Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

FRP–brick masonry bond degradation under hygrothermal conditions

Hamid Maljaee ⇑, Bahman Ghiassi, Paulo B. Lourenço, Daniel V. Oliveira
ISISE, University of Minho, Department of Civil Engineering, Azurém, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Externally bonded reinforcement (EBR) of masonry structures with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) has
Received 20 November 2015 received extensive attention during the last years. Despite the vast literature on mechanics and short-
Revised 10 March 2016 term performance, the durability and long-term performance of these systems still remain insufficiently
Accepted 24 March 2016
studied. Structures are subjected to harsh environments such as coupled temperature and moisture vari-
Available online 25 March 2016
ations (hygrothermal conditions) during their service life. A clear understanding on the performance of
the strengthening system under these conditions is critical at the design stage.
Keywords:
This paper presents an experimental investigation on the effect of long-term hygrothermal conditions
FRP
Masonry
on FRP-strengthened masonry components. The focus is on the interfacial bond behavior and materials
Bond mechanical properties. The effect of mechanical surface treatment on the bond durability is also
Durability investigated.
Environmental degradation Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Mechanical testing

1. Introduction The combined effect of moisture and temperature, also called as

Externally bonded reinforcement (EBR) of masonry structures
with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) is found to be a promising
technique. Several studies have focused on structural behavior,
design parameters and failure modes. The effectiveness of EBR sys-
tems is known to be highly dependent on the bond performance
between the strengthening material and the substrate [1–4]. The
bond performance can be seriously affected under environmental
conditions, which leads to premature debonding or change of
expected failure modes. In addition to the short-term performance,
understanding the long-term behavior and active degradation
mechanisms under different environmental conditions is thus crit-
ical for service life predictions [5].
The dearth of available information on durability and long-term
performance of externally bonded FRP systems applied to masonry
walls demands a broader investigation. While several investiga-
tions can be found in the literature focused on durability of FRP-
concrete systems [6–12], the available information on FRP-
strengthened masonry elements is still rare [13–16]. While most
of the available studies focus on the effect of an isolated degrading
agent on the bond behavior in FRP-strengthened systems, less
attention has been given to the coupled effects (as happens in real
condition) even in case of FRP-strengthened concrete elements.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: h.maljaee.civil@gmail.com (H. Maljaee), bahmanghiassi@civil.
uminho.pt (B. Ghiassi), pbl@civil.uminho.pt (P.B. Lourenço), danvco@civil.uminho.
pt (D.V. Oliveira).
hygrothermal conditions, is thus the main focus of this study.
Moisture, after diffusion in epoxy resin and FRP-substrate inter-
face, can lead to plasticization, degradation of mechanical proper-
ties and loss of integrity at the bond level through hydrolytic
breakdown of the interface between matrix and FRP [17,18]. Expo-
sure to elevated temperatures, near or above the glass transition
temperature, leads to significant reduction of mechanical proper-
ties. While short-term exposure can be reversible, long-term expo-
sure to high temperatures may induce irreversible changes in their
properties [19]. On the other hand, the freeze–thaw cycling can
lead to degradation of mechanical properties and of the bond per-
formance [20,21]. Temperature cycles below glass transition tem-
perature (Tg) can also affect the bond performance due to
thermal fatigue [18]. Internal stresses due to thermal incompatibil-
ity (difference of thermal expansion coefficient in materials) may
affect the mechanical properties, structural integrity and conse-
quently exacerbate the bond degradation [22,23]. The moisture
induced degradation can be accelerated when coupled with tem-
perature [6] as the moisture absorption rate increases with incre-
ment of temperature [17,24]. On the other hand, moisture can
affect thermal properties of materials and thus change the degra-
dation rates.
Ghiassi et al. [15] investigated the effect of 225 cycles of
hygrothermal exposure (temperature cycles ranging from +10 °C
to +50 °C and 90% R.H.) on the bond and material properties of
GFRP-strengthened extruded solid clay bricks. Besides a significant
reduction of bond strength, epoxy and GFRP mechanical properties,
a clear degradation trend was not observed and the need for exten-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.03.037
0263-8223/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
144 H. Maljaee et al. / Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154

sion of the exposure period was reported. Extensive FRP delamina- 40 150 10
tion was also reported in the specimens after exposure. The
Brick
observed delamination was reported to be due to thermal incom-

50
patibility between GFRP and masonry substrate. The failure mode GFRP sheet
also changed from cohesive to adhesive failure.
In a recent study, the effect of hygrothermal conditions (con- 450
stant temperature at +40 °C and 90% R.H.) on FRP-strengthened
natural stones was reported [13]. The authors reported significant Aluminum plate Unbonded area Bonded area
degradation of stones’ mechanical properties after 25 weeks of (a)
exposure. The failure mode was also changed from cohesive to
adhesive failure. It was also reported that specimens prepared with 200
Leccese stones showed higher degradation of bond in comparison 180
to the specimens prepared with Neapolitan tuff. This difference Brick
was attributed to the differences in porosity of the substrates.

100
GFRP sheet

This paper extends the previous research of Ghiassi et al. [15] to
longer exposure periods. GFRP-strengthened bricks are exposed to
temperature cycles ranging from +10 °C to +50 °C and relative
humidity of 90% for 960 cycles (each cycle lasts for 6 h). The influ-
ence of mechanical surface treatment on the durability of bond, not
addressed before, is also assessed here. The effect of accelerated
hygrothermal exposure on the material properties and bond
behavior are deeply investigated. The bond degradation is investi-
gated through performing pull-off and single-lap shear debonding
tests. The mechanical tests are combined with thermal analysis of
primer, epoxy (bulk adhesive) and epoxy taken from interface to
deeply understand the degradation mechanisms. A decay model
is also proposed for each property to be used for long-term predic-
tions in hygrothermal conditions. Finally the design parameters
presented in CNR-DT 200 are calibrated based on the experimental
results. It should be noted that, throughout this study, the word
‘‘delamination” refers to the separation of FRP sheet from the
masonry substrate due to the exposure before the test execution,
and ‘‘debonding” describes the bond failure phenomenon in FRP-
strengthened specimens after bond mechanical tests.
2. Experimental program
The experimental program consisted of exposing FRP-
strengthened bricks and material samples to hygrothermal expo-
sure conditions in a climatic chamber. The specimens were taken
from the climatic chamber after different periods of exposure to
investigate possible changes in their mechanical performance.
The main focus was on the changes of FRP–masonry interfacial
bond and materials mechanical properties.
2.1. Materials and specimens’ preparation
70
(b)
Fig. 1. Geometry of the specimens prepared for: (a) single-lap shear tests; (b) pull-
off tests (dimensions are in mm).
surfaces (denoted as ORG-specimens). In the second group, the
bricks’ surfaces were grinded for about 5 mm with a mechanical
saw before application of the GFRP (denoted as GR-specimens).
In both specimen types, the GFRP sheets were applied over a
150
50 mm2 area, leaving a 40 mm unbonded length at the
loaded end as shown in Fig. 1a.
The pull-off test specimens were prepared without application
of any mechanical surface treatment. The GFRP sheets were
applied over a 180
70 mm2 area in these specimens as shown
in Fig. 1b.
A total number of 35 specimens (of each material) were also
prepared, according to relevant codes, for materials’ mechanical
characterization during the exposure. The specimens included
40 mm cubic bricks, dog-bone shape epoxy resin and primer, and
GFRP coupons with the geometrical details shown in Fig. 2.
2.2. Material properties
Mechanical properties of materials were experimentally charac-
terized according to relevant test standards. The tests included
compressive tests on brick specimens, tensile tests on dog-bone
shape epoxy resin and primer specimens, and tensile tests on GFRP
coupons. Five specimens were tested for each material. Table 1
presents the mean value and coefficient of variation (CoV) of the
experimental results. The obtained results were also used as

