International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijsolstr

Interfacial stresses in curved members

bonded with a thin plate
a,*
L. De Lorenzis , J.G. Teng b, L. Zhang b

a
Department of Innovation Engineering, University of Lecce, Via per Monteroni, 73100 Lecce, LE, Italy
b
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Received 17 December 2005; received in revised form 23 February 2006

Available online 17 March 2006

Abstract

The use of steel plates or externally bonded fibre-reinforced polymer laminates for flexural strengthening of concrete,
masonry, timber or metallic structures is a technique that has become very popular. The effectiveness of this technique
hinges heavily on the performance of the bond between the strengthening plate and the substrate, which has been the sub-
ject of many existing studies. In particular, the interfacial stresses between a beam and a soffit plate within the linear elastic
range have been addressed by numerous analytical investigations. Surprisingly, none of these investigations has examined
interfacial stresses in members with a curved soffit, despite that such members are often found in practice. This paper pre-
sents an analytical model for the interfacial stresses between a curved member of uniform section size and a thin plate
bonded to its soffit. The governing differential equations for the interfacial shear and normal stresses are formulated
and then solved with appropriate simplifying assumptions. Two numerical examples are presented to illustrate the effect
of the curvature of the member on the interfacial stress distributions in a simply supported curved beam for the two cases
of a point load and a uniformly distributed load. The analytical solution is verified by comparing its predictions with those
from a finite element model.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Curved beams; Interfacial stresses; Strengthening; Bonded thin plates; FRP

1. Introduction

Plate bonding is one of the simplest methods for flexural strengthening of an existing beam. This technique
has been widely used to strengthen reinforced concrete (RC) beams and beams of other materials such as
wood, iron or steel. The technique has numerous advantages such as increasing the strength and stiffness
of an existing beam with minimal interference to the surrounding environment. The externally bonded plate
can be made of steel, as in the traditional ‘‘beton plaqué’’ technique popular since the late 1960s (L’Hermite
and Bresson, 1967) or made of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites. The use of externally bonded thin

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0832 297241; fax: +39 0832 297279.
E-mail address: [email protected] (L. De Lorenzis).

0020-7683/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.03.014
7502 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517

FRP soffit plates has become very popular in recent years due to the favourable mechanical and durability
properties of FRP composites.
Regardless of the plate material used, the effectiveness of the plate bonding technique hinges heavily on the
performance of the bond between the strengthening plate and the beam substrate, which has thus been the
subject of many studies. In plated beams, debonding of the soffit plate from the beam is an undesirable failure
mode as it is a brittle mode and prevents the full utilization of the tensile strength of the plate material. It is
thus important to be able to predict the debonding failure load. Debonding failures starting from a plate end
depend largely on the concentration of interfacial shear and normal stresses between the beam and the bonded
plate in the vicinity of the plate end. The determination of these interfacial stresses in the elastic range has thus
been extensively researched. In particular, several relatively simple approximate closed-form solutions for
interfacial stresses have been developed (e.g., Vilnay, 1988; Roberts, 1989; Roberts and Haji-Kazemi, 1989;
Taljsten, 1997; Malek et al., 1998; Smith and Teng, 2001). Smith and Teng (2001) presented a review of some
of these solutions. Some additional interfacial stress analyses (e.g. Deng et al., 2004; Stratford and Cadei,
2006; Yang and Wu, 2005) of the same kind have also been published after the work of Smith and Teng
(2001).
Surprisingly, none of the existing studies has examined interfacial stresses in members with a curved soffit.
Nevertheless, such members are often found in practice. Classical examples are arch bridges, and concrete,
metallic, or timber curved beams used to cover large spans. This paper presents a simple, approximate ana-
lytical solution for the interfacial stresses between a curved member of uniform section size and a thin plate
bonded to its soffit. This closed-form solution provides a useful but simple tool for understanding the inter-
facial behaviour and for exploitation in developing design methods. After a general formulation of the gov-
erning differential equations for the interfacial shear and normal stresses, a complete solution is first presented
for the case of a simply supported curved beam under a point load (Fig. 1a) and then the case of a simply
supported curved beam under a uniformly distributed vertical load (Fig. 1b) illustrating the effect of soffit cur-
vature on the interfacial stress distributions. Results of the analytical model are also validated by comparison
with predictions of a linear elastic finite element model.

2. Assumptions of the analytical model

Fig. 2 shows a differential element of a plated curved beam including adherend 1 (the beam), adherend 2
(the plate) and the adhesive layer. The position coordinate can be the angle h or the curvilinear abscissa s

Rq
q
beam
F
(αa+θ)

A s, θ B
A s, θ B
adhesive
r

RA
r

RB RA RB
plate

dθ
αb
αa α αa α
0 0

Δx a Δxa Δxa
Δx b
l l

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Simply supported curved beam bonded with a soffit plate: (a) under a point load; (b) under a uniformly distributed load.
 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517 7503

Rq Rq

(αa+θ)
V(θ)+dV(θ)
(αa+θ)
V(θ)
(1) V1(θ) V1(θ)+dV1(θ)
(1)
M(θ) M(θ)+dM(θ) M1(θ) M1(θ)+dM1(θ)

yg (a) ta N1(θ)
N(θ) N(θ)+dN(θ) N1(θ)+dN1(θ)
τ(θ)
(2)

σ(θ)

dθ/2 dθ/2 r
dθ dθ/2 dθ/2
dθ

(a) (b)

σ(θ) σ(θ)

τ(θ)
V2(θ) V2(θ)+dV2(θ)
τ(θ)
M2(θ) (2) M2(θ)+dM2(θ)
N2(θ) N2(θ)+dN2(θ)

r
dθ/2 dθ/2
dθ/2 dθ/2
dθ dθ

(c) (d)

Fig. 2. Differential elements of a plated beam: (a) components of a plated beam; (b) beam (adherend 1); (c) adhesive layer; (d) plate
(adherend 2).

