Asia-Pacific Conference on FRP in Structures (APFIS 2007)

S.T. Smith (ed)

© 2007 International Institute for FRP in Construction

PULL-OUT TESTS ON FRP ANCHORS

S.J. Kim1 and S.T. Smith 2*

1
Centre for Built Infrastructure Research, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
2
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, China. Email: stsmith@hku.hk

ABSTRACT

In recent years, the use of externally bonded fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) composites has become popular as a
means to strengthen or repair reinforced concrete (RC) infrastructure. The effectiveness of the FRP strengthening
may however be compromised by premature debonding failure of the FRP prior to its ultimate strength being
reached. An efficient anchorage system to delay/prevent premature debonding failures in RC structural members
strengthened with FRP composites is therefore of importance to improve the efficiency, reliability and safety of
FRP strengthening systems. To date, several different types of anchorages have been applied to FRP-
strengthened RC members, namely embedded metal threads, U-jackets, near surface mounted rods, and anchors
made using FRP (i.e. FRP anchors). Embedded FRP anchors are particularly attractive as they are non-corrosive,
and can be applied to slabs and walls. Surprisingly little research however has been undertaken on FRP anchors.

This paper reports the results of a series of experiments aimed at determining the fundamental behaviour of FRP
anchors under pure tension (pull-out) loading. A detailed description of the anchor construction is firstly
presented followed by anchor tensile strength results. Pull-out test results of FRP anchors embedded into
concrete are then reported with particular attention focused on the failure mechanism, failure load, bond strength
and load-displacement response for a range of anchor tests with varying anchor hole diameter and embedment
depth.

KEYWORDS

FRP, concrete, strengthening, debonding, anchors

INTRODUCTION

During the last one and a half decades, extensive research has been undertaken on the behaviour of FRP-
strengthened RC structural elements. A commonly reported failure mode is premature separation of the FRP
from the concrete substrate, also known as debonding, which originates at an intermediate crack in the member
and propagates along the FRP-to-concrete interface (i.e. intermediate crack induced debonding, which is also
referred to IC debonding, Teng et al. 2002, 2003) in the concrete, can occur in a relatively sudden manner and
can occur well below the ultimate tensile strength (or strain capacity) of the FRP. IC debonding has also been
observed in FRP shear-strengthened RC beams as well. In the interests of utilizing the FRP more effectively, IC
debonding must be prevented and the section made to fail in more predictable modes (e.g. compressive concrete
crushing or FRP rupture).

Several different types of anchorage systems have been tested for delaying or preventing debonding failure such
as embedded metal threads (e.g. Sharif et al. 1994, Shahrooz et al. 2002), embedded FRP threads (e.g. Galati et
al. 2007), U-jackets (e.g. Smith and Teng 2003, Adhikary et. al 2004), near surface mounted rods (e.g. Gose and
Nanni 2000), and anchors made using FRP (herein referred to as FRP anchors or anchors). (e.g. Lam and Teng
2001, Oh and Sim 2004, Eshwar et al. 2005, Orton et al. 2007). FRP anchors are particularly attractive as they
are non-corrosive and can be easily applied to beams, slabs and walls, unlike U-jackets which are essentially
limited to beams.

A FRP anchor embedded in a concrete substrate through a FRP strengthening plate (herein FRP plate) is shown
in Figure 1. Anchors are formed from bundles of glass or carbon fibres or rolled fibre sheets, and inserted into
epoxy filled holes in the concrete substrate (anchor dowel component) with the free end of the fibres splayed
(anchor fan component) then epoxied onto the surface of the FRP plate to disperse stress concentrations around
the FRP anchor and plate.

775
 A
anchor fan

anchor dowel

A FRP plate Section A-A

concrete substrate
Figure 1. FRP anchor components

Various applications of FRP anchors to date have been applied to RC beams (Oh and Sim 2004, Eshwar et al.
2005, Orton et al. 2007), slabs (Lam and Teng 2001, Piyong et al. 2003) and masonry walls (Burr 2004, Tan and
Patoary 2004). Research on the fundamental pull-out behavior of FRP anchors has however been limited to
primarily studies by Özdemir (2005) and Ozbakkaloglu et al. (2007). The main parameters varied in these
studies were anchor diameter, anchor embedment depth, and concrete compressive strength. Experimental results
and analytical models were presented. The anchor tests reported by Özdemir (2005) failed by rupture, concrete
cone failure and combined concrete cone failure and bond failure between the FRP anchor and hole face. The
first series of test conducted by Özdemir (2005) reported most of the anchors to fail by FRP rupture while the
second series test showed all three failure modes. Ozbakkaloglu et al. (2007) reported the FRP anchor test results
in which all anchors failed by combined failure.

