Draft
Finite Element Analysis of Intermediate Crack Debonding in
FRP Strengthened RC Beams
Journal: Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Manuscript ID cjce-2017-0439.R2
Manuscript Type: Article
Date Submitted by the Author: 09-Apr-2018
Complete List of Authors: Cohen, Michael; University of Waterloo, Civil & Environmental Engineering Monteleone, Agostino; AMTEC Engineering Ltd Potapenko, Stanislav; University of Waterloo, Civil & Environmental Engineering
Keyword: Debonding, Fracture, Interface, Finite Element Analysis, ABAQUS
Is the invited manuscript for
consideration in a Special Issue? :
Not Applicable (Regular Submission)
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
1
Finite Element Analysis of Intermediate Crack Debonding in FRP 1
Strengthened RC Beams 2
Michael Cohen1, Agostino Monteleone
2, Stanislav Potapenko
3 3
1 PhD Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University Of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada 4
(corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected] 5
2 AMTEC Engineering Ltd., Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] 6
3 Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University Of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. E-mail: 7
Word Count: 7474 9
Abstract 10
The performance of the fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) to reinforced concrete (RC) interface is 11
vital to ensure desired design capacity. Without proper understanding of the interfacial behaviour 12
it is impossible to develop an effective, efficient and rational bonding technique. This paper 13
presents the results of a comprehensive numerical investigation aimed to assess and better 14
understand the debonding behaviour caused by different types of intermediate flexural crack 15
distributions in FRP-RC strengthened beams. The model is based on damage mechanics 16
modelling of concrete, a bilinear bond-slip relationship with softening to represent the interface, 17
and a discrete crack approach to simulate crack propagation. The model also highlights how 18
crack propagation and debonding is affected by the rate of change of moment. It is shown that 19
the variation of crack spacing and rate of change of moment can significantly affect debonding 20
crack propagation and strain development in the internal and external reinforcement, which 21
directly influences debonding load. 22
Key Words: Debonding, Fracture, Interface, Finite Element Analysis 23
Page 1 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
2
1 Introduction 24
In recent years, there has been an increased need for the strengthening or rehabilitation of 25
reinforced concrete (RC) structures due to the aging of infrastructure, demand for higher vehicle 26
loads, updates in design codes or inadequate original design. Fibre-reinforced polymers (FRP) 27
are now routinely considered as an effective method for such applications in the structural 28
engineering community due to their light weight and minimal labor and equipment requirements, 29
as compared to tradition methods. Furthermore, the initial high material costs of FRP can be 30
offset by the low installation and long-term maintenance costs. Numerous studies have been 31
conducted to prove the efficiency of utilizing FRP composites in structural elements (Nanni 32
1995; Arduini et al. 1997; Grace et al.1999; Ross et al. 1999; Brena et al. 2003). In spite of this, 33
industrial practitioners are still concerned about premature debonding of the plates before 34
reaching the desired strength or ductility. Unlike the failure modes of concrete crushing, shear 35
failure and FRP rupture, such debonding failure cannot be predicted by conventional RC theory. 36
Premature debonding initiates from the ends of the plate or from intermediate cracks (IC) in the 37
concrete. In practice, FRP debonding from the end of an IC sometimes is unavoidable and more 38
dominant despite careful surface preparation and good bond between FRP composites and 39
concrete. Currently our basic understanding of the mechanics of the bond and failure between the 40
FRP and concrete initiating from an IC is rather limited. 41
The presence of FRP bonded to the tension face of a RC beam will restrict but not prevent the 42
opening of an IC. Empirical studies have shown that FRP debonding may initiate from the 43
bottom of an IC near the middle of the span, where the bending moment and force in the FRP are 44
high. With an increase in load, the debonded zone grows and propagates towards the free-end of 45
the plate, leading to ultimate debonding failure of the strengthened structure. As of late, 46
Page 2 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
3
debonding failure and the presence of multiple cracks has started to attract attention in the 47
research community. In fact, FRP debonding failure under the presence of multiple cracks is 48
now being considered in design recommendations (fib 2001). However, the proposed model has 49
not yet been verified experimentally. 50
One of the advantages of finite-element models is their ability to capture quantities that could be 51
difficult to quantify experimentally, such as stress/slip concentrations and distributions along the 52
FRP-concrete interface. In addition, they provide insight into the effects of micro- and macro-53
cracking on the interfacial behaviour and they allow us to better obtain results which may vary 54
significantly from researcher to researcher, such as FRP strain (Yao et al. 2004). 55
A commonly accepted method of studying IC debonding by researchers and industrial 56
practitioners is to apply a direct shear test on the composite beam (Chen and Teng 2001). This 57
test involves pulling a FRP plate bonded to a concrete prism along the direction of its length to 58
determine the bond capacity of the strengthened specimen. Due to the shear lag phenomenon (i.e: 59
the uneven distribution of strains along the FRP-Concrete interface relative to the distance from 60
the loaded end), the bond capacity approaches a plateau value with increasing bond length. By 61
performing the direct shear test on members with different bond lengths, it is possible to 62
determine the effective bond length necessary to develop sufficient bond capacity between FRP 63
reinforcements and concrete members. While this test may be frequently employed, both an 64
empirical and analytical study performed by Teng et al. (2002) and Teng et al. (2005) prove 65
otherwise. The results from those studies indicate that debonding models with parameters 66
derived from the direct shear test significantly underestimate the maximum FRP strain in the 67
strengthened beam. These findings may be attributed to the presence of multiple secondary 68
cracks along the beam as the opening of cracks along the beam act to reduce relative sliding 69
