30 views

Uploaded by Sushil Dhungana

- studyyyy
- EPFL_TH7911.pdf
- Report of ACI-ASCE Committee 326 Shear and Diagonal Tension Part 3 - Siabs and Footings, Chapter 8, March1962
- Evaluation of Steel Fiber Reinforcement for Punching Shear Resistance in Slab-Column Connections Part II: Lateral Displacement Reversals
- Ready
- Experimental determination on bond strength of rebar in self-compacting concrete
- 10.1016@j.engstruct.2016.10.011
- Structural Design Waterworks Structures Manual
- PIP STE05121 - Anchor Bolt Design Guide
- 215r_74 Fatique loading.pdf
- ACI Spring 2011
- Pratical Guidance for Design of Buildings1 Compatibility Mode 653
- PUNCHING SHEAR STRENGTH OF COLUMN FOOTINGS IN ACTUAL DESIGN CODES AND THEIR EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
- National Science Foundation: CIES RB2C
- Seismic Behavior of Beam-Column Joints
- IRJET- Strength and Ductility in unreinforced masonry walls with two openings retrofitted by Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers
- SAIC-O-1004
- Tutorial 05 Joint
- BergetalCBM2006
- Hallo

You are on page 1of 12

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

E. Cosenza, G. Manfredi, R. Realfonzo*

Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy

Received 25 June 2001; revised 8 July 2002; accepted 13 July 2002

Abstract

In recent years, some attempts have been performed to extend general design rules reported in the codes for steel reinforced concrete to

Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials; this is the case of relationships adopted in the evaluation of the development length clearly

derived by extension of the formulations used for steel rebars. However, such relationships seem to be inappropriate for FRP reinforcing bars:

in fact, experimental test results have shown that bond behaviour of FRP bars is different from that observed in case of deformed steel ones.

As a consequence, a new procedure for the evaluation of development length based on an analytical approach is needed in order to directly

account for the actual bond-slip constitutive law as obtained by experimental tests on different types of FRP reinforcing bars.

An analytical solution of the problem of a FRP rebar embedded in a concrete block and pulled-out by means of a tensile force applied on

the free end is presented herein. Such solution leads to an exact evaluation of the development length when splitting failure is prevented.

Finally, based on the analytical approach, a limit state design procedure is suggested to evaluate the development length. q 2002 Elsevier

Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: FRP reinforcing bar

1. Introduction

From design point of view, the study of concrete

structures reinforced using FRP reinforcing bars has been

initially developed by extending the wide body of

information gathered in a century of use of steel reinforced

concrete. Studies have been often carried out by comparing

performances obtained by using steel or FRP reinforcing

bars; moreover, the manufacturing technologies have been

oriented to fabricate composite bars which are similar, in

shape and dimensions, to those made of deformed steel.

One of the critical aspects of structural behaviour is the

development of an adequate bond behaviour; a number of

tests have been performed by several authors on FRP

reinforcing bars in order to study their bond performance

and to compare such bond properties with those evidenced

by deformed steel bars. On this topic, three state-of-art

reports have been recently published by Cosenza et al. [8],

Tepfers [21] and fib Task Group 5.2 [12].

From the experimental results, it was concluded that

bond between FRP reinforcement and concrete is controlled

by several factors such as the mechanical and geometrical

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 39-81-7683485; fax: 39-81-7683406.

E-mail address: robrealf@unina.it (R. Realfonzo).

In particular, the interaction phenomena are governed by

shear strength and deformability of ribs, which are

remarkably lower than those of steel bars; this leads to

increased slips between rebars and concrete and different

failure mechanisms [13,15,16]. Mechanical properties of

resin, which the matrix is made of, have a remarkable

influence on the interaction behaviour since they strongly

affect strength and deformability of ribs and indentations

located on the outer surface.

Therefore, by comparing FRP and steel rebars, it has been

noted that the differences in bond behaviour are due to some

properties of FRP reinforcing bars; this underlines the

inadequacy of extending the design rules for steel reinforced

concrete to FRP reinforcing bars. Therefore, a critical review

of the design methodology is needed in order to introduce this

new type of bars as reinforcement for concrete structures.

Despite the above remarks, some attempts have been

performed in order to extend to such new materials, with

some minor modifications, the general design rules reported

in the codes traditionally used for steel reinforced concrete;

this is the case of the relationships adopted in the evaluation

of the embedment length clearly derived by extension of the

formulation used for steel bars [3,14].

1359-8368/02/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 1 3 5 9 - 8 3 6 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 5 1 - 3

494

Nomenclature

Ab

cb

f

E

Ef

0

f ck

fb0d

fc

f c0

fd

ff

ft

fu

fyf

Ld

bar perimeter

bar diameter

elastic modulus of the FRP rebar

elastic modulus of steel rebars

characteristic compressive strength of concrete

design bond strength

compressive concrete strength

compressive concrete strength

design tensile strength of the FRP rebar

tensile stress of the FRP rebar

tensile concrete strength

tensile strength of the bar

yielding strength of steel rebar in tension

development length

development length of deformed FRP reinforcing bars and

presents a new approach based on an analytical formulation.

Such a procedure is based on the analytical study of the

problem of a rebar embedded in a concrete block and

pulled-out by means of a tensile force applied at one end. In

order to integrate the differential equation that governs such

problem, the definition of a suitable bond-slip constitutive

relationship is needed.

Recently, Pecce et al. [18] proposed a numerical procedure

for evaluating the constitutive bond-slip relationship. Based

on the experimental bond test results, such procedure is able

to identify values of the parameters which define the

modified version [8] of the Eligehausen, Popov and Bertero

relationship [10]. In this way, a suitable constitutive t s law

was proposed in the case of a recently introduced GFRP

reinforcing bars (C-Bare by Marshall Inc.); however, the

above-mentioned numerical procedure could allow to derive

a constitutive relationship for any type of bars.

