Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Interfacial bond behavior of FRP fabrics bonded to fiber-reinforced

geopolymer mortar
Hammad R. Khalid a, S.K. Ha b, S.M. Park a, G.M. Kim a, H.K. Lee a,
a
b

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-338, South Korea
Department of Nuclear Safety Research, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS), 62 Gwahak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-338, South Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 28 August 2015
Keywords:
Strengthening/Retrofitting
Fiber-reinforced polymers (FPRs)
Bending beam test
Interfacial fracture energy (GF,int)

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents the experimental investigation of composite-mortar three-point bending beam test
setup, used to characterize the bond behavior between concrete/mortar and fiber-reinforced polymers
(FRPs). With this aim, a series of experimental studies have been conducted by considering different
FRP fabric types (carbon/glass and carbon/aramid), epoxy adhesives (E-1 and E-2), and notch depths
(50 and 33 mm). In addition, a fiber-reinforced mortar, with different fiber contents (0, 0.5, 1 and
1.5 wt.%) was also used to investigate the effects of short fibers on the interface behavior. From the
loaddisplacement curves in three-point bending beam tests, peak load (Ppeak), ultimate mid-span deflection (dult), and interfacial fracture energy (GF,int) of different bonded interfaces were evaluated. It is concluded from this study that this test setup is useful for the comparison of different bonded interfaces as
true interfacial failure was observed, but the interfacial fracture energy (GF,int) obtained from these tests
showed sensitivity to the notch depth. The incorporation of short steel fibers into mortar was not effective to improve the interfacial bond strength as not much fiber action was observed (near the bond line)
during testing.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
FRPs are commonly applied on the external face of structural
elements with the use of an epoxy adhesive, and their strengthening performance have been reported by a number of researchers
[111]. The adhesive interface between FRPs and concrete plays
a key role in the structural performance of strengthened concrete
structures [12]. Among many possible failure modes (i.e., FRP rupture, concrete crushing, shear failure, interfacial plate-end debonding, and intermediate crack-induced interfacial debonding),
interfacial plate-end debonding is one of the most commonly
observed failure mode of FRP-strengthened concrete structures
[1315]. Therefore, an evaluation and accurate prediction of the
interfacial behavior of bonded interfaces has gained much attention by the research community [1620].
In order to understand the bond behavior of FRP-strengthened
RC structures, many experimental test methods (i.e., single or double shear-lap tests and three-point bending beam tests) and analytical bond strength models have been developed [17,2123]. A
number of researchers have adopted a lap-shear test (single or
double lap-shear tests) for developing bond strength models and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 42 350 3623; fax: +82 42 350 3610.
E-mail address: leeh@kaist.ac.kr (H.K. Lee).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.070
0263-8223/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

determining the load-slip response (interfacial fracture energy,

GF,int) of different strengthened systems. In the single lap-shear test,
a bond-slip curve of the bonded interface is determined by using
inverse analysis techniques, while different types of the bond-slip
curve can be used to fit the same experimental data [21,22]. It is also
reported that the lap-shear tests are somewhat geometry dependent [24,25]. Considering the deficiencies of lap-shear tests, some
researchers focused on the fracture energy concept and used
three-point bending beam tests to characterize the interfacial fracture energy (GF,int), required for debonding of FRPs from the concrete
surface [17,22,26,27]. This approach especially nonlinear fracture
mechanics approach has shown promising results owing to the basic
principles of mechanics for comparison of different FRP-to-concrete
bonded interfaces. However, a very limited number of studies have
been reported with this regard in the literature, therefore, a detailed
verification of this test setup is still required.
Despite the test method used for analyzing the bond behavior,
debonding generally occurs through the crack initiation and
propagation within the concrete due to its lower tensile strength
as reported by many researchers in the literature [22,28]. Yin and
Wu [29] suggested enhancing the inherited properties of
concrete itself by means of incorporating short fibers into the
concrete. Following this idea, Li et al. [30] studied the effect of
different fiber types (polypropylene and steel/polypropylene

354

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

hybrid fiber-reinforced beams) on the performance of FRP

strengthening. Fiber-reinforced beams performed much better
than the control specimens in terms of cracks within the concrete
which were delayed, thinner and closer compared with those in
the plain concrete beams. It is evident that the crack propagation
within concrete can be resisted by use of short fibers, but no
study reported the interfacial bond strength of FRPs bonded to
the fiber-reinforced concrete/mortar.
To date, very few studies has employed the three-point bending beam test setup for the prediction of interface behavior while
no study has considered the effect of notch depth on the interfacial fracture energy (GF,int) [17,22,31]. Interfacial fracture energy
should be a constant property for its consideration as true
interface property. In addition, limited studies are available on
the effectiveness of fiber-reinforcement to increase the strengthening efficiency of FRPs [29,30]. Although the concrete cover
failure can be avoided in fiber-reinforced concrete, but there is
still a possibility that the interfacial bond strength of
fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) can be the same as that of plain
concrete because not much fiber action will be present near the
bond line (i.e., 12 mm thick paste of mortar), which should be
thoroughly investigated.
Thus, the key focus of this study is to investigate the interfacial
(bond) behavior of strengthened concrete structures and validation
of composite-mortar three-point bending beam test setup. Threepoint bending beam tests were employed to characterize the
response variables i.e., peak load (Ppeak), ultimate mid-span deflection (dult), and interfacial fracture energy (GF,int). A parametric study
includes two different types of FRP fabrics (i.e., carbon/glass and
carbon/aramid hybrid fabrics) to account for the effects of different
fabric types, epoxy adhesives, and notch depths (ao). Experiments
were designed to investigate different crack propagation mechanisms and interfacial fracture energy values. Fiber-reinforced mortar with three different contents of fibers was used to investigate
the effect of short fibers on the interfacial bond strength. Through
a comparative study of four different series in terms of fiber content, the feasibility of the fiber-reinforcement has been assessed
in this study. Following experimental findings, a statistical analysis
was performed to investigate the effect and significance of different parameters on the response variables.

sand was used as a main aggregate, while 30% of that (by weight)
was replaced with bottom ash to reduce the self-weight of mortar
and enhance sustainability. Four cases with different fractions of
steel fibers were studied (0, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 wt.%) to investigate
the effect of the steel fiber content on the interfacial bond
behavior. The length, diameter and tensile strength of the steel
fibers, used in this study, were 13 mm, 2 lm, and in the range of
27004000 MPa, respectively.
Three types of tests were performed to measure the basic material properties of plain and fiber-reinforced specimens (e.g., compressive strength, elastic modulus, Poissons ratio, tensile strength,
and fracture energy). For compression (ASTM C39 [32]; ASTM
C469 [33]) and splitting tensile tests (ASTM C 496 [34]), four cylindrical specimens, sized 100
200 mm (diameter
height) were
tested for each series. In the designation of series, SF-F0, SF-F0.5,
SF-F1, and SF-F1.5 represents specimens with 0, 0.5, 1, and 1.5 wt.
% of steel fibers, respectively. The fracture energy (GF) of mortar
specimens was measured by the work-of-fracture method, proposed by Hillerborg [35] where GF is the energy required to create,
propagate and fully break a unit area of crack in the concrete [36].
Three-point bending beam tests were conducted on notched beam
specimens to determine GF. The dimensions of the specimens were
chosen according to the recommendations of RILEM Committee 50
[37] and RILEM committee 162 [38] for plain and fiber-reinforced
mortar specimens, respectively. The geometry and test setup of
the three-point notched beam tests is shown in Fig. 1. Details of
the calculation of the fracture energy can be found in RILEM recommendations [37] and Petersson [39].
0
All the specimens exhibited compressive strength (f c ) of above
50 MPa. While steel fiber-reinforced specimens (SF-F0.5, SF-F1, and
SF-F1.5) showed marginally higher compressive strength, but the
elastic modulus was relatively lower in the comparison with that
of the control specimens. The Poissons ratio of all the series was
found to be around 0.2, typical value for concrete and mortar.
During the test, the failure of control specimens was relatively brittle compared with the fiber-reinforced specimens due to a fiber
bridging effect. Averaged results of compression tests are detailed
in Table 1.

