Dissertation Christian Schembri FINAL

SHEAR ENHANCEMENT OF
TIMBER BEAMS
By
CHRISTIAN SCHEMBRI
Dissertation presented to the

Department of Building and Civil Engineering
Faculty for the Built Environment
University of Malta
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Engineering and Architecture
JUNE 2010
To my parents, Laurence and Maria Dolores
Declaration
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that this dissertation is my original work and that
all references made to other sources have been appropriately acknowledged.
_________________
Christian Schembri
June 2010
ii
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my tutor Professor A. Torpiano,
B.E.&A.(Hons), M.Sc.(Lond), Ph.D.(Bath), D.I.C., M.I.Struct.E., C.Eng., Eur.Ing.,
for his guidance, technical support, patience and encouragement.
I would also like to thank Dr. M. A. Bonello, B.E.&A.(Hons.), M.Sc.(Lond.),
Ph.D.(Lond.), D.I.C., Eur.Ing., and Professor S. Buhagiar, B.E.&A.(Hons.),
M.Sc.(Lond.), D.I.C, Ph.D.(Lond.), M.I.Struct.E., C.Eng., for inspiring me with the
idea of this dissertation; the Lab Technicians of the Civil Engineering Laboratory,
Mr N. Azzopardi A.M.I.C.T.(UK), A.I.A.T. and Mr A. Falzon A.I.A.T. for their
assistance during the preparation and testing in the same laboratory; Ing. M.
Fenech B.Eng.(Hons.) from the Department of Metallurgy and Materials
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering for his valuable assistance in the preparation
and testing of the pull-out tests and the staff from the latter department and at the
engineering workshop.
Special thanks go to JMV Ltd. for sponsoring the GFRP reinforcement and some
materials required in the preparation of the tests. My sincere appreciation is due to
Mr. R. Vassallo and Mr. J. Bonello of JMV Ltd.
A
thanks
goes
to
all
friends
for
iii
their
support
and
encouragement.
Last but not least I would like to thank my father Laurence, my mother Maria
Dolores, my sister Roberta, her husband James and his father Vince, my brother
Jurgen and his fiance Yvette, and my fiance Rosanne and her family for their
invaluable help and moral support.
iv
Abstract
The use of timber in construction is characterised by several difficulties. Not least is
its low strength perpendicular to the grain which is likely to lead to shear failure
parallel to the grain. The occurrence of several forms of decay and weathering
further reduce timber strength. The use of 6mm diameter GFRP rebars for the
shear enhancement of timber beams, inserted at angles of 900 and 600 to the main
bending axis, was therefore studied. An epoxy-acrylate adhesive was used. The
same configurations were carried out on both new timber beams and damaged
timber beams to investigate the potential of the shear enhancement method
studied in strengthening and repair respectively. Intentional damage was induced
to simulate weathering. Pull-out tests were also carried out to investigate bond
between the GFRP rebars and the timber for the adhesive used.
The results show that the effectiveness of this method depends on the beam
condition. The average ultimate loads obtained for the reinforced new beams did
not show any increase when compared with that obtained by the control new
beams while those for the reinforced damaged beams showed increases in the
order of 22% when compared to the control damaged beams. These results
should not be taken as the general case and further investigation is required.
Keywords: Shear enhancement, Timber beams, Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer
(GFRP) rebars, strengthening, repair, bond.
v
Contents
Declaration ........................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................... iii
Abstract ................................................................................................................ v
Contents .............................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ...................................................................................................... xi
List of Tables .................................................................................................... xviii
Abbreviations and Notation................................................................................ xix
Chapter 1 - Introduction ..................................................................................... 1
1.1
Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
1.2
Main Objectives and Structure of this Dissertation .................................. 3
Chapter 2 - Literature Review ............................................................................ 5

2.1
Overview.................................................................................................. 5
2.2
Shear strength of timber beams .............................................................. 6
2.3
Shear Enhancement of Timber Beams .................................................... 8
2.3.1 The requirement for shear enhancement .......................................... 8

2.3.2 Research in shear enhancement techniques .................................... 8
2.3.3 The case of using Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) .................... 10
2.3.4 Research using GFRP rebars as shear enhancement of timber
beams
..............................................................................................12
2.3.5 Research using other FRP types for shear strengthening of timber
beams .........................................................................................................17
vi
Contents
2.3.6 Research using shear spikes to increase bending stiffness ............ 20

2.4 More considerations ................................................................................. 22
2.4.1 Shear Connections ......................................................................... 22
2.4.2 Bond Strength ................................................................................. 23
Chapter 3 Experimental Methodology ......................................................... 26
3.1
Overview................................................................................................ 26
3.2
Full Scale Beam Loading Test ............................................................... 27
3.2.1 Shear stresses ................................................................................ 27

3.2.2 Test Setup....................................................................................... 29
3.2.3 Materials ......................................................................................... 30
3.2.3.1 Timber ........................................................................................ 30
3.2.3.2 Reinforcement ............................................................................ 31
3.2.3.3 Adhesive ..................................................................................... 31
3.2.4 Testing Configurations .................................................................... 31
3.2.5 Preparation Procedures .................................................................. 35
3.2.5.1 Timber Beams ............................................................................ 35
3.2.5.2 Strain Gauges ............................................................................. 37
3.2.5.3 Insertion of GFRP rebars ............................................................ 38
3.2.6 Testing Procedures ......................................................................... 39
3.3
Direct Pull-out Testing ........................................................................... 41
3.3.1 Materials ......................................................................................... 41

3.3.2 Test Setup and Testing Configurations ........................................... 41
3.3.3 Preparation Procedures .................................................................. 43
3.3.3.1 Attachment to Tensile Machine .................................................. 43
3.3.3.2 Timber Blocks ............................................................................. 43
3.3.3.3 GFRP Rebars ............................................................................. 44
3.3.3.4 Insertion of GFRP bars ............................................................... 45
3.3.4 Testing Procedures ......................................................................... 45
Chapter 4 Results and Analysis of Results ................................................. 47
4.1
Overview................................................................................................ 47
vii
Contents
4.2
Ultimate Loads....................................................................................... 47
4.3
Failure Modes ........................................................................................ 50
4.3.1 C1N ................................................................................................. 52

