Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 855–865

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Mechanical shear strength model for reinforced concrete beams

strengthened with FRP materials
Vincenzo Colotti
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, Ponte P. Bucci, Cubo 39B, 87036 Rende (CS), Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

A theoretically-based shear strength model is proposed.

Some critical aspects of the shear behavior are taken into account.

An extensive numerical investigation shows the accuracy and reliability of the model.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, a theoretically-based model for the prediction of the shear strength of reinforced concrete
Received 18 April 2016 beams strengthened with FRP is presented. The model has been validated with the results available in
Received in revised form 30 June 2016 literature of about 200 shear tests on beams strengthened with different FRP configuration schemes (fully
Accepted 1 July 2016
wraps, U-wraps, side bonding). Numerical comparisons considering the values predicted by the ACI
Available online 9 August 2016
guidelines and a recent shear strength model existing in literature have been also carried out. These
numerical investigations show that the proposed model appears as a very good predictor of shear
Keywords:
strength and has a significantly smaller coefficient of variation compared to the other models.
Analytical modelling
Beams
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Debonding
FRP
Plasticity theory
Shear
Strengthening

1. Introduction
The problem of accurately determining the shear capacity of
structural concrete members appears rather difficult to solve,
despite many studies carried out in recent decades. Contrary to
the determination of the flexural capacity of reinforced concrete
(RC) sections, for which a perfectly rational design approach it is
possible, for shear capacity the semi-empirical shear design
procedure proposed by the ACI-ASCE Committee in 1962 [1]
still forms the basis of most current design shear code
provisions [2–4].
With the advent of modern techniques for upgrading existing
concrete structures by using externally bonded Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (FRP) composites, the problem of a correct evaluation of
the load-carrying capacity of shear-strengthened RC members
has become even more stringent both for economic and safety
aspects.
E-mail address: vincenzo.colotti@unical.it
One of the primary reasons for the poor quality of shear design
provisions for RC was that the shear failure process is a very com-
plex phenomenon influenced by many parameters, perhaps more
of twenty parameters, as suggested by Leonhardt [5], and charac-
terized by a multitude of nonlinearities that governs the behavior
of diagonally cracked concrete.
Typically, the shear strength of RC beams strengthened with
composite materials is computed by adding the contribution of
the FRP to that of concrete and internal shear reinforcement, as
described by the following equation:
Vu ¼ Vc þ Vs þ Vf ð1Þ
where Vu = shear resistance of the strengthened beam and Vc, Vs,
and Vf = three components contributed by the concrete, internal
steel stirrups, and external FRP shear reinforcement, respectively.
In many studies [6–10], the experimental values of the FRP con-
tribution (Vf) have been often obtained by subtracting the values
acquired through the reference (unstrengthened) beam tests from
the value obtained from the FRP strengthened beam tests.
However, this approach can be misleading, since the influence of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.146
0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
856 V. Colotti / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 855–865

the different parameters that interact is not properly evaluated. ser prediction for the shear resistance of strengthened RC
Moreover, even if the contribution of the FRP was virtually esti- beams for all the configuration schemes considered (fully wraps,
mated to be exact, from the structural safety point of view, what U-wraps, side bonding).
matters should be the total shear capacity and consequently the As better indicated in the following sections, the proposed
reliability of the theoretical predictions should be evaluated con- model appears as a very good predictor of shear strength and has
sidering this capacity. Therefore, the reliability studies conducted a significantly smaller coefficient of variation than the other mod-
on theoretical models calibrated considering only the contribution els considered in the numerical investigation. Since the proposed
of the FRP [12] have reduced practical importance. model is a variable angle truss model, the Vc term is not required,
In many cases, empirical equations were developed by fitting which instead would be necessary to correct the usual 45° truss, as
the results from a limited number of experiments, in which the in the ACI Code. In this way the problem of interaction between the
parameters vary in a way not always representative of the actual concrete contribution and the other shear components (FRP and
design situations. For example, in laboratory shear experiments steel) is bypassed.
often the specimens were heavily reinforced in flexure to ensure
that a flexural failure mode does not prematurely end the shear 2. Modelling of the shear behavior or RC beams strengthened
test, while in real design it is desirable to have the structural with bonded FRP reinforcement
behavior governed by a ductile flexural failure [13].
A further major difficulty to develop adequate predictive shear In order to develop a simplified mechanical model that ade-
strength models of FRP strengthening beams is that the interac- quately predicts the shear strength of a RC beam strengthened
tion between the concrete, internal steel stirrups, and FRP contri- with bonded FRP reinforcement, the modelling scheme proposed
butions to shear strength has not been clearly verified in the in an earlier study [18] has been adopted. This scheme, based on
experimental tests, due to complexity in independent measuring the Plasticity Truss Model developed primarily by Nielsen et al.
of such contributions. From the above observations, therefore, it [21] and Thurlimann [22] for ordinary RC beams, idealizes a gen-
is obvious that the current simple additive approach based on eric cracked RC beam as a plane truss consisting of an upper and
the implicit assumption that the three components of shear resis- a lower stringers (compression concrete and tensile reinforcement,
tance reach their maximum values simultaneously in a real beam respectively) and a web element (diagonal concrete struts and
is unrealistic and unconservative. Recently, some studies have transverse reinforcement).
been carried out to consider the FRP-steel interaction effect in On the basis of equilibrium (Fig. 1), kinematic (Fig. 2), and yield
RC beams shear-strengthened with FRP U-strips or side strips conditions, by using the mathematical theory of plasticity, the
[10,11,16,17]. This shear interaction effect is taken into account load-carrying capacity (Vu) of strengthened RC beams subjected
by introducing some modification factors determined throughout to bending and shear is obtained in the following form [18]:
the loading process described in terms of crack opening [17], or
by means a new formulation for the FRP and steel contributions
V u ¼ minðV u;1 ; V u;2 Þ ð2Þ
determined on the basis of experimentally observed failure
modes [10,11]. However, both these formulations present some
drawbacks. The evaluation of the model proposed by Chen et al.
[17], in fact, has been conducted using the FRP shear contribution C=-M/dv+½Vcotθ C’=-M/dv- ½Vcotθ
as test parameter and, therefore, its reliability remains question-
able, while the model proposed by Pellegrino et al. [10,11] is not Ff
clearly defined.
The above considerations indicate that a possible and V V
substantial way to improve shear provisions and to provide hf dv=jd
estimation with the least scatter, consists in the use of
theoretically-based shear design procedure, in which the Ff
empirical assumptions are restricted to the level of constitutive θ
relationships of materials and their adhesion property, and,
T=M/dv+½Vcotθ wf sf T’=M/dv+3/2Vcotθ
moreover, in adopting mechanical schemes as much as possible
adherent to the effective structural behavior, with simple but
Δ=dvcotθ
realistic simplified assumptions.
In this paper, a new theoretical shear strength model modi- (a) Rectangular free-body diagram
fied from a previous model proposed by Colotti and Swamy
[18] for FRP strengthened RC beams is first presented. The -M/dv- ½Vcotθ
model is based on the Plasticity Truss Model approach, conve-
niently refined in order to capture the interaction effect
between the internal and external shear reinforcement. For this
purpose, the results in closed form solution obtained by a M V piy
pey
sophisticated analytical model describing the debonding process dv=jd
in a FRP shear-strengthened RC beam [19], are suitably imple-
mented in the new shear strength model. Moreover, other
effects on the shear performance, such as variable crack angle
M/dv+ ½Vcotθ
and shear span/depth ratio, are also considered. Predictions
from the new proposed model are then compared with experi-
mental results and values predicted by the ACI guidelines [20]
and with the recent theoretical shear strength model proposed Δ=dvcotθ
by Chen et al. [17]. These numerical comparisons, conducted (b) Triangular free-body diagram
using the results of about 200 shear test of beams collected
from the literature, show that the proposed model provides clo- Fig. 1. Equilibrium scheme for bending-shear [18].
 V. Colotti / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 855–865 857

Δ=dvcotθ determined effectiveness factors on the concrete strength, the

plastic solutions may provide good agreement between theoret-
x
ical and experimental tests [23]. Therefore, since the theory of
O
plasticity has been demonstrated to be a very effective way
to tackle shear design in normal RC beams, it also might be
ρ M the case for FRP shear-strengthened RC beams, despite the brit-
tle behavior of the composite material. The basic idea of the
dv present paper is the introduction of effectiveness factors not
only for the concrete strength (mc), but also for the FRP bond
δv(x)
V strength, capable to take into account several main effects of
θ
the bond-slip behavior. The peculiar aspect of the present
δvo approach is that such effectiveness factors are determined on
the basis of rational theoretical models, instead of fitting exper-
δho imental results. The empirical assumptions are essentially lim-
ited at level of constitutive laws. For example, the bond-slip
Fig. 2. Kinematic mechanism for bending-shear [18]. behavior between FRP and concrete substrate is expressed by
means the fracture energy and correlated parameters, such as
bond strength and slip at failure.

