beams were approxi-
mately 4.71 kN/ m3 共30 lb/ ft3兲, 9%, and 0.45, respectively. The
beams had been incised and pressure treated with creosote. The
1
penetration of the creosote was between 13 and 25 mm ( 2 and
1 in.) on a consistent basis. Knowing that the beams are Douglas
Fir, one can estimate the material properties of the wood from
past research. One of the most thorough studies on the material
properties of wood was reported in a paper entitled “Strength and
Related Properties of Woods Grown in the United States.” This
paper was published in 1935 by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) as Technical Bulletin No. 479 (Markwardt
and Wilson 1935). The study reports the average material proper-
ties for 116 hardwoods and 53 softwoods. Over 250,000 tests
were made on small clear test specimens and the results were
reported for two moisture contents, green and dry. Dry wood was
considered to be at a moisture content of 12%. The small clear
test specimens were 51 mm⫻ 51 mm⫻ 762 mm 共2 in.⫻ 2 in.
⫻ 30 in.兲 long. The material properties most important from this
technical bulletin are the moisture content, stress at proportional
limit, modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, and shear parallel
to grain (horizontal shear) for Douglas Fir Coast Type. These
values are listed in Table 1.
The beams for the Avenue 22E Timber Bridge will fail prior to
reaching the average stresses listed in Table 1 because, unlike
small clear specimens, they have strength reducing defects. The
203 mm⫻ 483 mm⫻ 9.1 m 共8 in.⫻ 19 in.⫻ 30 ft兲 long beams
have over 456 times more wood than the small clear specimens.
Based on the amount of defects such as knots, checks, splits, etc.
the beams would most likely be classified as grade No. 1 accord-
ing to the grading rules of the West Coast Lumber Inspection
Table 1. Average Strength Properties of Small, Clear Douglas Fir Specimens (Markwardt and Wilson 1935, Table 21)
Moisture Specific Stress at
Species content gravity proportional limit
Douglas Fir (coast type) 12% 0.51 55, 848 kPa共8 , 100 psi兲
Table 2. Design Values for Douglas-Fir Beams and Stringers (AASHTO 1996)
Tension parallel
Species and grade Bending 共Fb兲 to grain
Douglas Fir no. 1 9 , 308 kPa 共1 , 350 psi兲 4 , 654 kPa 共675 psi兲
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 175
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.
Bureau (WCLIB 1996). The AASHTO Standard Specifications
for Highway Bridges, 16th Ed. (AASHTO 1996) provides design
stresses for beams and stringers of Grade No. 1 Douglas Fir.
These design stresses are shown in Table 2.
The tabulated values shown in Table 2 are to be modified by
applicable adjustment factors given in the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges. Using the adjustment factors,
the allowable design values for the timber beams used in this
testing program can be determined. The applicable adjustment
factors are C M , CD , CF, and CH. C M =wet service factor and is
equal to 1.0 since the moisture content of the beams was below
19%. The load duration factor CD is equal to 1.33 since the test
duration is less than 1 day. The size factor CF is equal to 0.95 for
these 483 mm 共19 in.兲 deep test specimens. Finally the shear
stress factor CH is equal to 1.0 since the length of splits and
checks were more than 1.5 times the dimension of the narrow
face.
The allowable bending stress Fb⬘ equals the tabulated bending
stress times C M , CD, and CF
F⬘b = FbC M CDCF = 11,790 kPa 共1,710 psi兲 共1兲
The allowable shear stress F⬘v equals the tabulated shear stress
times C M , CD, and CH
F⬘v = FvC M CDCH = 779 kPa 共113 psi兲 共2兲
The allowable modulus of elasticity is the tabulated modulus
of elasticity times C M
E⬘ = EC M = 11,032 MPa 共1,600 psi兲 共3兲
As shown, the allowable design stresses for our beams are
significantly lower than the average ultimate values given in
Table 1 for small clear wood specimens. The allowable design
value for bending is only 21% of the average stress at the propor-
tional limit for small clear specimens and the allowable design
value for shear is only 10% of the average shear strength of a
small clear wood specimen. This illustrates how the presence of
defects that occur in full-size timber beams reduce the allowable
stress that can safely be applied to the beams.
Carbon Fiber and Epoxy Matrix
Forty-six lineal meters (50 lineal yards) of bidirectional carbon
fabric was used in this study. The fabric weighed
1 , 378.9 g / m2 共40 oz/ yd2兲, a relatively heavy fabric, and was
1 , 270 mm 共50 in.兲 wide.
The fabric was made of a yarn that had 50,000 carbon fila-
ments per tow. A tow is defined as a bundle of more than 10,000
filaments. It had a warp of 4 and a fill of 5. Warp and fill are terms
associated with bidirectional fabric. A warp of 4 means that there
are 4 tows per in. of the fabric in the machine direction. The ma-
Shear parallel
Modulus of rupture Modulus of elasticity to grain
80, 669 kPa 共11, 700 psi兲 13, 238 MPa 共1 , 920 ksi兲 7 , 860 kPa 共1 , 140 psi兲
Shear parallel Compression parallel Modulus
to grain 共Fv兲 to grain of elasticity 共E兲
586 kPa 共85 psi兲 6 , 378 kPa 共925 psi兲 11, 032 MPa 共1 , 600 ksi兲
 Table 3. Mechanical Properties of Carbon Fiber-Composite Coupons
Coefficient
Average of variation
Loading failure in failure
Type of coupon direction load load
Average of 12 coupons tested Warp and fill 450 kN/ m 0.41 115, 942 kPa 0.010
共2 , 572 lb/ in.兲 共16, 816 psi兲
Note: Coupon testing was performed in general conformance to ASTM Standard D3039/D3039M-95a.
chine direction is the direction that the fabric is fed out of the
machine during manufacture and is parallel to the longitudinal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
axis of the fabric. A fill of 5 means that there are 5 tows per in. in
the direction transverse to the longitudinal axis of the fabric. For
this fabric, the tows in the fill direction are 1 , 270 mm 共50 in.兲
long. Since there are 4 tows per in. in the warp direction and
5 tows per in. in the fill direction, then the fabric can be classified
as 44% / 56% bidirectional carbon fabric. Also, the strength of the
fabric is theoretically 25% stronger in the fill direction since there
are 25% more tows per in. in the fill direction than in the warp
direction. The weave pattern was a 2 / 2 twill. This means that
each tow is woven under two tows and then over two tows. The
thickness of 2.08 mm 共0.082 in.兲 is the thickness of the fabric
when it is compressed under a pressure of approximately
6.89 kPa 共1 psi兲. This is the thickness of the carbon alone and
does not include the epoxy matrix.
The epoxy matrix consisted of a two-part tack coat that was
applied to the beam prior to wrapping and a two-part epoxy that
was used to saturate the carbon fabric prior to and after the fabric
was wrapped onto the beam. The epoxy matrix is considered a
polymer matrix. The tack coat is made up of an epoxy resin
mixed with a polyethylene polyamine. The epoxy is also made up
of an epoxy resin mixed with polyamines.
Test coupons were made of the carbon fiber composite and the
coupons were tested to failure in tension. Testing was performed
in general conformance with ASTM D3039/D3039M-95a. The
coupons were 25.4 mm 共1 in.兲 wide and consisted of the carbon
fiber and the epoxy matrix. The average fiber fraction for the
coupons tested was approximately 27%. This fiber fraction was
based on only the fibers oriented in the direction of loading. Cou-
pons were tested in both the warp and fill directions since the
warp direction provides tensile reinforcement to a beam with a
perpendicular wrap and the fill direction provides tensile rein-
forcement to a beam with a longitudinal wrap. Table 3 summa-
rizes the mechanical properties of the fiber-composite coupons.
In addition, unidirectional carbon laminates were used to rein-
force three of the timber stringers. The carbon laminate strips
were made of pure carbon fibers and measured
1.27 mm 共0.05 in.兲 thick by 76 mm 共3 in.兲 wide. They were
Fig. 4. Standard setup for testing beams per ASTM D 198
176 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.
Average Coefficient
Average Average modulus of of Average
failure failure elasticity variation Poisson’s
stress strain (MOE) in MOE ratio
12, 700 MPa 0.11 0.28
共1 , 842 ksi兲
tested in the same manner as the fiber-composite fabric coupons.
The carbon laminate had an average failure stress of approxi-
mately 2 , 068 MPa 共300 ksi兲 at a strain of 1.2% and a modulus of
elasticity of approximately 137, 895 MPa 共20, 000 ksi兲.
Test Procedures and Experimental Techniques
The timber beams were tested in four-point loading in general
conformance with ASTM Standard D 198 “Standard test methods
of static tests of lumber in structural sizes.” This standard was
originally published in 1927 to be used primarily for sawn mate-
rial such as solid wood bridge stringers and joists. The beams
were tested in bending and shear to determine their ultimate
strength and stiffness, see Figs. 4 and 5.
The beams that were tested to determine their strength in
bending were set up with a relatively long shear span. ASTM D
198 states that for determining flexural properties, the half shear
span-to-depth ratio, a / h should be between 5 and 12. ASTM D
198 defines the shear span as two times the distance between a
reaction and the nearest load point for a symmetrically loaded
beam (Fig. 4). The span was 7.62 m 共25 ft-0 in.兲 for the beams
tested in bending. One-half of the shear span, a, was
2.90 m 共9 ft-6 in.兲, and the load span (distance between the two
loading points on top of the beam) was 1.83 m 共6 ft-0 in.兲. There-
fore the one-half shear span-to-depth ratio, a / h, for the 203 mm
⫻ 483 mm 共8 in.⫻ 19 in.兲 beams was 6. According to ASTM D
198, beams that have a depth-to-width ratio of three or greater are
subject to lateral instability during loading. The depth-to-width
ratio of these beams is 2.4 and therefore lateral support was not
provided for the beams.
The beams that were tested to determine their strength in shear
were set up with a relatively short shear span. ASTM D 198 states
that beams with a one-half shear span-to-depth ratio less than 5
will most likely fail in shear. For the beams tested in shear, the
Fig. 5. 445 kN 共100 kip兲 test frame with unreinforced beam B1flex
ready for testing