The specimens consisted of extruded solid clay bricks with

dimensions of 200
100
50 mm3 strengthened with Glass Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) following the wet layup procedure. A 190
40
unidirectional E-glass fiber and a two-part epoxy resin were used 40
10

t=4
20

to prepare the composite material. The specimens were prepared

40

with specific geometrical details for single-lap shear bond tests 90

(a total of 70 specimens) and pull-off tests (a total of 28 speci-
(a) (b)
mens), as presented in Fig. 1. The bricks were initially cleaned
and dried in an oven at 100 °C for 24 h. After drying, a primer layer
200
was applied on the bricks’ surfaces. A layer of epoxy resin was then
100
applied followed by impregnation of the glass fibers with epoxy
resin and then application to the bricks’ surfaces. A slight pressure 35 35
15

was finally applied on the GFRP surface with a roller to remove any
50 50
air voids at the interface.
Two groups of specimens were prepared for single-lap shear
(c)
bond tests to investigate the effect of surface mechanical prepara-
tion on the bond durability. The first group was prepared without Fig. 2. Geometry of the specimens prepared for material characterization: (a) brick
application of any mechanical surface treatment on the bricks’ cubes; (b) epoxy resin and primer; (c) GFRP coupon (dimensions are in mm).
 H. Maljaee et al. / Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154
Table 1
Material properties (CoV is given inside brackets).
Compressive strength (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa)
Masonry brick 15.38 – –
(8%)
Epoxy resin – 58.84
(4%)
Primer – 42.04
(18%)
GFRP coupons – 1185.14
(8%)
*
Tg1 and Tg2 are obtained from the first and second heating scans, respectively.
reference for investigating the effect of exposure conditions on
material properties.
Compressive tests were performed on brick specimens accord-
ing to ASTM C67 [25] and EN 772-1 [26]. The specimens were dried
in an oven for 24 h at 100 °C before performing the tests. The tests
were performed using a Lloyds testing machine under force control
at a rate of 150 N/min, in flatwise direction. In each test, a pair of
friction-reducing Teflon sheets with a layer of oil in between was
placed between the specimen and the compression plates to
reduce the friction and ensure a uniform distribution of stresses
at the center [27], see Fig. 3a. The compressive strength of brick
was obtained as the maximum experimental compressive force
per unit area.
Tensile tests on epoxy resin and primer were performed accord-
ing to standard ASTM D638 [28]. The specimens were cured in lab-
oratory conditions (T = 20 °C and R.H = 60%) for 100 days before
performing the tests. The tests were conducted using a Lloyds test-
ing machine at a displacement rate of 2 mm/min, see Fig. 3b. The
specimens were instrumented with a clip gauge at the middle to
monitor the deformation during the test. The elastic modulus
was obtained as the initial slope of the experimental stress–strain
curve.
Tensile tests on GFRP coupons were performed following the
ASTM D3039 [29] and ISO 527-1 [30]. The specimens were cured
in laboratory conditions (T = 20 °C and R.H = 60%) for 100 days
before performing the tests. The tests were conducted with an
Instron testing machine at a displacement rate of 2 mm/min, see
Fig. 3c. Tensile stresses are determined based on the equivalent
thickness concept according to ACI 440.3R [31]. This is a usual pro-
cedure when the composite material is prepared following the wet
layup procedure [15,21]. The elastic modulus was obtained from
the stress–strain curves as the slope of the chord between 20%
and 60% of the maximum tensile stress (according to the code pro-
posal). The initial slope of the stress–strain curves also provides a
Fig. 3. Schematic of test setups for material characterization: (a) compressive test
on bricks; (b) tensile test on epoxy resin and primer; (c) tensile test on GFRP
coupons.
145
Elastic modulus (GPa) Peak strain (%) Tg* (°C)
– –
2.86 2.83 Tg1: 54.2
(8%) Tg2: 66.1
2.85 1.98 Tg1: 56.3
(10%) Tg2: 61.7
58.84 2 –
(5%)
similar elastic modulus due to the linear behavior of GFRPs until
tensile rupture.
Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) tests were also per-
formed on epoxy and primer specimens (after 100 days of curing
and just before starting the hygrothermal exposure) in order to
quantify the glass transition temperature, Tg, and its changes dur-
ing the environmental exposure. Three samples from each material
(10–14 mg) were placed in the measuring pans to be tested in each
exposure period. The pans were then heated between 20 °C and
200 °C at a constant heating rate of 10 °C/min under nitrogen
atmosphere. Two heating scans were performed on epoxy resin
specimens (taken from dog-bone shaped specimens) by cooling
the samples with same rate after the initial heating and then heat-
ing again for a second time. The first heating scan represents the
thermal history of the sample including aging and processing
[32,33]. In the second heat scan, the thermal history is eliminated
and thus the inherent properties of materials is captured [34]. Tg is
determined as a midpoint temperature which is the point on the
thermal curve corresponding to 1/2 of the heat flow difference
between the extrapolated onset and extrapolated end [35]. The
Tg obtained from the first and second heating scans was 54.2 °C
and 66.1 °C for reference epoxy resin samples, and was 56.3 °C
and 61.7 °C for reference primer samples, see Table 1.
DSC tests were also performed on epoxy samples taken from the
interfacial zone between FRP and brick after performing the
debonding tests. The aim was to investigate the differences in
the curing condition and degradation between bulk epoxy and
interfacial epoxy. These tests were performed with only one heat-
ing scan. The Tg of the reference specimens taken from the inter-
face was, 55.3 °C, very close to the tensile test specimens.
2.3. Bond characterization tests
Bond characterization tests included pull-off tests (only on
ORG-specimens) and single-lap shear debonding tests (on both
ORG- and GR-specimens).
For performing the pull-off tests, two 50 mm diameter partial
cores were initially drilled on each specimen with an approximate
depth of 5 mm inside the brick, see Fig. 4a. Aluminum disks were
then glued on the GFRP surface using a high-strength epoxy paste
adhesive. The specimens were firmly clamed to a steel frame, as
shown in Fig. 4a, to avoid any movements during the tests. A
closed-loop servo-controlled testing machine was used to apply
tensile load to the disks with a displacement rate of 0.2 mm/min.
The load was monotonically applied until debonding of the disk
from the specimens.
For single-lap shear bond tests, the specimens were placed on a
rigid supporting steel frame and firmly clamped to it in order to
avoid any misalignment during load application, see Fig. 4b. A
closed-loop servo-controlled testing machine was again used for
monotonically application of tensile displacements at a rate of
0.3 mm/min. The relative slip between GFRP sheet and masonry
146 H. Maljaee et al. / Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154

