Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Engineering
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering

The analysis of the bond strength between natural fiber reinforced polymer
(NFRP) sheets and concrete
Taufiq Saidi a, *, Muttaqin Hasan a, Zahra Amalia a, Shafira Salsabila b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia
b
Sumatra I Housing Provision Implementation Center, Ministry of Public Work, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study was conducted to develop an empirical model for predicting the bond strength between Natural Fiber
NFRP Reinforced Polymer (NFRP) sheets and concrete. This was achieved through the production of 22 concrete block
Bond strength specimens with a size of 100 mm × 100 mm × 300 mm, having a single longitudinal reinforcing bar with a
Strain
diameter of 10 mm in the center of its cross-section and a pre-existing crack in the middle of its length on 2
Fiber type
Bonding adhesive type
opposite sides. NFRP composites with a size of 50 mm × 240 mm were subsequently applied to both sides
containing a crack. It is important to note that the NFRP was produced from fabric using 4 different types of
fibers including jute, silk, pineapple, as well as dense and non-dense abaca fibers. Moreover, three different types
of bonding adhesives were applied to bond the NFRP composite produced from abaca fiber to the concrete
surface, and these include the standard epoxy resin, polyester resin, and thixotropic epoxy resin. Meanwhile,
those produced using other types of fibers only required the standard epoxy resin. The NFRP was also made with
different numbers of fabric layers ranging from 1 to 3, thereby, resulting in different thicknesses for the sheets. A
tensile load was later applied through both ends of the reinforcing bar to rupture the NFRP sheets. It is pertinent
to state that the bond strength model was proposed as a function of NFRP sheet thickness with due consideration
for the influence of fiber density, fiber type, and bonding adhesive type. It was discovered that the bond strength
calculated using the proposed model was very similar to the value obtained from the experiment. This study also
determined the load-strain relationship and strain distribution along NFRP sheets. Moreover, the use of 2 and 3
layers of fabrics enhanced the bond strength by 118–350% and 312–400% respectively depending on the fiber
and bonding adhesive types.

1. Introduction
The load-carrying capacity of reinforced concrete structures can
decrease due to aging or cracking and this means retrofitting is required
[1–4]. Over the past few decades, Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) has
become a popular choice to strengthen such structures due to its high
tensile strength [5–8]. Specifically, FRP sheets have been extensively
used to increase the flexural or shear capacity of reinforced concrete
beams [9–14]. Moreover, the use of very thin FRP sheets does not
significantly alter the cross-sectional size of the member, thereby,
making its application easier. The benefits of FRP reinforcement extend
beyond beams and also apply to reinforced concrete columns that can be
wrapped with FRP sheets [15–19]. These sheets have been especially
useful for seismic retrofitting, especially at column members and
beam-column joints [20–24]. It is also important to note that synthetic
fibers such as Carbon FRP (CFRP), Glass FRP (GFRP), Aramid FRP
(AFRP), and Basalt FRP (BFRP) are among the materials commonly used
for FRP sheets [25–38].
Despite the several advantages of FRP made from synthetic fibers, its
relatively high cost and lack of environmental friendliness due to its
difficulty in recycling are significant drawbacks. This led to the emer­
gence of an innovation in the form of Natural Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(NFRP) which was produced using natural fibers [39–44]. In recent
years, numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the
manufacturing techniques and properties of NFRP [45–50]. Studies have
focused on its application in strengthening reinforced concrete struc­
tures but they are relatively limited [51–56]. The selection of good fi­
bers, proper fiber orientation, optimal aspect ratio, and good bonding
between the fabric and matrix allows the production of NFRP for
structural reinforcement to achieve a higher strength compared to CFRP

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: taufiq_saidi@usk.ac.id (T. Saidi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101124
Received 10 March 2023; Received in revised form 19 April 2023; Accepted 24 April 2023
Available online 25 April 2023
2590-1230/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T. Saidi et al. Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124

Fig. 1. Pattern of fabrics: (a) jute, (b) silk, (c) pineapple, (d) non-dense abaca, and (e) dense abaca.

Table 1
Details of specimens and study parameters.
Speci-men Layer Fabric layer number Fabric type Dense/Non-dense Matrix and bonding adhesive type tf (mm) ftf (MPa) Ef (MPa) Ea (GPa)

Refe-rence – – – – – – – – –
JE L1 1 Jute Standard epoxy resin 2.34 24.15 1423.66 0.67
L2 2 Jute Standard epoxy resin 4.80 23.82 1300.46 0.67
L3 3 Jute Standard epoxy resin 5.43 35.92 2139.30 0.67
SE L1 1 Silk Standard epoxy resin 1.98 9.17 433.37 0.67
L2 2 Silk Standard epoxy resin 2.64 35.66 512.98 0.67
L3 3 Silk Standard epoxy resin 3.22 11.38 613.11 0.67
PE L1 1 Pineapple Standard epoxy resin 1.44 46.03 3631.48 0.67
L2 2 Pineapple Standard epoxy resin 1.80 28.83 1557.30 0.67
L3 3 Pineapple Standard epoxy resin 2.89 16.5 1096.94 0.67
AAE L1 1 Abaca Non-dense Standard epoxy resin 1.53 35.29 1468.23 0.67
L2 2 Abaca Non-dense Standard epoxy resin 3.09 47.75 2228.16 0.67
L3 3 Abaca Non-dense Standard epoxy resin 4.15 91.24 2859.70 0.67
ABE L1 1 Abaca Dense Standard epoxy resin 1.59 31.53 1365.15 0.67
L2 2 Abaca Dense Standard epoxy resin 2.65 51.82 2578.04 0.67
L3 3 Abaca Dense Standard epoxy resin 3.05 51.89 2474.35 0.67
ABP L1 1 Abaca Dense Polyester resin 1.63 29.34 3588.82 1.39
L2 2 Abaca Dense Polyester resin 2.31 71.85 5960.86 1.39
L3 3 Abaca Dense Polyester resin 5.22 39.64 2968.54 1.39
ABS L1 1 Abaca Dense Thixotropic epoxy resin 2.18 31.05 5960.86 4.77
L2 2 Abaca Dense Thixotropic epoxy resin 3.21 52.97 6542.12 4.77
L3 3 Abaca Dense Thixotropic epoxy resin 3.69 54.23 4886.1 4.77

Note: tf = NFRP thickness, ftf = NFRP tensile strength, Ef = NFRP elastic modulus, Ea = bonding adhesive elastic modulus.