The presented analytical approach has been developed by

considering the Eligehausen et al., modified law as bondslip (t s ) relationship; a numerical example is carried out

in case of C-Bare using the constitutive t s law suggested

by Pecce et al. [18].

Finally, based on the analytical approach, a design

procedure is proposed to evaluate the development length.

The method, which represents a first proposal, takes into

account the actual bond-slip constitutive laws of the different

FRP rebars and introduces some different safety factors.

Under the assumption of constant distribution of bond

stresses t, the problem of a diameter f reinforcing bar

slip

slip at peak bond strength

allowable crack width

parameters of the Eligehausen et al., modified

bond-slip law (Eqs. (16) and (17))

tensile strain

safety factor that affects the elastic modulus

global safety factor

material safety factor

tensile stress

tensile strength of the FRP bar

characteristic value of tensile strength of the

FRP rebar

characteristic yielding strength of steel rebars

bond stress

maximum bond strength

Ldb

s

sm

wlim

a,p

1

gE

gg

gm

s

su

suk

syk

t

tm

to a tensile force T is governed by the following equilibrium

equation:

T Ld ptf

force T can be written as:

T Ab ff

Ld

Ab ff

ptf

or, alternatively:

Ld

fff

4t

For deformed steel bars, it has been found that bond strength

tm is a linear function of the square root of the compressive

concrete strength f 0c [10]:

p

5

tm k f 0c

where k is a constant.

Therefore, from Eqs. (3) and (5):

Ld

Ab ff

p

pkf f 0c

Ld

Ab ff

p

K f 0c

length, generally indicated with Ldb; K depends on the

relationship between the bond strength and the compressive

concrete strength and on the bar diameter.

In case of #3 to #11 deformed steel reinforcing bars, the

leading to the following expression of Ldb:

Ab fyf

Ldb 0:04 p0

fc

where fyf and f 0c are the yielding strength of steel bars and

compressive concrete strength, respectively (psi), and Ab, is

the rebar area (in.2).

According to ACI 318-89, the development length Ld is

provided by:

Y

Ld

fi Ldb

9

Q

where fi indicates the product of some modification

factors that take into account the influence on bond of some

key parameters (i.e. cover, spacing, transverse reinforcement).

Some modifications of Eq. (8) have been subsequently

reported by ACI 318-95 [2].

In order to extend Eq. (7) to FRP reinforcing bars, several

investigators have attempted to evaluate experimentally

values of K for different types of FRP bars [5,9,11,19].

Furthermore, based on experimental results, in case of

FRP reinforcing bars, some authors proposed simplified

expressions of Ldb; these expressions, clearly design

oriented, are not suitable for all types of FRP reinforcing

bars, because they are practically appropriate only for the

selected bars. An example is given by [6,7]:

Ld 20f

10

Recently, formulations for evaluating the basic development length have been proposed in new codes for design

of concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars. This is

the case of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)

Design Code [14] and of the ACI Committee 440 Guide

[3].

In the case of JSCE code, Ldb is clearly derived from

Eq. (4):

Ldb a1

ffd

4fb0d

Ldb

fffu

18:5

a linear relationship between bond strength and the square

root of the compressive concrete strength f 0c : Several

investigators have shown that such a relationship does not

hold true for FRP reinforcing bars [6,13,15,16].

Therefore, the development of a new procedure to

evaluate the development length of FRP bars, based on an

analytical approach, is needed. It should take into account

the actual bond-slip constitutive law, as obtained by

experimental tests.

The problem of a rebar embedded in a concrete block and

pulled-out by means of an applied tensile force is analysed

in the following.

A closed form solution is obtained by adopting linear

elastic constitutive laws for the materials and the Eligehausen et al., modified relationship [8,18] as bond-slip

constitutive law. Such an analytical solution allows to

obtain slip, normal stress and bond stress distributions along

the rebar (i.e. at a generic abscissa x ). Furthermore, such a

solution leads to an exact evaluation of the development

length.

The studied case is schematically shown in Fig. 1, where

the origin of the x-axis is in the free end of the bar.

The differential equation that governs the bond problem

[20] is obtained by considering:

the equilibrium of rebar:

pf2

ds pft dx

4

s E1 E

12

reinforcing bars) in MPa and f is in mm.

In the ACI guide, two modification factors greater than 1

are considered in order to prevent splitting of concrete and

to evaluate the development length of top bars.

The above relationships seem to be unsuitable for FRP

13

contribution of concrete in tension is neglected, is given

by:

11

strength and a1 is a coefficient less than 1.

The Japanese code states that the basic development

length shall not be taken less than 20 times the bar diameter.

The ACI Committee 440, for failure controlled by

pullout, proposes (in SI units):

495

ds

dx

14

of the rebar, respectively.

From Eqs. (13) and (14), the following differential

equation is obtained:

d2 s

4

tx 0

2

2

Ef

dx

15

Fig. 2is considered herein. Such a constitutive law is

given by:

(A) for s , sm ; an ascending branch which is formally

coincident with the first branch of the Eligehausen, Popov

496

tm, the maximum bond strength, sm, the slip at peak bond

strength and su is the ultimate slip.

By using such a law when integrating Eq. (15), two cases,

A (s # sm) and B (s . sm) have to be separately considered.

