You are on page 1of 12

Received: 8 July 2016 Revised: 27 June 2017 Accepted: 28 June 2017

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201600123

TECHNICAL PAPER

Bond strength of carbon fiber composites glued to concrete


surface
Emil de Souza Sánchez Filho1 | Júlio Jerônimo Holtz Silva Filho2 |
Mayra Soares Pereira Lima Perlingeiro1 | Iporan de Figueiredo Guerrante1

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Fluminense
Federal University, Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil This paper describes an analytical study about the bond between concrete and
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Pontifical glued carbon fiber composites (CFCs) using data of 2 experimental researches. A
Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio De total of 27 double compression-tension tests were carried out on specimens with
Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
2 concrete cubes (fixed and movable) connected by carbon fiber strips on opposite
Correspondence
sides. The variables were concrete strength, with the evaluation of 9 specimens
Sánchez Filho, Emil, Civil Engineering,
Fluminense Federal Universty. with strength of 20.5 to 38.1 MPa, with monotonic loading and smooth surface
Email: emilsanchez@uol.com.br for all specimens, and 18 specimens with strength of 23.2 to 40.8 MPa, with mon-
otonic loading and loading/unloading cycles and different concrete surfaces
(smooth face and rough face). The test results showed that the ultimate bond stress
slightly varies according to concrete strength in the analyzed zone. The strains of
CFCs and concrete were measured, allowing the calculation of bond stress and the
corresponding mean strain, which were compared with the values obtained by the
expression given in the international codes. The prediction of the old expression
applies to steel plates strengthening method, and the results of a more recent
expression of CFC glued to concrete given by fib Bulletins and Model Code 2010
are compared with test results. The experimental results provided graphs and cor-
relation curves for bond stress vs maximum strain, energy of fracture vs bond
stress and a relationship between the mean shear strain and concrete strength. The
expression for fracture energy given by fib Bulletins and Model Code 2010 varies
with concrete strength fc and a reasonable agreement with test data was achieved.

KEYWORDS

bond, bond by tension-compression test, carbon fiber composites

1 | INTRODUCTION strengthen the concrete structures. The rehabilitation and


strengthening of RC structures by means of externally
The demand for the repair of bridges, buildings, silos, tanks, bonded sheets of CFCs has proved to be a practical alterna-
etc. due to the decreasing in their strength or the need of tive to traditional strengthening techniques. Since 1990s, a
repairing these structures due to loads that were not planned great amount of experimental and theoretical studies has
in the original design led to the development of new techni- been made to reach the ultimate capacity of beams strength-
ques for strengthening reinforced concrete (RC) structures ened on bending, shear, and bond behavior.
with the use of composite materials. The use of carbon fiber In engineering practice, concrete structures may be sub-
composite (CFC) sheets is a new and efficient method to jected to several types of loads (bending, shear and torsional
loading) that can arise within members in several ways.
Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the print
publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along with the
However, some topics related to this type of reinforcement
authors' closure, if any, approximately nine months after the print publication. need to be better understood. The fiber carbon composite is

536 © 2017 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco Structural Concrete. 2018;19:536–547.