Page 3 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
4
between concrete and FRP, and may lessen the rate of softening along the interface. Moreover, 70
the portion of FRP plate situated between two adjacent cracks is subjected to tension at both 71
cracks. In contrast to loading setting observed in conventional shear test where one end of the 72
FRP plate is loaded and the other end remains intact. The discrepancy between commonly 73
accepted practices and empirical evidence is just one example of why further investigations into 74
the mechanism that trigger FRP debonding from IC are needed in an attempt to improve the 75
efficiency of rehabilitation projects in civil engineering applications. 76
In this study, the results of a comprehensive numerical investigation are presented to illustrate the 77
complex interaction between the debonding strain and the flexural crack distribution. The model 78
is based on damage mechanics modelling of concrete and a bilinear bond-slip relationship with 79
softening behaviour to represent the FRP-concrete interfacial properties. A discrete crack 80
approach was adopted to simulate crack propagation through a nonlinear fracture mechanics 81
based finite element analysis. The model also highlights how crack propagation and debonding is 82
affected by moment gradient. The numerical simulations were validated against experimental 83
results and are capable of predicting behaviour observed during such tests. The results provide an 84
insight on the behaviour of a repair system that is gaining widespread use and will be of interest 85
to researchers and design engineers looking to successfully apply FRP products in civil 86
engineering applications. 87
2 Numerical Modelling 88
2.1 Geometric Discontinuities 89
Generally, there are two approaches to simulate fracture process in finite element modeling: a 90
continuum approach and a discrete approach. The continuum approach, commonly referred to as 91
Page 4 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
5
the “smeared crack approach”, treats fracture as the end process of localization and accumulation 92
of damage in continuum without creating a real discontinuity in the material. It is unable to trace 93
individual macro-cracks because it tends to spread crack motion over a region of the structure 94
rather than at localized points unless the characteristic dimension of the finite elements are 95
chosen small enough from the beginning of the analysis to accurately resolve the evolving 96
damage zone, as demonstrated by Lu et al. (2005). However, for real-life structures the 97
computation costs become excessive and impractical. Alternatively, the discrete crack approach 98
models a crack discretely as a geometric entity and was selected to simulate discontinuities due 99
to opening of dominant cracks, slipping of rebar, and debonding of the FRP sheet. This approach 100
has been modelled using zero-thickness interface elements for the aforementioned discontinuities 101
and their constitutive relationships are discussed in subsequent sections. 102
2.2 Concrete Modelling 103
The concrete damage plasticity model provided in ABAQUS (2007) is used to simulate the 104
nonlinear behaviour of concrete. To ensure that major cracking and crack growth do not occur in 105
locations other than where the predefined cracks are set, the compressive and tensile material 106
models were defined without limitation of strain capacity, as shown in Figure 1. The plasticity of 107
concrete material was modelled using the concrete damage plasticity model. In this plasticity 108
model, the damage of concrete was represented by a continuum (smeared) approach; meaning 109
that the model does not physically generate macro-cracks in concrete, instead the cracks are 110
indirectly accounted for by the way their presence affects the stress and material stiffness. The 111
crack process in concrete is not a sudden onset of new free surfaces but a continuous forming and 112
connecting of macro-cracks. Macro-cracking and crushing in concrete are represented by 113
increasing values of the hardening variables and these variables control the degradation of the 114
Page 5 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
6
C
elastic stiffness and the evolution of the yield surface. They are also closely related to the 115
dissipated fracture energy required to generate macro-cracks. Typically, the formation of macro-116
cracks is represented macroscopically as softening behavior of the material, which causes the 117
localization and redistribution of strain in a structure. One way to remove the evolution of 118
cracking is to modify the compressive hardening and tensile softening of the material model, 119
within the original smeared model. Cracking leads to softening behaviour of the material so if 120
any post-yield softening is removed from the model, the growth of cracking could be avoided in 121
the material thereby only permitting major cracking to occur within the predefined locations. 122
The discrete crack approach is adopted to account for “major” concrete cracking in the model by 123
predefining possible flexural cracks in the beam. The predefined cracks are divided into two 124
zones: traction-free and cohesive crack, as shown in Figure 2. A traction free crack physically 125
represents a “notch” that would be set in the concrete beam at the time of casting to ensure that 126
cracking initiates and evolves at a predefined location. No forces are transferred along this zone 127
and crack surfaces are completely separated. The force in the cohesive crack surface follows a 128
predefined response whereby a linear softening curve is employed to model tension softening of 129
concrete. The cohesive crack, preceding the formation of a real crack, is assumed to initiate if 130
tensile stresses reach the tensile strength of concrete, ��, whereas the real macro-crack is formed 131
when the energy required to create a unit area of crack is achieved. The area below the curve 132
represents the model I interfacial fracture energy, ���. Moreover, minor “hairline” cracks might 133
still occur in locations outside the predefined discrete cracks when internal stresses exceed the 134
tensile capacity of concrete, ��. However, the development of these minor cracks is restricted, as 135
opposed to the major discrete cracks defined earlier (Niu and Zhishen 2006). 136
Page 6 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
7
Unloading and reloading behaviours are modelled by a secant path, which means following a 137
straight line back to the origin upon unloading the stress. After cracking, no shear stress is 138
assumed to transfer along the crack surface. 139
2.3 Reinforcing Steel 140
The stress-stain relationship for reinforcing steel was modelled with the use of the classical metal 141
