See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266558893

Strengthening of RC Beams with External Post-Tensioned CFRP Tendons

Conference Paper · January 2007

DOI: 10.14359/18766

CITATION READS

1 104

3 authors, including:

Ahmed El Refai
Laval University
50 PUBLICATIONS   282 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Use of FRCM systems in strengthening applications View project

Investigation on the use of basalt fiber-reinforced polymers (BFRP) bars as reinforcement in concrete structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed El Refai on 02 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 STRENGTHENING OF RC BEAMS WITH
EXTERNAL POST-TENSIONED CFRP TENDONS

Ahmed Elrefai, Jeffrey West, and Khaled Soudki

Synopsis: The monotonic flexural performance of reinforced concrete beams

strengthened with external post-tensioned CFRP tendons was investigated. Variables
include straight and double draped tendon profiles, and two post-tensioning conditions: at
service load (50% of the yielding capacity - in-service beam) or after overloading to
twice the steel reinforcement yield strain (overloaded beam). The beams were tested to
failure in four-point bending. Experimental results indicated that the tendon profiles
investigated did not affect the beam behaviour. Overloading of the beam prior to post-
tensioning had a significant effect on the deflection capacity of the beam, with a slight
effect on the yield and ultimate capacities. A strain reduction approach, developed
previously for unbonded steel tendons, was extended to model the beam behavior. The
loading history of the beam prior to strengthening was explicitly accounted for in the
model. The analytical predictions showed good agreement with the experimental values.

Keywords: external prestressing; FRP; overloading; post-tensioning; strengthening;

unbonded; flexure; tendon.
Ahmed Elrefai is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Civil Engineering Department at the
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. His research interests include rehabilitation and
strengthening of concrete structures using fiber reinforced polymer composites.

ACI Member Jeff West is an assistant professor of Civil Engineering at the University of
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. from the University of
Manitoba, and his Ph.D. from The University of Texas at Austin. His research interests
include the durability, assessment, and rehabilitation of concrete structures. He is
secretary of ACI Committees 224 and 437, and a member of Committee 222.

Khaled Soudki is the Canada Research Chair Professor in Innovative Structural

Rehabilitation at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He is a member of ACI
Committees 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; 222, Corrosion of Metals;
546, Repair of Concrete; 550, Precast Concrete Structures. His research interests include
corrosion, durability, rehabilitation, and strengthening of concrete structures using fiber
reinforced polymer composites.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

External post-tensioning of reinforced concrete (RC) elements places the tendons

outside of the concrete section. Due to the lack of bond between the tendons and the
surrounding concrete, section analysis based on conventional strain compatibility
between the concrete and the tendons becomes irrelevant. Various approaches have been
developed in order to predict the increase in stress that occurs in the unbonded tendons
due to the loading of the RC element (Tao and Du 1985; Naaman and Alkhairi 1991;
Harajli and Kanj 1992; Chakrabarti 1995; Aravinthan et al. 1997; Lee et al. 1999;
Ghallab and Beeby 2004). Most of theses approaches predicted the stress in the tendons
at ultimate stage of loading. Naaman (1990) suggested a simplified method in order to
reduce the analysis of the section with unbonded tendons to that of a section with bonded
tendons by applying a reduction coefficient, , to the strain values of the unbonded
tendons. The method has been widely accepted due to its ease of use and its applicability
to most common profiles of unbonded tendons.

The growing demand for the use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) tendons in
external post-tensioning applications necessitates the assessment of the available
equations for their applicability to FRP tendon materials. Only a limited number of
studies to evaluate these equations or to derive new models that consider the different
mechanical properties of FRP tendons has been reported in the literature (Tjandra and
Tan 2001, 2003; Naaman et al. 2002; An et al. 2003). This is attributed to the lack of
available test data for FRP post-tensioned specimens.

Additionally, the effect of loading history on the flexural behavior of the strengthened
RC element has not received sufficient investigation. Ghallab and Beeby (2003) reported
some loss of ductility of the externally FRP post-tensioned beam when subjected to 60%
of its unstrengthened ultimate load prior to strengthening. In many cases, however,
structural concrete elements are subjected to severe overloading conditions that
necessitate the simultaneous recovery of permanent deflection and strengthening of the
element. Thus, when RC elements are strengthened with external post-tensioned tendons,
the flexural response of the strengthened element is affected by the degree of damage of
the element at the time of the post-tensioning, as well as the amount of prestressing and
the profile of the external tendons.