with
8p a T d 3. Effectiveness factors for steel and FRP
< 4y þ 2a
y v
for 0 < py 6 po ¼ 3ay 2 v
2T d

V u;1 ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  ð3Þ

:p a2 þ py v  a
2T d
for py > po The use of reduced strengths by means of effectiveness factors
y y
is a well-consolidated way in order to make less inappropriate
8 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  the hypothesis of perfectly plastic material model and to make
>
< bdv f py
c bfc
mc  bfpyc for 0 < bfpyc 6 m2c acceptable the application of plastic theory to reinforced concrete
V u;2 ¼ ð4Þ structures subjected to shear [23]. These factors should not be con-
> mc
: p
2
bdv f c for bfyc > m2c sidered as simple empirical correction factors introduced to statis-
tically calibrate the experimental results, but rather as factors that
where
take into account some major effects that characterize all concrete
py ¼ piy þ pey ð5Þ structural problems (inhomogeneous strain or stress fields, as soft-
ening, cracking, and local damage of the materials). In this way, it is
T y ¼ ml Asl f ly þ Ap f pu ð6Þ possible to provide a physical meaning of these effectiveness fac-
tors and, thus, they may be virtually evaluated with a theoretical
In the above relations, py denotes the total equivalent stirrup/ approach.
link (transverse reinforcement) force; Ty is the tension force in In the case of RC beams shear-strengthened with bonded FRP
the longitudinal steel reinforcement and/or external bonded links, owing the debonding propagation process, the FRP stresses
plate/laminate; a is the shear span, and dv is the distance between along a critical shear crack do not assume at every point the maxi-
the upper and bottom stringers (lever arm); Asl, fly and ml are the mum value at the same time. Thus, instead of using the FRP debond-
cross-sectional area, the yield strength and the effectiveness factor ing resistance, it is useful to consider a reduced strength that
of the longitudinal reinforcement, respectively; Ap and fpu are the expresses the average stress maintained in the critical shear crack.
cross-sectional area and the yield (or rupture) stress of longitudi- Moreover, since the concomitant strains in steel stirrups inter-
nal bonded plate/laminate. cepted by the critical shear crack may be below their yield strain,
The formulae in Eqs. (3), (4) represent the shear capacity so that not all of them reach yielding at the shear failure of the
for flexural-shear interaction failure mode and for shear web- beam, a similar reduced yield strength that expresses the average
crushing failure mode, respectively. They are both obtained steel stirrups stress may be used. In this way, the shear interaction
as an upper bound and a lower bound solution and, therefore, effect between internal and external transverse reinforcement is
they represent an exact solution in the context of the plasticity taken into account, too.
theory. In particular, Eq. (3) represents the plastic solution Based on a theoretical study on the stress distribution in the FRP
associated to a global failure mechanism characterized by diag- along a critical shear crack at rupture or debonding failure, the fol-
onal tension failure combined with or without longitudinal lowing expressions are obtained for the FRP effectiveness factor Df
reinforcement failure. Moreover, in order to account for the [19]:
contribution of the external shear reinforcement, two mecha-
nisms of local failure mode are considered, i.e. bond slip or xd 1 p   xd 
Df ¼ þ  1 þ c1 1  ð7Þ
tensile failure of the web link material. Similarly, Eq. (4) rep- D qpeak 4 D
resents the plastic solution for the shear web-crushing failure
mode, related to crushing of diagonal concrete struts and/or with
transverse reinforcement failure. More details can be found in (
0 for side bonding andU  jacketing
Ref. [18].
c1 ¼   ð8Þ
rr
As in any plastic solution, the problem to be overcome for 1
2
1þr for complete wrapping
f ;max
the applicability and validity of Eqs. (3), (4) is the non-ductile
nature of the materials (concrete and FRP) and their joining 8
dv þdc bo Le
>
> for side bonding
xd <
mechanism (bond-slip behavior), which renders the hypothesis dv

of perfectly plastic material model a crude approximation. How- ¼ 1 for U  jacketing ð9Þ
D >>
ever, many applications of plastic theory in practical design of : 1þkc ð0:5hf Le Þ for complete wrapping
wo
RC beams have shown that, by introducing empirically
858 V. Colotti / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 855–865

8( D
>
> ½1  cosðp2 bo Þ if bo 6 1 In the above relations, Es and ey are the modulus of elasticity and
> xd
< D 1 þ p ðb  1Þ
> 
if bo > 1
for side bonding yield strain of the steel, respectively; so is the local bond strength
o
qpeak ¼ xd 2
at the steel-concrete interface; / is the diameter of the steel
>
> 1þkc ðdv þdt Le Þþco
>
> for U  jacketing stirrups.
: 2
wo for complete wrapping The factors Df and Ds allow to describe the shear forces in the
ð10Þ FRP links and steel stirrups at ultimate as a proportion of their
maximum capacity. Therefore, the action of the internal steel stir-
in which rups and FRP at shear failure can be expressed as
0sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
3 dv þ dc h Ast f ty
bo ¼ min @ A piy ¼ Ds ð17Þ
f
; ð11Þ s
pLe 2Le
2wf t f rf ;max
sf pey ¼ Df ð18Þ
rf ;max ¼ 6 rr ; rr ¼ uR f fu ð12Þ sf
t fo kc
where Ast, fty and s are the cross-sectional area, the tensile yield
s2f 1 p strength and the spacing of the stirrups, respectively; wf and sf
k2c ¼ ; Le ¼ ; tfo ¼ min ðtf ; t ref Þ ð13Þ are the width and spacing of the FRP strips, respectively.
2Gf Ef t fo 2kc
Based on the above factors, the total equivalent stirrup/link
force py can be conveniently re-written in the form
co ¼ 1  cos ðkc dc Þ þ ½1  sin ðkc dc Þ tan ðkc dc Þ;
rr hf 2Gf py ¼ Dt ðpi;max þ pe;max Þ ð19Þ
wo ¼ ; df ¼ ð14Þ
2Ef df sf where
where hf = dc + dv + dt represents the total length of the FRP strips Ast f ty
(see Fig. 3); tf is the thickness of the FRP links; tref is the reference pi;max ¼ ð20Þ
s
thickness of concrete substrate or debonded concrete [24]; ffu and
Ef are the tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of the FRP, 2wf t f rf ;max
respectively. pe;max ¼ ð21Þ
sf
In the above relations, rf,max represents the maximum stress in
the FRP at debonding failure; rr is the effective tensile/rupture rDs þ Df
strength of FRP; /R is a reduction factor to account the detrimental Dt ¼ ð22Þ
1þr
effect of the corners of beams on the tensile strength of the FRP
[25,26]; Le is the effective bond length; Gf, sf and df are the interfa- pi;max
r¼ ð23Þ
cial fracture energy, the local bond strength and the ultimate slip at pe;max
FRP-concrete interface, respectively. For the validity of Eqs. (7)–
(10), it is required that dc 6 Le and dv + dt > Le. In the above relations, pe,max and pi,max represent the maximum
The effectiveness factor for the steel stirrups Ds corresponding equivalent FRP and steel forces, respectively. The factors Ds, Df, and
to the peak value of the average FRP stress can be expressed as fol- Dt can also be identified as interaction factors for internal, external
lows [19]: and total shear reinforcement. Their expressions are applicable to
8 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi beams strengthened with either vertical discrete strips or continu-
< 2 qpeak wf for qpeak 6 wy
w
ous sheets, arranged in various configuration schemes (complete
3 wy
Ds ¼ f
ð15Þ wrapping, U-jacketing, or side bonding).
:1  1 wy
for qpeak > wy
w
3qpeak wf f

where 4. Comparison with other analytical proposals

wy e2y 4so
¼ ; k¼ ð16Þ Most of current methods used for calculating the shear capacity
wf 2kdf Es u of FRP strengthened beams are based on the format expressed by

x dt
O

ρ y

h hf dv d

θ
dc

Δ=dvcotθ

Fig. 3. Geometrical parameters defining the idealization of FRP strips crossing the critical shear crack.
 V. Colotti / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 855–865 859