plasticity model, provided in ABAQUS (2007), using three linear segments. Three linear 142
segments are employed to account for yielding and strain hardening of the reinforcing steel. 143
Interface elements surround the reinforcing steel to account for slippage between rebar and 144
concrete. Interfacial slippage was defined according to the CEB-FIB model code (1993). 145
2.4 Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites 146
The FRP composites are assumed to be linear-elastic. The rupture point in the stress-strain 147
relationship defines the ultimate stress and strain values for the FRP. These ultimate points were 148
originally adopted from the experimental program conducted by Brena et al. (2003). 149
2.5 FRP-Concrete Interface 150
The FRP-concrete interface refers to a thin layer of the adhesive and adjacent concrete within 151
which the relative deformation between FRP and concrete mainly happens, as revealed by 152
experimental studies (Yuan et al. 2004). This deformation occurs mainly due to shearing stresses 153
along the FRP-concrete interface (Mode II). In addition, interfacial normal (peel) stress also exits 154
at intermediate crack locations. However, these type of stresses were not considered in this 155
numerical study, because it is generally accepted that the debonding of the FRP resembles mode 156
II fracture behaviour as the adhesive layer transfers shear stresses from the concrete to the FRP. 157
Page 7 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
8
In strict sense (microscopic), any interface is naturally mixed-mode and the stress state within 158
the interface is very complicated (Hutchinson and Suo 1992). Only the debonding behaviour 159
within the adhesive layer may be like mode II fracture behaviour, whereas the general debonding 160
within the adjacent concrete layer may be associated with a concrete mode I fracture and mode II 161
shearing fracture behaviour. However, the latest research on this topic has shown that it is 162
acceptable to ignore the mode I fracture behaviour since it has a negligible effect on the overall 163
debonding process. The works that has led to this assumption are briefly outlined below: 164
• According to Rabinovitch and Frostig (2000), the concrete beam and FRP plate are in 165
contact at the vicinity of the flexural crack. This suggests that the normal interface stress 166
is compressive at this location, and therefore, doesn’t affect the debonding of the FRP- 167
concrete interface if friction is neglected. This is different from the normal stress at the 168
FRP plate end, which is tensile and plays a critical role in the plate-end debonding. 169
• Existing solutions proposed by Smith and Teng (2001) show that the normal stress has 170
little effect on the derivation of shear stress. 171
• By using a displacement discontinuity model, Wu et al. (2002) found that there exists a 172
linear correlation between mode I concrete and a mode II interfacial fracture energy 173
values for a given shearing fracture energy introduced on the crack surface. This means 174
that the overall debonding behaviour can be regarded as a mode II for intermediate 175
cracks. 176
Thus, it is considered to be an acceptable assumption that the IC debonding is treated as a mode 177
II fracture. 178
Page 8 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
9
On the other hand, the interface is modelled using the non-linear fracture mechanics approach 179
proposed by Lu et al. (2005) and shown in Figure 3. Its validity has been proven by numerous 180
researchers (Baky et al. 2007; Ebead et al. 2007). Under external load, interfacial shear stresses, 181
τ, develops along the interface due to the opening of the predefined cracks. The opening of the 182
predefined cracks is represented numerically as a finite slip, �, between the FRP plate and the 183
concrete beam. Initially, when the applied load is small and the interfacial stress, τ, is less than 184
the maximum interfacial stress, τmax, the interface is considered to be in its elastic stage. The 185
elastic stage ends when τ exceeds τmax, which signifies the onset of micro-debonding. As slip 186
continues to increase, the interfacial shear stresses reduce to zero, and full debonding initiates 187
and propagates along the interface, representing macro-debonding. Slip at the interface is given 188
by: 189
� = � − �� (1)
Where �is the horizontal displacement of the FRP element and �� is the horizontal 190
displacement of the concrete element. The interface is formulated as: 191
Page 9 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
10
� = �� �� �� ���� if� ≤ ��� ������−�(� �� − 1⁄ "if� > �� (2)
�� = 0.0195()�� ; � �� = 1.5()�� (3)
� = *+, -./0��12/4⁄ ; �� = 0.308()27�� (4)
() = 7(2.25 − 9� 9�⁄ )/(1.25 + 9� 9�⁄ ) (5)
where � �� is the maximum interfacial shear stress; �� is the slip at maximum interfacial shear 192
stress; � is a coefficient; �� is the interfacial fracture energy; and () is FRP width factor. 193
2.6 Structural Model 194
Due to symmetry, only half of beam was modeled in two-dimensions. The structural member is 195
broken down into finite elements to model the composite beam. Since more than one type of 196
materials and interfaces are considered in the analysis, different types of finite elements are 197
required to discretize the structure. Concrete is modelled using continuum elements; reinforcing 198
steel and FRP are modelled using one-dimensional beam elements; and predefined flexural 199
cracks, rebar-concrete interface and FRP-concrete interface are modelled using 200
cohesive/interface elements. Linear reduced-integration continuum elements are employed 201
throughout the analysis with a fine mesh for their ability to withstand severe distortion in 202
plasticity and crack propagation applications. Reinforcing steel is modeled as one-dimensional 203
beam elements discretely defined and superimposed onto the ‘host’ concrete element through the 204
use of beam (stringer) elements. The FRP composite is modelled as singly defined beam 205
elements attached to the concrete through interface elements. 206
Page 10 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
11
The interface elements are attached to the concrete substrate through the use of “tie constraints”. 207
At each end of the interface element, the interaction between the two nodes is represented by two 208
springs: shear spring with stiffness, <�=>�, and normal spring with stiffness, <>=>�. Load was 209
applied in the form of an imposed displacement at the top face of the specimen and a pin-support 210
was used to restrain the beam in the vertical direction. Plane strain condition was assumed 211
throughout the analysis, since during debonding failure the conditions at the crack tip are “neither 212
plane stress nor plane strain, but three-dimensional” (Anderson 1994; Coronado and Lopez 213
