Journal Pre-proof

A unified bond-slip model for the interface between FRP and steel

Cheng Jiang, Qian-Qian Yu, Xiang-Lin Gu

PII: S1359-8368(21)00751-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109380
Reference: JCOMB 109380

To appear in: Composites Part B

Received Date: 15 August 2021

Revised Date: 12 September 2021
Accepted Date: 30 September 2021

Please cite this article as: Jiang C, Yu Q-Q, Gu X-L, A unified bond-slip model for the interface between
FRP and steel, Composites Part B (2021), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109380.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Author Statement

Cheng Jiang: Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Qian-Qian Yu:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing - original draft; Writing - review & editing. Xiang-Lin
Gu: Methodology, Writing - review & editing.

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 1 A unified bond-slip model for the interface between FRP and steel

2 Cheng Jiang1, Qian-Qian Yu2,*, Xiang-Lin Gu2

1
3 Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 153-8505, Japan

2
4 Key Laboratory of Performance Evolution and Control for Engineering Structures of Ministry

5 of Education, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai 200092, P. R. China; Department

6 of Structural Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

*
7 Corresponding author.

f
oo
8

r
9 ABSTRACT -p
re
10 The interfacial bond-slip relationship between fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) and steel
lP

11 plays an important role in analyzing FRP retrofitted steel structures. Different failure modes

12 and epoxy types (i.e., linear epoxy and nonlinear epoxy) lead to various bond-slip relationships.
na

13 Although several models have been proposed to predict the bond-slip behavior, different
ur

14 models were developed for different emphasis, which may result in inconvenience when being
Jo

15 used. This paper proposed a unified bond-slip model by considering different failure modes and

16 epoxy types. A database of bond strength comprising of 400 FRP-to-steel single- /double-lap

17 shear joints was collected. By analytical reasoning, key factors that influence the bond

18 parameters were identified and configurations of the model were derived. The unknown

19 coefficients in the model were determined subsequently by nonlinear regression analysis using

20 the derived closed-form analytical solutions. Different coefficients were proposed in terms of

21 different failure modes and epoxy types. Furthermore, if the failure modes are unknown before

22 experimental investigation, the proposed model is also capable of giving reasonable predictions.

1
23 Comparison between theoretical results and test data from the literature was performed to

24 validate the modeling work. Afterward, a parametric study was conducted to further investigate

25 effects of the key parameters on the interfacial behavior.

26

27 Keywords:

28 Analytical model

29 Bond-slip relationship

f
oo
30 Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)

r
31 Steel -p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

2
32 NOTATIONS

33 The following symbols are used in this paper:

34 bp = width of FRP sheet/laminate;

35 Ea = Young’s modulus of structural adhesive;

36 Es = Young’s modulus of steel plate;

37 Ep = Young’s modulus of FRP sheet/laminate;

38 ft,a = tensile strength of the adhesive;

f
oo
39 Ga = shear modulus of structural adhesive;

r
40 Gf = interfacial fracture energy; -p
re
41 L = bond length of FRP sheet/laminate;
lP

42 Le = effective bond length of FRP sheet/laminate;

43 Pu = peak load (bond strength);

na

44 Pu(L) = peak load (bond strength) with a bond length of L;

ur

45 Pu(∞) = peak load (bond strength) with an infinite bond length;

Jo

46 R = tensile strain energy of structural adhesive;

47 s = relative slip between FRP and steel;

48 s1 = relative slip at the peak shear stress;

49 s2 = relative slip corresponding to the end of the plastic stage;

50 sf = ultimate slip;

51 ta = thickness of structural adhesive;

52 tp = thickness of FRP sheet/laminate;

53 tp_max = maximum thickness of FRP sheet/laminate which is not to be associated with peel

3
54 problems;

55 ts = thickness of steel plate;

56 va = Poisson’s ratio of structural adhesive;

57 α = slip at the turning point of the equivalent bilinear load-slip curve, or the peak elastic slip

58 sm;

59 β = reciprocal of the initial tangential rigidity K0 of the load-slip response curve;

60 γe = adhesive elastic shear strain;

f
oo
61 γp = plastic shear strains;

r
62 εf = FRP strain; -p
re
63 σa = adhesive allowable peel stress;
lP

64 τ = interfacial shear stress;

65 τa = plastic adhesive shear stress;

na

66 τf = peak shear stress.

ur
Jo

4
1. Introduction

Structural deterioration is inevitable for infrastructure during the life cycle due to

continuous attacks from service loads and aggressive agents. Nowadays, retrofitting and

rehabilitation of the aged infrastructure are of great importance for the civil engineering

community. After being widely applied in the repair of concrete structures [1]-[6], fiber-

reinforced polymer (FRP) materials, which have a high strength-to-weight ratio, great

resistance to fatigue and corrosion, and ease of installation, also show great potential in

f
oo
strengthening of steel structures [7]-[15].

r
-p
Generally, the retrofitting system is divided into two categories, i.e., bond critical and
re
constraint critical. In terms of the former one, interfacial behavior between FRP and substrate
lP

is of great importance for load transfer [16]-[20], and therefore, extensive research work has

been conducted [21]-[33]. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, Hart-Smith [21] first proposed
na

explicit analytical solutions for the bond strength of double-lap adhesive-bonded joints. In Xia
ur

and Teng [22], the interfacial behavior of single-lap shear joints was investigated and a bilinear
Jo

bond-slip relationship was proposed. Later, Bocciarelli et al. [23] introduced the stiffness ratio

of the steel substrate to the CFRP patch into the prediction of the bond strength. Recently, it

was recognized that the bond-slip relationships between FRP and steel were classified as

triangular and trapezoidal shapes when linear and nonlinear structural adhesives were selected,

respectively [24][25]. More recently, the key parameters in these models such as the peak bond

stress τf and slip s1, the maximum slip sf, and the interfacial fracture energy Gf, were calibrated

based on experimental results [26]-[28],[30]-[33].

Most of the aforementioned studies on the bond-slip curves were derived based on

5
experimental data limited to materials and specimens adopted in the test program. The

feasibility of different models was still unknown and there have been limited attempts to

propose a unified model, which is beneficial to further investigation of FRP strengthened

structural components based on FE models and theoretical solutions [34][35]. In this paper, an

analytical modeling on FRP-to-steel bond-slip relationship was derived. A database composed

of 400 shear pull-out test results of FRP-to-steel joints was collected. By defining critical bond

parameters of the interfacial relationship, a closed-form analytical solution was proposed and

f
oo
the unknown coefficients were determined by nonlinear regression analysis based on the

r
-p
database. The theoretical model showed a good comparison with the test data from the literature.
re
Eventually, a parametric analysis was performed to further assess effects of the key parameters
lP

on the interfacial behavior.

na

2. Existing models
ur

Research work on the interfacial behavior between FRP and steel is relatively less reported
Jo

in comparison with that between FRP and concrete [36]-[38]. The main difference between

FRP/concrete and FRP/steel interfacial behavior is that, for the FRP/concrete bonding system,

a failure mode with a thin layer of concrete being pulled off from the concrete substrate is

desired whereas for the FRP/steel bonding system, although adhesive layer failure is

recommended, steel and adhesive interface debonding, and FRP delamination are also

commonly observed based on experimental findings.

Typical bond strength and bond-slip models for FRP/steel interfacial behavior are

summarized in Table 1. Xia and Teng [22] first proposed a bilinear bond-slip relationship based

6
on a series of single-lap shear joint tests with linear epoxies. Later, Yu et al. [24] and Fernando

et al. [25] categorized the interfacial behavior into two types corresponding to linear and

nonlinear structural adhesives (Fig. 1). Key parameters of the bond-slip models were future

investigated to cover a wide range of scenarios [26]-[28],[30]-[32]. Yang et al. [33] recently

put forward a bond-slip model with residual interfacial shear stress after the softening stage

based on the linear model. Although they may be feasible to various conditions, the interfacial

shear stress versus relative slip of all the models listed in Table 1 is schematically summarized

f
oo
in Fig. 2. Among the six prediction models, three could be used to evaluate the interfacial

r
-p
behavior between FRP and steel bonded by both linear and nonlinear structural adhesives. The
re
bond-slip curves based on all the models have similar shapes of bi-linear, tri-linear, or multi-
lP

linear, except the one for linear structural adhesive proposed by He and Xian [28], which was

developed based on a continuous mathematic function. The main differences among the bond-
na

slip relationships obtained by various models are the peak shear stress and slip values at certain
ur

stages, which are because of different coefficients due to a certain experimental set-up and
Jo

consequently failure modes in the references. This study proposed a unified bond-slip model

for FRP externally bonded on steel substrates, in terms of various failure modes and adhesive

types. It has a continuous mathematic function which provides convenient uses when used for

design and analysis.

3. Database

Fig. 3 gives a schematic view of the typical test set-up of the interfacial behavior between

FRP and steel, i.e., single- /double-lap shear joints. Generally, the single-shear lap tests are

7
relatively complex in set-up whereas they are easier for monitoring of the failure process in

comparison with the double-lap shear tests.

A database composed of 400 shear tests was extracted from the literature and is

summarized in Table 2 [22]-[24],[26]-[28],[30]-[31],[39]-[57]. Generally, failure modes of an

FRP bonded steel component subjected to tensile could be categorized as steel and adhesive

interface debonding, adhesive layer failure, FRP and adhesive interface debonding, FRP

delamination, FRP rupture, and steel yielding [7] as schematically shown in Fig. 4. Here,

f
oo
specimens with FRP rupture or steel yielding were not considered. In addition, FRP and

r
-p
adhesive interface debonding was less observed and scenarios dominated by such a kind of
re
failure were also excluded. More details could be found in the previous study performed by the
lP

authors [11]. Eventually, samples characterized by adhesive layer failure, steel and adhesive

interface debonding, and FRP delamination were taken into consideration and mixed failure
na

modes were observed for most of the specimens. All the specimens collected here had the most
ur

frequently used rectangular shape of the FRP patch rather than other configurations. Eq. (1) is
Jo

adopted to check the thickness of the FRP overlay of all the specimens to ensure that the peeling

stress could be neglected [21]. It also should be pointed out that, environmental conditions are

important for adhesive properties [58][59]. Currently, all the data collected corresponds to

normally cured specimens without consideration of effects of environmental agents.

