Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China
Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, USA
article
info
Article history:
Received 15 June 2010
Received in revised form
28 October 2010
Accepted 4 November 2010
Available online 3 February 2011
Keywords:
Debonding
Deformability
Fibre-reinforced polymer composites
Flexural strengthening
FRP anchors
Slabs
abstract
An abundance of tests over the last two decades has shown the bending capacity of flexural members
such as reinforced concrete (RC) beams and slabs to be enhanced by the bonding of fibre-reinforced
polymer (FRP) composites to their tension face. The propensity of the FRP to debond, however, limits
its effectiveness. Different types of anchorages have therefore been investigated in order to delay or even
prevent debonding. The so-called FRP anchor, which is made from rolled fibre sheets or bundles of lose
fibres, is particularly suitable for anchoring FRP composites to a variety of structural element shapes.
Studies that assess the effectiveness of FRP anchors in anchoring FRP strengthening in flexural members
is, however, limited. This paper in turn reports a series of tests on one-way spanning simply supported RC
slabs which have been strengthened in flexure with tension face bonded FRP composites and anchored
with different arrangements of FRP anchors. The loaddeflection responses of all slab tests are plotted, in
addition to selected strain results. The behaviours of the specimens including the failure modes are also
discussed. The greatest enhancement in load and deflection experienced by the six slabs strengthened
with FRP plates and anchored with FRP anchors was 30% and 110%, respectively, over the unanchored
FRP-strengthened control slab. The paper also discusses the strategic placement of FRP anchors for optimal
strength and deflection enhancement in FRP-strengthened RC slabs.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Numerous experimental investigations have proven the ability
of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites to increase the
flexural capacities of beams and slabs when bonded to their
tension faces [1,2]. Numerous studies have also observed the FRP
to debond at strains well below its rupture strain. Such premature
failure, which has been observed to initiate at the base of flexural
and flexural-shear cracks along the length of the member (e.g.
IC debonding, [2]) or at the FRP plate end (e.g. concrete cover
separation, [2]), can occur in a relatively sudden manner and
constitutes an under-utilisation of the strength and strain capacity
of the FRP. Mechanical anchorage of the FRP offers a real solution
to the debonding problem and several different systems have been
trialed to date. They include, but are not limited to, embedded
metal threads [3], nailed plates (also known as hybrid bonding [4]),
U-jackets [5], near-surface mounted rods [6], and anchors made
with FRP [7] (also known as spike anchors but herein referred to
as FRP anchors or anchors). FRP anchors are versatile as they are
non-corrosive and can be applied to wide dimensioned elements
such as slabs and walls. A recent review of FRP anchors is provided
Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2241 5699; fax: +852 2559 5337.
E-mail address: stsmith@hku.hk (S.T. Smith).
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.018
1076
Fig. 1. FRP anchor and plate: (a) overall view; (b) cut-away view.
layer of GFRP. In this case the anchors failed after the debonding
crack had propagated along the plate. In both anchored slab
cases the slope of the loaddeflection curve clearly decreased
as debonding propagated. The two anchored slabs experienced
a 24% and 61% increase over the unanchored but strengthened
control slab respectively, however, the deflection at failure for both
anchored slabs was 76% of the control.
Lam and Teng [17] then reported an additional five RC
cantilever slabs tests of 700 mm span in which fours slabs were
strengthened in flexure with wet lay-up GFRP and anchored with
FRP anchors positioned in the same locations as Teng et al.s [23]
test slabs. The main test variables were preloading as well as
internal tension steel ratio and position. In all strengthened slab
tests the FRP was observed to rupture. In some cases, debonding
was halted by the first anchor and in other cases no debonding was
observed.
Eshwar et al. [24] strengthened ten beams of varying soffit
curvature with carbon FRP (CFRP) tension face plates. The span
of the beams was 6 m, the length of FRP was 5.2 m, and the
failure mode was IC debonding. Of the three beams with greatest
curvatures, two were strengthened with identical configurations of
wet lay-up FRP and one of these beams was additionally installed
with FRP anchors at 500 mm centres. The increase in strength
and mid-span deflection of this anchored beam to its unanchored
counterpart was 34% and 74%, respectively. The anchored beam
appeared to fail by complete debonding of the FRP followed by
anchor rupture, however, the effectiveness of the FRP anchor in
enhancing load and deflection had been proven.
