See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257803106

Long-Term Performance of RC Members Externally Strengthened by FRP

Exposed to Different Environments

Article  in  ARABIAN JOURNAL FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING · March 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s13369-012-0177-6

CITATIONS READS

6 77

4 authors, including:

Amr S. El-Dieb Saud Aldajah

United Arab Emirates University United Arab Emirates University
51 PUBLICATIONS   816 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   227 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ashraf Biddah
Ain Shams University
13 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bio degradation of Hydrocarbons View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amr S. El-Dieb on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Long-Term Performance of RC Members
Externally Strengthened by FRP Exposed to
Different Environments

A. S. El-Dieb, S. Aldajah, A. Biddah &

A. Hammami

Arabian Journal for Science and

Engineering

ISSN 1319-8025

Arab J Sci Eng

DOI 10.1007/s13369-012-0177-6

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals. This
e-offprint is for personal use only and shall
not be self-archived in electronic repositories.
If you wish to self-archive your work, please
use the accepted author’s version for posting
to your own website or your institution’s
repository. You may further deposit the
accepted author’s version on a funder’s
repository at a funder’s request, provided it is
not made publicly available until 12 months
after publication.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng
DOI 10.1007/s13369-012-0177-6

R E S E A R C H A RT I C L E - C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G

A. S. El-Dieb · S. Aldajah · A. Biddah · A. Hammami

Long-Term Performance of RC Members Externally

Strengthened by FRP Exposed to Different Environments

Received: 26 April 2010 / Accepted: 7 November 2010

© King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 2012

Abstract Environmental conditions in the Gulf region are considered to be very aggressive to most structures.
The main objective of the paper is to study the performance of RC elements (beams and slabs) strengthened
by externally bonded FRP using carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets and strips and exposed to
different environmental conditions. Six exposure conditions were used in the investigation to represent the
Gulf region various environments. The exposure conditions used are laboratory, site, high temperature and
humidity, cyclic drinking water, cyclic sea water and being embedded in Sabkha soil. The results presented in
this paper are a part of a 36-month study program to evaluate the performance of different strengthened RC
elements. This paper includes the 18-month test results after exposing the specimens to different environmental
conditions. Comparison of the test results with the virgin elements (i.e. at 28 days of age and not exposed to the
different environments) is carried out to quantify the change in performance of the elements. The performance
of the structural elements is evaluated by measuring various deformations such as deflections, concrete strain,
reinforcing steel strain and strain in the CFRP sheets and strips. Also, the mode of failure is reported. It was
found that beams and slabs strengthened with CFRP strips were greatly affected by the exposure conditions
compared with those strengthened by CFRP sheets. Sabkha soil and sea water were found to be the most
aggressive environments.

Keywords Beams · Slabs · CFRP · Sheets · Strips · Flexural behavior · Strengthening · Gulf region ·
Sabkha soil

A. S. El-Dieb (B) · A. Biddah

Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, College of Engineering,
UAEU, P.O. Box 17555, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
E-mail: amr.eldieb@uaeu.ac.ae

S. Aldajah
Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering,
UAEU, P.O. Box 17555, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

A. Hammami
Solutions Composites, Hammam Zriba 1152, Zaghwan, Tunisia

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

1 Introduction

The use of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) in the construction industry has gained popularity during the past
decade. FRP is increasingly being used in the repair and strengthening of deteriorated and under-strengthened
concrete structures. FRP has gained this popularity over conventional materials by its high strength to weight
ratio, fatigue resistance, non-corrosiveness and ease of handling and application at site [1,2]. Also, advances
in FRP suggest that FRP have enormous future potentials in the construction industry [3]. Externally bonded
FRP fabrics and/or strips using wet layup technique and normal temperature curing are the most common
techniques used in the rehabilitation of concrete structures.
Although the claim of long-term durability of FRP is often one of the major considerations in the selection
of these materials over conventional materials, there is significant concern related to this aspect, especially
because of the requirements of long service life without levels of inspection and maintenance that are used in
aerospace area [1]. Externally bonded FRP fabrics and/or strips are often in contact with different environmen-
tal conditions, most of which are aggressive environments, that will have direct impact on its durability and
the system performance which could result in premature failure [4]. Since the application of externally bonded
FRP to concrete is expected to result in substantial increase in performance and extension of service life, it is
critical that durability of these materials is assessed and understood to be able to establish well-based predictive
models [5]. Several researchers indicated that there still is a lack of well-documented long-term performance
and sufficient level of knowledge about service life and durability of externally bonded FRP structural ele-
ments [1,6,7]. Tests for long periods of time (18+ months) are essential for developing knowledge for better
predictions of service life.
Accelerated testing is used to provide predictive equations for long-term performance [2,6,8], as long-
term testing are associated with high cost and impractical. In accelerated degradation tests are designed using
accelerated factors which determine the rate at which the degradation processes is accelerated. The mechanical
behavior occurring during long-term tests and failure phenomenon are still generally unknown [8].
The lack of long-term durability data resulted in using high-safety factors in design, resulting in overly con-
servative design and increased cost and weight offsetting the advantages these materials offer over conventional
materials [1,4,6,8]. The FRP technology is now at a stage where its future development and competitiveness
with conventional methods in construction will depend on the definition of valid design guidelines based on
sound principles and knowledge of long-term performance and durability [9].

