Bond clause proposal for FRP-bars/rods in concrete based on CEB/FIP Model Code 90 with discussion of needed tests

Ralejs Tepfers
Department of Structural Engineering and Mechanics Concrete Structures CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gteborg, Sweden Gteborg 2004 Report 04:2

REPORT 04:2

Bond clause proposal for FRP-bars/rods in concrete based on CEB/FIP Model Code 90 with discussion of needed tests

RALEJS TEPFERS

Department of Structural Engineering and Mechanics Concrete Structures CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gteborg, Sweden 2004

Bond clause proposal for FRP-bars/rods in concrete based on CEB/FIP Model Code 90 with discussion of needed tests

RALEJS TEPFERS, 2004

ISSN 1651-9035 Report no. 04:2 Archive no. 120 Department of Structural Engineering and Mechanics Concrete Structures Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Gteborg Sweden Telephone: + 46 (0)31-772 1000

Department of Structural Engineering and Mechanics Gteborg, Sweden 2004

Bond clause proposal for FRP-bars/rods in concrete based on CEB/FIP Model Code 90 with discussion of needed tests RALEJS TEPFERS Department of Structural Engineering Concrete Structures Chalmers University of Technology

ABSTRACT The bond clauses in the CEB/FIP Model Code 1990, (MC90), were written for steel reinforcement in concrete. After finalization of the MC90 the further work within CEB and after the merger with FIP in the new orga nization fib should be directed towards covering up lacunae and also adapting the Model Code to new materials. The basic MC90 concepts should be kept when applied to new materials. Models should be used to justify the clauses. However, the bond clauses in MC90 were not fully based on models, because there are very many options for bond failures and it is difficult to cover up these with few models. Reinforcing steel is more or less just one material. FRPs, on the other hand, are made of a lot of different materials with manifold shapes and all these FRPs perform differently in many contexts. Especially in severe environments, where steel is not durable, FRPs may perform well. To make use of the fiber composites, it is necessary to bring these materials to codes of practice and the closest is to try to adapt the code for steel reinforced concrete to FRP reinforced. The clauses should be given with boxed values open for individual coefficients for different FRPs. The necessary coefficients should be determined for the code models using systems of appropriate and coupled test methods.

Key words: Concrete, Reinforcement, FRP, Bond, Code Clauses.

Normfrslag fr vidhftning av FRP armering i betong baserad p CEB/FIP Model Code 90 med diskussion av ndvndiga tester RALEJS TEPFERS Institutionen fr konstruktionsteknik Betongbyggnad Chalmers tekniska hgskola

SAMMANFATTNING Vidhftningsnormen i CEB/FIP Model Code 1990 (MC90) har skrivits fr stlarmering. Sedan MC90 hade fullbordats avsgs det fortsatta arbetet inom CEB och efter sammanslagningen med FIP till den nya organisationen fib att tcka upp observerade brister i MC90 och att ven anpassa Model Code till nya material. Det grundlggande upplgget i normen skulle bibehllas nr den anpassades till nya material. Modeller skulle anvndas fr att belgga normkraven. Emellertid var vidhftningsnormen i MC90 inte helt modellbaserad, d det finns alltfr mnga varianter p vidhftningsbrott och det r mycket svrt att tcka upp alla med f modeller. Stlarmering r mer eller mindre ett material. FRP andra sidan tillverkas av en mngd olika material, med mnga utformningar och alla dessa uppfr sig olika i en mngd sammanhang. Srskilt i besvrliga miljer, dr stl inte r bestndigt, kan FRP armering klara sig mycket bra. Fr att kunna dra nytta av fiberkompositer mste de introduceras i normer och det som ligger nrmast r att anpassa stlarmeringsnormen till FRP armering. Normkraven fr vidhftning br ges med boxade vrden ppna fr olika typer av FRP armering. De ndvndiga koefficienterna fr medellerna i normen br bestmmas med system av adekvata och kopplade testmetoder. Nyckelord: Betong, Armering, FRP, Vidhftning, Normer

II

Contents
ABSTRACT SAMMANFATTNING CONTENTS PREFACE I II III V

1 2

INTRODUCTION MODEL CODE 90 BOND CLAUSES ADAPTED TO FRP-REINFORCEMENT AND RELATED TEST METHODS WITH COMMENTS

2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2

Non prestressed reinforcement Introduction Design bond stress for reinforcing bars

3 3 3 3 4 14 14 15 19 19 20

2.1.2.1 Code clauses 2.1.2.2 Necessary tests for determination of ?-values 2.2.3 Code clauses

2.2.3.1 Basic anchorage length 2.2.3.2 Design anchorage length 2.2.3.3 Test method for determination of influence of transverse pressure 2.2.3.4 Design lap length of bars in tension 2.2.3.5 Design lap length of bars permanently in compression

2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4

Prestressed concrete Anchorage of prestressing tendons Anchorage of pretensioned prestressing reinforcement Design bond strength Basic anchorage length

21 21 21 22 22 III

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8 2.2.9

Transmission length Determination in test of the transmission length Design anchorage length Development length Transverse stresses in the anchorage zone of prestressed tendons

23 24 25 25 26

2.3

Tension stiffening effect

26

2.4

Rotation capacity

26

REFERENCES

27

IV

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

Preface
This report is elaborated with the aim to be used for the bond clause work within the fdration internationale du bton fib, Task Group 4.5 Bond Models. The paper is meant to give the necessary background for elaboration of bond code clauses for FRP reinforcement in concrete based on CEB/FIP-s Model Code 1990. The needed coefficients in the formulas have to be determined by tests. Adequate test methods have to be agreed upon. Here test methods are proposed, but these could still be improved. Chalmers University of Technology and the company Ralejs Tepfers Consulting have sponsored the work. The given support is gratefully recognized.

