fibers

Article
Flexural Strength of Damaged RC Beams Repaired with Carbon
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Using Different Techniques
Abbas Yahya Turki * and Mahdi Hameed Al-Farttoosi

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Baghdad, Baghdad 10071, Iraq;

[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +964-780-842-4957

Abstract: In this study, an experimental program was developed to investigate the flexural behavior
of pre-damaged reinforced concrete (RC) beams that had been repaired and strengthened using
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) laminates under a monotonic load. Two techniques were
used: externally bonded reinforcement (EBR) and near-surface-mounted (NSM) reinforcement, to
repair and strengthen the tested beams. The experimental program involved casting and testing
nine simply supported RC rectangular beams; one beam was considered as the reference beam and
did not undergo additional strengthening, and the remaining beams were strengthened using CFRP
laminates. These eight beams were divided into two main groups for the purposes of strengthening:
beams for which the EBR technique was used, and beams for which the NSM technique was used.
The primary variables observed in the EBR and NSM groups included four damage percentages
obtained according to the preload (20, 40, 60, and 80%) from the ultimate load carried by the reference
beam. The experimental results show that decreasing the damage percentage leads to an increase in
ultimate strength from about 3.6% to 17.2% for the beams repaired using the EBR technique and from
27.6% to 57% for the beams repaired using the NSM technique; additionally, the NSM method was
more effective than the EBR method in terms of the flexural strength and mode of failure. However,
using CFRP laminates enhances the flexure capacity of strengthened RC beams.

Keywords: CFRP; flexural strengthening; repair; RC beams; damaged; reinforced concrete (RC);
NSM; EBR
Citation: Turki, A.Y.; Al-Farttoosi,
M.H. Flexural Strength of Damaged
RC Beams Repaired with Carbon
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) 1. Introduction
Using Different Techniques. Fibers The maintenance, repair, and improvement of structural components may be one of
2023, 11, 61. https://doi.org/ the most important tasks in civil engineering. Additionally, according to new design codes,
10.3390/fib11070061 structures that were built in the past using old design codes in different parts of the world
Academic Editor: Akanshu Sharma must be made safer. Damage to concrete buildings can result from natural events such as
earthquakes, fires, or storms, as well as from mistakes made during the design process.
Received: 4 June 2023 One example of a design mistake is when there is not enough strengthened steel or fiber
Revised: 30 June 2023
in the concrete parts used during construction to hold loads. The use of fiber-reinforced
Accepted: 12 July 2023
polymers (FRP) to retrofit and rehabilitate reinforced concrete (RC) structures represents a
Published: 14 July 2023
new technology that is in competition with the traditional approach. Compared to steel
plate bonding or jacketing, the advantages of using these advanced composite materials for
retrofitting are due to their unique properties. An extensive amount of research has been
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
conducted to analyze how well carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRPs) may function as
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. an outside reinforcement for reinforced concrete (RC) beams [1–6].
This article is an open access article Many techniques have been investigated to determine how to strengthen and reha-
distributed under the terms and bilitate beams using FRP composites. Both the EBR and NSM techniques are viewed as
conditions of the Creative Commons good strengthening systems due to their ability to enhance the shear and flexural capacity
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// of RC structures [7–20]. The major concern surrounding adhesively bonding plates to the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ external surface of reinforced concrete beams is the premature debonding of the plates,
4.0/). which is a unique form of failure observed in plated beams [21].

Fibers 2023, 11, 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/fib11070061 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/fibers

Fibers 2023, 11, 61 2 of 22

Researchers have looked at the behavior of RC beams that have been pre-damaged or
preloaded and then repaired with CFRP using the EBR and NSM methods. In the research
by Li et al. [22], 22 beams were tested to determine how preload affects the flexural load-
carrying capability of CFRP-strengthened RC beams. Their results showed that preload
levels below 80% of the original beam’s yield strength do not affect flexural capacity, but
that levels exceeding 90% significantly reduce it.
To determine the effect of embedding CFRP rods as a method of NSM reinforcement
for strengthening/repairing RC beams with various degrees of loading damage, and to
compare the results obtained with RC beams that had not been preloaded, an experimental
program was carried out by Morsy et al. [23]. In this experiment, CFRP rods were added
to reinforce six steel beams. Three strengthened and three preloaded beams were tested,
showing an increased flexibility and a capacity that was 33.33% higher compared to the
control beam. Preloading had minimal impact on strength improvement. Failure analysis
revealed flexure-related failure, indicating that embedded FRP rods are preferable to near-
surface-mounted ones in preventing brittle failure and in minimizing CFRP bar debonding.
In the study by Meikandaan et al. [24], the authors examined the repair of damaged
reinforced concrete beams using carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) laminates. Dif-
ferent parameters such as damage degree, laminate width, and concrete strength were
investigated. The effect of damage degree on load capacity was evaluated, and failure
mechanisms such as flaking and debonding were observed and found to be influenced by
laminate width.
In the study by Yu et al. [25], CFRP sheets were used to repair flexural damage in
pre-damaged RC beams. The failure mechanisms, deflection, and load-carrying capacity
depended on the pre-damage level, sheet layer, and reinforcement ratio. Pre-damage testing
and larger CFRP layers improved performance, but higher pre-damage levels reduced
it. A formula was developed to estimate flexural capacity under the condition of high
pre-damage levels, resulting in good performance.
Gaber et al. [26] investigated the use of NSM strips to strengthen reinforced concrete
beams. Preloaded beams were repaired using NSM-CFRP strips, resulting in an improved
load-carrying capacity, fracture resistance, and deflection performance compared to the
control beams. The strengthening effect varied depending on the preloading level.
Benjeddou et al. [27] investigated the flexural behavior of repaired reinforced concrete
(RC) beams using CFRP laminates and their contribution to restoring the strength and
rigidity of the studied beams. The damage degree, which ranged from 0% to 100% of
the control beam’s ultimate load capacity, was a key parameter. The authors found that
externally bonded CFRP laminates effectively repaired RC beams with varying degrees of
damage, successfully restoring their mechanical performance. Fayyadh et al. [28] studied
the effectiveness of CFRP-repaired RC beams and assessed them at different damage levels.
Four beams were used: one without CFRP sheets and three beams that had been repaired
after pre-damage. The study compared flexural stiffness recovery, crack patterns, load
capacity, and failure modes, finding that CFRP repair was effective and increased the
ultimate capacity regardless of the pre-repair damage level.
In this study, the flexural strength of damaged RC beams repaired using carbon
fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) via different techniques was investigated, with the un-
strengthened beams being subjected to preloads with varying percentages of the ultimate
load of the reference beam to represent the pre-damage of the beams. These beams were
strengthened and subjected to monotonic load until failure.