Oh and Sim [15] reported tests on eleven simply supported
beams each of 2 m span. Ten of these beams were strengthened
in flexure with tension face GFRP plates formed in a wet lay-up
manner. The beams were susceptible to concrete cover separation
failure, so two FRP anchors were positioned at 500 mm centres at
the end of one beam specimen. The anchors were not successful
in delaying the occurrence of concrete cover separation and as
a result they did not enhance load or deformation capacity of
the beam. More recently, Micelli et al. [16] showed FRP anchors
spaced at 250 mm centres in 2.2 m spanning beams to increase
the load carrying capacity of the FRP-strengthened beams by
13% above the strengthened but unanchored control beams. The
strengthened beams ultimately failed by IC debonding after which
the behaviour of the beams resorted to that of the unstrengthened
(and unanchored) control beam.
While Brunckhorst et al. [25] did not consider FRP anchorage,
their research is still applicable and is therefore reviewed
here. Brunckhorst et al. [25] presented a diagram of a generic
momentdisplacement (analogous to loaddeflection) response of
an RC beam strengthened in flexure with a tension face bonded
CFRP pultruded plate comprising of multi-directional fibres. The
plate was also anchored with regularly spaced metal screw-bolts.
In order to install the bolts, holes were drilled through the initially
bonded (and cured) FRP plate at regular intervals along the whole
length of the plate and then metal bolts were inserted. The generic
response consisted of several key features, namely (i) first cracking
of the tensile concrete, (ii) initiation of debonding of the FRP plate
via gliding fracture (this translation appears to be consistent with
IC debonding), (iii) a sharp drop of moment upon initiation of
debonding, (iv) residual strength (above the plain unstrengthened
RC beam) provided by the remaining bonded FRP, and (v) residual
strength provided by the bolts (after complete plate debonding).
In light of the overall success of FRP anchors in delaying
or suppressing IC debonding failures, a clear understanding
surprisingly still does not exist about the exact role the FRP anchors
play when used in structural members. Also, there is no rational
methodology for the design and placement of the anchors. Such
is the motivation for the experimental program reported in this
(a) Elevation.
1077
(b) Section.
90 mm strain gauge;
(a) S1.
(b) S2.
Fig. 3. Control slab details (tension face) and strain gauge layout: (a) unstrengthened and unanchored, (b) FRP-strengthened and unanchored {
tension and cross-bar steel;
10 mm strain gauge}.
support line; - - -
1078
(a) S3.
(b) S4.
(c) S5.
(d) S6.
(e) S7.
(f) S8.
Fig. 4. FRP anchor layout (tension face) and strain gauge layout {
10 mm strain gauge}.
1079
Table 1
FRP strengthening and FRP anchorage details.
Slab
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
FRP strengthening
Nil
3-layers
3-layers
3-layers
3-layers
3-layers
3-layers
3-layers
Comments
Arrangement
Nil
Nil
Fig. 4(a)
Fig. 4(b)
Fig. 4(c)
Fig. 4(d)
Fig. 4(e)
Fig. 4(f)
Nil
Nil
250a
250
250
250
125b
125 and 250
Nil
Nil
166
83
166
83
166
166
Unstrengthened control
Unanchored control
Type 1 anchor
Type 1 anchor
Type 1 anchor
Type 1 anchor
Type 2 anchor
Hybrid Type 1 and Type 2 anchors
Fig. 5. Construction of bow-tie FRP anchors: (a) schematic of fibre sheet rolling
(epoxy impregnated end fibres shown in foreground); (b) schematic of completed
FRP anchor; (c) actual FRP anchor.
met (Fig. 5(a)). The rolled sheets, of approximate circular crosssection, were then inserted into preformed holes of 14 mm (for
Type 1 anchors) or 10 mm diameter (for Type 2 anchors) in a
1080
6. Allow the plate and anchor fan fibres to cure for a period of 7
days prior to testing. In the case of this experimental program,
all slabs were left in a controlled laboratory environment.
1081
Table 2
Concrete mechanical properties.
Slab
Age (days)
Propertiesa
Age (days)
fcu (MPa)
Ec (MPa)
fct (MPa)
ER (MPa)
S1
S2
S3
31
43
44
36
51.7
28 389
3.3
4.1
S4
S5
74
79
77
55.1
29 299
4.2
6.1
S6
S7
S8
92
93
109
94
56.8
29 234
4.2b
5.9
a
b
fcu = cube compressive strength; Ec = elastic modulus; fct splitting strength; ER = modulus of rupture.