Fig. 4. Schematic of test setups for bond characterization: (a) pull-off test; (b) single-lap shear test.

brick was monitored by means of four LVDTs placed on different
locations along the bonded length. Two LVDTs were mounted at
the loaded end, one at the middle of the bonded length, and
another at the free end, as shown in Fig. 4b.
Four pull-off tests (on ORG-specimens) and five single-lap shear
tests (on ORG- and GR-specimens) were performed on specimens
before starting the hygrothermal exposure tests (untreated
condition).
2.4. Hygrothermal exposure
Specimens were exposed to hygrothermal conditions in a cli-
matic chamber after 100 days of curing in laboratory conditions.
The exposure included 6-h temperature cycles ranging from
+10 °C to +50 °C with constant relative humidity of 90%, see
Fig. 5. The relative humidity inside the climatic chamber drops to
60% when the temperature reaches +10 °C and then goes back to
90% after a short period. This is a usual situation and it happens
due to the complexity of controlling the relative humidity at low
temperatures.
Two ORG-specimens (from single-lap shear specimens), two
bricks, two epoxy resin and two primer specimens were instru-
mented with strain gauges, according to the details shown in
Fig. 6, to monitor the deformation of the specimens during the
exposure period. The strain gauges were carefully sealed with pro-
tective layers to avoid impregnation of relative humidity and thus
affecting the obtained results. These specimens were kept inside
the climatic chamber until the end of exposure period and the
strains were monitored and recorded.
Five specimens of each kind were taken from the climatic cham-
ber every month (around 120 cycles and always when the temper-
ature was stabilized at 10 °C) to perform post-exposure tests. The
specimens were weighed and visually inspected, and stored in a
controlled environment room (20 °C temperature and 60% R.H.)
for 7 days before testing. The post-exposure tests included
materials’ mechanical characterization, DSC tests and bond

160 100
Relative Humidity, RH [%]

140
80
Temperature [° C]

120
100 60
RH (real condition)
80
RH (planned condition)
60 Temperature 40

40
20
20
0 0
0 6 12 18 24
Time [hrs]

Fig. 5. Hygrothermal exposure tests condition.

 H. Maljaee et al. / Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154 147

Fiber direction
sg.3 sg.2 sg.1 Brick
L
T

GFRP L
coupons sg.5 sg.4

T Epoxy resin and primer

Fiber direction

Fig. 6. Schematic position of strain gauges on the specimens.

characterization tests. The DSC tests were performed on primer
and epoxy resin samples taken from tensile test specimens and
on epoxy resin samples taken from debonded FRP sheets after
the shear tests. The test methods and procedures were as
explained in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Strain measurements
The variation of specimens’ surface strains along the exposure
period are presented in Fig. 7. Assuming that strain gauges worked
properly during the tests, the changes of Coefficient of Thermal
Expansion (CTE), a, can be obtained from the variation of strain
in each cycle (De = emax  emin) as De = aDT. Looking at the figures,
two different phenomena are recognized; change of CTE and
change of the mean strain ((emax + emin)/2). The latter can be due
to micro-cracking, delamination or swelling of the specimens due
to moisture absorption.
Thermal expansion of the brick seems to be similar in both lon-
gitudinal and transverse directions with a slight difference in CTE,
being around 1.5
105/°C and 1.36
105/°C, respectively. A
gradual increase in the mean strain can be observed in both curves,
which can be due to swelling of the brick with moisture
absorption.

Fig. 7. Strain changes in different specimens with exposure cycles.

148 H. Maljaee et al. / Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154

For the epoxy resin, the mean strain increases in the first 120
cycles and thereafter has negligible changes until the end of expo-
sure period. This increment is coincident with maximum moisture
absorption rate, see Fig. 11, and can be due to moisture swelling
[22,36]. The CTE of epoxy resin seems to be constant along the tests
and is equal to 8.28
105/°C. A similar change of mean strain can
be observed in primer, which again can be attributed to moisture
swelling, see also moisture absorption curves in Fig. 12. In con-
trary, the CTE of primer decreases around 40% along the exposure
period changing from a0 = 8.96
105/°C to a480 = 5.52
105/°C.
The strain measurements on GFRP specimens show larger strain
variations and thus larger CTE in transverse direction
(a = 9.28
105/°C) in comparison to longitudinal direction
(a = 1.15
105/°C). The CTE and mean strain variation in trans-
verse direction are in the same order of epoxy resin, as expected.
In FRPs prepared with unidirectional fibers, the properties are gov-
erned by fiber properties in fiber direction (longitudinal direction
in this study) and by epoxy in transverse direction. This can be
the reason why the effect of epoxy moisture swelling is not
observed in the mean strain in longitudinal direction.
In FRP-strengthened specimens, the strain variation captured
by sg.1–2 does not show any specific changes during the exposure
besides a slight increment of mean strain. However, the slope of
the mean strain in sg.3, placed at the loaded end, increases at
around 400 cycles, which can be due to FRP delamination from
the substrate. De is similar to the one observed in GFRP in longitu-
dinal direction, although the mean strain is slightly larger in
bonded specimens.
De is much larger in sg.4 and sg.5 as the behavior is governed by
epoxy in transverse direction. The transverse CTE recorded by sg.4
and sg.5 is 1.16
105/°C and 1.97
105/°C at the beginning of
exposure, both far from that of epoxy due to the FRP–brick bond.
De and mean strain increase until around 240 cycles in sg.5 and
90
75
60
Tg[° C]
then stabilize until the end of exposure. This change is due to pro-
gression of FRP delamination until the complete separation of FRP
from the brick surface has occurred at around 240 cycles. After this
point CTE is 7.98
105/°C, which is very close to the one from
epoxy (8.28
105/°C) showing that FRP delamination has
occurred. Both mean strain and De are smaller in sg.4 as this strain
gauge was located far from the loaded end. De increases only after
480 cycles showing that FRP delamination or interfacial micro-
cracking has occurred at this location. However, as the CTE is much
less than that of epoxy (is 2.72
105/°C at cycle 480) only micro-
cracking has probably occurred at the interface and FRP is not com-
pletely debonded. Moisture induced swelling can also be responsi-
ble for a percentage of the observed changes in the mean variation
in strain gauges bonded to the ORG-specimens.
3.2. Thermal properties
The variation of Tg obtained from DSC tests is presented in
Fig. 8. The DSC tests on bulk epoxy (taken from tensile tests spec-
imens) included two heating scans. Both reference epoxy samples
(taken from the interface and from tensile specimens) showed a
similar Tg (around 55 °C for the 1-stage DSC tests), demonstrating
a similar degree of cure at both conditions. The Tg of the bulk adhe-
sive in both heating scans increased about 17% during the first 240
cycles of exposure and reached a plateau thereafter until the end of
the tests (Fig. 8). However, the Tg of epoxy at the interface is
increased at a lower rate leading to a total 7% increase at the
end. The Tg of primer, only measured at the beginning and at the
end of exposure period, showed a 20% drop from 56 °C to 45 °C.
The observed changes in the Tg are the result of several counter-
acting and interlinked mechanisms, which affect the network
structure of epoxy resin. Moisture absorption causes plasticization
in epoxy resin and thus reduction of its Tg. On the other hand, the
epoxy is exposed to temperatures above its curing temperature
(23 °C) during the hygrothermal cycles (when the temperature
rises to 50 °C), which leads to further cross-linking of epoxy and
thus increment of its Tg [37,38]. The curing time, by itself, also
leads to improvement of the cross-link density and Tg increment.
The effect of moisture absorption on Tg can be simulated as