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 537

strong but lacks ductility, since it presents a linear-elastic The CFC effective length was 120 mm and width of 75 mm
behavior until the rupture. After binding to the concrete for all specimens. Figure 1 shows the layout of the speci-
structural surface, the composite must present a mechanical mens under loading (upper view) that are instrumented with
behavior with a certain level of ductility. several strain gauges on CFC and on concrete surface (lat-
The effects of impact loads on the bond strength eral view). The nomenclature of the specimens was:
between CFCs and concrete is not described in this paper,
but it is an issue that should be examined in future research. 1. MC = monotonic loading type, and CD = monotonic
The bond between carbon fibers composites and con- loading and unloading;
crete is the fundamental hypothesis of this technique and 2. L = smooth surface, and R = rough surface;
needs special attention. There is considerable amount of 3. The concrete strength at 28 days is defined by the
literature about the importance of the CFC bond strength. Roman numbers I = 23.3 MPa, II = 28.4 MPa,
See, for example, Chen and Teng,1 Chen and Teng,2 III = 37.1 MPa;
D'Antino and Triantafillou,3 Harmon and Vitkip,4 4. The Arabic numerals are the specimen numbers.
Holzenkämpfer,5 Khalifa et al,6 Leung and Alkhrdaji,7
Mazen et al,8 Miller and Nanni,9 Neubauer and Rostásy,10
All specimens of both investigations were tested in a
Teng et al,11 and Zoghi.12 More recent experimental and
special rig with a hydraulic jack between the 2 concrete
theoretical models about the behavior of RC beams
blocks.
strengthened with CFC and steel plates are given in Chen
In Pacheco,23 load was applied monotonically up to fail-
et al,13 Mofidi and Chaallal,14 Rousakis et al,15 Ferrier
ure (series MC) and with loading and unloading cycles
et al,16 Ekenel et al,17 Charalambidi et al,18 Xie and Hu,19
(series CD). Load cell, displacements transducers, and elec-
Hariche et al,20 Triantafyllou et al.21
trical resistance strain gauges were used to monitor all tests.
This paper presents an analysis of the results of 2 experi-
Table 1 shows the concrete secant elasticity modulus and
mental researches concerning the behavior of the bond
splitting strength of both researches.
strength of CFC glued to concrete blocks under
compression-tension load. All values of the experiments are
tabulated and 27-tested specimens are analyzed. The main
3 | T ES T S DA TA
objective of this work is to compare the experimental values
with those obtained by the expressions of the fib Bulletins
In order to obtain the mechanical properties of the CFC, the
and Model Code 2010.
specimens were tested in accordance with ASTM 3039.24
Table 2 shows the concrete strength at test date, the ultimate
2 | P U C - R I O EX P E R I M E N T A L force for bond strength and failure mode for all specimens.
R E S E A RC H E S All concrete tests were carried out in accordance with Bra-
zilian standards.
The experimental researches reported in Meneghel22 and The geometric and mechanical characteristics of the
Pacheco23 were carried out at the Structures and Materials CFC are:
Laboratory at PUC-Rio. —Meneghel22
Meneghel22 presents the results of an experimental Series A: tf = 0.165 mm; bf = 50 mm; Abf = 8.3 mm2,
investigation on the bond between CFC and concrete. Nine Aℓf = 6000 mm2.
cubic specimens of 200 mm width were tested while con- Series B: tf = 0.165 mm; bf = 100 mm; Abf = 16.5 mm2,
crete was in compression and CFC was in tension Aℓf = 12 000 mm2.
(Figure 1). The 28 days concrete compressive strength and for all Series ff, u = 2450 MPa,
values were 20.5 MPa, 28.7 MPa, and 38.1 MPa, and aim εf,u = 1.03 × 10− 2, Ef = 218 GPa.
variables were the concrete strength and the width of the —Pacheco23—Series I, II, and II
CFCs: 50 mm and 100 mm, with 120 mm length (2 Series, tf = 0.165 mm; bf = 75 mm; Abf = 12.4 mm2, Aℓf =
A and B). The nomenclature of the specimens was: 9000 mm2,
ff, u = 2302 MPa, εf,u = 1.07 × 10− 2, Ef = 247 GPa.
1. R = the initial prescription of the concrete strength at where
28 days is defined by 25 MPa, 35 MPa, and 45 MPa. tf—CFC thickness;
2. L = the width of CFCs strip. bf—CFC width;
3. The Arabic numerals are the specimen numbers. Abf—CFC area;
Alf—concrete area;
Pacheco's23 tests were similar to Meneghel's22 investiga- ff,u—CFC ultimate strength;
tion. They comprised the testing of 18 specimens of con- εf,u—CFC ultimate strain;
crete of 200 mm × 200 mm × 200 mm, glued with CFC. Ef—CFC elastic modulus.
538 
SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL.

(a) Face of CFC with strain gages


Movable block
200 mm x 200 mm x 200 mm Fixed block
Load cell 200 mm x 200 mm x 200 mm
Hinge
LVDT

Pulleys
CFC
Hydraulic jack

(b)

FIGURE 1 Test setup and sketch of


loading of Meneghel22 and Pacheco23

4 | THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
where
4.1 | Bond strength τb—bond stress at the central point between points i
Bond stress values at each loading level were calculated by and i + 1;
  εf,i, εf,i + 1—CFC strain measured at points i and i + 1,
εf , i − εf , i + 1 tf Ef respectively;
τb = ð1Þ
l0 l0—distance between points i and i + 1.

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 539

TABLE 1 Mechanical properties of concrete Pacheco23 shows that, for specimens with rough surface,
Elasticity modulus Splitting strength the values of bond strength are 4.8% greater than the values
Author Series Ecs (GPa) fct (MPa) for smooth surface. Specimens CDLI-1, CDLII-1, CDLIII-1,
Meneghel22 A 18.27 2.05 CDRII-1, and CDRIII-1 were subjected to loading and
B 23.93 2.87 unloading cycles and show similar behavior to that of speci-
B 22.78 3.81 mens subjected to monotonic loading. All values were tested
Pacheco23 I 25.89 2.85 by Grubbs test with the significance level of 5%.
II 34.28 3.15
III 30.08 3.52

The mean CFC strain and the bond strength are given, 5 | F RA CT UR E E NE R G Y
respectively, by:
εf , i + εf , i + 1 The theoretical approach to the analysis of the bond
εb = ð2Þ between CFC and concrete is best evaluated through ener-
2
getic methods. The initial work on this approach between
Fu
fbu = ð3Þ 2 materials of different rigidities was studied in detail in
lb, efet bf
T. U. Braunschweig by Holzenkämpfer5 for steel plates
where glued to concrete surface. The methodologies presented in
Fu—ultimate force; fib Bulletins and Model Code 2010 follow this systematic.
lb,efet—effective bond length. The fracture energy is analyzed by means of several the-
Table 3 shows the values of the ultimate bond strength oretical approaches. The first analysis was made with the
given by expressions 1 and 3 obtained with the experimen- model of Holzenkämpfer,5 derived for steel plates glued on
tal results of Meneghel22 and Pacheco.23 concrete surface, and by the current fib approaches, which
TABLE 2 Ultimate force for bond strength and failure mode