2 Research Significance

It appears that several test results did not agree with each other with respect to general durability. The behav-
ior of strengthened beams and slabs was mostly investigated to explore short-term durability. Hence, further
studies on durability performance of FRP strengthened beams and slabs under long-term periods.
The main objective of the study is to evaluate the long-term performance (18 months exposure) of RC ele-
ments (beams and slabs) externally strengthened with CFRP sheets and strips after being exposed to different
exposure conditions resembling those encountered in UAE.
The results presented in this paper are part of a 36-month study program conducted at UAEU, to evaluate the
performance of strengthened RC elements including beams, slabs and columns exposed to different environ-
mental exposure conditions. The results presented in this paper are of the tested beams and slabs strengthened
by CFRP sheets and strips exposed to various environmental exposure conditions for a period of 18 months.
The behavior of the beams and slabs after being exposed for a period of 18 months is being compared with

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

the virgin unexposed specimens and those exposed for a period of 6 months only. The investigation is planned
to continue exposing specimens up to 36 months to evaluate long-term exposure and better understanding the
effect of the different environmental exposure conditions on the performance of beams and slabs strengthened
with CFRP sheets and strips.

3 Experimental Work

The experimental program is designed to study the behavior of different reinforced concrete elements, namely
beams and slabs. This section includes the description of the specimens, test setups and instrumentation used
for each specimen.

3.1 Exposure Conditions

The reinforced concrete elements were subjected to six exposure conditions; Table 1 gives the exposure con-
ditions and the relevant denomination for each. Specimens’ identification is B or S/18/X/1, B or S/18/X/2
and B or S/18/X/3, for control unstrengthened specimens, specimens with CFRP sheets and specimens with
CFRP strips, respectively. The symbol (X) will vary according to the environmental exposure conditions
used (L–E–S–DW–SW–EM). For the drinking water and sea water exposures, the specimens were exposed to
cycles of immersion in the designated water for 2 weeks followed by 2 weeks of natural drying. The chemical
composition of the Sabkha soil and sea water used in the study is given in Table 2.

3.2 Specimens and Testing

Eighteen full-scale beams and 18 full-scale slabs were tested. The dimensions and reinforcement details of the
tested specimens and the CFRP strengthening scheme used for beams and slabs are shown in Figs. 1 and 2,
respectively. For strengthened beams, strengthening two schemes were used, the first used one CFRP sheet
externally bonded to the bottom face of the beam while the second scheme used one CFRP strip externally
bonded to the bottom face of the beam, as shown in Fig. 1. Similarly, two strengthening schemes were used
with strengthened slabs: the first scheme used two CFRP sheets externally bonded to the bottom face of the
slab and the second scheme used three CFRP strips externally bonded to the bottom of the slab (Fig. 2). The
overall length of the beams and slabs is 1,800 mm. The beams and slabs were simply supported and tested in
four points bending with a clear span of 1,650 mm, as shown in Fig. 3. Tables 3 and 4 give the details of the
tested beams and slabs.

