Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Debonding analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with fibre

reinforced cementitious mortar
Luciano Ombres
Department of Structures, University of Calabria, Via Ponte P. Bucci, Cubo 39B, 87036 Arcavacata di Rende (CS), Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The paper concerns with the debonding analysis of reinforced concrete beams strength-
Debonding ened by a fibre Reinforced Cementitious Mortar system made with fabric meshes of PBO
Reinforced concrete (short of Polypara-phenylene-benzo-bisthiazole) fibres disposed along two orthogonal
Fibre-reinforced cementitious mortar
directions externally bonded to concrete surfaces with a cement based mortar. Some
PBO-FRCM strengthened reinforced concrete beams were tested varying the strengthening
configuration. Experimental results were considered for a comparison with predictions of a
non-linear numerical model developed for the debonding analysis of strengthened con-
crete structures. Obtained results give evidence of the influence of the PBO-FRCM configu-
ration on the occurrence of debonding failure modes.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Fibre reinforced composite materials used in strengthening of reinforced concrete structures furnish excellent perfor-
mances both in terms of strength and durability. The Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) system made by unidirectional fibre
sheets or laminates embedded into organic matrices (generally epoxy resin) is, today, widely used in strengthening of exist-
ing reinforced concrete structures. Although the use of polymeric matrix has proven to give excellent mechanical perfor-
mances, some drawback exist. The epoxy resin, in fact, has low permeability, diffusion tightness, poor thermal
compatibility with the concrete substrate, lack of fire resistance, susceptibility to ultra-violet radiation and low reversibility.
To avoid some of these problems, cement based composite systems consisting of fibre composite materials and cemen-
titious bonding agents can be used. However, some drawbacks are related to the use of the cement based strengthening sys-
tem. The most relevant issue concerns with the bond between fibres and cementitious mortar; due to its granularity the
mortar is unable to penetrate and wet individual composite fibres. An enhancement of the bond can be obtained by using
fabric meshes or grid of fibres embedded into cementitious mortar.
Different solutions to design cement based strengthening systems for concrete structures are proposed: among these the
Textile Reinforced Concrete (TRC), the Textile Reinforced Mortar (TRM), the Fibre Reinforced Concrete (FRC), the Mineral
Based Composites (MBC) and the Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Mortar (FRCM). The TRC consists of multiaxial textile fabrics
bonded to concrete surfaces with a fine-grained, high strength concrete [1]; the TRM uses textile fabrics and polymer mod-
ified mortar as a bonding agent [2]; the FRC consists of fibres impregnated with a cement matrix that results in a thin com-
posite sheet [3] while the MBC is made by a fibre composite grid bonded to concrete surface by a cementitious binder and a
concrete surface primer [4]. The FRCM system consists of fabric meshes with fibres (glass or carbon fibres) disposed along
two orthogonal directions bonded to concrete surfaces with a cement based mortar [5].
The behaviour of reinforced concrete structures strengthened with cement based composite materials has been object of
several studies [6–8]. These studies gave evidence both to the effectiveness of cement based composite materials as

E-mail address: luciano.ombres@unical.it

0013-7944/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.06.012
 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109 95

Nomenclature

a shear span
Af PBO area
A0s compression steel rebars area
As tensile steel rebars area
b distance between point load
B width of the cross section
Bf width of the PBO-FRCM layer
db steel rebar diameter
Ec elastic modulus of the concrete
Ef elastic modulus of PBO fibres
fc compressive concrete strength
fck characteristic compression concrete strength
fcm mean compressive concrete strength
ffu PBO-FRCM tensile strength
ft tensile concrete strength
edeb debonding strain
H beams height
ldeb debonding length
le optimal bonded length
lf length of the PBO-FRCM layer
Mdeb bending moment at debonding
Mmax maximum bending moment
Pcr first cracking load
Pdeb debonding load
Pu failure load
qf PBO reinforcement ratio
qs steel reinforcement ratio
smax maximum PBO FRCM-to-concrete bond stress
ssmax maximum steel-to-concrete bond stress
tf thickness of PBO-FRCM layer
u0 PBO FRCM-to-concrete slip corresponding to tmax
ufmax maximum PBO FRCM-to-concrete slip
usmax maximum steel-to-concrete slip

strengthening system of reinforced concrete structures and to the different load transfer mechanisms for FRP and cement
based systems.
The FRCM system was, recently, improved by using ultra-high fibres such as the Polypara-phenylene-benzo-bisthiazole
(PBO) fibres. Mechanical properties of the PBO fibres are, in fact, fairly higher than that of the high strength type of carbon fibres;
they have great impact tolerance, energy absorption capacity superior than the other kind of fibres, high creep and fire resis-
tance and high chemical compatibility with the cementitious mortar.
The use of the PBO fabric meshes to make a FRCM system is still under investigation. Main results of experimental analyses
carried out recently on PBO-FRCM strengthened reinforced concrete beams [9,10] evidenced that: (i) the flexural failure of
FRCM strengthened beams was more ductile than the FRP strengthened beams because of gradual loss of composite action re-
lated to large slip at the fibres/cementitious matrix interface; (ii) the debonding mechanism is governed by the concrete/matrix
interface; (iii) the failure modes are depending on the amount of PBO fibres; for low values of PBO a typical flexural failure was
observed while increasing the amount of PBO fibres layers the failure was due to intermediate crack-induced debonding.
The occurrence of debonding is one of the most interesting structural aspect that characterises the mechanical behaviour of
strengthened reinforced concrete beams. Debonding phenomena, as well-known, are strongly depending on the load transfer
mechanisms at the concrete/matrix interface. As outlined earlier, the load transfer mechanisms are different for FRCM and FRP
systems. In the FRP system, in fact, the bond between resin and reinforcing fibres is very strong and slips at the interface fibres/
matrix are avoided; in addition, the resins impregnate a concrete thickness that is involved in the resisting mechanisms. On the
contrary, in the FRCM system large slips at the fibres/cementitious interface take place and the load transfer mechanisms make
active only at the interface concrete/cementitious matrix. As a consequence, the evolution of the debonding process in FRCM
strengthened reinforced concrete beams is different than that observed in FRP strengthened beams.
To provide responses to this interesting aspect, in the present paper the debonding of PBO-FRCM strengthened reinforced
concrete beams is analysed. The analysis has been carried out both experimentally by flexural tests on some strengthened
beams and theoretically by a non-linear model able to predict the stresses and strains at the debonding.
96 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109

With the aim to analyse a significant number of experimental results, the debonding analysis was carried out considering
both results of previous tests [10,11] and those of an experimental investigation, described in this paper, conducted on six
beams, one un-strengthened and five strengthened varying the percentage and the length of PBO fibres.
Experimental results, were considered for a comparison with predictions of a non-linear numerical model developed for
the debonding analysis of FRP strengthened concrete beams.
The analysis of results, presented and discussed in the paper, gives evidence of the effectiveness of the PBO-FRCM as
strengthening system of concrete structures and highlights the influence of mechanical and geometrical parameters on
the occurrence of debonding failure modes.