2. Experimental Program
2.1. Beams Geometry and Details
Nine rectangular RC beams were cast and tested in the supplementary work, compris-
ing one reference beam and eight beams divided into two groups that had been strength-
ened with CFRP. The main variable in these groups was the percentage of damage (preload)
(20, 40, 60, and 80%) and the strengthening techniques with EBR and NSM, resulting
 2. Experimental Program
2.1. Beams Geometry and Details
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 3 of 22
Nine rectangular RC beams were cast and tested in the supplementary work, com-
prising one reference beam and eight beams divided into two groups that had been
strengthened with CFRP. The main variable in these groups was the percentage of damage
from the ultimate
(preload) load
(20, 40, 60, andof80%)
the reference beam. The details
and the strengthening of thewith
techniques groups
EBR and
and the
NSM,beam
re-
configurations
sulting from theareultimate
shown in Table
load 1. reference beam. The details of the groups and the
of the
beam configurations are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Details of tested beams.
Table 1. Details of tested beams.
Percent of Damage from the Ultimate
Group Beam ID
Loadfrom
Percent of Damage of thethe
Control BeamLoad
Ultimate (%) of
Group Beam ID
Control BC1 the Control Beam- (%)
Control BC1 B-EBR-20 - 20
B-EBR-20B-EBR-40 20 40
EBR B-EBR-40 40
EBR B-EBR-60 60
B-EBR-60 60
B-EBR-80 80
B-EBR-80 80
B-NSM-20 20
B-NSM-20 20
B-NSM-40B-NSM-40 40 40
NSM
NSM
B-NSM-60B-NSM-60 60 60
B-NSM-80B-NSM-80 80 80

All
All of
of the
the tested
testedbeams
beamshad hadthethesame
samedimensions
dimensions (200 mm
(200 mm × 300 mmmm
× 300 × 2000 mm)mm)
× 2000 and
reinforcement type. The simply supported beam was subjected to
and reinforcement type. The simply supported beam was subjected to a two-point loada two-point load during
the test.the
during After damage
test. induction,
After damage all beams
induction, allinbeams
the EBR group
in the EBRwere
groupstrengthened with an
were strengthened
external
with CFRP strip
an external withstrip
CFRP a width
withofa 5width
cm and of length
5 cm and of 170 cm that
length was
of 170 cm glued
that to theglued
was bottom to
face of the beam, while the beams in the NSM group were strengthened
the bottom face of the beam, while the beams in the NSM group were strengthened via via the NSM tech-
nique,
the NSM using two CFRP
technique, strips
using with
two CFRPa width
stripsofwith
2.5 cm and length
a width of 2.5of
cm170
andcmlength
that were glued
of 170 cm
inside the concrete cover of the bottom face of the beam (2.5 cm). The steel
that were glued inside the concrete cover of the bottom face of the beam (2.5 cm). The steel bars used to
reinforce all of the beams were 2 Ø12 at the bottom and 2Ø10 at the top,
bars used to reinforce all of the beams were 2Ø12 at the bottom and 2Ø10 at the top, with with stirrup Ø10
spacing
stirrup Ø10of 80 mm near
spacing the
of 80 mm support
near the and 125 mm
support andat125
themmmiddle part
at the of thepart
middle beam; thebeam;
of the con-
crete cover was
the concrete cover2.5was
cm. 2.5
Figure
cm. 1Figure
shows1 the beam’s
shows cross-section,
the beam’s reinforcement,
cross-section, and CFRP
reinforcement, and
strengthening.
CFRP strengthening.

(a)

Figure 1. Cont.
Fibers 2023,11,
Fibers2023, 11,61
x FOR PEER REVIEW 44of
of22
23

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)
Figure 1. Beam details: (a) control (un-strengthened) beam. (b) EBR group. (c) EBR bottom face. (d)
Figure 1. Beam details: (a) control (un-strengthened) beam. (b) EBR group. (c) EBR bottom face.
NSM group. (e) NSM bottom face.
(d) NSM group. (e) NSM bottom face.
2.2. Materials
2.2. Materials Properties
Properties
2.2.1. Reinforcement
2.2.1. ReinforcementSteel
SteelBars
Bars
Twosizes
Two sizesofofdeformed
deformedbarsbarswere
wereused,
used,with
withnominal
nominaldiameters
diametersof of12
12 mm
mm and
and 10
10 mm,
mm,
respectively.
respectively. Tensile
Tensile tests
tests were
were conducted
conducted on on these
these bars
bars using
using TORSEE’S
TORSEE’S universal
universal test
test
machine,
machine, and the the average
averagecharacteristics
characteristicsofofthree
three samples
samples forfor
eacheach rebar
rebar diameter
diameter are
are pre-
presented in Table
sented in Table 2. The
2. The testing
testing was was carried
carried out according
out according to thetoAmerican
the American Standard
Standard Speci-
Specification for Deformed
fication for Deformed SteelSteel
Bars Bars
ASTM ASTM A615/A615M
A615/A615M [29]. [29].
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 5 of 22

Table 2. Tensile properties of steel reinforcing bars.

Nominal Diameter Area Yield Tensile Stress, fy Ultimate Tensile Strength, fu Elongation at Ultimate Stress
(mm) (mm2 ) (MPa) (MPa) (%)
10 78.5 587 662 13
12 113.04 677 772 14

2.2.2. Concrete
Different specimens were prepared during beam casting and were subjected to testing
to evaluate the concrete properties. The tests aimed to determine the compressive strength,
splitting tensile strength, modulus of rupture, and modulus of elasticity of the concrete.
For the compressive strength, three standard cubes measuring 150 × 150 × 150 mm, three
prismatic specimens with the dimensions of 100 × 100 × 400 mm, and three standard
cylinders measuring 150 × 300 mm were tested using a universal compression machine.
The splitting tensile strength of the concrete was determined per ASTM C496/C496M [30].
The modulus of elasticity was calculated using Equation (1), as specified in ACI 318M-
19 [31]. Finally, the modulus of rupture was determined following the procedures outlined
in ASTM C293/C293M [32]. The mechanical properties of the concrete, including the
compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, modulus of rupture, and modulus of
elasticity, are summarized in Table 3.
p
Ec = 4700 f c0 (1)

Table 3. Mechanical properties of concrete.

Compressive Strength Compressive Strength Splitting Tensile Strength Modulus of Rupture Modulus of Elasticity
(MPa) * (MPa) ** (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
32 40 3.21 3.6 26,918
* Concrete cylinders, ** concrete cubes.

2.2.3. CFRP Laminates and Epoxy Adhesive

In this study, Sika® CarboDur® S was the CFRP laminate used for improving the
flexural strength; the mechanical properties of the CFRP are presented in Table 4; when
improving the flexural strength, Epoxy Sikadur-30LP was used as a bonding material
between the concrete and CFRP laminate. This adhesive material consists of two parts: part
A, which is white in color, and part B, which is black in color. These two parts were mixed
in a ratio of 3A:1B. The mechanical and physical characteristics of the bonding resin are
presented in Table 5.

Table 4. The mechanical properties of CFRP laminates produced by Sika company.

Tensile Strength E-Modulus Strain at Break Width Density Thickness

(MPa) (MPa) (min) % (mm) (g/cm3 ) (mm)
3100 170,000 1.8 50 1.6 1.2

Table 5. The mechanical properties of an epoxy adhesive produced by Sika company.