Table 1 Environmental exposure conditions

Exposure condition ID Temperature (◦ C) Relative humidity (%)

Laboratory L 23–25 40–50
Humidity room E 30–35 100a
Site S 25–40b 40–50b
Wet/dry cycles in drinking waterc DW
Wet/dry cycles in sea waterc SW
Embedded in Sabkha soil EM
a RH inside humidity room
b Annual average values in Al Ain, UAE
c For DW and SW conditions, ambient RH values during drying cycles

Table 2 Chemical analysis of Sabkha soil and sea water used in the study

Constituent Sabkha soil Sea water

Cl− (mg/l) 157,200 16,702
SO4 (mg/l) 5,450 2,211
Mg (mg/l) 10,320 1,509
Ca (mg/l) 1,450 438
pH 6.9 8.20

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

φ 8 @ 75 φ 8 @ 75

250

100 φ 8 @ 150
75 75
1650 mm

2 φ 6 mm L = 1750 mm

2 φ 10 L = 2000 mm

100

250

No CFRP CFRP strip CFRP sheets

50 x 1.2 mm 100 x 0.165 mm

Fig. 1 Dimensions, reinforcement detail and CFRP strengthening scheme of tested beams

5 φ 6 mm/m

100

450 75 75
1650 mm

4 φ 10 L = 1850 mm

100
450

No CFRP 3 CFRP strip 2 CFRP sheets

50 x 1.2 mm 100 x 0.165 mm

Fig. 2 Dimensions, reinforcement detail and CFRP strengthening scheme of tested slabs

P (applied load)

deflection
75 550 550 75
550 mm
Fig. 3 Testing setup for beams and slabs

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

Table 3 Details of tested beams

Beam ID Strengthening scheme Exposure
B/18/L/1 No strengthening (control) Laboratory
B/18/E/1 Humidity room
B/18/S/1 Site
B/18/DW/1 Drinking water
B/18/SW/1 Sea water
B/18/EM/1 Embedded in soil
B/18/L/2 Strengthened using one CFRP sheet at the bottom surface of the beams Laboratory
B/18/E/2 Humidity room
B/18/S/2 Site
B/18/DW/2 Drinking water
B/18/SW/2 Sea water
B/18/EM/2 Embedded in soil
B/18/L/3 Strengthened using one CFRP strip at the bottom surface of the beams Laboratory
B/18/E/3 Humidity room
B/18/S/3 Site
B/18/DW/3 Drinking water
B/18/SW/3 Sea water
B/18/EM/3 Embedded in soil

Table 4 Details of tested slabs

Beam ID Strengthening scheme Exposure
S/18/L/1 No strengthening (control) Laboratory
S/18/E/1 Humidity room
S/18/S/1 Site
S/18/DW/1 Drinking water
S/18/SW/1 Sea water
S/18/EM/1 Embedded in soil
S/18/L/2 Strengthened using two CFRP sheets at the bottom surface of the slabs Laboratory
S/18/E/2 Humidity room
S/18/S/2 Site
S/18/DW/2 Drinking water
S/18/SW/2 Sea water
S/18/EM/2 Embedded in soil
S/18/L/3 Strengthened using three CFRP strips at the bottom surface of the slabs Laboratory
S/18/E/3 Humidity room
S/18/S/3 Site
S/18/DW/3 Drinking water
S/18/SW/3 Sea water
S/18/EM/3 Embedded in soil

Table 5 Properties of unidirectional CFRP strips (manufacturer data sheet)

Trade name MBrace CFK 150/2000

Strength (N/mm2 ) 2,500
Modulus (kN/mm2 ) >150
Elongation at failure (%) 1.69
Fiber volumetric content (%) >68
Thickness (mm) 1.2–1.4
Width (mm) 50

Table 6 Properties of unidirectional CFRP sheets (manufacturer data sheet)

Trade name MBrace CF 240

Fiber Carbon
Strength (N/mm2 ) 3,800
Modulus (kN/mm2 ) 240
Elongation at failure (%) 1.5
Weight (g/m2 ) 200
Effective thickness (mm) 1.016
Width (mm) 300

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

Table 7 Properties of epoxy adhesive used for sheets (manufacturer data sheet)

Property MBrace Resin

Tensile strength (N/mm2 ) 30
Flexural strength (N/mm2 ) 100
Flexural modulus (N/mm2 ) 3,500
Adhesive strength on concrete (N/mm2 ) >3.5
Glass transition temperature, Tg (◦ C) 56

Table 8 Properties of epoxy adhesive used for strips (manufacturer data sheet)

Property MBrace Laminate Adhesive

Flexural strength(N/mm2 ) >30
Flexural modulus (N/mm2 ) 3,500
Bonding on concrete (N/mm2 ) >3.5

Load control was employed and the loading was applied in increments of 5 kN. Loading was employed until
the failure of the specimens. For all specimens the mid-span deflection was monitored using Linear Variable
Displacement Transducer (LVDT); also electrical strain gauges were used to measure the strain in the steel
reinforcement and the CFRP sheets and strips at mid-span location.