In this paper, the results of testing reinforced concrete (RC) beams externally post-
tensioned with CFRP tendons are presented. Two main parameters were considered: the
tendon profile (straight and double draped) and the loading history of the beam prior to
strengthening (in-service and overload). The strain reduction approach is applied to
predict the flexural response of the strengthened beams at different stages of loading.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

The strain reduction approach is widely used for the analysis of externally post-
tensioned members. However, its applicability to FRP externally post-tensioned members
needs to be addressed. In addition, there is a lack of information on the flexural response
of a post-tensioned member if it has been subjected to damage or overloading prior to
post-tensioning. In this paper, the results of an experimental investigation of CFRP post-
tensioned beams are presented. A model based on the strain reduction approach is
proposed to account for the loading history of the strengthened beams in predicting their
behavior.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

The experimental program consisted of one unstrengthened and three strengthened

RC beams tested under monotonic loading, as listed in Table 1. All beam specimens had
a rectangular section of 254x152 mm and a length of 3500 mm, with a span-to-depth ratio
of 15.40. Each beam was reinforced with two 15M Grade 400 deformed bars on the
tension side at an effective depth of 214 mm, representing a typical under-reinforced
beam. The shear reinforcement consisted of 8 mm diameter stirrups spaced at 75 mm
over the full length of the beam.

The strengthened beams were post-tensioned using two CFRP external tendons with
an eccentricity of 87 mm from the longitudinal axis of the beam in the constant moment
region. The straight and double draped profiles were created by large steel guides
(deviators) placed at the point-load locations in order to minimize the change in the
tendon eccentricity during load application (Figure 1). The deviators had a 500 mm
radius of curvature to prevent localized tendon stress concentration at the harped points.
Thin TeflonTM sheets were used as cushioning to minimize the friction between the CFRP
tendon and the deviators.
 The tendons were post-tensioned using two hollow hydraulic jacks. Hollow load cells
(222 kN capacity each) were placed on each tendon at the dead and jacking ends in order
to monitor the force in the tendons during stressing and testing. The CFRP tendons were
anchored by wedge-type steel anchors developed at the University of Waterloo, known as
Waterloo anchors (Al-Mayah, 2004). The anchors were pre-seated at each end of the
tendon to minimize anchorage seating losses.

All specimens were tested under four-point bending with a clear span of 3300 mm
and a shear span of 1100 mm. Tests were carried out under displacement control at a rate
of 1 mm/min. The beams were instrumented by strain gages to monitor strains in the
concrete, steel, and CFRP tendons in both the constant moment and shear span regions.
Three LVDTs were placed at midspan to measure the deflection of the beam and the
tendons to monitor any change in the eccentricity of the tendons while loading.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

The guaranteed yield and ultimate stress of the steel reinforcing bars were 450 MPa
and 550 MPa, respectively. The CFRP tendons were Aslan200TM rods with a nominal
diameter of 9.5 mm. Based on tensile test data, the average ultimate strength of the
tendon material was 2162 MPa with a modulus of elasticity of 144 GPa. The average
compressive strength of concrete used in casting the beams was 35 MPa. This concrete
strength was intended to simulate typical reinforced concrete construction.

TEST PROCEDURE

The unstrengthened beam was tested monotonically up to failure in order to

experimentally characterize the specimen flexural response at different stages of loading.
Flexural tests on the in-service strengthened beams were conducted in three stages to
model typical in-service reinforced concrete beams that need strengthening (Figure 2-a),
namely: (1) loading the beam to a specified service load, (2) post-tensioning the CFRP
tendons, and (3) loading the beam up to failure. In the first stage, the virgin beam was
preloaded up to 30 kN which represented 50% of its yield load (point A). The load level
was then released to 25% of the yield load (point B, load =15 kN) and maintained during
the post-tensioning process. This load level approximated the effect of the superimposed
load that would be subjected to an in-service beam during strengthening. In the second
stage, a post-tensioning force of 60 kN (40% of the ultimate tendon capacity) was applied
gradually in each tendon until the desired force in the tendons was achieved (point C). In
the third stage, the beams were loaded to failure under monotonic loading (points D, E,
and F).

