Anchorage Devices Used To Improve The Performance of Reinforced Concrete Beams Retrofitted With FRP Composites: State-of-the-Art Review

Anchorage Devices Used to Improve the Performance of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Retrofitted with FRP

Composites: State-of-the-Art Review
R. Kalfat1; R. Al-Mahaidi, M.ASCE2; and Scott T. Smith, M.ASCE3
Abstract. The anchorage of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites when applied to reinforced concrete (RC) structures as externally
bonded reinforcement is an effective means to achieve higher levels of fiber utilization prior to premature debonding failure. Commonly
documented anchorage methods for FRP-to-concrete applications demonstrating encouraging results include FRP U-jackets, FRP anchors
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 03/26/13. For personal use only.
(also known as spike anchors, among other names), patch anchors (utilizing unidirectional and bidirectional fabrics), nailed metal plates (also
known as hybrid bonding), near-surface mounted rods, mechanical fastening, concrete embedment, and mechanical substrate strengthening.
Anchorages applied to FRP systems have been verified through experimental testing and numerical modeling to increase the ductility,
deformability, and strength of the member and also prevent, delay, or shift the critical mode of FRP debonding failure. Although the benefits
of anchorage solutions have now been widely acknowledged by researchers, further studies are required in order to establish reliable design
formulations to negate the requirementsdfFRPanchoragesystemsappliedtoFRP-strengthenedRCflexuralmembers.Availableexperimentaldat
aarecompiledandcataloguedandananchorageefficiencyfactorforeachanchoragetypeunderinvestigationisassignedinordertoquantifytheanchor’s
efficiency.Finally,currentshortcomingsinknowledgeareidentified,inadditiontoareasneedingfurtherinvestigation.DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)CC.
1943-5614.0000276.©2013AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers.
CE Database subject headings: Fiber reinforced polymer; Anchors; Fastening; Concrete beams; Rehabilitation; Composite materials;
State-of-the-art reviews.
Author keywords: Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP); U-jackets; Anchor; Spike; Mechanical fastening; Bidirectional fabric; Substrate
strengthening.
Introduction However, FRP solutions are not without their inherent short-
comings. For instance, it is widely recognized that failure of RC
The retrofitting of existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures has structures retrofitted with FRP almost always occurs by debonding
become necessary due to environmental degradation, changes in of the FRP from the concrete substrate. To prevent this type of fail-
usage, and heavier loading conditions. In the forefront of retrofit- ure, national standards and design guidelines impose strict limita-
ting technology is the use of advanced fiber-reinforced polymer tions on the allowable strain level in the FRP which may be safely
(FRP) composites applied to structural members as externally utilized in design. To achieve acceptable levels of concrete-FRP
bonded reinforcement (Bank 2006; Hollaway and Teng 2008; contact bond stress, allowable strains are lower in cases where a
Karbhari and Abanilla 2007). The suitability of this material when higher degree of strengthening is required and can be as low as
compared, for example, to structural steel is largely due to its light 10–25% of the material rupture strain (Kalfat and Al-Mahaidi 2011).
weight, superior tensile strength, and its resistance to corrosion. Low levels of efficiency are often the result of using higher modulus
These FRP materials are typically applied to the concrete surface fibers and multiple layers of FRP. In practice these limitations result
using epoxy resin after adequate surface preparation of the con- in severe underutilization of the FRP material properties. Anchor-
crete, typically involving sandblasting, water jetting, and the appli- age of the FRP is one means to significantly improve the efficiency
cation of a suitable primer. Once applied, up to seven days of curing of FRP systems and hence provide a solution to these shortcomings.
is typically required to achieve the full bond strength of the system Extensive research has been undertaken to understand the mech-
(Hag-Elsafi et al. 2001). anisms of FRP application and failure and has resulted in design
guidelines being published all around the world within the last
1 decade [e.g., International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib)
Ph.D. Candidate, Swinburne Univ. of Technology, Melbourne,
Australia (corresponding author). E-mail: rkalfat@swin.edu.au 2001; Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) 2001; Concrete
2
Professor of Structural Engineering, Swinburne Univ. of Technology, Society 2004; American Concrete Institute (ACI) 2008; Oehlers
Melbourne, Australia. E-mail: ralmahaidi@swin.edu.au et al. 2008]. It is understood that the bond strength of FRP materials
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Hong Kong, can be improved when sufficient anchorage is provided and such
Pokfulam, China. E-mail: stsmith@hku.hk
provisions have been acknowledged to delay or prevent the critical
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 29, 2011; approved on
December 15, 2011; published online on December 20, 2011. Discussion
mode of FRP debonding failure (Galal and Mofidi 2010). In addi-
period open until July 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for tion, anchorage devices can be essential to transfer the stress from
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con- one structural component to another where application is limited
struction, Vol. 17, No. 1, February 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/ by the geometrical configuration. A popular example is the shear
2013/1-14-33/$25.00. strengthening of T-shaped sections (Ceroni et al. 2008).
14 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

The primary obstacle presently preventing the widespread use of (otherwise known as IC debonding) Teng et al. 2003; Ombres
FRP anchorage measures is that no rational and reliable design 2010), and (7) shear-induced debonding [also referred to as critical
rules currently exist. As a result, FRP design guidelines stipulate diagonal crack (CDC) debonding] (Oehlers and Seracino 2004;
that the practical implementation of anchorage devices should be Wang and Zhang 2008). Modes 4 to 7 are all premature debonding
substantiated by representative experimental testing (ACI 2008). failures. Of these, modes 4 and 5 initiate at or near the plate end,
However, the guidelines do not specify the types of testing proce- while modes 6 and 7 initiate away from the plate end. In addition,
dures that are considered adequate (Grelle and Sneed 2011). The modes 5 and 6, and sometimes mode 7, occur at the FRP-to-
repercussions of time and budget constraints on small and large concrete interface (in the concrete), while modes 4 and 7 can occur
scale industrial projects mean that such testing is rarely carried predominantly at the internal steel reinforcement level. Detailed
out in practice. As a result, the potential benefits of FRP anchorages accounts of all failure modes are provided elsewhere (Hollaway
have typically been superseded by more conservative strengthening and Teng 2008).
approaches such as section enlargement or column insertion. Many factors control the likelihood of a particular debonding
Although anchorage devices applied to the ends of FRP rein- failure mode, including (1) the level of internal steel reinforcement,
forcements have been tested by many researchers, the results have (2) the distance between a plate end and the adjacent beam support
been limited by case dependency with relatively small sample sizes (plate end distance), (3) FRP plate length, width, thickness, and
being employed for each study. This paper provides a review of modulus of elasticity, (4) shear-to-moment interaction, (5) concrete
representative experimental studies conducted on the major anchor- strength, and (6) section geometry (Teng and Yao 2007). Observa-
age concepts by drawing upon a wide selection of publications. The tions suggest that as the plate end moves further away from the
paper assumes a largely qualitative style by physically explaining support, cover separation failure becomes the controlling mode,
each anchor concept with the aid of appropriate diagrams. Informa- whereas IC debonding governs when the distance between the plate
tion about typical experimental investigations undertaken on each end and support is relatively small (Yao and Teng 2007). In addi-
anchor type and descriptions of behavior and failure are given. tion, the probability of debonding initiating near the plate end has
Databases are also assembled from available test results and effi- been found to be the highest when the ratio of maximum shear
ciency factors are calculated for each anchor concept. Such calcu- force to bending moment is high, such as the higher peeling stresses
lations represent the quantitative aspect of the paper. While it generated at the ends of the external plate. Therefore, slender beams
is recognized that anchorages can be of benefit to a variety of with high shear span/depth ratios do not present a need for plate end
FRP-strengthened elements such as connections, wall, and beams anchorage because failures are initiated in regions of high bending
members, emphasis has been given in this paper to flexural mem- moment well away from the plate ends (e.g., Garden and Hollaway
bers strengthened in flexure and shear because these constitute 1998). These are just some of many qualitative observations to be
the most common strengthening situations. Finally, the terms retro- found in the published literature.
fitting and strengthening are used interchangeably throughout
the paper.
Anchorage Devices for FRP Reinforcement Used to
Strengthen Members in Flexure
Mechanisms of FRP Failure and Debonding for
Flexurally Strengthened Members Three general categories of anchorage type have been investigated
to date to prevent debonding in RC members strengthened in
To date, several failure modes for RC beams strengthened in flexure flexure with FRP, namely
with FRP plates have been identified from experimental investiga- 1. U-jacket anchors (Smith and Teng 2003; Al-Amery and
tions and these are shown in Fig. 1. The modes are summarized as Al-Mahaidi 2006; Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006; Yalim et al.
(1) concrete crushing, (2) FRP rupture, (3) shear failure, (4) con- 2008);
crete cover separation failure (Yao and Teng 2007), (5) plate end 2. Mechanically fastened metallic anchors (Garden and Hollaway
interfacial debonding (Leung and Yang 2006), (6) intermediate 1998; Spadea et al. 1998; Jensen et al. 1999; Duthinh and
flexural or flexural-shear crack-induced interfacial debonding Starnes 2001; Wu and Huang 2008); and
Fig. 1. Types of FRP debonding (adapted from Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2004)
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 15
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

the U-jacket, causing bending of the jacket legs near the soffit. The
experiments also confirmed that the placement of U-jackets in the
shear span at certain spacing can postpone the occurrence of IC de-
bonding. The inclusion of U-jackets in the shear zone had the dual
benefits of resisting the opening of flexural-shear cracks and improv-
ing the CFRP-to-concrete bond strength by the increased level of
confinement underneath the U-jacket.
To further understand the confining action of FRP U-jacket
anchors, the vertical strain distribution within the vertical FRP legs
was investigated by Sawada et al. (2003). The strains reported
reached values of 3;000 με in the cover region of the concrete
and at a load level expected to produce debonding. Further load
Fig. 2. U-shape anchoring method at 45 degrees application resulted in 6;000 με being recorded at the maximum
loading point. This is indicative that the CFRP U-jacket was
3. FRP anchors (Lam and Teng 2001; Eshwar et al. 2005; Micelli resisting the stresses that typically result in cover separation failure.
et al. 2010; Smith 2010; Zhang and Smith 2012a, b; Zhang Further research conducted by Al-Amery and Al-Mahaidi (2006)
et al. 2012). determined that the use of the CFRP U-jackets at 200 mm spacing
along the length of the beam reduced the interfacial slip between the
CFRP flexural fiber and the concrete section by up to one-tenth. In
FRP U-Jacket Anchors this study, the U-jackets lead to the full utilization of the CFRP flexu-
FRP U-jacket anchors involve the application of unidirectional ral tensile capacity. The results demonstrated an increase in flexural
or bidirectional fiber to the ends of flexural FRP reinforcement strength of up to 95% when using CFRP U-jackets to anchor the
(Fig. 2) to prevent or delay debonding initiating from the plate CFRP fiber. However, when using conventional CFRP fibers alone,
end. U-jackets can also be placed along the length of the member an increase of only 15% was achieved.
to prevent or delay debonding initiating away from the plate end. Yalim et al. (2008) also conducted investigations on the effects of
The ultimate function of a U-jacket is to provide the confinement U-jacket configurations placed throughout the span as opposed to
necessary to resist the tensile peeling stresses and longitudinal only the plate ends. A total of 26 beams were tested in 3-point
crack propagation at fiber termination points or intermediate loading with 4, 7, 11, and continuous U-jacket arrangements. The
cracks. Khan and Ayub (2010) investigated anchorage heights study utilized FRP U-jackets to anchor both FRP laminates (modulus
ranging from 100–200 mm and suggested that U-shaped ancho- of elasticity of 131 GPa) and FRP sheets (modulus of elasticity of
rages were effective irrespective of their height. The study deter- 70.6 GPa). In addition, three alternative surface profiles were inves-
mined that 100 mm partial-height U-wraps delivered the same tigated: smooth, intermediate, and rough. However, each surface pro-
effectiveness as full-height U-wraps because in both cases failure file was not appropriately defined (except by broad definition) and as
was by concrete crushing. Because concrete crushing was observed a result, the categorization is not an appropriate definition of surface
for the shorter length jackets, the true potential of full-height jackets roughness. The use of four U-jackets at the FRP ends was successful
could not be utilized. in preventing the end interfacial debonding failure that was observed
Debonding failure modes can change due to the addition of FRP in unanchored specimens, and failure was shifted to IC debonding,
U-jackets. For example, Smith and Teng (2003) showed that with confirming the findings of earlier researchers. The beams with seven
the addition of plate-end U-jackets, the critical debonding failure jackets failed in the same way at a higher load together with U-jacket
mode could be shifted from concrete cover separation to IC de- debonding. Specimens with eleven jackets and full continuous jack-
bonding. Therefore, in an effort to prevent failure by IC debonding, ets failed by rupture of FRP. Although the strain utilization levels and
the placement of U-jackets throughout the span or in the flexural- ultimate load capacity were improved with the addition of U-jackets
shear zones (at certain spacings) has been investigated by several throughout the span, it was found that a higher level of anchorage
researchers to date (Al-Amery and Al-Mahaidi 2006; Khan and improved the ductility more than it did the strength. However, the
Ayub 2010; Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006; Yalim et al. 2008). ductility measurements were solely based on the maximum vertical
Although lacking in material efficiency, this method has been deflection for the beams prior to failure. Ductility can be defined as
proven to result in FRP rupture. Such an arrangement of U-jackets the RC beam’s ability to deform under tensile stress and can be de-
is also used for shear strengthening applications. Selected studies termined by monitoring deflection, beam curvature, or strain in the
are summarized in the following. tensile reinforcement. Monitoring beam deflection may be indicative
IC debonding in beams retrofitted with U-jacket anchors was re- of ductile behavior, but the method fails to consider deformability in
ported by Pham and Al-Mahaidi (2006). The experimental program terms of beam curvature and cracking (measured from tensile
comprised 260 × 140 mm RC beams tested under three-and four- reinforcement strain). In addition, most FRP design guidelines check
point bending. Anchorages encompassing unidirectional fibers of strain of the the tensile reinforcement to ensure ductility. Although
209 GPa modulus were placed at the carbon FRP (CFRP) plate ends the benefit of U-jacket anchors in flexural retrofitting applications is
or at a spacing of 180 mm within the shear zone. Each jacket com- evident, the provision of U-jackets throughout the span to prevent the
prised two plies of fabric that was 0.175 mm thick and 50 mm wide, mechanisms of plate end and IC debonding may not be a materially
which was bonded to the sides and the soffit of the concrete beam to efficient method to improve the efficiency of FRP strengthening ap-
form a U-shape. While the end U-jacket proved to be effective in plications because additional material is required to reach a given
limiting both forms of end debonding, i.e., end cover separation fail- strength (Orton et al. 2008).
ure and end interfacial debonding, the critical failure mode was seen
to shift to intermediate-span debonding at a higher load, and it often
Inclined U-Jacket Orientations
occurred together with rupture of the end U-jacket. Such behavior
was also observed in Smith and Teng’s (2003) study. The rupture Promising results have been achieved based on the limited research
was due to a sliding action of the CFRP reinforcement underneath conducted on inclined U-jackets at the FRP ends only (Fig. 2).
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