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Tack coat applied to beam B3flex
span was 4.27 m 共14 ft-0 in.兲, one-half of the shear span, a, was
1.22 m 共4 ft-0 in.兲 and the load span was 1.83 m 共6 ft-0 in.兲. The
half shear span-to-depth ratio, a / h, was therefore 2.5.
The deflection of all of the beams was measured at midspan on
both sides of the beams in accordance with ASTM D 198. Poten-
tiometers that measure deflection were placed onto a support
bracket that was attached to the beam at mid-depth. Four
51 mm 共2 in.兲 long, 120-⍀ strain gauges were placed on the out-
side of the carbon fabric wrap on each beam to determine how
much stress was getting transferred from the wood into the carbon
reinforcement. Two of the gauges were placed on the bottom of
the beam at midspan to measure the strain in the tensile zone. The
other two gauges were placed near the support on one side of the
beam at middepth to measure the strain caused by high shear
stress. One of the gauges was placed horizontally while the other
gauge was placed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
beam. Data was recorded every 2 s during the tests using an au-
tomatic data acquisition and recording system.
Procedure Used to Wrap the Beams
The beams were cleaned with an electric grinder with a wire
wheel attachment. This was done to remove the dirt from the
beams so that a good bond would be obtained between the wood
and the carbon fabric. The beams were then scrubbed with a
sodium hydroxide solution (1 part Drano to 3 parts water) to
remove surface deposits of creosote preservative that may have
bled to the surface of the wood. Drano is a household product
used to unclog drains.
The tack coat was mixed first and applied directly to the
beams. The tack coat was spread onto the beams in thin even
layers using putty knives, see Fig. 6. The purpose of the tack coat
is to allow the fabric to be applied in overhead applications. The
tack coat is “tacky” and therefore the carbon fabric is supposed to
stick to it. Since the carbon fabric is soaked with epoxy, it did not
stick as well as we would have liked to the tack coat. Therefore a
few staples were used to help secure the fabric to the compression
face of the beams.
While the tack coat was being applied to the beam, epoxy was
being applied to the carbon fabric which was spread out on the
floor next to the beam. After the tack coat was applied to the
beam, the carbon fabric, which was saturated with epoxy, was
lifted and wrapped onto the beam. Putty knives were then used to
force out the air bubbles from the fabric.
Once the fabric was wrapped onto the beam, additional epoxy
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 177
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.
was applied to the fabric to ensure that it was fully saturated with
epoxy. Approximately 1 gallon of tack coat per 30 ft2 of beam and
1 gallon of epoxy per 25 ft2 of fabric was used. The total time
taken to complete the epoxy process for a team of 3 to 4 people
was approximately 2 hour per beam.
Flexural Test Results and Analysis
The flexural test beams were identified as B1flex , B3flex ,
B4flex , B5flex , B6flex, and B10flex. The first beam, 共B1flex兲, was the
control specimen and was not reinforced with carbon fabric or
carbon laminates, see Fig. 5. It should be noted that the unrein-
forced flexural strength determined from beam B1flex is an esti-
mate of the strength of all of these beams. Each piece of wood
differs in the amount of strength-reducing defects such as knots,
splits, and checks and therefore, it is hard to say at what stress
level the other reinforced beams would have failed had they not
been reinforced. Such is the nature of wood.
The unreinforced stiffness of all of the beams was determined
by loading the beams until they deflected approximately
25 mm 共1 in.兲 at midspan and the load-deflection data was re-
corded. This was done so that the unreinforced stiffness of the
beams could be compared with the stiffness of the beams after
they were reinforced.
Beam B3flex was reinforced by wrapping it with a
7.01 m 共23 ft-3 in.兲 long piece of carbon fabric. The fabric was
1 , 270 mm 共50 in.兲 wide. Since the beam was 197 mm
⫻ 479 mm deep 共7 4 in.⫻ 18 8 in.兲, the fabric covered the tension
3 7
face of the beam, the two wide faces, and approximately
102 mm 共4 in.兲 of the compression face of the beam, see Fig. 7.
Beam B4flex was wrapped perpendicular to the longitudinal
axis of the beam. The purpose of this test was to examine the
performance of overlapped fabrics. Seven strips of carbon fabric
1 , 524 mm 共60 in.兲 long⫻ 1 , 270 mm 共50 in.兲 wide were wrapped
around the beam starting at midspan. Each strip of fabric was
overlapped approximately 254 mm 共10 in.兲 onto the adjacent
strip. The total length of beam that was wrapped was
7.37 m 共24 ft-2 in.兲. The fabric covered all four faces of the beam
plus it overlapped 165 mm 共6 2 in.兲 onto the top face of the beam,
1
see Fig. 8.
Beam B5flex was not wrapped with carbon fabric. Instead two
strips of carbon laminate were bonded to the bottom face of the
beam using the same tack coat as was used for the wrapped
beams. As previously discussed, the carbon laminate is
1.27 mm 共0.05 in.兲 thick⫻ 76 mm 共3 in.兲 wide and has an ap-
proximate tensile strength of 2 , 068 MPa 共300 ksi兲. The purpose
of this type of strengthening was to see if the same strength gain
as the beams wrapped with carbon fabric could be obtained by
just using the carbon laminate in the tension zone of the beams.
Beam B6flex was reinforced with two strips of carbon laminate
on the bottom face of the beam and then wrapped with a
7.01 m 共23 ft兲 long⫻ 1 , 270 mm 共50 in.兲 wide piece of carbon
fabric. The purpose of this type of strengthening was to see if the
strips of laminate in addition to confinement provided by the fab-
ric would be a more effective retrofit design.
Beam B10flex was used to examine the effect of placing the
carbon reinforcement on the bottom of the beam far from the
neutral axis so that it would provide maximum bending resistance
to the beam and therefore be more efficiently utilized. In order to
do this, four 38 mm⫻ 89 mm (2 in.⫻ 4 in. nominal) continuous
pieces of wood were attached to the bottom face of the beam and
two strips of 1.27 mm⫻ 76 mm 共0.05 in.⫻ 3 in.兲 carbon laminate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Reinforced beam B3flex

