Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5



K.A.D.Y.T.K. Arachchi
University of Moratuwa, Katubedda , Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, tharikakahandawa@gmail.com
Dr. (Mrs.) J.C.P.H. Gamage
University Of Moratuwa, Katubedda, Moratuwa, Sri Lanaka.

Abstract: The use of steel reinforcement has been the most common construction technique in civil
engineering structures. However with the advancement of technology the industry is now moving towards the
fibre reinforcement methods. Carbon Fibre Reinforcement Polymers (CFRP) and Glass Fibre reinforcement
Polymers (GFRP) are used as effective substitutes in structures. In case of GFRP, they are light in weight and
advantageous in corrosive environments. But they are brittle in compression although they have excellent
tensile capacity. Therefore the details of the reinforcement bars is critical when designing for FRP. Even
though the industry is now moving towards CFRP in constructions the use of GFRP in still hesitated upon due
to lack of accurate details. Among other specifications, the bond and anchorage of GFRP bars are paid more
attention as in structural design it is important that the anchorage properties of the reinforcement are properly
understood so that the pull out failures could be avoided. The type of surface of the GFRP bars as sand coated
or ribbed, the type of anchorages as straight or hooked could have a considerable influence on the anchorage
properties of the reinforcement. And the existing design manuals for the design of GFRP bars has not been
able to predict the capacity of the structures accurately as for steel designs. Therefore the research addresses
the problem of finding better anchorage mechanism by comparing the anchorage properties of CFRP bars and
GFRP bars in normal weight concrete.
Keywords: GFRP; CFRP; Anchorage; Bond; Reinforcement

1. Introduction elements. Therefore it is particularly important to

understand the bond and anchorage behaviour of
Glass Fibre Reinforcement Polymer (GFRP) is
reinforcement bars with the surrounding concrete.
increasingly becoming a popular reinforcement
(Sulaiman, et al., 2017). Although there have
material in the civil engineering sector. The
been experiments conducted on GFRP bars and
typical steel bars are obviously more vulnerable
different anchorage types , the lack of proper
to corrosion and deterioration in tropical whether
design code manual for GFRP reinforcement
conditions. Therefore alternative methods of
design makes it important that the properties are
reinforcement like Fibre Reinforcement Polymer
compared against a known reinforcing material.
(FRP) like CFRP and GFRP are gaining attention
Sufficient development length of reinforcing bars
in the industry. Glass fibre-reinforced polymer
plays an important role in preventing bond
(GFRP) reinforcing bars have been introduced as
premature failure and ultimately ensures the
a lightweight, corrosion-resistant material which
safety of the structures. Anchorage reliability of
offers a viable replacement for traditional steel
GFRP bars to concrete therein is one of the most
reinforcing bars, especially when the structures
critical indices for implementation of such
are located in aggressive environments such as
engineered material to the concrete structures.
coastal regions and those subjected to de-icing
(Yan & Lin, 2016). When anchorage and bond
salts. (Vint & Sheikh, 2014). Although the use of
strength of reinforcing bars are considered the
CFRP has become a popular reinforcement
parameters tested includes the effects of concrete
material in the recent construction, the industry
cover, embedment length, concrete type, rib
still hesitates upon using GFRP as a structural
geometry of reinforcement, bar diameter, number
alternative since it lacks empirical details.
of stirrups, lap splice region, type of confinement,
The interaction between reinforcement bars and shape of transverse reinforcement, pre-flexural
concrete is particularly essential in predicting the crack condition, water/cement ratio, cement
ultimate failure of reinforced concrete (RC) content and transverse reinforcement ratio.

CE 4902A02 – 2017 – Literature Review 1


(Sulaiman, et al., 2017). Therefore in order to coating process during the pultrusion of the bar.
understand the anchorage properties of GFRP and Lastly, Bar Type B has a ribbed bar surface that
CFRP bars, there have been many experiments is cut into the rod after curing is completed. (Vint
conducted all or some of these parameters. & Sheikh, 2014)
3. Bond and Anchorage
2. Properties of GFRP and Types The interaction between ribbed bars and
surrounding concrete known as bond resistance is
GFRP is a category of plastic composite that
made up of three different components:
specifically uses glass fibre materials to
mechanically improve the strength and stiffness (i) Chemical adhesion
of plastics. (Landesmanna, Serutia, , & Batistaa,
(ii) Friction
2015) When investigating the properties of
GFRP, the attention must be paid to starting from (iii) Mechanical interlocking between bars
the manufacturing process of the bars. GFRP and concrete.
consists of glass fibres as load carrying elements For plain bar, only adhesion and friction
and resin which transfers and distributes the load mechanisms are contributed into the bond
among the fibres. Microstructural patterns of the strength resistance. Although these two
fibres and resin play a crucial role in mechanisms can be considered similar, they exist
understanding the GFRP behaviour. Different in different scales. For ribbed bar, adhesion and
manufacturing parameters (such as pulling speed friction play a minor role. As the bar is tensioned,
and dye temperature) lead to various GFRP the adhesion effects quickly disappeared between
microstructural patterns including the presence of bars and surrounding concrete; leaving the
voids and defects at various locations of GFRP tension load being transferred through the ribs of
cross-section. (Gooranorimi, Suaris, Dauer, & the bars or ribs interlocking. The tensile force
Nanni, Microstructural investigation of glass transferred from a ribbed bar to surrounding
fiber reinforced polymer bars, 2016) concrete resulted in the development of bearing
GFRP bars have relatively low stiffness in stresses, which can be divided into longitudinal
comparison with steel, which results in large and radial component. (Sulaiman, et al., 2017)
deflections. They show a brittle behaviour than When the traditional steel reinforcement is taken
the traditional steel reinforcements. This often as an example, initially the steel train and
makes the limit of deflection and crack width at concrete strain are in equilibrium. When a point
service loads the governing criteria in design of load is applied on the structure, first flexural
members. (Kharal & Sheikh, Tension Stiffening cracks starts forming. In order to achieve an
and Cracking Behavior of Glass Fiber- equilibrium state, the reinforcement must transfer
Reinforced Polymer-Reinforced Concrete, 2016) the stresses across the crack where a portion of
As mentioned above, it is important that the bars tensile stresses is transferred to concrete via
are properly manufactured as to avoid premature bonding between flexural cracks. Later hear and
failures. All two bar types are manufactured using lateral cracks occurs. As the shear crack
similar pultrusion processes for the GFRP bar happened, a sudden increment of tensile force
core. The difference is in the manufacturing inside reinforcement in the shear span is occurred.
process for the bars’ surface profiles. Bar Type A To overcome the problem, a certain transmission
has a sand-coated surface that is applied using an length for anchorage is needed in order to transfer
in- the tensile force to surround concrete by bond
line stresses. (Sulaiman, et al., 2017)
There are three types of anchorage regions force
A mechanism transfer inside reinforced concrete
which are:
(1) End region
(2) Cut-off region
(3) Splice region.

Figure 1 - Types of bars

CE 4902A02 – 2017 – Literature Review 2


sheared off. This suggests the shearing interface

is between the core of the bar and the sand coated
surface profile. For Bar Type B, the concrete is
sheared between the ribs when pull out occurs.
Thus the shearing interface is between the ribs of
the bar and the concrete. The location of the
shearing interface suggests that the connection
Figure 2 – Anchorage regions between the core and the surface profile of the
two bars is strongest for Bar Type B, even though
Bar Type A was able to sustain the highest peak
average bond stress. (Vint & Sheikh, 2014)
There are two main types of anchorage failure
which are splitting failure and pull-out failure. Previous studies have confirmed that the bond
stress is influenced by concrete strength,
reinforcement diameter, reinforcement
deformation, geometry of ribbed bar, yielding of
reinforcement and the position of the
reinforcement during casting.
Fig. 4 illustrates the equilibrium conditions of
reinforcement bar with defined bar length, x.
From the figure, the bond stress, τ can be defined
as the change of stresses in the reinforcement bar
with x. The τ can be determined by dividing the
Figure 3 - Anchorage failure modes tensile force with area of reinforcement bar
embedded within concrete. Considering this, the
τ can be estimated by Eq. (1) as follows:
τ (πdb x) = Ab (fs + Δ fs) − Ab fs (1)
(Sulaiman, et al., 2017)
Then, by rearranging Eq. (1):
𝐴 Δf 𝑑𝑏 Δ𝑓𝑠
4. Pull-out tests τ = 𝜋𝑑𝑏 = (2)
𝑏𝑥 4𝑥
Pull-out tests with centric bar placement in Where Ab is the reinforcement bar cross sectional
concrete can be used for experimental area; db is the reinforcement bar diameter and fs
determination of the local bond slip relation is the stress in reinforcement bar.
between bar and concrete. The bond length
should be such that the bond stresses are evenly
distributed in all loading stages. This means that
the anchored length should be between 3 and 5
bar diameters. The type of bond failure, such as,
concrete shear failure, shearing off of the surface
deformations of the bar, or squeezing out the bar
from the concrete, should be recorded. (Apinis, Figure 4
Tamuzs, Modniks, & Tepfers, 1999)
The Standard Test Method for Strength of As the steel stresses were in elastic range, the
Anchors in Concrete and Masonry Elements bond stress can be assumed to be in uniformly
(ASTM E488-96) is used as a guideline when distributed along embedded bar. For uniform
designing the slab layout for this research bond, stress resistance or maximum bond stress
program. (Vint & Sheikh, 2014) can be simplified as:
𝜏= 𝜋𝑑𝐿𝑑
5. Past Studies Where 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum pull-out load; d is
All bars failed by bar pull out; however, the diameter of the reinforcement bar and L d is the
shearing interface is varied depending on the embedment reinforcement length. (Sulaiman, et
surface profile. When Bar Type A is pulled out of al., 2017)
the concrete, the sand coating is completely Design of anchorage region (Model Code, 1990)
CE 4902A02 – 2017 – Literature Review 3