Published findings indicate that in addition to preventing the two to the opening of longitudinal cover separation cracks, the inclined
mechanisms of end span debonding, inclined anchors readily shift fibers were seen to delay the occurrence of IC debonding. This may
the critical failure mode to concrete crushing or FRP rupture be due to a reduction of interfacial longitudinal shear stresses in the
(Duthinh and Starnes 2001; Pornpongsaroj and Pimanmas 2003; shear-flexural zones and the resulting energy transfer to the jacket
Sagawa 2001). anchors via an induced strut-and-tie action resulting from the
The effects of alternative U-jacket orientations, including inclined fibers. The benefits of inclined fibers were also noted by
perpendicular, inclined, and X-shaped U-jacket anchors, were inves- Sagawa et al. (2001).
tigated by Pimanmas and Pornpongsaroj (2004). In this study, In addition to the prevention of debonding failure, Smith and
220 mm deep and 120 mm wide RC beams were tested under Teng (2003) showed that the use of U-jackets can also enhance
four-point bending. Beams were retrofitted with 1.2 mm thick and ductility. This was confirmed by Buyle-Bodin (2004), who inves-
100 mm wide plates for flexural strengthening with a 150 GPa modu- tigated several FRP anchorage devices to prevent concrete cover
lus of elasticity. The plates were anchored at the plate ends with separation failure. The experimental program involved five beams,
0.11 mm thick carbon fiber sheets over a width of 300 mm. Ancho- each 3,000 mm long with a rectangular cross-section 150 mm wide
rages consisted of the application of a single ply of CFRP with and 300 mm deep. Both perpendicular and laterally inclined CFRP
230 GPa material stiffness. The study investigated two plate-end shear jackets were used to restrain the ends of the CFRP flexural
termination lengths: 200 mm and 420 mm away from the supports, plate at 130–200 mm spacings. Ductility was measured as either
which failed by IC debonding and end cover separation failure, re- deflection ductility or curvature ductility. Deflection ductility was
spectively, where no anchorage was provided. defined as the ratio of ultimate midspan deflection to yield midspan
Of the numerous anchor configurations tested, it was found that deflection, where as curvature ductility was considered in a similar
U-jackets placed at the FRP plate-end locations 200 mm from sup- fashion but utilized the midspan curvature values. Although all
ports failed by premature concrete crushing and intermediate span specimens strengthened with both perpendicular and inclined shear
debonding, while U-jackets placed 420 mm away from supports jackets exhibited greater load-carrying capacity, deflections, and
failed by premature concrete crushing and concrete cover separa- ductility, it was found that perpendicular orientations of U-jacket
tion failure. The influence of end termination distance on end de- anchors provided the most noticeable improvement, with increases
bonding failure is consistent with current debonding models (Smith in curvature ductility of 45% and 24% for deflection ductility. The
and Teng 2002; Smith and Teng 2003). Inclined and X-shaped an- improvements were less obvious in the inclined U-jacket anchors.
chor arrangements all failed by concrete crushing. Interestingly, the This may be due to the higher postcracking stiffness exhibited due
authors point out that the CFRP plate experienced the highest con- to the inclined U-jacket anchors. Strain in the tensile reinforcement
finement near the side faces of the beam and less restraint in the is usually the most common measure of ductility utilized by FRP
central zone. This implies that U-jacket anchorages lose effective- design guidelines such as ACI 440.2R-08 (2008). It may be more
ness with increasing beam width. Although the authors concluded beneficial for future researchers to measure the tensile reinforce-
that the inclined and X-shaped anchors successfully prevented both ment strain to quantify ductility performance.
forms of plate end and IC debonding, premature concrete crushing
failure prevented the occurrence of FRP rupture, masking the full
Prestressed U-Jackets
potential of the anchorages from being realized.
Duthinh and Starnes (2001) also confirmed that concrete crush- Prestressed U-jackets are a method of anchorage on which little
ing was the controlling failure mode in two out of the three research has been conducted. The advantages of prestressing stem
specimens that they tested, and the other mode was a combination from the increased level of confinement and the higher shear resis-
of U-jacket rupture and intermediate flexural-shear crack debond- tance provided by the prestressed U-jackets. In practical applica-
ing. The laboratory program comprised 2–6 layers of 200 mm wide tions, prestressing was introduced onto the sides of the CFRP
CFRP jackets placed diagonally on each plate end. The inclined U-jackets by Pham and Al-Mahaidi (2006) by introducing a gap
fibers effectively prevented cover separation failure at the plate between the jacket and the concrete soffit, as presented in Fig. 3.
ends. It was found that two and six layers of jacket anchored A prestressing strain of 500 με was introduced into the jacket
the carbon plate to strain levels of 8,260 and 11;000 με, respec- sides by inserting wedges into a preformed gap. Beams with pre-
tively, without slippage. The above research demonstrates the clear stressed jackets showed no evidence of slippage in the anchorage
advantages of using inclined U-jackets as opposed to perpendicular zone at failure. This was attributed to an increase in concrete shear
orientations at the CFRP plate ends. In addition to the jackets capacity in the anchorage zone as a result of the compressive stress
providing confinement, an improvement of bonding and resistance induced by the U-jackets. The legs of the prestressed U-jackets did
Fig. 3. Two anchorage systems used by Pham and Al-Mahaidi (2006, © ASCE)
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

not rupture, but failed through a combination of IC debonding upon the similarity of the results obtained between clamping and
and debonding of the end jacket. Only a slight improvement of fastening anchors. The authors did not compare fastened steel
approximately 5% in the ultimate capacity was recorded due to anchors with unclamped, unfastened anchors, which would be
prestressing. Debonding of the U-jackets suggests that a more needed to prove that confinement does not improve anchorage
robust form of anchorage is required to anchor the ends of the effectiveness. Because the combined benefits of bolted plates
prestressed FRP U-straps to increase their effectiveness. This together with clamping pressure were not investigated, the benefits
may be a subject for further research. Although unconfirmed by of the application of clamping forces together with mechanical
further experimental studies, the slight advantages observed from fastening remain to be fully substantiated.
prestressing are outweighed by their labor intensiveness and poor Duthinh and Starnes (2001) tested a series of seven beams in
practicality. four-point bending. A single carbon fiber plate (1.2 × 50 mm ) with
an elastic modulus of 155 GPa was used to strengthen the beams in
flexure. Three of the beams tested utilized a 203 mm wide mechan-
Metallic Anchorage Systems ically fastened steel anchor over the plate end. Two bolts were
Metallic anchorages are one of the earliest forms of FRP end torqued to 400 Nm, resulting in an applied clamping force of
anchorage devices investigated by researchers (e.g., Sharif et al. 15–25 kN. The result of clamping and adhesion enabled the
1994; Jensen et al. 1999). Investigations have been conducted anchored plate to reach an ultimate strain of 11;400 με (60% of
on adhesively bonded metallic plates with mechanical fasteners rupture). Failure was by debonding initiating from diagonal shear
(Fig. 4), adhesively bonded metallic U-jackets, and U-jackets with cracking. The authors stipulated that clamping combined with
end clamping. Researchers such as Garden and Hollaway (1998), adhesion can double or triple the anchorage capacity that can be
Spadea et al. (1998), Duthinh and Starnes (2001), and Wu and expected from the bond alone. However, no investigations were
Huang (2008) have found that the use of metallic anchorages carried out using bolted anchorages without torque to assess the
provides a significant increase in anchorage strength in addition contribution of clamping force on anchorage enhancement within
to ductility enhancement. the context of the test setup.
Previous experimental testing demonstrated the ineffectiveness Spadea et al. (1998) attempted to improve the performance of
of bonded angle sections for plate-end anchorage due to the lack of CFRP-strengthened RC beams by using external steel anchorages
a secure plate end fixing to the concrete. Experiments were con- designed to control and minimize the bond-slip between the
ducted by Garden and Hollaway (1998) with a number of 1.0 m concrete beam and the CFRP plate. The anchorages consisted of
long plated beams tested in four-point bending. Cantilevers were U-shaped steel anchors installed at the plate ends, together with
also tested to demonstrate that the structural benefit of plate-end four to eight U-shaped steel anchorages distributed throughout
anchorage diminishes as the shear span/depth ratio of the beam the span, The plates were bonded to the concrete using epoxy resin
increases. Each beam was strengthened with 67 mm wide and and contained no external bolts or mechanical fasteners. Experi-
0.87 mm thick, 111–115 GPa modulus CFRP plates. The bolted mental testing measured maximum fiber strain utilizations of
plate-end anchorage system used comprised a 40 mm long steel 80% (12;000 με) for beam specimens with end anchorages at
anchorage block of the same width as the composite plate. The the plate ends, together with eight U-shaped anchorages distributed
block was secured to the composite plate using laminate adhesive throughout the span, corresponding to a 67% enhancement over the
and two mild steel bolts. corresponding unanchored specimen. In addition to the enhanced
A comparison was made between the mechanically fastened fiber utilization and strength enhancement provided by the steel
steel anchorages and where the bonded plate was continued under anchorages, greater ductility and gradual debonding of the plate
the supports of the beam, resulting in a clamping force applied nor- over an extended time increment were also observed.
mal to the plate. The authors concluded that the main requirements Ductility was evaluated through an examination of deflection
of bolted plate-end anchors were the shear resistance of the anchor (deflection ductility), curvature (curvature ductility), and the
bolts and the FRP-steel adhesive bond. The conclusion was based area-under-the-load deflection curve at yielding of the tension steel
Fig. 4. (a) Typical FRP plate anchored using permanent mechanical anchorage device [Reprinted with permission from Kalfat (2008)]; (b) schematic
of typical test setup
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

