Composite Structures 92 (2010) 973–983

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Bond strength of CFRP–concrete elements under freeze–thaw cycles

Pierluigi Colombi *, Giulia Fava, Carlo Poggi
Department of Structural Engineering, Technical University of Milan (Politecnico di Milano), P.zza L. da Vinci, 32, 20133 Milan, Italy

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

Article history: Bonding between the adherents represents a key point when dealing with the reinforcement of concrete
Available online 30 September 2009 structures by using FRPs. Bonding depends on mechanical and physical properties of concrete, composite
and adhesive as well as on the surface treatment of the concrete substrate. A very important topic for civil
Keywords: engineering applications is related to the durability of the bond in harsh environments. In the present
RP-concrete debonding paper some specimens were first subjected to freeze–thaw cycles and then experimental debonding tests
Durability were performed in order to investigate the effects of the bonding length and environmental conditions.
Fracture energy
First, the effects of environmental conditions on bond strength is discussed. Finally, the experimental
Experimental tests
Freeze–thaw cycles
data are compared to the design formulae proposed by the Italian Recommendations CNR DT200/2004
and critical considerations are presented.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tal campaign on FRP–concrete debonding and different test setups

Bonding between the FRP reinforcement and concrete substrate
is a very important aspect in strengthening concrete elements.
Debonding represents a brittle failure mechanism to avoid in
practical applications. In reinforcing concrete beams for bending,
debonding may occur close to the reinforcement ends (end deb-
onding) or along the beams (intermediate debonding). It is a mode
II cracking essentially due to the shear relative displacement
between the adherents. Debonding may be also due to concrete
cracks or irregularities of the concrete surface. Clearly, the evalua-
tion of the debonding force is required to properly design the rein-
forcement al the ULS [1]. Several experimental studies were then
performed in the literature to analyse the bond behaviour of inter-
face between FRP and concrete. Among others, Toutanji et al. con-
ducted simple shear tests on the FRP bonded to a concrete
substrate to simulate crack induced interfacial debonding [2].
Gautam and Matsumoto analyzed the interaction of CFRP and con-
crete in concrete filled CFRP box beams [3]. Täljsten performed sev-
eral debonding tests on concrete elements strengthened with steel
and composite plates [4]. Chajes et al. conducted debonding tests
with CFRP plates having a width of 25.4 mm wide and bond
lengths from 50.8 mm to 203.4 mm [5]. Miller et al. proposed a
particular bending setup for debonding tests on concrete elements
reinforced by means of CFRP sheets [6]. Brosens implemented a
symmetric setup by bonding two CFRP sheets to two concrete
specimen under traction [7]. Aiello and Pecce performed several
tests as well [8]. Ferracuti [9] and Mazzotti et al. [10] presented
the results of a wide research program consisting of an experimen-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 02 23994280; fax: +39 02 23994369.
E-mail address: colombi@stru.polimi.it (P. Colombi).
were discussed. Based on the experimental results a non-linear
mode II interface law for FRP–concrete bonding was proposed
[11]. Moreover, numerous models predicting the debonding failure
between FRP and concrete substrate have been proposed. They are
chiefly fracture mechanics based models and they require first the
evaluation of the interfacial fracture energy in order to finally
determine the debonding force.
Another very important point of concern in strengthening con-
crete elements by using CFRPs is related to the durability of the
bond under various environmental conditions. In many cases con-
crete structures are subject to severe atmospheric conditions like a
large number of freeze–thaw cycles each year and moisture that
can affect the substrate, the reinforcing material, the adhesive
and the FRP–concrete interface. In general, FRPs are considered
to have an excellent mechanical performance and small reductions
in tensile strength can be found after freeze–thaw conditioning
[12–14]. On the other hand, the substrate, the adhesives and the
interfaces are prone to deterioration under certain environmental
conditions with particular reference to moisture content and
freeze–thaw cycles [15,16].
Few experiments were previously performed on the effects of
freeze–thaw cycles, i.e. when they occur as cyclic events and not
as steady state conditions. Karbhari and Zhao investigated the
short-term effects of four environment exposure conditions on
the structural response of concrete beams strengthened by using
FRPs, focusing on the concrete cover below the level of the rein-
forcing steel, i.e., the weakest link of the system. Specimens subject
to the freeze–thaw exposure between 23 °C and 15.5 °C every
24 h failed in a more brittle mode and with lower failure levels
[17]. Toutanji and El-Korchi presented the results of an experimen-
tal study on the tensile performance of cement-based specimens