Gteborg, December 2003 Ralejs Tepfers

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

INTRODUCTION

The bond clauses in the CEB/FIP Model Code 1990, (MC90), were written for steel reinforcement in concrete. After finalization of the MC90 the further work within CEB and after the merger with FIP in the new organization fib should be directed towards covering up lacunae and also adapting the Model Code to new materials. The basic MC90 concepts should be kept when applied to new materials. Models should be used to justify the clauses. However, the bond clauses in MC90 were not fully based on models, because there are very many options for bond failures and it is difficult to cover up these with few models. It is a comprehensive task to develop clauses based on models and it requires some years of work of a task group doing also additional research work. Such work has been started by the new fib, Task Group 4.5 Bond Models for the next generation of Model Code. Here is presented what can be done for time being. The bond of steel reinforcement in concrete has been investigated for a century and still there is a lot to be done. Reinforcing steel is more or less just one material and it is practically the same world over. FRPs, on the other hand, are new materials, a lot of different materials with manifold shapes and all these FRPs perform differently in many contexts. Especially in severe environments, where steel is not durable, FRPs may perform well. To make use of the fiber composites, it is necessary to bring these materials to codes of practice and the closest is to try to adapt the code for steel reinforced concrete to FRP reinforced. The clauses should be given with boxed values open for individual coefficients for different FRPs. The necessary coefficients should be determined for the code models using systems of appropriate and coupled test methods. Bond of ordinary steel reinforcement in concrete is dependent on very many parameters as pull-out resistance, geometry of the concrete member, placing of the bar in the member section, cover splitting, confinement by concrete and surrounding reinforcement, the order of bond crack appearance and bond stress distribution along the bond length. The bond of the very many existing types of FRP reinforcement is dependent of even more parameters. The surface of the FRP bars is weaker and softer than that of steel bars and may fracture instead of concrete and does not create in bond contact points to concrete as high local stress concentrations as the harder steel bars do. FRP-bars fixed with epoxy paste or mortar in grooves for strengthening have two interfaces, bar to mortar and mortar to concrete, which increase the number parameters and introduce new possible failure modes. The fundament for bond resistance estimation should be an accepted bond philosophy linked to appropriate models. A system of bond tests should provide necessary coefficients for the models in clauses. The material compositions, forms and shapes of FRP reinforcement are too early to standardize, because the development has not matured and arrived to a few materials, appropriate shapes, dimensions, surface designs, stress-strain relations, E- modulus, fatigue resistances and bond performances. It is not yet clear in which way the appropriate bond should be best achieved. If the FRP surfaces should be sand covered, have lugs, wavy deformations or combinations of what ever. Certain bond function should also be ensured when glass transition temperature Tg of the resin is exceeded or during a fire. May be a wavy surface configuratio n is to prefer, which force the
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

more fire resistant fibers to take part in bond action, if the viscosity of the resin decreases. FRP reinforcement can also be used for flexural and/or shear strengthening of existing members. For this application, FRP-bars are placed in grooves cut on the surface of the member to be strengthened and there fixed with cement mortar or epoxy paste. In such application, the performance of bond between the FRP rod and the mortar or resin and then between mortar or resin and concrete is critical for the effectiveness of the technique. The presence of two interfaces increases the number parameters needed to characterize the global joint behaviour and introduce new possible failure modes. In research it is necessary to tell what kind of material has been tested, who has manufactured it and when. The FRP materials change, improve and alter in performance. Therefore dating is important. Old results cannot directly be applied to improved FRP materials. If we in our investigations do no t tell what kind of material we test and just call the materials A, B and C, then in due time this knowledge will be lost. It should not be like this. Also the manufacturers will profit of openness. The MC90 clauses in the following will be adapted as far as possible to function of internal FRP-reinforcement. Necessary test methods will be proposed for estimation of the coefficients in formulas.

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

MODEL CODE 90 BOND CLAUSES ADAPTED TO FRP-REINFORCEMENT AND RELATED TEST METHODS WITH COMMENTS
Non prestressed reinforcement
Introduction

2.1
2.1.1

The FRPs are elastic up to tensile failure while hot rolled deformed steel reinforcement yields. The anchorages should provide necessary bond for a load of about 10% above the capacity of bars in the concrete member. For steel reinforcement the yielding leads to successive break down of anchorage and much above the yield strength cannot be accounted for. The bond in MC90 clauses is not enough to enable the steel bars to fail in tension. FRPs have no defined yield stress. The existing FRP reinforcements for time being have 30-80% lower modulus of elasticity than steel. For ordinary use in concrete member of non-prestressed reinforcement the deformations of the structure will in most cases limit the stresses in FRP reinforcement to 30-80% of those in steel reinforced concrete structures. There should be an accepted level of safety of tensile failure for FRP bars and a design stress. An agreement has to be reached about how much of the tensile strength of the FRP bar should be anchored at bond failure. Or, if stress 10% above the tensile design strength of FRP bar/rod should be anchored. In the following the formulas are numbered according to the MC90.

2.1.2

Design bond stress for reinforcing bars

2.1.2.1 Code clauses The coefficients in the code should be given as open boxed values, which are determined in tests for each type of FRP bar/rod. [ ] means boxed value.

fbd = 123 kD kT fctd < f bd FRP ; (1) where fctd is the design value of concrete tensile strength (= fctk,min /1.50)

fbd FRP is the design bond strength in the surface of the FRP-bar/rod (determined in pull-out test with short bond length and central placement of bar/rod). kD is modification factor for durability kT

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

considers the type of reinforceme nt: is modification factor for temperature

[1 ] = 1.0 for plain bars (certain surface resin just to lower the bond for ductility reasons (rotation capacity) for the structure might give values < 1.0); [1 ]= (1.4 for indented steel bars and 1 = 2.25 for ribbed steel bars) The value for FRP bars must be determined for each bar type individually and depend on the surface roughness, tendency to split the surrounding concrete and if the bond failure is a concrete failure or is a shearing off the FRP bar ribs. 2 considers the position of the bar during casting:

2 = 1.0, when good bond conditions are obtained, as for: all bars with an inclination of 45o -90o to the horizontal during concreting; all bars with an inclination less than 45o to the horizontal, which are up to 250 mm from the bottom or at least 300 mm from the top of the concrete layer during concreting. (Here the conditions for round bars have been taken into account. There might be FRP shapes different from round, which must be paid attention to) 2 = 0.7 for all other cases and for bars in structural parts built with slip forms. (A further reduction of coefficient might be necessary for unfavorable FRP shapes). These requirements can be expected to be applied for FRP bars/rods also. [3 ] considers the bar diameter (for FRP with other shape than round special reduction should be done) For steel bars 3 = 1.0 for 32 mm For steel bars 3 = (132 - )/100 for >32 mm with in mm.