and ultimate failure (energy ductility). The detailing of bonded FRP Anchors
CFRP plates without anchorage was found to reduce the ductility
Anchors made from rolled fiber sheets or bundled loose fibers are
index by 70–80%, whereas when provisions were made for ad-
a promising form of anchorage because they can be applied to
equate anchorage, the loss of ductility was only 45–70%. Although
wide FRP-strengthened structural elements such as slabs and walls.
the improvements in ductility are very attractive to designers, the
They are discrete and do not suffer from the same constraints as
wide range of ductility indices indicates that a more consistent
U-jackets. Such anchors are referred to as FRP spike anchors, fiber
approach is required to define and quantify the ductility of
anchors, fiber bolts, and FRP dowels, among other names, but are
FRP-strengthened beams. The strain in the tensile reinforcement
herein collectively referred to as FRP anchors (Smith 2010). The
at failure was not measured.
anchor can be hand-made (in the laboratory or on site) or manu-
Researchers have attempted to combine the benefits of me-
factured from glass or carbon fiber sheets or loose fibers that have
chanically fastened (MF-FRP) systems with the traditional exter-
nally bonded (EB-FRP) method, resulting in a new hybrid plate been rolled or bundled [Figs. 6(a–c)]. Such methods of manufac-
(HB-FRP) bonding system (Wu and Huang 2008). The fasteners turing make the anchors extremely simple to construct but quite
used in this study are presented in Fig. 5. variable (especially if hand-made). The variation, however, does
The application of the HB-FRP system comprises initially the not appreciably affect the behavior of the anchored EB-FRP
attachment of the FRP to the concrete surface using an adhesive system (Zhang et al. 2012). One end of the anchor (herein referred
after adequate surface preparation. Following full curing of the ad- to as an anchor dowel) is inserted into a predrilled hole in the con-
hesive, special mechanical fasteners are installed longitudinally crete substrate and the dowel length can be confined to the cover
along the FRP reinforcement at a specified spacing. Insertion region of the member. The other end of the anchor is epoxied onto
of the mechanical fasteners follows the same procedure as the the surface of the FRP plate. The ends of the fibers which are
MF-FRP method. The fasteners do not carry any bearing forces, but splayed and epoxied onto the surface of the plate in order to disperse
act to increase the bond strength between the FRP and the concrete local stress concentrations are herein referred to as the anchor fan.
by resisting the tensile peeling stresses which can initiate a debond- A convenient means by which to determine the fundamental
ing failure. strength and behavioral characteristics of FRP anchors is to test
Wu and Huang (2008) observed two distinct failure modes of them in FRP-to-concrete joint assemblies such as that shown in
the hybrid system, namely (1) CFRP rupture at midspan, which Fig. 6(d), from Zhang et al. (2012) and several researchers have
occurred with specimens strengthened with 2- and 4-ply strips, investigated such joints to date (e.g., Zhang et al. 2012; Zhang
and (2) complete strip debonding, which was observed for the and Smith 2012a, b; Niemitz 2008). A generic load-slip response
specimen strengthened with 6-ply strips, indicating that the bond of single fan and bow-tie anchors is shown in Fig. 6(e). The three
strength had been exhausted. Considerable increases in flexural main stages of the load-slip response are denoted by A (i.e., debond-
capacity and bond strength were observed as a result of the hybrid ing and activation of FRP anchor), B (i.e., postpeak reserve of
plate-bonding system. A 79% increase in moment resistance was strength offered by completely intact FRP anchor and frictional
attributed to the addition of the fasteners alone for the same area of resistance of debonded plate), and C (i.e., postpeak reserve of
CFRP. However, the increase in bond strength was even higher than strength offered by partially intact FRP anchor and frictional resis-
the moment increase. This resulted in specimens mechanically tance of debonded plate). Ongoing research is establishing the key
fastened with 4-and 6-ply strips splies reaching flexural strengths loads (P) and slips (δ) for varying anchor material and geometric
of 184.9% and 268.2%, respectively, higher than the 2-ply speci- properties (e.g., Kim and Smith 2009; Smith 2010; Zhang et al.
men with no fasteners. 2012). A review by Smith (2010) reported that FRP spike anchors
The application of steel anchorages to CFRP-strengthened with a single fan component increase the shear strength and slip
members is limited by factors such as cost, practicality, labor capacity of FRP-to-concrete joints by up to 70% and 800%, respec-
intensiveness, and durability. Drilling threaded rods or expansion tively, over unanchored control joints. Of particular interest in
anchors into existing structures is time-consuming and has the po- Fig. 6(f) is the significant effect of dowel angle on the joint strength
tential to damage existing reinforcement. In addition, long-term enhancement over the unanchored control joint (Zhang and
durability is a concern and is aggravated by the galvanic coupling Smith 2012a).
with the carbon fiber, which must be mitigated by use of a glass One of the earliest reported tests on FRP anchors in a concrete
fiber layer between the steel and the concrete. Research has dem- member was by Lam and Teng (2001). In their work, RC cantilever
onstrated that steel anchorages generally provide higher anchorage slabs of 700 mm span strengthened with glass FRP (GFRP) plate
strength than nonmetallic anchors because of their metallic rigidity bonded to the tension face of the slabs were tested. The use of a
and the ability of mechanical fasters to effectively resist tensile and GFRP anchor as a mechanical anchorage system can also prevent
shear forces. premature peeling of CFRP laminates in the presence of curvature.
Fig. 5. (a) Mechanical fastener; (b) predrilled holes; (c) details of the HB-FRP system; (adapted from data from Wu and Huang 2008)
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

FRP
anchor
fan
region
FRP
anchor
dowel
region
(a) (b) (c)
146%
150%
125%
(Pmax,1-PCN ) / PCN × 100%

105%
100%
50%
24%
0%
DA-45 DA-90 DA-112.5 DA-135
(d) (e) (f)
Fig. 6. (a, b, c) Anchor construction and installation of FRP anchors (reprinted from Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, No. 4, Smith, ST, Hu, S, Kim,
SJ & Seracino, R 2011, “FRP-strengthened Rc slabs anchored with FRP anchors”, Pages 1075–1087, April 2011, with permission from Elsevier);
(d) test setup (single lap) (reprinted from Construction and Building Materials, FRPRCS9 Special Edition, H.W. Zhang, S.T. Smith, S.J. Kim,
“Optimisation of carbon and glass FRP anchor design”, Pages 1–12, June 2012, with permission from Elsevier); (e) generic load-slip response
of FRP-to-concrete joint anchored with bow-tie anchor; (f) joint strength enhancement (above unanchored control) [modified from Zhang and
Smith (2012b)]
Eshwar et al. (2005) investigated 200 × 400 mm RC beams span- smaller anchors and reduced spacings were more effective in fully
ning 5.5 m with both straight and curved beam soffits (curvature developing the capacity of the FRP fiber, as larger spacings did not
5 mm over 1 m). A single row of 10 mm FRP spike anchors was anchor the entire width of the FRPs, resulting in partial debonding
embedded 76 mm into the concrete beam at 500 mm spacings. (Orton et al. 2008).
Reductions in strength of 20% and 30% were observed in beams Lam and Teng (2001) conducted investigations on improving
strengthened with wet lay-up fibers and precured laminate due to the strength of wall cantilever slab connections using GFRP strips.
curvature and premature peeling. Inclusion of the anchor FRPs with Fiber anchors were installed to anchor the GFRP strips into the RC
the wet lay-up system applied to the curved-soffit specimen led to wall. The authors observed that debonding was stopped by the fiber
the strength being increased by 35% compared to the unanchored anchors and the slabs finally failed by tensile rupture of the FRP. In
specimen. This resulted in the strength of the curved-soffit beam tests on similar slabs simply bonded with two 80.5-mm wide GFRP
containing the anchor FRPs being higher than that of the flat soffit strips without the use of fiber anchors, debonding between the FRP
beam strengthened with wet lay-up fibers. Others have investigated and the slab occurred in all cases (Teng et al. 2000).
the performance of FRP anchors in flexural members (e.g., Micelli
et al. 2010). In most cases, the addition of FRP anchors was found
to increase the strength and ductility of the FRP-strengthened Evaluation of FRP Anchors Used to Strengthen
members. However, this is not always the case and reasons why Members in Flexure
remain to be addressed.
Further research has shown that the use of FRP anchors is an Grelle and Sneed (2011) recently established the need for a large
effective way to improve the strength of reinforced concrete database of anchorage test results. This section therefore presents a
members. Orton et al. (2008) determined that two rows of three database of selected strain data for FRP anchorage systems, in
10 mm diameter anchors were able to develop the FRP tensile which each anchorage type can be compared using a common
capacity and led to fracture of the entire width of the FRP. They correlation parameter. In order to comparatively assess each
reported that FRP anchors increased the efficiency of material us- anchorage, the concrete strength ( fc0 ), fiber modulus (Ef ), number
age of the FRP retrofit to 57%, indicating that FRPs with anchors of plies (n), and fiber thickness (tf ) were used to standardize the
are able to achieve a given strengthening capacity and require less strain data from experimental results collected from a number of
material than unanchored FRPs. In this case, the strength of researchers. Fiber modulus, number of plies, and fiber thickness
the member increased by 270%, with only a 175% increase in the all affect the magnitude of FRP-to-concrete bond stresses at the
FRP material. In addition, it was found that a greater number of interface at a given level of FRP strain, whereas concrete strength
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

is the key parameter which governs the bond resistance of the Mechanisms of FRP Failure in Shear Retrofit
interface. It is therefore important to consider these factors when Applications
determining the strain efficiency of any strengthened system. An
anchorage effectiveness factor has been defined on the basis of Common techniques for strengthening RC members in shear using
the maximum strain reached in the FRP plate prior to failure, FRP are side bonding, U-jacketing, and full wrapping. Experience
εf;max , and the effective FRP strain to resist intermediate crack has shown that the failure of FRP bonded to concrete as externally
debonding, εf;d (ACI 2008). The resulting expression is pre- bonded shear reinforcement is closely related to the shear strength-
sented in Eq. 1, which is used to define the anchorage effectiveness ening system utilized. Most experimental data highlights that
factor (kfab ): almost all beams strengthened by enclosed wrapping typically fail
due to FRP rupture after localized debonding (Chen and Teng
εf;max 2003). In contrast, beams strengthened by side bonding only
kfab ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð1Þ
0 · 41 f c0 =nEf tf and most beams strengthened by U-jacketing fail due to debonding
of the FRP, which has been observed to initiate where the FRP
where fc0 = concrete strength; n = number of piles of FRP; Ef = intersects diagonal shear cracks in the member. Debonding then
propagates to the nearer end of the plate, which is typically the free
fiber modulus; and tf = fiber thickness.
plate end. Pure interfacial debonding failure along the FRP-
Comparing anchorages in this manner can provide a concise
adhesive interface, adhesive-concrete interface, or within the adhe-
behavioral summary of alternative anchorage solutions with respect
sive have rarely been reported. Debonding failures almost always