3.1. Case A (s # sm)

Considering Eq. (16), it is possible to rewrite Eq. (15) as:

2

ds

4t m a

2

s 0

2

Efsam

dx

18

conditions:

ds

s0 0;

10 0

dx x0

i.e. considering a perfect anchorage of the bar, the following

solution is obtained:

"

#1=12a

2tm 1 2 a2

sx

x2=12a

19

Efsam 1 a

that provides the trend of the slip s along the bar.

Trends of the bond stress t and of the tensile stress s

are derived by considering Eqs. (13) and (14), respectively:

tx

s

ts tm 1 p 2 p

sm

sx E

ds

dx

20

limit values can be derived from Eqs. (19) and (20):

a

s

ts tm

sm

pf ds

;

4 dx

the limit development length lm.

16

17

branch, p, a coefficient which defines the softening branch,

corresponding to a slip equal to sm:

s

8E tm sm

21

s1 ssm

f 1a

The value lm represents an upper bound of the development

length related to the ascending branch of the bond-slip law,

i.e. the development length that corresponds to a stress

applied to the rebar equal to s1. In fact, setting s sm in Eq.

(19), the corresponding value of x represents lm:

s

Ef sm 1 a

lm

22

2 tm 1 2 a2

Furthermore, considering Eqs. (21) and (22), lm can be also

written as:

lm

s1 f 1 a

1a

l0m

4t m 1 2 a

12a

23

and t constant tm.

an increment of slips s (Eq. (19)) and in a reduction of

the embedment length (Eq. (22)). Eq. (23) confirms that

lm is greater than l0m, since (1 a )/(1 2 a ) is greater

than 1.

Eqs. (19), (20) and (22) lead to the following useful

relationships:

ps

sx

x

2

where ps

24

sm

lm

12a

ps

sx

x

1a

where ps

ps 2 1

25

lm

s1

12a

pt

tx

x

2a

where pt

ps 2 2

26

lm

tm

12a

Eqs. (24) (26) provide simple expressions of s, s and t as a

function of x=lm : In particular, it can be noticed that:

for a 0, the slip s is a quadratic function of the abscissa

x, while the normal stress s is linear and the bond stress t

assumes the constant value tm;

for a 1/3, sx is cubic, s(x) is parabolic and t(x) is

linear.

For s , s1, the development length l can be evaluated

from Eq. (25) by setting x l; then, the following

expression of l is obtained:

12a=1a

s

l lm

27

s1

For 0 , s # s1, Eq. (27) provides values of the length l less

than the value lm derived from Eq. (23).

According to Eq. (23), another expression of l can be

easily derived from Eq. (27):

2a=1a

s

1a

l l0 1

28

s

12a

where:

l 0 l 0 s

fs

4t m

29

constant tm.

It has to be underlined that Eq. (29) can be obtained from

Eq. (28) by setting a 0, i.e. by assuming a rigid-plastic

bond-slip constitutive law.

Finally, from Eq. (28), it can be seen that the value of the

development length l is greater than l0.

3.2. Case B (s . sm)

Considering Eq. (17), the differential Eq. (18) becomes:

conditions:

slm sm ;

ds

dx

497

xlm

1lm

s1

E

(

sx

1

1 p 2 cosvx 2 lm

sm

p

9

s

=

2p

sinvx 2 lm

;

1a

31

where:

s s

4ptm

1

2p 1 a

v

lm 1 a 1 2 a

E f sm

Finally, by substituting Eq. (31) into Eq. (17), the

distribution law of bond stresses along the bar is given by:

s

tx

2p

sinvx 2 lm

cosvx 2 lm 2

32

1a

tm

while, remembering Eq. (14), sx is provided by:

s

sx

1a

sinvx 2 lm

cosvx 2 lm

s1

2p

33

development length l can be obtained by:

8

s"

s#

<

1 2 a2

A t2

arcsin

l lm 1

:

2p1 a

Atmax

s9

fs2 =

2 arcsin 1 2

8EAtmax ;

34

t s

t s

t s

At 2 m m

and

Atmax m m m m

2p

1a

2p

Eq. (34) provides the development length for values of

s $ s1; obviously, for s s1 (i.e. s sm ) Eq. (34)

provides l lm :

Neglecting the frictional contribution to the bond

mechanism (Fig. 2), a theoretical limit threshold of tensile

stress s2 can be evaluated. It is easy to demonstrate that such

threshold, which corresponds to a maximum value of slip (at

the loaded end) equal to the ultimate one s0, can be obtained

by the following expression:

s

8E

35

s2 ss0

A

f tmax

ds

4ptm

41 ptm

s

2

Efsm

Ef

dx

30

obtained for the threshold s1 (Eq. (21)).

This means that in the previously stated hypotheses, a

498

Eq. (34) that corresponds to s s2; however, by increasing

such value of length, it is not possible to transfer a normal

stress greater than s2. Obviously, this is true in the adopted

hypothesis of neglecting the frictional contribution.

Therefore, it has to be pointed out that the evaluation of

the development length requires a complete characterisation

of the bond-slip constitutive law and an estimate of the

elastic modulus of the bar. In particular, from Eqs. (22), (27)

and (34), it can be verified that the development length

decreases if: the elastic modulus E of the bar decreases; the

rigidity of the bond-slip law increases (i.e. minor values of a

and sm); the bond strength tm increases; the slope of the

softening branch of the bond-slip law decreases (i.e. minor

values of p ).

of the surrounding concrete, while the rebar was

undamaged;

for fc . 55 60 MPa, failure was due to damage

concentrated on the ribs of the FRP reinforcing bar,

whereas damage of the surrounding concrete was

negligible;

for 30 , fc , 55 MPa damage both of the outer surface

of the reinforcing bar and within the concrete was

observed.