In this paper, a review of the behaviour of chemically inserted metal anchors is firstly presented as FRP anchors
are essentially chemically inserted fasteners in the classical sense. Such a review explains the fundamental
concept of anchor pull-out behaviour and sets the scene for the FRP anchor tests. The FRP anchor strength tests
are then reported which are divided into three sections, namely, (1) construction of FRP anchor, (2) FRP anchor
tensile strength tests, and (3) pull-out tests. With regards to the pull-out tests, particular attention is given to the
failure mechanisms, failure loads, and load-displacement as well as load-strain response for various anchor
diameters and embedment depths.

BRIEF REVIEW OF BEHAVIOUR ANCHORS

Anchors (whether metal or FRP) are distinguished by their load-transfer mechanism (mechanical interlock,
friction, or chemical bond, or combination) and method of installation (cast-in-place, drilled in anchors, or
pneumatically installed) (Eligehausen et al. 2006). FRP anchors are drilled in anchors with a chemical bond load
transfer mechanism. Examples of adhesive anchors are capsule anchors and injection systems and FRP anchors
resemble the latter.
hef

hef

hef

hef

hef

(b) Adhesive-to-concrete (c) Anchor-to-adhesive (d) Mixed interface

(a) Concrete cone interface failure interface failure failure (e) Anchor failure
failure
(Combined failure) (Combined failure) (Combined failure)
Figure 2. Typical adhesive anchor failure modes (Cook et al. 1998)

Typical failure modes for adhesive anchors are shown in Figure 2. At shallow embedment depth (hef = 3d to 5d,
where d is the anchor diameter), concrete cone failure commonly occurs (Figure 2a) and the slope of the cone
envelop with respect to the surface of the concrete is approximately 35° (Eligehausen et al. 2006). For greater
embedment depths the failure mode usually changes to a combined failure of concrete cone and bond failure
(Figures 2b-2d). The bond failure can be classified into three types according to the interface of failures;
adhesive-to-concrete interface (Figure 2b); anchor-to-adhesive interface (Figure 2c) and mixed interface (failure
at the adhesive-to-concrete in the upper portion and anchor-to-adhesive in the lower portion) (Figure 2d). For
typical adhesive anchors, however, it is not possible to clearly distinguish between failure modes at the adhesive
to concrete interface failure and anchor to adhesive interface failure. According to Cook et al (1998), the

APFIS 2007 776

thickness of adhesive layer does not have significant influence on the strength of the anchor. Anchor rupture can
occur with large embedment depth and sufficient bond strength (Figure 2e).
CONSTRUCTION OF FRP ANCHORS
Very little information is given in the literature on the construction of FRP anchors although Özdemir (2005)
reported rolling FRP around a metal rod and Ozbakkaloglu et al. (2007) reported anchors which were rolled and
then folded (without the use of epoxy) into two at their mid-height and then inserted into epoxy filled holes.
The anchors constructed in this study were 300 mm in length (Figure 3a). They were formed by rolling epoxy
coated carbon fibres around a 3 mm diameter steel rod followed by winding a 0.4 mm diameter copper wire
(Figures 3b to 3d) in a similar manner to Özdemir (2005). The steel rod was pre-cut at mid-length in order for
the FRP to solely carry the tensile load at that location. Anchors of varying fibre content were formed by using
three different widths (60 mm, 110 mm and 130 mm) of carbon fibre sheets for rolling around the metal rod for
tensile strength tests and pull-out tests. The reason for rolling around the rod was to ensure the anchors remained
as straight as possible. The anchors were then wrapped with a very thin copper wire in order to further assure
uniform alignment of fibres however such uniformity proved to be quite illusive, especially for anchors so long.

