Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Review

Strengthening of steel structures with fiber-reinforced polymer composites

J.G. Teng a,⁎, T. Yu b, D. Fernando c
a
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
b
School of Civil, Mining & Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
c
Institute of Construction and Infrastructure Management (IBI), Department of Structural, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering (D-BAUG), ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

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

Article history: Over the past two decades, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites have gradually gained wide acceptance in
Received 27 February 2012 civil engineering applications due to their unique advantages including their high strength-to-weight ratio and
Accepted 29 June 2012 excellent corrosion resistance. In particular, many possibilities of using FRP in the strengthening and construction
Available online 30 July 2012
of concrete structures have been explored. More recently, the use of FRP to strengthen existing steel structures
has received much attention. This paper starts with a critical discussion of the use of FRP in the strengthening
Keywords:
Steel structures
of steel structures where the advantages of FRP are appropriately exploited. The paper then provides a critical
FRP composites review and interpretation of existing research on FRP-strengthened steel structures. Topics covered by the re-
Strengthening view include steel surface preparation for adhesive bonding, selection of a suitable adhesive, bond behavior be-
Retrofit tween FRP and steel and its appropriate modeling, flexural strengthening of steel beams, fatigue strengthening of
Composite materials steel structures, strengthening of thin-walled steel structures against local buckling, and strengthening of hollow
or concrete-filled steel tubes through external FRP confinement. The paper concludes with comments on future
research needs.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
2. Appropriate use of FRP in the strengthening of steel structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3. Bond behavior between FRP and steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.2. Adhesion failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.3. Bond behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.3.1. Bond strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.3.2. Bond-slip relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4. Flexural strengthening of steel beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.1. Plate end debonding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.2. Intermediate debonding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4.3. Other issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5. Fatigue strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6. Strengthening of steel structures against local buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.1. Buckling induced by high local stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.2. Buckling induced by other loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
7. FRP confinement of hollow steel tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
8. FRP confinement of concrete-filled steel tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
9. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
9.1. Steel surface treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
9.2. Selection and formulation of adhesives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
9.3. Bond behavior and debonding failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
9.4. Fatigue strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
9.5. FRP confinement of tubular structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
9.6. Other issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2766 6012.

E-mail address: cejgteng@polyu.edu.hk (J.G. Teng).