2.1.2.2 Necessary tests for determination of ? -values Pull-out test for determination of maximum pull-out resistance Appropriate tests are pull-out tests with central placement of bar and short bond length, usually 3 bar diameters so the bond stress distribution along the bar becomes almost even. However, depending on bar surface configuration longer bond lengths should be chosen to become representative. These tests should be used to determine the maximum possible bond capacity of the FRP-bars/rods to obtain information of maximum possible bond resistance at estimation of 1 -values. Bond stress- free bar end slip relationships for different reinforcing bars and rods are shown in figure 1. Several of FRP bars/rods fail in surface layer of bar/rod and give f bd FRP . The curve for 4
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

steel reinforcement (in figure 1 Swedish Ks 600) may form a master curve to which the FRP curves can be related.

Figure 1. Pull-out test specimen with short bond length and centric placement of bar and bond stressfree bar end slip relations for different reinforcement bars. Concrete compressive strength 43-48 MPa. Master curve for steel deformed bar Swedish Ks 600 envelops the slip curves.

FRP bars/rods have lower internal shear strength in resin between the fibers than that of steel, which results in bond shear failure switch from concrete into the surface layer of FRP bar/rod when concrete becomes stronger than about 30 to 40 MPa, figure 2. For stronger concretes the bond shear resistance becomes independent of concrete strength. It is necessary to determine this highest bond shear strength fbdFRP for the FRP bar using pull-out test with short bond length and central bar placement.

15 GFRP * (MPa) 10 5 0 0 20 fcu (Mpa) 40 60 CFRP

Figure 2. Influence of concrete strength on the bond strength of EUROCRETE FRP bars, Achillides, (1998).For stronger concretes than 35 MPa the bond strength stabilizes at f bd FRP.

The bar diameter appears to play an important role in the bond behaviour of FRP bars to concrete. Larger diameter bars develop lower average bond strength than smaller diameter bars. Bond development in FRP bars is affected by the diameter, due to their low shear stiffness in the axial direction. The value of the shear stiffness of FRP bars depends mainly on the shear stiffness of the bar resin and the shear strength capacity at the resin- fibre interface. When an FRP bar is pulled in tension through the surface, there can be a differential movement between the core and the surface fibres, which
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

results in a non-uniform distribution of normal stresses through the cross section of the bar. This is illustrated by the idealised stress distribution of figure 3.
Axial load imposed by grip mechanism

av

max. min

FRP bar

Distribution of normal stresses

Figure 3. Indicative distribution of normal stresses on a FRP bar cross-section subjected to axial load, Achillides (1998).

The actual developed bond strength between the bar and the concrete is directly related to the value of the normal stress that occurs close to the surface of the bar (max ). On the other hand, the calculated bond strength that the user anticipates as the real bond strength, is proportional to the value of the average normal stress over the whole cross section of the bar (av). As the diameter of the bar increases, the difference between max and av is also expected to increase, especially when the axial shear stiffness of the bar is relatively low as in the case of FRP bars, and the real bond strength of the bar decreases. This effect, known in the literature as the shear lag effect, appears to be more significant for higher normal bar stresses. For steel bars, this effect is less important, since the shear strength of steel is significantly higher. The shear lag effect and the bar diameter influence have to be included in the ? 3 -value for the FRP-bar/rod. Tests for estimation of splitting resistance of surrounding concrete In most structures bars have limited confinement by concrete side covers of about 20 to 50mm. For these bars the bond failure happens as a splitting of the concrete cover. The less confined bars are surrounded by two concrete covers cx and cy in the corners of structure, figure 4. These corner bars should form the basis for estimation of the 1 values for splitting of concrete.

Figure 4. Concrete member section showing corner bars with covers cx and c y. The concrete cover splitting resistance along the bar can be studied in a pull-out test with eccentric placement of bar, figure 5, showing also bond stress-free bar end slip relations for the specimens. Strain gauges should be used to monitor the appearance of 6
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

the cover crack. In very strong concretes the plasticization of stress in the cover is not so pronounced and the elastic stress configuration results in earlier cover cracking as motivated by concrete strength increase. If the bar is very hard compared to concrete, stresses from concrete shrinkage may add to the bond ring stresses. Also differences in thermal elongation between concrete and FRP bar in its radial direction may give rise to extra stresses and may for some matrix resins be of interest to study. This test is not so well fitted to study the final splitting off of the surrounding concrete, because the support friction is disturbing. Benchmark results obtained from pull-out tests with ordinary deformed steel reinforcing bar of corresponding diameter should be used for comparison.

Figure 5. Bond stress-free bar end slip for pullout specimens with eccentric bar placement. The bond stress levels for cracking of the concrete cover along the bar are marked for the specimens in the diagram, Tepfers (1993).

