Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - July 2016  pp. 190-198 No. 43-18

Strength and ductility of RC beams strengthened with ultra high strength

cementitious composite overlay
Ghanashyam Upreti*,, A. Ramachandra Murthy**, Smitha Gopinath**, Nagesh R. Iyer*** and
L. Venkat*
 Email: [email protected]

*GVP College of Engineering (Autonomous), Visakhapatnam - 530 048, India.

**CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, CSIR Campus, Taramani, Chennai - 600 113, India.
***AcSIR- Academy of Scientific & Innovative Research, CSIR Campus, Taramani, Chennai - 600 113, India.

Received: 29 April 2015;  Accepted: 10 August 2015

Strength and ductility are the two important parameters for the design of concrete structures to prevent sudden collapse
and minimize damage. An experimental investigation was carried out on pre-damaged RC beams strengthened with
Ultra High Strength Cementitious Composite (UHSCC) overlay under four point bending. The aim of the present
investigation is to evaluate the strength and ductility of the pre-damaged strengthened RC beams with UHSCC overlay.
The enhanced strength after strengthening, ductility using deflection and energy based approach, failure modes and
load deflection behavior are discussed. It is observed from the experimental findings that UHSCC overlay significantly
enhances the load carrying capacity and ductility. Further, it is noted that both deflection ductility and energy based
ductility are in good agreement with each other in the present study.

Keywords: Ductility; strengthening; RC beams; flexural strength; UHSCC overlay.

A highly developed infrastructure is necessary for structures proposed to withstand stand at seismic
economic growth and prosperity of the country. Many vulnerable zones1-2. It is essential to always ensure
structures necessary to this infrastructure, especially the designed structure subjected to critical load
those made of reinforced concrete (RC), have suffered behave in a ductile manner. This means ensuring
severe degradation since their construction due to the the structure will not fail in a brittle fashion without
combined effects of freeze thaw cycles, aggressive advance warning but will be capable of undergoing
environments, de-icing salts, and significantly increased large inelastic deformations at maximum load. The
live loads. One of the most important problems faced ductility of reinforced concrete structures is considered
by the civil engineers of today is to save, retrofit, and as the ability to sustain inelastic deformation without
maintain these deteriorating structures. The early substantial loss of load resisting capacity prior to
deterioration of RC structures is a serious issue for failure3-4. It can also be generalized as the study of post
any society, as it will put the public safety in jeopardy yield behavior considering main reinforcement yield as
and the escalator repair cost will directly burden the benchmark.
future economy. Strength and ductility based design Strengthening of damaged RC structures has more
of concrete structures prevent the sudden collapse and essential because of their unsatisfactory performance
minimize the damage. due to a variety of reasons. The alteration in use,
Ductility is a vital design criterion in most of the prohibitive cost, deteriorations from aggressive
prevailing design standards, particularly for all the exposure, damage from natural disasters, excessive