[39]:
45
st T gw ¼ ðAx2 þ Bx þ CÞT gd ð1Þ
30 Epoxy resin (1 heat scan)
nd

15
Epoxy resin (2 heat scan) where Tgw is the Tg of wet epoxy, Tgd is the Tg of dry epoxy, x is the
Epoxy at bond interface
moisture content in the epoxy in the percent weight, and A, B, and C
Primer
0 are constant values obtained by curve fitting of the experimental
0 240 480 720 960
Cycles results. These parameters are calibrated with water immersion tests
performed on the same epoxy resin in [40] and are obtained as
Fig. 8. Variation of Tg with exposure cycles. A = 0.0047, B = 0.056 and C = 1. Eq. (1) is then used for estimating

1.4 120
Normalized value [Tg/Tg0]

96
48
24

1.2 100
0
0
0

Cy
Cy
Cy
0

1.0
cl
cl
Cy

cl

80
es
e
e

s
cl

s
Tg[° C]

se

0.8
2
60
0.6 Tgw/Tgd=0.0047ω −0.056ω+1
40
0.4
20 Hygrothermal condition
0.2 Experimental data
Simulated data Laboratory condition
0
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Curing time [months]
Moisture content [%]
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. (a) Tg depression with moisture absorption; (b) changes of Tg in specimens exposed to hygrothermal and laboratory conditions.
 H. Maljaee et al. / Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154 149

the effect of moisture absorption on Tg during hygrothermal expo-
sure tests, see Fig. 9a. According to the analytical formula, a total
reduction of 10% in Tg is expected at the end of exposure period
(corresponding to 1.9% moisture absorption). The difference
between the experimental results and the analytical simulation,
the shaded area in the graph, represents the counteractive effect
of physical aging (further cross-linking) of epoxy resin due to both
curing time and exposure to temperatures above the curing
temperature.
The effect of epoxy curing time on Tg is investigated by perform-
ing DSC tests on epoxy samples cured and kept in laboratory con-
ditions for 2, 6 and 10 months. The results, presented in Fig. 9b in
comparison to hygrothermal exposure results, show a slow but
continuous increment of Tg with time (starts from 53 °C and
reaches 61 °C at the end of exposure period). Tg increases more
rapidly in hygrothermal conditions in the first two months, but
then it stabilizes at 61 °C until the end of the tests. The comparison
of Fig. 9a and b shows that physical aging of epoxy resin due to
exposure to temperatures higher than curing temperature is the
20
Compressive strength [MPa]
governing mechanism (with the largest contribution) for incre-
ment of Tg.
3.3. Material properties
The changes in mechanical properties and moisture content of
the specimens with exposure cycles are presented in this section.
The moisture content is measured: (i) immediately upon removal
of the specimens from the climatic chamber; and (ii) at the test
moment (after seven days of storage in controlled environmental
conditions).
The variation of compressive strength and moisture content of
bricks along the exposure is presented in Fig. 10. The changes in
the bricks’ compressive strength can be considered as negligible.
The coefficient of variation of the results is at an acceptable range
of 6–14%. The moisture absorption level (0.25% water mass after
960 cycles) is negligible in comparison to 12.5% saturation level
reported in [40] for the same bricks. The results show suitable
durability of the bricks used in this study under the considered
hygrothermal conditions.
The changes in mechanical properties and moisture content of
0.5 epoxy resin with the number of exposure cycles (n) are presented
Moisture content, MC [%]

in Fig. 11. The coefficient of variation (CoV) of the results is at an

16 0.4 acceptable range of 3–14% for elastic modulus and tensile strength
[41], but larger variations were observed for ultimate strain. The
12 0.3 largest reduction in tensile strength and elastic modulus occurred
in the first 120 cycles, when also the largest moisture absorption
8 0.2
was occurred. The rate of degradation in tensile strength is signif-
icantly reduced thereafter. Plasticization of epoxy resin, micro-
4 Compressive strength 0.1
MC after exposure cracking due to swelling or thermal cycles can be the responsible
0 MC at test moment 0.0 mechanisms for the observed degradation in mechanical proper-
0 240 480 720 960
ties. The elastic modulus has increased after the initial decrement
Cycles and then it has decreased again until the end of exposure period.
These fluctuations in the elastic modulus can be due to the coun-
Fig. 10. Changes of bricks’ compressive strength with exposure. teractive effect of moisture plasticization and physical aging. The

70 3.5 1.2
Normalized strength [Ft /Ft0]

4 months of exposure
Moisture content, MC [%]

fte=44.5+14.48exp(-0.004n)
Tensile strength [MPa]