In figure 6 schematic bond stress-slip relationships for pull-out tests are shown. The diagram (a) represents a pull-out shear bond failure in concrete or FRP bar surface. The diagram (b) shows situation, when cover crack opens and in this very moment also bond failure happens. This type of failure may happen for some certain member geometries. Dia gram (c) illustrates the relationship, when cover crack open and there after the surrounding concrete resists higher splitting forces before it is pressed off
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

forming an ultimate splitting crack pattern. The tensile strength of concrete along the crack pattern determines the fracture resistance. This type of splitting bond failure is the usual one.
u
Average bond stress,
u u

Average bond stress,

spu

sp

sp

Free-end slip

Free-end slip

Free-end slip

Figure 6. Bond stress-slip relationships for three types of failure. (a) shear bond failure; (b) cover crack induced failure; (c) failure by splitting off surrounding concrete. Load could be raised after forming of cover crack. DeLorenzis & Tepfers (2002). The cover crack along the bar should not appear in serviceability stage because it gives rise to intrusion of corrosive agents to the bars/rods.

Figure 7. Tensile stress distributions in 1 elastic, 2 partly cracked elastic and 3 plastic stage and effect of concrete cover thickness cy upon the bond capacity of pullout specimens on occurrence of concrete cover crack along the bar. Open circles Swedish Ks600 deformed steel reinforcing bars, closed circles GFRP bars (Hughes Brothers) and cross marks C-BARs . 8
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

In figure 7 are shown the tensile stresses caused by bond stress in a concrete ring with thickness of the concrete cover cy surrounding the bar according to Tepfers (1973) and bond stress f cbc when cover cracks related to cover thickness (bar diameter is and tensile strength of concrete is fct ): In elastic stage: fcbc / fct = ( 1 / tan a) [(cy + /2)2 (/2)2 ] / [(cy + /2)2 + (/2)2 ]; In partly cracked elastic stage: fcbc / fct = (cy + /2) / (1.664 tan a); In plastic stage: fcbc / fct = 2cy / tan a ; For the curves in figure 7 the angle a, is chosen to be 45o , which is the most likely. For the plastic stage a line is shown also for = 30o . The results from anchored deformed bars, steel and FRP (C-BAR), are grouped between the plastic and elastic stages with the results being closer to plastic stage for thin concrete covers and to the partly cracked elastic stage for thicker covers. This is natural, because, when dimensions increase the plasticization becomes less pronounced. The C-BAR is softer than steel bar and splits cover at higher bond stress. The hard steel bar gives stress concentrations in concrete at lug tips, which favors start of cracking. The results from GFRP bars (Hughes Brothers) with sanded surface come close to a = 30o line for plastic stage, show smaller angle a and have less splitting effect on concrete, probably forming a softening concrete zone close to bar, which can transfer some tension. In this way the results obtained from different FRP bars in eccentric pull-out tests can be evaluated for 1 -value by comparison with benchmarks of steel reinforcing bars model curves for different stages. The Ring pull-out test , figure 8, is a more sophisticated test, which enables to determine the splitting tendency of a bar in a direct way. With the "Ring pull-out test", Tepfers & Olsson (1992), the angle a of the bond forces in different stages of load can be estimated. The splitting tendency of the bar/rod increases, when the angle a increases. The ring pull-out test is a small cylindrical concrete body with axially placed bar/rod. The bond length is 3 bar diameters and the height of the concrete cylinder is equal with the bond length. A thin steel cylindrical shell surrounds the concrete cylinder. At loading the radial and longitudinal bond force components are separated by a ring support with several teflon sheet layers, which prevents radial forces to be taken by support. The circumferential strain of the steel cylinder caused by radial bond force components is measured with strain gauges. The bond force component relation determines the angle a, which may change and increase when load increase. The measured free bar end slip and ring strains are shown in figure 9.

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

Figure 8. Ring test for estimation of splitting tendency of reinforcing bars.

Figure 9. Bond stress free bar end slip and steel ring strain slip relations for Ring test.

Overlap splice test For basic information on 1 of the splitting resistance of the surrounding concrete, confining reinforcement and influence of uneven bond stress distribution along the bars the investigation of the overlap strength of spliced reinforcement is an adequate test procedure, figure 10. Several splice lengths, different concrete strengths, different cove confinement and confinement by stirrups should be tested. It is discussed if the bond resistance in an overlap splice is the same or lower that that for single anchored bar with the same concrete covers. However, studying the resistance in an overlap splice the result will be on safer side for single anchored bar.

Figure 10. An example of beam lay out for testing the strength of tensile reinforcement overlap splices.

10

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

Figure 11. Distribution of bond stresses of the failure modes A, B and C. fbu = smallest ultimate failure pattern bond stress of appropriate type. fbc = bond stress which initiates the cover crack. Examples of ultimate failure patterns and the side pressure options of overlapped bars. Tepfers (1973).

When the bond goes to failure for two side by side overlapped reinforcing bars the bond stress distribution along the bars can be as in the three modes according to figure 11. Mode A shows bond evenly distributed when the cover along the overlap length is cracked. The bond stress resistance f bu of the cover cracked surrounding concrete is higher then the bond stress at cracking of concrete cover fbc. Mode B shows uneven bond stress distribution with cover cracks at ends of overlap splice. The bond stress resistance fbu of the cover cracked surrounding concrete is lower then the bond stress at cracking of concrete cover fbc. The cover cracked and not cover parts of splice determine the maximum bond resistance. In cover cracked parts the ability to slip of the bar increases and the bond stress becomes evenly distributed. Mode C shows uneven bond stress distribution. When the bond stress f bu is reached, which cracks up the cover, it immediately results in pressing off the surrounding

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

11

concrete. The failure has zipper character and gives no warning of visible cracking before failure. Evaluation of bond is to analyse possible resistance options by checking geometry, cracking sequences and stress distributions. There is also the question of single or double pressure from side by side lapped bars, figure 11. It is not possible to pull out a single bar and compare the result with that of overlap spliced bars with the same length without analysing what happens. The cracking sequences and stress distributions may be very different. For certain FRP-bars the bond force angle a may be less than 45o , which means that these bars have less splitting tendency and give good anchorage, when concrete cover determines the resistance. However these bars may give less resistance, when confinement i s excellent because of weak surface layer. FRP-bars with glossy surface and ribs give pronounced splitting forces and early failure by pressing off concrete cover, but may give high pull-out resistance when confinement is good, because of strong FRP-bar surface layer. Retrofitting and strengthening of concrete structures reinforcing bars in groves For retrofitting and/or strengthening of concrete members, near-surface mounted (NSM) FRP bars are put into grooves cut onto the concrete member and solidified to it with epoxy or mortar. The bond behavior of NSM FRP bars can be studied with eccentric pull-out tests, where the bar is fixed in groove accordingly, figure 12.Different bond failure modes are encountered, depending on the combined effect of the test variables, De Lorenzis and Nanni (2002):
F
lm
35

dimensioni in mm Dimensions in mm

y la

230

hp bp y sp
70

Hp = 300

F /4

db

F /4
35

70

zp = 160 Bp = 300

Figure 12. Pull-out specimen for determination of maximum bond strength for reinforcement in grooves and bond stressslip relations for CFRP rods, De Lorenzis et al (2002).