were bonded to the bottom of the 38 mm⫻ 89 mm pieces of
wood. The 38 mm⫻ 89 mm pieces of wood were bonded to the
underside of the wood beams with tack coat and with lag screws.
9.5 mm 共3 / 8 in.兲 diameter⫻ 12.7 mm 共6 in.兲 long lag screws at
102 mm 共4 in.兲 on center were used in each 38 mm⫻ 89 mm
(2 in.⫻ 4 in. nominal) piece of wood. The heads of the lag screws
were countersunk into the wood so as not to interfere with the
bonding surface of the carbon laminates. Confinement was then
provided to the beam by wrapping it with a 7.01 m 共23 ft兲 long
⫻ 1 , 270 mm 共50 in.兲 wide piece of carbon fabric, see Fig. 9. By
building the beam up in this way, it was anticipated that the beam
would fail at a significantly higher ultimate load than beams
B3flex , B4flex, and B6flex.
Summary of Flexural Test Results
Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of the test results for the six
beams tested in flexure. Based on the test results, the following
improvements were observed.
1. The stiffness of the beams is increased between 5 and 27%.
Beam B10flex showed a stiffness increase of 69%, however,
that beam was built-up with 38 mm⫻ 89 mm
(2 in.⫻ 4 in. nominal) wood boards in addition to being
wrapped. Fig. 10 shows a portion of the load versus deflec-
tion curve for unwrapped and wrapped beam B3flex. The
stiffness of beam B3flex increased 17%.
2. The ultimate bending strength is increased between 40 and