(Fig. 1). If r is the radius of curvature of the mid-adhesive axis and s is measured along the same axis, the
relationship between the two is
s ¼ rh ð1Þ
with h measured in radians. In this paper, it is assumed for simplicity that r is constant along the span of the
beam, and is much larger than the cross-sectional dimensions. Both assumptions are normally valid for civil
engineering structures, and considerably simplify the derivation and solution of the governing differential
equations for normal and shear stresses at the interface between the beam and the strengthening plate. In
Fig. 2, the interfacial shear and normal stresses are denoted by s(h) and r(h), respectively (they can be equiv-
alently expressed as s(s) and r(s)). The figure also shows the positive directions for the bending moments M,
shear forces V and axial forces N acting on the two adherends (indicated with the corresponding subscripts)
and for the applied load. The distributed load q acts in the vertical direction, and hence is inclined at a variable
angle to the beam axis (see also Fig. 1b). All three materials (beam, plate and adhesive materials) are assumed
to be linearly elastic.
7504 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517

3. Equilibrium equations

In the following, y1 and y2 are the distances from the bottom of adherend 1 (the beam) and the top of
adherend 2 (the plate) to their respective centroids; yg is the distance of the centroid of the plated cross-section
from the mid-adhesive axis (Fig. 2a); b2 is the width of the strengthening plate. Note that the resultants of the
interfacial shear and normal stresses s(h) and r(h) are taken to be equal to (s b2 r dh) and (r b2 r dh), respec-
tively, neglecting the fact that the lengths of top and bottom circumferences of the adhesive layer differ by (ta
dh), ta being the thickness of the adhesive layer. This assumption is justified by the adhesive thickness being
very small compared to the radius of curvature r. For the same reason, ta is considered to be negligible in the
following equations. The equilibrium equations are reported for the differential elements of adherends 1 and 2
and for the differential element of the plated beam. Angle aa is defined in Fig. 1.
Equilibrium of forces in the tangential direction:
  
dN 1 V1 2y s  s
¼ sb2   q 1 þ 1 sin aa þ cos aa þ for adherend 1 ð2aÞ
ds r r r r
dN 2 V2
¼ sb2 þ for adherend 2 ð2bÞ
ds r 
dN V 2y  s  s
¼   q 1 þ 1 sin aa þ cos aa þ for the plated beam ð2cÞ
ds r r r r

Equilibrium of forces in the radial direction:

  
dV 1 N 1 2y 1 s
¼ q 1þ sin2 aa þ  rb2 for adherend 1 ð3aÞ
ds r r r
dV 2 N2
¼ þ rb2 for adherend 2 ð3bÞ
ds r  
dV N 2y  s
¼  q 1 þ 1 sin2 aa þ for the plated beam ð3cÞ
ds r r r

Equilibrium of moments:
  
dM 1 y  2y  s  s
¼ V 1 1 þ 1  sb2 y 1  qy 1 1 þ 1 sin aa þ cos aa þ for adherend 1 ð4aÞ
ds r r r r
dM 2  y 
¼ V 2 1  2  sb2 y 2 for adherend 2 ð4bÞ
ds r  
dM  yg 2y    s  s
¼V 1þ  q 1 þ 1 2y 1  y g sin aa þ cos aa þ for the plated beam ð4cÞ
ds r r r r
Note that the equilibrium equations for the plated beam can be obtained from the corresponding equations for
adherends 1 and 2, being
N ¼ N1  N2 ð5aÞ
V ¼V1þV2 ð5bÞ
M ¼ M 1 þ M 2 þ N 1 ðy 1  y g Þ þ N 2 ðy 2 þ y g Þ ð5cÞ

4. Compatibility equations

In order to simplify the derivation of the differential equations and to arrive at a closed-form solution, the
compatibility equations are written herein neglecting the effect of curvature. In other words, the solution is
exact with respect to equilibrium but approximate with respect to compatibility. The error so introduced is
expected to be acceptably small if the radius of curvature is large compared with the cross-sectional dimen-
sions of the beam. This assumption is usually valid for civil engineering structures.
 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517 7505

The general expression for the shear strain in polar coordinates is

ouh uh 1 our
crh ¼  þ ð6Þ
or r r oh
where ur and uh are the displacements along axes r and h, respectively. It is now assumed that the second and
the third terms of the right hand side of Eq. (6) are negligible with respect to the first one. This assumption is
expected to lead to little error if r is large compared to the cross-sectional dimensions of the beam. It is further
assumed that the shear strain in the adhesive layer is uniform across the adhesive thickness, which also means
that the shear stress s(s) is uniform across the adhesive thickness. Hence,
Ga
sðsÞ ¼ ½u2h ðsÞ  u1h ðsÞ ð7Þ
ta
where u2h(s) is the displacement along the h axis of the top fibre of adherend 2, u1h(s) is the displacement along
the h axis of the bottom fibre of adherend 1, and Ga is the shear modulus of the adhesive. The general expres-
sion for the normal strain er in polar coordinates is
our
er ¼ ð8Þ
or
It is assumed herein that er is constant across the adhesive thickness, i.e. the normal stress r(s) is constant
across the adhesive thickness. Hence,
Ea
rðsÞ ¼ ½u2r ðsÞ  u1r ðsÞ ð9Þ
ta
where u2r(s) is the displacement along the r axis of the top fibre of adherend 2, u1r(s) is the displacement along
the r axis of the bottom fibre of adherend 1, and Ea is the elastic modulus of the adhesive.