0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.09.044
974 P. Colombi et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 973–983
wrapped with FRP sheets subjected to 300 freeze–thaw cycles.
Ultimate strength and load–extension behaviour were obtained
and then compared to the performance of unconditioned samples;
specimens wrapped with CFRPs experienced no significant reduc-
tion in strength due to exposure [18]. Qiao and Xu used notched
three-point bending tests to characterize temperature effects on
the Mode-I fracture interfaces in concrete beams strengthened
using CFRPs. Specimens were frozen for several hours and the sur-
face near the bonded interface was enclosed in an aluminium insu-
lating foil to maintain the temperature during testing [19]. Silva
and Biscaia performed four-point bending tests and pull-out tests
to analyze the effects of freeze–thaws cycles (10 °C; 10 °C) and
of other conditionings on specimens beams externally reinforced
with GFRP or CFRP. Specimens subjected to freeze–thaw cycles
showed a reduction in the load carrying capacity of beams while
failure was found in the concrete substrate [20].
In this paper, some of the results of an ongoing experimental
campaign to investigate the effect of environmental conditions
on reinforcement effectiveness are presented. Freeze–thaw cycles
were already found to reduce bond shear strength and peak slip
while in force–elongation diagram non-linear bond behaviour is
observed at a lower applied force [21]. Due to the lack of informa-
tion, design rules against the effect of aggressive environment are
currently very conservative [22–25]. On the other hand, most of
these models are empirical and therefore a significant amount of
experimental data is necessary to verify the assumptions and bet-
ter calibrate the relevant parameters, as also noticed in Ref. [26].
The paper presents then the results of several experiments per-
formed at the Material Testing Laboratory of the Politecnico di
Milano in order to evaluate the debonding strength of concrete
prisms reinforced by means of CFRPs pultruded strips and wraps.
Different reinforcement lengths (100 mm and 400 mm) were con-
sidered in order to analyze the influence of these parameters on
the debonding strength. The investigation on the effect of plate
width on debonding strength was not performed in this work.
Based on the ASTM C666 Recommendations [27], some specimens
were exposed to 100 or 200 freeze–thaw cycles from 18 to +4 °C
for a duration of about 5-h each, allowing to analyze the bond
strength variation as a consequence of exposure to aggressive envi-
ronment conditions. Finally, in the discussion of the results, exper-
imental evidences were grouped and conclusive remarks are
presented with respect to the bonding lengths, the reinforcing type
and the conditioning treatment.
2. Experimental program
A series of pull–pull debonding tests on CFRPs strips and wraps
bonded to concrete blocks (Fig. 1) were performed to investigate
the bond behaviour of specimens subjected to freeze–thaw cycles
and to quantify the relevant bond strength reduction with refer-
ence to the bond strength of unconditioned specimens. In order
to properly anchor the CFRP reinforcements, avoid misalignment
400 100 150
80
150
600
Fig. 1. Reinforcement geometry (lengths in mm) Type A on the left, Type B on the right.
of the load and correctly evaluate the debonding force, the design
of and ad hoc supporting frame was essential. Moreover, a special
control system (displacement control) was implemented to detect
the post-peak behaviour and to follow the progressive debonding.
This is an innovative aspect of the proposed testing procedure
compared to standard tensile tests usually performed in the liter-
ature. The blocks were strengthened on two opposite sides with
two different bonded lengths (100 mm and 400 mm) and thus
two specimens are provided for each concrete block.
2.1. Materials
Concrete blocks (150  150  600 mm3) were poured into woo-
den forms and externally vibrated. They were fabricated using
class C25/30 concrete, according to Ref. [28]. At the same time, sev-
eral 150 mm-edge cubes were poured and used to evaluate the
mechanical properties of concrete. Two opposite surfaces of the
concrete blocks were sandblasted until aggregates were visible to
remove the top layer of mortar.
Ten concrete blocks (for a total of 20 specimens) were strength-
ened with two different bond lengths (100 mm and 400 mm). Half
of the specimens were reinforced using CFRP plates and half were
strengthened with wraps. Unidirectional pultruded carbon fibres
strips (SikaÒ CarbodurÒ S812/120) with a width (bf) of 80 mm
and a thickness (tf) equal to 1.2 mm were used. On the basis of
the ISO 1172 Standard [29], a fibre volumetric content of 75.1%
was measured. As reported in the technical datasheet the nominal
fibre volumetric content should be greater than 70% [30]. The
Young’s modulus and the tensile strength were measured testing
several specimens accordingly to the ASTM D3039 [31] and an
average Young’s modulus (Ef) of 176 GPa and a tensile strength of
2101 MPa were obtained. As reported in the technical datasheet
provided by the producer, the nominal value of the Young’s mod-
ulus is equal to 167 MPa and the nominal tensile strength should
be greater than 2800 MPa [30].
The CFRP wraps consisted of one layer of 400 g/m2 unidirec-
tional textile with a width of 80 mm and an equivalent thickness
equal to 0.220 mm. A fibre volumetric content of 28.3% was mea-
sured. Referring to the fibres, the Young’s modulus and the tensile
strength were measured testing several laminated specimens
made of three CFRP sheets: an average Young’s modulus of
409 GPa and a tensile strength of 3407 MPa were obtained. In the
technical datasheet [30], the nominal values of the Young’s modu-
lus and of the tensile strength are equal to 390 GPa and 4200 MPa,
respectively.
CFRP reinforcements were bonded to each concrete block on
opposite sides using a thixotropic epoxy resin (SikadurÒ 30). The
mixing ratio of the epoxy was 1:3, i.e. three part of component A
(resin) to one part of component B (hardener) by volume. The
epoxy has a pot life of 70 min and was cured at room temperature.
Experimental tests were performed to characterize the mechanical
properties of the adhesive and to verify the data reported in the
100 100 150
150
600
 P. Colombi et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 973–983 975

technical datasheets. Average values of Young’s modulus and ten-

sile strength were equal to 12.84 GPa and 30.2 MPa, respectively.
The Poisson’s ratio of the adhesive was 0.29. Torsional tests were
performed on adhesive thin walled cylinders using two rosettes
placed at the centre of the specimen and an average shear modulus
of 1.99 GPa and shear strength equal to 16.8 MPa, were recorded.
As reported in the technical data sheet [23], the nominal properties
were a Young’s modulus of 12.8 GPa and tensile and shear
strengths (after a curing period of 7 days at 35 °C) of 35 MPa and
22.5 MPa, respectively. The obtained tensile and shear strengths
are then 15% and 25% lower than the nominal values of the data-
sheets. These results are not surprising because it is known that
the mechanical properties of the adhesive specimens can be af-
fected by several factors occurring during the preparation of the
specimens like the presence of small air bubbles. A more complete
analysis is programmed to verify the nominal values reported in
the technical datasheets.