Table 1
Compressive strength, elastic modulus, and Poissons ratio of plain and fiberreinforced geopolymer mortar.

2. Material properties
2.1. Geopolymer mortar
Two types of binders, coal fly ash (FA) and granulated blast furnace slag (BFS) were used. Both the binders were mixed with a
weight ratio of 1:1 to prepare the geopolymer binder. Two types
of fine aggregates were used (river sand and bottom ash). River

Specimen

Compressive
strength (MPa)

Elastic modulus
(GPa)

Poissons ratio

SF-F0 (Control)
SF-F0.5
SF-F1.0
SF-F1.5

52.99
54.80
56.87
56.75

21.40
20.34
20.06
20.00

0.211
0.223
0.24
0.2

Fig. 1. Three-point notched beam test setup (dimensions in mm).

355

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

of fibers (SF-F0.5) increased the fracture energy by 236% that of

the control series (SF-F0), while an increase of 490% and 619%
was observed for series SF-F1 and SF-F1.5, respectively. Table 2
includes the averaged results of each series.

The splitting tensile strength (ft) and fracture energy (GF) of the
geopolymer mortar specimens were significantly enhanced by
fiber reinforcement. In splitting tensile tests, the crack widths of
fiber-reinforced specimens were relatively narrower compared
with the control specimens, and the specimens remained intact
due to the fiber bridging effect as shown in Fig. 2. Fiberreinforced specimens SF-F0.5, SF-F1, and SF-F1.5 showed an
increase in the tensile strength by 12%, 13%, and 26% that of the
control series (SF-F0), respectively. The splitting tensile test results
are summarized in Table 2. In notched beam tests, fiber-reinforced
specimens showed a longer post peak behavior attributed to fiberbridging and fiber pull-out phases, while plain mortar specimens
showed a sudden drop in the loading value after reaching the peak
load. Typical loaddisplacement curves of plain and fiberreinforced geopolymer mortar specimens are shown in Fig. 3. For
plain specimens, the load dropped to zero at about 1.3 mm
mid-span deflection while fiber-reinforced specimens exhibited
an ultimate mid-span deflection of about 79 mm. Only 0.5 wt.%

2.2. Epoxy adhesive

The epoxy adhesives used in this experimental study were
CEMEDINE SG-EPO EP008 (E-1) and AXIA EP-30G (E-2), and were
curable at an ambient temperature. This aspect was deemed significant as the curing temperature was highly compatible with the
field conditions. Both the epoxy adhesives were two part epoxies
with high viscosity. For a tensile test of epoxy adhesives, coupon
specimens were prepared in accordance with ASTM D 638 (Type1) [40]. Universal testing machine (INSTRON 5583), with a load cell
capacity of 5 kN, was used for the tensile tests. Tests were conducted under displacement control mode at a crosshead speed of
5 mm/min, and an extensometer was used to record the longitudinal displacement in gage length section of 50 mm. Specimens were
tested for each epoxy type until 5 such specimens were obtained of
which failure occurred within gage length section (narrow section)
as recommended by ASTM D 638 [40].
Adhesive E-1 showed relatively higher tensile strength than E-2
but its stiffness was lower compared with adhesive E-2 (Table 3).
The tensile strength of adhesive E-1 and E-2 was 36.1 MPa and
25.6 MPa, while the elastic modulus was 1.7 GPa and 2.57 GPa,
respectively. The ultimate strain capacity of adhesives E-1 and
E-2 was 3.4% and 1.98%, respectively.
2.3. FRP composites
Two types of bidirectional hybrid FRP fabrics (carbon/glass and
carbon aramid) were used in this study. Both the fabrics were

(b) Fiber-reinforced (SF-F1.5)

(a) Plain specimen (SF-F0)

Fig. 2. Failure modes of plain and fiber-reinforced specimens.

Table 2
Tensile strength and fracture energy of plain and fiber-reinforced geopolymer mortar.
Specimen

Tensile strength
(MPa)

Increase
ratio (%)

Fracture energy,
GF (N/m)

Increase
ratio (%)

SF-F0 (Control)
SF-F0.5
SF-F1
SF-F1.5

2.22
2.49
2.512
2.783

12.3
13.26
25.46

70.8
237.55
417.66
508.75

236
490
619

Table 3
Tensile test results of epoxy adhesives.
Properties

E-1

E-2

Tensile strength, MPa

Elastic modulus, GPa
Ultimate strain, %
Curing, days
Number of specimens

36.1
1.7
3.4
14
6

25.6
2.57
1.98
14
11

2500

Comparison of load-deflection curves

Load (N)

2000

1500

Control
Fiber-reinforced
specimen

1000

500

0
0

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 3. Typical loaddeflection curves of plain and fiber-reinforced specimens.

356

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

manufactured by MSC Korea Co., Ltd [41]. During fabrication, carbon fibers were introduced along the principal axis with other
fibers (glass or aramid) being in the lateral direction (at 90). FRP
fabric specimens were tested in accordance with ASTM D 3039
[42]. Rectangular specimens (250 mm length
25 mm width)
were prepared following the recommended dimensions by ASTM
D 3039 [42]. In the designations of specimens, C, G, A, and E represents carbon fibers, glass fibers, aramid fibers, and epoxy adhesive,
respectively. The following number (1 or 2) represents type of
epoxy adhesive (E-1 or E-2). An automatic coating device was used
to accurately control the thickness of the adhesive, and adhesive
was applied from both the sides of FRP fabric. On average, a uniform thickness of 0.33 mm was achieved for all the composite
sheets while thickness of fabric itself was around 0.27 mm. After
curing for 7 days at an ambient temperature, the composite sheets
were cut into rectangular strips with a width of 25 mm and length
of 250 mm. Universal testing machine (INSTRON 5583), with a load
cell capacity of 50 kN, was used for tensile tests. Tests were
conducted under displacement control mode at a crosshead speed
of 2 mm/min as recommended in the ASTM standard [42]. An
extensometer, with a gage length of 50 mm, was used to record
the longitudinal displacement in gage length section. Specimens
were tested for each fabric type with both the epoxies (i.e., E-1
and E-2) until 5 specimens with failure in the gauge length section
were obtained.
It was observed that the tensile strength of C/G fabric composites was relatively more dependent on the epoxy type in comparison with that of C/A fabric composites. The average values of
tensile strength, ultimate strain capacity, and elastic modulus of
composite specimens with different epoxy adhesives are presented
in Table 4. Specimen C/G-E2 showed tensile strength of around 15%
higher than that of C/G-E1, while the tensile strength of specimen
C/A-E2 and C/A-E1 was almost similar (only 4% difference). Since
the elastic modulus of adhesive E-2 was higher than that of adhesive E-1 (Table 3), that of respective composite specimen C/G-E2
was similarly higher than that of C/G-E1. The elastic modulus of
specimen C/G-E2 was 28% higher than the corresponding specimen
C/G-E1 while specimen C/A-E2 showed only 5% higher elastic modulus than that of the specimen C/A-E1. The ultimate strain capacity
of specimens C/G-E1, C/G-E2, C/A-E1, and C/A-E2 were 1.35%,

1.23%, 1.31%, and 1.34%, respectively. All composite specimens

exhibited linear stressstrain behavior up to failure.

Table 4
Tensile test results of hybrid FRP composites.

