1

Strengthening of RC Members Using Near-Surface

Mounted FRP Composites: Design Overview
Renato Parretti
1
and Antonio Nanni
2


ABSTRACT
Strengthening oI reinIorced and prestress concrete (RC and PC) members using
externally bonded FRP laminates is today a well-accepted technology that is becoming
popular among designers and contractors. Near-surIace mounted FRP reinIorcement
represents an alternative way to improve Ilexural and shear perIormance oI concrete
structures. In some instance, it is the only suitable technology that can be eIIiciently
applied, Ior example, when upgrading beam-column joints or Ior the Ilexural
strengthening oI compression members.
In this paper, bond related issues, Ilexural and shear design recommendations, and design
examples are discussed and proposed. The paper is an attempt to provide designers with
the Iirst comprehensive protocol Ior the rational implementation oI the technology.

KEY WORDS:
Bond, Detailing, Flexural Design, FRP, Near-SurIace Mounted ReinIorcement,
ReinIorced Concrete, Shear Design, Strengthening

INTRODUCTION
The use oI Near-SurIace Mounted (NSM) FRP reinIorcement is an attractive method
Ior increasing the Ilexural and shear strength oI deIicient RC and PC members (Alkhrdaji
et al., 1999, De Lorenzis et al., 2000) as well as strengthening unreinIorced masonry
walls (Tumialan et al. 2001). Advantages with respect to externally bonded FRP
laminates include the possibility oI anchoring the reinIorcement into adjacent members,
and the opportunity oI upgrading elements in their negative moment region with the
reinIorcement not exposed to potential mechanical damage typical oI Iloor or deck
systems (Nanni et al. 1999). The NSM FRP technique does not require extensive surIace
preparation work, and aIter groove cutting, requires minimal installation time compared
to externally bonded FRP laminates.
The NSM reinIorcement technology becomes particularly interesting in seismic
retroIit oI RC column-beam joints providing either additional strength or ductility when
moving the Iailure zone Irom the column to the beam (Prota et al., 2001).
Figure 1 shows a recent application oI NSM technology Ior silo strengthening
(Emmons et al., 2001) where FRP bars have been used to enhance both Ilexural and
conIinement capacity. Figure 2 illustrates the application oI this technology Ior
upgrading a solid RC bridge deck (Alkhrdaji et al., 2000), and Figure 3 represents a

1
Structural Engineer, Co-Force America Inc., USA.
2
V&M Jones ProIessor oI Civil Engineering, University oI Missouri-Rolla, USA.
2
similar case where NSM bars were used to increase the bridge deck negative moment
capacity (Warren, 1998). Figure 4 shows shear strengthening oI RC joists enhanced with
Carbon FRP bars used as Near-SurIace Mounted reinIorcement (Hogue et al., 1999).

HISTORY OF THE TECHNOLOGY
The use oI NSM reinIorcement was developed in Europe Ior strengthening oI RC
structures in the early 1950s. In 1948, an RC bridge deck in Sweden needed to be
upgraded in its negative moment region due to an excessive settlement oI the steel cage
during construction. This was accomplished by inserting steel reinIorcement bars in
grooves made in the concrete surIace and Iilling it with cement mortar (Asplund, 1949).
More recently, NSM reinIorcement has been used to upgrade masonry structures to
increase their tensile strength and ductility (Atkinsosn and Shuller, 1992). This
technology is an eIIective and economical means oI repairing and strengthening low-rise
masonry buildings and arch bridges (Garrity, 1995). Stainless steel has replaced the
original black steel adopted at the onset oI the development, while the cementitious grout
used Ior embedding the reinIorcement has been partially replaced by epoxy-based grouts.
Today, FRP bars have became attractive Ior their non-corrosive properties and the
ability oI tailoring the bar stiIIness to the needs oI the application. Epoxy-based pastes or
later-modiIied cement grouts can be used Ior their rapid setting and bond strength.

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
The strength design approach with its strength reduction Iactors as used in ACI 318
(1999) is recommended Ior RC and PC members using NSM FRP reinIorcement.
Additional strength reduction Iactors applied to the contribution oI the NSM
reinIorcement are suggested to reIlect the novelty oI FRP systems compared with
traditional methods.
The equations presented in this paper are based on principles oI Iorce equilibrium,
strain compatibility, constitutive laws oI the materials, and make reIerence to the 'Guide
Ior the Design and Construction oI Externally Bonded FRP Systems Ior Strengthening
Concrete Structures reported by ACI Committee 440 (2002), and the 'Guide Ior the
Design and Construction oI Concrete ReinIorced with FRP Bars also reported by ACI
Committee 440 (2001).
CareIul consideration should be given to determine a strengthening threshold. The
threshold is imposed to guard against collapse oI the structure should bond or other
Iailure oI the FRP system occur due to Iire, vandalism, or other causes. The existing
strength oI the structure (!R
n
) should be suIIicient to resist a level oI load described by
Eq. (1):

( ) (1.2 0.85 )
n existing new
R D L ! " # (1)

Material properties oI the FRP reinIorcement reported by manuIacturers, such as the
ultimate tensile strength, typically do not consider long-term exposure to environmental
conditions, and should be considered as initial properties. FRP properties to be used in
all design equations are given as Iollows (ACI 440, 2001, and 2002):
3


*
*
fu E fu
fu E fu
f C f
C $ $
"
"
(2)

where f
fu
and $
fu
are the FRP design tensile strength and ultimate strain considering the
environmental reduction Iactor (C
E
) as given in Table 1, and
*
fu
f and
*
fu
$ represent the
FRP guaranteed tensile strength and ultimate strain as reported by the manuIacturer. FRP
design modulus oI elasticity is the guaranteed value reported by the manuIacturer.