Eq. (1). Generally, the shear capacity of the concrete (Vc) and the rf ;max ¼ min ðf fu ; rdb;max Þ ð35Þ
internal steel stirrups (Vs) are determined according to the expres- 8 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sions provided by reference codes [2,3] for ordinary RC members, >
<
2Ef Gf
for Lmax P Le
tf
while the different models proposed in literature differ in the eval- rdb;max ¼  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð36Þ
uation of the shear contribution of the external reinforcement (Vf). >
: sin p Lmax 2Ef Gf
for Lmax < Le
2 Le t f
In the following, the above-cited basic codes, together with two
models for the Vf contribution, are selected in order to compare 8
< hfe þht þhb for side strips
and critically examine the results obtained by the proposed model 2 sin b
Lmax ¼ ð37Þ
with those of the selected models in the light of the observed : hfe þht þhb for U  strips
sin b
experimental results.
For FRP side strips, Dfrp is given by
4.1. ACI 440 model  p hdf hdb
Dfrp ¼ 1  1   ð38Þ
Provisions of ACI Committee 440 [20] on shear strengthening of 4 hfe hfe
RC beams are based on the study of Khalifa et al. [27]. The total hfe  hdb
shear strength can be calculated as follows: hdf ¼ ð39Þ
1 þ p2 ðkh  1Þ
V u ¼ V c þ V s þ wf V f ð24Þ
hdb ¼ Lm sin b  hb ð40Þ
Af v Ef efe ðsin b þ cos bÞdf
Vf ¼ ð25Þ Lm ¼ kh Le ð41Þ
sf
 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
kv efu 6 0:004 for 2 and 3 sides bonded 2  p p p  p ðhfe þ hb Þ 2
efe ¼ ð26Þ kh ¼ 1 1 þ 1 þ1 ð42Þ
0:004 6 0:75efu for completely wrapped p 4 2 2 4 Le sin b p

k1 k2 Le For FRP U-strips, Dfrp is given by

kv ¼ 6 0:75 ð27Þ 
11900efu p hdf
Dfrp ¼ 1  1  ð43Þ
4 hfe
 2=3
fc
k1 ¼ ð28Þ hfe
27 hdf ¼ 2df ð44Þ
wep sinðh þ bÞ
8 d 2Le
< fd for 2 side bonded  
hfe
k2 ¼
f
ð29Þ 1 þ p2 Le sin b
1
: df Le for 3 side bonded wep ¼ df ð45Þ
df sinðh þ bÞ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
23300 df Ef t f
Le ¼ ð30Þ Le ¼ ð46Þ
ðtf Ef Þ0:58 sf
 qffiffiffiffi
0:85 for 2 and 3 sides bonded Gf ¼ 0:308b2w ft ð47Þ
wf ¼ ð31Þ
0:95 for completely wrapped
In the above formulae, b is the angle between principal fiber ori- sf ¼ 1:5bw f t ð48Þ
entation and longitudinal axis of beam; df = hf  dc is the effective
0:55
depth of the external reinforcement, dc is the concrete cover; efu is f t ¼ 0:395f cu ; f cu ¼ f c =0:8 ð49Þ
the ultimate tensile elongation of the FRP; Afv is the area of FRP
shear reinforcement with spacing sf. 2Gf
df ¼ ð50Þ
sf
4.2. Chen et al. model
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2  wf =ðsf sin bÞ
Chen et al. [17] proposed a shear strength model for the evalu- bw ¼ ð51Þ
1 þ wf =ðsf sin bÞ
ation of the FRP shear contribution introducing a suitable shear
interaction factor to take into account the interaction between The coefficient K, termed the shear interaction factor, is given
internal and external reinforcement. It is implicitly assumed that by
the contribution of the concrete (Vc) to the shear capacity is the (
same as for the ordinary RC beam given the reference code. The 1  lð1  K s Þ for U  strips
K¼ B ð52Þ
model is valid only for strengthening beams with side bonding Bþl
for side strips
and U-jacketing schemes. The shear resistance of a RC externally
strengthened beam can be expressed as Vs
l¼ ð53Þ
Vf
V u ¼ V c þ V s þ kV f ð32Þ
w1:4
ep
Ks ¼ ð54Þ
2wf t f f fe hfe ðcot h þ cot bÞ sin b ao þ w1:4
ep
Vf ¼ ð33Þ
sf
A
ao ¼ ð55Þ
f fe ¼ rf ;max Dfrp ð34Þ ðcos hÞ1:4
860 V. Colotti / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 855–865

(
104 x1:48½lnðhfe Þ  4:52ðf ty  173Þðu þ 0:935Þ for plain bar stirrups Table 1
A¼ Results of comparison: statistical analysis.
105 x4:94½lnðhfe Þ  3:34ðf ty  245Þðu  0:767Þ for deformed bar stirrups
ð56Þ Statistical Proposed ACI Chen-ACI Chen-EC2
parameter model model model model

8   N. 201 201 140 140

>
< u1:01x10
5 hfe
þ 2:11 for plain bar stirrups AVG 1.10 1.56 1.23 0.90
0:854 f 1:88 Le
COV (%) 20.30 40.36 32.33 37.76
B¼   ð57Þ
ty

>
: 2:05x10 5 hfe
þ 1:58 for deformed bar stirrups
Max 1.59 4.15 2.83 2.47
u1:13 f 1:71 Le
ty Min 0.62 0.42 0.46 0.32