2. Debonding of strengthened reinforced concrete beams

Debonding failure modes, as well-known, reduce drastically the flexural capacity of reinforced concrete structures
strengthened with externally bonded fibre reinforced composite materials (FRP or FRCM systems).
Debonding failures can take place at the ends of the strengthening plates in presence of high stresses at the interface be-
tween the strengthening system and the concrete (end debonding) or away from the ends of the bonded strengthening
plates when they are induced by flexural or flexural-shear cracks (intermediate crack induced debonding). The mechanism
of the intermediate crack induced debonding (IC debonding) is related to the formation of cracks at the tensile side of the
concrete elements. When a crack is formed in the concrete, the tensile stresses released by the cracked concrete are trans-
ferred to the strengthening plate; consequently high local interfacial stresses between the plate and the concrete are induced
near the crack. Further increase of the applied loading produces an increase both in the tensile stress in the plate and in the
shear stress at the interface plate-to-concrete near the crack. When the interfacial stress achieves the critical value, debond-
ing initiates and then it self-propagates away from the crack [12]. As confirmed by many researchers [13,14], the IC debond-
ing failure mode of the interface is predominantly Mode II interfacial fracture.
Two types of IC debonding failures can be considered. In the first one the debonding occurs in presence of a single flexural
crack; no other crack exists between the free end of the plate and the crack where debonding initiates. In the second one the
debonding occurs in presence of multiple cracks; in this situation the debonding propagation from the initiation crack to the
adjacent crack is governed by the distribution of tensile forces in strengthening plates at both cracked sections. In addition, a
succession of plate debonding between adjacent cracks can occurs simultaneously with a sudden failure of the beams.
Many studies and researches, both experimental and theoretical, were carried out to analyse the IC debonding in FRP
strengthened reinforced concrete beams; obtained results were used to define analytical models for predicting the IC deb-
onding failure [13–22].
On the contrary, at present, very limited researches were conducted to analyse the debonding failure in FRCM strength-
ened reinforced concrete beams; consequently, available results are not sufficient to define effective models for predicting
the IC debonding in these structural elements. Further studies and researches are, then, essential to make possible a reliable
debonding analysis of the FRCM strengthened concrete structures.

3. Experimental investigation

The experimental investigation described in the following section is a continuation to research done by the author on the
behaviour of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with the PBO-FRCM system. Previous tests have been conducted on
beams strengthened by PBO-FRCM bonded on the whole span length varying the percentage of the internal steel reinforce-
ment, the concrete strength and of the percentage of PBO fibres. Results of tests, reported in detail in [10] and [11], evidenced
that increasing the percentage of PBO fibres, the failure of beams was due to an intermediate crack debonding. The last part
of the experimental investigation, described in the following, was planned to analyse the influence of the length of the PBO-
FRCM sheets on the occurrence of the debonding failure.

3.1. Test beams

A total of six 3000 mm long beams were constructed and tested to failure. All beams have a rectangular section 150 mm
wide and 250 mm high. The internal longitudinal reinforcement of all tested beams consisted of longitudinal bars extended
along the whole span length at both the tension (two bars of 10 mm diameter) and the compression (two bars of 8 mm) side
of the beams. In all beams the cover dimension, both in compression and in tension, was 20 mm. The shear reinforcement of
beams, designed in order to prevent premature shear failure, consisted of stirrups of 8-mm diameter spaced 170 mm.
All beams were tested in four-point bending with a support-to-support distance of 2700 mm. The loading location was
different for each beam; as reported in the Table 1, in fact, two point load were applied at 900 mm from the supports for
S2-T2-0, S2-T2-P1, S2-T2-P2 and S2-T2-P3 beams and at 1000 mm for S2-T2-P2-2a and S2-T2-P3-2a beams. The arrange-
ment of the used test setup is shown in the Fig. 1.
The tested specimens had different configuration of PBO-FRCM reinforcement according to Table 1. The beam S2-T2-0
were un-strengthened and used as control specimen. The other specimens were strengthened with one, two or three
 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109 97

Table 1
Details of tested beams.

Beam As (mm2) A0s (mm2) Af (mm2) qf (%) lf (mm) a (mm) b (mm)

S2-T2-0 157.00 100.53 – – – 900 900

S2-T2-P2 157.00 100.53 13.50 0036 2700 900 900
S2-T2-P3 157.00 100.53 20.25 0054 2700 900 900
S2-T2-P1 157.00 100.53 6.75 0018 1100 900 900
S2-T2-P2-2a 157.00 100.53 13.50 0036 1100 1000 700
S2-T2-P3-2a 157.00 100.53 20.25 0054 1100 1000 700

d=8mm 170 170

250

PBO-FRCM
150 lf

a a
b a

2700

Fig. 1. Test set-up.

150 mm wide PBO-FRCM layers; as a consequence, the PBO reinforcement ratio, qf = Af/BH being B and H the width and the
height of the beam, respectively, is varying in the range 0036–0054%.

3.2. Materials properties

The average compressive strength of the concrete, fcm, determined by testing standard cylindrical specimens taken during
casting of the beams, was 27.73 MPa. The average values of the yield strength of the internal steel reinforcement, determined
by tests on standard specimens (at least three specimens for each diameter), were 525.9 MPa and 535.60 MPa for 8-mm and
10-mm diameter rebars, respectively. Mechanical properties of the PBO-FRCM strengthening system are reported in the Ta-
ble 2; properties of the PBO fibres were provided by the manufacturer while the mean value of the compression strength of
the mortar (30.4 MPa) was determined by tests on five standard cubic specimens in accordance with EN 1015-11[23].