The overloaded strengthened beam was subjected to a state of load producing a steel
reinforcement strain beyond its yielding value (approximately 4000 microstrain - point A
in Figure 2-b). The beam was then unloaded to 25% of the yield load (point B, load =15
kN) and then followed the same post-tensioning and loading scenario as the in-service
strengthened beam (post-tensioning to point C and loading to points D, E, and F).

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

In-service beams

Deflection and stiffness response — The load-deflection response of the in-service

beams is shown in Figure 3-a. The beam deflection after post-tensioning was 0.85 mm
and 1.01 mm for the beam SL-ST (with straight tendons) and the beam SL-DD (with
double draped tendons), respectively. This is notably less than the 5 mm deflection of the
control beam at the same load level. The load-deflection curve of both post-tensioned
beams was characterized by three main stages. In the uncracked stage (15 kN - 30 kN
load), the stiffness of the strengthened beams was equal to the initial stiffness of the
unstrengthened beam. This indicated that all cracks were fully closed due to post-
tensioning. The stiffness remained constant until the cracks re-opened at about 30 kN and
approximately 3 mm deflection. Beyond that load, a slight reduction in the beam stiffness
was noticed. However, the stiffness of the beam was still higher than that of the
unstrengthened beam under service load. This was attributed to the restrained crack
opening and growth due to external post-tensioning. As the load increased, existing
cracks widened and new cracks initiated until the internal reinforcement yielded at an
applied load of about 108 kN (compared to 60 kN for the unstrengthened beams). At this
load, the deflection of the strengthened beams was about 27 mm. After yielding, a
significant reduction in the stiffness of the beam was observed. The deflection of the
beam increased at a high rate until the concrete crushed at an applied load of
approximately 120 kN (compared to 69 kN for the unstrengthened beam). The load then
dropped suddenly to approximately 102 kN as the concrete continued to crush until a
complete crushing occurred at a deflection of about 95 mm.

Strain measurements — As the strengthened beam was loaded, tensile strains in the
steel reinforcement increased until cracks re-opened at 30 kN. Beyond this load, the
strain values increased considerably up to yielding. It is worth noting that the steel strain
in the strengthened beam at any stage of loading was significantly less than that in the
control beam due to the compressive effect of the external post-tensioning force.

Tendon stress — As the applied load on the strengthened beams increased, the stress
in the CFRP tendons increased beyond the initial post-tensioning stress. The increase in
stress in the tendons was insignificant until the concrete flexural cracks re-opened. The
stress then increased considerably until the internal steel reinforcement yielded. No
failure occurred in the CFRP tendons. The stress increase over the duration of loading
was almost identical for both straight and double draped tendon systems. This can be
attributed to the similar initial post-tensioning force applied in the tendons at the onset of
loading the beam, and due to the presence of the steel deviators or guides at the same
locations on both beams.
Overloaded Beam

Figure 3-b shows the load-deflection curves for the in-service and overloaded
strengthened beams, SL-DD and OL-DD, respectively. The beam OL-DD was first
overloaded to a load of 61 kN where it encountered a deflection of 26.35 mm and a
maximum steel strain of 4230 microstrain. At this stage of loading, typically one flexural
crack was noticeably wider than the others in the constant moment region. It was
assumed that this crack coincided with the location where steel had yielded (yielding
crack). When the beam was post-tensioned, 9 mm of deflection was recovered, resulting
in a net downwards deflection of about 5 mm. Yielding cracks due to overloading still
appeared to be open, although other flexural cracks in the constant moment region were
completely closed. These cracks re-opened at an applied load of approximately 30 kN.

Table 2 compared the midspan deflections of the in-service and overloaded post-
tensioned beams at different stages of loading: at the onset of the post-tensioning
application, at 50% of the yielding capacity of the beam, and at yielding load. At any
stage of loading, the midspan deflection of the overloaded beam was larger than the
corresponding deflection of the in-service beam. This was attributed to the presence of a
permanent deflection from the overloading stage.