to FRP strain efficiency. Factors such as the limited number of test
occur within the concrete at the FRP-to-concrete interface.
specimens for the majority of experimental regimes weaken the
statistical reliability of the database. This shortcoming can only
be addressed once more data becomes available. However, the re- Anchorage Devices for FRP Reinforcement Used to
sults may still serve as a useful comparison of available anchorage Strengthen Members in Shear
methods. In addition, Eq. 1 does not take into account mechanical
parameters not included in the equation, as well as the quality of Although fully wrapping the beam cross-section with FRP has been
workmanship in preparing the specimens. As a result of reviewing demonstrated to provide the most effective strengthening solution
various experimental procedures and results currently published, for shear and torsion applications, it is seldom achieved in practice
it was found that in many instances the data was not utilized due to the presence of physical obstructions such as beam flanges.
due to specimens failing either by concrete crushing, or a failure U-jacketing is currently the most popular shear strengthening
to present or measure the strain in the FRP prior to failure and solution because of its high practicality, but it is limited by
the corresponding strain in the FRP anchorages. This strain data end-peeling of the U-jacket legs. This form of failure is usually
is especially useful when assessing anchorage behavior. It is sug- premature, sudden, and nonductile, and it has resulted in the
gested that all future research in this area make use of underrein- development of many innovative anchorage details at the web-
forced sections for flexurally strengthened members to ensure that flange interface. These include the following:
specimen failure occurs by either FRP debonding or FRP rupture 1. FRP enveloping the web of the beam in a U-shape, including
and presents adequate FRP strain measurement data for use by termination at the underside of the beam flange with no
other researchers. anchorage (Khalifa et al. 2000; Micelli et al. 2002; Tanarslan
Of the various anchorage types listed to improve the flexural et al. 2008).
efficiency of FRP-strengthened beams, metallic anchorages are 2. Wrapping the web and flange of the beams through drilled
found to be the most effective, in which maximum fiber elonga- holes through the beam flanges (Hoult and Lees 2009).
tion reached prior to failure is the sole evaluation criteria. Inclined 3. Mechanically fastened metallic anchors installed at the under-
U-jacket anchors, are observed to be 65% more effective than the side of the beam flange to anchor FRP U-wrap legs (Deifalla
traditional U-jacket anchors, resulting in exceptional anchorage and Ghobarah 2010; Micelli et al. 2002; Tanarslan et al. 2008).
efficiency kfab ¼ 2.42. U-jackets are attractive due to their sim- 4. Embedment of the FRP U-jacket legs into the beam flanges
plicity, nondestructiveness, and ease of installation, making them through precut grooves using adhesive bonding (Lee and
ideal choices for T-beam applications. When comparing pre- Al-Mahaidi 2008).
stressed FRP U-jackets within the context of the Pham and 5. FRP anchors installed to restrain the legs of the FRP U-jackets.
Al-Mahaidi (2006) program, the anchorages failed prematurely 6. Mechanical substrate strengthening over the anchorage zone
due to lack of adequate restraint of the U-strap ends As a result, of FRP shear reinforcement (Kalfat and Al-Mahaidi 2011).
the relatively low kfab factor observed may not be representative 7. FRP enveloping the web of the beam and anchored at the un-
of the full potential of prestressing. In principle, it is expected derside of the beam flanges with unidirectional or bidirectional
that prestressed U-straps should always result in higher anchorage fibers (Al-Mahaidi and Kalfat 2011).
efficiency due to the higher degree of confinement and shear re-
sistance provided within the anchorage zone. This result is ex-
Mechanically Fastened Metallic Anchors in Shear and
pected to be improved upon once a more effective anchorage
Torsion Applications
arrangement is provided to the ends of the U-straps, a subject
of further research. The efficiency of metallic anchorages has been found to be
FRP anchors were found to be third highest in efficiency based case-dependent and less suitable in shear and torsion retrofits. The
on limited test data (kfab ¼ 2.03) and have also been shown to sig- subject was investigated by Panchacharam and Belarbi (2002), who
nificantly enhance deformability and ductility. The slip capacity of tested eight beams in pure torsion. The strengthening schemes in-
such joints has also been observed to increase by several hundred cluded complete wrapping, U-jacketing, and U-jacketing with me-
percent. FRP anchors have the highest flexibility and potential for chanically fastened metallic anchors. The inefficiency of U-jackets
application to both slab and beam members, and their effectiveness applied to rectangular beams subjected to torsion was verified by
and ease of installation make them a highly recommended form of the 80% increase in torsional resistance when complete wrapping
anchorage. was provided compared to that of U-jackets only. The author reported
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

no increase in ultimate strength between U-jacketed test beams at CFRP soffit terminations and L-shaped 50 × 50 × 5 mm steel
strengthened with and without mechanical anchorages. The presence plates were used at the web/flange interfaces.
of anchors was, however, found to increase the postcracking twist L-shaped strips with anchorage prevented premature debonding
and energy absorption capacity when compared to unanchored but failed prematurely due to tearing of the concrete cover below
U-jacketed test beams. The results suggest that in torsion applica- the level of the bottom reinforcement. This mode of failure
tions, FRP U-jackets are a poor alternative to full wrapping, even indicates that a development of side-bonded FRP below the beam
when mechanical anchorage is provided. soffit is required for anchorages to achieve their full potential.
Similar research conducted on concrete T-beams loaded in pure The failure mode was prevented in the anchored U-jacketed spec-
torsion has verified the ineffectiveness of metallic anchors to im- imens, which achieved an additional 35% in shear capacity over
prove the performance of FRP U-jacket strain levels (Salom et al. L-wrapping and failed through shear crack-induced FRP rupture.
2004). However, a higher torsion capacity was achieved due to the Although the anchored extended U-jacket showed the highest re-
fastening of the metallic anchorage to the underside of the T-beam corded shear strength, the increased FRP width used for the speci-
flanges. This was attributed to the anchor bolts acting as a part of men makes comparative observations difficult. It is recommended
the shear flow mechanism and was verified by the high strain values that future research should always utilize consistent FRP material
recorded in the anchor bolts. properties and dimensions to enable accurate correlations to be
Deifalla and Ghobarah (2010) evaluated a mechanically anchored made between alternative anchorage techniques in any given
extended U-jacket system by investigating six concrete T-beams sub- program.
jected to combined shear and torsion in a configuration similar to that The effect of using continuous and discontinuous steel/CFRP
shown in Fig. 7. The experiments utilized a bidirectional carbon plates bonded to the top and bottom of shear reinforcement was
composite fiber with 45° fiber orientation and a modulus of elas- investigated by Ortega et al. (2009). The steel/CFRP plate anchors
ticity of 63.3 GPa. In this technique, the U-jacket was bonded to the were fixed using concrete wedge anchors and steel bolts. A typical
web of the beam and anchored 50 mm below the intersection of the representation is shown in Fig. 8. In this study, continuous mechan-
web and the flange. An additional steel angle fastened to the beam ically fastened steel plate anchorages were ineffective because the
flange with 20 mm diameter steel threaded rods was used at the en- continuous plate exhibited a bucking failure mode due to the cur-
trance of the flange and the web to delay end-jacket debonding fail- vature of the beam at failure. The fasteners exhibited bearing failure
ure. Using the extended U-jacket together with mechanically in some locations. In addition, slippage of the CFRP prevented the
fastened steel angles was found to be more effective than using CFRP shear reinforcement from reaching its full capacity. This was
the U-jacket anchored to the beam web with 20 mm rods only. solved by the development of a modified anchor bolt system, which
A 23% increase in strength and an enhanced ductility of 38% consisted of wrapping the CFRP composite around the first plate
were achieved compared to that of the web-anchored U-jacket tech- and overlapping with the second plate, creating a three-layer
nique. Ductility was measured by considering both deflection and connection.
twist ductility (monitoring the maximum angle of twist) and the This behavior was also verified by Aridome et al. (1998), who
maximum strain level of the steel reinforcement. The authors sug- concluded that continuous steel plate anchors separated prema-
gested that the enhanced torsion capacity was because of an in- turely due to in-plane bending stresses within the steel anchorage.
crease of the enclosed area inside the expected critical shear Staggered plate anchors were found to provide the highest beam
flow path induced by the mechanical anchorage provided into ductility, which was measured by monitoring beam deflections.
the beam flanges. However, no comparisons with unanchored To equate vertical deflections with ductility is not representative
U-jacketed specimens were made to assess the contributions of of the beam’s ability to undergo sufficient cracking and deformabil-
the steel anchorages. ity prior to failure. Cracking and deformability are the current mea-
Mechanically anchored U-jackets have achieved greater sures used to ensure ductility in FRP-strengthened members in FRP
effectiveness in pure shear applications (Aridome et al. 1998; design guidelines monitored by the strain level in the tensile
Maeda et al. 1997; Ortega et al. 2009; Tanarslan et al. 2008). reinforcement. The staggering of steel anchorages within the com-
An investigation into the shear behavior of concrete T-beams pression zone was important to reduce the overall compression
strengthened with alternative CFRP schemes was conducted by block stiffness, resulting in higher deflections. However, as a result
Tanarslan et al. (2008). The study encompassed specimens of plate staggering, the compression block stiffness shifts the
retrofitted with CFRP side bonding, L-wrapping (leg of L devel- neutral axis of the section toward the bottom fiber, resulting in lower
oped beneath flange), U-jacketing, and extended U-jacketing. Steel strain in the tensile reinforcement and a lower degree of cracking.
anchorages were applied to CFRP sheets in both top and bottom Alternative variations of metallic anchorage devices were used
locations for four of the specimens tested. In addition, 10 mm by Aridome et al. (1998), The configurations investigated are
threaded rods were used to fasten the 50 × 50 × 5 mm steel plates shown in Fig. 9. Although strengthened beams without any
Fig. 7. Implemented strengthening schemes: (a) U-jacket; (b) extended U-jacket (adapted from Deifalla and Ghobarah 2010)
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

Fig. 8. Anchorage system with discontinuous steel anchorages (adapted from data from Ortega et al. 2009)
Fig. 9. Steel anchorage schemes for strengthening of T-beams in shear (adapted from Aridome et al. 1998)
anchorage at the underside of the flange were not tested, the re- capacity of the FRP, while a 200 mm embedded length is sufficient
searchers reported yielding of the main flexural reinforcement in to develop the full tensile strength of the FRP. Although these
all the strengthened beams with steel anchorages. It was also found figures show significant promise, the test ignores the high compres-
that the strengthened beams with angles bolted into the flange sive forces in the direction of the beam’s length which are present
reached a higher load than bolting angles into the web. This has in the flange. These forces may in turn affect the strength of the
been consistently verified by many researchers. anchorage.
Lee and Al-Mahaidi (2008) and Lee (2003) conducted large
scale experimental investigations on the shear-strengthening of
Anchorage of FRP through Concrete Embedment reinforced concrete T-beams using two L-shaped shear jackets
Embedment of the L-shaped or U-shaped fibers within the flange 40 wide and 1.2 mm thick. The shear jackets were embedded
of the T-beam is a form of anchorage involving local cutting, 100 mm into the flange of the beam for suitable anchorage. Photo-
breakout, and removal of concrete to the underside of the beam grammetry was used to record deformation measurements. Anchor-
flanges. The breakouts are typically filled with epoxy resin after age failure was initiated at the beam soffit by an abrupt ripping of a
embedment with composite fiber ligatures, as presented in Fig. 10. concrete portion at the CFRP bend zone, resulting in separation
Although lacking the inherent drawbacks of full wrapping because failure of the CFRP laps at the beam soffit (Lee 2003). Measure-
no access is required to the top of the slab, embedment can be ments of average strains indicated that 5;500–8;884 με was
a labor-intensive, destructive process, particularly where a small achieved prior to the occurrence of this failure. Because no observ-
ligature spacing is required. able CFRP pull-out from the flange was recorded, it is difficult
Pull-out tests reported by Swiss Federal Laboratories for Mate- to assess the residual capacity of the top embedment anchorage.
rials Science and Technology (EMPA) (1998) have revealed that a It is believed that the use of the rigid L-plates may have been
100 mm embedment is sufficient to develop 60–80% of the tensile responsible for the initial debonding due to peeling stresses being
Fig. 10. (a) Typical FRP plate embedded 150 mm into beam side with epoxy resin; (b) schematic of typical test setup
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