2007). IC debonding is a common failure mode in composites beams that exhibit flexural 214
behaviour when the shear span-to depth (a/d) ratio is approximately 2.5 or greater (Rosenboom 215
and Rizkalla 2008). Since the model has a shear span of 3.05, IC debonding behaviour is 216
expected. 217
2.7 Model Verification 218
The results of a comprehensive experimental study reported by Brena et al. (2003) have been 219
used to validate the original finite element model. To ensure the accuracy and effectiveness of the 220
numerical modelling approach followed in this study, the calibration of results was conducted on 221
a global (structural beam) level and a local (constitutive materials) level. Initially, the numerical 222
beam was calibrated against three different experimental specimens. At first, a control finite 223
element model (without CFRP) was validated against a corresponding experimental specimen to 224
the same author. Then, CFRP was added to the numerical model, but with the assumption of 225
perfect bond between the concrete substrate and the adjacent CFRP. Similarly, the simulation of 226
this model was calibrated with the tested beam, in order to emphasize the influence of accounting 227
for the appropriate interfacial mechanisms. Finally, the response of the main ABAQUS model in 228
this study (CFRP with cohesive zone approach) was compared to the real beam, and was found 229
Page 11 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
12
to replicate the original data very closely. Figure 4(a) through (c) illustrate the comparison 230
between each model and the experimental beam, in term of load-midspan deflection curve. 231
On the other hand, the validation of the FE model on local level was achieved by obtaining the 232
load-strain relationships of concrete, steel rebar, and CFRP laminate, and compared them with 233
experimental results (see Figure 5(a) through (c)). Good correlations between the numerical and 234
experimental results were found suggesting that the model has been adequately calibrated. The 235
numerical investigations have been designed to expand over previous experimental studies and 236
better understand the structural behaviour of crack induced debonding. The length of the FRP 237
plate was increased from 1322 to 2200 mm from the calibrated model to the model used for this 238
study, respectively. The modification was made to allow for more flexural cracks to span across 239
the entire length of the beam and study how the structural behaviour and debonding mechanisms 240
are influenced by multiple intermediate cracks, which develop under external loading, and are 241
virtually impossible to measure experimentally. The geometric properties of the model used in 242
this study is shown in Figure 6(a). 243
2.8 Mesh Convergence 244
A general check on the mesh density was investigated prior to the start of the analysis. Mesh 245
refinement was investigated for two models: a single discrete crack located under the load point 246
and multiple cracks distributed along the interface at 50 mm apart. The latter represents a case in 247
which convergence problems are expected to be most severe due to the complicated debonding 248
behaviour for such closely spaced cracks. Figure7 shows the results of the load-deflection 249
response using five levels of mesh refinement for the case of a single discrete crack located under 250
Page 12 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
13
the load point. It can be seen that the structural performance is overestimated with the use of the 251
coarse mesh, while refining the mesh leads to convergence of response. 252
While it appears that convergence is achieved by employing a fine structured mesh of element 253
size 5 mm by 5 mm, a closer inspection of the results in terms of interfacial shear stress versus 254
midspan deflection proves otherwise. Figure 7 demonstrates that the fine mesh employing 255
element sizes of 5 x 5 mm overestimates the interfacial shear stress response of the specimen (at 256
location immediately under the loading point), whereas mesh convergence is ultimately obtained 257
with the use of a finer mesh size of 3.5 x 3.5 mm. Overlooking the effect of interfacial shear 258
stress when selecting a mesh for the analysis may lead to inaccurate results along the interface as 259
the coarser mesh appears to be incapable of converging prior to macro-debonding. The finer 260
mesh seems to be able to accurately capture the complicated fracture behaviour involving 261
concrete cracking and interfacial debonding. This mesh was found to be suitable for the model 262
employing cracks spaced at 50 mm apart. 263
264
265
3 Numerical Analyses and Discussions 266
In this study, no attempt was made to consider the application of FRP composites to a pre-267
damaged RC structure. While in practice many cracks will have already formed with some 268
spacing before the application of FRP composites, a clear explanation on how these cracks may 269
affect the bond characteristics between concrete and FRP and ultimately influence the mode of 270
failure is currently unavailable. Without established empirical evidence on this topic, any finite 271
element model created to carry out such an analysis can potentially be contradicted. The cracking 272
Page 13 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
14
spacing, ��, is varied throughout the model to observe the how the spacing between cracks 273
affects the debonding mechanisms and efficiency of internal and external reinforcement. A 274
single localized crack model and five (5) crack spaced models (�� = 280, 125, 100, 75 and 50 275
mm) were considered as these values closely represent the real pattern in the tested specimens. 276
The following parameters are used in this study: b = 1000 mm, <�=>� = 160 MPa/mm (taken from 277
the experimental program), <>=>�= 0 MPa/mm, �?=4.5 MPa, ��=>�=0.5 N/mm, the width factor, 278
() was found to be 0.75, the �� value was 0.0516, and the value of the parameter � was 1.1015, 279
@�A= 230,000 MPa, ��= 3.5 MPa, @� = 26,500 MPa, ��B= 35 MPa, C�? = 200DD2 280
(∅16DD), C�� = 71DD2 (∅10DD), C��=AAH = 51DD2 (∅8DD), Reinforcement ratio, I, 281
is 0.0063. A schematic representation of the structural model is shown in Figure 6(b). It must be 282
noted that despite the presence of very few crack openings generated outside the constant 283
moment region of the beam, the cracks within the shear span were actually accounted for and 284
modelled as inclined cracks. The schematic representation of the FE model in Figure 6(b) is 285
intended to show the location of each crack, not the orientation of cracks. 286
287
3.1 Global Response 288
The effect of crack spacing is first analyzed based on the load-deflection behaviour of the FRP-289
