| Literature DB >> 34068770 |
Daniel Borrie1, Saad Al-Saadi2, Xiao-Ling Zhao1,3, R K Singh Raman2,4, Yu Bai1.
Abstract
This literature review has examined the use of FRP composite materials as a potential retrofitting technique for civil structures. Importantly, the various material properties, bond mechanisms, durability issues and fatigue resistance have been discussed. Studies exploring the performance of CFRP repaired steel have strongly indicated its potential as a rehabilitation material. These systems offer many improvements over the current bulky and less chemically resistant methods of bolting or welding steel plate patches. This review has established and highlighted the factors that affect CFRP/steel bond durability, namely surface preparation, curing, corrosion, fatigue loading, temperature and moisture ingress through studies that focus on their effect. These studies, however, often focus on a single influencing factor or design criteria. Only limited studies have investigated multiple parameters applied simultaneously, even though they commonly occur together in industrial practice. This review aimed to summarise the numerous influencing parameters to give a clearer understanding of the relevance of CFRP repaired steel structures.Entities:
Keywords: CFRP; bond behaviour; failure modes; steel
Year: 2021 PMID: 34068770 PMCID: PMC8126256 DOI: 10.3390/polym13091533
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Test configurations of CFRP/steel joints (a) a single lap (single composite patch) shear joint. (b) a double lap shear joint [3]; used with permission from Engineering structures, Elsevier, 2021.
Figure 2Schematic failure modes of adhered CFRP to steel joints [3,36], used with permission from Engineering structures, Elsevier, 2021.
Bond test methods and the highlights of the previous studies.
| Steel Type | Carbon Fibre and Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Specification | Test Method | Highlights | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low-alloy steel (16-gauge A242 cold-rolled steel) | Unimpregnated Fibre (in tow-sheet form), | Wedge test: The modified wedge-crack specimens (of nominal size 25.4 by 203 mm), which were used to simultaneously evaluate the adhesive steel and adhesive composite bonds. |
Owing to the higher density of Cl-30, there are obviously a greater number of interfaces. Consequently, a larger number of potential sites are exposed to environmental attack. C5-30-based composite system shows a greater degradation compared to C1-30 system under harsher hot water, freeze–thaw, and sea-water environments. The C5-30 system has slightly lower tensile strength (15.5% lower) and a higher (63.6%) tensile modulus. | [ |
| A36 steel bar (1/2″ × 1.5″ × 36″) | CFRP plate (0.21″ × 1.44″ × 18″) | Tensile test: A series of increasing tensile loads was applied using an Instron Model 1332 testing machine and the accompanying strain data was recorded. A constant strain rate of 3000 lbs./min was used. |
When the force in the steel is increased to yield with respect to specific parameters (e.g., steel substrate and CFRP plate thickness, material properties, etc.), only a certain amount of load will be carried by the CFRP plates. For the specimens tested at 9000 lbs., the maximum force transferred was 1443 lbs. As the shear stress in the bond attains the maximum shear strength of the adhesive, plastic behaviour results. | [ |
| Fatigue test: A series of small-scale double reinforcement specimens was tested under cyclic loads at a stress range corresponding to the fatigue threshold for common fatigue-sensitive conditions. Double reinforcement specimen is fatigued at a stress range of 12 ksi for 2.55 million cycles. |
No sign of debonding of the CFRP plates in any adhesive test group. | |||
| Steel beam (S355J0 (ST 52-3)) | CFRP plate (150/2000, width: 50 mm and thickness: 1.2 mm) | Pull-Off Test: Three CFRP plates are gripped inside a friction clamp. Each CFRP plate is pulled using a single-FRP clamp, which is connected to an actuator. The actuators are connected to a hydraulic jack that provides equal pressure for each actuator. An inclined test setup was used due to the deviation of the CFRP plates about 12° in the proposed trapezoidal PUR system. |
The triple-FRP clamp slipped at 401.3 kN and the load in the CFRP plates decreased suddenly to 328 kN and remained constant afterward. For the flat configuration, the rupture occurred in the single-FRP clamps; whereas the slip in the inclined configuration occurred in the triple-FRP clamp. | [ |