Based on one test result.
1082
Table 3
Summary of load and deflection (mid-span) enhancement and peak strains.
Slab
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
Load (peak)
Deflection (peak)
Load (post-peak)
Peak, P (kN)
P /PS1 a (%)
P /PS2 b (%)
Peak, (mm)
/S2 b (%)
20.32
41.66
51.22
43.90
51.80
40.59
51.47
54.27
0
105
152
116
155
100
153
167
NA
NA
25.53
41.58
37.34
41.99
31.78
53.65
48.76
NA
0
63
46
64
24
110
91
20.32
20.90
26.87
23.82
26.20
22.47
19.78
22.35
0
23
5
24
3
24
30
Strain (peak)
Ppp /Ppp,S1 a (%)
0
3
32
17
29
11
3
10
conc () (concrete)d
1872
1237
1566
1543
1300
1141
2564
1528
NA
6 649 (45.3%)
7 676 (52.3%)
8 025 (54.7%)
8 884 (60.5%)
6 696 (45.6%)
11 566 (78.8%)
11 348 (77.3%)
NA = not applicable.
a
% increase over unstrengthened control (S1); e.g. (P Ps1 )/Ps1 100%.
b
% increase over unanchored control (S2); e.g. (P Ps2 )/Ps2 100%.
c
% of flat coupon capacity (flat coupon capacity = 14,674 ).
d
compressive (ve) strain.
1083
Fig. 10. Typical FRP anchor failure modes: (a) completely ruptured anchor (Slab S8, anchor no. 1); (b) pulled-out anchor (Slab S3, anchor no. 4).
3.2.5. Slab S5
Slabs S5 and S3 were identical apart from the omission of
three anchors in the constant moment region in the former. Both
slabs therefore had exactly the same number and same type of
anchors in the shear span. As a result, Slab S5 followed virtually
the same loaddeflection response as Slab S3, however, the former
was on the whole slightly less stiff than the latter due to the
1084
Fig. 11. Typical FRP anchor conditions after complete plate debonding: (a) Type 1
anchors (Slab S5); (b) Type 2 anchors (Slab S7); (c) Hybrid Type 1 and Type 2 anchors
(Slab S8).
3.2.6. Slab S6
Slab S6 contained the least amount of anchorage and the two
anchors positioned at each end of the FRP proved to be least
effective in enhancing the load and deflection. Just prior to the
sharp drop in load in the loaddeflection response of Slab S6
at 40 kN, the plate had been progressively debonding from the
concrete substrate in a similar manner to that of Slab S2. After all,
Slabs S6 and S2 were identical apart from the end anchorages in
the former. Once the debonding crack had become unstable, the
crack then rapidly propagated to the inner anchor, thus accounting
for the drop of load at a deflection of 25 mm. The load was then
steadily increased again until the capacity of Slab S2 was reached
approximately, upon which the debonding crack passed the FRP
anchors and the plate subsequently completely debonded. The
anchor at the debonded plate end completely ruptured, however,
the second anchor from the plate end had partially ruptured
(Fig. 9(d)). Slab S6 then sustained a small post-peak reserve
strength of at most 11% above Slab S1.
3.2.7. Slab S7
The logic behind this anchorage scheme was to have anchors
spaced closer together in a bid to further slow down the rate of
propagation of the debonding crack. Slab S7 therefore contained
anchorage spread over the same shear span region as Slab S5,
however, the number of anchors in Slab S7 was doubled and the
amount of fibre used to make each anchor was half when compared
with Slab S5.
The loaddeflection response of Slab S7 was softer than Slab
S5. This was due to the Type 2 anchors of Slab S5 containing
less anchor fan fibre than the Type 1 anchors of Slab S5. The
anchorage scheme of Slab S7 caused the third linear portion of
the loaddeflection response to considerably soften compared to
that of Slab S5, although the closer spaced anchors were successful
in slowing down the propagation of the debonding crack enough
for a 28% enhancement in central deflection to be achieved over
Slab S5. Interestingly, the load prior to complete debonding of the
FRP plate was virtually identical to the peak load of Slab S5. Upon
complete plate debonding, the sudden release of energy caused
all the anchors in the critical shear span to completely rupture as
shown in Figs. 9(e) and 11(b). The reduced amount of fibre used in
the Type 2 anchors caused them all to rupture and the failure of
Slab S7 was the most catastrophic one out of all the anchored slab
tests reported herein. No post-peak reserve of strength was able to
be maintained on account of all the anchors failing. Fig. 11(b) also
shows that debonding occurred at the FRP-to-concrete interface in
the concrete. In fact, all FRP-strengthened slabs (S2S8) failed at
the same desired FRP-to-concrete interface in the concrete.
