Machine Translated by Google

This may be the author's version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the
following source:

Kabir, M.D., Fawzia, Sabrina, Chan, Tommy, & Gamage, JCPH (2016)

Comparative durability study of CFRP strengthened tubular steel members under cold weather.

Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 49(5), pp. 1761-1774.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/84748/

c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a
Creative Commons License, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and
that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the
document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then
refer to the License for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users
recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe
that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (ie published version)
of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for
publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset
appearance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0610-x
Machine Translated by Google

Comparative durability study of CFRP strengthened tubular steel members under cold
weather

MH Kabir
School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Faculty of Science and Engineering,
Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Email: md.kabir@student.qut.edu.au

S. Fawzia
School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Faculty of Science and Engineering,
Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Email: sabrina.fawzia@qut.edu.au (Corresponding Author)

THT Chan
School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Faculty of Science and Engineering,
Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Email: tommy.chan@qut.edu.au

JCPH Gamage
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka.
Email: kgamage@uom.lk

Abstract

In strengthening systems, the CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer) materials typically

have excellent resistance against environmental conditions; However, the performance of

adhesives between CFRP and steel is generally affected by various environmental conditions

such as marine environment, cold and hot weather. This paper presents the comparative

Durability study of CFRP strengthened tubular steel structures by using two different

adhesives such as MBrace saturant and Araldite K630 under four-point bending. The

program consisted of testing twelve CFRP strengthened specimens having treated with epoxy

based adhesion promoter, untreated surface and one unstrengthened specimen and

conditioned under cold weather for 3 and 6 months to determine the environmental durability.

The beams were then loaded to failure in quasi-static manner under four-point bending. The

structural responses of CFRP strengthened tubular steel beams were compared in terms of

failure load, stiffness and modes of failure. The research findings show that the cold weather

immersion had adversely affected the durability of CFRP strengthened steel members.
Machine Translated by Google

Design factor is also proposed to address the short-terms durability performance under cold

weather.

Keywords: CFRP; adhesive; durability; tubular steel beam; cold weather.

Notations

Aral Araldite K630 adhesive

MBr MBrace saturant adhesive
Cond Conditioned
Pu(cs) Ultimate load of the strengthened specimens
Pu(s) Ultimate load of the unstrengthened specimen
Øu Reduction factor to predict ultimate strength

Introduction

Tubular shape hollow members generally behave in superior manner to other open sections in

terms of compression, torsion, bending in all directions, aesthetic appearance, corrosion

resistance, fire protection capability and hazard free sharp edges (Wardenier 2001). As such

there has been wide application of tubular steel sections as structural and non-structural

elements for various onshore and offshore structures such as bridges, buildings, jacket-type

structures to form a space frame and facades. Along with their increasing popularity, a large

number of such structures are found structurally deficient due to strength deterioration and

corrosion under severe environmental conditions such as marine environment, cold and hot

weather. Existing structures may often suffer decreasing strength due to development of

fatigue cracks and excessive service load. Therefore, more efficient and cost effective

Retrofitting methods are required to restore or increase the structural integrity of those

structures. By considering economic feasibility, aesthetic appearance, high strength and

stiffness-to-weight ratios, excellent resistance to corrosion, degradation and fatigue,

flexibility and formation of various kinds of shapes, CFRP composites therefore to be

an excellent solution to strengthen structural steel structures (Alsayed et al. 2000; Moy 2001;
Machine Translated by Google

Teng et al. 2002). As such CFRP composite materials have been increasingly adopted in civil

engineering infrastructure applications.

Experimental, analytical and numerical investigations on strengthening and rehabilitation of

steel structures using CFRP composites were conducted and tested under bending and tension

to demonstrate the viability of this new rehabilitation technique (Al-Saidy et al. 2004; Fawzia

2013; Fawzia et al. 2006; Fawzia et al. 2007; Fawzia et al. 2010; Sen et al. 2001;

Tavakkolizadeh and Saadatmanesh 2003). The performance of adhesives and CFRP

composites used to strengthened concrete structures have also been studied comprehensively

under various environmental conditions by Smith et al. (2005), Gamage et al. (2009) and

Cromwell et al. (2011) recently. In recent times some studies have been conducted on

durability of CFRP strengthened steel structures under natural and simulated sea water and

elevated temperature subjected to bending and tension but they are still very minimal (Al-

Shawaf et al. 2008; Bordes et al. 2009; Dawood and Rizkalla 2010; Nguyen et al. 2012; Seica

and Packer 2007). It was highlighted by Cromwell et al. (2011) and Nguyen et al. (2012) that

The CFRP materials are highly resistant to environmental conditions; However, adhesives are

generally degraded by such conditions.

There are many places in the world where the average temperatures reach close to zero for a

specific period of time. For instance, the average lowest temperature in Canberra, Australia

remains about +6 OC for period from June to August. Some regions in Russia, the average

temperature remains close to zero throughout the year. In Toronto, Canada, the average

lowest temperature remains around -2 OC over a period of December to March. Till now it

remains unclear what effects prolonged temperatures close to zero has on the overall

performance of CFRP-steel strengthened beams. The immersion of cold weather may result

more detrimental effects on CFRP-steel bond or failure mechanism as in the case of

Machine Translated by Google

immersion at elevated temperature and tested under compression (Kshirsagar et al. 2000).

This is the critical knowledge gap that needs to be addressed. To the best of author's

knowledge, not enough data are available on the durability of CFRP strengthened tubular

steel member under prolonged cold weather subjected to bending. In addition, since the

performance of CFRP strengthened system greatly depends on properties of the adhesives, it

It is also imperative to study the performance of various types of commercially available

adhesives which are generally used to bond CFRP composites on steel structures under

various environmental conditions. This paper presents an experimental study to compare the

performance of two adhesives used to bond CFRP and steel tubular flexural member

conditioned under cold weather.

Experimental investigation

Material properties

The materials of the durability study under cold weather (3 OC) were steel tubes, CFRP,

adhesives and adhesion promoter. The steel tubes had an average yield stress of 327 MPa, an

ultimate strength of 383 MPa and the modulus of elasticity was about 211 GPa confirmed by

test coupon. The CFRP was of the type CF130 unidirectional fabrics specified by BASF

construction chemicals Australia Pty Ltd and the manufacturer provided elastic module was

230 GPa and nominal tensile strength was 3800 MPa. Two commercially available adhesives

were used. One was two-part impregnation resin designated MBrace saturant with tensile

strength, compressive strength and elastic modulus are 50 MPa, 80 MPa and 3000 MPa

respectively. Another one was also two-part epoxy resin Araldite K630 provided by CG

Composites Australia Pty Ltd and the manufacturer provided tensile strength, compressive

strength and elastic modulus were 30-35 MPa, 105-115 MPa and 7000-8000 MPa

respectively. The tensile strength and elastic modulus of adhesion promoter MBrace primer

were 12 MPa and 700 MPa respectively.

Machine Translated by Google

Test specimens

A total of thirteen steel tubes with circular cross-sections of 101.6 mm outer diameter and 4.0

mm thickness were cut into required size. Depending on workability and test facility at

laboratory, the length of the circular member was chosen 1300 mm and the effective span

was considered 1200 mm for a four-point bending test. The schematic diagram of the test set

up is shown in Fig. 1. All dimensions in Fig. 1 are in mm.

Specimen preparation

The specimen preparation involved the following sequences:

(a) Surface preparation: The success of steel/CFRP strengthened systems depends on a great

extends on bond between two adherends and proper surface preparation of the steel

substrate. The common methods of preparing steel surface are solvent cleaning, grit

blasting, sand blasting and surface grinding (Baldan 2004; Fawzia et al. 2007; Hollaway

and Cadei 2002; Jiao and Zhao 2004; Nguyen et al. 2012; Schnerch et al. 2007; Teng et

to the. 2013). Among various surface preparation methods, grit or sand blasting method

appears to be most effective method to obtain uniform high energy surface (Hollaway and

Cadei 2002; Jiao and Zhao 2004; Nguyen et al. 2012; Schnerch et al. 2007; Teng et al.

2013). Generally surface preparation method involves cleaning, followed by removal of

weak layers and then re-cleaning (Hollaway et al. 2008; Mays and Hutchinson 1992).

Since the current study involves large amount of surface to be prepared, the relatively

cheap and locally available sand blasting method was deployed. The tube surface was

sand blasted to a white metal finish to achieve rough and chemically active steel surface

for well bonding between steel and CFRP as shown in Fig. 2. The garnet abrasive system

(grit no. 30/60) was used for sandblasting. The grit size varies from 600 to 250 micron

and the average size of the grit is 0.425 mm which was between the ranges used by Teng
Machine Translated by Google

et al (2013). Then the sand blasted surface was cleaned by washing with acetone to

remove the weak layer, deposited dust particles and grease (El Damatty et al. 2003).

(b) Applying adhesion promoter, adhesives and CFRP layers: Then adhesion promoter was

mixed properly and applied on acetone cleaned surface with brush and allowing it to get

sticky surface prior to applying epoxy adhesive. The surface of these specimens was

considered as treated surface and they were total six specimens. The rest of the six

specimens were considered untreated because no adhesion promoter was applied on them.

The two-part epoxy adhesive was then mixed properly and applied uniformly on

treated/untreated steel surface during its pot life according to manufacturer guidelines.

The CFRP sheet was cut into the required dimensions and the first layer of CFRP fabrics

(MBRACE CF 130 fiber system) oriented longitudinally to the length of the beam was

directly applied on top of adhesive layer. A rib roller was used immediately to press the

fabric along the fiber direction against the substrate until visual signs of adhesive were

observed bleeding through the fabrics. According to the manufacturer guideline, the rib

roller was only run along the direction of the primary fibers in the fabric and to remove

air bubbles trapped in adhesive layer. Then the first layer was confined with a second

layer with the fibers oriented transversely to the tube axis. The circumferential second

layer was applied to confine the longitudinal layers while subjected to compressive

stresses during bending. Same procedure was performed as followed for first layer to

apply the third layer of CFRP fabrics in the longitudinal direction. The whole procedure

was done on wet surface implying which the top surface of the lower layer remained still

sticky. For achieving uniform and good quality bond between CFRP and steel as well as

between CFRP itself, masking tape was wrapped around the circumference of CFRP

wrapping area and kept for a period of at least 24 hours as shown in Fig. 3. Then the

masking tape was removed and the finished specimens were cured for about two weeks
Machine Translated by Google

under ambient temperature to ensure of getting full maturity. Four cured specimens were

then conditioned for 3 months and the rest four specimens were conditioned for 6 months

under cold weather respectively.

Test set-up and instrumentation

Tests were conducted using a 230 kN controlled MTS actuator under four-point bending as

simply supported condition on two rectangular rubber pads (25mm thick). The test set-up is

shown in Fig. 4. The load was applied as displacement control 'static compression load' at a

constant rate and it was continued up to the failure. Instrumentation involved in this stage

were six linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were installed to measure

displacements as shown in Fig. 4 as well. Two LVDTs were placed at mid-span on each side

of the beam to measure the average deflection of the specimens. Another two LVDTs were

mounted on top of the support to measure support displacement. Then the true deflection was

determined by deducting support displacement from mid-span displacement. The readings

from LVDTs were recorded by computer programmed LABVIEW software. At the same

time the loads and actuator displacements were recorded accordingly by computer

programmed station manager software connected to MTS controller.

Experimental results

Failure load

The failure loads for all the beams tested under bending are listed in Table 1; the table also

(cs)
provides the corresponding ratios of ultimate load of the strengthened specimens Pu

relative to unstrengthened steel specimen Pu (s). It can be seen that the control beams

strengthened using Araldite K630 adhesive display higher ultimate load than that of control

beams strengthened using MBrace saturant. In addition, the surface treatment and the

conditioning periods have also affected the failure load of the control as well as the

conditioned beams.
Machine Translated by Google

Contribution of CFRP composites and adhesives on ultimate strength of control beams

The experimental results in Table 1 for the control beams strengthened using both adhesives

confirm that the CFRP reinforcement helps to increase the ultimate strength through the

effective use of the longitudinal fiber strength and restraining action of hoop-oriented fibers.

The strengthened technique (LHL, where L is longitudinal layer and H is hoop layer)

implemented in the current study was able to increase ultimate load to maximum 41.25%

compared to the unstrengthened beam. However, a previous study conducted by Haedir et al.

(2009) shows maximum increase of ultimate load about 3% for compact tubular section

strengthened using HHL combination of CFRP and high performance Araldite two-part

epoxy adhesive and tested under four-point bending. Similarly the maximum increase of

ultimate load was 27% for strengthened tubular hollow steel member in the study conducted

by Seica and Packer (2007), where in the combination of CFRP composites were used LLH

and tested under four-point loading condition.

Fig. 5 clearly depicts the increase of ultimate load carrying capacity of CFRP externally

reinforced circular hollow steel members strengthened using both adhesives with respect to

unstrengthened beam. In terms of strength enhancement, it can be seen that the strengthening

technique implemented in the current study for compact section using LHL combination of

CFRP and MBrace saturant adhesive was able to achieve maximum 33% more ultimate load

capacity compared to unstrengthened beam. Likewise, the same strengthening technique but

Using Araldite K630 adhesive, was able to increase maximum 41.25% more ultimate load

than that of unstrengthened beam. It can also be seen that at failure all the control beams

strengthened using Araldite K630 adhesive withstand higher ultimate load than that of the

beams strengthened by MBrace saturant adhesive. This higher load resistance capacity of the

beams S4A-4 and S5A-4 may gain due to two possible reasons which are (a) higher

compressive strength of Araldite K630 adhesive and (b) higher sectional properties that were
Machine Translated by Google

attributed by the thicker layer of adhesive but within the practical range and that has been

confirmed by measuring outer diameter after strengthening of each specimen as shown in

Table 1. It is noticed that (Fig. 5) both the surface treated beams strengthened using MBrace

saturant and Araldite K630 beams show higher ultimate load than that of the corresponding

untreated beams. It may appear due to sufficient adhesion strength of the specimens.

Comparison of cold weather effects on ultimate strength of conditioned beams

All of the beams shown in Fig. 6 having untreated surface and conditioned under cold

weather for period of 3 and 6 months, display lower ultimate load than that of control

specimen cured under ambient temperature. This finding for steel member can be compared

with the results for CFRP-concrete and different composites epoxy materials tested under

bending, tension and direct shear as mentioned in literatures (Dutta 1988; Karbhari and

Engineer 1996; Subramaniam et al. 2008), wherein the level of load carrying capacity

decreased under cold region environment. The beam specimens, S4A-3 and S4B-3 wrapped

with CFRP composites using MBrace saturant adhesive show 0.85% and 4.82% lesser

strength increase than the control beam, S4B-1. Likewise, the beam specimens, S4A-6 and

S4B-6 strengthened using Araldite K630 adhesive show 2.6% and 5.29% lesser strength

increase than control beam, S4A-4 for same conditioning period as well. However, when

the conditioned beam S4A-3 is compared with that of the beam S4A-6 having 3 months

conditioning period, it can be seen that the beam S4A-6 strengthened using Araldite K630

adhesive performs better in terms of ultimate load than that of the beam S4A-3 strengthened

using MBrace saturant adhesive to bond CFRP fabrics. The similar load resistance trend can

be found in the beams S4B-3 and S4B-6 conditioned for 6 months under cold weather.

Therefore, it can be recommended that the conditioned untreated beams strengthened using

Araldite K630 perform better than that of the beams strengthened using MBrace saturant

adhesive for 3 months and 6 months of conditioning periods respectively.

Machine Translated by Google

Fig. 7 shows the comparison of ultimate load of the conditioned beams and the control beams

having treated surface. It can be seen that the beams, S5A-3 and S5B-3 strengthened using

MBrace saturant exhibit 4.62% and 3.22% strength reduction with respect to the control

beam S5B-1 for 3 and 6 months conditioning period respectively. However, in the case of the

conditioned beam S5A-6 strengthened using Araldite K630 adhesive to bond CFRP

composites, no strength reduction was found over the control beam S5A-4 for 3 months

time conditioning. The beam S5B-6 conditioned for 6 months under 3o C temperature has

shown a noticeable strength reduction (8.65%) compared to the control beam S5A-4.

Interestingly, it can be seen that the beam S5A-6 strengthened using Araldite K630 shows

remarkably higher ultimate load (11.5 kN) than that of beam the S5A-3 strengthened by using

MBrace saturant during 3 months conditioning period. However, in case of 6 months

conditioning under cold weather, the beam S5B-6 used Alradite K630 adhesive shows slight

higher ultimate load than that of beam the S5B-3 used MBrace saturant adhesive. Hence

again in the case of the treated condition beams, it can be further recommended that the

conditioned treated beams strengthened using Araldite K630 perform better than that of the

beams strengthened using MBrace saturant adhesive for 3 months and 6 months of

conditioning periods respectively. Finally, the strength reduction of the conditioned beams

with respect to the corresponding control beams strengthened using MBrace saturant and

Araldite K630 adhesives imply that the cold weather has adversely affected the ultimate

strength of CFRP strengthened steel tubular members. It may happen due to hardening or

formation of microcracking of adhesive, adhesive brittling and bond degradation between the

interface of steel and CFRP by the effect of prolonged cold weather emersion. estos

assumptions may be compared with the reasons of adhesive degradation under cold weather

documented in the literatures (Di Tommaso et al. 2001; Dutta 1988; Karbhari et al. 2003),

although the specimens and the test conditions were different from that of the current study.
Machine Translated by Google

Effects of conditioning periods on ultimate strength

The conditioning periods were found significant on reduction of ultimate strength of the

untreated strengthened beams S4A-3 and S4B-3 strengthened using MBrace saturant for 3

months and 6 months conditioning periods respectively as shown in Fig. 6. Similar strength

reduction trend is found for the beams S4A-6 and S4B-6 having untreated surface and

strengthened using Araldite K630 adhesive as well. However, for the epoxy treated beam

S5B-3 strengthened using MBrace saturant and conditioned for 6 months period of time has

shown a slight lesser load than that of the beam S5A-3 conditioned for 3 months as shown in

Fig. 7. This unexpected value may appear due to higher sectional properties of the beam S5B-

3. The measured outer diameters of strengthened specimens S5A-3 and S5B-3 including

CFRP and adhesives were found 106.68 mm and 108.25 mm respectively. As the thickness of

CFRP layers was constant and for steel tube the difference of thickness was negligible, the

Variation of sectional dimension may occur due to the variation of thickness of adhesive

layers. In case of the conditioned treated beams S5A-6 and S5B-6 strengthened using

Araldite K630 as shown in Fig. 7, significant strength reduction is found from 3 months to 6

months conditioning period which is 9.56% lesser than the beam conditioned for 3 months

under cold weather. This finding can be compared with effects of the increasing number of

accelerated freeze-thaw cycles from 100, 200 and 300, where the cold weather was

predominant (Subramaniam et al. 2008). The results showed that the maximum interface

shear stress, fracture energy and ultimate load at debonding decreased by 18.76%, 35.40%

and 17% respectively after 300 freeze-thaw cycles. Finally, in terms of durability, Fig. 6 and

Fig. 7 show that the 3 and 6 months conditioned untreated and treated beams strengthened

using Araldite K630 perform better than that of the beams strengthened using MBrace

saturant.
Machine Translated by Google

Mid-span deflection

The beams were loaded beyond failure in a displacement control 'static compression load' at

constant rate and data were recorded at 5 second interval. The load-deflection responses for

the strengthened control and conditioned beams as well as the unstrengthened beam are

plotted in Figs. 8 to 10, wherein the responses of the specimens strengthened using MBrace

saturant and Araldite K630 adhesives and cured in ambient and 3o C temperatures can be

compared.

Contribution of CFRP composites and adhesives on stiffness of control beams

All the controls beams strengthened using MBrace saturant and Araldite K630 adhesives

display lesser deflection than that of unstrengthened one starting from around 52 kN load until

failure as shown in Fig. 8. Since, stiffness is directly related to deflection, it means that the

strengthened control beams were stiffer than the unstrengthened beam beyond a point

wherein the contribution of CFRP starts working. Hence, it can be said that the additional

stiffness was attributed by the bonded CFRP layers on steel members. Similar finding was

reported for strengthening of circular hollow steel members tested under four-point bending.

All the beams including control and conditioned showed higher stiffness than that of bare

specimen until failure (Seica and Packer 2007), although the wrapping layers were different

from the current study. When the stiffness of the Araldite strengthened untreated and treated

beams S4A-4 and S5A-4 is compared with that of the MBrace strengthened untreated beams

S4B-1 and S5B-1, Fig. 8 clearly shows that the Araldite strengthened treated beam is more

stiffer in the plastic zone. Hence, in terms of stiffness, it can be concluded that the control

beams strengthened using Araldite K630 adhesive behaved superiorly in plastic range than

the beams strengthened using MBrace saturant adhesive. This superior behavior may display

due to higher compressive strength, higher modulus of elasticity and thicker layers of

Araldite K630 adhesive. Interestingly, Fig. 8 also shows that the beams S5B-1 and S5A-4
Machine Translated by Google

having epoxy treated surface show stiffer behavior in plastic range than that of the beams

S4B-1 and S4-A4 having untreated surface.

Cold weather effects on stiffness of conditioned beams

The effects of cold weather (3o C) on stiffness of all the conditioned beams with untreated

surface are shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen that the conditioned specimens strengthened using

MBrace saturant adhesive display similar load-deflection response and linear-elastic

behavior until around 65 kN load and then this trend has broken and changed to inelastic

behavior throughout the loading period. It is also noted that the untreated conditioned

beam S4A-3 and the corresponding control beam S4B-1 show very similar response under

increased load and it continues until about 18 mm deflection is attained. Beyond that point

the conditioned beam exhibits a decrease in stiffness compared to the unconditioned beam.

Similarly, the stiffness of the conditioned beams S4B-3 reduces with respect to the

corresponding control beams S4B-1 in plastic range. In addition, Fig. 9 compares the stiffness

of the untreated conditioned beams strengthened using Araldite K630 with corresponding

control beams. It can be seen that all the beams show similar load-deflection response and

linear elastic behavior until around 68 kN and then they change to plastic behavior but

similar trend continues until about 96 kN load then the trend breaks. Both the conditions

beams exhibit lesser stiffer behavior than control beam in plastic zone as well. In terms of

stiffness, the Fig. 9 confirms that in plastic zone all the untreated conditioned beams

strengthened using Araldite K630 adhesive performed better than the conditioned beams

strengthened using MBrace saturant adhesive.

Fig. 10 illustrates the effects of cold weather on stiffness of all the beams having treated

surface. It is noticed identical load-deflection response and linear-elastic behavior until

around 76 kN load for all the conditioned beams strengthened using MBrace saturant
Machine Translated by Google

adhesive and then this trend has broken and changed to inelastic behavior throughout the

loading period. Similar deflection phenomenon is observed in all the Araldite K630

strengthened conditioned beams but it continues until about 80 kN load. For both cases, all

the conditioned beams show lesser stiff behavior than that of corresponding control beams

with one exception S5A-6 having very similar stiffness pattern with the control beam S5A-4

in plastic range. In case of treated conditioned beams, the Araldite K630 adhesive

strengthened beams also performed better than the beams strengthened using MBrace

saturant adhesive in plastic zone. Hence, it can be said that the reduction of stiffness in plastic

region for all beams strengthened using MBrace saturant and Araldite K60 adhesives and

conditioned under cold weather may appear due to bond degradation of adhesives. in

In addition, this degradation may be the cause of hardening and weakening the mechanical

interlocking of adhesives particles due to formation of microcracking. This assumption is

agreed well with Zhang et al. (2010), where it was mentioned that the formation of cracks

along through thickness direction of adhesive at low temperature may lead to the bond

degradation of adhesives.

Effects of conditioning periods on stiffness of conditioned beams

The effects of conditioning periods on stiffness of the untreated beams strengthened using

MBrace saturant and Araldite K630 adhesives under cold weather are also shown in Fig. 9. It

can be seen that the conditioning periods from 3 to 6 months have affected the stiffness of all

the conditioned beams in plastic zone by increasing deflection with an exception for Araldite

K630 strengthened beam S4B-6 between deflection limit about 36 mm to 55 mm and

conditioned for 6 months period of time. This exceptional phenomenon may appear due to

stress regain after a sudden noticeable drop of stiffness as can also be seen in Fig. 9. It is also

noticed that the Araldite K630 adhesive conditioned beams behave superiorly in terms of

stiffness for both conditioning periods than MBrace saturant strengthened beams.
Machine Translated by Google

In case of the treated conditioned beams, the effects of conditioning period on stiffness can be

seen in Fig.10, where in the 6 months conditioned beam S5B-3 behaves exceptionally by

showing stiffer behavior than 3 months conditioned beam S5A-3 until the last noticeable

drop of stiffness is appeared and about 28 mm deflection is attained. On the other hand, the 6

months conditioned beam S5B-6 strengthened using Araldite K630 shows noticeable stiffness

reduction than that of beam S5A-6 conditioned for a period of 3 months in plastic zone. The

treated conditioned beams strengthening using Araldite K630 adhesive also behave superiorly

in terms of stiffness for both conditioning periods than MBrace saturant strengthened beams.

Failure modes of tested beams

Failure modes of the tested unstrengthened, strengthened control and conditioned beams are

shown in Fig. 11. Typical ductile modes of failure were displayed by the specimens during

testing. No serious deboning problems were noticed for control as well as the conditioned

beams strengthened using MBrace saturant and Araldite K630 adhesives until failure. Hence

it suggests that the bond between fiber composites and steel and fiber layers themselves were

adequate enough to prevent major de-bonding even after conditioning for 3 and 6 months

under cold weather. However, it was noticed that a minor debonding occurred at tension face

of both ends and continued up to the loading points. This is predominant in the adhesively

bonded CFRP-steel structures in cold region environment (Kim et al. 2012). At failure, it

was observed that the outer fibbers of CFRP fabrics ruptured by showing distortion over the

surface of the compression zone. In addition, the failure occurred for most of the beams due

to local buckling of the tubular hollow section in the compression zone near the loading point

where the crushing of fiber layers was found as well.

Proposed design factor for CFRP strengthened conditioned beams

By comparing the ultimate loads of the tested control and conditioned beams, a reduction

factor, Øu is proposed to predict the ultimate strength of the beams strengthened using
Machine Translated by Google

MBrace saturant and Araldite K630 adhesives and conditioned for maximum 6 months period

under cold weather. Table 2 shows that the ultimate load carrying capacity of the conditioned

beams have reduced compare to the corresponding control beams. In this study, the reduction

factor is calculated as the ratios of the ultimate load of the conditioned beams to the

corresponding control beam which is also shown in Table 2 as well. The design reduction

factor Øu = 0.90 is proposed for tubular steel hollow beams strengthened using both MBrace

saturant and Araldite K630 adhesives and CFRP composites and conditioned for maximum

period of 6 months. The design reduction factor is chosen as the minimum fraction value for

both adhesives.

The proposed reduction factors, Øu in this study shown in Table 2 can be compared with the

reduction factors for environmental durability from Italian guideline mentioned in (Cadei et

to the. 2004) and Australian guideline mentioned in (Smith et al. 2005), although the Australian

guideline was not specifically developed for steel structures. According to Italian and

Australian guidelines, an environmental reduction factor of 0.85 should be used for various

aggressive environmental conditions where the cold weather is also indirectly related.

However, more research is needed indicated by Smith et al. (2005) to review this factor for

very specific environmental condition. Therefore, the current research has explored the

effects of prolonged cold weather immersion for CFRP strengthened metallic structure and

identified the environmental reduction factor 0.90 which is closely comparable with the

Italian and Australian guidelines.

Conclusions

In this research, the durability of strengthened tubular steel members using CFRP composites

and two different adhesives (MBrace saturant and Araldite K630) under cold weather has

been investigated. The conditioned beams strengthened using Araldite K630 adhesive
Machine Translated by Google

appeared to be more durable in terms of resisting ultimate load and stiffness in plastic region.

From the study conducted, the following conclusion can be drawn:

(1) The CFRP strengthened control beams showed higher ultimate load than that of

unstrengthened specimen, which were maximum about 41.25% higher. This increase in

strength proves the effective use of longitudinal fiber strength and restraining action of

hoop-oriented layer. The Araldite adhesive strengthened control beams show higher

ultimate load than that of the MBrace saturant adhesive strengthened control beams.

(2) All the beams conditioned under cold weather displayed lower ultimate load than that of

the corresponding control beams. It implies that the cold weather has an adverse

effect on the ultimate strength of CFRP strengthened steel tubular members by hardening

or forming microcracking of matrix and degrading the bond between the interface of

steel and CFRP.

(3) The noticeable strength reduction was observed for untreated and treated beams

strengthened using both adhesives from 3 months to 6 months conditioning periods with

an exception for beam S5B-3. In addition, all the Araldite K630 strengthened conditioned

beams perform better in terms of ultimate strength than that of beams strengthened using

MBrace saturant adhesive for both 3 and 6 months conditioning periods.

(4) The strengthened control beams appeared as stiffer than unstrengthened one after passing

a certain load. In terms of stiffness, the control beams strengthened using Araldite K630

adhesive behaved superiorly in plastic range than the beams strengthened using MBrace

saturant adhesive.

(5) In plastic zone, the reduction of stiffness was noticeable for all the conditioned beams

with respect to the corresponding control beams strengthened using MBrace and Araldite

adhesives with an exception for the beam S5A-6.

Machine Translated by Google

(6) The conditioning periods from 3 to 6 months were also found to reduce the stiffness of

the beams strengthened using both adhesives with some exceptions. In all situations, the

conditioned beams strengthened using Araldite K630 adhesive behaved superiorly in

terms of stiffness in plastic range than the beams strengthened using MBrace saturant

adhesive.

(7) The unstrengthened, strengthened control and conditioned specimens displayed typical

ductile mode of failure. The unstrengthened beam showed more ductility but it was

less stiff than the strengthened control and conditioned beams. All the control and

conditioned beams strengthened using CFRP composites, MBrace saturant and Araldite

K630 adhesives showed no serious debonding until failure.

(8) The design factor of the conditioned beams strengthened using MBrace saturant and

Araldite K630 adhesives to calculate ultimate load is proposed to be 0.90 which is close

to the value proposed in Italian and Australian guidelines. However, this factor reflects

only effects of short term exposure to low temperature on performance of the system.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) for providing

support to carry out the work reported in this paper. The authors would also like to express

their gratitude to whomever had contributed to their work either directly or indirectly.

References

Al-Saidy AH, Klaiber FW, Wipf TJ (2004) Repair of steel composite beams with carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer plates. J Compos Constr 8:163-172
Al-Shawaf A, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao X Effect of elevated temperature on bond behavior of high
modulus CFRP/steel double-strap joints. In: Australasian Structural Engineering
Conference (ASEC), Melbourne, Australia, 2008. Meeting Planners, pp 9-24
Alsayed SH, Al-Salloum YA, Almusallam TH Fibre-reinforced polymer repair materials -
some facts. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering, London,
2000. vol 3. Thomas Telford Services Ltd, pp 131-134
Baldan A (2004) Adhesively-bonded joints and repairs in metallic alloys, polymers and composite materials:
Adhesives, adhesion theories and surface pretreatment. J Mater Sci 39:1-49
Machine Translated by Google

Bordes M, Davies P, Cognard JY, Sohier L, Sauvant-Moynot V, Galy J (2009) Prediction of long term strength of
adhesively bonded steel/epoxy joints in sea water. Int J Adhes Adhes 29:595-608

Cadei JMC, Stratford TJ, Duckett WG, Hollaway LC (2004) Strengthening metallic structures using externally bonded
fiber-reinforced polymers. London: CIRIA
Cromwell JR, Harries KA, Shahrooz BM (2011) Environmental durability of externally bonded FRP materials intended
for repair of concrete structures. Constr Build Mater 25:2528-2539

Dawood M, Rizkalla S (2010) Environmental durability of a CFRP system for strengthening

steel structures. Constr Build Mater 24:1682-1689
Di Tommaso A, Neubauer U, Pantuso A, Rostasy FS (2001) Behavior of adhesively bonded concrete-CFRP joints at
low and high temperatures. Mech Compos Mater 37:327-338
Dutta PK (1988) Structural fiber composite materials for cold regions. J Cold Regi Eng
2:124-134
El Damatty A, Abushagur M, Youssef M (2003) Experimental and analytical investigation of steel beams rehabilitated
using GFRP sheets. Steel Compos Struct 3:421-438
Fawzia S (2013) Evaluation of shear stress and slip relationship of composite lap joints
Compos Struct 100:548-553
Fawzia S, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao XL (2006) Experimental and finite element analysis of a double strap joint between steel
plates and normal modulus CFRP. Compos Struct 75:156-162

Fawzia S, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao XL, Rizkalla S (2007) Strengthening of circular hollow steel tubular sections using high
modulus CFRP sheets. Constr Build Mater 21:839-845
Fawzia S, Zhao XL, Al-Mahaidi R (2010) Bond-slip models for double strap joints strengthened by CFRP. Compos
Struct 92:2137–2145
Gamage JCPH, Al-Mahaidi R, Wong MB (2009) Durability of CFRP-strengthened concrete members under extreme
temperature and humidity. Australian J Struct Eng 9:111-118
Haedir J, Bambach MR, Zhao XL, Grzebieta RH (2009) Strength of circular hollow sections (CHS) tubular beams
externally reinforced by carbon FRP sheets in pure bending.
Thin-Walled Struct 47:1136-1147
Hollaway L, Cadei J (2002) Progress in the technique of upgrading metallic structures with advanced polymer
composites. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials. 4:131-148

Hollaway LC and Teng JG (2008) Strengthening and rehabilitation of civil infrastructures using fibre-reinforced polymer
(FRP) composites. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK

Jiao H, Zhao XL (2004) CFRP strengthened butt-welded very high strength (VHS) circular
steel tubes. Thin-walled struct 42:963-978
Karbhari VM et al. (2003) Durability gap analysis for fiber-reinforced polymer composites in
civil infrastructure. J Compos Constr 7:238-247
Karbhari VM, Engineer M (1996) Effect of environmental exposure on the external strengthening of concrete with
composites-short term bond durability. J Reinf Plast Compos 15:1194-1216

Kim YJ, Hossain M, Yoshitake I (2012) Cold region durability of a two-part epoxy adhesive in double-lap shear joints:
Experiment and model development. Constr Build Mater 36:295-304

Kshirsagar S, Lopez-Anido RA, Gupta RK (2000) Environmental aging of fiber-reinforced polymer-wrapped concrete
cylinders. ACI Mater J 97:703-712
Mays G, Hutchinson AR (1992) Adhesives in civil engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (England)
Machine Translated by Google

Moy S (2001) ICE design and practice guides-FRP composites life extension and strengthening
of metallic structures. Thomas Telford Publishing, London (UK)
Nguyen TC, Bai Y, Zhao XL, Al-Mahaidi R (2012) Durability of steel/CFRP double strap joints
exposed to sea water, cyclic temperature and humidity. Compos Struct 94:1834-
1845
Schnerch D, Dawood M, Rizkalla S, Sumner E (2007) Proposed design guidelines for
strengthening of steel bridges with FRP materials. Constr Buil Mater 21:1001-1010
Seica MV, Packer JA (2007) FRP materials for the rehabilitation of tubular steel structures,
for underwater applications. Compos Struct 80:440-450
Sen R, Liby L, Mullins G (2001) Strengthening steel bridge sections using CFRP laminates.
Compos Part B: Eng 32:309-322
Smith ST, Kaul R, Ravindrarajah R, Otoom OMA Durability Considerations for FRP-strengthened
RC Structures in the Australian Environment. In: Australian Structural Engineering
Conference, Sydney, NSW, Engineers Australia, 2005 pp 952-961
Subramaniam KV, Ali-Ahmad M, Ghosn M (2008) Freeze-thaw degradation of FRP-concrete
interface: Impact on cohesive fracture response. Eng Fract Mech 75:3924-3940
Tavakkolizadeh M, Saadatmanesh H (2003) Strengthening of steel-concrete composite girders
using carbon fiber reinforced polymer sheets. J Struct Eng-ASCE 129:30-40
Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L (2002) FRP-strengthened RC structures. John Wiley and
Sons Ltd, West Sussex, United Kingdom
Teng JG, Fernando D, Zhao XL, Yu T (2013) Preparation and characterization of steel surfaces
for adhesive bonding. J Compos Constr 17:04013012-1-10
Wardenier J (2001) Hollow sections in structural applications. International Committee for
Développement et l'Etude de la Construction Tubulaire, The Netherlands
Zhang Y, Vassilopoulos AP, Keller T (2010) Effects of low and high temperatures on tensile
behavior of adhesively-bonded GFRP joints. Compos Struct 92:1631–1639
Machine Translated by Google

List of Figures:

NB All dimensions are in mm

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of test set-up

Fig. 2 Specimens having sand blasted surface

Fig. 3 Curing for 24 hours after applying masking tape

Fig. 4 Experimental set-up

Machine Translated by Google

Unstrengthened Mbr (Control_untreated)

Mbr (Control_treated) Aral (Control_untreated)
Aral (Control_treated)
108.40
110
104.0
105 101.70
100
94.40
95

90

85
Load

80 76.75
75

70
B2 B2
S4B-1 S4B-1
S5B-1 S5B-1 S4A-4
S4A-4 S5A-4 S5A-4
beam
Fig. 5 Ultimate strength of control beams

MBr (Control_untreated) MBr (3 Months cond._untreated)

MBr (6 Months cond._untreated) Aral (Control_untreated)
Aral (3 Months cond._untreated) Aral (6 Months cond._untreated)
110
104.0
105 101.30
98.50
100
94.40 93.60
95
89.85
90
85
Load

80
75
70
S4B-1 S4A-3
S4B-1S4B-3
S4A-3S4A-4
S4B-3S4A-6
S4A-4S4B-6
S4A-6 S4B-6
beam

Fig. 6 Ultimate strength of untreated conditioned and control beams

Mbr (Control_treated) Mbr (3 Months cond._treated)

Mbr (6 Months cond._treated) Aral (Control_treated)
Aral (3 Months cond._treated) Aral (6 Months cond._treated)
108.40 108.50
110
105 101.70
98.43 99.03
100 97.00
95
90
Load
85
80

75

70

S5B-1 S5A-3
S5B-1 S5B-3S5A-4
S5A-3 S5B-3 S5B-4S5A-6
S5A-6S5B-6
S5B-6
beam
Fig. 7 Ultimate strength of treated conditioned and control beams
Machine Translated by Google

120

100

80

60

Load

B2_Unstrengthened
40
S4B-1_MBr(Control_untreated)
S4A-4_Aral (Control_untreated)
twenty
S5B-1_MBr (Control_treated)
S5A-4_Aral (Control_treated)
0
0 10 twenty 30 40 fifty 60 70 80 90 100
Deflection (mm)

Fig. 8 Load-deflection response of unstrengthened and strengthened control beams

120

100

80

60 S4B-1_MBr (Control_untreated)
Load

S4A-3_MBr (3 Months cond._untreated)

40 S4B-3 _MBr(6 Months cond._untreated)
S4A-4_Aral (Control_untreated)
twenty
S4A-6_Aral (3 Months cond._untreated)
S4B-6_Aral (6 Months cond._untreated)
0
0 10 twenty 30 40 fifty 60 70 80 90 100
Midspan deflection (mm)

Fig. 9 Load-deflection response of untreated control and conditioned beams

120

100

80

60 S5B-1_MBr (Control_treated)
Load
S5A-3_MBr (3 months cond_treated)
40
S5B-3_MBr (6 Months
cond._treated)
S5A-4_Aral (Control_treated)
twenty

S5A-6_Aral ( 3 Months
cond._treated)
0
0 10 twenty 30 40 fifty 60 70 80 90 100

Midspan deflection (mm)

Fig. 10 Load-deflection response of treated control and conditioned beams

Machine Translated by Google

B-2

S4B-1_MBr S4A-4_Aral

S4A-3 S5A-3 S4B-3 S5B-3 S4A-6 S5A-6 S4B-6 S5B-6

S5B-1 MBr S5A-4_Aral

S4A-3 MBr S4A-6_Aral

S5A-3MBr S5A-6_Aral

S4B-3 MBr S4B-6_Aral

S5B-3 MBr S5B-6_Aral

Fig. 11 Failure mode of the tested beams

Machine Translated by Google

List of Tables:

Table 1 Test details and ultimate load for tested beams

Average OD
(cs)
Pu
Exposure Exposure Surface Ultimate duration Adhesive Beam ID at / strengthened (s) Comments
conditions conditions load (kN) Pu area (mm)
NA NA Bare-B2 NA 76.75 - TO -
2 weeks MBrace S4B-1 Untreated 94.40 1.23 2 weeks MBrace B106.00
Ambient
S5B-1 2 weeks Araldite S4A-4 treated 101.70 1.33 B 107.12
temperature
Untreated 104.00 1.36 B 107.33
2 weeks Araldite S5A-4 Treated 108.40 1.41 B 108.50
3 Months MBrace S4A-3 Untreated 93.60 1.22 3 Months MBrace c 106.30

3rd C S5A-3 Treated 3 Months Araldite S4A-6 97.00 1.26 c 106.68

temperature Untreated 101.30 1.32 3 Months Araldite S5A-6 Treated c 108.80
108.50 1.41 c 109.20
6 Months MBrace S4B-3 Untreated 89.85 1.17 c 106.35

3rd C 6 Months MBrace S5B-3 treated 98.43 1.28 c 108.25

temperature 6 Months Araldite S4B-6 Untreated 98.50 1.28 6 Months Araldite c 108.90
S5B-6 Treated 99.03 1.29 c 109.00
ID for identification, OD for outer diameter, A for Unstrengthened, B for Strengthened control, C for
Strengthened conditioned

Table 2 Proposed reduction factor for ultimate load of conditioned beams

Reduction
factor Øu
for
Exposure Exposure beam Surface Ultimate conditioned
conditions duration ID condition load (kN) beams
2 weeks S4B-1 Untreated 94.40 1.00

Ambient 2 weeks S5B-1 Treated 101.70 1.00

temperature 2 weeks S4A-4 Untreated 104.00 1.00
2 weeks S5A-4 Treated 108.40 1.00
3 Months S4A-3 Untreated 93.60 0.99

3rd C 3 Months S5A-3 Treated 97.00 0.95

temperature 3 Months S4A-6 Untreated 101.30 0.97
3 Months S5A-6 Treated 108.50 1.00
6 Months S4B-3 Untreated 89.85 0.95

3rd C 6 Months S5B-3 Treated 98.43 0.97

temperature 6 Months S4B-6 Untreated 98.50 0.95
6 Months S5B-6 Treated 99.03 0.90
ID for identification