60 3.0 1.0
50 2.5 0.8
40 2.0
0.6
30 1.5 8 months of exposure
0.4
20 1.0
Tensile strength 0.2
10
MC after exposure 0.5 Water immersion
0 MC at test moment 0.0 0.0 Hygrothermal exposure
0 240 480 720 960 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Cycles Moisture content, MC [%]

(a) (b)
3.5 3.5 4.5 3.6
Ete=2.29+0.57exp(-0.006n) εe=3.7-exp(-0.003n)
Moisture content, MC [%]

Moisture content, MC [%]

4.0 3.2
Elastic modulus [GPa]

3.0 3.0
Ultimate strain [%]

3.5 2.8
2.5 2.5
3.0 2.4
2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0
1.5 1.5 2.0 1.6
Stress

1.5 1.2
1.0 1.0
Elastic modulus 1.0 960 cycles 0.8
0.5 MC after exposure 0.5 0.5 360 cycles 0.4
0.0 MC at test moment 0.0 0.0 Reference Strain 0.0
0 240 480 720 960 0 240 480 720 960
Cycles Cycles
(c) (d)
Fig. 11. Changes of epoxy resin properties with exposure cycles (a) tensile strength; (b) comparison with water immersion tests; (c) elastic modulus; (d) ultimate strain.
150 H. Maljaee et al. / Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154

total degradation in tensile strength and elastic modulus is 26% of extreme plasticization is another reason for the observed exten-
and 18% at 960 cycles, respectively, corresponding to 1.96% water sive degradation. In contrary to the epoxy resin, it seems that the
absorption. An exponential degradation model seems suitable for tensile strength has not reach a plateau and the degradation trend
simulating the changes of tensile strength and elastic modulus, even after the extensive 960 cycles of exposure is not clear. A
see Fig. 11a and c. chemical degradation analysis seems therefore necessary and is
The moisture absorption curve shows that seven days storage proposed for future investigations for interpretation of the
before performing the tests has led to only a slight loss of the observed behavior. A significant decrement of elastic modulus
absorbed water. It also seems that epoxy is near saturation at the (around 57% at the end of the tests) and increment of ultimate
end of exposure period. A comparison with water immersion tests strain (around 88% during the first 120 cycles and reaching 168%
performed on the same epoxy resin in [40], see Fig. 11b, shows that at the end of exposure) can be observed in Fig. 12c and d). An expo-
a similar degradation level is occurred in tensile strength at low nential degradation model is used for each property and is pre-
moisture absorption levels (until 1.6%). However, the degradation sented on the graphs. In case of tensile strength, no conclusion
is larger in hygrothermal conditions at higher moisture absorption could be made for the degradation trend. However, following the
levels in contrary to the larger Tg obtained from DSC tests. This can consistency of fitting curves adopted for other material properties,
be attributed to micro cracking of epoxy resin due to thermal a similar exponential model assuming that the degradation only
cycles. starts after saturation is applied, see Fig. 12a. Again, the stress–
The changes in epoxy ultimate strain are presented in Fig. 11d strain curves show a change of behavior from linear elastic to non-
together with the typical stress–strain curves along the exposure. linear with exposure time.
The ultimate strain increases with exposure time until 240 cycles The changes in mechanical properties and moisture content of
and thereafter it reaches a plateau following an inverse exponen- GFRP coupons with the number of exposure cycles (n) are pre-
tial trend. The stress–strain curves show that the behavior of epoxy sented in Fig. 13. The CoVs of experimental results were in the
resin has changed from linear elastic (with a small nonlinearity range of 4–21%, which is acceptable for wet lay-up manufactured
near failure) to nonlinear (with a small linear region in low stress specimens [14]. The water content curve shows that the maximum
levels) along the exposure time. moisture absorption of GFRP is around 0.9% in this exposure condi-
The variation of mechanical properties and moisture content of tion. Again, most of the degradation occurs in the first 240 cycles
primer are depicted in Fig. 12. The tensile strength of primer pre- and thereafter the tensile strength reaches a plateau. A 21%
sented no changes during the first 240 cycles, although 2.4% mois- decrease in tensile strength is observed after 960 cycles, corre-
ture absorption was achieved, see Fig. 12a. After this point, in sponding to 0.9% water absorption. Fig. 13b shows that the degra-
which the primer seems to be saturated in this environment, the dation starts earlier than water immersion tests performed in [40],
degradation starts and continues until a total drop of 42% at the which can be due to the presence of thermal cycles in the present
end of the tests. The primer reached a similar level of moisture study. The changes in the elastic modulus were negligible during
absorption during three months of water immersion with no sig- the exposure, see Fig. 13c, while the ultimate strain showed a sim-
nificant degradation in tensile strength in [40], see Fig. 12b. The ilar degradation trend as the tensile strength, see also Fig. 13d.
effect of temperature cycles and exposure to high temperatures Mechanical performance of GFRP coupons is affected by mechani-
on the degradation of primer is clear. The large drop of Tg as a sign cal performance of epoxy, fibers and epoxy/fiber interface [42]. The

50 5 1.2
Normalized strength [Ft /Ft0]

3 months of exposure
Moisture content, MC [%]

fte=13+37exp(-0.001n)
Tensile strength [MPa]

1.0
40 4
0.8
30 3
0.6 8 months of exposure
20 2
0.4

10 Tensile strength 1 0.2 Water immersion

MC after exposure Hygrothermal exposure
0 MC at test moment 0 0.0
0 240 480 720 960 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Cycles Moisture content, MC [%]

(a) (b)
3.5 7 6 6
εp= 4.44-2.34exp(-0.005n)
Moisture content, MC [%]

Moisture content, MC [%]

Elastic modulus [GPa]

3.0 6 5 5
Ultimate strain [%]

Etp=1.5+1.42exp(-0.0065n)
2.5 5
4 4
2.0 4
3 3
1.5 3
Stress

2 480 cycles 2
1.0 2
960 cylces
Elastic modulus 1 1
0.5 1
MC after exposure
0.0 MC at test moment 0 0 Reference Strain 0
0 240 480 720 960 0 240 480 720 960
Cycles Cycles
(c) (d)
Fig. 12. Changes of primer properties with exposure cycles (a) tensile strength; (b) comparison with water immersion tests; (c) elastic modulus; (d) ultimate strain.
 H. Maljaee et al. / Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154 151

1400 2.1 1.2

Normalized strength [Ft /Ft0]

ftf=956.97+229.9exp(-0.015n) 2 months of exposure

Moisture content, MC [%]

1200 1.8 1.0

Tensile strength [MPa]

1000 1.5 0.8
800 1.2
0.6
600 0.9 8 months of exposure
0.4
400 0.6
Tensile strength 0.2
200 Water immersion
MC after exposure 0.3
0.0 Hygrothermal exposure
0 MC at test moment 0.0
0 240 480 720 960 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Cycles Moisture content, MC [%]

