Construction

and Building

Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402–408

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

A way for preventing tension delamination of concrete cover

in midspan of FRP strengthened beams
G.J. Xiong *, X. Jiang, J.W. Liu, L. Chen
Department of Civil Engineering, Shantou University, Shantou 515063, P.R. China

Received 29 September 2004; received in revised form 31 July 2005; accepted 8 August 2005
Available online 21 September 2005

Abstract

In order to prevent tension delamination of concrete cover in midspan more efficiently, an attempt to strengthen reinforced concrete
beams by combining unidirectional carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheet (to bond to the tension faces of the beams) and bi-
directional glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) sheet (to wrap 3 sides of the beams continuously) was proposed. The feasibility and
potential advantages of the attempt were discussed. A comparative test program including ten beams was carried out. The test results
showed that the hybrid CF/GF reinforced polymer (H-CF/GF-RP) strengthening could not only prevent the tension delamination of the
bottom concrete cover, but also lead to a significant increase of deformation capacity of the strengthened beams at a very low cost com-
pared to CFRP strengthening.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hybrid fibre strengthening; Carbon fibre sheet; Glass fibre sheet; Peeling; Deformation capacity

1. Introduction has a much larger elongation (3–5.4%) than CF (1–1.5%)

Failure of carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP)
strengthened reinforced concrete (RC) beams may occur
due to peeling off of the bottom concrete cover along the
level of the longitudinal steel reinforcement. This failure
mode is considered undesirable because the full strength
of the CFRP is not utilized. The cover tension delamina-
tion may be delayed, or in some cases prevented, by wrap-
ping spaced CFRP transverse strips (‘‘U-strips’’) around
three sides of strengthened concrete beams [1,2]. It was re-
ported that full CFRP sheet wrap (3-side U-wrap) contin-
uously along the beam span clearly provided a greater
amount of anchorage and confinement action to eliminate
the delamination [3]. However, the displacement levels of
CFRP strengthened beams failed in tension by rupture of
the CFRP were still considerable less than those of the con-
trol beams [1–3] and the strengthening cost increased sig-
nificantly. Noticing that glass fibre (GF) with a low cost
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 754 290 3242; fax: +86 754 290 2005.
E-mail address: gjxiong@stu.edu.cn (G.J. Xiong).
[4], the authors proposed an idea to strengthen RC beams
by combining CF sheet (to bond to the tension faces of the
beams) and bi-directional GF sheet (to wrap 3 sides of the
beams continuously) in order to both prevent peeling fail-
ure and increase the deformation capacity of the strength-
ened beams at a low cost compared to CFRP
strengthening. It should be noted that this method is only
efficient if the end-block of a beam is free from shear or
bending shear failures.
2. Feasibility and potential advantage of CF/GF
strengthening
As shown in Fig. 1, due to the variation of concrete
properties, the heights of the adjacent two cracked sections
of a concrete beam are different, leading to a tensile stress
difference in the two ends of the FRP sheet/sheets as indi-
cated by the stress state of block abdc (Fig. 1(b)). The block
is taken from the concrete beam in the tensile region. The
direct FRP stresses rf and rf + Drf as well as concrete shear
stress s on the block can only satisfy one equilibrium

