Pullout Strength Models for FRP Anchors

in Uncracked Concrete
Seo Jin Kim1 and Scott T. Smith, M.ASCE2

Abstract: Mechanical anchorage can delay or even prevent premature debonding failure in externally bonded fiber-reinforced polymer
共FRP兲 composite strengthening systems. A promising type of anchor made from FRP, which is known as a FRP spike anchor or FRP
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

anchor among other names, is noncorrosive and can be applied to a wide range of structural elements and externally bonded FRP
strengthening schemes. Experimental investigations have shown FRP anchors to be effective under tension 共pullout兲 and shear loading,
however, few analytical models exist to date. This paper in turn presents analytical models to quantify the pullout strength of FRP anchors.
As existing research on the pullout behavior of metallic anchors is partially relevant to FRP anchors, this paper first presents a review of
current pullout strength models for metallic anchors. These models are then assessed with experimental data of FRP anchors and modified
and recalibrated where appropriate. As a result, simple and rational pullout strength models for FRP anchors are proposed which can also
be used in design. Finally, parametric studies are undertaken and the influence of key variables is identified.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲CC.1943-5614.0000097
CE Database subject headings: Anchors; Concrete; Fiber reinforced polymers; Strength; Pullout.
Author keywords: Anchors; Concrete; Fiber reinforced polymers; Strength; Pullout.

Introduction
Extensive research over the past one and a half decades or so has
established the effectiveness of strengthening and repairing
共herein referred to as strengthening兲 existing reinforced concrete
共RC兲 structural members with externally bonded fiber-reinforced
polymer 共FRP兲 composites 共Hollaway and Teng 2008兲. A com-
monly reported failure mode of the FRP strengthening is prema-
ture separation 共i.e., debonding兲 of the FRP from the concrete
substrate which originates at an intermediate crack in the member
and propagates along the FRP-to-concrete interface in the con-
crete 关i.e., intermediate crack induced debonding, which is also
referred to as IC debonding 共Teng et al. 2003; Smith and Gravina
2007兲兴. IC debonding can occur in a relatively sudden manner and
can occur well below the ultimate tensile strain capacity of the
FRP. Such debonding must therefore be controlled and the
strengthened member made to fail in the more conventional
modes of concrete crushing or FRP rupture.
In order to prevent or delay debonding failures, several differ-
ent types of anchorage systems have been investigated to date.
They include, but are not limited to, embedded metallic 共e.g.,
Sharif et al. 1994兲 and FRP threaded rods 共e.g., Galati et al.
2007兲, U jackets 共e.g., Smith and Teng 2003兲, near surface
1
Senior Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Hong
Kong, Pokfulam Rd., China; formerly, Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Technology Sydney, Broadway,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. E-mail: skim@hku.hk
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Hong Kong,
Pokfulam Rd., China 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: stsmith@hku.hk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 23, 2009; approved
on November 22, 2009; published online on February 3, 2010. Discussion
period open until January 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 14, No. 4, August 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/
2010/4-406–414/$25.00.
mounted rods 共e.g., Gose and Nanni 2000兲, and anchors made
using FRP 共also known as FRP spike anchors but herein referred
to as FRP anchors兲 共e.g., Lam and Teng 2001; Orton et al. 2008;
Kim and Smith 2009兲. FRP anchors are noncorrosive and can be
applied to a wide variety of structural shapes such as beams,
slabs, and walls.
Fig. 1 demonstrates possible uses of FRP anchors and their
resulting loadings. In this case, FRP anchors are installed to se-
cure the free ends of FRP U jackets when used as shear strength-
ening for RC flexural members. Depending on the orientation of
the FRP anchor, it can be subjected to predominantly pullout
forces 共anchor Type A in Fig. 1兲 or shear forces 共anchor Type B in
Fig. 1 which will include a pullout component兲. FRP anchors are
formed from bundles of glass or carbon fibers or rolled fiber
sheets which are then inserted into epoxy filled holes in the con-
crete substrate 共anchor dowel component in Fig. 1兲. The free end
of the fiber is splayed 共anchor fan component in Fig. 1兲, then
epoxied onto the surface of the FRP strengthening plate or sheet
共herein FRP plate兲 in order to disperse stresses around the FRP
anchor and immediate FRP plate vicinity.
To date, FRP anchors have been applied to various structural
shapes and materials such as RC beams 共e.g., Oh and Sim 2004;
Eshwar et al. 2005; Orton et al. 2008兲, RC slabs 共e.g., Lam and
Teng 2001; Seliem et al. 2008兲, and masonry walls 共e.g., Tan and
Patoary 2004; Binici et al. 2007兲. Research on the strength and
behavior of FRP anchors in isolation has however been much
more limited and such research has been predominantly experi-
mental. Studies to date have reported the pullout strength and
behavior 共Özdemir 2005; Kim and Smith 2009; Ozbakkaloglu
and Saatcioglu 2009兲 as well as the shear strength and behavior
共e.g., Aiello et al. 2004; Smith and Kim 2010兲 of FRP anchors.
FRP anchors subjected to pullout forces 共Type A anchors in
Fig. 1兲 will form the focus of this paper and from herein will only
be discussed.
In this paper, a review of the behavior of adhesive metallic and
FRP anchors is first presented followed by a review of existing