4.3.2 C2N ................................................................................................. 54
4.3.3 C3N ................................................................................................. 55
4.3.4 I1N .................................................................................................. 58
4.3.5 I2N .................................................................................................. 60
4.3.6 I3N .................................................................................................. 62
4.3.7 V1N ................................................................................................. 63
4.3.8 V2N ................................................................................................. 66
4.3.9 V3N ................................................................................................. 68
4.3.10
C1D ............................................................................................. 70
4.3.11
C2D ............................................................................................. 71
4.3.12
C3D ............................................................................................. 72
4.3.13
I1D ............................................................................................... 73
4.3.14
I2D ............................................................................................... 75
4.3.15
I3D ............................................................................................... 77
4.3.16
V1D .............................................................................................. 77
4.3.17
V2D .............................................................................................. 79
4.3.18
V3D .............................................................................................. 80
4.4
General Observations of Failure Modes ................................................ 82
4.5
Direct Pull-out Test Results ................................................................... 84
4.5.1 Failure modes ................................................................................. 88

4.6
Rebar Forces in Full Scale Beam Loading Test .................................... 92
4.6.1 Failure Modes ................................................................................. 95

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work............ 101
5.1
Overview.............................................................................................. 101
5.2
Conclusions ......................................................................................... 101
5.2.1 Effectiveness of Shear Enhancement Method Applied ................. 101

5.2.2 Rebar Forces ................................................................................ 102
5.2.3 Failure Modes ............................................................................... 103
viii
Contents
5.2.4 Insertion Angle of Rebar ............................................................... 103

5.2.5 Adhesive ....................................................................................... 104
5.3
Recommendations for Future Work ..................................................... 104
References ...................................................................................................... 107

Appendix A Results ..................................................................................... 112
A.1 Graphs .................................................................................................... 112
A.1.1 Beam C1N ....................................................................................... 113
A.1.2 Beam C2N ....................................................................................... 114
A.1.3 Beam C3N ....................................................................................... 114
A.1.4 Beam I1N ......................................................................................... 115
A.1.5 Beam I2N ......................................................................................... 116
A.1.6 Beam I3N ......................................................................................... 117
A.1.7 Beam V1N ....................................................................................... 118
A.1.8 Beam V2N ....................................................................................... 119
A.1.9 Beam V3N ....................................................................................... 120
A.1.10 Beam C1D ..................................................................................... 121
A.1.11 Beam C2D ..................................................................................... 121
A.1.12 Beam C3D ..................................................................................... 122
A.1.13 Beam I1D ....................................................................................... 123
A.1.14 Beam I2D ....................................................................................... 124
A.1.15 Beam I3D ....................................................................................... 125
A.1.16 Beam V1D ..................................................................................... 126
A.1.17 Beam V2D ..................................................................................... 127
A.1.18 Beam V3D ..................................................................................... 128
A.2 Pull-out Test Photos ................................................................................ 129
A.2.1 Sample 45-2 .................................................................................... 129
A.2.2 Sample 45-3 .................................................................................... 130
A.2.3 Sample 60-2 .................................................................................... 130
A.2.4 Sample 60-5 .................................................................................... 131
A.2.5 Sample 90-2 .................................................................................... 132
ix
Contents
A.2.6 Sample 90-4 .................................................................................... 133

Appendix B - Testing and Materials Data ..................................................... 134
B.1 Computation of principal stresses and their direction .............................. 134
B.2 Calculation of Loading Rate .................................................................... 138
B.3 Tensile testing report of Aslan 100 6mm GFRP Rebar ........................... 139
B.4 Aslan 100, Product Data Sheets ............................................................. 141
B.5 Sika Anchor-Fix 2, Product Data Sheet................................................... 156
B.6 Test Rig Setup ........................................................................................ 166
B.7 Attachment to Tensile Testing Machine .................................................. 166
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1
Schematic of reinforced timber beam test configurations 13

carried out by Svecova and Eden (2004)
Fig. 2.2

carried out by Amy and Svecova (2004)
Fig. 2.3
Schematic of reinforced timber beam test configuration 18

carried out by Triantafillou (1997)
Fig. 2.4

carried out by Buell and Saadatmanesh (2005)
Fig. 2.5
Single shear connection modelling the use of hex bolts and

lag screws
Fig. 3.1
Principal stresses and principal directions of test setup used 28

(the magnitude of the arrows are indicative of the stress
magnitude)
Fig. 3.2
(a) The test setup as recommended by ASTM D 198-99,

(b) The test setup as used in this experimental programme
28
Fig. 3.3
Schematic of the test setup (dimensions are in millimeters)
30
Fig. 3.4
Diagrams of configurations tested, the dimensions of the 33