3.3 Material Properties

The 28-day compressive of the concrete used is 38 MPa. The steel reinforcement used for longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement has yield strength of 425 MPa. The unidirectional fiber arrangement CFRP sheets
and strips used in the investigation are manufactured by BASF. Also, the adhesive epoxy is a product by BASF.
Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 give the properties of the used CFRP sheets, strips and adhesive epoxy as given in the
manufacturer data sheet.

4 Test Results and Discussions

In this section the test results for the tested beams and slabs are presented, analyzed and discussed.

4.1 Behavior of Beams

The behavior of tested beams is evaluated through the load–deflection curves, strain in steel reinforcement and
CFRP sheets and strips together with the mode of failure. Table 9 summarizes the main results of the tested
beams. Figure 4a–c are typical mid-span deflection versus applied load for tested beams.
The main observations for the tested beams are
• All beams with no CFRP strengthening failed by crushing of the concrete in the top surface of the beams
due to compressive stresses after yielding of the steel reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 5.
• Ultimate load for beams exposed for 18 months to various exposure conditions did not show significant
variation than the ultimate load for similar beams exposed for 6 months to the same exposure conditions, as
shown in Fig. 6, except for beams exposed to site, sea water and embedded in Sabkha soil. Slight increase
(i.e. <7%) in the ultimate load is observed for site and sea water conditions; this could be attributed to the
slight variation in the concrete from different batches.
• The most affected beams are those embedded in Sabkha soil; the reduction in the ultimate load is about
12% compared with the control beams. The reduction is attributed to the initiation of steel reinforcement
corrosion which was observed and detected by exposing the reinforcement after testing.
• Closed spaced and uniformly distributed cracks are formed for strengthened beams compared with un-
strengthened beams. This is attributed to the composite action of the concrete and the CFRP sheets and
strips.

123
 Arab J Sci Eng

Table 9 Test results of tested beams

Specimen designation Strengthening scheme Ultimate load Ultimate deflection Mode of failure
(kN) (mm)
B/0/C/1 No strengthening (control) 71 26.7 Concrete crushing at top surface
B/18/L/1 68 24.4 Concrete crushing at top surface
B/18/E/1 70 18.1
B/18/S/1 70 25.0
B/18/DW/1 64 24.9
B/18/SW/1 69 22
B/18/EM/1 63 19
B/0/C/2 One CFRP sheet at the bottom surface 86 14.4 Tensile failure of the CFRP sheet at bottom
B/18/L/2 81 12.6 Tensilefailure of the CFRP sheet at bottom
B/18/E/2 82 10.8 Peel off of CFRP sheet from one side
B/18/S/2 88 13.6 Tensile failure of the CFRP sheet at bottom
B/18/DW/2 78 9.6 Peel off of CFRP sheet from one side
B/18/SW/2 86 12.4 Peel off of CFRP sheet from one side
B/18/EM/2 96 15.3 Tensile failure of the CFRP sheet at bottom
B/0/C/3 One CFRP strip at the bottom surface 100 8.4 Peel off of CFRP strips from one side
B/18/L/3 90 7.7 Peel off of CFRP strip from one side of the beam
B/18/E/3 113 11
Author's personal copy

B/18/S/3 104 11
B/18/DW/3 110 10.3
B/18/SW/3 110 10
B/18/EM/3 104 10

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

a 80

70

60

50

Load (kN)
40

B/18/L/1
30
B/18/E/1
B/18/S/1
20 B/18/DW/1
B/18/SW/1
10 B/18/EM/1

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Mid-span deflection (mm)

b 100

90

80

70

60
Load (kN)

50

40 B/18/L/2
B/18/E/2
30 B/18/S/2
B/18/DW/2
20
B/18/SW/2
B/18/EM/2
10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Mid-span deflection (mm)

c 120

110

100

90

80

70
Load (kN)

60

50
B/18/L/3

40 B/18/E/3
B/18/S/3
30 B/18/DW/3

20 B/18/SW/3
B/18/EM/3
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Mid-span deflection (mm)

Fig. 4 a Typical mid-span deflections versus applied load for beams with no CFRP, b typical mid-span deflections versus applied
load for beams strengthened with CFRP sheet and c typical mid-span deflections versus applied load for beams strengthened with
CFRP strip