During the beam life, the stiffness of the beam was not significantly affected by
overloading. This was indicated by the similar slopes of the load-deflection curves of
both in-service and overloaded beams. This suggests that the amount of the post-
tensioning force applied (40% of the tendon capacity) was sufficient to close the inner
cracks within the section with the exception of the observed crack openings at the
location of steel yielding. These crack openings could be attributed to the presence of
debris produced by the overloading process.

The increase in deformation of the overloaded beam resulted in an increase in the

CFRP tendon stress. Stresses in the tendons of the overloaded beam were always higher
than those of the in-service beam at any stage of loading. This was attributed to the
higher deflection of the overloaded beam during the beam loading.

At ultimate, the concrete of the overloaded beams started to crush at a load of 110 kN
and a deflection of 35 mm, shortly after yielding had occurred. The overloaded beam
showed a less deflection capacity in comparison to the in-service beam. The loss of
ductility due to overloading confirms the reported results by Ghallab and Beeby (2003).
This small deflection capacity was mainly due to the initial yielding of the steel bars
before strengthening the beam.
 ANALYSIS APPROACH

The model implemented to predict the monotonic flexural response of the

strengthened beams takes into account the loading history of the beam prior to
strengthening. The beam is modeled as a series of longitudinal elements subjected to
constant flexural moment along the element length. The sectional analysis at each
element is based on a layer-by-layer evaluation of the section forces. The concrete section
is divided into a finite number of discrete horizontal layers, each having a certain height
and a width equal to the width of the rectangular section, as shown in Figure 4.

In all stages of loading, the analysis is implemented by incrementally adjusting the

strain value in the steel reinforcing bar, s, by a fixed amount and estimating the
corresponding strain in the concrete top fiber, c. A sign convention of positive for
tension and negative for compression is adopted. Assuming a linear strain distribution
throughout the section, the neural axis depth, c, is then estimated from strain
compatibility between the concrete and steel reinforcement as follows (Figure 4):

c ds
c (1)
c s

where ds is the depth of the steel reinforcement. The corresponding strain values in all
layers are then calculated:

i 1
hi
c hi
1 2
ci c (2)
c

where:
ci = the strain in concrete at the middle of layer i, and
hi = the height of layer i

The stress in each layer is calculated using the stress-strain relationship of concrete.
The stress is assumed to be constant throughout the layer height. Knowing the layer
dimensions, the incremental force acting at the mid point of the layer is calculated.

Once all the concrete layer forces and the force in the reinforcement have been
computed (for an assumed concrete top fiber strain, c, the equilibrium of the section is
checked as follows:

C T 0 (3)
where C is the resultant internal compressive force and T is the resultant internal
tensile force. If equilibrium is not satisfied, a new value of c is assumed and the process
is repeated. Having obtained equilibrium of the internal forces, the internal moment and
the corresponding applied load on the beam are calculated. The procedure is then
repeated for different values of steel strains until the required applied load level is
reached.

The strain in the unbonded tendon, p, at any stage of loading is expressed as follows
(Naaman 1990):

p pe cp ce (4)

where:
pe = the effective pre-strain in the tendon,
cp = the strain in the concrete at the tendon level based on the strain profile for the load
level considered,
ce = the strain in concrete at the tendon level due to effective prestress, and
= the strain reduction coefficient

Once is determined, the average strain in the tendons is computed and the
corresponding stress can be obtained from the stress-strain properties of the tendon
material.

Knowing the applied loading pattern, the elements along the beam were analyzed by
incrementally increasing the steel strain in the element and iterating for the top fiber
concrete strain required to satisfy equilibrium. At this point, the curvature of the element,
, is calculated as follows:

sj
j (5)
ds cj

where:
sj = the strain in steel at element j, and
cj = the depth of the neutral axis of element j

The deflection of the beam at mid-span is then calculated by integrating the curvature
of the elements under the specified load condition.
 PROPOSED MODEL FOR THE IN-SERVICE BEAMS

The previously described model was implemented in successive phases corresponding

to the loading-unloading-reloading scenario of the strengthened beams. The stress-strain
relationships shown in Figure 5 are used to model the steel, concrete and CFRP tendons.
The model was thus implemented in a Visual Basic program in four stages as follows:

The preliminary loading stage

The analysis of the section in this stage is based on the conventional cracked section
analysis recommended by ACI 318-05 (2005). As the load increases, tensile stresses
develop in the lower concrete layers until cracking occurs. The cracks start to develop
when the tensile stress in the bottom layer of concrete reaches its rupture strength. As the
cracks extend, the neutral axis depth, c, measured from the top concrete fiber, decreases.
The tensile stresses in steel follow a linear elastic behavior until the load is halted (Figure
5-a). The stress-strain relationship of the concrete layers in compression follows the
parabolic part of the curve (Figure 5-b). Tension stiffening of concrete is considered by
including the stresses developed in the concrete layers in tension (up to fr) in the section
equilibrium equations.

