1214|https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.

21309
Creative Commons Attribution b

Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

Experimental and Numerical Study on RC Beams

Strengthened by NSM Using CFRP Reinforcements

Abderrahmane Abdesselam1*, Abdelghani Merdas1, Bruno Fiorio2, Nasr-Eddine Chikh3

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Emerging Materials Research Unit, University of Setif 1, Setif, 19000, Algeria
2
Department of Civil Engineering, CY Cergy Paris University, Paris, 95011, France
3
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Constantine 1, Constantine, 25000, Algeria
*
Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]

Received: 11 October 2023, Accepted: 24 June 2023, Published online: 24 July 2023

Abstract
Near Surface Mounted (NSM) Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) reinforcement technique to improve the flexural strength
of reinforced concrete members has become increasingly attractive in recent years. In this study, the practical problem of concrete
cover depth cutting limitation was investigated. Twelve specimens were tested by four-point bending until failure. Experimental
parameters include concrete cover depth, CFRP reinforcement type, CFRP positioning, and stirrups status. Furthermore, a nonlinear
FEA model was developed to simulate the tested beams and was able to predict the experimental behavior satisfactorily. A series
of parametric studies were then performed using this model to understand the effect of various reinforcement parameters on the
flexural performance of the beam. The results showed that Strengthening with CFRP resulted in a significant increase in yield and
ultimate strengths, but a significant ductility loss was recorded due to CFRP strip debonding in the strengthened beams, this problem
was addressed by using more efficient strengthening techniques utilizing the effective bond length and a proper groove depth and
positioning for the NSM bars.
Keywords
CFRP, RC-beams, NSM, experimental, FEA, parametric study

1 Introduction
Damage to reinforced structures can be a result of inad- structures. These systems have been proven to effectively
equate reinforcement, excessive deflection, inadequate and efficiently improve the performance of concrete struc-
concrete quality, corroded reinforcement, or insufficient tures by expanding the interface between the FRP and con-
bearing capacity. [1]. All of these factors can cause cracks crete, leading to enhanced bonding and increased strength.
in structural elements. The propagation of the crack and The bond between NSM FRP strip/rod and concrete, have
the depth of the crack indicates the degree of damage. an important role in developing the interface, was ana-
Amongst the different strengthening techniques that have lyzed mainly with beam pullout tests [3, 4]. The effec-
been developed and applied to strengthen damaged RC tiveness of the NSM technique stems from the relatively
structures, the use of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) rein- high bonding performance between the FRP bars and the
forcements has significantly increased recently. Externally concrete substrate. Efficiency is even higher when these
bonded FRP strips and sheets have been the most com- bars have a rectangular cross-section because they pro-
monly used techniques for strengthening bridges and con- vide a larger surface area for bonding with the surround-
crete structures. Numerous tests have shown that brittle ing concrete [5–7]. Tests on simply supported RC mem-
fracture due to delamination of FRP and concrete cover bers reinforced with NSM CFRP bars/rods have shown
separation was the dominating failure mode [2], so the full that these bars debond at much higher stresses compared to
tensile strength of the FRP could not be utilized. The issue the EBR CFRP reinforcement technique [8, 9]. In contrast
of premature failure in EBR systems can be addressed by to EBR, NSM reinforcement does not require the surface
utilizing near-surface mounted CFRP systems, which offer of the concrete to be roughened or shot-blasted in order
a reliable and sustainable solution for reinforcing concrete to ensure proper bonding between the FRP reinforcement

Cite this article as: Abdesselam, A., Merdas, A., Fiorio, B., Chikh, N.-E. "Experimental and Numerical Study on RC Beams Strengthened by NSM Using CFRP
Reinforcements", Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.21309
 |1215
Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

and the concrete substrate and provides additional protec- into account the probabilistic nature of concrete properties
tion against environmental impacts and disruptive behav- and complementary strain energy values. Szép et al. [28]
ior which can compromise the durability and performance utilized reliability analysis to model reinforced concrete
of concrete structures. Beam sample test results show beams at elevated temperatures. Although some interesting
that the application of the NSM FRP strip/rod signifi- experimental and numerical studies have been developed,
cantly improved the flexural strength and stiffness of the the structural behavior of damaged RC elements strength-
beam [10–12]. Furthermore, the failure of beams strength- ened with NSM FRP strip/rod still needs to be fully inves-
ened with externally bonded FRP strips was observed with tigated. In particular, the limitation of groove cutting
a load level significantly lower than the ultimate load mea- depth in NSM CFRP reinforcement is closely associated
sured for beams strengthened with NSM FRP reinforcing with the depth of concrete cover and requires careful con-
bars or strips [13]. Many studies were dedicated to inves- sideration and planning to ensure effective reinforcement
tigating the bond performance of NSM FRP reinforce- and long-term performance of the structure. To overcome
ment showing that carbon plates have a better bond perfor- this practical problem, this research proposes two differ-
mance than steel bars, also increasing the concrete strength ent approaches for NSM reinforcement. In the first one,
improves significantly the pullout forces [14–16]. In addi- the debonding problem is improved by increasing groove
tion, increasing the roughness of the surface resulted in sizes by slightly cutting the lower part of stirrups without
better bond performance [17]. To fully evaluate the effect damaging the main reinforcing rods. The other method of
of different strengthening parameters on the performance NSM reinforcement is to partially insert the CFRP strip,
of reinforced concrete members, a numerical investi- the exposed part is covered afterward by a layer of con-
gation is necessary to simulate the experimental results. crete epoxy for protection. Numerical results validated by
Several researchers have conducted numerical investi- the Experimental work obtained from four-point bending
gations to simulate the behavior of NSM FRP retrofitted tests were used to conduct a series of parametric studies
structures. Lundqvist et al. [18] analyzed the anchorage to understand the effect of various reinforcement param-
length of NSM FRP bars used for flexural strengthening of eters on the behavior of the beams. The paper is struc-
RC beams using a 3D nonlinear FEA model. Vasquez and tured as follows: After the introduction, Section 2 offers
Seracino [19] simulated the stress distributions near one a comprehensive explanation of the experimental program,
of the two ends of CFRP strips in RC beams strengthened outlining the specific procedures and methods employed,
with NSM CFRP strips. Barros et al. [20] used the FEA the materials utilized, and the specific setup of the exper-
program FEMIX to simulate the behavior of NSM CFRP iments. Moving on to Section 3, the numerical modeling
strengthened columns. However, these studies used a per- techniques utilized to analyze the beams under investiga-
fect bond-slip model which may not be accurate to predict tion are discussed. Section 4 is dedicated to presenting the
the debonding failure mode. In contrast, Obaidat et al. [21] results and discussions derived from the experiments and
used the cohesive zone approach to model externally numerical simulations. Additionally, this section includes
bonded CFRP retrofitted beams, which can provide a more the validation of the numerical model against the experi-
accurate prediction of debonding. Hawileh [22] devel- mental data. Furthermore, Section 5 focuses on the para-
oped a model using the FE program ANSYS to study the metric studies conducted within this study, exploring the
effect of different NSM material bar types and diameters. effects of various parameters on the structural behavior
Rezazadeh et al. [23] simulated the combined effect of both of the beams. Finally, in Section 6, the conclusions drawn
EBR and NSM systems using a 3D FE model developed from the research are presented.
with the FE program ABAQUS. Hosen et al. [24] Studied
the effect of using the side near surface method SNSM as 2 Experimental program
an alternative to the NSM technique on the flexural behav- 2.1 Materials
ior of RC beams. Movahedi Rad et al. [25] introduced an 2.1.1 Concrete
innovative numerical optimization to control the plastic The concrete specimens were prepared using a mixture of
behavior of reinforced concrete haunched beams. Khaleel Ordinary Portland Cement, fine sand (0–4 mm), crushed
Ibrahim and Movahedi Rad [26, 27] applied an optimal gravel (4–10 mm), and (6–20 mm) aggregates according
reliability-based design approach to reinforce concrete to the mix proportion presented in Table 1. After casting,
haunched beams and CFRP-strengthened beams. Taking the specimens were cured in water (20C) for a duration
1216|Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