Initially, prismatic specimens of 100 mm width
100 mm

height
400 mm length were casted into steel molds. After curing
of 28 days, two prismatic specimens were bonded head-to-head as
shown in Fig. 4. Before bonding of two specimens, top crosssectional surfaces of both the specimens were grinded to remove
the loose particles. After grinding, putty (ALTECO Epo-putty) was
filled within the small holes present on the surfaces to be bonded
together followed by the application of scotch tape on one of the
beams to create an artificial notch of a certain depth. Notches with

Specimen

Tensile
strength
(MPa)

Ultimate
strain (%)

Elastic
modulus
(GPa)

Curing
(days)

No. of
specimens

C/G-E1
C/G-E2
C/A-E1
C/A-E2

302.4
346.86
394.76
379.82

1.35
1.23
1.31
1.34

23.80
30.40
24.78
26.11

14
14
14
14

8
6
6
7

3. Experimental program of composite-mortar bending beam

test
The experiments were designed to obtain the true interfacial
properties of FRP-to-mortar bonded interfaces. A comprehensive
parametric study was conducted to investigate the effects of different parameters and sensitivity of three-point bending beam test
setup on the initial depth of notch (a0). Types of FRP fabrics
(carbon/glass and carbon/aramid), epoxy adhesives (E-1 and E-2),
content of steel fibers (0, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 wt.%), and notch depths
(50 and 33 mm) were varied for this purpose.
3.1. Test description
Fracture mechanics approach has been employed to characterize the peak load (Ppeak), ultimate mid-span deflection (dult), and
interfacial fracture energy (GF,int) of FRP-to-mortar bonded interfaces. Three-point bending beam test setup, proposed by RILEM
[37], was modified with due consideration of the findings of Qiao
and Yu [17]. The geometry of the specimens, used for the threepoint bending beam tests is shown in Fig. 4. A total of 40 specimens
were prepared for the comparison of different parameters. As listed
in Table 5, specimens were classified into two main series by notch
depths (50 and 33 mm). These notch depths were selected considering the RILEM recommendations [37] and previous studies from
the literature [17,22]. Each series include different FRP fabric types
(C/G and C/A), epoxy types (E-1 and E-2), and steel fiber content
(0, 0.5, 1 and 1.5 wt.%), accumulating of total 10 different cases for
each series. In the designation of the specimens, four codes were
used as follows: the code segment C/G or C/A, E-1 or E-2, F0,
F0.5, F1 or F1.5, and 50 or 33 denote the fabric type, epoxy type,
steel fiber content, and notch depth, respectively. For example, the
code C/G-E1-F0-50 refers to the specimens in which carbon/glass
fabric is bonded to the mortar specimens, having no steel fibers,
with the help of epoxy E-1, and the notch depth is 50 mm.
3.2. Preparation of specimens and test setup

Fig. 4. Three-point bending beam test setup (dimensions are in millimeters).

357

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

Table 5
Test plan for composite-mortar bending beam test.
Case

Specimen

Fabric type

Epoxy type

Fiber content (%)

Notch depth (ao)

No. of specimens

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

C/G-E1-F0-50
C/A-E1-F0-50
C/G-E1-F0.5-50
C/A-E1-F0.5-50
C/G-E2-F0.5-0
C/A-E2-F0.5-50
C/G-E1-F1-50
C/A-E1-F1-50
C/G-E1-F1.5-50
C/A-E1-F1.5-50

Carbon/Glass
Carbon/Aramid
Carbon/Glass
Carbon/Aramid
Carbon/Glass
Carbon/Aramid
Carbon/Glass
Carbon/Aramid
Carbon/Glass
Carbon/Aramid

1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1

0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1.5
1.5

50

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

C/G-E1-F0-33
C/A-E1-F0-33
C/G-E1-F0.5-33
C/A-E1-F0.5-33
C/G-E2-F0.5-33
C/A-E2-F0.5-33
C/G-E1-F1-33
C/A-E1-F1-33
C/G-E1-F1.5-33
C/A-E1-F1.5-33

Carbon/Glass
Carbon/Aramid
Carbon/Glass
Carbon/Aramid
Carbon/Glass
Carbon/Aramid
Carbon/Glass
Carbon/Aramid
Carbon/Glass
Carbon/Aramid

1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1

0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1.5
1.5

33

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

two different depths (50 mm and 33 mm) were casted for two different series. Following the surface preparation, FRP fabric was
applied on the beam without scotch tape. After application of
FRP fabric, a thin layer of epoxy adhesive was applied on the top
of FRP and the second beam was kept on the top of the first beam.
Polystyrene boards and steel clamps were used to hold the beams
straight and aligned during the curing period.
For bending beam test specimens, the same test setup was
employed as described in Section 2 for the fracture energy tests
with exception of different loading span and beam length. Fig. 4
schematically illustrates the test set-up used for the three-point
loading bending beam test. A 5 kN load cell was used for these tests
with a moving head speed of 0.2 mm/min as recommended by
RILEM committee 162 [38]. Mid-point displacement (d) was

recorded by LVDTs at two locations, one at each side of the beam,

and an average value was taken from the readings of these two
LVDTs.
4. Test results and discussion
This experimental study (i.e., different notch depths, fabric and
epoxy types) was conducted to validate the applicability of the
properties obtained by the three-point bending beam test as to
understand true interface behavior. In addition, the effect of steel
fiber content on the interface strength was also investigated. The
typical loaddeflection curve of the test is plotted in Fig. 5. All
specimens showed similar loaddeflection behavior with different
peak loads (Ppeak) and ultimate mid-span deflections (dult). The

Fig. 5. Typical loaddeflection curve of bending beam test.

358

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

peak load (Ppeak), ultimate deflection (dult), and interfacial

fracture energy (GF,int) of the bonded interfaces were calculated
through loaddeflection curves of the tested specimens, and
summarized in Table 6. Specimens C/G-E1-F1.5-50 were damaged

Table 6
Summary of the averaged bending beam test results.
Exp no.

Specimen

Ppeak (N)

dult (mm)

GF,int (N/m)

1
2
3
4
5

C/G-E1-F0-50
C/G-E1-F0.5-50
C/G-E2-F0.5-50
C/G-E1-F1-50
C/G-E1-F1.5-50

1353.8
1250.78
1142.89
1343.97
1402.81

1.18
0.98
0.87
0.89
0.75

106.7
102.3
97.34
99.36
94.04

6
7
8
9
10

C/A-E1-F0-50
C/A-E1-F0.5-50
C/A-E2-F0.5-50
C/A-E1-F1-50
C/A-E1-F1.5-50

1383.22
1231.15
1290
1206.63

0.92
0.78
0.76
0.75

97.87
85.9
86.30
85.92

11
12
13
14
15

C/G-E1-F0-33
C/G-E1-F0.5-33
C/G-E2-F0.5-33
C/G-E1-F1-33
C/G-E1-F1.5-33

1447
1319.45
1128.2
1196.8
1422.46

1.135
1.16
1.048
1.2
0.89

94.25
98.50
61.24
74.58
62.72

16
17
18
19
20

C/A-E1-F0-33
C/A-E1-F0.5-33
C/A-E2-F0.5-33
C/A-E1-F1-33
C/A-E1-F1.5-33

1152.69
1290.03
1314.5
1417.53
1265.49

1.05
1.19
1.045
1.006
0.83

68.31
76.05
64.70
70.28
57.65

during testing, therefore, corresponding results were excluded in

the comparative study.
4.1. Failure mode
Wu et al. [43,44] identified that in most of cases interfacial
debonding initiates from a localized crack formation within the
concrete, and further propagates within the interfacial concrete
near the bond line. Based on the results of FE analysis, Wu and
Yin [28] concluded that if the interfacial bond condition is well
guaranteed as addressed by Meier [45], the fracture energy of concrete is the controlling factor to prevent crack propagation. So it is
evident that the properties of concrete are the controlling factors
for the strengthening performance and limits the strengthening
efficiency of FRPs.
During these tests, true interfacial failure was observed for all
the specimens similar to the above description (i.e., crack propagated within about <1 or 2 mm thick layer of mortar near the bond
line). A typical failure pattern of specimens with different fiber
contents and notch depths are shown in Fig. 6. A similar failure
pattern was observed for all specimens (i.e., plain and fiberreinforced mortar specimens), indicating that the fibers contribution was negligible near the bond line (<1 mm thick layer of mortar
paste was detached). After reaching the peak load (Ppeak), a single
crack initiated near the end of the artificial notch which rapidly
propagated upward and specimens broke into two pieces. In
fiber-reinforced specimen, only a few number of fibers were visible
on the failure surface.