0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.06.011
132 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites are formed by embed-
ding continuous fibers in a polymeric resin matrix which binds the fibers
together. Common fibers used in FRP composites include carbon, glass,
aramid and basalt fibers while common resins are epoxy, polyester,
and vinyl ester resins. The most widely used FRP composites are glass
fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) composites and carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer (CFRP) composites, while aramid fiber-reinforced polymer
(AFRP) composites and basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) compos-
ites are less frequently used. A useful general background to the compo-
sition of these materials and their mechanical properties can be found in
Refs. [1–4]. Fig. 1 shows typical stress–strain responses of FRP compos-
ites in contrast with that of mild steel, where it is clearly seen that FRP
composites exhibit a linear elastic stress–strain behavior before brittle
failure by rupture. This linear–elastic–brittle stress–strain behavior has
important implications for the structural use of FRP composites in civil
engineering applications.
FRP composites possess several advantages over steel, the most sa-
lient of which are their high strength-to-weight ratio and excellent cor-
rosion resistance. The structural use of FRP in civil infrastructure is
generally based on the exploitation of these advantages. In particular,
FRP, being a material of high tensile strength, can generally be used to
its greatest advantages, when combined with concrete which is strong
in compression but poor in tension. Therefore, the use of FRP in concrete
structures has been a major focus of existing research [2,4–6]. Such appli-
cations include the external bonding of FRP to concrete structures for
strengthening purposes, concrete structures reinforced or prestressed
with FRP, concrete-filled FRP tubes as columns and piles, as well as
FRP-concrete hybrid beams/bridge decks. More recently, the use of FRP
composites in combination with steel, particularly in the strengthening
of steel structures, has received much attention. This paper first exam-
ines applications where the use of FRP in the strengthening of steel struc-
tures presents significant advantages and then provides a critical review
and interpretation of existing research on FRP-strengthened steel
structures.
2. Appropriate use of FRP in the strengthening of steel structures
Since steel is also a material of high elastic modulus and strength, the
use of FRP in strengthening steel structures calls for innovative exploita-
tions of the advantages of FRP. The main advantage of FRP over steel in
the strengthening of steel structures is its high strength-to-weight
ratio, leading to ease and speed of transportation and installation, thus
3000
High strength
Intermediate CFRP
2500 modulus
CFRP
2000
Stress (MPa)
High
1500 modulus
CFRP
1000 GFRP
Mild Steel
500
0 (intermediate modulus CFRP)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Strain (%)
Fig. 1. Typical FRP and mild steel stress–strain curves.
141
141
reducing disturbance to services and traffic. Another significant advan-
tage of FRP, which applies only to FRP laminates formed via the wet
lay-up process, is the ability of such FRP laminates to follow curved and
irregular surfaces of a structure. This is difficult to achieve using steel
plates. A third advantage of FRP is that its material properties in different
directions can be tailored for a particular application. As a result of the
second and third advantages, FRP jackets with fibers oriented only or
predominantly in the circumferential direction can be used to confine
steel tubes/shells or concrete-filled steel tubes to delay or eliminate
local buckling problems in steel tubes/shells, thereby enhancing the
strength and/or seismic resistance of such structures (e.g. [7–12]). The
method of FRP confinement is attractive not only in the strengthening
of steel tubular structures, but also in the construction of new tubular
columns.
The combination of adhesive bonding with shape flexibility makes
bonded wet lay-up FRP laminates an attractive strengthening method
in a number of applications. Needless to say, steel plates can also be
adhesively-bonded but bonding is less attractive for steel plates due
to their heavy weight and inflexibility in shape. Furthermore, for the
same tensile capacity, a steel plate has a much larger bending stiffness
than an FRP laminate so a steel plate leads to higher peeling stresses
at the interface between the steel plate and the steel substrate. It is
also easier to anchor FRP laminates to a steel member by wrapping
FRP jackets around the steel member.
Steel plates can also be attached by welding to strengthen existing
steel structures, but the bonding of FRP laminates is superior to the
welding of steel plates in the following situations:
(1) Bonding of FRP laminates for enhanced fatigue resistance has the
advantage that the strengthening process does not introduce
new residual stresses;
(2) In certain applications (e.g. oil storage tanks and chemical plants)
where fire risks must be minimized, welding needs to be avoided
when strengthening a structure; bonding of FRP laminates is then
a very attractive alternative;
(3) High-strength steels suffer significant local strength reductions
in heat-affected zones of welds, so bonded FRP laminates offer
an ideal strength compensation method [13].
The use of both CFRP and GFRP to strengthen steel structures has
been explored. For the strength enhancement of steel structures, CFRP
is preferred over GFRP due to the much higher elastic modulus of the
former. In particular, when the enhancement of buckling resistance is
the aim, the use of high or ultra-high modulus CFRP is very attractive.
Table 1 shows the properties of pultruded CFRP plates supplied by
SIKA; these three types of CFRP plates are referred to herein as high
strength, intermediate modulus and high modulus plates respectively
and their stress–strain curves are illustrated in Fig. 1. By contrast,
for the confinement of steel tubes, particularly when ductility
Table 1
Properties of SIKA CFRP platesa.
Product Elastic modulus Tensile strength Ultimate
(GPa) (MPa) strain (%)
Sika CarboDur S 165 2800 1.70
(high strength CFRP)
Sika CarboDur M 210 2400 1.20
3
Sika CarboDur H 300 1300 0.45
(high modulus CFRP)
a
Extracted from the manufacturer's product data sheet.
 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143
enhancement is the main aim, GFRP is more attractive as it is cheaper
and offers a greater strain capacity (>2%). An issue to note is that of
galvanic corrosion when steel is in direct contact with CFRP [14,15], so
a layer of GFRP has been advised to be sandwiched between them by
some researchers (e.g. [15]). A detailed discussion of the issue of
galvanic corrosion is given in Ref. [16].
Since FRP composites, particularly CFRP composites are an expen-
sive material, in all applications, the amount of FRP material required
should be minimized. For this reason, where the amount of FRP mate-
rial required is small by nature of the problem (e.g. local strengthen-
ing under a concentrated force), FRP strengthening is more likely to
be attractive.
3. Bond behavior between FRP and steel
3.1. General
Similar to the structural use of FRP in concrete structures, the
structural use of FRP with steel can be classified into two categories:
(a) bond-critical applications where the interfacial shear stress transfer
function of the adhesive layer that bonds the steel and the FRP together
is crucial to the performance of the structure; and (b) contact-critical
applications where the FRP and the steel need to remain in contact for
effective interfacial normal stress transfer which is crucial to ensure
the effectiveness of the FRP reinforcement. The use of FRP in the
strengthening of steel structures provides good examples for both
categories: externally bonded FRP reinforcement for the flexural
strengthening of steel beams falls into the first category, while confine-
ment of concrete-filled steel tubular members with FRP jackets belongs
to the second category.
In all bond-critical applications, the interfacial behavior between
FRP and steel is of critical importance in determining when failure oc-
curs and how effectively the FRP is utilized. An important difference in
bond behavior between FRP-strengthened concrete structures and
FRP-strengthened steel structures is the exact location of interfacial
failure: for the former interfacial failure generally occurs in the sub-
strate concrete and the design theory has been developed with this na-
ture of interfacial failure implicitly or explicitly assumed; for the latter
interfacial failure cannot possibly occur in the substrate steel due to
the much higher tensile strength of steel than that of adhesives. As a re-
sult, for the latter, interfacial failure can only occur within the adhesive
layer (i.e. cohesion failure) or at the material interfaces (adhesion fail-
ure) between the steel and the adhesive (referred to as the “steel/adhe-
sive interface” hereafter) or between the adhesive and the FRP (referred
to as the “FRP/adhesive interface” hereafter). A summary of possible
failure modes is shown in Fig. 2.
If adhesion failure controls the strength of FRP-strengthened steel
structures, then the interfacial bond strength depends on how the
steel surface and the FRP surface are treated as well as the bond capa-
bility of the adhesive. As adhesion failure depends on the method and
degree of surface treatment, especially to the steel substrate, which is
difficult to control on site, the development of a design theory be-
comes much more involved. This important issue has not been
given adequate attention in previous studies, but has been focused
Interlaminar failure of FRP FRP Rupture
CFRP
Adhesive Adhesion failure at FRP/adhesive interface
Cohesion failure in adhesive
Steel
Adhesion failure at steel/adhesive interface
Fig. 2. Possible failure modes of FRP-to-concrete bonded joints.
133
on in some recent research [17]. The authors thus strongly believe
that in FRP-strengthened steel structures, interfacial failure should
occur within the adhesive layer in the form of cohesion failure
(Fig. 3), and a proper surface treatment procedure together with an
appropriate adhesive should be used to ensure that such cohesion
failure is critical.
3.2. Adhesion failure
In an FRP-to-steel bonded joint, adhesion failure may occur at the
steel/adhesive interface or at the FRP/adhesive interface. However,
adhesion failure at the FRP/adhesive interface seldom occurs when
the FRP is formed and applied to the structure via a wet lay-up pro-
cess on site; when a pultruded FRP plate/strip is used, such failure
can generally be avoided through the use of a peel-ply which is re-
moved prior to bonding to ensure a clean and rough FRP surface for
bonding [15] or by abrading and cleaning the FRP surface before
bonding. By contrast, failure at the steel/adhesive interface is much
more likely to happen. For various reasons, the treatment and charac-
terization of steel surfaces for adhesive bonding has received much
research attention [18–22].
The adhesion strength of a steel/adhesive interface results from both
chemical bonding and mechanical bonding between the two adherends
[18,21,23]. It is evident that a strong steel/adhesive interface requires
the adhesive to be in intimate contact with the steel surface. This gener-
ally means that the adhesive should have a sufficiently low viscosity so
that it can flow easily over the surface and fill the pores [24], and that
the steel surface should be clean and should have a sufficiently large sur-
face energy so that it can be easily wetted [20,21]. When the two
adherends are in intimate contact, the strength of chemical bonding de-
pends mainly on the chemical composition of the steel surface and that
of the adhesive and whether they are chemically compatible [21]. By
contrast, apart from the properties of the adhesive, the strength of me-
chanical bonding depends mainly on the roughness and topography of
the steel surface; roughening the surface can significantly enhance the
strength of mechanical bonding [23,25], but it may also reduce the
level of contact between the two adherends [26,27]. Therefore, the
three main properties of a steel surface, namely, surface energy, surface
chemical composition and surface roughness and topography, are often
used to characterize the capacity of a surface for bonding [20,28–30].
Existing approaches of steel surface treatment generally aim to
enhance the two bonding mechanisms (i.e. chemical bonding and me-
chanical bonding) by: (1) cleaning the surface; (2) changing the prop-
erties of the surface. The most popular approaches include solvent
cleaning and mechanical abrasion through grit blasting or using other
tools (e.g. wire brushes, abrasive pads and wheels, and needle guns)
[15,21]. Solvent cleaning removes the contaminants from the surface
(e.g. grease, oil and water) but does not change the surface properties,
so it alone only has a limited effect on the adhesion strength [20]. It is
however a necessary step of any surface treatment process and should
Fig. 3. Surface of the FRP plate after cohesion failure.
134 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143
normally be conducted at the beginning of the process [15,22]. It is im-
portant to use a volatile solvent (e.g. acetone) so that the contaminants
on the surface (and hence their negative effects on the adhesion
strength) are minimized [4,18]. Mechanical abrasion roughens the sur-
face and removes the weak surface layer (e.g. oxide layer) which is
chemically inactive [20,21], so that the surface in contact with the adhe-
sive is sufficiently rough, clean and chemically active. Among various
mechanical abrasion approaches, grit blasting appears to be the most ef-
fective [15,20,31,32] and is recommended by some existing guidelines
on the FRP strengthening of metallic structures [22,33]. Tests recently
conducted by Teng et al. [17] showed that with the four types of differ-
ent adhesives used in their study, adhesion failure was avoided when
the steel surface was grit-blasted prior to bonding.
The grit used in grit blasting may be made of different materials
and have different particle sizes. Existing studies [17,20,34] have
shown that grit blasting can modify the chemical composition of the
surface by introducing grit residues to the surface, so it is important
to choose a grit material which is chemically compatible with the ad-
hesive. The particle size of grit may have a pronounced effect on sur-
face energy and surface roughness, but the limited existing studies
[17,20] have revealed that within the range of grit particle sizes ex-
amined in these studies (i.e. from 0.125 mm to 0.5 mm), the effect
of particle size on adhesion strength is limited.
During the grit blasting process, fine abrasive dust is produced and
becomes additional surface contaminants [15]. Therefore, it is important
to clean the surface again after grit blasting. Hollaway and Cadei [15]
suggested to remove the fine dust using dry-wiping or using a vacuum
head instead of solvent wiping as they believed that solvent wiping is ca-
pable of only partial removal of the dust and is likely to redistribute the
remaining dust on the surface. El Damatty and Abushagur [35] however
showed that with the use of an excessive amount of solvent, the dust can