0950-0618/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.005
 G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402–408
Nomenclature
Mu strengthening-failure (fibre sheet fracture)
moment of beam
fy yield strength of steel bars
As area of steel bars
bc = 1/2 depth of compression zone of RC beam
P
condition, X ¼ 0. In order toPkeep the equilibrium, the
block needs another condition M ¼ 0. It leads to us to
conclude that there must be a tensile stress rp at boundary
ab (the weakest level of the tension reinforcement) of con-
crete. The ab plane tends to peel off under the tensile stress
rp. Because flexural cracks are probable to occur in any
sections of a beam (due to the randomness of concrete
properties) it would be a good practice to continuously
wrap the 3 sides of the beam for preventing cover tension
delamination. It should also be noted that because the
cover tension delamination may be prevented in some cases
by adding spaced three-sided FRP strips at the ends of
CFRP sheets and the span [1,2], it can be inferred that
the peeling stress value is not high. In the light of this the
authors put forward the idea to use bi-directional GFRP
sheet/sheets to continuously wrap concrete beams. It is to
be hoped that the relatively weak transverse direction of
the GFRP may prevent bottom concrete cover from peel-
ing off, and the relatively strong longitudinal direction
may make a noticeable contribution for increasing defor-
mation capacity of strengthened concrete beams [5,6].
The authors also take the view that because the durabil-
ity of FRP mainly depends on polymer (similar to that
concrete protects steel), H-CF/GF-RP may be as durable
as CFRP. In the light of this a comparative test research
program to strengthen RC beams by combining hybrid
CF and GF sheets was proposed.
3. Experimental program
3.1. Materials
The composition of the concrete mixes was
0.44:1:1.50: 2.41(water:ordinary portland cement:sand:-
stone). The 28-day tested concrete cube strength was
M+ M M
a b
FR P c d
a b
Fig. 1. Mechanism of flexural peeling.
403
fF strength of fibre sheet(s)
AF area of fibre sheet(s)
d effective depth of RC beam
h depth of RC beam
40.1 MPa. 10 and 12-mm diameter deformed steel bars
were used as main reinforcement. The yield strength
and elastic modulus of the 10-mm diameter bars were
411 MPa and 200 GPa, respectively. The yield strength
and elastic modulus for the 12-mm diameter bars were
606 MPa and 210 GPa, respectively. Eight mm diameter
steel bars with a yield strength of 233 MPa and an elastic
modulus of 210 GPa were used as stirrups and maintain
bars.
The thickness and price of the CF sheet containing
unidirectional fibres only were 0.11 mm and US$ 20/
m2, respectively. The thickness and price of the GF sheet
containing bi-directional fibres were 0.53 mm and US$
0.8/m2, respectively. The volume ratio between longitudi-
nal fibres and transverse fibres of the GF sheet was 4:1.
The fibre characteristics were supplied by the manufac-
turer, the tensile strength, modulus and elongation of
the CF were 3652 MPa, 252 GPa and 1.5%, respectively;
the tensile strength, modulus and elongation of the GF
were 1280 MPa, 42.8 GPa and 3%, respectively. Because
the fibre characteristics are normally much higher than
those of the final composite products [2,7], the mechani-
cal properties of FRP laminates designed and used in
this research were tested by the authors. All of the
FRP laminates were 100 mm · thickness in cross-section
and 1000 mm in length. The tests were performed in
accordance with the Chinese Standard GB/T1447-83
(an analogue of ASTM D638) and the test results are
shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1. The 1FC/2GF laminates
exhibited a noticeably higher elongation than 2CF
laminates. However, a ‘‘bilinear’’ stress–strain behaviour
was not observed for the 1CF/2GF laminates. One of
main reasons may be that the elongation of the GF sheet
used in this research was not high enough to create a
‘‘plasticity’’.
a b
M
'
p
c d
f + f
f
404 G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402–408

CF sheet for strengthening specimen end the fibre sheet/sheets. Complete curing took a period of 1
0.22 * week at room temperature.
240
0.53
100
1.17 Five types of strengthening, as shown in Table 2 and
Fig. 3, were adopted. 2C employed two layers of CF sheet
100 A-A
only. U2C used two layers of CF sheet with three-sided CF
1000

A A
* 0.22(for 2CF, 2 layers of CF) strips at the ends of the strengthened beam. F2C adopted
0.53(for 1GFt,1 layer of GF in transverse direction) two layers of CF sheet with continuous CF U-wrap.
1.17(for 1CF/2GF, 1 layer of CF and 2 layers of GF)
240