strengthened beam. Figure 8 demonstrates that the stiffness and ultimate capacity of the model 290
decreases with the decrease in crack spacing. This can be attributed to the existence of more closely 291
spaced cracks reducing the rigidity of the structure as loading progresses. Single localized and 292
large crack space models produce similar stiffness and ultimate load, which are both greater than 293
the smaller crack space models. Table 1 lists key data throughout the parametric analysis and is 294
Page 14 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
15
referenced throughout Section 3. Once macro-debonding initiates, the debonding crack 295
propagates towards the end of the FRP sheet and the load would remain relatively constant until 296
final debonding failure (ultimate capacity). Subsequent to the initiation of macro-debonding, 297
debonding failure was reached earlier in models with more closely spaced cracks as opposed to 298
the larger crack spaced models by inspection of the deflection values for each model in Table 1. 299
The single localized crack model was able to deflect 18.9 mm after macro-debonding in 300
comparison to only 9.5 mm for the model with cracks spaced at 50 mm. This may be attributed 301
to the existence of more closely spaced cracks quickening the debonding propagation. 302
3.2 Interfacial Shear Stress Response 303
The above results can be explained by studying the interfacial behaviour of the analyses models. 304
For the case of the single localized crack predefined beneath the load, it was found that prior to 305
the initiation of flexural cracking there is no slip and therefore no shear stress at the FRP-306
concrete interface. With further loading, interfacial shear stresses develop along the interface 307
until micro-debonding initiates at a midspan deflection of 2.4 mm. At this point, micro-308
debonding occurs in the weaker concrete layer of the interface and high bond stresses develop 309
near the toe of the crack creating sliding between the concrete and FRP plate. The strain in the 310
plate is no longer equal to the strain in the adjacent concrete and the difference is defined as slip 311
strain. In order to accommodate the stress development, the FRP plate would require infinite 312
strains across the crack, which is not possible, and thus results in micro-cracking. This point is 313
illustrated in Figure 9 where the stress concentration at the toe of the crack reaches its maximum 314
value of 4.5 MPa. As loading progresses, the maximum interfacial shear stress shifts along the 315
beam in two directions: towards the support and midspan. This shift represents that the shear 316
capacity of the interface is reached and the development of the debonding crack, which is 317
Page 15 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
16
propagating along the soffit in two directions. To demonstrate the debonding propagation along 318
the interface Figure 9 captures the interfacial shear stress distribution at six (6) stages during the 319
analysis. It should be noted that the effective shear transfer length, Leff, required to attain the 320
ultimate load- carrying capacity may be regarded as 140 mm, which compares well with the 321
analytical solution proposed by Chen and Teng (2001). However, this parameter, Leff, is obtained 322
schematically from the strain distribution of FRP reinforcement, and is calculated as the distance 323
required to achieve full FRP bond capacity along the concrete interface. 324
The effects of crack spacing will be discussed by considering the 280 and 100 mm crack spacing 325
simulations. The case with cracks spaced at 280 mm represents a case in which flexural cracks 326
are well spaced along a beam (large crack spacing). It can be seen from Figure 10 that the 327
occurrence of a new crack adjacent to Crack 2 affects the interfacial shear stress distribution 328
since there is a change in slip direction. Now there exists a negative slip between neighbouring 329
cracks resulting in a change in direction of interfacial shear stress in order to maintain 330
equilibrium. This was not the case for the single localized crack. The development of negative 331
slip can be explained by examining the behaviour along the interface between Cracks 1 and 2. 332
When the slip at Cracks 1 and 2 are small, i.e. prior to the initiation of macro-debonding, shear 333
stresses along the interface develop at the toe of the flexural cracks, but in opposite directions. 334
The stresses at the right of Crack 1 develop towards the support and stresses to the left of Crack 2 335
develop towards the applied load. As load increases and macro-debonding initiates, the 336
debonding crack propagating towards the midpoint from Crack 2 restricts the debonding crack 337
that intends to propagate towards the support from Crack 1. The point at where these two 338
debonding cracks meet is referred to as the point of zero slip (Liu et al. 2007). From Figure 10, it 339
can be seen that the point of zero slip between Cracks 3 and 4 shifts towards the subsequent 340
Page 16 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
17
crack, Crack 4, as the slip at Crack 3 increases. This suggests that the uncracked concrete soffit is 341
gradually slipping towards Crack 4 and hence reducing the slip on the left of Crack 4. The 342
debonding crack that was developing from Crack 4 towards the applied load cannot propagate 343
any further and is restricted by the debonding crack propagating towards the support from Crack 344
3, indicating that the debonding crack propagating from the left of Crack 4 has closed up. Now 345
the debonding crack propagates in only one direction: towards the support. Since there are no 346
cracks predefined between Crack 4 and the plate-end, the debonding crack propagates rapidly 347
from Crack 4 to the plate-end once macro-debonding initiates causing debonding failure to occur. 348
Similar behaviour was observed between Cracks 2 and 3 but not between Cracks 1 and 2. This 349
may be attributed to the fact that the region between Cracks 1 and 2 lie in a constant moment 350
region, whereas the regions between Cracks 2 and 3 and Cracks 3 and 4 are located in a varying 351
moment region. As shown in Figure 10, to maintain equilibrium the point of zero slip in this 352
constant moment region was found to occur at the midpoint between Cracks 1 and 2, as opposed 353
to the varying moment region where the point of zero slip moves towards the next crack as slip 354
increases. It was found that the debonding crack in the constant moment regions will propagate in 355
both directions and will not close up like those in varying moment regions prior to debonding 356
failure. The effective shear transfer length was found to be 145 mm. 357
The case of cracks spaced at 100 mm along the interface is used to exemplify a case in which 358