Table 1 Mix proportion of concrete equipped with an extensometer (5 mm) to measure defor-
Water Cement Sand Gravel Gravel mation of the Samples. The tests were carried out in a dis-
W/C G/C
l/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 4/10 kg/m3 6.3/20 kg/m3 placement control mode with a constant displacement rate
209 336 419 471 834 0.62 2.48 of 0.01 mm/min. Material properties determined from the
tests are summarized in Table 2.
of 28 days. To evaluate the hardened concrete properties,
compression tests were conducted on (160 mm × 320 mm) 2.2 Specimen configuration
specimens, in accordance with the NF P 18-406 stan- The experimental study involved twelve (12) concrete
dard [29]. Tensile strength ƒct was measured using split- beam specimens initially reinforced with steel bars for
ting tests as per the NF P 18-408 standard [30]. The aver- their flexural strength. To enhance their flexural capac-
age values of the three characterization cylinders tested ity, CFRP-NSM strengthening scheme was employed.
were considered to determine the properties of concrete. All twelve beams were 1000 mm long and had a rectan-
The results revealed that the average compressive gular cross-section of 150 mm in height and 100 mm in
strength of the concrete was 33.76 MPa, while the average width. For the flexural reinforcement, two 8 mm diame-
tensile strength and modulus of elasticity were 3.11 MPa ter bars were used for tension and compression reinforce-
and 33.55 GPa, respectively. ment, which satisfied a steel ratio of 0.0067. To prevent
shear failure from occurring prior to flexural failure, rect-
2.1.2 Steel reinforcements angular stirrups made of 6 mm diameter were placed at
The study employed high-grade steel bars with an 8 mm
Table 2 Material properties
diameter as the primary longitudinal reinforcements,
Standard
along with mild steel bars with a 6 mm diameter for trans- Material Property CV %
deviation
verse stirrups. The properties of the steel reinforcement Compressive strength
33,76 1,33 3,94
were experimentally determined in accordance with Euro- (MPa)
Norm EN10002 [31] with the average values obtained from Concrete Tensile strength (MPa) 3,18 0,36 11,35
testing three specimens. Modulus of elasticity
33.55 1.39 4.14
(GPa)

2.1.3 CFRP reinforcements Diameter (mm) 8 / /

To assess the tensile strength and Young's modulus of the Compression Tensile strength (MPa) 666.20 10.71 1.60
and tension steel Yield stress (MPa) 598.1 8.25 1.37
CFRP materials used in the study, three specimens were
reinforcement
cut to a length of 440 mm and connected to a hydraulic Modulus of elasticity
200 / /
(GPa)
tensile machine through custom-made steel tubes measur-
Diameter (mm) 6 / /
ing 25 cm in length and 12 mm in diameter. The CFRP
Tensile strength (MPa) 558.91 26.58 2.25
rod had a circular cross-section with a diameter of 8 mm,
Sear steel stirrup Yield stress (MPa) 456.19 12.16 2.66
while the CFRP strip had a rectangular cross-section mea-
Modulus of elasticity
suring 20 mm in width and 2.5 mm in thickness. Uniaxial 200 / /
(GPa)
tensile tests were conducted in accordance with Euro-
Diameter (mm) 8 / /
Norm EN10002 [31] using a load-control mode with a con-
Tensile strength (MPa) 2561.23 36.98 1.44
stant rate of 0.1 kN/s until the reinforcement failed. CFRP rod
Modulus of elasticity
179.46 1.52 0.84
(GPa)
2.1.4 Epoxy adhesive Thickness × width
2.5 × 20 / /
To fill the grooves, EPONAL 371 epoxy adhesive was (mm)
used. To determine its tensile strength and modulus of CFRP strip Tensile strength (MPa) 2538.15 157.79 6.2
elasticity, standard Tensile Tests were conducted in accor- Modulus of elasticity
179.85 0.78 0.44
dance with ISO 527-1 specifications [32]. Ten Dog-bone- (GPa)

shaped specimens, each measuring 170 mm in length Tensile strength (MPa) 31,7 3.2 10.09

and with a cross section of 20 mm × 4 mm, were pre- Modulus of elasticity

Epoxy resin 3800 130 3.42
(MPa)
pared according to ISO 527-2 [33]. The tests were con-
Ultimate strain (%) 1.2 0.1 8.33
ducted using a 30-kN electro-mechanical testing machine
 |1217
Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

Fig. 1 Details and cross section of the specimen (mm)

every 120 mm in the shear zone. The geometric dimen- Table 3 Experimental parameters
sions and reinforcing details of the typical beam specimen Designation Number of Concrete
CFRP Reinforcement
prior to the strengthening process are illustrated in Fig. 1. of specimens specimens cover (mm)
C10 2 Without 10

2.3 Test parameters C30 2 Without 30

Table 3 provides an overview of the experimental param- B30RF1 2

CFRP rods fully
30
embedded
eters considered in the study. To establish a basis for com-
parison, control specimens were also cast alongside the CFRP strip fully
B30SF1 2 30
embedded
tested beams. The experimental variables include the type
CFRP strip partially
of reinforcement (rod or strip), depth of concrete cover B10SP1 2
embedded
10
(10 mm or 30 mm), method of CFRP strip insertion (full or CFRP strip fully
partial), and state of shear stirrups (unaltered or partially B10SF2 2 embedded with cutting off 10
cut at the bottom) as shown in Fig. 2. All strengthened steel stirrups at bottom

beams shared a similar CFRP reinforcement ratio, ensur-

ing consistency in the experimental setup. The specimen CFRP reinforcement (R for rod, S for strip). Furthermore,
names were assigned based on specific characteristics: the CFRP strip embedment was designated as (F for full or
(C) denoted control beams, while (B) indicated upgraded P for partial), while the state of shear stirrups was indicated
beams. (10 or 30) indicated the concrete cover depth, type of by (1) for unchanged or (2) for partially cut.

Fig. 2 Test variables

1218|Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3 Strengthening procedure (a) Steel reinforcements assembling, (b) Concrete misture pouring, (c) Groove cutting, placing of CFRP bars
and epoxy filling

2.4 Strengthening method loading process. To ensure accurate and reliable data col-
Fig. 3 illustrates the key steps involved in applying the lection, an automated data logging system was employed
NSM CFRP strengthening method. The process begins by during the experimental procedure. This system recorded
creating grooves in the concrete cover on the tension sur- essential parameters such as load, displacement, and strain
face of the beam. To facilitate the groove cutting, the spec- measurements at each stage of loading.
imens were cured for 28 days and then rotated 180°. A dia-
mond blade saw was used to cut the grooves, which were 3 Numerical simulation
approximately 12 mm wide and 15 mm deep for rod rein- To simulate the behavior of the NSM CFRP reinforced
forcement and 7.5 mm wide and 26 mm (or 13 mm) deep beams, a three-dimensional finite element modeling of the
for strip reinforcement. The length of each groove was set strengthened specimens is carried out using the FEA soft-
at 750 mm, which is 80% of the net span for all specimens. ware ABQSUS numerical results of the load-deflection
Once the grooves were cut, they were cleaned, and com- curves, strain, and cracking pattern were compared with
pressed air was used to remove any debris and fine parti- the experimental ones.
cles to ensure a proper bond between the adhesive epoxy
and the concrete. Next, each groove was half-filled with 3.1 Description of the finite element model
adhesive epoxy, and the CFRP rod or strip was inserted To reduce computational time and allow for finer meshing,
and lightly pressed to displace the epoxy. The groove only a quarter of the beam was modeled by taking advan-
was then filled with more paste, the surface was leveled, tage of the geometry, loading, and boundary condition
and any excess adhesive was removed. After the NSM symmetries. 3D solid deformable elements (C3D8R) were
strengthening was complete, the specimens were cured for utilized to simulate the concrete, CFRP strips, and epoxy
3 days to allow the epoxy adhesive to reach its designed adhesive, while 3D truss elements (T3D2) embedded in
strength, after which flexural tests were conducted. concrete were employed to model the steel reinforcement
bars and stirrups. Cohesive elements (COH3D8) were
2.5 Loading and measurement methods adopted to simulate the interface between adhesive/CFRP/
All twelve beam specimens were subjected to four-point concrete. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to verify the
loading to failure using an INSTRON machine with mesh dimensions and assess their impact on accuracy and
a capacity of 250 kN. The loading was applied under dis- calculation time. The analysis revealed that the most opti-
placement control at a speed of 1.0 mm/min until failure. mal results were obtained with a mesh size of 10 mm for
Test data was recorded by a static data logger and a com- the concrete beam. In areas of importance and locations
puter at intervals of 1 second. The displacement at the cen- where relatively high strain gradients were anticipated,
ter of the specimen during loading was measured by linear a finer mesh was assigned. Additionally, a mesh size of
variable differential transformers (LVDTs) located at mid- 4 mm was chosen for the epoxy and CFRP reinforcement.
span. Additionally, electrical resistance strain gauges were The support and loading conditions were simulated based
positioned on the FRP reinforcement at the mid-span's on the experimental setup as depicted in Fig 4.
bottom to accurately measure strain levels throughout the
 |1219
Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