- Pull-out, i.e., failure at the interface between rod and groove- filling material. This is the critical failure mode for sand covered rods, provided that the groove size is sufficient to avoid splitting failure. It could be roughly estimated that a groove size equal to 1.5 times the actual rod diameter is enough to make pull-out the controlling failure mechanism - Splitting of the groove-filling material, combined or not with cracking of the surrounding concrete along inclined fracture planes. This is the critical brittle failure mode for ribbed rods and for spirally wound rods, at least when the groove 12
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

surface is sufficiently rough to avoid failure at the interface between concrete and groove- filling material. The ultimate load increases for increasing groove size. - Failure at the interface between concrete and groove- filling material. This mechanism is critical when the groove surface is smooth and has pseudo ductile character due to residual friction. The average bond strength decreases as the groove size increases, due to the non-uniform distribution of the bond stresses along the perimeter of the groove. - Shearing of the ribs on the rod surface. The rod surface configuration is of crucial importance. The superficial pattern of FRP rods to be used as NSM reinforcement, while being sufficiently rough to avoid failure by pull-out at the rod-epoxy interface (apparently light sand covering is not enough for this purpose), should generate radial stresses as low as possible to delay splitting and cracking phenomena and to allow a pseudo ductile bondslip behavior. Influence of temperature The above tests have to be performed at normal temperature 20o C and also at temperature just above the glass transition temperature Tg of the FRP resin and at higher temperature for evaluation of influence of fire. If the matrix resin is susceptible to temperature rise, a modification factor kT should be introduced describing the influence on bond strength change. It is necessary that the glass transition temperature Tg is declared for all FRP products to avoid unexpected degrading of strength. FRPs are sensitive for temperature rise as it becomes evident from table 1. Thick concrete covers are needed for fire protection and for time being these can be chosen as for steel reinforcement until better knowledge is obtained.

Table 1.Bond between FRP bars/rods and concrete at elevated temperature. The values in table give the highest and lowest value for 2 different FRP types. The table is based on values given in Blontrock (1999).

Temperature ( C) 100 150 220

Bond strength in % of values at 20 C 35-80 20-40 10-20

Modification factor for durability Information from durability tests and life cycle analysis has to be established for the tested FRP reinforcement to determine the bond strength modification factor kD, which should be related environment and time, Dejke & Tepfers (2001, 2002), figure 13. If the modification is in code in form of a reduction of tensile strength of FRP, then a reduction of bond strength should not be necessary.
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

13

Bond strength Dimensioning strength

Change in bond strength

Time Desired life

Figure 13. Shematic diagram showing environmental influence on FRP bond strength, Dejke & Tepfers (2001, 2002). Conclusions The bond resistance level for steel reinforcing bars has been established from research and practical application during very long time. The practice shows that the code system works. The bond performance of FRP-bars/rods should be compared with the bond function and the established requirements for steel reinforcing bars. However, the some FRP bars/rods may give relatively low bond strength when confinement is good, but have little splitting tendency and thereby develop good bond when confinement is only by concrete covers. Some other FRP show the opposite. The splitting of concrete cover in general comes at a higher load for FRPs then for deformed steel bars of the same dimension and surrounding concrete covers. The FRPs have softer surface and at bond force transfer create less stress concentrations in the surrounding concrete. The bond splitting model curves, figure 7 enables to understand and to evaluate the bond splitting function of the bars. The -values for FRP-bars/rods should be determined taking into consideration the presented test methods and the relation to the -values for steel reinforcement.in

2.2.3 Code clauses

2.2.3.1 Basic anchorage length The basic length necessary for the transfer of the yield force of a bar or rod of diameter , or if square, maximum side dimension, is

lb = fyd/4 fbd ; (6.9-5)

fyd is the design yield stress (FRP reinforcement is fully elastic and has no yield stress. An acceptable level of design stress for FRP must be given here).

14

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

2.2.3.2 Design anchorage length The design anchorage length lb,net can be calculated from:

lb,net = 1 2 3 4 5 lb As,cal/As,ef lb,min ; .(6.9-6) where: As,cal As,ef is the calculated area of reinforcement required by the design; is the area of reinforcement provided.

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 are coefficients given below and defined as: 1 2 3 4 5 coefficient taking into account the form of the bar (straight, bent, loop) coefficient taking into account the influence of one or more transverse bars (t >0.6 ), figure 14 (6.9.6) along the design anchorage length lb,net coefficient taking into account the effect of confinement by the concrete cover coefficient taking into account the effect of confinement by transverse reinforcement coefficient taking into consideration the effect of the pressure transverse to the plane of splitting along the design anchorage length.

lb is taken from equation (6.9-5).

Figure 14. Model Code 1990 figure 6.9.6.

lb,min denotes the minimum anchorage length:

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

15

* for bars in tension: l b,min > max {0.3lb ; 10 , or if square maximum side dimension; 100 mm} * for bars in compression: lb,min > max {0.6lb; 10 , or if square maximum side dimension; 100 mm}.

