Accepted Manuscript

Impacts of configurations on the strength of FRP anchors

Wei Sun, Haifeng Liu, Yajun Wang, Tao He

PII: S0263-8223(17)32746-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.04.020
Reference: COST 9574

To appear in: Composite Structures

Received Date: 27 August 2017

Revised Date: 9 February 2018
Accepted Date: 2 April 2018

Please cite this article as: Sun, W., Liu, H., Wang, Y., He, T., Impacts of configurations on the strength of FRP
anchors, Composite Structures (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.04.020

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Impacts of configurations on the strength of FRP
anchors
Wei Sun*, Haifeng Liu, Yajun Wang, Tao He

Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Mechanics on Western Disaster and Environment,

School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China

Abstract

The usage of FRP anchors to prevent FRP strips from premature debonding failure is gaining

acceptance in strengthening applications of concrete members. FRP anchors can fully develop the

strength of FRP strips when they are properly designed. However, existing equations do not well include

the comprehensive impact of the spike embedment depth, the bend ratio, the strength ratio of FRP

anchor to FRP strip and the dowel angle on the anchor strength. Based on 64 tests failed in anchor

rupture, this study proposes a comprehensive equation to determine the anchor strength. Comparisons

between equation based predictions and 12 experimental results indicate the advantage of the proposed

equation against existing equations. Then, the study propose a feasible technique, i.e. the bidirectional

FRP patch, to improve the efficiency of current FRP anchors. Compared with equation based predictions

for those FRP anchors without FRP patches, experimental results obtained from 20 specimens with FRP

patches indicate significant increases on the anchor strength. This observation favors the usage of FRP

patches to improve the efficiency of FRP anchors.

Keywords: FRP anchors; FRP strips; Concrete elements; Bend ratio; Strength ratio; Bidirectional FRP

patch

1
 1. Introduction

Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites have been progressively applied as external

reinforcements (strips or plates) to rehabilitate concrete elements because of its light-weight,

high-strength, non-corrosion and ease-installation characteristics. For those FRP strips relying exclusively

on adhesive bonds with concrete, however, the premature debonding limits great amount of the FRP

tensile strength [1-4]. Extensive studies have been conducted to explore the interfacial behavior of

FRP-concrete bond, resulting in bond stress-slip models [5] and closed-form equations [6] to describe the

bond behavior.

On the other hand, various anchorage systems have been developed to make fuller usage of the FRP

material. Those Anchorages, using mechanically fastened joints [7-9] or transverse FRP wraps [10-12]

whilst others use FRP anchors [13-14], provide with a load transfer mechanism so that the strength of the

FRP material can be continually developed after debonding occurs. In spite of the attractive merit,

anchorages have not been widely accepted. This can attribute to their individual limitations: 1)

mechanically fastened joints are subject to corrosion and stress concentration; 2) unless a certain level of

tensile stress is developed in the wraps, transverse wrapping techniques are not effective; and 3) while

FRP anchors can fully develop the tensile strength of FRP strips [14-15], few studies are available to

guide the usage of FRP anchors. Thus, more complicated systems are required to strengthen mechanically

fastened joints and transverse FRP wraps against the aforementioned weaknesses. Meantime, many

studies have been conducted to understand imparts of configurations (Fig. 1) on the strength of FRP

anchors. The configurations include 1) embedment depth ( ) which is the depth of the FRP anchor

inserted into concrete [2-4, 16-20], 2) the bend ratio ( ) which is the ratio of the bend radius ( ) to the

2
diameter of the anchor spike ( ) [19-25], 3) the strength ratio of FRP anchor to FRP reinforcement

( ) [1-2, 4]; and 4) the dowel angle ( ) of the FRP anchor [16, 26]. Those studies also result in

equations with inputs of one or several aforementioned parameters [16, 23, 27-30] to determine the

strength of FRP anchors. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the key parameter of has not been

included in any available equation. This introduces a demand for comprehensively evaluating the

performance of existing equations in terms of the aforementioned parameters.

In this study, the equation based predictions have been evaluated with experimental observations with

various bend ratios, strength ratios and dowel angles. Those evaluations introduce the demand for a

comprehensive equation capable of well determining the strength of FRP anchors having various bend

ratios, strength ratios, and dowel angles. Based on experimental observations from 64 tests, a

comprehensive equation has been developed to determine the strength of FRP anchors with considering

the impacts of the aforementioned parameters. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the vital

interactions between anchors and strips (the strength ratio) have not been included in existing equations to

determine the anchor strength. Moreover, the innovative usage of the bidirectional FRP patch is expected

to improve anchor efficiency and therefore limit the damage of core concrete resulted from larger holes

for the installation of larger anchors [1-2, 4]. The major novelty of the paper is therefore to propose 1) a

reliable and comprehensive equation to determine the anchor strength and 2) a promising technique to

improve the anchor efficiency. Both of them aim to achieve feasible and reliable FRP anchors for FRP

reinforcements externally strengthening concrete members.

3
 2. Current studies

Pull-out, shear and bend tests have been conducted to experimentally determine the strength of FRP

anchors. As shown in Fig.2, pulling an anchor out can be considered as an anchor spike having 180°

dowel under shear tests. Although the geometries of general concrete members limit the usage of 180°

FRP anchors, pull-out tests provide with convenient methods to investigate the impacts of embedment

depth ( ), concrete strength ( ) , hole diameter ( ) and anchor properties on the anchor strength.

Based on experimental results [31-33], empirical equations [34] have been developed to determine the

strength of 180°FRP anchors (Pu) as follows:

(1a)

(concrete cone failure and pull out) (1b)

(mixed/adherent failure and pull out) (1c)

(1d)

(anchor rupture) (1e)

Where is the average strength of adhesive-to-concrete bond; the reduction factor is given a

value of 0.59 to achieve a conservative design; , , and , is the width, thickness and tensile

strength of FRP strips, respectively. Those equations imply that the embedment depth determines the

failure modes of anchors. In other words, an insufficient depth could result in concrete cone failure (CC)

or mixed failure (CB) or adherent failure (BF) as shown in Fig. 3. A sufficient depth produces bending

failure (BD) or fiber rupture (FR).

Existing tests [35-37] indicate that the strength of FRP reinforcements is significantly reduced at bends.

Shear tests [21-25] have therefore been conducted to investigate the behavior of isolated FRP

4
reinforcements at bends. Those experimental results [21-25] indicate that the strength of bent

reinforcements depends on the bend ratio ( ) and can be quantified using empirical equations:

(2a)

(2b)

(2c)

Where is the effective bend strength; is the direct tensile strength of the FRP material making

up the anchor; the factor is given a value of 0.07 by Lee et al. [23] and 0.05 in the literatures [27-29];

the factor is given a value of 0.45 by Lee et al. [23] and 0.3 in the literatures [27-29]; the factor is

given a value of 1 to predict the nominal bend strength of FRP reinforcements. In order to achieve a

conservative design, is given a value of 1.3 in JSCE [27], and 1.5 in ACI440.1R-06 [28] and

ISIS-M03-07 [29].