2.2. Specimens geometry and preparation

Specimen geometry and dimensions are reported in Fig. 1. The

reinforcement was bonded to the concrete substrate at a distance
of 100 mm from the front side of the concrete block to better ana-
Fig. 2. Test setup.
lyze progressive delamination [10].
The following procedure was adopted for specimens prepara-
tion. The CFRP reinforcements were firstly cut to the proper length, 3. Pull–pull debonding tests
the surface roughness of CFRP plates was increased by means of
very fine sandpaper (grit P240) to improve the bond strength. Be- 3.1. Experimental setup
fore bonding, an adhesive promoter (primer) was applied to the
concrete surface in order to enhance adhesion between the adher- Tests were performed using a mechanical testing machine with
ents. The two components of the epoxy adhesive were mixed maximum load capacity of 1000 kN (Fig. 2).
according to the manufacturer’s instructions until a homogeneous Since the expected ultimate loads are in the range of
light grey paste was obtained. The adhesive was then evenly dis- 20  40 kN, the applied traction force was measured by means of
tributed on the adherents paying attention to avoid air bubbles an additional loading cell with 100 kN capacity. A supporting
and finally the CFRP reinforcement was pressed on the concrete frame consisting of four L profiles and two threaded tie-rods were
and the adhesive in excess was removed. The spew fillet at the used to correctly position the specimen in the testing rig and to
edges was eliminated to avoid its influence on the bond strength avoid possible misalignments of the applied load (Fig. 3).
and on the fracture energy during the debonding process. Two of the L profiles were horizontally bound to the testing ma-
chine while the other two were set vertical and connected by two
2.3. Conditioning program threaded tie-rods to the horizontal profiles. The specimen was also
restrained to prevent horizontal displacements (Fig. 4).
To investigate the effect of aggressive environmental conditions Particular attention was dedicated to the alignments of the
on the bond behaviour of concrete elements strengthened with specimen with the applied force. When the applied force is not per-
FRPs, several specimens were artificially aged in environmental fectly aligned to the FRP/concrete interface, the flexural moment
chambers, while others were stored under standard laboratory may generate peeling stresses leading to a significant reduction
conditions (T = 20 °C, RH = 60%). Details on the conditioning treat- of the debonding force.
ments are reported in Table 1. Two groups of specimens were sub- Two different anchoring systems were used for CFRP pultruded
ject to 100 and 200 freeze–thaw cycles (FT) from 18 to +4 °C for a strips or wraps. Anchorages for CFRP pultruded strips were pre-
duration of about 5-h each, accordingly to ASTM C666. In Table 1, pared inserting the composite material between two tapered steel
UC denotes the reference specimens not subject to conditioning tables. The steel plates were bonded to the CFRP using the resin
cycles. SikadurÒ 30. Finally, two additional steel plates were used to con-
nect the steel plates bonded to the CFRP strips to the load cell
(Fig. 5).
For the CFRP wraps, anchorages were prepared inserting the
Table 1
CFRP between two tapered GFRP tables. The system was connected
Various exposures for the specimens under study.
to the load cell by bolted steel plates (Fig. 6). These plates were
Block Reinforcement Exp. Exposure details connected by friction to the GFRP tables and by a shear stud to
P1 wrap FT 100 cycles the load cell.
P2 plate FT 100 cycles A particularly sensitive control system of the testing machine
P3 wrap FT 200 cycles
was implemented in order to record the load–displacement curve
P4 plate FT 200 cycles
P5 wrap FT 200 cycles during the whole delamination process. The relative displacement
P6 plate FT 200 cycles between the concrete surface and the reinforcement end was mea-
P15 wrap UC sured by using displacement transducers (LVDTs) sensors set along
P18 plate UC the CFRP reinforcement (Fig. 7).
P19 wrap UC
P20 plate UC
Tests were driven under displacement control with reference
to the LVDT sensors set along the bonded part of the CFRP
976 P. Colombi et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 973–983
Fig. 3. Steel frame testing device.
Fig. 4. Detail of the specimen positioned in the testing machine.
Fig. 5. Anchoring systems applied to CFRP pultruded strips.
reinforcement. At first the upper transducer was used to control
the test and then, as the reinforcement progressively debonded,
the control was gradually moved to the lower LVDT. This system
Fig. 6. Anchoring systems applied to CFRP wraps.
permitted to control the debonding process even when part of
the specimen was unloaded because of the progressive debonding.
On the specimens strengthened with CFRP wraps or strips for a
reinforcement length of 400 mm (denoted as ‘type A’ specimens)
five LVDT sensors were used. Two transducers were applied at a
distance of 100 mm from the top side of the concrete block, i.e.
at the beginning of the CFRP/concrete bonded zone. Other two
LVDTs were applied in the middle of the CFRP/concrete bonded
zone and finally the last one was positioned at the end of the rein-
forcement length.
On the specimens strengthened with CFRP wraps or strips of
lengths of 100 mm (denoted as ‘type B’ specimens) three LVDT sen-
sors were used. Two transducers were applied at a distance of
100 mm from the top side of the concrete block and another one
was positioned at the bottom-end of the reinforcement.
3.2. Delamination tests results
All the specimens were tested up to the complete debonding of
the reinforcements. The debonding onset and development were
detected by visual inspection of the specimen and analyzing the
transducers response. The load vs. stroke displacement and load
vs. transducer displacements curves were recorded during the
whole debonding process. In particular, information on the
post-peak behaviour (snap-back curve) was a key point in order
to evaluate the fracture energy of the systems. In all the specimens,
failure mainly occurred with the reinforcement debonding at the
level of the concrete substrate about 2 mm beneath the adhesive/
 P. Colombi et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 973–983
Fig. 7. Instrumentation for (a) 400 mm long reinforced specimens and (b) 100 mm
long reinforced specimens.
concrete interface. After the collapse, specimens were visually in-
spected and the thickness of the concrete layer attached to the
reinforcement was generally found to be uniform.
A laser rugosimeter was installed on a frame to produce bidi-
mensional measurements of the roughness of the fracture surface
after debonding through statistical parameters and to investigate
the fracture surface and fracture modes after the collapse of the
specimens. A typical fracture surface is shown in Fig. 8, and the
main types of collapse can be recognized, i.e. failure at the aggre-
gate level (A); at the cement/aggregate interface (B); at the adhe-
sive/FRP interface (C) and due to absence of binder (D).
In the following, the results of four specimens taken from
concrete blocks P2, P4 and P15 are discussed in detail in order to
present the peculiarities of the testing procedure (transducer dis-
placement control progressively moved during gradual debonding)
and to show the results not only in terms of ultimate load but also
in terms of post-peak behaviour. In particular, tests on specimens
reinforced with CFRP unidirectional wraps and CFRP plates are de-
scribed for both bonding lengths of 400 mm (denoted as type A)
and of 100 mm (denoted as type B) and to investigate the effect
of different environmental conditions on the bond behaviour of
FRP reinforcements bonded to concrete. In fact, while specimens
P2B and P4A were strengthened using CFRP plates and were sub-
jected to freeze–thaw cycles before strengthening, specimens
P15A and P15B were strengthened using a CFRP wrap and were
unconditioned. In any case, per each combination of reinforcing
type and conditioning, experimental tests were comparable and
similar results were obtained both in terms of ultimate load (see
Tables 3 and 4) and snap-back detection.
The specimen geometry and LVDT positions are reported for
each kind of experimental test and the results are discussed in
terms of load–stroke displacement, load–transducers displacement
and load–elongation plots. Finally, in the following, for ‘‘type A”
specimens the average displacements measured from the upper
transducers AC7 and AC8 and from the middle transducers AC10
and AC12 are called, respectively, dup and dmid, while the displace-
ment of transducer AC11 is denoted as dbot. Of course for the ‘‘type
B” specimens just dup and dbot are defined.
3.2.1. Tests results of specimens reinforced with CFRP wraps
The specimen geometry is illustrated in Fig. 1 while the condi-
tioning treatment is detailed in Table 1. Typical test results are
illustrated with reference to block P15. The concrete prism P15
was not conditioned and was strengthened by using a CFRP wrap
977
Fig. 8. Analysis of the fracture surface and of the type of collapse (A: aggregate
level; B: cement/aggregate interface; C: adhesive/FRP interface and D: absence of
binder).
with bonding length of 400 mm (specimen P15A) and 100 mm
(specimen P15B). In Figs. 9d and 10d the specimen geometry and
LVDTs positions are reported for both specimen P15A and P15B.
Specimen P15A was firstly tested under load control with a con-
stant rate equal to 2 kN/min up to a load of 8 kN. This was done to
settle the equipment in and to avoid sudden increment of the load-
ing speed that are possible in the initial loading process of a dis-
placement controlled test. The load, stroke displacement and
LVDTs displacements were recorded at a frequency of 5 Hz. Once
the load level of 8 kN was attained, the control was automatically
moved to transducer AC7 and the specimen was tested under dis-
placement control with respect to LVDT AC7 at a rate of 0.6 lm/s.
During this phase of the experimental test CFRP debonding was not
observed and the transducer displacements recorded by using the
upper instruments AC7 and AC8 were extremely close each other,
see Fig. 9e. As far as the reinforcement was bonded to the concrete
substrate, the displacements recorded by LVDTs AC10 and AC12
were negligible. At a load level of 17.258 kN, LVDT AC12 started
to record a significant displacement; thus the control was moved
to transducer AC12 at a rate of 0.3 lm/s. During such phase the
reinforcement started to debond and the difference between the
displacements recorded using the upper LVDTs AC7 and AC8 in-
creased as a consequence of the presence of the aggregates on
the concrete surface. On the contrary, the displacements recorded
using the transducers positioned in the middle of the specimen re-
mained close each other. Finally, when at a load level of 22.532 kN
LVDT AC11 started to record a significant displacement then trans-
ducer AC11 was used as control instrument at rate of 0.1 lm/s.
While the displacement recorded by the bottom transducer pro-
gressively increased up to the complete reinforcement debonding,
the displacements recorded using the other instruments gradually
reduced indicating progressive debonding of the reinforcement. In
Fig. 9b, c and e a snap-back branch due to instantaneous releasing
of elastic energy of the reinforcement was detected.
Similarly, specimen P15B was tested under load control with a
constant rate equal to 2 kN/min up to a load of 8 kN. From the
beginning of the experimental test it was observed that, while
Table 2
Mean and characteristic compressive strength values of concrete.
Concrete group fcm (MPa) St. dev. (MPa) fck (MPa)
Unconditioned (UC) 25.03 1.02 23.37
Freeze–thaw cycles (FT) 24.71 2.75 20.19
978 P. Colombi et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 973–983