4
E p ta 1 a 
t p _ max    (1)
3 1  v  a
2
E  a 

where tp_max is the maximum thickness of FRP which is not to be associated with peel problems,

v is the Poisson’s ratio of the structural adhesive, σa represents the adhesive allowable peel

stress, and τa denotes the plastic adhesive shear stress.

8
 Based on the observation from the database, 66% were double-lap shear joints while the

other 34% were single-lap shear joints. Most of the scenarios selected pultruded FRP laminates

(65%) while only 35% of the specimens were bonded by wet lay-up FRP sheets. Different

brands of structural adhesives including Araldite 420/2011/2015, Sikadur 30/330, Mbrace

Saturant, as well as some self-manufactured epoxies were adopted, among which Araldite 420

and Sikadure 30 were the most frequently used ones (accounted for 31% and 29%, respectively).

In general, structural adhesives could be divided into linear and nonlinear types based on their

f
oo
tensile stress-strain curves. In terms of the scenarios collected in this study, 39% of the

r
-p
specimens selected linear epoxies, and the other 61% used nonlinear ones. Various surface
re
treatment approaches were applied to the bond surface before bonding to improve the interlock
lP

behavior, including sandblast, abrasive disk, hand-ground, sandpaper and needling. Sandblast

and abrasive disk were most frequently adopted, which accounted for 59% and 32%,
na

respectively.
ur

In terms of the failure mode, although adhesive layer failure is preferred since it could be
Jo

designed according to the material properties of structural adhesives, only 112 specimens

among 400 samples had witnessed this failure mode (28%), while more than half of the

specimens (54%) were dominated by steel and adhesive interface debonding. Delamination of

FRP was found in 18% of the specimens. It should be pointed out that, since combined failure

modes were observed in most of the scenarios, the dominated one was counted for a clarified

comparison.

Table 3 gives a closer look at the effects of FRP and adhesive types on the failure mode.

The percentage here is defined as the number of samples in terms of a specific failure mode

9
divided by that of all the samples. It is interesting to see that for wet lay-up FRP sheets, steel

and adhesive interface debonding most frequently occurs while no cohesive debonding is

recorded by the literature; for pultruded FRP laminates, the percentage of adhesive layer failure

and steel and adhesive interface debonding is approximate to each other, which accounts for

about 40%. With regards to the influence of epoxy type on the failure mode, linear ones led to

more cohesive debonding while nonlinear ones resulted in a large amount of steel and adhesive

interface debonding. The relationship between the surface treatment and the failure mode is

f
oo
also listed in Table 3. It is found that the general trend regards to sandblast and abrasive disk is

r
-p
similar to each other. For the other surface preparation approaches which are only selected by
re
few cases, they are not taken into comparison.
lP

4. Bond-slip modeling
na

4.1. General analytical solutions

ur

A widely accepted and adopted mathematic model for interfacial bond stress (τ) versus
Jo

relative slip (s) relationship between FRP and the bonded substrate is given by Eq. (2). The

general shape of Eq. (2) is illustrated in Fig. 5. This model has been proven to be acceptable for

both FRP-to-concrete [60]-[62] and FRP-to-steel [28] cases.

E p t p 
s
  
s
 s  e 
1  e   (2)
 2
 

Eq. (2) is a continuous mathematic function with two unknown parameters, i.e., α and β,

which govern the shape of the bond-slip curve. The physical meanings of α and β can be

interpreted with the load-displacement curves of pull-off tests shown in Fig. 6 [63]. α is the slip

at the turning point of the equivalent bilinear load-slip curve, or the peak elastic slip sm. The

10
reciprocal of β determines the initial tangential rigidity K0 of the load-slip response curve.

Based on the mathematic function of the bond-slip model (Eq. (2)), when bond length L

approaches infinity, the corresponding bond strength Pu(∞) can be mathematically derived:

Pu ()  E p t p bp (3)


According to the definition, the interfacial fracture energy, Gf, is derived from the

integration of Eq. (2) as:

2
 1  
G f     s ds 

f
E pt p   (4)

oo
0 2  

On the other hand, it has been mathematically derived that the maximum bond stress τf

r
-p
(stress value of the peak point in Fig. 6) can be expressed by Eq. (5):
re
1 
f  Ept p 2 (5)
4 
lP
na

4.2. Governing factors in analytical modeling

ur

In terms of FRP-to-concrete bonded joints, failure with a thin layer of concrete being
Jo

pulled off from the substrate is normally desired. Whereas there exist different failure modes in

FRP-to-steel bonded joints as aforementioned. Although it is generally recommended to reach

adhesive layer failure controlled by the material properties of the adhesive, the test scenarios

collected in Table 2 shows 54% steel and adhesive interface debonding (SA), 28% adhesive

layer failure (C), and 18% FRP delamination (D). Different failure modes indicate that the

dominating stress is taken by different materials and locations, which leads to different bond-

slip relationships between FRP and steel.

The mechanical properties of the applied adhesive layer have a significant effect on the

interfacial bond behavior. Generally speaking, there are two types of adhesive, or resin epoxy,

11
in terms of their tensile stress-strain relationships, i.e., linear epoxy and nonlinear epoxy. The

epoxy tensile strength (ft,a) and shear modulus (Ga) are generally recognized to quantify the

epoxy material in the bonding system, nonetheless, the different stress-strain relationships

indicate different deformation behavior of the adhesive layer under a certain stress state. Epoxy

tensile strength and shear modulus can be used to well describe behavior of linear epoxies

whereas these two indexes are not enough to characterize mechanical performance of nonlinear

epoxies. Hence, the type of epoxy has a pronounced influence on the FRP-to-steel bond-slip

f
oo
relationship. Based on the literature review, in comparison with nonlinear epoxy, the linear

r
-p
epoxy normally exhibits higher elastic modulus and lower interfacial fracture energy (e.g.,
re
[24][31]). As the main deformation occurs in the adhesive layer between FRP and steel, the
lP

properties of applied FRP (e.g., stiffness and thickness of FRP) affect the required tensile force

on FRP to a certain FRP-to-steel interfacial deformation, but cannot change the local bond-slip
na

relationship between steel and bonded FRP. The properties of steel substrates are also
ur

independent of the local bond-slip relationship due to the same reason (e.g., [22][28]).
Jo

Consequently, in the following analytical modeling for quantification of α and β, the

parameters with the epoxy profile involved are taken as the governing factors, i.e., the tensile

strength ft,a, the shear modulus Ga, and the thickness ta. It should be pointed out that, for

adhesion failure, other factors in addition to adhesive properties may be involved, such as

surface conditions between adhesive and substrate. However, it is hard to collect such data in

literature. In the database, for most cases, there is only information of surface treatment methods

rather than quantitative data of the surface profile. Therefore, at this stage, effects of all other

parameters are included in the coefficients (hereinafter c1, c2, c3 and k). Future work is planned

12
to further evaluate the influence parameters of adhesion failure.

4.3. Derivation of α and β

The bond strength Pu(L) approaches the value of Pu(∞) when the bond length L approaches

infinity. It is widely recognized that when the bond length L exceeds the effective bond length

Le, Pu(L) is approximately equal to Pu(∞). Based on the identification of governing factors in

the section above, the expression of Gf can be assumed as:

f
oo
c2
f 
G f  c1  t , a  ta c3 (6)
 Ga 

r
-p
where c1, c2 and c3 are the coefficients that need to be determined in this work, and
re
The bond strength of externally bonded FRP joints with an infinite bond length can be
lP

expressed according to fracture mechanics as:

na

Pu ()  bp 2G f E p t p (7)
ur

Substitute Eq. (3) into Eq. (7),

Jo


E p t p bp =b 2G f E p t p (8)
 p

Rearranging Eq. (8), α/β can be obtained as:

0.5c2
 2G f f 
ta 0.5c3  E p t p 
0.5
=  2c1  t , a  (9)
 Ept p  Ga 

The unknown coefficients c1, c2 and c3 can be obtained by nonlinear regression analysis

from the data collected by the database to fit the bond strength Pu. For a particular epoxy type

and failure mode, the specimens in the database with the bond length larger than 1.5Le (Le here

is calculated by Xia and Teng’s model [22], Eq. (10)) were selected. 1.5Le is considered as the

enough bond length to provide the bond strength Pu(1.5Le) which is the same as Pu(∞) [61].

13
 
Le  (10)
2 f E t s 
p p f

Here, the regression analysis above is for investigating the specimen with a known failure

mode. If the bond-slip model is used for prediction, the failure mode is assumed unknown

before loading to failure. In this case, all the specimens with a particular epoxy type and a long

bond length (greater than 1.5Le) which include all types of failure modes in the database are

used to deduce the unknown coefficients c1, c2 and c3. The obtained c1, c2 and c3 values for

f
oo
different epoxy types and individual failure modes are listed in Table 4, and these “unknown

failure mode” findings are used to predict the bond-slip relationship without testing to failure.

r
-p
Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (2), the bond-slip relationship can be expressed as:
re
0.5c2
Ept p s
  
s
 ft , a 
ta 0.5c3  E p t p 
 0.5
 s  e 
1  e   2c1   (11)
lP

    Ga 

As discussed above, Eptp has no relationship with the bond-slip behavior. So, no Eptp term
na

should be in Eq. (11). Therefore, there must be a term of (Eptp)0.5 in the β model. To this end, β
ur

can be assumed as Eq. (12) based on the relationship in Eq. (9):

Jo

  c4 ft , a c Ga c ta c  E p t p 
0.5
5 6 7
(12)

where c4, c5, c6 and c7 are the coefficients that need to be determined.

Substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (9), α can be obtained as:

 =c4 2c1 ft , a 0.5c  c Ga c 0.5c ta 0.5c  c

2 5 6 2 3 7
(13)

and then, substitute Eqs. (9) and (12) into Eq. (5),

1  2c1
f  Ept p 2 = ft , a 0.5c2  c5 Ga 0.5c2  c6 ta 0.5c3  c7 (14)
4  4c4

When analyzing, units for Ga, ta and ft,a in the above equations are MPa, mm, and MPa,

respectively.

14
 On the other hand, τf has been proven to be significantly affected by the epoxy strength ft,a,

and can be expressed as the form shown in Eq. (15) [22][27][28][32]:

 f  k  ft , a (15)

where k is a coefficient to illustrate the proportional relationship between τf and ft,a.

Substitute Eq. (14) into Eq. (15),

1  2c1
Ept p 2 = ft , a 0.5c2  c5 Ga 0.5c2  c6 ta 0.5c3  c7 =k  ft ,a (16)
4  4c4

f
oo
because Ga and ta are independent, which means:
2c1
c4  (17a)

r
4k
-p
c5  0.5c2  1 (17b)
re
c6  0.5c2 (17c)
lP

c7  0.5c3 (17d)
na

As the values of c1, c2 and c3 are already obtained, there is only one unknown coefficient,
ur

i.e., k, in α and β quantifications in the bond-slip model. According to its definition, the k values
Jo

for different failure modes should be different, because of the various statuses when failure.

Whereas the k values for different adhesive types are suggested to be consistent [28]. For

bonded specimens with an arbitrary bond length, the closed-form analytical solution for the

bond strength is [62]:

Pu ( L) 
 E p t p bp 1- 2 sinh  1- 2 L   (18a)
 1   cosh
  1- 2 L  


where η is given by:

L  L 
1   2   2 1  2 2  sinh 
L
2 2 1   2 cosh  1  2 
    
(18b)
L  2L 
2  3 1   2   3 sinh  1  2   0
   

15
 Due to the mathematical complexity of Eq. 18(b), a sufficiently accurate approximation

for the parameter η is provided as [61]:

L L
0.4454 0.3835
  3.61e 
 4.11e 
(18c)

The value of k can be obtained by nonlinear regression analysis by fitting the experimental

bond strength of the specimens with arbitrary bond lengths for a particular failure mode and

epoxy type with known c1, c2 and c3 values to theoretical results. The results are listed in Table

4. It should be pointed out that, the parameters presented here are based on the limited database,

f
oo
and therefore, are suggested to be appliable to the cases with Eptp, ft,a, Ga, and ta ranging from

r
-p
36 to 1200 GPa·mm, 13.9 to 52.4 MPa, from 1.5 to 13.9 GPa and from 0.2 to 6.1 mm,
re
respectively.
lP

Eventually, the ultimate bond strength and bond-slip relationship could be calculated by

Eqs. (18) and (11), respectively, with α and β expressed as follows:

na

c1
= f t , a c2 1Ga  c2 ta c3 (19a)
ur

2k

ft , a 0.5c2 1Ga 0.5c2 ta 0.5c3  E p t p 

2c1
Jo

0.5
 (19b)
4k

5. Validation of the proposed model

The interfacial behavior between FRP and steel determines the bond strength, load-

displacement relationship and strain on FRP along the bond length, which are commonly

monitored during experimental studies. In this section, the test data from the literature was

adopted to investigate the performance of the analytical modeling from comprehensive views.

All the samples collected in Table 2 were adopted to evaluate the prediction of the bond

strength. In Yu et al. [24] and Wang et al. [30][31], a series of single-lap shear joints were tested

16
under monotonic load. Both linear and nonlinear structural adhesives were adopted. Typical

specimens S350-1.0-3 [30] and D-NM-T1-II [24] were selected to extract the bond-

displacement relationship, bond-slip curves, and strains on FRP along the bond length from the

reference, and to compare with the theoretical solution. The specimen nomenclature here is kept

consistent with the reference where more details can be found. S and D indicate the structural

adhesives of Sikadur 30 and Araldite 420. Adhesive layer failure accompanied by FRP

delamination was found for the two specimens.

f
r oo
5.1. Bond strength -p
re
Eqs. (18a) and (18c) are adopted to calculate the bond strength of the samples collected
lP

in Table 2. The prediction results based on the various failure modes and assumed as unknown

before tests were compared with the test data and are displayed in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.
na

It is implied that the predictions give reasonable results of the bond strength in terms of different
ur

failure modes, although the theoretical derivation is more rigorous for the scenarios of cohesive
Jo

failure. The R2 values based on the predictions of all the models are given in Table 5. Predictions

based on the present model exhibit a good performance for comparisons of both separate failure

modes and all cases.

5.2. Load-displacement relationship

The comparison of the load-displacement relationship between analytical results and

test data from the literature is illustrated in Fig. 9. The proposal model generally shows a good

agreement with the experimental findings. The ultimate load-bearing capacities of the

17
specimens S350-1.0-3 and D-NM-T1-II were 41.1 kN and 113.6 kN, respectively, and the

corresponding prediction results are 40.1 kN and 119.6 kN, where the maximum deviation is

5.3%. In addition, the stiffness of the joints also compares well with the test results from the

literature, demonstrating a reliable prediction of the analytical model.

5.3. FRP strain

In the experimental study of the interfacial behavior between FRP and substrate, the

f
oo
strain development on the FRP materials during the loading is an important index, which is

r
-p
directly adopted to analyze the shear stress and relative slip value between FRP and steel. Based
re
on the bond-slip relationship (Eq. 2), Eq. (20) is adopted to determine the strain value on FRP
lP

during the loading process [63]:

 1
 s  (20a)
na

 
x x
0

1  e  
 
 
ur

  E pt pbp 
x0  L   ln   1 (20b)
 P 
Jo

Fig. 10 shows the comparison of FRP strain between analytical results and test data

from the literature. The strain variation on FRP along the bond length at six load levels was

recorded. For the specimen D-NM-T1-II, the strain values were detected before the load

reached the ultimate value, and therefore, the values generally developed with the external load.

For the specimen S350-1.0-3, the lines denoted by green (P = 25.2 kN) and grey (P = 35.0 kN)

represent the load level before the ultimate state whereas the other four lines with the plateau

indicate the development of the debonding zone. It is concluded from Fig. 10 that regardless of

the different types of structural adhesive, the calculated results compare well with the test

results from the literature throughout the loading process, implying a reliable prediction.

18
5.4. Bond-slip relationship

With the strain fields obtained, the interfacial shear stress versus the relative slip

between FRP and steel is available. The dashed lines in Fig. 10 represent the test data from the

literature and the solid line indicates the results from the theoretical solution. Generally, there

are two methods to extract the bond-slip relationship based on experimental findings, i.e., the

interfacial shear stress and relative slip between FRP and substrate at one location at different

f
oo
loading stages, and the interfacial shear stress and relative slip between FRP and substrate at

r
-p
different locations under one loading. The experimental results in Figs. 11(a) and 11(b) are
re
derived based on different loading states and different locations, respectively, which is the
lP

reason for the different notations in these two figures. Theoretically, the bond-slip relationship

deduced by either approach should be the same. Therefore, the results are selected to confirm
na

the proposed model in terms of both linear and nonlinear structural adhesives. Although
ur

significant difference in the shape of the interfacial shear stress to relative slip curves is
Jo

witnessed between the scenarios with structural adhesives of Sikadur 30 and Araldite 420,

comparison plotted in Fig. 11 demonstrated that the theoretical solution is feasible to predict

the bond-slip relationship for the samples selected here both with linear and nonlinear structural

adhesives based on a unified model.

6. Parametric study

The aforementioned comparisons demonstrated that the proposed bond-slip model

could be used to assess the interfacial behavior between FRP and steel with reasonable accuracy

19
within the parameter ranges of the collected test data. Afterward, a parametric analysis is

conducted based on the theoretical solution to further evaluate effects of key parameters on the

interfacial behavior between FRP and steel, i.e., FRP profile (Eptp), structural adhesive tensile

strength (ft,a), structural adhesive elastic modulus (Ea) and bond thickness ta. All the ranges of

the parameters are according to the findings from the database (Table 2). A single-shear lap

joint shown in Fig. 3(a) is selected and the parameters for the parametric analysis matrix are

listed in Table 6. Typical linear and nonlinear structural adhesives, i.e., Sikadur 30 and Araldite

f
oo
420 are selected and the mechanical properties of the materials are referred to Agarwal et al.

r
-p
[46] and Fawzia et al. [27], respectively. In the following analysis, only the scenarios with
re
adhesive layer failure are discussed for the sake of simplicity. Also, it is assumed that the failure
lP

mode doesn’t change within the range of the parameters adopted in this study.
na

6.1. Effect of FRP profile

ur

The material profile of the FRP layer is considered to be important in the retrofitting
Jo

system. Here, Eptp is taken into consideration and a total of six values were set at 50 GPa·mm,

200 GPa·mm, 400 GPa·mm, 600 GPa·mm, 800 GPa·mm and 1000 GPa·mm. It is mentioned

in Section “Bond-slip modeling” that the FRP properties are not involved in the bond-slip

relationship, and therefore, only the load-displacement curves are displayed in Fig. 12. With

the increase of the value of Eptp from 50 GPa·mm to 1000 GPa·mm, the ultimate load-bearing

capacity is pronouncedly enhanced from 18.0 kN to 80.4 kN, and from 63.2 kN to 282.5 kN for

the specimens bonded by the linear and nonlinear epoxies, respectively. In addition, the

improvement of the mechanical properties of the FRP leads to increased joint stiffness. Taking