and GFRP [57]. Chen et al. [58] conducted a comparative study on the
use of NFRP and CFRP for the flexural reinforcement of reinforced
concrete beams. The findings showed that NFRP reinforcement has the
ability to produce a higher ultimate strength and ductility because its
laminates have an elastic modulus considered to be almost identical to
that of concrete which causes beam failure due to FRP fracture.
The bond strength between FRP and concrete is important to the
process of strengthening reinforced concrete structures as indicated by
the findings of several studies [59–65]. It was discovered that bond
strength determines the success of retrofitting reinforced concrete
structures using FRP sheets [66]. Therefore, several models have been
proposed to predict its value. For example, Chen and Teng [67] pro­
posed an empirical model for bond strength with due consideration for
the effective bond length, FRP width, and concrete compressive
strength. The effective bond length was also found to be influenced by
concrete compressive strength, FRP elastic modulus, FRP thickness, and
the ratio of FRP width to the concrete section width. Meanwhile, Wu
et al. [68] used the same parameters but differentiated the bond strength
for the lengths considered smaller and larger than the effective bond
length. Ueda et al. [69] also found that bond strength does not increase
after the bond length has exceeded 100 mm. It was also discovered that
Diab and Farghal [70] modified the Chen and Teng model by adding the
bonding adhesive elastic modulus as one of the parameters affecting the
effective bond length. It is important to note that some studies did not
include the ratio of the FRP width to the concrete section width as a
parameter affecting bond strength [71–73]. Another study by Pei and
Wei [74] stated that the maximum aggregate size and adhesive tensile
strength influenced the bond strength between FRP and concrete, in
addition to the parameters previously mentioned. Moreover, Murad
et al. [75] used Gene Expression Programming to develop a model for

2
T. Saidi et al. Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124

sheet and concrete in the application of NFRP sheet for strengthening

reinforced concrete structures toward the use of natural materials which
is more environmentally-friendly materials.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. NFRP sheets

NFRP sheets were produced in this study using 4 different types of
fabrics including jute, silk, pineapple, and abaca as shown in Fig. 1.
Meanwhile, two different densities, dense and non-dense, were applied
for the abaca fabric. It was discovered that each 1 cm × 1 cm dimension
of dense abaca had 16 strands of fibers while each 1 cm × 1 cm
dimension of non-dense had 11 strands. This means the jute, silk, and
pineapple fabrics were categorized as dense fabrics. The NFRP fabrics
were obtained from a fiber industry in Surakarta City, Central Java.
Moreover, the three different types of resins used as matrices to produce
the NFRP sheets include the standard epoxy resin, thixotropic epoxy
resin, and polyester resin with their respective elastic modulus (Ea)
shown in Table 1. It is important to note that the NFRP for each type of
fabric was produced using three different numbers of fabric layers
ranging from 1 to 3, thereby, leading to different thicknesses for the
sheets. Furthermore, the production of the NFRP sheets was through a
manual hand lay-up method using wood molds as formwork, and the

Table 2
Maximum load, bonding strength, and failure mode.
Specimen Layer Pmax (N) Pu (N) Failure mode

Reference – 36,400 – Concrete crushing at the pre-existing

crack
JE L1 40,400 4000 NFRP rupture
Fig. 2. Tensile test of NFRP sheet. L2 42,000 5600 NFRP rupture
L3 44,400 8000 NFRP rupture
the prediction of the bond strength between FRP and concrete. Other SE L1 36,800 400 NFRP rupture
L2 37,800 1400 NFRP rupture
studies reported that the synthetic fiber content, the anchorage holes,
L3 38,000 1600 NFRP rupture
and the exposed temperatures also affect bond strength between con­ PE L1 36,700 300 NFRP rupture
crete and FRP sheets [32–36]. L2 37,200 800 NFRP rupture
All these models were developed using synthetic FRP such as CFRP, L3 37,400 1000 NFRP rupture
GFRP, AFRP, and BFRP, and this means they cannot be directly applied AAE L1 40,000 3600 NFRP rupture
L2 44,200 7800 NFRP rupture
to NFRP-strengthened structures. It was discovered that the bond L3 49,600 13,200 NFRP rupture
strength models existing between NFRP and concrete have not been ABE L1 39,600 3200 NFRP rupture
discussed up to the present time. This means it is important to develop a L2 45,200 8800 NFRP rupture
bond strength model between NFRP sheets and concrete for strength­ L3 49,000 12,600 NFRP rupture
ABP L1 41,200 4800 NFRP rupture
ening reinforced concrete structures using these sheets. Therefore, this
L2 45,800 9400 NFRP rupture
study was conducted with the aim to propose a bond strength model L3 53,600 17,200 NFRP rupture
between NFRP sheets and concrete using an empirical method that ABS L1 39,800 3400 NFRP rupture
involved analyzing several experimental data. The bond strength model L2 40,400 4000 NFRP rupture
in this study may be used to predict the bond strength between NFRP L3 47,000 10,600 NFRP debonding

Fig. 3. Details of specimens and instrumentation.