In the above equations, Dfrp is the stress distribution fac-
tor; rdb,max is the maximum stress in the FRP strips crossing
the critical shear crack as governed by debonding failure; Lmax
is the maximum bond length of the FRP strips intersected by
the critical shear crack; hb is the thickness of concrete cover;
ht is the vertical distance from the top end of FRP strips to
the crack tip; hfe is the effective height of FRP; Lm is the
maximum mobilized bond length. In the previous equations,
units are in mm and MPa. Further details can be found in
Ref. [17].
5. Numerical validation of the proposed shear strength model
and comparison with other models
To evaluate the performance of the proposed shear strength
model, a large number of experimental results reported from a
wide range of sources were used. An extensive database repre-
senting 201 RC beams strengthening in shear was collected
from published literature. In detail the database contains 44
beams strengthened with FRP side-strips, 96 beams strength-
ened with FRP U-strips and 61 beams strengthened with FRP
completely wrapped. The test data cover the following ranges
of parameters: beam height h = 150–940 mm; web thickness
b = 77–457 mm; shear to span ratio a = 0.9–6; cylinder compres-
sive strength of concrete fc = 15–56 MPa. Due to space limita-
tions, only the experimental shear capacities of the collected
test data are reported in Appendix. Further details on the geo-
metric and material properties can be found in the original
sources.
For purposes of comparison, the predictions of the proposed
model have been compared with those of the ACI 440 model,
Chen et al. model combined with the basic codes ACI 318
and Eurocode 2. It is emphasized that in the Chen et al. model
the governing parameters are not applicable to beams with FRP
fully wrapped. In the numerical investigation, the following
assumption have been made: dv = jd, with j = 0.9; mc = 0.7;
ml = 1 for nl = 1 and ml = 0.85 for nl > 1, where nl = number of
longitudinal steel layers; /R = 0.8 for FRP fully wrapped or
U-jacketed and /R = 1 for side bonded strips; tref = 0.25 mm. Fur-
thermore, for the fracture energy Gf, and the correlated bond-
slip parameters sf, df, bw, the same expressions proposed by
Lu et al. [28] and adopted by Chen et al. [17] as given by
Eqs. (47)–(51) have been assumed. Moreover, for the steel bond
strength so, the expression provided by the Eurocode 2 [3] has
been adopted.
Since the Chen et al. model concerns only the FRP shear contri-
bution (Vf), the predictions of overall shear strength have been
obtained by combining both basic model codes selected in order
to estimate the contributions of concrete and internal steel
stirrups.
The comparative study between the measured and predicted
shear capacities was realized through the ratio between experi-
mental and theoretical values Vexp/Vtheor. The main statistical mea-
sures of this ratio include its average (AVG), the coefficient of
variation (COV), and the maximum (MAX) and minimum (MIN)
values.
Note: N. = number of beam tests; AVG = average; COV = coefficient of variation.
The results of the comparative study are presented in Appendix,
while a synthesis of the statistical characteristics is shown in
Table 1. It is seen that the proposed model provides significantly
good predictions, with a mean Vexp/Vtheor value of 1.10 and a
coefficient of variation of 20.3%. At the contrary, the overall pre-
dictions of the other three models (ACI 440, Chen-ACI, Chen-EC2)
do not appear to be equally satisfactory, with a mean Vexp/Vtheor
values ranging between 0.90 and 1.56 and the coefficients of
variation between 32.33% and 40.36%. The Chen et al. model also
show a discrete agreement with the experimental data, while
the ACI model provides very conservative results as indicated
by the mean Vexp/Vtheor value of 1.56. At the same time, the
ACI model appears also as the less accuracy as reflected by the
high value of coefficient of variation equals to 40.36%. It is
important to note that among the models considered, the ACI
model is the only one that does not take into account the inter-
action effect between the internal and external shear
reinforcement.
To better evaluate the reliability and the performance of
different shear strength models, taking into account not only
the safety and precision but also the economy, the methodol-
ogy proposed originally by Collins [29] could be very useful
[30]. In this methodology, called Demerit Point Scale Method-
ology (DPSM), a score is attributed for each range of Vexp/Vtheor
ratio, as shown in Table 2. The total demerit point score of
each predictive equation is obtained by summing the products
of the percentage of Vexp/Vtheor falling in each range times the
demerit points attributed to that range. As the demerit point
scale is structured, it is clear that the larger is the total
demerit point score and worse is the performance of the
model.
The procedure proposed by Collins [29] allows us to over-
come the limitation of a common classification system based
only on the main statistics measures (average, range, COV, etc.)
regarding the behavior of the Vexp/Vtheor parameter. In fact, from
a structural safety point of view, having Vexp/Vtheor lower than
0.5 is worse than Vexp/Vtheor > 2.0, which is not taken into
account on current statistics analysis. With the procedure
suggested by Collins [29], a penalty is assigned to each range
of Vexp/Vtheor parameter and the total of penalties determines
the performance of each predictive model. The Demerit Point
Scale (DPS) assumes that the predictions within the range of
Vexp/Vtheor = 0.85–1.30 are considered appropriate and so the
Table 2
Demerit point classification.
Classification Vexp/Vtheor Score
Extremely dangerous <0.50 10
Dangerous 0.50–0.65 5
Low safety 0.65–0.85 2
Appropriate safety 0.85–1.30 0
Conservative 1.30–2.00 1
Extremely conservative >2.00 2
 V. Colotti / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 855–865
Table 3
Results of comparison: demerit point classification.
Vexp/Vtheor Score Proposed ACI Chen-ACI
model model model
<0.50 10 0a 1 1
0.50–0.65 5 1 4 9
0.65–0.85 2 14 7 4
0.85–1.30 0 65 24 44
1.30–2.00 1 19 43 38
>2.00 2 0 20 4 1
Total demerit point 52b 127 109
score
a
Percentage values of Vexp/Vtheor results.
b
52 = (0  10) + (1  5) + (14  2) + (65  0) + (19  1) + (0  2).
Demerit Point (DP) is zero. Moreover, the predictions within the
unsafe region are penalized more intensively than those on the
conservative side (refer to Table 2).
The results of comparative study based on the DPSM are pre-
sented in Table 3. The analysis of these results reveals that the pro-
posed model provides the better predicting results in terms of
safety, precision and economy, with a total demerit point score
equal to 52, compared with the values of 127, 109 and 216
obtained for the ACI model, Chen-ACI and Chen-EC2 model,
respectively.
A careful analysis of results in Table 3 reveals that ACI
model has 20% of Vexp/Vtheor values in the extremely conserva-
tive range, much larger in relation to the other models, thus
confirming the very conservative nature of such model. On
the other hand, the proposed model presents a large percentage
(65%) of results in appropriate safety range, and only 1% of
results in dangerous and extremely dangerous ranges, which
confirms the smallest value of the total demerit point score
and the very good performance of this model. Again, for the
models under appraisal, the sum of the percentage of results
in the conservative and appropriate safety ranges are 84, 82,
48 and 67 for the proposed model, Chen-ACI model, Chen-EC2
model, and ACI model, respectively. This findings reveal that
the models that explicitly consider the shear interaction effect
have the better performance among the appraised models. From
these models, the largest percentage of results in appropriate
safety range provided by the proposed model (65 versus 44
and 37) justifies the smallest value of the demerit point score
and, therefore, the very satisfactory performance of the pro-
posed model.
A separate comment deserve the different performances
obtained with the Chen et al. model when combined with the
two basic codes taken into account. There are two fundamental
features in which the methods of the American and European
codes differ. The first is the choice of a value for the angle h
of the truss model. The second is whether the truss has to
bring the entire shear force or if a part of the shear is being
carried by the concrete. ACI 318 code recommends to use the
sum of concrete and steel contributions with the angle of the
shear crack h = 45°, while Eurocode 2 recommends to use only
the steel contribution with an angle h variable between 21.8°
and 45°. The results of the present analysis show that when
the Chen et al. model is combined with the ACI 318 code, it
provides a discrete agreement with the test data, and it is gen-
erally conservative. At the contrary, when the Chen et al. model
is combined with the Eurocode 2, it provides results that over-
estimate the experimental data and it is strongly unconserva-
tive. This aspect is confirmed by the very high total demerit
point score equal to 216, resulting of the largest percentage
of results (22%) in dangerous and extremely dangerous range,
as reported in Table 3.
861
6. Conclusions
Chen-EC2 In this paper a new theoretically-based model is presented
model to predict the shear strength of RC beams strengthened with
7 externally bonded FRP reinforcement. The model is derived
15 by a previous authors’ work and is based on the PlasticityTruss
29
Model approach, opportunely refined in order to capture the
37
11 interaction effect between the internal and external shear
reinforcement. For this purpose, the results in closed form
216 solution obtained by a sophisticated analytical model describ-
ing the debonding process in a FRP shear-strengthened RC
beam [19] are suitably implemented in the new shear strength
model. Significant features of the model are that it takes into
account other critical aspects of the shear behavior, such as
variable crack angle and shear span/depth ratio and, moreover,
empirical assumptions are essentially restricted to the level of
constitutive relationships of materials and their adhesion
property.
The model has been validated against 201 RC beam tests from a
large number of different sources reported in published literature
and representing a wide range of test geometries, structural vari-
ables, and FRP configuration schemes (fully wraps, U-wraps, side
bonding). The predicted results compare very well with experi-
mental data, with a mean experimental/theoretical failure load
ratio Vexp/Vtheor of 1.10 and an acceptable coefficient of correlation
of about 20%.
For comparison purposes, the predicted results of the model
have been compared with those of the ACI 440 model and with
those of a recent shear strength model proposed by Chen et al.
[17]. It has been shown that when the Chen et al. model is com-
bined with the ACI 318 basic code, there is a discrete agreement
with the experimental data, with a mean Vexp/Vtheor values of 1.23
and a coefficient of correlation of 32%, while when it is combined
with the Eurocode 2, it tends to overestimate the experimental
results and it is strongly unconservative, with a mean Vexp/Vtheor
value of 0.90 and a coefficient of correlation of 37%. The ACI 440
model, instead, provides very conservative results, with a mean
Vexp/Vtheor value of 1.56 and, at the same time, it appears also
as the less accurate, with a coefficient of variation of about 40%.
It should be noted that among the models considered, the ACI
440 model is the only one that does not take into account the
shear interaction effect.
To better evaluate the reliability and the performance of the
shear strength models examined, taking into account not only
the safety and precision but also the economy, the Demerit Point
Scale Methodology proposed by Collins [29] has been utilized.
The comparative analysis based on this methodology reveals that
the proposed model provides the better performance, with a total
demerit point score equal to 52, compared with the values of 127,
109 and 216 for the ACI 440 model, Chen-ACI model and Chen-EC2
model, respectively.
The obtained results have shown that the proposed model
appears as a very good predictor of shear strength, with sufficient
accuracy and reliability and, therefore, can be usefully utilized as
an effective tool for developing safe and economic design proce-
dures for FRP shear-strengthened RC beams. The possibility to
extend the applicability of the presented shear strength model to
other FRP strengthening technique, such as Near Surface Mounted,
will be the subject of future research.
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was funded in part by the Ministry of University and
Scientific Research (MIUR), Italy.
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
862 V. Colotti / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 855–865

Appendix A.

Appendix
Test database: comparison between experimental and analytical results obtained with different models.