406 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2010

J. Compos. Constr. 2010.14:406-414.


'A' 'B'
'A' 'B'
Section Elevation
(a) FRP anchor types and applications
Nu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Anchor Anchor
fan fan
Anchor Nu
Anchor
dowel 'A'
dowel 'B'
(b) FRP Anchor types and dowel stress distribution
Fig. 1. FRP anchors in U-jacket shear strengthening
analytical models for both types of anchors. Such a review ex-
plains the fundamental concepts of anchor pullout behavior and
modeling and sets the scene for the new analytical models pre-
sented in this paper for describing the pullout behavior and
strength of FRP anchors. The new analytical model is calibrated
with a database of FRP anchor tests under tensile 共pullout兲 load
and then a design version is proposed. Parametric studies are
finally conducted in which the importance of key variables is
made evident.
Review: Pullout Behavior of Metallic
and FRP Anchors
Metallic or nonmetallic anchors are distinguished by their load-
transfer mechanism 共i.e., mechanical interlock, friction or chemi-
cal bond, or various combinations兲 as well as the method of
installation 共i.e., cast in place, drilled-in anchors, or pneumatically
installed兲 共Eligehausen et al. 2006a兲.
Metallic Anchors
Metallic anchors can be cast-in place 共e.g., headed anchors兲 or
postinstalled 共e.g., adhesive anchors and expansion anchors兲 and a
comprehensive review of the behavior and strength of such an-
chors is given in Eligehausen et al. 共2006a兲. Typical failure modes
of these metallic anchors are shown in Fig. 2 共Cook et al. 1998兲.
As shown in Fig. 2共a兲, a concrete cone shaped failure surface
commonly occurs at shallow embedment depths 共hef = 3d ⬃ 5d,
where d is the anchor diameter兲 with the slope of the failure
face with respect to the surface of the concrete being approxi-
mately 35° 共Cook 1999; Eligehausen et al. 2006a兲. For longer
embedment depths, a concrete cone failure surface usually ap-
pears adjacent to the face of the concrete with the remaining
portion of the anchor failing at the bonded interface 关Figs.
2共b–d兲兴. Bond failure is defined by the interfacial failure surface
position; namely 共1兲 adhesive-to-concrete interface 关Fig. 2共b兲兴;
共2兲 anchor-to-adhesive interface 关Fig. 2共c兲兴; and 共3兲 mixed in-
terface 共adhesive-to-concrete and anchor-to-adhesive interface兲
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2010 / 407
J. Compos. Constr. 2010.14:406-414.
hef
hef
hef
hef
hef
(a) Concrete cone (b) Adhesive-to- (c) Anchor-to- (d) Mixed interface (e) Anchor failure
failure concrete adhesive interface failure
interface failure failure
(Combined failure) (Combined failure) (Combined failure)
Fig. 2. Typical adhesive anchor failure modes
关Fig. 2共d兲兴. It is however usually difficult to clearly distinguish
between the various failure surfaces. In the case of adhesive an-
chors, the thickness of adhesive layer does not appear to have a
significant influence on the pullout strength of the anchor 共Cook
et al. 1998兲. The remaining failure mode is anchor rupture which
can occur in anchors with large embedment depths and sufficient
bond strength 关Fig. 2共e兲兴. In the case of concrete cone or bond
failure, the anchor will generally not have yielded and the anchor
can be treated as essentially elastic. In the case of anchor tensile
failure which takes place outside of the anchor hole, the tensile
strength rather than the yield strength of the anchor is considered
as the ultimate strength as metal anchors generally do not exhibit
a well defined yield point 关ACI 349-01; American Concrete In-
stitute 共ACI兲 2001兴.
In the case of adhesive metal anchors, load is transferred from
the anchor, through the adhesive, then into the concrete along the
entire bond surface area 共Cook et al. 1998兲. The bond strength of
adhesive anchors is derived mostly from chemical adhesion and
once the adhesive bond is broken, force transfer is provided by
friction. Such force transfer is strongly affected by transverse
pressure, concrete shrinkage, and roughness of the anchor surface.
In addition, interfacial wear and tear along the sliding plane can
reduce the confining pressure 共FIB 2000兲.
FRP Anchors
FRP anchors are typically drilled-in 共postinstalled兲 anchors with a
chemical bond load-transfer mechanism. Considerably more re-
search has been undertaken on the pullout strength and behavior
of cast-in place FRP reinforcing bars than adhesive 共postinstalled兲
FRP reinforcing bars and FRP anchors. Research on cast-in place
FRP reinforcing bars has strived to develop bond-slip and bond
strength models which can be used for the design of internal
reinforcement for concrete flexural members 共e.g., Okelo and
Yuan 2005兲. Such tests are considered outside the scope of the
paper and therefore bear no relevance due to surface deformation
on the bars as well as the lack of an adhesive layer causing fun-
damental differences in behavior with adhesive FRP anchors.
When considering adhesive postinstalled FRP reinforcing bar an-
chors, the bond failure modes shown schematically in Figs.
2共b–d兲 have been observed as well as the anchor rupture failure
mode shown in Fig. 2共e兲. The main variables of concern of such
testing have been 共1兲 surface features 共and texture兲 of the FRP
bar; 共2兲 concrete compressive strength; 共3兲 concrete cover thick-
ness; and 共4兲 embedment depth 共e.g., Ahmed et al. 2008兲. Such
experimental results will however not be used in this paper due to
fundamental differences in fabrication quality of FRP reinforcing
bars to FRP anchors. In addition, it appears that no analytical
models to date have been proposed for the design of postinstalled
adhesive FRP reinforcing bar anchors.
Research on the pullout strength and behavior of FRP anchors
 has been primarily limited to the studies of Özdemir 共2005兲, Kim
and Smith 共2009兲, and Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 共2009兲. The
main parameters varied in these studies were 共1兲 anchor diameter;
共2兲 anchor embedment depth; 共3兲 anchor fiber content; and 共4兲
concrete compressive strength. All three studies reported experi-
mental results, while the first and third studies reported analytical
models which were largely based on traditional pullout strength
models of adhesive metallic anchors. Pullout tests on FRP an-
chors have revealed similar failure modes to the modes presented
in Fig. 2 for adhesive metallic anchors. Özdemir 共2005兲 reported
anchors failing by rupture of the FRP, concrete cone failure, as
well as combined concrete cone and bond failure. The first series
of tests conducted by Özdemir 共2005兲 mostly failed by FRP rup-
ture, while the second series test, with improved anchor construc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion, reported all three failure modes. Ozbakkaloglu and
Saatcioglu 共2009兲 reported FRP anchor rupture failure, concrete
cone failure, combined concrete cone and bond failure, and con-
crete splitting failure. Kim and Smith 共2009兲 in turn observed the
same failure modes as reported by Özdemir 共2005兲 and
Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 共2009兲. FRP anchors therefore pos-
sess many similar characteristics to metallic anchors although
some fundamental differences 关e.g., FRP material properties 共FIB
2000兲兴 exist as well. In particular, the bond strength between the
anchor and surrounding concrete face may be reduced by a Pois-
son’s ratio effect in which a larger anchor diameter can lead to
greater lateral contraction under tensile load and hence a reduced
frictional and mechanical interlocking strength between the an-
chor and concrete hole wall 共Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2009兲.
Review: Analytical Pullout Models for Metallic
and FRP Anchors
Pullout strength models, predominantly developed for metallic
anchors, can be classified as 共1兲 concrete cone models; 共2兲 bond
models; 共3兲 combined concrete cone and bond models; and 共4兲
anchor rupture models.
Concrete Cone Models
When anchors pull out of the concrete, the failure surface can
form in the shape of a concrete cone or similar shape with the two
main categories of models being 共1兲 concrete cone and 共2兲 con-
crete capacity design 共CCD兲 models. Concrete cone models 共e.g.,
Cook 1993; CEB 1994兲 assume a projected circular area on the
concrete surface based on a failure cone with a side inclination of
45° to the concrete surface. CCD models 共e.g., CEB 1994; Fuchs
et al. 1995; ACI 2001, 2005; Eligehausen et al. 2006b兲 assume a
projected square area on the concrete surface with side dimen-
sions of three times the anchor embedment depth 共i.e., 1.5 times
the embedment depth is the distance from the anchor to each side
of the square failure area兲 and a failure surface within the con-
crete of approximately 35° to the concrete surface.
Table 1共a兲 presents a summary of several commonly referred
to concrete cone and CCD models for metallic anchors 共to date,
no models appear to have been proposed for FRP anchors兲. The
concrete cone failure model, developed in the middle 1970s, was
largely based on experimental results of cast-in-place 共headed兲
anchors 关e.g., ACI 349-85 as cited in CEB 共1994兲兴 while the CCD
models developed in the early 1990s were based on theoretical
and experimental models on headed anchors in the 1980s by
Eligehausen and Sawade 共1989兲 and Eligehausen et al. 共1992兲. All
models adopt the general form given in Eq. 共1兲
408 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2010
J. Compos. Constr. 2010.14:406-414.
Nc = khnef 冑 f ⬘c 共1兲
where Nc = concrete cone pullout resistance; k = empirical multi-
plier which largely depends on the anchor type 共see Table 1兲;
f ⬘c = concrete cylinder compressive strength; and the effective em-
bedment depth hef generally refers to the length of the anchor of
constant diameter 共i.e., does not include the headed portion or
tapered end of a headed anchor兲. The power n is given in Table 1
as either 1.5 or 2. The concrete cone model adopts n = 2 which is
derived directly from the area of the circular projected failure
surface 共i.e., the radius of the failure surface is hef 兲. The CCD
models adopt n = 1.5 which is derived from h2ef times h−0.5
ef , where
h2ef is the area of the square projected failure surface and h−0.5ef
is a size effect factor 共Eligehausen et al. 1992; Cook 1999兲. In
general, CCD models correlate well for a wide range of anchor
embedment depths, while the concrete cone models can under-
estimate the pullout strength of anchors with small embedment
depths 共Fuchs et al. 1995兲. Initially the concrete cone model was
recommended 共e.g., ACI 349-85: ACI 1985兲 however in recent
years the CCD model is more widely referred to 关e.g., ACI
349-01 共ACI 2001兲; ACI 318-05 共ACI 2005兲兴.
Bond Models
Bonded interface resistance models assume that the failure sur-
face is adjacent to the surface of the embedded portion of the
anchor at the anchor-to-concrete interface. The most important
parameters are the bond stress of the anchor-to-concrete interface
共which is usually assumed to be uniform兲 and the failure surface
area. Table 1共b兲 provides a summary of the commonly referred to
bond resistance models for adhesive metallic anchors. Such an-
chors can consist of threaded rods and reinforcing bars; however,
to date no models appear to have been proposed for FRP anchors.
Both anchor diameter as well as anchor hole diameter can be used
for determining the bond resistance, however, the use of anchor
diameter in design is more favorable as its dimensions are easier
to control 共Cook et al. 1998兲. A uniform bond stress is typically
assumed where the stress is evenly distributed along the embed-
ded length of the anchor as shown in Fig. 1共b兲. Shear lag may
cause the longitudinal stress to vary throughout the thickness of
the anchor; however, such a phenomenon is not considered in the
analytical models developed to date and will not be considered in
this paper.
Combined Concrete Cone and Bond Models
Such models assume a cone failure surface to form near the face
of the concrete block with which the anchor is cast into with
failure in the remaining portion occurring at the anchor-to-
concrete interface. The pullout resistance is therefore the addition
of the concrete cone strength contribution and the bonded inter-
face strength contribution. Table 1共c兲 presents three models in
which the first is for a bonded metallic anchor 共Cook 1993兲 and
the remaining two for FRP anchors 共Özdemir 2005; Ozbakkaloglu
and Saatcioglu 2009兲. In these three models an accurate estima-
tion of the concrete cone depth is crucial; however, Cook 共1993兲
reported the concrete cone resistance component to provide a
minimal contribution to the pullout resistance in particular for
anchors with deep embedment depths. Of particular interest to
note in the model of Cook 共1993兲 in Table 1共c兲 is the assumption
of a nonlinearly distributed shear stress for the bond model com-
ponent: such a distribution is also referred to as an elastic bond
stress model 共Cook 1993; Cook et al. 1993兲. The elastic bond
 Table 1. Summary of Existing Analytical Models
共a兲 Concrete cone models
Projected failure area/
Reference Ncc failure angle k Anchor type

0.33冑 f c⬘Ac, Ac = ␲hef 共hef + dh兲

a
ACI 349-85 Circle/45° — Cast in situ anchor 共headed兲
0.33冑 f c⬘Ac, Ac = ␲h2ef Circle/45° — Postinstalled anchor 共expansion兲
Eligehausen et al. 共1987兲; 冑
ef f c⬘
kh1.5
c
⬇35° 17 共13b兲 Cast in situ anchor 共headed兲
Eligehausen and Fuchs 共1988兲a
Eligehausen et al. 共1987兲a 冑
ef f c⬘
kh1.5
c
⬇35° 15 Postinstalled anchor 共expansion兲
0.92h2ef 冑 f c⬘
a
Eligehausen et al. 共1984兲 Circle/45° — Postinstalled anchor
共adhesive anchor兲
Eligehausen et al. 共2006b兲 kh1.5冑
ef f c⬘
Square/⬇35° 14.7 Postinstalled anchor
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

共expansion and undercut兲

16.8 Cast-in anchor 共headed兲
ACI 349-01 共ACI 2001兲 and kh1.5
ef
冑 f c⬘ Square/⬇35° 7b Postinstalled anchor
ACI 318共M兲-05 共ACI 2005兲 共expansion and undercut兲
10b Cast-in anchor 共headed兲
共b兲 Bond models
Reference Ncb ␶ or ␶⬘ 共MPa兲 Comments
Cook 共1993兲 ␶␲d0hef 6.3–14.6 Tested values
CEB 共1994兲 ␶␲d0hef 8 Not specified
Cook et al. 共1998兲 ␶⬘␲dhef ⌿c ␶⬘f =20 MPa 共1 − kCoV兲 For design
c
Cook and Kunz 共2001兲 ␶␲dhef 15.4a Tested value
12b Lower bound 共assumed for design兲
共c兲 Combined concrete cone and bond models
Reference Anchor depth Ncc component Ncb component
Cook et al. 共1993兲 hef ⬍ hc 0.92h2ef 冑 f c⬘ —

hc ⬍ hef ⬍ 40冑d0 + hc 0.92hc2冑 f c⬘ 冋 40冑d0 − 共hef − hc兲

40冑d0
册 ␲␶d0共hef − hc兲

hef ⬎ 40冑d0 + hc ␶max␲d0 冋

␭⬘
冑d0
tanh
␭⬘共hef − hc兲
冑d 0 册 where hc =
␶␲d0
1.84冑 f c⬘
Özdemir 共2005兲 hef ⬍ 50 mm 0.33冑 f c⬘hef 共d0 + hef 兲␲ —
hef ⬎ 50 mm 0.33冑 f c⬘50共d0 + 50兲␲ ␲␶d0共hef − 50兲
Ozbakkaloglu hef ⬎ hc f ct.exphc共d0 + hc兲␲ ␲␶d0共hef − hc兲
and Saatcioglu 共2009兲
Note: f c⬘ = concrete cylinder compressive strength; f ct.exp = tested concrete splitting tensile strength; dh = head diameter of headed anchor; d0 = anchor hole
diameter; d = diameter of embedded anchor; hef =effective embedment depth; hc = concrete cone failure depth; ␶ = uniform bond stress; ␶⬘ = design version
of ␶; ␶max = maximum value of elastic bond stress; ␭⬘ = elastic constant; Ac = projected area of a single anchor; k = calibration factor; and ⌿c
= modification factor for concrete strength.
a
Original source in German but material extracted from CEB 共1994兲 and Eligehausen et al. 共2006a兲.
b
Design factor 共5% fractile兲.
c
Not specifically stated.

stress distribution was assumed to be described by a hyperbolic
tangent function. The maximum bond stress of the elastic model
has been shown to give a similar prediction to a uniform bond
stress model 共Cook 1993兲. The uniform bond stress model as well
as elastic model showed overall good correlation with test results
with the elastic model correlating well at low stress 共load兲 levels
and deep embedment depths 共Cook 1993; Cook et al. 1998兲.
Based on the results of numerical analyses 共McVay et al. 1996兲,
the uniform bond stress model is more appropriate for strength
design and in particular adhesive anchors which may fail in con-
crete cone or combined failure modes 共Cook et al. 1998兲.
Eligehausen et al. 共2006a兲 provided a summary of the devel-
opment of three analytical models for adhesive metallic anchors,
namely, 共1兲 concrete cone model; 共2兲 concrete cone+ bond model
共i.e., combined model兲; and 共3兲 bond model. Comparison of these
three models by Eligehausen et al. 共2006a兲, with limited test data,
revealed the first model to greatly underestimate and overestimate
the pullout load 共depending on the embedment depth兲, the second
model to be predominantly conservative, and the third model to
generally provide the best fit. Hence, the bond model appears to
be the preferred choice.
The limited number of FRP anchor analytical models has been
developed by Özdemir 共2005兲 and Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu
共2009兲. These modes, as presented in Table 1, are based on the
model of Cook et al. 共1993兲 and it is obvious that an accurate
prediction on the concrete cone depth 共hcone兲 is crucial. Özdemir
共2005兲 assumed hcone to be a constant 50 mm, as observed from

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2010 / 409

J. Compos. Constr. 2010.14:406-414.

 his tests, with Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 共2009兲 measuring
hcone from their tests but not providing a general expression.
Anchor Rupture Models
Anchor rupture strength is based on the tensile capacity of the
anchor. Kim and Smith 共2009兲 showed hand-made FRP anchors
to possess a tensile strength as low as 65% of the strength of flat
FRP tensile coupons.
Experimental Data
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Cosenza et al. 共1997兲 speculated that a rational approach to de-
signing internal FRP reinforcement for concrete structures must
be based on theory largely dependent on the physical behavior of
FRP. Analytical models must be calibrated with embedded FRP
test results and not by merely altering the material properties of
analytical models developed for embedded steel bars. Variability
of the anchor geometry, Poisson’s ratio effect, as well as surface
texture of FRP bars is likely to explain a lot of the differences
between the pullout behaviors of metallic anchors to FRP rein-
forcing bars. These comments can be extended to FRP anchors,
meaning the pullout resistance is dependent on the properties of
the concrete, FRP anchor, as well as the bond between the con-
crete and anchor. The components of particular importance are 共1兲
FRP anchor 共anchor or hole diameter, effective embedded depth兲;
共2兲 concrete 共compressive strength兲; and 共3兲 adhesive material
共strength of the bonded interface兲. Poission’s ratio effect of the
anchor is ignored for simplicity.
An experimental database of 101 data points of FRP anchors
under pullout conditions was assembled by Kim and Smith 共2009兲
based on the data obtained from tests by Kim and Smith 共2009兲,
Özdemir 共2005兲, and Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 共2009兲.
Eighty-four of these data points are considered herein with the
remaining 17 data points deemed unsuitable for development of
analytical models. The selected data are classified in terms of 共1兲
concrete cone failure 共30 data points兲; 共2兲 combined failure 共46
data points兲; and 共3兲 anchor rupture 共eight data points兲. The rel-
evant 25 tests from the study of Kim and Smith 共2009兲 reported
varying anchor hole diameter 共nominal diameter= 12, 14, and 16
mm兲 and embedment depth 共nominal depth= 20, 40, and 60 mm兲.
Sixteen test results were selected from the study of Özdemir
共2005兲 in which the anchors failed in a concrete cone or combined
manner with the variables being embedment depth 共nominal
depth= 50, 70, and 100 mm兲 and concrete cylinder compressive
strength 共approximately 10 and 16 MPa兲. The majority of the tests
of Özdemir 共2005兲 failed by rupture of the FRP anchors; however,
as tested mechanical properties of the FRP were not reported,
such ruptured anchor results are not considered herein.
Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 共2009兲 reported 73 tests however
only 43 results are used herein because all the anchors failing by
rupture could not be included due to the tested mechanical prop-
erties of the FRP not being reported. Also, test specimens of
Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 共2009兲 which failed in a concrete
splitting mode as well premature anchor rupture failure due to
poor anchor installation were also not included herein as well.
The selected 43 tests failed in a concrete cone or combined man-
ner in which the variables were anchor hole diameter 共nominal
diameter= 12.7, 15.9, and 19.1 mm兲, embedment depth 共nominal
depth= 25, 50, 75, and 100 mm兲, and concrete strength 共nominal
strength= 30 and 50 MPa兲.
410 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2010
J. Compos. Constr. 2010.14:406-414.
Proposed Pullout Strength Models for FRP Anchors
Analytical models for predicting the pullout failure mode and
strength of FRP anchors are presented in this section. The general
form of the model is first given followed by a detailed description
of its various components.
General Form of the Strength Models
The following analytical models are based on the assumptions of
共1兲 single anchor behavior 共no anchor groupings and multiple
anchors do no interfere with each other兲; 共2兲 monotonically ap-
plied tension load; 共3兲 idealized condition for epoxy cure 共i.e., dry
and clean holes, moderate temperature, and proper curing of
epoxy兲; and 共4兲 uncracked concrete 共failure surface is in no way
affected by cracks in the immediate vicinity of the anchor or the
edges of the concrete pullout test blocks兲. Experiments have re-
vealed similarities between metallic and FRP anchors so analyti-
cal models for the former will be used for the later. The analytical
model describing the pullout resistance 共Nu兲 of a single FRP an-
chor is therefore given as
Nu = min共Ncc,Ncb,Nar兲 共2a兲
Ncc = ␣cch1.5冑 c 共concrete cone failure兲
ef f ⬘ 共2b兲
Ncb = ␶u␲d0hef 共combined cone-bond failure兲 共2c兲
Nar = ␣arwFRPtFRP f FRP 共anchor rupture failure兲 共2d兲
where hef = effective embedment depth of the anchor 共mm兲; f ⬘c
= concrete cylinder compressive strength 共MPa兲; d0 = diameter of
the anchor hole 共mm兲; wFRP and tFRP = width 共mm兲 and thickness
共mm兲, respectively, of the fiber sheet used in construction of the
FRP anchor; and f FRP = flat coupon tensile rupture FRP strength
共MPa兲.
The key elements for the cone, combined, and anchor rupture
models are the calibration factors denoted by ␣cc, ␶u, and ␣ar,
respectively. In essence, these factors are determined from a sta-
tistical analysis of the different test data sets of the 84 data points
described in the previous section for both best fit 共50% ex-
ceedence of test results兲 and design 共5% exceedence or 95 per-
centile lower bound兲. The data set is assumed to be normally
distributed and all statistical results are presented in Table 2, with
the average expressed as a ratio of test to prediction. The standard
deviation 共SD兲, coefficient of variation 共CoV兲, and percentage of
exceedence 共PE兲 are also all given. Each factor in Table 2 is
calibrated independently 共i.e., no coupling of Ncc, Ncb, and Nar兲.
The analytical model proposed in Eq. 共2a兲 is largely based on
existing analytical models developed for metallic anchors. The
reason for adopting this strategy and not regressing the relevant
FRP anchor test data directly is due to several reasons, namely,
共1兲 analytical models derived from an abundance of metallic an-
chor tests over the last couple of decades have established clear
rational trends in test data thus producing rational models; 共2兲
limited tests on FRP anchors have revealed many similarities in
behavior 共i.e., failure兲 to metallic anchors; and 共3兲 the limited
FRP anchor tests data contained are not expected to yield statis-
tically meaningful regression results for key parameters. Models
regressed directly from FRP anchor test data may however be
attempted in the future when more test data is available.
 Table 2. Calibration Factors and Statistical Performance of Analytical Models for FRP Anchors
共a兲 Concrete cone failure
Calibration factors Statistics
Number
Model type ␣cc ␶u1 ␶u2 ␣ar Av SD CoV PE of tests
Raw 14.70 — — — 0.82 0.10 12 97 30
Best-fit 12.04 — — — 1.00 0.12 12 50
Design 9.68 — — — 1.24 0.15 12 5
共b兲 Combined failure
Low compressive strength concrete 共f c⬘ ⬍ 20 MPa兲
Raw — 15.40 — — 0.37 0.04 11 100 11
Best-fit — 5.65 — — 1.00 0.11 11 50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Design — 4.62 — — 1.22 0.13 11 5

Normal compressive strength concrete 共f c⬘ 艌 20 MPa兲
Raw — — 15.40 — 0.71 0.07 10 100 35
Best-fit — — 10.86 — 1.00 0.10 10 50
Design — — 9.07 — 1.20 0.12 10 5
共c兲 Anchor failure
Raw — — — 0.65 1.11 0.12 11 19 8
Best-fit — — — 0.72 1.00 0.11 11 50
Design — — — 0.59 1.22 0.13 11 5
共d兲 Overall performance
Best fit 12.04 5.65 10.86 0.72 1.01 0.10 10 47 84
Design 9.68 4.62 9.07 0.59 1.23 0.13 11 4
Note: ␣cc, ␶u1, ␶u2, and ␣ar = calibration factors for cone, combined, and rupture models; Av= average of test to prediction; SD= standard deviation;
CoV= coefficient variation 共%兲; and PE= percentage of exceedence 共%兲.

Calibration of the Concrete Cone Model 20 MPa 共i.e., data of Özdemir 2005兲, ␶u ranged from 4.6 to 6.6
MPa and for compressive strength greater than 20 MPa 共i.e., data
Eligehausen’s research group proposed the concrete cone model
of Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu 2009; Kim and Smith 2009兲, ␶u
of Eq. 共2b兲 with varying values of ␣cc proposed over several years
ranged from 8.7 to 14.2 MPa. The corresponding ␶u values for the
of research and publications. Most recently, Eligehausen et al.
concrete cone failing specimens presented in the test database
共2006b兲 proposed ␣cc = 14.7 for postinstalled anchors which in-
range from 6.5 and 10 MPa 共concrete strength⬎ 20 MPa兲, while
cludes expansion, undercut, adhesive, and grout anchors. Such
those for the anchor rupture failure cases presented in the test
anchors bear close resemblance to FRP anchors and are therefore
database range from 7.5 to 13.1 共concrete strength⬎ 20 MPa兲. It
of most relevance here. Table 2 reveals that when ␣cc equals 14.7
is therefore logical that the largest uniform bond stresses are
the pullout strength of FRP anchors is overestimated 共i.e., PE
achieved in the specimens failing in a predominantly bonded in-
= 97%兲 when assessed with the relevant test data. The correspond-
terface manner. In order to assess the suitability and accuracy of a
ing best-fit and design values for ␣cc are 12.04 and 9.68 共Table 2兲
more recently published analytical model for metallic anchors
with the CoV being only 12%. The statistical performance of the
with FRP anchor data, the model of Cook and Kunz 共2001兲 is
concrete cone model with size effect omitted 共i.e., Nc = ␣ch2ef 冑 f ⬘c analyzed under the “raw” model type for the data sets containing
form of equation兲 produces a best fit and design value of ␣cc of low concrete strength 共Table 2兲 and normal concrete strength
2.31 and 1.48, respectively, however with a much higher CoV of 共Table 2兲. The model is way too unconservative with percentages
22% which in turn justifies using Eq. 共2b兲. of exceedence equal to 100%. The model is therefore recalibrated
to produce the best-fit and design values of ␶u1 共low strength
Calibration of the Combined „Bond… Model concrete; Table 2兲 of 5.65 and 4.62 and ␶u2 共normal strength con-
crete; Table 2兲 of 10.86 and 9.07, respectively. The CoVs are an
Tests showed that anchors of sufficient length should fail in a
acceptable 11 and 10%, respectively. It should be noted that Cook
combined manner. The analytical approach adopted in this paper
and Kunz 共2001兲 reported the effect of concrete strength to have
is to ignore the resistance provided by the concrete cone and
minimal effect on the bond stress of adhesive metallic anchors
instead assume all resistance to be provided at the anchor-to-
while the type of coarse aggregate highly influenced the bond
concrete interface. Resistance provided by the cone has been
stress. On account of very limited information existing on the
shown for metallic anchors to contribute little to the pullout
type of aggregate used in all tests reported in the database of Kim
strength of the anchor 共Cook 1993兲. In addition, the depth of the
and Smith 共2009兲, this issue will not be considered and can be left
cone for longer anchors is most difficult to estimate due to the
for future research.
large scatter in test results.
The uniform bond stresses 共i.e., ultimate bond strength兲 at
pullout failure, ␶u, of all 46 combined failure test results are Calibration of the Anchor Rupture Model
calculated and presented by Kim and Smith 共2009兲 and a notice- The calibration factor, ␣ar, accounts for the differences in tensile
able trend can be observed. For compressive strengths less than strength between flat FRP coupon tensile test coupons to FRP

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2010 / 411

J. Compos. Constr. 2010.14:406-414.

 70 70
60 60
50 50

Nu,pre (kN)
Nu,pre (kN)
40 40
30 CC 30 CC
20 CB 20 CB
10 AR 10 AR
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Nu,test (kN) Nu,test (kN)

Fig. 3. Predicted versus test results 共best-fit model兲 Fig. 4. Predicted versus test results 共design model兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

anchors failing by tensile rupture. Kim and Smith 共2009兲 estab-
lished the tensile strength of FRP anchors in isolation to range
from 65 to 94% of the tensile strength of flat FRP coupon test
coupons. As the FRP anchors were handmade, the fibers tended to
be bendt and twisted and the reduction in strength was attributed
to the poor fiber alignment. It was hypothesized that the anchor
quality should be improved though if mass produced with im-
proved manufacturing quality. According to Table 2, ␣ar = 0.65
gives an average of 1.11 while the values for best fit and design
are 0.72 and 0.59, respectively. All CoVs are an acceptable 11%.
Overall Performance of the Calibrated Model
Table 2 reveals the overall best-fit average of Nu to be 1.01
共CoV= 10% and PE= 47%兲 while the corresponding design
average= 1.23 共CoV= 13% and PE= 4%兲 when used to assess all
eight-four data points. The predicted load 共vertical axis兲 versus
test results 共horizontal axis兲 for the best-fit and design cases are
subsequently shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. In the deter-
mination of Nu, 87% of the failure modes were correctly predicted
for the best-fit case 共i.e., 74 out of 84 tests correctly predicted兲
and 84% of cases for the design case predictions 共71 out of 84
tests correctly predicted兲. Failure modes were incorrectly pre-
dicted when the predicted failure loads for different failure modes
were similar. This shortcoming is to be expected due to the inher-
ent scatter in the test data which is reflected in the calibration
factors. More test data will surely increase the reliability of failure
mode prediction. The failure loads can however be predicted with
confidence and reliability.
cent to the concrete surface below the FRP plate. It does not
consider the connection between the FRP anchor and the FRP
plate which is typically via the anchor fan. In the case where the
force in the anchor is developed by transfer of stresses to the
anchor via the anchor fan, the bond strength of the anchor fan to
FRP plate is needed.
Fig. 5 provides a three-dimensional representation of Eq. 共3a兲.
The concrete cylinder compressive strength is assumed to be 30
MPa, the anchor rupture strength Nar = 37.8 kN 关calculated design
strength of 200-mm-wide anchors of Kim and Smith 共2009兲 with
0.117-mm sheet thickness兴, ␣cc = 9.68 MPa 共design兲, and ␶u
= 9.07 MPa 共design兲. Figs. 6共a and b兲 show the relationships be-
tween failure load, failure mode, anchor hole diameter, hef / d0
ratio, and concrete strength. Several observations can be made
from Figs. 5 and 6, namely, 共1兲 the anchor pullout strength is
ultimately limited by the anchor rupture strength; 共2兲 anchors with
large anchor hole diameters are susceptible to concrete cone fail-
ure 共e.g., anchors with larger than 18-mm hole diameter兲; 共3兲
combined failure dominates anchors of smaller diameters; and 共4兲
concrete strength has a minor effect on the failure mode but can
affect the failure load.
Conclusions
This paper has investigated analytically the pullout resistance of
FRP anchors in uncracked concrete. A review of the behavior of
metallic anchors was initially made and similarities 共and differ-
ences兲 with FRP anchors were identified. Existing analytical mod-
els, originally developed for metallic anchors, were critically

Recommendations for Design and Parametric Study

Based on the statistical results reported in Table 2, the design

AR
model recommendations are given as follows: 1.0

Nu = min共Ncc,Ncb,Nar兲 共3a兲 0.8

N u / N ar

Ncc = 9.68h1.5冑 c 共cone failure兲

ef f ⬘ 共3b兲 0.6

0.4 CB
Ncb = 4.62␲d0hef 共f ⬘c ⬍ 20 MPa兲 共combined failure兲 共3c兲 0.2
0.0
Ncb = 9.07␲d0hef 共f ⬘c 艌 20 MPa兲 共combined failure兲 共3d兲 22 20
20 15
18
Nar = 0.59wFRPtFRP f FRP 共anchor failure兲 共3e兲 d 16 10
h ef
/d o
0 (m 14
m) 12 5
The ranges of test parameters used to calibrate these models are CC
共1兲 17.5 mm艋 hef 艋 100.0 mm; 共2兲 10.4 MPa艋 f ⬘c 艋 60.0 MPa; 10
0
f'c = 30 MPa

and 共3兲 11.8 mm艋 d0 艋 20.0 mm. In addition, the model is con-
fined to the embedded region of the anchor and the region adja- Fig. 5. Parametric study 共design model兲

412 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2010

J. Compos. Constr. 2010.14:406-414.

 1.2 Compos. Constr., 12共6兲, 596–607.

Pa

Pa

Pa
0M

0M
Aiello, M. A., De Lorenzis, L., Galati, N., and La Tegola, A. 共2004兲.

M
AR

20
=4

=3

=
f'c = 20, 30, 40 MPa “Bond between FRP laminates and curved concrete substrates with

f'c

f'c

f'c
1.0
anchoring composite spikes.” Proc., Innovative Materials and Tech-
nologies for Construction and Restoration (IMTCR 2004), Lecce,
0.8
CC Italy.
CB American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共1985兲. “Code requirements for
Nu / Nar

f'c = 20, 30, 40 MPa

0.6 nuclear safety related concrete structures.” ACI 349-85, Detroit.
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2001兲. “Code requirements for
0.4
nuclear safety related concrete structures and commentary.” ACI 349-
01, Detroit.
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2005兲. “Building code requirements
0.2
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318M-05, Detroit.
d0 = 12 mm Binici, B., Ozcebe, G., and Ozcelik, R. 共2007兲. “Analysis and design of
FRP composites for seismic retrofit of infill walls in reinforced con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 crete frames.” Composites, Part B, 38共5–6兲, 575–583.
hef / d0 CEB. 共1994兲. Fastenings to concrete and masonry structures: State-of-
the-art report, Comité Euro-International Du Béton, Lausanne, Swit-
(a) Small anchor hole diameter (d0 = 12 mm) zerland.
Cook, R. A. 共1993兲. “Behavior of chemically bonded anchors.” J. Struct.
Eng., 119共9兲, 2744–2762.
Pa
Pa

Pa

1.2
Cook, R. A. 共1999兲. Strength design of anchorage to concrete, Portland
40M
30M

0M
=2

AR
Cement Association, Ill.
f'c =
f'c =

f'c = 20, 30, 40 MPa

f'c

1.0 Cook, R. A., Doerr, G. T., and Klinger, R. E. 共1993兲. “Bond stress model
for design of adhesive anchors.” ACI Struct. J., 90共5兲, 514–524.
0.8 Cook, R. A., Kunz, J., Fuchs, W., and Konz, R. C. 共1998兲. “Behavior and
design of single adhesive anchors under tensile load in uncracked
CC
Nu / Nar

concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 95共1兲, 9–26.

0.6
Cook, R. A., and Kunz, R. C. 共2001兲. “Factors influencing bond strength
of adhesive anchors.” ACI Struct. J., 98共1兲, 76–86.
0.4 Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. 共1997兲. “Behavior and
modeling of bond of FRP rebars to concrete.” J. Compos. Constr.,
0.2
1共2兲, 40–51.
Eligehausen, R., Bouška, P., Červenka, V., and Pukl, R. 共1992兲. “Size
d0 = 20 mm
effect on the concrete cone failure load of anchor bolts.” Proc., 1st Int.
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Conf. on Failure Mechanics of Concrete Structures, FraMCoS1,
Elsevier Applied Science, Colo., 517–525.
hef / d0
Eligehausen, R., Cook, R. A., and Appl, J. 共2006b兲. “Behaviour and
design of adhesive bonded anchors.” ACI Struct. J., 103共6兲, 822–831.
(b) Large anchor hole diameter (d0 = 20 mm) Eligehausen, R., and Fuchs, W. 共1988兲. “Tragverhalten von Dübelbefes-
tigungen bei Querzug-, Schrägzug- und Biegebeanspruchung 共Load-
Fig. 6. Parametric study 共design model兲 bearing behaviour of anchor fastenings under shear, combined tension
and shear or flexural loading兲.” Betonwerk Fertigteil-Tech., 88共2兲,
48–56.
reviewed and a best-fit and design model for use with FRP an- Eligehausen, R., Fuchs, W., and Mayer, B. 共1987兲. “Tragverhalten von
chors, which was calibrated against a test database consisting of Dübelbefestigungen unter Zugbeanspruchung 共Bearing behaviour of
eight-four data points, was then provided. While the proposed anchor fastenings under tension.” Betonwerk Fertigteil-Tech., 87共12兲,
model provides the first accurate representation of the pullout 826–832; 1988, 共1兲, 29–35.
Eligehausen, R., Mallée, R., and Rehm, G. 共1984兲. “Befestigungen mit
resistance of FRP anchors, not all the failure modes were always
Verbundankern 共Fastenings with bonded anchors兲.” Betonwerk
correctly predicted. More tests on parameters both inside and out-
Fertigteil-Tech., 84共10兲, 682–692; 共11兲, 781–785; 共12兲, 825–829.
side of the range of existing test data are required in order to
Eligehausen, R., Mallée, R., and Silva, J. F. 共2006a兲. Anchorage in con-
improve the accuracy of the models and extend their range of
crete construction, Ernst & Young, Germany.
applicability. Eligehausen, R., and Sawade, G. 共1989兲. “A fracture mechanics based
description of the pull-out behaviour of headed studs embedded in
concrete.” Fracture mechanics of concrete structures. From theory to
Acknowledgments applications, Report of RILEM Committee TC90–FMA, Chapman and
Hall, London, 281–299.
Funding provided by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council in Eshwar, N., Ibell, T. J., and Nanni, A. 共2005兲. “Effectiveness of CFRP
the form of General Research Fund HKU 715907E is gratefully strengthening on curved soffit RC beams.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 8共1兲,
acknowledged. 55–68.
FIB. 共2000兲. “Bond of reinforcement in concrete.” Bulletin No. 10, Task
Group on Bond Models, Int. Federation for Structural Concrete 共FIB兲,
Lausanne, Switzerland.
References Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., and Breen, J. E. 共1995兲. “Concrete capacity
design 共CCD兲 approach for fastening to concrete.” ACI Struct. J.,
Ahmed, E. A., El-Salakawy, E. F., and Benmokrane, B. 共2008兲. “Tensile 92共1兲, 73–94.
capacity of GFRP postinstalled adhesive anchors in concrete.” J. Galati, D., Rizzo, A., and Micelli, F. 共2007兲. “Comparison of reinforced

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2010 / 413

J. Compos. Constr. 2010.14:406-414.

 concrete beams strengthened with FRP pre-cured laminate systems
and tested under flexural loading.” Proc., 8th Int. Symp. on Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-
8), Univ. of Patras, Greece.
Gose, S. C., and Nanni, A. 共2000兲. Anchorage system for externally
bonded FRP laminates using near surface mounted rods, Center for
Infrastructure Engineering Studies, Univ. of Missouri–Rolla, Mo.
Hollaway, L. C., and Teng, J. G. 共2008兲. Strengthening and rehabilitation
of civil infrastructures using fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) compos-
ites, Woodhead, Cambridge, U.K.
Kim, S. J., and Smith, S. T. 共2009兲. “Behaviour of handmade FRP an-
chors under tensile load in uncracked concrete.” Adv. Struct. Eng.
12共6兲, 845–865.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. 共2001兲. “Strength of RC cantilever slabs bonded
with GFRP strips.” J. Compos. Constr., 5共4兲, 221–227.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
McVay, M., Cook, R., and Krishnamurthy, K. 共1996兲. “Pullout simulation
of postinstalled chemically bonded anchors.” J. Struct. Eng., 122共9兲,
1016–1024.
Oh, H.-S., and Sim, J. 共2004兲. “Interface debonding failure in beams
strengthened with externally bonded GFRP.” Compos. Interfaces,
11共1兲, 25–42.
Okelo, R., and Yuan, R. L. 共2005兲. “Bond strength of fiber reinforced
polymer rebars in normal strength concrete.” J. Compos. Constr.,
9共3兲, 203–213.
Orton, S. L., Jirsa, J. O., and Bayrak, O. 共2008兲. “Design considerations
of carbon fibre anchors.” J. Compos. Constr., 12共6兲, 608–616.
414 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2010
J. Compos. Constr. 2010.14:406-414.
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Saatcioglu, M. 共2009兲. “Tensile behaviour of FRP
anchors in concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 13共2兲, 82–92.
Özdemir, G. 共2005兲. “Mechanical properties of CFRP anchorage.” MS
thesis, Middle East Technical Univ., Turkey.
Seliem, H. M., Sumner, E. A., Seracino, R., and Smith, S. T. 共2008兲.
“Field testing of RC slabs with openings strengthened with CFRP.”
Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE
2008), Empa, Zürich, Switzerland.
Sharif, A., Al-Sulaimani, G., Basunbul, I. A., Baluch, M. H., and Ghaleb,
B. N. 共1994兲. “Strengthening of initially loaded reinforced concrete
beams using FRP plates.” ACI Struct. J., 91共2兲, 160–168.
Smith, S. T., and Gravina, R. J. 共2007兲. “Prediction of debonding failure
in FRP flexurally strengthened RC members using a local deformation
model.” J. Compos. Constr., 11共2兲, 184–191.
Smith, S. T., and Kim, S. J. 共2010兲. “Strength and behavior of impreg-
nated carbon FRP anchors in FRP-to-concrete joint assemblies.” Adv.
Struct. Eng., accepted.
Smith, S. T., and Teng, J. G. 共2003兲. “Shear-bending interaction in deb-
onding failures of FRP-plated RC beams.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 6共3兲,
183–199.
Tan, K. H., and Patoary, M. K. H. 共2004兲. “Strengthening of masonry
walls against out-of-plane load using fiber-reinforced polymer rein-
forcement.” J. Compos. Constr., 8共1兲, 79–87.
Teng, J. G., Smith, S. T., Yao, J., and Chen, J. F. 共2003兲. “Intermediate
crack induced debonding in RC beams and slabs.” Constr. Build.
Mater., 17共6–7兲, 447–462.