Including the impacts of the embedment depth and the dowel angle, an equation [16] has been recently

developed by modifying empirical equations [27-29]:

(3)

Numerical-based equations [30] have been also developed to determine the bend strength of FRP

reinforcements:

(4a)

(4b)

The bend tests conducted at Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory [2-4, 19-20] also reveal great

impacts of the embedment depth and the bend ratio on the strength of FRP anchors. Moreover, those bend

5
tests reveal the impacts of the strength ratio and the bidirectional FRP patch which have rarely been

mentioned in existing literatures.

As mentioned above, available equations only capture the impacts of one or a few parameters on the

anchor strength. This introduces a demand for comprehensively evaluating the performance of those

equations in terms of the embedment depth, the bend ratio, the strength ratio, and the dowel angle. In this

study, experimental results obtained from 64 tests will be used to evaluate the reliabilities of those

equations. Then, a comprehensive equation will be developed from those experimental findings. The

proposed equation is expected to well predict the strength of FRP anchors with various embedment

depths, strength ratios, bend ratios, and dowel angles.

3. Anchor strength

In this section, the impacts of parameters on the anchor strength will be discussed. Experimental results

obtained from 64 tests will be used to evaluate the performance of existing equations. Based on

experimental findings, a comprehensive equation will be proposed to well capture the impacts of

aforementioned parameters on the anchor strength.

3.1 Embedment depth

Current studies [34, 38] indicate that there is an effective embedment depth beyond which a further

increase of the embedment depth does not increase the strength of FRP dowel-concrete bond but switches

the failure mode from anchor pull out to anchor rupture. The effective embedment depth is recommended

at least 100 mm by Akyuz et al. [38], 51 mm by Orton [3] and 102 mm by Kim [39] and Huaco [19]. In

the 25 shear tests conducted by Zhang et al. [40], FRP anchors were embedded into a depth of 40 mm and

no anchors were pulled out. The embedment depth of 40 mm is therefore considered as the least depth to

6
prevent anchors from being pulled out. In reinforced concrete members, however, a 40 mm embedment

depth is not long enough to reach the core concrete considering a minimum 40 mm concrete over

transverse reinforcements. An embedment depth of 100 mm is therefore suggested to ensure at least 40

mm embedment into the core concrete to prevent a pull-out failure because of the separation of the

concrete cover.

3.2 Bend ratio

Existing studies indicate that there exists reductions in tensile strength due to bending of the fibers [16,

21-23, 41-42]. However, limited studies have been conducted exclusively to determine the strength of

FRP anchors at bends. Current equations [23, 27-30] adapt the same principles used for FRP stirrups to

determine the anchor strength. In this study, the performance of existing equations are evaluated with 23

shear tests as listed in Table 1. Those tests have either sufficient embedment lengths (greater than

40mm for specimen No. 1-8) or sufficient tail lengths (no less than 6 times the reinforcement diameter

[43] for specimen No. 9-23) to prevent FRP reinforcements from being pulled out. All selected tests fail

in anchor rupture at bends (BD). The inputted of Eq. (3) is either the embedment depth for

specimen No. 1-8 or the tail length for specimen No. 9-23. As listed in Table 1, Eq. (2c) achieve the best

coefficient of determination (0.9173) and a reasonably good average value (1.19) in predicting the

strength of 23 bent FRP reinforcements. The rest equations fail to achieve either a reasonably good

coefficient of determine (such as Eq. (3)) or a good average value (such as Eq. (2b) & (4)). As shown in

Fig. 4 (a), Eq. (2b) and (4) also tend to overestimate the anchor strength. On the other hand, Eq. (3) tends

to slightly underestimate the anchor strength as shown in Fig. 4 (b). Based on the selected tests, Fig. 4 (a)

shows the best fit regression line which can be expressed as:

7
 (6)

The proposed equation achieves an equivalent coefficient of determine to Eq. (2c) and a better average

value (1.02). With a design factor ( ), Eq. (7) produces conservative predictions for all 23 tests

as evidenced by the ratio of predicted value to experimental result ranging from 0.61 to 0.99 as listed in

Table 1. Therefore, a factor of 1.35 is selected to achieve the design bend strength ( ).

(7)

In order to prevent stress concentrations at bends, a minimum 13 mm radius is recommended for

the design of FRP anchors [28].

3.3 Strength ratio

While recent studies indicate great impacts of the strength ratio on the anchor strength [1-2, 4], the

impacts have not been introduced to existing equations. This study selects 25 specimens using the

single-shear FRP anchor test [40] to evaluate the impacts of the strength ratio. As shown in Fig. 5 (a), the

anchored FRP sheet was bonded to concrete surface for carrying tension loads. All specimens have sharp

bends (zero bend radius) and a constant embedment depth (40 mm). All tests fail in anchor rupture at

bends. Experimental results are also used to develop an equation to determine the strength of FRP anchors

with various strength ratios. Fig. 5 (b) clearly shows the trend of increased the anchor strength (in terms

of ) with reducing the strength ratio , which is not captured by those selected equations.

The predictions ( ) for various strength ratios (ranging from 0.44 to 2.0) are constant 0.45, 0.3 and

0.08 obtained from Eq. (2b), Eq. (2c) and Eq. (3), respectively. Eq. (4) fails to provide reasonable

predictions for those specimens with zero bend radius and it therefore will not be used in the following

sections. Based on those experimental results, the best fit regression line can be expressed as:

8
 (8)

As listed in Table 2, the predictions obtained from Eq. (8) agree well with results from at least one

directly corresponding test. Inherent variability in nominally identical tests, such as unpredictable bond

condition and FRP properties, causes the predictions to match some experimental results with higher

accuracy than others. Nevertheless, Eq. (8) achieve a good average value (1.01) and coefficient of

determine (0.9509) in predicting the strength of FRP anchors with the strength ratios varying from 0.44 to

2.0. With a design factor ( ), the proposed equation results in conservative predictions as

evidenced by the ratio of predicted value to experimental result ranging from 0.63 to 0.89 as shown in

Fig. 5, validating the design factor.

3.4 Dowel angle

To date, limited studies have been conducted with focus on the impacts of the dowel angle. This study

finds 16 single-shear FRP anchor tests [26] with a constant embedment depth (40 mm), bend radius(0

mm), strength ratio (1.33) and varying dowel angles from 45º to 157.5º. All tests fail in anchor rupture.