3.3. Specimens preparation

Casting of the beams was made with ready-mix concrete. The specimens were left in room conditions and were strength-
ened after a concrete age of 30 days. To ensure a good bonding the bottom surface of each beam was sandblasted to remove
the loose cement layer, cleaned by water and left in an ambient environment for some days to dry out. After the application
of the first mortar layer on the concrete surface, the first layer of PBO mesh was applied and pressed slightly into the mortar.
The next mortar layer covered the PBO mesh completely, and the operation was repeated until all PBO layers were applied
and covered by mortar.

3.4. Testing procedure

Strengthened beams were left to rest at room conditions for at least 7 days before testing. Beams were instrumented with
Linear Variable Differential Transducers (LVDTs) at mid-span and at the loading points to monitor deflections.

Table 2
Mechanical properties of the PBO FRCM system.

Nominal thickness (mm) Elastic modulus (GPa) Tensile strength (MPa) Compression strength (MPa)
PBO 0.0450 (longitudinal) 270 5800 –
0.0225 (transversal)
Mortar – 6 – 30.4
98 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109

Strain measurements were made by electrical strain gauges bonded on the concrete, internal steel rebars and PBO fabrics.
In particular at the mid-span, two strain gauges were bonded, after local sandblasting, to concrete compression surface while
two strain gauges were bonded, before concrete casting, to the internal longitudinal steel rebars. The measurement of the
PBO strains was made by eight strain gauges distributed along the length of the external PBO fabrics.
The load was gradually applied by means of a hydraulic jack and measured with a local cell; a data acquisition system was
used to monitor deflections, strains and applied load values. All beams were loaded until failure at a load rate of approxi-
mately 40 N/s.
Beams were tested at the Testing Materials and Structures Laboratory, Department of Structures, University of Calabria-
Italy.

4. Test results and discussion

The moment-deflection response of tested beams is plotted in Fig. 2; failure modes, failure loads and corresponding mo-
ment values are reported in Table 3.
By analysing curves, it appears as the strength and the stiffness of strengthened beams are increased with a loss of duc-
tility. All beams failed after the occurrence of the yielding in steel tension reinforcements. The response of tested beams was
strongly conditioned from the strengthening configuration. The response of beams strengthened with PBO-FRCM layers
bonded on the whole length of the span, in fact, was very different to that of the un-strengthened beam; in both tested
beams was recorded an increase of the ultimate load and a loss of displacements at failure (that is a loss of ductility in terms
of displacements). The failure loads of S2-T2-P2 and S2-T2-P3 were 22.93% and 29.56% respectively, higher than that of the
un-strengthened S2-T2-0 beam.
On the contrary the response of beams strengthened only in the central zone was very similar to that of the control beam.
The increase of the failure loads for S2-T2-P1, S2-T2-P2-2a and S2-T2-P3-2a beams respect to that of un-strengthened S2-
T2-0 beam, was, in fact, in the range 3–4.02%.
The un-strengthened control beam S2-T2-0 failed in a typical flexural manner characterised by yielding of the tension
steel reinforcement followed by crushing of the concrete. The failure was localised in the central zone of the beam.
The S2-T2-P2 beam, strengthened with two layers of PBO-FRCM externally bonded on the whole length of the span with-
out transversal anchorages, failed by intermediate flexural crack induced debonding. The debonding started under the load
of 30.00 kN at the base of flexural cracks in the central zone of the beam. Before the beginning of the debonding, some

30

S2-T2-P3
S2-T2-P2
25

S2-T2-P3-2a* S2-T2-P1* S2-T2-P2-2a*

20
Moment (kNm)

S2-T2-0

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Midspan deflection (mm)

Fig. 2. Experimental moment-mid-span deflection curves.

Table 3
Failure results.

Beams Failure load (kN) Failure moment (kN m) Failure mode

S2-T2-0 43.00 19.35 Concrete crushing
S2-T2-P2 52.86 23.79 Intermediate crack debonding
S2-T2-P3 55.71 25.07 Intermediate crack debonding
S2-T2-P1 44.73 20.13 End debonding
S2-T2-P2-2a 38.19 19.09 Intermediate crack debonding
S2-T2-P3-2a 37.80 18.90 Intermediate crack debonding
 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109 99

Fig. 3. Debonding failure in S2-T2-P2 and S2-T2-P3 beams.

longitudinal cracks in the concrete cover thickness were observed. The debonding propagation was slow and gradual; the
failure load was 52.86 kN. The maximum strain value measured at failure in the PBO fabric was 0.00596 mm/mm. At failure
the whole PBO-FRCM system was detached from the bottom of the concrete beam (see Fig. 3) and the concrete of the cover
thickness was not involved in the failure mechanism. This aspect makes different the intermediate debonding mechanism in
PBO-FRCM strengthened beams respect to that observed in FRP strengthened beams. The resin used as matrix in FRP sys-
tems, in fact, impregnates a thickness of the concrete cover involving it in the debonding mechanism.
The intermediate flexural crack debonding was the failure mode observed in the S2-T2-P3 beam. The debonding initiates
in correspondence of a wide flexural crack in the central zone of the beam under the load of 54.00 kN. Numerous longitudinal
cracks in the concrete cover were observed before the occurrence of the debonding. The failure load of the beam was
55.71 kN; the measured maximum strain value in the PBO fabric was 0.0075 mm/mm. At failure the PBO-FRCM was com-
pletely detached from the bottom of the beam in the central zone while it remained perfectly bonded to the concrete at
the end of the beam.
As reported in Table 1, for S2-T2-P1, S2-T2-P2-2a and S2-T2-P3-2a beams the strengthening system was bonded only in
the central zone subjected to constant moment. The length of the strengthening layers was obtained as sum of the distance
between two point loads and the ‘‘optimal bonded length’’ determined by DT 200/2004 relationship [24]. This solution al-
lows to evaluate the influence of the length of strengthening layers on the debonding process. It is, in fact, evident that
the evolution of the debonding process is conditioned from the extension of the zone on which makes place the force transfer
between the strengthening layer and the concrete substrate.
For FRP strengthened reinforced concrete structures, the ‘‘optimal bonded length’’, le, is defined as the length that, if ex-
ceeded, there would be no increase in the force transferred between concrete and FRP. As reported in [24] the value of le is
furnished by the following relationship:

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ef t f
le ¼ ðlength in mmÞ ð1Þ
2f ctm

where Ef and tf are Young modulus of elasticity and thickness of FRP, respectively, and fctm is the average tensile strength of
the concrete. For examined beams, assuming fctm = 0.3 (fck)2/3 according to the EC2 [29] being fck = fcm + 8 MPa, the Eq. (1) fur-
nishes le = 43.20 mm, le = 61 mm and le = 75 mm for beam strengthened with one, two and three layers of PBO-FRCM, respec-
tively. For tested beams the adopted values of le were le = 100 mm for S2-T2-P1and S2-T2-P2-2a and le = 200 mm for S2-T2-
P3-2a beams; all values were higher than those calculated by the Eq. (1).