3
T. Saidi et al.
Fig. 4. Failure mode of specimens: (a) JE, (b) PE, (c) SE, (d) AAE, (e) ABE, (f) ABP, (g) ABS.
detailed procedure applied with the proportion of resin used is listed in
reference [76].
The tensile strength and elastic modulus of NFRP sheets were
determined using 3 samples with a size of 25 mm × 250 mm obtained
from each sheet and analyzed using the Materials Test System machine
based on ASTM D3039/D3039-08 standard [77] as shown in Fig. 2. The
average values of the tensile strength (ftf) and elastic modulus (Ef) for
each sheet are shown in Table 1. The stress-strain curves of all NFRP
sheets used in this study have been presented in our previous study [76].
2.1.2. Concrete
The concrete used was made by mixing Ordinary Portland Cement,
fine aggregate (river sand with a maximum diameter of 4.76 mm),
coarse aggregate (split stone with a maximum diameter of 31.5 mm),
and water based on a water-to-cement ratio (w/c) of 0.42. The weight
ratio of the cement: fine aggregate: coarse aggregate was 1: 1.69: 2.07.
Moreover, the compressive strength of the concrete was obtained by
testing 20 concrete cylinders with a diameter of 150 mm and a height of
300 mm which produced an average compressive strength of 44 MPa.
2.1.3. Reinforcing bar
The reinforcing bar used was a 10 mm diameter deform steel bar
with a yield strength of 375 MPa, ultimate strength of 590 MPa, elastic
modulus of 200 GPa, and a yield strain of 0.1875%.
2.2. Methods
The specimens used were reinforced concrete prisms with a dimen­
sion of 100 mm × 100 mm × 300 mm and a single longitudinal rein­
forcing bar with a diameter of 10 mm in the middle of the cross-section
as shown in Fig. 3. A pre-existing crack was created by placing card­
board on both sides of the specimens during the concrete casting pro­
cess. The width and depth of the crack were 2 mm and 20 mm,
respectively. After the casting process, the reinforced concrete prisms
4
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124
were cured through the provision of a cover in the form of wet burlap.
After the reinforced concrete prisms exceeded the age of 28 days, the
NFRP sheets were bonded externally to both sides of the pre-existing
crack using three different types of resin as adhesive. It is important to
note that the same type of resin used in the production of NFRP com­
posites was also applied to bond the FRP sheets to the concrete surface
after it has been cleaned of dust. The NFRP sheets, cut to a size of 50 mm
× 240 mm and coated with bonding adhesive, were applied to the
concrete surface coated with bonding adhesive and pressed firmly to
ensure perfect adhesion with no gaps. A total of 21 specimens were
prepared using the parameters listed in Table 1 including one specimen
produced without NFRP sheet reinforcement and applied as a reference.
The codes used to designate the specimen were based on the type of fiber
and matrix used as well as the bonding adhesive. Furthermore, L1, L2,
and L3 indicate 1, 2, and 3 fabric layers respectively used in producing
the NFRP composites.
A total of 4 strain gauges, SG1 - SG4, were attached to the surface to
measure the strain distribution in the NFRP as shown in Fig. 2. Mean­
while, only 1 strain gauge was attached to the reinforcing bar, located at
the midpoint of its length, which is about the strain gauge SG2. More­
over, the bond strength between the NFRP sheets and the concrete was
determined by applying a tensile load to both ends of the protruding
reinforcing bar until the specimens were destroyed. The increase in load
was measured with a load cell and the magnitude of strain experienced
due to the increase in load was evaluated and recorded with a data
logger. The maximum load capacity was also recorded and the failure
pattern of each specimen was observed.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Bond strength and failure mode
The maximum load (Pmax) that can be sustained by each specimen is
shown in Table 2 and the bond strength (Pu) was obtained by subtracting
T. Saidi et al.
Fig. 5. Relationship between bond strength and NFRP thickness for specimens
(a) JE, (b) SE, (c) PE, (d) AAE, (e) ABE, (f) ABP, and (g) ABS.
the ultimate load of the reference specimen from the maximum load of
the respective specimen as indicated in the same table. It was also
discovered that the application of jute and abaca fibers in NFRP pro­
vided a greater contribution to bond strength compared to silk and
Fig. 6. Load-strain relationship of specimens JE: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.
5
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124
pineapple fibers. This is possibly due to the greater tensile strength
possessed by these fibers compared to the others. Moreover, the fiber
density in the fabric and the type of adhesive used also influenced bond
strength. It was also observed that an increase in the number of fabric
layers enhanced bond strength and this is due to the fact that the
application of more fabric layers increased the thickness of the NFRP
composites produced. Table 2 also shows the failure mode of each
specimen and they were all found to have experienced NFRP rupture at
the pre-existing crack location, except for one, ABS-L3, that experienced
debonding between the NFRP and the concrete as indicated in Fig. 4.
The rupture of NFRP was due to the brittleness of NFRP in which its
rupture strain is the same as its ultimate [76]. Therefore once the ulti­
mate strain of NFRP was reached, the NFRP get ruptured. The failure
modes were almost the same as those presented in the previous studies
where the failure mode of FRP composite is reported as one of the
following: rupture of FRP sheet, debonding of FRP composites, and
failure in the concrete while the CFRP-composite remains attached
[32–34].
3.2. Relationship between bond strength and NFRP thickness
The relationship between the bond strength (Pu) and NFRP thickness
(tf) for all the specimens tested is plotted in Fig. 5. It was discovered that
there was an increase in the bond strength as the NFRP thickness
increased and this further enhanced the ability of its cross-section area
to resist load, thereby, leading to an increment in the bond strength. The
increase in NFRP thickness was observed to be due to the high number of
fabric layers used which slowed down failure and increased the sus­
tainable load. This is consistent with the findings of Jirawattanasomkul
et al. [78] that bond strength increases more with an increasing number
of natural fiber layers.
3.3. Load and strain relationship
The NFRP bonding increased the capacity of the reinforced concrete
prisms to withstand a tensile load. This was observed from its contri­
bution to the ultimate load as indicated by the load-strain relationship
graphs of each specimen in Figs. 6–12. The NFRP strain was measured at
4 different locations as shown in Fig. 3 while the reinforcing bar strain
was determined at the same position as SG2 which is the location of the
pre-existing crack. It was discovered that the NFRP strain at SG2 and the
reinforcing bar strain were compatible as their magnitudes were almost
the same. However, the NFRP strain at SG1, SG3, and SG4 was very
small compared to SG2.
The strain in the reinforcing bar and NFRP was observed to be very
small for all specimens at the beginning of loading up to approximately
10 kN. The addition of subsequent load later up to 25–30 kN signifi­
cantly increased the NFRP strain at the pre-existing crack location and
T. Saidi et al. Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124

Fig. 7. Load-strain relationship of specimens SE: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

Fig. 8. Load-strain relationship of specimens PE: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

Fig. 9. Load-strain relationship of specimens AAE: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

the reinforcing bar strain for all the specimens except for ABS-L3.
Meanwhile, the NFRP strain at SG1, SG3, and SG4 remained very
small depending on the specimen. Strains SG1 and SG3 only have a
slight increase and SG4 with a very small increment. The NFRP strain at
SG1 and SG3 was almost the same because they were at the same dis­
tance from the pre-existing crack. It was observed that for the further
load, the values of the strain SG2 increased very rapidly again and
exceeded the reinforcing bar strain. It was further observed that the
reinforcing bar strain reached the yielding point before the maximum
load was attained but the NFRP strain at the pre-existing crack location
had not yet reached the ultimate value. This is associated with the
ductility of the reinforcing bar which led to a continuous increase in the
strain while the NFRP sustained the remaining load and its strain at the
pre-existing crack continued to increase up to the moment the ultimate
was achieved. The brittleness of the NFRP made its ultimate strain to be
the rupture strain. It was discovered that the NFRP broke when the
rupture strain was reached and the load was no longer sustainable,
thereby, leading to the failure of the specimen. This shows that all the
specimens experienced a rupture failure of the NFRP, except for ABS-L3.
It was observed that the ABS-L3 specimen had a smaller increase in
NFRP strain at the pre-existing crack location compared to the rein­
forcing bar strain. The results further showed that the NFRP strain was
still small and the reinforcing bar strain had not yet reached the yielding
point up to the maximum load. This means ABS-L3 failure was not due to
the rupture of the NFRP but rather the debonding between the NFRP and
the concrete.