Tensile Strength E-Modulus Shear Strength Density

Mixing Ratio
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (Kg/L)
~17 (7 days) 10,000 ~7 (7 days) 1.65 1B:3A

2.3. Installation of CFRP

The damaged (preloaded) beams were strengthened with CFRP using the EBR and
NSM techniques; in the EBR technique, the surface is first roughened with a grinder
 Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23

Fibers 2023, 11, 61 6 of 22

2.3. Installation of CFRP
The damaged (preloaded) beams were strengthened with CFRP using the EBR and
NSM techniques; in the EBR technique, the surface is first roughened with a grinder ma-
machine
chine and and cleaned
cleaned to to remove
remove anyany dust;
dust; then,
then, thethe
RC RC beams
beams aremarked
are markedininorder
orderfor
forthe
the
laminate to be installed in the correct place. The laminate is installed on the
laminate to be installed in the correct place. The laminate is installed on the bottom face bottom face
of
of the
the concrete
concrete using
using epoxy.
epoxy. In the NSM
In the NSM technique,
technique,the theCFRP
CFRPlaminates
laminatesarearecut
cutinto
intotwo
two
strips from the middle after damaged (preloading), each one with a width
strips from the middle after damaged (preloading), each one with a width of 25 mm; then, of 25 mm; then,
at
at the
the bottom
bottom face
face of
of the
the RC beams, two
RC beams, two grooves
groovesthat thatare
are2525mmmmin indepth
depthare
aremade,
made,andand
the strips are installed into these grooves using the epoxy adhesive. For both
the strips are installed into these grooves using the epoxy adhesive. For both the EBR and the EBR and
NSM
NSM strengthening
strengthening techniques,
techniques, thethe CFRP
CFRP was
was 170
170cm cmininlength;
length;thetheinstallation
installationprocess
processisis
depicted in Figure
depicted in Figure 2. 2.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Surface
Surface preparation
preparation and
and CFRP
CFRP installation
installationof
of the
theRC
RCbeams.
beams.(a)
(a)Making
Makingthe
thegrooves
groovesfor
for
NSM group. (b) Surface cleaning and roughing for EBR group. (c) Cleaning the beams from dust.
NSM group. (b) Surface cleaning and roughing for EBR group. (c) Cleaning the beams from dust.
(d) Strengthening the beams with epoxy adhesive. (e) NSM group after strengthening. (f) EBR group
(d) Strengthening
after strengthening.the beams with epoxy adhesive. (e) NSM group after strengthening. (f) EBR group
after strengthening.
2.4. Test Setup and Incrementations
2.4. Test Setup and Incrementations
To perform the testing, all of the reinforced concrete (RC) beams were simply sup-
To perform the testing, all of the reinforced concrete (RC) beams were simply sup-
ported beams that were then subjected to monotonic loads using a spreader loading beam
ported beams that were then subjected to monotonic loads using a spreader loading beam
and TORSEE’S universal test machine with a capacity of 2000 kN. The applied load was
and TORSEE’S universal test machine with a capacity of 2000 kN. The applied load was
measured using a load cell connected to a data acquisition system. To measure the deflec-
measured using a load cell connected to a data acquisition system. To measure the deflec-
tions at the mid-span of each beam during the loading test, a linear displacement sensor
tions at the mid-span of each beam during the loading test, a linear displacement sensor
(LVDT 100 mm) was used (as shown in Figure 3). Strain measurements were recorded on
(LVDT 100 mm) was used (as shown in Figure 3). Strain measurements were recorded
the concrete surface and on the steel rebars. For the concrete strain measurements, PL-
on the concrete surface and on the steel rebars. For the concrete strain measurements,
60.011-5L strain gauges were utilized and placed on the top face of the specimens, specif-
PL-60.011-5L strain gauges were utilized and placed on the top face of the specimens,
ically at the compression face. FLAB-5-11-3LJC-F-type electrical strain gauges with a base
specifically at the compression face. FLAB-5-11-3LJC-F-type electrical strain gauges with
alength of 5 mm were attached to the outer surface of the main longitudinal tensile steel
base length of 5 mm were attached to the outer surface of the main longitudinal tensile
reinforcement at the lower layer (as depicted in Figure 4). These strain gauges were
steel reinforcement at the lower layer (as depicted in Figure 4). These strain gauges were
sourced from Tokyo Measuring Laboratory (TML).
sourced from Tokyo Measuring Laboratory (TML).
 Fibers 2023, 11, 61 7 of 22
Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23

(a)

Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23

(b)
Figure 3. (a) Test setup. (b) Typical test setup.
Figure 3. (a) Test setup. (b) Typical test setup.

Figure 4. Beam
Figure incrementations
4. Beam (St. (St.
incrementations g. = g.
strain gauge).
= strain gauge).

3. Testing Procedures
The testing procedures implemented in this study are represented in Figure 5.

Testin g th e control u nstrenghening

Fibers 2023, 11, 61 8 of 22

Figure 4. Beam incrementations (St. g. = strain gauge).

3. Testing Procedures
3. Testing Procedures
The
The testing
testing procedures
procedures implemented
implemented inare
in this study this study are
represented represented
in Figure 5. in Figure 5.

Testin g th e control u nstrenghening

beam (BC1) to find th e ultimat load

Pre loading the eight unstren ghrned b eams b ased on

the persentage of the damage (20,40,60 and 80%)
fro m the u ltimate load

EBR 4 RC NSM 4 RC
beams beams
B-EBR-20 B-NSM -20
B-EBR-40 B-NSM -40
B-EBR-60 B-NSM -60
B-EBR-80 B-NSM -80

Strength with one CFRP Strength with two laminates strip

laminates 5 cm in the b ottom face of CFRP 2.5 cm in the groo ves

Left to cu ring 7 days for the epo xy

Testin g th e eigh t b eams after

stren gth ening till failure

Figure
Figure5. Testing procedure.
5. Testing procedure.

4. Test Results and Discussion

Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 23
4.1. Damage Stage
The reference beam was tested up to failure to determine the ultimate flexure capacity.
4. Test Results and Discussion
Figure 6 shows
4.1. Damage Stage the load–deflection curve of beam control failure obtained with a load of
140.1 ThekN and beam
reference failure by the
was tested up tosteel
failurereinforcement to improve
to determine the ultimate yield, followed by concrete
flexure capac-
ity. Figure 6The
cursing. showsdamage
the load–deflection
(preload) curvepercentage
of beam control(20,
failure
40,obtained
60, and with80%)
a load of the ultimate load of the
of 140.1 kN and failure by the steel reinforcement to improve yield, followed by concrete
reference beam (preload)
cursing. The damage was chosen to obtain
percentage the
(20, 40, 60, anddamaged (preloaded)
80%) of the ultimate load of theRC beams for both the EBR
and NSM groups (see Figure 7).
reference beam was chosen to obtain the damaged (preloaded) RC beams for both the EBR
and NSM groups (see Figure 7).

160

140

120

100
Load (kN)

80

60

40
BC1

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Central Deflection (mm)

Figure 6. Load vs. deflection curve for the control reference beam.
Figure 6. Load vs. deflection curve for the control reference beam.
120 120

100 100

80 80
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

60 60
 20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Central Deflection (mm)
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 9 of 22
Figure 6. Load vs. deflection curve for the control reference beam.

120 120

100 100

80 80
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
60 60

40 Damaged 80% 40 Damaged 80%

Damaged 60% Damaged 60%
20 20
Damaged 40% Damaged 40%
Damaged 20% Damaged 20%
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Central Deflection (mm) Central Deflction (mm)

(a) (b)

Figure 7. (a) Preloading curves of EBR group. (b) Preloading curves of NSM group.
Figure 7. (a) Preloading curves of EBR group. (b) Preloading curves of NSM group.
FirstCrack
First Crack Load
Load and
andCrack
CrackPattern
Pattern
Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW The experimental results showed that the first flexural crack occurred at the first load- 10 of 23
The experimental results showed that the first flexural crack occurred at the first
ing stage (preloading) for all beams except those with 20% damage, which cracked in the
loading stage (preloading) for all beams except those with 20% damage, which cracked in
second loading stage.
the second loading stage.
The
The first
first flexural
flexuralcrack
crackappeared
appeared at at
anan
applied load
applied of 33
load ofkN. The ratio
33 kN. of theoffirst
The ratio thecrack
first
load (Pcr) to the ultimate load (Pu) was approximate for the reference beam.
crack load (Pcr) to the ultimate load (Pu) was approximate for the reference beam. For For the beams
the
in the EBR
beams group,
in the EBR the first the
group, flexural crack occurred
first flexural within the
crack occurred rangethe
within of 30 to 34ofkN.
range Similarly,
30 to 34 kN.
for the beams
Similarly, in the
for the NSMingroup,
beams the NSMthe first flexural
group, crack
the first appeared
flexural crackwithin the range
appeared withinofthe
31
to 35 kN. Figure 8 illustrates the load levels corresponding to the cracking
range of 31 to 35 kN. Figure 8 illustrates the load levels corresponding to the cracking at at the damage
stage (preloading).
the damage stage (preloading).

