Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Finite element modelling of debonding failures in steel beams exurally

strengthened with CFRP laminates
J.G. Teng a,, D. Fernando a,b, T. Yu a,c
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
b
School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia
c
School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, The University of Wollongong, Northelds Avenue, Wollongong,
NSW 2522, Australia

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

Article history: A steel beam may be strengthened in exure by bonding a carbon bre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) plate
Received 25 March 2014 to the tension face. Such a beam may fail by debonding of the CFRP plate that initiates at one of the plate
Revised 2 January 2015 ends (i.e. plate end debonding) or by debonding that initiates at a local damage (e.g. a crack or concen-
Accepted 3 January 2015
trated yielding) away from the plate ends (intermediate debonding). This paper presents the rst nite
Available online 21 January 2015
element (FE) approach that is capable of accurate predictions of such debonding failures, with particular
attention to plate-end debonding. In the proposed FE approach, a mixed-mode cohesive law is employed
Keywords:
to depict interfacial behaviour under a combination of normal stresses (i.e. mode-I loading) and shear
CFRP
Strengthening
stresses (i.e. mode-II loading); the interfacial behaviour under pure mode-I loading or pure mode-II load-
Steel beams ing is represented by bi-linear tractionseparation models. Damage initiation is dened using a quadratic
Debonding strength criterion, and damage evolution is dened using a linear fracture energy-based criterion.
Cohesive zone modelling Detailed FE models of steel beams tested by previous researchers are presented, and their predictions
Finite element analysis are shown to be in close agreement with the test results. Using the proposed FE approach, the behaviour
of CFRP-strengthened steel beams is examined, indicating that: (1) if the failure is governed by plate end
debonding, the use of a CFRP plate with a higher elastic modulus and/or a larger thickness may lead to a
lower ultimate load because plate end debonding may then occur earlier; (2) plate end debonding is more
likely to occur when a short CFRP plate is used, as is commonly expected; and (3) the failure mode may
change to intermediate debonding or other failure modes such as compression ange buckling if a longer
plate is used.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction discussion, only simply-supported beams are explicitly considered,

Similar to concrete beams, steel beams or steelconcrete com-
posite beams (referred to collectively as steel beams hereafter
for simplicity) can be strengthened in exure by bonding an FRP
(generally CFRP) laminate to the tension face [111]. Such beams
are herein referred to as FRP-strengthened steel beams. The
bonded FRP laminate may be prefabricated (e.g. by pultrusion) or
formed in-situ (e.g. by the wet-layup process), and is referred to
as a plate for simplicity in this paper. CFRP is commonly preferred
to other FRPs including glass FRP (GFRP) in the strengthening of
steel structures due to the much higher stiffness of CFRP [7], so this
paper is focused on CFRP strengthening only. For simplicity of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 27666012.
E-mail address: cejgteng@polyu.edu.hk (J.G. Teng).
so the CFRP plate is bonded to the soft of the beam.
CFRP exural strengthening can enhance both the stiffness and
the load-carrying capacity of a steel beam [7,12]. The load-carrying
capacity of such CFRP-strengthened beams may be governed by
one or a combination of the many possible failure modes [7], which
include: (a) in-plane bending failure (i.e. CFRP failure, concrete
crushing); (b) lateral buckling; (c) debonding at a plate end (i.e.
plate-end debonding); and (d) debonding away from the plate ends
induced by cracking or concentrated yielding in the steel beam (i.e.
intermediate debonding). Additional failure modes include: (e)
local buckling of the compression ange; and (f) local buckling of
the web. Among these failure modes, debonding of the CFRP plate
[failure modes (c) and (d)] has been found to be common in labo-
ratory tests on CFRP-strengthened steel beams [1,3,6,7,13].
In a CFRP-strengthened steel beam failing by debonding of the
CFRP plate, the load-carrying capacity depends on the contribution