Fig. 4. Debonding failure of S2-T2-P2-2a and S2-T2-P3-2a beams.

100 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109

The failure mode of the S2-T2-P1 beam strengthened with one layer of PBO-FRCM, was apparently a end-debonding. The
failure was attained under a load of 44.73 kN by crushing of concrete after ends debonding; the failure was sudden and both
the ends of the strengthening layer were detached from the bottom of the concrete beam.
A different behaviour was observed for the S2-T2-P2-2a beam strengthened with two PBO-FRCM layers. The debonding
started under the load of 38 kN after the formation of a wide flexural crack in the central zone of the beam and immediately
it self-propagated along the interface concrete-PBO FRCM. The failure was attained at load of 38.19 kN after the complete
detachment of the PBO-FRCM layer from the bottom side of the beam (see Fig. 4). At failure, the measured maximum strain
value in the PBO fabric was 0.00245 mm/mm. Even if the failure mode of the beam was an intermediate flexural debonding,
the failure load was practically equal to the load corresponding to the beginning of the debonding; that means that the
length of the strengthening layers was not adequate for a gradual propagation of the debonding process.
Also in the S2-T2-P3-2a beam, strengthened with three PBO-FRCM layers, was observed an intermediate debonding fail-
ure (see Fig. 4). The debonding started under the load of 36 kN while the failure load was 37.80 kN; even if the difference
between the loads was limited, a gradual propagation of the debonding was observed as in the beams strengthened on
the whole span. At failure, the measured maximum strain value in the PBO fabric was 0.0027 mm/mm.
The maximum bending moment values at failure were reported in the Table 2 (Mmax = 0.5 Pu a, being Pu the failure load
and a the distance from supports of the point loading). By the analysis of results it appears as the failure of strengthened
beams is strongly influenced from the length of the strengthening layers that is the length of the zone on which makes place
the forces transfer between the strengthening layer and the concrete substrate.
The diagrams applied load–strains measured in the mid-span section of the S2-T2-P1 beam are drawn in the Fig. 5;
strains were measured by strain gauges in the PBO layers, in the tension steel rebars and in the compression concrete.

50
Applied Load (kN )

45 PBO
Concrete Steel
40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
-2,0 -1,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
3
Strain x 10 (mm/mm)

Fig. 5. Load–strain curves for S2-T2-P1 beam.

60
S2-T2-P2 S2-T2-P3

50

S2-T2-P2-2a* S2-T2-P1*
Applied load (kN)

40
S2-T2-P3-2a*
30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3
PBO strain x10 (mm/mm)

Fig. 6. Curves load–PBO strain.

 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109 101

8,0
3,00
7,0

PBO strain x 10 (mm/mm)

Pu
PBO strain x 10 (mm/mm)

2,50 6,0

Pu 2,00 5,0
0,89 Pu

3
0,92 Pu
3

4,0
1,50
0,78 Pu
3,0
1,00
2,0 0,72 Pu
0,65 Pu
0,54 Pu
0,50
1,0
0,26 Pu
0,28 Pu
0,00 0,0
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Distance from the midspan (mm) Distance from the midspan (mm)

(a) S2-T2-P2-2a* beam (b) S2-T2-P2 beam

Fig. 7. PBO strain distribution along the strengthening layers.

The analysis of curves evidences that the PBO strains increased considerably after the steel yielding; at debonding, the strain
in the compression concrete was 0.0085 mm/mm.
The curves applied load versus PBO strains measured in the mid-span sections for all tested beams are drawn in the Fig. 6.
The analysis of diagrams evidences that in beams strengthened on the whole span length the PBO strains at debonding were
sensibly higher than those measured in beams strengthened only in the central zone.
The longitudinal PBO strain profiles varying the applied load value for the S2-T2-P2-2a and S2-T2-P2 beams are plotted in
the Fig. 7. As evident the strain profiles of considered beams are different. For the S2-T2-P2 beam, in fact, with the increase of
the load, the strain increases gradually; a major change of the PBO strain profile in the constant moment zone is observed for
load higher than that corresponding to the steel yielding. This implies a significant transfer of tension force from the internal
tension steel bar to the external PBO-FRCM system. In comparison with values recorded at the mid-span, the PBO-strain val-
ues at the ends of the FRCM are very low for all load levels.
On the contrary, the PBO strain distributions in the S2-T2-P2-2a beam were similar for each load value; any change in the
profile was observed and the high values of strains were recorded near to the ends of the PBO layers.

5. Modelling and comparison

The intermediate flexural crack debonding of PBO-FRCM strengthened reinforced concrete beams, evidenced by experi-
mental results previously described, is analysed by a non-linear model developed by the Author for the analysis of the deb-
onding induced from intermediate flexural cracks in FRP strengthened reinforced concrete beams [22]. The essential features
of the model are here reported for comparison with experimental results.

5.1. Model assumptions

The model refers to a beam element between flexural cracks. The behaviour of the FRP-to-concrete interface between two
adjacent flexural cracks was approximated by a simple model that considers a beam element (block) subjected to bending
moment; consequently both ends of the FRP sheets (i.e. at both cracks) are subjected to tension. Cracks are supposed to be
vertical along the depth of the beam. The model, derived from a cracking analysis, founded on slip and bond stresses, allows
for the evaluation of stresses and strains in the beam element for each cracking configuration, that is for each value of the
applied load and corresponding moment distribution. The debonding load corresponding to the cracking configuration is

Δzi
i i+1

M z M τ s(z)
crack σ s(z) σs(z) +(dσs(z) /dz)dz
τ s(z)

steel rebar σ f(z) τ f(z) σf(z) +(dσf(z) /dz)dz

FRP sheet
lb lb
dz
Fig. 8. Cracked beam block.
102 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109

defined on the basis of limit conditions. The debonding starts in the block subjected to maximum moment; then, it propa-
gates in the adjacent blocks until the FRP ends.