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

Crushing of concrete in compression zone Peeling off of CFRP sheets

un-strengthened beam

Tensile failure of the CFRP sheets Peeling off of CFRP strips

Fig. 5 Failure modes of beams, unstrengthened and strengthened with CFRP sheets and strips

75
74 6 months
73
18 months
72
B/0/1 (control beam no exposure) = 71kN
71
70
Ultimate load (kN)

69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
B/L/1 B/E/1 B/S/1 B/DW/1 B/SW/1 B/EM/1
Exposure condition

Fig. 6 Ultimate load for beams with no CFRP and exposed for 6 and 18 months

• The failure mode of the beams strengthened with CFRP sheets varied between tensile failure of the CFRP
sheet and peeling off of the CFRP sheet (Fig. 5).
• All the beams strengthened with CFRP strips failed due to peeling off or delamination of the CFRP strips
from the concrete surface (Fig. 5).
• Beams strengthened with CFRP sheets showed no significant effect of the ultimate load after 18 months’
exposure to different exposure condition compared with ultimate load for similar beams exposed to the
same exposure conditions for only 6 months, as shown in Fig. 7. The reduction in the ultimate load com-

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

110
6 months
105
18 months
100 B/0/2 (control beam
no exposure) = 86kN
95

Ultimate load (kN)

90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
B/L/2 B/E/2 B/S/2 B/DW/2 B/SW/2 B/EM/2
Exposure condition
Fig. 7 Ultimate load for beams strengthened with CFRP sheet exposed for 6 and 18 months

130
6 months
120 B/0/3 (control beam no exposure) = 100kN
18 months

110

100
Ultimate load (kN)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30
B/L/3 B/E/3 B/S/3 B/DW/3 B/SW/3 B/EM/3
Exposure conditions
Fig. 8 Ultimate load for beams strengthened with CFRP strip exposed for 6 and 18 months

pared with the control beams ranges from 5 to 10%. This reduction could be attributed to the effect of
exposure conditions on the concrete and on the bond between the concrete and the CFRP sheet. For the
sea water and Sabkha soil exposure slight increase (<10%) in the ultimate load is observed; this could be
attributed to slight variation in the concrete batches.
• Beams strengthened with CFRP strips showed some reduction of the ultimate load after 18 months’ expo-
sure to different exposure condition compared with ultimate load for similar beams exposed to the same
exposure conditions for only 6 months; this could be attributed to the effect on the bonding between the
strips and the concrete. The reduction in the ultimate load compared with the control beams ranges from
25 to 45%, as shown in Fig. 8.

4.2 Behavior of Slabs

The behavior of tested slabs is evaluated through the load–deflection curves, strain in steel reinforcement and
CFRP sheets and strips together with the mode of failure. Table 10 summarizes the main results of the tested
slabs. Figure 9a–c are typical mid-span deflection versus applied load.
The main observations for the tested slabs are

123
 Arab J Sci Eng

Table 10 Test results of tested slabs

Specimen designation Strengthening scheme Ultimate load Ultimate deflection Mode of failure
(kN) (mm)
S/0/C/1 No strengthening (control) 47.5 71.5 Concrete crushing at top surface
S/18/L/1 50 94.4 Concrete crushing at top surface
S/18/E/1 53 97.5
S/18/S/1 47 75.3
S/18/DW/1 56 88.3
S/18/SW/1 49 90.5
S/18/EM/1 42 34.4 Tensile failure due to delamination of the concrete due to steel
reinforcement corrosion
S/0/C/2 Two CFRP sheets at the bottom surface 55 23.7 Tensile failure of the CFRP sheet at bottom
S/18/L/2 64 44.2 Peel off of CFRP strip from one side of the slab
S/18/E/2 51 21.6 Tensile failure of the CFRP strips in the mid-span at the bottom of the slab
S/18/S/2 57 33.0
S/18/DW/2 54 25.2
S/18/SW/2 –a –a
S/18/EM/2 56 26.0
S/0/C/3 Three CFRP strips at the bottom surface 84 19.2 Peel off of CFRP strips from one side of the slab
S/18/L/3 72 18.0 Peel off of CFRP strips from one side of the slab
S/18/E/3 55 8.9 Peel off of CFRP strips from one side of the slab with wide cracks on the
top surface of the slab
Author's personal copy