Reference Beam Beam Type Vexp Vmod VACI VC-A VC-E Vexp/ Vexp/ Vexp/ Vexp/
N. Specimen S-U-W (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vmod VACI VC-A VC-E
Araki et al. [31] 1 CF-045 W 236,0 262,0 115,5 NA NA 0,90 2,04 NA NA
2 CF-064 W 262,0 287,5 127,2 NA NA 0,91 2,06 NA NA
3 CF-097 W 307,0 304,8 147,0 NA NA 1,01 2,09 NA NA
4 CF-131 W 358,0 320,4 166,6 NA NA 1,12 2,15 NA NA
5 CF-243 W 407,0 358,2 232,8 NA NA 1,14 1,75 NA NA
6 AF-060 W 237,0 282,8 114,4 NA NA 0,84 2,07 NA NA
7 AF-090 W 259,0 298,1 124,0 NA NA 0,87 2,09 NA NA
8 AF-120 W 312,0 312,5 133,8 NA NA 1,00 2,33 NA NA
Kamiharako et al. [32] 9 No.2 W 285,2 258,8 128,1 NA NA 1,10 2,23 NA NA
10 No.3 W 236,0 258,4 113,7 NA NA 0,91 2,08 NA NA
11 No.7 W 568,8 549,7 315,0 NA NA 1,03 1,81 NA NA
12 No.8 W 529,6 550,8 280,0 NA NA 0,96 1,89 NA NA
Cao et al. [33] 13 A2 W 185,0 126,9 68,1 NA NA 1,46 2,72 NA NA
14 A3 W 187,0 119,8 61,1 NA NA 1,56 3,06 NA NA
15 A5 W 227,0 159,6 68,1 NA NA 1,42 3,33 NA NA
16 Bb W 136,0 131,4 49,8 NA NA 1,04 2,73 NA NA
17 Bc W 121,0 111,9 38,8 NA NA 1,08 3,12 NA NA
18 Be W 178,0 154,7 49,8 NA NA 1,15 3,58 NA NA
19 Bf W 161,0 117,0 38,8 NA NA 1,38 4,15 NA NA
Leung et al. [8] 20 SB-F1 W 66,1 60,6 33,3 NA NA 1,09 1,99 NA NA
21 SB-F2 W 66,7 60,6 33,3 NA NA 1,10 2,00 NA NA
22 MB-F1 W 236,3 171,8 130,9 NA NA 1,38 1,80 NA NA
23 MB-F2 W 250,3 171,8 130,9 NA NA 1,46 1,91 NA NA
24 LB-F1 W 871,5 733,0 566,7 NA NA 1,19 1,54 NA NA
25 LB-F2 W 881,1 733,0 566,7 NA NA 1,20 1,55 NA NA
Diagana et al. [34] 26 PC1 W 177,5 122,8 106,6 NA NA 1,45 1,66 NA NA
27 PC2 W 155,0 118,9 100,8 NA NA 1,30 1,54 NA NA
Carolin et al. [35] 28 A290W W 367,0 268,8 181,3 NA NA 1,37 2,02 NA NA
29 A290WR W 388,0 279,3 175,6 NA NA 1,39 2,21 NA NA
Godat et al. [36] 30 W7 W 1110,5 814,6 385,8 NA NA 1,36 2,88 NA NA
Teng et al. [14] 31 BDF-00 W 132,1 136,0 66,5 NA NA 0,97 1,99 NA NA
32 BDF-R6 W 180,9 153,0 97,1 NA NA 1,18 1,86 NA NA
33 BDF-R8 W 213,6 165,4 134,5 NA NA 1,29 1,59 NA NA
Colalillo et al. [37] 34 S5-CS W 725,0 589,4 560,5 NA NA 1,23 1,29 NA NA
35 S5-CA W 888,0 622,5 768,7 NA NA 1,43 1,16 NA NA
Grande et al. [15] 36 RS4Wa W 250,0 208,8 369,4 NA NA 1,20 0,68 NA NA
37 RS3Wa W 330,0 210,0 386,2 NA NA 1,57 0,85 NA NA
38 RS2Wa W 300,0 212,1 419,6 NA NA 1,41 0,71 NA NA
Ianniruberto et al. [38] 39 ST1b W 242,0 243,7 124,1 NA NA 0,99 1,95 NA NA
40 ST2b W 270,0 262,1 146,2 NA NA 1,03 1,85 NA NA
41 ST3b W 279,0 272,1 168,2 NA NA 1,03 1,66 NA NA
Lee et al. [39] 42 C1 W 603,1 506,1 303,3 NA NA 1,19 1,99 NA NA
43 C2 W 716,0 550,4 385,9 NA NA 1,30 1,86 NA NA
44 G1 W 469,0 459,3 246,3 NA NA 1,02 1,90 NA NA
45 G2 W 551,5 501,6 271,8 NA NA 1,10 2,03 NA NA
46 G3 W 581,2 529,1 297,3 NA NA 1,10 1,95 NA NA
47 G4 W 689,5 548,6 322,8 NA NA 1,26 2,14 NA NA
48 GS1 W 319,5 426,0 229,3 NA NA 0,75 1,39 NA NA
49 GS1a W 356,2 438,9 233,5 NA NA 0,81 1,53 NA NA
50 GS3 W 427,5 500,4 259,0 NA NA 0,85 1,65 NA NA
51 GS5 W 515,0 535,1 284,5 NA NA 0,96 1,81 NA NA
Al-Amery et al. [40] 52 RR2 W 60,7 42,4 72,5 NA NA 1,43 0,84 NA NA
53 RR4 W 56,0 40,0 72,4 NA NA 1,40 0,77 NA NA
54 RR5 W 63,2 40,0 72,3 NA NA 1,58 0,87 NA NA
55 RR6 W 61,6 40,0 73,1 NA NA 1,54 0,84 NA NA
Matthys [41] 56 BS7 W 235,5 202,8 131,5 NA NA 1,16 1,79 NA NA
Beber et al. [42] 57 V12-A W 116,4 137,6 62,4 NA NA 0,85 1,86 NA NA
58 V18-A W 127,3 137,6 62,4 NA NA 0,92 2,04 NA NA
59 V20-A W 140,1 137,6 62,4 NA NA 1,02 2,24 NA NA
60 V18-B W 202,4 156,0 87,7 NA NA 1,30 2,31 NA NA
61 V16-A W 184,0 156,0 87,7 NA NA 1,18 2,10 NA NA
Khalifa et al. [43] 62 BT2 U 155,0 140,6 119,8 142,68 223,6 1,10 1,29 1,09 0,69
63 BT4 U 162,0 127,9 79,8 107,33 135,2 1,27 2,03 1,51 1,20
Sato et al. [44] 64 S3 U 202,1 134,9 78,3 94,09 96,0 1,50 2,58 2,15 2,11
65 S5 U 198,2 146,2 99,7 108,56 134,9 1,36 1,99 1,83 1,47
Barros et al. [45] 66 A10_M U 61,0 47,6 72,5 80,00 77,3 1,28 0,84 0,76 0,79
67 A12_M U 89,8 85,0 95,6 105,10 140,4 1,06 0,94 0,85 0,64
68 B10_M U 55,6 44,3 49,4 51,35 67,5 1,26 1,13 1,08 0,82
69 B12_M U 71,5 77,0 73,7 67,52 108,4 0,93 0,97 1,06 0,66
 V. Colotti / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 855–865 863

Appendix (continued)