(c) Rolling of the

(b) Spreading of epoxy onto (d) Winding copper wire
(a) Cutting of the FRP sheet impregnated FRP sheet
the FRP sheet around the FRP
around the metal rod
Figure 3. Construction of the FRP anchors
TENSILE STRENGTH TESTS
Tensile strength tests were conducted on flat FRP coupons as well as FRP anchors.
Flat FRP Coupon Tests
The test results as well as the manufacturers recommended values for the elongation at rupture, εfrp, tensile
strength, ffrp, and elastic modulus, Efrp, of the CFRP used in the construction of the anchors is gives in Table 1.
Twenty nine two layered CFRP coupon tension tests of 15 mm width, with each layer of carbon fibre sheet
possessing a nominal thickness of 0.117 mm, were conducted in accordance with ASTM (2000).
Table 1. Manufacturer and tested CFRP properties
εfrp (%) ffrp (MPa) Efrp (GPa)
Manufacturer 1.55 3800 240
Test 0.99 2559 259
FRP Anchor Tests
The tensile strength of FRP anchors was determined from nine specimens prepared by three different amounts of
FRP. Table 2 shows the summary of the anchor test results and comparisons with the flat coupon test results.
Figures 4a and 4b show a typical FRP anchor tensile strength test in progress. The ultimate strength of the
anchor (Ntest,anchor) in Table 2 was determined from the maximum load carried before failure. All anchors failed
by rupture of FRP at either the middle of anchor length (where the two internal metal rods were joined together
by a very thin portion) or near the grip joint (Figure 4c). The test showed that the strength of FRP anchors was
up to 31 % lower than the FRP coupon test results where the coupon tensile strength (Ncoupon,equiv) was calculated
based on the amount of fibre used in the anchor and the flat coupon FRP strength. As FRP anchors were
constructed by a hand-rolling process, the fibres tended to be bent and twisted and poor alignment of the fibres
can be attributed to the reduction in strength. The strength loss of FRP anchors was observed in the load-strain
response by gradual drops (kinks) (e.g. T-110-1 in Figure 9). Conservatively speaking, the tensile strength of
FRP anchors should be taken as 70% of the flat coupon strength, if the previously method of making anchors is
used.

APFIS 2007 777

 (a) Test set-up – 1 (b) Test set-up - 2 (c) Rupture failure
Figure 4. Tension test of FRP anchors : test set-up and failure

Table 2. FRP anchor test results

Experiment Prediction
ID FRP thickness Ntest,anchor / Ncoupon,equiv
Width of FRP Ntest,anchor (kN) Ncoupon,equiv (kN)
(per sheet)
T- 60*-1 60 0.117 15.6 87 %
T- 60 -2 60 0.117 18.1 17.96 100 %
T- 60 -3 60 0.117 12.4 69 %
T-110-1 110 0.117 27.1 82 %
T-110-2 110 0.117 24.7 32.93 75 %
T-110-3 110 0.117 29.3 89 %
T-130-1 130 0.117 32.9 84 %
T-130-2 130 0.117 28.4 38.92 73 %
T-130-3 130 0.117 30.2 78 %
*
width of FRP