The possibility that the interaction phenomena could be

dependent on mechanical properties of the ribs results in a

substantial difference compared to the case of bond of steel

reinforcement, where the weak element is always concrete.

Observing values shown in Table 1, the following bondslip relationship is suggested:

(a) for s # 0.25 mm:

The assessment of the t s law by means of experimental

tests is not straightforward; generally, pull-out or beam tests

are performed to evaluate such a constitutive law and

tests are carried out on specimens characterized by short

embedment lengths (about five times the bar diameter or

less). Furthermore, values of t are generally obtained by

assuming a constant distribution of bond stresses in

the embedded portion while slips are measured at the free

end.

In the case of FRP reinforcing bars, values of slips

measured at the two ends are very different and the

hypothesis of a constant bond stress distribution appears

to be inadequate. In order to overcome this problem, some

authors reduced the length of the embedded portion to very

short values (2 3 times the bar diameter) [15,22]; however,

it has to be observed that in this way the influence of local

irregularities can be magnified and, consequently, test

results may have a large scatter.

For this reason, in a recent paper, Pecce et al. [18]

proposed an identification procedure aimed to estimate,

by experimental bond test results, values of parameters

defining the Eligehausen et al., modified constitutive

law. By using such a procedure, the authors calculated

the mean values and the coefficient of variation (c.o.v.)

of the above parameters for a #4 GFRP C-Bare; such

values are shown in Table 1 (the c.o.v. are in

parenthesis).

It has to be underlined that test results assumed as

reference in Ref. [18] come from beam tests with a large

concrete cover, i.e. they are representative of cases where

the splitting collapse is prevented. Furthermore, such tests

were conducted on specimens having a compressive

concrete strength fc ranging between 39 and 52 MPa; in

this case the variation of concrete strength should not

largely influence the bond strength.

This last observation is confirmed by pull-out tests results

on C-Bare obtained by Karlsson [15]:

tb s 20:5s1=4

36

tb s 16:5 2 7:4s

37

As above-mentioned, values of parameters shown in Eqs.

(36) and (37) were identified for a #4 GFRP C-Bare from

bond tests without splitting failure. Anyway, an appropriate

set of coefficients can be also obtained in case of splitting

failure by applying the identification procedure proposed by

Pecce et al. [18] to bond tests characterised by this kind of

failure; the same can be said in the case of change of the

rebar type.

Therefore, the design procedure shown in the following,

based on the Eligehausen et al., bond-slip law, can be seen

as a general method.

However, from a design point of view, specific design

rules should be proposed in order to avoid splitting failure.

Furthermore, a mean value of the elastic modulus E equal

to about 42,000 MPa and an average value of tensile

strength of 600 MPa were found by performing tensile tests

on #4 (bar diameter f equal to 12.7 mm) C-Bare [18].

It is worth noting that the value declared by Marshall

modulus E is equal to the obtained one, while the declared

tensile strength sud 770 MPa is greater than the obtained

one.

For the identified values, a threshold s1 equal to about

Table 1

Mean values and c.o.v. of the bond parameters

sm (mm)

tm (Mpa)

0.253 (0.136)

14.65 (0.083)

0.245 (0.465)

0.128 (0.449)

499

corresponding development length lm equal to about

100 mm has been calculated from Eq. (23).

The stress s vs. the dimensionless development length

L/f curve has been obtained by adopting values of Table 1

and the above-mentioned elastic modulus. Such a curve,

shown in Fig. 3, has been derived by computing

the development length for each value of the normal stress,

using Eq. (28) if s # s1, and Eq. (34) if s . s1 (closed

form solutions). In Fig. 3, results of bond tests performed by

Karlsson [15], Benmokrane and Masmoudi [4] and Pecce

et al [18] are also shown.

Karlsson carried out an experimental program on #4 and

#5 C-Barse by adopting three values of the embedment

length (3f, 5f and 7f ): a pull-out failure was observed in

all the cases.

The same failure was observed by Benmokrane and

Masmoudi testing #5 C-Barse with an embedment length

equal to five times the bar diameter.

Pecce et al. performed beam tests on #4 C-Barse with

embedment length ranging from 5 to 30 times the bar

diameter: both pull-out and tensile failure were observed

depending on the embedment length value.

Fig. 3 shows a good agreement between the

experimental results and the analytical law; however,

results from Karlsson tests are underestimated by the

numerical curve, probably due to the well known

Achillides effect [12]. In fact, Karlsson tests give a

higher bond strength because of an end anchor contribution

due to the protruding free bar end pulled into the bond

region.

However, the analytical curve is conservative in

comparison with the actual behaviour; in fact, for a

given development length L, the evaluated corresponding

s s(L )is less than the experimental value.

Immediately before the pull-out failure occurs, i.e. when

the rebar starts to slip at the free end, the normal stress s

can yet increase because the integral of bond stresses t

dependent on the bond-slip constitutive law.

Because of the hypothesis of a slip equal to zero at the

free end, the above-presented analytical formulation does

not allow to evaluate the maximum stress s in pull-out

conditions; in order to calculate such stress, for a given

embedment length, a numerical integration of Eq. (15) is

needed. Fig. 3 also depicts the stress s vs. L/f curve

obtained by means of the numerical integration; this

curve shows a better agreement to the experimental results

and confirms the more conservative trend provided by the

close form solution (i.e. when slip is equal to zero at the free

end). Finally, examining Fig. 3, it can be observed that, in

some cases, results from Pecce et al. show a bar tensile

failure with values of the normal stress less than 600 MPa:

this was probably due to the unavoidable coupling between

tension and bending of the rebar in case of beam tests.