Fig. 6 clearly shows the trend of increased the anchor strength (in terms of ) with increased dowel

angle , which is not captured by those selected equations. Eq. (2b) & (2c) produce constant

of 0.45 and 0.3 respectively because the impacts of dowel angles have not been included in both

equations. While Eq. (3) includes the dowel angle impacts, it fails to provide reasonable predictions for

those tests with a zero bend radius and a constant prediction (0.08) is therefore obtained from various

dowel angles. As shown in Fig.6, the best regression line obtained from those experimental results can be

expressed as:

(9)

9
 As listed in Table 3, the predictions obtained from Eq. (9) match well with results from at least one

directly corresponding test. Globally, Eq. (9) achieve a good average value (1.01) and coefficient of

determine (0.8861) in predicting the strength of FRP anchors with dowel angles varying from 45ºto

157.5º. Given a design factor ( ), the proposed equation results in conservative predictions as

evidenced by the ratio of predicted value to experimental result ranging from 0.63 to 0.88 as shown in

Fig. 6, validating the design factor.

4. Anchorage systems

In this section, the performance of existing equations are evaluated with experimental results obtained

from 12 flexural bending tests. Based on the comparisons between equation based predictions and

experimental results, discussions are made to identify the limitations of current FRP anchors. Then, a

promising solution, i.e. the bidirectional FRP patch, is given to mitigate the limitations. The efficiency of

the solution is evaluated with 20 flexural bending tests and corresponding equation based predictions.

Possible benefits resulted from the usage of FRP patches are also discussed. It should be noted that all

flexural bending tests have been conducted at Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory (FSEL).

4.1 FRP anchors without patches

This section consists of 12 specimens [20] with various strength ratios (1.67-3) and bend ratios (0-1.05)

as well as a constant dowel angle (90º) and embedment length (102 mm). All strips have been anchored

with FRP spikes without patches. As listed in Table 4, those tests fail in FRP strip fracture, FRP anchor

rupture and concrete failure. Increasing the strength ratio from 1.67 (BM-b-3~4) to 3 (BM-i-1) for those

specimens with a constant bend radius (6.35 mm) does not guarantee the FRP strip fracture. Inherent

variability, such as unpredictable construction quality and bond condition, causes nominally identical

10
tests (BM-i-1~3 & 5) to fail in various modes but develop equivalent anchor strength as evidenced by the

value of obtained from the anchor rupture test (0.27), the FRP fracture tests (0.28) and the

concrete failure test (0.31). Thus, the experimental results will be used to evaluate the performance of

three selected equations and the proposed equation.

Table 4 lists experimental and as well as the ratio of predict value to experimental result.

As listed in Table 4, Eq. (2b) tends to overestimate the anchor strength as evidenced by the ratio ranging

from 1.33 to 1. 86. On the other hand, Eq. (3) tends to underestimate the anchor strength as evidenced by

the ratio ranging from 0.62 to 0.87. The proposed equation (Eq. (9)) and Eq. (2) achieve the best

predictions. The average ratio obtained from the proposed equation and Eq. (2c) are 1.06 and 1.04,

respectively. Nevertheless, the ratio obtained from the proposed equation ranges from 0.96 to 1.19, which

is better than the corresponding range of Eq. (2c) from 0.88 to 1.24. As shown in Fig. 7, the proposed

equation achieves a much better coefficient of determine (0.8584) than that of Eq. (2c), further validating

the reliability of the proposed equation. With a design factor ( ), the proposed equation achieves

reasonably conservative ratios ranging from 0.71 to 0.88 as listed in Table 4.

Generally, anchors are expected to be stronger than the strips. In other words, the least strength ratio is

supposed to be 1. As listed in table 2-4, FRP anchors with strength ratios greater than 1 fail to develop

50% at anchor rupture. In order to fully develop the tensile strength of anchored FRP strips, the

anchor strength have to be greater than the strip strength which can be expressed as:

(10)

Where and are the section areas of anchor and strip, respectively; is the direct

tensile strength of the FRP material making up the strip.

11
 According to the literatures [1-2, 4], the strength ratio of FRP anchor to FRP reinforcement ( ) can

be expressed as:

(11)

Then, Eq. (10) can be rewritten as:

(12)

With a sharp bend ( ), the strength ratio is expected to be at least 3.9 to rupture a 0.51 (thickness)

×127 (width) mm FRP strip as shown in Fig. 8. Given the bend radius of 13 mm as recommended by

ACI 440.2R-08 [44], the strength ratio is expected to be at least 3.2 to rupture the 0.51×127 mm strip.

According to Eq. (9) & (12), a 41 mm bend radius has to be prepared for achieving a relative small

strength ratio of 2.0 to rupture the 0.51×127 mm strip. However, larger bend radiuses mean more and

tough labor works which could result in discussions on their feasibilities. Thus, there is a need for

applying feasible techniques to achieve more efficiently FRP anchors.

4.2 FRP spikes with patches

Patch anchors were used to enhance the bond properties of FRP laminates bonded to concrete [45-46]

or more uniformly distribute anchor stress across the width of FRP laminates [47-48]. In order to improve

the anchor efficiency, this section provides with a promising and feasible solution, i.e. the bidirectional

FRP patch. After attaching a (127×483 mm) FRP strip on the tension surface of the concrete beam as

shown in Fig. 9 (a), A square (127×127 mm) FRP patch is applied at the location of each anchor with

fibers oriented perpendicular to the FRP-strip direction. FRP anchors then are inserted into the prepared

holes and fanned over the FRP strips. The fan length is 152 mm. One additional square patch is then

applied over each anchor with fibers oriented in the direction of the FRP-strip fibers. Two FRP strips are

12
used to U-wrap the side faces of the concrete beam to prevent concrete failure at the section where

anchors are located as shown in Fig. 9 (b). U-wraps are discontinued at midspan and have no influence on

the flexural cracking at midspan or on the forces introduced to the anchored FRP strip [2, 4]. Specimen

details are shown in Fig. 9 (c-d). In order to develop tensile force on the anchored FRP strip, the concrete

beam is loaded at midspan and supported by rockers and threaded rods. The same FRP material was used

for FRP strips, FRP anchors and FRP patches. The thickness, elastic modulus, rupture strain of the FRP

material are 0.51 mm, 105 GPa, and 0.0093, respectively. Please read the recent works of the author

[1-2,4] for more details.

Table 5 lists details for all 20 tests. Those tests consist of specimens having various strength ratios

(1.06-2) and concrete strengths (37-79 MPa) as well as a constant bend radius (13 mm). All strips,

patches and anchors are made by the same FRP material ( ). In order to isolate the anchor

behavior, a plastic film is applied between the concrete substrate and the FRP strip to prevent bond in

specimen U5H1.4Ma and U5H1.4Mb. All tests having the strength ratio of 1.06 rupture FRP anchors at

0.83~1.02 . In this category, the optimistic predictions obtained from Eq. (2b) fail to achieve 60%

.When the strength ratio of 1.41 is applied, the failure mode tends to switch from FRP anchor rupture

to FRP strip fracture. In this group, FRP anchors only achieve 0.61~0.84 at failure. Both tests having

the strength ratio of 2.0 fracture the FRP strips at 0.57 and 0.58 , respectively. As shown in Fig. 10, all

anchors fail at the ultimate stresses greater than the predicted values obtained from the selected equations.

Predictions resulted from Eq. (2b) achieve 0.53~0.92 correspondingly experimental results (in terms of

and ). It should be noted that Eq. (2b) tends to overestimate the anchor strength for those

anchors without FRP patches as listed in Table 4. Predictions obtained from the proposed equation

13
achieve 0.49~0.70 correspondingly experimental results (in terms of and ). The generally

accepted Eq. (2c) results in predictions of 0.36~0.62 correspondingly experimental results (in terms of

and ). Predictions obtained from the recently developed Eq. (3) achieve the most

conservative predictions of 0.27~0.45 correspondingly experimental results (in terms of and

). Only the proposed equation (Eq. (9)) capture the trend, although not the magnitude, of increased the

anchor strength with reducing the strength ratio as shown in Fig. 10. Those observations indicate that all

selected equations underestimate the strength of the proposed FRP anchorage system consisting of FRP

anchors and patches, and the strength ratio has great impacts on the strength of the anchorage system.

The usage of FRP patches could benefit FRP anchors in two ways. The first is that the introduction of

two FRP patches with fibers oriented either perpendicular or parallel to the FRP-strip direction might help

transferring the load from the strip to the anchor. As shown in Fig. 11 (a), unbonded specimen U5H1.4Ma

and U5H1.4Mb rupture anchors at 0.61 and 0.66 , respectively. The predicted values obtained from

Eq. (2b), (2c), (3) and (9) are 0.53, 0.36, 0.26 and 0.43 , respectively. This observation suggests that

selected equations underestimate the strength of FRP anchors strengthened with FRP patches. In other

words, the usage of FRP patches are able to achieve a greater anchor strength than that of the FRP anchor

without FRP patches. Probably, FRP patches help distribute anchor stresses more evenly at the anchor

bend, resulting in a higher anchor strength. Another way could be that orthogonal FRP patches increase

the areas where FRP strips remain bonded on concrete substrate prior to anchor rupture, the larger bond

area between the FRP strips and concrete may have increased the apparent strength at anchor fracture. As

shown in Fig. 11 (a), bonded specimens fail at greater average values of than that of unbonded

specimens. Increased FRP-concrete bond strength from 3.1 to 6.0 MPa by increasing the concrete strength

14
from 37 to 39 MPa [2, 4], however, fails to result in significant increases on the anchor strength as shown

in Fig. 11 (a). Similarly, increasing FRP-concrete bond strength from 3.1 to 6.0 MPa gains limited

strength for those anchors with a strength ratio of 1.06 as shown in Fig. 11 (b). Possibly, the introduction

of FRP anchors limits the slip around the anchor area. In this area, FRP strips remain bonded on concrete

substrate before anchor failure. As shown in Fig. 12, a higher bond strength (6.0 MPa) results in a lower

ultimate slip (0.22 mm) while a lower bond strength (3.1 MPa) produces a higher ultimate slip (0.35 mm).

Two bonds eventually achieve equivalent bond energies which are 0.66 MPa/mm and 0.54 MPa/mm for

the specimens using higher and lower strength concrete, respectively. Given the unpredictable bond

condition and aggregate distributed around the anchor hole area, the impacts of concrete strength on the

strength of FRP anchors strengthened with FRP patches can be limited.

In a word, the usage of the bidirectional FRP patch is able to improve the efficiency of FRP anchors.

However, a higher strength bond does not necessarily result in a higher anchor strength.

5. Conclusions

Based on 64 tests failed in anchor rupture, this study has explored the impacts of the embedment

depth, the bend ratio, the strength ratio and the dowel ratio on the anchor strength. Then, a feasible

technique was proposed to improve the anchor strength. The performance of the proposed technique has

been validate by equation based predictions and experimental results obtained from 20 tests. Based on

the findings, the following conclusions may be drawn.

1. Existing equations were inherently unable to capture the comprehensive impacts of the bend ratio,

the strength ratio and the dowel angle on the anchor strength. A comprehensive equation was

15
 therefore proposed to determine the anchor strength with including the impacts of

aforementioned factors. Comparisons between predictions and corresponding 12 experimental

results indicated the advantage of the proposed equation against existing equations. Moreover, a

factor ( ) is recommended for FRP anchor design.

2. Most of FRP anchors from selected experiments fail to develop 50% . FRP patches were

therefore proposed to improve the efficiency of current FRP anchors. Experimental observations

favor the usage of FRP patches to improve the anchor strength.

3. Anchorage systems are recommended to be well bonded to gain additional anchor strength. As

long as anchorage systems are well bonded, a higher bond strength might not result in a higher

anchor strength than that resulted from a lower strength bond.

16
 Acknowledgements

The support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant numbers 51608244], the

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University [grant numbers lzujbky-2016-k14], the Key

Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Mechanics on Western Disaster and Environment, the School of

Civil Engineering and Mechanics at Lanzhou University and the Texas Department of Transportation for

Projects 0-6306 and 0-6783 is gratefully acknowledged. The author would like to express the deepest

appreciation to the advising professor, Dr. James O. Jirsa and Dr. Wassim Ghannoum for their advices on

those 20 tests using FRP patches.

17
 References

[1]. Sun W, Ghannoum WM. Modeling of anchored CFRP strips bonded to concrete. Constr Build

Mater 2015; 85:144-156.

[2]. Sun W. Behavior of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) anchors strengthening reinforced

concrete structures. Ph.D. dissertation. America: The University of Texas at Austin; 2014.

[3]. Orton SL. Development of a CFRP system to provide continuity in existing reinforced concrete

buildings vulnerable to progressive collapse. Ph.D. dissertation. America: The University of Texas

at Austin; 2007.

[4]. Sun W, Jirsa JO, Ghannoum WM. Behavior of anchored carbon fiber-reinforced polymer strips

used for strengthening concrete structures. ACI Mater J 2016; 113(2):163–72.

[5]. Sun W, Peng X, Yu Y. Development of a simplified bond model used for simulating FRP strips

bonded to concrete. Compos Struct 2017; 171:462–472.

[6]. Sun W, Peng X, Liu HF, Qi HP. Numerical studies on the entire debonding propagation process of

FRP strips externally bonded to the concrete substrate. Constr Build Mater 2017; 149: 218-235.

[7]. Lamanna AJ. Flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete beams with mechanically fastened

fibre reinforced polymer strips. Ph.D. dissertation. America: University of Wisconsin–Madison;

2002.

[8]. Hall JD, Schuman PM, Hamilton HR. Ductile anchorage for connecting FRP strengthening of

under-reinforced masonry buildings. J Compos Constr 2002; 6(1):3–10.

[9]. Tanarslan HM, Altin S. Behavior of RC T-section beams strengthening with CFRP strips,

subjected to cyclic load. Mater Struct 2009; 43((4): 529–542.

[10]. Grace NF, Sayed GA, Soliman AK, Saleh KR. Strengthening reinforced concrete beams using fiber

18
 reinforced polymer (FRP) laminates. ACI Struct J 2000; 188(8): 865–875.

[11]. Pham HB, Al-Mahaidi R. Prediction models for debonding failure loads of carbon fiber reinforced

polymer retrofitted reinforced concrete beams. J Compos Constr 2006; 10(1): 48–59.

[12]. Sadeghian P, Rahai AR, Ehsani MR. Experimental study of rectangular RC columns strengthened

with CFRP composites under eccentric loading. J Compos Constr 2010; 14(4):443–450.

[13]. Niemitz CW, James R, Brena SF. Experimental behaviour of carbon fibre-reinforced polymer

(CFRP) sheets attached to concrete surfaces using CFRP anchors. J Compos Constr 2010;

14(2):185–194.

[14]. Kim IS, Jirsa JO, Bayrak O. Use of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer anchors to repair and

strengthen lap splices of reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct J 2011; 108(5): 630–640.

[15]. Kobayashi K, Fuji S, Yabe Y, Tsukagoshi H, Sugiyama T. Advanced wrapping system with cf

anchor–stress transfer mechanism of cf anchor. In: 5th International Symposium on

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. UK: Cambridge,

2001.p.379–388.

[16]. Llaurado PV, Ibell T, Fernandez Gomez J, Gonzalez Ramos FJ. Pull-out and shear-strength models

for FRP spike anchors. Compos Part B Eng 2017; 116:239-252.

[17]. Eshwar N, Nanni A, Ibell TJ. Performance of two anchor systems of externally bonded

fiber-reinforced polymer laminates. ACI Mater J 2008; 105(1):72-80.

[18]. Niemitz C. Anchorage of carbon fiber reinforced polymers to reinforced concrete in shear

applications. Master thesis. America: University of Massachusetts Amherst; 2008.

[19]. Huaco G. Quality control test for carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) anchors for rehabilitation.

Master thesis. America: The University of Texas at Austin; 2009.

19
[20]. Pham LT. Development of a quality control test for carbon fiber reinforced polymer anchors. Master

thesis. America: The University of Texas at Austin; 2009.

[21]. Villanueva P, Fernandez Gomez J, Gonzalez Ramos FJ. Influence of installation parameters on

effectiveness of carbon spike anchors for concrete retrofitting. Rehabend. 2016. Burgos, Spain.

[22]. Villanueva P, Fernandez Gomez J, Gonzalez Ramos FJ. Influence of geometrical and installation

parameters on the behaviour of carbon fibre ropes embedded in concrete. Cinpar. 2016. Porto,

Portugal.

[23]. Lee C, Ko M, Lee Y. Bend strength of complete closed-type carbon fiber reinforced polymer stirrups

with rectangular section. J Compos Constr 2013; 18(1):04013022.

[24]. Shehata E, Morphy R, Rizkall S. Fibre reinforced polymer shear reinforcement for concrete

members: behavior and design guidelines. Can J Civ Eng 2000; 27(5):859-872.

[25]. Imjai T, Guadagnini M, Pilakoutas. Bend strength of frp bars experimental investigation and bond

modeling. J Mater Civ Eng 2017; 29(7): 04017024.

[26]. Zhang HW, Smith ST. Influence of FRP anchor fan configuration and dowel angle on anchoring

FRP plates. Compos Part B Eng 2012; 43(8):3516-3527.

[27]. Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE). Recommendation for design and construction of concrete

structures using continuous fiber reinforcing materials. In: Machida A, editor. Concrete engineering

series 23. Tokyo, 1997.

[28]. American Concrete Institute. ACI 440.1R-06. Guide for the design and construction of concrete

reinforced with FRP bar. 2006.

[29]. Canadian Standard Association (CSA). Canadian highway bridge design code. Canada, 2006.

[30]. Ishihara K, Obara T, Sato Y, Ueda T, Kakuta Y. Evaluation of ultimate strength of FRP rods at

20
 bent-up portion. In: Proceeding of the 3rd International Symposium on Nonmetallic (FRP)

Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Japan: Sapporo, 1997.

[31]. Ozdemir G. Mechanical properties of CFRP anchorage. Master thesis. Turkey: Middle East

Technical University; 2005.

[32]. Kim SJ, Smith ST. Behaviour of handmade FRP anchors under tensile load in uncracked concrete.

Adv Struct Eng 2009; 12(6):845-865.

[33]. Ozbakkaloglu T, Saatcioglu M. Tensile behaviour of FRP anchors in concrete. J Compos Constr

2009; 13(2):82-92.

[34]. Kim SJ, Smith ST. Pullout strength models for FRP anchors in uncracked concrete. J Compos

Constr 2010; 14(4):406-414.

[35]. Morphy RD. Behaviour of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) stirrups as shear reinforcement for

concrete structures. Canada: University of Manitoba; 1999.

[36]. Oller E, Marí A, Bairan J M, Cladera A. Shear design of reinforced concrete beams with FRP

longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. Compos Part B Eng 2015; 74(2):104-122.

[37]. Lignola G P, Jalayer F, Nardone F, Prota A, Manfredi G. Probabilistic design equations for the shear

capacity of RC members with FRP internal shear reinforcement. Compos Part B Eng 2014;

67:199-208.

[38]. Akyuz O, Ozdemir G. Mechanical properties of CFRP anchorages. In： 13th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004, Paper No. 3349.

[39]. Kim IS. Use of CFRP to provide continuity in existing reinforced concrete members subjected to

extreme loads. Ph.D dissertation. America: the University of Texas at Austin; 2008.

[40]. Zhang HW, Simth ST. Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)-to-concrete joints anchored with FRP

21
 anchors: test and experimental trends. Can J Civ Eng 2013; 40(11):1103-1116.

[41]. Imjai T, Guadagnini M, Pilakoutas K. Bend strength of FRP bars: experimental investigation and

bond modeling. J Mater Civ Eng 2017; 29 (7):04017024.

[42]. Shehata E, Morphy R, Rizkalla S. Fiber reinforced polymer shear reinforcement for concrete

members: behavior and design guidelines, Can J Civ Eng 2000; 27(5): 859-872.

[43]. El-Sayed AK, El-Salakawy E, Benmokrane B. Mechanical and structural characterization of new

carbon FRP stirrups for concrete members. J Compos Constr 2007; 11(4):352–362.

[44]. American Concrete Institute. ACI 440.2R-08. Guide for the design and construction of externally

bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures. 2008.

[45] Kalfat, R. & Al-mahaidi, R. Development of a hybrid anchor to improve the bond performance of

multiple plies of FRP laminates bonded to concrete. Constr and Build Mater 2015; 94:280-289.

[46] Kalfat, R. & Al-mahaidi, R. Improvement of FRP-to-concrete bond performance using bidirectional

fiber patch anchors combined with FRP spike anchors. Compos Struct 2016; 155:89-98.

[47] Kim, Y., Ghannoum, W. M., Jirsa, J. O. Shear behavior of full-scale reinforced concrete T-beams

strengthened with CFRP strips and anchors. Constr and Build Mater 2015; 94, 1-9.

[48] Sun W. Development of a testing methodology for the design and quality control of carbon fiber

reinforced polymer (CFRP) anchors. Constr Build Mater 2018;164,150–63.

22
 Figure Captions

Fig. 1. A typical FRP anchor.

Fig. 2. Test methodologies to determine the anchor strength.

Fig. 3. Anchor failure modes [16].

Fig. 4. Evaluation of the bend radio effect.

Fig. 5. Tests used for evaluation of the strength ratio effect.

Fig. 6. Evaluation of the dowel angle effect.

Fig. 7. Ratios of the effective bend strength to the direct tensile strength of the FRP material making up

the anchor : test results versus equation based predictions.

Fig. 8. Predicted relations between and obtained from Eq. (9).

Fig. 9. A typical beam specimen.

Fig. 10. Relations between and of those FRP anchors with FRP patches.

Fig. 11. Experimental results versus equation based predictions in terms of .

Fig. 12. Measured bond stress-slip relations [2].

23
 FRP Strip
Anchor Fan

Embedment
Bend Radius Depth or
Anchor Dowel Dowel Angle Tail Length

Fig. 1. A typical FRP anchor.

24
 F

(a) Pull-out test (b) Shear test

F F
. (c) Bend test

Fig. 2. Test methodologies to determine the anchor strength.

25
 F F F

（a）CC （b）CB （c）BF

F F

（d）BD （e）FR

Fig. 3. Anchor failure modes [16].

26
 1

Eq.(4)
0.8
ffb/ffu=0.06rb+0.21
Eq.(2b)
0.6

ffb/ffu
Eq.(2c)
0.4

(0.06rb+0.21)/1.35
0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
rb

Predictions / Test=1
0.8
Predictions

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Test

(a) Experimental and predicted (b) Experimental versus corresponding

- relations. predictions obtained from Eq. (3).

Fig. 4. Evaluation of the bend radio effect.

27
 (a) Single-shear FRP anchor test

(b) Evaluation of the strength ratio effect.

Fig. 5. Tests used for evaluation of the strength ratio effect.

28
Fig. 6. Evaluation of the dowel angle effect.

29
 0.45 0.45

0.4 0.4
2
R = 0.3451 R2 = 0.8584
Predictions

Predictions
0.35 0.35

0.3 0.3

0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2
0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38
Test Test

(a) Eq. (2c). (b) Eq. (9).

Fig. 7. Ratios of the effective bend strength to the direct tensile strength of the FRP material making up

the anchor : test results versus equation based predictions.

30
 1

0.9

0.8 ffb/ffu*Sratio=1

0.7

ffb/ffu
0.6 Sratio=2
0.5 Rb=41mm

0.4
Sratio=3.2
0.3 R =13mm
b
Rb=0 Sratio=3.9
0.2
1 2 3 4
Sratio

Fig. 8. Predicted relations between and obtained from Eq. (9).

31
 Concrete Beam

FRP Strip FRP Strip

Notch
FRP Strip A
64 38 89 229 89 38 64

First Patch
127
FRP Anchor

Second Patch
A
(c)Layout of tension face
(a) FRP installation sequence 152
Concrete Beam

Area of FRP Strip 152

Gap Area of First Patch Area of FRP Anchor

Area of Second Patch
(b) Typical specimens after FRP installation (d)Section A (Unit:mm)

Fig. 9. A typical beam specimen.

32
 1000
ffu=986 MPa
(M 800
Pa)
Eq.(2b)
600

ffb
Eq.(2c) Eq.(9)
400

200 Eq.(3)
1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9
Sratio

Fig. 10. Relations between and of those FRP anchors with FRP patches.

33
 1.4 Lower bond Unbonded
1.4 Higher bond strength Lower bond strength
Higher bond strength strength scenarios (Higher strength (Lower strength
1.2 (Higher strength concrete) (Lower 1.2 concrete) concrete)
strength
concrete) ffb/ffu=0.94(avg.) ffb/ffu=0.92(avg.)
1 ffb/ffu=0.72(avg.) 1
ffb/ffu=0.72(avg.)
ffb/ffu=0.64(avg.)
0.8 0.8

ffb/ffu
ffb/ffu

0.6 0.6
Eq.(2b)
0.4 Eq.(9) 0.4
Eq.(2c)
0.2 0.2
Eq.(3)

0 0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Specimen numbers Specimen numbers

(a) Sratio=1.41 (b) Sratio=1.06

Fig. 11. Experimental results versus equation based predictions in terms of .

34
 8
Average 79 MPa tests
Average 37 MPa tests
(0.08mm,6.0 MPa)
6 Average from 9 tests

Bond stress (MPa)

(0.09mm,3.1 MPa)
4
Average from 6 tests

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Slip (mm)

Fig. 12. Measured bond stress-slip relations [2].

35
 Tables

Table 1 Database of FRP anchors with various bend ratios.

Table 2 Database of FRP anchors with various strength ratios.

Table 3 Database of FRP anchors with various dowel angles.

Table 4 Database of bend tests on FRP anchors without FRP patches.

Table 5 Database of bend tests on FRP anchors with FRP patches.