introduced at the beam soffit. The use of U-jacketing with flange the effects of inclined anchors with inclination angles of 0, 15,
embedment would therefore be a more effective method of 30, and 45 degrees. It was found that an inclination angle of 45
strengthening. degrees reduced the pull-out load by over 50%. However, no men-
tion was made of a transitional radius and the system was penalized
FRP Anchors in Shear Applications by high stress concentrations at the corners, resulting in partial
crushing of 20–30 mm deep concrete under the horizontal compres-
To increase the effectiveness of FRP shear reinforcement applied to sive stresses transferred by the anchors.
T-beams or in slab/column wall interface configurations, the use of In addition to the joint information provided in the FRP anchor
FRP anchors has been proposed for end anchorage. Typically, a section, the distance of the anchor from the concrete free edge
fiber tow made up of braided fibers to form a string is placed into (closest to the point of load application) was found to be of impor-
a predrilled hole in the concrete and filled with adhesive. The fiber tance by Kim and Smith (2009a, b). Kim’s study showed the failure
ends are splayed outward in a fan shape and fully bonded to the load to increase the closer the anchor is positioned to the concrete
FRP ligatures with epoxy resin. A typical representation is shown free edge. This suggests that anchors should be positioned in
in Fig. 11. zones where interfacial shear stresses are the highest. Also of
Experimental tests using various configurations have shown that importance is the stress transfer mechanism from the anchor fan
the anchorages are effective in terms of deformability and strength to the CFRP fiber. According to Kobayashi et al. (2001), if stresses
increase, characteristics which are dependent on the number of an- are to be transferred from one FRP fiber to another using a fan,
chorages used (Ceroni et al. 2008). the fan opening angles should be limited to less than 90° to
Experimental testing to determine the improvement from the use limit stress concentrations and prevent premature fracture of the
of such anchors has been limited to date. In the context of the an- FRP fiber.
chor pull-out scenario shown in Fig 11, experiments have been con- FRP spike anchors have also been successful in strengthen-
ducted to date. Investigations have been carried out by Ozdemir ing L-shaped concrete specimens confined with FRP jackets.
(2005) to determine the required embedment depth into the con- Karantzikis et al. (2005) concluded that a limited strength increase
crete to achieve full development of the anchor under pull-out con- is observed in the use of jackets without anchors, regardless of the
ditions. Ozdemir determined that there is an effective embedment FRP thickness used. This was due to poor utilization of the FRP as
depth after which the capacity of the anchor no longer increases. a result of premature debonding at the reentrant corner. Partial
Tests were conducted using 10–20 MPa concrete with 14–20 mm depth FRP anchors were found to allow the jacket to deform sub-
diameter anchors, and the embedment depth was suggested as stantially and even approach its tensile capacity. Increases in
100 mm. Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2009) also conducted a strength of 20–30% were seen due to the anchors only. The use
large number of pull-out tests with 25–100 mm embedment and of full-depth anchors resulted in increased strength (49% increase
concluded that an increase in embedment length results in a de- due to anchors only) but marginal benefits in deformability. Further
crease in the average bond strength. This implies that the bond research has demonstrated that FRP jackets and anchors effectively
stress distribution decreases with increasing bond length. Tests confine deficient column lap splices and successfully alter the col-
and modeling of FRP anchors subjected to pull-out forces have also umn failure mode from brittle splice failure to yielding of column
been undertaken by Kim and Smith (2009a, b, 2010). reinforcement (Kim et al. 2009). It was found that increasing the
An important characteristic of FRP anchors is the bend that ex- spacing of anchors improved the strength of the splice, while de-
ists between the braided fiber toe embedded in the concrete and the formation capacity was improved by using a greater number of
fanned portion of the anchor in shear applications. This bend is smaller anchors. There is currently a lack of available data in which
typically 90 degrees. ACI 440.2R-08 (2008) states that where fibers FRP anchors have been applied to anchor FRP shear fibers, where
wrap around the corners of rectangular cross sections, the corners sufficient measurements were reported. This should be a focus for
should be rounded to a minimum 13 mm radius to prevent stress future studies.
concentrations in the FRP system. Specimens tested by Pham and
Bayrak (2009) utilized a bend radius ranging from 0–12 mm and
Anchorage Improvement through a Mechanically
recorded a 23% reduction in anchor strength when no bend radius
Strengthened Substrate
was used. Based on previous research by the Japan Society of Civil
Engineers (JSCE) (2001), anchors could lose about half of their It is presently understood that the strength of the concrete substrate
tensile capacity due to the stress concentration caused by the anchor is a key factor affecting the debonding mode and overall bond
bend. Orton et al. (2008) suggested that anchors with two times the strength of FRP-to-concrete joints. However, increasing the
cross-sectional area of the longitudinal CFRP should be used in strength of the concrete substrate has experienced little investiga-
practice. Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2009) also investigated tion to date. Research conducted by Al-Mahaidi and Sentry (2009)
Fig. 11. Typical details of FRP spike anchors applied to shear applications
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

and Kalfat and Al-Mahaidi (2011) has explored the introduction of prior to failure. Recommendations for future testing include limit-
a mechanical chase cut into the concrete within the anchorage zone ing the mechanical chase to within the cover zone of the concrete,
to enhance substrate properties. The purpose of the chase was to which will enhance the attractiveness of this form of anchorage.
prevent the critical mode of debonding, which naturally occurs a
few millimetres beneath the concrete/adhesive interface and utilizes
FRP Anchorage Utilizing Unidirectional and
the superior mechanical properties of the epoxy to distribute bond
Bidirectional Fibers
stresses into a larger depth within the concrete prism.
The laboratory program consisted of reinforced concrete blocks Anchorages consisting of unidirectional and bidirectional fibers ap-
of 250 × 300 × 600 mm tested in direct shear loading using the plied to the ends of CFRP laminates tested under direct shear load-
near-end-supported (NES) single pull test configuration. A single ing was studied by Al-Mahaidi and Kalfat (2011) and Kalfat et al.
40 × 40 × 500 mm chase was cut into the 300 mm wide side of the (2011). These will be collectively referred to as patch anchors. The
concrete block and filled with epoxy resin prior to bonding the FRP studies utilized six types of anchorage comprising two types of re-
laminate over the prepared surface, as depicted in Fig. 12 (Kalfat inforced concrete blocks, the characteristics of which are presented
and Al-Mahaidi 2011). In addition to the proposed concrete chase, in Fig. 13.
an N20 (Grade 500 MPa) reinforcement bar was installed within Anchorage type 2 was developed for application at the web-
the chase for potential embedment into the underside of the flange interfaces to be utilized in shear and torsional retrofit
beam/girder flanges. The purpose of the bar was to augment the projects. The anchorage comprised 2 plies of 250 mm wide unidi-
amount of steel reinforcement in the web-flange joint and aid rectional carbon fiber wrap applied horizontally across the laminate
the flow of shear and torsional forces into the flange. The omission strip. The direction of the fibers was perpendicular to the direction
of the bar in future specimens is not expected to adversely affect the of the strip. The first sheet overlayed the second, sandwiching the
substrate properties but this remains to be verified by experimental laminate strip in between. Anchoring the ends of CFRP laminates
testing. Specimens consisted of a single CFRP laminate of dimen- in this manner was effective in increasing the ultimate failure load
sions 120 × 2 × 1000 mm bonded to the surface of the concrete by 39–43% and resulted in an increase in the maximum laminate
block with a bond length of 500 mm. strain of 19–28%. The authors concluded that carbon fiber fabrics
The introduction of the mechanical chase was observed to shift applied horizontally across the laminate strip did not provide an
the debonding failure mode from within the concrete cover zone to effective level of confinement to uniformly increase the bond
the CFRP-adhesive interface. An examination of the laminate after strength between the adhesive and concrete layer. This was verified
failure revealed the majority of the surface exposed with little through an examination of the bond-slip relations and the fact that
epoxy bonded to it. In addition to almost doubling the anchorage no increase in bond stress was observed as a result of the anchor-
capacity, significantly higher bond stresses of up to 11 MPa were age. It was stipulated that the use of a 50 mm wide adhesive tapper,
recorded in the strengthened substrate specimens, while only introduced to the laminate sides to provide a smooth transition for
5.0 MPa was achieved in control models. This corresponded to the unidirectional fibers along the length of the laminate, assisted in
a 95–100% increase in ultimate capacity, a 118% increase in bond the distribution of laminate-adhesive stresses to a greater width of
stress, and a 83–93% increase in the maximum strain level reached concrete.
Fig. 12. Anchorage type 1 specimen geometry: (WG1 and WG2) (a) configuration of strain gauges; (b) chase details and installation of N24
reinforcement bar; (c) section through chase [Kalfat and Al-Mahaidi (2011); reprinted from Composite Structures, Vol. 92, No. 11, R. Kalfat,
R. Al-Mahaidi, “Investigation into bond behaviour of a new CFRP anchorage system for concrete utilising a mechanically strengthened substrate”,
Pages 2738–2746, October 2010, with permission from Elsevier]
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

Fig. 13. Anchorage types 0 and 2–6 specimen geometry and material properties: (a) type 4 (WG12); (b) type 5 (WG10, WG11); (c) type 6 (WG8);
(d) anchorage types 2–5 applied to a box girder bridge [Al-Mahaidi and Kalfat (2011); reprinted from Composite Structures, Vol. 93, No. 4,
R. Al-Mahaidi, R. Kalfat, “Investigation into CFRP plate end anchorage utilising uni-directional fabric wrap”, Pages 1265–1274, March 2011, with
permission from Elsevier]
Anchorage type 3 was developed for use in combined shear and Anchorage type 6 was later developed to improve the perfor-
torsional strengthening applications to adequately anchor external mance of the type 3 anchor by adding a single layer of bidirectional
laminates applied to the outer webs to the beam soffit. Type 3 fiber to the unidirectional fiber, which continued around the corners
anchors utilized L-shaped lengths of CFRP unidirectional fibers of the concrete prism. The anchorage utilizes the combined benefits
applied to the corners of a box section. These were indented of types 3 and 5 and results in a distribution of fiber-to-adhesive
to be appropriately lapped with a CFRP laminate applied to the bond stresses over a greater length and width of concrete, achieving
main faces of the concrete prism. The overall increase in strength an increase in failure load of 195% and resulting in laminate
(46–57%) of this anchorage system was attributed to the transfer rupture. The above mentioned results suggest that the use of uni-
of bond stress further away from the loaded edge, which was directional and bidirectional fiber as a means of creating a greater
facilitated by the anchoring effect of the unidirectional fiber curved bond area with the concrete substrate allows substantially higher
and anchored around the end of the concrete block. In order to utilization of carbon fiber laminates beyond a standard codified
achieve a more efficient distribution of fiber-adhesive stresses over design approach.
a greater area of concrete, two layers of a bidirectional fiber were
implemented in anchorage types 4 and 5 to anchor the CFRP lam-
inate. The results demonstrate that bidirectional fiber (45°) ap- Evaluation of FRP Anchors Used to Strengthen
plied to the ends of CFRP laminates resulted in a more efficient Members in Shear
distribution of CFRP-adhesive stresses over a greater width of
concrete and was effective in providing a 93–109% increase in In order to evaluate the various types of anchorages used to
failure load. increase the effectiveness of FRP shear strengthened members,
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