S/18/S/3 65 14.4 Peel off of CFRP strips from one side of the slab
S/18/DW/3 98 24.4
S/18/SW/3 100 27.0
S/18/EM/3 75 18.0 Peel off of CFRP strips from one side of the slab together with steel
reinforcement corrosion
a Specimen was broken during handling for testing due to the corrosion in the carrying hooks

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

a 60
55
50
45
40

Load (kN)
35
30
25 S/18/L/1
S/18/E/1
20
S/18/S/1
15 S/18/DW/1
10 S/18/SW/1
S/18/EM/1
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Mid-span deflection (mm)

b 70
65
60
55
50
45
Load (kN)

40
35
30
S/18/L/2
25
S/18/E/2
20
S/18/S/2
15
S/18/DW/2
10
S/18/EM/2
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Mid-span deflection (mm)

c 110

100

90

80

70
Load (kN)

60

50
S/18/L/3
40
S/18/E/3

30 S/18/S/3

S/18/DW/3
20
S/18/SW/3
10 S/18/EM/3

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Mid-span deflection (mm)
Fig. 9 a Typical mid-span deflections versus applied load for slabs with no CFRP, b typical mid-span deflections versus applied
load for slabs strengthened with CFRP sheets and c typical mid-span deflections versus applied load for slabs strengthened with
CFRP strips

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

Crushing of concrete in compression zone Peeling off of CFRP sheets

un-strengthened slab

Tensile failure of the CFRP sheets Peeling off of CFRP strips

Fig. 10 Failure modes of slabs, unstrengthened and strengthened with CFRP sheets and strips

70

65 6 months

60 S/0/1 (control slab no exposure) = 47.5kN 18 months

55
Ultimate load (kN)

50

45

40

35

30

25

20
S/L/1 S/E/1 S/S/1 S/DW/1 S/SW/1 S/EM/1
Exposure conditions

Fig. 11 Ultimate load for slabs with no CFRP and exposed for 6 and 18 months

• All slabs with no CFRP strengthening failed by crushing of the concrete in the top surface of the slabs due
to compressive stresses after yielding of the steel reinforcement, except for the slab embedded in soil which
failed in tensile failure due to the delamination of the concrete cover as a result of the steel reinforcement
corrosion (Fig. 10).
• Ultimate load for slabs exposed for 18 months to various exposure conditions did not show significant
variation than the ultimate load for similar slabs exposed for 6 months to the same exposure conditions,
except for beams exposed to humidity room and drinking water, as shown in Fig. 11. The most affected

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

80

75 6 months

S/0/2 (control slab no exposure) = 55kN 18 months

70

65

Ultimate load (kN)

60

55

50

45

40

35

30
S/L/2 S/E/2 S/S/2 S/DW/2 S/SW/2 S/EM/2
Exposure conditions

Fig. 12 Ultimate load for slabs strengthened with CFRP sheet exposed for 6 and 18 months

130

120 6 months
S/0/3 (control slab no exposure) = 84kN
18 months
110

100
Ultimate load (kN)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20
S/L/3 S/E/3 S/S/3 S/DW/3 S/SW/3 S/EM/3
Exposure conditions
Fig. 13 Ultimate load for slabs strengthened with CFRP strip exposed for 6 and 18 months

slab is that embedded in Sabkha soil; the reduction in the ultimate load is 12% compared with the control
slab. The reduction is attributed to the initiation of steel reinforcement corrosion, which was observed and
detected after testing, especially that the slab failed due to tensile stresses. Slabs exposed to lab, humidity
room and drinking water conditions exhibited slight increase in the load (<12%); this could be attributed
to the increase in the concrete strength with age, especially those exposed to humidity and drinking water.
• The failure mode of most slabs strengthened with CFRP sheets is due to tensile failure of the CFRP sheets,
except for the slab in the lab environment which was due to peeling off of the CFRP sheets (Fig. 10).
• All the slabs strengthened with CFRP strips failed due to peeling off of the CFRP strips (Fig. 10).
• The ultimate load for slabs strengthened with CFRP sheets and strips is higher than that for unstrengthened
slabs even after exposure to different exposure conditions (Figs. 12, 13).
• Slabs strengthened with CFRP sheets showed no significant effect of the ultimate load after 18 months’
exposure to different exposure condition compared with ultimate load for similar slabs exposed to the same
exposure conditions for only 6 months, as shown in Fig. 12. The reduction in the ultimate load compared
with the control beams is about 8%. This reduction could be attributed to the effect of exposure condition
on the concrete and on the bond between the concrete and the CFRP sheets.
• Slabs strengthened with CFRP strips showed significant reduction of the ultimate load after 18 months’
exposure to different exposure condition compared to ultimate load for similar slabs exposed to the same
exposure conditions for only 6 months, as shown in Fig. 13, this could be attributed to the effect on the

