State-of-the-Art Review

Strengthening of Concrete Structures with Textile

Reinforced Mortars: State-of-the-Art Review
Lampros N. Koutas 1; Zoi Tetta 2; Dionysios A. Bournas 3; and Thanasis C. Triantafillou, P.E., M.ASCE 4

Abstract: Textile reinforced mortars (TRM), also known in the international literature as textile reinforced concrete (TRC) or fabric
reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) materials, have been widely studied during the last two decades as they constitute a promising
alternative to the fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) retrofitting solution for strengthening of reinforced concrete members. This paper presents
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a state-of-the-art review on the strengthening of concrete structures with TRM. First, the tensile and bond behavior of TRM is described. Next,
an overview of studies on the use of TRM for flexural, shear, confinement, and seismic retrofitting of concrete or RC members is included,
and the key parameters are investigated. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000882. This work is made available under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Author keywords: Concrete; Strengthening; Textile reinforced mortar (TRM).

Introduction the inorganic matrix is not classified as concrete, because of the

Over the last decades, the issue of upgrading existing structures has
been of great importance because of their deterioration, ageing,
environmental induced degradation, a lack of maintenance, or
the need to meet current design requirements. Fiber reinforced
polymers (FRP) have been widely used as an externally applied
reinforcement of existing structurally deficient structures over
the last three decades due to their favorable properties (i.e., high
strength to weight ratio, corrosion resistance, ease and speed of ap-
plication, and minimal change of geometry). However, the FRP
strengthening technique has a few drawbacks, which are mainly
associated with the use of epoxy resins—namely, high cost, poor
performance in high temperatures, inability to apply on wet surfa-
ces, and incompatibility with substrate materials (concrete or ma-
sonry). In an attempt to alleviate the problems arising from the use
of epoxies, researchers have suggested the replacement of organic
(epoxy resins) with inorganic (mortar) matrix. However, the pen-
etration and impregnation of fiber sheets, in this case, has been very
difficult due to the size of the granules in the mortar; even a fine
mortar cannot impregnate fiber bundles as resins do. Improved
bond conditions between fibers and matrix in mortar-based
composite materials were achieved when continuous fiber sheets
were replaced by textiles. At first, the new textile-based composite
materials were given (in Europe) the name textile reinforced con-
crete (TRC) or textile reinforced mortar (TRM); strictly speaking,
1 tems (i.e., Cascardi et al. 2017; Leone et al. 2017; Kariou et al.
Elected Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Thessaly, Volos 38221, Greece; formerly, Postdoctoral Research
Associate, Dept. of Civil and Structural Engineering, Univ. of Sheffield,
Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK. Email: koutasciv@gmail.com
2
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Patras, Patras
26504, Greece. Email: ztetta@upatras.gr
3
Scientific Officer, Directorate for Space, Security and Migration,
Safety and Security of Buildings Unit, European Commission, Joint
Research Centre, Via E. Fermi 2749, I-21027 Ispra, Italy (corresponding
author). Email: dionysios.bournas@ec.europa.eu
4 papers.
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Patras, Patras 26504,
Greece. Email: ttriant@upatras.gr
Note. This manuscript was published online on October 25, 2018.
Discussion period open until March 25, 2019; separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of
Composites for Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
very small size of aggregates. In the US the materials were given
the name fabric reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems; a
possible problem in this term is that the matrix may not be cemen-
titious (e.g., hydraulic lime).
Textile-based composite materials have been studied exten-
sively during the last two decades, since they can be used for the
construction of new prefabricated structural elements (e.g., Curbach
and Jesse 1999; Brameshuber et al. 2001) or for the strengthening
of existing structures (e.g., Triantafillou et al. 2006; Triantafillou
and Papanicolaou 2006; Bournas et al. 2007). The use of textiles
in prefabrication as well as in the retrofitting of existing concrete or
masonry structures was summarized in Triantafillou (2016).
Selected case studies of strengthening applications of concrete
and masonry structures were presented by Bournas (2016).
TRM combines high-strength fibers in the form of textiles (with
open-mesh configuration) with inorganic matrices, such as cement-
or hydraulic-lime-based mortars. TRM is low-cost, friendly for
manual workers, fire resistant, compatible with concrete and ma-
sonry substrate materials, and can be applied on wet surfaces or
at low temperatures. For all these reasons, the use of TRM is pro-
gressively becoming more attractive for the strengthening of
existing structures, in parallel to the widely used FRP. Although
the first applications of TRM systems were in concrete elements,
strengthening of typical or historical masonry structures with TRM
seems to be very promising, considering the limitations of FRP sys-
2018). The continuously increasing interest of the research commu-
nity in using TRM for the structural retrofitting of concrete or
masonry structures is depicted in Fig. 1, where the number of pub-
lications are plotted against the publication year [Scopus search
with keywords (1) textile-reinforced mortar, or (2) FRCM, or
(3) textile-reinforced concrete, and (4) strengthening; last accessed
on April 2, 2018]. Almost 60% of the publications are research
articles in peer-reviewed journals; the rest are mostly conference
Textile mesh materials used as reinforcement of TRM com-
posite materials consist of fiber rovings arranged in two or more
directions. The fiber rovings are spaced apart to allow for the for-
mation of a mesh. Perforations between the fiber rovings enable
some sort of mechanical interlock between the reinforcement

© ASCE 03118001-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Number of publications per year in the field of strengthening
with TRM (last updated on April 2, 2018).
and the matrix. The coating of nonmetallic textiles with polymers
improves the stability of the textile material and the mechanical
interlock between the textile and the matrix. However, coated tex-
tiles are stiffer, and, like steel fabrics, they cannot be easily applied
to complex geometries (e.g., U-shaped or fully wrapped jackets).
Fig. 2 shows textiles that have been used as reinforcement in TRM
systems. The mesh size of commercially available nonmetallic tex-
tiles that are used for strengthening applications (i.e., carbon, glass,
basalt, or polyphenylene bezobisoxazole fiber textiles) typically
varies between 8 and 30 mm, whereas their weight is usually be-
tween 150 and 600 g=m2 , depending on the fiber material. Steel
fabrics consist of unidirectional steel cords, each one comprising
a number of twisted steel filaments [Fig. 2(e)]; their density typi-
cally varies between 1 and 10 cords=cm.
The composition of mortar used as matrix in TRM systems sig-
nificantly affects its response as a composite material, because the
impregnation of fibers with mortar is quite important for achieving
a good bond between the fibers and the matrix. The mortar has to
include fine granules and should have a plastic consistency, good
workability, low viscosity (for easy application to vertical or steep
surfaces) and sufficient shear strength (to prevent the debonding of
the composite material from the substrate); hence cement-based
mortars are widely used as matrix of TRM. The mechanical proper-
ties of mortar, namely the flexural strength and the bond between
the matrix and the fiber rovings, can be significantly improved by
adding polymers.
The procedure of strengthening with TRM jacketing includes
the following steps: (1) surface preparation; (2) the application
Fig. 2. Textile fiber reinforcements: (a) carbon fiber textile; (b) glass fiber textile; (c) basalt fiber textile; (d) polyphenylene bezobisoxazole (PBO)
fiber textile; and (e) steel fiber textile.
© ASCE
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
of a first layer of mortar at the dampened concrete surface;
(3) impregnation of the textile fibers with mortar (this operation is
repeated until all textile layers have been applied and covered by
mortar); and (4) application of a final layer of mortar on the top of
the final textile layer.
The development of guidelines for designing concrete and ma-
sonry members strengthened with TRM is required for enabling
their wide use in real applications. ACI 549.4R (ACI 2013) con-
stitutes the first attempt at guidelines for designing and constructing
externally bonded textile-based systems for the repair and strength-
ening of concrete and masonry buildings.
This paper provides a comprehensive state-of-the-art review on
the use of TRM systems for strengthening with a focus on concrete
members or structures; it covers a broader range of applications
compared to the recent study of Awani et al. (2017). It provides
a critical review of more than 100 past studies and enables readers
to identify gaps in the existing literature that could be investigated
in future work. This introductory section is followed by the descrip-
tion of the tensile behavior and bond aspects of TRM. Next, an
overview of the flexural, shear, confinement, and seismic retrofit-
ting of concrete members with TRM is presented in a systematic
way, including method description, failure modes, and the effect of
key parameters investigated. The main conclusions are summarized
at the end of this paper.
Mechanical Behavior of TRM Composites
Tensile Behavior of TRM
Several researchers have investigated the tensile behavior of TRM
as a composite material (Colombo et al. 2011; Contamine et al.
2011; Hartig et al. 2012; Zhu et al. 2011; Ascione et al. 2015;
Malena and De Felice 2014; Arboleda et al. 2016; De Santis
et al. 2017; D’Antino and Papanicolaou 2018). The tensile proper-
ties of TRM, namely the ultimate stress and strain and the modulus
of elasticity, can be defined through tensile tests in which the fibers
rupture (ideally at the central region of TRM coupons). In most
studies, monotonic tensile tests have been carried out on TRM
specimens; however, Zhu et al. (2011) investigated the effect of
strain rate on the mechanical properties of TRM coupons, con-
ducting dynamic tensile tests.
A variety of TRM coupon geometries have been tested and dif-
ferent gripping methods have been used. Plate-type TRM coupons
have been widely used, but bone-shaped or dumbbell [Figs. 3(a–c)]
specimens (Colombo et al. 2011; Hartig et al. 2012; Ascione et al.
2015) have also been tested to enable failure in the central region of
the coupon [Fig. 3(c)]. According to De Santis et al. (2017), the
gripping method strongly affects the failure mode of TRM cou-
pons. Specifically, slippage of the fibers through the mortar before
03118001-2 J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. (a) Dumbbell TRM coupon; (b) setup of tensile testing; (c) rupture of fibers at the central region of the TRM coupon; and (d) typical strain
versus stress curve of TRM specimens tested under monotonic tensile loading.

rupture was usually observed in case of the clevis grip method

(Arboleda et al. 2016; D’Antino and Papanicolaou 2017; De
Santis et al. 2017), but this failure was prevented when a clamping
grip (providing sufficient gripping pressure) was applied (Arboleda
et al. 2016; De Santis et al. 2017). In-depth discussion on compar-
isons between different test setups available in the literature can be
found in the recent study of D’Antino and Papanicolaou (2018),
which confirmed the strong influence of the test setup on tensile
test results.
The typical tensile response of a TRM coupon comprises three
distinct branches, as shown in Fig. 3(d): (1) the specimen remains
uncracked; (2) the development of multiple cracks after the first
cracking occurs; and (3) the cracking pattern has fully developed
and the increase in resistance is due to the textile itself until the
fibers rupture.
The spacing and width of cracking depend on the quantity and
type of the textile reinforcement as well as on the bond between
the textile fibers and the mortar (De Felice et al. 2014). Based on
the results presented in D’Antino and Papanicolaou (2017), the
use of coating enabled uniform load distribution, hence the
mechanical characteristics of the coated textiles were signifi-
cantly improved.
Colombo et al. (2011) studied the behavior of TRM at high
temperatures, conducting tensile tests on TRM coupons. The spec- Fig. 4. (a) Single-lap; and (b) double-lap direct shear tests for studying
imens were first exposed to high temperatures, and after a two-hour the bond between TRM and concrete substrate.
stabilization phase they were cooled down before testing. The re-
searchers concluded that after exposure to 200°C TRM coupons
kept their strength, whereas the stress and strain significantly de-
creased after the exposure of specimens to 400°C and 600°C due to TRM strip while the concrete block is fixed (Sneed et al. 2014;
the deterioration of the textile mesh coating. Carloni et al. 2015; D’Antino et al. 2015; Sneed et al. 2015;
D’Antino et al. 2016a, c; Carloni et al. 2017; Sabau et al. 2017).
In double-lap shear tests, TRM strips are bonded to both sides of
Bond Aspects of TRM two concrete blocks that are only connected with TRM strips, and
The study of the bond between TRM and concrete substrate is of the concrete blocks are subjected to tensile loading up to the failure
crucial importance, as it determines the effectiveness of TRM jack- of the TRM (Ortlepp et al. 2006; D’Ambrisi et al. 2012; Awani
eting as a strengthening material. The condition (dry or coated) and et al. 2015; Raoof et al. 2016; Raoof and Bournas 2017c). Sneed
geometry of fiber rovings, the degree of impregnation of fibers with et al. (2015) compared the results obtained from single-lap and
mortar, and the quality of concrete substrate surface preparation are double-lap direct shear tests. Based on this study, the displacement
the key parameters that affect the bond between TRM and concrete versus load curves as well as the failure modes obtained from both
substrate. The bond of TRM to concrete has mainly been investi- tests were identical. However, single-lap shear tests had some draw-
gated through single-lap [Fig. 4(a)] and double-lap [Fig. 4(b)] shear backs compared to double-lap shear tests; the results obtained from
tests. In single-lap shear tests, a TRM strip is externally bonded to the double-lap shear tests were less scattered compared to those
one side of a concrete block, and then a tensile load pulls out the obtained from single-lap shear tests, whereas in some single-lap