190 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016
deflection and cracks resulting inadequate ultimate composite layer to strengthen plain concrete beams
strength of a structural member5-9. Particularly, during and found to be very effective in flexural behavior with
natural disasters like Bhuj earthquake, large scales of variable thickness. In order to improve the strength
the structures were collapsed and some of the concrete deformability and toughness of Ultra High Strength
structures are partially damaged. Among several Concrete (UHSC), a number of short steel fibers are
strengthening techniques, the extensive studies were embedded to restrain cracks in the matrix. UHSC
carried out in the last few decades on FRP based consists of cementitious binders with steel fibers which
strengthening of the RC structures5-9. Due to the special provide a superior degree of ductility and crack width
material properties of FRPs such as strength to weight restricting property. Embedding steel fibers in the
ratio, corrosion resistance, high tensile strength, great matrix enhances toughness and deformation of UHSC
ease to handle, retrofit durability etc., boosted the and overcome the disadvantage of high brittleness12.
growing interests among conventional techniques6,7. Even though it has been identified as a potential repair
In turn, FRP strengthening has been recognized as an material as it can improve the flexural strength and
effective solution and gained widespread popularity crack resisting behavior of the RC beams maintaining
to enhance the structural capacity5-9. However, several the ductile post peak response, only a few investigations
problems associated with FRP laminates such as abrupt have been carried out to retrofit the pre-damaged
failure, lesser ductility, high material cost and moisture RC beams. Several studies reported that the loss of
incompatibility advocate the sourcing of alternative ductility is with the increasing compressive strength of
materials. In contrast to steel, the experimental the concrete. Thus, it would be very interesting to know
observations shown that FRP composites are brittle and the post yield behavior of the pre-damaged strengthened
exhibits linear elastic stress-strain response. Inability RC beams with UHSCC as retrofit.
to sustain inelastic deformations severely affects In this present study, the pre-damaged RC beams were
the ductility of the structural concrete member10-12. strengthened by the Ultra High Strength Cementitious
Moreover, the mismatch of the tensile strength and Composite (UHSCC) overlay and tested up to failure.
stiffness of FRP composites on strengthening guided The details of failure modes, crack patterns, effect of
to brittle failure10. From the wide literature review, it retrofitting schemes are presented.
is noted that the loss of ductility after strengthening
of RC members with the increased amount of FRP is Ductility
due to the linear elastic material behavior. In addition,
a great effort has been made to improve the ductility The ductility of the structure can be defined as the
of the FRP strengthened structural member using ability of undergoing large inelastic deformation
various configurations, hybrid techniques and material without significant degradation in load carrying
combinations8. capacity, before ultimate collapse14. It is calculated for
Recently, to encounter the problem associated with the conventional Reinforced concrete structure as the
the prevailing strengthening techniques, a new kind of function of ultimate behavior to yielding of reinforcing
fiber reinforced concrete matrix composite owing the steel. The conventional methods of determining the
remarkable tensile strength and crack width resisting ductility of the members are in terms of curvature,
properties is developed. It was reported that reactive deflection and energy15,16. The ductility indices are then
powder concrete (RPC) has an outstanding flexural defined as:
strength and very high ductility11. A thin precast strips u
of high performance fiber reinforced cementitious Curvature ductility: µ  (1)
y
composite that is post poured on the damaged beams
to retrofit. To repair the damaged structure, the u
Deflection ductility: µd  (2)
beam on flexure, shear or in combination of both, y
several configurations of strips were used, found to
Etot
be very effective to retrofit12,13. Xu et al.11 studied the Energy ductility: µE  (3)
performance of ultra high toughness cementitious Eela