Reference Beam Beam Type Vexp Vmod VACI VC-A VC-E Vexp/ Vexp/ Vexp/ Vexp/
N. Specimen S-U-W (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vmod VACI VC-A VC-E
Adhikary et al. [46] 70 B-7 U 68,5 69,6 47,6 65,34 101,0 0,98 1,44 1,05 0,68
71 B-8 U 85,8 70,4 65,2 65,91 101,6 1,22 1,32 1,30 0,84
Godat et al. [36] 72 U4 U 101,5 82,2 38,4 49,11 72,1 1,24 2,64 2,07 1,41
73 U5 U 404,5 358,0 162,8 174,11 220,6 1,13 2,48 2,32 1,83
74 U6 U 1009,0 766,1 366,0 356,07 408,2 1,32 2,76 2,83 2,47
Khalifa et al. [47] 75 SO3-2 U 131,0 141,1 56,3 69,61 90,5 0,93 2,33 1,88 1,45
76 SO3-3 U 133,5 150,3 67,7 80,91 118,7 0,89 1,97 1,65 1,12
77 SO3-4 U 144,5 158,7 90,6 93,25 149,6 0,91 1,59 1,55 0,97
78 SO3-5 U 169,5 158,7 90,6 93,25 149,6 1,07 1,87 1,82 1,13
79 SO4-2 U 127,5 120,5 56,3 69,61 90,5 1,06 2,26 1,83 1,41
80 SO4-3 U 155,0 132,7 90,6 93,25 149,6 1,17 1,71 1,66 1,04
81 SW3-2 U 177,0 185,9 185,3 187,97 193,5 0,95 0,96 0,94 0,91
82 SW4-2 U 180,5 148,6 185,3 187,97 193,5 1,21 0,97 0,96 0,93
Matthys [41] 83 BS2 U 247,5 207,7 152,2 160,97 192,0 1,19 1,63 1,54 1,29
84 BS5 U 170,0 186,4 122,5 132,26 120,5 0,91 1,39 1,29 1,41
85 BS6 U 166,7 186,4 122,3 132,02 120,5 0,89 1,36 1,26 1,38
Islam et al. [48] 86 B1 U 701,0 477,3 535,6 468,13 738,9 1,47 1,31 1,50 0,95
Mosallam et al. [49] 87 B3 U 60,7 58,3 71,2 99,76 168,2 1,04 0,85 0,61 0,36
88 B5 U 66,6 59,4 93,9 126,72 190,4 1,12 0,71 0,53 0,35
89 B19 U 55,5 57,7 74,4 107,08 175,7 0,96 0,75 0,52 0,32
Monti et al. [26] 90 UF90 U 125,0 145,4 169,7 234,51 311,2 0,86 0,74 0,53 0,40
Leung et al. [8] 91 LB-U1 U 563,0 612,8 456,5 498,40 777,6 0,92 1,23 1,13 0,72
92 LB-U2 U 559,8 612,8 456,5 498,40 777,6 0,91 1,23 1,12 0,72
93 MB-U1 U 154,6 143,9 112,6 127,80 210,5 1,07 1,37 1,21 0,73
94 MB-U2 U 159,7 143,9 112,6 127,80 210,5 1,11 1,42 1,25 0,76
Diagana et al. [34] 95 PU1 U 142,5 118,2 99,9 114,24 140,5 1,21 1,43 1,25 1,01
96 PU2 U 130,0 114,6 94,9 107,24 123,0 1,13 1,37 1,21 1,06
El-Ghandour [50] 97 B2S U 112,5 101,6 68,0 80,67 118,4 1,11 1,65 1,39 0,95
98 B3S U 75,0 58,9 68,0 80,67 118,4 1,27 1,10 0,93 0,63
99 B3FS U 77,5 71,3 68,0 80,67 118,4 1,09 1,14 0,96 0,65
Belarbi et al. [51] 100 RC8NA U 850,9 791,1 522,7 583,12 698,8 1,08 1,63 1,46 1,22
101 RC12NA U 765,1 763,4 521,3 588,61 594,8 1,00 1,47 1,30 1,29
Grande et al. [15] 102 RS4Ub U 225,0 225,2 242,0 249,02 408,9 1,00 0,93 0,90 0,55
103 RS3Ua U 270,0 227,2 258,1 263,17 422,0 1,19 1,05 1,03 0,64
104 RS2Ua U 280,0 230,7 290,4 291,47 445,6 1,21 0,96 0,96 0,63
Bousshelam et al. [7] 105 ED1_S0_0.5L U 102,0 163,4 65,7 95,31 127,4 0,62 1,55 1,07 0,80
106 ED1_S0_1L U 120,0 174,2 80,0 111,75 168,5 0,69 1,50 1,07 0,71
107 ED1_S0_2L U 122,0 185,8 98,5 138,08 234,4 0,66 1,24 0,88 0,52
108 ED1_S1-0.5L U 282,0 200,7 195,4 215,47 301,4 1,40 1,44 1,31 0,94
109 ED1_S1-1L U 255,0 201,9 209,6 227,46 309,9 1,26 1,22 1,12 0,82
110 ED1_S1_2L U 267,0 203,9 228,1 246,01 321,6 1,31 1,17 1,09 0,83
111 ED1_S2_1L U 309,0 213,7 339,3 343,18 350,5 1,45 0,91 0,90 0,88
112 ED1_S2_2L U 297,0 213,3 357,8 353,95 353,4 1,39 0,83 0,84 0,84
113 ED2_S0_1L U 59,0 57,9 18,9 39,71 64,7 1,02 3,13 1,49 0,91
114 ED2_S0_2L U 68,0 61,2 27,5 49,37 81,9 1,11 2,47 1,38 0,83
115 ED2_S1_1L U 96,0 65,3 53,3 71,92 97,1 1,47 1,80 1,33 0,99
116 ED2_S1_2L U 105,0 66,2 62,0 80,17 101,7 1,59 1,69 1,31 1,03
Al-Sulaimani et al. [52] 117 JO U 50,1 37,1 57,9 57,52 101,2 1,35 0,87 0,87 0,49
118 JP U 62,3 50,9 57,9 57,52 101,2 1,22 1,08 1,08 0,62
Jayaprakash et al. [53] 119 BT1-1 U 67,4 89,5 55,7 73,27 102,1 0,75 1,21 0,92 0,66
120 BT1-1I U 87,3 89,5 55,7 73,27 102,1 0,98 1,57 1,19 0,86
121 BT1-2I U 67,4 85,5 49,9 65,91 83,7 0,79 1,35 1,02 0,81
122 BT2-1 U 67,4 65,4 45,2 63,17 94,5 1,03 1,49 1,07 0,71
Pellegrino et al. [10] 123 B-U1-C-14 U 252,9 291,5 202,8 190,04 339,9 0,87 1,25 1,33 0,74
124 B-U2-C-14 U 264,8 303,9 253,4 207,62 358,9 0,87 1,04 1,28 0,74
125 B-U1-C-17 U 238,9 285,7 185,9 175,30 325,8 0,84 1,28 1,36 0,73
126 B-U2-C-17 U 243,3 299,8 236,5 194,08 347,0 0,81 1,03 1,25 0,70
Beber et al. [42] 127 V10-A U 107,5 130,2 59,8 74,25 92,6 0,83 1,80 1,45 1,16
128 V10-B U 106,0 130,2 59,8 74,25 92,6 0,81 1,77 1,43 1,14
129 V17-A U 102,8 130,2 59,8 74,25 92,6 0,79 1,72 1,38 1,11
130 V11-A U 98,4 130,2 59,8 74,25 92,6 0,76 1,65 1,33 1,06
131 V11-B U 124,8 130,2 59,8 74,25 92,6 0,96 2,09 1,68 1,35
132 V17-B U 92,9 130,2 59,8 74,25 92,6 0,71 1,55 1,25 1,00
133 V15-B U 138,4 141,4 82,4 89,59 130,9 0,98 1,68 1,54 1,06
134 V16-B U 112,4 141,4 82,4 89,59 130,9 0,80 1,36 1,25 0,86
Mofidi et al. [54] 135 S0-0.12R U 120,9 158,0 62,4 87,74 95,9 0,77 1,94 1,38 1,26
136 S0-0.17R1 U 134,5 167,2 68,1 99,19 124,6 0,80 1,97 1,36 1,08
137 S0-0.20R2 U 131,1 172,0 71,9 105,29 139,8 0,76 1,82 1,25 0,94
138 S0-0.20R1 U 135,7 172,3 72,1 105,61 140,6 0,79 1,88 1,28 0,97
139 S0-0.23R U 150,6 175,7 75,6 110,36 152,5 0,86 1,99 1,36 0,99
140 S0-0.33R U 120,0 181,6 86,9 119,82 176,2 0,66 1,38 1,00 0,68
141 S0-0.66R U 121,7 193,8 109,6 147,49 245,3 0,63 1,11 0,83 0,50
142 S1-0.17R2 U 246,7 206,1 176,7 202,26 329,4 1,20 1,40 1,22 0,75

(continued on next page)

864 V. Colotti / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 855–865

Appendix (continued)