R=125
a 180
P(kN)
60 1CF/2GF
45
2CF
30
15
1GF t
b 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Fig. 2. Load-strain relationships of FRP specimens: (a) specimen; (b) p–
relationships.
3.2. Specimen preparation
Ten rectangular beams were cast with dimensions of
125 · 200 mm in cross-section and 2300 mm in length. As
shown in Fig. 3 and Table 2, two 10-mm diameter de-
formed steel bars were used as bottom bars for the number
1–9 beams giving a reinforcement ratio of 0.74%. Two 12-
mm diameter steel bars were used as bottom bars for the
tenth beam giving a reinforcement ratio of 1.07%. Stirrups
of 8-mm diameter, at a spacing of 150 mm in the beam end
and 200 mm in the beam midspan, were used for all ten
beams. All of the beams were wet-cured by covering with
wet burlap for 28 days before testing.
The process of applying fibre sheet to concrete involved
surface preparation, priming, resin undercoating, fibre
sheet application, and resin overcoating with a reference
to ACI [4]. The concrete surface was prepared by sanding
until the fine aggregates were exposed and then cleaned
with acetone. After that, a two-part primer was applied
to the prepared concrete surface and left to dry overnight.
Next, a two-part epoxy resin was applied to the primed
concrete surface, followed by application of the fibre
sheet/sheets. Finally, a resin overcoating was applied over
U1C/2G used both one layer of CF sheet and two layers
of GF sheet with tree-sided CF strips at each end of the
beam. F1C/2G employed one layer of CF sheet with two
continuous GFRP L-wraps. The use of L-wraps (instead
of U-wrap) was for more convenient installation and better
bond quality. Two F2C beams and two F1C/2G beams
were made in order to understand their behaviour better.
Strengthening cost including material and labour for every
type of strengthening is also listed in Table 2.
The authors take the view that if the ultimate moment
capacities of strengthened beams were close to that of the
Microstrain
control beam, the comparison of displacement ratios (frac-
ture deflection/yield deflection) of the two kinds of beams
would be more rational [6], and therefore, two un-strength-
ened beams (Pa and Pb) with different steel reinforcement
ratios were made as control beams as shown in Tables 2
and 3. All strengthened beams had the same steel reinforce-
ment ratio as Pa beam. The estimated moment capacities of
the most of strengthened beams were close to that of Pb
beam.
3.3. Loading method and instrumentation
The tests were performed according to the Chinese Stan-
dard GB50152-92 (an analogue of ASTM Designation: C
78-84). All beams were tested as simply supported beams
under four-point loading, over an effective span of
2100 mm, with the loads applied at 350 mm on either side
of the midspan as shown in Fig. 3.
The following measurements were taken: (1) midspan
deflection, using dial gauges of least count 0.01 mm; (2)
concrete, steel bars and fibre sheet strains at midspan, using
electrical-resistance strain gauges as shown in Fig. 4. The
tests were performed by using load control before load
reaching 40 kN, and followed by using displacement con-
trol. The applied loads were monitored through a high-
accuracy load cell with a load sensitivity of 0.1 kN. All of
the measurements were automatically recorded through a
data logger.

Table 1
Mechanical properties of different FRP laminates
FRP Composite types Total nominal Ultimate tensile Tensile strength Elastic modulus Stiffness Elongation
name thickness (mm) load (kN) (MPa) (GPa) (GPa mm2) (%)
2CF Two layers of 100 mm wide CF sheet 0.22 40.11 1823 180.5 39710 1.01
1GFt One layer of 100 mm wide GF sheet 0.53 5.51 104 7.22 382.7 1.44
(transverse direction)
1CF/2GF One layer of 100 mm wide CF sheet 1.17 61.78 528 34.5 40365 1.53
and two layers of 100 mm wide GF sheet
(longitudinal direction)
 G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402–408 405

Fig. 3. Layouts of FRP materials of strengthened specimens (mm): (a) 2C beam; (b) U2C beam and U1 C/2G beam; (c) F2C beam and F1C/2G beam.

Table 2
Details of tested beams
Beam name Reinforcement Strengthening type Strengthening cost ($)a
ratio (%)
Pa 0.74 Control –
2C Two layers of 100 mm wide CF 10
U2C Two layers of 100 mm wide CF with end U-strips 16.3
F2 C (1) F2 C (2) Two layers of 100 mm wide CF with continuous CFRP U-wrap 35
U1C/2G(1) U1C/2G(2) One layer of 100 mm wide CF + two layers of 125 mm wide GF with end U-strips 14.2
F1C/2G(1) F1C/2G(2) One layer of 100 mm wide CF + two continuous GF L-wraps 12
Pb 1.07 Control –
a
Cost included materials and labour.

4. Results and discussion 4.1. Modes of strengthening-failure

The load and deflection as well as FRP strain corre-
sponding to strengthening-failure load for every specimen
are listed in Table 3. The load–deflection curves of all spec-
imens are shown in Fig. 5. The strain distribution of the all
beams accorded with the plane deformation assumption
before and after steel yielding as shown in Fig. 4.
As shown in Fig. 6, the 2C beam failed in the end
cover peeling off, every specimen with end CFRP U-
strips exhibited a strengthening-failure mode of midspan
cover tension delamination. The strengthening-failure of
every beam with three-sided continuous FRP wrap/wraps
was marked by the fracture of the bottom FRP at mid-
406 G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402–408