120 112 112

100
84 84
80
Load (kN)

60 56 56

40 34 32 35 33
30 28 31 28

20
0 0
0
B-EBR-80 B-EBR-60 B-EBR-40 B-EBR-20 B-NSM-80 B-NSM-60 B-NSM-40 B-NSM-20
Beam ID
P-damaged P-cracked

Figure 8. Load at the cracking and damage stages (note that beams B-EBR-20 and B-NSM-20 were
Figure 8. Load at the cracking and damage stages (note that beams B-EBR-20 and B-NSM-20 were
not cracked during the first loading stage).
not cracked during the first loading stage).

4.2. Strengthening Stage

4.2.
4.2.1. Deformability of the Tested Beams under the Applied Load
Deformability can refer to the strain in a body, the curvature in a section, and the
rotation and deflection of the member. Figure 9 shows the relationships between applied
load and mid-span deflection from zero loading to the failure stage for all of the tested
beams. Because the load behavior could not be regulated after the peak in all of the tested
beams, the data shown in the figures ended at the failure load and its corresponding de-
flection value. The selected serviceability limit was the ultimate experimental load divided
by 1.7, as advised by several investigators, such Mansur et al. [33], because no undesirable
cracking or deformation was observed. As a result, Table 6 summarizes the relevant mid-
 percentage is inversely related to beam stiffness, meaning that the beam bends less under
the same load.
The near-surface-mounted technique is an innovative approach that significantly en-
hances the flexural strength of reinforced concrete beams. This method involves cutting
grooves into the underside of the beam, inserting CFRP strips into these grooves, and se-
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 curely bonding them to the concrete using a suitable adhesive agent. Comparing the10NSM of 22
strengthening method to the externally bonded reinforcement method, the former proved
to be more effective, and this is because NSM provides a larger bond area, is less suscep-
tible
beams.to Because
debonding, and is
the load less disruptive.
behavior could notThe CFRP reinforcement
be regulated after the peak is in
embedded
all of the in the
tested
concrete,
beams, the providing a larger
data shown bond
in the area than
figures EBR,
ended at as shown
the failurein load
Figure 10.its
and The figure shows
corresponding
that as the value.
deflection damageThe percentage
selected increased (20%,limit
serviceability 40%,was60%,the and 80%), the
ultimate NSM technique
experimental load
resulted
divided in bya1.7,
higher percentage
as advised increaseinvestigators,
by several in the ultimate loadMansur
such capacity,et with values
al. [33], of 34%,
because no
31%, 33%, and
undesirable 23%, respectively.
cracking or deformationAt the ultimate
was load,As
observed. the mid-span
a result, deflection
Table decreased
6 summarizes the
by 8.3, 12.9,
relevant 15.7, 20,deflection
mid-span 18.9, 21.4,and
23.4ultimate
and 29.7% for B-EBR-80,
applied load for B-EBR-60, B-EBR-40,
all of the tested B-EBR-
beams. The
loadB-NSM-80,
20, chosen forB-NSM-60,
the ultimate load of theand
B-NSM-40, reference beamrespectively,
B-NSM-20, (140.1 kN) iswithimportant
regardtotocompare
the ref-
deflections
erence beam,at BC1.
a constant load.

220
200
180
160
Load (kN)

140
120
100
80
60 BC1
B-EBR-80
40 B-EBR-60
20 B-EBR-40
B-EBR-20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23

(a)

220
200
180
160
Load (kN)

140
120
100
80 BC1
B-NSM-80
60
B-NSM-60
40
B-NSM-40
20
B-NSM-20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

(b)
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Load–deflection
Load–deflection curves
curves (a)
(a) EBR
EBR group.
group. (b)
(b) NSM
NSM group.
group.
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 11 of 22

Table 6. Load and the corresponding deflection for beams at different loading stages.

At Service Loading Ps (kN) At 140.1 (kN) At Ultimate Load Pult , (kN) Failure
Beam ID Percentage of Deflection Percentage of Percentage of Load Pult ,
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm) (kN)
Decreasing (%) (mm) Decreasing (%) Decreasing (%)
BC1 11.2 Ref. 35 Ref. 35 Ref. 140.1
B-EBR-80 10.72 4.3 26.33 24.8 32.1 8.3 145.1
B-EBR-60 10.69 4.6 21.75 37.9 30.5 12.9 150.2
B-EBR-40 9.4 16 19.81 43.4 29.5 15.7 160.1
B-EBR-20 8.85 21 17.38 50.3 28 20 164.2
B-NSM-80 7.96 29 14.8 57.7 28.4 18.9 178.7
B-NSM-60 7.92 29.3 11.63 66.8 27.5 21.4 200.2
B-NSM-40 7.4 33.9 9.1 74 26.8 23.4 209.4
B-NSM-20 6.7 40.2 8.1 76.9 24.6 29.7 220

The Initial deflection of the beams was found to be linear in all circumstances. The
deflection of the tested beams remained semi-linear after reaching the cracking load but at
a much shallower angle than during the pre-cracking period. Additionally, the deflection
curves began to diverge from one another based on the cracking severity and stiffness
deterioration. Beams in the same family showed varying degrees of linear section inclina-
tion. The deflection behavior of the tested beams deviated from a linear response when the
applied loads became closer to the ultimate load, entering a nonlinear zone.
At the service load stage, the mid-span deflection decreased by 4.3, 4.6, 16, 21, 29,
29.3, 33.9, and 40.2% for B-EBR-80, B-EBR-60, B-EBR-40, B-EBR-20, B-NSM-80, B-NSM-60,
B-NSM-40, and B-NSM-20, respectively, with regard to the reference beam, BC1.
When the reference beam was at the ultimate load (140.1 kN), the mid-span deflection
decreased by 24.8, 37.9, 43.4, 50.3, 57.7, 66.8, 74, and 76.9% for B-EBR-80, B-EBR-60, B-EBR-
40, B-EBR-20, B-NSM-80, B-NSM-60, B-NSM-40, and B-NSM-20, respectively, with regard
to the reference beam, BC1.
Figure 9 shows how the damage affects load deflection at the middle of the span for
all reinforced beams. Load–deflection graphs show that almost all of the beams have the
same stiffness in the elastic region. However, after the tension support yields, the damage
percentage is inversely related to beam stiffness, meaning that the beam bends less under
the same load.
The near-surface-mounted technique is an innovative approach that significantly
enhances the flexural strength of reinforced concrete beams. This method involves cutting
grooves into the underside of the beam, inserting CFRP strips into these grooves, and
securely bonding them to the concrete using a suitable adhesive agent. Comparing the
NSM strengthening method to the externally bonded reinforcement method, the former
proved to be more effective, and this is because NSM provides a larger bond area, is less
susceptible to debonding, and is less disruptive. The CFRP reinforcement is embedded
in the concrete, providing a larger bond area than EBR, as shown in Figure 10. The figure
shows that as the damage percentage increased (20%, 40%, 60%, and 80%), the NSM
technique resulted in a higher percentage increase in the ultimate load capacity, with values
of 34%, 31%, 33%, and 23%, respectively. At the ultimate load, the mid-span deflection
decreased by 8.3, 12.9, 15.7, 20, 18.9, 21.4, 23.4 and 29.7% for B-EBR-80, B-EBR-60, B-EBR-40,
B-EBR-20, B-NSM-80, B-NSM-60, B-NSM-40, and B-NSM-20, respectively, with regard to
the reference beam, BC1.
 20
B-NSM-20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Fibers 2023, 11, 61 (b) 12 of 22

Figure 9. Load–deflection curves (a) EBR group. (b) NSM group.