FRP ANCHOR PULL-OUT TESTS

Concrete Properties
The material properties of the concrete which includes concrete cylinder compressive strength (fc), elastic
modulus (Ec), splitting strength (fct), and modulus of rupture (ER) were determined tested on the same day as the
pull-out tests. All material properties were tested and averaged from three test specimens in accordance with AS
1012 to produce fc=33.6 MPa, Ec=25.5 GPa, fct=2.8 MPa, and ER=4.6 MPa.
Specimen Construction
The experimental program consisted of 33 pull-out tests with varying embedment depths and anchor holes
diameter which were comprised of 27 FRP anchor pull-out tests and 6 steel anchors pull-out tests. The FRP
anchors were constructed in the manner reported in the previous section while the metal anchors consisted of
10mm diameter threaded rods of elastic modulus of 119 GPa and 0.2% proof stress of 208 MPa. All anchors
were embedded into 400 mm (width) x 400mm (breadth) x 150 mm (depth) normal strength concrete blocks.
Each test specimen was prepared according to the following process, 1 construct anchor as well as grip for
insertion into the testing machine, 2 drill hole, clean and then fill with adhesive, 3 insert the FRP anchor or
metal rod and brace for curing (Figure 5). The adhesive used for both the FRP and metal anchors was a
commercially available two-part adhesive used in FRP strengthening systems. The adhesive was allowed to set
for at least one week under a moderate laboratory temperature and environment.
Test Set-up
Two parameters were considered for the pull-out tests, namely embedment depth (20 mm, 40 mm and 60 mm)
and anchor hole diameter (12 mm, 14 mm and 16 mm). The diameter of the hole was deemed by the authors to
be a more meaningful quantity than the diameter of the anchor as the anchor diameter was difficult to control.
Anchors with three different amounts of FRP were manufactured; a rolled FRP sheet length of 130 mm was the
maximum amount of FRP to fit inside a 12 mm diameter hole. Figure 6a shows a plan and sectional drawing of
the pull-out test set-up. The concrete block was clamped by a steel frame which was fixed on the bottom cross-
head of a universal test machine and then the anchor grip was gripped by the top cross-head. The specimen was
monotonically loaded at the rate of approximately 0.1kN/sec in tension with continual recording of load to
failure. Two linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) were positioned to measure the movement of the
concrete surface adjacent to the anchors during the test and a 50 mm gauge length extensometer was mounted on
the anchor for measuring the strain (Figure 6). The ultimate strength of the anchors system was measured from
the maximum load sustained before failure and read off from the load-deflection plot of each test.

APFIS 2007 778

(a) Making of anchor grips (b) Drilling hole (c) Cleaning hole (d) Bracing anchors for curing
Figure 5. Application of FRP anchors
Frame
LVDT-1 LVDT-2

Test Specimen

Bottom cross head

Plan Section
(a) Test set-up (b) Test in progress (c) Instrumentation
Figure 6. Test set-up
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Four failure modes were observed in the pull-out tests, namely, concrete cone failure (CC), combined failure
(CB), FRP rupture failure (FR) and bond failure (BF) (Figure 7). These failure modes were representative of
failures in traditional chemical anchors as previously reported in this paper (Eligehausen et al. 2006). Tables 3
and 4 show a summary of the pull-out test results for the FRP and threaded steel anchors respectively. The
failures loads were quite varied for anchors with the same set of variables. The following description of the test
results is therefore more of a qualitative nature and more tests are required to enable meaningful statistical
studies of results.
FRP Anchors: 20 mm Embedment Depth
All of the FRP anchors with embedment depth of 20 mm failed upon the formation of a concrete cone extending
along its whole length of the anchor (Figure 7a). The angle of the concrete cone with respect to the surface of the
concrete varied from 20 to 35 degrees with the average failure load of the 12 mm, 14 mm and 16 mm drill hole
diameters being 6.21 kN, 8.17 kN, 7.43 kN respectively. One would expect the failure load to increase with hole
diameter however significant variation in the results has left the 14 mm diameter hole with a larger capacity than
the 16 mm hole diameter anchor. Failure to observe any noticeable trend is a consequence of the scatter of
results. One point is for certain and that is short embedment depths of up to 20 mm (and perhaps more) will
exhibit a concrete cone failure mode.
FRP Anchor: 40 mm Embedment Depth
For the 40 mm embedment depth FRP anchors, different failure modes were observed such as concrete cone
failure (Figure 7b), combined failure (Figure 7c), FRP rupture (Figure 7d), and bond failure (Figure 7e). All 12
mm diameter anchor holes experienced combined failure. Such a hole diameter allowed a cone to form that did
not extend to the base of the anchor. Concrete cone failures were observed in 14 mm and 16 mm drill holes; the
larger diameter forced a cone of larger depth to form however a combined failure mode occurred for one of the
14 mm drill holes. For the combined failure modes, at least 50% of the surface area of the portion of the anchor
outside of the concrete cone region experienced bond failure at the adhesive–to-concrete interface in the concrete
while the remainder experienced bond failure at the adhesive-to-concrete interface in the adhesive. Bond failure
between the FRP sheet and epoxy occurred for one of the 16 mm hole diameters at a load well below the
remainder of the tests results. Such a failure mode was due to poor quality control of anchor manufacture and
placement. It is however certain from all these limited results that the failure mode is most consistent for the
smaller anchor hole diameters.
FRP Anchor: 60 mm Embedment Depth
The majority of the 60 mm embedment depth anchors exhibited failure by anchor rupture. One 12 mm hole
diameter anchor failed in a combined manner (i.e. in the same manner as Figure 7c). In one anchor, the bond