3.2.8. Slab S8
Slab S8 was anchored with a combination of anchor types
(i.e. Type 1 and Type 2) and anchor spacings. The anchorage was
designed after observing the behaviour of all preceding anchored
slab tests S3S7. Slabs S3 and S5 demonstrated the effective
strength gains caused by Type 1 anchors positioned in the shear
span region. The results of Slab S7 showed the effectiveness of
closer spaced anchors in enhancing deflection. The closer spaced
anchors of Slab S7, however, contributed to strength gains at
greater deflections (i.e. a softer loaddeflection response) over
Slabs S3 and S5. Finally, the results of Slabs S4 and S6 showed that
anchors spaced too far apart did not lead to significant strength
gains but did lead to deflection gains. As a result, the total amount
of fibre used to make all the anchors in Slab S8 was identical to the
amount of fibre used to make all the anchors in Slabs S5 and S7.
The resulting arrangement of anchors in Slab S8 produced the early
strength gains in the third linear portion of the loaddeflection
response associated with Type 1 anchors near the peak moment
1085
Fig. 12. Propagation of debonding cracks (Slab S8): (a) loaddeflection response (Slabs S1, S2, S8); (b) debonding cracks at specific level of load and deflection. {
debonding
Type 1 FRP anchor;
Type 2 FRP anchor; - - - load position; CMR = constant moment region;
completely ruptured anchor;
partially ruptured anchor;
crack;
undamaged anchor}.
region (Fig. 8). The increase in deflection of about 16% above that
observed in Slabs S3 and S5 proved the effectiveness of the close
spaced Type 2 anchors nearer to the ends of the FRP plate. Slab
S8 achieved the greatest enhancement in strength (i.e. 30% above
that of Slab S2) and the second greatest mid-span deflection. Upon
complete debonding of the plate, all the Type 2 anchors ruptured
(Figs. 9(f) and 11(c)) however the partially and fully intact Type 1
anchors contributed to the post-peak reserve of strength gain
of 10%.
3.3. Debonding crack propagation
The presence of the anchors influenced the rate of propagation
of debonding cracks along the length of the FRP plate. Overall,
debonding cracks were found to propagate more slowly for
anchors spaced more closely together. For example, the rate
of crack propagation for Slab S7 was much reduced than that
of Slab S6. As a result, Slab S7 was able to achieve much
greater enhancement in strength and deflection than Slab S6. The
enhancement in strength in this case was also due to the use of
more FRP anchors. When the same total amount of fibre was used
to cross the shear plane, the closer spaced anchors in Slab S7 were
found to increase the deflection of the slab over the larger spaced
anchors in Slab S5. The strength enhancements for Slabs S5 and S7
were, however, virtually identical (see column 4 of Table 3).
Fig. 12 provides a detailed account of the propagation of
debonding cracks in relation to the applied load (and deflection)
for Slab S8. This slab is singled out as it is considered one of
the most optimally designed (i.e. greatest strength enhancement,
second greatest mid-span deflection, partially intact anchorage
post-plate debonding). In Fig. 12, the extent of debonding in
accordance with the level of load and deflection are related to
each other and the fifteen data points correspond to observed
propagation of the debonding cracks. However, it is important to
stress the limitations of presenting such data. First, it is based
on visual observation. Second, one edge of the FRP plate was
monitored with strain gauges. The significance of this second point
is that the extent of debonding through the width of the plate
may not be uniform. Regardless, Fig. 12 provides a qualitative
overview of the debonding crack propagation process. Overall
comments to be made include (i) debonding initiates well before
complete plate debonding (i.e. adequate warning of failure is
provided), (ii) debonding initiates near the loaded region and
propagates towards the free ends of the FRP plate, (iii) debonding
1086
Fig. 13. FRP strain distributions for Slab S8: (a) complete load range; (b) selected load levels (no bond, partial debond, near complete debond) {CMR = constant moment
region}.
1087
[11] Kim SJ, Smith ST. Behaviour of handmade FRP anchors under tensile load in
uncracked concrete. Adv Struct Eng 2009;12(6):84565. Special issue on bond
behaviour of externally bonded FRP reinforcement.