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.01.003
0141-0296/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
214 J.G. Teng et al. / Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224
of the CFRP at the time of debonding, which in turn depends on the
interfacial stress transfer of the adhesive layer. Therefore, accurate
simulation of the bond behaviour of CFRP-to-steel interfaces is of
particular importance in the theoretical modelling of debonding
failures.
As mentioned above, in a CFRP-strengthened steel beam, both
plate-end debonding and intermediate debonding are possible.
Intermediate debonding initiates from the presence of a defect
(e.g. a crack or concentrated yielding of the steel substrate) [3]
where the FRP plate is highly stressed, and propagates towards a
plate end where the stress in the FRP plate is lower. Very limited
research is available on intermediate debonding in CFRP-strength-
ened steel beams and no theoretical modelling exists so far. This
kind of debonding, similar to intermediate-crack induced debond-
ing (IC debonding) in an FRP-strengthened concrete beam [14], is
dominated by interfacial shear stresses. Therefore, accurate simu-
lation of intermediate debonding requires an appropriate model
for the damage behaviour of the interface in the shear direction
(i.e. under mode-II loading). Such bond-slip models have previ-
ously been developed by the authors group [15].
Compared to intermediate debonding, the modelling of plate-
end debonding is more involved as it is governed by both interfa-
cial shear stresses and interfacial normal stresses [12,1618].
Therefore, the effect of interaction between mode-I loading and
mode-II loading on damage initiation and propagation within the
adhesive layer needs to be appropriately addressed. A number of
theoretical studies (e.g. [12]) using strength-based approaches
have been conducted on plate-end debonding. These theoretical
analyses have generally signicantly underestimated the perfor-
mance of the strengthened beam, as the bond strength depends
on the interfacial fracture energy instead of the strength of the
adhesive [19]. De Lorenzis et al. [18] have recently presented the
only existing reliable theoretical study based on the fracture-
energy approach for plate end debonding of FRP-strengthened
steel beams. However, De Lorenzis et al.s study [18], which was
conducted after the present work [15] and based on the theoretical
concepts presented in the present paper, employed a number of
assumptions to arrive at a simplied analytical solution, is only
applicable to cases where the steel beam is linear elastic and sub-
jected to three-point bending. The analytical solution presented in
Ref. [18] was also veried using the FE method described in the
present paper. No other theoretical (numerical or analytical) stud-
ies on plate-end debonding in CFRP-strengthened steel beams have
been found in which the mixed-mode damage/fracture behaviour
of the adhesive layer is appropriately captured.
Against this background, this paper presents a nite element
(FE) approach for CFRP-strengthened steel beams, with a particular
emphasis on the accurate modelling of the bond behaviour and
debonding failures in such beams. It should be noted that the pres-
ent work is based on the premise that debonding failures in FRP-
strengthened steel beams occur by cohesion failure within the
adhesive layer instead of adhesion failure at the steel/adhesive
bi-material interface or the FRP/adhesive bi-material interface. Of
these two adhesion failure modes, the latter one is much less likely
and the former one needs to be avoided in practice through the
proper preparation of the steel surface [20].
2. Modelling of CFRP-to-steel interfaces
The successful prediction of debonding failures in CFRP-
strengthened steel beams requires a model for the CFRP-to-steel
interface which has the following characteristics: (1) it accurately
predicts the behaviour of the interface subjected to pure mode-I
loading and pure mode-II loading; (2) it appropriately accounts
for the effect of interaction between mode-I loading and mode-II
loading on damage propagation along the interface. For (1), an
accurate bond-slip model (e.g. such as those presented in Ref.
[15]) and an accurate bond-separation model [21,22] can be
employed to predict the full-range interfacial behaviour under
pure mode-II loading and pure mode-I loading respectively. For
(2), the so-called mixed-mode cohesive law needs to be used.
Among the existing modelling techniques, a coupled cohesive zone
model appears to be the most suitable as it possesses the two
required characteristics. Cohesive zone models have been used
for simulating the fracture of ductile and brittle solids [23], the
delamination of composites [24,25] and the behaviour of adhe-
sively bonded joints [26,27]. Bocciarelli et al. [28] presented an
FE model for CFRP-to-steel bonded joints with a cohesive zone
model and showed close predictions for results from double-shear
lap tests, but the cohesive zone model used by them only consid-
ered interfacial behaviour under pure mode-II loading. In the fol-
lowing section, a coupled cohesive zone model is proposed for
CFRP-to-steel interfaces, which consists of the following three
key components: a bond-slip model for mode-II loading, a bond-
separation model for mode-I loading, and a mixed-mode cohesive
law. It should be noted that the model presented in the following
section is for linear adhesives (with a linear stressstrain curve
before tensile rupture) only, but the general concepts of the model
are extendable to nonlinear adhesives.
2.1. Coupled cohesive zone model
2.1.1. Bond-slip model
The bi-linear bond-slip model proposed by Fernando [15] for
linear adhesives has been shown to provide accurate predictions
for the bond behaviour of CFRP-to-steel bonded joints subjected
to mode-II loading, and is thus adopted here. The bi-linear bond-
slip model proposed by Fernando [15] can be written as:
8
>
> smax dd1 if d 6 d1
<
df d
s smax d d if d1 < d 6 df 1
>
> f 1
:
0 if d > df
where s is the bond shear stress, smax is the peak bond shear stress,
d is the slip, d1 is the slip at peak bond shear stress, and df is the slip
at complete failure. Based on the experimental results of CFRP-steel
bonded joints with linear adhesives, Fernando [15] derived the fol-
lowing expressions for the above bond-slip parameters:
smax 0:9rmax 2
 0:65
ta
d1 0:3 rmax mm 3
Ga
2Gf
df mm 4
smax
where rmax is the tensile strength (in MPa in Eq. (3)) of the adhe-
sive, ta and Ga are the thickness and shear modulus of the adhesive
layer respectively, and Gf is the interfacial fracture energy given by
[15]:
2
Gf 628t0:5
a R N=mm2 mm 5
R is the tensile strain energy per unit volume of the adhesive which
is equal to the area under the uni-axial tensile stress (in MPa)
strain curve.
2.1.2. Bond-separation model
It is common to obtain the bond-separation model and the
mode-I fracture energy using double cantilever beam tests (DCB)
[21,29]. In the absence of these test data, the bi-linear bond-sepa-
ration behaviour of a linear adhesive can be closely approximated
using the tensile stressstrain data of the adhesive [30]. The peak
 J.G. Teng et al. / Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224
stress of the bi-linear bond-separation model can be assumed to be
the same as the tensile strength of the adhesive, the slope of the
ascending branch can be taken to be equal to the tensile elastic
modulus divided by the adhesive thickness (Eq. (8)), and the sepa-
ration at complete failure, df, can be taken as the product of the
tensile strain at complete failure and the adhesive thickness [30].
In the present study, the tensile stressstrain data of the adhesive
were used to dene the bi-linear bond-separation model, following
the approach suggested by Campilho et al. [30].
2.1.3. Mixed-mode cohesive law
In a coupled cohesive zone model, a mixed-mode cohesive law
is employed to account for the interaction between mode-I loading
and mode-II loading. As the fracture energy for mode-II loading is
often much larger than that for mode-I loading [31], a mixed-mode
law which properly accounts for this aspect is adopted, following
Xu and Needleman [32] and Hogberg [31]. For ease of discussion,
bond stresses are hereafter referred to collectively as tractions
while interfacial deformations (i.e. displacements) are referred to
collectively as separations.
The mixed-mode cohesive law adopted in the present study
considers tractions and separations in all three directions: those
normal to the interface and those parallel to the interface (i.e.
the two shear components). The normal and the two shear trac-
tions are denoted by tn, ts and tt respectively, while the correspond-
ing separations are denoted by dn, ds and dt respectively. With the
thickness of the cohesive element taken as the original thickness
of the adhesive layer T0, the strains in the normal (en) and the
two shear directions (cs and ct) are given by:
dn ds dt
en ; cs and ct 6 1
T0 T0 T0
2.1.3.1. Elastic behaviour. It is assumed that the interface behaves
linear-elastically until the initiation of damage [18,21,23,26]. The
interfacial behaviour before damage initiation can thus be repre-
sented by
8 9 2 38 9
< tn >
> = K nn 0 0 < dn >
> =
6 7
ts 4 0 K ss 0 5 ds 7 q
>
: > ; >
: > ;
tt 0 0 K tt dt
where Knn, Kss, Ktt are the elastic stiffness values of the normal and
the two shear directions respectively. It is obvious that Knn should
be equal to the initial slope of the bond-separation model for
mode-I loading and is given by
Ea
K nn 8 dfm dmax  d0m
T0
where Ea is the elastic modulus of the adhesive.
Kss and Ktt are assumed to be the same, and should be equal to
the initial slope of the bond-slip model presented earlier for mode-
II loading. From Eqs. (2) and (3):
 0:65
Ga
K ss K tt 3 9 3. FE modelling of CFRP-strengthened steel I-beams
T0
Eq. (9) suggests that Kss and Ktt depend on the shear modulus Ga of
the adhesive. Therefore, the elastic stiffness in the two shear direc-
tions and that in the normal direction are inter-related through the
Poissons ratio.
2.1.3.2. Damage behaviour. Under pure mode-II loading, damage of
the interface initiates when the shear stress reaches the peak bond
shear stress [15]. Similarly, under pure mode-I loading, damage
initiates when the normal stress reaches the peak bond normal
stress. Under mixed-mode loading, a strength criterion needs to
215
be adopted to dene the initiation of damage, considering the
interaction between mode-I and mode-II loading. Following exist-
ing studies [33,34], the following quadratic strength criterion is
adopted in the present study:
 2  2  2
ht n i ts tt
1 10
rmax smax smax
The symbol hi is the Macaulay bracket which is used to signify that
compressive stresses do not lead to damage (i.e. when tn is negative,
htni is equal to zero). Based on Eq. (10), the damage initiation point
can be determined when the mode-mix ratio (i.e. the ratio between
the fracture energies of two different modes) is known.
After damage initiation, a scalar damage variable D is intro-
duced. D is equal to zero at the initiation of damage and is equal
to one at complete failure of the interface. The interfacial behav-
iour can then be represented by the following equation:
8 9 2 38 9
< tn >
> = 1  D K nn 0 0 < dn >
> =
6 7
ts 4 0 1  DK ss 0 5 ds 11
>
: > ; >
: > ;
tt 0 0 1  DK tt dt
where means that if tn is compressive, D is equal to zero.
The complete failure of the interface, when D is equal to one, is
dened based on fracture energy considerations. While a few other
criteria for the denition of complete failure are available (e.g. the
quadratic criterion or the BK criterion proposed by Benzeggagh and
Kenane [35]), the linear criterion is adopted in the present study
due to its simplicity and good performance for adhesive joints
[34,36]. The linear criterion is expressed by:
Gn Gs Gt
12
GI GII GII
where Gn, Gs, Gt are the works done by the tractions and their con-
jugate displacements in the normal and the two shear directions
respectively (Fig. 1a). GI and GII represent the interfacial fracture
energies required to cause failure when subjected to pure mode-I
loading and pure mode-II loading respectively.
To describe the evolution of damage, the denition of an effec-
tive displacement is introduced as follows:
dm hdn i2 d2s d2t 13
With this denition, the displacement at complete failure, dfm ,
can be found using Eq. (12) for a certain mode-mix ratio. The dam-
age variable D is then dened by the following equation assuming
linear softening of the interface [34]:
 