APFIS 2007 779

between the carbon fibre sheet and epoxy failed however at a load consistent with the tensile strength of the FRP.
Again this failure mode can be attributed to poor workmanship despite the failure load being high. Such large
embedment depth resulted in the anchors being highly stressed and the rupture loads were consistent with the
tensile test results of 130 mm wide FRP anchors reported in Table 2. The embedment depth of the anchor must
therefore be limited in order to ensure the anchors are not too highly stressed and vulnerable to failure by rupture.
Steel Anchor: 40 mm and 60 mm Embedment depth
Both the 40 mm and 60 mm embedment depth steel anchors failed in a combined mode. The top portion of the
anchor failed in a concrete cone manner while the remaining portion failed at the interface between the steel-to-
adhesive interface in the adhesive along the edge of the ribbing of the steel anchor. The high stress
concentrations produced by the threads on the steel anchor coupled with the relatively low adhesive stiffness
lead caused a shearing off of the adhesive between the threads leaving the surface relatively smooth with
therefore low frictional resistance. The average pull-out strengths of the 40 mm and 60 mm embedded anchors
were 21.8 kN and 33.8 kN respectively which were reasonably consistent with the FRP anchors of same
embedment depth and hole diameter, despite the FRP anchors failing in different modes.
Load-Displacement Response
Figure 8 shows typical load-displacement responses of 20 mm (P-20-14-3), 40 mm (P-40-12-1 and PT-40-12-2)
and 60 mm (P-60-12-1 and PT-60-12-2) embedment depth anchors. All anchors exhibit an initial linear-elastic
response until breakdown of the chemical bond. The anchors then failed by concrete cone failure, combined
failure, or FRP rupture. The shape of the load-deformation curves, in particular the post-peak behaviour, were
indicative of the strength of the bond being lower than the frictional resistance (Eligehausen et al. 2006) of the
anchor-to-wall surface. The anchors which failed by FRP rupture (P-60-12-1) were quite brittle, as indicated by a
complete lack of post-peak response. The steel anchor exhibited a long post-peak response despite the low
frictional resistance in sheared off adhesive at the ends of the anchor threads.
Load-Strain Response
Figure 9 shows the load-strain response of one FRP anchor tensile strength test (T-110-1) and three FRP anchor
pull-out tests (P20-14-3, concrete cone failure; P-40-12-3, combined failure; and P60-14-1, FRP rupture). The
slope of load-strain response of all anchors did not appreciably change although each of the three embedded
anchors had different fibre contents. Kinks in each load-strain plot indicate localised fibre straightening and/or
failure due to poor alignment of fibres in the manufacturing stage of the anchor.

(c) FRP anchor: Combined failure

(a) FRP anchor: Concrete cone (b) FRP anchor: Concrete cone
(concrete cone+ adhesive-to-concrete
failure: (P-20-16-2) failure: (P-40-16-1)
interface failure): (P-40-12-3)

(f) Steel anchor: Combined failure

(d) FRP anchor: FRP rupture failure (e) FRP anchor: Bond failure in FRP
(concrete cone + anchor-to-adhesive
(P40-14-3) (P-40-16-3)
interface failure) (ST-60-12-3)
Figure 7. Observed failure modes