© ASCE 03118001-3 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001

 shear tests rupture of the TRM was observed outside of the bonded
length.
The majority of studies investigated the bond between PBO
TRM and concrete substrate. The bond between carbon TRM
and concrete has also been studied by a few researchers, but studies
on the bond between glass or steel TRM and concrete are quite
limited. The failure modes observed in bond tests are (1) slippage
of fibers through the mortar; (2) debonding of TRM with part of
concrete; (3) debonding of TRM in the concrete–mortar interface;
and (4) rupture of TRM. More details regarding the characteristics
of each failure mode are presented in subsequent sections. In most
studies, the specimens failed due to slippage of the fibers through
the mortar. Debonding of TRM strips with part of concrete was also
observed in some specimens, whereas rupture of TRM strips was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mainly observed in the case of glass TRM jackets. A description of
the main parameters investigated is given subsequently.
The bonded length was a parameter investigated in most studies
(D’Ambrisi et al. 2012; D’Antino et al. 2013, 2014; Sneed et al.
2014; Tran et al. 2014; Awani et al. 2015; D’Antino et al. 2015;
Ombres 2015a; Sneed et al. 2015; D’Antino et al. 2016a; Raoof
et al. 2016; Sabau et al. 2017). It was concluded that ultimate load
and bond capacity increase nonlinearly with the bonded length.
Based on the results presented in the aforementioned studies,
the effective bond length for PBO TRM with mesh size and nomi-
nal thickness of 10 × 15 and 0.045 mm, respectively, was between
250 and 350 mm, while the corresponding value for carbon TRM
with mesh size and nominal thickness of 10 × 10 and 0.095 mm,
respectively, was between 200 and 300 mm.
The effect of the width of PBO TRM strips has also been inves-
tigated by several researchers (D’Antino et al. 2013, 2014; Sneed
et al. 2014; D’Antino et al. 2015; Sneed et al. 2015), who reached
the conclusion that there is no width effect. D’Ambrisi et al. (2012),
Ombres (2015a), and Raoof et al. (2016) investigated the effect of
the number of layers, concluding that an increase in the number of
TRM layers resulted in nonproportional bond capacity increase.
Moreover, a change in the failure mode from slippage of fibers
through the mortar to debonding of TRM layers with part of the
concrete was also observed when the number of TRM layers in-
creased. This shift in the failure mode occurred when the number
of PBO layers increased from one to two (D’Ambrisi et al. 2012;
Ombres 2015a) and occurred with carbon TRM strips when three
layers were applied instead of two.
Concrete surface preparation has also been a parameter under
investigation. D’Antino et al. (2015) compared untreated concrete
surfaces with surfaces that were prepared through sandblasting,
concluding that the surface preparation had a limited role in the
effectiveness of TRM, since the corresponding specimens in this
study failed due to slippage of the fibers through the mortar. Raoof
et al. (2016) compared two different surface preparations, grinding
with a grid of grooves and sandblasting, and they reported that both
methods gave the same results. Furthermore, Raoof et al. (2016)
investigated the effect of concrete strength and concluded that de-
creasing the concrete strength by 50% results in a slight reduction
(of 7.5%) of the bond capacity; the failure mode was not changed.
In the same study, the effect of coating (application of epoxy resin
to the dry textile material) was also investigated. Coating the textile
material resulted in a bond capacity increase and a change in the
failure mode from slippage of fibers through the mortar to TRM
debonding at the textile–mortar interface.
Carloni et al. (2017) studied the effect of loading rate (which
was varied from 0.00042 to 0.0126 mm=s) and method of displace-
ment control [linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) or
machine stroke]. Based on their results, the loading rate affected
the ultimate load of the tests, whereas the type of displacement
© ASCE 03118001-4
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
control influenced the initial stiffness and the peak load for certain
rates. Ortlepp et al. (2006), D’Ambrisi et al. (2012), and Focacci
et al. (2017) used the experimental results obtained from bond tests
to calibrate the local bond–slip relation, which is important in the
modeling of the structural behavior of strengthened RC elements.
The proposed model provided reliable results; however, it should
be mentioned that the obtained results are only valid for the specific
types of mortar and fibers tested.
Finally, Raoof and Bournas (2017c) investigated the bond be-
tween TRM or FRP and concrete substrate at high temperatures by
conducting double-lap direct shear tests. Both FRP and TRM spec-
imens were tested at 20°C, 50°C, 75°C, 100°C, and 150°C, and
TRM specimens were additionally tested at 200°C, 300°C, 400°C,
and 500°C. Based on the results, the bond of TRM is quite strong at
high temperature. The bond capacity of FRP dramatically dropped
after exposure to high temperatures, but the bond capacity of TRM
was only slightly affected by the high temperatures. Regarding fail-
ure modes, in FRP specimens cohesive failure was observed up to
50°C, but adhesive failure at the concrete–resin interface was ob-
served at 75°C. In the case of TRM specimens, cohesive failure was
observed over all tested temperatures (20°C–400°C).
Flexural Strengthening of RC Beams or Slabs
Method Description
Strengthening of beams or slabs in flexure is achieved by bonding
TRM layers to the tensile face, which is typically the soffit of a
beam [Fig. 5(a)] or the bottom face of a slab. Textile reinforcement
is provided at the regions where additional moment capacity is
needed. In addition, a sufficient anchorage length should be pro-
vided. Additional measures to improve anchorage conditions could
be taken by applying methods similar to the ones used for FRP
(i.e., U-strips or spike anchors; Koutas et al. 2014; Bournas et al.
2015).
In the flexural strengthening of beams or one-way slabs, not all
the fibers of a textile are utilized in carrying tensile forces. In the
typical case of a bidirectional textile (with fiber rovings in two
orthogonal directions) only the fibers parallel to the member
axis are stressed in tension; the rest simply contribute to the devel-
opment of the mechanical interlock mechanism—hence, the
cost-effectiveness of this strengthening technique is questionable.
However, in the case of two-way slabs, fibers in both directions are
effective.
General Behavior
The effectiveness of the flexural strengthening of RC beams
and slabs with TRM has been experimentally investigated in the
last decade in numerous publications (Bruckner et al. 2006;
Papanicolaou and Triantafillou 2006; Triantafillou 2007; Jesse
et al. 2008; Bösche et al. 2008; Papanicolaou et al. 2009;
D’Ambrisi and Focacci 2011; Ombres 2011, 2012; Schladitz
et al. 2012; Elsanadedy et al. 2013; Babaeidarabad et al. 2014;
Loreto et al. 2013; Verbruggen et al. 2016; Aljazaeri and Myers
2017a; Ebead et al. 2017; Escrig et al. 2017; Koutas and
Bournas 2017; Pino et al. 2017a, b; Raoof et al. 2017; Raoof
and Bournas 2017d). Targeting them to assess their flexural capac-
ity, beam or slab elements have been subjected to monotonic
three- or four-point bending. In the majority of the studies the tested
elements comprise either medium-scale beams (effective span
around 2.0 m) or one-way slabs strengthened with textiles made
of carbon, glass, basalt, or PBO fibers. Steel fabrics made of
high-strength steel cords have also been used in combination with
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. (a) Flexural strengthening of an RC beam with TRM; and (b) strengthening effect on load versus displacement curves of RC members
strengthened in flexure.
cement-based mortars for the flexural strengthening of RC beams
(e.g., Napoli and Realfonzo 2015; Sneed et al. 2016; Escrig et al.
2017). What differentiates beams from one-way slabs is the section
geometry and the absence of steel stirrups in the case of slabs.
Strengthening of two-way slabs was first reported by Papanicolaou
et al. (2009) and later by Koutas and Bournas (2017).
Fig. 5(b) shows simplified load versus deflection curves that
illustrate the effect of strengthening as reported in the majority of
the studies. Three linear branches up to the maximum load describe
the flexural behavior in three stages: (1) the uncracked stage up to the
point of first concrete cracking, (2) the cracked stage up to the point
of steel yielding, and (3) the stage of plastic hinging in the case
of unstrengthened elements or the stage of full textile activation
up to the ultimate load in the case of strengthened elements.
The presence of the strengthening layers in some cases increases
the initial stiffness at the uncracked stage (Bösche et al. 2008; Jesse
et al. 2008; Papanicolaou et al. 2009; Schladitz et al. 2012; Escrig
et al. 2017; Koutas and Bournas 2017; Pino et al. 2017a; Raoof
et al. 2017), but in other cases this increase is negligible. From
the literature survey it seems that the lower the initial stiffness
of the unstrengthened element, the higher the effect of strengthen-
ing (this is usually the case with slab elements). An increase in the
concrete cracking load has also been reported by Jesse et al. (2008),
Escrig et al. (2017), Koutas and Bournas (2017), and Raoof et al.
(2017), and can be noticed in the load-deflection curves reported by
Papanicolaou et al. (2009) and Schladitz et al. (2012). This increase
indicates some activation of the fibers in tension prior to concrete
cracking.
At the second stage, multiple cracking of concrete results in
activation of the strengthening layers and a stiffer behavior with
respect to an unstrengthened element is observed along with an in-
crease in the yield load (Triantafillou 2007; D’ Ambrisi and Focacci
2011; Ombres 2011; Elsanadedy et al. 2013; Babaeidarabad et al.
2014; Loreto et al. 2013; Sneed et al. 2016; Escrig et al. 2017; Pino
et al. 2017a; Raoof et al. 2017). From the instant of steel yielding
and beyond, the contribution of TRM to the flexural resistance be-
comes significant. Any additional load after that point is carried
almost solely by the TRM layers until failure occurs and the ulti-
mate load is reached. With few exceptions (i.e., shear failure, con-
crete crushing), failure is attributed to the loss of the strengthening
action, which can be either progressive or abrupt (D’Ambrisi and
Focacci 2011). After a significant loss of strength, the residual
flexural capacity of the strengthened element approaches the plastic
moment capacity of the unstrengthened element.
© ASCE 03118001-5
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
Failure Modes
Several failure modes have been reported in the literature, high-
lighting the complexity of the mechanical behavior of the TRM
strengthening system. Apart from failure modes similar to those
for FRP strengthening systems, additional failure modes have been
observed in most of the studies. Fig. 6 illustrates schematically all
the reported failure modes that will be described subsequently.
In general, an RC element strengthened in flexure with TRM
may fail due to loss of the strengthening action [Figs. 6(a–f)] or
due to concrete failure [Figs. 6(g and h)]. The failure modes can
be categorized as follows:
1. Slippage of the fibers within the matrix [Figs. 6(a) and 7(a)]; this
has been reported by D’Ambrisi and Focacci (2011), Ombres
(2011), Babaeidarabad et al. (2014), Loreto et al. (2013), Sneed
et al. (2016), Aljazaeri and Myers (2017a), Ebead et al. (2017),
Koutas and Bournas (2017), Pino et al. (2017a), and Raoof et al.
(2017). This failure mode is related to low impregnation of
the fibers with the mortar and to the poor chemical bond at the
fiber–matrix interface. Partial rupture of the outer fibers of the
rovings may occur due to their better impregnation compared to
the core fibers. Slippage occurs at the region of maximum mo-
ments, whereas load drop due to loss of strengthening action in
this case is gradual and smooth. The use of U-wraps at the end
of beams as a means of providing anchorage to the flexural
strengthening layers may cause slippage of the fibers through
the matrix away from the region of maximum moments (Sneed
et al. 2016; Raoof et al. 2017).
2. Debonding at the concrete–matrix interface [Figs. 6(b and c)];
this has been reported by D’Ambrisi and Focacci (2011),
Ombres (2011, 2012), Elsanadedy et al. (2013), Babaeidarabad
et al. (2014), Aljazaeri and Myers (2017a), and Pino et al.
(2017a). The loss of the bond between the concrete and the ma-
trix is the reason for this mode of failure. The detachment of the
TRM layer can either start from the region of maximum bending
moments due to the development of flexural cracks or can in-
itiate from the ends. The first case is usually described as inter-
mediate crack debonding; in this case, debonding propagates
toward the support [Fig. 6(b)]. The second case is usually de-
scribed as end debonding; as shown in Fig. 6(c), the detachment
of the TRM propagates toward the midspan. Providing a short
anchorage length for the TRM can result in end debonding
(Ombres 2012). The load drop in both cases is sudden, indicat-
ing the brittle nature of debonding.
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Failure modes of RC elements strengthened in flexure with TRM.

Fig. 7. Different failure modes in TRM-strengthened RC beams. (Reprinted from Raoof et al. 2017.)