Table 3
Reinforcement type and geometry, debonding force Fmax, fracture energy CF and fracture energy parameter kg for the unconditioned specimens (V-specimens are from Ref. [36]).

Specimen Reinforcement tf (mm) Ef (MPa) Fmax (kN) CF (N/mm) kg

P15A Wrap 0.22 409,289 27.590 0.660 0.075
P18A Strip 1.20 176,560 42.675 0.672 0.076
P19A Wrap 0.22 409,289 29.185 0.739 0.083
P20A Strip 1.20 176,560 36.833 0.500 0.057
P15B Wrap 0.22 409,289 19.519 0.331 0.037
P18B Strip 1.20 176,560 30.788 0.350 0.039
P19B Wrap 0.22 409,289 19.052 0.315 0.036
P20B Strip 1.20 176,560 30.018 0.332 0.038
V7A Strip 1.20 176,560 35.013 0.452 0.053
V8A Strip 1.20 176,560 29.150 0.313 0.043
V11A Strip 1.20 176,560 32.769 0.396 0.043
V7B Strip 1.20 176,560 26.810 0.265 0.030
V8B Strip 1.20 176,560 32.805 0.397 0.054
V11B Strip 1.20 176,560 32.298 0.385 0.041
V24A Wrap 0.16 239,641 25.393 0.806 0.094
V25A Wrap 0.16 239,641 29.889 1.116 0.129
V26A Wrap 0.16 239,641 24.420 0.745 0.088
V24B Wrap 0.16 239,641 20.797 0.540 0.063
V25B Wrap 0.16 239,641 23.102 0.667 0.077
V26B Wrap 0.16 239,641 22.112 0.611 0.072

Table 4
Reinforcement type and geometry, debonding force Fmax, fracture energy CF and fracture energy parameter kg for the conditioned specimens (freeze–thaw cycles).