178 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Reinforced beam B4flex

53%. Fig. 11 shows the load versus deflection curve for all
six beams tested in flexure. Beam B1flex, the control speci-
men, failed at a load of 187 kN 共42 kips兲. Beam B3flex,
which was wrapped with a one-piece full-length longitudinal
wrap, failed at a load of 285 kN 共64.1 kips兲.
3. The ductility of beams that are wrapped with carbon fabric is
increased significantly. Even after ultimate failure, the beams
still held together. In other words, there was no catastrophic
failure when the beams were wrapped. The deflection ductil-
ity of the beams that were wrapped increased from 28 to
51%. Deflection ductility is defined as the deflection of the
reinforced specimen at failure divided by the deflection that
the specimen would have had at failure had it not been rein-
forced. The deflection that the specimen would have had at
failure had it not been reinforced was determined by calcu-
lating the deflection that would have occurred at the same
bending stress that caused failure of the control specimen
B1flex. See Table 5 and Fig. 11. The control specimen, beam
B1flex, failed at a deflection of 68.8 mm 共2.71 in.兲 and a
bending stress of 34, 295 kPa 共4 , 974 psi兲. Beam B4flex
which was wrapped with a perpendicular, overlapped wrap
failed at a deflection of 116.3 mm 共4.58 in.兲. Since beam
B4flex had an unreinforced modulus of elasticity of
9 , 611 kPa 共1 , 394 psi兲, it would have reached a deflection of
91.2 mm 共3.59 in.兲 when the bending stress reached
34, 295 kpa 共4 , 974 psi兲. Therefore the deflection ductility
for beam B4flex is computed by dividing the assumed unre-
inforced deflection of 91.2 mm 共3.59 in.兲 into the actual re-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 179

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Built-up and wrapped beam B10flex

inforced deflection at failure of 116.6 mm 共4.59 in.兲. The re-
sult is a 28% increase in deflection ductility for this beam.
Beam B10flex showed the greatest increase in deflection duc-
tility at 51%. This beam was built up with 2 ⫻ 4’s and then
reinforced with carbon laminate and carbon fabric. The in-
crease in ductility shows that by building the beam up with
2 ⫻ 4’s, the wood was more efficiently utilized, tension fail-
ure was eliminated, and failure occurred in the compression
face of the beam. Compression failure causes crushing of the
wood fibers and tends to be a more ductile type of failure as
opposed to the snapping of wood fibers that occurs when
wood fails in tension.
4. The horizontal shear strength of the beams is increased when
the beams are wrapped. This became evident when beam
B5flex failed in horizontal shear due to a shake that existed
prior to the test. This beam only had two strips of carbon
laminate on the bottom and was not wrapped with carbon
fabric. The beam failed at a load that was 22% less than the
failure load of the control specimen beam B1flex. This was
the only beam that was part of the flexural testing that failed
in shear. It was evident that the beam would not have failed
in horizontal shear if it had been wrapped with carbon fabric.
Table 4 shows that the beams that were wrapped had hori-
zontal shear stresses between 2 , 103 kPa 共305 psi兲 and
2 , 517 kPa 共365 psi兲 when the beams failed in flexure. This
is significantly greater than the allowable design shear stress
of 779 kPa 共113 psi兲.
5. The beams that were wrapped with a one-piece, full-length

180 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.

 Table 4. Summary of Strength Increase for Flexural Tests
Strength
increase
over
Ultimate Bending Bending Horizontal control
Beam failure load moment Shear force stress shear stress beam Failure mode
B1flex (control) 186.8 kPa 270.5 kN m 93.4 kN 34.3 MPa 1 , 427 kPa N/A Bending (tension)
共42 kips兲 共199.5 ft kips兲 共21 kips兲 共4 , 974 psi兲 共207 psi兲
B3flex 285.1 kPa 412.8 kN m 142.6 kN 54.7 MPa 2 , 268 kPa 53% Bending (mostly tension)
共64.1 kips兲 共304.5 ft kips兲 共32.05 kips兲 共7 , 940 psi兲 共329 psi兲
B4flex 266.4 kPa 385.7 kN m 133.2 kN 50.5 MPa 2 , 103 kPa 43% Bending (mostly tension)
共59.9 kips兲 共284.5 ft kips兲 共29.95 kips兲 共7 , 322 psi兲 共305 psi兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B5flex 145.5 kPa 210.6 kN m 72.7 kN 27.7 MPa 1 , 151 kPa −22% Horizontal shear
共32.7 kips兲 共155.3 ft kips兲 共16.35 kips兲 共4 , 023 psi兲 共167 psi兲
B6flex 261.6 kPa 378.7 kN m 130.8 kN 51.2 MPa 2 , 130 kPa 40% Bending (compression and tension)
共58.8 kips兲 共279.3 ft kips兲 共29.4 kips兲 共7 , 427 psi兲 共309 psi兲
B10flex 315.8 kPa 457.3 kN m 157.9 Kn 45.7 MPa 2 , 517 kPa 69% Bending (compression)
共71.0 kips兲 共337.3 ft kips兲 共35.5 kips兲 共6 , 625 psi兲 共365 psi兲

longitudinal wrap performed better than the beams that were
wrapped with a perpendicular overlapped wrap. The longitu-
dinal wrap is easier to apply and thus it comes into intimate
contact with the wood better than the perpendicular wrap.
Also, the carbon fabric does not stick well to itself. The
fabric that was used was a relatively heavy fabric and was
therefore harder to saturate than a lighter fabric. A lighter
fabric would probably adhere to itself better than the fabric
used for this study. This is a problem when a perpendicular
wrap is used because the fabric must be overlapped onto the
adjacent fabric. If a good bond is not obtained between the
strips of fabric, the fabric can delaminate which decreases
confinement of the wood fibers and causes failure of the
beam. Additional studies are necessary to determine the re-
quired overlap length between adjacent pieces of fabric to
prevent delamination.
6. The addition of the carbon laminate on the bottom of the
beams does not appear to contribute significantly to the
strength and stiffness. A comparison of beam B3flex which
was only wrapped with carbon fabric and beam B6flex which
had two strips of carbon laminate on the bottom as well as
being wrapped reveals that the stiffness increase was virtu-
ally the same and that beam B3flex actually had a higher
strength gain (53%) than beam B6flex (40%).
Shear Test Results and Analysis
Four of the beams were tested to determine their strength in hori-
zontal shear. The 9.1 m 共30 ft兲 long stringers were cut in half for
the shear tests. Each beam was therefore 4.6 m 共15 ft兲 long. The
beams were identified as B2shear, B7shear, B8shear, and B9shear.
Beams B2shear and B8shear were tested as control specimens and
were therefore not reinforced with carbon fabric or carbon lami-
nates. The purpose of the two control specimens was to determine
the actual unreinforced shear strength of the beams. Two control
specimens were used because beam B2shear had fewer defects than
the other beams and it tested uncharacteristically strong in hori-
zontal shear. The beam had a vertical steel bolt through the beam
near the support which could not be removed prior to the test.
This bolt may have provided some reinforcement against horizon-
tal shear failure. Bearing plates that were too narrow were also
used which caused significant crushing of the wood at the sup-
ports during the test. Because of the crushing, the deflection data
was not correct. It was therefore decided to use the average of two
control specimens to establish the unreinforced shear strength for
the beams. The other two beams were reinforced with carbon
fabric and tested to failure. The test results of the reinforced
beams were then compared with the test results of the control