FLEXURAL DESIGN
Guidance Ior the calculation oI the Ilexural strengthening eIIect resulting Irom
longitudinal FRP reinIorcement mounted onto the tension Iace oI an RC member is
illustrated in Figure 5 Ior the case oI a rectangular section.
Assumptions used in the design are: a) a plane section beIore loading remains plane
aIter loading; b) the maximum usable compressive strain in the concrete is 0.003, and its
tensile strength is neglected; c) the FRP reinIorcement has a linear-elastic behavior up to
Iailure; and d) perIect bond exists between FRP reinIorcement and surrounding concrete.
The strength reduction approach Iollows the philosophy oI ACI 318 (1999) Appendix
B, where a member with low ductility should be compensated with a higher strength
reserve. The higher strength reserve is achieved by applying a Iactor oI 0.70 to brittle
members, as opposed to 0.90 Ior ductile members. The strength-reduction Iactor (!)
given by Eq. (3) should be used (ACI 440, 2002):


% &
0.90 0.005
0.20
0.70 0.005
0.005
0.70
s
s y
y s
y
s y
for
for
for
$
$ $
! $ $
$
$ $
' (
)
*
)
" # + +
,
*
)
)
-
.
(3)

where $
s
and $
y
is the strain in the reinIorcing steel at ultimate and yielding, respectively.
The calculation procedure used to arrive at the ultimate strength should consider the
governing mode oI Iailure. The trial and error procedure presented in this paper involves
selecting a given neutral axis depth (c) and a Iailure mode (i.e. selecting $
c
=$
cu
or $
f
=$
fe
);
calculating the strain level in each material using strain compatibility; calculating the
associated stress level in each material Irom its stress-strain relationship; and checking
internal Iorce equilibrium. II the internal Iorce resultants do not equilibrate, the depth to
the neutral axis is revised and the procedure repeated.
When Iailure is controlled by concrete crushing, the Whitney stress block approach
(ACI 318, 1999) can be used without modiIications. II FRP rupture or concrete cover
delamination control Iailure, the Whitney stress block gives reasonably accurate results
provided that /
1
take the expression oI Eq. (4) rather than the Iixed value oI 0.85 (while
0
1
remains the same as Irom Section 10.2.7.3 oI ACI 318, 1999):

4

' 2
1 ' 2
1
3
3
c c c
c
$ $ $
/
$ 1
*
" (4)

where:


'
'
'
1 '
1.71
4
6 2
c
c
c
c c
c c
f
E
$
$ $
1
$ $
"
*
"
*
(5)

The ultimate eIIective strain ($
fe
) that should be used Ior FRP reinIorcement is given
below:


fe m fu
$ 2 $ " (6)

where 2
m
is a bond dependent coeIIicient meant to limit the strain in the FRP
reinIorcement to prevent debonding or delamination. Limited experimental evidences
(De Lorenzis and Nanni, 2002) indicate that 2
m
is highly aIIected by surIace properties oI
the FRP bar (deIormed or sandblasted), by groove size, by properties oI the epoxy paste,
and concrete tensile strength. Splitting oI the epoxy cover, cracking oI the concrete
surrounding the bar, and pull-out oI the FRP bar were the main Iailure modes
experimented during the laboratory tests reported in the literature. Experimental values
oI 2
m
were Iound to vary between 0.60 and 0.84. Further research should result in a more
accurate method Ior predicting the appropriate bond dependant Iactor. A value oI
2
m
=0.70 has been selected in the design example (see Appendix I). This value is
consistent with both experimental data (De Lorenzis and Nanni, 2002) and the approach
Iollowed by ACI 440 (2002) when deIining an equivalent strain reduction Iactor Ior
externally bonded FRP laminates.
Nominal tension strain attained in the concrete surrounding FRP bars can be expressed
as:


,
f
c f cu fe bi
d c
c
$ $ $ $
*
" - # (7)

where d
f
represents the depth to the FRP reinIorcement as illustrated in Figure 5,
The initial strain $
bi
in Eq. (7) can be evaluated using an elastic analysis oI the existing
member, considering all loads present at the time oI FRP installation. The Iirst term in
Eq. (7),
f
cu
d c
c
$
*
, should be used when concrete crushing Iailure governs. The second
term,
fe bi
$ $ # , should be used when FRP is the controlling Iailure mode.
Assuming no compression steel reinIorcement, the moment capacity oI the
strengthened member can be expressed as Iollows:

5

1 1
2 2
n s s f f fe f
c c
M A f d A f d
0 0
3
4 5 4 5
" * # *
6 7 6 7
8 9 8 9
(8)

where f
s
and f
fe
are taken Irom Eq. (9), and 3
f
is an additional reduction Iactor oI 0.85
recommended to take into account Ior the novelty oI FRP (ACI 440, 2002):


,
s s s y
fe f c f f fe
f E f
f E E
$
$ $
" +
" -
(9)

SHEAR DESIGN
The approach used to calculate the nominal shear capacity oI a member strengthened
using NSM bars is similar to that used in ACI 440 (2002) Ior the case oI externally
bonded FRP laminates. Eq. (10) is applicable Ior NSM systems and the same strength
reduction Iactor !=0.85 suggested by ACI 318 is used. An additional reduction Iactor
3
f
0.85 is applied to the contribution oI NSM FRP reinIorcement to the shear strength oI
the member, as previously suggested Ior Ilexural design.

( )
n c s f f
V V V V ! ! 3 " # # (10)

Several parameters inIluence the NSM FRP bars contribution to the shear capacity
(V
f
), such as quality oI bond, FRP rebar type, groove dimensions, and quality oI substrate
material. When computing V
f
, two strain limits need to be taken into account (De
Lorenzis and Nanni, 2001a) namely: strain Irom bond-controlled Iailure, and maximum
strain threshold oI 0.004. The latter is suggested to maintain the shear integrity oI the
concrete (KhaliIa et al., 1998), and to avoid large shear cracks that could compromise the
aggregate interlock mechanism.
The Iollowing assumptions are made: a) the slope oI the shear crack is assumed to be
at 45 degrees; and b) bond stresses are constant along the eIIective length oI the FRP bar
at ultimate.
The shear strength provided by the NSM reinIorcement can be determined by
calculating the Iorce resulting Irom the tensile stress in the FRP bars across the assumed
crack, and it is expressed by Eq. (11) Ior circular and rectangular bars, respectively.