Specimen Reinforcement tf (mm) Ef (MPa) Fmax (kN) CF (N/mm) kg

P1A Wrap 0.22 409,289 29.224 0.741 0.085
P2A Strip 1.20 176,560 41.239 0.549 0.063
P3A Wrap 0.22 409,289 25.596 0.568 0.065
P4A Strip 1.20 176,560 44.430 0.638 0.073
P5A Wrap 0.22 409,289 33.893 0.997 0.114
P6A Strip 1.20 176,560 49.010 0.776 0.089
P1B Wrap 0.22 409,289 15.937 0.220 0.025
P2B Strip 1.20 176,560 25.836 0.216 0.025
P3B Wrap 0.22 409,289 21.834 0.414 0.048
P4B Strip 1.20 176,560 34.917 0.394 0.045
P5B Wrap 0.22 409,289 30.369 0.800 0.092
P6B Strip 1.20 176,560 23.805 0.183 0.021

the displacement recorded by LVDT AC9 was negligible, due the
irregular concrete surface and the uneven adhesive distribution,
the displacements recorded using upper LVDTs AC7 and AC8 were
significantly different (Fig. 10e). After this phase transducer AC7
was used as a control instrument at a rate of 0.2 lm/s. At a load le-
vel of 17.191 kN, visual inspection suggested the occurrence of
reinforcement debonding and LVDT AC9 started to record a consid-
erable displacement, thus the control was moved to transducer
AC9 at a rate of 0.1 lm/s. Nonetheless, the irregularities at the level
of the reinforcement–concrete interface led to the specimen col-
lapse before the detection of a snap-back curve. Finally in
Fig. 10c, the fracture surface of the debonded CFRP wrap is shown.
It may be noticed that collapse occurred mainly at the adhesive/
FRP interface due to absence of binder.
3.2.2. Tests results of specimens reinforced with CFRP unidirectional
plates
The specimen geometry is illustrated in Fig. 1 while the condi-
tioning treatment is detailed in Table 1. Concrete prisms P2 and P4
were subject to 100 and 200 freeze–thaw cycles before strengthen-
ing, respectively. Both the concrete blocks were then reinforced by
means of a CFRP plate. In Figs. 11d and 12d the specimen geometry
and LVDT positions are reported for both specimen P4A and P2B.
Specimen P4A was tested under load control up to a load of
8 kN. Then the transducer AC7 was used as a control instrument
at a rate of 0.6 lm/s. In Fig. 11e it is observed that the displace-
ments recorded by using LVDTs AC7 and AC8 were extremely close
each other. At a load level of 27.571 kN, the control was moved to
transducer AC12 at a rate of 0.3 lm/s. After reaching the maximum
load level of 44.430 kN, the displacements of LVDTs AC7 and AC8
and the applied load started to reduce while the displacements
of LVDTs AC10 and AC12 continuously increased. Finally, when at
a load level of 26.373 kN, LVDT AC11 started to record a significant
displacement; the control instrument was moved to transducer
AC11 at rate of 0.1 lm/s. A snap-back branch due to instantaneous
releasing of elastic energy of the reinforcement was evident from
the Fig. 11b, c and e.
Specimen P2B was tested under load control with a constant
rate equal to 2 kN/min up to a load of 8 kN. The displacements
recorded using upper transducers AC7 and AC8 were signifi-
cantly different each other (Fig. 12e). Above all it may be no-
ticed that while the displacement recorded using LVDT AC7 is
positive, i.e. the reinforcement is locally under tension, the dis-
placement of transducer AC8 is negative, i.e. close to the instru-
ment the reinforcement is compressed. This result is typical of
slightly asymmetric specimens or reinforcements. Once the load
level of 8 kN was reached, the transducer AC7 was automati-
cally used as a control instrument at a rate of 0.2 lm/s. At a
load level of 13.604 kN, the control was moved to transducer
AC9 at a rate of 0.1 lm/s up to failure. Then, once the maxi-
mum load of 30.380 kN was attained, a snap-back branch was
detected.
 P. Colombi et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 973–983 979

30 30

20 20

load [kN]
load [kN]
10 10

δup - δmid
δmid - δbot
0 0
0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 0 400 800 1200 1600
stroke displacement [mm] relative displacement [μm]
(a) (b) (c)
30

20
load [kN]

AC7
10 AC8
AC12
AC10
AC11
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
lvdt displacement [μm]
(d) (e)
Fig. 9. Experimental results for specimen P15A: (a) detail of the specimen; (b) load vs. stroke displacement; (c) load vs. slip; (d) specimen instrumentation; (e) load vs. LVDT
transducer displacement.

30

20
load [kN]

10

0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
stroke displacement [mm]
(a) (b) (c)
30

20
load [kN]

10 AC7
AC8
AC9

0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500
lvdt displacement [μm]
(d) (e)
Fig. 10. Experimental results for specimen P15B: (a) detail of the specimen; (b) load vs. stroke displacement; (c) load vs. slip; (d) specimen instrumentation; (e) load vs. LVDT
transducer displacement.