3. Debonding at the matrix–textile interface, or interlaminar shear-
ing [Figs. 6(d) and 7(b)]; this has been reported by Triantafillou
(2007), D’Ambrisi and Focacci (2011), Napoli and Realfonzo
(2015), Sneed et al. (2016), and Raoof et al. (2017). This failure
mode comprises a fracture surface within the TRM thickness,
which is at the interface between a textile layer and the mortar.
In this case, the bond at the concrete–matrix interface is stronger
than the shear bond at the interface that fails. Thus, part of the
strengthening material remains attached to the soffit of the con-
crete element. The use of relatively low shear strength mortars

© ASCE 03118001-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001

 and/or the use of high tensile strength textiles that have small
grid size can cause shearing between layers of mortar and
textile. This failure mode can also be observed when coated
textiles are used (Raoof et al. 2017).
4. Debonding from the concrete surface accompanied with peeling
off of the concrete cover [Figs. 6(e) and 7(c)]; this has been re-
ported by Loreto et al. (2013), Ebead et al. (2017), and Raoof
et al. (2017). In this case, debonding initiates from an intermedi-
ate flexural or shear-flexural crack and propagates toward the
end of the TRM reinforcement. Part of the concrete cover re-
mains attached to the composite material, indicating a strong
bond between the mortar and the concrete. This failure mode
typically leads to higher flexural capacities compared to the
aforementioned Failure modes 1, 2, and 3, and usually occurs
when high-strength mortars are combined with more than one
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
layer of high-strength textiles.
5. Fiber rupture [Figs. 6(f) and 7(d)]; this has been reported by
Bösche et al. (2008), Jesse et al. (2008), Schladitz et al. (2012),
Elsanadedy et al. (2013), and Raoof et al. (2017). When the
textile fibers at the region of maximum moment are subjected
to high tensile stresses, they rupture in a single section. This
mechanism is brittle, leading to a sudden load drop.
The five aforementioned failure modes are associated with the
loss of the strengthening action. Nevertheless, there is always the
case where an element might be strengthened in such a way that
failure is eventually associated with concrete damage. In particular,
concrete crushing [Fig. 6(g)] has been reported by Ombres (2011)
in beams with high steel reinforcement ratio and low TRM
reinforcement ratio. Concrete crushing in that case prevented the
propagation of debonding, which had just been initiated at the lo-
cation of an intermediate crack. In the case of excessive flexural
strengthening, shear failure of the element may precede flexural
failure [Fig. 6(h)]. Related to this, Papanicolaou et al. (2009)
and Koutas and Bournas (2017) have observed punching shear fail-
ures in two-way slabs, and D’Ambrisi and Focacci (2011) have re-
ported shear failure of the concrete web in short beams with low
internal shear reinforcement ratio. It is crucial, therefore, for design
engineers to account for this possibility and avoid excessive flexu-
ral strengthening that may result in shear or punching shear failure
of retrofitted elements.
Strengthening effectiveness strongly depends on the failure
mode. If strength increase is the target, then premature failure
modes (i.e., fiber slippage or early debonding) are linked with less
effective performance compared to failure that exploits the proper-
ties of the strengthening material (i.e., fiber rupture or debonding at
high strains). The role of different parameters on the effectiveness
of the flexural strengthening system is described in the following
section.
Effect of Parameters on the Effectiveness of
Flexural Strengthening
Depending on various parameters, such as number of layers,
material properties, and the RC member’s reinforcement details,
the effectiveness of the strengthening system can vary significantly.
Next, we summarize how different parameters affect the perfor-
mance of beams and slabs, according to information collected from
the literature survey.
• By increasing the amount of externally applied reinforcement
(expressed by the number of layers), flexural capacity increases.
However, this correlation is not consistent among different stu-
dies. In some cases (Bösche et al. 2008; Papanicolaou et al.
2009; Schladitz et al. 2012; Elsanadedy et al. 2013; Koutas
and Bournas 2017) the increase was nearly proportional to
© ASCE 03118001-7
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
the number of layers, but in others (D’Ambrisi and Focacci
2011; Ombres 2011, 2012; Babaeidarabad et al. 2014; Raoof
et al. 2017) this was not verified. This inconsistency is linked
to the possible development of different failure modes when the
number of layers increases.
• Increasing the number of layers can alter the failure mode. In
particular, in certain cases reported by D’Ambrisi and Focacci
(2011), Ombres (2011), Loreto et al. (2013), Babaeidarabad
et al. (2014), Ebead et al. (2017), Pino et al. (2017a), and Raoof
et al. (2017), the use of textiles with more than one layer may
suppress slippage of the fibers. The failure mode was altered to
debonding at the matrix–concrete interface, interlaminar shear-
ing, or debonding with peeling off of the concrete cover.
• The effect of the internal steel reinforcement ratio was investi-
gated by Bösche et al. (2008), who concluded that for lower
ratios, the strengthening effect is significantly higher. As an in-
dication, for the same retrofitting scheme the flexural capacity of
a slab was increased by approximately 10% and 30% for ratios
of 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively.
• Jesse et al. (2008) reported that coating textiles with a polymer
adhesive can improve the strengthening effectiveness by 67%.
Similar effects from coating have also been reported by Raoof
et al. (2017); in that study, a 55% enhancement in the strength-
ening effectiveness was recorded when one layer of carbon fiber
textile was coated with epoxy adhesive two days before the
strengthening application.
• The influence of mortar type was investigated by D’Ambrisi and
Focacci (2011) and Elsanadedy et al. (2013). The former high-
lighted the importance of the chemical bond between the fibers
and the mortar by using a special type of mortar which resulted
in higher (by approximately 28%) load-carrying capacity and
debonding strain when compared to conventional mortars.
Elsanadedy et al. (2013) compared the performance of conven-
tional versus polymer-modified cementitious mortars and
concluded that the latter are better, because they result in better
bond action at the concrete–mortar interface.
• The effect of textile geometry was briefly investigated by
D’Ambrisi and Focacci (2011), with no clear results. A change
in the TEX (defined as mass in grams per 1,000 m) of the fiber
rovings in the transverse direction resulted in slightly better per-
formance, but this increase could be considered in the range of
experimental scatter.
• D’Ambrisi and Focacci (2011), Sneed et al. (2016), Escrig et al.
(2017), and Raoof et al. (2017) tried to improve the effective-
ness of the strengthening layers by providing anchorage with the
use of additional TRM U-strips at the full length or only at the
two ends of the strengthening layers. According to their results,
there was no strong evidence that the extra measures helped to
increase load-carrying capacity. In the cases in which U-strips
were applied only at the two ends of beams (Sneed et al. 2016;
Escrig et al. 2017; Raoof et al. 2017), debonding of the TRM
strip was prevented and failure was due to slippage of the fibers
through the matrix. As Sneed et al. (2016) concluded, the latter
indicates that traditional anchorage solutions for FRP compo-
sites might not be effective in the case of TRM composites.
• Aljazaeri and Myers (2017a) and Pino et al. (2017a) examined
the performance of PBO-FRCM-strengthened RC beams sub-
jected to fatigue loading. Both studies concluded that the
strengthening of beams improved their fatigue performance,
with the level of improvement being influenced by the amount
of external reinforcement. In addition, in both studies the resi-
dual flexural capacity of the retrofitted beams that survived
2 million cycles was very close to the capacity of the strength-
ened beams not subjected to fatigue.
J. Compos. Constr.
 • Raoof and Bournas (2017d) investigated the effect of high tem-
peratures (150°C) on RC beams strengthened in flexure and
concluded that TRM reached an average of 55% of its ambient
temperature effectiveness. This behavior was advantageous over
FRP-strengthened beams; FRP completely lost its effectiveness
when subjected to the same heating conditions.
TRM versus FRP in Flexural Strengthening
Triantafillou (2007), D’Ambrisi and Focacci (2011), and Raoof
et al. (2017) compared the effectiveness of TRM versus FRP sys-
tems in increasing the flexural capacity of RC beams. With a lim-
ited number of results, Triantafillou (2007) concluded that carbon
TRM is less effective (by about 30%) than equivalent carbon-FRP
(CFRP) systems in terms of flexural capacity enhancement.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
D’Ambrisi and Foccacci (2011) obtained a similar effectiveness be-
tween PBO TRM and CFRP systems, but they found that—in
agreement with Triantafillou (2007)—carbon TRM systems are
less effective (by 30%–70%) than CFRP because of the develop-
ment of different failure modes (fiber slippage for TRM versus de-
bonding for FRP). Raoof et al. (2017) also concluded that the
effectiveness of TRM systems was less than that of FRP systems
and that the TRM versus FRP effectiveness ratio was sensitive to
the number of textile layers; an increase of layers from one to three
resulted in an increase of the effectiveness ratio from 0.47 to 0.80.
Design Aspects
For design purposes, ACI 549.4R (ACI 2013) proposes a maximum
value of tensile strain in the TRM composite equal to 0.012, which
is multiplied by the tensile modulus of elasticity of the cracked
composite to yield the design tensile strength of the external
flexural reinforcement. Ombres (2011) suggested that available
analytical models for FRP-strengthened RC beams can estimate
with good accuracy the ultimate flexural capacity of the beams,
given that premature failure modes (e.g., slippage of fibers, debond-
ing from the concrete substrate) are avoided and rupture of the fi-
bers occurs. Based on limited experimental data, Raoof et al. (2017)
concluded that if failure is due to debonding of TRM from the con-
crete substrate (including part of the concrete cover), the debonding
stress in TRM can be estimated using the provisions of fib (2010)
for the case of FRP-strengthened beams. Finally, Koutas and
Bournas (2017) provided simple design equations to estimate the
flexural moment of resistance of two-way RC slabs strengthened
with carbon fiber textile composites.
Fig. 8. (a) Shear strengthening of an RC beam with U-shaped TRM jacketing subjected to symmetric four-point monotonic loading; and (b) use of
anchors in shear strengthening of RC T-beams.
© ASCE 03118001-8
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
Shear Strengthening of RC Members
Method Description
One of the most common needs when assessing the strength of RC
structures under current code requirements is the shear strengthen-
ing of RC beams or bridge girders. This is due to insufficient
amounts of shear reinforcement, corrosion of existing shear
reinforcement, low concrete strength, and/or increase in the applied
load. Moreover, shear strengthening is also required to ensure a
ductile flexure-type failure mode.
TRM is applied at critical shear spans as side-bonding (not rec-
ommended), U-wrapping, or full wrapping. It should be mentioned
that fully wrapped jackets can only be used for the shear strength-
ening of concrete columns; their application is not feasible in
beams or bridge girders because of the presence of concrete slabs
or decks, respectively. Anchorage systems, including mechanical
devices or spike or textile-based anchors, have also been used to
improve the anchorage conditions of side-bonded and U-shaped
jackets, similar to FRP jackets. Fig. 8(a) shows a beam strength-
ened with U-shaped TRM jackets and tested under symmetric
four-point monotonic loading; Fig. 8(b) shows a T-beam strength-
ened with U-shaped TRM jackets combined with textile-based
anchors.
General Behavior
A number of studies have investigated the use of TRM for the shear
strengthening of RC beams over the last decade (Triantafillou and
Papanicolaou 2006; Bruckner et al. 2008; Al-Salloum et al. 2012;
Blanksvard et al. 2009; Si Larbi et al. 2010; Al-Salloum et al. 2012;
Contamine et al. 2013; Azam and Soudki 2014; Baggio et al. 2014;
Escrig et al. 2015; Jung et al. 2015; Loreto et al. 2015; Ombres
2015b; Tetta et al. 2015; Trapko et al. 2015; Awani et al. 2016;
Tetta et al. 2016; Tzoura and Triantafillou 2016; Aljazaeri and
Myers 2017b; Tetta et al. 2018a), the vast majority of which were
on small- or medium-scale beams with rectangular sections. The
beams in the aforementioned studies were tested under (symmetric
or nonsymmetric) monotonic three-point or four-point bending,
except for the ones in Tzoura and Triantafillou (2016), which
were tested as cantilevers under cyclic loading, simulating shear
strengthening near supports.
Fig. 9 depicts the simplified load versus deflection (measured at
the load application position) curves and illustrates the effect of
strengthening as reported in the majority of the studies. Two linear
J. Compos. Constr.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Strengthening effect on load versus displacement curves of RC
members strengthened in shear.
branches up to the maximum load describe the shear behavior:
(1) the uncracked stage up to the point of first concrete cracking,
and (2) the cracked stage up to the failure of the specimen. The
descending branch can be quite smooth with relatively soft load
degradation (pseudoductile failure mode) or quite rough with sud-
den drop of load (brittle failure mode) depending on the failure
mode observed in the TRM.
Failure Modes
The failure modes observed in RC beams strengthened in shear
with TRM jackets are summarized as (1) debonding of the TRM
jackets with peeling off of the concrete cover, in the case of side-