Figure 10. A comparison of ultimate load between the two strengthening methods (EBR and NSM).
Figure 10. A comparison of ultimate load between the two strengthening methods (EBR and NSM).

4.2.2. Load-Carrying
4.2.2.Capacity and Failure
Load-Carrying Mode
Capacity and Failure Mode
In this study, failure
In thisload wasfailure
study, determined as the
load was maximumasapplied
determined static load
the maximum that static load that
applied
caused a significant reduction
caused in strength
a significant and that
reduction ultimately
in strength andled
thattoultimately
beam collapse.
led to beam collapse.
It should be noted It that
shouldthroughout
be notedthe experimental
that throughoutinvestigation,
the experimentalonly flexural frac- only flexural
investigation,
tures were foundfractures
in the tested
werebeams.
found in Nearly vertical
the tested flexural
beams. fractures
Nearly formed
vertical flexuralin the ex- formed in the
fractures
extreme
treme tensile fibers at thetensile fibers
base of the at
webthesection,
base of close
the web section,
to the sectionclose
withto the
the section
largest with the largest
bending moment, bending
as the moment, as thecaused
applied load appliedconsiderable
load caused flexural
considerable flexural
stresses in thestresses
mid- in the mid-span
area.
span area. Vertical Vertical
flexural flexural
cracks cracks multiplied
multiplied under increasing
under increasing loads andloads and extended
extended in in length
and splayed out toward the horizontal direction as the applied stress rose, evolving into
flexural shear cracks.
These cracks resulted from the application of a load and seemed to grow in length
based on the size of the cracked area, and the direction in which the cracks spread toward
the direction of the applied force. As the load increased, the flexural fractures also tended
to flatten, revealing a change in flexural shear behavior.
In the reference beam (BC1), failure was caused by cracks that started from the beam
soffit at the largest bending moment; these cracks progressed toward the top zone due to
steel yield, followed by compression failure at the load point (flexural failure).
While for the strengthened beam with EBR CFRP laminate in B-EBR-20, B-EBR-40,
B-EBR-60, and B-EBR-80 at the damage percentages of 20, 40, 60, and 80%, respectively,
failure was determined by intermediate flexure cracks, followed by the debonding of CFRP
at the bottom of the beams strengthened with the CFRP laminate.
Finally, for the beams with NSM CFRP laminate B-NSM-20, B-NSM-40, B-NSM-60,
and B-NSM-80 at the damage percentages of 20, 40, 60, and 80%, respectively, failure was
indicated by concrete crushing, followed by a localized cover separation; in this mode of
failure, a trapezoidal or triangular piece of concrete becomes separated from the beam due
to the combination of bond cracks around the maximum moment area as well as shear and
flexural cracks, with the last two crack types occurring before the first one.
Figures 11–19 illustrate the failure mode and the crack patterns of each of the beams.
 Finally, for the beams with NSM CFRP laminate B-NSM-20, B-NSM-40, B-NSM-60,
Finally, for
and B-NSM-80 at the
the beams
damagewith NSM CFRP
percentages laminate
of 20, 40, 60, B-NSM-20, B-NSM-40, B-NSM-60,
and 80%, respectively, failure was
and B-NSM-80 at the damage percentages of 20, 40, 60, and 80%, respectively,
indicated by concrete crushing, followed by a localized cover separation; in this failure
modewasof
indicated by concrete crushing, followed by a localized cover separation; in this mode of
failure, a trapezoidal or triangular piece of concrete becomes separated from the beam due
failure, a trapezoidal or triangular piece of concrete becomes separated from the beam due
to the combination of bond cracks around the maximum moment area as well as shear
to the combination of bond cracks around the maximum moment area as well as shear
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 and flexural cracks, with the last two crack types occurring before the first one. 13 of 22
and flexural cracks, with the last two crack types occurring before the first one.
Figures 11–19 illustrate the failure mode and the crack patterns of each of the beams.
Figures 11–19 illustrate the failure mode and the crack patterns of each of the beams.

Figure
Figure11.
Figure 11.Crack
11. Crackpattern
Crack patternatat
pattern atfailure
failureof
failure ofspecimen
of specimenBC1.
specimen BC1.
BC1.

Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23

Figure 12. Crack pattern at the failure of specimen B-EBR-20.
Figure
Figure12.
12.Crack
Crackpattern
patternatatthe
thefailure
failureofofspecimen
specimenB-EBR-20.
B-EBR-20.

Figure 13. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-EBR-40.

Figure 13. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-EBR-40.
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 14 of 22
Figure 13. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-EBR-40.
Figure 13. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-EBR-40.

Figure 14. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-EBR-60.

Figure 14. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-EBR-60.
Figure 14. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-EBR-60.

Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

Figure 15. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-EBR-80.

Figure 15. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-EBR-80.
Figure 15. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-EBR-80.

Figure
Figure 16.
16. Crack
Crack pattern
pattern at
at failure
failure of
of specimen
specimen B-NSM-20.
B-NSM-20.
Figure 16. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-NSM-20.

Figure 17.
Figure17. Crack
17.Crack pattern
Crackpattern at failure of specimen
pattern at B-NSM-40.
Figure failure of specimen
specimen B-NSM-40.
B-NSM-40.
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 15 of 22
Figure
Figure 17.
17. Crack
Crack pattern
pattern at
at failure
failure of
of specimen
specimen B-NSM-40.
B-NSM-40.

Figure
Figure 18.
18. Crack
Crack pattern
pattern at
at failure
failure of
of specimen
specimen B-NSM-60.
B-NSM-60.
Figure 18. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-NSM-60.

Figure 19. Crack pattern at failure of specimen B-NSM-80.

Table 7 shows that decreasing the percentage of damage leads to an increase in the
ultimate strength of about 3.6, 7.2, 14.3, and 17.2% for beams with the damage percentages
of 80, 60, 40, and 20%, respectively, concerning the reference beam in the EBR group.
Additionally, decreasing the damage percentage led to a higher increase in the ultimate
strength of about 27.6, 42.9, 49.5, and 57% for beams with the damage percentages of 80, 60,
40, and 20%, respectively, with regard to the reference beam in the NSM group.

Table 7. Ultimate load for beams.

Percentage of
Beam ID Failure Load Pu , (kN) Increase Percentage in Pu (%)
PuNSM /PuEBR
BC1 140.1 Ref. -
B-EBR-80 145.1 3.6 -
B-EBR-60 150.2 7.2 -
B-EBR-40 160.1 14.3 -
B-EBR-20 164.2 17.2 -
B-NSM-80 178.7 27.6 1.23
B-NSM-60 200.2 42.9 1.33
B-NSM-40 209.4 49.5 1.31
B-NSM-20 220 57 1.34

The damage percentage is inversely proportional to beam stiffness. Additionally,

the suggested NSM strengthening method was more effective than the EBR method (see
Figure 20).
 B-EBR-60 150.2 7.2 -
B-EBR-40 160.1 14.3 -
B-EBR-20 164.2 17.2 -
B-NSM-80 178.7 27.6 1.23
Fibers 2023, 11, 61
B-NSM-60 200.2 42.9 1.33 16 of 22
B-NSM-40 209.4 49.5 1.31
B-NSM-20 220 57 1.34

Ultimate load (kN)

250 220
209.4
200.2
200 178.7
160.1 164.2
145.1 150.2
140.1
150

100

50

Figure 20.
Figure 20.Ultimate
Ultimateload forfor
load all beams.
all beams.