damaged series are the same as those for the new series (all
dimensions are in millimetres)
Fig. 3.5
Making of the simulated damage
35
Fig. 3.6
Creation of drill jig
36
xi
23
List of Figures
Fig. 3.7
Drilling of holes
36
Fig. 3.8
Checking the electrical resistance by means of an ohm metre
38
Fig. 3.9
Inserting the GFRP rebars
39
Fig. 3.10
Pull-out Test Setup (dimensions are in millimeters)
42
Fig. 3.11
The pull-out tested configurations
42
Fig. 3.12
Preparation of timber block samples
44
Fig. 3.13
Preparation of the GFRP rebars
45
Fig. 3.14
Preparation of the GFRP rebars
46
Fig. 4.1
Ultimate loads of new timber beam series
48
Fig. 4.2
Ultimate loads of damaged timber beam series
49
Fig. 4.3
Convention used for the presentation of crack patterns
51
Fig. 4.4
Horizontal shear failure of beam C1N
52
Fig. 4.5
Bending failure of beam C1N
53
Fig. 4.6
Crack pattern for beam C1N
53
Fig. 4.7
Bending failure of beam C2N
54
Fig. 4.8
55
Fig. 4.9
Beam C3N at ultimate failure
56
Fig. 4.10
57
Fig. 4.11
Right side of beam I1N after test
58
Fig. 4.12
Crack pattern for beam I1N
59
Fig. 4.13
Bending cracks of beam I2N
60
xii
List of Figures
Fig. 4.14
61
Fig. 4.15
Beam I3N after the test
62
Fig. 4.16
63
Fig. 4.17
First bending crack on the right side of beam V1N
64
Fig. 4.18
Shear displacement at the end of beam V1N
64
Fig. 4.19
Crack pattern for beam V1N
65
Fig. 4.20
Beam V2N after failure
66
Fig. 4.21
67
Fig. 4.22
First bending crack of beam V3N
68
Fig. 4.23
Shear failure of beam V3N
68
Fig. 4.24
First bending crack on the left side of beam V3N
69
Fig 4.25
69
Fig. 4.26
Crack pattern for beam C1D
70
Fig. 4.27
71
Fig. 4.28
Beam C3D after failure
72
Fig. 4.29
73
Fig. 4.30
Beam I1D after failure
74
Fig. 4.31
Crack pattern for beam I1D
75
Fig. 4.32
Beam I2D at ultimate failure
76
Fig 4.33
76
Fig. 4.34
77
xiii
List of Figures
Fig. 4.35
Beam V1D at ultimate failure
78
Fig. 4.36
Crack pattern for beam V1D
78
Fig. 4.37
Beam V2D after failure
79
Fig. 4.38
80
Fig. 4.39
First bending crack on the right side of beam V3D
81
Fig. 4.40
Beam V3D at ultimate failure
81
Fig. 4.41
82
Fig. 4.42
Typical timber block position at initiation of test
84
Fig. 4.43
Force against Displacement for 450 series
85
Fig. 4.44
85
Fig. 4.45
86
Fig. 4.46
Pull-out samples prior to testing
87
Fig. 4.47
Typical pull-out failure
88
Fig. 4.48
Sample 45-2
89
Fig. 4.49
Sample 45-3
89
Fig. 4.50
Sample 60-5
89
Fig. 4.51
Sample 60-2
90
Fig. 4.52
Sample 90-2
90
Fig. 4.53
Sample 90-4
90
Fig. 4.54
(a) Bond stresses in pull-out testing, (b) Bond stresses in

structural elements
92
xiv
List of Figures
Fig. 4.55
I1N Rebar 1
96
Fig. 4.56
V1N Rebar 1
97
Fig. 4.57
(a) & (b) V2N Rebar 2, (c) V3N Rebar 1
98
Fig. 4.58
I1D Rebar 1
99
Fig. 4.59
I3D Rebar 1
99
Fig. 4.60
V1D Rebar 1
100
Fig. 4.61
V3D Rebar 1
100
Fig. A.1
Rebar marking
113
Fig. A.1.1
C1N Load against Time
113
Fig. A.1.2
114
Fig. A.1.3
114
Fig. A.1.4.a
I1N Load against Time
115
Fig. A.1.4.b
I1N Tensile forces in Rebars against Time
115
Fig. A.1.5.a
116
Fig. A.1.5.b
116
Fig. A.1.6.a
117
Fig. A.1.6.b
117
Fig. A.1.7.a
V1N Load against Time
118
Fig. A.1.7.b
V1N Tensile forces in Rebars against Time
118
Fig. A.1.8.a
119
Fig. A.1.8.b
119
xv
List of Figures
Fig. A.1.9.a
120
Fig. A.1.9.b
120
Fig. A.1.10
C1D Load against Time
121
Fig. A.1.11
121
Fig. A.1.12
122
Fig. A.1.13.a
I1D Load against Time
123
Fig. A.1.13.b
I1D Tensile forces in Rebars against Time
123
Fig. A.1.14.a
124
Fig. A.1.14.b
124
Fig. A.1.15.a
125
Fig. A.1.15.b
125
Fig. A.1.16.a
V1D Load against Time
126
Fig. A.1.16.b
V1D Tensile forces in Rebars against Time
126
Fig. A.1.17.a
127
Fig. A.1.17.b
127
Fig. A.1.18.a
128
Fig. A.1.18.b
128
Fig. A.2.1
Stereoscope images of sample 45-2
129
Fig. A.2.2
130
Fig. A.2.3
131
Fig. A.2.4
131
xvi
List of Figures
Fig. A.2.5
132
Fig. A.2.6
133
Fig. B.1.a
Bending and shear stresses of a rectangular beam
134
Fig. B.1.b
Points considered in the calculation of principal stresses 135

(dimensions are in millimetres)
Fig. B.1.c
The conversion of stresses to principal stresses for a point (in 136

bending compression) above the Neutral Axis
Fig. B.6
Test Rig Setup
166
xvii
List of Tables
Table 2.1
Characteristic strength values of designation C timbers

(extracted from EN 338:2003)
Table 3.1
Properties of GFRP rebars (refer also to Appendices B.3 and