bonded or U-wrapped TRM jackets [Fig. 10(a)]; (2) fracture of
TRM jacketing (mainly observed in fully wrapped jackets or glass
and basalt side-bonded or U-wrapped jackets) [Fig. 10(b)]; and
(3) local damage of the jacket, including slippage of the fibers
through the mortar [Fig. 10(c)]. The first two failure modes were
also widely observed in RC beams strengthened in shear with FRP
jackets; slippage of the fibers through the epoxy resin was pre-
vented in FRP jackets (tested at ambient temperature) because
of the high strength of the epoxy resins usually used in FRP ap-
plications. It should be mentioned that the failure mode related
to slippage of the fibers through the mortar was observed in
TRM specimens strengthened with dry/uncoated textile materials
(e.g., Loreto et al. 2015; Tetta et al. 2015, 2016; Tzoura and
Triantafillou 2016) but was suppressed when coated textile materi-
als were applied (e.g., Awani et al. 2016).
Reinforced concrete members strengthened in shear may also
fail in shear compression, that is, due to concrete compression prior
Fig. 10. Failure modes of RC beams strengthened in shear with TRM jacketing: (a) debonding of the jacket; (b) fracture of the fibers; and (c) slippage
of the fibers.
© ASCE 03118001-9
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
to failure of the TRM jacket, as reported in the studies of
Al-Salloum et al. (2012), Azam and Soudki (2014), and Loreto et al.
(2015). Finally, flexural failure was also reported in the studies of
Triantafillou and Papanicolaou (2006), Ombres (2015b), and Tetta
et al. (2015); this failure mechanism should always be the target
in any project involving the shear strengthening of structures in
service. Note that activation of the last two failure mechanisms
(concrete compression or flexural failure) does not allow calcula-
tion of the TRM contribution to shear capacity. Hence, it is con-
venient to avoid such failures in research projects.
The failure mode significantly affects the effectiveness of TRM
jacketing. In particular, TRM is nearly as effective as FRP jacketing
in increasing the shear capacity of RC beams when failure is as-
sociated with debonding of the jacket (Awani et al. 2016; Tetta
et al. 2016), but it becomes less effective when failure is attributed
to damage (e.g., fracture) of the jacket instead of debonding
(Triantafillou and Papanicolaou 2006; Tetta et al. 2015; Tzoura
and Triantafillou 2016). Full exploitation of the tensile capacity
of the textiles is achieved when failure of specimens is associated
with rupture of the fibers.
Effect of Parameters on the Effectiveness of Shear
Strengthening
The shear capacity of beams was significantly increased, up to
150% or 190%, by applying nonanchored or anchored U-shaped
TRM jackets, respectively. The key parameters investigated in
these studies and the conclusions thereof are summarized
subsequently.
• The effect of increasing the amount of external reinforcement on
the shear capacity of (nonanchored) TRM-strengthened beams
has been studied by most researchers by means of (1) increasing
the number of layers (Triantafillou and Papanicolaou 2006;
Bruckner et al. 2008; Al-Salloum et al. 2012; Jung et al. 2015;
Loreto et al. 2015; Tetta et al. 2015; Awani et al. 2016; Tetta
et al. 2016; Tzoura and Triantafillou 2016; Tetta et al.
2018a); (2) increasing the ratio of width over spacing (wf ∶sf )
of discontinuous TRM strips (Contamine et al. 2013; Ombres
2015b); and (3) applying textile materials of different weights
(Azam and Soudki 2014; Tetta et al. 2016; Tzoura and
Triantafillou 2016; Tetta et al. 2018a). The key conclusion
was that increases in the amount of external shear reinforcement
resulted in significant but nonproportional increases in the shear
resistance. When the number of layers was increased, a change
in the failure mode was witnessed in the case of dry/uncoated
textile materials. In particular, the failure of specimens that re-
ceived one (Loreto et al. 2015; Tetta et al. 2015) or two (Tetta
et al. 2016) textile layers was associated with slippage of the
fibers through the mortar. In contrast, the failure mode of speci-
mens that received more than two textile layers (Loreto et al.
J. Compos. Constr.
 2015; Tetta et al. 2015, 2016) was attributed to debonding of the
TRM jacket combined with peeling off of the concrete cover.
Thus, increasing the number of layers suppressed damage of
the jacket (e.g., slippage of the fibers through the mortar)
and shifted the damage to the concrete substrate.
• The strengthening configuration, namely side-bonded, U-shaped
or fully wrapped jacketing, has been investigated in a few stu-
dies. Azam and Soudki (2014) concluded that side-bonded and
U-shaped jackets exhibited similar performance in terms of
strength, contrary to Jung et al. (2015) and Tetta et al. (2015),
who reported that U-shaped jackets are much more effective
than side-bonded jackets in increasing the shear capacity of
beams. As expected, fully wrapped jacketing is the most effec-
tive strengthening configuration (compared to side-bonding or
U-wrapping), based on the results presented in Tetta et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(2015). However, it should be mentioned that the use of closed
jackets is not feasible in beams of typical RC buildings or bridge
girders because of the presence of concrete slabs or decks,
respectively.
• Debonding of side-bonded or U-shaped TRM jackets constitu-
tes a common failure mode, similar to the case of FRP jackets.
In this context, the use of end anchorage of TRM open jackets,
so as to delay or even prevent their early debonding from the
concrete substrate, has been examined. Bruckner et al. (2008)
and Tzoura and Triantafillou (2016) used a mechanical end-
anchorage system (comprising steel sections anchored into
the flange by bolts) in T-beams strengthened in shear with glass
or carbon TRM U-jackets. Despite the fact that the effectiveness
of the TRM jackets was dramatically improved [up to 500%
based on the results presented in Tzoura and Triantafillou
(2016)], an anchorage system with metallic components may
be susceptible to corrosion and its use may result in tearing fail-
ure of the textiles due to stress concentrations. A possible
solution to this problem could rely on the use of nonmetallic
materials. Baggio et al. (2014) and Tetta et al. (2016) investi-
gated the performance of spike anchors (Fig. 11), which are
versatile, noncorrosive, lightweight, and compatible with the
materials used for TRM jackets. However, Baggio et al. (2014)
were not able to assess the performance of carbon-based spike
anchors due to premature rupture of the glass TRM jacket,
both in the nonanchored and in the anchored jacket. In contrast,
Tetta et al. (2016) applied textile-based anchors as an end-
anchorage system for carbon or glass U-shaped TRM jackets
and found that textile-based anchors significantly improved
(up to 150%) the effectiveness of the carbon TRM jackets; how-
ever, glass-anchored TRM jackets failed due to rupture before
failure of the anchorage system.
• Blanksvard et al. (2009), Awani et al. (2016), and Aljazaeri and
Myers (2017b) investigated the effect of the amount of internal
Fig. 11. Anchorage system used in shear strengthening of concrete
beams with TRM jacketing: textile-based spike anchors. (Reprinted
from Tetta et al. 2016.)
© ASCE 03118001-10
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
shear reinforcement ratio on the shear capacity of TRM-
strengthened beams. Based on the results presented in Awani
et al. (2016), in which all the strengthened beams failed due
to diagonal shear, the contribution of the TRM jacket to the total
shear resistance is not practically affected by the amount of
stirrups.
• Recently, Tetta et al. (2018a) investigated the effect of shear
span-to-depth ratio in RC beams strengthened in shear with
U-shaped TRM jackets; they concluded that the shear span-
to-depth ratio has no effect on the failure mode nor on the con-
tribution of the jacket to the total shear resistance of the beams.
• Regarding the geometry of the textile materials used in TRM,
Tetta et al. (2016, 2018a) concluded that different (dry/
uncoated) carbon fiber textile geometries having the same rein-
forcement ratio resulted in different load increases and failure
modes. This effect of the geometry of the textile fiber material
is drastically mitigated by increasing the reinforcement ratio.
• The use of polymers in the TRM matrix was studied by
Al-Salloum et al. (2012), who reported that polymer-modified
cementitious mortars are more effective than unmodified ones.
• Regarding fiber orientation, Al-Salloum et al. (2012) concluded
that textiles with fibers at 45° were slightly more effective than
textiles with orientations of 0°=90°, contrary to the results pre-
sented in Trapko et al. (2015), who concluded that the highest
shear capacity gain was obtained from TRM strips aligned at
90o to the longitudinal axis of the member.
• Loreto et al. (2015) reported that the increase in shear capacity
was slightly lower in specimens with low concrete compressive
strength; hence, they concluded that the strength of concrete
marginally affects the response of strengthened beams.
• Torsional strengthening of RC with TRM was investigated by
Schladitz and Curbach (2012) and Alabdulhaby et al. (2017).
Schladitz and Curbach (2012) conducted tests on beams with
round (300-mm-diameter) or rectangular (250 × 250 mm) cross
sections strengthened with 4 or 6 layers of fully wrapped
(coated) glass-based textiles. The results showed that the torsion
load-carrying capacity and serviceability (based on crack width
and crack spacing) of concrete members significantly improved
(up to 240% and 272% in the case of round and rectangular
cross sections, respectively) by using TRM jacketing. Moreover,
as expected, the torsional resistance increased with an increase
in the number of textile reinforcement layers. Based on the re-
sults presented in Alabdulhady et al. (2017), fully wrapped PBO
TRM jacketing significantly increased the torsional capacity of
rectangular RC beams, contrary to U-wrapped PBO jackets.
TRM versus FRP in Shear Strengthening
The comparison of TRM with FRP jackets has been investigated by
several researchers who tested beams strengthened in shear with the
same textile materials combined with different adhesive materials,
namely mortar for TRM jacketing and epoxy resin for FRP jack-
eting (Triantafillou and Papanicolaou 2006; Tetta et al. 2015;
Awani et al. 2016; Tetta et al. 2016; Tzoura and Triantafillou
2016). Triantafillou and Papanicolaou (2006), and Tzoura and
Triantafillou (2016) reported that closed or anchored TRM jackets
are less effective than their FRP counterparts because of slippage of
the fibers through the mortar. Based on tests on both medium-scale
and full-scale T-beams, Tetta et al. (2015), Awani et al. (2016), and
Tetta et al. (2016) reported that TRM jackets can be practically as
effective as equivalent FRP U-shaped jackets when failure of both
systems is attributed to debonding of the jacket with concrete cover
separation. Tetta and Bournas (2016) compared TRM with FRP
jackets in the shear strengthening of concrete beams subjected
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. (a) Axially loaded concrete element confined with TRM jacket; (b) final TRM layer overlap; and (c) strengthening effect on axial stress–
strain curves.
to high temperatures; they concluded that side-bonded and
U-shaped TRM jackets are much more effective than their FRP
counterparts when specimens are exposed to temperatures in the
range 100°C to 150°C.
Design Aspects
Triantafillou and Papanicolaou (2006) first presented a design
methodology for shear-strengthened RC members with TRM, that
is, adopting the so-called effective strain of the external reinforce-
ment, which is also used in FRP-strengthening design procedures.
ACI 549.4R (ACI 2013) proposes a maximum value of effective
strain for design purposes equal to 0.004, which is multiplied by
the tensile modulus of elasticity of the cracked composite to yield
the design tensile strength of the external shear reinforcement. To
estimate the effective strain, Ombres (2015b) used the equations
proposed by Monti and Liotta (2007) for FRP-strengthened RC
beams, and applied an effectiveness coefficient equal to 0.5, reflect-
ing the reduced effectiveness of TRM compared to FRP systems.
Escrig et al. (2015) developed empirical equations from limited ex-
perimental data to calculate the effective strain of the TRM for fully
wrapped, U-shaped or side-bonded jackets, given that debonding
failure is avoided. Very recently, Tetta et al. (2018b) conducted
a comprehensive study, and by collecting all the available data
(which were grouped based on the observed failure modes), pro-
posed a simple design approach for calculating the contribution
of the TRM jacket to the total shear resistance, including new
expressions for all failure modes described previously.
Concrete Confinement for Increased Load and
Deformation Capacity
Method Description
The wrapping of concrete elements with TRM layers [Fig. 12(a)]
aims to provide passive confinement stresses when the elements are
subjected to axial compression and, hence, to increase their com-
pressive strength and deformation capacity. The need of extra con-
finement is typical for columns with low axial capacity and poor
detailing. Confinement with TRM can also be useful for seismic
retrofitting of columns, which is discussed in another section of
this paper.
© ASCE 03118001-11
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
The typical method of application is wet lay-up on properly
prepared surfaces. An overlap of the last layer is usually provided
in the hoop direction to avoid early debonding [Fig. 12(b)].
Bidirectional textiles (with fiber rovings in two orthogonal direc-
tions) are the most commonly used so far in the literature. However,
when they are applied in a 0°=90° configuration, only the fibers in
the hoop direction contribute to the development of confining
stresses. This suggests that optimum textile geometries with differ-
ent materials in each direction are still to be developed.
Similar to FRP confinement, wrapping with textiles can easily
be applied in circular or rectangular sections, provided that the
fibers are uncoated and the corners of the rectangular section have