(a) Without fibers

(b) 0.5% fibers

(c) 1% fibers

(d) 1.5% fibers

(e) 50 mm notch

(f) 33 mm notch

Fig. 6. Typical failure patterns of bending beam test specimens.

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

4.2. Effect of fabric type on Ppeak, dult and GF,int

Two types of FRP fabrics were used in this study (C/G and C/A
hybrid fabrics with carbon fibers in the principal direction i.e., parallel to the direction of application of the fabric). Since both fabrics
have the same carbon fibers in the principal direction with different fibers (i.e., glass or aramid) in the lateral direction, therefore,
the results with different fabric types were almost similar with
minor difference attributed to the fibers in the lateral direction.
Fig. 7(a) represents a comparison of peak load (Ppeak) of specimens which correspond to the load required to initiate and propagate cracking with different FRP fabric types. Specimens with
different FRP fabrics showed similar peak load capacities. Specimens with C/G fabric generally showed marginally higher Ppeak
than those with C/A fabric. Specimens with a notch depth of
50 mm (1st series) exhibited almost same Ppeak with different FRP
fabrics while specimens C/G-E1-F0-33 and C/G-E1-F1.5-33 with a
notch depth of 33 mm (2nd series) showed about 25% and 12%
higher Ppeak compared with the corresponding C/A fabric specimens, respectively. A comparison of the ultimate deflection where
the applied load reached zero, provided in Fig. 7(b), revealed that
the failure of specimens with C/A fabric was relatively brittle in
comparison with the failure of specimens with C/G fabric. C/A fabric
specimens showed a relatively rapid decrease in the applied load
after reaching the peak load compared with the C/G fabric specimens. The ultimate deflection capacities of C/G fabric specimens
were higher than that of the corresponding C/A fabric specimens
within a range of about 728%. Lower dult of the C/A fabric specimens could be due to the inherited high stiffness of Aramid/Kevlar
fibers over glass fibers which may lead to lower ductility of the
bonded interface (Agarwal and Broutman, 1990 Table 1.1 [46]).
The interfacial fracture energy (GF,int) values of all specimens are
given in Fig. 7(c). Specimens with C/G fabric exhibited relatively
higher GF,int compared with the specimens with C/A fabric. This
was attributed to the relatively higher ultimate deflection of C/G
fabric specimens with longer post peak curves than C/A fabric
specimens. C/G fabric specimens showed higher GF,int in the range
of about 638% compared with that of C/A fabric specimens (Fig. 7
(c)). Specimens C/G-E1-F0-50, C/G-E1-F0.5-50, C/G-E1-F1-50,
C/G-E1-F0-33, and C/G-E1-F0.5-33 exhibited about 9%, 19%, 16%, 38%,
and 29% higher GF,int than the corresponding C/A fabric specimens,
respectively. Overall, the variations of GF,int values of the 2nd series
specimens were higher than that of 1st series specimens. Since the
bonded area (ligament area, Alig) was higher in the 2nd series,
therefore, it may have led to higher differences in GF,int (against
different FRP fabrics) values compared with those in the 1st series.
4.3. Effect of epoxy adhesives on Ppeak, dult and GF,int
As the interface behavior is significantly influenced by the properties of the epoxy adhesives [45,18], two different epoxy adhesives
(E-1 and E-2) were used to explore the effectiveness of the threepoint bending beam test setup. The corresponding results for the
specimens with different epoxy adhesives are plotted in Fig. 8.
C/G fabric specimens exhibited more variations in the peak
load, ultimate deflection, and interfacial fracture energy against
different adhesive types compared with the C/A fabric specimens.
It is worth mentioning that the identical behavior was also
observed in the tensile tests of FRP composites (see Section 3.2).
This observation indicates that different FRPs exhibit different
behavior to different adhesive types. Fig. 8(a) shows the comparison of peak load for specimens with different epoxy adhesives.
Specimens C/G-E1-F0.5-50 and C/G-E1-F0.5-33 showed about 9%
and 17% higher Ppeak than the corresponding specimens with adhesive E-2, respectively, while the Ppeak of both C/A fabric specimens
was similar. The effect of epoxy adhesive on the ultimate deflection

359

is plotted in Fig. 8(b). Since ultimate strain (%) capacity of adhesive

E-1 was higher than the adhesive E-2 (Table 4), adhesive E-1 specimens showed higher ultimate deflection values compared with
the specimens with adhesive E-2. Specimens C/G-E1-F0.5-50,
C/G-E1-F0.5-33, and C/A-E1-F0.5-33 exhibited about 13%, 11%,
and 14% higher dult compared with the specimens with adhesive
E-2, respectively.
The interfacial fracture energy (GF,int) of specimens with different epoxy adhesives (E-1 and E-2) are presented in Fig. 8(c). For
C/G fabric, specimens with epoxy E-1 exhibited about 5% and
61% higher GF,int for 50 mm and 33 mm notch depths, respectively,
compared with the corresponding specimens with epoxy E-2. C/A
fabric specimen C/A-E1-F0.5-33 showed about 18% higher GF,int,
while GF,int of specimen C/A-E1-F0.5-50 was almost similar to the
corresponding adhesive E-2 specimen. Effect of epoxy adhesives
was also more significant in case of 2nd series which further justifies the effect of higher ligament area (Alig).
4.4. Effect of steel fibers content in geopolymer mortar on Ppeak, dult
and GF,int
As explained in Section 4.1, the behavior of crack initiation and
propagation was observed in all the specimens. The crack propagated within 12 mm thick layer of mortar paste near the bond line
(i.e., crack propagated within interfacial mortar). It was observed
that the contribution of fiber reinforcement was ineffective to
increase the interfacial bond strength of FRP-to-mortar bonded
interfaces although the fracture energy (GF) of fiber-reinforced
specimens were higher than that of plain mortar specimens (Section 2.1). Instead, some of the fiber-reinforced specimens showed
lower interfacial bond strength in comparison with the plain mortar specimens. Since a thin layer of mortar paste was detached during debonding, no fiber bridging or fiber pull-out phases were
observed during testing. Only the ends of the fibers were observed
on the cracked surfaces. Zhang et al. [47] investigated the effect of
fly ash content on the fibermatrix interface bond of fiberreinforced geopolymer extruded composites. SEM images analysis
(Fig. 11 of Zhang et al. [47]) revealed that many gaps with large
size were present in the composites with the fly ash content of
30% and 50%. As the geopolymeric binder used in this study also
consisted of 50% of fly ash, the higher percentage of fly ash was
likely to have led to a weaker fibermatrix bond interface, as
observed by Zhang et al. [47] which ultimately resulted in a
decrease in the bond strength.
Fig. 9(a) shows the effect of fiber content on the peak load of
bending beam test specimens. In general, fiber-reinforced
specimens exhibited relatively lower peak load compared with
the corresponding plain geopolymer mortar specimens. Specimens
C/G-E1-F0.5-50, C/G-E1-F0.5-33, C/G-E1-F1-33, C/A-E1-F0.5-50,
and C/A-E1-F1-50 showed about 8%, 10%, 21%, 12%, and 15% lower
Ppeak compared with the corresponding plain mortar specimens,
respectively. This could be due to weak fibermatrix interface
inclusions which resulted in relatively loose geopolymeric paste
near the bond line. The ultimate deflection (dult) of fiberreinforced specimens was also lower than that of plain geopolymer
specimens (Fig. 9(b)). In fiber-reinforced geoplymar mortar specimens, the propagation of crack was more rapid due to weaker
fibermatrix bond interface. Thus, the ultimate deflection
decreased as the fiber content increased e.g., dult of specimens
C/G-E1-F0.5-50, C/G-E1-F1-50, and C/G-E1-F1.5-50 were 0.98,
0.89, and 0.75 mm, respectively, whereas that of specimen
C/G-E1-F0-50 was 1.18 mm (Fig. 9(b)). The behavior of other specimens was also observed to be similar.
The interfacial fracture energy (GF,int) of specimens reinforced
with different percentages of short steel fibers is shown in Fig. 9
(c). The GF,int of fiber-reinforced specimens was marginally lower