5. Interfacial shear stress: governing differential equation

The first derivative of the interfacial shear stress (Eq. (7)) is as follows:

ds Ga du2h du1h
¼  ð10Þ
ds ta ds ds
Assuming that in the following general expression for strain eh in polar coordinates:
ouh ur
eh ¼ þ ð11Þ
os r
the second term is negligible with respect to the first one, and neglecting shear deformation, one obtains
du1h y 1
e1 ðsÞ ffi ¼ 1 M 1 ðsÞ  N 1 ðsÞ ð12aÞ
ds E1 I 1 E 1 A1
du2h y 1
e2 ðsÞ ffi ¼  2 M 2 ðsÞ þ N 2 ðsÞ ð12bÞ
ds E2 I 2 E 2 A2
where e1 is the normal strain along the h axis of the bottom fibre of adherend 1, e2 is the normal strain along
the h axis of the top fibre of adherend 2, A1 and A2 are the cross-sectional areas of adherends 1 and 2, respec-
tively, I1 and I2 are their respective second moments of area, and E1 and E2 are their respective elastic moduli.
Substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (10) yields

ds Ga y 1 y 1
¼  2 M2 þ N2  1 M1 þ N1 ð13Þ
ds ta E2 I 2 E 2 A2 E1 I 1 E 1 A1
Assuming that the beam and the soffit plate have the same curvature after deformation, the relationship be-
tween the moments in the two adherends can be expressed as
M 1 ðsÞ ¼ RM 2 ðsÞ ð14Þ
7506 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517

with
E1 I 1
R¼ ð15Þ
E2 I 2
Note that Eq. (14) is an approximation which was also used by previous researchers studying interfacial stres-
ses between a straight beam and a strengthening plate, and was found to lead to accurate results (Smith and
Teng, 2001).
M2 can be expressed from Eq. (14) as a function of M1, and N2 can be expressed from Eq. (5a) as a function
of N1. Substitution of both expressions into Eq. (5c) yields
M1 R þ 1 M y2 þ yg
N1 ¼  þ þN ð16Þ
y1 þ y2 R y1 þ y2 y1 þ y2
If Eq. (16) is substituted into Eq. (13), defining
E 1 A1
Ra ¼ ð17Þ
E 2 A2
and recalling that
y g ¼ d g  2y 2 ð18aÞ
where
A1 ð2y 2 þ y 1 Þ þ EE21 A2 y 2
dg ffi ð18bÞ
A1 þ EE21 A2
is the distance of the centroid of the plated cross-section from the bottom fibre of adherend 2, Eq. (13)
becomes

ta ds y þ y2 1 ð1 þ Ra Þð1 þ RÞ 1 1 þ Ra
¼ 1 þ M1 þ M ð19Þ
Ga ds E1 I 1 E 1 A1 ðy 1 þ y 2 ÞR E 1 A1 y 1 þ y 2
By defining the following non-dimensional coefficients:
2
E1 A1 ðy 1 þ y 2 Þ ð1 þ Ra Þð1 þ RÞ
c1 ¼ þ ð20aÞ
E1 I 1 R
c2 ¼ 1 þ R a ð20bÞ
Eq. (19) after differentiation with respect to s becomes
E1 A1 ta ðy 1 þ y 2 Þ d2 s dM 1 dM
¼ c1 þ c2 ð21Þ
Ga ds2 ds ds
Eliminating V1 from Eqs. (2a) and (4a), the following equation is obtained:
dM 1 dN 1 q  s  s
¼ sb2 r  ðy 1 þ rÞ  ðr þ 2y 1 Þ2 sin aa þ cos aa þ ð22Þ
ds ds r r r
which, combined with the first derivative of N1 given by Eq. (16), yields
dM 1 dM dN q  s  s
¼ d 1 b2 rs þ d 2 þ ðy 2 þ y g Þd 2 þ d 1 ðr þ 2y 1 Þ2 sin aa þ cos aa þ ð23Þ
ds ds ds r r r
where d1 and d2 are non-dimensional coefficients given by
ðy 1 þ y 2 ÞR
d1 ¼ ð24aÞ
y 1 þ r  ðy 2  rÞR
ðy 1 þ rÞR
d2 ¼ ð24bÞ
y 1 þ r  ðy 2  rÞR
 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517 7507

Finally, Eqs. (21) and (23) can be combined into the following second order differential equation in the un-
known function s(s):
E1 A1 ta ðy 1 þ y 2 Þ d2 s dN dM
 c1 d 1 b2 rs þ c1 d 2 ðy 2 þ y g Þ þ ½c1 d 2  c2 
Ga ds2 ds ds
q  s  s
2
þ c1 d 1 ðr þ 2y 1 Þ sin aa þ cos aa þ ¼0 ð25Þ
r r r
In the case of a straight beam of uniform section size (r ! 1), with
R
lim d 1 r ¼ ðy 1 þ y 2 Þ ð26aÞ
r!1 Rþ1
R
lim d 2 ¼ ð26bÞ
r!1 Rþ1
 s
lim cos aa þ ¼0 ð26cÞ
r!1 r
and with N = 0, Eq. (25) reduces to
" #
2
ta d2 s ðy 1 þ y 2 Þ R 1 1 y 1 þ y 2 dM
2
 þ þ b2 s þ ¼0 ð27Þ
Ga ds E1 I 1 R þ 1 E 1 A1 E 2 A2 E1 I 1 þ E2 I 2 ds

which is the same as that derived by Smith and Teng (2001) for straight beams.