The unloading stage

During unloading, the stress-strain response of the previously compressed concrete

layers (upper layers) is assumed to follow a linear relationship starting from the
unloading point A as shown in Figure 5-b. Each layer is considered to follow a different
unloading line depending on its distance from the neutral axis of the section and on the
compressive state of stress/strain previously attained in the preliminary loading stage.
The slope of all unloading curves is assumed to be equal to the initial slope of the
parabolic curve at the onset of loading (i.e., equal to the initial concrete modulus of
elasticity, Ec). At the same time, the tensile stresses in the concrete lower layers diminish
as the applied load is relieved. The response of these layers will continue on the linear
portion of the concrete stress-strain relationship until the load is halted.

The post-tensioning stage

During the application of the post-tensioning force, the residual tensile stresses in the
lower concrete layers continue to diminish following the linear portion of the concrete
stress-strain relationship. Compressive stresses will not develop until the previously
formed cracks are closed. The cracks are assumed closed when the concrete compressive
strain in each layer is completely restored.

At the same time, the behavior of the previously compressed concrete upper layers is
assumed to follow the unloading linear relationship. The model accounts for the
development of any tensile stresses in the upper layers as the applied post-tensioning
force increases: if the post-tensioning force is large enough to produce tensile stresses in
the upper layers, the unloading line is extended linearly until the concrete reaches its
rupture strength.

The tensile stresses in the steel reinforcement diminish as the post-tensioning force is
applied. The stress-strain response of the steel is represented by the linear portion of the
curve (Figure 5-a). Compressive strains could be developed in steel depending on the
amount of the post-tensioning force applied on the section.

During post-tensioning, the total force in the tendons at the mid-span section is
modeled as an eccentric external compressive force. The moment resulting from the
eccentricity of the tendon is considered in the moment equilibrium of the section. Note
that the eccentricity of the tendons in the shear spans changes gradually when using the
draped tendon profile. To account for this variation in the tendon eccentricity (and
consequently the variation in the tendon depth), only the horizontal component of the
tendon force, Fph, is taken into account as the angle of inclination of the tendon is small
(6 degrees with the horizontal). The horizontal component of the tendon force is
computed as follows:

Fph Fp cos (6)

where Fp is the applied force in the tendon and is the inclination angle of the tendon
with the horizontal. At the same time, the eccentricity of the tendon from the neutral axis
for any element distant xj from the beam edge is computed as follows (Figure 6):

xj
e pj ep (7)
L
2

where:
epj = the eccentricity of the tendon at element j,
ep = the eccentricity of the tendon at mid-span, and
L = the total length of the beam

Knowing the eccentricity of the tendon at each element j, the depth of the tendon, dpj,
is computed as:

h
d pj e pj (8)
2

where h is the total height of the section.

Re-loading stage

After being post-tensioned, the strengthened beam is re-loaded gradually until failure
occurred by concrete crushing. During this stage, compressive and tensile stresses are re-
developed in the upper and lower concrete layers, respectively. If cracks have occurred in
the upper layers due to post-tensioning, no compressive stresses are developed until the
tensile strains developed in each of these layers are overcome. As such, the stress-strain
relationship will follow the same linear unloading relationship until the original parabolic
curve is rejoined (Figure 5-b). The stress in concrete follows the parabolic curve until the
limiting strain, cu, is reached. At the same time, the tensile stresses in steel increase until
yielding occurs. Beyond this point, the yielding stress is assumed constant until the beam
fails by concrete crushing.