In Fig. 4, trends of normal stresses, bond stresses and

slips are reported in case of a #4 GFRP C-Bare in tension

embedded in a concrete block for a length equal to 200 mm.

Such trends have been obtained by using Eqs. (24) (26) in

the embedded portion where s is less than the threshold

s1, and by Eqs. (31) (33) where s is greater than the

threshold s1.

Two levels of normal stresses are considered (610 and

280 MPa); they are respectively associated to a development length of 200 and 100 mm. Because both cases are

characterised by s $ s1, the above-mentioned value of l has

been evaluated from Eq. (34). The origin of the axes is

placed in the point where:

ds

s 0;

10

dx

and it can be observed that for x equal to lm:

s s1 280 MPa;

s sm 0:25 mm

t tm 14:6 MPa;

500

Fig. 4. Trends of normal stress, bond stress and slip along a GFRP C-Bare.

Previously, two cases have been studied; they differ for

what follows:

Case As # s1; s # sm ; l # lm . l0m

Case Bs $ s1; s $ sm ; l $ lm

only the ascending branch of the t s law; for s $ s1 (Case

B), instead, the softening branch of the constitutive law

has to be considered. Otherwise, the bound s1 for s limits

the possibility to anchor the rebar.

However, the softening branch of the bond-slip curve

of parameter p [18], which such branch is dependent on ; for

this reason, only the Case A will be examined in the design

procedure presented in the following.

Furthermore, it has to be noticed that since the softening

branch surely provides a further contribute in the anchorage

of the rebar, in case of rebars characterized by different

softening behaviour, such design procedure provides

different safety levels.

Neglecting the contribution of the softening branch, the

above-mentioned value s1 can be seen as an upper threshold

for the normal stress s; in particular, s1 represents a limit

beyond which-even though it is possible to anchor the rebarit is necessary to rely on the descending branch of the bondslip law.

Therefore, it is possible to define a limit condition given

by the following expression:

s

8E tm sm

38

s # s1

f 1a

or:

8 E t m sm

$1

1 a s2 f

39

performed by using Eq. (27).

If Eq. (27) is used, a preliminary definition of the t slip

constitutive relationship is needed; this law will depend on

the type of rebar (i.e. on the type of fibres and matrix and on

the shape of outer surface and possible treatments), on the

concrete compressive strength and on some other parameters (i.e. temperature, etc.) [8]. Furthermore, the

definition of the elastic modulus E is also necessary.

The above-mentioned design procedure is briefly

reported in the following.

Assigned the characteristic value of the ultimate strength

of the rebar suk, the design value sd has to be determined by

considering a material safety factor gm:

sd

suk

gm

40

design value sd is greater than s1, a new design value of the

normal stress should be used in the calculation:

sd s1

41

evaluated by:

12a=1a

s

Ldb lm d

42

s1

According to the ACI Guide [3], two modification factors

should be considered: gt, bar location modification factor,

and gc, concrete cover modification factor.

501

12a=1a

s

Ldb gt gc lm d

s1

fs1 1 a sd 12a=1a

gt gc

43

4tm 1 2 a s1

A further safety factor gg has to be applied as a global

coefficient to obtain the development length value; such a

global coefficient accounts for all uncertainties arising in

the evaluation of the embedment length (in particular for the

uncertainty regarding the bond-slip law). Therefore, the

final value of the basic development length can be obtained

by:

Ld gg Ldb

44

safety for different FRP rebars.

It is well-known that in case of FRP reinforced concrete

structures, checks at the serviceability limit state may

become the main design criteria. In particular checks of the

member deflections, of the amplitude of cracks width and of

stress intensity must be performed; results from checks at

serviceability may indirectly lead to a further reduction of

the design stress level (sd).

As an example, assumingas first approximationthat

slip s is equal to the amplitude of crack w, a maximum value

of slip slim can be fixed based on the allowable crack width

wlim, i.e. the width compatible with aesthetic and psychological problems [14]. Then, a limit for normal stresses slim

can be evaluated as a function of slim by using the following

equation:

s s

a

a

8E tm s1

8E tm w1

lim

lim

slim

45

a

a

fsm 1 a

fsm 1 a

A value of slim can be also obtained considering a threshold

for s at the serviceability state level: for example, an

allowable stress limit slim 0.25ffu could be suggested in

case of glass FRP (GFRP) bars.

This value of slim can indirectly provide also a limit to

avoid a creep failure of the FRP reinforcing bar; it is worth

to notice that, in order to avoid failure due to creep rupture

of FRP, in the ACI Committee 440 code a stress limit equal

to 0.20ffu under all sustained loads (i.e. dead load plus the

sustained portion of the live loads) has been assumed in the

case of GFPR reinforcing bars [3].

In order to verify that serviceability checks are satisfied,

the ratio sd/slim has to be rather low; in particular, such ratio

must be less than the ratio of the design load at the ultimate

state level to the design load at the serviceability level

(about 1.50). Conversely, if sd/slim is greater than the above

ratio, the design will be conditioned by the checks at

serviceability and the stress level under ultimate load

conditions will be less than the design value sd.

502

In defining the tensile strength of FRP reinforcing

bars some different conversion factors should be used in

order to:

transform the strength measured during experimental

tests to that of FRP reinforcement in the structure;

take into account the decrease of the strength due to long

time load;

consider the deterioration of strength due to concrete

environment.

All the factors should be less than 1 and depend on the

FRP rebar type. For what concerns the conversion factor, for

in situ strength a value ranging from 0.8 and 0.95 can be

adopted.