4.2.3. Load
4.2.3. Loadvs.
vs.Concrete
ConcreteStrain through
Strain Testing
through Monotonic
Testing Beams Beams
Monotonic
Longitudinal
Longitudinal concrete surface
concrete strain
surface mid-span
strain at the top
mid-span of the
at the topbeam wasbeam
of the measured.
was measured.
This location was selected to better understand how the reinforced concrete beams re-
This location was selected to better understand how the reinforced concrete beams respond,
spond, as well as their flexural behavior. To investigate the compression strain during
as well as their flexural behavior. To investigate the compression strain during loading
loading stages, PL-60-11-5L-type strain gauges were fixed on the concrete surface at the
stages,
selectedPL-60-11-5L-type strain gauges
location. Each measurement’s strainwere fixed ontothe
was allocated the concrete surface
middle point of theat the selected
pre-
Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWlocation. Each measurement’s
sent strain gauge length. strain was allocated to the middle point of the present
17 of 23 strain
gauge length.
Cracks in concrete constructions may be either the consequence of water loss shrink-
age or the effect
Cracks of external
in concrete stresses.
constructions mayCertain
be eithercuring circumstances
the consequence of waterrestrict or dictate the
loss shrink-
occurrence of the
age or the effect of first typestresses.
external of crack. Sincecuring
Certain straincircumstances
types in the restrict
longitudinal direction
or dictate the only
provide a nominal
occurrence of the firstvalue,
typethey are ignored.
of crack. During
Since strain typesthe loading
in the test, it is
longitudinal clear that
direction longitudi-
only
provide
nal a nominalstresses
compression value, they are ignored.
increased During the The
significantly. loading test, it isbehavior
diverging clear that longitu-
of the curves is
dinal compression
evidence of this. stresses increased significantly. The diverging behavior of the curves
is evidence
Figureof21 this.
shows the load versus longitudinal compressive concrete strains at the
top mid-span in thethe
Figure 21 shows load versus
beams from thelongitudinal
EBR group,compressive concrete
while Figure 22strains
showsatthetheload
top versus
mid-span in the beams from the EBR group, while Figure 22 shows the load versus longi-
longitudinal compressive concrete strains at the top mid-span in the beams from the
tudinal compressive concrete strains at the top mid-span in the beams from the NSM
NSM group.
group.

250

200
Load (kN)

150

100 BC1
B-EBR-80
50 B-EBR-60
B-EBR-40
B-EBR-20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Figure 21. Load versus longitudinal compressive concrete strains at the top mid-span of beams from
Figure 21. Load versus longitudinal compressive concrete strains at the top mid-span of beams from
the EBR group.
the EBR group.
250

200
)
 50 B-EBR-60
B-EBR-40
B-EBR-20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Fibers 2023, 11, 61 17 of 22

Figure 21. Load versus longitudinal compressive concrete strains at the top mid-span of beams from
the EBR group.

250

200

Load (kN)
150

100
BC1
B-NSM-80
50 B-NSM-60
B-NSM-40
B-NSM-20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Figure 22.
Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWFigure 22.Load
Loadversus
versuslongitudinal compressive
longitudinal concrete
compressive strainsstrains
concrete at the top mid-span
at the of beams
top mid-span from
18of
ofbeams
23 from
the NSM group.
the NSM group.
4.2.4. Load
4.2.4. Load vs.
vs.Mid-Span
Mid-Span Strain of Longitudinal
Strain ofbars Bottom Steel Reinforcement
Longitudinal
outward surface of the reinforcing . Figures 23 Bottom Steel Reinforcement
and 24 demonstrate that all beams
The strain was measured in the lower layer of the steel reinforcement (Ø12 mm) using
The
behave strain
almost was measured
linearly at the start in the lower
of loading up tolayer
aboutof30the
kNsteel reinforcement
and that (Ø12 mm)
the strains that
electrical FLAB-5-11-3LJC-F-type strain gauges with a base length of 5 mm attached to the
develop
using are small.
electrical At higher loading stages, strain
FLAB-5-11-3LJC-F-type the reference
gaugesbeam
withthat has not
a base beenof
length strength-
5 mm attached
ened
to theshows a higher
outward increase
surface of in strain
the than the strengthened
reinforcing bars. Figures beams. By reducing
23 and the strain that all
24 demonstrate
at the same load level, decreasing the damage percentage makes it
beams behave almost linearly at the start of loading up to about 30 kN and that stiffer. At their maxi-
the strains
that develop are small. At higher loading stages, the reference beam that hasofnot been
mum load, all of the beams in the flexural group were stronger than the yield strength
the steel bars (3385 µε).
strengthened shows a higher increase in strain than the strengthened beams. By reducing
Figure 23 shows the load versus longitudinal compressive concrete strains at the top
the strain at the same load level, decreasing the damage percentage makes it stiffer. At their
mid-span of the beams from the EBR group, while Figure 24 shows the load versus longi-
maximum load, all of the beams in the flexural group were stronger than the yield strength
tudinal compressive concrete strains at the top mid-span in the beams from the NSM
of the
group. steel bars (3385 µε).

250

200
Load (kN)

150

BC1
100 B-EBR-80
B-EBR-60
50 B-EBR-40
B-EBR-20
Yield strain
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Figure 23.
Figure 23. Load
Loadversus
versuslongitudinal steelsteel
longitudinal strain for beams
strain in the in
for beams EBR
thegroup.
EBR group.

250

200
Load (kN)

150

BC1
100 B-NSM-80
 B-EBR-60
50 B-EBR-40
B-EBR-20
Yield strain
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 18 of 22

Figure 23. Load versus longitudinal steel strain for beams in the EBR group.

250

200

Load (kN)
150

BC1
100 B-NSM-80

B-NSM-60

Fibers 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 50 B-NSM-40 19 of 23

B-NSM-20

Yield strain
0
4.3 Stiffness
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
The stiffness of reinforced concrete (RC) beams is an important property that affects
their behavior and performance. Stiffness is defined as the resistance of a material to de-
formation under an applied load. A body’s stiffness K is primarily determined by flexural
stiffness,
Figure 24. which measures
Load versus the beam’s
longitudinal resistance
steel strain to bending.
for beams Table
in the NSM 8 shows the stiffness of
group.
Figure Load versus
24. during
the beams longitudinal
the service steel strain
load and ultimate load for beams
stage. Addingin the
CFRP NSM
to angroup.
RC beam
increases its stiffness and load-carrying capacity by improving its flexural strength and
Figure
ductility. 23study,
In this showsCFRP the
wasload versus
typically longitudinal
applied compressive
externally to the beam using the concrete
EBR strains at the
top mid-span of the beams from the EBR group, while Figure 24 shows the load versus
and NSM methods. During loading, CFRP was bonded to the surface of the beam using a
high-strength epoxy
longitudinal adhesive. See
compressive Figure 25,strains
concrete which shows
at the a comparison
top mid-spanof the stiffness
in the beams from the
values of the tested beams (where Ku: stiffness at the ultimate load stage, and Ks: stiffness
NSM group.
at the service load stage).