Journal of Structural Engineering 191

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016
 Where, Φu,Φy are the curvatures at ultimate and yield However, the elastic energy released during a failure is
respectively, Δu, Δy represent the deflections at ultimate significantly higher in FRP-RC beams that are designed
and yield respectively and, Etot can be computed as the to fail in FRP rupture. Hence, the realistic approach of
area under the load deflection curve up to failure, Eela studying the ductility of the structural member could be
represent elastic energy. done incorporating the energy released by the specimen
Basically the ductility of the RC beams can be during the failure and the deformation phenomena.
determined either using load-deflection curve or the Naaman and Jeong4 proposed a ductility index, µn, that
moment curvature. They both are simultaneously relates both deflection behavior and energy dissipation.
important because load deflection response of any The conventional deflection ductility Eq. (2) is then
structural member provides the inelastic deformation transformed into the equivalent energies ratio as given
capability, whereas moment curvature provides the true in Eq.(5). As the model is developed based on the
rotational behavior of the section during the failure. elastic-plastic load deflection response, it can widely
Due to the absence of yielding in FRP reinforced used to predict the ductility of strengthened and virgin
beams, prior to failure combined with the release of a RC beams3,4. The total energy, Etot can be computed as
large amount of elastic energy, a catastrophic failure the area under the load deflection curve up to defined
will occur which would be extremely damaging the failure load while elastic energy, Eela can be estimated
structure3. Consequently, a large amount of deflection from unloading test.
of FRP reinforced beams could be due to the low elastic E 
modulus of FRP that does not imply the large ductility.    n  0.5 tot 1 (5)
 Eela 
Hence, the conventional ductility calibrated based on
the concept of steel reinforced concrete beams does If the unloading part of the load vs deflection
not represent the true ductile response of the FRP experimental results are not available, then it can be
strengthened beams8,9. Jaeger et al.14-17 suggested the calculated using the Eq.(6)
term deformability to quantify the flexural behavior Pcr S1   Py  Pcr  S2
of FRP reinforced beams considering the ratio of    S  (6)
deformation at ultimate load to deformation to first crack Py
load. The authors also recommended the deformability Where ‘S’ is the slope of unloading branch, S1 is
factor to be greater than 4.0 for the structure to have an the slope of first line and S2 is the slope of second
ultimate failure with sufficient warning. line, Pcr represent the first crack load, Py and Pu are
M 1 u the yield and ultimate load respectively. The ductility
  Deformability Factor =   (4) model presented by the Naaman and Jeong4 is based
M 2y
on the bilinear elastic-perfectly plastic model. Since
where, the experimental load-deflection response of the
M1 = Maximum resisting moment at failure of the strengthened and virgin RC beams are different, load-
beam deflection curve is idealized as tri-linear for the present
Φ1 = Maximum curvature of the section study. Hence, the ductility of the tested RC beams are
calculated based on the tri-linear approach as shown in
M2 = Maximum moment corresponding to concrete
Fig.1. The total energy Etot, is calculated by adding all
compressive strain of 0.001
the five areas under the load deflection curve as shown
Φ2 = Curvature of the section at compressive strain in Eq. (7).
of 0.001.
Etot = I+II+III+IV+V (7)
Energy aspect of ductility Based on the concept of strain energy, the elastic
energy stored by the system can also be calculated in
The equivalent deformation of the RC beams are found
the absence of unloading data as
to be same with the FRP (laminates and near surface
mounted bars) strengthened RC beams (FRP-RC)  P2 
incorporating several hybrid configuration of FRP8,9. Eela  u  (8)
 2S 

192 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016
 Energy ratio of the system is given by potable water, Normal strength concrete is designated
 P       P      P   as NSC. The NSC mix proportion by weight of
Etot  S
 y u cr u u cr cr y 
cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and water is
   2
(9)
Eela 
 Pu 
 1:1.67:1.86:0.45. The UHSCC mix consists of cement,
Where, Δu, Δy and Δcr are the deflections silica fume, Quartz sand, Quartz powder and water in
corresponding to ultimate, yield and first crack load the ratio of 1:0.25:1.1:0.4:0.23 respectively. The steel
respectively. fibers were added by 2% by the volume of concrete and
superplasticizer was added by 3.5% of the dry weight
Experimental Investigations of binder. To enhance the density of mix, water cement
ratio of 0.23 was adopted. The specimen preparation
Tests were conducted on pre-damaged simply supported was strictly controlled to minimize the scatter in the
RC beams strengthened with UHSCC overlay under test results. The NSC specimens were demoulded after
flexure. The static load on four point bending platform 1 day and cured in a water tank at ambient temperature
was considered to investigate mid span deflection, for 28 days. The UHSCC overlay were also demoulded
strains on UHSCC overlays, crack patterns of beams, after 1 day and immersed in water at ambient
flexural behavior, ductility and the change in flexural temperature for 2 days. They were then placed in an
stiffness. autoclave at 90°C for 2 days and in an oven at 200°C
for 1 day. Thereafter the specimens were air cooled for
Load Pu 6 hours and placed in water at ambient temperature for
Py V Area = Etot a further 1 day before testing. Compression and split
Total in elastic erergy tensile tests were carried out on cylindrical specimens
comsumed prior to failure
s of a 150×300 mm (diameter × height) in the case of
III
Pcr IV Area = Eela NSC and on smaller cylinders 75 × 150mm in the case
Elastic erergy realeased
at failure of UHSCC. The average compressive strength and
II Elastic
I Deflection split tensile strength for NSC are obtained as 35MPa
∆cr ∆y ∆ u and 3.2MPa respectively. For the case of UHSCC the
values are 122.5MPa and 20.7MPa respectively.
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the load deflection diagram of The dimensions of the UHSCC overlay are taken as
RC beams
10mm thickness, 100mm width and the length as per
Details of materials, mixes and tested beams required. Tests on eight RC beams were conducted up to
failure, two of them were taken as datum specimen and
Concrete mixes were designed for the grades of remaining six were strengthened beams with UHSCC
compressive strength according to the Indian standards overlays of varying length after partial damage as
[IS 10262:2009 & IS 456:2000]. The mixes were shown in Table 1. The overall dimensions of the beam
made of Ordinary Portland cement 53 grade, natural were kept constant for all specimens.
sand, crushed aggregate size below 12mm and
P/2 P/2
A
6mmØ @100mmc/c 6mmØ @100mmc/c
400 400 400