36
 Table 1
Database of FRP anchors with various bend ratios.
hemb or lt T. P.eq.(2b) P.eq.(2c) P.eq.(3) P.eq.(4) P.eq.(6) (P.eq.(6)/FS=1.35)
No. Specimen rb Ref.
(mm) ( ) /T. /T. /T. /T. /T. /T.
1 NA/F/90°/16/100-1 0.30 100 0.17 2.77 1.85 1.26 3.38 1.34 0.99 [21-22]
2 NA/F/90°/16/100-2 0.30 100 0.17 2.77 1.85 1.26 3.38 1.34 0.99
3 NA/F/90°/20/100-1 0.50 100 0.26 1.87 1.25 0.87 2.40 0.92 0.68
4 NA/F/90°/20/100-2 0.50 100 0.29 1.67 1.12 0.78 2.15 0.83 0.61
5 R/F/90°/16/100-2 2.00 100 0.29 2.03 1.38 1.03 2.91 1.14 0.84
6 AV/F/90°/20/100-4 2.50 100 0.33 1.89 1.29 0.98 2.73 1.09 0.81
7 AV/E/90°/20/125-2 2.50 125 0.39 1.60 1.09 0.96 2.31 0.92 0.68
8 AV/F/90°/20/125-3 2.50 125 0.32 1.95 1.33 1.17 2.81 1.13 0.84
9 CC9/45A 4.50 57 0.41 1.87 1.28 0.84 2.72 1.17 0.87 [23]
10 CC9/45B 4.50 57 0.54 1.42 0.97 0.64 2.06 0.89 0.66
11 CR1804/15A 3.20 58 0.41 1.64 1.12 0.68 2.38 0.98 0.73
12 CR1804/30A 6.30 58 0.60 1.49 1.03 0.74 2.20 0.98 0.73
13 CR1804/30B 6.30 58 0.64 1.39 0.96 0.70 2.07 0.92 0.68
14 CR2403/30A 8.40 58 0.62 1.67 1.16 0.91 2.62 1.15 0.85
15 CR2403/30B 8.40 58 0.70 1.48 1.03 0.81 2.32 1.02 0.76
16 TP-SM-2-10-N-P2 2.00 31 0.33 1.79 1.21 0.52 2.55 1.00 0.74 [41]
17 TP-SM-3-10-N-P2 3.00 31 0.43 1.53 1.05 0.53 2.22 0.91 0.67
18 TP-SM-4-10-N-P2 4.00 31 0.45 1.62 1.11 0.63 2.36 1.00 0.74
19 TP-SM-5-10-N-P2 5.00 31 0.51 1.57 1.08 0.67 2.29 1.00 0.74
20 Leadline-stirrups-1 7.00 42 0.69 1.36 0.94 0.70 2.05 0.91 0.67 [42]
21 Leadline-stirrups-2 7.00 63 0.59 1.59 1.10 0.89 2.39 1.07 0.79
22 C-BAR-1 4.00 145 0.48 1.52 1.04 1.09 2.21 0.94 0.70
23 C-BAR-2 4.00 145 0.49 1.49 1.02 1.07 2.16 0.92 0.68
Average — — — 1.75 1.19 0.86 2.46 1.02 0.76 —
Max 8.40 145 0.70 2.77 1.85 0.52 3.38 1.34 0.99 —
Min 0.30 31 0.17 1.36 0.94 1.26 2.05 0.83 0.61 —
R 2
— — — 0.9173 0.9173 0.6972 0.9101 0.9173 0.9173 —
Note: the dowel angle is 90° for all specimens

37
 Table 2
Database of FRP anchors with various strength ratios.
Thickness
T. P.eq.(2b) P.eq.(2c) P.eq.(3) P.eq.(8) (P.eq.(8)/FS=1.35) of FRP
No. Specimen Sratio Ref.
( ) /T. /T. /T. /T. /T. sheet
(mm)
1 PW-50–1 1.33 0.38 1.18 0.79 0.21 0.97 0.72
2 PW-50–2 1.33 0.35 1.29 0.86 0.23 1.05 0.77
3 PW-75–1 0.89 0.42 1.07 0.71 0.19 1.10 0.81
4 PW-75–2 0.89 0.5 0.90 0.60 0.16 0.92 0.68
5 PW-75–3 0.89 0.47 0.96 0.64 0.17 0.98 0.73
6 PW-100–1 0.67 0.52 0.87 0.58 0.15 1.08 0.80 0.393
7 PW-100–2 0.67 0.57 0.79 0.53 0.14 0.98 0.73
8 PW-100–3 0.67 0.56 0.80 0.54 0.14 1.00 0.74
9 PW-125–1 0.53 0.66 0.68 0.45 0.12 1.00 0.75
10 PW-125–2 0.53 0.66 0.68 0.45 0.12 1.00 0.75
11 PW-150–1 0.44 0.78 0.58 0.38 0.10 0.99 0.73
12 PW-150–2 0.44 0.74 0.61 0.41 0.11 1.04 0.77
13 PT-2–1 2.00 0.36 1.25 0.83 0.22 0.86 0.63 0.262 [40]
14 PT-2–2 2.00 0.31 1.45 0.97 0.26 1.00 0.74
15 PT-3–1 1.33 0.37 1.22 0.81 0.22 0.99 0.74 0.393
16 PT-3–2 1.33 0.36 1.25 0.83 0.22 1.02 0.75
17 PT-4–1 1.00 0.42 1.07 0.71 0.19 1.02 0.75 0.524
18 PT-4–2 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.67 0.18 0.96 0.71
19 PT-5–1 0.80 0.43 1.05 0.70 0.19 1.15 0.86 0.655
20 PT-5–2 0.80 0.51 0.88 0.59 0.16 0.97 0.72
21 PT-5–3 0.80 0.41 1.10 0.73 0.20 1.21 0.89
22 PE-94–1 1.89 0.32 1.41 0.94 0.25 0.99 0.74 0.51
23 PE-94–2 1.89 0.32 1.41 0.94 0.25 0.99 0.73
24 PE-227–1 1.00 0.42 1.07 0.71 0.19 1.02 0.75 0.524
25 PE-227–2 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.67 0.18 0.96 0.71
Average — — 1.02 0.68 0.18 1.01 0.75 —
Max 2.00 0.78 1.45 0.97 0.26 1.21 0.89 —
Min 0.44 0.31 0.58 0.38 0.10 0.86 0.63 —
R 2
— — — — — 0.9509 0.9509 —
Note: the dowel angle is 90° for all specimens

38
Table 3
Database of FRP anchors with various dowel angles.
T. P.eq.(2b) P.eq.(2c) P.eq.(3) P.eq.(9) (P.eq.(9)/FS=1.35)
No. Specimen αd Ref.
( ) /T. /T. /T. /T. /T.
1 DA-45-1 45° 0.27 1.67 1.11 0.30 0.92 0.69
2 DA-45-2 45° 0.22 2.05 1.36 0.36 1.17 0.85
3 DA-67.5-1 67.5° 0.26 1.73 1.15 0.31 1.21 0.88
4 DA-67.5-2 67.5° 0.29 1.55 1.03 0.28 1.06 0.79
5 DA-90-1 90° 0.41 1.10 0.73 0.20 0.90 0.66
6 DA-90-2 90° 0.43 1.05 0.70 0.19 0.86 0.63
7 DA-101.25-1 101.25° 0.38 1.18 0.79 0.21 1.04 0.77
8 DA-101.25-2 101.25° 0.4 1.13 0.75 0.20 1.00 0.73
[26]
9 DA-112.5-1 112.5° 0.49 0.92 0.61 0.16 0.88 0.64
10 DA-112.5-2 112.5° 0.43 1.05 0.70 0.19 0.99 0.73
11 DA-123.75-1 123.75° 0.46 0.98 0.65 0.17 0.98 0.73
12 DA-123.75-2 123.75° 0.44 1.02 0.68 0.18 1.03 0.76
13 DA-135-1 135° 0.51 0.88 0.59 0.16 0.95 0.70
14 DA-135-2 135° 0.46 0.98 0.65 0.17 1.04 0.78
15 DA-157.5-1 157.5° 0.52 0.87 0.58 0.15 1.03 0.77
16 DA-157.5-2 157.5° 0.51 0.88 0.59 0.16 1.05 0.79
Average — — 1.19 0.79 0.21 1.01 0.75 —
Max 157.5° 0.52 2.05 1.36 0.36 1.21 0.88 —
Min 45° 0.22 0.87 0.58 0.15 0.86 0.63 —
R2
— — — — — 0.8861 0.8861 —

Note: the thickness of FRP sheets is 0.393 mm

39
 Table 4
Database of bend tests on FRP anchors without FRP patches.
Rb da T. T. P.eq.(2b) P.eq.(2c) P.eq.(3) P.eq.(9) (P.eq.(9)/FS=1.35 ) Failure
No. Specimen Sratio Ref.
(mm) (mm) ( MPa) ( ) /T. /T. /T. /T. /T. modes
FRP Anchor
1 BM-i-1 6.35 14 3.00 267 0.27 1.78 1.19 0.84 1.11 0.82 Rupture
FRP Strip
2 BM-i-2 6.35 14 3.00 272 0.28 1.75 1.15 0.81 1.08 0.80 Fracture
Concrete
3 BM-i-3 6.35 14 3.00 306 0.31 1.55 1.04 0.73 0.96 0.71 Failure
FRP Anchor
4 BM-i-4 6.35 14 2.67 255 0.26 1.86 1.24 0.87 1.19 0.88 Rupture
FRP Strip
5 BM-i-5 6.35 14 3.00 277 0.28 1.71 1.15 0.81 1.06 0.79 Fracture
Concrete
6 BM-i-6 6.35 15 2.80 295 0.30 1.60 1.07 0.75 1.01 0.75 Failure
FRP Anchor [20]
7 BM-b-1 0 12 1.67 302 0.31 1.47 0.97 0.66 1.08 0.80 Rupture
FRP Anchor
8 BM-b-2 0 12 1.67 302 0.31 1.47 0.97 0.66 1.08 0.80 Rupture
Concrete
9 BM-b-3 6.35 12 1.67 353 0.36 1.36 0.91 0.64 1.02 0.75 Failure
FRP Anchor
10 BM-b-4 6.35 12 1.67 361 0.37 1.33 0.88 0.62 0.99 0.73 Rupture
Concrete
11 BM-b-5 12.70 12 1.67 365 0.37 1.41 0.95 0.69 1.07 0.79 Failure
Concrete
12 BM-b-6 12.70 12 1.67 379 0.38 1.36 0.93 0.68 1.03 0.76 Failure
Average — — — — — 1.55 1.04 0.73 1.06 0.78 — —
Max 0.00 12 3.00 379 0.38 1.86 1.24 0.87 1.19 0.88 — —
Min 12.70 15 1.67 255 0.27 1.33 0.88 0.62 0.96 0.71 — —
R2
— — — — — 0.3451 0.3451 0.3451 0.8584 0.8584 — —
Note: the dowel angle is 90° for all specimens; the thickness of FRP patches is 1.02 mm

40
 Table 5
Database of bend tests on FRP anchors with FRP patches.
T. T. P.eq.(2b) P.eq.(2c) P.eq.(3) P.eq.(9) (P.eq.(9)/FS=1.35 ) Failure
No. Specimens Sratio Rb d a Ref.
(MPa) ( MPa) ( ) /T. /T. /T. /T. /T. Mode
FRP Anchor
1 B5H1Ma 1.06 79 13 9 874 0.89 0.61 0.41 0.31 0.56 0.42 Rupture
FRP Anchor
2 B5H1Mb 1.06 79 13 9 921 0.93 0.58 0.39 0.29 0.53 0.39 Rupture
FRP Anchor
3 B5H1Md 1.06 79 13 9 995 1.01 0.54 0.36 0.27 0.49 0.36 Rupture
FRP Anchor
4 B5L1Ma 1.06 37 13 9 921 0.93 0.58 0.39 0.29 0.53 0.39 Rupture
FRP Anchor
5 B5L1Mc 1.06 37 13 9 819 0.83 0.66 0.44 0.33 0.60 0.44 Rupture
FRP Anchor
6 B5L1Md 1.06 37 13 9 874 0.89 0.61 0.41 0.31 0.56 0.42 Rupture
FRP Anchor
7 B5L1Mf 1.06 37 13 9 1005 1.02 0.53 0.36 0.27 0.49 0.36 Rupture
FRP Strip
8 B5H1.4Ma 1.41 79 13 11 692 0.70 0.76 0.51 0.37 0.61 0.45 Fracture
FRP Strip
9 B5H1.4Mb 1.41 79 13 11 692 0.70 0.76 0.51 0.37 0.61 0.45 Fracture
FRP Strip
10 B5H1.4Md 1.41 79 13 11 692 0.70 0.76 0.51 0.37 0.61 0.45 Fracture
[2]
FRP Strip
11 B5H1.4La 1.41 79 13 11 825 0.84 0.64 0.43 0.31 0.51 0.38 Fracture
FRP Anchor
12 B5H1.4Sb 1.41 79 13 11 678 0.69 0.77 0.52 0.38 0.62 0.46 Rupture
FRP Anchor
13 B5H1.4Lb 1.41 79 13 11 678 0.69 0.77 0.52 0.38 0.62 0.46 Rupture
FRP Anchor
14 B5L1.4Mc 1.41 37 13 11 769 0.78 0.68 0.46 0.34 0.55 0.41 Rupture
FRP Strip
15 B5L1.4Ma 1.41 37 13 11 706 0.72 0.74 0.50 0.37 0.60 0.44 Fracture
FRP Strip
16 B5L1.4Mb 1.41 37 13 11 650 0.66 0.81 0.54 0.40 0.65 0.48 Fracture
FRP Anchor
17 U5H1.4Ma 1.41 79 13 11 601 0.61 0.87 0.59 0.43 0.70 0.52 Rupture
FRP Anchor
18 U5H1.4Mb 1.41 79 13 11 650 0.66 0.81 0.54 0.40 0.65 0.48 Rupture
FRP Strip
19 B5H2Ma 2.00 79 13 13 557 0.57 0.92 0.62 0.45 0.65 0.48 Fracture
FRP Strip
20 B5H2Mb 2.00 79 13 13 572 0.58 0.90 0.60 0.44 0.64 0.47 Fracture
Average — — — — — — 0.72 0.48 0.35 0.59 0.44 — —
Max 2.00 79 13 13 1005 1.02 0.92 0.62 0.45 0.70 0.52 — —
Min 1.06 37 13 9 557 0.56 0.53 0.36 0.27 0.49 0.36 — —
2
R — — — — — — 0.7949 0.7949 0.7949 0.8099 0.8099 — —
Note: the dowel angle is 90° for all specimens; the thickness of FRP patches is 0.51 mm

41