Table 3
Test and calculation results of beams
Beam name Tested steel Tested yield Tested Calculated flexural Tested fracture Tested fracture Failure
yield load deflection fracture failure load deflection FRP strain
(kN) (mm) load (kN) (mm) (%)
Pa 19.46 3.21 29.34 29.57 46.60 – –
2C 33.30 5.80 45.50 54.90 16.10 0.55 End cover delamination
U2C 28.80 5.30 44.70 54.90 22.2 0.59 Midspan cover delamination
F2 C (1) 38.0 7.10 54.70 54.90 24.32 0.95 CFRP fracture (flexural failure)
F2 C (2) 32.80 6.40 52.40 54.90 22.3 0.87
U1C/2G(1) 38.0 7.05 66.30 70.43 29.58 0.91 Midspan cover delamination
U1C/2G(2) 34.30 6.58 66.03 70.43 32.52 0.87
F1C/2G(1) 34.80 6.68 70.68 70.43 32.64 1.40 HFRP fracture (Flexural failure)
F1C/2G(2) 37.0 6.94 68.30 70.43 38.0 1.28
Pb 48.03 7.06 58.42 58.16 48.90 – –

Strain gauge
Depth(mm)
0
55

at 15 kN
-50
55

at 20 kN
-100
at 25 kN
65

-150
25

-200
a -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Microstrain
b
Depth(mm) Depth(mm)
0 0
at 25 kN at 25 kN
-50 -50
at 35 kN at 35 kN
-100 -100
at 45 kN at 45 kN
-150 -150

-200 -200
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Microstrain -2000 0 2000 40 00 6000 8000 Microstrain
c
d

Fig. 4. Strain distributions across midspan sections of typical beams: (a) arrangement of strain gauges at midspan; (b) strain distribution of Pa beam; (c)
strain distribution of F2C(2) beam; (d) strain distribution of F1C/2G(1) beam.

span. At this stage, though the internal tension steel had

80 F1C/2G (1) F1C/2G (2) yielded as well on every strengthened beam the strain in
70 the compression portion of the concrete never reached
U1C/2G (1)
U1C/2G (2)
the crushing stage for any strengthened beams. This fail-
60
ure mode was also observed by Shahawy et al. [3]. It
50 PB
F2C (1) should be noted that the cover delamination at beam
Load (kN)

40
F2C (2) ends did not occur either for F1C/2G beams. Because
2C U2C
the possibility of the cover delamination at beam ends
30 is much higher than that at midspan, it can be concluded
20 PA that bi-directional GFRP L-wraps are reliable to prevent
midspan delamination.
10

0 4.2. Flexural-failure-load, deflection capacity and stiffness

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Mid-span deflection (mm)
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the flexural-failure-loads of
Fig. 5. Load-midspan deflection curves for all specimens. F2C and F1C/2G beams were about 82.5% and 136.8%
 G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402–408 407

a b c

Fig. 6. Failure models of different kinds of strengthening beams: (a) 2C beam; (b) U2C or U1C/2G beam; (c) F2C or F1C/2G beam.

Table 4 bw
Comparison of strengthening efficiencies of different beams
Beam name Relative Relative Displacement Relative
ratioc