(a) (b)
80 1.6 2.4 1.8
εf=1.6+0.41exp(-0.01n)

Moisture content, MC [%]

Moisture content, MC [%]

Strain at peak load [%]

70 1.4
Elastic modulus [GPa]

2.0 1.5
60 1.2
1.6 1.2
50 1.0
40 0.8 1.2 0.9

Stress
Reference
30 0.6
0.8 480 cylces 0.6
20 0.4
Elastic modulus 120 cylces
10 0.4 0.3
MC after exposure 0.2
0 MC at test moment 0.0 0.0 Strain 0.0

0 240 480 720 960 0 240 480 720 960

Cycles Cycles
(c) (d)
Fig. 13. Changes of GFRP properties with exposure cycles (a) tensile strength; (b) comparison with water immersion tests; (c) elastic modulus; (d) ultimate strain.

glass fibers show reasonable resistance against thermal and mois-

ture exposure [43]. The degradation of GFRP coupons (including
tensile strength and elastic modulus) is thus governed by degrada- Delaminated area
tion of epoxy resin and the fiber/matrix interface. Fiber/matrix
interface is susceptible to moisture ingress and transverse cracking
due to thermal incompatibility between epoxy and fibers, both of
Delamination process

which can cause degradation in the performance of GFRPs. Again,

it seems that an exponential degradation model is suitable for sim-
ulating the tensile strength and ultimate strain.
Delaminated area [%]

1.0
F
0.8
3.4. Bond properties 0.6
0.4
3.4.1. Visual inspection 0.2
The specimens were visually inspected after every 60 cycles of 0.0
exposure (15 days). Due to the relative transparency of the epoxy 0 120 240 360 480 600
Cycles
resin, any possible delamination at the interface level was visible
0 60 120 240 480 600
and could be easily detected, as also reported in [15,21].
Cycles
A progressive FRP delamination was observed in ORG-
specimens, prepared for both pull-off and shear debonding tests, Fig. 14. Progressive delamination in ORG-specimens.
prior to testing. A schematic diagram of the typical delamination
progress in ORG-specimens is presented in Fig. 14. The delamina-
tion generally initiated from the boundaries and propagated from the exposure, leading to the reduction of pull-off strength up to
loaded end to the free end. Although the debonded area varied around 100% in some locations. The failure mode was initially
from one to another specimen in each exposure period, its progres- cohesive with fracture inside the brick. Then it changed to
sion pattern was similar in most of the specimens. While the cohesive-adhesive failure after 240 cycles and to adhesive failure
delamination was significant in ORG-specimens, no delamination after 480 cycles, see Fig. 15.
was observed in GR-specimens showing the effect of surface
preparation on improving the bond quality and durability. 3.4.3. Shear debonding tests
The changes in the debonding force and delaminated area in
3.4.2. Pull-off tests ORG- and GR-specimens are presented in Fig. 16. In contrary to
The variation of pull-off bond strength with exposure cycles is GR-specimens, that did not have any delamination, extensive
presented in Fig. 15. The pull-off tests were only performed on delamination was observed in ORG-specimens (about 50% of the
ORG-specimens. A severe degradation in pull-off strength can be bonded area after 960 cycles). The debonding force in ORG-
observed. The bonded length in the specimens decreased during specimens showed a sudden decrease (about 50%) after 120 cycles.
152 H. Maljaee et al. / Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154

1.2 of chemical and mechanical bond mechanisms [44]. The integrity

Zone II
Pull-off strength [MPa] 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 Zone I
0.0
0 240
Zone I
Cohesive-
Cohesive
adhesive
Fig. 15. Variation of pull-off strength and failure mode with exposure cycles.
Thereafter, the degradation continued with a lower rate and
reached 72% at the end of exposure period, see Fig. 16b. A similar
degradation trend was also reported by Ghiassi et al. [15,21] for
225 exposure cycles. In contrary, a slight increase was observed
in the debonding force in GR-specimens, see Fig. 16c. The results
show clearly the significant effect of surface grinding on improving
the bond performance and durability. The observed increment of
the debonding force can be attributed to the variability of the spec-
imens, curing time, and post-curing of epoxy adhesive at the inter-
face level. As discussed in Section 3.3, a 7% increase was observed
in Tg of epoxy at the interface being the evidence of further cross-
linking and bond improvement throughout the exposure period.
The bond performance between epoxy and brick is the resultant
of epoxy-substrate bond is believed to be primarily dependent on
Zone III the mechanical interlocking. Post-curing of the epoxy resin leads
to improvement of both chemical and mechanical bonding and
consequently the bond strength [44].
The typical failure modes of the specimens before and after
exposure are also presented in Fig. 16. An adhesive failure mode
combined with detachment of a thin layer of brick and tiny cracks
on the brick surface was observed in the reference ORG-specimens.
However, the detachment occurred only at the FRP/brick interface
(adhesive failure) after 120 cycles and remained the same until the
480 720 960 end of exposure. A similar change was also observed in [15] for the
Cycles specimens exposed to thermal cycles. In contrast, the failure mode
in GR-specimens was cohesive with the fracture inside a thin layer
of the brick in all the exposure period. This is another evidence of
Zone II Zone III
the improved quality of the bond in GR-specimens. It should also
Adhesive be noted that shear cracks are observable on the surface of the
GR-specimens exposed to 960 cycles. These cracks, which are not
present in the failure surface of the reference specimens, are the
evidence of improved mechanical interlocking in these specimens
due to the post-curing of the epoxy resins.
The fracture-based approach is known as an appropriate
approach at the interpretation of debonding problems [7]. There-
fore, in order to evaluate the bond degradation, the degradation
in the interfacial fracture energy is assessed. CNR DT 200 [43] pro-
poses the following formula to correlate the debonding force to the
fracture energy is shown:
P2max
Gf ¼ 2
ð2Þ
bf  ð2Ef  tf Þ
where Gf is the fracture energy, Pmax, bf, tf and Ef are the debonding
force, FRP width and thickness, and the elastic modulus of FRP,
respectively. It should be noted that this equation is applicable if
the bond length is greater than effective bond length [43]. Having
the variation of debonding force and FRP’s elastic modulus, the vari-
ation of fracture energy with hygrothermal cycles can be obtained
in both sets of specimens. In ORG-specimens, FRP width varies
due to delamination, which should be taken into consideration.
The effective bond length is reported to be around 30 mm in [45].