20
the specimens in Fig. 12(a) as examples, the ratios of the tensile stiffness of the joints at Eptp

equaling 200 GPa·mm, 400 GPa·mm, 600 GPa·mm, 800 GPa·mm, and 1000 GPa·mm to that

of the specimen with Eptp of 50 GPa·mm are 2.0, 2.8, 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5, respectively. In

comparison with the specimens with the linear epoxy, the specimens with the nonlinear epoxy

have considerably larger bond strength provided that the other parameters are all the same,

which is mainly attributed to the larger interfacial fracture energy of the structural adhesive. It

is also interesting to see the difference in the joint stiffness due to the different structural

f
oo
adhesives. In terms of the scenarios of adhesive layer failure, the deformation of the joints

r
-p
mainly depends on the bond layer and therefore, the specimens bonded by the structural
re
adhesive with a larger elastic modulus lead to a higher tensile stiffness.
lP

6.2. Effect of structural adhesive tensile strength

na

In addition to the tensile stiffness of the FRP overlay, the mechanical properties of the
ur

structural adhesive are also of great importance which is directly related to the load transfer
Jo

between FRP and substrate. Here, six tensile strengths of the structural adhesive were analyzed,

which were equal to 10 MPa, 20 MPa, 30 MPa, 40 MPa, 50 MPa, and 60 MPa. The

corresponding effect on the interfacial behavior in terms of load-displacement curves and bond-

slip relationship are depicted in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. The general effect of ft,a on the

load-displacement curves is similar to that of the FRP stiffness. The ultimate strength and

tensile stiffness of the bond joints gradually increase with the structural adhesive tensile

strength. The ultimate load-carrying capacity of the bond joints increases from 25.4 kN (ft,a =

10 MPa) to 43.5 kN (ft,a = 60 MPa), and from 59.4 kN (ft,a = 10 MPa) to 213.0 kN (ft,a = 60

21
MPa) with respected to the scenarios of the linear and nonlinear epoxies, respectively.

Fig. 14 displays the bond-slip relationship of the specimens with various tensile

strengths of the structural adhesive. The curves of the scenarios with the linear and nonlinear

epoxies are witnessed definite difference in the shape. With the structural adhesive tensile

strength increasing from 10 MPa to 60 MPa, the peak shear stress of the specimens with the

linear epoxy increases from 8.4 MPa to 49.9 MPa (approximately 5 times). A similar trend can

be extended to the samples with the nonlinear epoxy. However, the effect on the peak slip and

f
oo
ultimate slip of the specimens is different. The peak slip of the specimens with the linear epoxy

r
-p
is approximately the same to each other whereas the value of the specimens with the nonlinear
re
epoxy remarkably increases from 0.14 mm (ft,a = 10 MPa) to 0.32 mm (ft,a = 60 MPa). The
lP

enclosed area of the bond-slip curve represents the interfacial fracture energy which is an

important index of the load-bearing capacity of the bond joints and therefore, the ultimate
na

strength of the specimens with the nonlinear epoxy is more pronouncedly enhanced with the
ur

increase of the structural adhesive tensile strength in comparison with that bonded by the linear
Jo

epoxy.

6.3. Effect of structural adhesive elastic modulus

Structural adhesive elastic modulus is an index to distinguish the profile of the epoxy.

Generally, the linear epoxy has a larger elastic modulus and smaller ultimate strain than that of

the nonlinear epoxy. Based on the experimental data collected in Table 2, the variation ranges

of the elastic modulus selected here are from 3000 MPa to 15000 MPa, and from 1000 MPa to

3000 MPa, for the linear and nonlinear epoxy, respectively.

22
 Rather than the aforementioned FRP stiffness and structural adhesive tensile strength,

the increase of the structural adhesive elastic modulus shows a detrimental effect on the ultimate

strength of the bond joints (Fig. 15). For the specimens with the linear epoxy, the bond stiffness

slightly increases with the increased elastic modulus of the epoxy nonetheless the bond strength

dramatically drops from 57.0 kN (Ea = 3000 MPa) to 35.1 kN (Ea = 15000 MPa). A similar

variation trend is found in the specimens with the nonlinear structural adhesive. It is mainly due

to declined interfacial fracture energy as illustrated by the area enveloped by the curves in Fig.

f
oo
16. Provided the constant structural adhesive tensile strength ft,a, when the structural adhesive

r
-p
elastic modulus is enhanced, the deformation of the bond layer consequently decreases, leading
re
to the decreased peak slip and ultimate slip values for the specimens both with the linear and
lP

nonlinear structural adhesive. However, the peak stress keeps constant since it is related to the

tensile strength of the structural adhesive.

na
ur

6.4. Effect of bond thickness

Jo

In the external bonding repair system, the thickness of the bond layer is recognized as a

key factor that ensures the retrofitting efficiency. Its effect on the interfacial behavior here is

investigated by considering six bond thicknesses, i.e., 0.2 mm, 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, 2.0 mm, 3.0

mm, and 4.0 mm. Figs. 17 and 18 give the corresponding results of the load-displacement

relationship and bond-slip curves, respectively. The increased bond thickness shows a

beneficial effect on the bond strength, and slightly decreases the tensile stiffness of the bond

joints, especially for the specimens with the nonlinear epoxy. When the bond thickness

increases from 0.5 mm to 4.0 mm, the bond strength is improved from 32.8 kN to 44.3 kN and

23
from 100.7 kN to 209.0 kN for the scenarios with the linear and nonlinear epoxies, respectively.

The corresponding increase percentages are 34.9% and 108.5%. Similar to the effect of the

structural adhesive elastic modulus, the bond thickness only affects the peak slip and ultimate

slip of the bond-slip curves rather than the peak stress. For the cases with the linear epoxy, the

peak slips are approximately the same whereas the ultimate slip increases from 0.22 mm to 0.40

mm when the bond thickness increases from 0.2 to 4.0 mm.

f
oo
7. Conclusions

r
-p
This paper presents an analytical investigation of the interfacial behavior between FRP
re
and steel. A total of 400 single/double-lap shear joints were extracted from the literature. A
lP

unified bond-slip model for FRP externally bonded on steel substrates was proposed. The

following observations can be made and conclusions drawn.

na

(1) A unification of the bond-slip model for FRP externally bonded on steel substrates, in
ur

terms of various failure modes and adhesive types was proposed. It has a continuous
Jo

mathematic function which provides convenient uses when used for design and analysis. FRP-

to-steel bond joints with arbitrary bond lengths can be calculated with the proposed model. The

proposed model provides an “unknown” function to help to predict the existing FRP-to-steel

bond systems in practice that the failure mode is impossible to be known.

(2) A database comprised of the experimental results of 400 single- /double-lap shear joints

was collected. General observations in terms of the test scenarios and failure modes were

commented. Comparison of the bond strength between the prediction results and test data

indicated that the analytical model could give reasonable results regardless of the known or

24
unknown failure modes. The theoretical solution also agreed well with the experimental

findings of load-displacement relationship, FRP strain on the bond length, and bond-slip curves

of typical specimens.

(3) A parametric study was conducted to evaluate effects of FRP profile, structural

adhesive property and bond thickness on the interfacial behavior. It was demonstrated that the

bond strength was pronouncedly enhanced by the increased FRP stiffness. Increase of the

structural adhesive tensile strength directly improved the maximum shear strength of the

f
oo
interface and therefore is beneficial to the bond behavior. Nevertheless, a larger structural

r
-p
adhesive elastic modulus led to a declined relative slip between FRP and steel, and consequently
re
a reduced bond strength. In terms of the bond thickness, the peak shear stress kept constant
lP

whereas a thicker bond layer resulted in increased deformation occurred in the interface and

therefore increased interfacial fracture energy.

na

(4) Current studies normally develop models based on certain experimental scenarios,
ur

including the bond system and the failure mode. This study derived an analytical solution with
Jo

parameters determined based on the database. In addition, the suggestions of the parametric

analysis are based on the assumption of a certain failure mode and parameter ranges selected in

this study. Future research work is desired on the design of the FRP-to-steel interface, especially

on the evaluation of the failure mode in terms of various input parameters.

Acknowledgments

The work described in this paper was supported by the National Natural Science

Foundation of China (Project Nos. 51878485, 51938013), and Shanghai Science and

25
Technology Committee Rising-Star Program (19QC1400400), China.

Appendix – Demonstrations of some main equations in this paper

The derivations of some main equations in this paper are listed in this appendix. It should

be noted that the simplified demonstrations here aim to give better understandings on the

theoretical parts in the paper, and they are originally developed by the first author’s former

research group [63][64].

f
oo
Fig. A1 shows the properties of the FRP-steel bonding system. The governing equations

r
for the external bonding system are: -p ds  x 
  x 
re
(A1)
dx
d  x  d 2s  x
lP

  x   Ept p  E pt p (A2)
dx dx 2
where (x), f (x) and s(x) are the bond stress, FRP strain and slip distribution along the
na

longitudinal direction x at a particular pull-off force; Ep and tp are the elastic modulus and
ur

thickness of FRP, respectively.

Jo

The basic and only assumption in these derivations is that the regular distribution of the

slip s(x) along the bond interface at any loading levels can be represented using the following

mathematical function:

 x  x0

s  x    ln 1  e   (A3)
 
 

where α and β are coefficients to be determined; x0 is the x value of the location that has the

highest bond stress.