Reference Beam Beam Type Vexp Vmod VACI VC-A VC-E Vexp/ Vexp/ Vexp/ Vexp/
N. Specimen S-U-W (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Vmod VACI VC-A VC-E
143 S1-0.23R U 253,9 208,2 184,2 212,37 339,0 1,22 1,38 1,20 0,75
144 S1-0.33R U 250,6 209,4 195,4 219,76 346,2 1,20 1,28 1,14 0,72
Baggio et al. [55] 145 Beam 2 U 186,5 165,9 131,4 150,65 231,7 1,12 1,42 1,24 0,80
146 Beam 6 U 167,0 158,7 106,1 126,26 170,0 1,05 1,57 1,32 0,98
147 Beam 7 U 152,5 158,7 103,9 126,26 170,0 0,96 1,47 1,21 0,90
Godat et al. [56] 148 LSB-140-1L U 268,8 194,5 472,8 435,78 462,7 1,38 0,57 0,62 0,58
149 LSB-140-2L U 288,1 198,5 566,9 493,73 469,6 1,45 0,51 0,58 0,61
150 LSB-203-1L U 250,3 194,2 422,2 403,89 456,6 1,29 0,59 0,62 0,55
151 LSB-203-2L U 276,4 198,4 516,3 469,29 467,5 1,39 0,54 0,59 0,59
152 LSB-203-3L U 295,7 200,0 585,3 501,61 470,0 1,48 0,51 0,59 0,63
153 LSB-406-1L U 231,8 193,8 366,0 368,47 446,7 1,20 0,63 0,63 0,52
154 LSB-406-2L U 268,8 198,3 460,2 442,13 464,2 1,36 0,58 0,61 0,58
155 LSB-610-1L U 216,7 193,6 347,3 356,62 442,4 1,12 0,62 0,61 0,49
156 LSB-610-2L U 213,4 198,3 441,4 433,05 462,9 1,08 0,48 0,49 0,46
157 LSB-610-3L U 216,7 199,9 510,3 472,35 468,3 1,08 0,42 0,46 0,46
Monti et al. [26] 158 SF90 S 112,5 139,9 161,8 190,86 276,2 0,80 0,70 0,59 0,41
Khalifa et al. [43] 159 BT3 S 157,5 135,2 105,0 130,23 192,5 1,16 1,50 1,21 0,82
160 BT5 S 121,5 121,6 73,9 99,80 116,4 1,00 1,64 1,22 1,04
Pellegrino et al. [9] 161 TR30C2 S 120,0 112,1 70,6 83,91 127,8 1,07 1,70 1,43 0,94
162 TR30C3 S 112,8 129,3 114,4 106,16 183,5 0,87 0,99 1,06 0,61
163 TR30C4 S 140,2 129,3 114,4 106,16 183,5 1,08 1,23 1,32 0,76
164 TR30D10 S 193,0 165,8 173,1 148,93 239,3 1,16 1,11 1,30 0,81
165 TR30D2 S 213,3 173,2 193,1 154,86 244,5 1,23 1,10 1,38 0,87
166 TR30D20 S 247,5 173,2 193,1 154,86 244,5 1,43 1,28 1,60 1,01
167 TR30D3 S 161,4 158,9 145,2 139,29 230,2 1,02 1,11 1,16 0,70
168 TR30D4 S 208,8 165,8 173,1 148,93 239,3 1,26 1,21 1,40 0,87
169 TR30D40 S 212,0 165,8 173,1 148,93 239,3 1,28 1,22 1,42 0,89
Al-Sulaimani et al. [52] 170 SO S 41,5 35,9 35,3 42,37 59,7 1,16 1,18 0,98 0,70
171 SP S 41,2 48,7 35,3 42,37 59,7 0,85 1,17 0,97 0,69
172 WO S 42,0 37,3 31,7 51,31 82,2 1,13 1,32 0,82 0,51
173 WP S 45,2 51,2 31,7 51,31 82,2 0,88 1,43 0,88 0,55
Sato et al. [44] 174 S2 S 160,5 129,8 80,0 92,77 86,3 1,24 2,01 1,73 1,86
175 S4 S 156,3 137,9 91,4 99,89 117,0 1,13 1,71 1,56 1,34
Adhikary et al. [46] 176 B-4 S 58,6 64,5 29,4 54,88 77,6 0,91 1,99 1,07 0,76
Carolin et al. [35] 177 A-290b S 298,0 233,1 172,2 186,31 227,8 1,28 1,73 1,60 1,31
178 B-290 S 298,0 235,9 178,2 181,37 269,6 1,26 1,67 1,64 1,11
179 B-390 S 298,0 241,0 210,6 193,70 300,7 1,24 1,41 1,54 0,99
Zhang et al. [57] 180 Z11-S90 S 84,6 84,5 84,3 67,80 113,3 1,00 1,00 1,25 0,75
181 Z22-S90 S 104,6 111,0 84,3 67,80 113,3 0,94 1,24 1,54 0,92
182 Z31-F90 S 76,5 67,9 44,1 56,27 84,4 1,13 1,74 1,36 0,91
183 Z31-FD S 87,7 67,9 44,1 56,27 84,4 1,29 1,99 1,56 1,04
184 Z42-F90 S 128,6 86,6 44,1 56,27 84,4 1,49 2,92 2,29 1,52
185 Z42-FD S 133,5 86,6 44,1 56,27 84,4 1,54 3,03 2,37 1,58
Beber et al. [42] 186 V9-A S 98,1 123,9 54,8 69,34 80,3 0,79 1,79 1,41 1,22
187 V9-B S 104,3 123,9 54,8 69,34 80,3 0,84 1,90 1,50 1,30
188 V21-A S 115,2 123,9 54,8 69,34 80,3 0,93 2,10 1,66 1,43
189 V13-A S 122,0 133,2 72,3 82,65 113,6 0,92 1,69 1,48 1,07
190 V13-B S 125,8 133,2 72,3 82,65 113,6 0,94 1,74 1,52 1,11
191 V22-B S 112,5 177,6 122,0 105,46 170,6 0,63 0,92 1,07 0,66
192 V20-B S 142,9 177,6 122,0 105,46 170,6 0,80 1,17 1,36 0,84
Grande et al. [15] 193 RS4Sb S 180,0 213,5 231,1 214,08 332,6 0,84 0,78 0,84 0,54
194 RS3Sb S 205,0 216,1 247,2 226,67 360,7 0,95 0,83 0,90 0,57
195 RS2Sb S 240,0 220,5 279,5 252,65 405,2 1,09 0,86 0,95 0,59
Kim et al. [58] 196 CP2-VW S 173,0 140,5 170,3 121,69 169,2 1,23 1,02 1,42 1,02
197 CP3-VW S 154,0 115,9 170,3 121,69 169,2 1,33 0,90 1,27 0,91
198 CS2-VW S 170,0 142,6 197,8 126,28 180,7 1,19 0,86 1,35 0,94
199 CS3-VW S 108,0 117,2 197,8 126,28 180,7 0,92 0,55 0,86 0,60
200 CP2-1VS S 163,0 132,7 112,2 101,86 119,7 1,23 1,45 1,60 1,36
201 CP3-1VS S 94,5 111,2 112,2 101,86 119,7 0,85 0,84 0,93 0,79
Mean 1,10 1,56 1,23 0,90
COV (%) 20,30 40,36 32,33 37,76

Note: S = side bonded; U = U wrapped; W = fully wrapped; NA = not applicable.

VC-A = Chen-ACI model; VC-E = Chen-Eurocode model.