5.2. Governing equations

The beam block between two consecutive cracks subjected to constant moment is reported in the Fig. 8. The following
equations are used to solve the structural problem:

(i) Equilibrium conditions on the cross-sections (translational and rotational)

Z X
rc dXc þ xri rri ¼ 0
Xc i¼1;n
Z X ð2Þ
rc ydXc þ rri yi xri ¼ M
Xc i¼1;n

where Xc is the concrete area, xri is the area of the ith reinforcement (FRP sheet, steel rebars); yi is the distance between the
neutral axis of the cross section and the centroid of the ith reinforcement.
(ii) Strain compatibility between two points, initially fully bonded, belonging to the steel rebar and the concrete
dus
u0s ðzÞ ¼ ¼ es ðzÞ  ects ðzÞ ð3Þ
dz

and to the FRP sheet and the concrete

duf
u0f ðzÞ ¼ ¼ ef ðzÞ  ect ðzÞ ð4Þ
dz

where us (z) is the slip between the concrete and the steel rebar; es (z) and ects (z) are strains of the steel rebar and the con-
crete in tension at the level of the steel rebars, respectively; uf (z) is the slip between the concrete and the FRP sheet; ef (z)
and ect (z) are strains of the FRP sheet and the concrete at the tensile side of the cross-section, respectively;
(iii) Longitudinal stress equilibrium of the concrete reinforcements:
drs ðzÞ 4 drf ðzÞ 1
r0s ¼ ¼ ss ðzÞ r0f ¼ ¼ sf ðzÞ ð5Þ
dz db dz tf
where db is the steel rebar diameter; tf is the thickness of the FRP sheet; rs (z) and rf (z) are tensile stresses in the steel rebar
and the FRP sheet respectively; ss (z) and sf (z) are bond stresses between steel rebar and concrete and FRP sheet and con-
crete, respectively.
The equations (2)–(5) furnish a system of differential equations that can be solved by a numerical procedure. The utilised
procedure is founded on the finite differences method, by dividing the block between two cracks in n discrete elements with
small length Dzi. An iterative procedure that transforms the problem of limit conditions in the iterative solution of an initial
value problem is adopted.

5.3. Limit conditions for the IC debonding failure

The following limit conditions have to be imposed to evaluate the occurrence of the IC debonding:

 At the halfway of the cracked block, for symmetry, the slip between FRP/concrete and steel rebar/concrete is equal to zero
(uf = us = 0; i.e. the section remains plane); in addition the tensile concrete stress at the extreme fibre, rct, reaches the ten-
sile strength of the concrete (rct = ft);
 At the distance lb = ldeb from the halfway of the block, simultaneously, the tensile strain in the concrete is equal to zero,
ect = 0, (crack formation), the slip at the FRP/concrete interface is maximum (uf = ufmax) and the bond stress is zero (sf = 0).
These conditions are the most favourable to the occurrence of the IC debonding failure.

5.4. IC debonding load and strain

The numerical procedure developed considering initial values associated to the limit conditions, allows evaluating
strains, stresses and loading value corresponding to the IC debonding. For an assigned load P > Pcr being Pcr the load cor-
responding to the attainment of the first cracking, the procedure starts evaluating strain and stress distribution at the
halfway by Eq. (2). Therefore it is possible to evaluate, by means of equations (2)–(5), the stress and strain distribution
at the edge of the first discrete element contiguous to the halfway; subsequently, the procedure is extended to every
 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109 103

contiguous discrete element. The limit conditions at the distance ldeb from the halfway are attained iteratively; the itera-
tion is made varying the external load. The procedure halts when the IC debonding failure conditions are reached, that is,
the tensile strain of the concrete is zero (the crack is formed) and, simultaneously, at the FRP/concrete interface the slip is
maximum and the bond is zero (initiation of debonding); the corresponding load is the load at the IC debonding, Pdeb. The
distance ldeb is evaluated as ldeb = Ri=1,n Dzi being n the number of discrete elements needed to reach, from the halfway, the
section in which the IC debonding starts. Eqs. (2)–(5), allow evaluate the FRP strain at debonding, edeb, along the cracked
block subjected to the moment Mdeb corresponding to the Pdeb load.

5.5. Bond–slip relationships

An analytical form of the steel-to-concrete and FRP-to-concrete bond-slip relations is required to solve the system of
equations (2)–(5). Since at present specific local bond-slip laws for the PBO FRCM-to-concrete are unavailable, the deb-
onding analysis of PBO-FRCM strengthened reinforced concrete beams is conducted by using the analytical bond-slip
relationships defined for FRP-to-concrete. The comparison between predictions of the model and experimental results,
both those described in this paper and that ones reported in previous papers [10,11], allows to validate the effectiveness
of the proposed model. For FRP-to-concrete several bond-slip curves have been proposed from researchers; all these
curves present an ascending branch until to reach the maximum bond stress, smax, at the interface and a descending
branch ending at the maximum slip value, ufmax, corresponding to the zero value of the bond stress. Both branches
of the bond slip curves are non-linear [25–29]; to simplify the analysis some models adopt a linear shapes both for
ascending and descending branches [30–32].
In the present analysis, two bond-slip laws, s–u, are considered: the non-linear law proposed by Savoia et al. [26]and the
simplified bi-linear law proposed by Teng et al. [30].
The bond-slip law proposed by Savoia et al., is expressed by the following relationships
2 3
u 2:86
s ¼ smax 6 4
7
 2:86 5 being smax ¼ 3:5fc0:19 u0 ¼ 0:051 mm ð6Þ
u0 u
1:86 þ uo

while the bi-linear law proposed by Teng et al. is expressed as

u uf max  u
s ¼ smax if u 6 u0 ; s ¼ smax if u P u0 ð7Þ
u0 uf max  u0
being
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
Gf u2:25  Bf pffiffiffi
smax ¼ 1:5bw ft ; u0 ¼ 0:019bw ft uf ¼ 2; bw ¼ t B
Gf ¼ 0:308bw ft ð8Þ
smax 1:25 þ B
B f

In the Eq. (6) and (7) u0 is the slip corresponding to smax, Bf the width of the FRCM layer, B the width of the section and ft
the tensile strength of the concrete.
The relationship proposed in the CEB-FIP [33] is adopted for the bond-slip law between the steel rebars and the concrete.
ss ¼ ssmax ðus =usmax Þa ð9Þ
For deformed bars in unconfined concrete, ssmax = 2.0 fc0:5 (MPa), usmax = 0.6 mm, a = 0.40.