cracks are closely situated along the soffit (i.e. small crack spacing). The debonding propagation 359
does not appear very smooth like that observed for the case of the single localized crack and large 360
crack spaced model (�� = 280 mm). This may be attributed to the existence of many cracks 361
along the interface spaced less than the effective shear transfer length. The effective shear 362
transfer length for the single localized crack was found to be 140 mm and predefining the cracks 363
Page 17 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
18
less than Leff appears to be complicating the debonding behaviour. The debonding crack 364
encounters resistance from the opposite direction near the adjacent cracks resulting in an 365
increased Leff of 215 mm as shown in Figure 11. Leff can be more easily determined by referring 366
to the FRP strain distribution along the interface, since the existence of very closely spaced 367
cracks complicates the debonding propagation. Similar trends were found for other small crack 368
spaced models of 125, 75, and 50 mm with Leff values of 190, 245, and 330 mm, respectively. It 369
appears as if more energy is required for the debonding crack to propagate through the flexural 370
cracks in small crack spaced models, which contribute to the increase in Leff. Inspecting the 371
deflection values in Table 1 suggests that the existence of multiple cracks spaced less than Leff 372
helps prolong the initiation of micro-debonding, rebar yielding, and macro-debonding. 373
The existence of a secondary crack and the spacing between adjacent cracks appears to have an 374
effect on the initial of debonding and rebar yielding, which occurred at earlier stages in models 375
with larger crack spacing (see Table 1). This may be attributed to the abrasion effect along the 376
interface, where additional work is required for debonding to propagate beyond secondary cracks 377
(Leung and Yang 2006). When a flexural crack opens under loading, longitudinal displacements 378
at the bottom of the beam increase. Due to the abrasion effect, the residual shear stress at any 379
point along the debonded zone decreases with interfacial relative sliding. As a result, the relative 380
displacement in the debonded zone is reduced and the interfacial shear stress will increase. In 381
another word, the presence of cracks was found to reduce the initiation of micro-debonding and 382
rate of interfacial softening. Consequently, the maximum force in the FRP was found to increase 383
with a decreased crack spacing, demonstrating the effectiveness of FRP rehabilitation in delaying 384
debonding and crack propagation. 385
Page 18 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
19
However, while some researchers have reported increases in ultimate load when crack spacing is 386
reduced in their finite element models (Niu and Wu 2005), such a phenomenon was not found to 387
occur in this study as the existence of more closely spaced cracks in the model greatly reduces 388
the rigidity of the structure. Subsequent to the initiation of macro-debonding, the rate of 389
debonding propagation was found to be increased in models with smaller crack spacing, 390
evidenced by the lower deflection values obtained before debonding failure in Table 1. 391
3.3 Internal Reinforcement Response 392
Figure 12 compares the rebar strain distribution along the beam for the single localized crack 393
model, and two (2) crack spacing of 125 and 50 mm at the initiation of macro-debonding and at 394
debonding failure. The results suggest that prior to macro-debonding the decrease in crack 395
spacing may be helpful to utilize the full strengthening effect of the internal reinforcing steel. 396
However, this may not be the case for prolonged loading as the results suggest that the internal 397
reinforcement becomes less effective in smaller crack spaced models subsequent to macro-398
debonding, as shown in Figure 12. This may be attributed to the fact that as the debonding crack 399
propagates along the interface, multiple flexural cracks open under loading creating longitudinal 400
displacements at the FRP-concrete interface. As the displacements increase, the flexural cracks 401
migrate upward and reduce the bond action between the concrete and rebar, creating slippage at 402
the concrete-rebar interface. In order to accommodate the load demand, the system now relies 403
more on the FRP reinforcement. Consequently, the maximum force in the rebar was found to 404
decrease with a decrease in crack spacing. This may also help to explain why lower ultimate 405
load was found in models with smaller crack spaced models than for the single localized crack or 406
large crack spaced models. 407
Page 19 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
20
3.4 External (FRP) Reinforcement Response 408
Once yielding occurs in the rebar, FRP strain increases at a much higher rate until interfacial 409
debonding occurs. For the case of the single localized crack and large crack space models, 410
debonding propagation along the interface occurs easily and remains constant once macro-411
debonding initiates as shown in Figure 13. This may be explained by considering cracks spaced 412
greater than Leff are less susceptible to the abrasion effect, as previously explained in Section 413
3.2, suggesting that the FRP sheet will produce similar strengthening results in cases where xc > 414
Leff. The single localized crack and large crack spaced model (�� = 280mm) produce similar 415
results following macro-debonding. However, with the case of small crack spacing, FRP strain 416
was found to continue to increase (at a comparatively lower rate) following macro-debonding, 417
suggesting that small crack spacing may be helpful to further utilize the strengthening effect of 418
the FRP sheet. This phenomenon is shown in Figure 13 for the xc = 100 mm model and may be 419
attributed to the abrasion effect, which is more prominent in the models with crack spacing less 420
than the Leff. In these models the FRP sheet continues to contribute to the load-carrying capacity 421
despite debonding at a particular location so long it is located within the effective shear transfer 422
length of a nearby flexural crack. Inspecting the FRP strain values listed in Table 1 supports this 423
observation as strain values are higher in smaller crack spaced models than larger spaced models 424
at debonding failure. It is interesting to note how the optimum crack spacing to achieve the 425
maximum plate strain is dependent on the crack spacing within the beam. As listed in Table 1 426
the FRP strain prior to failure is the greatest in the �� = 100 mm model, followed by the �� = 75, 427
125, and 50 mm models, respectively. Intuitively, one would expect the �� = 50 mm to have the 428