Concrete where σ is the section's normal stress, ƒcm is the mean com-
Loaddng plate
pressive concrete strength, βc is the form factor of con-
Epoxy ressn
(a) crete, ε is the strain and εc is the compressive strain.
To describe the post-cracking behavior of concrete in
terms of its tensile characteristics, the fracture energy
Support plate cracking criterion GFI was utilized. This criterion
Sttrrups
requires inputting the mean tensile strength ƒctm and frac-
Steel bars
ture energy Gƒ in accordance with the recommendations
NSM
outlined in the CEB-FIP model code [36] (Eq. 3).
NFRP
f 
0.7

(b) G f  G f 0  cm  , (3)
 10 
Uz = 0 Interface
where ƒcm is the mean compressive concrete strength and
Gƒ0 is the base value of fracture energy, which depends on
Ux = 0 the size of the maximum aggregate in the concrete.
The CFRP strips and rods were modeled as an elas-
tic isotropic brittle material until the ultimate tensile
Support
stress is reached, at which point brittle damage occurs.
Fig. 4 (a) Meshed FE model, (b) boundary conditions This modeling approach was adopted due to the unidi-
rectional nature of the composite material, with primary
3.2 Materials modeling stress applied in the fiber direction. The elastic modulus
Several concrete modeling approaches have been devel- and ultimate strength of the CFRP bars used in the anal-
oped recently, and in this study, the concrete damaged ysis are listed in Table 2. Additionally, a Poisson's ratio of
plasticity (CDP) model was used to simulate the nonlin- 0.3 was assumed for the CFRP material.
ear behavior of concrete. The CDP model assumes two The steel reinforcement was modeled using the elas-
main failure mechanisms: cracking formation and prop- tic-plastic approach. The elastic modulus, yielding strength,
agation in tension and concrete crushing in compres- and ultimate strength of the steel bars were determined
sion [34]. Following a sensitivity analyses, the calibrated through experimental testing, as discussed in Section 2.1.
CDP parameters necessary for defining in Abaqus are: A Poisson's ratio of 0.3 was applied to the steel reinforce-
dilation angle (ψ = 38°), eccentricity (ξ = 0.1), the ratio of ment in the analysis.
initial equibiaxial compressive yield stress to initial uni- The epoxy-resin material was characterized by an elas-
axial compressive yield stress (σb0/σc0) = 1.16, the ratio of tic perfectly plastic stress-strain relationship. The values
the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian to that for the tensile resistance and modulus of elasticity of the
on the compressive meridian (K = 0.667). resin can be found in Table 2. Additionally, a Poisson's
The CDP data, which includes the compressive crush- ratio of 0.35 was adopted.
ing and tensile cracking, were calculated based on the
mechanical properties of the tested specimens (Table 2) as 3.3 Interactions modeling
follows: The stress-strain relationship utilized for mod- 3.3.1 Interaction between concrete and steel rebars
eling the nonlinear behavior of concrete under uniaxial Accurately representing the bond-slip behavior between
compression was proposed by Carreira and Chu [35] and the concrete and the embedded steel reinforcement is cru-
is described by Eq. (1) and Eq. (2). cial to achieve distinct discrete crack patterns in the simu-
lated beam model and realistic flexural responses beyond
  c ( /  c ) the cracking stage. In the current FE analyses, the bond
 , (1)
f cm  c  1  ( /  c )c between the longitudinal reinforcement and the concrete
was simulated using 0-length SPRING2 elements, (nonlin-
 f cm 
3

c     1.55(MPa) , (2) ear springs). These elements connect the concrete and steel
 32.4 
elements at shared nodes, and the bond-slip relationship
specified in the fib Model Code [36] was applied as follows:
1220|Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

 b max ( s / s1 ) for s  s1  max  1.15 0.138 f c 0.613 , (7)


 b max for s1  s  s2
 (4)
b   ( b max   bf )( s  s2 ) where τmax is the maximum shear stress, γ is the ratio of
 b max  ( s3  s2 )
for s2  s  s3
height to width for the grooves, ƒc is the concrete com-

 bf for s  s3 pressive strength and Gƒ is the fracture energy.

where, τbmax= 2.5√ƒcm, τbf = 0.4 τbmax, S1 = 1.0 mm, S2 = 4 Results and discussion
2.0 mm, S3= distance between rebar ribs, and τb is the A comparison between experimental and numerical results
bond stress. is presented in Table 4, which summarizes the cracking
The discrete node-to-node connections used to simu- load (Pcr ), yield load (Py ), ultimate load (Pu ), yield deflec-
late the bond-slip behavior necessitate the derivation of tion (Δy), maximum deflection (Δu), and failure modes for
the bond force F instead of the bond stress τb, this rela- the tested beams. The numerical results were obtained by
tionship is expressed by Eq (5). simulating the tested beams using a finite element model as
described in the previous section. The comparison shows
F   b cr lb , (5)
good agreement between the experimental and numerical
where cr is the circumference of the steel rebar, and lb rep- results, validating the accuracy of the proposed numerical
resents the bond length. model. The load-carrying capacity results indicate that the
numerical values are slightly higher than the experimen-
3.3.2 Interface between concrete and FRP tal ones, but the overall difference between the two sets of
To simulate the bond behavior of the CFRP-adhesive- results is within an acceptable range.
concrete connections, two layers of cohesive elements Both control samples (c10 and c30) exhibited simi-
with a traction-separation model were used, one for the lar behavior, with beam c10 showing a higher peak load
concrete/adhesive interface and the other for the CFRP- and deflection of approximately 27.26% and 10%, respec-
adhesive interface these elements behave in a linear elas- tively, compared to beam c30 due to the lower concrete
tic way until a damage initiation criterion is reached, fol- cover depth. A negligible increase in the cracking load
lowed by the propagation of damage which eventually of about 12%, 11%, 6.3%, and 1.2% for beams B30RF1,
leads to the degradation of the elements and failure of B10SF2, B30SF1, and B10SP1, respectively, was observed
the bonded interface. The Quadratic Delamination crite- in comparison with the control beams. The yield load
rion was adopted for the damage imitation with normal increased by 61%, 58%, 27.5%, and 21% respectively, for
tress equal to the concrete tensile strength. The slip model beams B30RF1, B30SF1, B10SF2, and B10SP1, due to the
developed by Zhang. [37], was adopted to calculate the increased flexural stiffness during the second phase of the
maximum shear stress and the damage evolution in terms beam's behavior.
of fracture energy is given by the following equations: The use of NSM CFRP laminates significantly increased
the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the RC beams.
G f  0.4 0.422 f c 0.619 , (6)
An increase of 69%, 70%, 39%, and 17% was obtained in