6. Interfacial normal stress: governing differential equation

The second derivative of the normal stress given by Eq. (9) is as follows:

d2 r Ea d2 u2r d2 u1r
¼  ð28Þ
ds2 ta ds2 ds2
For both adherends 1 and 2 in bending,
d2 u2r M2
¼ ð29aÞ
ds2 E2 I 2
d2 u1r M1
¼ ð29bÞ
ds2 E1 I 1
Eq. (28) thus becomes

d2 r Ea M2 M1
¼  þ ð30aÞ
ds2 ta E 2 I 2 E1 I 1
and its first derivative yields
ta d3 r 1 dM 2 1 dM 1
3
¼ þ ð30bÞ
Ea ds E2 I 2 ds E1 I 1 ds
Eliminating V2 from Eqs. (2b) and (4b), the following equation is obtained:
dM 2 dN 2
¼ sb2 r  ðy 2  rÞ ð31Þ
ds ds
Substituting Eqs. (31) and (22) into Eq. (30b) and using Eq. (5a) yield
   
ta d3 r 1 1 y 1 þ r y 2  r dN 1 y 2  r dN
¼ þ b 2 rs þ  þ 
Ea ds3 E 1 I 1 E2 I 2 E1 I 1 E2 I 2 ds E2 I 2 ds
q h  si
2
 ðr þ 2y 1 Þ sin 2 aa þ ð32Þ
2rE1 I 1 r
7508 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517

from which dN1/ds can be expressed as

dN 1 ta E2 I 2 d 1 d3 r R þ 1 d 1 dN qd 1 h  s i
2
¼ þ b 2 rs  d 3  ðr þ 2y 1 Þ sin 2 a a þ ð33Þ
ds Ea y 1 þ y 2 ds3 R y1 þ y2 ds 2Rrðy 1 þ y 2 Þ r
where
ðy 2  rÞR
d3 ¼ ð24cÞ
y 1 þ r  ðy 2  rÞR
Substituting Eq. (2b), after differentiation with respect to s, into Eq. (3b) and using Eq. (5a), the following
differential equation is obtained for N1:
d2 N 1 1 ds N d2 N
r 2
þ N 1  b2 r  b2 r ¼ þ r 2 ð34Þ
ds r ds r ds
Differentiation of Eq. (34) with respect to s gives
d3 N 1 1 dN 1 d2 s dr 1 dN d3 N
r þ  b 2 r  b 2 ¼ þ r ð35Þ
ds3 r ds ds2 ds r ds ds3
Substituting Eq. (33) into Eq. (35) and dividing the resulting equation by r yield the following fifth order dif-
ferential equation for r(s):
d 1 ta E2 I 2 d5 r d 1 ta E2 I 2 1 d3 r b2 dr
þ þ
y 1 þ y 2 Ea ds5 y 1 þ y 2 Ea r2 ds3 r ds
 2
d1 R þ 1 ds d 1 R þ 1 b2 d 3 þ 1 dN d3 N
¼ r  1 b2 2 þ s  ðd 3 þ 1Þ
y1 þ y2 R ds y1 þ y2 R r r2 ds ds3
3 qd 1 h  s  i
2
þ ðr þ 2y 1 Þ sin 2 aa þ ð36Þ
2 Rr3 ðy 1 þ y 2 Þ r

7. Simply supported plated beam under a point load: interfacial shear stresses

7.1. Differential equation and assumed geometry

Eq. (25) can be expressed as follows:

d2 s dM dN
2
 k2 s þ m 1 þ m2 ¼0 ð37Þ
ds ds ds
where
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
c1 d 1 b2 rGa
k¼ ð38aÞ
E1 A1 ta ðy 1 þ y 2 Þ
Ga
m1 ¼ ðc1 d 2  c2 Þ ð38bÞ
E1 A1 ta ðy 1 þ y 2 Þ
G a c 1 d 2 Ra
m2 ¼ ð38cÞ
E 1 A1 t a 1 þ Ra
It is assumed that the beam is supported with a hinge at one end and a roller at the other end, and is loaded
with a point load F. Symbols adopted in the following are defined in Fig. 1a. It is also assumed that the load is
situated in between the left and the right ends of the strengthening plate, i.e. that Dxa < Dxb < (l  Dxa).
The beam span l, measured between the extreme points of the centroidal axis of the unplated beam, is
related to the angle a0 by the following equation:
 ta 
l ¼ 2 r þ þ y 1 cos a0 ffi 2ðr þ y 1 Þ cos a0 ð39Þ
2
 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517 7509

Fig. 1b also leads to

Dxa ¼ rðcos a0  cos aa Þ þ y 1 cos a0 ð40aÞ
Dxb ¼ rðcos a0  cos ab Þ þ y 1 cos a0 ð40bÞ
from which angles aa and ab can be computed once Dxa and Dxb are known. The reactions RA and RB can be
easily found from equilibrium to be
F ðr þ y 1 Þ cos a0 þ r cos ab
RA ¼ ð41aÞ
2 ðr þ y 1 Þ cos a0
F ðr þ y 1 Þ cos a0  r cos ab
RB ¼ ð41bÞ
2 ðr þ y 1 Þ cos a0

7.2. General solution of the differential equation

The solution of the differential equation must be found separately for the two portions of the plate to the
left and to the right of the point load, as follows:
(a) 0 6 h 6 (ab  aa)
The general solution of Eq. (37) is