fc Fu
Author Series Specimens ðMPaÞ ðkNÞ Failure
Meneghel22 A L50-R25-1a 26.5 9.55 Peeling-off
L50-R25-2 26.5 12.00 Peeling-off
L50-R35-1a 34.6 12.58 Debonding and peeling-off
L50-R35-2 34.6 12.77 Partial peeling-off
L50-R45-1 44.9 8.81 Debonding and peeling-off
L50-R45-2 44.9 11.69 Peeling-off
B L100-R25a 26.5 21.03 Peeling-off
L100-R35 34.6 30.64 Failure of the CFC specimens
L100-R45 44.9 25.27 Debonding and peeling-off
Pacheco23 I MCLI-1 26.3 15.56 Peeling-off
MCLI-2 28.9 14.57 Debonding and peeling-off
MCLII-1 31.8 17.65 Debonding and peeling-off
MCLII-2 31.7 15.20 Peeling-off
MCLIII-1 34.5 16.53 Debonding and peeling-off
MCLIII-2 32.7 17.06 Debonding and peeling-off
II MCRI-1 23.8 9.07 Failure of the CFC
MCRI-2 23.3 17.78 Peeling-off
MCRI-3 24.1 16.60 Peeling-off
MCRII-1 32.9 14.06 Debonding and CFC separation
MCRII-2 29.7 15.07 Peeling-off
MCRIII-1 40.8 18.51 Debonding and peeling-off
MCRIII-2 37.4 16.94 Debonding and peeling-off
III CDLI-1 23.2 13.53 Peeling-off
CDLII-1 30.5 16.78 Peeling-off
CDLIII-1 32.1 13.65 Peeling-off
IV CDRII-1 28.2 16.73 Debonding and CFC separation
CDRIII-1 39.8 15.50 Debonding and CFC separation
a
On the test date; specimens not considered (problems in the test).
540 
SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL.

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
TABLE 3 Experimental values of bond strength u
u 2 − bf
Bond strength (MPa) kb = t b
≥1 ð7Þ
bf
Author Series Specimens Expression 1 Expression 3
1+ b

Meneghel22 A L50-R25-2 2.85 2.00 Tables 4-6 give the values of the fracture energy calcu-
L50-R35-1 1.85 2.10 lated by expressions 4, 5, and 6, respectively. Figure 2
L50-R45-1* 1.42 − shows the linear correlation between bond strength and con-
L50-R45-2 1.48 1.95 crete strength in the researched interval. However, this is
B L100-R35a − − the only one indicative of this behavior. The relation
L100-R45 1.78 2.11 between fracture energy and concrete strength indicates that
Mean (MPa) 1.88 2.04 this dependency is linear (Figure 3). Figures 4 and 5 show
SD (MPa) 0.58 0.08 the dependencies between these 2 parameters calculated by
CV (%) 30.66 3.75 expressions of the Bulletin 14 fib26 and Bulletin 35 fib,25
Pacheco23 I MCLI-1 0.38 1.73 respectively.
MCLI-2 1.98 1.62 The correlation curves of bond strength vs fracture
MCLII-1 1.05 1.96 energy (Figures 6-8, respectively) are given by:
MCLII-2 1.15 1.69 —Holzenkämpfer5
MCLIII-1 1.45 1.84
MCLIII-2 1.59 1.90 GF , theor = 0:763fb −0:7784 ðN=mmÞ ð8Þ
II MCRI-1 a
— — —Bulletin 14 fib 26

MCRI-2 2.51 1.98


MCRI-3 1.64 1.84 GF = 0:0619fb + 0:1546ðN=mmÞ ð9Þ
MCRII-1 2.99 1.56 —Bulletin 35 fib 25

MCRII-2 0.81 1.67


MCRIII-1 1.72 2.06 Γ Fk = 0:0086fb + 0:1756ðN=mmÞ ð10Þ
MCRIII-2 1.94 1.88 The results obtained with expression 5 have no good
III CDLI-1 1.36 1.50 correlation (Figure 7) and neither do the results calculated
CDLII-1 1.67 1.86 with expression 6 (Figure 8). However, the CV of the
CDLIII-1 0.66 1.52 values obtained with these expressions was lower than those
IV CDRII-1 1.00 1.86 obtained with the values of expression 4.
CDRIII-1 1.70 1.72
Mean (MPa) 1.51 1.78
SD (MPa) 0.65 0.17
CV (%) 43.42 9.30 6 | S HE AR ST R E S S
All specimens Mean (MPa) 1.59 1.83
SD (MPa) 0.64 0.18 The Mohr-Coulomb criterion is the most common failure
CV (%) 40.47 10.07 criterion encountered in structural concrete analysis. It is
a
often used in predicting the failure of brittle materials and it
Specimens not considered (CFC failure).
is applied to cases of 2D stress. This theory is good enough
*Significant outlier P < .05—Grubbs test.
to describe the response of the stresses of the interface
differ from one Bulletin to another, but are similar in funda- between concrete and CFC with good precision
mental assumptions and expressions. By means of the generalized Coulomb-Mohr criterion
Holzenkämpfer5 gives (Figure 9), the concrete substratum resists the maximum
longitudinal shear stress, as seen in:
 2   
Fu Ef Af 1
GF, theor = 1+ ð4Þ 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
bf Ec Ac 2Ef tf τmax = fc fct ð11Þ
2
and the Bulletin 14 fib gives:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Figure 10 shows the linear dependency between the nor-
GF = 0:5c1 2 fck fctm ð5Þ fb
malized bond strength τmax and the concrete strength. This
with c1 = 0.23.
behavior is only one indicative in the researched interval
However, the Bulletin 35 fib25 gives:
and the CV of the results is low (Table 7). The normalized
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi curve maximum longitudinal shear stress τmax vs bond
Γ Fk = 0:03kb fck fctm ð6Þ ft
strength fb is linear (Figure 11) and the CV of the results is
without one expression for scale factor kb, and only pre-
low (Table 10).
scribes kb ≥ 1, but Bulletin 14 fib26 gives:

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 541

TABLE 4 Bond strength and fracture energy of specimens with smooth surfaces

GF,theor (N/mm)
Specimens with smooth surfaces Bond strength fb (MPa) Expression 4 Expression 5 Expression 6
Meneghel22 L50-R25-2 2.00 0.80 0.19 0.26
L50-R35-1 2.10 0.88 0.26 0.35
L50-R45-1 — — — —
L50-R45-2 1.95 0.76 0.35 0.46
L100-R35 — — — —
L100-R45 2.11 0.89 0.35 0.39
23
Pacheco MCLI-1 1.73 0.53 0.23 0.28
MCLI-2 1.62 0.46 0.24 0.30
MCLII-1 1.96 0.68 0.26 0.33
MCLII-2 1.69 0.51 0.26 0.33
MCLIII-1 1.84 0.60 0.29 0.36
MCLIII-2 1.90 0.64 0.28 0.35
CDLI-1 1.50 0.40 0.22 0.27
CDLII-1 1.86 0.62 0.26 0.32
CDLIII-1 1.52 0.41 0.28 0.35
Mean 1.83 0.63 0.27 0.33
0.20 0.17 0.04 0.05
SD
11.08 26.63 16.60 16.45
CV (%)

TABLE 5 Bond strength and fracture energy of specimens with rough surfaces

GF,theor (N/mm)
Specimens with rough surfaces Bond strength fb (MPa) Expression 4 Expression 5 Expression 6
Pacheco 23
MCRI-1 — — — —
MCRI-2 1.98 0.69 0.22 0.27
MCRI-3 1.84 0.60 0.22 0.27
MCRII-1 1.56 0.43 0.27 0.33
MCRII-2 1.67 0.50 0.26 0.32
MCRIII-1 2.06 0.75 0.32 0.39
MCRIII-2 1.88 0.63 0.30 0.37
CDRII-1 1.86 0.61 0.25 0.31
CDRIII-1 1.72 0.53 0.31 0.39
Mean 1.82 0.59 0.27 0.33
SD 0.16 0.10 0.04 0.05
CV (%) 8.88 17.52 15.02 15.02

TABLE 6 Bond strength and fracture energy of all specimens

GF,theor (N/mm) 2.50


Bond
All strength Expression Expression Expression
specimens fb (MPa) 4 5 6 2.00
Mean 1.83 0.61 0.27 0.33
SD 0.18 0.14 0.04 0.05 1.50
CV (%) 10.07 23.53 15.63 15.55 y = 0.011x + 1.4707
R2 = 0.1469
1.00

7 | A N C H O R A G E LE N G T H
0.50
The researches carried out in T. U. Braunschweig in the
1990s grounded the study of bond between steel plates glued 0.00
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
to concrete, according to Holzenkämpfer5 and Neubauer and
Rostásy.10 The analytical expressions were derived with ener-
getic approach and calibrated with the test results. Nowadays, FIGURE 2 Bond strength fb vs concrete strength fc
542 
SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL.

1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70

(N/mm)
(N/mm)

0.60 0.60
0.50 0.50
0.40 0.40
y = 0.0097x + 0.2998
0.30 0.30
R2 = 0.1865
y = 0.763x - 0.7784
0.20 0.20
R2 = 0.9406
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50

FIGURE 3 Fracture energy GF,theor vs concrete strength fc, Holzenkämpfer5 FIGURE 6 Fracture energy GF. theor vs bond strength fb, Holzenkämpfer5

0.50 0.50

0.45 0.45

0.40 0.40

0.35 0.35

(N/mm)
(N/mm)

0.30 0.30

0.25 0.25

0.20 0.20

0.15 y = 0.0063x + 0.0641 0.15


R2 = 0.9322 0.10 y = 0.0619x + 0.1546
0.10 R2 = 0.0741
0.05 0.05
0.00
0.00
1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
20 25 30 35 40 45 50

FIGURE 4 Fracture energy GF,theor vs concrete strength fc, Bulletin 14 fib26 FIGURE 7 Fracture energy GF vs bond strength fb , Bulletin 14 fib26

0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35
(N/mm)

0.30
(N/mm)

0.30
0.25
0.25
0.20 y = 0.0077x + 0.0821 0.20
0.15 R2 = 0.9228
0.15
y = 0.086x + 0.1756
0.10 0.10 R2 = 0.0935
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50