| Flexural Test: Three steel beams (one unstrengthened reference and two strengthened with 15% and 31% prestress levels, respectively), were statically tested until failure. A symmetric four-point bending setup is used. The loading span is 1700 mm, whereas the support span is 5000 mm. The test is carried out using a hydraulic testing machine (Pulsator P960) with 250 kN actuator capacity and a force control system. |
For unstrengthened beam (B1), the failure mode was yielding in the upper flange followed by a lateral-torsional bulking. For the beam strengthened by 15% CFRP prestress (B2), the CFRP laminates are initially unstressed; however, they exhibit deflection due to the self-weight. Increasing the eccentricity (the initial eccentricity eip = 104 mm between the unstressed CFRP plate and the beam) up to 121 mm, resulting a strain of 2320 µm/m in the CFRP plates (15% of the CFRP strength). The ultimate load-carrying capacity of specimen B2 was increased by more than 23% compared to reference specimen B1. For the beam strengthened by 31% CFRP prestress (B3), increasing the eccentricity up to 196 mm, resulting in a strain of 4793 µm/m in the CFRP plates (31% of the CFRP strength). | |||
| Steel beam (type IPE 120) | CFRP laminates | Simply supported four-point bending set-up: Two bearings at the right and left sides of the beam to restrain the vertical and lateral displacements. Only one is free to move longitudinally. Rotations about the longitudinal axis is prevented using fork constraints at both ends of the beam. The test specimens were then loaded vertically using two hydraulic actuators, each having a 100 kN static load capacity. The support span is 1200 mm, while the actuators produce a constant bending moment over a length of 400 mm in the middle of the beam. |
Application of the bonded UHM CFRP laminate increased the elastic stiffness of the retrofitted beams substantially (i.e., 14.3% increase compared to the reference unstrengthened beam). The strains varied along the CFRP laminates and reached their highest value at the constant bending region for the specimen strengthened by the BR system. The higher the CFRP Young’s modulus, the higher the portion of stresses the CFRP laminate attracted. As a result, using stiffer laminates led to a greater reduction in the tensile stresses at the bottom flange of the steel beams. | [ |
| Steel plates (210 mm long, 50 mm wide and 5 mm thick). Mechanical properties (mean elastic modulus: 195 GPa, yield stress: 359 MPa and tensile strength: 484 MPa). | Carbon fibre sheets, | Fatigue test: number of fatigue cycles (N) ranging from 0.5 million to 6 million at different levels of constant amplitude stress ranges. |
When the maximum applied load is <40% of the ultimate static strength there is no fatigue failure observed. When the maximum applied load is <about 35% of the ultimate static strength, the influence on the bond strength is not significant (less than 10%). The failure modes were not affected much by the fatigue loading except for those bonded with high modulus CFRP (MBrace CF 530), where fibre fracture extended over more than one cross-section. | [ |
| Two steel plates (12 mm thick) are welded to a two rectangular hollow sections (70 mm × 50 mm) of 3 mm thickness. | CFRP plate | Two pull-off tests are carried out on each steel block, one on each of the two thick steel plates. |
In some specimens, plate delamination happens after the cohesive debonding crack had propagated over a large part of the interface towards the free end of the FRP plate. In other cases, plate delamination happens first, followed by cohesive failure in the adhesive layer. At a low load level, the shear stress is the largest at the loaded plate end and then gradually reduces to zero towards the unloaded plate end. As the load increases, the shear stress at the loaded end approaches the local bond strength. | [ |
| Steel plates (hot rolled structural steel HA300). The nominal yield stress is 300 MPa. The steel plates are all 20 mm thick and 50 mm width. | CFRP laminates (MBRACEs LAMINATE 460/1500). It is an ultra-high modulus laminate with a nominal elastic modulus of 460 GPa and a nominal tensile strength of 1500 MPa. The laminate thickness is 1.45 mm. | Tension test: Baldwin Universal Testing machine is used (loading rate is 2 mm/min). |
Araldite adhesive specimens: the failure mode changed from CFRP delamination to CFRP rupture when the specimen bond length exceeds the effective bond length. Sikadur adhesive specimens: the failure mode remains mainly cohesive failure independent of the bond length. | [ |
Figure 3Pit depths of all sandblasted specimens for up to 6 months of submergence [58]; used with permission from Advances in Structural Engineering, SAGE, 2021.