2-8mmØ

200
2-10mmØ

A 100
1200
1500

Beam Elevation Section at A-A

Fig. 2  The typical reinforcement details of RC beam

Journal of Structural Engineering 193

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016
 The typical reinforcement configuration of RC integral behavior of composite beam. Most of the
beams is shown in Fig. 2. For all concrete beams, strengthened beams and control beams were failed in
longitudinal reinforcements of two 10mm diameter pure flexure followed by concrete crushing as expected
in flexure, two 8mm diameter rebars at compression except one strengthened beam RC-UH5 which failed
as hanger and shear reinforcements, 2-legged stirrups under shear-flexure. The failure occurred initiating
of 6mm diameter at 100mm c/c spacing were used. the large number of hairline cracks dissipating sounds
Sufficient margin of cover to main reinforcement was at constant bending zone was gradually propagated
ensured. towards the top section of beams. The beam failed under
shear-flexure appears to be local failure and the reason
Experimental setup and test procedures could be due to uncertainty inherent in the concrete
All the beams were simply supported over an effective mix. Beams which failed under pure flexure, also had
span of 1200mm and tested under four point bending. several shear cracks initiated during pre-load that were
The load was applied using a servo controlled hydraulic not responsible for ultimate failure during reload of the
actuator (400kN capacity) with a loading rate of 0.5mm/ beams after strengthening.
min for control specimen and all strengthened beams as Due to the excellent integral behavior of the
well. composite with parent beam, the pre-initiated cracks
were not allowed to widen further. The reason could
Strengthening schemes and instrumentation be the pre-initiated crack would have arrested by the
Strengthening configuration comprise of three varying adhesive or closed after unloading or even some of
length 800, 700, 1500mm of UHSCC overlay as shown the cracks are elastic in nature. Figure 4 represents the
in Fig.3. The span of strengthening were considered for major failure modes and crack patterns of the tested
constant bending moment zone and for full span. Total, beams. For beam RCUH2, only constant bending
8 number of beams were tested; the specimens were moment zone is considered to strengthen and the crack
assigned in two series ‘A’ & ‘B’. Series A have different patterns are found to be similar to other strengthened
configuration of overlay length and comparatively beams. The cracks were initiated at the edges of overlay
lower degree of pre-damage whereas series B and propagated towards the full depth of the beam. The
comprised of severe pre-damage based on the physical pre-initiated flexural cracks are dominant, the reason
condition of specimen during test. The specimens are could be the concentration of the stress around the edge
designated as RC-C for control beams and as RC-UH of overlay.
for strengthened. The details of degree of pre-damage,
strengthening overlay length and preload are shown
RC_UHSCC1
in Table 1. The UHSCC overlay is cast separately and
attached to the tension face by roughening the surface
of the pre-damaged RC beams using commercially 400
available epoxy. The detail strengthening procedure of
the pre-damaged RC beams is already reported by the
authors18. The linear varying displacement transducers RC_UHSCC2
(LVDTs) are used to measure the vertical displacement
at mid span.
350

