Comparative Performance of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with Shape Memory Alloys and CFRP Using an Equivalent Stiffness Approach

The enhancement of reinforced concrete (RC) beams using externally bonded carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) systems and shape memory alloy (SMA) systems has been growing in recent years, but its comparison is not generalizable unless it is based on an equal basis of stiffness. In this paper, an equivalent axial stiffness approach is applied to study the effect of CFRP and SMA plates on RC beams. The following four beam configurations were considered: Unstrengthened control beam, beam strengthened with a 5 mm SMA plate, beam strengthened with a 5 mm CFRP plate, and beam strengthened with an 18.96 mm SMA plate, which was chosen to provide similar axial stiffness as the 5 mm CFRP plate. The finite element model was created using ANSYS and compared with experimental results from the literature, and was further validated with a mesh sensitivity study. The test results indicated that all strengthening systems had a better flexural response than the control beam, but with varying degrees of improvement depending heavily on the amount of stiffness provided by the strengthening material. The control beam showed the first signs of cracking and had the lowest resistance. The moderate improvement was seen in the 5 mm SMA plate, which increased the load corresponding to the first crack to 50.2 kN from 41.7 kN. The 5 mm CFRP beam and the stiffness-equivalent SMA 18.96 mm beam, on the other hand, were able to significantly improve the first-crack load to 77.6 kN and 82.97 kN, respectively. In terms of flexural strengthening performance, stiffness equivalence takes into account the first-crack load of the performance of the SMA beam, which shows that SMA can provide flexural strengthening performance comparable to, and even higher than, that of the CFRP system in terms of crack-initiation resistance. The overall performance of the strengthened beams was also found to be better than the control beam in terms of the post-cracking stiffness and moment—curvature relationships. These results indicate that a stiffness-equivalent framework is more rational than comparing the two strengthening systems directly in terms of thickness, and in this way, the ability to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems. The conclusions, however, should be understood based on the assumptions of the numerical model, such as the perfect bond assumption at the interface and the use of a simplified monotonic material model used for SMA. Additional studies should be conducted that incorporate debonding, cyclic loading, temperature, and field size verification.