D m  14
dmax
m dfm  d0m
where d0m is the effective displacement at the initiation of damage
and dmax
m is the maximum value of the effective displacement
attained in the loading process (Fig. 1b).
In this section, an FE approach for debonding failures in CFRP-
strengthened steel I-beams is rst presented, in which the coupled
cohesive zone model presented above for CFRP-to-steel interfaces
is employed. Numerical results obtained with the FE approach
are then given to demonstrate the capability of the proposed FE
approach in predicting debonding failures as well as other possible
failure modes (e.g. compression ange buckling), to clarify the
effect of approximating the mode-I fracture energy on damage
propagation in the adhesive layer, and to study the effect of plate
axial stiffness on plate end debonding failure. With these aims in
216 J.G. Teng et al. / Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224

Traction plate-end debonding and compression ange buckling) were

observed due to the use of CFRP plates with different lengths.
max, max These characteristics make Deng and Lees tests [13] the most suit-
able for verifying the proposed FE approach, especially in terms of
Knn, the behaviour of CFRP-to-steel interfaces.
Kss,
Ktt
(1-D)K

Gn,Gs,Gt GI-Gn, 3.1. Beam tests conducted by Deng and Lee [7]
GII-Gs,
GII-Gf
Four of the beams tested by Deng and Lee [13] were selected for
1 1 1 f f f Separation
n, s , t n, s , t n , s , t FE simulation, including one control beam without CFRP strength-
ening and three beams strengthened with 3 mm thick CFRP plates
(a) Traction-separation curve
of three different lengths (i.e. 300 mm, 400 mm, and 1000 mm)
respectively. These beams were selected because they all had the
Traction same loading conguration (i.e. three-point bending), the same
steel section, and a single continuous CFRP plate; the only variable
was the plate length to examine how the failure mode would
change with the plate length (from plate end debonding to buck-
ling of compression ange) and whether this could be accurately
predicted by the proposed FE approach. The four selected beams
were named by Deng and Lee [13] as specimens S300 (control
Gmc beam), S303, S304 and S310 respectively, where the last two num-
bers represent the length of the CFRP plate and the rst number
3 indicates that the beams were subjected to three-point bend-
0 max f
m
Separation ing. These four steel beams all had a length of 1.2 m (with a clear
m m
span between the supports being 1.1 m) and a cross-section of type
(b) Linear damage evolution under mixed-mode loading 127x76UB13; the dimensions of the steel beams are shown in
Fig. 1. Tractionseparation curves and linear damage evolution under mixed-mode
Fig. 2. Grade 275 steel was used, which means that the steel had
loading. (a) Tractionseparation curve. (b) Linear damage evolution under mixed- a nominal yield strength of 275 MPa (with the actual yield strength
mode loading. often being larger than 275 MPa) and a tensile elastic modulus of
205 GPa. The CFRP plates used all had a thickness of 3 mm, a width
of 76 mm, and an elastic modulus in the bre direction of 212 GPa.
mind, FE models were developed for four beams tested by Deng To avoid premature ange buckling and web crushing, two 4 mm
and Lee [13], and were veried using the test results. Deng and thick steel plate stiffeners were welded to each beam at the mid-
Lees tests [13] were selected for comparison among many other span, one on each side of the web. For beams with a short CFRP
experimental studies (e.g. [1,3,7]) as Deng and Lees tests [13] plate (i.e. 300 mm or 400 mm), plate end debonding of the CFRP
had the following desirable characteristics: (1) debonding failures plate was observed. However, when a longer CFRP plate (i.e.
controlled by cohesion failure occurred; (2) experimental loaddis- 1000 mm) was used, failure was controlled by the buckling of
placement curves were reported; (3) different failure modes (e.g. the compression ange of the steel section, which was the same

127x76UB13 steel I beam

LCFRP

1100mm

1 mm thick adhesive layer 3 mm thick CFRP plate

76mm

127mm 4mm

7.6mm

76mm

Fig. 2. Details of test specimens of Deng and Lee [13].

 J.G. Teng et al. / Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224 217

Table 1
Details of the test beams and the FE models.