References [4] BS 8110-1, Structural Use of Concrete – Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and
Construction, British Standards Institute, London, 1997.
[5] F. Leonhardt, Shear and torsion in prestressed concrete, in: Proc. 6th FIP
[1] ACI-ASCE Committee 326 (1962), Shear and diagonal tension, ACI Journal, Proc,
Congress, Prague, 1970. June 1970.
59/1,2,3, Jan., Feb., Mar., 1962.
[6] A. Bousselham, O. Chaallal, Effect of transverse steel and shear span on the
[2] A.C.I.Committee, 381, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
performance of RC beams strengthened in shear with CFRP, Compos. B 37
(ACI 318–08 and Commentary (318R–08), American Concrete Institute,
(2006) 37–46.
Farmington Hills, USA, 2008.
[7] A. Bousselham, O. Chaallal, Mechanisms of shear resistance of concrete beams
[3] EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1–1: General
strengthened in shear with externally bonded FRP, J. Compos. Constr. 12 (5)
Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, CEN,
(2008) 499–512.
Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
 V. Colotti / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 855–865
[8] C.K.Y. Leung, Z. Chen, S. Lee, M. Ng, M. Xu, J. Tang, Effect of size on the failure of
geometrically similar concrete beams strengthened in shear with FRP strips, J.
Compos. Constr. 11 (5) (2007) 487–496.
[9] C. Pellegrino, C. Modena, Fiber reinforced polymer shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams with transverse steel reinforcement, J. Compos.
Constr. 6 (2) (2002) 104–111.
[10] C. Pellegrino, C. Modena, An experimentally based analytical model for the
shear capacity of FRP-strengthened reinforced concrete beams, Mech. Compos.
Mater. 44 (3) (2008) 231–244.
[11] C. Pellegrino, M. Vasic, Assessment of design procedures for the use of
externally bonded FRP composites in shear strengthening of reinforced
concrete beams, Compos. B 45 (2013) (2013) 727–741.
[12] G. Sas, B. Taljsten, J. Barros, J. Lima, A. Carolin, Are available models reliable for
predicting the FRP contribution to the shear resistance of RC beams?, J
Compos. Constr. 13 (6) (2009) 514–534.
[13] M.P. Collins, D. Mitchell, E.C. Bentz, Shear design of concrete structures, Struct.
Eng. 86 (10) (2008) 32–39.
[14] J.G. Teng, G.M. Chen, J.F. Chen, O.A. Rosenboom, L. Lam, Behavior of RC beams
shear strengthened with bonded or unbonded FRP wraps, J. Compos. Constr.
13 (5) (2009) 394–404.
[15] E. Grande, M. Imbimbo, A. Rasulo, Effect of transverse steel on the response of
RC beams strengthened in shear by FRP: experimental study, J. Compos.
Constr. 13 (5) (2009) 405–414.
[16] A. Mofidi, O. Chaallal, Tests and design provisions for reinforced-concrete
beams strengthened in shear using FRP sheets and strips, Int. J. Concr. Struct.
Mater. 8 (2) (2014) 117–128.
[17] G.M. Chen, J.G. Teng, J.F. Chen, Shear strength model for FRP-strengthened RC
beams with adverse FRP-steel interaction, J. Compos. Constr. 17 (1) (2013) 50–
66.
[18] V. Colotti, R.N. Swamy, Unified analytical approach for determining shear
capacity of RC beams strengthened with FRP, Eng. Struct. 33 (2011) 827–842.
[19] V. Colotti, Effectiveness Factors for bond strength in FRP shear-strengthened
RC beams, Mater. Struct. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0842-
4.
[20] ACI 440.2R-08, Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
FRP Systems for Strengthening of Concrete Structure, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hill, USA, 2008.
[21] M.P. Nielsen, M.W. Braestrup, Plastic shear strength of reinforced concrete
beams, Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser 46 (3) (1975) 61–99. Copenhagen.
[22] B. Thurlimann, Plastic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beams. IABSE
Colloquium Kopenhagen, 1979, Vol.-Band 28, pp. 71–90.
[23] L.C. Hoang, M.P. Nielsen, Plasticity approach to shear design, Cement Concr.
Compos. 20 (1998) 437–453.
[24] Y. Wu, Z. Zhou, Q. Yang, W. Chen, On shear bond strength of FRP-concrete
structures, Eng. Struct. 32 (2010) 897–905.
[25] J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng, Shear capacity of fiber-reinforced polymer-strengthened
reinforced concrete beams: fiber reinforced polymer rupture, J. Struct. Eng.
129 (5) (2003) 615–625.
[26] G. Monti, M.A. Liotta, Tests and design equations for FRP-strengthening in
shear, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2007) 799–809.
[27] A. Khalifa, W.J. Gold, A. Nanni, M.I. Abdel Aziz, Contribution of externally
bonded FRP to shear capacity of RC flexural members, J. Compos. Constr. 2 (4)
(1998) 195–202.
[28] X.Z. Lu, J.G. Teng, L.P. Ye, J.J. Jiang, Bond–slip models for FRP sheets/plates
bonded to concrete, Eng. Struct. 27 (2005) 920–937.
[29] M.P. Collins, Evaluation of Shear Design Procedures for Concrete Structures,
Report prepared for the CSA Technical Committee on Reinforced Concrete
Design, Ottawa, Canada, 2001.
[30] J.M.F. Calixto, A.B. Ribeiro, Comparative analysis of design code criteria for
shear strength of reinforced concrete beams, IBRACON Struct. J. 3 (1) (2007)
19–61.
[31] N. Araki, Y. Matsuzaki, K. Nakano, T. Kataoka, H. Fukuyama, Shear capacity of
retrofitted RC members with continuous fiber sheets, Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on
Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, vol. 1, Japan
Concrete Institute, Tokyo, 1997, pp. 515–522.
[32] A. Kamiharako, K. Maruyama, K. Takada, T. Shimomura, Evaluation of shear
contribution of FRP sheets attached to concrete beams, Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on
Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, vol. 1, Japan
Concrete Institute, Tokyo, 1997, pp. 467–474.
865
[33] S.Y. Cao, J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng, Z. Hao, J. Chen, Debonding in RC Beams Shear
Strengthened with Complete FRP Wraps, J. Compos. Constr. 9 (5) (2005) 417–
428.
[34] C. Diagana, A. Li, B. Gedalia, Y. Delmas, Shear strengthening effectiveness with
CFF strips, Eng. Struct. 25 (2003) 507–516.
[35] A. Carolin, B. Täljsten, Experimental study of strengthening for increased shear
bearing capacity, J. Compos. Constr. 9 (6) (2005) 488–496.
[36] A. Godat, Z. Qu, X.Z. Lu, P. Labossière, L.P. Ye, K.W. Neale, Size effects for
reinforced concrete beams strengthened in shear with CFRP strip, J. Compos.
Constr. 14 (3) (2010) 260–271.
[37] M.A. Colalillo, S.A. Sheikh, Seismic retrofit of shear-critical reinforced concrete
beams using CFRP, Constr. Build. Mater. 32 (2012) 99–109.
[38] U. Ianniruberto, M. Imbimbo, Role of fiber reinforced plastic sheets in shear
response of reinforced concrete beams: experimental and analytical results, J.
Compos. Constr. 8 (5) (2004) 415–424.
[39] J.Y. Lee, H.B. Hwang, J.H. Doh, Effective strain of RC beams strengthened in
shear with FRP, Compos. B 43 (2012) 754–765.
[40] R. Al-Amery, R. Al-Mahaidi, Coupled flexural–shear retrofitting of RC beams
using CFRP straps, Compos. Struct. 75 (2006) 457–464.
[41] S. Matthys, Structural behavior and design of concrete members strengthened
with externally bonded FRP reinforcement (Ph.D. Dissertation), Dept. of Struct.
Engng., Faculty of Applied Science, Ghent University, Belgium, 2000.
[42] A.J. Beber, A. Campos Filho, CFRP composites on the shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams, IBRACON Struct. J. 1 (2) (2005) 127–143.
[43] A. Khalifa, A. Nanni, Improving shear capacity of existing RC T-section beams
using CFRP composites, Cement Concr. Compos. 22 (3) (2000) 165–174.
[44] Y. Sato, T. Ueda, Y. Kakuta, T. Tanaka, Shear reinforcing effect of carbon fiber
sheet attached to side of reinforced concrete beams, in: M.M. El-Badry (Ed.),
Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. On Advanced Comp. Mat. In Bridges and Struct. (ACMBS),
The Canadian Soc. of Civil Engng, Montreal, 1996, pp. 621–628.
[45] J.A.O. Barros, S.J.E. Dias, J.L.T. Lima, Efficacy of CFRP-based techniques for the
flexural and shear strengthening of concrete beams, Cement Concr. Compos.
29 (2007) 203–217.
[46] B.B. Adhikary, H. Mutsuyoshi, Behavior of concrete beams strengthened in
shear with carbon-fiber sheets, J. Compos. Constr. 8 (3) (2004) 258–264.
[47] A. Khalifa, A. Nanni, Rehabilitation of rectangular simply supported RC beams
with shear deficiencies using CFRP composites, Constr. Build. Mater. 16 (2002)
135–146.
[48] M.R. Islam, M.A. Mansur, M. Maalej, Shear strengthening of RC deep beams
using externally bonded FRP systems, Cement Concr. Compos. 27 (2005) 413–
420.
[49] A.S. Mosallam, S. Banerjee, Shear enhancement of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with FRP composite laminates, Compos. B 38 (2007) 781–793.
[50] A.A. El-Ghandour, Experimental and analytical investigation of CFRP flexural
and shear strengthening efficiencies of RC beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 25
(2011) 1419–1429.
[51] A. Belarbi, S.W. Bae, A. Brancaccio, Behavior of full-scale RC T-beams
strengthened in shear with externally bonded FRP sheets, Constr. Build.
Mater. 32 (2012) 27–40.
[52] G.J. Al-Sulaimani, A. Sharif, I.A. Basunbul, M.H. Baluch, B.N. Ghaleb, Shear
repair for reinforced concrete by fiberglass plate bonding, ACI Struct. J. 91 (3)
(1994) 458–464.
[53] J. Jayaprakash, A.A.A. Samad, A.A. Abbasovich, A.A.A. Ali, Shear capacity of
precracked and non-precracked reinforced concrete shear beams with
externally bonded bi-directional CFRP strips, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2008)
1148–1165.
[54] A. Mofidi, O. Chaallal, Shear strengthening of RC beams with externally bonded
FRP composites: effect of strip-width-to-strip-spacing ratio, J. Compos. Constr.
15 (5) (2011) 732–742.
[55] D. Baggio, K. Soudki, M. Noël, Strengthening of shear critical RC beams with
various FRP systems, Constr. Build. Mater. 66 (2014) 634–644.
[56] A. Godat, O. Chaallal, Strut-and-tie method for externally bonded FRP shear-
strengthened large-scale RC beams, Compos. Struct. 99 (2013) 327–338.
[57] Z. Zhang, C.T.T. Hsu, J. Moren, Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete deep
beams using carbon fiber reinforced polymer laminates, J. Compos. Constr. 8
(5) (2004) 403–414.
[58] G. Kim, J. Sim, H. Oh, Shear strength of strengthened RC beams with FRPs in
shear, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2008) 1261–1270.