In the code proposed by ACI 440 [3], the design ultimate

tensile strength is given by:

ffu CE ffup

46

depends on the type of fibre and on the exposure condition,

while ffup is the ultimate tensile strength of the FRP bar, as

reported by the manufacturer, defined as the mean strength

of a sample of test specimens minus three times the

standard deviation. For GFRP reinforcing bars, CE is equal

to 0.7 or 0.8 in case of exterior or interior exposure,

respectively.

The material safety factor gm should reflect the actual

variability of properties of the reinforcement and the

calculation model for the resistance; moreover, compared

to steel reinforcement, the more severe consequences due to

the elastic-brittle behaviour of FRP reinforcing bars have to

be considered in defining gm.

In case of continuous fibre reinforcing materials (CFRP),

Okamura et al. [17] suggested to divide the characteristic

strength by a value of gm ranging from 1.0 to 1.3 since the

following factors have to be considered: damage to CFRP

occurring in the construction and transportation phases;

differences in material properties between the experimental

specimens and the structure; temperature and environmental

condition, etc.

In the recent code proposed by JSCE [14], the following

values of gm are reported:

aramid fibres;

gm equal to 1.30 in the case of CFRP with glass fibres.

5.2. Evaluation of the elastic modulus E

The s 1 curves obtained by tensile tests in case of FRP

reinforcing bars are not perfectly linear elastic. Therefore,

some uncertainties exist in evaluating the elastic modulus

that characterised the linear elastic design s 1 diagram.

Depending on the state level in the JSCE Recommendation [14], two different proposals for the elastic modulus

are reported, thus obtaining two tensile force strain

design curve (see Figs. 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 in the JSCE

Recommendation).

As underlined above, from Eq. (27), it can be noticed that

when the elastic modulus increases, the development length

increases. Therefore, in the evaluation of the development

length, a safety factor gE less than 1 should be used in order

to increase the value of E obtained from the experimental

test results:

Ed E=gE

47

global coefficient gg (Eq. (44)).

5.3. Multiplication factors (gt and gc)

According to the ACI Guide [3] a bar location

modification factor (gt) equal to 1.3 should be considered

when evaluating the basic development length of top FRP

bars.

A concrete cover modification factor (gc) of 1.5 should

be used when the concrete cover or the reinforcement

spacing is equal to the bar diameter (f ); for concrete cover

larger than 2f, a factor gc equal to 1 should be applied;

finally, gc is provided by a linear interpolation of the two

previous values in the case of concrete cover ranging

between f and 2f.

5.4. A numerical example

The procedure presented in the previous section is applied

below to a #4 GFRP C-Bare, having an elastic modulus

equal to 42,000 MPa. A value of gE equal to 1 will be adopted

in the following.

In this case, values of tm, sm and a which characterised

the ascending branch of the bond-slip constitutive law are

those reported in Table 1 and the threshold stress s1

obtained by Eq. (21)results equal to 280 MPa.

According to the JSCE Recommendation, a value of gm

equal to 1.30 is considered; then assuming as characteristic

strength a value of s equal to 600 MPa the following design

strength is obtained: sd 600/1.3 < 430 MPa.

The application of the above described procedure for a #4

GFRP C-Bare, leads to verify that:

(a) the design value of normal stresses is greater than s1;

therefore, s1 is adopted as new design value (reduced

value):

sd s1 280 MPa

(b) in the case of reinforcement located in the bottom of

the concrete element (gt 1) and for concrete cover

larger than 2f (gc 1), the development length Ldb

12a=1a

s

fs 1 a

Ldb gt gc lm d

lm

s1

4t m 1 2 a

100 mm

4 14:65 1 2 0:245

(c) assuming a global coefficient gg equal to 2.5, the

following development length is obtained (Eq. (44)):

Ld gg Ldb 2:5 8f 20f

The proposed procedure points out that the use in practice of

such a deformed GFRP reinforcing bars appears to be quite

limited by their bond behaviour; in fact, it is necessary to

reduce the design stresses to the value s1 in order to anchor

these bars in the concrete matrix.

However, in order to check the allowable stress limit at

the serviceability state limit, assuming as slim the value

0.25ffu it can be obtained:

and:

Therefore, as expected, check at the serviceability limit state

may become a dominant design criteria and a stress level

less than sd will be reached at the ultimate load conditions;

however, in order to be conservative, a development length

corresponding to sd should be evaluated.

6. Concluding remarks

The problem of the evaluation of the development

length in case of FRP reinforcing bars has been studied.

Despite of an extensive state-of-the-art research, which

extended the code design formulas for steel reinforced

concrete structures, a new design procedure has been

proposed based on the analytical formulation.

It is considered that, since these bars are made of new

materials, the design procedure has to be derived in a

rational manner, i.e. neglecting approximate approaches

or formulations derived from classical theories (used for

steel reinforced concrete structures) and accounting for

the actual bond-slip constitutive laws.

Therefore, a suitable assessment of the actual bond

behaviour is a main step of the proposed procedure. The

constitutive bond-slip relationship has to be identified for the

considered FRP rebar from experimental tests. The highest

bond strength will be obtained for specimens characterised

by a well-confined situation, while tests on elements in a not

so well confined situation will allow the evaluation of the

influence of the splitting on bond resistance.

503

and the presented numerical example allows to draw the

following conclusions:

1. the use in practice of GFRP C-Barse seems to be limited

by their bond behaviour since, neglecting the softening

branch of the bond-slip law, it is needed to reduce the

value of design stresses in order to anchor these bars in

the concrete matrix;

2. the value of the design strength can be increased if the

unsafe softening branch is considered; in this case, an

adequate value of the basic development length must be

evaluated according to the analytical formulation (Case

B);

3. a value of the global safety coefficient has to be

established in order to evaluate the development

length.