maximum FRP strain value at failure since it has the largest Leff of the group. However, the 429
existence of very closely spaced cracks in the model quickens the debonding propagation and 430
Page 20 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
21
fails the structure earlier, thus not allowing the FRP sheet to be fully utilized for the �� = 50 mm 431
model. Moreover, Table 1 lists that the �� = 50 mm model was only able to deflect an additional 432
8.5 mm after macro-debonding initiates prior to debonding failure, in comparison to 13.7 mm and 433
18.9 mm for the xc = 100 mm and single crack spaced model, respectively. This suggests that 434
crack spacing and the amount of cracks along the beam influence the local stress and strain in a 435
beam. Furthermore, the �� = 100 mm model had the largest FRP strain increase after the 436
initiation of macro-debonding followed by the �� = 75, 50 and 125 mm models as listed in Table 437
1. 438
4 Conclusion 439
In this study, a detailed finite element model was developed to carry out a comprehensive finite 440
element investigation that provides useful information related to the mechanics of flexural IC 441
debonding in the FRP strengthened RC members. Numerical results presented in this paper 442
indicate that: 443
• Cracks spaced greater than the Leff produce similar ultimate load and FRP strain results 444
to the single localized crack model. 445
• Subsequent to the initiation of macro-debonding, the interface cracks spread towards the 446
end of the FRP more rapidly in models with smaller crack spacing. Ultimate capacity, 447
therefore, was reached earlier in models with more closely spaced cracks. 448
• The shear stress is both additive and subtractive on either side of each flexural crack due 449
to equilibrium of forces. The value will be a maximum in high moment regions where the 450
crack opening displacement has the greatest magnitude. 451
Page 21 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
22
• To maintain equilibrium in the constant moment region, a point of zero slip always 452
occurs at the mid-distance between two cracks and the debonding crack propagates in 453
both directions and will not close up easily like those in varying moment regions. 454
• The existence of the multiple cracks prolongs the initiation of micro-debonding, rebar 455
yielding, and macro-debonding. This may be attributed to the abrasion effect along the 456
interface. 457
• The internal reinforcement (rebar) becomes less effective in smaller crack spaced models 458
subsequent to the initiation of macro-debonding and the beam relies more on external 459
FRP reinforcement to contribute to its load carrying capacity460
Page 22 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
23
References 461
ABAQUS. 2007. User’s Manual version 6.7. Pawtucket (RI): Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen. 462
Anderson T. 1994. Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Application. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 463
Fl. 464
Arduini M., Di Tommaso A., and Nanni A. 1997. Brittle Failure in FRP Plate and Sheet Bonded 465
Beams. ACI Structural Journal, 94(4): 363-70. 466
Baky H.A., Ebead U.A., and Neale K.W. 2007. Flexural and interfacial behaviour of FRP-467
strengthened reinforced concrete beams. Journal of Composites for Construction, 11(6): 629-468
638. 469
Brena S.F., Bramblett R.M., Wood S.L., and Kreger M.E. 2003. Increasing Flexural Capacity of 470
Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites. ACI 471
Structural Journal, 100(1): 36-46. 472
CEB Bulletin 213/214. 1993. CEB-FIB Model Code 90. International Federation for Concrete 473
Structures. Sprint-Digital-Druck Stuttgart, Lausanne, Switzerland. 474
Chen, J.F., and Teng, J.G. 2001. Anchorage Strength Models for FRP and Steel Plates Bonded to 475
Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(7): 784-91. 476
Coronado C.A., and Lopez M.M. 2007. Damage Approach for the Prediction of Debonding 477
Failure on Concrete Elements Strengthened with FRP. Journal of Composites for 478
Construction, 11(4): 391-400. 479
Page 23 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
24
Ebead U.A., and Neale K.W. 2007. Mechanics of fibre-reinforced polymer-concrete interfaces. 480
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineers, 34: 367-377. 481
Fib Bulletin 14. 2001. Design and Use of Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement for RC 482
Structures. International Federation for Concrete Structures. Sprint-Digital-Druck Stuttgart, 483
Lausanne, Switzerland. 484
Grace N.F., Sayed G.A., Soliman A.K., and Saleh K.R. 1999. Strengthening Reinforced 485
Concrete Beams Using Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Laminates. ACI Structural Journal, 486
96(5): 865-75. 487
Hutchinson, J.W., and Suo, Z. 1992. Mixed Mode Cracking in Layered Materials. Advances in 488
Applied Mechanics 29: 63-191. 489
Leung, C.K., and Yang, Y. 2006. Energy-Based Modeling Approach for Debonding of FRP 490
Plate from Concrete Substrate. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 132 (6), 583-593. 491
Liu I.S.T., Oehlers D.J., and Seracino R. 2007. Study of Intermediate Crack Debonding in 492
Adhesively Plated Beams. Journal of Composites for Construction, 11(2):175-183. 493
Lu X.Z., Ye L.P., Teng J.G., and Jiang J.J. 2005. Meso-Scale Finite Element Model for FRP 494
Sheets/Plates to Concrete. Engineering Structures, 27: 564-75. 495
Nanni A. 1995. Concrete Repair with Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement. Concrete 496
International ACI, 17(6): 22-26. 497
Niu, H., Karbhari, V.M., and Zhishen, W. 2006. Diagonal Macro-Crack Induced Debonding 498
Mechanisms in FRP Rehabilitated Concrete. Composites Part B: Engineering, 37: 627-41. 499
Page 24 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
25
Niu H., and Wu Z. 2005. Numerical Analysis of Debonding Mechanisms in FRP-Strengthened 500
RC Beams. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 20: 354-68. 501
Rabinovich O., and Frostig Y. 2000. Closed-Form High-Order Analysis of RC Beams 502
Strengthened with FRP Strips. Journal of Composites for Construction, 4(2): 65-74. 503
Rosenboom O., and Rizkalla S.H. 2008. Experimental Study of Intermediate Crack 504
Debonding in Fiber- Reinforced Polymer Strengthened Beams. ACI Structural 505
Journal, 105(1): 41-50. 506
Ross A., Jerome D.M., Tedesco J.W., and Hughes M.L. 1999. Strengthening of Reinforced 507
Concrete Beams with Externally Bonded Composite Laminates. ACI Structural Journal, 508
96(2): 212-21. 509
Smith S.T., and Teng J.G. 2001. Interfacial Stresses in Plated Beams. Engineering Structures, 23: 510
857-71. Taljsten B. 1997. Strengthening of Beams by Plate Bonding. Journal of Materials in 511
Civil Engineering, 9(4):206-12. 512
Teng J.G., Yuan H., and Chen J.F. 2005 FRP-to-concrete interface between two adjacent cracks: 513