c
load deformation strengthening
capacitya capacityb costd

d
Pa 1 1 14.52 –

h
2C 1.55 0.345 2.78 1
As
U2C 1.52 0.476 4.19 1.63
F2 C (1) 1.86 0.522 3.43 3.5
F2 C (2) 1.79 0.479 3.48 AF fy
U1C/2G(1) 2.26 0.635 4.20 1.42 fF
U1C/2G(2) 2.15 0.698 4.94 Cross section
F1C/2G(1) 2.41 0.700 4.89 1.2
Fig. 7. Sketch for calculating ultimate moment.
F1C/2G(2) 2.33 0.815 5.47
Pb 1.99 1.049 6.93 –
a
flexural-failure moment can still be approximately calcu-
=(Fracture load of each beam) ‚ (fracture load of beam Pa). lated by the following equation proposed by Ross et al.
b
=(Fracture deformation of each beam) ‚ (fracture deformation of
beam Pa).
[8] (see Fig. 7)
c
=(Fracture deflection) ‚ (yield deflection) for each beam. M u ¼ fy As  ðd  bC =2Þ þ fF AF  ðh  bC =2Þ;
d
=(Strengthening cost of each beam) ‚ (strengthening cost of 2C beam).
where Mu is the strengthening-failure (fibre sheet fracture)
higher than the ultimate load of control beam Pa, respec- moment of beam, fy and As are the yield strength and area
tively. of steel bars, respectively, bC is the depth of compression
The fracture deflections and fibre sheet composite frac- zone of RC beam, fF and AF are the strength and area of
ture strains of all tested beams are listed in Table 3. It fibre sheet(s), respectively, d and h are the effective depth
can be seen that the fracture deflections of F1C/2G beams and depth of RC beam.
were about 51.5% higher than those of F2C beams, and the From Table 3 it can be seen that the calculation has a
corresponding composite fracture strains of the formers good agreement with test results.
were about 47.3% higher than those of the latters. It should
be noted that the fracture deflections of the H-CF/GF-RP 4.4. Comparison of strengthening efficiency
and CFRP strengthening beams were about 27.8% and
52.3% lower than that of the control beam Pb, respectively; As shown in Tables 3, 4 and Fig. 5, under the premise of
the displacement ratios of the two kinds of strengthened eliminating cover tension delamination, the fracture deflec-
beams were about 25.3% and 50.1% lower than that of tion and failure load of F1C/2G beams were about 51.5%
beam Pb, respectively. The stiffness of H-CF/GF-RP and 29.8% higher than those of F2C beams. The stiffness
strengthened beams was similar to that of CFRP strength- of F1C/2G beams was similar to that of F2C beams. The
ened beams as shown in Fig. 5 due to the similarity of the strengthening cost of H-CF/GF-RP strengthened beams
stiffness of 1CF/2GF laminates to that of 2CF laminates was 65.7% lower than that of CFRP strengthened beams
(see Tables 1 and 2). (Tables 2 and 4).
It should also be noted that if the 1CF/2GF laminates
(Table 1) had a bilinear ‘‘ductile’’ stress–strain behaviour, 5. Conclusions
the ductility of the H-CF/GF-RP strengthening beams
would be to improve either [5,6]. Within the indicated scope of this study, the particular
conclusions may be summarized as follows:
4.3. Calculation of ultimate moment
1. Due to the randomness of concrete properties it would
Though the strain in the compression portion of the be a good practice to continuously wrap the 3 sides of
concrete never reached the crushing stage for any strength- strengthened beams for preventing bottom cover tension
ened beam failed in flexure (F2C and F1C/2G beams) the delamination. Because the peeling stress value in the
408 G.J. Xiong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 402–408
midspan bottom cover of a strengthened beam is not
high, the relatively weak transverse direction of bi-direc-
tional GF L-wraps can prevent the cover from peeling
off.
2. Under the premise of eliminating cover tension delami-
nation and beam end shear failure, the fracture load,
deflection and strengthening cost of H-CF/GF-RP
strengthening beams were about 29.8% higher, 51.5%
higher and 65.7% lower than those of CFRP strengthen-
ing beams.
3. The deformation capacities of H-CF/GF-RP and CFRP
strengthening beams were about 27.8% and 52.3% lower
than that of Pb control beam, respectively.
4. The stiffness of H-CF/GF-RP strengthened beams was
similar to that of CFRP strengthened beams.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding pro-
vided by Guangdong Provincial Natural Science Founda-
tion under Item No. 021245.
References
[1] Spadea G, Bencardino F, Swamy RN. Structural behavior of
composite RC beams with externally bonded CFRP. J Compos
Construct ASCE 1998;2(8):132–7.
[2] Brena SF, Bramblett RM, Wood SL, Kreger ME. Increasing flexural
capacity of reinforced concrete beams using carbon fibre-reinforced
polymer composites. ACI Struct J 2003;100(1):36–46.
[3] Shahawy M, Chaallal O, Beitelman TE, El-Saad A. Flexural
strengthening with carbon fibre-reinforced polymer composite of
preloaded full-scale girders. ACI Struct J 2001;98(5):735–42.
[4] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Guide for the design and
construction of externally Bonded FRP system for the strengthening
concrete structures. Detroit: ACI-440-2000.
[5] Grace NF, Abdel-Sayed G, Gegheb WF. Strengthening of concrete
beams using innovative ductile fiber-reinforced polymer fabric. ACI
Struct J 2002;99(5):692–700.
[6] Xiong GJ, Yang J, Ji Z. Behavior of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with externally bonded hybrid carbon fiber–glass fibre
sheets. J Compos Construct ASCE 2004;8(3):275–8.
[7] Okeil AM, EI-Tawil S, Shahawy M. Short-term tensile strength of
carbon fibre-reinforced polymer laminates for flexural strengthening of
concrete girders. ACI Struct J 2001;98(4):470–8.
[8] Ross CA, Jerome DM, Tedesco JW, Hughes ML. Strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded composite lami-
nates. ACI Struct J 1999;96(3):212–20.