The limitations of lb,min are give to ensure minimum active anchorage length to take into account tolerances

The product ( 3 4 5 ) is limited: - for high bond bars: 3 4 5 > 0.7, - for plain or indented bars (intermittent bond) or rods: 3 4 5 = 1.

Figure 15. Model Code 1990 figure 6.9.7.

16

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

Table2. Model Code 1990 table 6.9.1 giving the a-coefficients.

Minimum concrete cover for the model to be valid is one bar diameter.

The a-values should be for FRP reinforcement accordingly:. Form of bars: Straight bars 1 = 1.0. For FRP reinforcement bends do not contribute to anchorage because the bends are not sufficiently stiff. Therefore 1 = 1.0. Transverse bars with intermeshed fibers:

2 = 0.7 if transverse bar is able to anchor at least 33% of tensile load.

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

17

Other types of bar crossings then intermeshed fibers have not enough strength.

Confinement by concrete: 3 = 1 - 0.15(cd - 3 )/ 0.7 but 1.0, cd see figure 15. Bends and loops do not contribute favorably because of limited bending resistance of the FRP bars. Confinement by not fiber intermeshed transverse reinforcement: 4 = 1 - K 0.8 but 1.0 with = (

st

st , min

)/ As

Ast is the cross-sectional area of the transverse reinforcement along the design anchorage length lb,net.

st , min

is the cross-sectional area of the minimum transverse

reinforcement = 0.25 As for beams and 0 for slabs

As is the area of a single bar with maximum bar diameter.

K values are given in figure 16.

Figure 16. Coefficient K for not intermeshed transverse reinforcement confinement.

K = 0.10 for anchored bar As in an edge of surrounding reinforcement K = 0.05 for transverse reinforcement Ast in the cover for anchored reinforcement. K = 0 for transverse reinforcement Ast on the inner side of anchored reinforcement.

Confinement by transverse pressure: 5 = - 0.04p 0.7 but 1.0

18

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

Comments concerning bond of FRP reinforcement on the Table 2 The contribution in bond strength of FRP bars/rods by confinement of transverse reinforcement is probably less than that for steel reinforcement, because the modulus of FRP is less. Therefore the confinement effect is limited with 4 = 0.8. For FRP-bars the transverse pressure will give less contribution to the anchorage effect than for steel bars. The FRP-bars are softer than steel bars in transverse direction and will not attract as much pressure force as steel bars do. However, the harder steel bars introduce more splitting forces in concrete transverse to the direction of the pressure than the softer FRP bars do, which may cause earlier splitting fracture. These two effects are counteracting and therefore no change has been proposed for the 5 -value. For bars in compression 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 are given the value 1.0. The compressive force, which has to be anchored, will be lower than the tensile one for FRP reinforcement, because the compressive strength of FRP-bars is considerably lower than the tensile one, which in its turn will require less bond strength.

2.2.3.3 Test method for determination of influence of transverse pressure The effect of the transverse pressure can be studied with a hinged beam according to figure 17. When the specimen is loaded the tensile force in reinforcement increase together with transverse pressure and simulate the situation at supports of members with very intense anchoring force transfer. The confining effect of stirrups can also be studied adding these in the studied zone.

Figure 17. Hinged beam test for determination of influence of transverse pressure on anchorage, Magnusson (1997).

2.2.3.4 Design lap length of bars in tension The design lap length is:

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

19

lo = 1 3 4 5 6 lb As,cal/As,ef lo,min

where: lb is the basic anchorage length lo,min > max{0.3 6 lb ; 15 ; 200 mm} 1 , 3 , 4 and 5 can be taken from 2.2.3.2 above. However, for the calculation of 4 , area of one spliced bar.

st , min

should be taken as 1.0 As , with As =

6 is a coefficient given in table 3 (MC90 Table 7.8.2) as a function of the percentage of the reinforcement lapped within 1.3 lo from the center of the lap length considered figure 18.

Table 3. MC90 table 7.8.2 Percentage of lapped bars relative to the total cross-section of FRP bars/rods 20% 6 1.2 25% 1.4 33% 1.6 50% 1.8 >50% 2.0

For transverse distribution reinforcement 6 can be taken equal to 1.0.

Figure 18. Percentage of lapped bars in one section.MC90 figure 6.9.8.

2.2.3.5 Design lap length of bars permanently in compression The design length of lap lo should comply with the condition lo > lb.

20

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

One bar of transverse reinforcement should be placed outside of each end of the lap length and within 4 of the ends of the lap length.

2.2

Prestressed concrete

2.2.1 Anchorage of prestressing tendons

It is necessary to ensure that the anchorage device in the case of post-tensioned tendons or the anchorage length in the case of pretensioned tendons are able to transfer the design strength of the tendon to the concrete. If sleeves or mechanical splices (couplers) are used, these should be so located tha t the required strengths can be obtained in all sections and the anchorages specified above can be attained.

Figure 19. Course of steel stresses along the anchorage zone of a pretensioned member. MC90 figure 6.9.9.

2.2.2 Anchorage of pretensioned prestressing reinforcement

Two different bond situations should be considered due to the transverse deformations of the tendon. A push- in along the transmission length, where the tendons become thicker at release, and a pull-out, which refers to the anchorage length where the opposite occurs when the steel stress is increased due to loading. The bond strength of pretensioned prestressing tendons depends on the loading case. The highest value applies to the transmission length - length to introduce the prestressing force ("push- in" along transmission length, where the tendons become thicker at release). Beyond that length lower bond strength has to be taken into account ("pull-out", which refers to the anchorage length where the steel stress is
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

21

increased due to loading and tendons become thinner). This results in bilinear diagram for the embedment length that is required to develop the design steel stress.