360

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

Fig. 7. Effect of FRP fabric on, Ppeak dult, and GF,int.

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

Fig. 8. Effect of epoxy adhesive on, Ppeak dult, and GF,int.

361

362

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

Fig. 9. Effect of fiber content on Ppeak, dult, and GF,int.

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

than that of corresponding plain geopolymer specimens. It was

observed that as the fiber content increased (i.e., 1 and 1.5 wt.%),
the interfacial fracture energy decreased. Specimens with 0.5 wt.
% steel fibers exhibited almost identical GF,int to that of plain
geopolymer specimens, while specimens with 1 and 1.5 wt.% steel
fibers experienced a decrease in the interfacial fracture energy. A
decrease in the interfacial fracture energy of C/G fabric specimens
C/G-E1-F1.5-50, C/G-E1-F1-33, and C/G-E1-F1.5-33 was 13%, 26%,
and 50%, respectively, while specimens C/A-E1-F1-50, C/A-E1F1.5-50, and C/A-E1-F1.5-33 showed about 1418% decrease in
GF,int. This decrease in the interfacial fracture energy with an
increase in the fiber content further justified the effect of weak
fibermatrix bond interface as observed by other researchers
[47]. Results of these experiments revealed that the fiberreinforcement may resist against concrete cover failure while the
interfacial bond strength remains vulnerable. Eventually, chances
of interfacial bond failure are likely to increase with the increased
resistance to concrete cover failure.
4.5. Effect of notch depth on Ppeak, dult and GF,int
For validation of bending beam test setup, specimens with two
different notch depths were tested (50 and 33 mm). Fig. 10(a)
shows the variation of peak load with different notch depths. It
was evident that the specimens with a larger ligament area (Alig)
will exhibit higher peak load compared with the specimens with
a smaller Alig. Specimens with a notch depth of 33 mm showed relatively greater peak loads compared with the specimens with
50 mm notch depth with some inconsistencies in the results
(e.g., specimens C/G-E1-F1-33 and C/A-E1-F0-33). C/G fabric specimens with 33 mm notch depth showed almost similar peak load
(maximum 7% higher) to the corresponding specimens with a
notch depth of 50 mm. The Ppeak of specimens C/G-E1-F0-33, C/GE1-F0.5-33, C/A-E1-F0.5-33, and C/A-E1-F1-33 was found to be
7%, 5%, 5%, and 17% higher than that of the corresponding specimens of 1st series. The ultimate deflection (dult) capacities of 2nd
series specimens were also greater than 1st series specimens i.e.,
dult decreased with an increase in the notch depth. A comparison
of the ultimate deflection is plotted in Fig. 10(b). 2nd series specimens showed higher dult than the 1st series specimens in a range of
about 453%.
The interfacial fracture energy (GF,int) of all specimens with different notch depths are plotted in Fig. 10(c). The results of the two
series revealed that the GF,int in a bending beam test was sensitive
to the notch depth. Specimens of 2nd series exhibited lower GF,int
than that of 1st series. 2nd series specimens showed relatively less
GF,int in the range of about 494% compared with the 1st series
specimens. Specimens C/G-E1-F0-33, C/G-E1-F0.5-33, C/G-E1-F133, C/G-E1-F1.5-33, C/A-E1-F0-33, C/A-E1-F0.5-33, and C/A-E1F1-33 showed about 12%, 4%, 25%, 33%, 30%, 11%, and 18% less
GF,int than that of the corresponding specimens of 1st series, respectively. Even plain geopolymer mortar specimens C/G-E1-F0-33 and
C/A-E1-F0-33 showed 13% and 43% decrease in GF,int when notch
depth decreased from 50 to 33 mm.
The parametric study results provided an insight into that the
interfacial fracture energy (GF,int) is not an independent property.
Instead, it showed sensitivity to the notch depth. For consideration
of interfacial fracture energy as a true interface property, it must be
independent of the initial notch depth. Based on the results of
other parameters, it is evident that the bending beam test setup
is effective to study the different strengthening systems (i.e., different fabric and adhesive types), but consideration of GF,int as a true
interfacial property is doubtful, therefore needs further verification. Since only two notch depths were considered in this study,
therefore, further studies are still necessary to extend the experience and knowledge on the influence of the notch depth on GF,int.

363

5. Statistical analysis
5.1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
In this part of the study, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of
the data was performed for the response variables, Ppeak, dult and
GF,int, and the influence of different experimental parameters
(i.e., FRP fabric type, epoxy adhesive, steel fiber content, and
notch depth) on the results was investigated. The analysis was
carried out for a confidence level of 95% using Minitab software
[48]. The ANOVA (general linear model) results for Ppeak, dult,
and GF,int are presented in Tables 79, respectively. The last
columns of the tables represent the percentage contributions (P)
of each factor to the total variation i.e., the degree of influence
on the response variables.
According to the ANOVA for Ppeak (Table 7), the steel fiber content has a statistical and physical significance on Ppeak with a percentage contribution of 21.76%. The effect of the other remaining
parameters seemed insignificant as the percentage contributions
were relatively low. From the analysis in Table 7, it is apparent that
the sum of the percentage contributions of all the parameters was
less than that of the associated error of 74%. These results are compatible with the experimental findings for Ppeak. In the experimental results, Ppeak did not show a particular tendency against
individual experimental parameters. That is, for different FRP
fabrics, specimens with 50 mm notch depth showed similar Ppeak
while specimens with 33 mm notch depth exhibited higher Ppeak
for C/G fabric specimens; similarly C/G fabric specimens showed
difference in Ppeak for different epoxy adhesives but values of Ppeak
for C/A fabric specimens were similar for different adhesive types
(see Sections 4.2 and 4.3).
Table 8 shows the ANOVA results for dult against different
parameters. From the analysis, it is evident that the notch depth
and fiber content were the most significant parameters with a percentage contribution of 34.04% and 34.91%, respectively. The percentage contribution was greater than that of the associated
error which was about 17% for dult. On the other hand, epoxy type
(P = 4.16%) has the least statistical and physical significance on the
response variable dult, followed by the fabric type having a percentage contribution of 9.45%.
The ANOVA results for the response variable GF,int are shown in
Table 9. The analysis revealed that the notch depth had the highest
influence on the interfacial fracture energy of FRP-to-mortar
bonded joints with a percentage contribution of 52.11%. The next
significant parameter was the fiber content (P = 13.45%) followed
by the fabric type with the percentage contribution of 12.47%
whereas epoxy type was the least significant parameter with a
percentage contribution of 7.85%. It is worth noticing that the
error associated with the ANOVA analysis for the GF,int was
approximately 14%. These findings further justify the dependence
of GF,int on the initial depth of notch in three-point bending beam
tests as notch depth was found to be the most significant
parameter.
5.2. Signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio
The concept of signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio, well known in the
communication industry, was first introduced by Taguchi in the
field of quality engineering for the evaluation of measurement systems as well as for the function of products and process [49]. Based
on the response characteristics of interest, several S/N ratios are
available i.e., larger/higher is better (HB), nominal is better (NB),
or lower is better (LB) [49].
For response variables Ppeak, dult, and GF,int, the HB was
employed since a higher value is desired for these response
variables. For HB, loss function Lij can be expressed by Eq. (1)

364

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

Fig. 10. Effect of notch depth on Ppeak, dult, and GF,int.