Table 5. Summary of Stiffness Increase and Ductility for Flexural Tests

Modulus
Deflection of Reinforced increase
Unreinforced unreinforced modulus of over
Deflection modulus of beam at elasticity unreinforced Deflection
Beam at failure elasticity E failurea E 共ksi兲 beam ductility
B1flex (control) 68.8 mm 共2.71 in.兲 12, 728 MPa 共1 , 846 ksi兲 68.8 mm 共2.71 in.兲 N/A N/A 1.0
B3flex 106.2 mm 共4.18 in.兲 11, 280 MPa 共1 , 636 ksi兲 77.7 mm 共3.06 in.兲 13, 217 MPa 共1 , 917 ksi兲 17% 1.37
B4flex 116.3 mm 共4.58 in.兲 9 , 611 MPa 共1 , 394 ksi兲 91.2 mm 共3.59 in.兲 12, 252 MPa 共1 , 777 ksi兲 27% 1.28
B5flex 53.1 mm 共2.09 in.兲 12, 666 MPa 共1 , 837 ksi兲 N/A 13, 355 MPa 共1 , 937 ksi兲 5% N/A
B6flex 87.6 mm 共3.45 in.兲 13, 376 MPa 共1 , 940 ksi兲 65.5 mm 共2.58 in.兲 15844 MPa 共2 , 298 ksi兲 18% 1.34
B10flex 93.7 mm 共3.69 in.兲 11, 756 MPa 共1 , 705 ksi兲 62.2 mm 共2.45 in.兲b 13, 838 MPa 共2 , 007 ksi兲 18% 1.51
a
This is the assumed deflection at failure if the beam was not reinforced. It corresponds to the deflection that would have occurred at the same bending
stress (34.3 MPa, 4 , 974 psi) that caused failure of the control specimen B1flex. Therefore, since the beams are all practically the same size, the assumed
deflection is equal to the deflection of the control specimen at failure times the ratio of the unreinforced modulus of elasticity of the control specimen to
the unreinforced modulus of elasticity of the specific beam. This applies to all of the beams except B10flex.
b
This is the deflection that would have occurred if the beam had only been built up with wood boards 共2 ⫻ 4 ’ s兲 and not reinforced with carbon laminate
and carbon fabric.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 181

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Load versus deflection for unwrapped and wrapped beam
B3flex
specimens. As previously noted, the strength of the control speci-
mens is only an estimate of the strength of all of the beams since
each piece of wood contains a different amount of strength-
reducing defects such as knots, splits, and checks.
The unreinforced stiffness of the beams was determined by
loading the beams until they deflected approximately
6.4 mm 共 4 in.兲 at midspan and the load-deflection data was re-
1
corded. This was done so that the unreinforced stiffness of the
beams could be compared with the stiffness of the beams after
they were reinforced.
A description of the reinforcement for the beams tested in
shear follows.
Beam B7shear was reinforced similar to beam B3flex. It was
wrapped with a 3.8 m 共12 ft-6 in.兲 long by 1 , 270 mm 共50 in.兲
wide piece of carbon fabric. The fabric covered the tension face
of the beam, the two wide faces, and approximately
102 mm 共4 in.兲 of the compression face of the beam, see Fig. 12.
Beam B9shear was reinforced similar to beam B4flex.
It was wrapped perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
beam. Four strips of carbon fabric 1 , 524 mm 共60 in.兲 long
⫻1 , 270 mm 共50 in.兲 wide were wrapped around the beam start-
ing at midspan. Each strip of fabric was overlapped approxi-
mately 406 mm 共16 in.兲 onto the adjacent strip. The total length
of beam that was wrapped was 3.8 m 共12 ft-6 in.兲. The fabric
covered all four faces of the beam plus it overlapped approxi-
mately 171 mm 共6 4 in.兲 onto the top face of the beam, see Fig. 13.
3
Summary of Shear Test Results
Tables 6 and 7 provide a summary of the test results for the four
beams tested in shear and Fig. 14 shows the load versus deflection
curves for the beams. Based on the results, the following im-
provements were observed.
182 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.
Fig. 11. Load versus deflection for all six beams tested in flexure
1. The horizontal shear strength is increased by as much as
68%. It should be noted that the strength of one of the two
unreinforced control beams (beam B2shear) was unusually
strong and consequently one of the reinforced beams did not
exhibit an increase in shear strength when compared to the
average of the two unreinforced control beams. None of the
beams that were wrapped failed at a stress level less than 3.4
times greater than the allowable design shear stress of
779 kPa 共113 psi兲. Reinforced beam B7shear was cut from the
same 9.1 m 共30 in.兲 long beam as the control beam B8shear. It
is therefore fair to compare B7shear directly to B8shear. Rein-
forced beam B7shear was 68% stronger than unreinforced
beam B8shear.
2. The deflection ductility of the beams that are wrapped with
carbon fabric is increased from 29 to 45%. Control beam
B8shear failed at a shear stress of 2 , 165 kPa 共314 psi兲. Based
on the stiffness of beam B9 before it was reinforced, it would
have had a deflection of 24.9 mm 共0.98 in.兲 when the shear
stress reached 2 , 165 kPa 共314 psi兲. Since reinforced beam
B7shear failed at a deflection of 36.1 mm 共1.42 in.兲, the de-
flection ductility is 36.1/ 24.9 mm or 1.45 as shown in Table
7.
3. Based on the test results of beams B7shear and B9shear, it can
be concluded that beams wrapped with a one-piece, full-
length longitudinal wrap perform better than the beams
wrapped with a perpendicular overlapped wrap. This is the
same conclusion that was drawn from the flexural tests.
Design Applications
Predicting the stiffness and strength increase that occurs when a
wood beam is reinforced with carbon fiber is a complex problem
and to some degree is beyond the scope of this study. However,
design of wood structures has been accomplished for decades by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Reinforced beam B7shear