Results and Discussion

RC_UHSCC3
Failure modes and load deflection behavior

None of the strengthened beams experience debonding

600
of the overlay from the parent specimen and significant 750
increment of the load carrying capacity even after the
extensive amount of pre-damage indicates the excellent Fig. 3 Strengthening scheme for pre-damaged beams

194 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016
 90

Shear-flexure failure 80

70

60

Load (kN)
Flexural cracks and crushing 50 R C-C1
R C-UH1
(a) (b) 40 R C-UH2
R C-UH3
30

20

10

0
(c) (d) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Fig. 4 (a) Typical shear-flexure failure (b) several flexural cracks Mid span deflection (mm)
on pure bending zone (c) Typical Ultimate flexural failure (a)
of strengthened beams (d) Failure mode for the beam
strengthened only on constant bending zone 90
80
Figure 5 presents the load deflection behavior
70
of the tested beams. Load carrying capacities of the
strengthened beams are significantly enhanced except 60
R C-C2
for the beam RC-UH5 which failed under shear. Table 1 Load (kN) 50 R C-UH4
R C-UH5
presents the enhanced capacity, degree of prior damage 40 R C-UH6
before strengthening mid span deflection and failure 30
modes in detail.
20
Ductility of strengthened beams 10

Ductility of the tested beams is calculated based on the 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
methods mentioned in the previous section. Table  2 Mid span deflection (mm)
presents the values of deflection ductility, energy
(b)
ductility and comparison with respect to ductility of
control beams. Fig. 5 Load deflection behavior of tested beams a) Series A b)
Series B

Table 1
Experimental test results
Increased Mid span
Overlay Pre-damage Pre-damage Ultimate
Beam load capacity deflection Failure mode
length (mm) (%) load (kN) load (kN)
(%) (mm)
RC-C1 N/A N/A N/A 72.73 N/A 14.39 Flexure
RC-UH1 800 65 45 81.04 11.42 12.437 Flexure
Series A
RC-UH2 700 70 50 72.91 0.2 13.457 Flexure
RC-UH3 1500 70 50 77.22 6.1 13.897 Flexure
RC-C2 N/A N/A N/A 83.0 N/A 18.0 Flexure
RC- UH4 1500 86.92 72.5 85.0 1.91 12.7 Flexure
Series B
RC-UH5 1500 84.2 70.2 82.5 -2.99 17.0 Shear-flexure
RC-UH6 1500 88.13 73.5 83.5 1.19 10.8 Flexure

Journal of Structural Engineering 195

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016
 Table 2
Ductility of strengthened RC beams
Deflection ductility Change in Energy Ductility Change in
Beam details ductility Eela, ductility
Δy, mm Δu, mm µd (%) Etot, kNmm µE (%)
kNmm
RC-C1 5.3 14.39 2.715 N/A 791.456 226.62 2.246 N/A
RCUH1 5.8 12.437 2.144 -21.03 728.6 163.56 2.728 1.43
Series A
RCUH2 6.0 13.457 2.243 -17.39 742.0 236.84 2.067 -7.97
RCUH3 5.5 13.897 2.257 -16.87 816.025 150.162 3.218 39.27
RC-C2 3.8 18.0 4.737 N/A 1147 262.7 2.683 N/A
RCUH4 6.0 12.7 2.117 -55.31 781.0 183.0 2.634 -1.83
Series B
RCUH5 4.0 17.0 4.25 -10.28 1147 114.9 5.490 104.63
RCUH6 3.2 10.8 3.375 -28.75 732.7 139.6 3.124 16.45

6.0 the case of strengthened beams compared to control.