B.4)
31
Table 3.2
Details of the tested configurations
32
Table 3.3
Dimensions and surface moisture of the nine timber beams

used with their respective marking at each end (all dimensions
are in millimetres)
34
Table 4.1
Average ultimate loads and variance of tested timber beams
49
Table 4.2
Failure modes of the tested timber beams
83
Table 4.3
Pull-out test results at ultimate
86
Table 4.4
Pull-out average test results and variance for each tested

series at ultimate
87
Table 4.5
Ultimate bond forces for GFRP rebars as used in the full-scale

beam configurations
93
Table 4.6
Forces in rebars at ultimate failure of beam
93
Table 4.7
Rebar bond failures in full scale beam loading test specimen
94
Table 4.8
Opened up rebars from the full scale beam specimens
95
Table B.1.a
Computations of principal stresses together with principal 137

directions from the quoted equations
xviii
Abbreviations and Notation

SFD
Shear Force Diagram
BMD
Bending Moment Diagram
NA
Neutral Axis
area of shaded cross-section
area of cross-section
width of rectangular cross-section
depth of rectangular cross-section
moment of inertia
rebar embedment length
bending moment applied at a cross-section
shear force applied at a cross-section
distance of a point along the span from the support
distance of a point at a cross-section from the neutral axis
principal plane direction
xy
horizontal and vertical shear stress in a rectangular beam at a point
bending stress at a point
tensile principal stress
compressive principal stress
bond stress
diameter
xix
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Timber is one of mans oldest used materials. Its long history is due to it being a
natural material, and often easily sourced from nearby locations. Timber was
employed by man to serve several purposes, such as to build boats, in
construction of houses, furniture and paper making. Several wood products have
been developed in recent history which made its use more widespread.
The use of timber in construction throughout history has been an extensive one.
Timber offered possibilities of building forms which were difficult to construct by
other building materials, namely stone. Large span timber beams were employed
in large span roof structures, such as at the Parthenon in Greece and Roman
basilicas. Larger spans were later achieved by using two rafters connected by a
cross beam. Timber beams were also used locally to support stone slabs at
storeys where a stone arch could not be constructed because of the side thrusts
produced. An interesting composite timber beam design was carried out by
Leonardo. This design involved the use of four pieces of timber connected together
by the use of dowels (Tampone, 1996).
Chapter 1
Introduction
Developments are a characteristic of mankind. In his nature man tries to improve

on what he already has. Further developments could supersede other practices
previously employed by man. In fact during the last two centuries, the use of
traditional materials such as timber saw a decline, with the advent of new materials
such as steel and concrete. Enhanced properties and reliability over those offered
by traditional materials made them more attractive. In this context, therefore, one
could argue that methods of strengthening timber elements could place timber
materials on a platform to compete with more advanced construction materials.
In addition since timber was a widely used material throughout history, timber is
found in buildings subjected to various forms of degradation, giving rise to the need
for repair. Several repair methods exist, and these can be mainly classified into
traditional methods, including scarf joints, tenons and dovetails, mechanicallyfastened methods, including bolted metal side plates, flitch beams and bolted
joints, and adhesive methods, including various epoxy resin formulations with the
use or not of metallic or non-metallic reinforcement (TRADA, 1992). Rehabilitation
of timber structures is not only required when damage is inflicted to the timber
element but also to extend service life of a structure or to cope with increasing
loads.
It was against this background that it was decided to study the effectiveness of
specific reinforcement configurations, as applied to new timber beams and to
damaged timber beams. Small diameter Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)
rebars were inserted vertically (or quasi-vertically) to the bending axis of the timber
beams to resist horizontal shear displacement. GFRP rebars thus acted as dowels
between the top section and bottom section of the timber beams. Insertion of
2
Chapter 1
Introduction
dowels tends to result in greater beam stiffness and strength, reduced weight-tostrength ratio, reduced end-grain splitting, are aesthetically discrete which is of an
advantage especially in the case of conservation projects, provide greater ease
and speed to prepare and install, and are capable of transferring high local
stresses.
1.2 Main Objectives and Structure of this Dissertation

In this dissertation, the use of 6mm GFRP rebars for the strength enhancement of
timber beams in the shear zone will be investigated. Full scale beam loading tests
will be carried out. The spacing of the GFRP rebars was taken as equal to the
beams depth, following a recommendation made by Svecova and Eden (2004).
The variables include the inclination angle of the GFRP rebars with respect to the
horizontal, and the beam condition, being either new or damaged.
The two angles considered are the 900 and the 600 angles with the horizontal. The
reason for choosing these two angles, rather than lower angles, is due to the
expected stress trajectories being more vertical, because of higher shear forces
resulting from the choice of a short span, and the fact that the load point is close to
the support. Part of the action of the GFRP rebars action is expected to be tension,
but they will also resist shear in the horizontal direction.
The same configurations of GFRP rebars will be used on both new timber beams
and damaged timber beams. The selected damage was induced by a horizontal
cut at mid-depth of the beam cross-section along the shear span. This damage
simulates horizontal splits which are quite common to timber members especially
3
Chapter 1
Introduction
when they are subjected to wetting and drying. This type of damage was reported
by Arda Akbiyik (2005) to be the most commonly encountered type of damage in
timber stringers taken from timber bridges in the United States.
Compared with the diameters used by others, a 6mm diameter GFRP rebar is quite
small, however it was felt that it would still be useful for shear enhancement of
timber beams.
A pull-out test of the GFRP rebars from timber blocks, with varying grain angle with
respect to the insertion direction of the GFRP rebars, will also be carried out, to
investigate the bond between the GFRP rebars and the timber blocks for the
adhesive used.
This dissertation is organised in the following manner. Chapter 1 provides a brief
introduction to this study. Chapter 2 consists of a literature review, in which, among
other topics, research on the use of dowels for shear enhancement of timber
beams was reviewed in detail. Chapter 3 presents the experimental methodology
adopted in this study. In chapter 4, the results and their analysis are presented.
Finally in Chapter 5 the conclusions are presented together with recommendations
for future work.
Chapter 2 - Literature Review
2.1 Overview
This literature review is divided into three main parts. The first part is a brief section
in which an overview is given of papers wherein the shear strength of timber
beams, and the difficulty of its accurate determination, were addressed. The
second part, which is the main part of the literature review, reviews briefly the need
for shear enhancement of timber beams, including a description of several shear
enhancement methods for timber beams researched, and some properties of Fibre
Reinforced Polymers (FRP) studied. The last section of the second part reviews, in
more detail, research on shear enhancement methods using Glass Fibre
Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) rebars and Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
fabric or laminates. Research on GFRP rebars, used to increase the flexural
stiffness of deteriorated timber beams by improving the interlayer horizontal shear
transfer, was also reviewed. The third and last part of this chapter reviews some
other considerations, such as the assimilation of shear enhancement methods by
the use of dowels to dowel-like shear connections, and the issue of bond.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.2 Shear strength of timber beams