been properly rounded. Based on the authors’ experience, corner
radius R should be at least equal to bc =10, with a minimum value
of 25 mm (where bc is the smaller of the two column sides). This
assumes that the available concrete cover is adequate. Textiles with
coated fibers can be used for wrapping under certain conditions—
the degree of coating impregnation must be low, and a relatively
large mesh size will further make the application easier.
General Behavior
The application of open-mesh textiles in combination with inor-
ganic matrices as a means of increasing the axial capacity of con-
crete through confinement has been reported in the studies of
Triantafillou et al. (2006), Bournas et al. (2007), Peled (2007),
Ortlepp et al. (2009), Di Ludovico et al. (2010), Garcia et al.
(2010), Trapko (2013), Colajanni et al. (2014), Ombres (2014),
Trapko (2014), Ombres and Verre (2015), Thermou et al. (2015),
Cerniauskas et al. (2016), Ombres (2017), and Yin et al. (2016).
With the aim of assessing axial load and deformation capacity,
concrete prisms (with the axial dimension at least two times larger
than the other two) were subjected to monotonic concentric com-
pression in the axial direction; in a few cases the loading was ec-
centric (Trapko 2014; Ombres and Verre 2015). In the majority of
the studies, the tested elements comprised unreinforced concrete
cylinders with a 150-mm diameter and 300-mm height. However,
rectangular-section column-type elements have also been studied,
with sections ranging from 150 × 150 mm to 250 × 350 mm and
heights between 300 and 1,500 mm. Carbon, glass, basalt, aramid,
and PBO fiber textiles were used in the aforementioned studies,
with carbon and PBO textiles being the most commonly studied.
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Failure modes of TRM-confined concrete elements: (a) debonding at the end of the lap; and (b) rupture of the jacket (data from Bournas
et al. 2007).
The use of steel fabrics made of high-strength steel cords was also
reported in the study of Thermou et al. (2015).
Fig. 12(c) illustrates typical simplified axial stress–axial strain
curves for unconfined and TRM-confined concrete. Although the
presence of the jacket may increase the initial elastic stiffness of
concrete, the contribution of strengthening mainly affects the poste-
lastic behavior of concrete. It is only after cracking that lateral
deformations develop and the jacket is activated in tension due
to the lateral expansion of the concrete. As a result, the effect of
strengthening is twofold: (1) an axial load-carrying capacity in-
crease, and (2) an axial deformation capacity enhancement. The
slope of the postelastic ascending branch of the confined concrete
strongly depends on the external reinforcement ratio, the axial
stiffness of the jacket, and the shape of the cross section [a low
reinforcement ratio may result in zero or even negative slope
(Colajanni et al. 2014), particularly when combined with a rectan-
gular cross section (Triantafillou et al. 2006)]. At large axial and
particularly lateral deformations, failure of the TRM jacket occurs,
resulting in load drop, which can vary from rather sudden to quite
smooth and progressive. The failure modes are discussed in the
following section.
Failure Modes
Failure in TRM-confined concrete is always induced because of the
loss of the strengthening action. Two different failure modes have
been reported in the literature and are described as follows:
1. Debonding from the end of the lap [Fig. 13(a)]. In this case
debonding initiates at the end of the lap and is indicated by
a vertical crack that appears at the location at which the textile
terminates. It occurs at the interface between the mortar and
the last layer of textile (interlaminar shearing), and its develop-
ment depends on various parameters. A low tensile strength
mortar (e.g., Triantafillou et al. 2006), a short overlap length
(e.g., Thermou et al. 2015), a very dense mesh that does not
allow a good impregnation with mortar (e.g., Thermou et al.
2015), or a combination of any of the above, may promote the
debonding failure mechanism.
2. Fracture of the jacket due to hoop stresses [Fig. 13(b)]. If suffi-
cient overlap length is provided for the applied amount of TRM
reinforcement, failure of the jacket initiates due to fracture of
fibers in the hoop direction when they reach their tensile
strength. In this case, failure of the TRM jacket is usually gra-
dual (Triantafillou et al. 2006; Bournas et al. 2007; Peled 2007;
© ASCE 03118001-12
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
Di Ludovico et al. 2010; Garcia et al. 2010; Colajanni et al.
2014; Ombres 2014; Thermou et al. 2015) because of the initia-
tion of fracture in a limited number of fiber bundles (or steel
cords in the case of steel fabrics), which propagates rather
slowly in the neighboring bundles until concrete crushing is
extensive and the load drops at very low levels. In elements
with rectangular section, fracture initiates at one of the corners
due to high concentration of stresses or due to buckling of
the longitudinal steel reinforcement (Bournas et al. 2007). The
speed of fracture propagation may vary depending on the
amount of reinforcement; a higher number of layers may lead
to a more abrupt failure in the corners of rectangular sections
compared to a more gradual failure when fewer layers are used
(Triantafillou et al. 2006).
Effect of Parameters on the Confinement Effectiveness
The effect of the various parameters examined in the literature on
the strengthening effectiveness and the behavior of TRM-confined
concrete elements is discussed subsequently.
• By increasing the reinforcement ratio (mainly by increasing the
number of the applied TRM layers), both the compressive
strength and the ultimate strain capacity of the confined concrete
increase. This has been confirmed by all studies in the literature.
The increase is usually nonproportional to the amount of rein-
forcement, with the effectiveness decreasing as the number of
layers increases. A clear trend is not easy to define because
of the relatively large scatter of experimental results, with vary-
ing types of materials and possibly different quality control.
However, Ombres and Mazzuca (2016) have developed semi-
empirical prediction models based on the majority of available
data in the literature.
• The section geometry greatly affects the strengthening effective-
ness. Similar to FRP jackets, TRM jackets are more efficient
when they confine elements with cylindrical sections. This has
been confirmed by Triantafillou et al. (2006), Ortlepp et al.
(2009), and Colajanni et al. (2014). The reason for this is the
uneven confining action in the case of a rectangular section
(which is higher at the four corners) compared to the uniform
confinement in the case of a circular section.
• It has been confirmed by Triantafillou et al. (2006), Ombres
(2014), Thermou et al. (2015), and Ombres and Mazzuca
(2016) that the unconfined concrete strength significantly af-
fects the effectiveness of TRM jackets in increasing the axial
J. Compos. Constr.
 load-carrying capacity of confined concrete; the effectiveness
of the jackets is higher for lower values of unconfined concrete
strength.
• The effect of mortar strength has been investigated by Triantafillou
et al. (2006) and Garcia et al. (2010). Triantafillou et al. (2006)
compared two cement mortars and concluded that two layers
of carbon TRM jacketing with the higher (by 24%) flexural
strength mortar was 58% more effective than the lower-strength
mortar in terms of increasing the strength of concrete through con-
finement; the failure mode in the former case involved fracture of
the jacket and in the latter case debonding. The corresponding in-
crease was marginal (4%) when four layers of the same textile
were used, mainly because the failure mode was the same in
all tested specimens with four layers. Garcia et al. (2010) reported
that increasing the flexural strength of mortar by 13% resulted in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
increased effectiveness of the TRM jackets with one or two layers
of basalt fiber textiles by 8% or 6.5%, respectively.
• Increasing overlap length can increase the compressive strength
and axial deformation capacity of TRM-confined concrete ele-
ments only if debonding at the end of the lap is suppressed. For
instance, Thermou et al. (2015) managed to supress debonding
and further enhance the strength of 150-mm-diameter cylinders
confined with steel fabrics by increasing the overlap length from
120 to 360 mm. In contrast, Yin et al. (2016), who tested square
columns with internal steel reinforcement, did not record any
difference in the ultimate load when they increased the overlap
length by four times, mainly because the initial length was ade-
quate to prevent debonding and failure in all cases was due to
fracture of the jacket at the corners.
• Ombres (2017) studied the effect of fiber orientation on the
compressive behavior of PBO fiber TRM-confined cylinders,
with the angle of the fibers varying from 90° to 30° with respect
to the cylinder axis. He concluded that the optimal orientation of
the fibers is 90°, with the other orientations having a reduced
effectiveness even after being normalized to the reinforcement
ratio.
• Trapko (2014) and Ombres and Verre (2015) investigated the
effect of eccentricity in vertically loaded square columns con-
fined with PBO fiber TRM jackets. The common conclusion
of these studies was that, although the jackets enhanced the load
capacity of the columns, the gain in strength was inversely pro-
portional to the ratio e∶h, where e is the eccentricity and h is the
height of the section.
• The effect of exposing TRM-confined concrete to elevated
temperatures has been investigated by Trapko (2013),
Cerniauskas et al. (2016), and Ombres (2017). However, the
testing method and the temperature range varied significantly
among these studies. Trapko (2013) exposed carbon fiber
TRM-confined cylinders to 40°C, 60°C, and 80°C for 24 h,
and then performed compression tests immediately after the
end of the heating period. Cerniauskas et al. (2016) tested car-
bon fiber TRM-confined cylinders under a steady-state thermal
regime, varying from 20°C to 400°C for different specimens.
Finally, Ombres (2017) exposed PBO fiber TRM-confined
cylinders to cycles of thermal conditioning with temperatures
ranging from 50°C to 250°C, and then performed compres-
sion tests at ambient temperature. In all studies, a limited
decrease in the peak load compared to specimens not exposed
to high temperature was reported (5%–20%) for temperatures
up to 250°C; this was attributed to a decrease in the strength
of the concrete. However, at 400°C, Cerniauskas et al.
(2016) recorded strength enhancement, which needs further
investigation.
© ASCE 03118001-13
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
• The effect of exposing TRM-confined square concrete columns
to chloride wet-dry cycles was investigated in the study of Yin
et al. (2016), who found that after 90 wet-dry cycles the axial
load carrying capacity of columns was reduced by approxi-
mately 5%; when combined with a sustained load at a stress
ratio of 0.4, the decrease in strength reached almost 6%. Yin
et al. (2016) reported generation of corrosion products at the
interface between the TRM jacket and the concrete, which
affected the bonding properties.
TRM versus FRP in Concrete Confinement
Finally, Triantafillou et al. (2006) and Bournas et al. (2007) com-
pared the effectiveness of TRM versus equivalent FRP jackets.
Based on tests on concrete cylinders, Triantafillou et al. (2006) con-
cluded that TRM jackets are approximately 80% and 50% less ef-
fective (compared to FRP) in increasing the strength and ultimate
strain of confined concrete, respectively, whereas Bournas et al.
(2007), based on column-type specimens with square section, con-
cluded that TRM jackets were only 10% less effective in increasing
both strength and ultimate strain capacity. The difference in the two
studies is mostly related to the different section of the specimens.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of TRM jackets is believed by the
authors of the aforementioned studies to strongly depend on mortar
mechanical properties.
Design Aspects
ACI 549.4R (ACI 2013) provides equations for an idealized
bilinear constitutive law of TRM-confined concrete, with the effec-
tive tensile strain in the composite material being limited to a value
of 0.012.
Seismic Retrofitting of RC Members
Seismic Retrofitting of Columns
TRM jacketing is applied as a means of confining the plastic hinge
[Figs. 14(a and b)] of old-type RC columns designed with poorly
detailed reinforcement. Under seismic loading, the ultimate defor-
mation capacity of substandard columns is low because of prema-
ture failure at the ends of the columns (especially those of
the ground and first floors), typically due to bar bucking or bond
failure in the case of short lap splices. Full-height jacketing is pro-
vided when shear strengthening of columns is seismic areas is re-
quired [Fig. 14(c)].
Bar Buckling
The work of Bournas et al. (2007) demonstrated that TRM jack-
eting is quite effective (and equal to its FRP counterpart) as a means
of increasing the cyclic deformation capacity and energy dissipa-
tion of old-type RC columns with poor detailing by delaying bar
buckling. In that study, three full-scale RC columns with smooth
longitudinal bars were constructed (unstrengthened and FRP- or
TRM-jacketed in the plastic hinge region) and subjected to reversed
cyclic loading with constant axial load. The geometry of the
columns, the reinforcement details, and the general setup of the test
are shown in Fig. 15. Details are provided in Bournas et al. (2007).
The load versus drift ratio curves for these specimens are
given in Fig. 16. The control specimen failed due to bar buck-
ling at the column base, which limited its deformation capacity
[Fig. 16(a)]. The behavior of the two retrofitted columns was practi-
cally identical [Figs. 16(b and c)] for Columns R2 and M4, respec-
tively, and far better than their unretrofitted counterpart, with an
J. Compos. Constr.
 Fig. 14. Seismic retrofitting of RC columns with TRM: (a) local jacketing to increase the deformation capacity of concrete and/or to delay rebar
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