be completely removed and a clean surface can be produced.
After surface treatment, an adhesive/primer should be applied as
soon as possible to avoid any contamination of the surface or formation
of weak oxide layers on the surface [36]. Cadei et al. [33] recommended
that the period between grit blasting and adhesive/primer application
should not exceed 2 h, while Schnerch et al. [22] suggested a more prac-
tical maximum period of 24 h for the application of adhesive.
Apart from the adoption of an appropriate surface treatment proce-
dure, it is also important to characterize the surface to determine
whether a sufficient adhesion strength can be developed. The following
methods are available for surface characterization: (a) a VCA (video
contact angle) device can be employed to obtain contact angle mea-
surements from which the surface energy can be evaluated; (b) an
SEM/EDX (scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive x-ray) sys-
tem can be used to measure the surface chemical composition; and
(c) a profilometer can be used to measure the surface roughness and to-
pography [17]. By using these devices, Teng et al. [17] showed that the
characteristics of surfaces are consistent after being grit-blasted using
the same grit, which suggest the possibility of developing a standard
preparation process to ensure a good surface with a sufficient adhesion
strength.
3.3. Bond behavior
Similar to reinforced concrete (RC) structures strengthened with ex-
ternally bonded FRP reinforcement, interfacial debonding failures also
control the load-carrying capacity of steel structures strengthened
with externally bonded FRP reinforcement in many cases. A simply-
supported steel beam strengthened in flexure using a bonded soffit
FRP plate is a typical bond-critical case where the following two distinct
debonding failure modes can occur: (1) intermediate debonding; and
(2) plate end debonding. In the former mode, debonding initiates
away from the FRP plate ends and at a location where high interfacial
shear stresses arise from either the presence of a defect (e.g. crack) or
local yielding of the steel substrate. In the latter mode, debonding
initiates at an FRP plate end due to a combination of high interfacial
shear and peeling (normal) stresses. Intermediate debonding has
been observed in laboratory tests on FRP-strengthened steel beams
with or without an initial defect (e.g. [37–39]) and steel sections
strengthened with FRP against local buckling (e.g. [40]), while plate
end debonding has been observed in laboratory tests on
flexurally-strengthened steel beams (e.g. [41]) and on steel sections
strengthened against end bearing loads (e.g. [42,43]) or other loads in-
ducing local buckling (e.g. [44]).
It has been widely recognized [45–50] that in order to understand
and model debonding failures, the bond behavior between the sub-
strate material and the bonded FRP reinforcement needs to be studied,
commonly through pull tests on simple bonded joints (Fig. 4(a))
[48,51–53]. In a pull test, the adhesive layer is primarily subjected to in-
terfacial shear stresses and debonding is caused by Mode II fracture in
fracture mechanics terms. The interfacial behavior of such simple bond-
ed joints is similar to that of an FRP-to-steel interface in a beam where
intermediate debonding is critical, as interfacial shear stresses dominate
the debonding process in both cases. This interfacial shear behavior is
also an important basis for understanding the behavior of FRP-to-steel
interfaces subjected to combined shear stresses and peeling stresses.
Different from FRP-to-concrete bonded joints where the concrete is
usually the weak link, the adhesive is the weak link in FRP-to-steel
bonded joints, provided that adhesion failure at the steel/adhesive in-
terface and the FRP/adhesive interface is avoided by careful selection
of the adhesive and appropriate surface preparation of the steel and
the FRP. As a result, the behavior of FRP-to-steel bonded joints is similar
to that of steel-to-steel bonded joints, so available tests on the latter are
also included in the discussion below to supplement the limited avail-
able studies on FRP-to-steel bonded joints [35,51,53–65]. In addition,
existing studies on FRP-to-concrete bonded joints are referred to wher-
ever appropriate, as the generic concepts (e.g. the interfacial fracture
energy and the effective bond length) well established for these joints
are also applicable to FRP-to-steel bonded joints.
Different test methods for bonded joints have been used by different
researchers [52], including single-lap pull tests (Fig. 4(a)) [51,60],
double-lap pull tests (Fig. 4(b)) [54,58,65], double-lap shear tests under
compression [35], and beam tests [56]. Despite the variations in the test
method, most of the existing studies were focused on the two important
characteristics of the interface: the ultimate load of the joint (i.e. the bond
strength) and the relationship between the interfacial shear stress and
the interfacial relative displacement between the two adherends at a
a FRP plate
Adhesive
Steel substrate
b
Gap
Steel plates Adhesive
FRP plate
Fig. 4. Pull tests of bonded joints. (a) Single-lap pull test. (b) Double-lap pull test.
 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143
specific location on the interface (i.e. the local bond-slip relationship). In
the following discussion, a single-lap pull test is assumed for simplicity of
description and a double-lap pull test can be seen as two single-lap pull
tests being conducted simultaneously.
3.3.1. Bond strength
The bond strength is the ultimate tensile force that can be resisted
by the FRP plate in a bonded joint test before the FRP plate debonds
from the substrate [4]. Existing studies [51,53,57,59,60] have shown
that the bond strength of an FRP-to-steel bonded joint initially in-
creases with the bond length, but when the bond length reaches a
threshold value, any further increase in the bond length does not
lead to a further increase in the bond strength. This observation is
similar to that found in tests on FRP-to-concrete bonded joints
[48,50,66,67], and the threshold bond length value is commonly re-
ferred to as the effective bond length (Le) [66].
Two main approaches have been developed to predict the bond
strength of FRP-to-steel bonded joints: (1) strength-based approach
[22,57,68] which assumes that the bond strength is reached when
the maximum stress/strain in the adhesive reaches its corresponding
ultimate value; and (2) fracture mechanics-based approach [60,69]
which is similar to that employed to predict the bond strength of
FRP-to-concrete bonded joints [66,70] where the bond strength is re-
lated to the interfacial fracture energy.
Apart from studies on FRP-to-steel joints, the strength-based ap-
proach has also been adopted in some studies on steel-to-steel bonded
joints [71–73]. The failure criteria for the adhesive used in these studies
include the maximum shear stress criterion [71], the maximum principal
stress criterion [72] and the maximum shear strain criterion [73]. The
strength-based approach generally implies that the ultimate load of the
bonded joint is reached when the first crack occurs in the adhesive. How-
ever, Fernando [60] found from single-lap pull tests that the tensile force
resisted by the FRP plate can still increase significantly after the initiation
of the first crack in the adhesive, provided that the bond length is suffi-
ciently long. In addition, the existence of an effective bond length is not
compatible and cannot be explained with the strength-based approach.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the strength-based approach does
not reflect the debonding failure mechanism of an FRP-to-steel bonded
joint; however, it may provide reasonable predictions when the
bond length is small so that debonding failure of the bonded joint
follows immediately the occurrence of the first crack in the adhesive.
In applying the strength-based approach, an accurate analysis of in-
terfacial stresses and/or strains in the adhesive is needed. Both ana-
lytical studies [71,74–79] and finite element (FE) studies [45,80,81]
have been conducted to predict interfacial stresses in bonded joints,
but many of them suffer from various limitations [60], including the
omission of interfacial peeling stresses (e.g. [71]), the assumption of a
constant stress state over the thickness of the adhesive (e.g. [76,78]),
and the inaccurate simulation of the edge shape of the FRP plate end
(e.g. [82]). A thorough review of interfacial stress analysis can be
found in Ref. [81].
The fracture mechanics-based approach has been successfully
employed to predict the bond strength of FRP-to-concrete bonded joints
and steel-to-concrete bonded joints [66,70,83]. This approach provides
the theoretical basis for the existence of an effective bond length which
has also been observed in FRP-to-steel bonded joint tests [51,53,56,84].
In this approach, the bond strength depends on the interfacial fracture
energy as given below [51,67,85] instead of the strength of the adhesive:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P u ¼ bp 2Ep t p Gf when L ≥ Le
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P u ¼ ϕðLÞbp 2Ep t p Gf when L ≥ Le
where Pu is the bond strength, bp is the plate width, Ep is the elastic mod-
ulus of the plate, tp is the plate thickness, Gf is the interfacial fracture
135
energy under shear (Mode II) loading, and ϕ(L) is a function of the
bond length.
Fernando [60] and Xia and Teng [51] recently conducted two se-
ries of single-lap pull tests aiming to understand the full-range behav-
ior of FRP-to-steel bonded joints. Their test results clarified the effects
of adhesive properties, adhesive layer thickness, and the plate axial ri-
gidity of FRP on the bond strength, and verified the applicability of
Eqs. (1) and (2) to FRP-to-steel bonded joints. Fernando [60] also pro-
posed an equation to predict the Mode II interfacial fracture energy Gf
based on the thickness and tensile strain energy (i.e. the area under
the uniaxial tensile stress–strain curve) of the adhesive.
3.3.2. Bond-slip relationship
An accurate bond-slip model for FRP-to-steel interfaces is of funda-
mental importance to the understanding and modeling of the behavior
of FRP-strengthened steel structures. A bond-slip model depicts the rela-
tionship between the local interfacial shear stress and the relative slip
between the two adherends and can be experimentally obtained through
bonded joint tests. To study the bond-slip behavior of FRP-to-concrete
bonded joints, the single-lap pull test with the steel block supported at
the loaded end (Fig. 4(a)) is probably the most suitable [48] and was
also used in the recent studies on the full-range behavior of FRP-to-steel
bonded joints [51,60,84,86].
For FRP-to-concrete bonded joints, Lu et al. [87] conducted a thor-
ough review of bond-slip models and proposed three two-branch (an
ascending branch and a descending branch) bond-slip models of differ-
ent levels of sophistication. The simplest of the bond-slip models pro-
posed by Lu et al. [87] is a bi-linear model with sufficient accuracy
for practical use (Fig. 5(a)). The key parameters of the bilinear bond-
slip model are the maximum local bond shear stress τmax and the
a
Elastic Softening region Debonding
Interfacial shear stress
Area under the curve= Gf
Slip
b
Constant stress Softening
region region
Elastic Debonding
Interfacial shear stress
Area under the curve= Gf
ð1Þ
ð2Þ
Slip
Fig. 5. Bond-slip curves for linear and nonlinear adhesives. (a) Linear adhesives.
(b) Nonlinear adhesives.
136 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143
corresponding slip δ1, the ultimate slip δf when the local bond shear
stress first reaches zero, and the interfacial fracture energy Gf which is
equal to the area enclosed by the bond-slip curve and the horizontal
axis. For FRP-to-concrete bonded joints, these parameters are generally
related to the tensile strength of concrete as the concrete is usually the
weak link of the joint.
A two-branch bond-slip model without a plateau at the peak stress
has been shown to perform well for almost all FRP-to-concrete bond
joints because of the brittle nature of concrete. However, such a model
may not work well for FRP-to-steel bonded joints where the weak link
is the adhesive whose behavior may be brittle or ductile. As a result,
the bond-slip response of FRP-to-steel interfaces may also be brittle or
ductile as it depends on the material properties of the adhesive.
Fernando [60] recently conducted a series of single-lap pull tests on
FRP-to-steel bonded joints formed using four different adhesives. Results
from Fernando’s study [60] showed that while a two-branch bond-slip
model is suitable for bonded joints with a brittle linear adhesive, it is
not suitable for joints with a more ductile nonlinear adhesive having a
high strain capacity (up to 2.9%). The shape of the bond-slip curve for
his joints with a nonlinear adhesive was shown to be trapezoidal
(Fig. 5(b)). Based on these test results, Fernando [60] proposed three
bond-slip models, two for linear adhesives and one for nonlinear adhe-
sives respectively, where the parameters of both types of models are re-
lated to the material properties of the adhesive.
4. Flexural strengthening of steel beams
Similar to an RC beam, a steel beam (or a composite steel-concrete
beam) can be strengthened by bonding an FRP (generally CFRP) plate
to its tension face (i.e. the soffit if a beam in positive bending is assumed,
see Fig. 6) [37,54,57,88–97]. The bonded FRP plate can enhance not only
the ultimate load but also the stiffness of the beam (especially when a
high modulus CFRP is used) [90,93,98,99]; the latter means that the
strains in the beam are reduced under the same load and the first yield-
ing of the beam is delayed. A number of failure modes (Fig. 7) are pos-
sible for such FRP-plated steel beams, including: (a) in-plane bending
failure [96]; (b) lateral buckling [37]; (c) plate-end debonding [41,97];
and (d) intermediate debonding due to local cracking or yielding
a farther away from the adjacent support (i.e. when the plate end mo-
Steel I beam
FRP U-jackets
Adhesive layer
FRP plate
b prediction of these interfacial stresses, including both analytical solutions
Steel I beam
Adhesive layer
FRP plate
Fig. 6. Strengthening of steel beams with a bonded FRP plate. (a) Side view.
(b) Cross-sectional view.
Flange buckling
Web buckling
Beam
Plate end Intermediate Adhesive
FRP Plate
debonding debonding
FRP rupture
Fig. 7. Some of the failure modes of steel beams bonded with an FRP plate.
away from the plate ends [37]. Additional failure modes include:
(e) local buckling of the compression flange; and (f) local buckling of
the web. It should be noted that even in a beam for which these local
buckling modes are not critical before FRP strengthening, they can be-
come critical after strengthening, particularly when the strengthening
involves only the bonding of FRP to the tension flange only. This is
because the compression flange and the web now need to sustain a
higher load level before the beam fails in one of the other modes, but
their local buckling resistance does not benefit from the bonded FRP
reinforcement.
The in-plane bending capacity of an FRP-plated steel beam can be
easily determined, provided that debonding does not become critical
and hence the plane section assumption can still be used [33,100,101].