5.6. Numerical results

The model, above described, was used to carry out a numerical investigation and a comparison with experimental results.
Theoretical predictions were obtained by using the following constitutive laws for concrete, internal steel and FRCM:

 The non-linear constitutive law proposed from the Eurocode 2 [34] was assumed to model the concrete in compression

rc kg  g2
¼ ð10Þ
fc 1 þ ðk  2Þg
 being g = ec/ec1, ec1 = 0.0022; k = 1.1 Ec ec1/fc, fc = mean ultimate compressive strength and Ec = modulus of elasticity. In this
study fc was taken to be the cylinder compressive strength determined by tests, fc = fcm; Ec is the initial elastic modulus of
the concrete obtained from Ec = 22,000 (fc/10)0.3 (N/mm2) according to the Eurocode EC2.
 Concrete in tension was assumed to be linearly elastic before the tensile strength ft corresponding to the cracking; ft was
evaluated, according to the Eurocode EC2, as ft = 0.30 (fck)2/3 (N/mm2).
104 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109

 The steel rebars were assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic; yield strength was taken to be the mean value determined
by tests previously reported.
 The PBO-FRCM was modelled as a linear elastic material with brittle behaviour when its tensile strength, ffu, is reached.
Mechanical properties of the PBO-FRCM are reported in the Table 2.

Numerical results, both in terms of debonding moment and debonding strains refer to tests reported in this paper and
that ones reported in previous papers [10,11].
With reference to tests described in this paper, the diagrams debonding strain versus the percentage of PBO-FRCM, qf,
were drawn in the Fig. 9; each curve reported in the Figure represents the trend line by power function of predictions of
the non-linear model obtained by using the two considered bond-slip laws. On the same figure are reported the experimen-
tal points relative to the S2-T2-P2, S2-T2-P2-2a, S2-T2-P3 and S2-T2-P3-2a beams.
As evidenced in the figure, the local bond-slip law is influential on the debonding strain; predictions relative to the bi-
linear bond slip law, in fact, are more conservative than those relative to the non-linear bond slip curve mainly for high val-
ues of the percentage of PBO-FRCM.
For S2-T2-P2 and S2-T2-P3 beams, experimental measured debonding strains, are within the two trend lines, that is, they
are underestimated by predictions obtained by using a bi-linear bond-slip law and overestimated by those obtained by using
a non-linear bond-slip law. On the contrary, experimental values obtained for S2-T2-P2-2a and S2-T2-P3-2a beams are les-
ser than those predicted by the model.

0,018

0,016
Debonding strain (mm/mm)

0,014

0,012

0,010
S2-T2-P3
0,008

0,006
S2-T2-P2 Non-linear bond-slip law [26 ]
0,004
S2-T2-P3-2a*
0,002 Bi-linear bond-slip law [30]
S2-T2-P2-2a*
0,000
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80
ρ f (%)

Fig. 9. Predicted/experimental debonding strain versus qf.

70

60
Non-linear bond-slip law [ 26 ]
Debonding moment (kNm)

50

40
Bi-linear bond-slip law [30]

30
S2-T2-P3
S2-T2-P2
20 S2-T2-P2-2a*
S2-T2-P3-2a*
10

0
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80

ρ f (%)
Fig. 10. Predicted/experimental debonding moment versus qf.
 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109 105

0,018

0,016

Debonding strain (mm/mm)

0,014

0,012
Exp. [10-11]
0,010

0,008

0,006
Non-linear bond-slip law [ 26]
0,004

0,002 Bi-linear bond-slip law [30]

0,000
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80
ρ f (%)
Fig. 11. Predicted/experimental debonding strain versus qf.

60
Debonding moment (kNm)

50 Non-linear bond-slip law [26]

40
Exp. [10-
30 11]
Bi-linear bond-slip law [30]

20

10

0
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40
ρ f (%)
Fig. 12. Predicted/experimental debonding moment versus qf.

Table 4
Test results (Ref. [10] and [11]).

Beams designation As (mm2) A0s (mm2) Af (mm2) fcm (N/mm2) edeb (mm/mm) Pdeb (kN)

T2-2 (Ref. [10]) 157.00 100.53 13.50 23.02 0.00937 64.06

T2-3 (Ref. [10]) 157.00 100.53 20.25 23.02 0.00724 71.39
S2-T1-P2-2 (Ref. [11]) 157.00 100.53 13.50 23.02 0.01150 66.00
S2-T1-P3-1 (Ref. [11]) 157.00 100.53 20.25 23.02 0.00754 61.44

The comparison between predictions of the model and experimental results in terms of bending moment at debonding, is
drawn in the Fig. 10. For S2-T2-P2 and S2-T2-P3 beams, the analysis of results evidences as experimental values are well pre-
dicted by the model when the bi-linear bond slip law was used. Experimental values corresponding to S2-T2-P2-2a and S2-
T2-P3-2a beams are overestimated by the model.
From results of the comparison it appears as the model well predict experimental results if the propagation of the deb-
onding process can develops along an adequate bonded length of the strengthening system as in the cases of S2-T2-P2 and
S2-T2-P3 beams.
The comparison between predictions of the model and experimental values obtained in previous experimental investiga-
tions is reported in the Figs. 11 and 12. In both figures are drawn both trend lines of predictions, furnished by the non-linear
model, and the experimental points corresponding to moment (Fig. 12) and FRCM strain (Fig. 11) at debonding.
The values of the bending moment and FRCM strains at debonding for tested beams are reported in Table 4. Tested beams
were 3600 mm long, have a rectangular section 150 mm wide and 250 mm high and were reinforced by internal longitudinal
steel bars extended along the whole span length at both the tension (two bars of 10 mm diameter) and the compression (two
106 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109

0,008
S2-T2-P3
0,007
S2-T2-P2

Debonding strain (mm/mm)

0,006

0,005 ρ f =0,018%

0,004
ρ f =0,036%

0,003
ρ f =0,054%
0,002

0,001

0,000
0,000 0,002 0,004 0,006 0,008 0,010 0,012 0,014 0,016 0,018 0,020
ρs

Fig. 13. Predicted/experimental debonding strain versus qs.