buckling; (b) local jacketing to prevent failure at lap splices; and (c) full-height jacketing to increase shear resistance.

Fig. 15. (a) Geometry of columns (tested as vertical cantilevers); and (b) details of lap splices (dimensions in millimeters). (Reprinted from Bournas
et al. 2009, © ASCE.)

increase in deformation capacity by a factor of more than
two.
In a subsequent study, Bournas et al. (2009) demonstrated that
the effectiveness of TRM jackets in columns with limited defor-
mation capacity due to bar buckling was also quite high (for the
case of columns with deformed longitudinal bars) and clearly
higher than the effectiveness of identical FRP jackets. The supe-
rior performance of TRM over FRP jackets in the case of bar
buckling was attributed to the capacity of TRM jackets to resist
local stresses. This occurs because TRM jackets are able to de-
form outward without early fiber rupture, owing to the relatively
low composite action between fibers and mortar that allows for
higher local deformations (e.g., slip of fibers within rovings).
For the same reason, TRM jackets have been proven quite effec-
tive in providing local confinement in RC columns strengthened
in flexure with near surface mounted (NSM) reinforcement
(Bournas and Triantafillou 2009, 2013). The local confinement
with TRM jackets was quite effective in controlling buckling
of the NSM reinforcement, thus enabling this reinforcement to
reach higher strains at failure. An in-depth analytical investigation
of the problem of bar buckling is presented in Bournas and
Triantafillou (2011a).
Bond Failure at Regions of Lap-Spliced Bars
The effectiveness of TRM jackets in confining RC columns with
limited capacity due to bond failure at lap-splice regions was in-
vestigated by Bournas et al. (2009). Based on simulated seismic
tests [Fig. 15(a)] conducted on six full-scale columns [Fig. 15(b)],
it was shown that TRM jackets are quite effective as a means of
increasing the cyclic deformation capacity and the energy dissipa-
tion of old-type RC columns with poor detailing by preventing
splitting bond failures in columns with inadequate lap splices. It
may be concluded that TRM confining jackets provide substantial
gains in the lateral strength and deformation capacity of cyclically
loaded RC columns with short lap splices at the base of the col-
umns. Compared with equal stiffness and strength FRP jackets,
TRM jackets are characterized by a slightly reduced effectiveness
in terms of deformation capacity for columns with short lap splices
and with the same effectiveness for columns with longer lap
lengths. An in-depth experimental investigation, as well as an

© ASCE 03118001-14 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001

 Fig. 16. Load versus drift ratio curves for (a) the control specimen; (b) the FRP-confined specimen; and (c) the TRM-confined specimen. C = control;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
R2 = two plies of FRP; and M4 = four plies of TRM.
analytical model for columns with lap splices, is given in Bournas
and Triantafillou (2011b).
Finally, the high effectiveness of TRM jacketing as a measure of
improving plastic hinge behavior was also confirmed through
nearly full-scale testing of a two-story RC building, as reported
in Bousias et al. (2007).
Seismic Retrofitting of Beam–Column Joints
Fig. 17 presents a typical strengthening configuration applied to a
beam–column joint. The effectiveness of TRM jackets in the seis-
mic retrofitting of deficient beam–column joints was evaluated by
Al-Salloum et al. (2011). In that study, TRM and FRP jackets were
used for enhancing the shear strength and ductility of seismically
deficient exterior beam–column joints. Five specimens, represent-
ing nonseismically detailed joints with inadequate joint shear
strength due to the lack of shear reinforcement, were constructed.
Two of them were tested without retrofitting as reference speci-
mens, whereas the remaining three were strengthened using
TRM, CFRP, and glass-FRP (GFRP) jackets, respectively. The test
results demonstrated that TRM can effectively improve both the
shear strength and deformation capacity of seismically deficient
beam–column joints to an extent which is comparable to the strength
and ductility achieved by well-established CFRP and GFRP
Fig. 17. External column–beam joint TRM-strengthening configuration.
© ASCE 03118001-15
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
strengthening of joints. It was found that identical load (shear
strength) increases were achieved by using TRM and FRP jackets,
but due to the higher ductility of TRM, the energy dissipation capac-
ity of TRM-strengthened beam–column joints was substantially
higher than the corresponding FRP-strengthened ones.
Seismic Retrofitting of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames
The contribution of masonry infills to the in-plane seismic resis-
tance of existing RC buildings is quite high, especially before
the separation of the infill from the surrounding frame occurs
but also during large cycles of imposed deformations near collapse.
Koutas et al. (2015a, d) proposed TRM jacketing as an alternative
retrofitting technique [Fig. 18(a)] to convert masonry infilling to a
more reliable source of resistance by guaranteeing its contribution
over the whole spectrum of structural response. They used TRM
jacketing on nearly full-scale, as-built, and retrofitted three-story
masonry-infilled frames [Fig. 18(b)], which were subjected to
cyclic loading.
Based on the test results presented in Koutas et al. (2015a), the
TRM retrofitting scheme resulted in an enhanced global response
of the infilled frame, both in terms of lateral strength and deforma-
tion capacity [Figs. 19(a and b)]. An increase of more than 50% in
the lateral strength was observed, accompanied by a more than 50%
higher deformation capacity at the top of the structure at the ulti-
mate strength state. Moreover, the TRM-retrofitted RC frame dis-
sipated about 25% more energy than the unretrofitted one for the
same loading history. The effect of retrofitting on the lateral stiff-
ness of the first story was an almost twofold increase for low drift
levels (up to 0.5%); this became less pronounced at higher drift
levels. It was suggested by the authors that the application of
TRM over the entire surface of infills should be supplemented with
an adequate infill–frame connection if a reliable resisting system is
to be obtained. This was achieved in that study by using custom-
fabricated, textile-based anchors, thoroughly investigated by
Koutas et al. (2014). Finally, it is also worth mentioning that
TRM jacketing proved to be effective in withstanding large shear
deformations through the development of a multicrack pattern and
by introducing an efficient load transferring mechanism at the local
level. The experimental results obtained by Koutas et al. (2015a)
were found to be in good agreement with a strut-and-tie analytical
model described in Koutas et al. (2015d).
Akhoundi et al. (2018) studied the performance of TRM-
strengthened masonry-infilled RC frames on two nearly half-scale
specimens subjected to in-plane cyclic loading. The technique they
used was similar to that used by Koutas et al. (2015a). Based on
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 18. Seismic retrofitting of masonry-infilled RC frame with TRM: (a) the concept; and (b) in-plane testing of three-story frame. (Data from Koutas
et al. 2015a.)

Fig. 19. Comparative response curves for the two specimens (Sp. #1 is the control specimen) in terms of base shear versus (a) top floor displacement;
and (b) first-story drift ratio. (Data from Koutas et al. 2015a.)

their results, strengthening the masonry infills and connecting them
to the RC frame by simply extending the retrofitting layers to the
faces of the columns and the beam yielded an increase in lateral
stiffness and ultimate strength of about 40%.
Moreover, very recently Koutas and Bournas (2018) conducted
an experimental study on the use of TRM jackets as a means of
improving the out-of-plane performance of masonry-infill walls
in RC frames. The effect of different connection configurations be-
tween the infill wall and the RC frame members, as well as the
effect of the wall’s thickness, were investigated. It was concluded
that the TRM strengthening technique was highly effective in in-
creasing the out-of-plane load capacity of the infill walls. The
strengthening effectiveness factor varied between 4 and 5 for
single-wythe wall specimens and was equal to about 1.5 in the case
of double-wythe wall specimens. Moreover, the energy absorption
of the retrofitted walls was enhanced from 140% to 260%, com-
pared to the control ones, with the connection configuration playing
an important role. Finally, the authors concluded that connecting
single-wythe walls to the front or the back side of the frame resulted
in 30% and 40% increases, respectively, compared to walls without
connection to the frame.
Finally, the use of TRM jacketing for strengthening of masonry
infills has been combined with thermal insulation materials for pro-
viding concurrent seismic and energy retrofitting. The concept of
combined seismic and energy retrofitting with advanced materials
was proposed for the first time and investigated experimentally for
the case of masonry subjected to out-of-plane (Triantafillou et al.
2017) and in-plane (Triantafillou et al. 2018) loading. These studies
introduced for the first time the combination of TRM with standard
or even highly fire-resistant thermal insulation materials. A similar
system for the concurrent seismic and energy retrofitting for the
case of RC building envelopes was proposed by Bournas (2018).
The combined retrofitting (TRM + insulation material) was found
to be economically efficient, as the payback period of the retrofit-
ting intervention can be significantly reduced for seismic zones
when energy is applied concurrently with seismic retrofitting be-
cause of large savings (of about 30%) related to labor costs.
Conclusions
The application of textile reinforced mortars, also known in the
international literature as textile reinforced concrete or fabric