2.2.3 Design bond strength

The design value of the bond strength for prestressing FRP tendons is:

fbpd = p1 p2 fctd< f bd FRP ;

where: fctd = fctk (t)/1.50 is the lower design concrete strength; for the transmission length the strength at the time of release, for the anchorage length the strength at 28 days; fbd FRP is the design bond strength in the surface of the FRP-tendon (Determined in pull-out test with short bond length and central placement of bar/rod. Push- in or push-out situation in this case does not matter). p1 takes into account the type of prestressing tendon: [p1 ] = (1.4 for indented and crimped wires made of steel), (1.2 for 7-wire steel strands.) The value for FRP tendon must be determined individually and depend on the surface roughness, tendency to split the surrounding concrete and if the bond failure is a concrete failure or is a shearing off the FRP tendon surface. FRP tendons usually have better bond properties than steel tendons due to rougher surface. p2 takes into account the position of the tendon: p2 = 1.0 for all tendons with an inclination of 45o -90o with respect to the horizontal during concreting; p2 = 1.0 for all horizontal tendons which are up to 250 mm from the bottom or at least 300 mm below the top of the concrete section during concreting; p2 = 0.7 for all other cases.

2.2.4 Basic anchorage length

The basic anchorage length defines the length that is required to develop the full strength in an untensioned tendon. The basic anchorage length of an individual pretensioned tendon is: 22
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

lbp = Asp /( )(fptd/fbpd)

where: fptd = fptk /[1.15]. The coefficient 1.15 have to be reconsidered for FRP tendons. [fptk ] is the characteristic stress level of tendon. For fully elastic FRP tendon this value should be introduced here. (For steel tendons fptk is defined in MC 90 Clause 2.3.4.3). The factor Asp /( ) depends on the type of tendon. For circular cross-section Asp /( ) = /4 and for 7-wire strand (7/36). is the tendon diameter, or if square, maximum side dimension.

2.2.5 Transmission length

The transmission length of a pretensioned tendon is

lbpt = 8 9 10 lbp pi/ fpd

where: 8 considers the way of release: 8 = 1.0 for gradual release; 8 = 1.25 for sudden release; 9 considers the action effect to be verified: 9 = 1.0 for calculation of anchorage length when moment and shear capacity is considered; 9 = 0.5 for verification of transverse stresses in anchorage zone; 10 considers the influence of bond situation: [ 10 ]= (0.5 for steel strands); [ 10 ]= (0.7 for indented or crimped steel wires); pi is the FRP tendon stress just after release.
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

23

The use of narrow spaced stirrups or helices around the tendons and transverse prestressing may result in a shorter transmission length. This is not considered due to lack of experimental data. The following has to be verified, because of lacking data for FRP tendons.

Tendon release that is obtained by sawing through the concrete and the FRP should be considered as gradual release. The text is valid for steel strands. The transmission length can be estimated from draw in value (de) of the tendons at the end face of the concrete member. Assuming a linear FRP stress along the transmission length, this draw in shall be de< 0.5 s pi/ tp lbpt with 9 = 1.0 in the expression for lbpt. When the concrete member is sawn from a longer production unit, the draw-in cannot be estimated properly. The basic anchorage length is related to pull-out. The transmission length is connected to push-in. The ratio between the two is given by 10 .

2.2.7 Determination in test of the transmission length

Figure 20. Measured strain distribution in a square 70x70mm concrete rod 2000mm long, prestressed with CFRP CFCC strand. A length of about 400mm is necessary for transfer of the prestressing force. Tepfers et al (1992) tests vs. Cox et al (1999) model. The test specimen can be a square concrete rod with centrally placed prestressed FRP strand/rod. The ends of rod have spiral reinforcement to prevent splitting of rod end. The side of the section may be 5 to 7 times the rod diameter. The rod is prestressed, the concrete cast and when it has hardened the strain gauges are place on two opposite sides of the concrete rod with 50mm intervals so the expected transmission length is 24
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

covered with margin. Then the prestressed FRP rod is released and the compressive strain on concrete surface is measured and compared with calculated strain in concrete caused by full transfer of prestressing force. The transmission length is the distance from end of rod to the point where the measured strain stabilize, see figure 20. For FRP rods the transmission length is often shorter than for steel strands because of rougher surface. This may result in too short transmission lengths causing considerable splitting forces on surrounding concrete.

2.2.7 Design anchorage length

The design anchorage length of a pretensioned prestressing tendon is:

lbpd = lbpt + lbp (pd - pcs)/fpd

where: pd is the tendon stress under design load (pd fpd) pcs is the tendon stress due to prestress including all losses.

If it is necessary, the required anchorage capacity may be obtained by additional end anchorages or non-prestressed reinforcement.

2.2.8

Development length

The development length is the distance from the end face to the concrete cross-section beyond which the distribution of the longitudinal stresses is considered linear. For a rectangular cross-section and straight tendons situated near the bottom edge of the concrete section the development length is:

l p = h 2 + (0.6lbpt ) > l bpt

2

where h is the total depth of the concrete section.

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

25

For non-rectangular sections the development length can be found in a similar way as assumed for post-tensioning.

2.2.9 Transverse stresses in the anchorage zone of prestressed tendons

Bursting, spalling and splitting are considered according to Model Code 1990, Clause 6.9.12.

Figure 21. Bursting, spalling and splitting forces in anchorage zone of prestressed concrete member.

2.3

Tension stiffening effect

The influence of bond on tension stiffening can be estimated by studying crack width and crack spacing, using with two FRP bars/rods centrally reinforced concrete flat specimen in tension.

2.4

Rotation capacity

Rotation capacity for deformed steel reinforcing bars is obtained, when the bars in the cracks start to yield and the yielding penetrates the concrete between the cracks. For the yielding to be able to penetrate, the steel bar has to be able to increase its stress in cracks above that of yielding and the consolidating part of stress-strain relation allows for it. At yielding the steel bars elongate 3 to 10 %, the bar diameter decrease and the 26
CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

bond and tension stiffening effect is lost. Thereby the full length of the steel bar yields, elongates and makes rotation of the member possible. FRP bars/rods may have elastic fracture elongation of 3 to 4%. However, the diameter contraction is not of the same magnitude as for steel bars when these yield. For hybrid fiber bars with successive failure of fibers and stress-strain relation like that of steel bar the yielding elongation do not result in diameter decrease of the same magnitude as for steel bar. The fractured fibers are just broken and do not contribute to reduction in bar/rod diameter. Therefore the bond between the concrete cracks will not be lost and the FRP bar main elongation will be only concentrated in vicinity of the cracks and this elongation will not be enough to cause necessary rotation for moment redistribution. A possible way of obtaining rotation capacity is to reduce the bond capacity by making bars/rods with intermittent bond along the bar, Lees & Burgoyne (1997). However, the bar needs also to have good bond in the anchorage zones. This is not easy to produce bars with different bond capacity in different places along the bar length and to believe that the right part of the bar comes into the right position in structure.