Many existing analytical studies [33,90,95,96,100,101] on FRP-plated
steel beams adopted this simple assumption, which means that the pre-
diction of debonding failures was beyond their scope. Nevertheless, re-
search on debonding failures has attracted considerable attention
worldwide (e.g. [16,33,91,100]) as discussed below.
4.1. Plate end debonding
As described earlier, plate end debonding in an FRP-plated steel
beam is due to high localized interfacial shear stresses and peeling
stresses in the vicinity of the plate end. The magnitudes of these local-
ized interfacial stresses depend on a number of factors [78,81], includ-
ing the bending moment and the shear force in the beam at the plate
end location. In a simply-supported beam in three- or four-point bend-
ing, plate end debonding is more likely to occur when the plate end is
ment is larger) but can be delayed or even avoided when the plate
end is very close to the adjacent support [41]. Besides the plate end lo-
cation, the localized interfacial stresses can also be reduced using other
measures. Examples include the use of a spew fillet of excess adhesive
at the plate end [73], the use of a softer adhesive near the plate end
[102], tapering the thickness of the plate near the plate end [22,103],
and a combination of these measures [22]. Obviously, clamps or other
types of mechanical anchors should be used wherever possible to pre-
vent plate end debonding failure [98].
As plate end debonding in FRP-plated beams depends strongly on the
localized interfacial stresses, many studies have been conducted on the
[76,78,79,90,104] and numerical investigations [45,81,90,105]. These
studies have been based on different simplifying assumptions and thus
possess different levels of sophistication [81]. Despite such differences,
these existing studies generally assumed that the adhesive layer is line-
arly elastic. A comparison of different modeling approaches was recently
presented by Zhang and Teng [81], which illustrates clearly how each as-
sumption affects the predicted interfacial stresses. Stress singularity
arises at the bi-material interfaces when a sharp square edge is assumed
[45,106] but this issue cannot be properly dealt with by the existing an-
alytical solutions. In real applications, the edge shape can be quite differ-
ent from a sharp square edge because of the existence of a fillet of excess
 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143
adhesive which is introduced during the installation process; this change
in the edge shape may significantly reduce the interfacial stresses, but it
has seldom been appropriately considered.
While existing solutions for interfacial stresses in FRP-plated beams
based on the assumption of linear elastic material behavior are helpful
for understanding the occurrence of plate end debonding, they cannot
be used directly to predict debonding failure as debonding is controlled
by the interfacial fracture energy rather than by stress values. In some
existing studies (e.g. [22,91]), it was simply assumed that plate end
debonding occurs when the maximum interfacial stresses found from
an elastic analysis reach their corresponding material strengths; this ap-
proach may significantly underestimate the plate end debonding failure
load for reasons similar to those already discussed for bonded joints.
To accurately predict plate end debonding, the nonlinear and dam-
age behavior of the interface in both the normal (i.e. peeling) direction
(i.e. under Mode I loading) and the shear direction (i.e. under Mode II
loading) and their interaction should be appropriately simulated.
Fernando [60] made the first attempt to model plate end debonding of
FRP-plated steel beams using a so-called mixed-mode cohesive law to
simulate this complex behavior of the FRP-to-steel interface. Fernando’s
mixed-mode cohesive law [60] was based on a bond-slip model for
Mode II behavior developed from pull tests and certain assumptions
for Mode I behavior and for interaction between the two modes [60].
It was shown that by using this mixed-mode cohesive law, both the pro-
cess of and the ultimate load at plate end debonding can be closely
predicted [60].
More recently, Chiew et al. [107] proposed an approach similar to the
mixed-mode fracture criterion, where the dilatational and distortional
strain energy densities are used as variables instead of the Mode I and
Mode II interfacial fracture energy. Chiew et al. [107] also verified their
approach using their own test results [108]. However, in Chiew et al.’s
study [107], the critical values for the dilatational and distortional strain
energy densities and the failure envelope accounting for the interaction
between the two energy density components were both based on their
own bonded joint tests where only one single adhesive was used. The
wide applicability of their approach thus remains uncertain.
4.2. Intermediate debonding
Intermediate debonding generally initiates at a defect (e.g. crack)
[38,39] or a location of concentrated plasticity of the steel substrate
[37] where the FRP plate is highly stressed; it then propagates towards
a plate end. Although both plate end debonding and intermediate
debonding are brittle failure modes, the latter, involving a more gradual
process of debonding, is generally less brittle than the former [60].
Compared with plate end debonding, much less research is available
on intermediate debonding in FRP-plated steel beams [60]. Intermedi-
ate debonding in FRP-plated steel beams is similar in nature to
intermediate-crack debonding (IC debonding) in FRP-plated RC beams
[47]: both initiate from a location where the FRP is highly stressed
and both are dominated by interfacial shear stresses. Therefore, it can
be expected that the intermediate debonding strength depends strong-
ly on the interfacial shear fracture energy obtained from pull tests on
bonded joint tests [60]. For the accurate prediction of intermediate
debonding failure in an FRP-plated steel beam, an accurate bond-slip
model that captures the nonlinear behavior of the FRP-to-steel interface
is needed. Fernando [60] showed that with the use of a cohesive law
based on a bond-slip model for Mode II behavior, both the process
of and the ultimate load at intermediate debonding can be closely
predicted.
4.3. Other issues
Although steel beams are often prevented from lateral buckling
failure by slabs and other adjacent structural members, this mode of
failure is still possible in some situations. The elastic lateral buckling
137
problem has been studied by Zhang and Teng [109], but much more
work is needed before a design method can be established.
In the strengthening of steel or steel-concrete composite bridges,
the speed of strengthening operations is of great importance when
closure of traffic needs to be avoided to reduce economic losses.
Hollaway et al. [110] and Zhang et al. [111] investigated the rapid
strengthening of steel bridges using prepregs and film adhesive.
Using this new method, a bridge may be strengthened in as short as
4 h. They also examined the effect of traffic-induced vibration during
the curing of the FRP system on the performance of the strengthened
structure. The effectiveness and reliability of this rapid strengthening
method for steel structures were demonstrated by their study [110].
5. Fatigue strengthening
One of the most important aspects of FRP strengthening of steel
structures is its capability to improve their fatigue life [112–118]. Fatigue
strengthening studies have been carried out on beams [92,94,119–121],
steel plates [116,117,122–126], steel rods [127] and steel connections
[128–130].
Similar to the behavior of FRP-to-steel joints under static loading, Liu
et al. [116,117] found that the fatigue life of FRP-strengthened steel
plates initially increased with the bond length until the effective bond
length Le was reached, after which any further increase in the bond
length did not further increase the fatigue life. In the strengthening of
steel members (e.g. plates, beams and rods), a bond length longer
than Le is easy to achieve, but this may be difficult in the strengthening
of steel connections where the bond length of FRP is limited. In such
cases, the adhesive should be carefully selected to minimize the effec-
tive bond length.
Stress intensity factors (SIFs) are commonly used in fracture me-
chanics to describe the stress state at a crack tip due to applied
loads and/or residual stresses [122,131]. The fatigue strengthening
of steel structures generally aims to reduce the SIF at a (potential)
crack tip and thus increase their post-crack fatigue life. As may be
expected, the use of a stiffer FRP plate (i.e. a thicker plate or a plate
with a higher elastic modulus) or a stiffer adhesive (i.e. with a higher
elastic modulus) can reduce the SIF [116,117,128]. One exception to
this statement is that when a relative thin steel plate is strengthened
on one side only, an excessively stiff plate can induce out-of-plane
bending of the steel plate which can lead to premature debonding
of FRP [132]. Debonding near the crack tip can lead to a significant in-
crease in the SIF, which is detrimental to the fatigue life of the
strengthened structure [114]. In addition to experimental work, a
number of analytical studies [114,116,132] have been conducted on
the prediction of SIFs at crack tips in FRP-strengthened steel struc-
tures. Such analysis is necessary and useful in the design of FRP sys-
tems for the fatigue strengthening of steel structures.
Debonding along the CFRP-to-steel interface is also a key issue of
concern in the fatigue strengthening of steel beams with CFRP,
where both plate end debonding and intermediate debonding are
possible. While plate end debonding may be prevented using various
measures (see Section 4.1) and is often not a concern, intermediate
debonding of the FRP can have a significant effect on the crack growth
rate in the steel [94,114] in fatigue-strengthened steel beams. How-
ever, in most of the existing literature, debonding between the FRP
and the substrate is either not considered at all or is modeled based
only on a prescribed debonding shape and size as a function of the
substrate crack width when the SIF is evaluated [133,134]. More re-
search is therefore necessary to gain a better understanding of the cy-
clic behavior of CFRP-to-steel bonded interfaces and the interaction
between intermediate debonding and fatigue crack growth in steel
beams so that the detrimental effect of debonding on the fatigue life
of the CFRP-strengthened steel beam can be predicted.
Pre-stressing the bonded FRP reinforcement can significantly en-
hance the effectiveness of fatigue strengthening. By pre-tensioning
138 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143
Fig. 8. Debonding failure of CFRP-strengthened rectangular steel tube subjected to an
end bearing load.
the FRP plate, compressive stresses are induced in the steel substrate to
achieve crack closure, resulting in improved fatigue performance. The
effect of the pre-tensioning level on the fatigue crack growth rate has
been studied both experimentally and numerically [114,122,131]. By
evaluating the SIF at the crack tip of the strengthened system, the
pre-tensioning force needed to stop the growth of a fatigue crack
can be predicted [131]. The level of pre-tensioning that can be im-
posed on an FRP strengthening system depends on the static and
fatigue strength of the bonded joint, where a good understanding
of the behavior of bonded interfaces under fatigue cyclic loading is
again required.
6. Strengthening of steel structures against local buckling
6.1. Buckling induced by high local stresses
In practice, high stresses in a local zone often arise, due to concen-
trated loads and the need to introduce discrete supports, openings
and other local features. Under local high compressive stresses, local
buckling failure is likely to control the thickness of a thin-walled steel
structure. Such local buckling failure may be prevented by bonding
FRP patches. Local high tensile stresses may also be addressed in the
same way.
A practically important problem is the web crippling failure of
thin-walled sections under a bearing force [42]. Zhao et al. [42] found
from their experimental study that bonded CFRP can be an effective so-
lution to this problem. Fernando et al. [43] further investigated the ef-
fect of adhesive properties on the effectiveness of this strengthening
technique. Fig. 8 which is extracted from Ref. [43] shows the different
a b
Fig. 9. Elephant’s foot buckling in a steel tube or shell. (a) Failure near the base of a steel tube. (b) Failure at the base of a liquid storage tank.
Courtesy of Dr. H.B. Ge, Nagoya University and Prof. J.M. Rotter, Edinburgh University.
responses of a rectangular hollow section (RHS) tube subjected to an
end-bearing load when five different adhesives were used to bond the
CFRP. Depending on the adhesive used, the failure mode varied from
the debonding initiating at a plate end to FRP rupture failure; the
amount of strength enhancement achieved also varied significantly. It
was shown in this study that debonding was less likely to occur when
an adhesive with a larger ultimate tensile strain was used, which led
to a greater load-carrying capacity of the strengthened tube [43,60].
6.2. Buckling induced by other loads
FRP, especially CFRP, has also been used in the strengthening of
other steel structures against local buckling, including steel square col-
umns [135], lipped channel steel columns [136], and steel WT compres-
sion members [44,137,138] subjected to axial compression. The FRP
strengthening has been shown to be very effective [44,60] in delaying
local buckling and thus enhancing the strength of the steel structure,
especially when a slender section is used. While crushing of the FRP
plate was observed in some experiments [135], debonding has been
found to be the most likely failure mode in the strengthened struc-
ture [44,135,136]. More research is therefore needed on debonding pro-
cesses in buckling failures of FRP-strengthened steel structures where
the FRP is commonly loaded in compression.
7. FRP confinement of hollow steel tubes
Hollow steel tubes are used in many structures. Local buckling can
occur in these tubular members when they are subjected to axial com-
pression alone or in combination with monotonic/cyclic lateral loading.
For example, hollow steel tubes are often used as bridge piers and such
bridge piers suffered extensive damage and even collapse during the
1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake [139]. A typical local buckling
mode of circular hollow steel tubes involves the appearance of an out-
ward bulge near the base and is often referred to as elephant’s foot
buckling (Fig. 9). In typical circular tubular structures, elephant’s foot
buckling appears after yielding and the appearance of this inelastic
local buckling mode normally signifies the exhaustion of the load carry-
ing capacity and the end of the ductile response. The latter is of partic-
ular importance in seismic design, as the ductility and energy
absorption capacity of the column dictate its seismic resistance. In rect-
angular (including square) steel tubes, a similar failure mode can occur.
Here, the buckling deformation is normally outwards on the flanges and
inwards on the webs.
The enhancement of ductility and hence seismic resistance of hollow
tubular columns through confinement by an FRP jacket has been
 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143 139