One of the most important properties of structural timber is that of shear strength.
However the determination of the shear strength of timber is not simple as many
variables are involved, to some of which variables is attributed a lot of uncertainty.
Timber mechanical properties vary with grain direction, wood species, locality from
which the wood was obtained, density, moisture content, temperature, the rate and
duration of loading, size, the presence of natural defects and their location
(including slope of grain, knots, checks, splits and shakes), rot or decay, and other
anatomical features such as cell length, and the occurrence of tension or
compression wood.
Some of these variables may cause the shear strength to become critical. A good
example of such criticality is that created with the presence of checks and splits
from uneven drying, especially if their location is in close proximity to the position of
the neutral plane of the structure (Akbiyik, 2005). They act as planes of weakness
where shear strength is mostly required (Bodig and Jayne, 1982). Shear strength is
not something separate from bending strength. The presence of discontinuities
also affects the moment capacity of timber sections, since the moment of inertia of
a cross-section is reduced noticeably. The forming of checks and splits and up to
which degree they form are difficult to predict especially if the environment is
uncontrolled.
With all these variables affecting the shear strength of timber beams, and the
difficulty to quantify them, a lot of uncertainty results. In 2006, Denzler and Glos
argued that no test method was available that covered all factors influencing shear
6
Chapter 2
Literature Review
strength. It was concluded that the test method proposed in EN 408 does not cover
all the factors influencing shear strength. It was pointed out that a disadvantage
with this test method is that it involves small specimens.
Studies were also carried out to determine the shear strength of timber beams as
opposed to small-scale shear testing on timber samples. It was found that the
longitudinal shear strength of beams was lower than the shear strength obtained
from small clear block tests and that beams with a larger cross-sectional area have
lower shear strength (Rammer et. al., 1996). In 2005, Akbiyik commented that the
size effect apparent in experimental studies has not yet been reproduced in finite
element analysis (Foschi and Barrett, 1976; Longworth, 1977; Rammer and
Lebow, 1997; Cofer et al., 1997; Lam et al., 1997; as referred to by Akbiyik, 2005).
In the determination of shear strength of timber beams uncertainty remains.
Table 2.1 is an extract from EN 338 of characteristic strength values of designation
C timbers.
Species type
Poplar and conifer species
Strength class
Strength properties
Bending
C14 C16 C18 C22 C24 C27 C30 C35

(N/mm 2)
fm,k
14
16
18
22
24
27
30
35
C40
40
Tension parallel
ft,0,k
10
11
13
14
16
18
21
24
Tension perpendicular
ft,90,k
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Compression parallel
fc,0,k
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
25
26
Compression perpendicular
fc,90,k
4.3
4.6
4.8
5.1
5.3
5.6
5.7
6.0
6.3
fv ,k
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.4
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.4
3.8
Shear
Table 2.1 Characteristic strength values of designation C timbers (extracted from EN 338:2003)
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.3 Shear Enhancement of Timber Beams

2.3.1 The requirement for shear enhancement
Timber can be very attractive as a constructional material. In addition, from a
sustainability point of view, timber is attractive, not least because it can be grown
close to the location of use. However, some difficulties which might limit its use do
exist. One limitation is its poor strength perpendicular to the grain, which may result
in low shear resistance parallel to the grain (Triantafillou, 1997). The presence of
checks and splits further reduce timbers shear resistance. For these reasons
shear strength enhancement could be useful. Other reasons where shear strength
enhancement is relevant include situations where it is desired to extend the service
life of a structure or to cope with increasing loading levels, for important
conservation projects or to make timber structures more competitive, when
compared with other constructional forms, whilst reducing the variability, and thus
the uncertainty, involved in the behaviour of timber elements. Shear enhancement
may be required in beams loaded close to supports, at the occurrence of drilled
holes and cut-outs and also when the bending capacity of timber beams is
enhanced (Triantafillou, 1997; Buell and Saadatmanesh, 2005).
2.3.2 Research in shear enhancement techniques

Research has been carried out on several techniques to increase the capacity of
timber beams both in bending and in shear. In this section some research that has
been carried out on some techniques for the shear enhancement of timber
members will be mentioned. Some of these techniques are applicable both to new,
as well to existing, timber structures.
8
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Some early studies in shear reinforcement of timber involved the use of steel
plates, aluminum plates or light gauge steel inserted vertically, either between
selected vertical laminations, on the sides, or between lumber bonded by resins
(Sliker, 1962; Stern and Kumar, 1973; Stern and Kumar, 1973; as referred to by
Triantafillou, 1997).
Studies on timber reinforced with FRP materials are limited (Triantafillou, 1997;
Alann Andre, 2006). This may be due to the fact that shear failure mode is a less
common failure mode than bending failure (Alann Andre, 2006). Some of the
studies making use of FRPs include the reinforcement of glulam beams in
proximity to circular holes, and the enhancement of the shear strength of curved
and cambered glulam beams (Blom and Backlund, 1980; Larsen et al., 1992;
Hallstrom, 1995; as referred to by Triantafillou, 1997 and by Svecova and Eden,
2004). In 1997, Triantafillou conducted experimental research using FRP sheets
externally bonded to the shear critical zones of timber beams. In 2000, Johns and
Lacroix used GFRP sheets which were applied in a U-shaped manner up the sides
of the beam in two layers (as referred to by Amy and Svecova, 2004). In 2004,
Svecova and Eden studied the behaviour of GFRP bars for the shear and flexural
enhancement of timber beams. A continuation of this study was published in the
same year by Amy and Svecova, with the application of GFRP bars to dapped
timber beams. In 2005, Buell and Saadatmanesh studied the behaviour of fabric
wraps or laminate strips on long and short spans. Some of these techniques will be
viewed in detail.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.3.3 The case of using Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRPs)