Specimen/model Length of CFRP plate, Elastic modulus of CFRP, Thickness of CFRP plate, Mode I Compression ange
name mm GPa mm behaviour strengthening
S300a N/A N/A N/A N/A No
S303a 300 212 3 N/A No
S304a 400 212 3 N/A No
S310a 1000 212 3 N/A No
S300-0-000b N/A N/A N/A N/A No
S303-1-212b 300 212 3 Model A No
S303-2-212b 300 212 3 Model B No
S303-1-330b 300 330 3 Model A No
S304-1-212b 400 212 3 Model A No
S310-1-212b 1000 212 3 Model A No
S310-1-212-Pb 1000 212 3 Model A 6 mm steel plate
a
Test beams [13].
b
FE models.

as the failure mode of the control beam (i.e. specimen S300). The
details of the test beams are summarized in Table 1.
3.2. FE models
FE models were created using ABAQUS [37] for the four beams,
with the exact dimensions and support conditions (i.e. simply-sup-
ported boundary conditions) as given in Fig. 2 and Table 1. The
general purpose shell element S4R with reduced integration was
adopted for both the steel section and the CFRP plate, while the
adhesive layer was modelled using the cohesive element COHD8
available in ABAQUS. The two full-depth stiffeners on the two sides
of the web in the mid-span region were included, and the three
edges of each stiffener in contact with the I beam were tied to
the top ange, the bottom ange and the web of the cross section
respectively. Similarly, the top surface and the bottom surface of
the adhesive layer were tied to the bottom surface of the steel
beam and the top surface of the CFRP plate respectively. Based
on a mesh convergence study, 2.5 mm  2.5 mm elements were
selected for the steel beam and the CFRP plate, while
2.5 mm  2.5 mm  1 mm (with 1 mm being in the thickness
direction) elements were selected for the adhesive layer. In all
the FE simulations, the analysis was terminated soon after the ulti-
mate load had been reached.
The well-known J2 ow theory was employed to model the
material behaviour of the steel. As the experimental stressstrain
curve of the steel was not given by Deng and Lee [13], a tri-linear
(i.e. elastic-perfectly plastic-hardening) stressstrain model [38]
with a yield strength of 330 MPa (determined by a trial-and-error
process to match the linear portion of the experimental loaddis-
placement curve of specimen S300) and a ultimate tensile stress
of 430 MPa (as specied in BS EN 10025-1 [39]) was adopted.
The use of such an idealized stressstrain curve for the steel is
believed to be the best pragmatic solution possible in the absence
of the experimental stressstrain curve and has only minor effects
on the predictions for the steel beam (see [15]).
The CFRP plate was treated as an orthotropic material in the FE
models. In the bre direction, the elastic modulus (i.e. E3) provided
by Deng and Lee [13] was adopted (i.e. 212 GPa based on a nominal
thickness of 3 mm). The elastic modulus in the other two directions
(i.e. E1, E2), the Poissons ratios and the shear moduli were assumed
the following values respectively based on the values reported in
Deng et al. [16]: E1 = E2 = 10 GPa, m12 = 0.3, m13 = m23 = 0.0058,
G12 = 3.7 GPa and G13 = G23 = 26.5 GPa.
The coupled cohesive zone model presented earlier was
adopted to model the constitutive behaviour of the adhesive layer.
Deng and Lee [13] provided only the tensile strength (29.7 MPa),
the tensile elastic modulus (8 GPa) and the shear modulus
(2.6 GPa) for the adhesive. Considering that the adhesive used by
Deng and Lee [13] was a linear adhesive, the strain energy was cal-
culated by assuming a bi-linear stressstrain curve with the slope
of the ascending branch being equal to the elastic modulus (i.e.
8 GPa), the peak stress being equal to the tensile strength (i.e.
29.7 MPa) and the ultimate strain being equal to 4% which is the
value provided by the manufacturer [13]. With the above parame-
ters, the bond-slip model for mode-II loading can be determined
using Eqs. (1)(4), and the key parameters of the so-obtained
bond-slip model are given in Table 2. The bond-separation model
for mode-I loading can also be determined using the assumed bi-
linear stressstrain curve; the key parameters of the so-obtained
bond-separation model are given in Table 2 as model A. Besides
model A whose mode-I fracture energy is 0.059 N/mm, another
bond-separation model (i.e. model B, see Table 2) was also used,
whose mode-I fracture energy (i.e. 0.11 N/mm) is twice the elastic
energy of model A. The use of two different bond-separation mod-
els for mode-I loading was to explore the effect of mode-I fracture
energy on damage propagation in the adhesive layer.
As failure of specimens S300 and S310 was controlled by com-
pression ange buckling, their behaviour may be affected by geo-
metric imperfections such as those specied in Section 14.4.3 of
AS4100 [40]. As no measured geometric imperfections were
reported by Deng and Lee [13] for the test beams, the out-of-
square imperfection, which was found to be the most inuential
for ange compression buckling among the three types of imper-
fections specied in AS4100 [40] (see [15]), was chosen for inclu-
sion in the FE models; a magnitude of 1.3 mm was selected by a
trial-and-error process to match the ultimate load of the control
beam (i.e. specimen S300). Residual stresses, as described in Pi
and Trahair [41], were also included in the FE models [15]. It
should be noted that although the geometric imperfection and

Table 2
Key parameters for tractionseparation models.

Loading mode Peak bond stress (MPa) Displacement at peak bond stress, d1 (mm) Interfacial fracture energy, Gf (N/mm)
Mode I (model A) 29.7 0.00371 0.0594
Mode I (model B) 29.7 0.00371 0.110
Mode II 26.7 0.0526 1.59
218 J.G. Teng et al. / Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224

the residual stresses adopted in the FE models may not be exactly 140
the same as those in the test beams, their effects on the predictions 120
are very limited: the geometric imperfection has little effect on the
loaddisplacement curve before the ultimate load which is con- 100

Load (kN)
trolled by the buckling of the steel section, and the residual stres- 80
ses only have some effects on the slope of the curve close to the 60 S300- Experimental
yield load (i.e. the load at which the loaddisplacement becomes (Deng and Lee 2007)
40
nonlinear) (see [15]). S300-0-000
In total six FE models were developed (Table 1). The control 20
beam FE model is referred to as S300-0-000, where the rst 4 digits 0
indicate the test specimen conguration, the middle digit indicates 0 10 20 30
the model employed for the bond-separation behaviour under Mid-span deflection (mm)
mode-I loading (0 for the control beam as no CFRP strengthening
was provided), and the last three digits represent the elastic mod- Fig. 3. Loaddisplacement curves of a bare steel I beam.
ulus of the CFRP plate in the bre direction given in GPa (000 as
no CFRP strengthening was provided in the control beam). The
same naming method is used in the paper for the other FE models. FE model was built, where all the details are exactly the same as
Two FE models were developed for specimen S303 tested by those of model S310-1-212 except that an additional 6 mm thick
Deng and Lee [13], and they differ only in the bond-separation steel plate identical in material properties to the steel section
model for mode-I loading. These two FE models are referred to as was added (using tied nodes on the plate edges in the FE model)
models S303-1-212 and S303-2-212 respectively, where the num- to the top ange of the steel section, so that the buckling of the
bers 1 and 2 in the middle indicate respectively the use of the top ange can be suppressed. This FE model is referred to as
model A and the model B bond-separation laws for mode-I loading. S310-1-212-P where P indicates the addition of a steel plate on
Besides these two FE models, an additional FE model (model S303- the top ange.
1-330) was also created, with all the details being the same as
model S303-1-212 except that the elastic modulus of the CFRP 4. Results and discussions
plate in the bre direction was increased to 330 GPa in model
S303-1-330. This additional model was created to investigate the 4.1. Accuracy of assumed properties for the steel beam
effect of axial stiffness of CFRP plate.
FE models S304-1-212 and S310-1-212 were respectively cre- The FE results are compared with the experimental loaddis-
ated for beams S304 and S310 tested by Deng and Lee [13]. To placement curve of the control beam (i.e. specimen S300) in
examine the possibility of intermediate debonding, an additional Fig. 3. As explained earlier, both the material stressstrain curve

Plate end debonding

Plate end debonding

Adhesive layer
Dark blue color: zero stress region
Red color: high stress region
(a) Deformed shape of S303-1-212 at failure
Adhesive layer
Dark blue color: zero stress region
Red color: high stress region
(b) Deformed shape of model S304-1-212 at failure

Compression flange buckling

(c) Deformed shape of model S310-1-212 at failure

Fig. 4. Deformed shapes from FE models for CFRP-strengthened specimens.