explored by the authors' group [8,140,141] as an extension of Xiao’s
idea of confining concrete-filled steel tubes with FRP [9]. The technique
was shown to be highly effective. The failure modes of hollow steel
tubes with and without FRP confinement are shown in Fig. 10(a) and
(b), while the axial stress-nominal axial strain (axial shortening/tube
height) curves are shown in Fig. 10(c). It is clear that through FRP
confinement, the elephant’s foot mode of buckling failure is prevented
and the ductility of the tube is greatly enhanced. Nishino and Furukawa
[142] also explored the same technique for hollow steel tubes
independently. More recent work on FRP-strengthened hollow steel
tubes/cylindrical shells can be found in [143–145].
These results also show that when the jacket thickness reaches a
threshold value for which inward buckling deformations dominate the
behavior, further increases in the jacket thickness do not lead to signifi-
cant additional benefits as the jacket provides little resistance to inward
buckling deformations. It is significant to note that FRP confinement of
steel tubes leads to large increases in ductility but limited increases in
the ultimate load, which is often desirable in seismic retrofit of columns
which are part of a larger structure, so that the retrofitted tube will not
attract forces which are so high that adjacent members may be put in
danger.
The elephant’s foot buckling mode is not only the critical failure
mode in commonly used circular steel tubular columns under axial
compression and/or bending, it also occurs in much thinner cylindrical
shells in steel storage silos and tanks under combined axial compression
and internal pressure. This failure mode has been commonly observed
in earthquakes [146] and under static loading [147]. The use of FRP
jackets to strengthen thin steel cylindrical shells against local elephant’s
foot buckling failure at the base has also been explored through finite
element analyses by Teng and Hu [141]. The limited numerical results
for a thin cylindrical shell with a radius-to-thickness ratio of 1000
and subjected to axial compression in combination with internal
pressure indicate that the method leads to significant increases of
the ultimate load. The FRP jacketing of steel cylindrical shells can also
be used in the construction of new tanks and silos to enhance their per-
formance. A similar and related study on the strengthening of such cy-
lindrical shells has been conducted by Chen et al. [148] where an
optimally-located ring stiffener is proposed as the strengthening meth-
od. This ring stiffener may well be a CFRP cable that provides the same
circumferential stiffness and the needed strength. More recent work on
the local confinement of cylindrical shells against elephant’s foot buck-
ling and on the strengthening of cylindrical shells against buckling using
bonded FRP reinforcement can be found in Refs. [11,12].
8. FRP confinement of concrete-filled steel tubes
Concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs) are widely used as columns in
many structural systems. In CFSTs, inward buckling deformations of
the steel tube are prevented by the concrete core, but degradation
in steel confinement, strength and ductility can result from inelastic
outward local buckling. When used as columns subjected to com-
bined axial and lateral loads, the critical regions are the ends of the
column where the moments are the largest. Under seismic loading,
plastic hinges form at the column ends and large plastic rotations