applying stress modification factors to the published allowable
design stress values for a given size and grade of lumber. Accord-
ingly, allowable stress modification factors have been conceptu-
ally developed based on the experimental results from this study.
With further research and more comprehensive testing, these
modification factors could be used by engineers to determine the
safe load carrying capacity of beams reinforced with carbon fiber.
Modification Factors for Stiffness of Reinforced Beams
Stiffness increases from between 17 and 27% were realized by
wrapping the beams with carbon fabric, see Table 5. A significant
portion of the stiffness increase can be attributed to confinement.
It is interesting to note that the modulus of elasticity for the car-
bon fabric 共12, 700 MPa, 1 , 842 ksi兲 is very similar to the modu-
lus of elasticity of the wood beams 共11, 032 MPa, 1 , 600 ksi兲, see
Tables 2 and 3. The increase due to confinement from the carbon
fabric is difficult to quantify. Spaun theorized that “if the rein-
forcement is bonded intimately to the wood substrate, sharing of
stresses should occur. As the low-stiffness areas associated with
defects in the wood attempt to deflect under stress, the reinforce-
ment should pick up the load and restrict deformation” (Spaun
1981, p. 27). If further testing confirms the results of this study,
then it could be concluded that the stiffness of the beams could be
increased 15% if the beams were wrapped with carbon fiber that

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 183

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Reinforced beam B9shear
has similar mechanical properties as the fiber used in this study.
The proposed modification factor for stiffness would therefore be
1.15 and would be applied to the modulus of elasticity of the
wood, Cwr-modulus = 1.15.
Bending Strength of Reinforced Beams
The ultimate bending strength of timber beams is difficult to es-
tablish because of the natural defects that occur in wood and
drastically reduce the strength. Accordingly, the allowable design
values for wood are very low compared to the ultimate strength of
small clear specimens. A review of the load versus deflection
curves shows that the beams in this study behaved mostly in a
linear manner up until failure. In addition to providing confine-
184 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.
ment, the carbon fabric adds tensile strength and allows the beams
to yield more in compression before they fail in tension. Based on
test results showing increases in bending strength from 40 to
53%, a bending stress modification factor, Cwr-bending, of 1.40 may
be justified for beams wrapped with carbon fiber that have similar
mechanical properties as the fiber used in this study. Further test-
ing needs to be done with a larger number of specimens to con-
firm this modification factor.
Shear Strength of Reinforced Beams
When a beam fails in horizontal shear, the upper portion of the
beam slides with respect to the lower portion of the beam. When
the beam is wrapped, this sliding action is prevented as long as
 Table 6. Summary of Strength Increase for Shear Tests
Strength
increase
over
Horizontal control
Beam Ultimate failure load Bending stress shear stress beam Failure mode
B2shear 401.2 kN 共90.2 kips兲 31.0 MPa 共4 , 498 psi兲 3.1 MPa 共445 psi兲 N/A Horizontal shear and crushing of support
B8shear 272.7 kN 共61.3 kips兲 22.0 MPa 共3 , 197 psi兲 2.2 MPa 共314 psi兲 N/A Horizontal shear
Control beama 337.2 kN 共75.8 kips兲 26.5 MPa 共3 , 848 psi兲 2.6 MPa 共380 psi兲 N/A Horizontal shear
B7shear 457.3 kN 共102.8 kips兲 37.0 MPa 共5 , 361 psi兲 3.6 MPa 共527 psi兲 36%b Horizontal shear
B9shear 334.1 kN 共75.1 kips兲 27.3 MPa 共3 , 955 psi兲 2.7 MPa 共390 psi兲 −1%c Horizontal shear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a
The control beam is the average of beams B2shear and B8shear.
b
If compared to B8shear only, the strength increase is 68%.
c
If compared to B8shear only, the strength increase is 23%.

the bond between the fabric and the wood remains intact. We can
estimate the magnitude of the adhesion between the carbon fabric
and the wood by reviewing the results of beam B9shear, which
failed in horizontal shear at middepth of the beam. If we make the
assumption that the wood failed prior to the fabric delaminating
from the beam, then at the moment just after the wood has failed,
the carbon fabric is carrying the entire horizontal shear force that
is resisted by the beam. Beam B9shear failed at a load of
334.1 kN 共75.1 kips兲 or 167.0 kN 共37.55 kips兲 of shear. Fig. 15
shows the cross section of the beam and the failure plane. The
maximum horizontal shear stress in the beam at failure was as
follows:
f v = 3V/2A = 3 共167.0 kN兲/2共0.194 m兲共0.481 m兲
= 2685 kPa 共390 psi兲
The shear flow along the failure plane of the wood beam at failure
is as follows:
q = 关3V/2A兴b = 2,685 kPa 共0.194 m兲 = 521 kN/m 共2,974 lb/in兲
If the adhesion between the fabric and the wood beam can resist
521 kN/ m 共2 , 974 lb/ in.兲, then the beam does not fail. Since this
beam failed and the fabric delaminated, we can assume that the
maximum adhesion was reached when the shear flow was
521 kN/ m 共2 , 974 lb/ in.兲. The magnitude of the adhesion can be
determined by dividing the shear flow at failure by the contact
area of the fabric above the failure plane. Only the contact area on
the sides of the beam will be considered. The contact area on the
top of the beam will be ignored so that this method can be applied
to beams with only a three-sided wrap instead of a full wrap. The
contact area of the fabric above the failure plane for a length
along the beam of 1 mm is therefore
Ac = h/2共2 sides兲共1 mm兲 = 共481 mm/2兲共2兲共1 mm兲
= 481 mm2 共0.75 in.2兲 共6兲
The average adhesion between the carbon fabric and the wood is
taken as the shear flow divided by the contact area
adhesion = q/Ac = 0.521 kN/共481 mm2兲 = 1,083 kPa 共157 psi兲
共7兲
共4兲 Based on the above analysis, it will be assumed that the adhesion
between the carbon fabric and the wood is equal to approximately
1 , 034 kPa 共150 psi兲. This is a low value compared to other stud-
ies, such as the study by Abdel-Magid et al. (1996) where adhe-
sion was found to be in the range of 2 , 758– 6,826 kPa
共400– 990 psi兲. However, that study was on carbon laminates
共5兲
placed between the laminations of glue-laminated beams and
phenol-resorcinol formaldehyde adhesive was used instead of
polymer adhesives as was used in this study. Further study will be
required to determine the actual adhesion for beams wrapped with
carbon fiber.
Now that we have estimated a value for adhesion, we can
develop a preliminary model for design. The allowable shear
stress for the unwrapped beams has already been shown to be
779 kPa 共113 psi兲. If we assume for design purposes that the