Table 1. FRP Anchorage Summary for Flexurally Strengthened Members

f c0 tft Ef εf;max
Author Specimen Comments MPa mm GPa με kfa Failurea
FRP Flexural fiber only 0.58 (Average)
(Pornpongsaroj and Pimanmas 2003) A-200P 200 mm support 55.0 1.2 150.0 3,860 0.54 IC
(Pornpongsaroj and Pimanmas 2003) A-200P 420 mm support 55.0 1.2 150.0 3,420 0.48 ED
(Pornpongsaroj and Pimanmas 2003) B-200P 200 mm support 55.0 1.2 150.0 2,890 0.40 ED
(Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006) E1a 6 PLY-3 × 12 mm dia bars 53.7 1.056 209 3,036 0.47 ED
(Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006) E3a 6 PLY-2 × 12 mm dia bars 53.7 1.056 209 3,502 0.55 ED
(Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006) E1b 6 PLY-3 × 12 mm dia bars 53.7 1.056 209 3,414 0.53 ED
(Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006) E5a 9 PLY CFRP 53.7 1.056 209 2,329 0.36 ED
(Smith et al. 2010) S2 Unanchored control 41.4 0.498 239 6,649 0.87 IC
(Yalim et al. 2008) W1.1 CFRP-surface smooth (CS1) 35 1.02 70.5 6,039 0.67 IC
(Yalim et al. 2008) W1.2 Surface (CS1) 35 1.02 70.5 7,443 0.82 IC
(Yalim et al. 2008) W2.3.1 Surface (CS2-CS3) 35 1.02 70.5 6,490 0.72 IC
(Yalim et al. 2008) W6.9.1 Surface (CS6-CS9) 35 1.02 70.5 5,214 0.58 IC
FRP U-jacket Anchor 0.78 (Average)
(Yalim et al. 2008) P1.1 4 CFRP U-jackets 35 1.4 131.0 4,842 0.85 IC
(Yalim et al. 2008) P2.3.1 4 CFRP U-jackets 35 1.4 131.0 4,598 0.81 IC
(Yalim et al. 2008) P6.9.1 4 CFRP U-jackets 35 1.4 131.0 5,027 0.89 IC
(Yalim et al. 2008) P2.3.2 Full U-jacket 35 1.4 131.0 5,076 0.90 IC
(Yalim et al. 2008) P6.9.2 Full U-jacket 35 1.4 131.0 5,281 0.93 IC
(Pornpongsaroj and Pimanmas 2003) A-420U 90 degree U-jacket anchor 55.0 1.2 150.0 8,760 1.22 CC/ED
(Pornpongsaroj and Pimanmas 2003) B-200U 90 degree U-jacket anchor 55.0 1.2 150.0 3,750 0.52 CC/IC
(Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006) A1a 1 U-jacket-3 × 12 mm dia bars 53.7 1.056 209 4,100 0.64 IC
(Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006) A1b 3 U-jackets at 180 mm c=c − 3 × 12 mm dia bars 53.7 1.056 209 5,350 0.84 IC
(Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006) E3a2 1 U-jacket-2 × 12 mm dia bars 53.7 1.056 209 3,500 0.55 IC
(Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006) E5a2 3 U-jackets at 180 mm c=c − 3 × 12 mm dia bars 53.7 1.585 209 4,307 0.83 IC
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

(Yalim et al. 2008) W1.3 4 U-jackets 2 No. EACH END. (CS1) 35 1.02 70.5 6,314 0.70 ED
(Yalim et al. 2008) W2.3.2 4 CFRP U-jackets 2 No. EACH END. (CS2-CS3) 35 1.02 70.5 7,791 0.86 ED
(Yalim et al. 2008) W1.6 7 CFRP U-jackets (CS1) 35 1.02 70.5 8,349 0.92 ED
(Yalim et al. 2008) W1.7 11 CFRP U-jackets (CS1) 35 1.02 70.5 8,962 0.99 FR
(Yalim et al. 2008) W2.3.5 11 CFRP U-jackets (CS2-CS3) 35 1.02 70.5 8,381 0.93 FR
(Yalim et al. 2008) W6.9.5 11 CFRP U-jackets (CS6-CS9) 35 1.02 70.5 10,074 1.11 FR
(Yalim et al. 2008) W1.8 Flexural FRP + Full U-jacket (CS1) 35 1.02 70.5 6,647 0.73 FR
(Yalim et al. 2008) W2.3.6 Full U-jacket (CS2-CS3) 35 1.02 70.5 8,937 0.99 FR
(Pan et al. 2010) B1 Single notched beam with side plates 49.2 0.22 235 6,628 0.52 IC
(Pan et al. 2010) B2 Single notched beam with side plates 49.2 0.22 235 6,625 0.52 IC
(Pan et al. 2010) B3 Double notched beam with side plates 49.2 0.22 235 7,299 0.58 IC

Table 1. (Continued.)
f c0 tft Ef εf;max
Author Specimen Comments MPa mm GPa με kfa Failurea
(Pan et al. 2010) B4 Double notched beam with side plates 49.2 0.22 235 6,492 0.51 IC
(Pan et al. 2010) B5 Double notched beam with FRP plate 49.2 0.22 235 10,217 0.81 IC
(Pan et al. 2010) B6 Unnotched beam with FRP plate 49.2 0.22 235 10,489 0.83 IC
(Pan et al. 2010) B7 Precracked bonded with FRP plate 49.2 0.22 235 9,399 0.74 IC
(Pan et al. 2010) B8 Unnotched beam with FRP plate 49.2 0.22 235 9,954 0.79 IC
Prestressed U-jacket Anchor 0.78 (Average)
(Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006) A2a 1 prestressed U-jacket-3 × 12 mm dia bars 53.7 1.056 209 4,571 0.71 IC
(Pham and Al-Mahaidi 2006) A2b 3 prestressed U-jackets at 180 mm c=c − 3 × 12 mm dia bars 53.7 1.056 209 5,416 0.85 IC
Inclined FRP U-jacket Anchor 1.36 (Average)
(Sagawa et al. 2001) U1-45-1 Inclined U-jacket anchor, 1 place 27.3 0.165 230 15,000 1.36 FR
(Sagawa et al. 2001) U1-45-2 Inclined U-jacket anchor, 2 places 27.3 0.165 230 15,000 1.36 FR
FRP + steel anchorage 1.87 (Average)
(Spadea et al. 2000) A1.2 Steel anchorages Type A/Type B 30 1.2 152 9,600 1.83 ED
(Spadea et al. 2000) A1.3 Steel anchorages Type A/Type B/Type C 30 1.2 152 10,500 2.00 ES/ED
(Spadea et al. 2000) A2.2 Steel anchorages Type A/Type B-Arr1 30 1.2 152 10,000 1.90 ES/ED
(Spadea et al. 2000) A2.3 Steel anchorages Type A/Type B-Arr2 30 1.2 152 11,000 2.09 ES/ED/CC
(Spadea et al. 2000) A3.2 Steel anchorages Type A/Type B 30 1.2 152 10,200 1.94 ED
(Spadea et al. 2000) A3.3 Steel anchorages Type A/Type B/Type C 30 1.2 152 12,000 2.28 ES
(Duthinh and Starnes 2001) B4a Steel clamp at laminate ends, 400 N.m 42.3 1.2 155 10,070 1.63 ED
(Duthinh and Starnes 2001) B6 Steel clamp at laminate ends, 400 N.m 41.3 1.2 155 7,800 1.28 ES
FRP Anchors 1.14 (Average)
Smith et al. (2010) S3 FRP anchors along whole span (Type A) 41.4 0.498 239 7,676 1.00 IC
Smith et al. (2010) S4 FRP anchors along whole span (half no. anchor as S3) (Type A) 44.1 0.498 239 8,025 1.02 IC
Smith et al. (2010) S5 Shear span FRP anchors (Type A) 44.1 0.498 239 8,884 1.13 IC
Smith et al. (2010) S6 Plate end FRP anchors (Type A) 45.4 0.498 239 6,696 0.84 IC
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

Smith et al. (2010) S7 Shear span FRP anchors (Type B) 45.4 0.498 239 11,566 1.44 IC
Smith et al. (2010) S8 Shear span FRP anchors (Type A + Type B) 45.4 0.498 239 11,348 1.42 IC
a

CC = concrete crushing; IC = intermediate crack-induced debonding; FR = fiber rupture; ED = end debond; ES = end slippage.
Table 2. CFRP Shear Anchorage Devices Summary

f c0 tft Ef Shear
Author Designation Comments MPa mm GPa εf;max kfas Failure Typea
Control-no strengthening 1.00 (Average)
(Tanarslan et al. 2008) Spec-2 Side bonded CFRP 31.9 0.12 231 2,000 0.44 S þ CSF
(Tanarslan et al. 2008) Spec-4 U-jacketing CFRP 29.1 0.12 231 1,600 0.37 S þ CSF
(Khalifa et al. 2000) A-SO3-2 U-jacket strips, 50 @ 125 mm 27.5 0.2 228.0 4,700.0 1.41 CSF
(Khalifa et al. 2000) A-SO3-4 One ply continuous U-jacket 27.5 0.2 228.0 4,500.0 1.35 CSF
(Khalifa et al. 2000) C-BT2 One ply continuous U-jacket 35.0 0.2 228.0 4,500.0 1.15 CSF
(Khalifa et al. 2000) B-CW2 Two plies (90°=0°) 27.5 0.3 228.0 2,700.0 0.99 CSP
(Khalifa et al. 2000) A-SW3-2 Two plies (90°=0°) 19.3 0.3 228.0 2,300.0 1.06 CSP
(Khalifa et al. 2000) A-SW4-2 Two plies (90°=0°) 19.3 0.3 228.0 1,900.0 0.88 CSP
(Al-Mahaidi and Kalfat 2011) Type 0 WG9-control specimen 62 2 210 2,535 1.36 CSF
CFRP + Metallic Anchors 1.76 (Average)
(Aridome et al. 1998) No. 24 Angle with through bolt 18 0.12 229 6,000 2.01 FF þ FR
(Tanarslan et al. 2008) Spec-3 L-shaped CFRP + steel anchorage 30.7 0.12 231 4,700 1.06 S þ FR
(Tanarslan et al. 2008) Spec-5 U-jacketing CFRP + steel anchorage 30.7 0.12 231 6,000 1.36 S þ FR
(Tanarslan et al. 2008) Spec-6 L-shaped CFRP + steel anchorage 30.8 0.12 231 4,700 1.06 FF
(Tanarslan et al. 2008) Spec-7 Extended U-jacket CFRP + steel anchorage 30.6 0.12 231 7,800 1.77 FF
(Galal and Mofidi 2010) S-M-D U-jacketing CFRP (unbonded) + anchorages 43.0 0.175 230.0 4,200.0 0.98 S
(Micelli et al. 2002) JS3A 1 ply CFRP ligatures + anchor 20.68 0.165 228 7,500 2.48 FR
(Khalifa et al. 2000) C-BT6 Continuous U-jacket with end anchor 35.0 0.2 228.0 6,300.0 1.61 FF
(Micelli et al. 2002) JS6A 2 ply AFRP ligatures + anchor 20.68 0.30 117 3,400 1.09 FR
(Micelli et al. 2002) JS5A 2 ply CFRP ligatures + anchor 20.68 0.33 228 5,650 2.62 FR
(Deifalla and Ghobarah 2010) TB1S1 U-jacketing CFRP + steel anchorage 25.6 0.86 63.6 4,260.0 1.51 CSF þ T
(Deifalla and Ghobarah 2010) TB1S2 Extended CFRP U-jacket + steel anchorage 25.6 0.86 63.6 4,700.0 1.67 CSF þ T
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

(Deifalla and Ghobarah 2010) TB1S3 Full wrapping + steel anchorage 25.6 0.86 63.6 7,690.0 2.73 CSF
(Deifalla and Ghobarah 2010) TB3S4 Combined U-wrapping and extended U-jacket + steel anchorage 25.6 0.86 63.6 7,590.0 2.70 CSF
CFRP + Embedment in flange 4.27 (Average)
(Lee 2003) Beam 0.75D CFRP L-strips + 120 mm embedment in flange 31.1 1.3 137.3 8,884.0 4.81 ARS
(Lee 2003) Beam 0.6D CFRP L-strips + 120 mm embedment in flange 30.9 1.3 137.3 7,298.0 3.97 ARS
(Lee 2003) Beam 0.5D CFRP L-strips + 120 mm embedment in flange 31.6 1.3 137.3 7,515.0 4.03 CPO
CFRP + Full wrap through flanges 4.8 (Average)
(Hoult and Lees 2009) B3/30/H/22 Full wrap through 45° holes cut higher into flanges 22.3 1.60 121.0 6,050.0 4.09 S
(Hoult and Lees 2009) B4/30/G/25 Full wrap through 45°holes cut higher into flanges + holes grouted 24.6 1.60 121.0 7,700.0 4.88 S
(Hoult and Lees 2009) B5/30/C/27 Full wrap through 45°holes cut higher into flanges + holes cast into concrete 26.7 1.60 121.0 9,050.0 5.43 S
CFRP + Uni-directional fiber 1.75 (Average)
(Al-Mahaidi and Kalfat 2011) Type 2 WG3-unidirectional fiber (2 ply), 90° 62 2 210 3,242 1.68 CSF
(Al-Mahaidi and Kalfat 2011) Type 2 WG4-unidirectional fiber (2 ply), 90° 62 2 210 3,142 1.86 CSF/ASF