2
4( )
f b b tot
f b tot
V d L
V a b L
: ;
;
"
" #
(11)

where d
b
is the nominal FRP bar diameter, a and b represent the cross-sectional
dimension Ior rectangular FRP bar, and ;
b
represents the average bond stress oI the bars
crossed by a shear crack. Experimental data available on 10-mm (#3) carbon FRP
deIormed bars demonstrate that when using an epoxy based resin in a groove size at least
1.5 times the bar diameter, a conservative value oI ;
b
=6.9 MPa (1.0 ksi) can be used (De
Lorenzis and Nanni, 2001b).
6
L
tot
can be expressed as
tot i
i
L L "
<
where L
i
(Figure 12) represents the length oI each
single NSM bar crossed by a 45-degree shear crack expressed as Iollows:


0.004
0.004
1...
cos sin 2
1...
cos sin 2
i
net
s n
i l i
L
s n
i l i n
/ /
/ /
(
- "
)
) #
"
,
)
* - " #
)
# .
!
(12)

where / is the slope oI the FRP bar with respect to the longitudinal axis oI the member
(common values are 90 Ior vertical NSM bars, and 45 or 60 Ior inclined bars), s is the
FRP bar spacing, and !
net
, deIined as Iollows:


2
sin
net b
c
/
" * ! ! (13)

represents the net length oI a FRP bar as shown in Figure 12 to account Ior cracking oI
the concrete cover and installation tolerances. In Eq. (13), !
b
is the actual length oI a FRP
bar, and c is the clear concrete cover oI the internal longitudinal reinIorcement.
The second limitation in Eq. (12), l
0.004
, takes into account the shear integrity oI the
concrete by limiting at 0.004 the maximum strain in the FRP reinIorcement. From the
Iorce equilibrium condition, (
0.004
(0.004 )
b f b b
A E d l : ; " ), l
0.004
can be determined as
Iollows Ior circular and rectangular bars, respectively:


0.004
0.004
0.001
0.002
b f
b
f
b
d E
l
E
a b
l
a b
;
;
"
>
"
#
(14)

where E
f
represents Young`s modulus oI FRP bars.
The Iirst limitation in Eq. (12) takes into account bond as the controlling Iailure
mechanism, and represents the minimum eIIective length oI an FRP bar crossed by a
shear crack. It is expressed by /(cos sin ) s i / / > # or /(cos sin )
net
s i / / * > # ! depending
on the value assumed by the term


(1 cot )
eff
n
s
/ #
"
!
(15)

where n is taken as the smallest integer (e.g., 32/ 3 10.7 10 n n " " ? " ), and !
eII

represents the vertical length oI !
net
written as Iollows:

sin 2
eff b
c / " * ! ! (16)
7



Spacing oI FRP shear reinIorcement should not exceed !
net
/2, or 24 in.
To prevent crushing oI concrete, the total reinIorcement contribution taken as the sum
oI both steel and FRP reinIorcement, should be limited based on the criteria given Ior
steel alone in ACI 318, as suggested in Eq. (17) Ior US and SI customary, respectively:


'
'
8
0.66
c
s f
c
f bd
V V
f bd
(
)
# -
,
)
.
(17)

DETAILING
The minimum dimension oI the grooves should be taken at least 1.5 times the diameter
oI the FRP bar. However, when a rectangular bar with large aspect ratio is used, the limit
may loose signiIicance due to constructability. In such a case, a minimum groove size oI
3.0 1.5 a b @ as depicted in Figure 8 could be suggested, where a is the smallest bar
dimension. In other instances, the minimum groove dimension could be the result oI
installation requirements rather than engineering. For example a 5 mm (0.2 in) groove
may be the smallest possible because oI the saw blade size.

Bond properties between FRP reinIorcement and concrete are similar to that oI steel
reinIorcement, and depend on FRP type, elastic modulus, surIace deIormation, and shape
oI the FRP bar (Al-Zahrani et al., 1996, Uppuluri et al., 1996, Gao et al., 1998). For the
case oI RC beams strengthened using NSM CFRP rectangular bars, Hassan and Rizkalla
(2002) Iound that the development length is highly dependent on strip dimensions,
groove size, concrete and adhesive properties, internal steel reinIorcement ratio,
reinIorcement conIiguration, and type oI loading. They suggested that the development
length increases by increasing the internal steel reinIorcement ratio, and decreases with
the increase oI either the concrete compressive strength and/or the groove size.
Figure 9 shows the equilibrium condition oI an FRP bar with an embedded length
equal to its development length, !
d
. The Iorce in the bar is resisted by the shear stresses ;
b

acting on the surIace oI the bar. Assuming a triangular stress distribution (Ibell and
Valerio, 2002), the average bond stress can be expressed as ;
b
=0.5;
max
.
Via equilibrium, the Iollowing equations can be derived Ior circular and rectangular
bars, respectively:


max
max
4(0.5 )
2( )(0.5 )
b
d fe
d fe
d
l f
a b
l f
a b
;
;
"
>
"
#
(18)

8
Hassan and Rizkalla (2002) suggest an expression Ior ;
max
when concrete crushing is
the controlling Iailure mode. When the controlling Iailure mode is not known, a
conservative value oI ;
max
=3.5 MPa (0.50 ksi) is suggested.


CONCLUSIONS
Near-surIace mounted reinIorcement is an old technology used over more than halI a
century to enhance Ilexural and shear capacity oI existing RC and masonry structures.
Today, thanks to the availability oI FRP composites, it is becoming increasingly more
attractive and sometimes even more promising than the use oI externally bonded FRP
laminates.
In this paper, an overview oI Ilexural and shear design oI RC members strengthened
with NSM FRP bars was presented. The proposed procedure reIlects the Iramework used
in the two guides published by ACI (ACI 440, 2002, and ACI 440.1R-01, 2001) with
adjustment coming Irom experimental evidences.
Unresolved issues requiring additional experimental work include properties and
quality oI bond between FRP bars, paste and concrete, as well as a better understanding
oI the importance oI groove size, especially when using rectangular bars. Limited
experience is available on shear strengthening with NSM bars, and more data are needed
to better validate the analysis here presented.

REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 1999; 'Building Code Requirements Ior Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-99) and Commentary (ACI 318R-99), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, 391 pp.
ACI Committee 440, 2002; 'Guide Ior the Design and Construction oI Externally
Bonded FRP Systems Ior Strengthening Concrete Structures, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, in press.
ACI Committee 440, 2001; 'Guide Ior the Design and Construction oI Concrete
ReinIorced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-01), American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Michigan, 41 pp.
Alkhrdaji, T., Nanni, A., Chen, G., and Barker, M. (1999), 'Upgrading the
Transportation InIrastructure: Solid RC Decks Strengthened with FRP, Concrete
International, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 21, No. 10, pp. 37-41.
Alkhrdaji, T., Nanni, A., and Mayo, R., 2000; 'Upgrading Missouri Transportation
InIrastructures: Solid RC Decks Strengthened with FRP, Transportation Research
Record, No. 1740, pp. 157-169. (also available in: Proc., 79
th
Annual Transportation
Research Board, Jan. 9-13, 2000, Washington, DC, CD-ROM version, paper 00-1177, 24
pp.)
Al-Zahrani, M.M., Nanni, A., Al-Dulaijan, S.U., and Bakis, C.E., 1996; 'Bond oI FRP
to Concrete Ior Bars with Axisymmetric DeIormations, Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures
(ACMBS-II), Montreal, Canada, pp. 853-860.
9
Asplund, S.O., 1949; 'Strengthening oI Bridge Slabs with Grouted reinIorcement,
Journal of the American Concrete Institute, V. 20, No. 6, pp. 397-406.
Atkinson, R.H., and Schuller, M.P., 1992; 'Development oI Injectible Grouts Ior the
Repair oI UnreinIorced Masonry, Proceedings of the Workshop on Effectiveness of
Retrofitting of Stone and Brick Masonry Walls in Seismic Areas, Dept. oI Struct. Engrg.,
Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
De Lorenzis, L., Nanni, A., and La Tegola, A. (2000), 'Flexural and Shear
Strengthening oI ReinIorced Concrete Structures with Near SurIace Mounted FRP Bars,
Proc., Third Int. ConI. on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures,
Ottawa, Canada, pp. 521-528.
De Lorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., 2001a; 'Strengthening oI ReinIorced Concrete Beams
with Near-SurIace Mounted Fiber-ReinIorced Polymer Bars, Structural Journal, ACI,
V. 98, No. 1, pp. 60-68.
De Lorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., 2001b; 'Characterization oI FRP Bars as Near SurIace
Mounted ReinIorcement, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 5, No. 2,
pp. 114-121.
De Lorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., 2002; 'Bond Between Near SurIace Mounted FRP
Bars and Concrete in Structural strengthening, Structural Journal, ACI, V. 99, No. 2,
pp. 123-133.
Emmons, P., Thomas, J., and Sabnis, G.M., 2001; 'New Strengthening Technology
Ior Blue Circle Cement Silo Repair and Upgrade", Proceedings of FRP Workshop US-
AID, Cairo, Egypt.
Gao, D., Benmokrane, B., and Tighiouart, B., 1998; 'Bond Properties oI FRP Rebars
to Concrete, Technical Report, Department oI Civil Engineering, University oI
Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, 27 pp.
Garrity, S.W., 1995; 'Retro-ReinIorcement A proposed repair System Ior Masonry
Arch Bridges, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Arch Bridges,
Bolton, UK, pp.557-566.
Hassan, T., and Rizkalla, S.; 'Investigation oI Bond in Concrete Structures
Strengthened with Near SurIace Mounted CFRP Strips, in press.
Hogue, T., CornIorth, R.C., and Nanni, A., 1999; 'Myriad Convention Center Floor
System ReinIorcement, Proceedings of the FRPRCS-4, C.W. Dolan, S. Rizkalla and A.
Nanni, Editors, ACI, Baltimore, MD, pp. 1145-1161.
KhaliIa, A., Gold, W.J., Nanni, A., and Abdel Aziz, M.I., 1998; 'Contribution oI
Externally Bonded FRP to Shear Capacity oI RC Flexural Member, Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 2, No. 4, pp. 195-202.
Ibell, T.J., and Valerio, P., 2002; 'Shear Strengthening oI Existing Concrete Bridges,
Proceedings of ICE Structures and Buildings, UK, in press
MacGregor, J.G., 1997a; 'ReinIorced Concrete: Mechanics and Design, Third
Edition, Prentice-Hall, NJ, pp.388-392.
MacGregor, J.G., 1997b; 'ReinIorced Concrete: Mechanics and Design, Third
Edition, Prentice-Hall, NJ, pp.215-218.
Nanni, A, Alkhrdaji, T., Barker, M, Chen, G, Mayo, R, and Yang, X, (1999).
'Overview oI Testing to Failure Program oI a Highway Bridge Strengthened with FRP
Composites, Proceedings of Fourth International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP)
10
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-4), SP-188, C. W. Dolan, S. Rizkalla,
and A. Nanni, Eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 69-75.
Prota, A, Nanni, A, ManIredi G, and Cosenza E, 2001. 'Design Criteria Ior RC
Beam-Column Joints Seismically Upgraded with Composites, Proceedings of the
International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering - CICE 2001, J.-G.
Teng, Ed., Hong Kong, China, V. 1, pp. 919-926.
Tumialan, G., Morbin, A., Nanni, A. and Modena, C., 'Shear Strengthening oI
Masonry Walls with FRP Composites, COMPOSITES 2001 Convention and Trade
Show, Composites Fabricators Association, October 3-6, 2001, Tampa, FL, CD-ROM, 6
pp.
Uppuluri, V.S., Bakis, C.E., Nanni, A., and Boothby, T.E., 1996; 'Analysis oI the
Bond Mechanism in FRP ReinIorcement Bars: The EIIect oI Bar Design and Properties,
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials
in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS-II), Montreal, Canada, pp. 893-900.
Warren, G.E., 1998; 'WaterIront Repair and Upgrade, Advanced Technology
Demonstration Site No. 2: Pier 12, NAVSTA San Diego, Site SpeciIic Report SSR-2419-
SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA.
11
APPENDIX I. EXAMPLE OF FLEXURAL DESIGN
Introduction
Flexural strengthening oI a one-way RC slab supported by RC joists will be designed
in this section. The eight-span Iloor slab was originally designed using a concrete
compressive strength oI 25.9 MPa (3750 psi) and steel reinIorcement strength oI 413.7
MPa (60 ksi). The slab thickness was selected equal to h=180 mm (7.25 in), using the
dead and live loads reported in Table 2 (MacGregor, 1997a). The owner needs to
modernize some mechanical equipment that becomes an integral part oI the structure in
the Iour central spans oI the building (Figure 10). The new loads resulting Irom this
equipment are shown in Table 2.
New moments due to the new loads are shown in Table 3. The moment in place (M
ip
)
at the time oI FRP installation is calculated using the slab selI weight and the weight due
to the Iloor cover and ceiling. M
new
represents the Iactored moment due to new loads to
be resisted by the existing structure prior to the strengthening.
The original design called Ior 12-mm (#4) steel bars spaced 380 mm (15 in) on centers
Ior positive moment regions, and 12-mm (#4) spaced at 300 mm (12 in) on centers Ior
negative moment regions. EIIective depth d and clear concrete cover were assumed
equal to 160 mm (6.25 in) and 20 mm (0.75 in), respectively.
A 6-mm (#2) Carbon FRP bar is adopted Ior strengthening in the negative moment
regions.
FRP guaranteed material properties and corresponding design values are shown in Eq.
(2) based on the appropriate C
E
Iactor (Table 1):