FRPs offer an attractive option to be considered in construction. They are
lightweight, requiring no heavy-duty equipment during installation thus helping to
keep labour costs down, and site constraints minimal. They have a high strengthto-weight ratio, and are especially strong in tension. However when compared to
steel, FRPs have a lower elastic modulus, leading to greater deflections in
elements reinforced for flexure. Brittle failure is exhibited by FRPs, as they behave
linearly elastic up to the breaking point. Ongoing work seeks to achieve a more
ductile failure of FRP bars, by combining fibres of different ultimate strain, and
orientation, in the reinforcement (Somboonsong et al., 1998 as referred to by Bakis
et al., 2002).
FRPs may offer an effective solution to steel durability problems, where an
improved corrosion resistance is required, and where the electrical and magnetic
properties of steel are undesirable (Balendran et al., 2002; Bakis et al., 2002).
However FRPs may deteriorate by the diffusion of moisture and other chemical
solutions. Glass fibres may experience serious durability problems, when subjected
to alkaline environments, such as in concrete or in high temperature environments
(Tannous and Saadatmanesh, 1999; Katz and Berman, 2000; Pisani, 1998;
Kumahara et al., 1993; Sen et al., 1993; Katsuki and Uomoyo, 1995; as referred to
by Balendran et al., 2002). An alternative glass fibre, used to improve performance
in alkaline environments, is alkali-resistant glass. Thermosetting resins, widely
used in FRP matrices, have durability disadvantages. If heated, thermosetting
resins will not regain their original strength when cooled. In addition, the re-shaping
of FRPs, made of thermosetting resins, is not possible after production, since then
10
Chapter 2
Literature Review
they will not regain their original strength after re-shaping. The use of thermoplastic
resins is currently under consideration as an alternative.
FRPs can be produced by several processes, of which the most common process
used for commercially available FRP rebars is pultrusion. They can be produced in
various forms, and can be used in the interior, near surface or surface of the main
structure. Several surface deformations are applied to FRP rebars to enhance their
bond characteristics, by providing a better mechanical interlock. FRPs are
orthtotropic materials, and are fabricated in one-dimensional or multi-dimensional
shapes. Of the latter, two-dimensional orthogonal grids are the most common.
One major disadvantage with the use of FRPs is their high cost when compared to
other materials.
There are several possibilities of using FRPs in timber structures. They can be
used with various timber elements or types, including trusses, solid-sawn timber,
glulam, engineered timber products or even in connections of timber elements.
FRP reinforcement can be used to strengthen or re-strengthen and repair, either
globally or locally to a structure. Applications of prestressed FRP to timber have
also been studied (Steiger).
Significant increases in strength and stiffness can be achieved by the use of
metallic reinforcement; however other problems are encountered due to the
incompatibilities between the wood and the metal (Dagher and Lindyberg, 2000; as
referred to by Amy and Svecova, 2004). These differences include the different
hygro-expansion, and the large stiffness difference of wood and the metallic
reinforcement, and can lead to separation or tension failure at or near the glue line
11
Chapter 2
Literature Review
(Amy and Svecova, 2004). An inferior bond performance between steel dowels and
the timber when compared to GFRP dowels bonded in timber, was commented
upon by Svecova and Eden (2004) when conducting research of using rebars as
shear enhancement of timber beams.
2.3.4 Research using GFRP rebars as shear enhancement of

timber beams
GFRP rebars are used for structural strengthening. Their use in providing flexural
and shear reinforcement has been researched, with the former being more
common. Their use is not only being explored in connection with concrete
structures as a possible substitute to steel reinforcement but also as a possible
strength enhancement method for timber beams. This section looks at research
work including shear enhancement alone, and a concurrent use of shear and
flexural enhancement by the use of GFRP rebars.
12
Chapter 2
Literature Review
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig 2.1 Schematic of reinforced timber beam test configurations carried out by Svecova and Eden
(2004), (a) dowels in the shear span only, (b) dowels throughout the beam span, (c) dowels in the
shear span and flexural reinforcement in the constant moment region, (d) dowels and flexural
reinforcement both throughout the beam span.
Svecova and Eden (2004) carried out studies wherein the load carrying capacity of
timber beams, in both shear and flexure, was increased by the use of GFRP rebar
dowels (16mm in diameter, 255mm in length), and near-surface-mounted GFRP
13
Chapter 2
Literature Review
rebars (5mm in diameter) respectively (fig. 2.1 a, b, c, d). The timber beams used
had some weathering damage as they were cut from Douglas Fir bridge stringers
which had been in construction for around 40 years. Four point bending tests were
carried out according to ASTM D198-99.
The following variables were studied: dowel spacing (spacing equal to half beams
depth and to beams depth), the effect of the flexural reinforcement used together
with the dowel reinforcement, the span along which the reinforcement was installed
(shear span, constant moment span and beam span) and the reinforcement
material. Only one test was carried out using steel dowels (12mm in diameter,
255mm in length); for all the other tests GFRP rebars were used.
Beams, reinforced with dowels only, experienced an increase in the Modulus of
Rupture (MOR) in the range between 17% to 25% for configurations as in fig. 2.1a,
and 33% to 35% for configurations as in fig. 2.1b. The introduction of dowels
changed the failure mode from cross-grain tension, or horizontal shear failure, to
simple tension at mid-span for beams as in configuration fig. 2.1a. For beams
configured as in fig. 2.1b, the mode of failure remained simple tension at mid-span,
but was arrested between two shear dowels. It was apparent that the avoidance of
tension failure enhances the performance of timber beams. This was also expected
from a previous research carried out by Gentile et al. in 2002.
Beams reinforced in both shear and flexure experienced an increase in the MOR in
the range varying between 47% and 52%. The predominant failure mode for
beams configured as in fig. 2.1c, remained tensile at mid-span, as the flexural
reinforcement was not long enough to bridge the defects in the tension zone. For
14
Chapter 2
Literature Review
beams configured as in fig. 2.1d, the predominant failure mode shifted to a