4. Discussion (400 mm and 100 mm) were considered. Besides some specimens
were subject to 100 and 200 freeze–thaw cycles. Once the debonding
Several experimental tests were presented in the paper. Different tests were performed, cores were obtained from each concrete prism
reinforcing types (CFRP strips or wraps) and bonding lengths and concrete compressive and tensile strength were evaluated
980 P. Colombi et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 973–983

50 50

40 40

load [kN]
load [kN]
30 30

20 20

10 10 δup - δmid
δmid - δbot
0 0
0 0.8 1.6 2.4 0 200 400 600 800
stroke displacement [mm] relative displacement [μm]
(a) (b) (c)
50

40
load [kN]

30

20 AC7
AC8
AC12
10 AC10
AC11
0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
lvdt displacement [μm]
(d) (e)
Fig. 11. Experimental results for specimen P4A: (a) detail of the specimen; (b) load vs. stroke displacement; (c) load vs. slip; (d) specimen instrumentation; (e) load vs. LVDT
transducer displacement.

30 30

20 20
load [kN]
load [kN]

10 10

δup - δbot
0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0 100 200
stroke displacement [mm] relative displacement [μm]
(a) (b) (c)
30

20
load [kN]

10 AC7
AC8
AC9

0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500
lvdt displacement [μm]
(d) (e)
Fig. 12. Experimental results for specimen P2B: (a) detail of the specimen; (b) load vs. stroke displacement; (c) load vs. slip; (d) specimen instrumentation; (e) load vs. LVDT
transducer displacement.

(see Table 2). In Tables 3 and 4, results are reported in terms of Then, in the discussion of the results, experimental evidences
debonding force Fmax and fracture energy parameters for the uncon- were grouped with regard to the bonding length, the reinforcing
ditioned specimens and the conditioned ones, respectively. type and the conditioning treatment.
 P. Colombi et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 973–983 981

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4.1. Effects of the reinforcing length and type CF ¼ kg  kb  fck  fctm ð3Þ

Concerning the reinforcing length, specimens were grouped
accordingly to the bonding lengths of 400 mm (type A) and of
100 mm (type B). The debonding force is generally higher for spec-
imens with a reinforcing length of 400 mm instead of 100 mm. The
control system was also implemented to record the load–displace-
ment curve during the whole debonding process allowing to the
post-peak behaviour detection. Then it was observed that snap-
back curves were often and easily recorded in specimens with a
reinforcing length of 100 mm and only sometimes were detected
in specimens with a reinforcing length of 400 mm.
Besides, with reference to the reinforcing type, specimens rein-
forced by using CFRP strips or wraps were considered separately.
Accounting for the experimental scattering the debonding forces
in specimens strengthened using CFRP strips or wraps were com-
parable. Debonding forces were generally higher in specimens
strengthened by using CFRP strips.
4.2. Conditioning effects on concrete and bond strength
As far as the conditioning treatment is considered, specimens
were not substantially influenced by the type or the duration of
the treatment and conditioning is not significant in terms of ulti-
mate load. This was probably due to the fact that the CFRP rein-
forcement reduced the penetration of the aggressive agents
inside the concrete at the level of the interface between CFRP
and concrete. On the other hand, conditioning affected the con-
crete strength. In this case specimens were grouped considering
the unconditioned ones (UC group) and the ones subjected to both
100 and 200 freeze–thaw cycles (FT group).
After completing the debonding tests, four cores (75 mm by
150 mm) were obtained from each concrete prism according to
Ref. [32] and compressive [33] and tensile splitting [34] tests were
performed to measure the concrete strength and therefore deter-
mine the conditioning effects on concrete degradation. Specimens
were grouped into two main classes: unconditioned specimens
(UC) and specimens subject to freeze–thaw cycles (FT). As reported
in Table 2, the mean compressive strength value fcm for the speci-
men group UC is equal to 25.04 MPa while for specimen group FT is
of 24.71 MPa. The characteristic compressive strength fck is deter-
mined by means of equation:
where kb is a geometric coefficient taking into account the rein-
forcement plate width, kg is a dimensional scaling factor used to
fit experimental data, fck is the characteristic compressive concrete
strength and fctm is the average tensile concrete strength. The geo-
metric coefficient kb is given by:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2  ðbf =bÞ
kb ¼ ¼ 1:106 ð4Þ
1 þ ðbf =400Þ
where bf = 80 mm and b = 150 mm are the width of the FRP rein-
forcement and of the concrete element, respectively. Based on the
expressions provided in the CNR DT200 Guidelines, the characteris-
tic value of fracture energy is determined using expression (3). Then
the ultimate strength in the FRP system at ULS can be evaluated for
both end debonding or intermediate debonding, assuming that the
provided bond length is equal to or longer than the optimal bond
length. Based on statistical analysis of experimental data obtained
from the literature, in the CNR DT200 guidelines, a coefficient kg
equal to 0.03 is proposed. In order to validate the proposal first
the fracture energy is evaluated as:
F 2max
CF ¼ 2
ð5Þ
bf ð2Ef tf Þ
where Ef and tf are the Young’s modulus and the thickness of the
FRP. In detail, when CFRP wraps are used to strengthen the concrete
element, Ef and tf are the elastic modulus and the equivalent thick-
ness referred to the fibres; while for CFRP plates Ef and tf are the
elastic modulus and the thickness referred to the composite mate-
rial. Finally, the dimensional parameter kg is calculated according
to:
CF
kg ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6Þ
kb fck  fctm
In Tables 3 and 4, based on the experimental results in terms of
debonding force, the corresponding fracture energy CF and fracture
energy parameter kg were evaluated according to expressions (4)
and (5). In Eq. (6) the nominal concrete compressive strength for
5% (DT200)

Avg (DT200)

Exp. Results
Avg (Exp)
5% (Exp)

fck ¼ fcm  1:64  st: dev:ðfc Þ ð1Þ

30 8
RR Results
As a consequence, a characteristic compressive strength fck of
23.37 MPa and 20.19 MPa was obtained for the specimen groups
UC and FT, respectively.
With respect to the concrete strength of unconditioned speci-
6
mens, the freeze–thaw cycles are observed to introduce a slightly
Num of Exp. Tests

negative effect leading to a strength reduction that is evaluated 20

as the ratio between the average compressive strengths of the
fck [MPa]

two specimen groups, i.e.