14 70 14 70
Zone II
Zone I

12 60 12 60
Debonding force [kN]

Debonding force [kN]

Debonded area [%]

Debonded area [%]

10 50 10 50
8 40 8 40
6 30 6 30
4 20 4 20
2 10 2 10
0 0 0 0
0 240 480 720 960 0 240 480 720 960
Cycles Cycles

Zone I Zone II 0 cycles 960 cycles

Adhesive Adhesive Cohesive Cohesive

(a) (b)
Fig. 16. Variation of debonding force and failure modes in (a) ORG-specimens; (b) GR-specimens.

1.0
Fracture energy [N/mm]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 240
Assuming that the effective bond length in ORG-specimens is con-
stant during the tests, the remaining bonded length is more than
the effective bond length until the end of exposure and thus Eq.
(2) can be used. The variation of fracture energy in both sets of spec-
imens is presented in Fig. 17a. An exponential model is also pre-
sented for simulating the changes of fracture energy for each
group. The fracture energy in ORG-specimens decreased signifi-
cantly up to 68% during 240 cycles. Besides fluctuations, no further
reduction was observed in fracture energy after this point. In con-
trary, an increase of 15% is obtained for GR-specimens. As discussed
before, no degradation was observed in the elastic modulus of GFRP
and compressive strength of brick. Thus this slight increment of
fracture energy can be attributed to the physical aging such as
post-curing and additional cross-linking in epoxy resin due to the
exposure to high temperatures [46]. Increment of joint strength
due to physical aging after exposure to thermal cycles was also
reported in [47].
The fracture energy can be also attributed to the mechanical
properties of masonry substrate as [43]:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
kb  kG
Gf ¼  f bm  f tbm
FC
where fbm and fbtm are the average compressive and tensile strength
of masonry, kb accounts for the width effects (it can be obtained
from CNR-DT200 [43]), kG is a corrective factor proposed to be equal
to 0.031 mm for FRP systems applied to bricks following the wet
layup procedures, and FC is a design confidence factor, which can
be assumed equal to 1 for the purpose of this study. The tensile
strength of the brick can be considered to be equal to 0.1fbm. Thus
Eq. (3) can be rewritten as:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Gf ¼ kb  kG  0:1f bm
It must be noted that this formula can only be applied to GR-
specimens due to the main assumption behind this equation of
having a cohesive failure inside the brick. Having the variation of
masonry compressive strength from the experimental results and
fracture energy from Eq. (2) and assuming that kb is constant dur-
ing the tests (kb = 1.29), the variation of parameter kG can be plot-
ted versus hygrothermal cycles using Eq. (4), see Fig. 17b. It can be
observed that kG can have considerable changes after exposure to
environmental conditions, which is contrary to the current
assumption of being constant made in design codes.
4. Conclusions
The effect of hygrothermal conditions on durability of FRP-
strengthened brick masonry was investigated by performing accel-
erated aging tests. The tests included exposing the specimens to
concurrent temperature cycles (between 10 °C and 50 °C) and con-
H. Maljaee et al. / Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154 153
0.20
Gf=0.8-0.15exp(-0.0024n)
0.15
ORG 0.10
KG
GR
0.05 KG=0.099+0.00003n
Gf=0.13+0.3exp(-0.011n) 0.00
480 720 960 0 240 480 720 960
Cycles Cycles
(a) (b)
Fig. 17. Variation of: (a) fracture energy; (b) KG in GR-specimens.
stant relative humidity (90%) in a climatic chamber. The main focus
was on the changes of the bond performance at FRP–brick interface
and the material properties. The use of strain gauges for monitor-
ing the environmental induced strain on the specimens during the
exposure helped in understanding the governing mechanisms in
materials behavior and changes in the thermal expansion as well
as detection of FRP delamination.
The effect of hygrothermal exposure on the compressive
strength of bricks, used in this study, was negligible. The behavior
of epoxy resin and primer changed from linear elastic (with small
nonlinearity near failure) to nonlinear showing reduction of both
strength and stiffness with increment of exposure cycles. The
observed degradation was due to the concurrent effect of moisture
absorption (which leads to plasticization) and post-curing due to
exposure to temperatures above the curing temperature. The DSC
tests showed an increase of Tg in epoxy resin and a large drop of
Tg in primer. The degradation in GFRP sheets was limited to the
tensile strength and no specific changes were observed in the elas-
tic modulus. The degradation in GFRP was probably due to both
plasticization of epoxy resin and fiber/epoxy interface damage.
ð3Þ The degradation trend in epoxy resin and GFRP was observed to
be in direct relation with moisture absorption level following the
exponential trend.
The bond characterization tests showed that grinding the
bricks’ surfaces before application of GFRP significantly improves
the bond durability. While specimens with mechanical surface
treatment did not show any degradation in the bond performance,
extensive FRP delamination and degradation in bond strength was
observed in specimens prepared without any surface treatment.
Increment of fracture energy in GR-specimens was correlated to
the physical aging (post-curing) of epoxy resin at the interface
ð4Þ
level. Post-curing of epoxy resin led to improvement of bond
between epoxy and brick which was evident in the failure surface
of the specimens after debonding tests. Predictive models for sim-
ulating the material properties, bond fracture energy and correc-
tive design factors for hygrothermal environments were also
discussed and proposed.
Acknowledgements
The second author acknowledges the financial support of the
Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, FCT, Portugal,
under the grant SFRH/BPD/92614/2013.
References
[1] Aiello MA, Sciolti SM. Bond analysis of masonry structures strengthened with
CFRP sheets. Constr Build Mater 2006;20(1–2):90–100.
[2] Ghiassi B, Verstrynge E, Lourenço PB, Oliveira DV. Characterization of
debonding in FRP-strengthened masonry using the acoustic emission
technique. Eng Struct 2014;66:24–34.
154 H. Maljaee et al. / Composite Structures 147 (2016) 143–154
[3] Oliveira DV, Basilio I, Lourenço PB. Experimental bond behavior of FRP sheets
glued on brick masonry. J Compos Constr 2011;15(1):32–41.
[4] Ghiassi B, Xavier J, Oliveira DV, Kwiecien A, Lourenço PB, Zajac B. Evaluation of
the bond performance in FRP–brick components re-bonded after initial
delamination. Compos Struct 2015;123:271–81.
[5] Broughton WR, Mera RD. Review of life prediction methodology and adhesive