compression failure.
The failure mode for reinforced beams changed from a sudden brittle one to a type
of failure mimicking a more ductile failure. Load was transferred to the GFRP
reinforcement after the timber had initial cracking.
The GFRP reinforcement increased the ultimate load capacity of timber beams.
The highest ultimate load reached by the control beams became an average for
beams reinforced with dowels only and minimum for beams reinforced with both
dowels and rebars along the span length. In addition, with increasing
reinforcement, less variability was apparent in the ultimate load capacity of a
group. The ductility increased, larger load levels were accompanied with larger
deflections, allowing for ample time of warning. With reduced variability, a less
conservative approach to timber design can be reached.
The GFRP reinforcement used changed the behaviour of the beam to that similar
to a truss. The tension chord members and vertical members were made of GFRP,
and the diagonal members and the compression chords were made of timber. This
system exploits the best characteristics of both materials used, timber having a
high compressive strength parallel to the grain, while the GFRP has a high tensile
strength. The success of this system then depends on the bond between the two.
15
Chapter 2
Literature Review
(a)
(b)
Fig 2.2 Schematic of reinforced timber beam test configurations carried out by Amy and Svecova
(2004) (a) GFRP rebars as flexural reinforcement between dapped ends, (b) GFRP rebars as
0
flexural reinforcement between dapped ends and as dowels inclined at 30 to the vertical
Amy and Svecova (2004) continued on previous research carried out by Gentile et
al. (2002) and Svecova and Eden (2004). Douglas-fir timber beams that had been
in construction were used, with the main difference that they had a dapped end.
The tests were carried out under monotonic loading, in three-point bending, with
the point load applied at mid-span point.
Testing configurations are shown in fig. 2.2 a, b, together with control beams which
were visually graded to be of superior quality. In order to take advantage of the
high tensile strength in the longitudinal direction of the pultruded GFRP rebars,
(12mm in diameter), the bonded length of the GFRP dowels was increased by
inclining them at an angle of 600 to the horizontal. This angle was aimed to
increase dowel resistance, while limiting the drilled length for ease of installation.
16
Chapter 2
Literature Review
For the control beams, dap and horizontal shear failure modes, starting from the
dapped portion and continuing to the mid-span, dominated. For beams configured
as in fig. 2.2a the behaviour was of the same order as the control beams. Two
reasons could account for this. Flexural reinforcement did not affect dap failure,
and that the control group consisted of timber of a higher grade. Some of the
beams reinforced for flexure were able to attain larger deflections, and to sustain
some loading after first cracking.
The beams reinforced as in fig. 2.2b experienced a 22% increase in the ultimate
load compared with the control beams. This estimate is conservative, since the
beams used for this configuration were of a much lower grade when compared to
the control. These specimen sustained larger deflections, resulting in higher
ductility. Dap and shear failure modes did not dominate, even though horizontal
splits were evident during testing. The splits and dap failure were arrested by the
dowel bars. Failure modes, such as compression perpendicular to the grain in the
compression zone, and bearing under the loading point or at the support, occurred,
all being stronger modes of failure.
2.3.5 Research using other FRP types for shear strengthening of

timber beams
Triantafillou (1997) conducted research study in the use of CFRP fabric or
laminates bonded to the sides of timber beams in the shear-critical zones (fig. 2.3).
An effort was made to sample small uniform and clear specimens without defects
to reduce the uncertainties involved with timber mechanical properties. The beams
17
Chapter 2
Literature Review
were designed to fail in shear by reducing the width of the beams in the shearcritical zones.
Fig 2.3 Schematic of reinforced timber beam test configuration carried out by Triantafillou (1997)
An analytical method that transforms the FRP fabric or laminate to an equivalent

timber section was proposed. It resulted in very close agreement to the
experimental results, with a slight overestimation. Analytically it was found that
shear capacity increases with increasing FRP cross-sectional area and FRP
Youngs Modulus in relation to those of the timber section, and with decreasing
ratio of the vertical height of the FRP to that of the timber member. A lower bound
is needed to this last condition to avoid timber shear failure in the unreinforced
section from occurring before timber shear failure in the reinforced section.
The variables looked at include the fibre direction (either horizontal, vertical or a
combination of both), the number of CFRP layers (either one or two), and the ratio
of the vertical height of the FRP to that of timber (either 1 or 0.6).
From the experimental results, it was observed that FRP reinforcement increased
the shear capacity. The FRP material use could be optimised for a given shear
capacity enhancement by placing the fibre direction horizontally, and by using an
FRP vertical height slightly larger than the minimum limiting value for which FRP
failure occurs before timber failure. Higher differences between the experimental
18
Chapter 2
Literature Review
and analytical approaches were mostly observed when using two layers of CFRP
fabric.
(a)
(b)
Fig 2.4 Schematic of reinforced timber beam test configurations carried out by Buell and
Saadatmanesh (2005) (a) CFRP fabric with its longitudinal direction parallel to the longitudinal
direction of the beam, (b) CFRP fabric with its longitudinal direction perpendicular to the longitudinal
direction of the beam overlapped on the sides and on the top of the beam
Buell and Saadatmanesh (2005) researched the use of CFRPs in the form of bidirectional fabric wrap, and laminate strips, to investigate whether they would
increase the bending strength, shear strength and stiffness of timber beams. Both
flexural tests and shear tests on structural beam sizes were carried out. Shorter
beams were used for the shear tests, and the shear span-to-depth ratio was within
the limits suggested by ASTM D 198.
For the shear tests, two control specimens were tested, as one of them had fewer
defects than the rest; it gave very strong results in horizontal shear. In fact the
beam reinforced as in fig. 2.4b did not exhibit horizontal shear strength
19
Chapter 2
Literature Review
enhancement when compared to the stronger control beam. The beam reinforced
as in fig. 2.4a recorded a horizontal shear strength increase of 68% when
compared to the weaker control beam; in this case both cut from the same original
timber beam. Increases in the deflection ductility were also recorded.
The increase in horizontal shear strength was an important result, since many
timber bridges are structurally inefficient, because of insufficient strength in
horizontal shear. It was concluded that the carbon fabric reduces the effects of
defects present in timber, and thus it allows the strength of timber beams to
approach the strength of timber beams without defects.
2.3.6 Research using shear spikes to increase bending stiffness