 J.G. Teng et al. / Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224 219

130 debonding initiation Z

120 of S303-1-212
Debonding
110 debonding initiation
100 initiation of debonding initiation of
90 S303-1-330 S303-2-212
Load (kN)

80 S303-Experimental
70 damage initiation of (Deng and Lee 2007)
S303-1-212 and
60 S303-1-212
S330-2-212
50 300mm
40 S303-2-212 Mid-
30 damage initiation span
20 of S303-1-330 S303-1-330
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Mid-span deflection (mm)
(a) Load-deflection curves for specimen S303 Debonding
initiation
damage initiation of debonding initiation of Z
S310-1-212-P S310-1-212-P
200
76mm
180 (a) 92.6 kN (b) 118.3 kN
160
140 S304- Experimental Red colour: high stress region; Green colour:
Load (kN)

120 (Deng and Lee 2007)

S310- Experimental intermediate stress region; Blue colour: low stress region
100 debonding initiation of (Deng and Lee 2007)
80 S304-1-212 S304-1-212
60 Fig. 6. Longitudinal shear stresses in the adhesive from S303-1-212. (a) 92.6 kN. (b)
40 damage initiation of S310-1-212 118.3 kN.
20 S304-1-212
S310-1-212-P
0
0 10 20 30 4.2. Plate end debonding failures
Mid-span deflection (mm)
(b) Load-deflection curves for specimens S304 and S310 In Deng and Lees tests [13], specimens S303 and S304 were
found to fail by the plate end debonding of the CFRP plate. The
Fig. 5. Loaddeection curves. (a) Loaddeection curves for specimen S303. (b) same failure mode was also predicted by all the three FE models
Loaddeection curves for specimens S304 and S310. of S303 (i.e. S303-1-212, S303-2-212, and S303-1-330) and the
FE model of S304 (i.e. S304-1-212). The failure mode (i.e. deformed
shape at ultimate load) obtained from model S303-1-212 is shown
and the geometric imperfections of the steel beam employed in the
in Fig. 4a while those for models S303-2-212 and S303-1-330 are
FE model were obtained through a trial-and-error process to
similar; the failure mode from model S304-1-212 is shown in
achieve a close prediction of the experimental loaddisplacement
Fig. 4b.
curve of specimen S300. With these calibrated input data, the FE
The loaddeection curves obtained from these FE models are
results are seen to agree closely with the test results (Fig. 3). The
compared with the experimental curve in Fig. 5; other key results
material and geometric properties adopted in the FE model for
are summarized in Table 3. To further examine the FE results for
the control beam are thus believed to approximate the experimen-
beams failing by debonding (i.e. S303, S304 and S310-1-212-P),
tal values well, and any errors arising from these input data are
two key points are marked on each of the predicted loaddisplace-
believed to have negligible effects on the predicted response of
ment curves in Fig. 5: (1) the point when damage initiates in the
CFRP-strengthened steel beams.

Table 3
Experimental and FE results.

FE model Experimental results FE results

Ultimate load, Deection at ultimate Ultimate load, Deection at ultimate Load at debonding Deection at debonding
Pu (kN) load, Du (mm) Pu-FE (kN) load, Du-FE (mm) initiation, Pd-FE (kN) initiation, Dp-FE (mm)
S300-0- 123 20.7 120 21.0 N/A N/A
000a
S303-1- 120 5.12 125 7.05 118 5.08
212b
S303-2- 120 5.12 125 7.07 122 5.78
212b
S303-1- N/A N/A 123 6.17 115 4.60
330b
S304-1- 135 7.00 136 11.0 132 8.00
212b
S310-1- 160 20.1 158 20.8 N/A N/A
212a
S310-1- N/A N/A 188 27.3 188 27.3
212-Pc
a
Compression ange buckling.
b
Plate end debonding.
c
Intermediate debonding.
220 J.G. Teng et al. / Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224

0.9 Longitudinal shear-

0.8 S303-1-212
0.8 Normal stress-150mm from
Normalized stress

the mid-span 0.7 Normal-S303-1-212

0.7

Normalized stress
0.6 Longitudinal shear stress- 0.6
150mm from the mid-span Longitudinal shear-
0.5 0.5
Normal stress-147.5mm from S303-2-212
0.4
the mid-span 0.4 Normal-S303-2-212
0.3
Longituninal shear stress-
0.2 0.3
147.5mm from the mid-span Longitudinal shear-
0.1 0.2 S303-1-330
0
0.1 Normal-S303-1-330
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Strain 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Fig. 7. Interfacial stressstrain behaviour at the plate end from model S303-1-212. Load (kN)

adhesive layer (i.e. the interfacial stresses start to decrease with
the bond displacements); (2) the point when debonding initiates
(i.e. when complete damage occurs at a certain location and the
interfacial stresses there reduce to zero). For the specimens failing
by plate end debonding (i.e. S303 and S304), the predicted loads at
the damage initiation point are seen to be much lower than the
corresponding ultimate loads achieved in the tests (Fig. 5). Consid-
ering that damage initiates when the strength of the adhesive is
reached, this observation demonstrates that the strength-based
approach (e.g. [2,12]) can substantially underestimate the load at
plate-end debonding, as found by Colombi and Poggi [1]. It is also
interesting to note that the predicted loads by FE models S303-1-
212 and S304-1-212 at the debonding initiation point (i.e.
118.3 kN and 132.0 kN) are both very close to their experimental
ultimate loads respectively (i.e. 120.0 kN and 135.0 kN); the
Fig. 8. Normalized interfacial stresses at the plate end for specimen S303.
corresponding displacements predicted by the two FE models
(i.e. 5.08 mm and 8.00 mm) are also close to their respective exper-
imental displacements at the ultimate load (i.e. 5.12 mm and
7.00 mm). This observation suggests that if failure of the strength-
ened beam is assumed to occur at the debonding initiation point,
these FE models can closely predict both the ultimate load and
the loaddisplacement curve up to the ultimate load. Such an
assumption is regarded to be reasonable as after the initiation of
debonding at a CFRP plate end, a sudden energy release can be
expected as the debonding propagation is a dynamic process dri-
ven by both the interfacial normal stresses and the interfacial shear
stresses. During this process, idealistic debonding propagation pre-
dicted by a static analysis (i.e. the part after the debonding initia-
tion point on the predicted loaddisplacement curve) cannot

Softening
High near mid-
shear span
stress
Mid-
span

1000mm

Z
76mm

(a) 102 kN (b) 140.5 kN (c) 159.7 kN (peak load)

Red colour: high stress region; Green colour: intermediate stress region; Blue colour: low
stress region

Fig. 9. Longitudinal shear stresses in the adhesive from model S310-1-212. (a) 102 kN. (b) 140.5 kN. (c) 159.7 kN (peak load).
 J.G. Teng et al. / Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224 221

occur; sudden debonding propagation is likely to happen instead
which means no further load increases can occur in a test.
The interfacial stress distributions over the adhesive layer in
model S303-1-212 are shown in Fig. 6 for two different load levels.
The interfacial stress distributions in the other two S303 FE models
and the S304 FE model are similar and are thus not provided here.
Damage is seen to initiate at the two plate ends and propagates
towards the mid-span (Fig. 6). Fig. 7 compares the normalized nor-
mal stress (i.e. normalized by the tensile strength)normal strain
curves and the normalized shear stress (i.e. normalized by the peak
bond shear stress)shear strain curves for the adhesive at the end
of the plate (i.e. 150 mm from the mid-span) and those for the
adhesive at 2.5 mm away from the plate end (i.e. 147.5 mm from
the mid-span). From Fig. 7 it can be seen that, after the initiation
of damage at a plate end, both the interfacial normal stress and
the longitudinal shear stress at the very end of the plate decrease,
but the shear stress in the region nearby starts to increase. Fig. 7
also shows that the maximum normal stress and the maximum
longitudinal shear stress are equally high at the very end of the
plate, but the former is signicantly lower than the latter at a loca-
tion 2.5 mm away from the plate end, suggesting that the signi-
cant effect of the normal stress on damage propagation of the
interface is limited only to a small region close to the plate end.
0.25
Normalized stress (MPa)
4.3. Effect of mode-I fracture energy and CFRP plate stiffness
Fig. 5a shows that FE models S330-1-212 and S303-2303-2-212
predict very similar loaddeection curves despite the use of dif-
ferent bond-separation models. The loaddeection curve pre-
dicted by model S303-1-330 is slightly higher than the other two
after the initial linear portion because of the use of a stiffer CFRP
plate, but ends at a lower ultimate load. It is also seen that the
curves predicted by FE models S303-1-212 and S303-2-212, for
which the CFRP properties adopted are the same as those of the
test specimen, are very close to the experimental curve except that
they both have a higher ultimate load (Fig. 5a).
The interfacial normal stresses and the interfacial longitudinal
shear stresses at the plate end (i.e. 150 mm from the mid span)
from the three models (i.e. S303-1-212, S303-2-212 and S303-1-
330) are shown in Fig. 8. The magnitudes of the interfacial trans-
verse shear stresses are very small, so they are not shown in this
gure. It is clear that damage initiates at a load of 83 kN in FE mod-
els S303-1-212 and S303-2-212, but initiates at a smaller load (i.e.
71 kN) in model S303-1-330. Before damage initiation, the normal-
ized normal stress and the normalized shear stress are similar in FE
models S303-1-212 and S303-2-212, and are lower than those in
model S303-1-330, indicating that a stiffer CFRP plate leads to lar-
ger interfacial stresses. In addition, the load at the debonding initi-
ation point is smaller from model S303-1-330 (i.e. 115 kN) than
those from the other two models (i.e. around 120 kN), suggesting
that steel beams strengthened with a stiffer CFRP plate are likely

0.2 to fail at a smaller load by plate end debonding.

0.15 It is also interesting to note that although quite different bond-
0.1 Normal separation models for mode-I loading were employed, the predic-
stress
0.05 tions of FE models S303-1-212 and S303-2-212 are very similar
0 (Fig. 5a). The predictions are exactly the same before the initiation
-0.05 0 100 200 300 400 500
Longitudinal of damage at the plate end (Fig. 8). After damage initiation, the
-0.1 shear stress interfacial stresses in model S303-1-212 are seen to decrease
-0.15 slightly more rapidly with the load than those in model S303-2-
-0.2 212, as the mode-I interfacial fracture energy adopted in the for-
Distance from the mid span (mm) mer is smaller which leads to a smaller total interfacial fracture
(a) 102 kN energy at failure. However, as the mode-II fracture energy (i.e.
1.59 N/mm) adopted by both FE models is much larger than the
0.8 mode-I fracture energy (i.e. 0.059 N/mm for model S303-1-212
Normalized stress (MPa)

0.6 and 0.11 N/mm for model S303-2-212), the use of a larger mode-
I fracture energy in model S303-2-212 has only a small effect on
0.4
Normal stress the total fracture energy at failure for mixed-mode loading. This
0.2 explains the very similar predictions of the two models. It should
0 be noted that for linear adhesives commonly used in CFRP-to-steel
0 100 200 300 400 500 bonded joints, the mode-II fracture energy is often much larger
-0.2 Longitudinal
shear stress than the mode-I fracture energy [31], so the debonding of such
-0.4 joints under mixed-mode loading is often governed by the mode-
-0.6 II fracture energy. This also suggests that the method adopted in
Distance from the mid span (mm)
the present study for estimating the mode-I fracture energy (i.e.
(b) 140.5 kN the method used for deriving bond-separation model A in Table 2)
can work well for common linear adhesives.
1
Normalized stress (MPa)

0.8
0.6
0.4
Normal stress 4.4. Compression ange buckling failures
0.2
0 Deng and Lee [13] indicated that beam S310 failed by the buck-
-0.2 0 100 200 300 400 500 ling of the compression ange of the steel section. The same failure
Longitudinal
-0.4 shear stress mode was also predicted by model S310-1-212. The deformed
-0.6
shape at failure obtained from model S310-1-212 is shown in
-0.8
-1 Fig. 4c. The loaddeection curve predicted by model S310-1-212
Distance from the mid span (mm) is seen to compare very well with the experimental results
(Fig. 5b). It should also be noted that, while S300-0-000 and
(c) 159.5 kN (peak load)
S310-1-212 both failed due to compression ange buckling, the
Fig. 10. Interfacial stress distributions along section YY in Fig. 9a, from model latter achieved a higher load carrying capacity than the former
S310-1-212. (a) 102 kN. (b) 140.5 kN. (c) 159.5 kN (peak load). due to the contribution of the bonded FRP plate.
222 J.G. Teng et al. / Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224

1000mm
High
Mid- longitudinal
span shear
stresses

Z
76mm

(a) 33.7kN (b) 159.5kN

Debonding Debonding
Mid-
span initiation

(c) 188.05kN (peak load) (d) 186.7kN (post peak curve)

Red colour: high stress region; Green colour: intermediate stress region; Blue colour: low
stress region

Fig. 11. Damage propagation in the adhesive layer in model S310-1-212-P. (a) 33.7 kN. (b) 159.5 kN. (c) 188.05 kN (peak load). (d) 186.7 kN (post peak curve).