[12] Kim SJ, Smith ST. Pullout strength models for FRP anchors in uncracked
concrete. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2010;14(4):40614.
[13] Orton SL, Jirsa JO, Bayrak O. Design considerations of carbon fibre anchors.
J Compos Constr, ASCE 2008;12(6):60816.
[14] Ozbakkaloglu T, Saatcioglu M. Tensile behaviour of FRP anchors in concrete.
J Compos Constr, ASCE 2009;13(2):8292.
[15] Oh H-S, Sim J. Interface debonding failure in beams strengthened with
externally bonded GFRP. Compos Interfaces 2004;11(1):2542.
[16] Micelli F, Rizzo A, Galati D. Anchorage of composite laminates in RC flexural
beams. Struct Concr, FIB 2010;11(3):11726.
[17] Lam L, Teng JG. Strength of RC cantilever slabs bonded with GFRP strips.
J Compos Constr, ASCE 2001;5(4):2217.
[18] Seliem HM, Seracino R, Sumner EA, Smith ST. A case study on the restoration of
flexural capacity of continuous one-way slabs with cutouts. J Compos Constr,
ASCE 2010 [in press].
[19] Widianto Bayrak O, Jirsa JO, Tian Y. Seismic rehabilitation of slabcolumn
connections. ACI Struct J 2010;107(2):23747.
[20] Ozcan O, Binici B, Ozcebe G. Seismic strengthening of rectangular reinforced
concrete columns using fiber reinforced polymers. Eng Struct 2010;32(4):
96473.
[21] Antoniades KK, Salonikios TN, Kappos AJ. Evaluation of hysteretic response and
strength of repaired R/C walls strengthened with FRPs. Eng Struct 2007;29(9):
215871.
[22] Tan KH, Patoary MKH. Strengthening of masonry walls against out-of-plane
load using fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement. J Compos Constr, ASCE
2004;8(1):7987.
[23] Teng JG, Lam L, Chan W, Wang J. Retrofitting of deficient RC cantilever slabs
using GFRP strips. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2001;4(2):7584.
[24] Eshwar N, Ibell TJ, Nanni A. Effectiveness of CFRP strengthening on curved
soffit RC beams. Adv Struct Eng 2005;8(1):5568.
[25] Brunckhorst L, Knudsen PJ, Poulson E, Thorsen T. Forstrkning af betonkonstruktioner med bolte-limede kulfiberbnd. En elementr, teknisk introduktion. Esbjerg (Denmark): Rosendahls Bogtrykkeri A/S; 2007 [in Danish].
[26] Zhang HW, Smith ST, Kim SJ. Optimisation of carbon and glass FRP anchor
design. Constr Build Mater, FRPRCS9 special edition. 2010 [in press].
[27] El-Reedy M. Steel-reinforced concrete structures. Assessment and repair of
corrosion. Florida (USA): CRC Press; 2008.
[28] ACI 440.2R-08. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP
systems for strengthening concrete structures. Farmington Hills (MI, USA):
American Concrete Institute. ACI; 2008.
[29] BS 1881-116. Method for determination of compressive strength of concrete
cubes. UK: British Standards; 1983.
[30] BS 1881-121. Method for determination of static modulus of elasticity in
compression. UK: British Standards; 1983.
[31] BS 1881-117. Method for determination of tensile splitting strength. UK:
British Standards; 1983.
[32] BS 1881-118. Method for determination of flexural strength. UK: British
Standards; 1983.
[33] BS EN 10002-1:2001. Metallic materialstensile testing. UK: British Standards; 2001.
[34] ACI 440.3R-04. Guide test methods for fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) for
reinforcing or strengthening concrete structures. Farmington Hills (MI, USA):
American Concrete Institute. ACI; 2004.
[35] BS EN ISO 527:1996. Plasticsdetermination of tensile properties. UK: British
Standards; 1999.
[36] Smith ST, Kim SJ. Deflection calculation of FRP-strengthened RC flexural
members. Aust J Struct Eng 2010;11(2):7586. Special edition on fibre
reinforcement in concrete structures.
[37] ACI 318M-05. Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary. Farmington Hills (MI, USA): American Concrete Institute. ACI;
2005.
[38] Teng JG, Smith ST, Yao J, Chen JF. Intermediate crack induced debonding in RC
beams and slabs. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(67):44762.