APFIS 2007 780

 Table 3. Pull-out test results - FRP anchors
Width of hef* do** Surface Load
ID Failure Mode
FRP (mm) (mm) (mm) displacement (mm) (kN)
# ##
P-20 -12 -1 60 18.3 11.9 0.0190 6.78 CC
P-20-12-2 60 19.4 12.1 0.0370 5.80 CC
P-20-12-3 60 17.5 12.1 0.3255 6.06 CC
P-20-14-1 60 20.8 14.2 0.1625 7.11 CC
P-20-14-2 60 25.1 14.2 0.0590 8.94 CC
P-20-14-3 60 25.0 14.1 0.1270 8.48 CC
P-20-16-1 60 21.9 16.0 0.1390 7.14 CC
P-20-16-2 60 23.5 16.1 0.1165 8.06 CC
P-20-16-3 60 21.4 15.3 0.0390 7.11 CC
P-40-12-1 110 41.5 12.2 0.3470 18.99 CB
P-40-12-2 110 44.6 11.8 0.1010 15.82 CB
P-40-12-3 110 44.8 11.8 0.2005 21.75 CB
P-40-14-1 110 44.8 14.7 -† 20.61 CC
P-40-14-2 110 44.9 14.8 -† 18.08 CB
P-40-14-3 110 44.9 14.7 0.6915 22.98 FR
P-40-16-1 110 41.3 16.3 0.4705 20.31 CC
P-40-16-2 110 41.5 16.6 0.3085 18.66 CC
P-40-16-3 110 41.3 16.4 0.0195 11.08 BF
P-60-12-1 130 66.3 11.8 0.3995 32.25 FR
P-60-12-2 130 65.6 11.8 0.8815 34.52 CB
P-60-12-3 130 66.3 11.7 0.2845 33.55 BF
P-60-14-1 130 64.5 14.6 0.3900 31.64 FR
P-60-14-2 130 65.7 14.6 0.5510 34.40 FR
P-60-14-3 130 65.6 14.7 0.8410 31.55 FR
P-60-16-1 130 64.5 16.3 0.1995 26.83 FR
P-60-16-2 130 64.5 16.4 0.1145 24.82 FR
P-60-16-3 130 64.5 16.5 0.2190 30.54 FR
#
embedment depth(mm), ## anchor hole diameter (mm), * measured embedment depth, ** measured anchor hole
diameter, † malfunction of LVDT
Table 4. Pull-out test results - steel anchors
Anchor Surface
hef* do** Load
ID diameter displacement Failure Mode
(mm) (mm) (kN)
(mm) (mm)
PT-40#-12##-1 10 40.5 12.0 0.4255 21.54 CB
PT-40-12-2 10 41.4 12.0 0.3680 22.32 CB
PT-40-12-3 10 40.5 11.6 0.1190 21.57 CB
PT-60-12-1 10 58.8 12.0 -† 33.36 CB
PT-60-12-2 10 57.6 11.9 0.2285 32.76 CB
PT-60-12-3 10 57.9 12.0 0.3225 33.00 CB
#
embedment depth(mm), ## anchor hole diameter (mm), * measured embedment depth, ** measured anchor hole
diameter, † malfunction of LVDT
35 35 P-60-14-1 :FRP rupture
P-60-12-1: FRP rupture
b frp = 130 mm
30 30 T-110-1 : FRP rupture
b frp = 110 mm
25 25
PT-60-12-2 : Combined failure P-40-12-3 : Combined failure
b frp = 110 mm
Load (kN)

Load(kN)

20 20
P-40-12-1: Combined failure
15 15
PT-40-12-2: Combined failure
10 10
P-20-14-3 : Concrete cone failure
P-20-14-3 : Concrete cone failure
b frp = 60 mm
5 5

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Displacement (mm) Strain(με)

Figure 8. Load-displacement response Figure 9. Load-strain response of FRP anchors