Substituting Eq. (A3) into Eqs. (A1) and (A2) leads to:

 1
  x  (A4)
 
x  x0

1 e

26
 x  x0

 e 
  x   E pt p (A5)
2  
x  x0

2

1  e 
 
 

Rewriting Eq. (A3) gives:

x  x0 s x

e 
e 
1 (A6)

Substituting Eq. (A6) into Eqs. (A4) and (A5) yields:

  
s
 s  1  e   (A7)
 

f
oo
  s   
s
  s   Ept p e  1  e 
 (A8)
2  

r
-p
where Eq. (A7) is the relationship between FRP strain and slip; and Eq. (A8) is the bond-slip
re
relationship, as Eq. (2) in this paper.
lP

Also, let x = x0 in Eq. (A5), the maximum bond stress is:

1 
f  Ept p 2 (A9)
na

4 

as Eq. (5) in this paper.

ur

Based on the constitutive relationships above, the first author’s former group has derived
Jo

a closed-form analytical solution for the bond strength of externally bonded reinforcement with

an arbitrary bond length [62]. The closed-form solution is:

Pu ( L) 
 E p t p bp 1- 2 sinh  1- 2 L   (A10)
 1   cosh
  1- L  

2

where η is given by:
L  L 
1   2   2 1  2 2  sinh 
L
2 2 1   2 cosh  1  2 
      
(A11)
L 3  2 L 
2  1   2   3 sinh  1  2   0
   

when L approaches to ∞, η is equal to 0. Hence, for infinite (or long) bond length,

27
  1- 2 sinh  1- 2 L   1 (A12)
 
Lim
L 
1   cosh 1- 2 L 


and Pu ()  E p t p bp (A13)


which is Eq. (3) in the paper.

The interfacial fracture energy of FRP bonding system is defined as

2
 1  
G f     s ds  E pt p   (A14)
0 2  

Considering Eq. (A14), Eq. (A13) can be rewritten as

f
oo
Pu ()  bp 2G f E p t p (A15)

r
which is Eq. (7) in the paper. -p
re
lP

References

[1] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP Strengthened RC Structures, John Wiley and
na

Sons, 2002.
ur

[2] Zhang DM, Gu XL, Yu QQ, Huang HW, Wan B, Jiang C. Fully probabilistic analysis of
Jo

FRP-to-concrete bonded joints considering model uncertainty. Composite Structures

2018;185:786-806.

[3] Wang YL, Chen GP, Wan BL, Cai GC, Zhang YW. Behavior of circular ice-filled self-

luminous FRP tubular stub columns under axial compression. Construction and Building

Materials, 2020, 232(30):117287.

[4] Wang YL, Cai GC, Li YY, Waldmann D, Larbi AS, Tsavdaridis KD. Behavior of circular

fiber-reinforced polymer-steel-confined concrete columns subjected to reversed cyclic

28
 loads: experimental studies and finite-element analysis. Journal of Structural

Engineering,2019,145(9):04019085.

[5] Li P, Wu YF, Zhou Y, Xing F. Stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete subject to

arbitrary load path. Composites Part B: Engineering 2019,163:9-25.

[6] Zhou A, Qiu Q, Chow CL, Lau D. Interfacial performance of aramid, basalt and carbon

fiber reinforced polymer bonded concrete exposed to high temperature. Composites Part

A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 2020,131:105802.

f
oo
[7] Zhao XL, Zhang L. State-of-the-art review on FRP strengthened steel structures.

r
-p
Engineering Structures 2007;29(8):1808-1823.
re
[8] Wang HT, Liu SS, Liu QL, Pang YY, Shi JW. Influences of the joint and epoxy adhesive
lP

type on the CFRP-steel interfacial behavior. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021, 43:

103167.
na

[9] Yu QQ, Chen T, Gu XL, Zhao XL, Xiao ZG. Fatigue behaviour of CFRP strengthened
ur

steel plates with different degrees of damage. Thin-Walled Structures 2013;69:10-17.

Jo

[10] Yu QQ, Wu YF. Fatigue strengthening of cracked steel beams with different configurations

and materials. Journal of Composites for Construction 2017;21(2):04016093.

[11] Yu QQ, Gu XL, Zhao XL, Zhang D, Huang H, Jiang C. Characterization of model

uncertainty of adhesively bonded CFRP-to-steel joints. Composite Structures

2019;215:150-165.

[12] Li J, Deng J, Wang Y, Guan J, Zheng H. Experimental study of notched steel beams

strengthened with a CFRP plate subjected to overloading fatigue and wetting/drying cycles.

Composite Structures 2019;209:634-643.

29
[13] Feng P, Hu LL. Steel columns strengthened/reinforced by prestressed CFRP strips:

concepts and behaviors under axial compressive loads. Composite Structures

2019;217:150-164

[14] Ghafoori E, Hosseini A, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao XL, Motavalli M. Prestressed CFRP-

strengthening and long-term wireless monitoring of an old roadway metallic bridge.

Engineering Structures 2018;176:585-605.

[15] Colombi P, Fava G, Sonzogni L. Fatigue crack growth in CFRP-strengthened steel plates.

f
oo
Composites Part B: Engineering 2015;72:87-96.

r
-p
[16] Barenblatt GI. The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Advances
re
in Applied Mechanics 1962;7:55-129.
lP

[17] Park K, Paulino GH. Cohesive zone models: a critical review of traction-separation

relationships across fracture surfaces. Applied Mechanics Reviews 2011;64(6):06802.

na

[18] Ascione F, Lamberti M, Napoli A, Razaqpur AG, Realfonzo R. Modeling SRP-concrete

ur

interfacial bond behavior and strength. Engineering Structures 2019;187:220-230.

Jo

[19] Ascione F, Napoli A, Realfonzo R. Interface bond between FRP systems and substrate:

Analytical modeling. Composite Structures 2021;257:112942.

[20] Ascione F, Lamberti M, Napoli A, Realfonzo R. Bond-slip models for the interface

between steel fabric reinforced cementitious matrix and concrete substrate. Composite Part

C: Open Access 2020;3:100078.

[21] Hart-Smith L. Adhesive-bonded double-lap joints. NASA contract report. 1973.

[22] Xia SH, Teng JG. Behaviour of FRP-to-steel bonded joints. In: Proceedings of the

international symposium on bond behaviour of FRP in structures (BBFS 2005), Hong

30
 Kong, China; 2005. https://www.iifc.org/proceedings/BBFS_2005/FRP-

Strengthened%20Steel%20Structures/F1_0084-Behaviour%20of%20FRP-to-

Steel%20Bonded%20Joints.pdf
[23] Bocciarelli M, Colombi P, Fava G, Poggi C. Interaction of interface delamination and

plasticity in tensile steel members reinforced by CFRP plates. International Journal of

Fracture 2007;146(1-2):79-92.

[24] Yu T, Fernando D, Teng JG, Zhao XL. Experimental study on CFRP-to-steel bonded

f
interfaces. Composites Part B: Engineering 2012;43(5):2279-2289.

oo
[25] Fernando D, Yu T, Teng JG. Behavior of CFRP laminates bonded to a steel substrate using

r
-p
a ductile adhesive. Journal of Composites for Construction, 2014, 18(2): 04013040
re
[26] Akbar I, Oehlers DJ, Mohamed Ali MG. Derivation of the bond-slip characteristics for

FRP plated steel members. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2010;66(8-9):1047-

lP

1056.
na

[27] Fawzia S, Zhao XL, Al-Mahaidi R. Bond-slip models for double strap joints strengthened
ur

by CFRP. Composite Structures 2010;92(9):2137-2145.

Jo

[28] He J, Xian G J. Debonding of CFRP-to-steel joints with CFRP delamination. Composite

Structures 2016;153:12-20.

[29] Wang HT, Wu G, Pang YY, Shi J W, Zakari HM. Experimental study on the bond behavior

between CFRP plates and steel substrates under fatigue loading. Composites: Part B,

2019;176:107266.
[30] Wang HT, Wu G, Dai YT, He XY. Determination of the bond-slip behavior of CFRP-to-

steel bonded interfaces using digital image correlation. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and

Composites 2016;35(18):1353-1367.

31
[31] Wang HT, Wu G, Dai YT, He XY. Experimental study on bond behavior between CFRP

plates and steel substrates using digital image correlation. Journal of Composites for

Construction 2016;20(6):04016054.

[32] Wang HT, Wu G. Bond-slip models for CFRP plates externally bonded to steel substrates.

Composite Structures 2018;184:1204-1214.

[33] Yang YM, Biscaia H, Chastre C, Silva MAG. Bond characteristics of CFRP-to-steel joints.

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2017;138:401-419.

f
oo
[34] Chen GM, Teng JG, Chen JF, Xiao QG. Finite element modeling of debonding failures in

r
FRP-strengthened RC beams: A dynamic approach. Computers & Structures

2015;158:167-183.
-p
re
[35] Chen GM, Li SW, Fernando D. Liu PC, Chen JF. Full-range FRP failure behaviour in RC
lP

beams shear-strengthened with FRP wraps. International Journal of Solids and Structures
na

2017;125:1-21.
ur

[36] Yuan C, Chen W, Pham TM, Hao H, Chen L, Zhang M. New epoxy anchor for better
Jo

bonding between FRP sheets and concrete. Construction and Building Materials

2020;248:118628.

[37] Jiang C, Wan B, Wu YF, Omboko J. Epoxy interlocking: A novel approach to enhance

FRP-to-concrete bond behavior. Construction and Building Materials 2018;193:643-653.

[38] Wan B, Jiang C , Wu YF. Effect of defects in externally bonded FRP reinforced concrete.

Construction and Building Materials 2018;172:63-76.

[39] Fawzia S. Bond characteristics Between Steel and Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer

(CFRP) Composites. Monash University; 2007.

32
[40] Wu C, Zhao XL, Duan WH, Al-Mahaidi R. Bond characteristics between ultra high

modulus CFRP laminates and steel. Thin-Walled Structures 2012;51:147-157.

[41] Al-Zubaidy H, Zhao XL, Al-Mahaidi R. Dynamic bond strength between CFRP sheet and

steel. Composite Structures 2012;94(11):3258-3270.

[42] Al-Zubaidy H, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao XL. Experimental investigation of bond characteristics

between CFRP fabrics and steel plate joints under impact tensile loads. Composite

Structures 2012;94:510-518.

f
oo
[43] Al-Mosawe A, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao XL. Bond behaviour between CFRP laminates and

r
-p
steel members under different loading rates. Composite Structures 2016;148:236-251.
re
[44] Al-Mosawe A, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao XL. Effect of CFRP properties, on the bond
lP

characteristics between steel and CFRP laminate under quasi-static loading. Construction

and Buildidng Materials 2015;98:489-501.

na

[45] Agarwal A, Foster SJ, Hamed E. Testing of new adhesive and CFRP laminate for steel-
ur

CFRP joints under sustained loading and temperature cycles. Composites Part B:
Jo

Engineering 2016;99:235-247.