Table 4 Test results

Yield Ultimate CFRP Strain at
Beam Cracking load Yield load Ultimate loads
displacement displacement ultimate load µ FM
ID Pcr (kN) Py (kN) Pu (kN)
Δy (mm) Δu (mm) (%)
EXP FEA EXP FEA EXP FEA EXP FEA EXP FEA EXP FEA
C10 9.12 9.35 31.50 33.60 5.44 5.81 35.01 35.90 18.15 19.15 - - 3.34 FF
C30 8.98 9.06 24.36 26.20 6.20 5.89 27.51 26.86 16.5 15.50 - - 2.66 FF
B30RF1 10.08 10.21 39.37 38.39 4.60 4.72 46.46 47.18 6.34 6.45 0.35 0.35 1.37 ED + CDC
B30SF1 9.55 9.82 38.65 37.16 4.55 4.06 46.86 46.51 5.80 5.94 0.26 0.27 1.27 ED + CDC
B10SP1 9.25 9.67 34.78 36.45 4.61 4.52 40.41 40.95 5.40 5.68 0.38 0.38 1.17 ED + CDC
B10SF2 10.12 10.39 39.78 40.71 4.44 4.23 48.55 48.79 6.50 6.20 0.24 0.25 1.46 ED + CDC
Note: Pcr : cracking load, Py and Δy: yielding and deflection load, Pu and Δu: ultimate load and deflection, μ (ductility index): Δy/ Δu,
FM: Failure mode (FF: Flexural failure, ED: End debonding of the CFRP reinforcement, CDC: Critical diagonal crack)
 |1221
Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

terms of maximum load for B30SF1, B30RF1, B10SF2, and behavior similar to the control beam in the first stage.
B10SP1, respectively, compared to the maximum load of The stiffness of the load-deflection curves was minimally
the reference beam. Specimen B10SF1 had the highest peak impacted by NSM bars, and their effect on cracking behav-
load of 48.79 kN, indicating that cutting the bottom arm ior was slight due to the high flexural rigidity of beams and
of the steel stirrups had negligible influence on the load- the bonding between the filling material and concrete not
carrying capacity of the beams. However, beams strength- being affected yet. During the second stage, from cracking
ened with partly inserted strips had the lowest increase in to steel yielding, the NSM bars increased the stiffness of
load-bearing capacity due to the reduced contacting sur- the specimen and the yielding load compared to the control
face and groove size. It should be noted that beams with beam. Concrete cracking started in the beam cross-sec-
higher concrete cover depth saw greater improvement from tions located in the maximum moment zone. Initially, the
reinforcement, as the steel reinforcement is further away cracks did not cross the resin due to its low elastic mod-
from the region of highest stress concentration, which is ulus. As the load increased, the cracks widened, and new
at the bottom of the beam. In such cases, NSM bars can be flexural cracks emerged. Cracking occurred uniformly
particularly advantageous, as they are inserted precisely throughout the beam length following the applied bending
in this region of high-stress concentration, providing addi- moment. Once the moment reached a value that caused
tional reinforcement and increasing the load-carrying the steel bars to yield, the concrete cracking stabilized.
capacity of the beam. However, the overall maximum load In the final stage, as the load increased, the deflection
did not increase as much after the yielding load due to the rate accelerated more rapidly than in the previous stage.
onset of premature debonding failure modes that occurred Throughout this stage, the width of the cracks was con-
in the strengthened beams, caused by the detachment of trolled by the FRP bars until the point of failure was
the concrete cover, resulting in a brittle failure mode. This reached. The control beam experienced flexural failure,
ultimately limited the maximum load that the beam could whereas the CFRP bar-strengthened beams experienced
support. A noticeable reduction in deflection at maximum premature debonding, which significantly affected their
load was observed in the NSM strengthened beams by reinforcement potential. Further analysis was conducted
70.24%, 64.18%, 64.1%, and 61.6%, for specimens B10SP1, on the parameters governing the behavior of NSM FRP
B10SF2, B30SF1, and B30RF1, respectively. This reduc- systems, which will be discussed in the following section.
tion can be explained by the observed failure mode of the
CFRP bars, which was confirmed by the decrease in the 4.2 Load–strain relationship
ductility of the NSM strengthened beams defined as the Fig. 6 shows good predictive accuracy of the variation in
ratio of ultimate deflection to yield deflection by 65%, tensile strains in the CFRP reinforcement. It was observed
56.3%, 52.25%, and 48.5%, for beam B10SP1, B10SF2, that during the initial cracking stage, the CFRP bars had
B30SF1, and B30RF1, respectively. These results indi- negligible load-carrying capacity, as their strains were
cate that the use of NSM CFRP laminates can significantly almost zero. As a result, their contribution to enhancing
increase the load carrying capacity of RC beams, but the the cracking load of the NSM-CFRP strengthened beams
design and installation should be carefully considered to was minimal. However, as the load increased, the CFRP
prevent premature failure and ensure the long-term effec- strain curves showed reasonable inclinations, indicating
tiveness of the reinforcement. that the additional bars started to carry substantial loads,
leading to a significant improvement in the yielding and
4.1 Load–deflection relationship ultimate loads of the beams.it can be seen that the CFRP
Fig. 5 presents the experimental and numerical load-de- strains displayed almost linear curves up to the tension
flection curves, which validate the reliability of the estab- steel yielding load, indicating that the CFRP bars effec-
lished predictive model. The behavior of CFRP strength- tively resisted the tensile stresses induced by the applied
ened beams resulted in a brittle failure mode, while the loads. After the tension steel yielded, the CFRP strains
control beam exhibited more ductile behavior. The curves gradually increased up to the point of failure. This behav-
follow a three-phase response, characterized by concrete ior of the CFRP bars during the loading process highlights
cracking, steel yielding, and post-yielding stages. Before their potential for enhancing the structural performance of
cracking, the strengthened beams showed linear elastic reinforced concrete beams.
1222|Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 5 Load-deflection curves for the tested specimens (a) REF (C10), (b) REF (C30), (c) B30SF1, (d) B30RF1, (e) B10SF1, (f) B10SP1

However, it should be noted that the maximum strain the CFRP bars and the concrete substrate are necessary to
reached by the CFRP bars was only about 28% of their fully exploit the potential of NSM-CFRP reinforcement.
ultimate strain, indicating insufficient exploitation of the
reinforcement potential. This was mainly due to the pre- 4.3 Failure modes
mature detachment of the reinforcement, which limited its The crack pattern on the reference beam is illustrated in
effectiveness in improving the load-carrying capacity of Fig. 7, which consisted of flexural cracks. The first cracks
the beams. Further improvements in the bonding between started from the mid-span on the tension side of the beam
 |1223
Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 6 Tension strain diagram on CFRP reinforcements (a) B30SF1, (b) B30RF1, (c) B10SP1, (c) B10SF1

(a) (b)
Fig. 7 Crack patterns and Failure modes of the reference beam: (a) C30 FEA, (b) C30 EXP

and propagated towards the neutral axis. Concrete crush- of the CFRP strip from the bottom of the concrete beam
ing in the compression zone near the loading plates after sample, followed by a critical diagonal crack that started
the yielding of the tensile steel followed this. These obser- exactly from the end of the plate. This confirms the inter-
vations indicate a flexural failure, which was accurately action between different failure phenomena close to the
captured by the numerical model. end of the FRP plate. The debonding failure mechanism
Fig. 8 presents the experimental recorded and numer- of this set of beams was particularly influenced by the
ically predicted failure modes and crack patterns of length of CFRP bars. The debonding failure was sudden
the beam strengthened with NSM CFRP strips. It was and complete, occurring immediately after the yielding of
observed that the failure initiated with the end debonding the tension steel followed by a subsequent beam failure.
1224|Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

(a) (b)
Fig. 8 Crack patterns and Failure modes of the NSM reinforced beams: (a) B30SF1 FEA, (b) B30SF1 EXP

5 Parametric studies bond lengths, which can be attributed to the increased

The validated FE model is used in this section to conduct stiffness of the beams. Fig. 9 shows the effect of varying
a series of parametric stud into the effects of key variables the NSM bar number for different reinforcement lengths.
affecting the behavior of NSM FRP strengthened RC beams. It is clear that for a bond length of 25% L, the influence
of NSM bars on the load capacity was marginal, regard-
5.1 Effect of the bond length and FRP bar number less of bar number and concrete cover. Increasing the
This section explores the impact of the number of strips on bond length to 50% L resulted in an increase of (27.52%,
a constant CFRP cross-sectional area and different embed- 41.20%, 52.95%, 45.26%) and (59.72%, 79.37%, 104.54%,
ment lengths. The reference strip dimensions, groove sizes, 87.53%) for a bar number equal to 1, 2, 3, and 4 and con-
and spacing were the same as the experimental ones for crete cover of 10 mm and 30 mm, respectively, compared
comparison purposes. with the control beam. In the case of a bond length of 75%
Two concrete cover values (10 mm and 30 mm) were L, an increase of (36.3%, 73.06%, 86.99%, 69.83%) and
used, and the effect of 1, 2, 3, and 4 strips inserted within (68.02%, 120.44%, 142.29%, 124.35%) for a bar number
four different bond lengths (25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% equal to 1, 2, 3, and 4 and concrete cover of 10 mm and 30
of the beam span) was considered. Load-deflection curves mm, respectively, was recorded, comparing with the con-
were produced for the different cases, and their mechan- trol beam. The highest increase was recorded when using
ical characteristics in terms of cracking load, yield load, a bond length of 100%, resulting in (107.99%, 109.89%,
ultimate load, yield displacement, ultimate displacement, 112.34%, 101.45%) and (138.61%, 151.71%, 180.53%,
ductility, and failure modes were evaluated and summa- 174.01%) for bar number 1, 2, 3, and 4 and concrete cover
rized in Table 5, showing a detailed illustration of the of 10 mm and 30 mm, respectively, in comparison with
effect of the number of strips in conjunction with the effect the concrete beam. It should be noted that this increase
of bond length on different mechanical characteristics. was not proportional to the increase in the number of bars.
An overall increase in cracking and yielding load was For a bond length of 100%, using two NSM bars resulted
observed when the number of strips increased for all tested in a negligible increase of 1% and 5% for concrete covers
 |1225
Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

Table 5 FE analysis results for various NSM bar number and lengths
Concrete CFRP Pcr Py Δy Pu Δu Pu
Beam ID N µ FM
COVER length (kN) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (%)
C10 (CB) 10 / / 9.35 33.60 5.81 35.90 19.10 / 3.29 FF
B10N1L25 1 9.39 40.67 4.38 39.32 6.10 9.53 1.39 ED
B10N2L25 2 9.41 37.11 4.07 43.26 5.65 20.50 1.39 ED
10 0.25 L
B10N3L25 3 9.60 38.04 4.03 43.43 6.31 20.97 1.57 ED
B10N4L25 4 10.21 39.63 4.23 43.61 8.25 21.48 1.95 ED
B10N1L50 1 9.77 41.70 4.60 45.78 6.51 27.52 1.41 ED
B10N2L50 2 9.90 41.58 4.05 50.69 8.20 41.20 2.02 ED
10 0.50 L
B10N3L50 3 10.21 49.20 4.40 54.91 9.05 52.95 2.06 ED + CDC
B10N4L50 4 10.95 42.16 4.72 52.15 8.36 45.26 1.77 ED + CDC
B10N1L75 1 10.39 39.78 4.23 48.93 5.91 36.30 1.40 ED + CDC
B10N2L75 2 10.61 51.72 4.35 62.13 9.59 73.06 2.47 ED + CDC
10 0.75 L
B10N3L75 3 10.71 57.54 4.77 67.13 8.58 86.99 1.78 CCS
B10N4L75 4 11.01 52.64 4.87 60.97 7.97 69.83 1.64 CCS
B10N1L100 1 10.85 55.80 5.11 74.67 13.08 107.99 2.55 FF + ICD
B10N2L100 2 11.41 64.09 4.60 75.35 11.64 109.89 2.53 FF+ICD
10 L
B10N3L100 3 12.48 71.13 4.45 76.29 8.32 112.34 1.87 SF
B10N4L100 4 12.68 70.34 4.22 72.35 7.54 101.45 1.79 SF
C30 (CB) 30 / / 9.06 26.20 5.89 26.86 16.39 / 2.78 FF
B30N1L25 1 9.15 35.71 4.64 39.14 5.80 45.72 1.25 ED
B30N2L25 2 9.35 37.03 4.26 39.29 5.29 46.28 1.24 ED
30 0.25 L
B30N3L25 3 9.71 38.06 4.91 42.15 8.08 56.92 1.65 ED
B30N4L25 4 10.11 32.07 4.27 42.45 8.10 58.04 1.90 ED
B30N1L50 1 9.27 38.93 4.41 42.90 6.22 59.72 1.41 ED
B30N2L50 2 9.82 44.10 4.79 48.18 9.21 79.37 1.92 ED
30 0.50 L
B30N3L50 3 10.31 49.01 4.86 54.94 8.41 104.54 1.73 ED+CDC
B30N4L50 4 10.92 58.42 4.60 50.37 7.51 87.53 1.63 ED+CDC
B30N1L75 1 9.82 37.16 4.06 45.13 5.85 68.02 1.44 ED
B30N2L75 2 10.51 49.88 4.53 59.21 8.80 120.44 1.94 ED
30 0.75 L
B30N3L75 3 10.81 54.11 4.22 65.08 7.61 142.29 1.80 CCS
B30N4L75 4 11.38 54.04 4.19 60.26 7.32 124.35 1.74 CCS
B30N1L100 1 10.09 50.57 5.23 64.09 12.45 138.61 2.38 FF+ICD
B30N2L100 2 11.12 57.02 4.79 67.61 12.37 151.71 2.58 FF+ICD
30 L
B30N3L100 3 12.08 61.65 4.35 75.37 10.75 180.53 2.47 SF
B30N4L100 4 13.35 70.35 4.50 73.60 7.61 174.01 1.69 SF
Note: L: Beam span, N: Number of CFRP bars , Pcr: cracking load, Py and Δy: yielding and deflection load, Pu and Δu: ultimate load and deflection,
Pu% is the percentage increase in the load carrying capacity in comparison with the control beam, μ (ductility index): Δy/ Δu, FM is the failure mode
(FF: Flexural failure, ED: FRP end debonding, CDC: Critical diagonal crack, CCS: Concrete cover separation, ICD: Intermediate crack debonding,
SF: Shear failure)

of 30 mm and 10 mm, respectively. Increasing the number Fig. 10 depicts the ductility index variation concerning
of bars to four resulted in a reduction of the load capacity different NSM bar numbers and lengths. The same trend was
of the beams, which can be explained by the weakened observed for beams with concrete cover of 10 and 30 mm.
concrete cover because of the larger grooves area and the The results showed that bond length had the most signifi-
interference between the NSM bars. In this case, the fail- cant impact on ductility. For a single NSM bar, increasing
ure mode changed from a ductile to shear failure, signifi- the CFRP bar length from 75% L to 100% L led to a ductil-
cantly compromising the strength of the beam. ity increase of approximately 82% and 65% for beams with
1226|Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

5.2 Effect of the concrete strength and FRP Type

The influence of concrete strength on NSM bars made of
four different FRP materials (CFRP, AFRP, BFRP and
GFRP) was investigated. Four different concrete grades
(25 MPa, 35 MPa, 45 MPa, and 65 MPa) were explored.
A single NSM bar with a bond length of 100% L was used.
Results are summarized in Table 6.
The properties of CFRP strips were provided in the
experimental study and typical mechanical properties found
in the literature [38] were used for the AFRP, BFRP, and
GFRP strips and are listed in Table 7. Control beams were
tested for each concrete grade, and bond-slip model param-
eters were calculated using Eq. (6) and Eq. (7). The results
indicated an overall increase in beam characteristics as the
concrete strength increased.
The load-deflection curves for the tested specimens
Fig. 9 The effect of NSM bar length and number
showed trilinear behavior, with all strengthened beams
concrete covers of 30 mm and 10 mm, respectively. This exhibiting an almost similar trend at all loading stages
change also altered the beam's failure mode from a prema- and increased load capacity compared to the non-strength-
ture debonding to a more ductile flexural and intermedi- ened beam. The curves showed an approximate trilinear
ate crack debonding failure. In the case of two NSM bars, response, characterized by concrete cracking, steel yield-
an 8% increase in ductility was noted for the concrete ing, and post-yielding stages as shown in Fig. 11. All the
cover of 30 mm, while it had a negligible effect on the composites showed similar performance, with CFRP
lower concrete cover. However, increasing the bar number reinforced beams exhibiting superiority as the concrete
from 2 to 4 resulted in a significant decrease in ductility strength increased. For beams strengthened with AFRP,
of approximately 29% for both concrete cover lengths and GFRP, and BFRP, greater displacement was observed in
changed the failure mode to brittle shear failure. lower concrete strengths due to their higher elongation.
Moreover, it was observed that using two NSM bars As the concrete grade increased to 45 MPa, the failure
with lengths of 50% and 75% resulted in a significant mode of the beams strengthened with GFRP bars changed
increase in ductility of approximately 43% and 76% for to FRP rupture, with the strains in the composites reach-
concrete covers of 10 mm and 30 mm, respectively, com- ing the ultimate value, resulting in beam failure. This fail-
pared to using one bar. However, this increase was nulli- ure mode was also observed for beams reinforced with
fied when the number of bars was increased further. BFRP and AFRP bars when the concrete was 65 MPa.

(a) (b)
Fig. 10 Effect of NSM bar length and number on the ductility index (a) Concrete over 10 mm, (b) Concrete over 30 mm
 Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023 |1227

Table 6 FE analysis results for various concrete grades and FRP material types
Beam Material Pcr Py Δy Pu Δu Pu
ƒc µ FM
ID type (kN) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (%)
C10-25 (CB) / 9.05 33.73 5.79 34.07 15.87 / 2.74 FF
B10-CFRP25 CFRP 10.32 54.41 5.13 62.93 11.64 84.71 2.27 ICD
B10-AFRP25 25 AFRP 9.88 47.79 5.12 60.51 15.64 77.60 3.05 ICD
B10-BFRP25 BFRP 9.45 47.46 5.13 60.12 16.55 76.46 3.23 ICD
B10-GFRP25 GFRP 9.37 46.96 5.14 59.38 16.97 74.29 3.3 ICD
C10-35 (CB) / 9.35 33.60 5.85 35.90 19.10 / 3.26 FF
B10-CFRP35 CFRP 10.85 55.80 5.11 74.67 13.08 107.99 2.55 ICD
35
B10-AFRP35 AFRP 10.27 49.64 4.58 64.99 17.39 82.20 3.8 ICD
B10-BFRP35 BFRP 9.48 49.38 4.80 63.72 16.36 78.64 3.41 ICD
B10-GFRP35 GFRP 9.44 47.42 4.45 62.70 17.12 75.78 3.85 ICD
C10-45 (CB) / 15.60 37.46 4.43 39.74 19.74 / 4.46 FF
B10-CFRP45 CFRP 17.36 63.54 4.79 83.44 11.95 111.40 2.49 ICD
B10-AFRP45 45 AFRP 16.92 52.10 4.26 73.87 17.64 87.15 4.14 ICD
B10-BFRP45 BFRP 16.87 51.61 4.53 71.58 17.57 81.35 3.88 ICD
B10-GFRP45 GFRP 16.79 50.68 4.54 68.27 14.26 72.97 3.14 FR
C10-65 (CB) / 18.91 39.40 4.22 44.16 19.59 / 4.64 FF
B10-CFRP65 CFRP 22.02 63.38 4.15 96.88 14.30 119.38 3.45 FF
B10-AFRP65 65 AFRP 20.88 51.79 3.97 80.57 17.05 82.45 4.29 FR
B10-BFRP65 BFRP 20.84 51.13 3.98 78.92 15.14 78.71 3.8 FR
B10-GFRP65 GFRP 20.75 50.33 3.99 73.66 13.64 66.80 3.42 FR
Note: ƒc: concrete strength, Pcr: cracking load, Py and Δy: yielding and deflection load, Pu and Δu: ultimate load and deflection, Pu% is the
percentage increase in the load carrying capacity in comparison with the control beam, μ (ductility index): Δy/Δu, FM is the failure mode
(FF: Flexural failure, ICD: Intermediate crack debonding, FR: FRP rupture)

Table 7 Material properties of FRP materials 5.3 Effect of FRP reinforcement ratio
AFRP BFRP GFRP This section aimed to investigate the effect of different
Tensile strength (MPa) 1300 1100 900 reinforcement ratios on the performance of NSM FRP bars
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 59 55 48 using a constant bar length of 100% L. In addition to the
Ultimate strain (%) 1.93 1.45 1.69 original CFRP cross-sectional area of 50 mm2 used in the
previous sections, two values of 25 mm 2 and 12.5 mm 2were
In contrast, no FRP rupture occurred in beams strength- examined in this section for a different number of bars,
ened with CFRP bars due to its higher mechanical char- and the results are summarized in Table 8. Given that
acteristics. The ultimate load for the various materials the previous sections had already covered specimens
and concretes was presented in Fig. 12. The increase in with a cross-sectional area of 50 mm 2, which resulted in
concrete strength resulted in an increase in the ultimate a change of the failure mode to shear due to over-reinforc-
load of beams strengthened with all the composites used. ing, as illustrated in Fig. 14, they were not further dis-
CFRP reinforced beams had a higher percentage increase cussed in this section. Fig. 15 depicts the load-deflection
in ultimate load compared to the other composites, but curves of the tested beams, showing that the curves gener-
this came at the expense of ductility for lower concrete ally exhibit similar behavior with increased ductility when
strengths due to concrete brittle failure. AFRP strength- the cross-section of the bar decreased. In general, beams
ened beams had the highest ductility for high concrete strengthened with distributed smaller cross-sectional area
grade, while GFRP bars performed best at lower grade NSM bars performed better than beams strengthened
concrete, as shown in Fig. 13. with higher ones for similar reinforcement ratios, indicat-
In summary, AFRP, GFRP, and BFRP are more cost-ef- ing the importance of determining the optimal position-
fective and better suited for low-strength concrete, while ing for maximum efficacy and stress distribution. Fig. 16
CFRP is more suitable for high-strength concrete grades. demonstrates the effect of the CFRP cross-sectional area
1228|Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 11 Load-deflection curve for various materials: a) ƒc 25 MPa, b) ƒc 35 MPa, c) ƒc 45 MPa, d) ƒc 65 MPa

Fig. 13 Effect of the concrete strength for different FRP materials on

Fig. 12 Effect of the concrete strength for different FRP materials the ductility index

for different numbers of NSM bars, showing that increas- 63% observed in the case of using 2 bars of 12.5 mm 2
ing the number of bars while using smaller cross-sectional sectional area instead of one bar at 25 mm 2, even though
area leads to a higher ultimate load. Fig. 17 shows the influ- they had the same reinforcement ratio of 0.167%. This is
ence of the reinforcement cross-section on the ductility of because the use of smaller section bars results in a uni-
the beams, with a significant increase in ductility of about form distribution of loads and a more gradual failure mode
 |1229
Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

Table 8 FE analysis results for various reinforcement ratios

CS Pcf Pcr Py Δy Pu Δu
ID N Pu % µ FM
(mm 2) (%) (kN) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
B10N1L100-CS1 1 0.33 10.85 55.80 5.11 74.67 13.08 107.99 2.55 FF + ICD
B10N2L100-CS1 2 0.67 11.41 64.09 4.60 75.35 11.64 109.89 2.53 FF + ICD
50
B10N3L100-CS1 3 1 12.48 71.13 4.45 76.29 8.32 112.34 1.87 SF
B10N4L100-CS1 4 1.33 12.68 70.34 4.22 72.35 7.54 101.45 1.79 SF
B10N1L100-CS2 1 0.167 10.54 50.22 5.03 66.80 13.21 86.07 2.63 FF + ICD
B10N2L100-CS2 2 0.33 11.21 57.54 5.22 77.58 16.48 116.10 3.16 FF + ICD
25
B10N3L100-CS2 3 0.50 11.68 65.38 5.25 81.52 13.99 127.08 2.66 ICD
B10N4L100-CS2 4 0.67 14.11 70.43 5.45 80.91 13.70 125.38 2.51 ICD
B10N1L100-CS3 1 0.083 9.94 45.06 4.74 60.50 14.08 68.52 2.97 ED
B10N2L100-CS3 2 0.167 10.61 48.30 4.83 73.32 20.78 104.23 4.30 FF + ICD
12.5
B10N3L100-CS3 3 0.25 12.77 53.67 4.85 81.15 19.06 126.04 3.93 FF + ICD
B10N4L100-CS3 4 0.33 13.34 57.88 5.06 79.71 18.66 122.03 3.69 FF
Note: CS is cross-sectional area of the CFRP bars, N is the number of CFRP bars, Pcf is the percentage of (cross-sectional area of the CFRP
reinforcements / cross-sectional area of the beam), Pcr: cracking load, Py and Δy: yielding and deflection load, Pu and Δu: ultimate load and
deflection, Pu% is the percentage increase in the load carrying capacity in comparison with the control beam, μ ( ductility index): Δy/ Δu, FM is the
failure mode (FF: flexural failure ED: end debonding, ICD: Intermediate crack debonding, SF: Shear failure)

compared to using one large area bar, which can lead to a

sudden failure mode. This is especially evident for beams
having low concrete cover. It is worth noting that increas-
ing the number of bars may enhance the performance of
the strengthened beams, but it also increases the complex-
ity of installation and the cost of reinforcement. Hence,
a balance between the cost and benefits of using a larger
number of smaller bars versus using fewer larger bars is
Fig. 14 Shear failure of the beam B10N4L100-CS1 crucial for an optimal reinforcement strategy. This can

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 15 load-deflection curve for various CFRP ratios and cross-sectional area (a) CFRP cross-sectional area (50 mm 2), (b) CFRP cross-sectional
area (25 mm 2), (c) CFRP cross-sectional area (12.5 mm 2)
1230|Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

be achieved by taking into account factors such as the

required strength, ductility, and the expected durability of
the reinforced beam.

5.4 Effect of FRP reinforcement method

In this section, the effect of bar positioning on the behavior
of reinforced concrete beams was investigated using the
side near-surface mounted (SNSM) technique.
The SNSM technique involves placing the FRP bars on
1the sides of the beams instead of at the bottom, as shown
in Fig. 18. The study considered two concrete cover lengths
of 10 mm and 30 mm and bond lengths ranging from 25%
to 100% of the beam span. The results obtained from the
study are summarized in Table 9.
Fig. 16 Effect of the CFRP cross-sectional area for different number of Fig. 19 compares the load-deflection curves for NSM
NSM bars
and SNSM techniques for different concrete cover and bond
lengths. As discussed in the previous section, the beams

(a) (b)
Fig. 17 Effect of the CFRP cross-sectional area for different number of Fig. 18 CFRP strip positioning for NSM and SNSM technique
NSM bars on the ductility index (a) Bottom mounted CFRP strip, (b) Side mounted CFRP strip

Table 9 FE analysis results for NSM and SNSM techniques

Beam Concrete CFRP Pcr Py Δy Pu Δu
Pu % µ FM
ID cover length (kN) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
C30 (CB) / 9.06 26.20 5.89 26.86 16.39 / 2.78 FF
SNSM-B30L25 0.25 L 11.12 35.67 4.55 38.41 6.12 43.00 1.34 ED
SNSM-B30L50 30 050 L 11.97 36.76 4.01 48.14 6.93 79.23 1.73 ED + CDC
SNSM-B30L75 0.75 L 12.36 44.34 4.86 55.30 12.72 105.88 2.62 CCS
SNSM-B30L100 L 12.43 48.32 5.04 59.75 15.75 122.45 3.13 ICD
C10 (CB) / 9.35 33.60 5.81 35.90 19.10 / 3.29 FF
SNSM-B10L25 0.25 L 11.81 39.80 4.24 41.74 6.07 16.27 1.26 ED
SNSM-B10L50 10 050 L 12.38 39.77 4.25 53.54 8.85 49.14 2.08 ED + CDS
SNSM-B10L75 0.75 L 12.54 43.87 4.96 59.44 12.63 65.57 2.55 CCS
SNSM-B10L100 L 12.58 47.03 4.98 67.87 17.05 89.05 3.42 ICD
Pcr: cracking load, Py and Δy: yielding and deflection load, Pu and Δu: ultimate load and deflection, Pu% is the percentage increase in the load
carrying capacity in comparison with the control beam, μ (ductility index): Δy/Δu, FM is the failure mode (FF: Flexural failure, ED: FRP end
debonding, CDC: Critical diagonal crack, CCS: Concrete cover separation, ICD: Intermediate crack debonding)
 |1231
Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

(a) (b)
Fig. 19 Load-deflection curves for NSM and SNSM techniques (a) Concrete cover 10 mm, (b) Concrete cover 30 mm

Fig. 20 Effect of different bar lengths for NSM and SNSM techniques Fig. 21 ductility index for the NSM and SNSM technique

showed typical three-phase behavior, with the SNSM strengthened with the SNSM technique exhibited signifi-
technique showing better ductile behavior than the NSM cantly better ductility performance than those strength-
technique. ened with NSM, with improvements of (48%, 82%, and
Fig. 20 shows a comparison of the ultimate load between 34%) and (22%, 82%, and 32%) for bar lengths of (50% L,
NSM and SNSM techniques for different bond lengths. 75% L, and 100% L), and concrete covers of 10 mm and
The most significant difference occurred for lower bond 30 mm, respectively in comparison with the NSM tech-
lengths, where the SNSM technique increased both the nique. It is worth noting that the highest ductility was
load and deflection in comparison with NSM. Interestingly, achieved at the full bond length for both strengthening
for a bond length equal to the beam span, NSM strength- techniques. This can be attributed to the fact that in this
ened beams had better load-bearing capacity, while SNSM case, the bars are able to develop their full bond strength,
had more ductility with a slight decrease in resistance. leading to a better transfer of forces between the concrete
This behavior is due to the bars being placed higher than and the bars.
the area of the highest stress. Overall, the results suggest that the SNSM technique is
Fig. 21 presents a detailed comparison of the ductility a more effective way to improve the ductility of reinforced
achieved by the NSM and SNSM techniques for different concrete beams compared to NSM, especially when the
bond lengths. The results show that overall, the beams bond length is relatively short.
1232|Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

6 Conclusions • Using smaller cross-sectional area FRP bars with

The effectiveness of using NSM CFRP strip/rod for optimal positioning significantly improves the per-
strengthening RC beams was investigated in this study formance and ductility of reinforced concrete beams.
using different strengthening techniques, such as partial • An increase in beam characteristics was observed
inclusion of reinforcements, and fully inserted reinforce- with an increase in concrete strength.
ments with cut stirrups by performing an experimental • CFRP reinforced beams exhibited the highest ultimate
investigation and developing a 3D nonlinear finite element load increase, but lower ductility for low-strength
model. The following conclusions can be drawn. concrete.
• Cutting the lower part of the steel stirrups to install the • AFRP, GFRP, and BFRP were found to be more cost-
CFRP profiles has no effect on the ultimate load and effective for low-strength concrete.
the beam deformability. • CFRP was identified as the ideal choice for high-
• Strengthening reinforced concrete beams with NSM strength concrete.
CFRP strips/rods increases significantly their load- • Debonding of the CFRP reinforcement was the most
bearing capacity. common failure mode in this study.
• The numerical model was able to accurately predict • The SNSM technique significantly improves the
the ultimate loads and the failure modes of the tested ductility of reinforced concrete beams compared to
beams. The predicted results were in excellent cor- NSM, particularly for short bond lengths.
relation with the experimental ones. Notably, the highest ductility was achieved when the
• The Ductility was decreased in NSM-strengthened bars were placed at full bond length for both techniques.
RC beams in comparison with the reference beams.
• Increasing the NSM bar length significantly enhances Acknowledgements
both the load-carrying capacity and ductility of the This investigation was conducted in the L2MGC Labo-
strengthened beams. This is particularly evident when ratory of Civil Engineering Department, Cergy Pontoise
extending the NSM bars to the full span of the beam. University (France). Polymer and epoxy materials.