6
T. Saidi et al. Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124

Fig. 10. Load-strain relationship of specimens ABE: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

Fig. 11. Load-strain relationship of specimens ABP: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

Fig. 12. Load-strain relationship of specimens ABS: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

3.4. NFRP strain distribution 3.5. Bond force-slip relationships

The NFRP strain distribution for all the specimens tested is plotted in
Figs. 13–19 and they were all observed to have a similar trend. The
largest strain was discovered to have occurred at the pre-existing crack
location but the value reduced as the distance from the pre-existing
crack increased. This was indicated by the very small strain which was
even approaching 0 at a distance of 100 mm. The highest strain at a pre-
existing crack location can be understood since at the location of the
crack the stress tends to concentrate. At this point, stress levels are at
their highest, thereby, producing maximum strain as well.
Fig. 20 shows the bond force-slip relationship for all specimens tested
in this study. Although NFRP sheets with different fiber types or adhe­
sive types have different bond strengths, the shape of the bond force-slip
curves is almost the same, which tends to form the bilinear curves,
except for specimen ABS-L3 which is almost linear. As presented earlier
the specimen ABS-L3 failed by NFRP debonding, so the damage has
already occurred before the increase in the slip while the other speci­
mens failed by NFRP rupture. In the first stage, the bond force-slip re­
lationships were linear with constant stiffness until the value of slip of

7
T. Saidi et al. Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124

Fig. 13. Strain distribution of specimens JE: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

Fig. 14. Strain distribution of specimens SE: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

Fig. 15. Strain distribution of specimens PE: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

0.003–0.18 mm depending on fiber type, bonding adhesive type, and the
number of layers of fabrics. After this stage, the stiffness reduces
significantly, and the bond force-slip relationship again linear with
increasing the bond stress at the lower stiffness until the failure of the
specimens at ultimate bond strength. These types of bond force-slip re­
lationships were almost similar to those reported in previous studies [34,
36]. In the other studies conducted by Al-Rousan and Abu-Elhija [32]
and Al-Rousan and Al-Tahat [33], the bilinear bond force-slip relation­
ships were also presented, but with constant bond force at the second
stage. Meanwhile, the almost linear bond force-slip relationship until
failure as observed in specimen ABS-L3 was also presented in the pre­
vious study [79].
The initial stiffness, second stage stiffness, slip at the change of
stiffness, and slip corresponding to ultimate bond strength tend to

8
T. Saidi et al. Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124

Fig. 16. Strain distribution of specimens AAE: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

Fig. 17. Strain distribution of specimens ABE: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

Fig. 18. Strain distribution of specimens ABP: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

increase with an increase in the number of layers of fabrics, and their
values for all tested specimens are shown in Table 3. The table shows
that using 2 layers of fabrics improved the initial stiffness by 143–276%
while using 3 layers of fabrics improved the initial stiffness by
257–691% depending on the fabric and bonding adhesive types. More­
over, the maximum slips between NFRP and concrete obtained in this
study were higher than the maximum slip between CFRP and concrete
presented in previous studies [32–34,36,39]. The higher maximum slip
between NFRP and concrete is due to the lower elastic modulus of NFRP
compared to CFRP.
The enhancements of bond strength and corresponding slip due to
the increase in the number layers of fabrics are also presented in Table 3.

9
T. Saidi et al. Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124

Fig. 19. Strain distribution of specimens ABS: (a) L1, (b) L2, (c) L3.

This table shows that the using of 2 layers of fabrics enhanced the ul­
timate bond strength by 118–350% while the using of 3 layers of fabrics
enhanced the ultimate bond strength by 312–400% depending on the
fiber and bonding adhesive types. In Table 3, the toughness values which
were calculated as the area below bond force-slip curves were also
presented. Similar to ultimate bond strength, the toughness values also
improved significantly by using 2 or 3 layers of fabrics. Using 2 layers of
fabrics improved the toughness by 136–440% while using 3 layers of
fabrics improved the toughness by 199–667% as shown in Table 3.
However, for specimen ABS-L3 due to the low value of slip at the ulti­
mate bond strength, it had the lowest toughness.

3.6. Model for the bond strength between NFRP and concrete

Diab and Farghal [70] proposed a model to predict the bond strength
between synthetic FRP sheets based on several experimental data using
Carbon and Basalt FRP as follows:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(1)
′
Pu = 0, 427βb βL bf Le βa f c

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
/ ̅
2 − bf bc
βb = / (2)
1 + bf bc

πL
βL = 1 if L ≥ Le , βL = sin if L ≤ Le (3)
2Le
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ Et
Le = √ (4)
f f
√ √̅̅̅̅′
2
βa f c

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Ea
βa = (5)
2, 45

where: Pu = bond strength, bf = FRP sheet width, Le = effective bond

length, f’c = concrete compressive strength, bc = concrete block width, L
= actual bond length, Ef = FRP sheet elastic modulus, tf = FRP sheet
thickness, Ea = bonding adhesive elastic modulus, and βb, βL, βa =
parameters.
The suitability of Diab and Farghal’s model in predicting the bond
strength between NFRP sheets and concrete was determined by
comparing the bond strength calculated using the model (Pu,cal) with the
experimental results (Pu,exp) obtained as presented in Table 2. The
comparison for all the specimens is plotted in Fig. 21 except ABS-L3
which is not included due to the fact that it experienced debonding
failure in the NFRP. It was discovered from the figure that the model was
Fig. 20. Bond stress and slip relationship of specimens (a) JE, (b) SE, (c) PE, (d)
only able to predict the bond strength between concrete with single- AAE, (e) ABE, (f) ABP, and (g) ABS.

10
T. Saidi et al. Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124

Table 3
Stiffness, ultimate bond strength, corresponding slip, and toughness.
Specimen Layer E0 E1 P1 s1 Pu su T Improvement (%) of:

kN/mm kN/mm kN mm kN mm kNmm E0 Pu T

JE L1 20.71 2.12 2.90 0.14 4.00 0.66 2.09

L2 57.14 2.35 4.00 0.07 5.60 0.75 3.16 276 140 151
L3 53.13 9.26 7.97 0.15 8.00 0.65 4.15 257 200 199
SE L1 5.00 0.61 0.05 0.01 0.40 0.58 0.15
L2 7.15 0.94 0.93 0.13 1.40 0.63 0.66 143 350 440
L3 16.67 1.11 1.00 0.06 1.60 0.60 0.75 333 400 500
PE L1 1.67 0.44 0.05 0.03 0.30 0.60 0.12
L2 4.00 0.93 0.24 0.06 0.80 0.66 0.39 240 266 325
L3 4.85 0.56 0.63 0.13 1.00 0.79 0.59 291 333 492
AAE L1 21.00 5.12 0.63 0.03 3.60 0.61 1.50
L2 33.43 6.37 4.68 0.14 7.80 0.63 3.31 159 217 221
L3 62.08 5.99 7.45 0.12 13.20 1.08 10.01 296 367 667
ABE L1 12.13 2.25 1.94 0.16 3.20 0.72 1.66
L2 32.00 3.38 5.12 0.16 8.80 1.25 8.51 264 275 513
L3 53.13 9.26 7.97 0.15 12.60 0.65 6.06 438 394 365
ABP L1 14.44 2.98 3.61 0.25 4.80 0.65 2.37
L2 34.00 12.19 3.06 0.09 9.40 0.61 3.22 235 196 136
L3 99.82 11.52 10.98 0.11 17.20 0.65 8.34 691 358 352
ABS L1 30.00 5.74 0.30 0.01 3.40 0.55 1.18
L2 46.00 6.44 0.46 0.01 4.00 0.56 1.52 153 118 129
L3 151.43 151.43 10.60 0.07 10.60 0.07 0.35 505 312 30

Note: E0 = initial stiffness, E1 = stiffness at the second stage, P1 = bond force when the second stage starts, s1 = slip corresponding to P1, Pu = bond strength, su = slip
corresponding to Pu, T = toughness.

Fig. 21. Comparison between bond strength obtained from the experiment and Fig. 22. Comparison between the predicted and experimented bond strength.
calculated using Diab and Farghal’s model.
layer Jute and Abaca FRP fabrics while the values obtained for other
fibers are very different from the experimental results. Moreover, the
Table 4 prediction for the NFRP produced using silk and pineapple fibers with
K1, K2, and K3 parameters. standard epoxy resin was found to be 2 to 6.3 times higher than the
Parameters Value experimental results. It was also observed that the prediction for the
Fiber Density: K1 NFRP produced using 2 or 3 layers of Abaca fabrics with standard epoxy
Dense fiber 1 resin and polyester resin was 0.4–0.8 times much lower than the
Non-dense fiber 0.777 experimental results. Furthermore, the bond strength predicted for
Bonding adhesive type: K2 NFRP produced using 2 or 3 layers of Abaca fabrics with thixotropic
Standard epoxy resin 1
Polyester resin 0.773
epoxy resin was found to be 1.6 to 1.7 times higher than the experi­
Thixotropic epoxy resin 0.391 mental results.
Fiber type: K3 In this study, Diab and Farghal’s model was then modified to accu­
Abaca fiber 1 rately predict the bond strength between NFRP and concrete. It was
Jute fiber 0.476
discovered from Table 2 that the bond strength between NFRP and
Silk fiber 0.338
Pine apple fiber 0.145 concrete was influenced by the fiber type, bonding adhesive type, fiber
density, and NFRP thickness. This means the proposed new model

11
T. Saidi et al.
calculated the bond strength as a function of fiber type, bonding adhe­
sive type, fiber density, and NFRP thickness as indicated in the following
statistical analysis:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(6)
′
Pu = 0.378 K1 K2 K3 βb βL bf Le tf 0.6 βa f c
where, K1 = parameter to consider fiber density, K2 = parameter to
consider bonding adhesive type, and K3 = parameter to consider fiber
type. The amount of K1, K2, and K3 parameters are shown in Table 4.
The accuracy of the proposed model was also determined by
comparing its predictions (Pu,cal) with the experimental results (Pu,exp) as
indicated in Fig. 22. It was discovered that the bond strength predicted
by the proposed model was very close to the experimental results as
indicated by the Pu,cal = 0.97 Pu,exp with a determination coefficient (R2)
of 0.96. This means the model proposed can be used to predict the bond
strength between NFRP and concrete accurately.
4. Conclusions
Several experiments have been conducted to determine the bond
strength between Natural Fiber Reinforced Polymer (NFRP) and con­
crete using 4 different types of fibers including jute, silk, pineapple, and
abaca with 3 different types of bonding adhesives such as standard
epoxy resin, polyester resin, and thixotropic epoxy resin. It was also
noted that two different fiber densities, dense and non-dense, were used
for abaca. Furthermore, the NFRP used was produced through different
numbers of fabric layers ranging from 1 to 3 which led to differences in
the thicknesses of the NFRP produced. The results showed that:
1. The fiber type used in producing NFRP affected the bonding strength
between NFRP and concrete. Abaca was found to have the highest
contribution followed by jute and silk while pineapple fibers have
the smallest.
2. The bonding adhesive type used also affected the bonding strength
with the standard epoxy resin found to have the most significant
influence followed by polyester resin, and thixotropic epoxy resin,
respectively.
3. The fiber density within the fabric also affected the bonding strength
such that dense fiber had a greater bonding strength than non-dense
fiber.
4. The bonding strength increased with the increase in the NFRP
thickness.
5. The bonding force-slip relationships tend to form bilinear curves in
which the bond force increase linearly by increasing the slip with an
initial stiffness slope until a certain slip value, and then the slope
decreases significantly, and the bond force-slip relationship is still
linear until the failure of the specimens.
6. The use of 2 and 3 layers of fabrics enhanced the initial stiffness by
143–276% and 257–691% respectively, bond strength by 118–350%
and 312–400% respectively, and toughness by 136–440% and
199–667% respectively depending on the fabric and bonding adhe­
sive types.
7. A model was proposed to predict the bonding strength between
NFRP and concrete with due consideration for factors such as NFRP
thickness, fiber density, bonding adhesive type, and fiber type. It was
discovered that the bonding strength calculated using the proposed
model was very close to the experimental results and this means it
has the ability to predict the bonding strength between NFRP and
concrete accurately.
Credit author statement
Taufiq Saidi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing- Reviewing
and Editing. Muttaqin Hasan: Methodology, Data curation, Visualiza­
tion, Writing – original draft. Zahra Amalia: Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Data curation. Shafira Salsabila: Investigation, Data curation.
12
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124
Declaration of competing interest
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.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by PNBP Innovation funding provided
by The Research and Community Service Center of Universitas Syiah
Kuala.
References
[1] T. Mukhopadhyay, S. Naskar, S. Dey, A. Chakrabarti, Condition assessment and
strengthening of aged structures: perspectives based on a critical case study, Pract.
Period, Struct. Des. Constr. 24 (3) (2019), 05019003, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000431.
[2] M.Z. Araby, S. Rizal, Abdullah, M. Afifuddin, M. Hasan, Deformation capacity of
RC beam-column joints strengthened with ferrocement, Sustainability 14 (8)
(2022) 4398, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084398.
[3] Y. Huang, S. Grünewald, E. Schlangen, M. Luković, Strengthening of concrete
structures with ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): a
critical review, Construct. Build. Mater. 336 (2022), 127398, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127398.
[4] M. Hasan, T. Saidi, M. Afifuddin, B. Setiawan, The assessment and strengthening
proposal of building structure after the Pidie Jaya earthquake in December 2016,
J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 35 (1) (2023) 12–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jksues.2021.02.007.
[5] A. Nanni, Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures:
Properties and Application, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1993.
[6] H.V.S. GangaRao, N. Taly, P.V. Vijay, Reinforced Concrete Design with FRP
Composites, CRC Press, 2006.
[7] L.V.D. Einde, L. Zhao, F. Seible, Use of FRP composites in civil structural
applications, Construct. Build. Mater. 17 (2003) 389–403, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0950-0618(03)00040-0.
[8] J.A.O. Barros, S.J.E. Dias, J.L.T. Lima, Efficacy of CFRP-based techniques for the
flexural and shear strengthening of concrete beams, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (3)
(2007) 203–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.09.001.
[9] M.A. Zaki, H.A. Rasheed, R.R. Roukerd, M. Raheem, Performance of reinforced
concrete T beams strengthened with flexural CFRP sheets and secured using CFRP
splay anchors, Eng. Struct. 210 (2020), 110304, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2020.110304.
[10] C. Yuan, W. Chen, T.M. Pham, H. Hao, L. Chen, J. Wang, Experimental and
analytical study of flexural behaviour of BFRP sheets strengthened RC beams with
new epoxy anchors, Eng. Struct. 241 (2021), 112441, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2021.112441.
[11] C. Zhou, L. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Fang, Experimental study on the flexural
strengthening of one-way RC slabs with end-buckled and/or externally bonded
CFRP sheets, Eng. Struct. 282 (2023), 115832, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2023.115832.
[12] W. Nawaz, M. Elchalakani, S. Yehia, T. Xie, H. Liu, B. Yang, X. Guo, Shear
strengthening performance of GFRP reinforced lightweight SCC beams:
experimental and analytical study, Eng. Struct. 278 (2023), 115545, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115545.
[13] E. Fathalla, R.M.C.M. Rajapakse, B.I. Mihaylov, Modeling the shear behavior of
deep beams strengthened with FRP sheets, Eng. Struct. 260 (2022), 114232,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114232.
[14] C.T.N. Tran, X.H. Nguyen, H.C. Nguyen, D.D. Le, Shear performance of short-span
FRP-reinforced concrete beams strengthened with CFRP and TRC, Eng. Struct. 242
(2021), 112548, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112548.
[15] O.A. Farghal, Structural performance of axially loaded FRP-confined rectangular
concrete columns as affected by cross-section aspect ratio, HBRC J 14 (3) (2018)
264–271, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2016.11.002.
[16] K.S. Alotaibi, B. AbdelRahman, K. Galal, Analytical study and design approach of
the axial and flexural response of reinforced masonry columns confined with FRP
jackets, Eng. Struct. 269 (2022), 114805, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2022.114805.
[17] M. Razavi, D. Mostofinejad, M. Eftekhar, Behavior of RC columns and those
strengthened with FRP composite under an innovative reversing cyclic eccentric
axial loading, Eng. Struct. 241 (2021), 112438, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2021.112438.
[18] J.J. Zeng, Q.J. Liang, W.J. Cai, J.J. Liao, J.K. Zhou, J.Y. Zhu, L. Zhang,
Strengthening RC square columns with UHP-ECC section curvilinearization and
FRP confinement: concept and axial compression tests, Eng. Struct. 280 (2023),
115666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.115666.
T. Saidi et al.
[19] H.X. Tin, N.T. Thuy, S.Y. Seo, Structural behavior of RC column confined by FRP
sheet under uniaxial and biaxial load, Polymers 14 (1) (2022) 75, https://doi.org/
10.3390/polym14010075.
[20] F. Colomb, H. Tobbi, E. Ferrier, H. Patrice, Seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete
short columns by CFRP materials, Compos. Struct. 82 (4) (2008) 475–487, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2007.01.028.
[21] D. Choi, S. Hong, M.K. Lim, S.S. Ha, S. Vachirapanyakun, Seismic retrofitting of RC
circular columns using carbon fiber, glass fiber, or ductile PET fiber, Int. J. Concr.
Struct. Mater. 15 (2021) 46, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-021-00484-7.
[22] A. Ghobarah, A. Said, Seismic rehabilitation of beam-column joints using FRP
laminates, J. Earthq. Eng. 5 (2001) 113–129, https://doi.org/10.1080/
13632460109350388.
[23] D.A. Pohoryles, J. Melo, T. Rossetto, H. Varum, Seismic retrofit schemes with FRP
for deficient RC beam-column joints: state-of-the-art review, J. Compos. Construct.
23 (2019), 03119001, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000950.
[24] B. Li, H.Y.G. Chua, Seismic performance of strengthened reinforced concrete beam-
column joints using FRP composites, J. Struct. Eng. 135 (2009) 1177–1190,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:10(1177).
[25] M.A. Zaki, H.A. Rasheed, Behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened
using CFRP sheets with innovative anchorage devices, Eng. Struct. 215 (2020),
110689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110689.
[26] X.Y. Yu, C. Jiang, W.P. Zhang, Failure mode-based calculation method for bending
bearing capacities of corroded RC beams strengthened with CFRP sheets, Eng.
Struct. 271 (2022), 114946, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114946.
[27] V.L. Dien, T.T. Duong, M.P. Thong, H.H. Chinh, N.M. Long, Re-evaluation of shear
contribution of CFRP and GFRP sheets in concrete beams post-tensioned with
unbonded tendons, Eng. Struct. 259 (2022), 114173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2022.114173.
[28] H. Toutanji, Y. Deng, Strength and durability performance of concrete axially
loaded members confined with AFRP composite sheets, Compos. B Eng. 33 (4)
(2002) 255–261, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-8368(02)00016-1.
[29] B. Zhang, F. Li, H. Zhu, Z. Yang, Z. Dong, J. Chen, Basalt FRP-confined slag-based
alkali-activated seawater coral aggregate concrete: concept and axial stress-strain
behavior, Eng. Struct. 273 (2022), 114890, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2022.114890.
[30] G. Ma, C. Wu, H.J. Hwang, J. Bai, Z. Zeng, Behavior of pre-damaged normal-
strength concrete prisms repaired with basalt FRP sheets under axial compressive
monotonic and repeated loading, Eng. Struct. 269 (2022), 114786, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114786.
[31] R. Al-Rousan, M. Al-Tahat, An anchoring groove technique to enhance the bond
behavior between heat-damaged concrete and CFRP composites, Building 10 (12)
(2020) 232, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10120232.
[32] R.Z. Al-Rousan, A.M. Abu-Elhija, Predicting the bond-slip relationship between
concrete and CFRP using anchoring holes technique, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 13
(2020), e00462, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00462.
[33] R.Z. Al-Rousan, M. Al-Tahat, Consequence of anchoring holes technique on the
bond behavior between CFRP composites and heat-damaged concrete, Structures
27 (2020) 1903–1918, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.08.023.
[34] M.A. Alhassan, R.Z. Al Rousan, E.A. Al Shuqari, Bond-slip behavior between fiber
reinforced concrete and CFRP composites, Ain Shams Eng. J. 10 (2019) 359–367,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.03.001.
[35] M.A. Alhassan, R.Z. Al Rousan, H.M. Taha, Precise finite element modelling of the
bond-slip contact behavior between CFRP composites and concrete, Construct.
Build. Mater. 240 (2020), 117943, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.117943.
[36] R.Z. Al Rousan, Empirical and NLFEA prediction of bond-slip behavior between
DSSF concrete and anchored CFRP composites, Construct. Build. Mater. 169 (2018)
530–542, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.013.
[37] R.H. Haddad, R.Z. Al Rousan, An anchorage system for CFRP strips bonded to
thermally shocked concrete, Int. J. Adhesion Adhes. 71 (2016) 10–22, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.08.003.
[38] R.H. Haddad, R. Al-Rousan, L. Ghanma, Z. Nimri, Modifying CFRP-concrete bond
characteristics from pull-out testing, Mag. Concr. Res. 67 (13) (2015) 707–717,
https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.14.00271.
[39] R. Al-Rousan, R.H. Haddad, A. Al-Halboni, Bond–slip behaviour between self-
compacting concrete and carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer sheets, Mag. Concr. Res.
67 (2) (2015) 89–103, https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.14.00150.
[40] M.Y. Khalid, A. Al Rashid, Z.U. Arif, W. Ahmed, H. Arshad, A.A. Zaidi, Natural fiber
reinforced composites: sustainable materials for emerging applications, Results Eng
11 (2021), 100263, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2021.100263.
[41] R. Kumar, M.I. Ul Haq, A. Raina, A. Anand, Industrial applications of natural fibre-
reinforced polymer composites–challenges and opportunities, Int. J. Sustain. Eng.
12 (3) (2019) 212–220, https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2018.1538267.
[42] F.M. Al-Oqla, S.M. Sapuan, Natural fiber reinforced polymer composites in
industrial applications: feasibility of date palm fibers for sustainable automotive
industry, J. Clean. Prod. 66 (2014) 347–354, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.10.050.
[43] H. Dahy, Natural fibre-reinforced polymer composites (NFRP) fabricated from
lignocellulosic fibres for future sustainable architectural applications, case studies:
segmented-shell construction, acoustic panels, and furniture, Sensors 19 (3) (2019)
738, https://doi.org/10.3390/s19030738.
[44] M.A. Khatun, S. Sultana, Z. Islam, M.S. Kabir, M.S. Hossain, H.P. Nur, A.M.
S. Chowdhury, Extraction of crystalline nanocellulose (CNC) from date palm mat
fibers and its application in the production of nanocomposites with polyvinyl
alcohol and polyvinylpyrrolidone blended films, Results Eng 17 (2023), 101031,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101031.
13
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124
[45] J. Fajrin, A. Akmaluddin, F. Gapsari, Utilization of kenaf fiber waste as reinforced
polymer composites, Results Eng 13 (2022), 100380, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rineng.2022.100380.
[46] B. Hiwa, Y.M. Ahmed, S. Rostam, Evaluation of tensile properties of Meriz fiber
reinforced epoxy composites using Taguchi method, Results Eng 18 (2023),
101037, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101037.
[47] I. Hasanuddin, I. Mawardi, N. Nurdin, R.P. Jaya, Evaluation of properties of hybrid
laminated composites with different fiber layers based on Coir/Al2O3 reinforced
composites for structural application, Results Eng 17 (2023), 100949, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.100948.
[48] M.Y. Khalid, A. Al Rashid, Z.U. Arif, M.F. Sheikh, H. Arshad, M.A. Nasir, Tensile
strength evaluation of glass/jute fibers reinforced composites: an experimental and
numerical approach, Results Eng 10 (2021), 100232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rineng.2021.100232.
[49] M.R. Sanjay, S. Siengchin, J. Parameswaranpillai, M. Jawaid, C.I. Pruncu, A. Khan,
A comprehensive review of techniques for natural fibers as reinforcement in
composites: preparation, processing and characterization, Carbohydr. Polym. 207
(2019) 108–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.11.083.
[50] M.Y. Khalid, Z.U. Arif, M.F. Sheikh, M.A. Nasir, Mechanical characterization of
glass and jute fiber-based hybrid composites fabricated through compression
molding technique, Int. J. Material Form. 14 (2021) 1085–1095, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12289-021-01624-w.
[51] M.R. Sanjay, P. Madhu, M. Jawaid, P. Senthamaraikannan, S. Senthil, S. Pradeep,
Characterization and properties of natural fiber polymer composites: a
comprehensive review, J. Clean. Prod. 172 (2018) 566–581, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.101.
[52] T. Saidi, Z. Amalia, M. Hasan, I. Hasanuddin, K. Setiawan, Number of layer effect of
abaca fiber as natural FRP material for shear-strengthened reinforced concrete
beam, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1087 (2021), 012006, https://doi.org/
10.1088/1757-899X/1087/1/012006.
[53] S. Yinh, Q. Hussain, P. Joyklad, P. Chaimahawan, W. Rattanapitikon,
S. Limkatanyu, A. Pimanmas, Strengthening effect of natural fiber reinforced
polymer composites (NFRP) on concrete, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 15 (2021),
e00653, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00653.
[54] T. Saidi, M. Hasan, Z. Amalia, M. Iqbal, Behaviour analysis of strengthened-RC
beam with Natural Fiber Reinforced Polymer (NFRP) based on abaca fiber by using
finite element method, Aceh Int. J. Sci. Technol. 11 (2) (2022) 155–164, https://
doi.org/10.13170/aijst.11.2.26520.
[55] P. Saingam P, A. Ejaz, N. Ali, A. Nawaz, Q. Hussain, P. Joyklad, Prediction of stress-
strain curves for HFRP composite confined brick aggregate concrete under axial
load, Polymers 15 (4) (2023) 844, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15040844.
[56] S. Suparp, K. Chaiyasarn, N. Ali, C.K. Gadagamma, A.W. Al Zand,
E. Yooprasertchai, Q. Hussain, P. Joyklat, M.A. Javid, Hemp FRRP confined
lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) circular columns: experimental and
analytical study, Buildings 12 (9) (2022) 1357, https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12091357.
[57] C.O. Nwankwo1, A.N. Ede, O.M. Olofinnade, A.I. Osofero, NFRP strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 640 (2019), 012074,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/640/1/012074.
[58] C. Chen, Y. Yang, Y. Zhou, C. Xue, X. Chen, H. Wu, L. Sui, X. Li, Comparative
analysis of natural fiber reinforced polymer and carbon fiber reinforced polymer in
strengthening of reinforced concrete beams, J. Clean. Prod. 263 (2020), 121572,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121572.
[59] Y. Wu, Z. Zhou, Q. Yang, W. Chen, On shear bond strength of FRP–concrete
structures, Eng. Struct. 32 (3) (2010) 897–905, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2009.12.017.
[60] C. Tuakta, O. Büyüköztürk, Conceptual model for prediction of FRP–concrete bond
strength under moisture cycles, J. Compos. Construct. 15 (5) (2012) 743–756,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000210.
[61] Y.F. Wu, X.S. Xu, J.B. Sun, C. Jiang, Analytical solution for the bond strength of
externally bonded reinforcement, Compos. Struct. 94 (2012) 3232–3239, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.04.026.
[62] C. Antonio, M. Enzo, F. Ciro, A fully-analytical approach for modelling the
response of FRP plates bonded to a brittle substrate, Int. J. Solid Struct. 49 (2012)
2291–2300, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.04.029.
[63] J. Zhao, X. Luo, Z. Wang, S. Feng, X. Gong, E.D. Shumuye, Experimental study on
bond performance of carbon- and glass-fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP/GFRP) bars
and steel strands to concrete, Materials 14 (5) (2021) 1268, https://doi.org/
10.3390/ma14051268.
[64] N. Uddin, M. Shohel, U.K. Vaidya, J.C. Serrano-Perez, Bond strength of carbon fiber
sheet on concrete substrate processed by vacuum assisted resin transfer molding,
Adv. Compos. Mater. 17 (2008) 277–299, https://doi.org/10.1163/
156855108X345199.
[65] T. Ueda, R. Yamaguchi, K. Shoji, Y. Sato, Study on behavior in tension of reinforced
concrete members strengthened by carbon fiber sheet, J. Compos. Construct. 6 (3)
(2002) 168–174, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:3(168).
[66] T. Ueda, J. Dai, Interface bond between FRP sheets and concrete substrates:
properties, numerical modeling and roles in member behavior, Prog. Struct. Eng.
Mater. 7 (1) (2005) 27–43, https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.187.
[67] J.F. Chen, J.G. Teng, Anchorage strength models for FRP and steel plates bonded to
concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 127 (7) (2001) 784–791, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2001)127:7(784).
[68] Z. Wu, S.M. Islam, H. Said, A three-parameter bond strength model for FRP-
concrete interface, J. Reinforc. Plast. Compos. 28 (19) (2009) 2309–2323, https://
doi.org/10.1177/0731684408091961.
T. Saidi et al.
[69] T. Ueda, Y. Sato, Y. Asano, Experimental study on bond strength of continuous
carbon fiber sheet, in: Proc. 4th International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, 1999. Baltimore, MD.
[70] H.M. Diab, O.A. Farghal, Bond strength and effective bond length of FRP sheets/
plates bonded to concrete considering the type of adhesive layer, Composites Part B
58 (2014) 618–624, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.10.075.
[71] A. Khalifa, W.J. Gold, A. Nanni, A. Aziz, Contribution of externally bonded FRP to
shear capacity of RC flexural members, J. Compos. Construct. 2 (4) (1998)
195–203, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(1998)2:4(195).
[72] Y.X. Yang, Q.R. Yue, Y.C. Hu, Experimental study on bond performance between
Carbon Fiber Sheets and concrete, J. Build. Struct. 22 (3) (2001) 36–42 ([in
Chinese]).
[73] Y. Sato, Y. Asano, T. Ueda, Fundamental study on bond mechanism of carbon fiber
sheet, Dob. Gakkai Ronbunshu 648 (2000) 71–87, https://doi.org/10.2208/
jscej.2000.648_71 [in Japanese].
[74] Z. Pei, Y. Wei, Prediction of bond strength of FRP-to-concrete under direct tension
by ACO-based ANFIS approach, Compos. Struct. 282 (2022), 115070, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.115070.
14
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101124
[75] Y. Murad, A. Ashteyad, R. Hunaifat, Predictive model to the bond strength of FRP-
to-concrete under direct pullout using Gene Expression Programming, J. Civ. Eng.
Manag. 25 (8) (2019) 773–784, https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2019.10798.
[76] T. Saidi, M. Hasan, Z. Amalia, Tensile strength of natural fiber in different types of
matrix, Aceh Int. J. Sci. Technol. 11 (2) (2022) 136–144, https://doi.org/
10.13170/aijst.11.2.26175.
[77] ASTM D3039/D3039M-08, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer
Matrix Composite Materials, ASTM International, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1520/
D3039_D3039M-08.
[78] T. Jirawattanasomkul, S. Marin, T. Ueda, J.G. Dai, S. Likitlersuang, N. Kongwang,
N. Wuttiwannasak, Bond behavior between concrete and jute fiber reinforced
polymer laminates by the single-lap shear method, in: The 3rd ACF Symposium
Assessment and Intervention of Existing Structures, 2019. Sapporo, Japan.
[79] U. Neubauer, F.S. Rostasy, Design aspects of concrete structures strengthened with
externally bonded CFRP plates, in: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Structural Faults and Repair,
vol. 2, ECS Publications, Edinburgh (Scotland), 1997, pp. 109–118.