[46] Agarwal A, Foster SJ, Hamed E, Ng TS. Influence of freeze-thaw cycling on the bond

strength of steel-FRP lap joints. Composites Part B: Engineering 2014;60:178-185.

[47] Borrie D, Liu HB, Zhao XL, Singh Raman RK, Bai Y. Bond durability of fatigued CFRP-

steel double-lap joints pre-exposed to marine environment. Composite Structures

2015;131:799-809.

[48] Kim SJ, Smith ST, Young B. Effect of surface preparation on the strength of FRP-tomild

steel and FRP-to-stainless steel joints. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conferences

33
 on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Beijing, China; 2010.

[49] Liu HB, Zhao XL, Al-Mahaidi R. Effect of fatigue loading on bond strength between CFRP

sheets and steel plates. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics

2010;10(1):1-20.

[50] Wu C, Zhao XL, Chiu WK, Al-Mahaidi R, Duan WH. Effect of fatigue loading on the bond

behaviour between UHM CFRP plates and steel plates. Composites Part B: Engineering

2013;50:344-353.

f
oo
[51] Korayem AH, Li CY, Zhang QH, Zhao XL, Duan WH. Effect of carbon nanotube modified

r
-p
epoxy adhesive on CFRP-to-steel interface. Composites Part B: Engineering 2015;79:95-
re
104.
lP

[52] Fawzia S. Evaluation of shear stress and slip relationship of composite lap joints.

Composite Structures 2013;100:548-553.

na

[53] Ceroni F, Ianniciello M, Pecce M. Bond behavior of FRP carbon plates externally bonded
ur

over steel and concrete elements: experimental outcomes and numerical investigations.
Jo

Composites Part B: Engineering 2016;92:434-446.

[54] Bocciarelli M, Colombi P, Fava G, Poggi C. Prediction of debonding strength of tensile

steel/CFRP joints using fracture mechanics and stress based criteria. Engineering Fracture

Mechanics 2009;76(2):299-313.

[55] Colombi P, Poggi C. Strengthening of tensile steel members and bolted joints using

adhesively bonded CFRP plates. Construction and Building Materials 2006;20(1-2):22-33.

[56] Heshmati M, Haghani R, Al-Emrani M, André A. On the strength prediction of adhesively

bonded FRP-steel joints using cohesive zone modelling. Theoretical and Applied Fracture

34
 Mechanics 2018;93:64-78.

[57] Lam ACC, Cheng JJR, Yam MCH, Kennedy GD. Repair of steel structures by bonded

carbon fibre reinforced polymer patching: experimental and numerical study of carbon

fibre reinforced polymer-steel double-lap joints under tensile loading. Canadian Journal of

Civil Engineering 2007;34(12):1542-1553.

[58] Yu QQ, Gao RX, Gu XL, Zhao XL, Chen T. Bond behavior of CFRP-steel double-lap

joints exposed to marine atmosphere and fatigue loading. Engineering Structures

f
oo
2018;175:76-85.

r
-p
[59] Ascione F, Granata L, Guadagno L, Naddeo C. Hygrothermal durability of epoxy adhesives
re
used in civil structural applications. Composite Structures 2021;265:113591.
lP

[60] Dai J, Ueda T, Sato Y. Development of the nonlinear bond stress-slip model of fiber

reinforced plastics sheet-concrete interfaces with a simple method. Journal of Composites

na

for Construction 2005;9(1):52-62.

ur

[61] Wu YF, Jiang C. Quantification of bond-slip relationship for externally bonded FRP- to-
Jo

concrete joints. ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, 2013;17(5):673-686.

[62] Wu YF, Xu XS, Sun JB, Jiang C. Analytical solution for the bond strength of externally

bonded reinforcement. Composite Structures 2012;94(11):3232-3239.

[63] Zhou YW, Wu YF, Yun YC. Analytical modeling of the bond-slip relationship at FRP-

concrete interfaces for adhesviely-bonded joints. Composites Part B: Engineering

2010;41:423-433.

[64] Liu K, Wu YF. Analytical identification of bond-slip relationship of EB-FRP joints.

Composites Part B: Engineering 2012;43(4):1955-1963.

35
τ

τ
τf

τf
O s1 sf s O s1 s2 sf s
(a) Bilinear model (b) Trilinear model
Fig. 1. Typical FRP/steel bond-slip models

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

36
 30
Xia and Teng [22]
Interfacial shear stress (MPa) 25 Fawiaz et al. [27]
20 He and Xian [28] (linear)
15 He and Xian [28] (nonlinear)
10 Wang and Wu [32] (linear)
Wang and Wu [32] (nonlinear)
5
Yang et al. [33]
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Relative slip (mm)

Fig. 2. Examples of bond-slip curves based on different models

Note:

f
1. The following material properties are adopted in calculation for an example. The tensile strength

oo
ft,a, elastic modulus Ea and Poisson’s ratio va are from Fawzia (2007) [39]. The bond thickness
ta are assumed as 0.5 mm.

r
Linear structural adhesive, ft,a = 24 MPa, Ea = 9282 MPa, va = 0.21, ta = 0.5 mm
-p
Nonlinear structural adhesive, ft,a = 28.6 MPa, Ea = 1901 MPa, va = 0.36, ta = 0.5 mm
2. Models presented in Yu et al. (2012) [24] & Fernando et al. (2014) [25] are not included in
re
comparison because the calculation of tensile strain energy of the structural adhesive (R) is not
provided.
lP

3. The key parameters of each model are provided here for reference
1) Xia and Teng model (2005)
na

s1 = 0.0025 mm, sf = 0.1562 mm, τf = 19.2 MPa

2) Fawiaz et al. model (2010)
s1 = 0.005 mm, sf = 0.125 mm, τf = 24.0 MPa
ur

3) He and Xian model (2016)

Jo

Linear adhesive, A = 48, B = 34.46

Nonlinear adhesive, s1 = 0.080 mm, s2 = 0.114 mm, sf = 0.194 mm, τf = 14.3 MPa
4) Wang and Wu model (2018)
Linear adhesive, s1 = 0.013 mm, sf = 0.047 mm, τf = 21.6 MPa
Nonlinear adhesive, s1 = 0.084 mm, s2 = 0.378 mm, sf = 0.755 mm, τf = 25.7 MPa
5) Yang et al. model (2017)
s1 = 0.015 mm, s2 = 0.085 mm, sf = 0.300 mm, τ1 = 11.55 MPa, τ2 = 1.40 MPa

37
 Adhesive (ft,a, Ea, va, ta)
FRP (Ep, tp, bp)
P
L

Steel substrate
(Es, ts, bs)

(a) Single-lap shear joint

Adhesive (ft,a, Ea, va, ta)

FRP (Ep, tp, bp)

P Steel substrate (Es, ts, bs) P

L L

f
oo
(b) Double-lap shear joint
Fig. 3. Typical test set-up of interfacial behavior between FRP and steel

r
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

38
 FRP delamination

FRP rupture

FRP

FRP and adhesive interface debonding

Adhesive
Adhesive layer failure

Steel Steel and adhesive interface debonding

Fig. 4. Typical failure modes of FRP bonded steel component subjected to tension [8]

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

39
 τ
τf O s

Fig. 5. Constitutive bond-slip relationship (Eq. (2))

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

40
 P
K0=Eptpbp/β

Pu

sm=α
O Loaded end slip s(0)

Fig. 6. Physical meanings of α and β

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

41
 300 300

Predicted ultimate load Puc (kN)

Predicted ultimate load Puc (kN)

250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Tested ultimate load Pum (kN) Tested ultimate load Pum (kN)
(a) Cases with cohesive failure (b) Cases with steel and adhesive interface
debonding

f
300 300

oo
Predicted ultimate load Puc (kN)

Predicted ultimate load Puc (kN)

250 250

r
200 200

150
-p 150
re
100 100
lP

50 50

0 0
na

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Tested ultimate load Pum (kN) Tested ultimate load Pum (kN)
(c) Cases with CFRP delamination (d) Cases with all failure modes
ur

Fig. 7. Comparison between analytical results and test data from references by using the coefficients
with failure modes known.
Jo

42
 300 300

Predicted ultimate load Puc (kN)

Predicted ultimate load Puc (kN)

250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Tested ultimate load Pum (kN) Tested ultimate load Pum (kN)
(a) Cases with cohesive failure (b) Cases with steel and adhesive interface
debonding

f
300 300

oo
Predicted ultimate load Puc (kN)

Predicted ultimate load Puc (kN)

250 250

r
200 200

150
-p 150
re
100 100
lP

50 50

0 0
na

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Tested ultimate load Pum (kN) Tested ultimate load Pum (kN)
(c) Cases with CFRP delamination (d) Cases with all failure modes
ur

Fig. 8. Comparison between analytical results and test data from references by using the with
coefficients with failure modes unknown
Jo

43
 45
40 Exp. S350-1.0-3
Pre. S350-1.0-3
35
30

Load (kN)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Loaded end displacement (mm)

(a) Linear epoxy Sikadur 30 (S350-1.0-3) [30]

140

f
120

oo
100
Load (kN)

80

r
60
40
-p
re
20 Exp. D-NM-T1-II
Pre. D-NM-T1-II
0
lP

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Loaded end displacement (mm)
na

(b) Nonlinear epoxy Araldite 420 (D-NM-T1-II) [24]

Fig. 9. Comparison of load-displacement relationship between analytical results and test data
ur
Jo