s1 ðsÞ ¼ C 1F eks þ C 2F eks þ s1p ðsÞ ð42Þ

where s1p(s) is a particular solution of Eq. (37), and C1F and C2F are two unknown constants to be determined
from the boundary conditions.
The internal axial force and bending moment are as follows:
N ðhÞ ¼ RA cosðaa þ hÞ ð43aÞ
MðhÞ ¼ RA bðr þ y 1 Þ cos a0  ðr þ y g Þ cosðaa þ hÞc ð43bÞ
from which the first derivatives expressed in terms of s are
dN RA  s
¼ sin aa þ ð44aÞ
ds r r
dM  yg  s
¼ RA 1 þ sin aa þ ð44bÞ
ds r r
A particular solution can be assumed to be of the following form:
 s
s1p ðsÞ ¼ AF sin aa þ ð45Þ
r
If Eqs. (44) and (45) are substituted into Eq. (37), the following expression for the unknown constant AF is
obtained:
 y 
m1 1 þ rg  mr2
AF ¼ R A ð46Þ
k2 þ r12
(b) (ab  aa) 6 h 6 (p  2aa)
The general solution of Eq. (37) is
s2 ðsÞ ¼ C 3F eks þ C 4F eks þ s2p ðsÞ ð47Þ
where s2p(s) is a particular solution of Eq. (37), and C3F and C4F are two unknown constants to be determined
from the boundary conditions.
The internal axial force and bending moment are as follows:
N ðhÞ ¼ RB cosðaa þ hÞ ð48aÞ
MðhÞ ¼ RB bðr þ y 1 Þ cos a0 þ ðr þ y g Þ cosðaa þ hÞc ð48bÞ
7510 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517

from which the first derivatives expressed in terms of s are

dN RB  s
¼ sin aa þ ð49aÞ
ds r r
dM  yg  s
¼ RB 1 þ sin aa þ ð49bÞ
ds r r
A particular solution can be assumed to be of the following form:
 s
s2p ðsÞ ¼ BF sin aa þ ð50Þ
r
If Eqs. (49) and (50) are substituted into Eq. (37), the following expression for the unknown constant BF is
obtained:
 y 
m1 1 þ rg  mr2
BF ¼ RB ð51Þ
k2 þ r12

7.3. Boundary conditions

Constants C1F, C2F, C3F and C4F must be found by applying four boundary conditions. At s = 0 (left end of
the plate), M2 = 0 and N2 = 0, as a result, Eq. (5) yields

N ¼ N1 ð52aÞ
M ¼ M 1 þ N 1 ðy 1  y g Þ ð52bÞ

Using Eq. (52), the first boundary condition can be obtained from Eq. (13) as

ds1 Ga y y 1
¼  1 M ð0Þ þ 1 N ð0Þðy 1  y g Þ þ N ð0Þ ð53Þ
ds s¼0 ta E1 I 1 E1 I 1 E 1 A1

with M(0) and N(0) computed from Eq. (43). By defining


Ga y ðr þ y 1 Þ cos aa
m3a ¼ RA  1 ðcos a0  cos aa Þ þ ð54Þ
ta E1 I 1 E 1 A1
the first boundary condition can be written as
m3a  ArF cos aa
C 1F  C 2F ¼ ð55Þ
k
The analogous boundary condition can be written for s = r(p  2aa), i.e. at the right end of the plate. Here it is
again M2 = 0 and N2 = 0 and Eq. (52) are still valid. By defining

Ga y ðr þ y 1 Þ cos aa
m3b ¼ RB  1 ðcos a0  cos aa Þ þ ð56Þ
ta E1 I 1 E 1 A1
the second boundary condition can be written as
m3b þ BrF cos aa
C 3F ekrðp2aa Þ  C 4F ekrðp2aa Þ ¼ ð57Þ
k
Two more boundary conditions can be written under the point load, i.e. at s = r(ab  aa), imposing the con-
tinuity of the shear stress and that of its first derivative. The following equations are obtained:
C 1F ekrðab aa Þ þ C 2F ekrðab aa Þ  C 3F ekrðab aa Þ  C 4F ekrðab aa Þ ¼ ðBF  AF Þ sin ab ð58Þ
BF  AF
C 1F ekrðab aa Þ  C 2F ekrðab aa Þ  C 3F ekrðab aa Þ þ C 4F ekrðab aa Þ ¼ cos ab ð59Þ
kr
 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517 7511

By addition and subtraction of Eqs. (58) and (59), two simpler equations can be obtained as follows:
B F  AF  cos ab  krðab aa Þ
C 1F  C 3F ¼ sin ab þ e ð60Þ
2 kr
B F  AF  
cos ab krðab aa Þ
C 2F  C 4F ¼ sin ab  e ð61Þ
2 kr
The four unknown constants are then found by solving Eqs. (55), (57), (60) and (61).

8. Simply supported plated beam under a point load: interfacial normal stresses

8.1. Differential equation

The differential equation (Eq. (36)) can be rewritten as follows:

d5 r d3 r dr d2 s dN d3 N
þ a 2 þ a 3 þ a 4 þ a 5 s þ a 6 þ a 7 ¼0 ð62Þ
ds5 ds3 ds ds2 ds ds3
where constants a2 to a7 are given by
1
a2 ¼ ð63aÞ
r2
y þ y 2 E a b2
a3 ¼ 1 ð63bÞ
d ta E2 I 2 r
 1 
y1 y b2 E a
a4 ¼  2 ð63cÞ
E1 I 1 E 2 I 2 ta
R þ 1 b2 E a
a5 ¼ ð63dÞ
R r ta E2 I 2
d 3 þ 1 y 1 þ y 2 Ea
a6 ¼ ð63eÞ
r2 d 1 ta E2 I 2
y 1 þ y 2 Ea
a7 ¼ ðd 3 þ 1Þ ð63fÞ
d 1 ta E2 I 2