The strain-reduction coefficient, , before cracking is taken equal to (5/9) for the
draped tendon profile and the two-point loading pattern (Naaman 1990, Harajli 1992).
When cracking occurs, the cracked coefficient, cr, is calculated as follows (Naaman
1990, Harajli 1992):

I cr
cr (9)
Ig

where Icr is the cracked moment of inertia and Ig is the uncracked (gross) moment of
inertia of the section.

Since the moment of inertia of the cracked section, Icr, depends on the value of cr,
another level of iteration is thus adopted to calculate cr for any given level of steel and
concrete strains. Starting with cr equal to as an initial approximation, and knowing
the neutral axis depth, c, the cracked moment of inertia Icr is calculated. cr is then
calculated using Equation (9) and iterated until the values obtained in two successive
iterations are equal within a specified degree of tolerance. Once the value of the strain
reduction coefficient is determined, the strain in the CFRP tendons is then calculated as
given by Equation (4).

PROPOSED MODEL FOR THE OVERLOADED BEAMS

The previously described analysis approach for the in-service strengthened beams is
adopted to model the monotonic response of the overloaded beams. The difference
between the two models lies in the steel response during the unloading and the post-
tensioning stages. During these stages, the steel reinforcement of the in-service beams
follows an inclined linear portion of the stress-strain relationship, as shown in Figure 5-a,
where the elastic strains are completely recovered. This is not the case in the overloaded
beams where major plastic strains exist in the steel reinforcement due to overloading.
These strains are not completely recovered and the steel reinforcement response during
the unloading, post-tensioning and reloading stages follows the hysteresis response given
by the Ramborg-Osgood relationship (Figure 7) as follows (Park and Paulay 1975;
Dowling 1998):

1
n'
2 (10)
E 2k '

where k’ = 922 and n’ = 0.13 are constants defined as the strength coefficient and the
strain-hardening exponent of the reinforcing steel material, respectively.

In this case, the analysis is implemented by incrementally adjusting the change in

steel stress value, , rather than the steel strain as in the case of the in-service beam. The
change in steel strain, , is then calculated from Equation (10) and the corresponding
strain in the concrete top fiber is then iterated until the equilibrium state is satisfied.

During the unloading and post-tensioning stages, the change in steel stress, , and
the corresponding change in steel strain, , are measured from an origin located at the
onset of the unloading curve (point A in Figure 7). The actual steel strain is then
computed as follows:

s sunl (11)

where sunl is the steel strain at the onset of the unloading stage.

Similarly, the steel response during the re-loading stage of the strengthened beam is
given by Equation (10) where and are measured from the origin located at point B
(Figure 7). The analysis is then continued as previously described.

COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED BEHAVIOR

The monotonic behavior predicted by the proposed models was compared to the
experimental results. (a) (b)
Figure 8 shows the relationships between the applied load and the steel strain at
various stages of loading for the in-service and overloaded beams (beams SL-DD and
OL-DD, respectively). Figure 9 compares the load-deflection responses as predicted by
the model and obtained from the experimental tests.

A summary of these results is given in Table 3 where the predicted and the
experimental yield and ultimate loads for the in-service and overloaded beams are
compared. Table 4 compares the predicted and experimental steel strains, CFRP tendon
stresses, and midspan deflections at two service loading levels: at the end of the post-
tensioning (load level of 15 kN) and at a load level of 60 kN. A good correlation between
the predicted and the experimental values is observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The behavior of RC beams strengthened with external post-tensioned CFRP tendons

was experimentally examined. In-service and overloaded beams having straight and
double draped tendon profiles were tested to failure under monotonic loading. A strain
reduction approach, formerly developed for unbonded steel tendons, was used to predict
the behavior of the strengthened beams at all stages of loading. The following highlights
are concluded:

Beams post-tensioned with straight tendons behaved similarly to those with double
draped tendons at various loading stages up to ultimate when steel deviators are
used. The presence of deviators minimizes the effect of the change in tendon
eccentricity on the behavior of the beam.
Post-tensioning CFRP tendons at 40% of their ultimate capacity allows a
reasonable strain margin to account for live load applications with no concern of
the premature breakage of the tendon, even if the strengthened element is severely
damaged.
External post-tensioning with CFRP tendons is an efficient technique for
strengthening highly damaged concrete elements. It significantly decreases the
amount of deflection encountered due to overloading.
The proposed model based on the strain reduction approach and the layer-by-layer
analysis is extended to account for the loading history of the RC beams prior to
being post-tensioned with CFRP tendons. Good agreement is noticed between the
predicted and the experimental response of the strengthened beams.
Comparison of the measured and predicted results suggests the strain reduction
approach proposed for external steel tendons is applicable to external CFRP
tendons.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for their financial support. Material
donation by Hughes Brothers, Inc. is greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES

ACI Committee 318, (2005). “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary,” American Concrete Institute.
Al-Mayah, A., (2004). “Interfacial behavior of CFRP-Metal Couples for Wedge Anchor
Systems,” Ph. D. Thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

An, L., Yamammato, T., Hattori, A., and Miyagawa, T., (2003). “Comparative Analysis
on Stress Calculation Methods for External FRP Cables,” Proceedings of FRPRCS-6,
Singapore, 995-1002.

Aravinthan, T., Mutsuyoshi, H, Fujioka, A. and Hishiki, Y., (1997). “Prediction of the
Ultimate Flexural Strength of Externally Prestressed PC Beams,” Transactions of the
Japan Concrete Institute, 19, 225-230.

Chakrabarti, P. R., (1995). “Ultimate Stress for Unbonded Post-Tensioning Tendons in

Partially Prestressed Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, 92 (6), 689-697.

Dowling, N. E., (1993), “Mechanical Behavior of Materials: Engineering Methods for

Deformation, Fracture, and Fatigue,” Prentice Hall, NJ, USA, First Edition.

Ghallab A. and Beeby A. W., (2004). “Calculating Stress of External Prestressing

Tendons,” Structures and Buildings, 157(SB4), 263-278.

Ghallab, A., and Beeby, A. W., (2003). “Deflection of Prestressed Concrete Beams
Externally Strengthened Using Parafil Ropes,” Magazine of Concrete Research, 55 (1), 1-
17.

Harajli, M. H. and Kanj, M. Y., (1992). “Service Load behavior of Concrete Members
Prestressed with Unbonded Tendons,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118 (9),
2569-2589.

Lee, L., Moon, J., and Lim, J., (1999). “Proposed Methodology for Computing of
Unbonded Tendon Stress at Flexural Failure,” ACI Structural Journal, 96 (6), 1040-1048.

Naaman, A. E., (1990). “A New Methodology for the Analysis of Beams Prestressed with
External or Unbonded Tendons,” External Prestressing in Bridges, ACI SP-120,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 339-354.

Naaman A. E. and Alkhairi F. M., (1991). “Stress at Ultimate in Unbonded Prestressed

Tendons: Part 1 - Evaluation of the State-of-The-Art,” ACI Structural Journal, 88 (5),
641-651.

Naaman A. E. and Alkhairi F. M., (1991). “Stress at Ultimate in Unbonded Prestressed

Tendons; Part 2 – Proposed Methodology,” ACI Structural Journal, 88 (6), 683-692.
Naaman, A. E., Burns, N., French, C., Gamble, W. L., Mattock, A. H., (2002). “Stresses
in unbonded prestressing tendons at ultimate: Recommendation,” ACI Structural Journal,
99 (4), 518-529.

Park, R., and Paulay, T., (1975). “Reinforced Concrete Structures,” John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.

Tao, X., and Du, G., (1985). “Ultimate Stress of Unbonded Tendons in Partially
Prestressed Concrete Beams,” PCI Journal, 30 (6), 72-91.

Tjandra, R., and Tan K., (2003). “Strengthening of RC Beams with External FRP
Tendons: Tendon Stress at Ultimate”, Proceedings of FRPRCS-6, Singapore, 985-994.