Figure 4Bond strength behaviour of specimens under combined sustained load and thermal exposure [60]; used with permission from Composites Part B: Engineering, Elsevier, 2021.
Figure 5Microscopic scan locations on the fracture surface of the failed specimens and illustration of “fatigue damage zone” [68]; used with permission from Composites Part B: Engineering, Elsevier, 2021.
Figure 6(a) Normalised strength (ffu), Young’s modulus (Ef chord) and ultimate strain (εfu) of samples tested at 70 °C and 65% relative humidity [71]; used with permission from constructions and building materials, Elsevier, 2021. (b) Experimental and modelled bond strengths of normal modulus CFRP double lap joints vs, temperature [75], where the CF3-BL100 curve with the triangle marker is taken from [74]; used with permission from Composite Structures, Elsevier, 2021.
Figure 7(a) Schematic representations of specimen configurations used in double lap bond joints. (b) Joint strength of various configurations after exposure with sustained load [59]; used with permission from Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier, 2021.
Figure 8Effect of treatments normalized to behaviour of specimens having no treatment [50]; used with permission from Composite Structures, Elsevier, 2021.
Figure 9Tensile strain–stress curve of pure epoxies and their corresponding CNT reinforced composites. D: ductile epoxy, B: brittle epoxy, P: CNT powder and M: CNT masterbatch. The tensile test results are the mean of three experiments with a standard deviation around ±2%. [111]; used with permission from Composites: Part A, Elsevier, 2021.
Figure 10(a) Schematic representation of “beach marking” cycles adapted from [120], with permission from Thin-Walled Structures, Elsevier, 2021. (b) Crack propagation curves of tests conducted at the SFIT, published in [121]; used with permission from Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2021.
Figure 11Fatigue life curve of specimens with a completely covered initial crack with normal modulus CFRP [128], with permission from 2021 Composite Structures, Elsevier, UHM CFRP [54], with permission from Advances in Structural Engineering, SAGE, 2021.
Figure 12(a) Test set up of CFRP repaired notched composite beams. (b) Beams with full cut, Notches type “c” [138]; used with permission from Thin-Walled Structures, Elsevier, 2021.
Fatigue lives and of un-retrofitted and CFRP retrofitted steel beams with initial notches [144].
| Stress Range (MPa) | Un-Retrofitted | Retrofitted Beams | Ratio of Fatigue Lives |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fatigue Life (No. Cycles) | Fatigue Life (No. Cycles) | ||
| 207 | 119,140 | 379,824 | 3.2 |
| 241 | 71,278 | 241,965 | 3.4 |
| 276 | 35,710 | 105,345 | 3.0 |
| 310 | 30,216 | 75,910 | 2.5 |
| 345 | 19,068 | 54,300 | 2.9 |
Figure 13(a) Specimen and retrofitting geometry of repaired steel beams [148]; used with permission from Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Elsevier, 2021. (b) Crack propagation curves for specimens repaired with one layer (B03, B04) and two layers (B05 to B09) [148]; used with permission from Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Elsevier, 2021.
Figure 14Crack propagation curves of unstrengthened, “U”, steel plates and strengthened steel plates, “S”, under temperature exposure [120]; used with permission from Thin-Walled Structures, Elsevier, 2021.