PASF = partial adhesive separation failure; S = shear failure; CSP = concrete splittiing; LR = laminate rupture; PLR = partial laminate rupture; PFR = partial fibre rupture; T = torsional failure of concrete.
CSF/PLR/PFR
ARS = anchorage failure at soffit; ASF = adhesive separation failure; CSF = concrete separation failure; FF = flexural failure; FR = fiber rupture; PFR = partial fibre rupture; CPO = concrete pull-out failure;
Failure Typea
a classification and evaluation approach is adopted based on the
(Average)
(Average)
PASF/LR
effective strain approach given in ACI 440.2R-08 section 11.4.1
ASF
ASF
CSF
CSF
(2008) for shear-strengthened members, the results of which are
presented in Table 1. The FRP effective strain is used to determine
the anchorage effectiveness factor (kfas ), using Eq. (2):
3.15
3.11
2.63
2.84
4.02
2.55
2.49
2.62
εf;max
kfas
kfas ¼ ð2Þ
kv εfu
Shear
εf;max
5,800
4,900
5,300
7,500
4,640
4,881
k1 k2 L e
kv ¼ ≤ 0 · 75 ð3Þ
11;900εfu
GPa
Ef
210
210
210
210
210
210
23;300
Le ¼ ð4Þ
ðnf tf Ef Þ0·58
mm
tft
2
2
2
2
2
2
2=3
f c0
MPa
k1 ¼ ð5Þ
fc0
62
62
62
62
62
62
27
8 9
< dfv −Le =
WG8-bidirectional fiber (1 ply, 45) + unidirectional fiber (2 ply), 0°
dfv u-wraps
k2 ¼ dfv −Le ð6Þ
: ;
dfv side-bonded
WG12-bidirectional fiber (1 ply), 45 þ50 mm lip
Equation (2) was based on factors such as concrete strength

( fc0 ), fiber thickness (tf ), fiber modulus (Ef ), depth of FRP ligature
WG11-bidirectional fiber (2 ply), 45
WG11-bidirectional fiber (2 ply), 45
(dfv ), and maximum fiber elongation (εf;max ). A summary of

WG1-substrate strengthened
WG2-substrate strengthened
anchorage data compiled from various researchers is presented

in Table 2, along with the corresponding anchorage effectiveness
factors. The results are limited by the relatively small number of
Comments
specimens tested under each experimental regime and the lack

of publications that present strain data of FRP ligatures prior to
failure. In addition, workmanship, material properties, specimen
geometry, and loading procedure can affect the accuracy of
cross-comparisons between different experimental programs. The
anchorage effectiveness factor ignores these parameters, as well
as parameters not included in the equation.
Complete wrapping through beam flanges has shown the high-
est anchorage effectiveness, which is to be expected because of a
lack of FRP termination point weakness. However, this method is
labor-intensive, involving localized removal of concrete with the
potential for damaging existing reinforcement. It is observed that
full wrapping through beam flanges resulted in the highest
observed average anchorage effectiveness factor of 4.8. Because
of the wide scatter of results presented by Hoult and Lees
Designation
(2009), in which the flexural failure mode masked the performance

4
5
5
6
Type 1
Type 1
of the anchorages, some of their data has been omitted from Table 2.
Type
Type
Type
Type
The data for flange embedment anchors are currently limited and
more data are required to establish statistical reliability, the anchor-
age effectiveness factor of 4.27 being well above the other forms of
CFRP + Mechanical Substrate strengthening
anchorage. Metallic anchorages have not shown the same degree of

effectiveness in shear applications as for flexure. When applied to
FRP stirrups, they are the least effective form of anchorage, result-
ing in a standardized anchorage effectiveness factor ðkfas Þ of 1.64.
The use of bidirectional patch anchorages demonstrates a high
(Al-Mahaidi and Kalfat 2011)
(Kalfat and Al-Mahaidi 2011)

(Kalfat and Al-Mahaidi 2011)
CFRP + Bidirectional fabric
level of anchorage effectiveness compared with the other forms

of anchorage investigated. This method of anchorage is recom-
Table 2. (Continued.)
mended due to its nondestructiveness and ease of installation.

Considering the criteria of anchorage performance and practical-
ity, patch anchors rank the highest in meeting both criteria to the
highest level. However, no strain results could be obtained on the
use of FRP anchors for shear-strengthened members. They are ex-
Author
pected to perform well and further research is required to obtain

the much-needed data.
a
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

Conclusions future development of FRP anchorages focus on examining the
various anchorage types presented in more detail. Research should
The anchorage of externally bonded FRP materials is one means by make use of experimental and numeric parametric studies to inform
which higher FRP strain levels may be achieved prior to failure. strength prediction models that may be incorporated into future
The beneficial uses for FRP anchorage systems are seen to result FRP design guidelines.
in achieving higher levels of strengthening using less material with
a more timely installation process. Commonly documented anchor-
age solutions for FRP-to-concrete applications with encouraging References
results have been presented in this paper and include (1) FRP
U-jackets, (2) FRP anchors, (3) FRP patch anchors, (4) mechani- Al-Amery, R., and Al-Mahaidi, R. (2006). “Coupled flexural-shear retro-
cally fastened steel plates, (5) concrete embedment, and (6) me- fitting of RC beams using CFRP straps.” Compos. Struct., 75(1–4),
chanically strengthened substrates. Published data on the above 457–464.
FRP anchorage devices was consolidated and presented in terms Al-Mahaidi, R., and Kalfat, R. (2011). “Investigation into CFRP plate end
of an anchorage effectiveness factor in order to evaluate anchorage anchorage utilising uni-directional fabric wrap.” Compos. Struct.,
93(2), 821–830.
efficiency. A framework of the resulting presentation was given and
Al-Mahaidi, R., and Sentry, M. W. G. (2009). “Testing the efficiency
this will aid future researchers in reporting key measurements.
of anchorage systems applied to CFRP laminate strips bonded to
Metallic anchorages have been demonstrated to be the most concrete-Westgate bridge strengthening project.” Dept. of Civil Engi-
effective form of FRP anchorage devices when applied to flexural neering Rep., Monash Univ., Melbourne, Australia.
FRP. This is the case when using the maximum fiber elongation American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008). “Guide for the design and con-
prior to failure as the sole evaluation criteria. However, metallic struction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete
anchorages require a labor-intensive installation process, they structure.” ACI 440.2R-08, Farmington Hills, MI.
are subject to corrosion, and require regular maintenance. It is Aridome, Y., Kanakubo, T., Furuta, T., and Matsui, M. (1998). “Ductility of
recommended that metallic anchorages be used where a high level T-shape RC beams strengthened by CFRP sheet U-anchor.” Trans. Jpn.
of anchorage is required that cannot be achieved by using nonme- Concr. Inst., 20, 117–124.
tallic anchors. When evaluating nonmetallic anchors, it was found Bank, L. C. (2006). Composites for construction: Structural design with
FRP materials, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
that inclined U-jackets were 74% more effective than vertically
Buyle-Bodin, F., and David, E. (2004). “Use of carbon fibre textile to con-
orientated U-jacket anchors, resulting in an exceptionally high trol premature failure of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with
anchorage efficiency (kfab ¼ 1.36). U-jackets are nondestructive bonded CFRP plates.” J. Ind. Text., 33(3), 145–157.
and easy to install, making them ideal choices for flexurally Ceroni, F., Pecce, M., Matthys, S., and Taerwe, L. (2008). “Debonding
strengthened T-beams. In spite of the limited research conducted strength and anchorage devices for reinforced concrete elements
in the area of FRP anchors, they have shown good promise. strengthened with FRP sheets.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 39(3), 429–441.
FRP anchors were 46% more effective than vertically orientated Chen, J. F., and Teng, J. G. (2003). “Shear capacity of FRP-strengthened
U-jackets and slightly less effective than inclined U-jackets. They RC beams: FRP debonding.” Constr. Build. Mater., 17(1), 27–41.
can be applied to both beams and slabs to increase anchorage Concrete Society. (2004). Design guidance for strengthening concrete
performance and require no development along beam sides. FRP structures with fibre composite materials, Concrete Society Technical
anchors require localized drilling, but are relatively simple to install Rep. No. 55, 2nd Ed., Surrey, U.K.
Deifalla, A., and Ghobarah, A. (2010). “Strengthening RC T-beams sub-
and are low maintenance. The choice of anchorage specified in
jected to combined torsion and shear using FRP fabrics: Experimental
practice will be governed by member geometry and the level of study.” J. Compos. Constr., 14(3), 301–311.
anchorage required. Duthinh, D., and Starnes, M. (2001). “Strengthening of reinforced concrete
When considering FRP anchorage devices developed for beams with carbon FRP.” Composites in construction, Figueiras, et al.,
strengthening in shear and torsion applications, the use of bidirec- eds., Vol. 1, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands, 493–498.
tional fiber patch anchorages has shown the highest efficiency Eshwar, N., Ibell, T., and Nanni, A. (2005). “Effectiveness of CFRP
(kfas ¼ 3.15) in terms of maximum fiber elongation. Patch- strengthening on curved soffit RC beams.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 8(1),
anchored joints also experienced increases in strength of up to 55–68.
93–109% and end in slippage of 4 to 8 times above their unanchored Galal, K., and Mofidi, A. (2010). “Shear strengthening of RC T-beams
counterparts. They are highly recommended to anchor FRP shear using mechanically anchored unbonded dry carbon fiber sheets.”
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 24(1), 31–39.
reinforcement at the web-flange and web-soffit interfaces because
Garden, H. N., and Hollaway, L. C. (1998). “An experimental study of
of their simplicity, nondestructiveness, and ease of application.
the influence of plate end anchorage of carbon fibre composite plates
Although flange embedment demonstrated the highest overall used to strengthen reinforced concrete beams.” Compos. Struct., 42(2),
strain benefit (kfas ¼ 4.27) apart from full wrapping, the limited 175–188.
amount of available test specimens suggests that more data is Grelle, S. V., and Sneed, L. H. (2011). “An evaluation of anchorage systems
required for further verification. Flange embedment requires for fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) laminates bonded to reinforced con-
localized breakouts for FRP insertion and the destructive nature crete elements.” Proc., 2011 Structures Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA.
of the anchor makes this solution appear unattractive in practical Hag-Elsafi, O., Alampalli, S., and Kunin, J. (2001). “Application of FRP
applications. Contrary to the high level of performance shown laminates for strengthening of a reinforced concrete T-beam bridge
for flexural members, metallic anchorages were found to have structure.” Compos. Struct., 52(3–4), 453–466.
the lowest efficiency (kfas ¼ 1.76) when applied to anchor FRP Hollaway, L. C., and Teng, J. G. (2008). Strengthening and rehabilitation
of civil infrastructures using fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) compo-
shear fibers and are therefore not recommended for shear-
sites, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, U.K.
strengthening applications. Hoult, N. A., and Lees, J. M. (2009). “Efficient CFRP strap configurations
Although the improvements in strength due to the anchorage of for the shear strengthening of reinforced concrete T-beams.” J. Compos.
FRP materials has been clearly demonstrated, there remains a lack Constr., 13(1), 45–52.
sufficient numerical and experimental data in the literature to International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib). (2001). “Externally
develop extensive databases with statistical reliability that can be bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures.” Technical Rep., Task
used to develop strength prediction models. It is recommended that Group 9.3, Bulletin No. 14, Lausanne, Switzerland.
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE). (2001). “Recommendations for Micelli, F., Annaiah, R. H., and Nanni, A. (2002). “Strengthening of short
upgrading of concrete structures with use of continuous fiber sheets.” shear span reinforced concrete T joists with fiber-reinforced plastic
Concrete engineering series 41 (English version), Tokyo. composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 6(4), 264–271.
Jensen, A. P., Petersen, C. G., Poulsen, E., Ottosen, C., and Thorsen, T. Micelli, F., Rizzo, A., and Galati, D. (2010). “Anchorage of composite
(1999). “On the anchorage to concrete of sika carbodur CFRP strips.” laminates in RC flexural beams.” Struct. Concr., 11(3), 117–126.
Proc., Int. Congress on Creating with Concrete, Thomas Telford Niemitz, C. M. (2008). “Anchorage of carbon fiber reinforced polymers
Publishing, London. to reinforced concrete in shear applications.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of
Kalfat, R. (2008). “The strengthening of post-tensioned slabs using CFRP Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
composites at White City, London.” Proc., Structural Faults and Oehlers, D. J., and Seracino, R. (2004). Design of FRP and steel plated RC
Repair, 12th Int. Congress and Exhibition (CD-ROM), Engineering structures, Elsevier, London.
Technics Press, Edinburgh, U.K. Oehlers, D. J., Seracino, R., and Smith, S. T. (2008). Design handbook for
Kalfat, R., and Al-Mahaidi, R. (2011). “Investigation into bond behaviour RC structures retrofitted with FRP and metal plates: Beams and slabs,
of a new CFRP anchorage system for concrete utilising a mechanically HB 305-2008, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
strengthened substrate.” Compos. Struct., 92(11), 2738–2746. Ombres, L. (2010). “Prediction of intermediate crack debonding failure in
Kalfat, R., Al-Mahaidi, R., and Williams, G. (2011). “Investigation of FRP-strengthened reinforced concrete beams.” Compos. Struct., 92(2),
efficient anchorage systems for shear and torsional retrofitting of box 322–329.
girder bridges.” Proc., 10th Int. Symp. on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Ortega, C. A., Belarbi, A., and Bae, S. W. (2009). “End anchorage of
for Reinforced Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-10 (CD-ROM), Thomas externally bonded FRP sheets for the case of shear strengthening of
Telford Publishing, London. concrete girders.” Proc., 9th Int. Symp. on Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Karantzikis, M., Papanicolaou, C. G., Antonopoulos, C. P., and Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-9 (CD-ROM),
Triantafillou, T. C. (2005). “Experimental investigation of nonconven- Thomas Telford, London.
tional confinement for concrete using FRP.” J. Compos. Constr., 9(6), Orton, S. L., Jirsa, J. O., and Bayrak, O. (2008). “Design considerations of
480–487. carbon fiber anchors.” J. Compos. Constr., 12(6), 608–616.
Karbhari, V. M., and Abanilla, M. A. (2007). “Design factors, reliability, Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Saatcioglu, M. (2009). “Tensile behavior of FRP
and durability prediction of wet layup carbon/epoxy used in external anchors in concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 13(2), 82–92.
strengthening.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 38(1), 10–23. Ozdemir, G. A. U. (2005). “Tensile capacity of CFRP anchors.” Proc., 7th
Khalifa, A., Belarbi, A., and Nanni, A. (2000). “Shear performance of RC Int. Symp. on Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete
members strengthened with externally bonded FRP wraps.” Proc., 12th Structures, FRPRCS-7, Thomas Telford, London.
World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand Society for Pan, J., Leung, C. K. Y., and Luo, M. (2010). “Effect of multiple secondary
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand. cracks on FRP debonding from the substrate of reinforced concrete
Khan, A., and Ayub, T. (2010). “Effectiveness of U-shaped CFRP wraps as beams.” Constr. Build. Mater., 24(2), 2507–2516.
end anchorages in predominant flexure and shear region.” Advances in Panchacharam, S., and Belarbi, A. (2002). “Torsional behaviour of rein-
FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on FRP forced concrete beams strengthened with FRP composites.” 1st
Composites in Civil Engineering, CICE 2010, Tsinghue University Congress on Concrete Structures in the 21st Century, fib, Lausanne,
Press, Beijing, 533–536. Switzerland.
Kim, I., Jirsa, O., and Bayrak, O. (2009). “Use of anchors to strengthen lap Pham, H. B., and Al-Mahaidi, R. (2004). “Assessment of available predic-
splices of rectangular RC columns.” Proc., 9th Int. Symp. on Fiber tion models for the strength of FRP retrofitted RC beams.” Compos.
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Struct., 66(1–4), 601–610.
FRPRCS-9 (CD-ROM), Thomas Telford Publishing, London. Pham, H. B., and Al-Mahaidi, R. (2006). “Prediction models for debonding
Kim, S. J., and Smith, S. T. (2009a). “Behaviour of handmade FRP anchors failure loads of carbon fiber reinforced polymer retrofitted reinforced
under tensile load in uncracked concrete.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 12(6), concrete beams.” J. Compos. Constr., 10(1), 48–59.
845–865. Pham Le, O. J. J., and Bayrak, O. (2009). “Development of quality control
Kim, S. J., and Smith, S. T. (2009b). “Shear strength and behaviour of tests for CFRP anchors.” Proc., 9th Int. Symp. on Fiber Reinforced Pol-
FRP spike anchors in cracked concrete.” Proc., 9th Int. Symp. on Fiber ymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-9 (CD-ROM),
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-9 Thomas Telford, London.
(CD-ROM), Thomas Telford Publishing, London. Pimanmas, A., and Pornpongsaroj, P. (2004). “Peeling behaviour of rein-
Kim, S. J., and Smith, S. T. (2010). “Pullout strength models for FRP forced concrete beams strengthened with CFRP plates under various
anchors in uncracked concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 14(4), 406–414. end restraint conditions.” Mag. Concr. Res., 56(2), 73–81.
Kobayashi, K., Fujii, S., Yabe, Y., Tsukugoshi, H., and Sugiyama, T. Pornpongsaroj, P., and Pimanmas, A. (2003). “Effect of end wrapping
(2001). “Advanced wrapping system with CF-anchor-Stress transfer of peeling behavior of pre-strengthened beams.” Proc., 6th Int.
mechanism of CF-anchor.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Fibre Reinforced Symp. on Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Con-
Plastics for Reinforced Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-5, Thomas crete Structures, FRPRCS-6, Thomas Telford Publishing, London,
Telford Publishing, London, 379–388. 227–286.
Lam, L., and Teng, J. G. (2001). “Strength of RC cantilever slabs bonded Sagawa, Y., Matsushita, H., and Tsuruta, H. (2001). “Anchoring method for
with GFRP strips.” J. Compos. Constr., 5(4), 221–227. carbon fibre sheet for strengthening of reinforced concrete beams.”
Lee, T. K. (2003). “Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete T-beams Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Fibre Reinforced Plastics for Reinforced
strengthened using reinforced carbon fibre polymer (CFRP) laminates.” Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-5, Thomas Telford Publishing, London,
Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Monash Univ., 407–417.
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Salom, P. R., Gergely, J., and Young, D. T. (2004). “Torsional strengthening
Lee, T. K., and Al-Mahaidi, R. (2008). “An experimental investigation of spandrel beams with fiber-reinforced polymer laminates.” J. Compos.
on shear behaviour of RC T-beams strengthened with CFRP using Constr., 8(2), 157–162.
photogrammetry.” Compos. Struct., 82(2), 185–193. Sawada, S., Kishi, N., Mikami, H., and Kurihashi, Y. (2003). “An exper-
Leung, C. K. Y., and Yang, Y. (2006). “Energy-based modeling approach imental study on debond control of AFRP’s for flexurally strengthened
for debonding of FRP plate from concrete substrate.” J. Eng. Mech., RC beams.” Proc., 6th Int. Symp. on Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
132(6), 583–593. Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-6, Thomas Telford
Maeda, T. A. Y., Sato, Y., Ueda, T., and Kakuta, Y. (1997). “A study on Publishing, London, 287–296.
bond mechanism of carbon fiber sheet.” Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on Non- Sharif, A., Al-Sulaimani, G. J., Basunbul, I. A., Baluch, M. H., and Ghaleb,
Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, FRPRCS-3, B. N. (1994). “Strengthening of initially loaded reinforced concrete
Thomas Telford Publishing, London, 279–285. beams using FRP plates.” ACI Struct. J., 91(2), 160–168.
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