44
 6000
Exp. Pre. (P=25.2 kN) Exp. Pre. (P=37.1 kN)
Exp. Pre. (P=35.0 kN) Exp. Pre. (P=38.3 kN)
5000 Exp. Pre. (P=37.5 kN) Exp. Pre. (P=38.0 kN)

FRP strain (με)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from the loaded end (mm)

(a) Linear epoxy Sikadur 30 (S350-1.0-3) [30]

14000
Exp. Pre. (P/Pu = 0.20)

f
12000 Exp. Pre. (P/Pu = 0.50)

oo
Exp. Pre. (P/Pu = 0.79)
10000 Exp. Pre. (P/Pu = 0.90)
FRP strain (με)

Exp. Pre. (P/Pu = 0.98)

8000
Exp. Pre. (P/Pu = 1.00)

r
6000
4000
-p
re
2000
0
lP

0 100 200 300

Distance from the loaded end (mm)

(b) Nonlinear epoxy Araldite 420 (D-NM-T1-II) [24]

na

Fig. 10. Comparison of FRP strain between analytical results and test data
ur
Jo

45
 35
At different loading stages

Interfacial shear stress (MPa)

30 Pre.

25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Slip (mm)

(a) Linear epoxy Sikadur 30 (S350-1.0-3) [30]

25
30 mm
Interfacial shear stress (MPa)

50 mm

f
oo
20 70 mm
90 mm
15 110 mm
150 mm

r
Pre.
10

5
-p
re
0
lP

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Slip (mm)

(b) Nonlinear epoxy Araldite 420 (D-NM-T1-II) [24]

na

Fig. 11. Comparison of bond-slip relationship between analytical results and test data
ur
Jo

46
 100
Eptp = 50 GPa·mm
80
Eptp = 200 GPa·mm
Load (kN)
60 Eptp = 400 GPa·mm

40 Eptp = 600 GPa·mm

Eptp = 800 GPa·mm

20
Eptp = 1000 GPa·mm
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Loaded end displacement (mm)

(a) Linear epoxy

300
Eptp = 50 GPa·mm

f
250

oo
Eptp = 200 GPa·mm
200
Load (kN)

Eptp = 400 GPa·mm

r
150
Eptp = 600 GPa·mm
100
-p Eptp = 800 GPa·mm
re
50
Eptp = 1000 GPa·mm
0
lP

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Loaded end displacement (mm)

(b) Nonlinear epoxy

na

Fig. 12. Effect of FRP profile on the load-displacement relationship

ur
Jo

47
 50
ft,a = 10 MPa
40
ft,a = 20 MPa

Load (kN) 30 ft,a = 30 MPa

20 ft,a = 40 MPa

ft,a = 50 MPa
10
ft,a = 60 MPa
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Loaded end displacement (mm)

(a) Linear epoxy

250
ft,a = 10 MPa

f
oo
200
ft,a = 20 MPa
Load (kN)

150 ft,a = 30 MPa

r
ft,a = 40 MPa
100

50
-p ft,a = 50 MPa
re
ft,a = 60 MPa
0
lP

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Loaded end displacement (mm)

(b) Nonlinear epoxy

na

Fig. 13. Effect of adhesive tensile strength on the load-displacement relationship

ur
Jo

48
 60
ft,a = 10 MPa

Interfacial shear stress (MPa)

50
ft,a = 20 MPa
40
ft,a = 30 MPa
30
ft,a = 40 MPa
20
ft,a = 50 MPa
10
ft,a = 60 MPa
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Slip (mm)

(a) Linear epoxy

60
ft,a = 10 MPa
Interfacial shear stress (MPa)

f
50

oo
ft,a = 20 MPa
40
ft,a = 30 MPa

r
30
ft,a = 40 MPa
20
-p ft,a = 50 MPa
re
10
ft,a = 60 MPa
0
lP

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Slip (mm)

(b) Nonlinear epoxy

na

Fig. 14. Effect of adhesive tensile strength on the bond-slip relationship

ur
Jo

49
 60
Ea = 3000 MPa
50
Ea = 6000 MPa
Load (kN) 40

30 Ea = 9000 MPa

20 Ea = 12000 MPa

10 Ea = 15000 MPa

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Loaded end displacement (mm)

(a) Linear epoxy

200
Ea = 1000 MPa

f
oo
150 Ea = 1500 MPa
Load (kN)

Ea = 2000 MPa

r
100

50
-p Ea = 2500 MPa
re
Ea = 3000 MPa
0
lP

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Loaded end displacement (mm)

(b) Nonlinear epoxy

na

Fig. 15. Effect of adhesive elastic modulus on the load-displacement relationship

ur
Jo

50
 30

Interfacial shear stress (MPa)

Ea = 3000 MPa
25
Ea = 6000 MPa
20

15 Ea = 9000 MPa

10 Ea = 12000 MPa

5 Ea = 15000 MPa

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Slip (mm)

(a) Linear epoxy

30
Interfacial shear stress (MPa)

Ea = 1000 MPa

f
25

oo
Ea = 1500 MPa
20

r
15 Ea = 2000 MPa

10
-p Ea = 2500 MPa
re
5 Ea = 30000 MPa
0
lP

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Slip (mm)

(b) Nonlinear epoxy

na

Fig. 16. Effect of adhesive elastic modulus on the bond-slip relationship

ur
Jo

51
 50
ta = 0.2 mm
40
Load (kN) ta = 0.5 mm

30 ta = 1.0 mm

ta = 2.0 mm
20
ta = 3.0 mm
10
ta = 4.0 mm
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Loaded end displacement (mm)

(a) Linear epoxy

200
ta = 0.2 mm

f
oo
150 ta = 0.5 mm
Load (kN)

ta = 1.0 mm

r
100
ta = 2.0 mm

50
-p ta = 3.0 mm
re
ta = 4.0 mm
0
lP

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Loaded end displacement (mm)

(b) Nonlinear epoxy

na

Fig. 17. Effect of bond thickness on the load-displacement relationship

ur
Jo

52
 30
ta = 0.2 mm

Interfacial shear stress (MPa)

25
ta = 0.5 mm
20
ta = 1.0 mm
15
ta = 2.0 mm
10
ta = 3.0 mm
5
ta = 4.0 mm
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Slip (mm)

(a) Linear epoxy

30
ta = 0.2 mm
Interfacial shear stress (MPa)

f
25

oo
ta = 0.5 mm
20
ta = 1.0 mm

r
15
ta = 2.0 mm
10
-p ta = 3.0 mm
re
5
ta = 4.0 mm
0
lP

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Slip (mm)

(b) Nonlinear epoxy

na

Fig. 18. Effect of bond thickness on the bond-slip relationship

ur
Jo

53
 f
oo
Fig. A1. Properties of FRP-steel bonding

r
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

54
Table 1
Typical bond strength and bond slip models for FRP/steel interface
Reference Bond strength model Bond slip model
Hart-Smith (1973) [21] When L≥Le Null
Pu  bp min Pi , P0 

1   Et 
Pi  2 f ta   e   p  2 Es ts 1  s s
 2E t  (Ests<2Eptp)
2   p p 

1   2E t 
P0  2 f ta   e   p  4E pt p 1  p p  (Ests≥2Eptp)

f
2   Es ts 

oo
Pult 2
Le  
2 f bp 

r
-p
Ga  1 2 
   
ta  E pt p Est s 

re
Pu ,1  Pu L / Le for L  Le

lP
Xia and Teng (2005) [22] When L≥Le Bilinear bond slip relationship
Pu  bp 2G f E pt p  s
 f s if s  s1

na
G f  0.5 f s f
 1
0.56  s  s
 ft , a     f f if s1  s  s f
ta 0.27  N  mm / mm2 
ur
 f s f  62  
 Ga   s f  s1
0
Jo

 f  0.8 ft ,a if s  s f



Le  0.56
2  f / Ept p s f  ft , a 
 f  0.8 f t ,a , s1   f ta Ga , s f  62   ta 0.27  f
 Ga 
Bocciarelli et al. (2007) [23] When L≥Le Null
 1
Pu  N   bp 2G f E pt p

bsts Es

2bp t p E p
 f 2t a e
Gf 
Ga

55
  2G f E pt p
Le  2.77  
 1 f
N is the number of interfaces working in parallel
Yu et al. (2012) [24] When L≥Le Linear adhesive
Fernando et al. (2014) [25] Pu  bp 2G f E pt p  s
 f s if s  s1
G f  628 t a 0.5 R 2  1

1 1 C  s f  s
Le  ad  be  ln    f if s1  s  s f
1 1 C  s f  s1

f
0

oo
1   s2   if s  sf
ad    2  1  1 
1   s1   
 

r
0.65
t 

-p
2G f
 2    f  0.9 ft , a , s1  0.3  a  ft , a , s f 
2  f
s  s2  
1
be  arcsin   Ga  f
2  0.97 s11

re

2
C  s  s  cot  2be   1ad Nonlinear adhesive

lP
1 s1 f 2
 s
 max  1 bp   f s if s  s1

na
2      1
2G f  E p t p Est tst bst   f if s1  s  s2
 
2G f 2
ur
12    s f  s if s2  s  s f
 max s1  f s f  s2
Jo

2G f 
22  2 0 if s  s f
 max  s f  s2 
 f  0.9 ft , a , s1  0.081 mm , s2  0.80 mm
  s1  
2  Gf  f  s2  2  
 
sf    s2
f
Fawiaz et al. (2010) [27] Null Bilinear bond slip relationship

56
  s
 f s1
if s  s1

 sf  s
   f if s1  s  s f
 s f  s1
0 if s  sf


 ta
 for ta  0.1 ~ 0.5 mm


f
ta
 f  f t , a , s1  , sf   4

oo
10 0.125  ta  0.5 for ta  0.5 ~ 1 mm

 10

r
He and Xian (2016) [28] Linear adhesive

-p
Pu  bp 2G f E pt p

G f  10.65t 1.745
R 0.437   Ae Bs 1  e  Bs 

re
a

R      d  A  2 ft , a , B  ft , a / G f

lP
Nonlinear adhesive

na
 s
 f s if s  s1
 1
ur
 f if s1  s  s2
 
 s f  s
Jo

if s2  s  s f
 f s f  s2

0 if s  s f
Gf
 f  0.5 ft , a , s1  0.08 mm , s2  , s f  s1  s2
f
Wang and Wu (2018) [32] When L≥Le Linear adhesive
Pu  bp 2G f E pt p (single-shear)
Pu  bp 2G f E p t p 1    (double-shear)
G f  243ta 0.4 R1.7
R  ft , a 2 / 2Ea

57
  bp E p t p / bs Es ts  s
 f s if s  s1
 1

 s f  s
   f if s1  s  s f
 s f  s1
0 if s  sf


 f  0.9 ft , a

f
ft ,a

oo
s1  2.6 ta0.34
Ga
ta0.4 R1.7

r
s f  540

-p
ft , a
Nonlinear adhesive

re
 s
 f s if s  s1

lP
 1

 f if s1  s  s2

na
 
 s f  s if s2  s  s f
 f s f  s2
ur

0 if s  s f
Jo

 f  0.9 ft , a
ft ,a
s1  2.6 ta0.34
Ga
ta0.4 R1.7 t 0.34 f
s2  180  0.85 a t , a
ft , a Ga
ta0.4 R1.7 t 0.34 f
s f  360  1.7 a t , a
ft , a Ga

58
 Yang et al. (2017) [33] When L≥Le  1
s if 0  s  s1
Pu  bp 2G f E p t p 1  2   1

 2   1  s  s
 1 s1  2  2s f  s2  s1    s 1 2 2 1 if s1  s  s2
Gf   s s s2  s1
2 2  2 1
 2 if s2  s  s f

When L<Le 0 if s  s f
L L 1  11.55 MPa ,  2  1.40 MPa
L  2 
Le  Le  s1  0.015 mm , s2  0.085 mm , s f  0.300 mm

f
oo
Pu   L bp 2G f E p t p 1  2 

r
4E p t p

-p
Le  1
1s1 1  2 

re
  bp E p t p / bs Es ts

lP
Note:
Pu is the peak load (bond strength);

na
E, G, t and b represent the young’s modulus, shear modulus, thickness and width, respectively; the subscripts s, p and a indicate the steel substrate, FRP and
adhesive, respectively;
ur
τf is the peak shear stress;
ft,a is the tensile strength of the adhesive;
Jo
γe and γp are the adhesive elastic and plastic shear strains, respectively;
L and Le are the bond length and the effective bond length, respectively;
Gf is the interfacial fracture energy;
R is the tensile strain energy of the structural adhesive;
s1, s2 and sf are the slip values as depicted in Fig. 1;
Ga = Ea/2(1+v).

59
Table 2
Outline of database
Number of CFRP Surface treatment
Reference Joint type Adhesive type Failure mode
tests type
Xia and Teng [22] 13 Single-lap A, B, C PL Sandblast C, D, C+D
Bocciarelli et al. Abrasive disk
6 Double-lap SI 30 PL SA
[23]
Yu et al. [24] 17 Single-lap SI 30, SI 330, AR 2015, AR 420 PL Abrasive disk C, D, C+D
Akbar et al. [26] 9 Single-lap A, B PL Sandblast C+D, C, D
Fawzia et al. [27] 26 Double-lap AR 420, SI 30, MB WL Abrasive disk SA+D, SA
He and Xian [28] 12 Single-lap T1, Tc, Ts PL Abrasive disk D, C

f
Wang et al. [30] 13 Single-lap AR 2015 PL Sandblast C

oo
Wang et al. [31] 17 Single-lap SI 30 PL Sandblast C
Fawzia et al. [39] 4 Double-lap AR 420 WL Abrasive disk SA
Wu et al. [40] 6 Double-lap SI 30 PL Sandblast C, C+D

r
-p
Al-Zubaidy et al. Sandblast
54 Double-lap MB WL SA, SA+CA
[41]
Al-Zubaidy et al. Sandblast

re
31 Double-lap AR 420 WL SA, SA+D, D
[42]
Al-Mosawe et al. Sandblast
22 Double-lap AR 420 PL SA+C, SA

lP
[43]
Al-Mosawe et al. Sandblast
37 Double-lap AR 420 PL SA+C, SA, D
[44]

na
Agarwal et al. [45] 9 Single-lap Adhesive C PL Abrasive disk D+SA, D, SA
Agarwal et al. [46] 12 Single-lap SI 330, SI30 PL Hand ground C, D
Borrie et al. [47] 1 Double-lap AR 420 PL Sandblast C
ur No treatment, sandpaper, abrasive disk,
Kim et al [48] 24 Single-lap N/A PL SA, C
needling
Jo
Liu et al. [49] 6 Double-lap AR 420 WL Sandpaper, abrasive disk, sandblast D
Wu et al. [50] 5 Double-lap AR 420 PL Sandblast D
AR 2011 (with/without carbon Sandblast SA+CA, SA+C+CA, SA+C+CA+D,
Korayem et al. [51] 12 Double-lap PL
nanotubes) SA+CA+D
Single/double- Abrasive disk
Fawzia [52] 21 MB WL SA
lap
Ceroni et al. [53] 2 Single-lap Adesilex PG1 Mapei PL N/A C
Bocciarelli et al. Abrasive disk
23 Double-lap SI 30 PL SA
[54]
Colombi and Poggi Abrasive disk
3 Double-lap SI 30, SI 330 PL SA, D
[55]
Heshmati et al. [56] 3 Double-lap StoBPE lim 567 epoxy PL Sandblast C
Lam et al. [57] 12 Double-lap N/A PL Sandblast C
Note:
1. In the column of “adhesive type”, AR 420 = Araldite 420, AR 2011 = Araldite 2011, AR 2015 = Araldite 2015, MB = Mbrace Saturant, SI 30 = Sikadur 30, SI
330 = Sikadur 330, N/A indicates that the detailed type is not given in the reference.

60
2. In the column of “FRP type”, WL = wet lay-up, PL = pultruded.
3. In the column of “failure mode”, SA = steel and adhesive interface debonding, C = adhesive layer failure, D = FRP delamination.

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

61
Table 3
Effects of FPR, adhesive, and surface treatment type on the failure mode
Classification index Scenario Failure mode Number (percentage)
Cohesive failure 0 (0%)
Wet lay-up Steel and adhesive interface debonding 118 (83%)
FRP delamination 24 (17%)
FRP type
Cohesive failure 112 (43%)
Pultruded Steel and adhesive interface debonding 97 (38%)
FRP delamination 49 (19%)
Cohesive failure 90 (57%)
Linear Steel and adhesive interface debonding 45 (28%)
FRP delamination 23 (15%)
Adhesive type
Cohesive failure 22 (9%)
Nonlinear Steel and adhesive interface debonding 170 (70%)
FRP delamination 50 (21%)

of
Cohesive failure 69 (29%)
Sandblast Steel and adhesive interface debonding 123 (52%)
FRP delamination 45 (19%)

ro
Surface treatment type
Cohesive failure 23 (18%)
Abrasive disk Steel and adhesive interface debonding 86 (67%)

-p
FRP delamination 20 (15%)
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

62
Table 4
Values of model coefficients
Adhesive type Failure mode c1 c2 c3 k
C 32.08 0.60 0.20 0.84
SA 5.52 0.28 −0.57 0.587
Linear
D 26.89 0.54 0.16 0.594
Unknown 16.63 0.48 0.16 0.80
C 2413.52 1.44 0.50 0.84
SA 0.094 −0.24 −3.63 0.587
Nonlinear
D 6.09 −0.22 −0.06 0.594
Unknown 10.52 0.09 0.96 0.80

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

63
Table 5
Performance (R2) of different prediction models
Proposed model Proposed model
Failure Hart-Smith Xia and Teng Bocciarelli et al. He and Xian Wang and Wu Yang et al.
(failure modes (failure modes
mode (1973) [21] (2005) [22] (2007) [23] (2016) [28] (2018) [32] (2017) [33]
known) unknown)
C 0.40 0.546 0.383 0.257 0.395 0.376 0.792 0.703
SA 0.584 0.577 0.562 0.328 0.490 0.452 0.608 0.499
D 0.840 0.763 0.848 0.360 0.615 0.596 0.791 0.644
All cases 0.550 0.585 0.539 0.307 0.421 0.437 0.692 0.522
Note:

f
oo
Models presented in Yu et al. (2012) [24] & Fernando et al. (2014) [25] are not included in comparison because the calculation of tensile strain energy of the
structural adhesive (R) is not provided.
Model presented in Fawiza et al. (2020) [27] is not included in comparison because the calculation of the bond strength is not provided.

r
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

64
Table 6
Parametric analysis matrix
Linear structural adhesive Nonlinear structural adhesive
Eftf = 200 GPa·mm Eftf = 200 GPa·mm
bf = 50 mm bf = 50 mm
L = 300 mm L = 300 mm
Base model ft,a =31.9 MPa ft,a = 28.6 MPa
Ea = 13900 MPa Ea = 1901 MPa
va = 0.3 va = 0.3
ta = 0.5 mm ta = 0.5 mm
Effect of FRP profile (Eptp) 50 ~ 1000 GPa·mm 50 ~ 1000 GPa·mm
Effect of structural adhesive
10 ~ 60 MPa 10 ~ 60 MPa
tensile strength (ft,a)
Effect of structural adhesive
3000 ~ 15000 MPa 1000 ~ 3000 MPa
elastic modulus (Ea)
Effect of bond thickness (ta) 0.2 ~ 4.0 mm 0.2 ~ 4.0 mm

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

65
A unified bond-slip model for FRP externally bonded on steel was proposed.

The model has a continuous mathematic function in terms of various adhesive types.

A parametric study was done to examine the bond system on the interfacial behavior.

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Declaration of interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that
could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as
potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo