See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320549894

Experimental Investigation of Bond-Dependent Coefficient of Glass Fiber

Reinforced Polymer Bars

Conference Paper · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-6713-6_86

CITATIONS READS

0 19

3 authors, including:

Nguyen Trung Hieu

Hanoi University of Civil Engineering
11 PUBLICATIONS   74 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nguyen Trung Hieu on 05 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized in
SpringerLink
Book Title Proceedings of the 4th Congrès International de Géotechnique - Ouvrages -Structures
Series Title
Chapter Title Experimental Investigation of Bond-Dependent Coefficient of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bars
Copyright Year 2018
Copyright HolderName Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
Author Family Name Tran
Particle
Given Name Thuy Duong
Prefix
Suffix
Division Department of Civil Engineering
Organization National University of Civil Engineering
Address Hanoi, Vietnam
Email duongtt@nuce.edu.vn
Author Family Name Nguyen
Particle
Given Name Mạnh Hung
Prefix
Suffix
Division Department of Civil Engineering
Organization Vinh University
Address Vinh, Vietnam
Email hungmanh.dhxd@gmail.com
Corresponding Author Family Name Nguyen
Particle
Given Name Trung Hieu
Prefix
Suffix
Division Department of Civil Engineering
Organization National University of Civil Engineering
Address Hanoi, Vietnam
Email hieunt@nuce.edu.vn

Abstract In recent years, Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars have become an alternative to steel
reinforcement in concrete structures. Due to the relatively low modulus of elasticity and the different
surface treatment, the problems of bond between the GFRP bars and the concrete should be carefully
considered. This paper focus on the experimental evaluation of the bond–dependent coefficient (kb) of
GFRP bars according to the ACI 440.1R-06. This coefficient takes into account the degree of bond
between the GFRP bar and the surrounding concrete and was used in calculating of serviceability limited
state of concrete structures.
Keywords Glass fiber reinforced polymer - Bond - Crack width - Serviceability
(separated by '-')
Author Proof

Experimental Investigation of Bond-Dependent

Coefficient of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Bars

Thuy Duong Tran1, Mạnh Hung Nguyen2,

and Trung Hieu Nguyen1(&)
1
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Civil Engineering,
Hanoi, Vietnam
{duongtt,hieunt}@nuce.edu.vn
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Vinh University, Vinh, Vietnam
hungmanh.dhxd@gmail.com

Abstract. In recent years, Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars have
become an alternative to steel reinforcement in concrete structures. Due to the
relatively low modulus of elasticity and the different surface treatment, the
problems of bond between the GFRP bars and the concrete should be carefully
considered. This paper focus on the experimental evaluation of the bond–de-
pendent coefficient (kb) of GFRP bars according to the ACI 440.1R-06. This
coefficient takes into account the degree of bond between the GFRP bar and the
surrounding concrete and was used in calculating of serviceability limited state
of concrete structures. AQ1

Keywords: Glass fiber reinforced polymer
Bond
Crack width

Serviceability

1 Introduction

Commercially available GFRP reinforcement bars are made of continuous Glass fibers
embedded in a resin matrix (e.g. ACI 440.1R-03 [1]). GFRP bars have various types of
cross-sectional shapes (square. round. hollow). In recent years, GFRP bars are
increasingly being used as alternative reinforcement for buildings and bridges, espe-
cially in corrosive environments. Compared to steel bars, GFRP bars have several
advantages such as corrosion resistance, high strength, lightweight, and high thermal
resistance. Beside these advantages, GFRP bars have also inconveniences: lower
modulus of elasticity and the different surface treatment which leads to higher rein-
forcement strains, wider cracks and larger deflections. Therefore, the design of rein-
forced concrete members with GFRP bars is often governed by the serviceability
limited state (deflection and crack width). Crack width calculations include the effect of
bond between FRP bars and surrounding concrete. This is normally taken into account
in FRP design codes and guides through the so called bond dependent coefficient
(kb) (El-Nemr et al. [5]). Literature shown that kb value depends on many parameters,
for example concrete cross section, GFRP bar manufacturers, fiber types, resin

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

H. Tran-Nguyen et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Congrès International
de Géotechnique - Ouvrages -Structures, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 8,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-6713-6_86
 2 T.D. Tran et al.
Author Proof

formulations and surface treatments. According to ACI 440.1R-06 [2], for GFRP bars
having bond behavior similar to steel bars, kb is assumed equal to 1 and for GFRP bars
having bond behavior inferior to steel, kb is larger than 1.0 and vice versa.
The determination of kb was introduced in ACI 440.1R-03 [1] by modifying the
Gergely-Lutz [7] equation to account for FRP instead of steel bars. Some typical kb
values for GFRP reinforcing bars cited in [1] are between 0.71 and 1.83. ACI440.1R-03
[1] advised that designers used a value of 1.2 for deformed GFRP bars unless more
specific information were available for a particular bar. Later, ACI.440.1R-06 [2]
adopted a modified version of the crack width equation proposed by Frosch [6]. It was
reported that kb values ranged from 0.60 to 1.72, with a mean of 1.10.
According to ACI.440.1R-06 [2] and CSA S806-12 [4], kb should be determined
from the measured crack widths and strains in FRP bars during testing and using
Eq. (1):
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 s 2 ffi
ff
w ¼ 2 bkb þ dc2 ð1Þ
Ef 2

where:
w is the maximum crack width. CSA S806-12 [4] implicitly allows crack width of
0.5 mm for exterior exposure and 0.7 mm for interior exposure. ACI 440.1R-06 [2]
does not address the maximum allowable crack width of FRP-reinforced members. It
recommends that the CSA S806-12 [4] limits be used for most cases.
ff is the stress in FRP reinforcement in tension (MPa);
Ef is the modulus of elasticity of GFRP bar (MPa);
b is the ration of distance from neutral axis to extreme tension fiber to distance from
neutral axis to center of GFRP tensile reinforcement;
kb is the bond-dependent coefficient;
dc is the thickness of concrete cover from extreme tension fiber to center of GFRP
bar (mm);
s is the longitudinal GFRP bar spacing (mm).

This article presents an investigation to determine the kb coefficient of different

diameters of GFRP bars in normal strength concrete. This works has been performed at
Laboratory of Testing and Construction Inspection, National University of Civil
Engineering (NUCE), Vietnam.

2 Experimental Research

2.1 Test Specimens and Materials

The details of testing specimens are shown in Fig. 1. Six rectangular beam specimens
having a cross section of 200  300 mm and 3000 mm of length were fabricated and
tested under flexion at NUCE. All beams were reinforced in the bottom with two
longitudinal GFRP bars and in the top with 2D14 steel bars. The transversal rein-
forcement steels were D8 with the space of 100 mm. Six beams were divided into three
 Experimental Investigation of Bond-Dependent Coefficient 3
Author Proof

group (2 beams in each group) based n the diameter of longitudinal GFRP bars in the
bottom and the concrete cover as follows:
– Group 1 (beams 2D14-1 and 2D14-2): 2∅14 GFRP bars and concrete cover
c = 40 mm;
– Group 2 (beam 2D16-1 and 2D16-2): 2∅16 GFRP bars and concrete cover
c = 40 mm;
– Group 3 (beam 2D20-1 and 2D20-2): 2∅20 GFRP bars and concrete cover
c = 50 mm.

Fig. 1. Details of test specimens

The mix proportion of concrete was presented in Table 1. To determine the con-
crete strength and modulus of elasticity, six 150  300 mm concrete cylinder speci-
mens were cast and tested in compression after 28 days of curing. The 28-day
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete were determined according
to the average test results of three specimens and their value were also tabulated in
Table 1. The yield strengths of the transverse and longitudinal steel bar obtained from
tensile tests were 240 MPa and 320 Mpa, respectively (Fig. 2).

Table 1. Mixture proportions for 1 m3 of concrete (kg/m3)

Cement Fine Coarse Water The 28-day Modulus of
PCB30 aggregate aggregate compressive strength elasticity (GPa)
(MPa)
480 595 1250 180 40.8 39.20

The GFRP reinforcing bars were manufactured by FRP Vietnam JSC. They had a
helical wrapping surface. Normalized measurements were conducted to determine the
cross-section areas of the re-bars according to ACI 440.3R-04 [3]. The mechanical
properties of GFRP bars are shown in Table 2.
In Fig. 3 presents images of the details of reinforcements and concreting process.
All specimens were preserved and tested in flexion after 28 days of curing.
 4 T.D. Tran et al.
Author Proof

a- Compressive Strength Test b- Modulus of Elasticity Test

Fig. 2. Testing for mechanical properties of concrete

Table 2. Mechanical properties of GFRP bar

FRP bar Experimental bar Ultimate tensile Modulus of Ultimate
designation diameter db (mm) strength (MPa) elasticity (GPa) elongation (%)
Ø14 12.37 928.34 46.0 2.018
Ø16 14.78 938.50 46.0 2.086
Ø20 18.30 973.70 46.0 2.117

a- Details of reinforcements b- Concrete casting

Fig. 3. Fabrication of reinforced concrete beams

2.2 Test Setup and Instrumentation

Details of the setup are shown in Fig. 4. All specimens were tested in four-point
bending. The span length of all tested beams was 2400 mm. The loads were applied
using one hydraulic jack and a steel spreader beam. The loading process was carried
out as stress control with a constant rate of 0.25 MPa/s. The applied load was measured
 Experimental Investigation of Bond-Dependent Coefficient 5
Author Proof

using a load cell. Longitudinal GFRP bars strains were measured by two strain gages
(called T1 and T2). Their locations in the specimens can be seen in Fig. 5a. Each
monitored GFRP bar had one strain gage at the center of the bars. The displacement at
the mid-span and the two supports were measured using Linear Variable Differential
Transformers (LVDTs). To measure the initial crack width of the first crack (N1) and
second crack (N2) of tested beam, a microscope with precision of 0.01 mm was used.
The widths of these cracks were monitored by extensometers at the level of the rein-
forcing bars until the end of testing.

Fig. 4. Test setup

a- Extensometers b- Strain gages c- LVDTs d- Microscope

KG-1 and KG-2

Fig. 5. Images of Instruments

2.3 Test Procedure

During the test, loads, displacements and crack widths of the first and second cracks
were recorded through a computerized data-logger system. The test procedure is
described as follows:
a. Setup the test specimen;
b. Load the beam until the first flexural crack appears. At that stage; loading is held
constant to measure the initial crack width with a microscope;
c. Placing the first extensometer at the level of GFRP bars to monitor the width of the
first crack;
d. Repeat the b and c stages for the second crack of beam.
 6 T.D. Tran et al.
Author Proof

3 Test Results and Discussions

Figure 6 shows the experimental force versus mid-span deflection curves for the six
specimens. Concrete cracking was identified in all tested beams at a load level of about
10 kN. After that all beams showed strictly increasing load-deflection behaviour until
the beam failed. It can be to seem that the main parameter controlling the behavior of
reinforced concrete beams is the longitudinal reinforcement stiffness, EA. Furthermore,
the diagram of load-deflection in the reinforced concrete beams with FRP almost like a
straight line with light slope until the failure of beams. Concerning the failure mode, all
beam specimens failure was due to concrete compressive crushing.

Fig. 6. Load-mid span deflection of all tested beam.

Fig. 7. Crack width – strain in FRP reinforcing bar relationship of 2D14 beams
 Experimental Investigation of Bond-Dependent Coefficient 7
Author Proof

Fig. 8. Crack width – strain in FRP reinforcing bar relationship of 2D16 beams

Fig. 9. Crack width – strain in FRP reinforcing bar relationship of 2D20 beams

Figures 7, 8 and 9 show the relationships between the crack width of the first crack
(N1) with the strain in FRP reinforcing bars at mid-span of tested beams, where each
curve represents the average of the two strain readings. It can be seen that these
relationships were shaped linear in all tested beams. Figure 10 presents these rela-
tionships of all beams. The obtained results show that the influence of the diameter of
FRP reinforcing bars on the crack width was not significant. AQ2

Table 3 shows the kb values of each tested beam calculated at crack width 0.7 mm
according to Eq. (1). The kb values were varied with GFRP bar diameters but the results
did not show a consistent trend of relationship. According to [2, 5], this inconsistent
 8 T.D. Tran et al.
Author Proof

Table 3. Caculation of kb values according to Eq. (1)

Tested Crack w Strain Ef ff b s dc Kb
beam (mm) e * 10−6 (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm)
2D14-1 N1 0.7 3295 46000 151.57 1.269 106 47 1.181
N2 0.7 3867 46000 177.88 1.269 106 47 1.007
2D14-2 N1 0.7 4827 46000 222.02 1.269 106 47 0.807
N2 0.7 4441 46000 204.26 1.269 106 47 0.877
2D16-1 N1 0.7 3021 46000 139.01 1.218 104 48 1.315
N2 0.7 3520 46000 162.04 1.218 104 48 1.125
2D16-2 N1 0.7 3630 46000 167.15 1.218 104 48 1.094
N2 0.7 3717 46000 171.00 1.218 104 48 1.068
2D20-1 N1 0.7 3203 46000 147.33 1.300 80 60 1.165
N2 0.7 3905 46000 179.63 1.300 80 60 0.956
2D20-2 N1 0.7 3308 46000 152.17 1.300 80 60 1.128
N2 0.7 3454 46000 158.88 1.300 80 60 1.079

Fig. 10. Crack width – strain in FRP reinforcing bar relationship of all tested beams

trend can be explained by the complex bond behavior of GFRP bar with helical
wrapping surface. Figure 11 presents the histogram of kb coefficients. The results of the
analysis showed that for all tested beams, the average or mean value of kb coefficient is
1.067 with a coefficient of variation of 12.9%. This experimental result was suitable with
recommendation of ACI 440.1R-06 [2]. AQ3
 Experimental Investigation of Bond-Dependent Coefficient 9
Author Proof

5 Mean 1.067
StDev 0.1387
N 12

4
Frequency

0
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Kb coefficient

Fig. 11. Histogram of kb coefficient

4 Conclusions

This study aimed at investigating the bond-dependent coefficient of GFRP reinforcing

bars. Based on the test results of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:
– The GFRP bar diameters influence the bond-dependent coefficient (kb) value but yet
no trend or clear relationship was observed.
– The mean calculated values of kb base on experimental results at crack width
0.7 mm was suitable with recommendation of ACI 440.1R-06 and can use in
calculating of serviceability limited state of concrete structures.

Acknowledgements. The authors are grateful to FRP Vietnam JSC for providing the FRP bars.
This study was conducted at Laboratory of Testing and Construction Inspection (LCTI), Faculty
of Building and Industrial Construction, National University of Civil Engineering, Vietnam and
the authors would like to thank the technicians in the laboratory for providing assistance in
specimen fabrication and testing.

References
1. ACI 440.1R-03: Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars.
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills (2003)
2. ACI 440.1R-06: Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars.
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills (2006)
3. ACI 440.3R-12: Guide Test Methods for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRPs) for Reinforcing or
Strengthening Concrete Structures. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills (2012)
4. CSA S806-12: Design and Construction of Building Components with Fiber Reinforced
Polymers, CAN/CSA S806-12, Rexdale, ON (2012)
 10 T.D. Tran et al.
Author Proof

5. El-Nemr, A., Ahmed, E., Benmokrane, B.: Bond-dependent coefficient of glass and carbon
FRP bars in normal and high-strength concretes. J. Constr. Build. Mater. 01(01), 21–38
(2016)
6. Frosh, R.J.: Another look at cracking and crack control in reinforced concrete. ACI Struct.
J. 96(3), 437–442 (1999)
7. Gergely, P., Lutz, L.A.: Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members,
ACI SP-20, pp. 87–117. American Concrete Institute, Detroit (1968) AQ4
8. Kassem, C., Farghaly, A.S., Benmokrane, B.: Evaluation of flexural behavior and
serviceability performance of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars. J. Compos. Constr.
15(5), 682–695 (2011)
Author Proof

Author Query Form

Book ID : 440612_1_En
Chapter No : 86
123
the language of science

Please ensure you fill out your response to the queries raised below
and return this form along with your corrections

Dear Author
During the process of typesetting your chapter, the following queries have
arisen. Please check your typeset proof carefully against the queries listed below
and mark the necessary changes either directly on the proof/online grid or in the
‘Author’s response’ area provided below

Query Refs. Details Required Author’s Response

AQ1 Please confirm if the corresponding author is correctly identified. Amend if
necessary.
AQ2 Please check and confirm that the edit made in the caption of Fig. 9 is correct..
AQ3 Please check and confirm if the inserted citation of Figs. 2 and 10 are correct. If
not, please suggest an alternate citation.
AQ4 Reference [8] is given in the list but not cited in the text. Please cite them in text
or delete them from the list.
 MARKED PROOF
Please correct and return this set
Please use the proof correction marks shown below for all alterations and corrections. If you
wish to return your proof by fax you should ensure that all amendments are written clearly
in dark ink and are made well within the page margins.

Instruction to printer Textual mark Marginal mark

Leave unchanged under matter to remain
Insert in text the matter New matter followed by
indicated in the margin or
Delete through single character, rule or underline
or or
through all characters to be deleted
Substitute character or
through letter or new character or
substitute part of one or
more word(s) through characters new characters
Change to italics under matter to be changed
Change to capitals under matter to be changed
Change to small capitals under matter to be changed
Change to bold type under matter to be changed
Change to bold italic under matter to be changed
Change to lower case Encircle matter to be changed
Change italic to upright type (As above)
Change bold to non-bold type (As above)
or
Insert ‘superior’ character through character or
under character
where required
e.g. or
Insert ‘inferior’ character (As above) over character
e.g.
Insert full stop (As above)
Insert comma (As above)
or and/or
Insert single quotation marks (As above)
or

or and/or
Insert double quotation marks (As above)
or
Insert hyphen (As above)
Start new paragraph
No new paragraph
Transpose
Close up linking characters

Insert or substitute space through character or

between characters or words where required

Reduce space between between characters or

characters or words words affected

View publication stats