References
[1] Al-Zahrani, M. M., Al-Dulaijan, S. U., Nanni, A., Bakis, C. E., [7] Barros, J. A. O., Dias, S. J. E., Lima, J. L. T. "Efficacy of CFRP-
Boothby, T. E. "Evaluation of bond using FRP rods with axisym- based techniques for the flexural and shear strengthening of con-
metric deformations", Construction and Building Materials, 13(6), crete beams", Cement and Concrete Composites, 29(3), pp. 203–
pp. 299–309, 1999. 217, 2007.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-0618(99)00038-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.09.001
[2] Leeming, M. B., Darby, J. J. "Design and specifications for FRP [8] Täljsten, B. "Strengthening concrete beams for shear with CFRP
plate bonding of beams" In: Holloway, L. C., Leeming, M. (eds.) sheets", Construction and Building Materials, 17(1), pp. 15–26, 2003.
Strengthening of reinforced concrete structures, Woodhead https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-0618(02)00088-0
Publishing, 1999, pp. 242–269. ISBN: 978-1-85573-378-7 [9] Meier, U., Deuring, M., Meier, H., Schwegler, G. "CFRP Bonded
[3] Lau, K. T., Dutta, P. K., Zhou, L. M., Hui, D. "Mechanics of Sheets", In: Nanni, A. (ed.) Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic (FRP) Rein-
bonds in an FRP bonded concrete beam", Composites Part B: forcement for Concrete Structures, Elsevier, 1993, pp. 423–434.
Engineering, 32(6), pp. 491–502, 2001. ISBN: 978-0-444-89689-6
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1359-8368(01)00032-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-89689-6.50023-9
[4] Quantrill, R. J., Hollaway, L. C., Thorne, A. M. "Experimental and [10] Nanni, A. "North American design guidelines for concrete rein-
analytical investigation of FRP strengthened beam response: Part I", forcement and strengthening using FRP: principles, applications
Magazine of Concrete Research, 48(177), pp. 331–342, 1996. and unresolved issues", Construction and Building Materials,
https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1996.48.177.331 17(6–7), pp. 439–446, 2003.
[5] Arduini, M., Nanni, A. "Behavior of Precracked RC Beams https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-0618(03)00042-4
Strengthened with Carbon FRP Sheets", Journal of Composites for [11] Limam, O., Foret, G., Ehrlacher, A. "RC two-way slabs strength-
Construction, 1(2), pp. 63–70, 1997. ened with CFRP strips: experimental study and a limit analysis
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0268(1997)1:2(63) approach", Composite Structures, 60(4), pp. 467–471, 2003.
[6] Lee, J. H., Lopez, M. M., Bakis, C. E. "Slip effects in reinforced https://doi.org/10.1016/s0263-8223(03)00011-4
concrete beams with mechanically fastened FRP strip", Cement [12] Van Den Einde, L., Zhao, L., Seible, F. "Use of FRP compos-
and Concrete Composites, 31(7), pp. 496–504, 2009. ites in civil structural applications", Construction and Building
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.04.008 Materials, 17(6–7), pp. 389–403, 2003.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-0618(03)00040-0
 |1233
Abdesselam et al.
Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 67(4), pp. 1214–1233, 2023

[13] Teng, J. G., Smith, S. T., Yao, J., Chen, J. F. "Intermediate crack-in- [24] Hosen, M. A., Jumaat, M. Z., Islam, A. B. M. S. "Side Near Surface
duced debonding in RC beams and slabs", Construction and Mounted (SNSM) technique for flexural enhancement of RC
Building Materials, 17(6–7), pp. 447–462, 2003. beams", Materials & Design, 83, pp. 587–597, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-0618(03)00043-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.06.035
[14] Merdas, A., Fiorio, B., Chikh, N.-E. "Étude de l'adhérence des [25] Movahedi Rad, M., Khaleel Ibrahim, S., Lógó, J. "Limit design of
joncs et des plats composite avec le béton par flexion (beam test)", reinforced concrete haunched beams by the control of the residual
(Study of the adhesion of composite strips and rods to concrete plastic deformation", Structures, 39, pp. 987–996, 2022.
by bending), Comptes Rendus Mécanique, 339(12), pp. 796–804, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.03.080
2011. (in French). [26] Khaleel Ibrahim, S., Movahedi Rad, M. "Reliability‑based prob-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crme.2011.10.002 abilistic numerical plastically limited analysis of reinforced con-
[15] Merdas, A., Fiorio, B., Chikh, N.-E. "Aspects of bond behavior for crete haunched beams", Scientific Reports, 13(1), 2670, 2023.
concrete beam strengthened with carbon fibers reinforced poly- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29930-0
mers–near surface mounted", Journal of Reinforced Plastics and [27] Khaleel Ibrahim, S., Movahedi Rad, M. "Limited Optimal Plastic
Composites, 34(6), pp. 463–478, 2015. Behavior of RC Beams Strengthened by Carbon Fiber Polymers
https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684415573814 Using Reliability-Based Design", Polymers, 15(3), 569, 2023.
[16] Douadi, A., Merdas, A., Sadowski, Ł. "The bond of near-surface https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15030569
mounted reinforcement to low-strength concrete", Journal of [28] Szép, J., Habashneh, M., Lógó, J., Movahedi Rad, M. "Reliability
Adhesion Science and Technology, 33(12), pp. 1320–1336, 2019. Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Beams under Elevated
https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1592944 Temperatures: A Probabilistic Approach Using Finite Element and
[17] Sadoun, O., Merdas, A., Douadi, A. "The bond and flexural Physical Models", Sustainability, 15(7), 6077, 2023.
strengthening of reinforced concrete elements strengthened with https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076077
near surface mounted prestressing steel (PS) bars", Journal of [29] NF "NF P18-406 Essai de compression [Compression test]", French
Adhesion Science and Technology, 34(19), pp. 2120–2143, 2020. Standardization Association, Paris, France, 1981. (in French)
https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2020.1753278 [30] NF "NF P18-408 Essai de traction [Tensile test]", French
[18] Lundquist, J., Nordin, H., Täljsten, B., Olofsson, T. "Numerical Standardization Association, Paris, France, 1981. (in French)
analysis of concrete beams strengthened with CFRP: a study [31] EN " EN 10002-1:2001 Metallic materials - Tensile testing - Part 1:
of anchorage lengths", In: Proceedings of the International Method of test at ambient temperature", European Committee for
Symposium on Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures (BBFS Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2001.
2005), Hong Kong, China, 2005, pp. 239–246. ISBN: 9623675062 [32] ISO " ISO 527-1:2012 Plastics – Determination of tensile proper-
[19] Vasquez, D., Seracino, R. "Assessment of the Predictive ties – Part 1: General principles", International Organization for
Performance of Existing Analytical Models for Debonding of Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
Near-Surface Mounted FRP Strips", Advances in Structural [33] ISO "ISO-527-2:2012 Plastics – determination of tensile prop-
Engineering, 13(2), pp. 299–308, 2010. erties – part 2: test conditions for moulding and extrusion plas-
https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.13.2.299 tics", international Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
[20] Barros, J. A. O., Varma, R. K., Sena-Cruz, J. M., Azevedo, A. F. Switzerland, 2012.
M. "Near surface mounted CFRP strips for the flexural strength- [34] ABAQUS "Analysis User's Manual, Version 6.14", [online] Avail-
ening of RC columns: Experimental and numerical research", able at: http://130.149.89.49:2080/v6.14/index.html [Accessed: 7
Engineering Structures, 30(12), pp. 3412–3425, 2008. July 2022]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05.019 [35] Carreira, D. J., Chu, K.-H. "Stress-Strain Relationship for Plain Con-
[21] Obaidat, Y. T., Heyden, S., Dahlblom, O. "The effect of CFRP and crete in Compression ", ACI Journal Proceedings, 82(6), pp. 797–
CFRP/concrete interface models when modelling retrofitted RC 804, 1985.
beams with FEM", Composite Structures, 92, pp. 1391–1398, 2010. https://doi.org/10.14359/10390
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.11.008 [36] Fib "Model Code 2010-Final draft: Volume 1", International
[22] Hawileh, R. A. "Nonlinear finite element modeling of RC beams Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2012.
strengthened with NSM FRP rods", Construction and Building [37] Zhang, S. S., Teng, J. G., Yu, T. "Bond–slip model for CFRP strips
Materials, 27(1), pp. 461–471, 2012. near-surface mounted to concrete", Engineering Structures, 56,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.07.018 pp. 945–953, 2013.
[23] Rezazadeh, M., Cholostiakow, S., Kotynia, R., Barros, J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.05.032
"Exploring new NSM reinforcements for the flexural strengthening [38] Aydın, E., Boru, E., Aydın, F. "Effects of FRP bar type and fiber
of RC beams: Experimental and numerical research", Composite reinforced concrete on the flexural behavior of hybrid beams",
Structures, 141, pp. 132–145, 2016. Construction and Building Materials, 279, pp. 122–407, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122407