a b

Elephant’s
foot
buckling

c
400

350

300
Axial Stress (N/mm2)

250
Bare Steel Tube
200 Single-ply FRP Jacket
Two-ply FRP Jacket
150
Three-ply FRP Jacket
100

50

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Nominal Axial Strain

Fig. 10. Suppression of local buckling in hollow circular steel tubes. (a) Bare steel tube after test. (b) FRP-confined tubes after test. (c) Axial stress-nominal axial strain curve.
140 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143

without significant degradation in stiffness and strength are demanded
here. Against this background, Xiao [9] proposed a novel form of con-
fined concrete-filled steel tubular columns, in which the end portions
are confined with steel tube segments or FRP wraps. In these columns,
due to the additional confinement from an FRP or steel segment, both
the inward and the outward buckling deformations of the steel tube
are constrained, so the ductility and strength of the column can be sub-
stantially enhanced in the end regions. In addition, the concrete is better
confined with the additional confinement from the FRP or steel seg-
ment. Although Xiao's work [9] was directed at new construction, the
same concept can be applied in the strengthening/retrofit of CFSTs:
FRP wrapping provides a simple and effective method to enhance the
load-carrying capacity and/or ductility of CFSTs, which is similar to the
FRP wrapping for strengthening RC columns [6,149]. Following Xiao's
initial work [9], a number of studies have been conducted by Xiao
and associates [10,150,151] as well as other researchers [152–160]
on the effectiveness of FRP wrapping in improving the structural be-
havior of both circular [10,151–155] and square/rectangular CFSTs
[150,153,154,156].
The structural behavior of FRP-confined CFSTs has recently been in-
vestigated systematically by the authors' group [161–163]. Within this
study, several series of laboratory tests were conducted to examine
the behavior of FRP-confined CFSTs under monotonic axial compres-
sion, cyclic axial compression and the combined action of constant
axial compression and cyclic lateral loading. In addition, theoretical
models were developed to predict the experimental observations.
Existing research has indicated that FRP jacketing is highly effec-
tive in delaying or even preventing the outward local buckling and
in enhancing the performance of CFSTs subjected to various loading
schemes (i.e. monotonic and cyclic axial compression, and combined
axial compression and cyclic lateral loading), in terms of both the
strength and ductility of the column [161,162]. Fig. 11 shows the en-
hancement of the load-carrying capacity of CFSTs under axial com-
pression by FRP jacketing.
9. Concluding remarks
External bonding of FRP reinforcement has been clearly established
as a promising alternative strengthening technique for steel structures
by existing research. As more research is conducted and more reliable
design guidelines become available, the technique is also expected to
receive increasing acceptance in practice. Based on the discussions
presented in this paper, it is recommended that future research should
address the following issues with priority.

a b

c
3000
CFST
Confined CFST
2500
Axial load (kN)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 5 10 15
Axial shortening (mm)