This model anchorage theory assumed that the standard tests could be identified through the past
bond stresses at ultimate limit state are distributed researches on the subject. The use of ASTM
equally along anchorage length and even to bond E488-96 standards when designing the test
strength, fb. Also, it assumed that the pull-out specimens is the standard for the experimental
failure is decisive for anchorage and splitting analysis on the subject. The traditional cylindrical
failure is pivotal for splicing with the same basic specimen are expected to be casted with a
design equation for anchorage and splicing. diameter of 0.3 m and length 2m. A total number
(Sulaiman, et al., 2017) of 24 cylinders to test for each bar and anchorage
type. They are to be tested for their anchorage
The efficiency of the anchorage systems used to
properties using pull-out test, four-point bending
enhance bond performance depends on two
test and cyclic uniaxial flexure under constant
axial load test.
(1) The strength of the anchorage system,
Different design codes give different opinions on
which is affected by specimen’s material and
the design of GFRP reinforcement. However
dimension; and,
since the design code specifications are more
(2) Bond strength between the GFRP bar well- defined when using CFRP bars the aim is to
and the anchorage, which is dependent only on use the properties of CFRP and compare the
the anchorage length. (Oskouei, Asharafi, & validity of existing design theories for GFRP bars
Bazli, 2017) as well.
Malver investigated the bond characteristics of
FRP bars by using four different CFRP bars, all
7. Acknowledgements
with different surface deformations, embedded in
lightweight concrete. The results obtained for The author would like to express her gratitude to
different levels of confining pressure indicate that research supervisor Dr (Mrs) J.C.P.H. Gamage
surface deformation with a height of at least 6% for her guidance through the research. And also
of the nominal bar diameter, and deformation to her colleagues who did research on GFRP
spacing of less than three times the bar diameter, materials parallel this research area. Special
were sufficient to yield maximum bond stresses thanks goes to the department of Civil
of up to twice the concrete tensile stress. (Malvar, Engineering of university of Moratuwa for
1995) providing resources and facilities for conducting
the research.

6. Conclusion
When the past studies in the matter are observed References
and the literature review was conducted as above, Apinis, R., Tamuzs, V., Modniks, J., & Tepfers, R.
it could be concluded that a research gap exists (1999). Pull-out, flexural rotation capacity
between the existing literature of GFRP bars and and creep tests using hybrid composite rods
their anchorage properties in comparison with and CFCC rods for reinforcement in
CFRP bars. GFRP bars are advantageous in concrete. Göteborg: Division of Building
normal weight structures if its properties are Technology,Chalmers University of
given a wider perspective. By comparing the Technology.
results from the CFRP bars it is expected that the
anchorage properties of GFRP could be Gooranorimi, O., Suaris, W., Dauer, E., & Nanni, A.
understood and predicted as CFRP is a common (2016). Microstructural investigation of glass
reinforcement mechanism than the GFRP. fiber reinforced polymer bars. Composites
Researches have been already conducted Part B Engineering.
regarding the different anchorages available for
GFRP in normal weight concrete but the Kharal , Z., & Sheikh, S. (2016). Tension Stiffening
comparison with CFRP and related predictions and Cracking Behavior of Glass Fiber-
are not yet covered. Since the use of GFRP in Reinforced Polymer-Reinforced Concrete.
normal weight concrete could be advantageous in ACI Structural Journal, 299-310.
designs, the research gap between the two areas
Landesmanna, A., Serutia, , C. A., & Batistaa, E. d.
are to be covered through the research.
(2015). Mechanical Properties of Glass Fiber
The types of tests to be conducted of bars to be Reinforced Polymers Members for Structural
tested and the specimen dimensions on the
CE 4902A02 – 2017 – Literature Review 4

Applications. Materials Research, 1372-


Malvar, L. J. (1995). Tensile and bond properties of

GFRP reinforcing bars. ACI Mater.

Oskouei, A. V., Asharafi, H., & Bazli, M. (2017).

Enhancement of bond characteristics of
ribbed-surface GFRP bars with concrete by
using carbon fiber mat anchorage.
Construction and Building Materials, 507–

Sathishkumar, T., Satheeshkumar, S., & Naveen, J.

(2014, Vol. 33(13)). Glass fiber-reinforced
polymer composites - a review. Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 1258–

Sulaiman, M. F., Ma, C.-K., Apandi, N. M., Chin, S.,

Awang, A. Z., Mansur, S. A., & Omar, W.
(2017). A Review on Bond and Anchorage of
Confined High-strength Concrete.
Structures, 97–109.

Vint, L., & Sheikh, S. (2014). Investigation of the

Bond Properties of Alternate Anchorage
Schemes for GFRP Bars. Aci Structural
Journal, January , 59-68.

Yan, F., & Lin, Z. (2016). New strategy for anchorage

reliability assessment of GFRP bars to
concrete using hybrid artificial neural
network with genetic algorithm. Composites
Part B , 420-433.

CE 4902A02 – 2017 – Literature Review 5