Tjandra, R., and Tan, K., (2001). “Strengthening of RC Continuous Beans with External
CFRP Tendons,” Proceedings of FRPRCS-5, London, 661-669.
Table 1 — Experimental test program
Test Type of Loading condition
Specimen Tendon profile
No. loading before strengthening
1 UN Monotonic Unstrengthened -
2 SL-ST Monotonic Service Straight-with-guides
3 SL-DD Monotonic Service Double draped
4 OL-DD Monotonic Overload Double draped

Table 2 — Experimental midspan deflections of the in-service and overloaded beams

Deflection (mm)
Load In-service beam Overloaded beam
Stage of loading
(kN) (SL-DD) (OL-DD)
1 at onset of post-tensioning 1.01 5.06
2 at 50% yield load 9.18 13.48
3 at yield load 26.84 32.19

Table 3 — Predicted versus experimental yield and ultimate loads of the in-service (SL-
DD) and overloaded (OL-DD) beams
Yield load (kN) Ultimate load (kN)
Beam Pred. Pred.
Pred. Exp. Pred. Exp.
Exp. Exp.
SL-DD 103 108 0.95 114 120 0.95
OL-DD 115 108 1.06 116 110 1.05

Table 4 — Predicted versus experimental values of the in-service (SL-DD) and

overloaded (OL-DD) beams
Steel strain (µ ) CFRP stress (MPa) Deflection (mm)
Applied
Beam Pred. Pred. Pred.
load Pred. Exp. Pred. Exp. Pred. Exp.
Exp. Exp. Exp.
15 kN -128 68 -1.88 870 870 1.00 -0.3 0.9 -0.33
SL-DD
60 kN 680 1114 0.61 942 928 1.02 8.3 10.8 0.77
15 kN 498 429 1.16 870 870 1.00 4.2 5 0.84
OL-DD
60 kN 2000 2066 0.97 928 913 1.02 15 15 1.00
 P C.L P
deviator . deviator

CFRP
tendon (a)

P C.L P
anchor .

(b)
Figure 1: A schematic view of the (a) straight-with-guides and (b) double draped tendon
profiles

F F
E E
Applied load

Applied load

Strengthened
Strengthened
beam
beam
A
Unstrengthened Unstrengthened
D beam D beam
A
C B
C B
’
Midspan deflection Midspan deflection
(a) (b)

Figure 2: Idealization of the stages of loading of the (a) in-service beam and (b)
overloaded beams (D: cracking load, E: yield load, and F: ultimate load)
 140 140

In-service (SL-DD)
120 Straight-with-guides 120

100 100
Double draped
Applied load (kN)

Applied load (kN)

80 80

60 60
Unstrengthened
Overloaded (OL-DD)
40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Midspan deflection (mm) Midspan deflection (mm)

(a) (b)
Figure 3: Load-deflection response of the (a) unstrengthened and in-service beams and
the (b) in-service and overloaded beams

b concrete layer, 1

c
ci

concrete layer, i
ds
h

steel bars

CFRP tendons Strain distribution

Figure 4: Layer-by-layer concrete section analysis

 fs fc fp
fpu
fsy
f’c
A

ng
ing
Es Ep

adi
loa d

r e lo
Ec Ec
- su - sy ct

g
a d in
sy su co cu pu
s c p

u n lo
fr
f’ c = concrete compressive strength
fr = rupture strength of concrete
f s y = yield stress of steel c o = strain corresponding to f’ c

sy = yield strain of steel c t = strain corresponding to f r fpu = ultimate strength of CFRP

su = ultimate strain of steel pu = ultimate strain of CFRP
-fsy c u = ultimate compressive strain in concrete

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5: Stress-strain relationship of (a) steel, (b) concrete, and (c) CFRP

P
element j C.L.
e pj
dpj

dp
h

X
ep

Figure 6: Variation of the tendon eccentricity and depth in the shear span

fs

origin of unloading

fy
A
(unloading)

Es

-
ding

sy
s s
a
relo

origin of reloading
(unloading)

B
-f y

-fs
Figure 7: Steel response during unloading, post-tensioning, and reloading stages of
the overloaded beams
 140 140

120 120

100 100
Applied load (kN)

Applied load (kN)

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 ------- Experimental 20 Experimental

- - - - Analytical Analytical
0 0
-1000 1000 3000 5000 7000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Steel strain (µs) Steel strain (µs)

(a) (b)
Figure 8: Predicted versus experimental steel strain values for the (a) in-service and (b)
overloaded strengthened beams

140 140

120 120

100 100
Applied load (kN)
Applied load (kN)

80 80

60 60

40 40

20
Experimental
20 Experimental

Analytical Analytical
0 0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Midspan deflection (mm) Midspan deflection (mm)

Figure 9: Predicted versus experimental midspan deflection for the (a) in-service and (b)
overloaded strengthened beams

View publication stats