*
* 3
0.95(1380 ) 1311
0.95(0.01) 9.5 10
138
fu E fu
fu E fu
f
f C f MPa Mpa
C
E GPa
$ $
*
" " "
" " " @
"


Assuming 4 mm (0.125 in) clear cover, the eIIective depth is d
f
=173 mm (6.8 in).
For positive moment regions, externally bonded FRP laminates will be used. This
second technique is already well-known and outside the scope oI this paper so that only
the Iinal results will be shown in this example.

Computations
As a Iirst step, initial strain under the in-place moment needs to be evaluated. Neutral
axis position beIore cracking (c
b_cr
) and gross moment oI inertia (I
g
) oI the concrete
section are shown below (calculations are carried out Ior a strip oI 300 mm (1 ft)):

12
% &
% &
% &% & % &% &% &
% & % &% &
2

2
2
2
0.5 1
1
0.5 300 180 8.27 1 129 160
91
300 180 8.27 1 129
s
b cr
s
bh n A d
c
bh n A
mm mm mm mm
mm
mm mm mm
# *
" "
# *
# *
" "
# *

% & % &
% &
% &% &% &
3
2

3
2
2 4
1
12
300 180
8.27 1 129 91 160 150, 265, 008
12
g s b cr
bh
I n A c d
mm mm
mm mm mm mm
" # * * "
" # * * "


where:

200, 000
8.27
24,174 4750 25.9
s s
c
E E MPa
n
E MPa MPa
" " " "

Cracking moment is then obtained as:

% &
4
'
6

0.62 25.9 150, 265, 009

0.62
1
5.33
1 10 180 91
c g
cr
b cr
MPa mm
f I
M kN m
h c mm mm
" " " >
* @ *


Since service moment due to existing loads on the structure (4.65 kN!m, Table 3) is
smaller than M
cr
analysis can be carried out reIerring to an uncracked cross-section.
Consequently, initial strain in the bottom concrete Iiber can be expressed as:

% &
% &
% &
5
4
2,190, 000
173 91 4.944 10
(150, 265, 008 ) 24,174
ip
bi f b cr
g c
M
N mm
d c mm mm
I E mm MPa
$
*
>
" * " * " @


As a Iirst trial, assume Ior the neutral axis position c
1
=0.1h=18 mm, and that Iailure
is controlled by FRP rupture, so that the maximum strain in the concrete surrounding
FRP bars is given by the second term oI Eq. (7):


3 5 3
,
6.650 10 4.944 10 6.699 10
c f fe bi
$ $ $
* * *
" # " @ # @ " @

where $
fe
is taken Irom Eq. (6):


3 3
0.7(9.50 10 ) 6.650 10
fe m fu
$ 2 $
* *
" " @ " @

Strain level in both concrete and steel can be Iound using strain compatibility:

13
% &
% &
3 4 1
,
1
3 3 1
,
1
18
6.699 10 7.779 10
173 18
160 18
6.699 10 6.137 10
173 18
c c f
f
s c f
f
c mm
d c mm mm
d c mm mm
d c mm mm
$ $
$ $
* *
* *
" " @ " @
* *
* *
" " @ " @
* *


Since
3
2.07 10
s y
$ $
*
A " @ , f
s
=f
y
=413.7 MPa, tensile Iorces in both steel and FRP
reinIorcement as well as compression Iorce in the concrete can be expressed as Iollows:

% &% &% &
% &% &
% &% &% &% &
2 5 3
2
'
1 1 1
32.3 1.38 10 6.650 10 29, 642
129 413.7 53, 367
0.525 25.9 0.85 18 300 62, 410
f f f fe
s s y
c c
T A E mm MPa N
T A f mm MPa N
C f c b MPa mm mm N
$
/ 0
*
" " @ @ "
" " "
" " "


where:

% &
% & % &
% &% & % &
% & % &
'
' 3
3 4
'
1 ' 3 4
2
3 4 4
' 2
1 2 ' 2
3
1
25.9
1.71 1.71 1.832 10
24,174
4 1.832 10 7.779 10
4
0.694
6 2 6 1.832 10 2 7.779 10
3 1.832 10 7.779 10 7.779 10
3
0.525
3
3 1.832 10 0.694
c
c
c
c c
c c
c c c
c
f MPa
E MPa
$
$ $
1
$ $
$ $ $
/
$ 1
*
* *
* *
* * *
*
" " " @
@ * @
*
" " "
* @ * @
@ @ * @
*
" " "
@


Via equilibrium, one can Iind another position Ior the neutral axis:

% &% &% &
' '
1 1 1
'
1 '
1 1
53, 367 29, 642
24
0.525 25.9 0.85 300
s f c c
s f
c
T T C f c b
T T
N N
c mm
f b MPa mm
/ 0
/ 0
# " "
#
#
" " "


As a second trial, a new neutral axis depth is assumed:

'
1 1
2
18 24
21
2 2
c c mm mm
c mm
# #
" " "

Repeating the calculations shown so Iar, using the value c
2
, one can Iind that
equilibrium is satisIied and no Iurther iterations are needed. Ultimate strain in concrete
and steel is 9.25410
-4
and 6.12710
-3
, respectively; tensile Iorce in FRP and steel
reinIorcement and compressive Iorce in the concrete is 29,579 N, 53,365 N, and 82,944
N, respectively. To check whenever the original assumption oI FRP rupture is correct the
Iollowing shall be veriIied:
14

3
,
0.003
(173 ) 54
0.003 6.699 10
cu
b f
cu c f
c c d mm mm
$
$ $
*
+ " " "
# # @


where c
b
represents the neutral axis position Ior balanced Iailure. Being it veriIied, the
initial assumption was correct.
The moment capacity can now be expressed as:

% & % & % &
% &% & % & % &
1 1
2
6
2
2 2
1
|129 413.7 160 0.85 21 / 2
1 10
0.85 32.3 917.7 173 0.85 21 / 2 | 12.2
n s s f f fe f
c c
M A f d A f d
mm MPa mm mm
mm MPa mm mm kN m
0 0
3
4 5 4 5
" * # * "
6 7 6 7
8 9 8 9
" * #
@
# * " >


where:

5 3
413.7
(1.38 10 )(6.650 10 ) 917.7
s s s y
fe f fe
f E f MPa
f E MPa MPa
$
$
*
" + "
" " @ @ "


Because $
s
>0.005, Irom Eq. (3) the strength reduction Iactor is !=0.9. Finally,

% & 0.9 12.2 11.0 10.2
n u
M KN m KN m M kN m ! " > " > A " >

NSM bars used as reinIorcement in negative moment regions will be extended Ior a
length equal to their development length !
d
beyond the point oI zero moment; !
d
can be
evaluated using Eq. (18):

max
1 6
1237 1.0
4(0.5 ) 1000 4(0.5(3.5 ))
b
d fe
d mm
l f MPa m
MPa ;
" " "

The point oI zero is given at approximately 0.2!!, where !=4.20 m (13.83 ft). The total
length oI an FRP bar is given as: 2(0.2 ) 2 3.70
d
m # " ! ! (12 ft).
For positive moment regions, design can be carried out using externally bonded CFRP
laminates 100 mm (4 in) wide with strips clear spacing oI 500 mm (20 in), having the
Iollowing properties:

*
*
0.95(3800 ) 3610
0.95(0.0167) 0.0159
228
fu E fu
fu E fu
f
f C f MPa MPa
C
E GPa
$ $
" " "
" " "
"


15
The Iinal strengthening design is reported in Table 3 and compared with the original
design. Note that Eq. (1) is veriIied since !M
n
oI the existing member is larger than M
new

calculated with the new loads in both positive and negative moment regions.

16
APPENDIX II. EXAMPLE OF SHEAR DESIGN
An existing simply supported T-beam supports a uniIormly distributed service
(unIactored) dead load oI 19.0 N/mm (1.3 kips/ft), including its own weight and a
uniIormly distributed service live load oI 23.4 N/mm (1.6 kips/ft), (MacGregor, 1997b).
The concrete strength is 27.6 MPa (4000 psi), and the yield strength oI the steel stirrups
is 276 MPa (40 ksi). Overall height is h=650 mm (26 in), Ilange width is 910 mm (36 in),
stem width is 300 mm (12 in), slab thickness is 150 mm (6 in), eIIective depth is d=610
mm (24 in), and clear concrete cover c=40 mm (1.5 in). The original shear design called
Ior 10-mm (#3) double-leg stirrups with the Iollowing spacing: a) one at 75 mm (3 in)
Irom the support; b) seven at 150 mm (6 in); c) three at 200 mm (8 in); and d) nine at 300
mm (12 in) as shown in Figure 11.
The original Ilexural design called Ior two layers oI longitudinal grade 60 steel bars
used as main reinIorcement; the bottom layer includes three 35-mm (#11) steel bars; the
top layer includes two 25-mm (#8) steel bars. Two 12-mm (#4) steel bars were used as
compression reinIorcement to hold the stirrups.
Service live load needs to be increased Irom 23.4 to 32.0 N/mm. Flexural capacity oI
the beam does not need to be improved, while an upgrading is needed in shear. The new
ultimate shear value calculated at d Irom the support is 324.7 kN (73.0 kips).
Strengthening design will be carried out using 6.35-mm (No. 2) NSM CFRP bars 580
mm (23 in) long, having ultimate guaranteed tensile strength
*
2068 (300 )
fu
f MPa ksi " ,
modulus oI elasticity 124 (18, 000 )
f
E GPa ksi " , and ultimate guaranteed elongation
strain
*
0.01
fu
$ " 7.
FRP contribution to the shear capacity oI the beam is expressed by Eq. (11); FRP bars
will be inserted between the existing steel stirrups leading to a center-to-center spacing oI
s
f
=80 mm (3 in).
The number (n) oI FRP bars crossed by a 45-degree shear crack is:

(1 cot )
( sin 2 )(1 cot )
(500 sin(90) 2(40 ))(1 cot(90))
5.25 5
80
eff
b
c
n
s s
mm mm
n
mm
/
/ /
#
* #
" " "
> * #
" " ? "
!
!


and the length where FRP bar strain governs (l
0.004
) is:

0.004
(6.35 )(124, 000 )
0.001 0.001 114
6.9
b f
b
d E
mm MPa
l mm
MPa ;
" " "

Finally Irom Eq. (12) and Figure 12 ( / 2 5/ 2 2.5 / 2 2 n n " " ? " ):