FIGURE 5 Fracture energy Γ Fk vs concrete strength fc, Bulletin 35 fib25 FIGURE 8 Fracture energy Γ Fk vs bond strength fb, Bulletin 35 fib25

these initial expressions are the basis of the several studies


and the average of 2 elasticity modulus Ef = 233 GPa result
about CFC bonded to concrete, for example, the Bulletin
for the effective anchorage length lf ffi 86.1 mm.
35 fib,25 Bulletin 14 fib,26 and Model Code 2010 fib.27
The Bulletin 14 fib26 gives:
Holzenkämpfer5 gives the following equation for steel
plates glued to concrete surface: Ef tf
c2 = ð13Þ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi l2f fctm
2Gf Ef tf
lf = 2 ð12Þ where, the coefficient c2 needs to be calibrated with test
τ2max
data and considering tf = 0.165 mm, lf = 86.1 mm. Table 8
Then, with mean value GF,theor = 0.615N/mm (expres- shows the results obtained.
sion 7), fb = 1.83MPa, τmax = 5.06MPa (Tables 6 and 7), The Bulletin 14 fib26 gives:

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 543

(a) (b)

(c)

FIGURE 9 Shear stress: (A) maximum


longitudinal shear stress; (B) and
(C) Coulomb-Mohr failure criterion

5.00 TABLE 7 Maximum tangential stress by Coulomb-Mohr criterion


4.50
Fu τmax τmax
4.00 fb =
ft bf lf τmax ft fb
3.50 Author Specimens ðMPaÞ ðMPaÞ ðMPaÞ ðMPaÞ ðMPaÞ
3.00 Meneghel22 L50-R25-2 2.05 2.00 3.69 1.80 1.84
2.50 L50-R35-1 2.87 2.10 4.98 1.74 2.38
2.00 y = 0.0463x + 1.2931 L50-R45-1 — — — — —
1.50 R2 = 0.4554
L50-R45-2 3.81 1.95 6.54 1.72 3.36
1.00 L100-R45 3.81 2.11 6.54 1.72 3.11
0.50 23
Pacheco MCLI-1 2.85 1.73 4.33 1.52 2.50
0.00 MCLI-2 2.85 1.62 4.54 1.59 2.80
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
MCLII-1 3.15 1.96 5.00 1.59 2.55
MCLII-2 3.15 1.69 5.00 1.59 2.96
τmax MCLIII-1 3.52 1.84 5.51 1.57 3.00
FIGURE 10 Normalized bond strength fb vs concrete strength fc
MCLIII-2 3.52 1.90 5.36 1.52 2.83
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi MCRI-2 2.85 1.98 4.07 1.43 2.06
Ef tf MCRI-3 2.85 1.84 4.14 1.45 2.25
le = c2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð14Þ
fck fctm MCRII-1 3.15 1.56 5.09 1.62 3.26
25 MCRII-2 3.15 1.67 4.84 1.54 2.89
with c2 = 1.44. However, the Bulletin 35 fib gives:
MCRIII-1 3.52 2.06 5.99 1.70 2.91
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
MCRIII-2 3.52 1.88 5.74 1.63 3.05
Ef tf
le = ð15Þ CDLI-1 2.85 1.50 4.07 1.43 2.70
2fctm
CDLII-1 3.15 1.86 4.90 1.56 2.63
with c2 = 2 on expression 14. The Model Code 2010 fib27 CDLIII-1 3.52 1.52 5.31 1.51 3.50
gives the maximum bonded length as follows: CDRII-1 3.15 1.86 4.71 1.50 2.54
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi CDRIII-1 3.52 1.72 5.92 1.68 3.44
Ef tf Mean 1.83 5.06 1.59 2.79
lb, max = ð16Þ
kbl fctm SD 0.18 0.79 0.10 0.44
CV (%) 10.07 15.63 6.62 15.76
with lengths in mm, stress in MPa, and kbℓ = 2 obtained
from the calibration of experimental results.
544 
SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL.

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2.00 2Ef 2=3
1.90 fcbm = km βℓ kb fcm ð17Þ
tf
1.80
1.70 and the design ultimate bond strength is:
1.60 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1.50 kk 2Ef 2=3
fcbd = β kb fcm ð18Þ
1.40 γ fD b ℓ tf
1.30
1.20 y = 0.2888x + 1.0621 where km and kk are 2 dimensionless coefficients and
R2 = 0.2562
1.10  
ℓb ℓb
1.00
βℓ = 2− ð19Þ
1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 ℓb, max ℓb, max
if ℓb ≤ ℓb,max and βℓ = 1 elsewhere, and kb is given by
FIGURE 11 Normalized maximum longitudinal shear stress τmax
ft vs bond expression 7.
strength fb The calibration of the theoretical expression with experi-
mental results gives for CFC km = 0.25, and kk = 0.17
TABLE 8 Calibrations of the coefficient c2 (Gauss distribution with 5% percentile).
fct Ef
Tables 9 and 10 present the theoretical values for experi-
Author Series ðMPaÞ ðGPaÞ c2 mental data of Meneghel22 and Pacheco.23 For the design
Meneghel22 A 2.05 218.23 2.37 parameters βℓ, fcbm, llef , and fcbm
ffu the values of le given by the
B 2.87 1.69
expressions 14, 15, and 16 were considered.
B 3.81 1.27
lf
Pacheco23 I 2.85 247.00 1.93
The expressions 14, 15, and 16 give results for le with
II 3.15 1.75 CV = 7.00%, 10.81%, and 15.00%, respectively (Table 10).
fcbm l
III 3.52 1.56 All curves ffu × lef are linear (Figure 13), and the worse
Mean 1.76 curve adjustment is given by expression 14. Figure 14
SD 0.37 shows good correlation between normalized anchorage
CV (%) 20.92
length llef and the maximum longitudinal shear stress τmax for
all expressions. For the interval 3.69 ≤ τmax ≤ 6.54, expres-
Therefore, the results given by the expressions 15 and
16 are equal and the terms of the Model Code 2010 fib27 sion 14 gives 0:88 ≤ lle:f ≤ 1:85 (Table 10), and the difference
only differ from these expressions in the appearance of the between the limits is 25.42%. Expressions 15 and 16, for
parameters. Figure 12 shows the illustration given by Model the same interval, give 0:80 ≤ lle:f ≤ 1:09 (Table 10), with a
Code 2010 fib27 about the principal parameters on bond difference between the limits of 26.61%. All curves are lin-
strength of the CFC glued to a concrete surface. ear. Figure 15 shows regular correlation between normal-
The mean of the maximum tensile stress in the exter- ized bond stress fcbm
ffu and maximum longitudinal shear stress
nally bonded reinforcement limited by bond to concrete in a
τmax for the values calculated with all expressions. All
single (uncracked) anchorage zone is given by:
curves are linear. For the interval 3.69 ≤ τmax ≤ 6.54,
expression 14 gives 0:201 ≤ fcbm
ffu ≤ 0:281, with a difference
of 28.47% between the limits (Table 10). Expressions
ffu ≤ 0:237 with a
15 and 16, in the same way, give 0:115 ≤ fcbm
great difference of 51.88% between the limits.

8 | C O NC L U S IO N S

The following conclusions can be draw from this work on


the bond of CFC glued to concrete blocks. The simple tests
adopted in the experimental researches appear to be an effi-
cient way to determine the results for investigation of the
bond of CFC to a concrete surface. The simple test appa-
FIGURE 12 Model Code 2010 fib [28] parameters on bond analysis
ratus provided good results of the bond strength of the test
specimens.

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 545

TABLE 9 Effective anchorage length

le (mm) βℓ fcbm (MPa)


Expression Expression Expression
Author Specimens kb 14 15 and 16 14 15 and 16 14 15 and 16
22
Meneghel L50-R25-2 1.183 100.6 93.7 0.96 0.92 588.60 563.10
L50-R35-1 1.183 86.6 79.2 0.85 0.73 581.70 502.30
L50-R45-1* — — — — — — —
L50-R45-2 1.183 75.6 68.7 0.65 0.44 491.40 333.60
L100-R45* 1.000 75.6 68.7 0.65 0.44 — 282.00
23
Pacheco MCLI-1 1.087 98.8 84.6 0.95 0.82 636.0 549.6
MCLI-2 1.087 96.5 84.6 0.94 0.82 627.2 549.6
MCLII-1 1.087 91.9 80.4 0.91 0.76 624.8 522.5
MCLII-2 1.087 92.0 80.4 0.91 0.76 625.3 522.5
MCLIII-1 1.087 87.6 76.1 0.86 0.67 617.3 477.1
MCLIII-2 1.087 88.8 76.1 0.88 0.67 626.7 477.1
MCRI-2 1.087 101.8 84.6 0.97 0.82 645.5 549.6
MCRI-3 1.087 101.0 84.6 0.96 0.82 643.1 549.6
MCRII-1 1.087 91.1 80.4 0.90 0.76 620.1 522.5
MCRII-2 1.087 93.5 80.4 0.92 0.76 633.8 522.5
MCRIII-1 1.087 84.0 76.1 0.82 0.67 583.7 477.1
MCRIII-2 1.087 85.8 76.1 0.84 0.67 601.9 477.1
CDLI-1 1.087 101.9 84.6 0.97 0.82 645.8 549.6
CDLII-1 1.087 92.9 80.4 0.91 0.76 630.4 522.5
CDLIII-1 1.087 89.2 76.1 0.88 0.67 629.8 477.1
CDRII-1 1.087 94.7 80.4 0.93 0.76 640.1 522.5
CDRIII-1 1.087 84.5 76.1 0.82 0.67 589.1 477.1
Mean 91.15 79.63 0.88 0.72 604.64 496.49
SD 7.68 5.64 0.09 0.12 55.50 69.80
CV (%) 8.43% 7.08% 10.09% 16.12% 9.18% 14.06%

*Significant outlier P < .05—Grubbs test.