4.3.
TableStiffness
8. Stiffness of tested beams.
The stiffness
Service Load Stageof
reinforced concrete (RC) beams
Ultimate is an
Load important property that affects
Stage
Specimens their behavior and performance.
Stiffness, k Stiffness is defined as theStiffness,
resistance
k of a material to
Deflection (mm) Load (kN) Deflection (mm) Load (𝐤𝐍)
deformation under an(kN/mm) applied load. A body’s stiffness K is(kN/mm) primarily determined by
BC1 11.2flexural stiffness,
82.41 which7.35 measures the35beam’s resistance 140.1 to bending.4 Table 8 shows the
B-EBR-80 10.72 85.35 7.96 32.1 145.1 4.52
stiffness of the beams during the service load and ultimate load stage. Adding CFRP to
B-EBR-60 10.69
an RC beam88.35 increases its 8.26
stiffness and30.5
load-carrying 150.2
capacity by 4.92
improving its flexural
B-EBR-40 9.4 94.17 10.01 29.5 160.1 5.42
B-EBR-20 8.85
strength and ductility.
96.58
In this
10.91
study, CFRP
28
was typically
164.2
applied externally
5.86
to the beam
B-NSM-80 7.96using the EBR and
105.11 NSM methods.
13.20 During
28.4 loading, CFRP
178.7 was bonded
6.29 to the surface of the
B-NSM-60 7.92beam using a high-strength
117.76 14.86 epoxy adhesive.
27.5 See Figure
200.225, which shows
7.28 a comparison of
B-NSM-40 7.4the stiffness123.17
values of the16.64
tested beams26.8 (where Ku: stiffness
209.4 at the7.81
ultimate load stage, and
B-NSM-20 6.7Ks: stiffness129.41
at the service load stage). 24.6
19.31 220 8.94

25

Ku Ks
20
Stiffness k, (kN/mm)

15

10

Beam ID

Figure 25. A comparison of stiffness values of tested beams.

Figure 25. A comparison of stiffness values of tested beams.
4.4 Flexure Toughness
The area under the load–deflection curves was used to calculate the flexural tough-
ness (total energy) of each beam in this investigation. This computation was achieved
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 19 of 22

Table 8. Stiffness of tested beams.

Service Load Stage Ultimate Load Stage

Specimens Stiffness, k Stiffness, k
Deflection (mm) Load (kN) Deflection (mm) Load (kN)
(kN/mm) (kN/mm)
BC1 11.2 82.41 7.35 35 140.1 4
B-EBR-80 10.72 85.35 7.96 32.1 145.1 4.52
B-EBR-60 10.69 88.35 8.26 30.5 150.2 4.92
B-EBR-40 9.4 94.17 10.01 29.5 160.1 5.42
B-EBR-20 8.85 96.58 10.91 28 164.2 5.86
B-NSM-80 7.96 105.11 13.20 28.4 178.7 6.29
B-NSM-60 7.92 117.76 14.86 27.5 200.2 7.28
B-NSM-40 7.4 123.17 16.64 26.8 209.4 7.81
B-NSM-20 6.7 129.41 19.31 24.6 220 8.94

4.4. Flexure Toughness

The area under the load–deflection curves was used to calculate the flexural toughness
(total energy) of each beam in this investigation. This computation was achieved using Au-
toCAD. Overall, energy absorption capability is what is being referred to when describing
a material’s flexural toughness. As a measure of the potential energy that may be stored in
a loaded concrete structure, it is an important metric in the context of concrete structures.
Both the maximum load value and the deflection at failure affect the absorbed energy,
which is shown by the area under the load–deflection curve of the monotonic applied load.
The total energies of the tested beams are listed in Table 9, and a comparison is shown in
Figure 26. The flexural toughness of the beams in the NSM group was found to be superior
to that of the EBR beams.

Table 9. Total energy of tested beams.

Beam ID Total Energy (kN·mm) Percent of Change in Total Energy

BC1 3358 Ref.
B-EBR-20 3236 −3.6
B-EBR-40 3257 −3
B-EBR-60 3166 −5.7
B-EBR-80 3152 −6.1
B-NSM-20 3983 +18.6
B-NSM-40 4161 +23.9
B-NSM-60 3949 +17.6
B-NSM-80 3658 +8.9
 B-EBR-40 3257 −3
B-EBR-60 3166 −5.7
B-EBR-80 3152 −6.1
B-NSM-20 3983 +18.6
B-NSM-40 4161 +23.9
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 20 of 22
B-NSM-60 3949 +17.6
B-NSM-80 3658 +8.9

Total Energy (Kn .mm)

4500 4161
3949 3983
4000 3658
3358 3257 3236
3500 3152 3166

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Figure 26.
Figure 26. AAcomparison
comparisonof of
total energy
total values
energy of tested
values beams.
of tested beams.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
In
In this
thisstudy,
study,ananexperimental
experimentaltesttest
investigated the flexural
investigated behavior
the flexural of rectangular
behavior of rectangular
RC beams that had been damaged or preloaded at different percentages (20,and
RC beams that had been damaged or preloaded at different percentages (20, 40, 60, 40, 60, and
80%) according to the ultimate failure load of the control reference beam; two different
80%) according to the ultimate failure load of the control reference beam; two different
techniques were used in this study: EBR and NSM, which were implemented to improve
techniques were used in this study: EBR and NSM, which were implemented to improve
the strength of the beams after applying the preload. The described experimental program
the strength
includes of the beams
one reference beamafter applying
and eight beams the preload.
divided intoThe described
the EBR and NSMexperimental
groups, andprogram
includes one reference beam and eight beams divided into the EBR and
these beams were tested monotonically under two concentrated loads until failure. NSM groups,
The and
these beams were tested monotonically
main findings from this study are as follows: under two concentrated loads until failure. The
main findings from this study are as follows:
• The experimental results show how the repair with CFRP effectively strengthens the
damaged RC beams using both techniques, EBR and NSM. Additionally, NSM was
more effective than EBR. This is due to NSM providing a larger bond area, is less
susceptible to debonding, and is less disruptive. The CFRP reinforcement is embedded
in the concrete, providing a larger bond area than EBR.
• The first flexural crack occurred during the first loading stage (preloading) for all
beams except the beams with a damage (preload) percentage of 20%, which cracked
during the second loading stage because of this percent of damage (preload), which is
not enough to crack the beams.
• The flexural strength and load-carrying capacity for the damaged (preloaded) beams
for both groups after repairing with CFRP increased by 3.6 to 17.2% for the EBR group
and 27.6 to 57% for the NSM group; this concluded that decreasing the percentage of
the damage (preload) led to an increase of the ultimate loads of beams, respectively,
based on the damage (preload) percent.
• The stiffness of the repaired (strengthened) beams for both techniques increased after
being repaired with CFRP compared to the reference beam at all load stages.
• The flexural toughness of the beams in the NSM group was superior to that of the EBR
beams and reference beam; but for the EBR compared to the reference beam, the total
energy (toughness) was less than the reference beam.
• The beams strengthened with CFRP exhibited lower deflections than the un-strengthened
beam at all load stages because of the brittle nature of CFRP and bonding characteristics.
• In the reference beam (BC1), failure was due to steel yield, followed by concrete
crushing at the compression zone at the load point (flexural failure); for the EBR group,
failure was determined by intermediate flexure cracks followed by the debonding
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 21 of 22

of CFRP at the bottom of the beams strengthened with the CFRP laminate. Finally,
NSM group failure was indicated by concrete crushing followed by a localized cover
separation; in this mode of failure, a trapezoidal or triangular piece of concrete becomes
separated from the beam due to the combination of bond cracks around the maximum
moment area as well as shear and flexural cracks, with the last two crack types
occurring before the first one.