Theoretical model for debonding failure. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 43: 514
5750-5778. 515
Teng J.G., Zhang J.W., and Smith S.T. 2002. Interfacial Stresses in Reinforced Concrete Beams 516
Bonded with a Soffit Plate: A Finite Element Study. Construction and Building Materials, 517
16: 1-14. 518
Page 25 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
26
Wu Z.S., Yin J., Ishikawa T., and Iizuka M. 2002. Interfacial fracturing and debonding failure 519
modes in FRP- strengthened concrete structures. In Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Canada-520
Japan Workshop on Composites, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 403-10. 521
Yao J., Teng J.G., and Lam L. 2004. Experimental Study on Intermediate Crack Debonding in 522
FRP- Strengthened RC Flexural Members. Advances in Structural Engineering, 11(4): 365-523
395. 524
Yuan H., Teng J.G., Seracino R., and Wu Z.S. 2004. Full-range behaviour of FRP-to-concrete 525
bonded joints. Engineering Structures, 36: 99-113. 526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
Page 26 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
27
List of Figure Captions 545
546
Fig 1. Strain hardening behaviour of concrete: (a) compression; (b) tension. 547
Fig. 2. Stress-relative displacement relationship of discrete cracking. 548
Fig. 3. Bond-behaviour of FRP-concrete interface. 549
Fig. 4: Global calibration of numerical model: (a) control beam; (b) CFRP Beam (Perfct Bond); 550
(c) CFRP Beam (CZM). 551
Fig. 5: Local calibration of numerical model: (a) concrete compressive response; (b) axial strain 552
in steel rebar; (c) axial strain in CFRP laminate. 553
Fig. 6: Schematic representation: (a) analysis model; (b) finite element model. 554
Fig. 7: Effect of mesh refinement for a single localized crack in terms of: (a) load versus 555
deflection; (b) interfacial shear stress under the loading point. 556
Fig. 8. Load versus deflection for single and large crack spacing. 557
Fig. 9. Interfacial stress distribution for the case of a single localized crack. 558
Fig. 10. Interfacial stress distribution for the crack spacing �� = 280mm. 559
Fig. 11. Interfacial stress distribution for the crack spacing �� = 100mm. 560
Fig. 12. Comparison of rebar strain distribution: (a) initiation of macro-debonding; (b) 561
debonding failure. 562
Fig. 13. Comparison of FRP reinforcement strain distribution: (a) single localized crack; (b) �� 563
= 100 mm. 564
Page 27 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
28
List of Table Captions 565
566
Table 1: Summary of effect of crack spacing analysis. 567
Page 28 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
29
568
Fig. 1: Strain hardening behaviour of concrete: (a) compression; (b) tension 569
570
Page 29 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
30
571
572
Fig. 2: Stress-relative displacement relationship of discrete cracking 573
574
Page 30 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
31
575
Fig. 3: Bond-behaviour of FRP-concrete interface 576
577
578
579
Page 31 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
32
(a) Conrol Beam
(b) CFRP Beam (Perfect Bond) (c) CFRP Beam (CZM)
Fig. 4: Global calibration of numerical model: (a) control beam; (b) CFRP Beam (Perfect Bond); 580
(c) CFRP Beam (CZM) 581
582
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 20 40 60
Load (kN)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Experimental
Control Beam
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 20 40 60
Load (kN)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Experimental
CFRP Beam
(Perfect Bond)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 20 40 60
Load (kN)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Experimental
CFRP Beam
(CZM)
Page 32 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
33
(a) Concrete response under compression (cylinder test)
(b) Axial strain in steel rebar (c) Axial strain in CFRP laminate
Fig. 5: Local calibration of numerical model: (a) concrete compressive response; (b) axial strain 583
in steel rebar; (c) axial strain in CFRP laminate 584
585
586
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Stress (M
Pa)
Strain
Experimental
Numerical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Load (kN)
Rebar Axial Strain (at loading point)
Experimental
Numerical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Load (kN)
Rebar Axial Strain (at loading point)
Experimental
Numerical
Page 33 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
34
587
Fig. 6: Schematic representation: (a) analysis model; (b) finite element model 588
589
Page 34 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
35
590
Fig. 7: Effect of mesh refinement for a single localized crack in terms of: (a) load versus 591
deflection; (b) interfacial shear stress under the loading point. 592
593
Page 35 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
36
594
Fig. 8: Load versus deflection for single and large crack spacing. 595
596
Page 36 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
37
597
Fig. 9: Interfacial stress distribution for the case of a single localized crack. 598
599
Page 37 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
38
600
601
Fig. 10: Interfacial stress distribution for the crack spacing �� =280 mm. 602
603
Page 38 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
39
604
Fig. 11: Interfacial stress distribution for the crack spacing �� =100 mm. 605
606
Page 39 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
40
607
608
Fig. 12: Comparison of rebar strain distribution: (a) initiation of macro-debonding; (b) 609
debonding failure. 610
611
Page 40 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
41
612
613
Fig. 13: Comparison of FRP reinforcement strain distribution: (a) single localized crack; (b) �� = 614
100 mm. 615
616
617
Page 41 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Draft
42
Table 1: Summary of effect of crack spacing analysis. 618
JK Init. of
Micro-
debonding
Yield load
Init. of
Macro -
debonding
Ultimate
load
FRP Strain
(Micro strain)
mm P kN ∆
mm
P
kN ∆
mm
P
kN ∆
mm
P
kN ∆
mm
∆HM�= ��N− ∆ ��A� O =�A� OP O ��A� OHM� %
Diff* SC 90.4 2.4 176.7 6.9 184.9 8.5 193.9 27.4 18.9 603.9 4500 5950 5950 0
280 90.8 2.7 165.7 7.1 178.9 9.0 194.3 25.6 16.6 664.4 4950 6188 6188 0
125 94.0 3.4 163.8 7.8 178 10.1 190.6 24.9 14.8 897.7 5135 6742 6924 2.7
100 110.7 4.5 168.5 8.1 179.8 10.3 193.5 24 13.7 971.7 5360 6372 7153 12.3
75 126.8 5.7 167 8.5 178.2 10.8 188.6 22.6 11.8 1286 5399 6453 7104 10.1
50 121.7 6.1 164.2 8.9 178.2 12 183.8 21.5 9.5 1368 4580 6354 6826 7.4
*Percent difference between macro and ultimate strain. 619
Page 42 of 42
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjce-pubs
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering