Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1667–1676

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Use of geopolymers for composite external reinforcement of RC members

Costantino Menna a,⇑, Domenico Asprone a, Claudio Ferone b, Francesco Colangelo b, Alberto Balsamo a,
Andrea Prota a, Raffaele Cioffi b, Gaetano Manfredi a
a
Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples ‘‘Federico II’’, Naples, Italy
b
Department of Technology, University of Naples ‘‘Parthenope’’, Naples, Italy

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

Article history: Nowadays fiber reinforced polymers represent a well-established technique for structural retrofit of rein-
Received 9 July 2012 forced concrete structural members. However, the severe degradation of mechanical properties with
Received in revised form 3 September 2012 temperature and fire conditions represents one of the weakest point of these systems. The use of a fire
Accepted 5 September 2012
resistant inorganic resin, as geopolymers, instead of polymeric resins, would be highly desirable to over-
Available online 13 September 2012
come this issue. The present work is aimed at investigating the effectiveness of two different fiber rein-
forced geopolymer-based systems in strengthening of reinforced concrete beams. In particular, this paper
Keywords:
presents the main outcomes of experimental flexural tests on shallow reinforced concrete beams
A. Carbon fiber
A. Strand
strengthened with high strength steel cord and carbon fiber reinforced geopolymers, cured at room tem-
B. Fiber/matrix bond perature. No mechanical anchorage was employed to fix the composite to the concrete substrate. The
D. Mechanical testing mechanical behavior of the strengthened beams was evaluated by means of four-points bending tests.
Geopolymers Two beam specimens for each system (i.e. steel cord and carbon fiber reinforcement) and one unstrength-
ened control beam were tested. A significant increase in the failure strength of the reinforced concrete
beams was experienced, in case of steel cord reinforcement. The adhesion of geopolymer to the concrete
substrate and to steel cords and carbon fibers was also evaluated by means of scanning electron
microscopy.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction conditions, FRP performance is of particular concern, also consider-

In last decades, the need for structural rehabilitation of existing
RC (Reinforced Concrete) and masonry structures pushed scientific
community to conduct numerous research activities on EB-FRP
(externally bonded fiber reinforced polymers) applications, investi-
gating the feasibility of such retrofit technique for a variety of load-
ing conditions, for different structural elements and in different
environmental conditions. Nowadays, EB-FRP applications repre-
sent a well established technique for the rehabilitation of existing
structures, considered by international codes and guidelines [1,2]
as a proper and valid option for structural retrofit. However, re-
search in composite community is still ongoing, dealing with a
number of concerns on EB-FRP applications. The degradation of
mechanical properties with temperature is probably the weakest
point of EB-FRP, restricting the field of application only to condi-
tions where temperatures higher than the resin glass transition
temperature Tg are not experienced [3–5]. Unfortunately, Tg values
of commonly used matrices for FRP are not higher than 82 °C,
according to ACI 440 guideline [1]. Hence, particularly for fire
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: via Claudio, 21, 80125 Naples, Italy. Tel.: +39
0817683672.
E-mail address: costantino.menna@unina.it (C. Menna).
ing the flame spread and the toxic smoke evolution of combusting
polymer matrices. To deal with this issue, a large number of re-
search activities are conducted, mainly investigating fire insulating
techniques of the FRP applications or innovative matrix/fiber
systems [6–9]. In example, Williams et al. [10,11] investigated
insulated FRP applications on concrete slabs and beams on fire,
whereas Chowdhury et al. [12] investigated insulated FRP applied
on RC columns subjected to fire. Also new polymeric matrices, with
higher values of Tg, have been investigated, but research in this
direction has not yet produced significant results. In example,
Sumida and Mutsuyoshi [13] investigated heat-resistant FRP,
where the maximum Tg for the resins was about 180 °C. Nigro
et al. [14], investigated RC bridge decks strengthened with EB-
FRP and used heat-resistant resins with a Tg equal to 150 °C. These
temperature ranges, even if considerably higher than those related
to commonly used resins, are significantly lower than the temper-
ature values experienced on the surfaces of structural elements on
fire. For this reasons, all the existing codes and guidelines do not
allow accounting for FRP contribution to the strength of the retro-
fitted structural elements, in case of fire conditions.
The present work aims at contributing to this issue, by investi-
gating the mechanical performance of RC beams retrofitted with
EB-FRP applications, using a geopolymer resin instead of an organic

1359-8368/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.019
1668 C. Menna et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1667–1676
polymeric matrix. Geopolymers represent a new class of high per-
formance inorganic materials characterized by a three dimen-
sional, CaO-free, silico-aluminate chemical structure [15]. They
can be synthesized by mixing reactive aluminosilicate materials,
such as metakaolin [12,16,17], industrial [18–20] or natural waste
products [21,22], and strongly alkaline solutions, such as NaOH or
KOH. Under strongly alkaline solution, aluminosilicate reactive
materials are rapidly dissolved into solution resulting in the liber-
ation of aluminate and silicate, most likely in the monomeric form,
which afterwards condensate forming a rigid geopolymeric net-
work. Geopolymers, recently widely investigated in literature for
a variety of applications, when exposed to high temperature, do
not exhibit significant decrease of the mechanical properties, up
to 800 °C and also toxic gases or smoke are not released when ex-
posed to intense fire [24]. A further advantage of geopolymers
compared to epoxy adhesives is related to their inorganic silico-
aluminate nature, which makes these materials similar to concrete,
with high mechanical compatibility. The idea of using this type of
matrix for fiber reinforced composite applications on structural
elements has been already investigated in literature [25–28]. Kurtz
and Balaguru [29] tested the use of geopolymers in EB-FRP systems
for strengthening applications of RC beams using carbon sheet,
whereas Chang et al. [30] investigated the performance of carbon
reinforced geopolymers for in-plane strengthening of masonry
walls. Also geopolymer-based laminates have been investigated,
using both E-glass and carbon fibers [31]. Vasconcelos et al. [32]
used metakaolin based geopolymer mortars to fasten carbon fiber
sheets to concrete, but their results were not completely satisfac-
tory. Recently, high strength steel fibers impregnated in a geopoly-
mer inorganic matrix have been investigated by Katakalos and
Papakonstantinou [33]. The study was focused on the effects of this
hybrid rehabilitation system on the fatigue performance of small-
scale strengthened RC beams showing that fatigue life of the beams
can be significantly extended by using that kind of externally
bonded system.
However, the use of geopolymer resins in EB-FRP applications is
currently not yet developed as it could potentially be, due to some
critical issues that characterize these applications. In fact, as high-
lighted by Giancaspro et al. [31], manufacturing of geopolymer
composites represents the main concern, especially for EB-FRP
strengthening applications. In fact, so far, good mechanical and
physical properties of geopolymer composite systems have been
obtained by controlling the curing conditions in terms of high tem-
perature and pressure [26,34].
On the contrary, the present work investigates the mechanical
properties of two EB-FRGs (Externally Bonded Fiber Reinforced
Geopolymers) flexural strengthening systems consisting of an inor-
ganic geopolymer resin cured at room condition and (i) high
strength steel cord (hereafter referred as Steel-Reinforced Geopoly-
mer, SRG system) and (ii) bi-axial carbon fabric (hereafter referred
as Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer, CFRG system). The re-
search significance is also related to the feasibility of a geopolymer
based in situ strengthening application, by means of a wet-lay-up
procedure.
In the following sections, physical and mechanical properties of
the materials (i.e. geopolymer inorganic resin and the EB-FRG sys-
tems) used for the structural retrofit of RC members are firstly ana-
lyzed. Afterwards, the details of the experimental program
investigating the flexural behavior of the strengthened RC beams
are presented and the experimental results are discussed. In addi-
tion, analytical predictions in terms of flexural strength and failure
modes of the strengthened RC beams computed according to ACI
440 guideline [1] are compared with the main experimental out-
comes obtained by the flexural tests. Issues concerning the adhe-
sion of geopolymer to the concrete substrate and to the steel and
carbon reinforcement are handled by means of a Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM) analysis. Furthermore, it is underlined that the
flexural tests have been designed in order to have comparable re-
sults with those obtained by Prota et al. [35,36], who investigated
EB-FRP flexural strengthening of RC beams, using both high
strength steel cords and carbon fibers as reinforcement, with a typ-
ical epoxy resin and a cementitious grout. Hence, a comparison
with those results is finally presented and discussed in order to
highlight the flexural performance of the developed EB-FRG sys-
tems with regard to more reliable and well-established retrofitting
techniques.
2. Material and methods
The present work concerns the investigation of the flexural per-
formance of five full scale shallow RC beams under quasi-static load-
ing. Four of them were strengthened with EB-FRG systems using a
geopolymer-based inorganic matrix, developed by authors. In de-
tails, two beams were strengthened by using SRG system whereas
other two beams by using CFRG system. The remaining beam was
not strengthened and used as control specimen. All beams were
tested under four-point monotonic loading in order to determine
their ultimate load-carrying capacity. The following paragraphs deal
with the physical and mechanical properties of the materials
adopted within the study for the structural retrofit of RC members
and the experimental set up used for the flexural testing.
2.1. Geopolymer matrix
A metakaolin based geopolymer matrix combined with silica fil-
ler was used for the EB-FRG systems. Metakaolin was chosen as
raw material because of its purity and high reactivity. In details,
the resin mixture is made by the three following components:
 metakaolin powder;
 alkaline activating solution, prepared by using NaOH in pel-
lets and a sodium silicate solution;
 pure quartz powder (maximum particle diameter 63 lm) as
an inert.
The composition of the geopolymer mixture was optimized in
order to be cured at room temperature and atmospheric pressure
to simulate the actual installation conditions. In this way, curing
conditions compatible with constructability issues have been
achieved, i.e. without the need to externally control temperature
or pressure during the curing process of geopolymer.
The alkaline activating solution was prepared by dissolving solid
sodium hydroxide into the sodium silicate solution. The solution
was then allowed to equilibrate and cool. The optimal solution com-
position to be employed at room temperature was determined in
another work and was adjusted by varying the molar silica to soda
ratio in solution and by keeping the overall soda to alumina ratio
constant at unity. The employed solution composition can be ex-
pressed as Na2O1.34SiO210.5H2O. The composition of the whole
geopolymeric matrix can be expressed as Na (SiO2)1.40 AlO2 5.2H2O.
Pure quartz powder was added in a final weight ratio of 1:1
with metakaolin, as a result of an optimizing process aimed at
avoiding shrinkage phenomena [39]. In fact, quartz powder acts
as a rigid inert skeleton which limits the hygroscopic shrinkage
and hinders the growth of cracks [40]. The fineness of the quartz
powder was chosen in order to ensure the correct impregnation
of the reinforcement ply.
To appreciate the mechanical performance of the geopolymer
resin, cubic samples of 50 mm of dimensions were cured for 3, 7,
15 and 28 days at room temperature and atmospheric pressure
and subjected to compressive tests. Geopolymer samples were
 C. Menna et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1667–1676
prepared by initially dissolving solid sodium hydroxide into the so-
dium silicate solution to achieve the alkaline activating solution.
The solution was then allowed to equilibrate and cool. A Hobart
mixer was employed to homogenize the solid (metakaolin and
pure quartz powder) and liquid (alkaline activating solution) com-
ponents of the polycondensation mixture. Afterwards, the mixes
were insulated with a PVC film to avoid water evaporation. The fi-
nal density of the geopolymer matrix resulted equal to 19 ton/m3.
Three samples were tested for each cured time condition. Com-
pressive strength increases as the curing time increases (Fig. 1a)
reaching the excellent value (average on three samples) of
98 MPa after 28 days of curing without showing shrinkage phe-
nomena on the surfaces (Fig. 1b).
2.2. SRG system
In the case of SRG system, unidirectional high strength steel
cords were used as external reinforcement for the retrofit of RC
members. The commercial name is MapeWrap S Fabric and was
supplied by Mapei. Each cord is made up by six small strands
twisted together and containing, in turn, a certain number of
twisted individual high strength zinc-coated wires of about
250 lm of diameter (Fig. 2a). The total number of strength zinc-
coated wires for each cord is 38 (five strands contain seven wires
and one strand contains three wires). All the cords are gripped
together by means of perpendicular woven textile filaments which
allows the cords to be aligned along the longitudinal direction and
tightened during loading (Fig. 2b). According to the manufacturer,
the steel strengthening product is made of 210 cords per meter,
leading to a resisting area of 373.80 mm2/m and an areal weight
of 2100 g/m2. The steel used for the cords in the first strengthening
configuration presents an elastic tensile behavior up to failure ten-
sile behavior with a tensile modulus of elasticity Ef, tensile strength
ffu, ultimate rupture strain efu equal to 210 GPa, 2845 MPa and
Fig. 1. Compressive strength of cubic samples of geopolymer as a function of curing
days (a); cubic samples of 28 days cured geopolymer (b); cubic samples after
uniaxial compressive test (c).
1669
0.0135 mm/mm, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the geometrical
and mechanical properties of the adopted steel reinforcement in
the SRG system. It should be mentioned that steel wires configura-
tion and coating may play an important role with regard to the
compatibility and adhesion to an impregnating matrix system,
especially with inorganic resins. For instance, in [35,37] different
commercially available twisting configurations (i.e. steel cord with
12 wires wrapped by one wire and steel cord produced by twisting
two-wire strands around three-wire strands) and coatings (i.e. zinc
and brass coating) have been used for steel reinforced polymers
and grout for retrofit application of RC members.
2.3. CFRG system
On the other side, in the case of CFRG system, the carbon-fiber
ply used in the second strengthening configuration, is a biaxial
carbon fiber fabric (Fig. 3a) with the commercial name of Mape-
Wrap Fabric C Bi-Ax, supplied by Mapei. According to the manu-
facturer the equivalent fiber thickness (dry) is 0.064 mm and the
areal density of 238 g/m2. Carbon yarns are placed at a distance of
5 mm in warp direction (Fig. 3b) and the total resistant area is
equal 64.2 mm2/m. Any information about the presence of organ-
ic coating on the carbon fibers is provided by the manufacturer.
The dry carbon fabric system presents an elastic up to failure ten-
sile behavior with a tensile modulus of elasticity Ef, tensile
strength ffu, ultimate rupture strain efu of equal to 230 GPa,
4800 MPa and 0.021 mm/mm, respectively. Geometrical and
mechanical properties of the carbon fiber system are summarized
in Table 2.
2.4. Flexural test program
A total of five RC shallow beams, 400  200  3800 mm in size,
were cast. The medium compressive strength of the concrete and
the characteristic yielding stress of the internal reinforcing steel
were equal to 25 MPa and 450 MPa, respectively. Two and five
steel bars of 10 mm of diameter were used as compression and
tensile reinforcement, respectively, with a cover of 30 mm. Steel
stirrups of 8 mm of diameter were placed with a spacing of
100 mm and 50 mm along the beam as depicted in Fig. 4a. One
of the five beam specimens was used as control specimen (hereaf-
ter named as Beam U) and four were strengthened, two for each
type of the investigated EB-FRG system. In particular EB-FRG sys-
tems were applied over the middle span with a total length of
3.10 m, ensuring that they would not extend beyond the supports
(Fig. 4a). The strengthening applications consisted of one layer of
SRG and CFRG system, 200 mm and 300 mm wide in the beam
cross section, respectively as depicted in Fig. 4b. The corresponding
strengthened beams are named in the text as Beam S and Beam C
for SRG and CFRG system application, respectively (Fig. 4b). The
beams were tested as simply supported members, over a clear span
of 3.20 m. The beams were loaded up to failure under a four-point
configuration, with a constant moment region of 0.70 m across the
midspan. Fig. 4a shows the geometric and loading details of the
beam specimens. The load was applied through a 150 kN hydraulic
actuator and the test was carried under displacement control.
Before the installation of EB-FRG systems, the bottom face of all
the beams was mechanically scratched and cleaned to ensure
proper bond of the reinforcement. First, a geopolymer primer
was also applied to improve the adhesion at the geopolymer–con-
crete interface. It consists of a more fluid geopolymer mixture,
based on the same components of the matrix, without inorganic
filler and mixed with water. After 1 day, the strengthening system
was applied to the beams according the following procedure: (i)
the geopolymer mixture was prepared according to the procedure
previously described by using a high shear mixer to mix the
1670 C. Menna et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1667–1676

Strand

Single Wire

Steel cord

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Steel reinforcement in SRG. individual cord (a); steel reinforcement system (b).

Table 1
Properties of steel external reinforcement.

Cord coating Number of filament per cord Cord area (mm2) Cords per (m) ffu (MPa) efu (mm/mm) Ef (GPa)
Zinc 38 1.78 210 2845 0.0135 210

5 mm

(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Carbon fiber reinforcement in CFRG. Woven configuration (a); warp direction (b).

Table 2
Properties of carbon fabric external reinforcement.

Reinforcement type Equivalent fiber thickness (mm) Resistant area per (m) (mm2/m) ffu (MPa) efu (mm/mm) Ef (GPa)
Biaxial carbon fabric 0.064 64.2 4800 0.021 230

components of the resin for a total of 3 min; subsequently, a first
layer was applied on the concrete surface; (ii) the steel or carbon
tape were cut according to design length and pressed onto the
wet geopolymer layer ensuring a full impregnation of the fabric;
(iii) an additional layer of geopolymer matrix was laid on the rein-
forcement. Finally, a PVC film was placed all over the last geopoly-
mer layer and kept for all the curing days to avoid water
evaporation. All the layers are depicted in Fig. 5. Good workability
was observed for about 20–30 min after mixing the geopolymer
components. No mechanical anchorage system was used to fix
the external reinforcement to the beam. All the specimens were al-
lowed to harden and cure at room conditions without any control of
temperature or pressure for 28 days long. The geopolymerization
process allows a rapid matrix hardening during the first curing days
due to the high reactivity of the initial mixture, as confirmed in
Fig. 1a. The process slows down in time up to a complete curing of
the geopolymer system that can be achieved after roughly 28 days.
During the tests, the midspan deflection of the beam was mea-
sured by means of three vertical linear displacement gauges which
provided average displacement measurements used to derive the
force–deflection diagram discussed in the next sections. Two
horizontal linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were
placed on one side of the specimen to record displacements over
a length of 0.25 m across the midspan at depths of 20, and
180 mm from the compressive fiber, respectively. Fig. 6 depicts
the beam specimen (the picture refers to Beam S) before and after
the flexural test.
The following parameters were established in order to compare
the flexural performance of the proposed beam types:
 The axial stiffness ratio S = EextAext/EsAs, with Eext, Aext, Es and As
the elastic modulus and the total area of externally bonded
composites and internal steel reinforcing bars, respectively.
 The equivalent reinforcement ratio qeq = qs + qext (Eext/Es) =
qs(1 + S), where qs and qext are the reinforcement ratios of
As and Aext over the concrete cross-sectional area, computed
as the width of the cross section times the depth of the
internal reinforcement, respectively.
 The mechanical reinforcement ratio l = (Asfy + Aextfext)/(Acfc),
being Ac the concrete cross-sectional area and fy, fext, and fc
the maximum stress for the steel internal tensile reinforce-
ment, the external reinforcement and concrete.
 C. Menna et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1667–1676
Fig. 4. Geometry and reinforcement scheme of tested beams (a); beam cross section. U = unstrengthen beam, S = SRG reinforced beam, C = CFRG reinforced beam –
(dimensions in mm).
Fig. 5. EB-FRG system layers.
In Table 3 the main properties and results of the experimental
tests are summarized; in particular, the area of internal tensile
reinforcement steel, the type and nominal thickness of the exter-
nally bonded reinforcement and the values of both the S and qeq ra-
tios are reported for each tested beam.
3. Test results
The load–midspan deflection curves for the tested beams are
depicted in Fig. 7; the curves for each couple of beams (Beams S
and Beams C) can be compared with that of the unstrengthened
Beam U. Values of loads and midspan deflections corresponding
to the first cracking (Fcr and dcr), the yielding of steel internal
Fig. 6. Beam specimen before (a) and after (b) the flexural test.
1671
reinforcement bars (Fy and dy) and the bending failure of the beam
(Fu and du) are summarized in Table 3. The first cracking of Beam U
occurred at a load of 10.8 kN corresponding to 2.5 mm of midspan
deflection. After first cracking, a loss of stiffness occurred, resulting
in a change in the slope of the load–deflection curve. The shape of
the load–deflection curve indicates another loss of stiffness at a
load value of 40.1 kN. This is due to yielding of the tensile rein-
forcement that occurred at a midspan deflection of 21.3 mm. After
this threshold, the flexural cracks increased significantly, up to the
collapse of the beam due to concrete crushing in the maximum
moment region. Failure load was equal to 42.6 kN occurring at
142.2 mm of midspan deflection; the failure was characterized
by a ductility factor du/dy of 3.3.
The SRG system exhibited good results in terms of flexural per-
formance of the strengthened beams (Fig. 7). In fact, both Beams S,
showed a very similar trend in terms of load–deflection curves; a
first cracking occurred at a load value of 15.8 kN and 13.5 kN for
the two specimens; a loss of stiffness was then observed. Further
loss of stiffness was a consequence of yielding of the tensile steel
bars and occurred at a load of 53.1 kN and 55.8 kN for the two
specimens. After yielding, the slope of the force–deflection curve
is significantly higher than that of the Beam U, due to the increas-
ing tensile force in the external reinforcement. For both specimens,
1672 C. Menna et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1667–1676

Table 3
Test matrix and experimental results.

Specimen External No. of Axial stiffness Equivalent reinforcement Experimental results

reinforcement plies ratio S (–) ratio qeq (%)
Fcr (kN) dcr (mm) Fy (kN) dy (mm) Fu (kN) du (mm)
Beam U – – – 0.577 10.9 2.5 40.1 21.3 42.6 142.2
Beam S (1) Steel 1 0.181 0.682 15.8 4.1 53.1 23.5 85.7 105.7
Beam S (2) Steel 1 0.181 0.682 13.5 3.2 55.8 25.2 86.3 108.4
Beam C (1) Carbon 1 0.053 0.609 13.8 3.4 43.7 23.6 43.8 157.2
Beam C (2) Carbon 1 0.053 0.609 13.2 3.8 44.1 23.9 48.2 117.8

100
Beam_U
90 Beam_S (1 - 2)
80 Beam_C (1 - 2)

70
Load (kN)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Deflection (mm)

Fig. 7. Load–deflection curves: unstrengthened beam U (gray line) versus SRG

(Beam S) and CFRG (Beam C) reinforced beams (solid and dashed line, respectively);
numbers 1, 2 refer to the beam specimens.

steel cord failure occurred at a load of 85.7 kN and 86.3 kN by

increasing the ultimate load capacity of the beams by about
100%. In particular, close to failure, small drops in the load deflec-
tion curve are probably caused by the progressive brittle failure of
single steel cords within the external reinforcement. No debonding
between geopolymer matrix and RC substrate was observed, nei-
ther in the midspan or in the anchorage region (Fig. 8a). This fea-
ture is mainly due to the geopolymer matrix which is able to
form a strong and continuous bond between the surface of the con-
crete and the fiber reinforcement, as also found in previous studies
dealing with different geopolymer matrices and fiber reinforce-
ment configurations [27,29].
The installation of the CFRG system did not significantly im- Fig. 8. Bottom view of RC strengthened beams after flexural test: (a) Beam S, (b)
prove the flexural performance of the Beams C. In details, the first Beam C.
cracking of Beams C occurred at load of approximately 13 kN. The
loss of stiffness due to concrete cracking was similar to that ob-
served in the reference Beam U as well as the trend in the load– yielding probably due to local slip between geopolymer and carbon
deflection curve up to yielding of the tensile steel reinforcement fibers when local debonding mechanisms are attained. In order to
bars. The loss of stiffness due to yielding of steel bar occurred at deeply investigate on the actual entity of the adhesion between
load values of 43.1 kN and 44.9 kN for the two specimens (Beams geopolymer matrix and carbon fibers, small samples were sub-
C). The increase in the load carrying capability of the beams, due jected to scanning electron microscopy and the results are dis-
to the carbon fiber reinforcement appeared poor, leading to an ulti- cussed in the following section.
mate load of 43.8 kN and 48.2 kN. The ultimate behavior highlights
that Beams C failed due to concrete crushing in the constant mo- 3.1. SEM analysis
ment region; however, no debonding between geopolymer matrix
and RC substrate was observed. Authors believe that the poor Further results were obtained by Scanning Electron Microscopy
bending performance of CRFG system can be associated to debond- (SEM) analysis. Fig. 9a shows a SEM micrograph taken from a sam-
ing mechanisms occurred between carbon fibers and geopolymer ple of geopolymer matrix detached from the concrete support after
matrix, as evidenced in the picture of Fig. 8b, where it can be ob- the flexural strength test. Together with the micrograph, the Na, Si
served that carbon fibers appear not fully impregnated. One of and Ca EDS (Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy) mappings are re-
the reason can be attributed to the limited fluidity of the resin that ported (for Na, Si and Ca element in Fig. 9b–d, respectively). In de-
is not able to penetrate into the carbon fiber filament yarns causing tails, Fig. 9a highlights the three distinct sections (concrete
a low load transfer capability to the carbon fiber reinforcement. In substrate – geopolymer primer – geopolymer resin) of the compos-
fact, in the load–deflection curve small drops appear after steel ite system, which can be unequivocally recognized by means EDS
 C. Menna et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1667–1676
mappings. The concrete substrate is characterized by a higher Ca
content and a lower Si and Na content than the two geopolymer
layers. The geopolymer matrix is characterized by the presence
of siliceous aggregates, which are evidenced by light spots on the
right side of the Si mapping. This micrograph points out a good
continuity among the three phases, since no evident detachment
is visible at the two interfaces.
Fig. 10a shows the carbon fibers and the geopolymer matrix. In
this case, fibers are completely detached from the matrix, demon-
strating no interfacial interaction between the fibers and the geo-
polymer. This can be due to fiber sizing, that, in the present case
is designed to have an optimal bonding with polymeric matrices.
However, according to studies performed on ceramic matrix–car-
bon fibers composites [44], a thermal treatment of the fibers could
improve the interfacial compatibility and enhance the bond be-
tween the carbon fibers and the geopolymer matrix.
Fig. 10b shows a micrograph of a steel cord embedded in the
geopolymer matrix. In this case the steel fiber is completely cov-
ered by the geopolymer matrix, proving a strong interfacial inter-
action. This result is also confirmed by literature data [45] and
by very preliminary tests the authors conducted on the investi-
gated geopolymer, where steel molds were used to cast the matrix.
In fact, these tests evidenced such an exceptional bond between
the steel walls of the molds and the geopolymer matrix to make
the molds themselves unusable.
3.2. Comparison with theoretical previsions
In this paragraph a theoretical prevision of the mechanical
behavior of the tested beams is computed. The nominal flexural
strength was calculated according to the recommendations of the
ACI 318-08 [41] and ACI 440.2R-08 [1] guidelines for the
PRIMER
CONCRETE GEOPOLYMER
MATRIX
(a)
Si
Siliceous
aggregates
(c)
Fig. 9. SEM micrograph of a sample of geopolymer–concrete substrate system taken after the flexural strength test: interfacial region between concrete–primer–geopolymer
(a); EDS (Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy) mappings for Na (b), Si (c), and Ca (d).
1673
unstrengthened and strengthened beams, respectively. The goal
was to perform a comparison with the experimental results in
terms of predicted failure mode and predicted failure force and dis-
placement values. Both CE (i.e., environmental reduction factor)
and /f (i.e., additional FRP strength reduction factor), proposed
by the ACI codes, were taken equal to unity. The calculations were
conducted considering a compressive strength of concrete, fc, equal
to 25.0 MPa and a yield strength of the internal steel bars, fy, equal
to 450 MPa; the design rupture strain, efu, was taken as 0.0135 and
0.021 for steel and carbon external reinforcement respectively, as
given by the manufacturer.
According to the ACI 318-08 the cross section of the unstrength-
ened beam presents a nominal failure bending moment, Mn, equal
to 28.2 kN m.
In order to determine the failure mode for the strengthened
beams, according to the ACI 440.2R-08 guidelines, some prelimin-
ary considerations are needed about the debonding failure occur-
rence. Generally, in order to account for the FRP debonding
failure mode, the effective strain in FRP reinforcement should be
limited to the strain level at which debonding may occur, efd, as de-
fined in the following equation:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
fc0
efd ¼ 0:41 6 0:9efu ð1Þ
nEf t f
where efd is design strain of the FRP system, fc is the compressive
strength of concrete, n is the number of plies of FRP reinforcement
(n = 1 in the current cases), Ef is the tensile modulus of elasticity of
FRP, and tf is the nominal thickness of one ply of the FRP reinforce-
ment. Eq. (1) is derived from the debonding strain equation pro-
posed by Teng et al. [42,43] and is based on a significant database
of flexural beam tests, where FRP debonding failure occurred.
Na
(b)
Ca
(d)
1674 C. Menna et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1667–1676

Fig. 10. SEM micrograph of a sample of fiber reinforced geopolymer taken after the flexural strength test: carbon system (a) and steel cord system (b).

Table 4
Elaboration of the experimental results.

Specimen External reinf. Impregnated No. of Axial stiffness Mechanical reinf. Increase of mechanical Experimental Increase of
matrix plies ratio S (–) ratio l (%) reinf. ratio Dl (%) Mu (kN m) experimental Mu DMu (%)
Beam U – – – – 10.39 – 25.5 –
Beam S (1) Zinc coated steel Geopolymer 1 0.181 22.31 114.63 53.9 111.26
Beam S (2) Zinc coated steel Geopolymer 1 0.181 22.31 114.63 53.6 109.79
Beam C (1) Carbon Geopolymer 1 0.053 15.83 52.31 27.4 7.25
Beam C (2) Carbon Geopolymer 1 0.053 15.83 52.31 30.2 18.07
D-Unreinf. – – – – 9.62 – 29.6 –
A-1 Zinc coated steel Epoxy 1 0.16 20.42 112.12 51.8 75.05
A-2 Zinc coated steel Epoxy 1 0.32 31.21 224.24 72.7 145.64
A-3 Zinc coated steel Epoxy 2 0.32 31.21 224.24 60.2 103.65
B-1 Brass coated steel Epoxy 1 0.14 19.07 98.11 53.1 79.72
B-2 Brass coated steel Cementitious 1 0.14 19.07 98.11 43.6 47.46
B-3a Brass coated steel Cementitious 1 0.14 19.07 98.11 42.9 45.03
B-4a Brass coated steel Cementitious 2 0.28 28.51 196.21 52.0 75.86
C-1 Carbon Epoxy 2 0.21 22.36 132.30 57.9 95.74
C-2 Carbon Epoxy 3 0.42 35.09 264.60 80.9 173.43

All the data in italic refer to the experimental program carried out by Prota et al. [35,36].
a
With anchor nails.

According to the ACI code, if the design strain of the FRP system is
smaller than the rupture strain, debonding will control the design of
the FRP system.
The ACI procedure was applied to all the tested beams, obtain-
ing the following results.
For the SRG system, the thickness tf was assumed equal to the
cord diameter (1.505 mm) while the resistant area was computed
as the total area of all the cords. Within these assumptions, Eq. (1)
was verified implying that debonding of the reinforcing system
would control the failure of the reinforced Beam S. However, this
theoretical prediction was not confirmed by the experimental
tests, since actually failure was governed by cord rupture and no
debonding between geopolymer matrix and concrete substrate oc-
curred. In addition, the theoretical value for the ultimate flexural
strength underestimates the flexural capacity exhibited by Beam
S. In fact a theoretical value of 36.9 kN m for the ultimate bending
moment capacity was computed, whereas the average experimen-
tal bending moment capacity resulted equal to 53.7 kN m. Proba-
bly, the design strain, corresponding to the debonding failure, is
not proper for this kind of reinforcing system, where the bond effi-
ciency provided by geopolymer matrix allows an effective load
transfer to the steel cords, up to their tensile failure. In order to
evaluate a theoretical ultimate flexural strength for Beam S, the
effective level of strain at failure in the FRP reinforcement efe was
set equal to the failure strain efu = 0.0135, provided by the manu-
facturer data sheet. With this assumption, the bending moment
capacity resulted equal to 62.2 kN m, which is closer, even if higher
than the average experimental test result of 53.7 kN m. This theo-
retical prediction confirmed that the effective bonding between
geopolymer matrix and concrete substrate allows a good load
transfer to the steel cords up to their tensile failure. The fact that
the theoretical value is higher than the experimental one could
be due to the non-contemporary failure of the cords. In other
words, as previously already pointed out, the steel cords did not at-
tain the failure simultaneously, but a progressive failure occurred.
This resulted in a total tensile force, provided by the external rein-
forcement, which is lower than the theoretical value (i.e. the total
steel area multiplied by the ultimate stress).
For the CFRG system, the thickness tf was assumed equal to the
dry equivalent fiber thickness, 0.064 mm, while the resistant area
was equal to 19.26 mm2. Also in this case, Eq. (1) was verified
implying that debonding would control the failure of the reinforc-
ing system. Nevertheless, the theoretical prediction of the flexural
strength for Beam C, i.e. 39.7 kN m, resulted in disagreement with
the average experimental value of 28.5 kN m, since the contribu-
tion of carbon reinforcement to the total flexural capacity of Beam
C was limited by the local slip occurred between carbon fibers and
geopolymer matrix. This, as already mentioned before, was also
confirmed by visual inspections after the tests, which revealed
the debonding of the carbon fibers from the geopolymer matrix,
as depicted in Fig. 8b. Furthermore, as it can be observed in
Fig. 7, the flexural strength of beams C was basically very similar
 C. Menna et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1667–1676
Fig. 11. DMu/Dl ratio reported for different beam type. Blue series refers to beams tested within the present study whereas orange series refers to those of Prota et al. [35,36].
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
to that exhibited by the unreinforced Beam U, revealing the inef-
fectiveness of the carbon reinforcing system.
3.3. Comparison with the experimental results by Prota et al. [35,36]
As already mentioned previously, the flexural tests were de-
signed to replicate the experimental setup used by Prota et al.
[35,36] for their tests and have a reliable comparison of the results.
In fact, as the investigation on the feasibility of the EB-FRG systems
is proposed in the present study, authors believe that a quantita-
tive comparison with well-established retrofitting techniques,
involving both polymeric and inorganic matrix systems, is needed
in order to assess the effectiveness of the geopolymer matrix. In
their works, Prota et al. investigated the flexural behavior of RC
shallow beams, with the same cross section of that used in this
work, externally reinforced with different FRP solutions. Four point
bending tests were conducted, investigating two different matri-
ces, namely an epoxy resin and a cementitious grout; furthermore,
three external reinforcements were tested, namely a carbon fiber
ply, (characterized by an elastic up to failure tensile behavior, with
a ultimate strength and modulus of elasticity equal to 3450 MPa
and 230 GPa, respectively) a zinc coated and a brass coated steel
(characterized by an elastic up to failure tensile behavior, with a
ultimate strength and modulus of elasticity equal to 3070 MPa
and 184 GPa, respectively). Table 4 reports the main results of
the tests conducted in this work and those presented by Prota
et al. In particular, the mechanical reinforcement ratio l and the
experimental failure bending moment Mu are reported together
with their variations Dl and DMu with respect to the unreinforced
beam, in order to appreciate the effectiveness of the upgrading
solution. In fact, for all the specimens, flexural failure is expected
to be governed by tensile reinforcement rupture; hence, the in-
crease Dl would correspond to an equivalent increase in the fail-
ure bending moment DMu, in the hypothesis that both the
internal and external reinforcement have attained the maximum
stress. Hence, the DMu/Dl ratio is reported in Fig. 11 with the
scope of appreciating the effectiveness of the external reinforce-
ment system, in achieving the expected increase in the failure
bending moment. In fact, a nearly unitary value of this ratio (i.e.
an increase of Mu equal to the increase of l) is expected in case
both the internal and the external reinforcement have attained
1675
the corresponding maximum stress. On the contrary, a value less
than unity would result in case the internal and/or the external
reinforcement have not attained the maximum stress, due to early
failure. It can be observed that this ratio is nearly unitary only in
case of steel reinforcement and geopolymer matrix. In fact, apart
for the steel-geopolymer system, in all other cases, as also declared
by Prota et al. for their tests, delamination failure occurred at the
external reinforcement, avoiding the attainment of the ultimate
stress in the strengthening systems. In the authors’ opinion, the
effectiveness of the steel-geopolymer system is due to the geopoly-
mer matrix and its very good adhesion and mechanical compatibil-
ity with the concrete surface. In fact, as depicted in Fig. 8a,
throughout the beam, concrete cracks, propagated into the geo-
polymer matrix. It could be argued that this has progressively
interrupted the shear stress distribution at the interface between
geopolymer and concrete, avoiding high shear stress values and
geopolymer delamination in the anchorage zone. This aspect will
be further investigated in a future experimental program, by
means of bond tests.
4. Conclusions
The present paper illustrates and discusses the results of an
experimental study aimed at investigating the suitability of a geo-
polymeric resin in an externally bonded composite system for flex-
ural strengthening of RC beams. The main research significance of
this study, as already specified in the introduction, is related to the
use of a geopolymer matrix aimed at overcoming the issue of the
temperature degradation, suffered by common polymer based
EB-FRP systems. Furthermore, room conditions are needed for cur-
ing the investigated geopolymer; this represents a considerable
advantage for in situ applications and a significant progress with
respect to the few available experimental studies investigating fi-
ber reinforced geopolymer systems.
The results of the experimental tests conducted on strength-
ened beam specimens can be summarized as follows:
 Geopolymer matrix provided a very good adhesion to con-
crete substrate and to steel cords, so that no delamination
mechanisms occurred. The SEM analysis also confirmed a
good impregnation of the steel cords. Hence, the steel cord
1676 C. Menna et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 1667–1676
system exhibited very good performances in terms of
increase in the bending moment capacity of the strength-
ened beams.
 On the contrary, CFRG system provided negligible increase
in the bending moment capacity of the strengthened beams,
due to poor adhesion between carbon and geopolymer. This
was confirmed by the SEM analysis that showed a lack of
impregnation of the carbon fibers.
 In the SRG system, the flexural failure of the tested beams
was achieved due to cord tensile failure and the system pro-
vided an increase in the ultimate bending moment almost
equal to the increase in the mechanical reinforcement ratio,
proving the effectiveness of the strengthening system.
 The poor performance of the CFRG system could be due to
the sizing of the used carbon fibers, that was designed to
have an optimal adhesion with epoxy resin. Hence, a specific
fiber sizing could be developed for the geopolymeric matrix,
providing better adhesion.
Finally, it is underlined that in case of cord steel, the perfor-
mance of the system was even better than that exhibited by equiv-
alent strengthening systems based on polymeric and cementitious
matrices, investigated by Prota et al. [35,36], where delamination
occurred in the anchorage zone. This can be due to a very good
adhesion between geopolymer and concrete that reduced the shear
stress concentration in the anchorage zone. This will be verified by
further experimental investigations that will be carried out on the
bonding between geopolymer and concrete.
References
[1] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. Guide for the design and
construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
structures – ACI 440.2R-08. Farmington Hills, MI. ACI; 2008.
[2] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Canadian highway bridge design code –
CAN/CSA-S6-06. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: CSA; 2006.
[3] Katz A, Berman N, Bank LC. Effect high temperature on the bond strength of
FRP rebars. J Compos Constr 1999;3(2):73–81.
[4] Di Ludovico M, Piscitelli F, Prota A, Lavorgna M, Mensitieri G, Manfredi G.
Improved mechanical properties of CFRP laminates at elevated temperatures
and freeze–thaw cycling. Constr Build Mater 2012;31:273–83.
[5] Ascione F, Berardi VP, Feo L, Giordano A. An experimental study on the long-
term behavior of CFRP pultruded laminates suitable to concrete structures
rehabilitation. Composites B 2008;39(7–8):1147–50.
[6] Fraternali F, Ciancia V, Chechile R, Rizzano G, Feo L, Incarnato L. Experimental
study of the thermo-mechanical properties of recycled PET fiber-reinforced
concrete. Comp Struct 2011;93(9):2368–74.
[7] D’Ambrisi A, Feo L, Focacci F. Experimental analysis on bond between PBO-
FRCM strengthening materials and concrete. Composites Part B; 2013; 44(1):
525-532.
[8] D’Ambrisi A, Feo L, Focacci F. Bond-slip relations for PBO-FRCM materials
externally bonded to concrete. Composites Part B; 2012; 43(8): 2938-2949.
[9] Cho CG, Kim YY, Feo L, Hui D. Cyclic responses of reinforced concrete
composite columns strengthened in the plastic hinge region by HPFRC mortar.
Comp Struct 2012;94(7):2246–53.
[10] Williams B, Kodur V, Green MF, Bisby L. Fire endurance of fiber-reinforced
polymer strengthened concrete T-beams. ACI Struct J 2008;105(1):60–7.
[11] Williams B, Bisby L, Kodur V, Green M, Chowdhury E. Fire insulation schemes
for FRP-strengthened concrete slabs. Composites A 2006;37:1151–60.
[12] Chowdhury EU, Bisby LA, Green MF, Kodur VKR. Investigation of insulated
FRP-wrapped reinforced concrete columns in fire. Fire Saf J 2007;42:
452–60.
[13] Sumida A, Mutsuyoshi H. Mechanical properties of newly developed heat-
resistant FRP bars. J Adv Concr Technol 2008;6(1):157–70.
[14] Nigro E, Manfredi G, Cosenza E, Zappoli M. Effects of high temperature on the
performances of RC bridge decks strengthened with externally bonded FRP
reinforcement. In: Proceedings of 2nd international fib conference, Naples,
Italy; 2006.
[15] Davidovits J. Geopolymer chemistry and applications. Saint Quentin,
France: Geopolymer Institute; 2008.
[16] Cioffi R, Maffucci L, Santoro L. Optimization of geopolymer synthesis by
calcination and polycondensation of a kaolinitic residue. Resour Conserv Recy
2003;40(1):27–38.
[17] Davidovits J. Geopolymers and geopolymeric materials. J Therm Anal Calorim
1989;35(2):429–41.
[18] Andini S, Cioffi R, Colangelo F, Grieco T, Montagnaro F, Santoro L. Coal fly ash as
raw material for the manufacture of geopolymer-based products. Waste
Manage 2008;28:416–23.
[19] Andini S, Cioffi R, Colangelo F, Ferone C, Montagnaro F, Santoro L.
Characterization of geopolymer materials containing MSWI fly ash and coal
fly ash. Adv Sci Technol 2010;69:123–8.
[20] Ferone C, Colangelo F, Cioffi R, Montagnaro F, Santoro L. Mechanical
performances of weathered coal fly ash based geopolymer bricks. Procedia
Eng 2011;21:745–52.
[21] Buchwald A, Hohmann M, Posern K, Brendler E. The suitability of thermally
activated illite/smectite clay as raw material for geopolymer binders. Appl
Clay Sci 2009;3:300–4.
[22] Xu H, Van Deventer JSJ. The geopolymerisation of alumino-silicate minerals.
Int J Miner Process 2000;59:247–66.
[24] Lyon RE, Balaguru P, Foden A, Sorathia U, Davidovits J. Fire-resistant
aluminosilicate composites. Fire Mater 1997;21(2):67–73.
[25] Foden A, Balaguru P, Lyon RE, Davidovits J. The flexural fatigue properties of an
inorganic matrix–carbon composite. In: Proceedings of the SAMPE
international symposium, Long Beach; May 1997. p. 1945–54.
[26] Hammell JA, Balaguru P, Lyon RE. Strength retention of fire resistant
aluminosilicate–carbon composites under wet–dry conditions. Composites B
2000;31(2):107–11.
[27] Giancaspro JW, Papakonstantinou CG, Balaguru P. Mechanical behavior of fire-
resistant biocomposite. Composites B 2009;40(3):206–11.
[28] Bernal SA, Bejarano J, Garzón C, Mejía de Gutiérrez R, Delvasto S, Rodríguez ED.
Performance of refractory aluminosilicate particle/fiber-reinforced
geopolymer composites. Composites Part B 2012;43(4):1919–28.
[29] Kurtz S, Balaguru P. Comparison of inorganic and organic matrices for
strengthening of reinforced concrete beams. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127:35–42.
[30] Chang P, Nazier M, Balaguru P. In plane strength of geopolymer reinforces
masonry structures. In: Proceeding of the world congress geopolymer 2005,
Saint-Quentin, France; 2005. p. 197–200.
[31] Giancaspro JW, Papakonstantinou CG, Balaguru P. Flexural response of
inorganic hybrid composites with E-glass and carbon fibers. J Eng Mater
Technol 2010;132:1–8.
[32] Vasconcelos E, Fernandes S, Barroso de Aguiar JL, Pacheco-Torgal S. Concrete
retrofitting using metakaolin geopolymer mortars and CFRP. Constr Build
Mater 2011;25:3213–21.
[33] Katakalos K, Papakonstantinou CG. Fatigue of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with steel-reinforced inorganic polymers. J Compos Constr
2009;13(2):103–12.
[34] Davidovits J. Geopolymer chemistry and applications. Morrisville: Institute
Geopolymere; 2008.
[35] Prota A, Tan KH, Nanni A, Pecce M, Manfredi G. Performance of shallow
reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded steel-reinforced polymer.
ACI Struct J 2006;103(2):163–70.
[36] Prota A, Manfredi G, Nanni A, Cosenza E, Pecce M. Flexural strengthening of RC
beams using emerging materials: ultimate behavior. In: Proceedings of CICE
2004, Adelaide (Australia), ISBN 90-5809-638-6; December 2004. p. 163–70.
[37] Huang H, Birman V, Nanni A, Tunis G. Properties and potential for application
of steel reinforced polymer and steel reinforced grout composites. Composites
B 2005;36(1):73–82.
[39] Perera DS, Uchida O, Vance ER, Finnie KS. Influence of curing schedule on the
integrity of geopolymers. J Mater Sci 2007;42:3099–106.
[40] Buchwald A, Vicent M, Kriegel R, Kaps C, Monzó M, Barba A. Geopolymeric
binders with different fine fillers – phase transformations at high
temperatures. Appl Clay Sci 2009;46:190–5.
[41] ACI318-08. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI318-08)
and commentary (ACI 318R-08). USA: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[42] Teng JG, Smith ST, Yao J, Chen JF. Intermediate crack induced debonding in RC
beams and slabs. Constr Build Mater 2001;17(6–7):447–62.
[43] Teng JG, Lu XZ, Ye LP, Jiang JJ. Recent research on intermediate crack induced
debonding in FRP strengthened beams. In: Proceedings of the 4th international
conference on advanced composite materials for bridges and structures,
Calgary; 2004.
[44] Li B, Zhang CR, Cao F, Wang SQ, Chen B, Li JS. Effect of fiber surface treatments
on mechanical properties of T700 carbon fiber reinforced BN-Si3N4
composites. Mater Sci Eng A 2007;471:169–73.
[45] Temuujin J, Minjigma A, Rickard W, Lee M, Williams I, van Riessen A. Fly ash
based geopolymer thin coatings on metal substrates and its thermal
evaluation. J Hazard Mater 2010;180:748–52.