Title:
Out-of-Plane Peeling of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Concrete Interface at Elevated Temperatures
Author(s):
Yail J. Kim and Christopher F. Horwitz
Publication:
Structural Journal
Volume:
118
Issue:
3
Appears on pages(s):
49-60
Keywords:
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP); debonding; peeling; thermomechanical loading
DOI:
10.14359/51724681
Date:
5/1/2021
Abstract:
This paper presents the implications of out-of-plane loadings on the behavior of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets bonded to a concrete substrate at elevated temperatures. These loading schemes are intended to represent variable boundary conditions for a strengthened beam (properly insulated) when a fire takes place in a building. A total of 54 specimens are tested under angled peel-off conditions, 30 to 60 degrees, combined with thermal distress incurred by temperatures ranging from 25 to 150°C (77 to 302°C). As the peeling angle increases, the load-carrying capacity of the CFRP-concrete interface dramatically decreases, which is expedited when elevated temperatures are associated. The characteristic load, determined from energy dissipation, reaffirms that the interface is vulnerable to the angular loadings. On the load-displacement responses, stick-slip motions along the bond line result in locally fluctuating interfacial resistance after the onset of CFRP debonding, which creates traction-free fracture surfaces. The debonding rate in a prepeak load stage differs from that in the postpeak stage, and this observation becomes prominent at elevated temperatures owing to a change in the energy release of the interface. The angular loading is more engaged with the shear component of interfacial fracture energy (GII) than with the opening component (GI); nonetheless, their ratio (GI/GII) is not affected by the thermal loading. With an increase in temperature over 125°C (257°F), the angular loading’s influence on the fracture energy diminishes because the applied load is distributed along the softened interface. Among the three constituents in the interfacial energy, the deformation component is least dominant, followed by the fracture and debonding components. A statistical assessment supports the significance of the thermomechanical loadings at a confidence level of 5%.
Related References:
1. Alexander, M., and Beushausen, H., “Durability, Service Life Prediction, and Modelling for Reinforced Concrete Structures—Review and Critique,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 122, 2019, pp. 17-29. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.04.018
2. Emmons, P. E., Concrete Repair and Maintenance Illustrated, R. S. Means Company, Inc., Kingston, MA, 1994.
3. Lopez, A., and Nanni, A., “Composite Strengthening Technologies,” Concrete International, V. 28, No. 1, Jan. 2006, pp. 74-80.
4. Hollaway, L. C., “A Review of the Present and Future Utilisation of FRP Composites in the Civil Infrastructure with Reference to Their Important In-service Properties,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 24, No. 12, 2010, pp. 2419-2445. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.062
5. Bisby, L. A.; Green, M. F.; and Kodur, V. K. R., “Response to Fire of Concrete Structures That Incorporate FRP,” Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, V. 7, No. 3, 2005, pp. 136-149. doi: 10.1002/pse.198
6. International Code Council, “The International Building Code,” ICC, Washington, DC, 2018.
7. Williams, B. K., “Fire Performance of FRP-Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members,” PhD thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada, 2004.
8. Gamage, J. C. P. H.; Al-Mahaidi, R.; and Wong, M. B., “Bond Characteristics of CFRP Plated Concrete Members under Elevated Temperatures,” Composite Structures, V. 75, No. 1-4, 2006, pp. 199-205. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.04.068
9. Grace, N., and Bebawy, M., “Fire Protection for Beams with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Flexural Strengthening Systems,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 3, May-June 2014, pp. 537-547. doi: 10.14359/51686729
10. ASTM E119-10, “Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
11. Yaqub, M., and Bailey, C. G., “Repair of Fire Damaged Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns with FRP Composites,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 25, No. 1, 2011, pp. 359-370. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.017
12. Leone, M.; Matthys, S.; and Aiello, M. A., “Effect of Elevated Service Temperature on Bond between FRP EBR Systems and Concrete,” Composites. Part B, Engineering, V. 40, No. 1, 2009, pp. 85-93. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2008.06.004
13. ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures (ACI 440.2R-17),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2017, 112 pp.
14. Arruda, M. R. T.; Firmo, J. P.; Correia, J. R.; and Tiago, C., “Numerical Modelling of the Bond between Concrete and CFRP Laminates at Elected Temperatures,” Engineering Structures, V. 110, 2016, pp. 233-243. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.11.036
15. Shier, G. W. R., and Green, M. F., “Performance of Postcured CFRP-Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beams at Elevated Temperatures,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 21, No. 4, 2017, p. 04017008. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000787
16. Tajmir-Riahi, A.; Moshiri, N.; and Mostofinejad, D., “Inquiry into Bond Behavior of CFRP Sheets to Concrete Exposed to Elevated Temperatures—Experimental & Analytical Evaluation,” Composites. Part B, Engineering, V. 173, 2019, p. 106897. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.05.108
17. ASTM C39/C39M-15, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
18. Karbhari, V. M., and Engineer, M., “Investigation of Bond between Concrete and Composites: Use of a Peel Test,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, V. 15, No. 2, 1996, pp. 208-227. doi: 10.1177/073168449601500206
19. Wan, B.; Sutton, M. A.; Petrou, M. F.; Harries, K. A.; and Li, N., “Investigation of Bond between Fiber Reinforced Polymer and Concrete Undergoing Global Mixed Mode I/II Loading,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, V. 130, No. 12, 2004, pp. 1467-1475. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:12(1467)
20. Palmieri, A.; Matthys, S.; and Taerwe, L., “Fire Endurance and Residual Strength of Insulated Concrete Beams Strengthened with Near-surface Mounted Reinforcement,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 17, No. 4, 2013, pp. 454-462. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000338
21. Firmo, J. P.; Correia, J. R.; Pitta, D.; Tiago, C.; and Arruda, M. R. T., “Bond Behavior between Near-Surface-Mounted CFRP Strips and Concrete at High Temperatures,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 19, No. 4, 2015, p. 04014071. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000535
22. Yakacki, C. M.; Willis, S.; Luders, C.; and Gall, K., “Deformation Limits in Shape-Memory Polymers,” Advanced Engineering Materials, V. 10, No. 1-2, 2008, pp. 112-119. doi: 10.1002/adem.200700184
23. Al-Salloum, Y.; Elsanadedy, H. M.; and Abadel, A. A., “Behavior of FRP-Confined Concrete After High Temperature Exposure,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 25, No. 2, 2011, pp. 838-850. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.103
24. ASTM D3039, “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
25. Hu, W., Polymer Physics, Springer, New York, 2013.
26. Ueda, T., and Dai, J., “Interface Bond between FRP Sheets and Concrete Substrates: Properties, Numerical Modeling and Roles in Member Behaviour,” Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, V. 7, No. 1, 2005, pp. 27-43. doi: 10.1002/pse.187
27. Chabay, R. W., and Sherwood, B. A., Matter and Interactions, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2011.
28. Täljsten, B., “Strengthening of Beams by Plate Bonding,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 9, No. 4, 1997, pp. 206-212. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1997)9:4(206)
29. Karihaloo, B. L., Fracture Mechanics and Structural Concrete, Longman Scientific & Technical, Essex, UK, 1995.
30. Montgomery, D. C., Design and Analysis of Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2013.