123
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Sci Eng

bonding between the strips and the concrete. The reduction in the ultimate load compared with the control
beams ranges from 10 to 35%. Slabs exposed to sea water do not show any reduction in strength after
exposure to 18 months compared with the 6 months’ exposure; this could be attributed to variation in
concrete from different batches.

5 Conclusions

The following are the main conclusions from the experimental investigation:
• Beams and slabs strengthened with CFRP sheets failed due to either tensile failure of the sheets or peeling
off of the sheets.
• Beams and slabs strengthened with CFRP strips failed only due to the peeling off of the strips due to
weakening of the bond between the concrete and the strips.
• For unstrengthened beams and slabs and those strengthened with CFRP sheets the ultimate load for spec-
imens exposed for 18 months to various exposure conditions did not show significant variation than the
ultimate load for similar specimens exposed for 6 months to the same exposure conditions.
• For unstrengthened beams and slabs the most affected specimens are those embedded in Sabkha soil. The
reduction could be attributed to the initiation of steel reinforcement corrosion.
• Beams and slabs strengthened with CFRP strips showed significant reduction of the ultimate load after
18 months’ exposure to different exposure condition compared with ultimate load for similar specimens
exposed to the same exposure conditions for only 6 months; this could be attributed to the effect on the
bonding between the strips and the concrete.
• The results indicate that the use of wet layup FRP sheets were due to a much larger bonding surface and
lower shear stresses’ advantages over the use of bonded FRP strips as related to long-term durability of the
FRP–concrete system.
• Changes in characteristics in resin/adhesive and bond due to environment exposure-induced deterioration
need to be considered in design to avoid premature failure.
• Testing under combined conditions, loading and exposure to environmental conditions, are necessary as
combined effects can be more severe and dominate overall response. In this study the specimens were
stored unloaded under defined environmental conditions. Afterwards the residual load carrying capacity
was measured in laboratory. “Combined conditions” would mean that the specimen would stay during the
exposure time under a creep load.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO). The authors
would like to acknowledge the Research Affairs at UAEU.

References

1. Helbling, H.; Abanilla, M.; Lee, L.; Karbhari, V.M.: Issues of variability and durability under synergistic exposure conditions
related to advanced polymer composites in the civil infrastructure. Compos. Part A. Appl. Sci. Manuf. 37, 1102–1110 (2006)
2. Mukherjee, A.; Arwikar, S.J.: Performance of externally bonded GFRP sheets on concrete in tropical environments. Part I:
structural scale test. Compos. Struct. 81, 21–32 (2007)
3. Almusallam, T.H.: Load–deflection behavior of RC beams strengthened with GFRP sheets subject to different environmental
conditions. Cement Concr. Compos. 28, 879–889 (2006)
4. Silva, M.A.G.; Biscaia, H.: Degradation of bond between FRP and RC beams. Compos. Struct. 85, 164–174 (2008)
5. Abanilla, M.A.; Karbhari, V.M.; Li, Y.: Interlaminar and intralaminar durability characterization of wet layup carbon/epoxy
used in external strengthening. Compos. Part B Eng. 37, 650–661 (2006)
6. Walker, R.A.; Karbhari, V.M.: Durability based design of FRP jackets for seismic retrofit. Compos. Struct. 80, 553–568 (2007)
7. Karbhari, V.M.; Navada, R.: Investigation of durability and surface preparation associated defect criticality of composites
bonded to concrete. Compos. Part A 39, 997–1006 (2008)
8. Berketis, K.; Tzetzis, D.; Hogg, P.J.: The influence of long term water immersion ageing on impact damage behavior and
residual compression strength of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP). Mater. Des. 29, 1300–1310 (2008)
9. Becardino, F.; Colotti, V.; Spadea, G.; Swamy R.N.: Holistic design of RC beams and slabs strengthened with externally
bonded FRP laminates. Cement Concr. Compos. 28, 832–844 (2006)

123

View publication stats