17
1 0.004
2 0.004
3 0.004
4 0.004
min( , 1) min(114 , (80 )(1)) 80
min( , 2) min(114 , (80 )(2)) 114
min( , 3)
min|114 , 420 (80 )(3)| min(114 ,180 ) 114
min( , 4)
min|114 , 42
net
net
L l s mm mm mm
L l s mm mm mm
L l s
mm mm mm mm mm mm
L l s
mm
" > " "
" > " "
" * > "
" * " "
" * > "
"
!
!
5 0.004
0 (80 )(4)| min(114 ,100 ) 100
min( , 5)
min|114 , 420 (80 )(5)| min(114 , 20 ) 20
net
mm mm mm mm mm
L l s
mm mm mm mm mm mm
* " "
" * > "
" * " "
!


and

1 2 3 4 5
80 114 114 100 20 428
tot
L L L L L L mm " # # # # " # # # # "

FRP contribution to the shear capacity can now be expressed as (Eq. (11)):

2 (2)(3.14)(6.35 )(6.89 )(428 ) 117.6
f b b tot
V d L mm MPa mm kN : ; " " "

To prevent concrete crushing, Eq. (17) shall be veriIied:

2
'
(142 )(276 )(610 )
159.4
150
159.4 117.6 277
0.66 0.66 27.6 (300 )(610 ) 634.5
s y
s
s f
c
A f d
mm MPa mm
V kN
s mm
V V kN kN kN
f bd MPa mm mm kN
" " "
# " # " +
+ " "


Design shear capacity can be obtained using Eq. (10); a sketch showing the number
and spacing oI NSM CFRP bars selected Ior the shear strengthening is reported in Figure
13.

( )
0.85|160.2 159.4 0.85(117.6 )| 356.6 324.7
n c s f f
u
V V V V
kN kN kN kN V kN
! ! 3 " # # "
" # # " A "


where:

'
27.6
(300 )(610 ) 160.2
6 6
c
c
f MPa
V bd mm mm kN " " "

NSM reinIorcement is no longer needed 2.55 m (8.3 ft) apart Irom the support (Figure
13) since the existing steel stirrups are capable to carry the additional shear due to new
loads.
18
APPENDIX III. NOTATION
a Smallest dimension oI a rectangular FRP bar;
A
f
Area oI FRP reinIorcement;
A
s
Area oI steel reinIorcement;
b Larger dimension oI a rectangular FRP bar, and cross-section width;
c Neutral axis depth, Clear concrete cover;
c
b
Neutral axis depth Ior balanced Iailure;
c
b_cr
Neutral axis depth beIore cracking oI the cross-section;
C
E
Environmental reduction Iactor;
d EIIective depth oI steel reinIorcement;
D Dead Load;
d
b
Diameter oI FRP bar;
d
f
EIIective depth oI FRP reinIorcement;
d
net
Reduced value oI the eIIective length oI a FRP bar;
d
b
Length oI a FRP NSM bar;
E
c
Modulus oI elasticity oI concrete;
E
f
Modulus oI elasticity oI FRP reinIorcement;
E
s
Modulus oI elasticity oI steel reinIorcement;
'
c
f
Compressive strength oI concrete;
f
fe
EIIective tensile strength oI FRP reinIorcement;
f
fu
Ultimate design tensile strength oI FRP reinIorcement;
*
fu
f
Guaranteed tensile strength oI FRP reinIorcement;
f
s
Tensile strength oI steel reinIorcement;
f
y
Yielding strength oI steel reinIorcement;
h Cross-section height;
I
g
Gross moment oI inertia;
! Length oI the beam;
!
b
Length oI FRP NSM bar;
!
d
Development length oI FRP bars;
!
eff
Vertical length oI FRP NSM bar used as shear reinIorcement;
!
net
Net length oI a FRP NSM bar used as shear reinIorcement;
l
0.004
Length oI FRP bar to maintain shear integrity oI concrete;
L Live load;
L
i
Length oI each FRP bar crossed by a 45-degrees shear crack;
L
tot
Total length oI FRP bars crossed by a 45-degrees shear crack;
M
n
Nominal moment strength at section;
M
ip
Moment in place at the time oI FRP installation;
n Modular ratio oI elasticity E
s
/E
c
, and ratio deIined by Eq. (15);
R
n
Nominal strength oI the structure;
s Spacing oI steel and FRP shear reinIorcement;
T
f
Tensile Iorce in FRP reinIorcement;
T
s
Tensile Iorce in steel reinIorcement;
V
c
Nominal shear strength provided by concrete;
V
f
Nominal shear strength provided by FRP reinIorcement;
19
V
n
Nominal shear strength at section;
V
s
Nominal shear strength provided by steel reinIorcement;
/
Angle between inclined FRP stirrups and longitudinal axis oI member;
/
1
CoeIIicient oI the Whitney stress block;
0
1
CoeIIicient oI the Whitney stress block;
$
bi

Initial strain in the concrete beIore FRP installation;
$
c
Concrete compressive strain;
$
c,f
Nominal tensile strain in concrete surrounding FRP bars;
$
cu
Maximum permissible compressive strain in concrete (0.003);
$
fe

EIIective tensile strain in FRP reinIorcement;
$
fu

Ultimate design tensile strain oI FRP reinIorcement;
*
fu
$
Guaranteed tensile strain oI FRP reinIorcement;
$
s
Tensile strain oI steel reinIorcement;
$
y
Yielding tensile strain oI steel reinIorcement;
2
m
FRP Bond dependent coeIIicient Ior Ilexure;
!
Strength-reduction Iactor;
3
f
Additional strength-reduction Iactor Ior FRP reinIorcement;
;
b
Average bond stress Ior FRP reinIorcement;
;
max
Maximum bond stress Ior FRP reinIorcement.