5.5 RC-DAT
RCUH
For the beam RCUH1, deflection ductility is decreased
5.0
4.5
by 21.03% percent but the energy ductility is enhanced
4.0 by 1.43 % with the enhanced load carrying capacity of
Ductility Index

11.42%. Similarly for RCUH2,both ductility is found

Deformation

3.5
3.0 to decrease by 17.39% and 7.97% respectively but
2.5
the strength of the beam is enhanced marginally. For
2.0
1.5 the strengthened beam RCUH3, deflection ductility is
1.0 reduced by 16.87% but the energy ductility is improved
0.5 by 39.27% with the enhanced load carrying capacity
0.0
RCUH4 RCUH5 RCUH6 of 6.1%. The results show that the efficiency of UHSC
Strengthened Beams overlay to improve the strength and ductility of the pre-
4.0
(a) damaged strengthened RC beams. Fig. 6 presents the
B comparative chart of ductility for the tested beams.
3.5 D
3.0 Series B
2.5 As the degree of pre-damage is relatively high (based
Ductility Index
E nergy based

2.0 on the physical condition of the beams during the

1.5 experiment, i.e 80-90% of ultimate load of control
1.0
specimen) the deflection ductility of the strengthened
beams is found to be less compared control beam.
0.5
However, energy ductility is enhanced significantly
0.0
R CUH1 R CUH2 R CUH3
after strengthening. For the strengthened beam
Beams RCUH4, deflection ductility is reduced by 55.3% and
(b) the energy ductility is reduced only by 1.83% with load
Fig. 6 Ductility indexes of tested Series A beams carrying capacity enhanced by 2%. Similarly for the
beam RCUH5, failed under shear-flexure, shows the
unique behavior that deflection ductility is reduced by
Series A
10.28% but energy ductility is enhanced by 104.63%
Both deflection and energy ductility indices of the series and there is no increase in load carrying capacity. Beam
A strengthened beams are similar to that of control beam RC-UH6, failed under flexure also shows the loss of
RC-C1. Significant increase in strength is observed for deflection ductility by 28.75% but enhance in energy

196 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016
ductility by 16.45% with the increased load carrying 3) The load-deflection response presents that UHSCC
capacity of 2%. Fig. 7 presents the comparative chart overlay can effectively increase the first crack
of ductility for the tested beams (series B). load, yield load and ultimate flexural capacity
of the beam without jeopardizing the ductility.
3.5
RC-DAT
Moreover; it is observed that the initiation of new
3.0 RCUH cracks on pre-damaged beam is forbidden.
2.5 4) The failure modes of all strengthened beams are
typical flexural failure, no debonding of overlay
Ductility Index

2.0
from parent specimen highlights the excellent
Deformation

1.5 integral behavior of composite RC beams.

1.0 Even after the severe damage of 80-90% of ultimate
load of control beams, the externally bonded UHSCC
0.5
overlay significantly enhanced the flexural strength
0.0 without retarding the ductility. Hence the present studies
RCUH1 RCUH2 RCUH3
Strengthened Beams proved the suitability of UHSCC overlay to retrofit the
damaged RC structures with the adequate ductility.
(a)
4.0
Acknowledgement
B
3.5 D
3.0
The authors are thankful to the staff of the Computational
Structural Mechanics Group (CSMG) and Structural
2.5
Testing Laboratory of CSIR-SERC for the co-operation
Ductility Index
E nergy based

2.0 and suggestions provided during the investigations.

1.5 This paper is being published with the kind permission
1.0
of the Director, CSIR-SERC Chennai.
0.5
References
0.0
R CUH1 R CUH2 R CUH3
Beams 1. Bureau of Indian Standards, “IS 456:2000, Indian
(b) standard for Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code
of Practice”, New Delhi - 110002, 2000.
Fig. 7 Ductility indexes of tested beams - Series B
2. American Concrete Institute,, “ACI 318-11,
Building Code Requirements for Structural
Conclusions concrete and commentary”, MI- 4833, USA,
An experimental investigation has been undertaken 2011.
to study the strength and structural ductility of the 3. Jeong, S.M., “Evaluation of ductility in prestressed
strengthened RC beams with externally bonded UHSCC concrete beams using fiberreinforced plastic
overlay in flexure. Based on the studies, the following tendons”. Ph.D Thesis, University of Michigan,
conclusions can be drawn: Ann Arbor, Michigan, US, 1994, pp 248.
1) The energy based ductility of the strengthened 4. Naaman, A. E., and Jeong, S. M., “Structural
beams is found to be more effective and realistic ductility of concrete beams prestressed with FRP
compared to deflection ductility as it considers the tendons”. The 2nd Intl. Symp. on Fiber Reinforced
deflection as well as energy absorbed during the Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete
ultimate collapse. Structures (FRPtRCS-2), Ghent, Belgium; 23–
2) Little reduction of the deflection ductility is 25thAugust, 1995, pp 379–86.
observed in all strengthened beams compared to 5. Nanni, A., “Concrete repair with externally bonded
energy based ductility. FRP reinforcement: examples from Japan”. Jl. of