The interfacial longitudinal shear stress patterns over the adhe-
sive layer at different load levels are shown in Fig. 9, while the nor-
malized interfacial stress distributions along section ZZ at
different load levels are shown in Fig. 10. Before the load reaches
102 kN, both the normal stress and the longitudinal shear stress
are relatively low, and the maximum interfacial stresses occur at
the plate end (Fig. 10a). As the load increases, the longitudinal
shear stress at the mid-span becomes higher than those at the
plate ends (Fig. 10b). At the ultimate load, softening in the region
close to the mid-span has already begun (Fig. 10c), but no debond-
ing occurs before the buckling of the compression ange.
4.5. Intermediate debonding failures
As expected, the failure mode predicted by model S310-1-212-P
is the intermediate debonding of the CFRP plate initiating from
near the mid-span (Fig. 11c). The loaddeection curve predicted
by model S310-1-212-P is shown in Fig. 5b. The interfacial
 J.G. Teng et al. / Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224 223

0.8 seen to have dropped signicantly (Fig. 12c). The longitudinal

Normalized stress (MPa)

0.6 shear stress distribution at a post-peak state (Fig. 12d) clearly indi-
cates the existence of two debonded portions of the interface on
0.4 Normal stress the two sides of the mid-span.
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 4.6. Possible failure modes of CFRP-strengthened steel beams
-0.2 Longitudinal
shear stress
-0.4 The discussions above indicate that the proposed FE approach
can provide accurate predictions for the response of CFRP-
-0.6
Distance from the mid span (mm) strengthened steel beams failing in different failure modes, in
terms of both the ultimate load and the loaddisplacement curve.
(a) 176.8 kN In CFRP-strengthened steel beams, the contribution of the CFRP
plate relies on the stress transfer function of the adhesive layer, so
1.2
the ultimate load of such beams is often governed by the failure of
Normalized stress (MPa)

1
the adhesive layer. When a short CFRP plate is used, the interfacial
0.8
stresses (i.e. both the normal stress and the shear stress) at the
0.6
Normal stress plate end are large, and the failure is often governed by plate end
0.4 debonding. When a longer CFRP plate is used, the interfacial stres-
0.2 ses at the plate end are smaller and the critical region of the adhe-
0 sive layer may move to the mid-span region. In such cases, the
-0.2 0 100 200 300 400 500 Longitudinal failure mode may change from plate end debonding to intermedi-
-0.4 shear stress
ate debonding, buckling of the compression ange of the steel sec-
-0.6 tion, and tensile rupture of the FRP plate.
Distance from the mid span (mm)
(b) 184.8 kN
5. Conclusions
1
Normalized stress (MPa)

0.8 This paper has been concerned with the accurate prediction of
0.6 Normal stress debonding failures in simply-supported steel beams strengthened
0.4
in exure with a bonded CFRP soft plate using the FE method.
0.2
0 An FE approach has been presented in the paper, in which bi-lin-
-0.2 0 100 200 300 400 500
Longitudinal
ear tractionseparation models are employed to represent pure
-0.4 shear stress mode-I and pure mode-II responses of the interface for a linear
-0.6 adhesive; a mixed-mode cohesive law is employed to consider
-0.8
interactions between mode-I loading and mode-II loading. Dam-
-1
Distance from the mid span (mm) age initiation is dened using a quadratic strength criterion,
and damage evolution is dened using a linear fracture energy-
(c) 188.05 kN (peak load) based criterion, both of which take due account of mixed-mode
loading. The proposed FE approach represents a signicant
1
advancement in the modelling of debonding failures in CFRP-
Normalized stress (MPa)

0.8
0.6 strengthened steel structures.
Normal stress
0.4 Predictions from the FE approach have been shown to compare
0.2 well with the test results reported by Deng and Lee [13] for CFRP-
0 strengthened beams failing by either the plate-end debonding of
-0.2 0 100 200 300 400 500
Longitudinal the CFRP plate or the compression ange buckling of the steel sec-
-0.4 shear stress tion. It was also concluded from the study that when a static FE
-0.6
-0.8 analysis is conducted, the ultimate load of a beam failing by plate
-1 end debonding should be taken as the load at which debonding ini-
Distance from the mid span (mm) tiates at the plate end.
Using the proposed FE approach, the behaviour of CFRP-
(d) 186.7 kN (a peak-peak state)
strengthened steel beams was examined and it was found that:
Fig. 12. Interfacial stress distributions along section ZZ in Fig. 11a, from model (1) a CFRP plate with a higher elastic modulus and/or a larger
S310-1-212-P. (a) 176.8 kN. (b) 184.8 kN. (c) 188.05 kN (peak load). (d) 186.7 kN (a thickness leads to a lower ultimate load by plate end debonding;
peakpeak state). (2) plate end debonding is more likely to occur when a short CFRP
plate is used, as is commonly expected; and (3) the failure mode
may change to intermediate debonding or other modes such as
longitudinal shear stress patterns over the adhesive layer at differ-
compression ange buckling if sufciently long CFRP plate is used.
ent load levels are shown in Fig. 11, while Fig. 12 shows the
normalized interfacial stress distributions along section ZZ
(Fig. 11a) at different load levels. The interfacial stress distributions Acknowledgements
from model S310-1-212-P at low load levels are similar to those
from model S310-1-212. However, as the load increases, a large The authors are grateful for the nancial support received from
increase in the longitudinal shear stress near the mid-span is seen, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University provided through an Inter-
which also means a higher contribution of the CFRP plate. At the national Postgraduate Scholarship for PhD Studies to the second
ultimate load, the longitudinal shear stress near the mid-span is author and through a Postdoctoral Fellowship to the third author.
224 J.G. Teng et al. / Engineering Structures 86 (2015) 213224