4
fcm ðFTÞ =fcm ðUCÞ ¼ 0:98 ð2Þ

10
4.3. Comparison to code previsions
2
Based on the experimental values obtained in terms of maxi-
mum debonding force and characteristic compressive strength of
concrete, the experimental results discussed in the present paper
are compared to the design formulae provided in the Italian Guide- 0 0
lines CNR DT200 [25]. The design criteria proposed by CNR DT200
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
in order to prevent failure mechanism due to debonding is based
kg
on the evaluation of the fracture energy, CF [35]. Assuming that
the forces are expressed in N and lengths in mm, the following Fig. 13. Statistical distributions of kg parameter obtained for unconditioned
expression is proposed to evaluate the fracture energy, CF: specimens.
982
Avg (DT200)
5% (DT200)
Avg (Exp)
30 5% (Exp)
20
fck [MPa]
10
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06
kg
Fig. 14. Statistical distributions of kg parameter obtained for freeze–thaw
conditioning.
unconditioned specimens is assumed to be equal to 25 MPa and
the corresponding mean tensile strength is of 2.60 MPa. For speci-
mens subject to freeze–thaw cycles the concrete compressive
strength fck is evaluated considering that the environmental condi-
tions determined a compressive strength reduction of 2%, i.e.
fck (FT) = 0.98  25 MPa = 24.50 MPa (the corresponding mean ten-
sile strength was 2.53 MPa).
In Table 3, results of a different set of debonding tests per-
formed on unconditioned specimens at the Politecnico di Milano
are added and referred as V-specimens [36]. Such results are part
of an extensive experimental campaign on FRP/concrete debonding
performed by five different Italian Laboratories and dedicated to
the definition of a standard test procedure for the bond strength
evaluation. For this additional group of specimens, specimen
geometry is very similar to the one reported in Fig. 1 [27] while
concrete strength was fck = 25 MPa and fctm = 2.60 MPa.
The statistical distributions of the fracture energy parameter kg
for the two groups of specimens (UC and FT) are also shown in
Figs. 13 and 14 (RR results are from Ref. [36]).
The experimental data were interpolated by using a normal dis-
tribution and the corresponding mean and characteristic values of
the parameter kg are shown and compared to the mean (0.064) and
characteristic (0.03) values proposed in the CNR DT200 Guidelines.
For the unconditioned and freeze–thaw cases, the experimental
data indicate smaller values of kg with respect to the ones sug-
gested by the DT200 Guideline.
5. Conclusions
In the present paper, experimental results on environmentally
conditioned FRP reinforcements bonded to concrete were studied
to investigate the effects of different reinforcing lengths (100 mm
and 400 mm) and types (strips and wraps) and of freeze–thaw cy-
cles on the concrete strength and on the bonding between FRP and
concrete. Concrete blocks were conditioned before the strengthen-
ing application and a slight reduction (2%) of the concrete com-
pressive strength was observed.
Concerning the debonding tests, experimental results are dis-
cussed in terms of bonding lengths, reinforcing type and condition-
ing effects on maximum debonding force, force–elongation results
P. Colombi et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 973–983
and fracture energy. A particularly sensitive control system of the
testing machine was successfully implemented in order to record
8
Exp. Results the load–displacement curve during the whole debonding process
and detect the post-peak behaviour. The debonding force is gener-
ally higher for specimens with a reinforcing length of 400 mm in-
stead of 100 mm while snap-back curves are easily detected in
6 specimens with a shorter reinforcing length.
As far as conditioning is considered, freeze–thaw cycles did not
Num of Exp. Tests
seem to noticeably affect the value of the debonding force in con-
ditioned specimens compared to the unconditioned ones. Concern-
4 ing such aspect, the effect of the artificial and accelerated
environmental treatments seems of minor importance, in particu-
lar if the experimental scattering is taken into account. Similar re-
sults were also achieved in the literature by other researchers [18]
2 and then based on the available experimental data it can be con-
cluded that accelerated freeze–thaw cycles have a marginal effect
on bond strength. On the other hand, while conditioning is not sig-
nificant in terms of ultimate load, it affected concrete strength.
Finally, from the debonding force values obtained in each test,
the corresponding fracture energy parameters were calculated
0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 according to the Italian Guidelines for strengthening interventions
with FRP [25]. The distributions of experimental data were statis-
tically analyzed and interpolated by means of a Gaussian distribu-
tion. Then, the corresponding mean and characteristic values of
fracture parameter kg were compared to the mean (0.064) and
characteristic (0.03) values proposed in the CNR DT200 guidelines.
For the unconditioned specimens and the ones subject to freeze–
thaw conditioning, values of kg are consistent with the values sug-
gested by the DT200 document. The adoption of large reduction
factors in the evaluation of the bond strength of concrete elements
reinforced by CFRP strips and subjected to freeze–thaw cycles
seems to be too conservative on the basis of the available experi-
mental data. Research is in progress in order to investigate the ef-
fect of other environmental conditions (moisture) and conditioning
sequence (prior or after bonding) on concrete elements reinforced