Journal of Structural Engineering 197

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016
 Conc.. Intl., Vol. 97, pp 22–26. compressive strength”, ACI SP144, Vol. 24, 1994,
6. Teng, J. G., Chen, J. F., Smith, S. T., Lam, L., pp 507–18.
“FRP-strengthened RC structures”. England: John 14. Abdelrahman, A.A., “Serviceability of concrete
Wiley & Sons, 2002. beams prestressed by fibre reinforced plastic
7. Meier, U., “Carbon fiber reinforced polymers: tendons”. PhD thesis, University of Manitoba,
modern materials in bridge engineering”. Struct. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 1995, pp 331.
Engg. Intl., Vol. 2(1), pp 7–12. 15. Mufti, A.A, Newhook, J.P., Tadros, G.,
8. Rabinovitch, O., and Frostig, Y., “Experiments and “Deformability versus ductility in concrete beams
analytical comparison of RC beams strengthened with FRP reinforcement”, In: Advanced composite
with CFRP composites”. Composites: Part B, Vol. materials in bridges and structures (ACMBS-II),
34, No. 8, 2003, pp 663–677. Montreal, Quebec, 11–14 August, 1996, pp 189–99.
9. Attari, N., Amaziane, S., Chemrouk, M., “Flexural 16. Jaeger, L.G., Tadros, G. and Mufti, A., “Balanced
strengthening of concrete beams using CFRP, Section, Ductility and Deformability in Concrete
GFRP and hybrid FRP sheets”. Jl. of Constr. and with FRP Reinforcement”, Research Report No.2,
Build. Mat., Vol. 37, 2012, pp 746–757. the Nova Scotia CAD/CAM Centre, Industry’s
Centre for Computer-Aided Engineering,
10. Alaee, F.J,, Karihaloo, B.L., Retrofitting of
Technical University of Nova Scotia, May, 1995,
Reinforced Concrete Beams with CARDIFRC. Jl.
pp 30.
of Compo. for Construct., Vol. 7(3), 2003, pp 174-
86. 17. Tadros, M., Ghali, A., and Meyer, A., “Prestress
Loss and Deflection of Precast Concrete
11. Xu, S.L., Wang, N., Zhang, X.F., “Flexural behavior
Members”, PCI Journal, Vo1.30, No.1, January-
of plain cement concrete beams strengthened with
February, 1985, pp 114-141.
ultra-high toughness cementitious concrete layer”.
Mat. and Structs., Vol. 45(6), 2012, pp 851–859. 18. Ghanashyam Upreti, Ramachandra Murthy, A.,
Smitha Gopinath, Venkat, L., “Experimental
12. Ramachandra Murthy, A., Nagesh R. Iyer,,
studies on RC beams strengthened with UHSCC
Raghu Prasad, B.K., “Evaluation of mechanical
overlay”, Proc. Int. Conf. on Sustainable Energy
properties of high strength and ultra high strength
and Built Environment, VIT University, Vellore,
concretes”, Adv. Con. Constr., Vol. 1, (4), 2013,
12-13th March 2015, pp 442–446
pp 341–358.
13. Richard, P., Cheyrezy, M.H., “Reactive powder (Discussion on this article must reach the editor before
concretes with high ductility and 200–800 MPa September 30, 2016

198 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 43, No. 2, June - july 2016