Table 7. Summary of Stiffness Increase and Ductility for Shear Tests

Modulus
increase
Unreinforced Deflection of Reinforced over
modulus of unreinforced modulus of unreinforced Deflection
Beam Deflection at failure elasticity E beam at failurec elasticity E beam ductility
B2shear N/Aa 11, 176 MPa 共1 , 621 ksi兲 N/A N/A N/A N/A
B8shear 28.7 mm 共1.13 in.兲 8 , 791 MPa 共1 , 275 ksi兲 28.7 mm 共1.13 in.兲 N/A N/A N/A
Control beamb 共B8shear兲 28.7 mm 共1.13 in.兲 8 , 791 MPa 共1 , 275 ksi兲 28.7 mm 共1.13 in.兲 N/A N/A N/A
B7shear 36.1 mm 共1.42 in.兲 10, 156 MPa 共1 , 473 ksi兲 24.9 mm 共0.98 in.兲 10, 942 MPa 共1 , 587 ksi兲 7% 1.45
B9shear 28.2 mm 共1.11 in.兲 6 , 943 MPa 共1 , 007 ksi兲 36.3 mm 共1.43 in.兲 8 , 756 MPa 共1 , 270 ksi兲 26% 1.29
a
Due to crushing of the support, the deflection at failure for beam B2shear is not accurate and is therefore not listed.
b
Beam B2shear is not listed as the control beam because the deflection data is not accurate. Therefore only B8shear is considered the control speciment for
this table.
c
This is the assumed deflection at failure if the beam was not reinforced. It corresponds to the deflection that would have occurred at the same shear stress
(2.2 MPa,314 psi) that caused failure of the control specimen B8shear.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 185