8.2. General solution of the differential equation

The general solution of the homogeneous differential equation corresponding to Eq. (62) is given by
rhF ðsÞ ¼ eas ðB1F cos bs þ B2F sin bsÞ þ eas ðB3F cos bs þ B4F sin bsÞ þ B5F ð64Þ
where
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffi
2 a3  a2
a¼ ð65aÞ
4
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffi
2 a3 þ a2
b¼ ð65bÞ
4
and B1F, B2F, B3F, B4F and B5F are five unknown constants to be determined from the boundary conditions. It
is assumed that for large values of s the general solution of the homogeneous equation does not diverge, which
requires that B1F = B2F = 0, so that Eq. (64) simplifies to
rhF ðsÞ ¼ eas ðB3F cos bs þ B4F sin bsÞ þ B5F ð66Þ
If a particular solution of Eq. (62) is assumed to be of the following form:
 s
rpF ðsÞ ¼ C F eks  DF eks þ EF cos aa þ ð67Þ
r
7512 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517

the resulting expressions for the constants CF, DF and EF are as follows:
a4 k2 þ a5
C F ¼ C 1F ð68aÞ
k þ a2 k3 þ a3 k
5

a4 k2 þ a5
DF ¼ C 2F ð68bÞ
k þ a2 k3 þ a3 k
5

EF ¼ AF ð68cÞ
Hence the general solution of the given differential equation is
 s
rF ðsÞ ¼ eas ðB3F cos bs þ B4F sin bsÞ þ B5F þ C F eks  DF eks þ EF cos aa þ ð69Þ
r

8.3. Boundary conditions

Three boundary conditions at the plate end must be used to compute the three unknown constants B3F, B4F
and B5F. At s = 0 (left end of the plate), these conditions are M2 = 0 and N2 = 0, which yields Eqs. (52a) and
(52b), and also V2 = 0, which, together with Eq. (5b), yields
V ¼V1 ð52cÞ
The first boundary condition can be obtained from Eq. (30a) which, combined with Eq. (52), becomes
d2 r Ea
¼ ½Mð0Þ  N ð0Þðy 1  y g Þ ð70Þ
ds2 s¼0 ta E1 I 1
The second boundary condition can be obtained from Eq. (30b) which, combined with Eq. (52), becomes
 
ta d3 r y2 y1 1  y 
3
¼ sð0Þb 2  þ 1 þ 1 V ð0Þ ð71Þ
Ea ds s¼0 E2 I 2 E1 I 1 E1 I 1 r
The third boundary condition can be obtained as follows. Eq. (34) written for s = 0 yields
r d2 N 1 r d2 N ds
rð0Þ ¼  r ð72aÞ
b2 ds 0 b2 ds2
2
0 ds 0
Eq. (72a), combined with Eq. (33) after differentiation, yields the following third boundary condition for the
general case of q 5 0 which includes q = 0 as a special case:
  2
ta E2 I 2 d 1 r d4 r R þ 1 d 1r ds r d2 N qd 1 ðr þ 2y 1 Þ
rð0Þ ¼  þ  1 r  ðd 3 þ 1Þ  cos 2aa
Ea y 1 þ y 2 b2 ds4 0 R y1 þ y2 ds 0 b2 ds2 0 b2 Rrðy 1 þ y 2 Þ
ð72bÞ
By means of Eq. (69), the three boundary conditions can be written as follows:
EF Ea 1
ða2  b2 ÞB3F  2abB4F ¼ k2 ðDF  C F Þ þ 2 cos aa þ RA ðr þ y 1 Þðcos a0  cos aa Þ ð73aÞ
r ta E1 I 1
EF
að3b2  a2 ÞB3F þ bð3a2  b2 ÞB4F ¼ k3 ðC F þ DF Þ  3 sin aa
 r 
Ea y 2 y1
þ b2  ðC 1F þ C 2F þ AF sin aa Þ
t a E2 I 2 E 1 I 1
Ea 1  y 
þ 1 þ 1 RA sin aa ð73bÞ
ta E1 I 1 r
B3F þ B5F þ C F  DF þ EF cos aa
  
R þ 1 d 1r AF r RA
¼  1 r C 1F k  C 2F k þ cos aa þ ðd 3 þ 1Þ 2 cos aa
R y1 þ y2 r b2 r

ta E2 I 2 d 1 r     EF
 4ab b2  a2 B4F þ a4 þ b4  6a2 b2 B3F þ k4 C F  k4 DF þ 4 cos aa ð73cÞ
E a y 1 þ y 2 b2 r
from which the three unknown constants can be computed.
 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517 7513

9. Simply supported plated beam under uniformly distributed load: interfacial shear stresses

9.1. Differential equation and assumed geometry

Eq. (25) can be expressed as follows:

d2 s dM dN  s  s
2
 k s þ m1 þ m2 þ mq sin a a þ cos a a þ ¼0 ð74Þ
ds2 ds ds r r
where k, m1 and m2 have been defined in Eq. (38), and
 2
Ga c1 d 1 2y
mq ¼ qr 1 þ 1 ð75Þ
E1 A1 ta ðy 1 þ y 2 Þ r

It is assumed that the beam is supported with a hinge at one end and a roller at the other end, and is loaded
with a uniformly distributed vertical load q. Symbols adopted in the following are defined in Fig. 2b. The load
is assumed to act on the entire extrados of the curved beam, i.e. spanning a length L given by
L ¼ 2ðr þ 2y 1 Þ cos a0 ð76Þ

The reactions RA and RB are then found to be

RA ¼ RB ¼ qðr þ 2y 1 Þ cos a0 ð77Þ

9.2. General solution of the differential equation

The general solution of Eq. (74) is

sðsÞ ¼ C 1q eks þ C 2q eks þ sp ðsÞ ð78Þ

where sp(s) is a particular solution of Eq. (74), and C1q and C2q are two unknown constants to be determined
from the boundary conditions. The internal axial force and bending moment are as follows:
N ðhÞ ¼ qðr þ 2y 1 Þ cos2 ðaa þ hÞ ð79aÞ
hr r  i
MðhÞ ¼ qðr þ 2y 1 Þ cos2 a0   y 1 þ y g cos2 ðaa þ hÞ ð79bÞ
2 2
from which the first derivatives expressed in terms of s are
  
dN 2y 1 s  s
¼ 2q 1 þ sin aa þ cos aa þ ð80aÞ
ds r r r
dM q  r   s   s
¼ 2 ðr þ 2y 1 Þ  y 1 þ y g sin aa þ cos aa þ ð80bÞ
ds r 2 r r
A particular solution can be assumed to be of the following form:
h  s i
sp ðsÞ ¼ Aq sin 2 aa þ ð81Þ
r
If Eqs. (80) and (81) are substituted into the differential equation (Eq. (74)), the following expression for the
unknown constant Aq is obtained:
m3
Aq ¼ 2 4 ð82Þ
k þ r2
where
   