© ASCE 03118001-16 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001

 reinforced cementitious matrix materials, in the field of strengthen-
ing and seismic retrofitting of concrete structures is critically
reviewed in this paper. The review covers the tensile and bond
behavior of TRM, as well as strengthening for flexure, shear,
and through confinement; special attention is also given to seismic
retrofitting. The review is critical, with a view toward describing the
key parameters under investigation. Comparisons with the widely
used FRPs are also discussed.
Overall, for all the studies considered in this paper, the strength-
ening of concrete members with TRM is concluded to be an effi-
cient technique to increase the ultimate flexural or shear capacity of
RC members with typical geometries. TRM increases their stiffness
and, hence, their performance under serviceability loads. In addi-
tion, cracking is better controlled. Concrete confinement results
mainly in large axial deformation capacity and, to a lesser degree,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in enhanced compressive strength. Seismic retrofitting of RC col-
umns or joints results in ductility increases and energy dissipation
enhancements. Finally, masonry-infilled RC frames are stiffer and
stronger when strengthened with TRM, with improved seismic per-
formance in their plane direction. Although the literature includes
one document with design guidelines and a few studies with design
recommendations, compact and reliable design equations are still
missing to date. This is mainly attributed to the quite-limited ex-
perimental data, as well as to the fact that failure modes in TRM
systems are quite complex, not easy to predict, and strongly affect
their performance.
The authors believe that the strengthening and seismic retrofit-
ting of concrete structures with textile-based composites is a highly
promising technique, which attracts increasing attention of the
international scientific community. Future work in this field should
be directed at optimizing the textile reinforcement, understanding
the durability of the strengthening system (including high temper-
atures), and establishing design guidelines in the context of current
design formulations.
Acknowledgments
The second and the last authors acknowledge funding through the
Marie Curie ENDURE program (European Network for Durable
Reinforcement and Rehabilitation Solutions, 607851).
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2013. Guide to design and construction
of externally bonded fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM)
systems for repair and strengthening concrete and masonry structures.
ACI 549.4R. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Akhoundi, F., G. Vasconelos, P. Lourenco, L. M. Silva, F. Cunha, and
R. Fangueiro. 2018. “In-plane behavior of cavity masonry infills
and strengthening with textile reinforced mortar.” Eng. Struct. 156:
145–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.002.
Alabdulhady, M. Y., L. H. Sneed, and C. Carloni. 2017. “Torsional behav-
iour of RC beams strengthened with PBO-FRCM composite—An ex-
perimental study.” Eng. Struct. 136: 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2017.01.044.
Aljazaeri, Z. R., and J. J. Myers. 2017a. “Fatigue and flexural behavior of
reinforced-concrete beams strengthened with fiber-reinforced cementi-
tious matrix.” J. Compos. Constr. 21 (1): 04016075. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000726.
Aljazaeri, Z. R., and J. J. Myers. 2017b. “Strengthening of reinforced
concrete beams in shear with fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix.”
J. Compos. Constr. 21 (5): 04017041. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC
.1943-5614.0000822.
Al-Salloum, Y. A., H. M. Elsanadedy, S. H. Alsayed, and R. A. Iqbal. 2012.
“Experimental and numerical study for the shear strengthening of
© ASCE 03118001-17
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
reinforced concrete beams using textile-reinforced mortar.” J. Compos.
Constr. 16 (1): 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614
.0000239.
Al-Salloum, Y. A., N. A. Siddiqui, H. M. Elsanadedy, A. A. Abadel, and
M. A. Aqel. 2011. “Textile-reinforced mortar versus FRP as strength-
ening material for seismically deficient RC beam-column joints.”
J. Compos. Constr. 15 (6): 920–933. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000222.
Arboleda, D., F. G. Carozzi, A. Nanni, and C. Poggi. 2016. “Testing pro-
cedures for the uniaxial tensile characterization of fabric-reinforced
cementitious matrix composites.” J. Compos. Constr. 20 (3): 04015063.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000626.
Ascione, L., G. De Felice, and S. De Santis. 2015. “A qualification method
for externally bonded fibre reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM)
strengthening systems.” Compos. Part B 78: 497–506. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.03.079.
Awani, O., T. El-Maaddawy, and A. El Refai. 2016. “Numerical simulation
and experimental testing of concrete beams strengthened in shear with
fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix.” J. Compos. Constr. 20 (6):
04016056. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000711.
Awani, O., T. El-Maaddawy, and A. El Refai. 2017. “Fabric-reinforced ce-
mentitious matrix: A promising strengthening technique for concrete
structures.” Constr. Build. Mater. 132: 94–111. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.125.
Awani, O., A. El Refai, and T. El-Maaddawy. 2015. “Bond characteristics
of carbon fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix in double shear tests.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 101: 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2015.10.017.
Azam, R., and K. Soudki. 2014. “FRCM strengthening of shear-critical RC
beams.” J. Compos. Constr. 18 (5): 04014012. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000464.
Babaeidarabad, S., G. Loreto, and A. Nanni. 2014. “Flexural strengthening
of RC beams with an externally bonded fabric-reinforced cementitious
matrix.” J. Compos. Constr. 18 (5): 04014009. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000473.
Baggio, D., K. Soudki, and M. Noël. 2014. “Strengthening of shear critical
RC beams with various FRP systems.” Constr. Build. Mater. 66:
634–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.097.
Blanksvärd, T., B. Täljsten, and A. Carolin. 2009. “Shear strengthening of
concrete structures with the use of mineral-based composites.” J. Com-
pos. Constr. 13 (1): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268
(2009)13:1(25).
Bösche, A., F. Jesse, R. Ortlepp, S. Weiland, and M. Curbach. 2008.
“Textile-reinforced concrete for flexural strengthening of RC-
structures—Part 1: Structural behaviour and design model.” ACI Spec.
Publ. 251: 19–40.
Bournas, D. 2016. “Strengthening of existing structures: Selected case
studies.” Chap. 17 in Textile fibre composites in civil engineering,
edited by T. C. Triantafillou, 389–411. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead
Publishing.
Bournas, D. A. 2018. “Concurrent seismic and energy retrofitting of RC
and masonry building envelopes using inorganic textile-based compo-
sites with insulation materials: A new concept.” Compos. Part B: Eng.
148: 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.002.
Bournas, D. A., P. V. Lontou, C. G. Papanicolaou, and T. C. Triantafillou.
2007. “Textile-reinforced mortar versus fibre-reinforced polymer con-
finement in reinforced concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J. 104 (6): 740.
Bournas, D. A., A. Pavese, and W. Tizani. 2015. “Tensile capacity of FRP
anchors in connecting FRP and TRM sheets to concrete.” Eng. Struct.
82 (1): 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.031.
Bournas, D. A., T. C Triantafillou, K. Zygouris, and F. Stavropoulos. 2009.
“Textile-reinforced mortar versus FRP jacketing in seismic retrofitting
of RC columns with continuous or lap-spliced deformed bars.” J. Com-
pos. Constr. 13 (5): 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943
-5614.0000028.
Bournas, D. A., and T. C. Triantafillou. 2009. “Flexural strengthening of
RC columns with NSM FRP or stainless steel.” ACI Struct. J. 106 (4):
495–505.
J. Compos. Constr.
 Bournas, D. A., and T. C. Triantafillou. 2011a. “Bar buckling in RC col-
umns confined with composite materials.” J. Compos. Constr. 15 (3):
393–403. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000180.
Bournas, D. A., and T. C. Triantafillou. 2011b. “Bond strength of lap-
spliced bars in concrete confined with composite jackets.” J. Compos.
Constr. 15 (2): 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943
-5614.0000078.
Bournas, D. A., and T. C. Triantafillou. 2013. “Biaxial bending of
reinforced concrete columns strengthened with externally applied
reinforcement in combination with confinement.” ACI Struct. J.
110 (2): 193–204.
Bousias, S. N., A.-L. Spathis, M. N. Fardis, T. C. Triantafillou, and T. C.
Papanicolaou. 2007. “Pseudodynamic tests of non-seismically designed
RC structures retrofitted with textile-reinforced mortar.” In Proc., 8th
Int. Symp. on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures, edited by T. C. Triantafillou. Patras, Greece.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Brameshuber, W., J. Brockmann, and G. Roessler. 2001. “Textile reinforced
concrete for formwork elements—Investigations of structural behavior.”
In Vol. 2 of FRPRCS-5 fibre reinforced plastics for reinforced concrete
structures, 1019–1026. London: Thomas Telford.
Brückner, A., R. Ortlepp, and M. Curbach. 2006. “Textile reinforced con-
crete for strengthening in bending and shear.” Mater. Struct. 39 (8):
741–748. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-005-9027-2.
Brückner, A., R. Ortlepp, and M. Curbach. 2008. “Anchoring of shear
strengthening for T-beams made of textile reinforced concrete (TRC).”
Mater. Struct. 41 (2): 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007
-9254-9.
Carloni, C., T. D’Antino, L. H. Sneed, and C. Pellegrino. 2015. “Role of the
matrix layers in the stress-transfer mechanism of FRCM composites
bonded to a concrete substrate.” J. Eng. Mech. 141 (6): 04014165.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000883.
Carloni, C., S. Verre, L. H. Sneed, and L. Ombres. 2017. “Loading rate
effect on the debonding phenomenon in fibre reinforced cementitious
matrix-concrete joints.” Compos. Part B: Eng. 108: 301–314. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.087.
Cascardi, A., F. Longo, F. Micelli, and M. A. Aiello. 2017. “Compression
strength of confined columns with fiber reinforced mortar (FRM):
New design-oriented models.” Constr. Build. Mater. 156: 387–401.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.004.
Cerniauskas, G., Z. Tetta, D. Bournas, and L. Bisby. 2016. “Textile-rein-
forced mortar versus FRP for confined concrete: Behaviour at elevated
temperatures.” In Proc., 8th Int. Conf. of FRP Composites in Civil
Engineering, 504–510.
Colajanni, P., F. De Domenico, A. Recupero, and N. Spinella. 2014.
“Concrete columns confined with fibre reinforced cementitious mortars:
Experimentation and modeling.” Constr. Build. Mater. 52: 375–384.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.048.
Colombo, I., M. Colombo, A. Magri, G. Zani, and M. di Prisco. 2011.
“Textile reinforced mortar at high temperatures.” Appl. Mech. Mater.
82: 202–207. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.82.202.
Contamine, R., A. Si Larbi, and P. Hamelin. 2011. “Contribution to direct
tensile testing of textile reinforced concrete (TRC) composites.” Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 528 (29): 8589–8598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2011
.08.009.
Contamine, R., A. Si Larbi, and P. Hamelin. 2013. “Identifying the con-
tributing mechanisms of textile reinforced concrete (TRC) in the case
of shear repairing damaged and reinforced concrete beams.” Eng.
Struct. 46: 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.024.
Curbach, M., and F. Jesse. 1999. “High-performance textile-reinforced
concrete.” Struct. Eng. Int. 9 (4): 289–291. https://doi.org/10.2749
/101686699780481745.
D’Ambrisi, A., L. Feo, and F. Focacci. 2012. “Bond-slip relations for
PBO-FRCM materials externally bonded to concrete.” Compos. Part
B: Eng. 43 (8): 2938–2949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb
.2012.06.002.
D’Ambrisi, A., and F. Focacci. 2011. “Flexural strengthening of RC beams
with cement-based composites.” J. Compos. Constr. 15 (5): 707–720.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000218.
D’Antino, T., C. Carloni, L. H. Sneed, and C. Pellegrino. 2014. “Matrix-
fibre bond behaviour in PBO FRCM composites: A fracture mechanics
© ASCE 03118001-18
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
approach.” Eng. Fract. Mech. 117: 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engfracmech.2014.01.011.
D’Antino, T., J. Gonzalez, C. Pellegrino, C. Carloni, and L. H. Sneed.
2016a. “Experimental investigation of glass and carbon FRCM
composite materials applied onto concrete supports.” Appl. Mech.
Mater. 847: 60–67. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM
.847.60.
D’Antino, T., and C. Papanicolaou. 2017. “Mechanical characterization of
textile reinforced inorganic-matrix composites.” Compos. Part B: Eng.
127 (15): 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.02.034.
D’Antino, T., and C. Papanicolaou. 2018. “Comparison between different
tensile test set-ups for the mechanical characterization of inorganic-
matrix composites.” Constr. Build. Mater. 171 (May): 140–151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.041.
D’Antino, T., L. Sneed, C. Carloni, and C. Pellegrino. 2013. “Bond behav-
iour of the FRCM-concrete interface.” In Proc., 11th Int. Symp. on
Fiber Reinforced Polymers for Reinforced Concrete Structures,
Guimaraes, Portugal.
D’Antino, T., L. H. Sneed, C. Carloni, and C. Pellegrino. 2015. “Influence
of the substrate characteristics on the bond behaviour of PBO FRCM-
concrete joints.” Constr. Build. Mater. 101: 838–850. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.045.
D’Antino, T., L. H. Sneed, C. Carloni, and C. Pellegrino. 2016c. “Effect of
the inherent eccentricity in single-lap direct-shear tests of PBO FRCM-
concrete joints.” Compos. Struct. 142: 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.compstruct.2016.01.076.
De Felice, G., S. De Santis, L. Garmendia, B. Ghiassi, P. Larrinaga, P. B.
Lourenco, D. V. Oliveira, F. Paolacci, and C. G. Papanicolaou. 2014.
“Mortar-based systems for externally bonded strengthening of
masonry.” Mater. Struct. 47 (12): 2021–2037. https://doi.org/10.1617
/s11527-014-0360-1.
De Santis, S., F. G. Carozzi, G. De Felice, and C. Poggi. 2017. “Test
methods for textile reinforced mortar systems.” Compos. Part B: Eng.
127: 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.03.016.
Di Ludovico, M., A. Prota, and G. Manfredi. 2010. “Structural upgrade
using basalt fibres for concrete confinement.” J. Compos. Constr.
14 (5): 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000114.
Ebead, U., K. C. Shrestha, M. S. Afzal, A. El Refai, and A. Nanni. 2017.
“Effectiveness of fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix in strengthening
reinforced concrete beams.” J. Compos. Constr. 21 (2): 04016084.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000741.
Elsanadedy, H. M., T. H. Almusallam, S. H. Alsayed, and Y. A.
Al-Salloum. 2013. “Flexural strengthening of RC beams using textile
reinforced mortar—Experimental and numerical study.” Compos.
Struct. 97: 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.09.053.
Escrig, C., L. Gil, and E. Bernat-Maso. 2017. “Experimental comparison of
reinforced concrete beams strengthened against bending with different
types of cementitious-matrix composite materials.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 137: 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017