Furthermore, it has been observed that checks at the

serviceability state level may become dominant design

criteria thus leading to a reduction of the stress intensity

at the ultimate load conditions in comparison to the

design value. Therefore, the calculated development

length results in a conservative value and, actually, the

aforementioned limitations, due to the bond behaviour of

GFRP reinforcing bars, do not influence its evaluation.

References

[1] ACI, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete. ACI

318-89, Detroit, MI: American Concrete Institute; 1989. revised

1992.

[2] ACI, Building code requirements for structural concrete. ACI 318-95,

Detroit, MI: American Concrete Institute; 1995.

[3] ACI, Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced

with FRP bars. ACI Committee 440, Draft, Detroit, MI: American

Concrete Institute; 2000.

[4] Benmokrane B, Masmoudi R. FRP C-Bar as reinforcing rod for

concrete structures. In: El-Badry M, editor. Proceedings of the Second

International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridge

Structures, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 1996.

[5] Brown VL, Bartholomew CL. FRP reinforcing bars in reinforced

concrete members. ACI Mater J 1993;90(1).

[6] Chaallal O, Benmokrane B. Pullout and bond of glass-fibre rods

embedded in concrete and cement grout. Mater Struct 1993;26.

[7] Chaallal O, Benmokrane B, Masmoudi R. An innovative glass-fibre

composite rebar for concrete structures. Proceedings of the First

International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridge

Structures, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; 1992.

[8] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Behaviour and modeling of

bond of FRP rebars to concrete. J Compos Construct, ASCE 1997;

1(2).

[9] Ehsani MR, Saadatmanesh H, Tao S. Design recommendations for

bond of GFRP rebars to concrete. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1996;

122(3).

[10] Eligehausen R, Popov,EP, Bertero VV. Local bond stress slip

relationships of deformed bars under generalized excitations. Report

no. 83/23, EERC, University of California, Berkeley; 1983.

[11] Faza SS, Gangarao HVS. Theoretical and experimental correlation of

behavior of concrete beams reinforced with fiber reinforced plastic

504

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

rebars. In: Nanni A, Dolan CW, editors. Proceedings of

the International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, ACI SP-138, Vancouver, Canada; 1993.

fib, Bond of reinforcement in concrete. Bulletin 10. State of the art

prepared by Task Group Bond Models, former CEB, Task Group 5.2.,

CH-1015 Lausanne; August 2000.

Hattori A, Inoue S, Miyagawa T, Fujii MA. Study on bond creep

behavior of FRP rebars embedded in concrete. In: Taerwe L, editor

Proceedings of the Second International RILEM Symposium

(FRPRCS-2), Ghent, Belgium; 1995.

JSCE, In: Machida A, editor. Recommendations for design and

construction of concrete structures using continuous fiber reinforcing

materials. Concrete Engineering Series, 23, Tokyo, Japan: Research

Committee on Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials; 1997.

Karlsson M. Bond between C-Bar FRP reinforcement and concrete,

Chalmers University of Technology, Pub. No.98:3, Work No. 22.

Graduation Thesis: E-91:1, Goteborg, Sweden; 1997.

Nanni A, Al-Zaharani MM, Al-Dulaijan SU, Bakis CE, Boothby TE.

Bond of FRP reinforcement to concreteexperimental results. In:

Taerwe L, editor. Proceedings of the Second International RILEM

Symposium (FRPRCS-2), Ghent, Belgium; 1995.

concrete members using continuous fiber reinforcing materials. In:

Nanni A, Dolan CW, editors. Proceedings of the International

Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete

Structures, ACI SP-138, Vancouver, Canada; 1993.

[18] Pecce M, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R, Cosenza E. Experimental and

analytical evaluation of bond properties of GFRP bars. J Mater Civil

Engng, ASCE 2001;13(4).

[19] Pleimann LG. Strength, modulus of elasticity, and bond of deformed

FRP rods. In: Iyer SL, editor. Advanced Composite Materials in Civil

Engineering Structures, Proceedings of the Specialty Conference, Las

Vegas, NV, USA; 1991.

ber die Grundlagen des Verbundes Zwischen Stahl und

[20] Rehm G. U

Beton. Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Helft 1961;138.

[21] Tepfers R, Work No. 15. Bond of FRP reinforcement in concretea

state of the art in preparation, Pub. 97. Goteborg, Sweden: Chalmers

University of Technology; 1997.

[22] Tepfers R, Karlsson M. Pull-out and tensile reinforcement splice

tests using FRP C-Bars. Proceedings of the Third International

Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete

Structures, Japan: Japan Concrete Institute; 1997.

- studyyyyUploaded byKathrynFord
- EPFL_TH7911.pdfUploaded byAlket Dhami
- Report of ACI-ASCE Committee 326 Shear and Diagonal Tension Part 3 - Siabs and Footings, Chapter 8, March1962Uploaded byMohamed
- Evaluation of Steel Fiber Reinforcement for Punching Shear Resistance in Slab-Column Connections Part II: Lateral Displacement ReversalsUploaded byProfessor Dr. Nabeel Al-Bayati-Consultant Engineer
- ReadyUploaded byrkpragadeesh
- Experimental determination on bond strength of rebar in self-compacting concreteUploaded byMarian Sabau
- 10.1016@j.engstruct.2016.10.011Uploaded byDennys Virhuez
- Structural Design Waterworks Structures ManualUploaded byaahmed2001
- PIP STE05121 - Anchor Bolt Design GuideUploaded bynistiana
- 215r_74 Fatique loading.pdfUploaded byRonaldo Hertez
- ACI Spring 2011Uploaded byyazz22
- Pratical Guidance for Design of Buildings1 Compatibility Mode 653Uploaded bySatya Yugandhar Gannamani
- PUNCHING SHEAR STRENGTH OF COLUMN FOOTINGS IN ACTUAL DESIGN CODES AND THEIR EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONUploaded byNathan Rodriguez
- National Science Foundation: CIES RB2CUploaded byNSF
- Seismic Behavior of Beam-Column JointsUploaded byRomanbabu Oinam
- IRJET- Strength and Ductility in unreinforced masonry walls with two openings retrofitted by Carbon Fiber Reinforced PolymersUploaded byIRJET Journal
- SAIC-O-1004Uploaded byHussain Nasser Al- Nowiesser
- Tutorial 05 JointUploaded byTeofilo Augusto Huaranccay Huamani
- BergetalCBM2006Uploaded byVergor Dominic Ebite
- HalloUploaded byMarvinEbora
- Bond%20Pullout%20TastaniThraceUploaded byprabindp
- Microsoft Word - FireSafety HomUploaded byHundeejireenya
- Materials and StructuresUploaded byNelsonSilva
- 215r_74-Considerations for Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading.pdfUploaded byjuan carlos alvarez gomez
- jaournal bambbooUploaded byVega Aditama
- Parrish Wong Tommelein Stojadinovic Exploration of set based design for reinforced concrete structuresUploaded byAbdul Hafeez
- 8 - Analysis of Doubly Reinforced BeamUploaded bygarhgelh
- wcscqatykaUploaded byIyamperumal Murugesan
- p75preEconomic Beam Designs Using FRP RebarUploaded byroopeshdesai
- Inﬂuence of Water on Bond Behavior Between CFRP Sheet and NaturalUploaded byAlper Onur Gözütok

- Civil 8Uploaded bysunilghaju
- Guidelines for Study of Hydropower ProjectsUploaded byFrancisco Urbano
- gravity-dam-102Uploaded bySushil Dhungana
- gravity-dam-101Uploaded bySushil Dhungana
- Structural Analysis of Dam; a feasibility level ApproachUploaded bynibbi1
- 12966_2Uploaded byperumalbalji
- gravity-dam-100Uploaded bySushil Dhungana
- Gravity Dam 99Uploaded bySushil Dhungana
- 13232Uploaded byperumalbalji
- 13144Uploaded byperumalbalji
- Gravity Dam 98Uploaded bySushil Dhungana
- gravity-dam-97-1024.pdfUploaded bySushil Dhungana
- 13073_2Uploaded byperumalbalji
- 13073_1Uploaded byperumalbalji
- Gravity Dam 97Uploaded bySushil Dhungana
- Gravity Dam 96Uploaded bySushil Dhungana
- 13645Uploaded byperumalbalji
- Gravity Dam 95Uploaded bySushil Dhungana
- Gravity Dam 94Uploaded bySushil Dhungana
- gravity-dam-93-1024.pdfUploaded bySushil Dhungana
- Gravity Dam 92Uploaded bySushil Dhungana
- gravity-dam-91-1024.pdfUploaded bySushil Dhungana
- gravity-dam-90-1024.pdfUploaded bySushil Dhungana
- gravity-dam-86-1024.pdfUploaded bySushil Dhungana
- gravity-dam-86-1024.pdfUploaded bySushil Dhungana
- gravity-dam-85-1024.pdfUploaded bySushil Dhungana
- gravity-dam-84-1024.pdfUploaded bySushil Dhungana
- Dams LecturesUploaded byMehboob Baloch
- Dam Gui DeliUploaded byHelen Roque
- 13665.pdfUploaded bySushil Dhungana

- Design Tips 1Uploaded bymerpati putih
- BridgesUploaded bySantosh Kumar Panigrahi
- BBIUploaded byChouChou
- Hanson Quick WallUploaded bybastonspestalode
- Rotberg-Updated township building permitUploaded byPhil Stilton
- Benson PresentationUploaded byJithin Jacob Koshy
- DESIGN OF RC SLABUploaded byRamilArtates
- Building Regulations Fireplace and ChimneyUploaded byBetty Bakker
- Temperature ControllUploaded byCristian Ogrezeanu
- applsci-06-00126.pdfUploaded byAmar Wadood
- Girder-Slab System Design Guide v3.2Uploaded bydalocivil
- Baxi Solo Wm 50-4 PfUploaded byAlan McIntyre
- AWP Product DataUploaded bybshev01
- Hemp Thermographic ReportUploaded byEste Ban
- Earthquake Resistant Structures and Ductile Detailing Concepts of RCC ElementsUploaded byFaraaz Faisal
- Gps PillarUploaded byCozy King Leishangthem
- Residential Estimate for SamantUploaded byKushal Dubey
- Air HandlingUploaded byBalasubrahmanyam Chakravartula
- Quotation -300mm and 250mm Jalan Reko-2Uploaded byshabow_azwan
- Bioclimatism and Vernacular Architecture of North East India.pdfUploaded bysachinharry
- 2016+Project+Assignment++4Uploaded byShant Danielian
- Table of Contnents UbcUploaded byKattie Monroe
- Parallels_Spool_37422_1942727722Uploaded byrouzbeh1797
- ETA Freyssinet EnUploaded bybulbucata
- SE1 Design Practice GuidelinesUploaded byZack
- log b1 testUploaded byMohammad Yaseen
- Freespan Beams BrochureUploaded byhbvin
- Self Compacting ConcreteUploaded byKannan Kandappan
- Bp-18 Storefronts Glass and GlazingUploaded bylaurabrown63
- Manual de Serviço Ar Sala Lg CBN181QLA.pdfUploaded byYuri Godoy