2y 1 2y 1  r 
2m3 ¼ mq  2qm2 1 þ þ 2qm1 1 þ  y1 þ yg ð83Þ
r r 2
7514 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517

9.3. Boundary conditions

Constants C1q and C2q must be found by applying two boundary conditions. At s = 0 (left end of the plate),
the first boundary condition can be obtained again from Eq. (53), with M(0) and N(0) computed from Eq.
(79). By defining

Ga y y 1 2Aq
m3c ¼  1 Mð0Þ þ 1 N ð0Þðy 1  y g Þ þ N ð0Þ  cos 2aa ð84Þ
ta E1 I 1 E1 I 1 E 1 A1 r
the first boundary condition can be written as
m3c
C 1q  C 2q ¼ ð85Þ
k
The second boundary condition can be written at midspan, where the shear stress should be equal to zero due
to symmetry. That is,

C 1q ekrð2aa Þ þ C 2q ekrð2aa Þ ¼ 0
p p
ð86Þ
The two unknown constants are then found by solving Eqs. (85) and (86).

10. Simply supported plated beam under uniformly distributed load: interfacial normal stresses

10.1. Differential equation

The differential equation (Eq. (36)) can be rewritten as follows:

d5 r d3 r dr d2 s dN d3 N h  si
þ a 2 þ a 3 þ a 4 þ a 5 s þ a 6 þ a 7 þ a 8 q sin 2 a a þ ¼0 ð87Þ
ds5 ds3 ds ds2 ds ds3 r
where constants a2 to a7 are given by Eqs. (63a)–(63f) and
 2
3Ea 2y 1
a8 ¼  1þ ð63gÞ
2ta E1 I 1 r r

10.2. General solution of the differential equation

The general solution of the homogeneous differential equation corresponding to Eq. (87), for the reasons
explained previously, is given by
rhq ðsÞ ¼ eas ðB3q cos bs þ B4q sin bsÞ þ B5q ð88Þ

where a and b are given by Eq. (65), and B3q, B4q and B5q are three unknown constants to be determined from
the boundary conditions. A particular solution of Eq. (87) can be assumed to be
h  s i
rpq ðsÞ ¼ C q eks  Dq eks þ Eq cos 2 aa þ ð89Þ
r
the coefficients of which can be easily deduced to be

a4 k2 þ a5
C q ¼ C 1q ð90aÞ
k5 þ a2 k3 þ a 3 k
a4 k2 þ a5
Dq ¼ C 2q 5 ð90bÞ
k þ a2 k3 þ a3 k
     
Aq a5  4ar24 þ q a8 þ 4ar27 1 þ 2yr 1  a6 1 þ 2yr 1
Eq ¼ ð90cÞ
32
r5
 8ar32 þ 2ar 3
 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517 7515

Hence the general solution of the given differential equation is

  h  si
rq ðsÞ ¼ eas B3q cos bs þ B4q sin bs þ B5q þ C q eks  Dq eks þ Eq cos 2 aa þ ð91Þ
r

10.3. Boundary conditions

Three boundary conditions at the plate end must again be used to compute the three unknown constants
B3q, B4q and B5q. These boundary conditions are given by Eqs. (70), (71) and (72b).
By means of Eq. (91), the three boundary conditions can be written as follows:
4Eq Ea 1 r
ða2  b2 ÞB3q  2abB4q ¼ k2 ðDq  C q Þ þ 2 cos 2aa þ qðr þ 2y 1 Þ ðcos2 a0  cos2 aa Þ ð92aÞ
r ta E1 I 1 2
8Eq
að3b2  a2 ÞB3q þ bð3a2  b2 ÞB4q ¼ k3 ðC q þ Dq Þ  3 sin 2aa
 r 
Ea y 2 y  
þ b2  1 C 1q þ C 2q þ Aq sin 2aa
ta E 2 I 2 E1 I 1
Ea 1  y  r 
þ 1þ 1 þ y 1 q sin 2aa ð92bÞ
ta E1 I 1 r 2
3.5

3.0
r = Infinite
Interfacial shear stress (MPa)

2.5
r = 5.00 m

2.0 r = 3.00 m

1.5 r = 2.00 m

r = 1.50 m
1.0 r = 1.35 m

0.5

0.0

-0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(a) Curvilinear distance from plate end (mm)

1.6

r = Infinite
1.2
Interfacial normal stress (MPa)

r = 5.00 m

0.8 r = 3.00 m

r = 2.00 m

0.4 r = 1.50 m r = 1.35 m

0.0

-0.4
0 4 8 12 16 20
(b) Curvilinear distance from plate end (mm)

Fig. 3. Interfacial stresses in a CFRP-plated curved RC beam subjected to a mid-span point load: (a) interfacial shear stress; (b) interfacial
normal stress.
7516 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517

B3q þ B5q þ C q  Dq þ Eq cos 2aa

  
R þ 1 d 1r 2Aq q r þ 2y 1
¼  1 r C 1q k  C 2q k þ cos 2aa þ cos 2aa
R y1 þ y2 r b2 y 1 þ r  ðy 2  rÞR

ta E2 I 2 d 1 r     16Eq
 4ab b2  a2 B4q þ a4 þ b4  6a2 b2 B3q þ k4 C q  k4 Dq þ 4 cos 2aa ð92cÞ
E a y 1 þ y 2 b2 r
from which B3q, B4q and B5q can be computed.