.01.106.
Escrig, C., L. Gil, E. Bernat-Maso, and F. Puigvert. 2015. “Experimental
and analytical study of reinforced concrete beams shear strengthened
with different types of textile-reinforced mortar.” Constr. Build. Mater.
83: 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.013.
fib. 2010. Vol. 1 and 2 of model code for concrete structures. Bulletin 55
and 56. Lausanne, Switzerland: fib.
Focacci, F., T. D’Antino, C. Carloni, L. H. Sneed, and C. Pellegrino. 2017.
“An indirect method to calibrate the interfacial cohesive material law for
FRCM-concrete joints.” Mater. Des. 128: 206–217. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.matdes.2017.04.038.
Garcia, D., P. Larrinaga, J. T. San-Jose, and L. Garmendia. 2010. “Confine-
ment of concrete with basalt reinforced mortar.” Restor. Build. Monu-
ments 16 (4–5): 341–352.
Hartig, J., F. Jesse, K. Schicktanz, and U. Haussler-Combe. 2012.
“Influence of experimental setups on the apparent uniaxial tensile
load-bearing capacity of textile reinforced concrete specimens.” Mater.
Struct. 45 (3): 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-011-9775-0.
Jesse, F., S. Weiland, and M. Curbach. 2008. “Flexural strengthening of
RC structures with textile-reinforced concrete.” ACI Spec. Publ.
250: 49–58.
J. Compos. Constr.
 Jung, K., K. Hong, S. Han, J. Park, and J. Kim. 2015. “Shear strengthening
performance of hybrid FRP-FRCM.” Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015: 11.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/564876.
Kariou, F., S. Triantafyllou, D. A. Bournas, and L. Koutas. 2018. “Out-of-
plane response of masonry walls strengthened using textile-mortar
system.” Constr. Build. Mater. 165: 769–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2018.01.026.
Koutas, L., and D. A. Bournas. 2018. “Out-of-plane strengthening of
masonry-infilled RC frames with textile-reinforced Mortar Jackets.”
J. Compos. Constr., in press.
Koutas, L., S. N. Bousias, and T. C. Triantafillou. 2015a. “Seismic strength-
ening of masonry-infilled RC frames with TRM: Experimental study.”
J. Compos. Constr. 19 (2): 04014048. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000507.
Koutas, L., A. Pitytzogia, T. C. Triantafillou, and S. N. Bousias. 2014.
“Strengthening of infilled reinforced concrete frames with TRM: Study
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
on the development and testing of textile-based anchors.” J. Compos.
Constr. 18 (3): A4013015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943
-5614.0000390.
Koutas, L., T. C. Triantafillou, and S. N. Bousias. 2015d. “Analytical mod-
eling of masonry-infilled RC frames retrofitted with textile reinforced
mortar.” J. Compos. Constr. 19 (5): 04014082. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000553.
Koutas, L. N., and D. A. Bournas. 2017. “Flexural strengthening of two-
way RC slabs with textile-reinforced mortar: Experimental investiga-
tion and design equations.” J. Compos. Constr. 21 (1): 04016065.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000713.
Leone, M., et al. 2017. “Glass fabric reinforced cementitious matrix:
Tensile properties and bond performance on masonry substrate.”
Compos. Part B: Eng. 127: 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compositesb.2017.06.028.
Loreto, G., S. Babaeidarabad, L. Leardini, and A. Nanni. 2015. “RC beams
shear-strengthened with fabric-reinforced-cementitious-matrix (FRCM)
composite.” Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 7 (4): 341–352. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s40091-015-0102-9.
Loreto, G., L. Leardini, D. Arboleda, and A. Nanni. 2013. “Performance of
RC slab-type elements strengthened with fabric-reinforced cementitious-
matrix composites.” J. Compos. Constr. 18 (3): A4013003. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000415.
Malena, M., and G. De Felice. 2014. “Debonding of composites on
a curved masonry substrate: Experimental results and analytical
formulation.” Compos. Struct. 112: 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compstruct.2014.02.004.
Monti, G., and M. A. Liotta. 2007. “Tests and design equations for FRP-
strengthening in shear.” Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (4): 799–809. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.06.023.
Napoli, A., and R. Realfonzo. 2015. “Reinforced concrete beams strength-
ened with SRP/SRG systems: experimental investigation.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 93: 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015
.06.027.
Ombres, L. 2011. “Flexural analysis of reinforced concrete beams strength-
ened with a cement based high strength composite material.” Compos.
Struct. 94 (1): 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2011
.07.008.
Ombres, L. 2012. “Debonding analysis of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with fibre reinforced cementitious mortar.” Eng. Fract.
Mech. 81: 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.06.012.
Ombres, L. 2014. “Concrete confinement with a cement based high
strength composite material.” Compos. Struct. 109: 294–304. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.10.037.
Ombres, L. 2015a. “Analysis of the bond between fabric reinforced cemen-
titious mortar (FRCM) strengthening systems and concrete.” Compos.
Part B: Eng. 69: 418–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2014
.10.027.
Ombres, L. 2015b. “Structural performances of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened in shear with a cement based fibre composite material.”
Compos. Struct. 122: 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct
.2014.11.059.
© ASCE 03118001-19
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
Ombres, L. 2017. “Structural performances of thermally conditioned PBO
FRCM confined concrete cylinders.” Compos. Struct. 176: 1096–1106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.06.026.
Ombres, L., and S. Mazzuca. 2016. “Confined concrete elements with
cement-based composites: Confinement effectiveness and prediction
models.” J. Compos. Constr. 21 (3): 04016103. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000755.
Ombres, L., and S. Verre. 2015. “Structural behaviour of fabric reinforced
cementitious matrix (FRCM) strengthened concrete columns under ec-
centric loading.” Compos. Part B: Eng. 75: 235–249. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.compositesb.2015.01.042.
Ortlepp, R., U. Hampel, and M. Curbach. 2006. “A new approach for evalu-
ating bond capacity of TRC strengthening.” Cem. Concr. Compos.
28 (7): 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.05.003.
Ortlepp, R., A. Lorenz, and M. Curbach. 2009. “Column strengthening
with TRC: Influences of the column geometry onto the confinement
effect.” Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2009: 5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2009
/493097.
Papanicolaou, C., T. C. Triantafillou, I. Papantoniou, and C. Balioukos.
2009. “Strengthening of two-way slabs with textile-reinforced mortars
(TRM).” In Proc., 11th Int. fib Symp. Lausanne, Switzerland:
International Federation for Structural Concrete.
Papanicolaou, C. G., and T. C. Triantafillou. 2006. “Textile-reinforced ce-
mentitious or polymeric materials for strengthening of concrete struc-
tures”. In Proc., 2nd fib Congress. Lausanne, Switzerland: International
Federation for Structural Concrete.
Peled, A. 2007. “Confinement of damaged and nondamaged structural con-
crete with FRP and TRC sleeves.” J. Compos. Constr. 11 (5): 514–522.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:5(514).
Pino, V., H. Akbari Hadad, F. De Caso y Basalo, A. Nanni, U. Ebead, and
A. El Refai. 2017a. “Performance of FRCM-strengthened RC beams
subject to fatigue.” J. Bridge Eng. 22 (10): 04017079. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001107.
Pino, V., A. Nanni, D. Arboleda, C. Roberts-Wollmann, and T. Cousins.
2017b. “Repair of damaged prestressed concrete girders with FRP
and FRCM composites.” J. Compos. Constr. 21 (3): 04016111.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000773.
Raoof, S. M., and D. A. Bournas. 2017c. “Bond between TRM versus FRP
composites and concrete at high temperatures.” Compos. Part B: Eng.
127: 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.064.
Raoof, S. M., and D. A. Bournas. 2017d. “TRM versus FRP in flexural
strengthening of RC beams: Behaviour at high temperatures.” Compos.
Part B: Eng. 154: 424–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017
.07.195.
Raoof, S. M., L. N. Koutas, and D. A. Bournas. 2016. “Bond between
textile-reinforced mortar (TRM) and concrete substrates: Experimental
investigation.” Compos. Part B: Eng. 98: 350–361. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.compositesb.2016.05.041.
Raoof, S. M., L. N. Koutas, and D. A. Bournas. 2017. “Textile-reinforced
mortar (TRM) versus fibre-reinforced polymers (FRP) in flexural
strengthening of RC beams.” Constr. Build. Mater. 151: 279–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.023.
Sabau, C., J. H. Gonzalez-Libreros, L. H. Sneed, G. Sas, C. Pellegrino, and
B. Täljsten. 2017. “Use of image correlation system to study the bond
behaviour of FRCM-concrete joints.” Mater. Struct. 50 (3): 172. https://
doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1036-4.
Schladitz, F., and M. Curbach. 2012. “Torsion tests on textile-reinforced
concrete strengthened specimens.” Mater. Struct. 45 (1–2): 31–40.
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-011-9746-5.
Schladitz, F., M. Frenzel, D. Ehlig, and M. Curbach. 2012. “Bending load
capacity of reinforced concrete slabs strengthened with textile rein-
forced concrete.” Eng. Struct. 40: 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2012.02.029.
Si Larbi, A., R. Contamine, E. Ferrier, and P. Hamelin. 2010. “Shear
strengthening of RC beams with textile reinforced concrete (TRC)
plate.” Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (10): 1928–1936. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.008.
Sneed, L. H., T. D’Antino, and C. Carloni. 2014. “Investigation of bond
behaviour of polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole fibre-reinforced
J. Compos. Constr.
 cementitious matrix composite-concrete interface.” ACI Mater. J.
111 (5): 569–580.
Sneed, L. H., T. D’Antino, C. Carloni, and C. Pellegrino. 2015. “A com-
parison of the bond behaviour of PBO-FRCM composites determined
by double-lap and single-lap shear tests.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 64:
37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.07.007.
Sneed, L. H., S. Verre, C. Carloni, and L. Ombres. 2016. “Flexural behav-
iour of RC beams strengthened with steel-FRCM composite.” Eng.
Struct. 127: 686–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.09.006.
Tetta, Z. C., and D. A. Bournas. 2016. “TRM vs FRP jacketing in shear
strengthening of concrete members subjected to high temperatures.”
Compos. Part B: Eng. 106: 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compositesb.2016.09.026.
Tetta, Z. C., L. N. Koutas, and D. A. Bournas. 2015. “Textile-reinforced
mortar (TRM) versus fibre-reinforced polymers (FRP) in shear strength-
ening of concrete beams.” Compos. Part B: Eng. 77: 338–348. https://
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 114.125.127.132 on 09/28/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.03.055.
Tetta, Z. C., L. N. Koutas, and D. A. Bournas. 2016. “Shear strengthening
of full-scale RC T-beams using textile-reinforced mortar and textile-
based anchors.” Compos. Part B: Eng. 95: 225–239. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.compositesb.2016.03.076.
Tetta, Z. C., L. N. Koutas, and D. A. Bournas. 2018a. “Shear strengthening
of concrete members with textile-reinforced mortar (TRM): Effect of
shear span-to-depth ratio, material and amount of external reinforce-
ment.” Compos. Part B 137: 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compositesb.2017.10.041.
Tetta, Z. C., T. C. Triantafillou, and D. A. Bournas. 2018b. “On the design
of shear-strengthened RC members through the use of textile reinforced
mortar overlays.” Compos. Part B 147: 178–196. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.008.
Thermou, G. E., K. Katakalos, and G. Manos. 2015. “Concrete confine-
ment with steel-reinforced grout jackets.” Mater. Struct. 48 (5):
1355–1376. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0239-6.
Tran, C. T. M., B. Stitmannaithum, and T. Ueda. 2014. “Investigation of the
bond behaviour between PBO-FRCM strengthening material and
concrete.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 12 (12): 545–557. https://doi.org/10
.3151/jact.12.545.
Trapko, T. 2013. “The effect of high temperature on the performance of
CFRP and FRCM confined concrete elements.” Compos. Part B:
Eng. 54: 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.05.016.
Trapko, T. 2014. “Effect of eccentric compression loading on the strains of
FRCM confined concrete columns.” Constr. Build. Mater. 61: 97–105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.03.007.
Trapko, T., D. Urbańska, and M. Kamiński. 2015. “Shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams with PBO-FRCM composites.” Compos.
© ASCE 03118001-20
J. Compos. Constr., 2019, 23(1): 03118001
Part B: Eng. 80: 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015
.05.024.
Triantafillou, T. C. 2007. “Textile-reinforced mortars (TRM) versus fibre-
reinforced polymers (FRP) as strengthening and seismic retrofitting ma-
terials for reinforced concrete and masonry structures”. In Proc., Int.
Conf. on Advanced Composites in Construction. Bath, UK: Univ. of
Bath.
Triantafillou, T. C. 2016. Textile fibre composites in civil engineering.
Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing.
Triantafillou, T. C., K. Karlos, P. Kapsalis, and L. Georgiou. 2018.
“Innovative structural and energy retrofitting system for masonry
walls using textile reinforced mortars combined with thermal
insulation: In-plane mechanical behavior.” J. Compos. Constr.
22 (5): 04018029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614
.0000869.
Triantafillou, T. C., K. Karlos, K. Kefalou, and E. Argyropoulou. 2017.
“An innovative structural and energy retrofitting system for URM walls
using textile reinforced mortars combined with thermal insulation:
Mechanical and fire behavior.” Constr. Build. Mater. 133: 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.032.
Triantafillou, T. C., and C. G. Papanicolaou. 2006. “Shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete members with textile reinforced mortar (TRM)
jackets.” Mater. Struct. 39 (1): 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11527
-005-9034-3.
Triantafillou, T. C., C. G. Papanicolaou, P. Zisimopoulos, and
T. Laourdekis. 2006. “Concrete confinement with textile reinforced
mortar (TRM) jackets.” ACI Struct. J. 103 (1): 28–37.
Tzoura, E., and T. C. Triantafillou. 2016. “Shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete T-beams under cyclic loading with TRM or FRP
jackets.” Mater. Struct. 49 (1–2): 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1617
/s11527-014-0470-9.
Verbruggen, S., T. Tysmans, and J. Wastiels. 2016. “Bending crack
behavior of plain concrete beams externally reinforced with TRC.”
Mater. Struct. 49 (12): 5303–5314. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527
-016-0861-1.
Yin, S. P., C. Peng, and Z. Y. Jin. 2016. “Research on mechanical properties
of axial-compressive concrete columns strengthened with TRC under a
conventional and chloride wet-dry cycle environment.” J. Compos.
Constr. 21 (1): 04016061. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943
-5614.0000725.
Zhu, D., A. Peled, E. Zaguri, and B. Mobasher. 2011. “Dynamic tensile
testing of fabric-cement composites.” Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (1):
385–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.014.
J. Compos. Constr.