Smith, S. T. (2010). “Strengthening of concrete, metallic and timber con- Teng, J. G., Lam, L., Chan, W., and Wong, J. (2000). “Retrofitting of
struction materials with FRP composites.” Advances in FRP Compo- deficient RC cantilever slabs using GFRP strips.” J. Compos. Constr.,
sites in Civil Engineering, Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on FRP Composites 4(2), 75–84.
in Civil Engineering, CICE 2010, Tsinghue University Press, Beijing, Teng, J. G., Smith, S. T., Yao, J., and Chen, J. F. (2003). “Intermediate crack
13–19. induced debonding in RC beams and slabs.” Constr. Build. Mater.,
Smith, S. T., Hu, S., Kim, S. J., and Seracino, R. (2011). “FRP-strengthened 17(6–7), 447–462.
RC slabs anchored with FRP anchors.” Eng. Struct., 33(4), 1075–1087. Teng, J. G., and Yao, J. (2007). “Plate end debonding in FRP-plated RC
Smith, S. T., and Teng, J. G. (2002). “FRP-strengthened RC beams. I: beams-II: Strength model.” Eng. Struct., 29(10), 2472–2486.
Review of debonding strength models.” Eng. Struct., 24(4), 385–395. Wang, J., and Zhang, C. (2008). “Nonlinear fracture mechanics of flexural-
Smith, S. T., and Teng, J. G. (2003). “Shear-bending interaction in shear crack induced debonding of FRP strengthened concrete beams.”
debonding failures of FRP-plated RC beams.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 6(3), Int. J. Solids Struct., 45(10), 2916–2936.
Wu, Y. F., and Huang, Y. (2008). “Hybrid bonding of FRP to reinforced
183–199.
concrete structures.” J. Compos. Constr., 12(3), 266–273.
Spadea, G., Bencardino, F., and Swamy, R. N. (1998). “Structural behavior
Yalim, B., Kalayci, A. S., and Mirmiran, A. (2008). “Performance of
of composite RC beams with externally bonded CFRP.” J. Compos.
FRP-Strengthened RC beams with different concrete surface profiles.”
Constr., 2(3), 132–137. J. Compos. Constr., 12(6), 626–634.
Spadea, G., Bencardino, F., and Swamy, R. (2000). “Optimizing the Yao, J., and Teng, J. G. (2007). “Plate end debonding in FRP-plated RC
performance characteristics of beams strengthened with bonded CFRP beams-I: Experiments.” Eng. Struct., 29(10), 2457–2471.
laminates.” Mater. Struct., 33(2), 119–126. Zhang, H. W., and Smith, S. T. (2012a). “FRP-to-concrete joint assemb-
Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology lages anchored with multiple FRP anchors.” Compos. Struct., 94(2),
(EMPA). (1998). “Testing of CFRP shear strips on reinforced con- 403–414.
crete T-beams T1 and T2.” Test Rep. 169’219 E/1, Dubendorf, Zhang, H. W., and Smith, S. T. (2012b). “Influence of FRP anchor fan con-
Switzerland, 39. figuration and dowel angle on anchoring FRP plates.” Compos. Part B:
Tanarslan, H., Murat, Y. E., and Sinan, A. (2008). “The effects of CFRP Eng., 43(8), 3516–3527.
strips for improving shear capacity of RC beams.” J. Reinf. Plast. Zhang, H. W., Smith, S. T., and Kim, S. J. (2012). “Optimisation of carbon
Compos., 27(12), 1287–1308. and glass FRP anchor design.” Constr. Build. Mater., 32, 1–12.
J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

Anchorage Devices Used To Improve The Performance of Reinforced Concrete Beams Retrofitted With FRP Composites: State-of-the-Art Review

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Anchorage Devices Used To Improve The Performance of Reinforced Concrete Beams Retrofitted With FRP Composites: State-of-the-Art Review

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Anchorage Devices Used to Improve the Performance of

Reinforced Concrete Beams Retrofitted with FRP

14 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 15

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

16 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 17

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

18 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 19

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

(a) (b) (c)

(Pmax,1-PCN ) / PCN × 100%

20 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

sive have rarely been reported. Debonding failures almost always

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 21

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

22 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 23

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

24 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 25

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

26 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

Table 1. FRP Anchorage Summary for Flexurally Strengthened Members

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 27

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

28 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

Table 2. CFRP Shear Anchorage Devices Summary

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 29

Equation (2) was based on factors such as concrete strength

(dfv ), and maximum fiber elongation (εf;max ). A summary of

anchorage data compiled from various researchers is presented

specimens tested under each experimental regime and the lack

(2009), in which the flexural failure mode masked the performance

anchorage. Metallic anchorages have not shown the same degree of

(Kalfat and Al-Mahaidi 2011)

level of anchorage effectiveness compared with the other forms

mended due to its nondestructiveness and ease of installation.

pected to perform well and further research is required to obtain

30 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 31

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

32 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013 / 33

J. Compos. Constr. 2013.17:14-33.

Potrebbero piacerti anche