J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Load versus deflection for all four beams tested in shear
beam fails at middepth at a shear stress of 779 kPa 共113 psi兲, then
the shear flow at this stress for a beam with b = 203 mm 共8 in.兲
and h = 483 mm 共19 in. 兲 is as follows:
q = F⬘v共b兲 = 779 kPa 共0.203 m兲 = 158 kN/m 共904 lb/in.兲 共8兲
The resistance that the fabric provides equals the adhesion multi-
plied by the height of the beam above the failure plane
qwrap = adhesion共h/2兲2 sides = 1,034 kPa 共0.483 m兲
= 499 kN/m 共2,850 lb/in.兲
The shear stress allowed because of the fabric is as follows:
qwrap/b = 共499 kN/m兲/0.203 m = 2,458 kPa 共356 psi兲 共10兲
Since we are assuming that the beam fails in shear at
779 kPa 共113 psi兲, then the total resistance of the beam to hori-
zontal shear after the shear stress reaches 779 kPa 共113 psi兲 is
through the fabric. Hence the new ultimate shear stress in the
beam if it is wrapped is 2 , 458 kPa 共356 psi兲. For this example,
the allowable stress modification factor Cwr-shear would be
2 , 458/ 779 kPa which equals 3.15. We can calculate allowable
stress modification factors for different sizes of beams as follows:
Cwr-shear = 关adhesion共h/2兲2兴/b共F⬘v兲;
or
Table 8. Shear Stress Modification Factors for Beams Wrapped with Carbon Fabric
Ratio of beam depth to width 共h / b兲 1.0 1.2
Shear stress modification factor 共Cwr-shear兲 1.3 1.6
a
Shear stress modification factor is based on an assumed adhesion of 1 , 034 kPa 共150 psi兲 and an allowable shear stress F⬘v = 586 kPa共CD兲
= 779 kPa 共113 psi兲. Cwr-shear = 共h / b兲共adhesion/ F⬘v兲. Further study is needed to verify the assumptions used to develop the stress modification factors.
186 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.
Fig. 15. Typical section of wrapped beam showing shear failure
plane
Cwr-shear = 共h/b兲共adhesion/F⬘v兲
where adhesion=1,034 kPa or 150 psi, h=beam depth, b=beam
width, and F⬘v=allowable shear stress (779 kPa or 113 psi).
As can be seen, the allowable shear stress modification factor
varies based on the ratio of beam depth to beam width and is
heavily dependent on the adhesion of the fabric to the wood. For
a 6 ⫻ 12 beam, the modification factor would be 2.65. However,
for a 6 ⫻ 6 beam, the modification factor is 1.33. The taller and
narrower beams will have the highest modification factors while
beams laid flat will have the lowest modification factors. Further
study needs to take place to determine the actual adhesion with
different types of fabric and epoxy and to set an upper limit for
the stress modification factor Cwr-shear. Table 8 provides proposed
shear stress modification factors for various ratios of beam depth
to width. These values should be considered preliminary and they
should not be used together with a shear stress factor CH greater
than 1.0.
Conclusions
The primary goal of this project was to determine if wrapping
共9兲 timber beams with carbon fabric would increase the stiffness,
bending, and shear strength of the beams. Based on the test results
of the 10 beams, the application of the carbon fabric does increase
these properties as follows: stiffness increase: 17–27%, bending
strength increase: 40–53%, and horizontal shear strength increase:
36–68%.
The increase in horizontal shear strength is a significant find-
ing. Many timber bridges are found to be structurally deficient
due to insufficient strength in horizontal shear. If the deficient
members could be economically strengthened with carbon fabric,
then instead of being replaced, these bridges could be rehabili-
tated at significant cost savings.
The carbon fabric also provides support and confinement to
the wood which reduces the effects of defects such as knots,
共11兲
checks, splits, etc. that significantly reduce the strength and stiff-
ness of the beams. The presence of the wrap allows the strength
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
1.9 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.7 4.0
 of the large timber beams to approach the ultimate strength of
members without defects.
The secondary goal of this project was to conceptually develop
stress modification factors that could be applied to the tabulated
allowable design stress values for the bending, shear, and stiffness
of wood beams. It should be emphasized that it is necessary to
test a statistically significant number of timber beam specimens
before we can arrive at firm conclusions. However, based on the
experimental results of the few beams tested in this study, the
following stress modification factors are proposed when the
beams are reinforced with carbon fiber that has similar mechani-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cal properties as the fiber used in this study: modulus of elasticity,
E: Cwr-modulus = 1.15, bending stress, Fb : Cwr-bending = 1.40, shear
stress, Fv : Cwr-shear = varies 1.3– 4.0, see Table 8. In addition to
testing more reinforced specimens to determine strength gain, ad-
ditional studies need to be undertaken to address the long-term
bond of the carbon fabric to the wood. Mathematical models also
need to be developed that accurately take into account the stiff-
ness increase due to the effect of confinement provided by the
carbon fabric wrap. Furthermore, design guidelines and proce-
dures for field application need to be developed in order for this
strengthening method to be practical and economical for timber
bridges.
Acknowledgments
The writers wish to acknowledge the funding of this research by
the National Science Foundation, Grant No. CMS-9257344, Dr.
John B. Scalzi, Program Director. The results and conclusions
presented here are those of the writers and do not represent the
views of the National Science Foundation. The writer Ted W.
Buell would also like to thank his father, Ted B. Buell, for his
willingness to help in any way needed. His expertise in wood-
working and general carpentry, as well as his encouragement,
made this project a success.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ac ⫽ contact area of the fabric above the failure plane;
b ⫽ width of beam;
CD ⫽ load duration factor;
CF ⫽ size factor;
CH ⫽ shear stress factor;
C M ⫽ wet service factor;
⫽ proposed bending stress modification factor for
Cwr-bending
wood reinforced with a carbon fabric wrap;
⫽ proposed modulus of elasticity modification factor
Cwr-modulus
for wood reinforced with a carbon fabric wrap;
Cwr-shear⫽ proposed shear stress modification factor for wood
reinforced with a carbon fabric wrap;
E ⫽ tabulated design modulus of elasticity;
E⬘ ⫽ allowable design modulus of elasticity as modified
by all applicable adjustment factors;
Fb ⫽ tabulated design stress in bending;
F⬘b ⫽ allowable design stress in bending as modified by
all applicable adjustment factors;
F⬘v ⫽ allowable design stress in shear as modified by all
applicable adjustment factors;
Fv ⫽ tabulated design stress in shear;
f v ⫽ horizontal shear stress;
h ⫽ depth of beam;
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 187
J. Struct. Eng. 2005.131:173-187.
q ⫽ horizontal shear flow;
qwrap ⫽ resistance to horizontal shear failure provided by
the fabric wrap; and;
twr ⫽ thickness of the carbon fabric wrap.
References
Abdel-Magid, B.,Scholsky, K., Shaler, S., Dagher, H., and Kimball, T.
(1996). “Interfacial bonding between phenolic matrix composites and
wood.”Fiber composites in infrastructure, H. Saadatmaneshand M. R.
Ehsani, eds., 54–67.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO. (1996). Standard specifications for highway bridges, 16th
Ed., Washington, D.C.
Biblis, E. J. (1965) “Analysis of wood-fiberglass composite beams within
and beyond the elastic region.” For. Prod. J., 15(2), 81–88.
Dorey, A., and Cleng, J. J. (1996). “The behavior of GFRP glued lami-
nated timber beams.” Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and
Structures, M. M. El-Badry, Ed., Canadian Society for Civil Engineer-
ing, Montreal, 787-794.
Duwadi, S. R., and Ritter, M. A. (1997) “Timber bridges in the United
States.” Public Roads On-Line, Vol. 60(3) 具http://www.tfhrc.gov//
pubrds/winter97/p97wi32.htm典 (Oct. 18, 2000).
GangaRao, U. V. S., and Sonti, S. S. (1996). “Service life improvement of
wood crossties using composite fabrics.” Advanced Composite Mate-
rials in Bridges and Structures, M. M. El-Badry, Ed., Canadian Soci-
ety for Civil Engineering, Montreal, 827-834.
Markwardt, L. J., and Wilson, T. R. C. (1935). “Strength and related
properties of woods grown in the United States.” U.S.D.A. Technical
Bulletin No. 479, Washington, D.C.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP. (1980).
“Bridges on secondary highways and local roads,” Rep. 222, National
Research Council (U.S.), Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C.
Ou, F. L., and Weller, C. (1986). “An overview of timber bridges.” Trans-
portation Research Record 1053, National Research Council (U.S.),
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
Plevris, N., and Triantafillou, T. (1992). “FRP–Reinforced wood as struc-
tural material.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 4(3), 300-317.
Saadatmanesh, H. (1994). “Fiber composites for new and existing struc-
tures.” ACI Struct. J., 91(3), 346–354.
Saadatmanesh, H., and Ehsani, M. R. (1991). “R/C beams strengthened
with GFRP Plates. I: Experimental study.” J. Struct. Eng., 117(11),
3417–3433.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R., and Jin, L. (1996). “Seismic strength-
ening of circular bridge pier models with fiber composites.” ACI
Struct. J., 93(6), 639–647.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R., and Jin, L. (1997). “Repair of
earthquake-damaged R/C columns with prefabricated FRP wraps.”
ACI Struct. J., 206–215.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R., and Li, M. W. (1994). “Strength and
ductility of concrete columns externally reinforced with fiber compos-
ite straps.” ACI Struct. J., 91(4), 434–447.
Sonti, S. S., GangaRao, H. V. S., and Superfesky, M. C. (1996). “Reha-
bilitation and Strengthening of Glulam Stringers for Bridge Super-
structures.” Fiber Composites in Infrastructure. Edited by H. Saadat-
manesh and M. R. Ehsani, 800-813.
Spaun, F. D. (1981). “Reinforcement of wood with fiberglass.” For. Prod.
J., 31(4), 26–33.
Theakston, F. H. (1965). “A feasibility study for strengthening timber
beams with fiberglass.” Can. Agric. Eng.
Triantafillou, T., and Deskivic, N. (1992). “Prestressed FRP sheets as
external reinforcement of wood members.” J. Struct. Eng. 118(5),
1270-1284.
West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. (1996). Standard No. 17 grading
rules for West Coast lumber, Portland, Ore.