by CFRP strips.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Italian
Ministry of Civil Protection in the framework of the research pro-
ject RELUIS. The authors would like to thank the Interbau S.r.l.
for the specimens preparation and Dr. C.L. Zenti, Mr. A. Krupic
and Mr. M. Manfredi for their help in the development of the
experimental program.
References
[1] Wang YC, Hsu K. Design recommendations for the strengthening of reinforced
concrete beams with externally bonded composite plates. Compos Struct
2009;88(2):323–32.
[2] Toutanji HA, Saxena P, Zhao L, Ooi T. Prediction of interfacial bond failure of
FRP–concrete surface. J Compos Constr 2007;11(4):153–60.
[3] Gautam BP, Matsumoto T. Shear deformation and interface behaviour of
concrete-filled CFRP box beams. Compos Struct 2009;89(1):20–7.
[4] Täljsten B. Strengthening of concrete prisms using the plate-bonding
technique. Eng Fract Mech 1996;82:253–66.
[5] Chajes MJ, Finch WW, Januska TF, Thomson TA. Bond and force transfer of
composite material plates bonded to concrete. ACI Struct J 1996;93:
208–17.
[6] Miller B, Nanni A, De Lorenzis L. Bond of FRP laminates to concrete. ACI Mater J
2001;98(3):246–54.
[7] Brosens K. Anchorage of externally bonded steel plates and CFRP laminates for
the strengthening of concrete elements. PhD thesis. University of Leuven,
Belgium; 2001.
[8] Aiello MA, Pecce M. Experimental bond behaviour between FRP sheets and
concrete. In: Structural faults and repair conference. Proceedings of the
international symposium, London; 4–6 July 2001.
[9] Ferracuti B. Strengthening of RC structures by FRP: experimental analyses and
numerical modeling. PhD thesis. University of Bologna, Italy; 2006. <http://
www.tdc.ing.unibo.it/personale/Ferracuti/ferracuti.htm>.
 P. Colombi et al. / Composite Structures 92 (2010) 973–983
[10] Mazzotti C, Savoia M, Ferracuti B. An experimental study on delamination of
FRP plates bonded to concrete. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(7):1409–21.
[11] Ferracuti B, Savoia M, Mazzotti C. Interface law for FRP–concrete delamination.
Compos Struct 2007;80(4):523–31.
[12] Hulatt J, Hollaway L, Thorne A. Preliminary investigations on the
environmental effects on new heavyweight fabrics for use in civil
engineering. Composites: Part B 2002;33:407–14.
[13] Abanilla MA, Li Y, Karbhari VM. Durability characterization of wet layup
graphite/epoxy composites used in external strengthening. Composites: Part B
2006;37(2–3):200–12.
[14] Silva MA. Aging of GFRP laminates and confinement of concrete columns.
Compos Struct 2007;79(1):97–106.
[15] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. London and Marshfield, MA: Pitman Pub.;
1981. 779 p. [ISBN 0273016415].
[16] Byars EA, Waldron P, Dejke V, Demis S, Heddadin S. Durability of FRP
in concrete deterioration mechanisms. Int J Mater Prod Technol 2003;
19(1–2):28–39.
[17] Karbhari VM, Zhao L. Issues related to composite plating and environmental
exposure effects on composite–concrete interface in external strengthening.
Compos Struct 1998;40(3–40):293–304.
[18] Toutanji HA, El-Korchi T. Tensile durability of cement-based FRP composite
wrapped specimens. J Compos Constr 1999;3(1):38–45.
[19] Qiao PZ, Xu YW. Thermal effects on the fracture of adhesively bonded
composite–concrete interface. J Adv Mater 2005;37(2):56–62.
[20] Silva MAG, Biscaia H. Degradation of bond between FRP and RC beams.
Compos Struct 2008;85(2):164–74.
[21] Fava G, Mazzotti C, Poggi C, Savoia M. Durability of FRP–concrete bonding
exposed to aggressive environment. In: Proceedings of FRPRCS-8. Patras, GR;
16–18 July 2007.
[22] Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE). Recommendations for upgrading of
concrete structures with use of CFRP sheet. Tokyo, Japan; 2000.
[23] International Organization for Standardization TC 71/SC 6 N. Non-
conventional reinforcement of concrete – test methods – part 1: fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) bars and grids. Geneva, Switzerland; 2003.
983
[24] American Concrete Institute Committee 440. Guide for the design and
construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
structures. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI; 2002.
[25] CNR Committee DT 200. Guidelines for design, construction and control of
strengthening interventions with FRP. Rome, Italy; 2004. Available from:
http://www.cnr.it/Englishversion/CNR/Activities/RegulationCertification.html.
[26] Atadero RA, Karbhari VM. Sources of uncertainty and design values for field-
manufactured FRP. Compos Struct 2009;89(1):83–93.
[27] ASTM C 666/C666M-03. Standard test method for resistance of concrete to
rapid freezing and thawing; 2003.
[28] EN 206-1:2006, Concrete. Specification, performance, production and
conformity; 2006.
[29] ISO 1172. Textile–glass–reinforced plastics – prepregs, moulding compounds
and laminates – determination of the textile–glass and mineral-filler content –
calcination methods; 1996.
[30] SIKA Deutschland Inc. Technical datasheet; 2008.
[31] ASTM D3039. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix
composite materials; 2008.
[32] EN 3791:2008, Assessment of in situ compressive strength in structures and
precast concrete components; 2008.
[33] EN 12390-4, Testing hardened concrete – compressive strength – specification
for testing machines; 2002.
[34] EN 12390-6, Testing hardened concrete – tensile splitting strength of test
specimens; 2002.
[35] Chen JF, Teng JG. Anchorage strength models for FRP and steel plates bonded to
concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127(1):784–91.
[36] Savoia M, Bilotta A, Ceroni F, Di Ludovico M, Fava G, Ferracuti B, et al.
Experimental round robin test on FRP–concrete bonding. In: Proceeding of
FRPRCS-9, Sydney, Australia; 13–15 July 2009.