Two experimental verifications were analyzed to show the The expression 4 for fracture energy vs concrete
viability and effectiveness of the CFC-concrete bond in the fib strength did not present a reasonable agreement with the
expressions. experimental results (Figure 3) but the curve for fracture
The behavior of the interface between the reinforcement of energy vs bond strength has good agreement with test data
CFC and the concrete substratum is complex but it can be evalu- (Figure 6).
ated in an objective way by means of the concept of mean bond The expression for fracture energy given by Bulletin
stress and fracture energy. The analyses of the 27 experimental 14 fib26 varies with concrete strength fc and a reasonable
tests results make it possible to conclude that the characteristic agreement with test data was achieved. The same is
bond stress for the 5% proportion on Gauss curve is observed for the expressions given by Bulletin 35 fib.25
f bk = fb −1:65SD = 1:83 −1:65 × 0:18 ffi 1:53MPa and the Table 4 shows that expression 4 gives very superior
mean bond stress for all specimens analyzed does not vary results than those of the expressions 5 and 6. This expression
with the type of concrete surface (smooth surface or rough has been calibrated with test results of bonded steel plates.
surface). The fracture energy varies linearly with the mean For the variation of normalized anchorage length llef with
bond stress. Figure 2 shows that concrete strength fc did τmax, the difference between the limits of these ratios calcu-
not considerably affect bonded stress for the cases studied. lated by expressions 14, 15, and 16 is of 9.09% for the min-
It appears that concrete strength has no significant influ- imum value and of 26.61% for the maximum value.
ence on the value of bond strength but more tests are nec- The authors recommend further future studies with a
essary to assess this matter more precisely. The expression similar approach to examine the bond behavior of CFC
of Holzenkämpfer5 gives short anchorage length lf ffi 86.1 glued to a concrete surface and to complement this initial
mm; in Meneghel's22 and Pacheco's23 experimental study with more experimental results, which are essential
researches, the bond length with strain was superior than for corroborating the conclusions shown in this paper.
100 mm. The coefficient c2 = 1.76 given by Bulletin The tests were carried out with static and increasing
14 fib26 was calibrated with tests results. loads but in reinforcements of bridge structures, for
546 
SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL.

TABLE 10 Normalized effective anchorage length


le fcbm
lf ffu

Expression Expression
ffu
Author Specimens τ max ðMPaÞ 14 15 and 16 14 15 and 16
Meneghel22 L50-R25-2 3.69 2450 1.17 1.09 0.240 0.230
L50-R35-1 4.98 2450 1.00 0.92 0.237 0.205
L50-R45-1* — — — — — —
L50-R45-2 6.54 2450 0.88 0.80 0.201 0.136
L100-R45* 6.54 2450 0.88 0.80 - 0.115
23
Pacheco MCLI-1 4.33 2302 1.15 0.98 0.276 0.239
MCLI-2 4.54 2302 1.12 0.98 0.272 0.239
MCLII-1 5.00 2302 1.07 0.93 0.271 0.227
MCLII-2 5.00 2302 1.07 0.93 0.272 0.227
MCLIII-1 5.51 2302 1.02 0.88 0.268 0.207
MCLIII-2 5.36 2302 1.03 0.88 0.272 0.207
MCRI-2 4.07 2302 1.18 0.98 0.280 0.239
MCRI-3 4.14 2302 1.17 0.98 0.279 0.239
MCRII-1 5.09 2302 1.06 0.93 0.269 0.227
MCRII-2 4.84 2302 1.09 0.93 0.275 0.227
MCRIII-1 5.99 2302 0.97 0.88 0.254 0.207
MCRIII-2 5.74 2302 1.00 0.88 0.261 0.207
CDLI-1 4.07 2302 1.18 0.98 0.281 0.239
CDLII-1 4.90 2302 1.08 0.93 0.274 0.227
CDLIII-1 5.31 2302 1.04 0.88 0.274 0.207
CDRII-1 4.71 2302 1.10 0.93 0.278 0.227
CDRIII-1 5.92 2302 0.98 0.88 0.256 0.207
Mean 1.06 0.92 0.26 0.21
SD 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.03
CV (%) 8.43 7.08 10.81 15.00

For all specimens le = 120 mm.


*Significant outlier P < .05—Grubbs test.

0.35 1.50
Expression 14 Expression 14
0.30 y = 0.2332x + 0.0134 y = -0.1099x + 1.6146
R2 = 0.5468 1.25
R2 = 0.9503
0.25
1.00
0.20
0.75
0.15 Expression 15 and 16
y = -0.0789x + 1.3235
0.50 R2 = 0.9072
0.10
Expression 15 and 16
0.05 y = 0.4017x - 0.1578 0.25
R2 = 0.6744
0.00 0.00
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00
Expression 14 Expression 15 and 16 Expression 14 Expression 15 and 16

Normalized parameters fcbm le FIGURE 14 Normalized parameters llef vs bond τmax


FIGURE 13 ffu vs lf

example, there are dynamic and cyclic loads. Thus, the use more complex tests that are able to capture the
authors recommend the conduction of tests that con- influence of cracks on bond behavior. These observa-
sider, among other parameters, CFC fatigue. Some tions confirm and show the importance of using ener-
future lines of research might include cracked speci- getic model to analyze the bond between CFC glued to
mens and high strength concrete. Such a study needs to concrete surface.