20
List oI Tables
Table 1 Environmental-Reduction Factor C
E
(ACI 440, 2002)..................................... 22
Table 2 - Existing and New Loads.................................................................................... 22
Table 3 - Original and Strengthening Design ................................................................... 22

21
List oI Figures
Figure 1 - Strengthening oI Cement Silos Using NSM Carbon FRP Bars ....................... 23
Figure 2 - Strengthening oI a Bridge Deck Using NSM Carbon FRP.............................. 23
Figure 3 Negative Moments Regions Strengthening oI Bridge Deck with NSM Bars . 23
Figure 4 Shear Strengthening oI RC Joist Using Carbon NSM Bars ............................ 24
Figure 5 - Ultimate Internal Strain and Stress Distribution Ior Rectangular Sections...... 24
Figure 6 NSM Installation ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 7 - FRP Bars Used as Shear ReinIorcement .......................................................... 25
Figure 8 - Minimum Dimension oI the Grooves .............................................................. 25
Figure 9 - TransIer oI Force in an FRP Bar ...................................................................... 25
Figure 10 - Typical Floor Plan and Cross-Section............................................................ 25
Figure 11 Steel Stirrups in Beam................................................................................... 26
Figure 12 - DeIinition oI L
i
Ior a 80 mm Bar Spacing (Only NSM Bars are shown) ....... 26
Figure 13 - Shear Upgrading Using NSM CFRP Bars (Only NSM Bars are shown) ...... 26

22
Table 1 Environmental-Reduction Factor C
E
(ACI 440, 2002)
Exposure condition Fiber and resin type CE
Carbon/epoxy 0.95
Glass/epoxy 0.75 Interior exposure
Aramid/epoxy 0.85
Carbon/epoxy 0.85
Glass/epoxy 0.65
Exterior exposure (bridges, piers, and
unenclosed parking garages)
Aramid/epoxy 0.75
Carbon/epoxy 0.85
Glass/epoxy 0.50
Aggressive environment (chemical plants and
waste water treatment plants)
Aramid/epoxy 0.70

Table 2 - Existing and New Loads
US Units SI Units
Existing Loads
|psI|
New Loads
|psI|
Existing Loads
|kN/m
2
|
New Loads
|kN/m
2
|
Slab selI weight 90.6 90.6 4.34 4.34
Floor cover 0.5 0.5 0.024 0.024
Mechanical equipment 4.0 95.0 0.192 4.55
Ceiling 2.0 2.0 0.096 0.096
Dead load, B
d
97.1 188.1 4.65 9.00
Live load, B
l
100.0 100.0 4.80 4.80
Factored load, B
u
306 433 14.66 20.74
Service load, B
s
197 288 9.44 13.80
In place load, B
ip
--- 93 --- 4.46
New load Irom Eq. (1), B
new
--- 310 --- 14.85

Table 3 - Original and Strengthening Design
US Units SI Units
M

|k-It|
M
-
|k-It|
M

|kN!m|
M
-
|kN!m|
Existing Load
Service Moment, M
s
2.36 3.43 3.20 4.65
Ultimate Moment, M
u
3.66 5.32 4.96 7.21
Flexural Capacity, !M
n
4.40 5.50 5.96 7.45
New Loads
Service Moment, M
s
3.44 5.01 4.66 6.79
Moment in Place, M
ip
1.11 1.62 1.50 2.19
Moment Irom Eq. (1), M
new
3.71 5.40 5.03 7.32
Ultimate Moment, M
u
5.18 7.53 7.02 10.20
Flexural Capacity, !M
n
7.07 8.12 9.58 12.20
23

Figure 1 - Strengthening oI Cement Silos Using NSM Carbon FRP Bars


Figure 2 - Strengthening oI a Bridge Deck Using NSM Carbon FRP


Figure 3 Negative Moments Regions Strengthening oI Bridge Deck with NSM Bars
24

Figure 4 Shear Strengthening oI RC Joist Using Carbon NSM Bars



b
h d
d
f
A
A
s
f
c
$
c
s
$
f
$
0c
1
1
/
f'
c
f
f
s A
A
s
f fe
Neutral
Axis

Figure 5 - Ultimate Internal Strain and Stress Distribution Ior Rectangular Sections



L
l
0.004
l
net
3 S
h
e
a
r
c
r
a
c
k
45
2
L
1
L
4
L
L
L
5
0.004
l
s
Failure
Bond-Controlled
s s s s s
i
L
NSM Bars
i+1

Figure 6 NSM Installation
25

b
l
b
c
l
net
d
b
c
c
NSM FRP Bars
Existing Steel
Stirrups

Figure 7 - FRP Bars Used as Shear ReinIorcement

1.5d
b
a
b
1.5d
b
3.0a
1.5b

Figure 8 - Minimum Dimension oI the Grooves

d
;
b
A f
f,bar fe
;
max
max
; 0.5

Figure 9 - TransIer oI Force in an FRP Bar

Slab
Design
Beam
Beam
Beam
J
o
i
s
t
J
o
i
s
t
J
o
i
s
t
J
o
i
s
t
J
o
i
s
t
J
o
i
s
t
J
o
i
s
t
Slabs
Heavy new equipment
placed in the shaded area
New load
d
l
d
l
NSM
FRP Bars
FRP
Laminates
Groove
3.80 m
Strip

Figure 10 - Typical Floor Plan and Cross-Section
26


Stirrups @ 300 mm
Stirrups @ 200 mm
3"
Stirrups @ 150 mm
L
C
300 mm
910 mm
150 mm
610 mm
No. 7, 10-mm
No. 3, 10-mm
No. 9, 10-mm
A=4038 mm
s
2
A'=260 mm
s
2
Stirrups
10-mm

Figure 11 Steel Stirrups in Beam



l =
net
l =
b
S
h
e
a
r

c
r
a
c
k
l =
0.004
0.004
l =
FRP NSM bar
Steel longitudinal reinforcement
Slab thickness
L


=
8
0
L


=
2
0
L


=
1
1
4
L


=
1
1
4
L


=
1
0
0
1
23
45

Figure 12 - DeIinition oI L
i
Ior a 80 mm Bar Spacing (Only NSM Bars are shown)



d=610 mm
375 kN
62 kN
(Not to Scale)
2.55 m
325 kN
CFRP Bars @ 80 mm
62 kN
C
L
No. 17, 6-mm
200 kN
New Load Shear Diagram (Envelope)

Figure 13 - Shear Upgrading Using NSM CFRP Bars (Only NSM Bars are shown)