When Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) is widely recognized as a new reinforcing material for reinforced concrete structures with its superior mechanical characteristics, chemical-resistance and durability. Experiments and interpretative researches have been done in various aspects for the reinforced concrete member reinforced with Concrete Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CERP). The reinforced concrete member reinforced with CFRP has been tested frequently for its mechanical performance, such as bending strength and shearing strength, while there have been few researches on mechanical performance of the reinforced structure with the aramid fiber reinforced plate strip. According to several researches done, the aramid fiber reinforced sheet showed superior bending strength and shearing strength, and the trend is that conversion from the fiber reinforced sheet to the fiber reinforced plate with improved workability is increasing. In this study, the bending behavior and the shearing behavior were tested for the reinforced concrete beam reinforced with aramid fiber strip developed with the peel-ply method for enhanced attachment to the concrete base material. The following conclusion has been reached from the experiments:
1) No failure caused by fracture of AFRPS was found from most bending test specimens, but they were failed finally due to rip-off failure. For the specimen for shearing test, rip-off failure was found only in the specimen RSAP-1024-V in which a side of the beam is reinforced with I-shaped AFRPS, while brittle failure occurred in other specimens, causing a breakage of the fiber of compression.
2) The experiment showed that the bending test specimen of which bottom is reinforced with AFRPS and the ends are reinforced with U-shaped aramid sheet to prevent peel-off of the reinforced material has higher strength than the control beam by approx. 162 % This means that the aramid sheet restrains AFRPS appropriately to prevent peel-off, and that, as suggested in the previous studies, an appropriate restraining measures are required in the ends to prevent debonding failure or rip-off failure of AFRPS. The strength was higher in the shearing test specimen of which side is reinforced with I-shaped AFRPS at a regular interval than the one to which AFRPS is bound diagally or with anchors at the ends. The strength was found to be higher than the control beam by approx. 260 %. This means that the side reinforcement at a regular interval, rather than the continuous reinforcement, responds effectively to the compressive strain and tensile strain generated from AFRPS, preventing peel-off of AFRPS.
3) The experiment showed that the maximum strength is similar between the specimen RBAP-1055-1 with twice more reinforcement and the specimen RBAP-1024-1 with less reinforcement. For the fiber reinforcement, as shown in the past researches, the ultimate strength is reached by debonding or rip-off between the stiffening member and the parent material, and the strength is determined by the properties of the epoxy used to attach the fiber to the parent material. It is difficult in actuality, however, to control the amount of epoxy used according to the amount of reinforcement. Therefore, if more amount of reinforcing material is required on the field, appropriate restraining measures at the ends should be followed.
4) The bending test specimen RBAP-1024-U reinforced with aramid sheet has higher maximum strength than the non-reinforced specimen by approx. 122%, i.e., in order to increase the reinforcing strength, because the strength is determined by the adhesive power between the reinforced concrete member and AFRPS. Therefore, it is more effective to wrap the ends with AFRPS in a U-shape and to prevent the rip-off of the ends, rather than increase the amount of AFRPS. For the shearing test specimen, the specimen with the AFRPS ends fixed with anchor bolts has less strength than the specimen with no fixed ends by approx. 14%.
5) When comparing the specimen RSAP-1024-V in which AFRPS is applied vertically and the specimen RSAP-1024-D with diagonal AFRPS reinforcement, the diagonal reinforcement in which AFRPS is applied at the right angle to the potential crack position should have provided higher shearing strength in theory. In reality, however, the strength of the diagonal reinforcement was found to be lower by 14 %. It is because AFRPS gets longer for the diagonal reinforcement than the straight one, and accordingly, receives higher strain. Therefore, it is more effective to apply reinforcement straight than diagonally on the side of the beam for shear reinforcement.
6) The specimen bend-reinforced with AFRPS with U-reinforcement at the ends has relatively higher ductility ratio than that without end reinforcement. As the amount of reinforcement grows, however, the ductility ratio decreases. For shear-reinforced specimen, the specimen with AFRPS reinforcement at the ends has substantially lower ductility ratio than that with no shear-reinforcement by 54~77 %. The better the reinforcement effect, the ductility ratio decreases, and the ductility ratio decreases more for shear reinforcement than for bend reinforcement. Therefore, in practice, it is required to apply more strict limitation of the amount of reinforcement for shear reinforcement.