70
ρ f =0,054%
60
ρ f =0,036%
Debonding moment (kNm)

50

ρ f =0,018%
40

30
Exp.
20

10

0
0 0,0025 0,005 0,0075 0,01 0,0125 0,015 0,0175 0,02 0,0225 0,025
ρs

Fig. 14. Predicted/experimental debonding moment versus qs.

bars of 8 mm) side. In all beams the cover dimension, both in compression and in tension, was 20 mm. Details regarding the
tests are presented and discussed in previous papers [10,11].
The analysis of results evidences as the debonding strains predicted by the model underestimate the experimental points
while the experimental bending moment values are well predicted by using the non-linear bond-slip law.
The curves moment and PBO FRCM debonding strains versus the percentage of internal steel percentage, qs, varying the
percentage of PBO-FRCM, qf, were drawn in the Figs. 13 and 14 together with experimental points recorded during the tests
on the S2-T2-P2 and S2-T2-P3 beams. The curves represent the best trend lines, obtained by a power function, of the model
predictions calculated using a bi-linear bond slip PBO-FRCM-to-concrete law.
By analysing results of the comparison it is possible to evidence as varying qs in the range 0.2–1%, the values of edeb are
decreasing for all considered values of qf; in particular the decrease of edeb was equal to 35.6% for qf = 0018% (corresponding
to one layer of PBO FRCM), 52.38% and 50% for qf = 0.0036% (two layer of PBO FRCM) and qf = 0.0054% (three layers of PBO
FRCM), respectively. On the contrary predictions of the debonding moment, described by almost linear trend lines, are
increasing with qs.
The diagrams fracture energy predicted by the model at debonding versus qf varying qs is drawn in the Fig. 15. The energy
fracture, given by the area below the bond-slip curve, was calculated by using the non-linear bond slip law. Analysing the
curves it appears as increasing qf the fracture energy is decreasing for each considered qs value; however for low values of qs
(qs = 0.02) the trend lines are linear while for high qs values (qs = 0.01) the optimal trend line is represented by a power
 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109 107

1,20

1,00
ρ s =0,002

Fracture energy (N/mm)

0,80

0,60 ρ s =0,01

ρ s=0,004187
0,40

0,20

0,00
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4 0,45
ρ f (%)

Fig. 15. Predicted fracture energy versus qf.

5,00

4,50
Maximum FRCM stress (MPa)

4,00

3,50

3,00

2,50
ρ s = 0,002
2,00

1,50

1,00
ρ s =0,01
0,50

0,00
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40
ρ f (%)

Fig. 16. Predicted maximum FRCM stress versus qf.

function. The decrease of the fracture energy (in this case the mode II component of the total fracture energy) is due to the
higher peeling interfacial stress induced by the stiffer FRCM sheet. This is confirmed also from results showed in the Fig. 16
where is drawn the diagram maximum FRCM stress – qf; increasing the thickness of the FRCM, in fact, the maximum stress
in the FRCM is decreasing.

6. Concluding remarks

The debonding of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with an externally bonded Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Mor-
tar made by fabric meshes of high strength PBO fibres embedded into a cement based mortar was analysed in the paper.
On the basis of results obtained by an experimental and theoretical investigation, some concluding remarks can be
drawn:

 in absence of transversal ends anchorages, the intermediate crack debonding was the predominant failure mode of PBO-
FRCM strengthened beams;
 even if premature failures occurred, an adequate bonded length of the PBO-FRCM system allowed to improve the flexural
capacity of strengthened beams; in the examined cases the ultimate capacity of strengthened beams was 30% higher than
that of un-strengthened beam;
108 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109

 in presence of an effective bonded length, the debonding propagation was gradual and an increase of the flexural capacity
was observed after the beginning of the debonding;
 the debonding was sudden and catastrophic in beams strengthened in the central zone with an insufficient bonded length
of the PBO-FRCM system. The beam strengthened with one layer of PBO-FRCM failed by end debonding while increasing
the amount of PBO-FRCM the strengthened beams failed by intermediate crack debonding. In all cases the flexural capac-
ity of strengthened beams was similar to that of the un-strengthened beam;
 in all beams the debonding occurred after the yielding of tensile steel rebars;
 at debonding the PBO-FRCM system was completely detached from the concrete at bottom side of the beam (peeling).
This failure mode was different from those observed in FRP strengthened reinforced concrete beams in which the deb-
onding take place in the substrate concrete;
 the non-linear model developed for the analysis of the debonding induced from intermediate flexural cracks in FRP
strengthened reinforced concrete beams can be utilised also for the debonding analysis of FRCM strengthened reinforced
concrete beams; for a correct and reliable analysis, however, it is essential to define a specific local bond-slip law FRCM-
to-concrete;
 as evidenced by results discussed in the paper, better predictions in terms of debonding strain were obtained using a non-
linear bond-slip law while the bending moment was well predicted by using a bi-linear bond slip law. In addition, pre-
dictions corresponding to the bi-linear bond slip law are more conservative than those relative to the non-linear bond slip
law mainly for high values of the PBO-FRCM percentage.

Further investigations, both experimental and theoretical, are needed for a better understanding of the debonding phe-
nomena in reinforced concrete beams strengthened with FRCM systems. In particular, to take into account the load transfer
mechanism at the interface FRCM-to-concrete, different from that of FRP-to-concrete, it is needed to define specific local
bond slip laws that, by accurate and reliable models, such as the non-linear model adopted in the paper, allow to obtain good
predictions both in terms of debonding loads and debonding FRCM strains.