365

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

Table 7
ANOVA for Ppeak.
Source

Degree of freedom (DOF)

Sum of squares (SS)

Mean squares (MS)

F-ratio

Percentage contribution

Fabric type
Epoxy type
Fiber content
Notch depth
Error
Total

1
1
3
1
12
18

1484
5822
38,324
167
130,313
176,111

1484.4
5822.3
12774.6
167.3
10859.4

0.14
0.54
1.18
0.02

0.84
3.31
21.76
0.1
73.99
100

Table 8
ANOVA for dult.
Source

Degree of freedom (DOF)

Sum of squares (SS)

Mean squares (MS)

F-ratio

Percentage contribution

Fabric type
Epoxy type
Fiber content
Notch depth
Error
Total

1
1
3
1
12
18

0.04254
0.01872
0.15713
0.15321
0.07853
0.45013

0.042544
0.018721
0.052376
0.153209
0.006544

6.5
2.86
8
23.41

9.45
4.16
34.91
34.04
17.45
100

Source

Degree of freedom (DOF)

Sum of squares (SS)

Mean squares (MS)

F-ratio

Percentage contribution

Fabric type
Epoxy type
Fiber content
Notch depth
Error
Total

1
1
3
1
12
18

561.3
353.4
607
2345.7
634.2
4501.6

561.31
353.38
202.34
2345.69
52.85

10.62
6.69
3.83
44.38

12.47
7.85
13.45
52.11
14.09
100

Table 9
ANOVA for GF,int.

gij 10logLij

A higher g value corresponds to a better performance [51].

Hence, the optimum level of the experimental variables is the level
with the greatest g value [51]. S/N ratios were calculated using Eqs.
(1) and (2), and are summarized in Table 10. The average S/N ratios
for each process parameter level are graphically presented in
Table 10
S/N ratio for all experiments.
Exp no.

Specimen

Ppeak (N)

dult (mm)

GF,int (N/m)

1
2
3
4
5

C/G-E1-F0-50
C/G-E1-F0.5-50
C/G-E2-F0.5-50
C/G-E1-F1-50
C/G-E1-F1.5-50

62.63
61.94
61.16
62.57
62.94

1.44
-0.18
-1.21
-1.01
-2.50

40.56
40.20
39.77
39.94
39.47

6
7
8
9

C/A-E1-F0-50
C/A-E1-F0.5-50
C/A-E2-F0.5-50
C/A-E1-F1-50

62.82
61.81
62.21
61.63

-0.72
-2.16
-2.38
-2.50

39.81
38.68
38.72
38.68

11
12
13
14
15

C/G-E1-F0-33
C/G-E1-F0.5-33
C/G-E2-F0.5-33
C/G-E1-F1-33
C/G-E1-F1.5-33

63.21
62.41
61.05
61.56
63.06

1.10
1.29
0.41
1.58
-1.01

39.49
39.87
35.74
37.45
35.95

16
17
18
19
20

C/A-E1-F0-33
C/A-E1-F0.5-33
C/A-E2-F0.5-33
C/A-E1-F1-33
C/A-E1-F1.5-33

61.23
62.21
62.38
63.03
62.05

0.42
1.51
0.38
0.05
-1.62

36.69
37.62
36.22
36.94
35.22

Mean S/N ratio for Ppeak (dB)

n
1X
1
n k1 y2ij

Lij

Figs. 1113. From the main effect plots for Ppeak (Fig. 11), it is evident that fiber content is the most influential parameter attributed
to its sharp graphical slope, followed by epoxy adhesive. A much
lower slope of FRP fabric and notch depth shows that the effect
of these parameters is not significant.

62.8
62.6
62.4
62.2
62
61.8
61.6
C/G C/A

E-1 E-2

Fi,0 Fi,0.5 Fi,1 Fi,1.5

N33 N50

Process parameter level

Fig. 11. Main effect plots for S/N for Ppeak.

Mean S/N ratio for ult (dB)

[4950], while the S/N ratio gij for the ith performance characteristic in the jth experiment is given by Eq. (2) [49].

1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2

C/G C/A

E-1 E-2

Fi,0 Fi,0.5 Fi,1 Fi,1.5

Process parameter level

Fig. 12. Main effect plots for S/N for dult.

N33 N50

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

Mean S/N ratio for GF,int (dB)

366

5.3. Mathematical modeling

40
39.5

For prediction of the response variables, mathematical relationships between the experimental parameters and performance
measures were established. A multiple linear regression analysis
was conducted for this purpose using Minitab software [48]. The
generic multiple linear regression model is given by Eq. (3)

39
38.5
38
37.5

Y bo b1 X 1 b2 X 2    bN X N

37
36.5
C/G C/A

E-1 E-2

Fi,0 Fi,0.5 Fi,1 Fi,1.5

where Y is the response variable; constant (bo) is the y-intercept;

X1 . . . XN are the values of the predictor variables; and coefficients
(b1 . . . bN) represent the estimated change in the mean response
variable for each unit change in the predictor value. During analysis,
the values of 1 and 2 were assigned to the FRP fabric type C/G and
C/A, respectively. The models for Ppeak, dult, and GF,int are given by the
Eqs. (4)(6).

N33 N50

Process parameter level

Fig. 13. Main effect plots for S/N for GF,int.

The main effect plots of S/N ratio for dult are shown in Fig. 12. It
can be inferred that the notch depth and fiber content had almost
an identical level of influence on the dult as the graphical slopes
were approximately same (consistent with the ANOVA results in
Section 5.1), followed by the FRP fabric and epoxy type. dult
decreased with the increase in fiber content and notch depth.
The maximum dult can be obtained for the FRP fabric C/G with
epoxy adhesive E-1, applied to the mortar specimens with
50 mm notch depth and no steel fibers.
Similarly, Fig. 13 shows that the notch depth had the steepest
slope followed by the steel fiber content, FRP fabric type, and epoxy
adhesive type. The GF,int can be maximized by keeping the FRP
fabric, epoxy adhesive, and fiber content at level 1 with notch
depth at level 2.

Ppeak 1421:97  14:31FA  90E 13:86FI  0:21N

dult 1:833  0:111FA  0:077E  0:186FI  0:012N

GF;int 71:68  11:84FA  10:38E  12:6FI 1:22N

where FA denotes the FRP fabric type; E is the epoxy type; FI is the
fiber content; and N represents the notch depth. The models were
verified by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and experimental data.
The ANOVA results of Ppeak, dult, and GF,int for the linear regression
models are given in Table 11. The significance (P) value for Ppeak
was 0.601 which is higher than that of a-value (0.05), while that
for dult and GF,int was relatively low (0.00). This indicates that the

Table 11
ANOVA for Ppeak, dult, and GF,int for multiple linear regression models.
Response variable

Source

Degree of freedom (DOF)

Sum of squares (SS)

Mean squares (MS)

Ppeak

Regression
Residual error
Total

4
14
18

29565.56
146545.1
176110.6

7391.4
10467.51

dult

Regression
Residual error
Total

4
14
18

0.35
0.1
0.45

GF,int

Regression
Residual error
Total

4
14
18

0.706

0.088
0.007

3792.48
709.116
4501.6

F-ratio

948.12
50.65

Significance (P)
0.601

12.22

0.000

18.72

0.000

Table 12
Experimental and predicted results for Ppeak, dult, and GF,int.
No.