Author Contributions: Investigation, A.Y.T.; resources, A.Y.T.; supervision, M.H.A.-F.; visualization,

M.H.A.-F. and A.Y.T.; analysis, M.H.A.-F. and A.Y.T.; writing—original draft, A.Y.T.; writing—review
and editing, A.Y.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Choi, H.T.; West, J.S.; Soudki, K.A. Partially bonded near-surface-mounted CFRP bars for strengthened concrete T-beams. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2441–2449. [CrossRef]
2. Al-Saidy, A.H.; Al-Harthy, A.S.; Al-Jabri, K.S.; Abdul-Halim, M.; Al-Shidi, N.M. Structural performance of corroded RC beams
repaired with CFRP sheets. Compos. Struct. 2010, 92, 1931–1938. [CrossRef]
3. Frhaan, W.K.M.; Bakar, B.H.A.; Hilal, N.; Al-Hadithi, A.I. CFRP for strengthening and repairing reinforced concrete: A review.
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2021, 6, 49. [CrossRef]
4. Al-Quraishi, H.; Al-Farttoosi, M.; AbdulKhudhur, R. Tension Lap Splice Length of Reinforcing Bars Embeddedin Reactive Powder
Concrete (RPC). Structures 2019, 9, 362–368. [CrossRef]
5. Aslam, M.; Shafigh, P.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Shah, S.N.R. Strengthening RC beams using prestressed fiber reinforced polymers—A
review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 82, 235–256. [CrossRef]
6. Mhanna, H.H.; Hawileh, R.A.; Abdalla, J.A. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using CFRP wraps. In Procedia
Structural Integrity; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 214–221. [CrossRef]
7. Wang, Y.C.; Restrepo, J.I. Response of Rc T-Beams Strengthened for Flexure with Staggered Cfrp Plates. J. Compos. Constr. 2001, 5,
188–199. [CrossRef]
8. Ashour, A.F.; El-Refaie, S.A.; Garrity, S.W. Flexural strengthening of RC continuous beams using CFRP laminates. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 2004, 26, 765–775. [CrossRef]
9. Wu, Z.; Shao, Y.; Iwashita, K.; Sakamoto, K. Strengthening of Preloaded RC Beams Using Hybrid Carbon Sheets. J. Compos. Constr.
2007, 11, 299–307. [CrossRef]
10. Rafiq, Y.; Al-Farttoosi, M. Using Model Updating to Predict the Failure of Reinforced Concrete Elements. In Computing in Civil
Engineering (2013); ASCE Conference in LA; ASCE: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 459–467.
11. Al-Farttoosi, M.; Rafiq, Y.; Summerscales, J.; Williams, C. Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of Flexural Behaviour of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Externally Strengthened with CFRP. In Proceedings of the Advanced Composites in Construction
(ACIC), Belfast, UK, 10–12 September 2013.
12. Abdallah, M.; Al Mahmoud, F.; Khelil, A.; Mercier, J. Efficiency of EB CFRP composites for flexural strengthening of continuous
RC beams: A comparative study with NSM CFRP rods. Structures 2021, 34, 1567–1588. [CrossRef]
13. Jahani, Y.; Baena, M.; Barris, C.; Torres, L.; Sena-Cruz, J. Effect of fatigue loading on flexural performance of NSM CFRP-
strengthened RC beams under different service temperatures. Eng. Struct. 2022, 273, 115119. [CrossRef]
14. Abdulhameed, A.A.; Said, A.I. CFRP laminates reinforcing performance of short-span wedge-blocks segmental beams. Fibers
2020, 8, 6. [CrossRef]
15. Naqe, A.W.; Al-zuhairi, A.H. Strengthening RC Beam with Large Square Opening Using CFRP. J. Eng. 2020, 26, 123–134.
[CrossRef]
16. Al-zu’bi, H.; Abdel-Jaber, M.; Katkhuda, H. Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Variable Compressive
Strength Using Near-Surface Mounted Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strips [NSM-CFRP]. Fibers 2022, 10, 86. [CrossRef]
17. ALI, D.D.; Al-Oukaili, N.K.; Husain, H.M. Experimental Investigation of Reinforced Concrete Flexural Beams Strengthened or
Repaired with CFRP. J. Eng. 2009, 15, 3891–3906.
18. Al-khreisat, A.; Abdel-Jaber, M.; Ashteyat, A. Shear Strengthening and Repairing of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams Damaged
by Heat Using NSM–CFRP Ropes. Fibers 2023, 11, 35. [CrossRef]
19. Yu, F.; Fang, Y.; Zhou, H.; Bai, R.; Xie, C. A Simplified Model for Crack Width Prediction of Flexural-Strengthened High
Pre-Damaged Beams with CFRP Sheet. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 24, 3746–3764. [CrossRef]
Fibers 2023, 11, 61 22 of 22

20. Khalaf, M.R.; Al-Ahmed, A.H.A.; Allawi, A.A.; El-Zohairy, A. Strengthening of continuous reinforced concrete deep beams with
large openings using CFRP strips. Materials 2021, 14, 3119. [CrossRef]
21. Thamrin, R.; Zaidir, Z.; Desharma, S. Debonding failure analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with CFRP plates.
Polymers 2021, 13, 2738. [CrossRef]
22. Li, G.; Zhang, A.; Guo, Y. Effect of preload level on flexural load-carrying capacity of RC beams strengthened by externally
bonded FRP sheets. Open Civ. Eng. J. 2015, 9, 426–434. [CrossRef]
23. Morsy, A.M.; El-Tony, E.T.M.; El-Naggar, M. Flexural repair/strengthening of pre-damaged R.C. beams using embedded CFRP
rods. Alex. Eng. J. 2015, 54, 1175–1179. [CrossRef]
24. Meikandaan, T.P.; Murthy, A.R. Study of Damaged RC Beams Repaired by Bonding of CFRP Laminates. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol.
(IJCIET) 2017, 8, 470–486.
25. Yu, F.; Zhou, H.; Jiang, N.; Fang, Y.; Song, J.; Feng, C.; Guan, Y. Flexural experiment and capacity investigation of CFRP repaired
RC beams under heavy pre-damaged level. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 230, 117030. [CrossRef]
26. Gaber, M.R.; Al-Baghdadi, H.A. Response of damaged reinforced concrete beams strengthened with NSM CFRP strips. In Key
Engineering Materials; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Stafa-Zurich, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 3–9. [CrossRef]
27. Benjeddou, O.; ben Ouezdou, M.; Bedday, A. Damaged RC beams repaired by bonding of CFRP laminates. Constr. Build. Mater.
2007, 21, 1301–1310. [CrossRef]
28. Fayyadh, M.M.; Abdul Razak, H. Assessment of effectiveness of CFRP repaired RC beams under different damage levels based
on flexural stiffness. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 37, 125–134. [CrossRef]
29. ASTM Designation A615-615M-16; Standard Test Method for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement.
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2009.
30. ASTM Designation C496-C496M-11; Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
31. ACI 318; Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) Commentary on Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-19) An ACI Standard and Report from HIS. ACI: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2019.
32. ASTM Designation C293-293M-16; Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in
Compression ASTM International. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2001.
33. Mansur, M.A.; Huang, L.M.; Tan, K.H.; Lee, S.L. Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Web Openings. ACI Struct. J.
1991, 89, 391–397.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.