APFIS 2007 781

CONCLUSIONS
The results of pull-out tests on FRP anchors and tensile strength tests on flat FRP coupons and FRP anchors have
been reported. The tensile strength of FRP anchors was found to be as low as 70% of their flat coupon
counterparts and a variety of failure modes exhibited in the pull-out tests were consistent with adhesively bonded
metallic anchors reported in the open literature. Many more tests are however required to provide statistically
meaningful test results due to significant variation in the manufacturing process of the FRP anchor as well as the
variation produced in testing concrete. The present study has however identified several different failure modes
which embedded FRP anchors are susceptible to which can serve as a steeping stone to build analytical models
upon. The method of manufacturing the anchors however strongly affects the results and more standardised
methods which will produce a more uniform product are required; if not then the tensile strength of the anchor
needs to the limited to a portion of the flat coupon strength.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The support of the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), through a Research Excellence Grant awarded to
the second author of this paper while he was employed by UTS, is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also
wish to thank Mr Shrestha and Mr Vo for assisting with the experiments.
REFERENCES
Adhikary, B.B., Mutsuyoshi, H. and Ashraf, M. (2004). “Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using fiber-
reinforced polymer sheets with bonded anchorage”, ACI Structural Journal, 101(5), 660-668.
AS 1012 “Methods of Testing Concrete”, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
ASTM D3039/D3039M (2000). ”Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composites materials”,
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), West Conshohocken, Philadelphia.
Burr, A.C. (2004) “Recent developments in the use of FRP anchors and masonry wall strengthening techniques”, The
Structural Engineer, 20-21
Cook, R.A., Kunz, J., Fuchs W. and Konz, R.C (1998). “Behavior and design of single adhesive anchors under tensile
load in uncracked concrete”, ACI Structural Journal, 95(1), 9-26.
Eligehausen, R., Mallee, R. and Silva, J.F. (2006). Anchorage in Concrete Construction, Ernst & Young, Germany.
Eshwar, N., Ibell, T.J. and Nanni, A. (2005). “Effectiveness of CFRP strengthening on curved soffit RC beams”,
Advances in Structural Engineering, 8(1), 55-68.
Galati, D., Rizzo, A. and Micelli, F. (2007). “Comparison of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with FRP pre-
cured laminate systems and tested under flexural loading”, Proceedings (CD Rom), 8th International Symposium
on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-8, Patras, Greece July.
Gose, S.C. and Nanni, A. (2000). Anchorage system for externally bonded FRP laminates using near surface mounted
rods, Report, Centre for Infrastructure Engineering Studies, University of Missouri-Rolla, USA, Draft 2.
Lam, L. and Teng, J.G. (2001). “Strength of RC slabs bonded with GFRP strips”, Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, 5(4), 221-227.
Oh, H.-S. and Sim, J. (2004). “Interface debonding failure in beams strengthened with externally bonded GFRP”
Composite Interface, 11, 24-42.
Orton, S., Jirsa, J. and Bayrak O. (2007). “Use of CFRP to provide continuity in reinforced concrete buildings
vulnerable to progressive collapse”, Proceedings (CD Rom), 8th International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-8, Ed. T.C. Triantafillou, Patras, Greece July.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., Saatcioglu, M. and Foo, S. (2007). “Performance and design of FRP anchors”, Proceedings (CD
Rom), 8th International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures,
FRPRCS-8, Patras, Greece, July.
Özdemir, G. (2005) Mechanical Properties of CFRP Anchorage, Master of Science Thesis, Middle East Technical
University, Turkey.
Piyong, Y., Silvia, P.F. and Nanni, A. (2003). “Flexural strengthening of concrete slabs by a three –stage prestressing
FRP system enhanced with the presence of GFRP anchor spikes”, Proceedings, Composites in Construction
International Conference, CCC 2003, Rende, Italy.
Shahrooz, B.M., Boy, S. and Baseheart, T.M. (2002). “Flexural strengthening of four 76-years-old T-beam with
various fiber-reinforced polymer system: Testing and analysis”, ACI Structural Journal, 99(5), 681-691.
Sharif, A.,Al-Sulaimani, G., Basunbul, I.A., Baluch, M.H. and Ghaleb, B.N. (1994). “Strengthening of initially loaded
reinforced concrete beams using FRP plates”, ACI Structural Journal, 91(2), 160-168.
Smith, S.T., and Teng, J.G. (2003). “Shear-bending interaction in debonding failures of FRP-plated RC beams”,
Advances in Structural Engineering, 6(3), 183-199.
Tan, K.H. and Patoary, M.K.H. (2004). “Strengthening of masonry walls against out-of-plane load using fiber-
reinforced polymer reinforcement”, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 8(1), 79-87
Teng, J.G., Chen, J.F., Smith, S.T. and Lam, L. (2002). FRP-strengthened RC Structures, John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, West Sussex, UK.
Teng, J.G., Smith, S.T., Yao, J. and Chen, J.F. (2003). “Intermediate crack induced debonding in RC beams and slabs”,
Construction and Building Materials, 17(6-7), 447-462.

APFIS 2007 782