References [21] De Moura MFSF, Chousal JAG. Cohesive and continuum damage models
applied to fracture characterization of bonded joints. Int J Mech Sci
2006;48(5):493503.
[1] Colombi P, Poggi C. An experimental, analytical and numerical study of the
[22] Yuan H, Xu Y. Computational fracture mechanics assessment of adhesive
static behavior of steel beams reinforced by pultruded CFRP strips. Compos B:
joints. Comput Mater Sci 2008;43(1):14656.
Eng 2006;37(1):6473.
[23] De Lorenzis L, Zavarise G. Cohesive zone modeling of interfacial stresses in
[2] Lenwari A, Thepchatri T, Albrecht P. Debonding strength of steel beams
plated beams. Int J Solids Struct 2009;46(24):418191.
strengthened with CFRP plates. J Compos Constr 2006;10(1):6978.
[24] Sorensen BF. Cohesive law and notch sensitivity of adhesive joints. Acta Mater
[3] Sallam HEM, Ahmad SSE, Badawy AAM, Mamdouh W. Evaluation of steel I-
2002;50(5):105361.
beams strengthened by various plating methods. Adv Struct Eng
[25] Li S, Thouless MD, Waas AM, Schroeder JA, Zavattieri PD. Mixed-mode
2006;9(4):53544.
cohesive-zone models for fracture of an adhesively bonded polymer-matrix
[4] Youssef MA. Analytical prediction of the linear and nonlinear behaviour of
composite. Eng Fract Mech 2006;73(1):6478.
steel I beams rehabilitated using FRP sheets. Eng Struct 2006;28(6):90311.
[26] Goncalves JPM, de Moura MFSF, Magalhaes AG, de Castro PMST. Application of
[5] Benachour A, Benyoucef S, Tounsi A, Adda bedia EA. Interfacial stress analysis
interface nite elements to three-dimensional progressive failure analysis of
of steel beams reinforced with bonded prestressed FRP plate. Eng Struct
adhesive joints. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2003;26(5):47986.
2008;30(11):330515.
[27] Liljedahl CDM, Crocombe AD, Wahab MA, Ashcroft IA. Damage modelling of
[6] Linghoff D, Haghani R, Al-Emrani M. Carbon-bre composites for
adhesively bonded joints. Int J Fract 2006;141(12):14761.
strengthening steel structures. Thin-Wall Struct 2009;47(10):104858.
[28] Bocciarelli M, Colombi P, Fava G, Poggi C. Interaction of interface delamination
[7] Teng JG, Yu T, Fernando D. Strengthening of steel structures with bre
and plasticity in tensile steel members reinforced by CFRP plates. Int J Fract
reinforced polymer composites. J Constr Steel Res 2012;78:13143.
2007;146(12):7992.
[8] Nozaka K, Shield CK, Hajjar JF. Effective bond length of carbon ber reinforced
[29] Pardoen T, Ferracin T, Landis CM, Delannay F. Constraint effects in adhesive
polymer strips bonded to fatigued steel bridge I-girders. J Bridge Eng
joint fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 2005;53(9):195183.
2005;9(4):30412.
[30] Campilho RDSG, de Moura MFSF, Domingues JJMS. Using a cohesive damage
[9] Nozaka K, Shield CK, Hajjar JF. Design of a test specimen to assess the effective
model to predict the tensile behaviour of CFRP single-strap repairs. Int J Solids
bond length of carbon ber reinforced polymer strips bonded to fatigued steel
Struct 2008;45(5):1497512.
bridge girders. J Compos Constr 2005;10(2):195205.
[31] Hogberg JL. Mixed mode cohesive law. Int J Fract 2006;141(34):54959.
[10] Dawood M, Rizkalla S, Sumner E. Fatigue and overloading behavior of steel-
[32] Xu XP, Needleman A. Void nucleation by inclusion debonding in a crystal
concrete composite exural members strengthened with high modulus CFRP
matrix. Modell Simul Mater Sci Eng 1993;1(2):11132.
materials. J Compos Constr 2007;11(6):65969.
[33] Da vila CG, Johnson ER. Analysis of delamination initiation in post buckled
[11] Schnerch D, Rizkalla S. Flexural strengthening of steel bridges with high
dropped-ply laminates. AIAA J 1993;31(4):7217.
modulus CFRP strips. J Bridge Eng 2008;13(2):192201.
[34] Camanho PP, Davila CG, de Moura MF. Numerical simulation of mixed-mode
[12] Schnerch D, Dawood M, Rizkalla S, Sumner E. Proposed design guidelines for
progressive delamination in composite materials. J Compos Mater
strengthening of steel bridges with FRP materials. Constr Build Mater
2003;37(16):141538.
2007;21(5):100110.
[35] Benzeggagh ML, Kenane M. Measurement of mixed-mode delamination
[13] Deng J, Lee MMK. Behaviour under static loading of metallic beams reinforced
fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-
with a bonded CFRP plate. Compos Struct 2007;78(2):23242.
mode bending apparatus. Compos Sci Technol 1996;56(4):43949.
[14] Teng JG, Smith ST, Yao J, Chen JF. Intermediate crack-induced debonding in RC
[36] Xie D, Chung J, Wass AM, Shahwan KW, Schroeder JA, Boeman RG, Kunc V,
beams and slabs. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(67):44762.
Klett LB. Failure analysis of adhesively bonded structures: from coupon level to
[15] Fernando ND. Bond behaviour and debonding failures in CFRP-strengthened
structural level predictions and verication. Int J Fract 2005;134:23150.
steel members. PhD thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong,
[37] ABAQUS Users Manual. Version 6.5; Inc., Rising Sun Mills, 166 Valley Street,
China; 2010.
Providence, RI 02909-2499, USA; 2004.
[16] Deng J, Lee MMK, Moy SSJ. Stress analysis of steel beams reinforced with a
[38] Bayeld MP, Davies JM, Dhanalakshmi M. Calculation of the strain hardening
bonded CFRP plate. Compos Struct 2004;65(2):20515.
behavior of steel structures based on mill tests. J Constr Steel Res
[17] Zhang L, Teng JG. Finite element prediction of interfacial stresses in structural
2005;61(2):13350.
members bonded with a thin plate. Eng Struct 2010;32(2):45971.
[39] BS EN 10025-1. Hot rolled products of non-alloy structural steels. Technical
[18] De Lorenzis L, Fernando D, Teng JG. Coupled mixed-mode cohesive zone
delivery conditions. British Standards Institution; 2004.
modeling of interfacial stresses in plated beams. Int J Solids Struct
[40] AS4100. Steel structures. Standards Australia, NSW 2142, Australia; 1998.
2013;50(1415):247794.
[41] Pi YL, Trahair NS. Inelastic bending and torsion of steel I-beams. J Struct Eng
[19] Yu T, Fernando D, Teng JG, Zhao XL. Experimental study on CFRP-to-steel
1994;120(12):3397417.
bonded interfaces. Compos B: Eng 2012;43(5):227989.
[20] Fernando D, Teng JG, Yu T, Zhao XL. Preparation and characterization of steel
surfaces for adhesive bonding. J Compos Constr 2013;17(6):04013012.