Ppeak (N)

Relative error (%)

Exp.

Pred.

1
2
3
4
5

1353.8
1250.78
1142.89
1343.97
1402.81

1307.16
1314.09
1224.09
1321.02
1327.95

6
7
8
9

1383.22
1231.15
1290
1206.63

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

dult (mm)

Relative error (%)

Exp.

Pred.

3.45
4.82
6.63
1.71
5.34

1.18
0.98
0.87
0.89
0.75

1.05
0.95
0.88
0.86
0.77

1292.85
1299.78
1209.78
1306.71

6.53
5.28
6.22
7.66

0.92
0.78
0.76
0.75

1447
1319.45
1128.2
1196.8
1422.46

1310.73
1317.66
1227.66
1324.59
1331.52

9.42
0.14
8.10
9.65
6.39

1152.69
1290.03
1314.5
1417.53
1265.49

1296.42
1303.35
1213.35
1310.28
1317.21

11.09
1.02
7.69
7.57
3.93

GF,int (N/m)

Relative error (%)

Exp.

Pred.

11.44
2.86
0.57
3.48
2.09

106.7
102.3
97.34
99.36
94.04

110.46
104.16
93.78
97.86
91.56

3.40
1.78
3.66
1.51
2.64

0.93
0.84
0.76
0.75

1.50
7.25
0.52
0.27

97.87
85.9
86.30
85.92

98.61
92.31
81.93
86.01

0.75
6.95
5.06
0.11

1.135
1.16
1.048
1.2
0.89

1.25
1.16
1.08
1.06
0.97

9.13
0.34
2.87
11.42
8.25

94.25
98.50
61.24
74.58
62.72

89.72
83.42
73.04
77.12
70.82

4.81
15.31
16.15
3.29
11.43

1.05
1.19
1.045
1.006
0.83

1.14
1.05
0.97
0.95
0.86

7.73
12.18
7.37
5.37
3.38

68.31
76.05
64.70
70.28
57.65

77.87
71.57
61.19
65.27
58.97

12.28
5.89
5.42
7.13
2.24

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

models for dult and GF,int are highly significant statistically at 95%
confidence level but not for Ppeak. Since no parameter was found
to be significant as evident by ANOVA for Ppeak (see Section 5.1),
the value of P being high seems logical for the regression model.
From experimental data presented in Table 12, the multiple linear regression models predicted Ppeak, dult, and GF,int with an average
error of 5.93%, 5.16%, and 5.78%, respectively. The model predictions showed a high degree of congruity with the experimental
results.
6. Conclusions
This paper has presented an experimental study on the interfacial bond behavior of FRP-to-mortar bonded joints. A detailed parametric study was conducted to investigate the validation of threepoint bending beam test setup for the prediction of true interfacial
bond behavior. Effects of different FRP fabrics (C/G and C/A), epoxy
adhesives (E-1 and E-2), and different notch depths (50 and
33 mm) were studied during these experiments. In addition, effect
of steel fibers on the interfacial bond strength was also investigated by incorporating three different percentages of short steel
fibers (0, 0.5, 1 and 1.5 wt.%). Ultimately, the experimental results
were statistically analyzed (ANOVA and S/N ratio) to investigate
the influence of key experimental parameters. Moreover, mathematical models (multiple linear regression) were proposed to estimate the relationship between factors and performance measures.
The following is the summarized conclusions of this study.
 Results of epoxy coupon specimens highlight the importance of
determining the properties of each epoxy adhesive for more
precise prediction of the interfacial bond behavior. Test conditions should be similar to the field condition.
 Tests of FRP composite specimens revealed that the FRP composites exhibit different stressstrain behavior with different
epoxy adhesives. Their tensile strength, elastic modulus and
ultimate strain capacities vary with the epoxy adhesive and
thus the properties of each strengthening system should be
carefully determined before application.
 Fiber-reinforcement in concrete can enhance the material properties of concrete itself and fibers can efficiently reduce the
crack propagation within concrete [29,30]. However, the results
of bending beam tests revealed that the fiber reinforcement was
ineffective to improve the interfacial bond strength. The interfacial fracture energy (GF,int) of plain and fiber-reinforced specimens was almost identical. However, for higher fiber contents
(1% and 1.5%), the GF,int reduced by 1350% that of the corresponding plain geopolymer mortar specimens. One reason for
this reduction in the GF,int can be due to the weak fibermatrix
interface as a large amount of fly ash was contained in geopolymeric binder. This phenomenon was observed in a study conducted by Zhang et al. [47].
 The interfacial fracture energy (GF,int) exhibited dependence on
the initial depth of notch. With the increase of notch depth from
33 to 50 mm, GF,int also increased. Plain mortar specimens exhibited about 13% and 43% increase in GF,int as notch depth increased
from 33 to 50 mm for C/G and C/A fabric specimens, respectively.
 The bending beam test setup is useful to study the effect of different parameters such as different FRP composites and epoxy
adhesive types. This test setup can be used for a comparison
of different strengthening systems. The interfacial fracture
energy (GF,int), however, was found to be sensitive to the depth
of notch. For consideration of GF,int as a true material property, it
should be independent of the notch depth. Therefore, a more
detailed experimental verification is recommended before consideration of GF,int as a true interface property.

367

 The analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the fiber content

had statistical and physical significance for all the response
variables while for the GF,int, notch depth had the highest influence among all other parameters considered in this study. FRP
Fabric type seemed to be less influential on the ultimate bond
behavior owing to the fact that both the FRP fabrics identically
contained the same carbon fibers in the principal direction.
 The predictions of the developed regression models were consistent with the experimental findings i.e., the models proved
significance statistically.
This study will contribute to extending the current knowledge
and understanding of the effectiveness of three-point bending
beam test for accurate estimation of interfacial bond strength of
FRP-to-mortar/concrete bonded interfaces. Further study regarding
the sensitivity of interfacial fracture energy on the notch depth
should be followed in the future.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a Grant (13SCIPA01) from
Smart Civil Infrastructure Research Program funded by Ministry
of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) of Korea Government and Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA). The authors also acknowledge Mr. Faizan Naeem
for his help in casting the specimens and Dr. Nam-Kon Lee for
his guidance regarding geopolymer binders.
References
[1] Shahawey MA, Arockiasamy M, Beitelman T, Sowrirajan R. Reinforced concrete
rectangular beams strengthened with CFRP laminates. Compos B Eng 1996;27
(34):22533.
[2] Lee HK. Effectiveness of anchorage in concrete beams retrofitted with sprayed
fiber reinforced polymers. J Reinf Plast Compos 2004;23(12):1285300.
[3] Lee HK, Hausmann LR. Structural repair and strengthening of damaged RC
beams with sprayed FRP. Compos Struct 2004;63(2):2019.
[4] Toutanji H, Zho L, Zhang Y. Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams
externally strengthened with CFRP sheets bonded with an inorganic matrix.
Eng Struct 2006;28(4):55766.
[5] Lee HK, Kim BR, Ha SK. Numerical evaluation of shear strengthening
performance of CFRP sheet/plate and sprayed epoxy coating repair systems.
Compos B Eng 2008;39(5):85162.
[6] Lee HK, Cheong SH, Ha SK, Lee CG. Behavior and performance of RC T-section
deep beams externally strengthened in shear with CFRP sheets. Compos Struct
2011;93(2):91122.
[7] Ha SK, Na S, Lee HK. Bond characteristics of sprayed FRP composites bonded to
concrete substrate considering various concrete surface conditions. Compos
Struct 2013;100:2709.
[8] Yang BJ, Ha SK, Pyo SH, Lee HK. Mechanical characteristics and strengthening
effectiveness of random-chopped FRP composites containing air voids. Compos
B Eng 2014;62:15966.
[9] Ha SK, Na S, Bang YK, Lee HK. An experimental study on sag-resistance ability
and applicability of sprayed FRP system on vertical and overhead concrete
surfaces. Mater Struct 2015;48(12):2133.
[10] Ha SK, Jang JG, Park SH, Lee HK. Advanced spray multi-layup process for
quality control of sprayed FRP composites used to retrofit concrete structures.
J Construct Eng Manage (ASCE) 2015;141(1):04014060-104014060-11.
[11] Ha SK, Khalid HR, Park SM, Lee HK. Interfacial crack-induced debonding
behavior of sprayed FRP laminate bonded to RC beams. Compos Struct
2015;125:17687.
[12] Granju J, Sabathier V, Turatsinze A, Toumi A. Interface between an old concrete
and a bonded overlay: debonding mechanism. Interf Sci: Cement Mater
2004;12(4):3818.
[13] Sharif A, Al-Sulaimani GJ, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Ghaleb BN. Strengthening
of initially loaded reinforced concrete beams using FRP plates. ACI Struct J
1994;91(2):1608.
[14] Tumialan G, Serra P, Nanni A, Belarbi A. Concrete cover delamination in
reinforced concrete beams strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced polymer
sheets. In: SP-188, Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on
fiber reinforced polymer reinforcement for reinforced concrete structures
(FRPRCS-4), Baltimore, 31 October5 November 1999. American Concrete
Institute. p. 72536.
[15] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP-strengthened RC structures.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2002. p. 245.
[16] Yuan H, Teng JG, Seracino R, Wu ZS, Yao J. Full-range behavior of FRP-toconcrete bonded joints. Eng Struct 2004;26(5):55365.

368

H.R. Khalid et al. / Composite Structures 134 (2015) 353368

[17] Qiao P, Xu Y. Evaluation of fracture energy of composite-concrete bonded

interfaces using three-point tests. J Compos Construct 2004;8(4):3529.
[18] Coronado CA, Lopez MM. Experimental characterization of concreteepoxy
interfaces. J Mater Civ Eng 2008;20(4):30312.
[19] Pham HB, Al-Mahaidi R. A study on bond of FRP-concrete using shear-lap tests
in Australia. In: Chen A, Frangopol DM, Ruan X, editors. Bridge maintenance,
safety, management and life extension. London: Taylor & Francis Group; 2014.
p. 80817.
[20] Ko H, Matthys S, Palmieri A, Sato Y. Development of a simplified bond stressslip model for bonded FRP-concrete interfaces. Constr Build Mater
2014;68:14257.
[21] Lu XZ, Teng JG, Ye LP, Jiang JJ. Bond-slip models for FRP sheets/plates bonded
to concrete. Eng Struct 2005;27(6):92037.
[22] Coronado CA. Characterization, modelling and size effect of concreteepoxy
interfaces [PhD. Thesis]. USA: The Pennsylvania State University; 2006. p. 271.
[23] Sayed-Ahmed EY, Bakay R, Shrive NG. Bond strength of FRP laminates to
concrete: state-of-the-art review. Electron J Struct Eng 2009;9:456.
[24] McSweeney B. FRP-concrete bond behavior: a parametric study through pulloff testing [M.Sc. Thesis]. USA: The Pennsylvania State University; 2005.
[25] Yao J, Teng JG, Chen JF. Experimental study on FRP-to-concrete bonded joints.
Compos B Eng 2005;36(2):99113.
[26] Lau D, Buyukozturk O. Fracture characterization of concrete/epoxy interface
affected by moisture. Mech Mater 2010;42(12):103142.
[27] Kim YJ, Hmidan A, Choi KK, Yazdani, S. Fracture characteristics of notched
concrete beams shear strengthened with CFRP sheets subjected to high
temperature. In: SP-286-3. American Concrete Institute; 2012. p. 20.
[28] Wu Z, Yin J. Fracturing behavior of FRP-strengthened concrete structures. Eng
Fract Mech 2003;70(10):133955.
[29] Yin J, Wu ZS. Structural performance of short steel-fiber reinforced
concrete beams with externally bonded FRP sheets. Constr Build Mater
2003;17(67):46370.
[30] Li L, Guo Y, Liu F. Test analysis of FRC beams strengthened with externally
bonded FRP sheets. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(3):31523.
[31] Qiao P, Chen Y. Cohesive fracture simulation and failure modes of FRPconcrete bonded interfaces. Theoret Appl Fract Mech 2008;49(2):21325.
[32] ASTM C39/C39M. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens. ASTM International. West Conshohocken (PA, USA); 2014.
[33] ASTM C469/C469M. Standard test method for static modulus of elasticity and
Poissons ratio of concrete in compression. ASTM International. West
Conshohocken (PA, USA); 2010.
[34] ASTM C496/C496M. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM International. West Conshohocken (PA,
USA); 2011.
[35] Hillerborg A. The theoretical basis of a method to determine the fracture
energy GF of concrete. Mater Struct 1985;18(106):2916.

[36] Hillerborg A, Modeer M, Petersson PE. Analysis of crack formation and crack
growth in concrete by means of mechanics and finite element. Cem Concr Res
1976;6(6):77382.
[37] RILEM 50-FMC Draft Recommendation. Determination of the fracture energy
of mortar and concrete by means of three-point bend tests on notched beams.
Mater Struct 1985;18(4):28790.
[38] Rilem TC. 162-TDF. Test and design methods for steel fiber reinforced
concrete: bending test (final recommendations). Mater Struct 2002;35:
57982.
[39] Petersson PE. Crack growth and development of fracture zone in plain concrete
and similar materials. Division of building materials. Lund Institute of
Technology, Report No. TVBM-1006; 1981. p. 174.
[40] ASTM D638. Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics. ASTM
International. West Conshohocken (PA, USA); 2010.
[41] MSC Korea Co., Ltd. <http://www.mschkorea.com> [last accessed: 01.05.15].
[42] ASTM D3039/3039M. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer
matrix composite materials. ASTM International. West Conshohocken (PA,
USA); 2008.
[43] Wu ZS, Matsuzaki T, Tanabe K. Interface crack propagation in FRPstrengthened concrete structures. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international
symposium on non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures
(FRPRCS-3), Sapporo, 1416 October 1997. p. 31926.
[44] Wu ZS, Matsuzaki T, Tanabe K. Experimental study of fracture mechanism of
FRP-strengthened concrete beams. In: JCI symposium on FRP reinforced
concrete structures, JCI 1998. p. 11926.
[45] Meier U. Post strengthening by continuous fiber laminates in Europe. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on non-metallic (FRP)
reinforcement for concrete structures (FRPRCS-3), Sapporo, 1416 October
1997. p. 4158.
[46] Agarwal BD, Broutman LJ. Analysis and performance of fiber composites, 2nd
ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 1999 [p. 449].
[47] Zhang Y, Sun W, Zongjin L, Zhou X. Geopolymer extruded composites with
incorporated fly ash and polyvinyl alcohol short fiber. ACI Mater J 2009;106
(1):310.
[48] Minitab software (trial version) <http://www.minitab.com/en-us/>.
[49] Taguchi G, Chowdhury S, Wu Y. Taguchis quality engineering handbook.
Berlin: John Wiley & Sons; 2005. p. 1662.
[50] Gauri SK, Chakraborty S. A study on the performance of some multi-response
optimization methods for WEDM processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2010;49:15566.
[51] Tosun N, Cogun C, Tosun G. A study on kerf and material removal rate in wire
electrical discharge machining based on Taguchi method. J Mater Process
Technol 2004;152:31622.