References

[1] Bruckner A, Ortlepp R, Curbach M. Textile reinforced concrete for strengthening in bending and shear. Mater Struct, RILEM 2006;39:741–8.
[2] Triantafillou TC. Recent developments in strengthening of concrete structures with advanced composites textile-reinforced mortar (TRM) jacketing. In:
Proceedings of the international conference on structural composites for infrastructure applications, Alexandria, Egypt, December 2004.
[3] Wu HC, Sun P. Fiber reinforced cement based composite sheets for structural retrofit. In: Chen, Teng, editors. Proceedings of the international
symposium on bond behaviour of FRP in structures (BBFS 2005); 2005; 343–8.
[4] Taljisten B, Blanksvard T. Mineral-based bonding of carbon FRP to strengthen concrete structures. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2007;11(2):120–8.
[5] Di Tommaso A, Focacci F, Mantegazza G, Gatti A. FRCM versus FRP composites to strengthen r.c. beams: a comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the
international symposium on fiber reinforced polymers reinforced concrete structures, FRPRCS-8, Patras, Grecia, 16–18 July, 2007.
[6] De Caso y Basalo FJ, Matta F, Nanni A. Fiber reinforced cementitious matrix composites for infrastructures rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of composites
and Polycon 2009, American Composites Manufacturers Association, Tampa, FL, USA, 2009.
[7] Blanksvard T, Taljisten B. Strengthening of concrete structures with cement based bonded composites. Nordic Concrete Res; Nordic Concrete Fed
2008;2(38):133–53.
[8] Triantafillou TC, Papanicolau CG. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete members with textile reinforced mortar (TRM) jackets. Mater Struct;
RILEM 2006;39(1):85–93.
[9] Di Tommaso A, Focacci F, Mantegazza G. PBO-FRCM composites to strengthen RC beams: mechanics of adhesion and efficiency. In: Proceedings of the
international conference on FRP composites in civil engineering; CICE2008: Zurich, 22–24 July, 2008.
[10] Ombres L. Structural performance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with PBO Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Mortars (FRCM). In: Majorana,
Salomoni, editors. Proceedings of the international conference on concrete solutions; concrete solutions-grantham, Taylor & Francis; 2009. p. 363–7.
[11] Ombres L. The structural performances of PBO-FRCM strengthened r.c. beams. Inst of Civil Eng, Struct. and Build 2011;164(SBI):1–8. doi:101680/
stub.2011.16411.
[12] Sebastian WM. Significance of midspan debonding failure in FRP-plated concrete beams. J Struct Engng ASCE 2001;127(7):792–8.
[13] Liu IST, Oehlers DJ, Seracino R. Study of intermediate crack debonding in adhesively plated beams. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2007;11(2):175–83.
[14] Wang J. Cohesive zone model of intermediate crack-induced debonding of FRP-plated concrete beam. Int J Solids Struct. 2006;43(21):6630–48.
[15] Niu H, Wu Z. Study on debonding failure load of RC beams strengthened with FRP sheets. J Struct Engng JSCE 2000;46A:1431–41.
[16] Niu H, Wu Z. Prediction of crack-induced debonding failure in R/C structures flexurally strengthened with externally bonded FRP composites. Doboku
Gakkai Ronbunshuu E 2007;63(4):620–39.
[17] Said H, Wu Z. Evaluating and proposing models of predicting IC debonding failure. J Compos Constr ASCE 2008;12(3):284–99.
[18] Teng JG, Yuan H, Chen JF. FRP-to-concrete interfaces between two adjacent cracks: theoretical model for debonding failure. Int J Solids Struct
2006;43:5750–78.
[19] Smith TS, Gravina R. Modeling debonding failure in FRP flexurally strengthened RC members using a local deformation model. J Compos Constr ASCE
2007;11(2):184–91.
[20] Rosenboom O., Rizkalla S. Analytical modelling of flexural debonding in CFRP strengthened reinforced or prestressed concrete beams. In: Proceedings
of the 8th international symposium on fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement for concrete structures (FRPRCS-8), Patras, Greece, 16–18 July, 2007.
[21] Lu XZ, Teng JG, Ye LP, Jiang JJ. Intermediate crack debonding in FRP-strengthened RC beams: FE analysis and strength model. J Compos Constr, ASCE
2007;11(2):161–74.
[22] Ombres L. Prediction of intermediate crack debonding failure in FRP-strengthened reinforced concrete beams. Compos Struct 2010;92:323–9.
[23] EN 1015-11 Methods of test for mortar for masonry – Part 11: Determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar; 1999.
[24] National Research Council-CNR DT 200/2004 ‘‘Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening existing
structures – materials, RC and PC structures, masonry structures. Rome, Italy, July, 2004.
[25] Dai JG, Ueda T, Sato Y. Development of nonlinear bond stress slip model of fiber reinforced plastics sheet-concrete interfaces with a simple method. J
Compos Constr, ASCE 2005;9(1):52–62.
[26] Savoia M., Ferracuti B., Mazzotti D. Nonlinear bond-slip law for FRP-concrete interface. In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on FRPRCS,
Singapore; 2003. p. 163–72.
[27] Wang J. Cohesive-bridging zone model of FRP-concrete interface debonding. Engng Fract Mech 2007;74:2643–58.
 L. Ombres / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 81 (2012) 94–109 109

[28] Wu Z, Yin J. Fracture behaviours of FRP-strengthened concrete structures. Engng Fract Mech 2003;70(10):1339–55.
[29] Yuan H, Teng JG, Seracino R, Wu ZS, Yao J. Full-range behavior of FRP-to-concrete bonded joints. Engng Struct 2004;26(5):553–65.
[30] Teng JG, Yao J, Chen JF. Experimental study on FRP-to-concrete bonded joints. Compos – Part B: Engng 2005;36(2):99–113.
[31] Wang J. Nonlinear bond-slip analysis of delamination failure of FRP reinforced concrete beam – Part I: closed-form solution. Int J Solids Struct
2006;43(21):6649–64.
[32] Neubauer U, Rostasy FS. Bond failure of concrete fiber reinforced polymer plates at inclined cracks. Experiments and fracture mechanics model. In:
Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on FRPRCS, SP-188, ACI; 1999. p. 369–382.
[33] CEB-FIP. Model Code for concrete structures. CEB Bulletin d’Information, Comité Euro International du Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland; 1993.
[34] Eurocode 2 – EC2. Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings, EN 1992-1-1. European Committee for
Standardisation, Brussels; 2004.