11. Numerical examples and comparison with finite element results

The example beam considered here is a reinforced concrete beam with H1 = 300 mm, b1 = 200 mm, and
E1 = 30 GPa, bonded with a thin carbon FRP (CFRP) plate having H2 = 1.2 mm, b2 = 200 mm, and
E2 = 165 GPa. The adhesive layer is assumed to have a thickness ta = 2 mm, an elastic modulus Ea = 4 GPa,
and a Poisson’s ratio ma = 0.35. The span of the beam l = 3 m, the curvilinear distance from the end of the
plate to the end of the beam soffit is 300 mm. The radius of curvature r is made variable between
rmin = 1.35 m, corresponding to a semicircular beam, and rmax = 1, corresponding to a straight beam.

3.0

2.5 r = Infinite
Interfacial shear stress (MPa)

r = 5.00 m
2.0
r = 3.00 m
1.5
r = 2.00 m

1.0 r = 1.50 m
r = 1.35 m

0.5

0.0

-0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(a) Curvilinear distance from plate end (mm)

1.2

r = Infinite
Interfacial normal stress (MPa)

0.9

r = 5.00 m

0.6 r = 3.00 m

r = 2.00 m
0.3 r = 1.35 m
r = 1.50 m

0.0

-0.3
0 5 10 15 20
(b) Curvilinear distance from plate end (mm)

Fig. 4. Interfacial stresses in a CFRP-plated curved RC beam subjected to a uniformly distributed vertical load: (a) interfacial shear stress;
(b) interfacial normal stress.
 L. De Lorenzis et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 43 (2006) 7501–7517 7517

Two load cases are considered: a point load F = 150 kN located at mid-span, and a uniformly distributed ver-
tical load q = 50 kN/m.
Figs. 3 and 4 show the interfacial shear and normal (peeling) stresses near the plate end as solid lines. The
peak values of both stresses are predicted to occur at the plate end and increase with the radius of curvature.
For the chosen section, the differences in the predicted interfacial stresses near the plate end between a beam
with a radius of 2 m and a straight beam are small, indicating that the effect of curvature becomes important
only when it is sufficiently large. For the semicircular beam, both stresses at the plate end are close to zero. The
limiting case of an infinite radius of curvature yields results identical to those given by Smith and Teng (2001).
In Figs. 3 and 4, predictions from a finite element model represented by various symbols are also shown. In
this finite element model, the beam and the plate were modelled using beam elements and connected by shear
and tension springs (Teng and Zhang, 2005). The close agreement between the analytical and finite element
results seen in these figures demonstrates the correctness and accuracy of the analytical solution.

12. Conclusions

In this paper, a closed-form solution for the interfacial shear and normal stresses in curved beams of uni-
form section size strengthened with an externally bonded thin plate and subjected to a point load or a uni-
formly distributed load has been presented. The evaluation of interfacial stresses provides the basis for
understanding plate-end debonding failures in such beams and for the development of suitable design rules.
The solution is based on some key simplifying assumptions: the interfacial stresses do not vary across the
thickness of the adhesive layer, the effect of shear deformations is neglected, and the compatibility equations
are written as for a straight beam assuming that the radius of curvature is large compared to the beam cross-
sectional height. Predictions from this analytical solution have been shown to be in close agreement with
appropriate finite element predictions, demonstrating the correctness and accuracy of the analytical solution.
The main conclusion that can be drawn from the present study is that, in the elastic range, an increase in the
beam curvature reduces the concentration of interfacial shear and normal stresses at the plate end, although
this effect becomes important only when the curvature is sufficiently large. This implies that debonding at the
plate end is less critical for curved plated beams than it is for straight beams.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the Italian Ministry of Research (MIUR)
and by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Project codes: BBZH and G-YX47).

References

Deng, J., Lee, M.M.K., Moy, S.S.J., 2004. Stress analysis of steel beams reinforced with a bonded CFRP plate. Composite Structures 65
(2), 205–215.
L’Hermite, R., Bresson, J. 1967. Béton armé par collage d’armature. RILEM Colloquium. Eyrolles Ed., Paris.
Malek, A.M., Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M.R., 1998. Prediction of failure load of R/C beams strengthened with FRP plate due to stress
concentration at the plate end. ACI Structural Journal 95 (1), 142–152.
Roberts, T.M., 1989. Approximate analysis of shear and normal stress concentrations in the adhesive layer of plated RC beams. The
Structural Engineer 6 (12), 229–233.
Roberts, T.M., Haji-Kazemi, H., 1989. Theoretical study of the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams strengthened by externally bonded
steel plates. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 87 (Part 2), 39–55.
Smith, S., Teng, J.G., 2001. Interfacial stresses in plated beams. Engineering Structures 23, 857–871.
Stratford, T., Cadei, J., 2006. Elastic analysis of adhesion stresses for the design of a strengthening plate bonded to a beam. Construction
and Building Materials 20 (1–2), 34–45.
Taljsten, B., 1997. Strengthening of beams by plate bonding. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE 9 (4), 206–212.
Teng, J.G., Zhang, L. 2005. Finite element predictions of interfacial stresses in beams bonded with a thin plate. In: Proceedings,
International Symposium on Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures 7–9 December, Hong Kong, China, pp. 189–195.
Vilnay, O., 1988. The analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened by epoxy bonded steel plates. International Journal of Cement
Composite and Lightweight Concrete 10 (2), 73–78.
Yang, J., Wu, Y.F. 2005. Interfacial stresses in FRP plated concrete beams including shear deformation effect. In: Proceedings,
International Symposium on Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures, 7–9 December, Hong Kong, China, pp. 169–173.