joint design and analysis software, 1997.
[6] Silva MAG, Biscaia H. Degradation of bond between FRP and RC beams. Compos
Struct 2008;85(2):164–74.
[7] Tuakta C, Büyüköztürk O. Deterioration of FRP/concrete bond system under
variable moisture conditions quantified by fracture mechanics. Compos Part B
Eng 2011;42(2):145–54.
[8] Amidi S, Wang J. Subcritical debonding of FRP-to-concrete bonded interface
under synergistic effect of load, moisture, and temperature. Mech Mater
2016;92:80–93.
[9] Sen R. Developments in the durability of FRP-concrete bond. Constr Build
Mater 2015;78:112–25.
[10] Benzarti K, Freddi F, Frémond M. A damage model to predict the durability of
bonded assemblies. Part I: debonding behavior of FRP strengthened concrete
structures. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(2):547–55.
[11] Lau D, Büyüköztürk O. Fracture characterization of concrete/epoxy interface
affected by moisture. Mech Mater 2010;42(12):1031–42.
[12] Won J-P, Yoon Y-N, Hong B-T, Choi T-J, Lee S-J. Durability characteristics of
nano-GFRP composite reinforcing bars for concrete structures in moist and
alkaline environments. Compos Struct 2012;94(3):1236–42.
[13] Sciolti MS, Aiello MA, Frigione M. Effect of thermo-hygrometric exposure on
frp, natural stone and their adhesive interface. Compos Part B Eng
2015;80:162–76.
[14] Ghiassi B, Marcari G, Oliveira DV, Lourenço PB. Water degrading effects on the
bond behavior in FRP-strengthened masonry. Compos Part B Eng
2013;54:11–9.
[15] Ghiassi B, Lourenço PB, Oliveira DV. Accelerated hygrothermal aging of bond in
FRP–masonry systems. J Compos Constr 2015;19(3):04014051.
[16] Sciolti MS, Aiello MA, Frigione M. Influence of water on bond behavior
between CFRP sheet and natural calcareous stones. Compos Part B Eng
2012;43(8):3239–50.
[17] Maxwell AS, Broughton WR, Dean G, Sims GD. Review of accelerated ageing
methods and lifetime prediction techniques for polymeric materials, NPL Rep
DEPC MPR 016, 2005.
[18] Karbhari VM, Chin JW, Hunston D, Benmokrane B, Juska T, Morgan R, et al.
Durability gap analysis for fiber-reinforced polymer composites in civil
infrastructure. J Compos Constr 2003;7(3):238–47.
[19] Hollaway LC. A review of the present and future utilisation of FRP composites
in the civil infrastructure with reference to their important in-service
properties. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(12):2419–45.
[20] Cromwell JR, Harries KA, Shahrooz BM. Environmental durability of externally
bonded FRP materials intended for repair of concrete structures. Constr Build
Mater 2011;25(5):2528–39.
[21] Ghiassi B, Oliveira DV, Lourenco PB. Hygrothermal durability of bond in FRP-
strengthened masonry. Mater Struct 2014;47(12):2039–50.
[22] Vaddadi P, Nakamura T, Singh RP. Transient hygrothermal stresses in fiber
reinforced composites: a heterogeneous characterization approach. Compos
Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2003;34(8):719–30.
[23] Ray BC. Temperature effect during humid ageing on interfaces of glass and
carbon fibers reinforced epoxy composites. J Colloid Interface Sci 2006;298
(1):111–7.
[24] Bao L-R, Yee AF. Effect of temperature on moisture absorption in a
bismaleimide resin and its carbon fiber composites. Polymer (Guildf)
2002;43(14):3987–97.
[25] ASTM C67. Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick and
structural clay tile, vol. 04, 2014.
[26] EN 772-1. Methods of test for masonry units. determination of compressive
strength, 2011.
[27] Lourenço PB, Fernandes FM, Castro F. Handmade clay bricks: chemical,
physical and mechanical properties. Int J Archit Herit August 2013;2009
(4):38–58.
[28] ASTM D638-03. Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics, 2014.
[29] ASTM D3039/D 3039M. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer
matrix composite materials, 2014.
[30] ISO TC 71/SC 6 N. Non-traditional reinforcing materials for concrete
structures-test methods-part 1: FRP bars and grids, 2015.
[31] ACI 440.3R. Guide test methods for fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs) for
reinforcing or strengthening concrete structures, 2012.
[32] Sharma KS, Mudhoo A, editors. A handbook of applied biopolymer technology:
synthesis, degradation and application. Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC);
2011.
[33] Bengoechea C, Arrachid A, Guerrero A, Hill SE, Mitchell JR. Relationship
between the glass transition temperature and the melt flow behavior for
gluten, casein and soya. J Cereal Sci 2007;45(3):275–84.
[34] Soenen H, Besamusca J, Poulikakos LD, Planche J-P, Das PK, Kringos N.
Differential scanning calorimetry applied to bitumen: results of the RILEM
NBM TG1 round robin test. In: Kringos N, Birgisson B, Frost D, Wang L, editors.
Proc. int. RILEM symp., Stockholm. Springer; June 2013. p. 311–23. 2013.
[35] ASTM E1356-08. Standard test method for assignment of the glass transition
temperatures by differential scanning calorimetry, 2014.
[36] Robert RJ, Kural MH, Macke GB. Thermal expansion properties of composite
materials, 1981.
[37] Zhou J, Lucas JP. Hygrothermal effects of epoxy resin. Part II: variations of glass
transition temperature. Polymer (Guildf) 1999;40(20):5513–22.
[38] Wondraczek K, Adams J, Fuhrmann J. Effect of thermal degradation on glass
transition temperature of PMMA. Macromol Chem Phys 2004;205
(14):1858–62.
[39] Chamis CC, Murthy PLN. Simplified adhesively procedures for designing
bonded composite joints. J Reinf Plast Compos 1991;10:29–41.
[40] Maljaee H, Ghiassi B, Lourenço PB, Oliveira DV. Moisture-induced degradation
of interfacial bond in FRP-strengthened masonry. Compos Part B Eng
2016;87:47–58.
[41] Haldar A, Mahadevan S. Probability, reliability, and statistical methods in
engineering design. John Wiley; 2000.
[42] Schutte CL. Environmental durability of glass-fiber composites. Mater Sci Eng
R 1994;13(7):265–322.
[43] CNR-DT 200 R1. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded
FRP systems for strengthening existing structures, 2015.
[44] Blackburn BP, Tatar J, Douglas EP, Hamilton HR. Effects of hygrothermal
conditioning on epoxy adhesives used in FRP composites. Constr Build Mater
2015;96:679–89.
[45] Ghiassi B, Xavier J, Oliveira DV, Lourenço PB. Application of digital image
correlation in investigating the bond between FRP and masonry. Compos
Struct 2013;106:340–9.
[46] Benzarti K, Chataigner S, Quiertant M, Marty C, Aubagnac C. Accelerated ageing
behaviour of the adhesive bond between concrete specimens and CFRP
overlays. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(2):523–38.
[47] Hu P, Han X, Da Silva LFM, Li WD. Strength prediction of adhesively bonded
joints under cyclic thermal loading using a cohesive zone model. Int J Adhes
Adhes 2013;41:6–15.