3
1973

REFERENCES
Tepfers, R. (1973). A Theory of Bond Applied to Overlapped Tensile Reinforcement Splices for Deformed Bars. Doctor thesis. Work No 723, Publ 73:2. Division of Concrete Structures, Chalmers University of Technology, Gteborg, May 1973, p. 328. Tepfers R., Olsson P-. (1992). Ring Test for Evaluation of Bond Properties of Reinforcing Bars. International Conference "Bond in Concrete - From Research to Practice", Riga, Latvia, October 1992. pp. 1-89 - 1-99.

1992

1992 Tepfers R., Molander I., Thalenius K., (1992), Experience from testing of concrete reinforced with carbon fiber and aramid fiber strands. XIV. Nordic Concrete Congress & Nordic Concrete Industry Meeting, 6.-8. August 1992. Icelandic Concrete Association, Reykjavik. p.p. 337-347. 1993 1996 CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. Design Code. Comit Euro-International du Bton. Thomas Telford Services Ltd, London 1993. p. 437. Machida A.: Designing Concrete structures with continuous fiber reinforcing materials. Dept. of Civil and environmental Engineering, Saitama University, Urawa, Saitama 338, Japan. First International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure, ICCI'96, 15-17 January 1996, Tucson Arizona, USA. Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA. Tucson 1996. p. 13. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, JSCE: Recommendations for design and construction of concrete structures using continuous fiber reinforcing materials. Concrete Engineering Series 23. Tokyo 1997. p. 325. 27

1997

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

1997

Lees J. M., Burgoyne Ch. J.: Rigid body analysis of concrete beams pretensioned with partly-bonded AFRP tendons. Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Vol. 2, Sapporo October 1997. pp. 759-766. Magnusson J. (1997). Bond and Anchorage of Deformed Bars in HighStrength Concrete. Chalmers University of Technology, Division of Concrete Structures, Licentiate thesis, Work No. 1113, Publication 97:1, Gteborg, November 1997. p. 234. Tepfers R., Karlsson M.: Pull-out and tensile reinforcement splice tests using FRP C-BARs. Chalmers University of Technology, Division of Building Technology. Work No: 13. Publication No: 97:2, Gteborg June 1997. Contribution to FRPRCS-3 Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures in Sapporo 14-16 October 1997. pp. 357-364. Achillides Z.: Bond behaviour of FRP bars in concrete. Ph D thesis, Centre of Civil and Structural Engineering, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield July 1998. p.355. Tepfers R., Hedlund G., Rosinski B.: Pull-out and tensile reinforcement splice tests with GFRP bars. Proceedings of the ICCI98, Second International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure, January 3-4, 1998, Tucson, Arizona, Vol. II pp. 37-51. Blontrock H., Properties of Fiber Reinforced Plastics at Elevated Temperatures with Regard to Fire resistance of Reinforced Concrete Members, Proceedings from Fourth international Symposium, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced concrete Structures, ACI Ed. Dolan C. W., Rizkalla S. H. and Nanni A., Baltimore 1999, pp. 43-54. Cox J. V., Guo J.: Modeling Stress State Dependency of Bond Behaviour of Fiber Reinforcedc Polymer Tendons. Fourth FRPRCS International Syompsium, Baltimore. ACI International SP-188-68, Editors Dolan C. W., Rizkalla S.H., Nanni A. 1999. pp. 791-805. fib, (CEB-FIP) Bulletin 10, "Bond of reinforcement in concrete", State of the art report prepared by Task Group Bond Models, former CEB, Task Group 5.2. CH-1015 Lausanne , August 2000. p. 427. Dejke V., Tepfers R.: Durability and service life prediction of GFRP for concrete reinforcement. FRPRCS-5. Edited by Ch. Burgoyne, University of Cambridge, Volume 1. Thomas Telford, London 2001. ISBN 0 7277 3029 0. pp 505-514. Tamuzs V., Apinis R., Modniks J., Tepfers R.: The performance of bond of FRP reinforcement in concrete. SAMPE (Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering) Symposium, Long Beach, California, May 6th-10th, 2001. pp. 1738-1748.

1997

1997

1998

1998

1999

1999

2000

2001

2001

28

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics report 04:2

2002

De Lorenzis, L., and Nanni, A. (2002). "Bond between Near-Surface Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Rods and Concrete in Structural Strengthening", ACI Structural Journal, Vol.99 No.2, March-April 2002. pp. 123-132. De Lorenzis L., Tepfers R.: (2002). Bond of FRP Reinforcement in Concrete a Challenge. Contribution to Conference on Mechanics of Composite Materials, MCM-2002 in June 9-13, 2002, Riga, Latvia. Dejke V., Tepfers R.: Bestndighet och livslngd hosfiberkompositarmerad betong. (Durability and service life of concrete reinforced with fiber composites). Bygg & teknik, 94th edition, ISSN 0281-658X, Stockholm October #7-2002. pp. 16-22. Tepfers R.: (2002). Test system for evaluation of bond properties of FRP reinforcement in concrete. Proceedings of the third International Symposium on Bond in Concrete from research to standards. Budapest November 20-22, 2002, pp. 657-666.

2002

2002

2002

CHALMERS , Structural Engineering and Mechanics, report 04:2

29