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 547

0.35 21. Triantafyllou GG, Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI. Corroded RC beams patch
Expression 14
y = 0.2332x + 0.0134 repaired and strengthened in flexure with fiber-reinforced polymer lami-
0.30
R2 = 0.5468 nates. Composites B Eng. 2017;112:1.
0.25 22. Meneghel JM. Experimental Analysis on Bond Between Concrete and Car-
bon Fibers Composites Fabric. Master's thesis, PUC-Rio University, Rio de
0.20 Janeiro; 2005: 203.
0.15 23. Pacheco CO. Experimental Verification on CFC Concrete Bond Throughout
Expression 15 and 16 Tension-Compression Tests. Master's thesis, PUC-Rio University, Rio de
0.10 y = 0.4017x - 0.1578
Janeiro; 2006: 176.
R2 = 0.6744
24. American Society for Testing ABD Materials – ASTM – D3039/D3039.
0.05
Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite
0.00 Materials. American Society for Testing ABD Materials: USA; 2000.
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 25. Fédération Internationale du Béton. fib Bulletin 35. Retrofitting of Concrete
Expression 14 Expression 15 and 16 Structures by Externally Bonded FRPs. Lausanne; 2006.
26. Fédération Internationale du Béton. fib Bulletin 14. Externally Bonded FRP
Reinforcement for RC Structures. Lausanne; 2001.
FIGURE 15 ffu vs τmax
Normalized parameters fcbm 27. Fédération Internationale du Béton. fib. Model Code 2010. Fédération Inter-
nationale du Béton. Lausanne; 2010.
REFERENC ES
1. Chen JF, Teng JG. Anchorage strength models for FRP and steel plates AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHIES
bonded to concrete. J Struct Eng. 2001;127(7):784-791.
2. Chen JF, Teng JG. Shear capacity of FRP-strengthened RC beams: FRP
debonding. Construct. Build Mater. 2003;17:27-41. Emil de Souza Sánchez Filho
3. D'Antino T, Triantafillou TC. Accuracy of Design-oriented formulations for Full Professor at the Fluminense
Evaluating the Flexural and Shear Capacities of FRP-Strengthened RC
Federal University
Beams. Struct Concrete. 2016;17:3.
4. Harmon T, Vitkip L. Bond Development Between Carbon Fiber Reinforced emilsanchez@uol.com.br
Polymers and Concrete. School of Engineering & Applied Science,
Washington University: USA; 1999.
5. Holzenkämpfer P. Ingenieurmodelle des Verbunds Geklebter Bewehrung
für Betonbauteile. Dr. Ing. thesis. T. U. Braunschweig, Deutschland; 1994.
6. Khalifa A, Alkhrdaji T, Nanni A, Lansburg S. Anchorage of Surface
Mounted FRP Reinforcement. Concr Int Design Constr. 1999;21:49-54.
Júlio Jerônimo Holtz Silva Filho
7. Leung CKY, Yang YA. Fracture-Based Model for Debonding of FRP Plate Professor at the Pontifical Catholic
from Concrete Substrate 15th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference. University of Rio de Janeiro
June 2–5. New York: Columbia University; 2002.
julioholtzfilho@yahoo.com.br
8. Mazen MA, Gyorgy LB, Kypros P. Strengthening of RC Elements by CFRP Plates
Local Failure. 2a Int. PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Budapest; 1998.
9. Miller B, Nanni A. Bond between CFRP Sheets and Concrete. 5th Materials
Congress. Cincinnati. OH. L. C. Bank Editor. May 10–12; 1999.
10. Neubauer UN, Rostásy FS. Bond Failure of CFRP-Plates at Inclined
Cracks- Experiments and Fracture Mechanics Model. Forschungsarbeiten Mayra Soares Pereira Lima Perlingeiro
1995–1999. Heft 144. iBMB TU Braunschweig, Deutschland; 1999:59-62.
11. Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP Strengthened RC Structures.
Professor at the Fluminense Federal
Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons; 2002. University
12. Zoghi M, ed. The International Handbook of FRP Composites in Civil mayraperlingeiro@id.uff.br
Engineering. CRC Press: USA; 2014.
13. Chen GM, Ten JG, Chen JF. Shear strength model for FRP-strengthened RC
beams with adverse FRP-steel interaction. J Compos Constr. 2013;17(1):50-56.
14. Mofidi A, Chaallal O. Tests and design provisions for reinforced-concrete
beams strengthened in shear using FRP sheets and strips. Int J Concr Struct
Mater. 2014;8(2):117-128. Iporan de Figueiredo Guerrante
15. Rousakis TC, Saridaki ME, Mavrothalassitou SA, Hui D. Utilization of Civil Engineer, Fluminense Federal
hybrid approach towards advanced database of concrete beams strengthened
in shear with FRPs. Compos Part B Eng. 2016;85:315-335.
University
16. Ferrier E, Bigaud D, Clément JC, Hamelin P. Fatigue loading effect on RC iporan@terra.com.br
beams strengthened with externally bonded FRP. Constr Build Mater.
2011;25(2):539-546.
17. Ekenel M, Rizzo A, Myers JJ, Nanni A. Flexural fatigue behavior of reinforced
concrete beams strengthened with FRP fabric and procured laminate systems. J
Compos Constr 10.1061/(ASCE) 1090–0268. 2006;5(433):433-442.
18. Charalambidi B, Rousakis T, Karabinis A. Fatigue behavior of large-scale
reinforced concrete beams strengthened in flexure with fiber-reinforced pol-
ymer laminates. ASCE J Comp Constr. 2016;20(5). https://doi.org/10.1061/(
How to cite this article: Sánchez Filho ES, Silva
ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000689.
19. Xie J, Hu R. Experimental study on rehabilitation of corrosion-damaged Filho JJH, Perlingeiro MSPL, de Figueiredo
reinforced concrete beams with carbon fiber reinforced polymer. Constr Guerrante I. Bond strength of carbon fiber composites
Build Mater. 2012;38:708-716. glued to concrete surface. Structural Concrete.
20. Hariche L, Ballim Y, Bouhicha M, Kenai S. Effects of reinforcement configura-
tion and sustained load on the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams affected 2018;19:536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600123
by reinforcing steel corrosion. Cement Concrete Compos. 2012;34:1202-1209.