Fig. 11. Strengthening of axially-loaded concrete-filled steel tubes with FRP confinement. (a) CFST specimen after test. (b) FRP-confined CFST specimen after test. (c) Axial load–
shortening curves.
 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143
9.1. Steel surface treatment
More work should be conducted on the treatment of steel surface
preparation and characterization to develop a widely accepted proce-
dure for use in practice that can avoid adhesion failure at the
adhesive/steel interface.
9.2. Selection and formulation of adhesives
In FRP-strengthened steel structures, the weak link is the adhesive
layer, provided adhesion failure at the adhesive/steel interface and
the FRP/adhesive interface can be avoided through appropriate sur-
face preparation. As a result, at least for bond-critical applications,
the material properties of the bonding adhesive play a key role in de-
termining the load-carrying capacity of the strengthened structure;
design theory needs to reflect the mechanical properties of the adhe-
sive. To maximize the effectiveness of FRP strengthening, the selec-
tion of an appropriate adhesive is very important. The selection
process needs to consider not only the short-term mechanical perfor-
mance but also its long-term durability and ease for handling on the
construction site. It may also become necessary and beneficial for ma-
terial researchers to explore the development of better adhesives
with properties tailored to the needs of FRP strengthening of steel
structures.
9.3. Bond behavior and debonding failures
Debonding failures are the most challenging issue in the flexural
strengthening of steel beams and the strengthening of thin-walled
steel structures against local buckling. As the adhesive is the weak
link, debonding failures in FRP-strengthened steel structures depend
on the properties of the adhesive. More work is needed to develop accu-
rate bond-slip models for FRP-to-steel interfaces under Mode II loading
and under mixed mode loading, with parameters of bond-slip models
being given in generic adhesive properties. Particular attention needs
to be paid to debonding of bonded FRP plates loaded in compression,
which has received little attention so far; such debonding arises often
in the strengthening of steel structures against buckling failures.
9.4. Fatigue strengthening
Bonded CFRP patches provide a highly effective method for fatigue
strengthening of steel structures. In such applications, the elastic
modulus of the FRP rather than its ultimate tensile strength/strain is
the key parameter. Pre-tensioning of the FRP patch is highly desirable,
but simple methods to pre-tension and anchor such FRP plates have
not yet been developed. In terms of theoretical modeling, a key
issue is the interaction between debonding and crack propagation. A
bond-slip model for FRP-to-steel interfaces subjected to cyclic loading
is expected to be the key element in fatigue life prediction of
FRP-strengthened steel structures.
9.5. FRP confinement of tubular structures
External FRP confinement has been found to be an effective
strengthening method for circular steel tubes with or without a con-
crete infill, but not so effective for square or rectangular columns. Effec-
tive methods for the strengthening of the latter columns need to be
developed.
9.6. Other issues
In addition to the topics mentioned above, several other topics do not
appear to have been explored and should be given due attention in the
future, including: (1) durability of the bonding adhesive; (2) fire resis-
tance of FRP-strengthened steel structures; (3) strengthening of steel
141
structures against blast and impact loading; (4) the use of external FRP
reinforcement for combined strengthening and corrosion protection.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful for the financial support from The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University provided through its Niche Area Funding
Scheme, through a Postdoctoral Fellowship to the second author and
an International Scholarship for PhD Studies to the third author. In
preparing this paper, they have benefited from the list of references com-
piled on the topic by Prof. X.L. Zhao of Monash University which was
made available to members of the Working Group on FRP-Strengthened
Metallic Structures of the International Institute for FRP in Construction.
References
[1] Holloway LC, Head PR. Advanced polymer composites and polymers in the civil
infrastructure. Elsevier; 2001.
[2] Bank LC. Composites for construction: structural design with FRP materials. John
Wiley & Sons; 2006.
[3] ACI-440. Report on fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement for concrete
structures. ACI‐440; 2007.
[4] Hollaway LC, Teng JG. Strengthening and rehabilitation of civil infrastructures
using fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites. England: Woodhead Publish-
ing and Maney Publishing; 2008.
[5] Hollaway LC, Leeming MB. Strengthening of reinforced concrete structures using
externally-bonded FRP composites in structural and civil engineering. Cambridge,
UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 1999.
[6] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP strengthened RC structures. UK: John
Wiley & Sons; 2002.
[7] Tani K, Matsumura M, Kitada T, Hayashi H. Experimental study on seismic
retrofitting method of steel bridge piers by using carbon fiber sheets. Proceed-
ings of the Sixth Korea-Japan Joint Seminar on Steel Bridges. Tokyo, Japan;
2000. p. 437–45.
[8] Teng JG, Hu YM. Suppression of local buckling in steel tubes by FRP jacketing.
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil
Engineering. Adelaide, Australia; December 8–10 2004. p. 749–53.
[9] Xiao Y. Applications of FRP composites in concrete columns. Adv Struct Eng
2004;7(4):335–43.
[10] Xiao Y, He W, Choi K. Confined concrete-filled tubular columns. J Struct Eng ASCE
2005;131(3):488–97.
[11] Batikha M. Strengthening of thin metallic cylindrical shells using fibre reinforced
polymers. UK: The University of Edinburgh; 2008.
[12] Batikha M, Chen J, Rotter J, Teng J. Strengthening metallic cylindrical shells
against elephant's foot buckling with FRP. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47(10):
1078–91.
[13] Jiao H, Zhao X. CFRP strengthened butt-welded very high strength (VHS) circular
steel tubes. Thin-Walled Struct 2004;42(7):963–78.
[14] Tavakkolizadeh M, Saadatmanesh H. Galvanic corrosion of carbon and steel in
aggressive environments. J Compos Constr 2001;5(3):200–10.
[15] Hollaway LC, Cadei J. Progress in the technique of upgrading metallic structures
with advanced polymer composites. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2002;4(2):131–48.
[16] Schnerch D, Dawood M, Rizkalla S, Sumner E, Stanford K. Bond behavior of CFRP
strengthened steel structures. Adv Struct Eng 2006;9(6):805–17.
[17] Teng JG, Fernando D, Yu T, Zhao XL. Treatment of steel surfaces for effective ad-
hesive bonding. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on FRP Com-
posites in Civil Engineering, CICE-2010. Beijing, China; September 27–29 2010.
[18] Mays GC, Huthcinson AR. Adhesives in civil engineering. New York: Cambridge
University Press; 1992.
[19] McKnight SH, Bourban PE, Gillespie JWJ, Karbhari VM. Surface preparation of
steel for adhesive bonding in rehabilitation applications. ASCE Materials Engi-
neering Conference. San Diego, CA; 1994. p. 1148–55.
[20] Harris AF, Beevers A. The effects of grit-blasting on surface properties for adhe-
sion. Int J Adhes Adhes 1999;19(6):445–52.
[21] Baldan A. Adhesively-bonded joints and repairs in metallic alloys, polymers and
composite materials: adhesives, adhesion theories and surface pretreatment.
J Mater Sci 2004;39(1):1–49.
[22] Schnerch D, Dawood M, Rizkalla S, Sumner E. Proposed design guidelines for
strengthening of steel bridges with FRP materials. Constr Build Mater
2007;21(5):1001–10.
[23] Packham DE. Surface energy, surface topography and adhesion. Int J Adhes
Adhes 2003;23(6):437–48.
[24] Rosen SL. Fundamental principles of polymeric materials. John Wiley and Sons;
1993.
[25] Gent AN, Lai SM. Adhesion and autohesion of rubber compounds — effect of
surface-roughness. Rubber Chem Technol 1995;68(1):13–25.
[26] Tamai Y, Aratani K. Experimental study of relation between contact angle and
surface-roughness. J Phys Chem 1972;76(22):3267–71.
[27] Hitchcock SJ, Carroll NT, Nicholas MG. Some effects of substrate roughness on
wettability. J Mater Sci 1981;16(3):714–32.
142 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143
[28] Gent AN, Lin CW. Model studies of the effect of surface-roughness and mechan-
ical interlocking on adhesion. J Adhes 1990;32(2–3):113–25.
[29] Amada S, Satoh A. Fractal analysis of surfaces roughened by grit blasting. J Adhes
Sci Technol 2000;14(1):27–41.
[30] Lavaste V, Watts JF, Chehimi MM, Lowe C. Surface characterisation of compo-
nents used in coil coating primers. Int J Adhes Adhes 2000;20(1):1–10.
[31] Sykes JM. Surface analysis and pretreatment of plastics and metals. Essex, England:
Applied Science Publishers Ltd; 1982.
[32] Schnerch D. Strengthening of steel structures with high modulus carbon fiber
reinforced polymer (CFRP) materials. Raleigh (NC): North Carolina State University;
2005.
[33] Cadei JMC, Stratford TJ, Hollaway LC, Duckett WG. Strengthening metallic struc-
tures using externally bonded fibre-reinforced polymers- C595. London: CIRIA;
2004.
[34] Gettings M, Kinloch AJ. Surface analysis of polysiloxane-metal oxide interfaces.
J Mater Sci 1977;12:2511–8.
[35] El Damatty AA, Abushagur M. Testing and modeling of shear and peel behavior
for bonded steel/FRP connections. Thin-Walled Struct 2003;41(11):987–1003.
[36] Allan RC, Bird J, Clarke JD. Use of adhesives in repair of cracks in ship structures.
Mater Sci Technol 1988;4(10):853–9.
[37] Sallam HEM, Ahmad SSE, Badawy AAM, Mamdouh W. Evaluation of steel I-beams
strengthened by various plating methods. Adv Struct Eng 2006;9(4):535–44.
[38] Kim YJ, Garrett B. Interaction between CFRP-repair and initial damage of
wide-flange steel beams subjected to three-point bending. Compos Struct
2011;93(8):1986–96.
[39] Kim YJ, Kent AH. Predictive response of notched steel beams repaired with CFRP
strips including bond-slip behavior. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2012;12(1):1–21.
[40] Silvestre N, Young B, Camotim D. Non-linear behaviour and load-carrying capac-
ity of CFRP-strengthened lipped channel steel columns. Eng Struct 2008;30(10):
2613–30.
[41] Deng J, Lee MMK. Behaviour under static loading of metallic beams reinforced
with a bonded CFRP plate. Compos Struct 2007;78:232–42.
[42] Zhao XL, Fernando D, Al-Mahaidi R. CFRP strengthened RHS subjected to trans-
verse end bearing force. Eng Struct 2006;28(11):1555–65.
[43] Fernando D, Yu T, Teng JG, Zhao XL. CFRP strengthening of rectangular steel
tubes subjected to end bearing loads: effect of adhesive properties and finite el-
ement modelling. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47(10):1020–8.
[44] Harries KA, Peck AJ, Abraham EJ. Enhancing stability of structural steel sections
using FRP. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47(10):1092–101.
[45] Teng JG, Zhang JW, Smith ST. Interfacial stresses in reinforced concrete beams
bonded with a soffit plate: a finite element study. Constr Build Mater
2002;16(1):1–14.
[46] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. Behaviour and strength of FRP-strengthened
RC structures: a state-of-the-art review. Proc Inst Civil Eng 2003;156(1):51–62.
[47] Teng JG, Smith ST, Yao J, Chen JF. Intermediate crack-induced debonding in RC
beams and slabs. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):447–62.
[48] Yao J, Teng JG, Chen JF. Experimental study on FRP-to-concrete bonded joints.
Compos B 2005;36(2):99–113.
[49] Yao J, Teng JG, Lam L. Experimental study on intermediate crack debonding in
FRP-strengthened RC flexural members. Adv Struct Eng 2005;8(4):365–96.
[50] Yao J, Teng JG. Plate end debonding in FRP-plated RC beams-I: experiments. Eng
Struct 2007;29(10):2457–71.
[51] Xia SH, Teng JG. Behavior of FRP-to-steel bond joints. International Symposium
on Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures (BBFS 2005). Hong Kong, China; 2005.
[52] Zhao XL, Zhang L. State-of-the-art review on FRP strengthened steel structures.
Eng Struct 2007;29(8):1808–23.
[53] Yu T, Fernando D, Teng JG, Zhao XL. Experimental study on CFRP-to-steel bonded
interfaces. Compos B 2012;43(5):2279–89.
[54] Miller TC, Chajes MJ, Mertz DR, Hastings JN. Strengthening of a steel bridge gird-
er using CFRP plates. J Bridge Eng, ASCE 2001;6(6):523–8.
[55] Sebastian WM. Nonlinear proportionality of shear-bond stress to shear force in
partially plastic regions of asymmetric FRC-laminated steel members. Int J Solids
Struct 2003;40(1):25–46.
[56] Nozaka K, Shield CK, Hajjar JF. Design of a test specimen to assess the effective
bond length of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer strips bonded to fatigued steel
bridge girders. J Compos Constr 2005;9(4):304–12.
[57] Nozaka K, Shield CK, Hajjar JF. Effective bond length of carbon-fiber-reinforced
polymer strips bonded to fatigued steel bridge I-girders. J Bridge Eng, ASCE
2005;10(2):195–205.
[58] Colombi P, Poggi C. Strengthening of tensile steel members and bolted joints
using adhesively bonded CFRP plates. Constr Build Mater 2006;20(1–2):22–33.
[59] Fawzia S, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao XL, Rizkalla S. Strengthening of circular hollow
steel tubular sections using high modulus CFRP sheets. Constr Build Mater
2007;21(4):839–45.
[60] Fernando D. Bond behaviour and debonding failures in CFRP-strengthened steel
members. PhD, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon; 2010.
[61] Haghani R. Analysis of adhesive joints used to bond FRP laminates to steel mem-
bers - a numerical and experimental study. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(11):
2243–51.
[62] Al-Zubaidy H, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao XL. Experimental investigation of bond charac-
teristics between CFRP fabrics and steel plate joints under impact tensile loads.
Compos Struct 2012;94(2):510–8.
[63] Hidekuma Y, Kobayashi A, Okuyama Y, Miyashita T, Nagai M. Experimental study
on debonding behavior of CFRP for axial tensile reinforced steel plate by CFRP
strand sheets. Proceedings of the Third Asia-Pacific Conference on FRP in Struc-
tures (APFIS2012), Sapporo, Japan; 2012.
[64] Matsumoto Y, Long ND, Yamada S, Matsui T, Matsumoto Y, Long ND. Mechanical
characteristics of CFRP reinforcement for corroded steel under axial tension. Pro-
ceedings of the Third Asia-Pacific Conference on FRP in Structures (APFIS2012),
Sapporo, Japan; 2012.
[65] Wu C, Zhao XL, Duan WH, Al-Mahaidi R. Bond characteristics between ultra high
modulus CFRP laminates and steel. Thin-Walled Struct 2012;51:47–157.
[66] Chen JF, Teng JG. Anchorage strength models for FRP and steel plates bonded to
concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2001;127(7):784–91.
[67] Yuan H, Teng JG, Seracino R, Wu ZS, Yao J. Full-range behavior of FRP-to-concrete
bonded joints. Eng Struct 2004;26(5):553–65.
[68] Bocciarelli M. Response of statically determined steel beams reinforced by CFRP
plates in the elastic–plastic regime. Eng Struct 2009;31(4):956–67.
[69] Bocciarelli M, Colombi P. Elasto-plastic debonding strength of tensile steel/CFRP
joints. Eng Fract Mech 2012;85:59–72.
[70] Yuan H, Wu Z. Theoretical solutions on interfacial stress transfer of externally
bonded steel/composite laminates. Proceedings of the Symposium of China
and Japan: Science and Technology of 21st Century, Tokyo; 1999.
[71] Volkersen O. Die nietkraftverteilung in zugbeanspruchten Nietverbindungen mit
konstanten laschenquerschnitten. Luftfahrtforschung 1938;15:41–7.
[72] Adams RD, Peppiatt NA. Stress analysis of adhesively bonded lap joints. J Strain
Anal Eng Des 1974;9(3):185–96.
[73] Hart-Smith LJ. Development in adhesives-2. London: Applied Science Publishing;
1981.
[74] Goland M, Reissner E. The stresses in cemented joints. J Appl Mech 1944;11:
A17–27.
[75] Adams RD, Peppiatt NA. Effect of Poisson's ratio strains in adherends on stresses
of an idealized lap joint. J Strain Anal Eng Des 1973;8(2):134–9.
[76] Rabinovitch O, Frostig Y. Closed-form high-order analysis of RC beams strength-
ened with FRP strips. J Compos Constr 2000;4(2):65–74.
[77] Shen HS, Teng JG, Yang J. Interfacial stresses in beams and slabs bonded with
thin plate. J Eng Mech, ASCE 2001;127(4):399–406.
[78] Smith ST, Teng JG. Interfacial stresses in plated beams. Eng Struct 2001;23(7):
857–71.
[79] Yang J, Ye JQ. An improved closed-form solution to interfacial stresses in plated
beams using a two-stage approach. Int J Mech Sci 2010;52(1):13–30.
[80] Adams RD. Stress analysis: a finite-element analysis approach. In: Kinloch AJ, ed-
itor. Developments in adhesives-2. London: Applied Science Publishers; 1981.
[81] Zhang L, Teng JG. Finite element prediction of interfacial stresses in structural
members bonded with a thin plate. Eng Struct 2010;32:459–71.
[82] Harrison NL, Harrison WJ. Stresses in an adhesive layer. J Adhes 1972;3(3):
195–212.
[83] Taljsten B. Defining anchor lengths of steel and CFRP plates bonded to concrete.
Int J Adhes Adhes 1997;17(4):319–27.
[84] Akbar I, Oehlers DJ, Mohamed-Ali MS. Derivation of the bond-slip characteristics
for FRP plated steel members. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(8–9):1047–56.
[85] Wu ZS, Yuan H, Niu H. Stress transfer and fracture propagation in different kinds
of adhesive joints. J Eng Mech, ASCE 2002;128(5):562–73.
[86] Ibrisam A, Oehlers DJ, Ali MSM. Derivation of the bond–slip characteristics for
FRP plated steel members. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(8–9):1047–56.
[87] Lu XZ, Teng JG, Ye LP, Jiang JJ. Bond-slip models for FRP sheets/plates bonded to
concrete. Eng Struct 2005;27(6):920–37.
[88] Tavakkolizadeh M, Saadatmanesh H. Strengthening of steel-concrete composite
girders using carbon fiber reinforced polymers sheets. J Struct Eng, ASCE
2003;129(1):30–40.
[89] Al-Saidy AH, Klaiber FW, Wipf TJ. Repair of steel composite beams with carbon
fiber-reinforced polymer plates. J Compos Constr 2004;8(2):163–72.
[90] Colombi P, Poggi C. An experimental, analytical and numerical study of the static
behavior of steel beams reinforced by pultruded CFRP strips. Compos B
2006;37(1):64–73.
[91] Lenwari A, Thepchatri T, Albrecht P. Debonding strength of steel beams
strengthened with CFRP plates. J Compos Constr 2006;10(1):69–78.
[92] Deng J, Lee MMK. Fatigue performance of metallic beam strengthened with a
bonded CFRP plate. Compos Struct 2007;78(2):222–31.
[93] Schnerch D, Rizkalla S. Flexural strengthening of steel bridges with high modu-
lus CFRP strips. J Bridge Eng 2008;13(2):192–201.
[94] Shaat A, Fam A. Repair of cracked steel girders connected to concrete slabs using
carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer sheets. J Compos Constr 2008;12(6):650–9.
[95] Fam A, MacDougall C, Shaat A. Upgrading steel-concrete composite girders and
repair of damaged steel beams using bonded CFRP laminates. Thin-Walled Struct
2009;47(10):1122–35.
[96] Linghoff D, Haghani R, Al-Emrani M. Carbon-fibre composites for strengthening
steel structures. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47(10):1048–58.
[97] Haghani R, Al-Emrani M. A new design model for adhesive joints used to bond
FRP laminates to steel beams: part B: experimental verification. Constr Build
Mater 2012;30:686–94.
[98] Sen R, Liby L, Mullins G. Strengthening steel bridge sections using CFRP lami-
nates. Compos B:Eng 2001;32(4):309–22.
[99] Tavakkolizadeh M, Saadatmanesh H. Repair of damaged steel-concrete compos-
ite girders using carbon fiber-reinforced polymer sheets. J Compos Constr
2003;7(4):311–22.
[100] Moy SSJ. FRP composites: life extension and strengthening of metallic structures.
Institution of Civil Engineers Design and Practice Guide. London: Thomas
Telford; 2001.
[101] Deng J, Lee MMK, Li S. Flexural strength of steel–concrete composite beams
reinforced with a prestressed CFRP plate. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(1):
379–84.
 J.G. Teng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 78 (2012) 131–143
[102] Fitton M, Broughton I. Variable modulus adhesives: an approach to optimised
joint performance. Int J Adhes Adhes 2005;25(4):329–36.
[103] Haghani R, Al-Emrani M, Kliger R. Effect of tapering on stress distribution in ad-
hesive joints - effect of tapering length and material properties. J Compos Mater
2010;44(3):287–302.
[104] Stratford T, Cadei J. Elastic analysis of adhesion stresses for the design of a
strengthening plate bonded to a beam. Constr Build Mater 2006;20(1–2):34–45.
[105] Linghoff D, Al-Emrani M. Performance of steel beams strengthened with CFRP
laminate - part 2: FE analysis. Compos B 2010;41(7):516–22.
[106] Rabinovitch O, Frostig Y. On edge stresses control in strengthened RC beams
with FRP strips: adhesive layer profile effect. J Eng Mech 2001;127(4):317–25.
[107] Chiew SP, Yu Y, Lee CK. Bond failure of steel beams with FRP laminates - part 1:
model development. Compos B 2011;42(5):1114–21.
[108] Yu Y, Chiew SP, Lee CK. Bond failure of steel beams with FRP laminates - part 2:
verification. Compos B 2011;42(5):1122–34.
[109] Zhang L, Teng JG. Elastic lateral buckling of I‐section beams bonded with a thin
plate. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Advanced Compos-
ites in Construction (ACIC 2007), University of Bath, UK; April 2–4 2007.
p. 441–6.
[110] Hollaway LC, Zhang L, Photiou NK, Teng JG, Zhang SS. Advances in adhesive
joining of carbon fibre/polymer composites to steel members for repair and re-
habilitation of bridge structures. Adv Struct Eng 2006;9(6):791–803.
[111] Zhang L, Hollaway LC, Teng JG, Zhang SS. Strengthening of steel bridges under
low frequency vibrations. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
FRP Composites in Civil Engineering. Miami, Florida, USA; December 13–15
2006.
[112] Bassetti A, Nussbaumer A, Hirt MA. Crack repair and fatigue life extension of
riveted bridge members using composite materials. Bridge Engineering Confer-
ence 2000: Past Achievements, Current Practices, Future Technologies. Egypt:
Sharm El-Sheikh; 2000.
[113] Bassetti A, Nussbaumer A, Hirt MA. Fatigue life extension of riveted bridge mem-
bers using prestressed carbon fiber composites. International Conference on
Steel Structures of the 2000's, Istanbul, Turkey; 2000. p. 375–80.
[114] Colombi P, Bassetti A, Nussbaumer A. Crack growth induced delamination on
steel members reinforced by prestressed composite patch. Fatigue Fract Eng
Mater Struct 2003;26(5):429–37.
[115] Dawood M, Rizkalla S, Sumner E. Fatigue and overloading behavior of steel-concrete
composite flexural members strengthened with high modulus CFRP materials.
J Compos Constr 2007;11(6):659–69.
[116] Liu H, Al-Mahaidi R, Zhao XL. Experimental study of fatigue crack growth behavior
in adhesively reinforced steel structures. Compos Struct 2009;90:12–20.
[117] Liu H, Xiao Z, Zhao XL, Al-Mahaidi R. Prediction of fatigue life for
CFRP-strengthened steel plates. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47:1069–77.
[118] Jiao H, Zhao XL, Mashiri F. Improving fatigue performance of CFRP strengthened
steel beams by applying vacuum pressure in the wet layup of CFRP woven
sheets. Proceedings of the Third Asia-Pacific Conference on FRP in Structures
(APFIS2012), Sapporo, Japan; 2012.
[119] Tavakkolizadeh M, Saadatmanesh H. Fatigue strength of steel girders strengthened
with carbon fiber reinforced polymer patch. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2003;129(2):
186–96.
[120] Egilmez OO, Yormaz D. Cyclic testing of steel I-beams reinforced with GFRP.
Steel Compos Struct 2011;11(2):93–114.
[121] Ghafoori E, Motavalli M, Botsis J, Herwig A, Galli M. Fatigue strengthening of dam-
aged metallic beams using prestressed unbonded and bonded CFRP plates, Int J Fa-
tigue (in press).
[122] Colombi P, Bassetti A, Nussbaumer A. Analysis of cracked steel members
reinforced by pre-stress composite patch. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
2003;26(1):59–66.
[123] Nakamura H, Maeda K, Suzuki H, Irube T, Nakamura H, Maeda K, Suzuki H, Irube
T. Monitoring for fatigue crack propagation of steel plate repaired by CFRP strips.
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety
and Management, IABMAS'08; 2008. p. 2943–50.
[124] Bocciarelli M, Colombi P, Fava G, Poggi C. Fatigue performance of tensile steel
members strengthened with CFRP plates. Compos Struct 2009;87(4):334–43.
[125] Colombi P, Giulia F. Fatigue behaviour of tensile steel/CFRP joints. Compos Struct
2012;94(8):2407–17.
[126] Wu C, Zhao XL, Al-Mahaidi R, Emdad M, Duan WH. Fatigue tests of cracked steel
plates strengthened with UHM CFRP plates, Adv Struct Eng (in press).
[127] Jones SC, Civjan SA. Application of fiber reinforced polymer overlays to extend
steel fatigue life. J Compos Constr 2003;7(4):331–8.
[128] Nakamura H, Jiang W, Suzuki H, Maeda K, Irube T. Experimental study on repair
of fatigue cracks at welded web gusset joint using CFRP strips. Thin-Walled
Struct 2009;47(10):1059–68.
[129] Chen T, Yu QQ, Gu XL, Zhao XL. Study on fatigue behavior of strengthened
non-load-carrying cruciform welded joints using carbon fiber sheets. Int J Struct
Stab Dyn 2012;12(1):179–94.
[130] Xiao ZG, Zhao XL. CFRP repaired welded thin-walled cross-beam connections
subject to in-plane fatigue loading. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2012;12(1):195–211.
[131] Taljsten B, Hansen CS, Schmidt JW. Strengthening of old metallic structures in fa-
tigue with prestressed and non-prestressed CFRP laminates. Constr Build Mater
2009;23(4):1665–77.
143
[132] Tsouvalis NG, Mirisiotis LS, Dimou DN. Experimental and numerical study of the
fatigue behaviour of composite patch reinforced cracked steel plates. Int J
Fatigue 2009;31(10):1613–27.
[133] Megueni A, Bouiadjra BB, Belhouari M. Disbond effect on the stress intensity fac-
tor for repairing cracks with bonded composite patch. Comput Mater Sci
2004;29:407–13.
[134] Ouinas D, Serier B, Bouiadjra BB. The effects of disbonds on the pure mode II
stress intensity factor of aluminum plate reinforced with bonded composite ma-
terials. Comput Mater Sci 2007;39:782–7.
[135] Shaat A, Fam AZ. Slender steel columns strengthened using high-modulus CFRP
plates for buckling control. J Compos Constr 2009;13(1):2–12.
[136] Silvestre N, Camotim D, Young B. On the use of the EC3 and AISI specifications to
estimate the ultimate load of CFRP-strengthened cold-formed steel lipped chan-
nel columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47(10):1102–11.
[137] Kim YJ, Harries KA. Behaviour of tee-section bracing members retrofitted with
CFRP strips subjected to axial compression. Compos B:Eng 2011;42(4):789–800.
[138] El-Tawil S, Ekiz E, Goel S, Chao S. Retraining local and global buckling behavior of
steel plastic hinges using CFRP. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67(3):261–9.
[139] Kitada T, Yamaguchi T, Matsumura M, Okada J, Ono K, Ochi N. New technologies
of steel bridges in Japan. J Constr Steel Res 2002;58(1):21–70.
[140] Hu YM. Behaviour of FRP-confined steel tubes under axial compression. BEng
Thesis, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, April; 2004.
[141] Teng J, Hu YM. Behaviour of FRP-jacketed circular steel tubes and cylindrical
shells under axial compression. Constr Build Mater 2007;21(4):827–38.
[142] Nishino T, Furukawa T. Strength and deformation capacities of circular hollow
section steel member reinforced with carbon fiber. Proceedings of the Seventh
Pacific Structural Steel Conference. American Institute of Steel Construction;
March 2004.
[143] Haedir J, Zhao XL, Grzebieta RH, Bambach MR. Non-linear analysis to predict the
moment-curvature response of CFRP-strengthened steel CHS tubular beams.
Thin-Walled Struct 2011;49:997–1006.
[144] Haedir J, Zhao XL. Design of short CFRP-reinforced steel tubular columns.
J Constr Steel Res 2011;67:497–509.
[145] Bhetwal KK, Yamada S. Effects of CFRP reinforcements on the buckling behavior
of thin-walled steel cylinders under compression. Int J Struct Stab Dyn
2012;12(1):131–51.
[146] Manos GC, Clough RW. Tank damage during the Coalinga earthquake. Earth-
quake Eng Struct Dyn 1985;13:449–66.
[147] Rotter JM. Local collapse of axially compressed pressurized thin steel cylinders.
J Struct Eng, ASCE 1990;116(7):1955–70.
[148] Chen JF, Rotter JM, Teng JG. A simple remedy for elephant’s foot buckling in cy-
lindrical silos and tanks. Adv Struct Eng 2006;9(3):409–20.
[149] Teng JG, Lam L. Behavior and modeling of fiber reinforced polymer-confined
concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2004;130(11):1713–23.
[150] Mao XY, Xiao Y. Seismic behavior of confined square CFT columns. Eng Struct
2006;28(10):1378–86.
[151] Shan JH, Chen R, Zhang WX, Xiao Y, Yi WJ, Lu FY. Behavior of concrete filled tubes
and confined concrete filled tubes under high speed impact. Adv Struct Eng
2007;10(2):209–18.
[152] Gu W, Guan CW, Zhao YH, Cao H. Experimental study on concentrically-
compressed circular concrete filled CFRP-steel composite tubular short columns.
J Shenyang Archit Civil Eng Univ 2004;20(2):118–20 (in Chinese).
[153] Tao Z, Han LH, Zhuang JP. Axial loading behavior of CFRP strengthened
concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns. Adv Struct Eng 2007;10(1):37–46.
[154] Wang ZB, Tao Z, Han LH. Performance of CFRP-strengthened concrete filled steel
tubes under axial compression. Proceedings, 10th International Symposium on
Structural Engineering for Young Experts, Hunan University, Changsha, China;
2008. p. 689–94.
[155] Liu L, Lu YY. Axial bearing capacity of short FRP confined concrete-filled steel tu-
bular columns. J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed 2010;25(3):454–8.
[156] Park JW, Hong YK, Choi SM. Behaviors of concrete filled square steel tubes con-
fined by carbon fiber sheets (CFS) under compression and cyclic loads. Steel
Compos Struct 2010;10(2):187–205.
[157] Li SQ, Chen JF, Bisby LA, Hu YM, Teng JG. Strain efficiency of FRP jackets in
FRP-confined concrete-filled circular steel tubes. Int J Struct Stab Dyn
2012;12(1):75–94.
[158] Park JW, Hong YK, Hong GS, Kim H, Choi SM. Design formulas of concrete filled
circular steel tubes reinforced by carbon fiber reinforced plastic sheets. Procedia
Eng 2011;14:2916–22.
[159] Sundarraja MC, Prabhu GG. Experimental study on CFST members strengthened
by CFRP composites under compression. J Constr Steel Res 2012;72:75–83.
[160] Tao Z, Wang ZB, Han LH, Uy B. Fire performance of concrete-filled steel tubular
columns strengthened by CFRP. Steel Compos Struct 2011;11(4):307–24.
[161] Hu YM., 2011. Behaviour and modelling of FRP-confined hollow and
concrete-filled steel tubular columns. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Struc-
tural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
[162] Hu YM, Yu T, Teng JG. FRP-confined circular concrete-filled thin steel tubes
under axial compression. J Compos Constr ASCE 2011;15(5):850–60.
[163] Teng JG, Hu YM, Yu T. Stress–strain model for concrete in FRP-confined steel tu-
bular columns [Submitted to Engineering Structures].