Research has been conducted on the enhancement of bending stiffness of
deteriorated timber beam elements, by the use of pultruded glass fibre rebars
known as shear spikes (or Z-spikes) (Radford et al., 2000; Schilling et al., 2004;
Burgers et al., 2005; Gutkowski and Forsling, 2007; and Gutkowski et al., 2008).
The ultimate goal of this research programme, (which includes other studies not
mentioned here), was to find a repair method that is easy to apply to full-scale
bridges, without interrupting railroad operation. Radford et al. (2000) initiated this
research on small-scale timber beams. Research then proceeded on full-scale
timber beams and on full-scale bridge chord members.
The main idea behind this technique is to enhance the interlayer shear
performance of deteriorated timber beams by bridging deteriorated regions with
sound material, and thus improve their flexural stiffness. For this purpose, shear
spikes were inserted in a direction perpendicular to the primary bending axis.
20
Chapter 2
Literature Review
When timber beams to be tested were deemed to be of good quality, intentional

horizontal cuts were induced at mid-depth of the beams to simulate damaged
beams. These cuts were generally located between points of load application and
supports.
Experimental investigation involved mainly flexural load testing. Other tests such
as cyclic loading and resin shear strength testing were carried out.
The process of shear spiking involved the cutting of glass fibre rebars to small
lengths. Their leading edge was then shaped to a sharp point by using an angle
grinder. Holes were drilled in timber beams at the chosen points of application with
a diameter slightly larger than that of the spikes. Shear spikes were then driven
into these holes by a dead blow hammer, to minimise the risk of splitting the ends
of the spikes. This process was facilitated by the pointed edge. This pointed edge
was also deemed to avoid that epoxy resin, on the side of the hole, being scraped
off during the installation of the shear spike.
The initial flexural stiffness of a timber beam was measured by non-destructive
load testing, and by collecting load-deflection data. In many of these studies, shear
spikes were installed incrementally in pairs, and the flexural stiffness was recorded
at each stage. It was observed that the main increment in flexural stiffness
occurred after the insertion of the first pair at each respective beam end.
It was generally observed that the effectiveness of the method depended on the
deterioration degree of the timber beam, with the highly deteriorated beams
showing the most potential for repair. The flexural stiffness in the undamaged state
seems to be an upper limit of the stiffness that can be regained by this method
21
Chapter 2
Literature Review
(Gutkowski and Forsling, 2007). An insertion of a shear spike where it was not
needed, left a decayed void without repair. It was concluded therefore that repair is
related to the location and number of shear spikes. The use of epoxy combined
with shear spikes was highly effective (Radford et al., 2000). Similarity between
small scale beams and full scale beams testing was observed.
When load testing was carried out to ultimate failure, it was observed that the
predominant failure mode was flexure, signifying a failure in the timber rather than
in the shear spike system (Gutkowski et al., 2007).
Other observations include the following. Epoxy resin formed a better bond with
wood, resulting in better strength than with polyester resin. The bond was also
improved by lightly sanding the spikes, and by using a slightly oversized hole than
previously used. Fibreglass grindings used with the epoxy mixture resulted with
better fill-up of timber voids, while the strength of the epoxy was not compromised.
(Miller et al., 2008)
2.4 More considerations

2.4.1 Shear Connections
In 2005, in a study on shear repair of timber beams, Akbiyik tried several repair
methods using long hex bolts and lag screws. Beams with splits were tested to
determine the residual strength, and checked beams were tested to shear failure.
Both types of beams were then repaired. All beams were then tested to failure to
determine the effectiveness of a repair method. The effectiveness was determined
by comparing the unstrengthened post-failure capacity of original beam to ultimate
failure capacity of repaired beam.
22
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Fig 2.5 Single shear connection modelling the use of hex bolts and lag screws
Considering these beams as having a complete discontinuity, Akbiyik compared

the repair methods to dowel-like shear connections as shown in fig. 2.5. The aim
was to reach the ultimate failure load that would be reached by an undamaged
timber beam. The researcher used The American Forest and Paper Association
(AFPA) mechanical connection concepts, to obtain the number of hex bolts or lag
screws required. These guidelines provide different yield failure modes from which
the dominating yield failure mode was chosen in design. From the results obtained
it can be seen that better mathematical models are needed to predict the capacity
of such repair methods as the ultimate failure load predictions were not reliable in
most of the cases.
2.4.2 Bond Strength

The research work reviewed in this section is generally concerned with direct pullout testing of bonded-in rods. The design issues and performance requirements
are not the same as for rods used in shear enhancement of timber beams,
however these studies give us a good idea of the main issues involved with bond
strength. Many joint characteristics are common to both steel rods and FRP rods
(Broughton and Hutchinson, 2001).
23
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Bond increased with increasing embedment length, and in many cases with
increasing bond line thickness, but this depended also on the adhesive type
(Connolly and Mettem, 2003; Broughton and Hutchinson, 2001; Felligioni et al.,
2003; Harvey and Ansell). A larger bondline thickness resulted in a reduced peak
shear stress in the adhesive, corresponding to an increase in the experimental
failure load (Broughton and Hutchinson, 2001). The joint thickness did not only
affect pull-out strength, but also affected failure mode. For example, it was
observed that a lower glue thickness resulted in wood failure with a shift towards a
glue-steel failure with higher glue thicknesses (Felligioni et al., 2003).
Bond improved with larger adhesive shear strength and tensile modulus. Adhesive
types also affected the failure modes. It was observed that epoxy adhesives
generally led to timber failures, close to, and along, the adhesive/timber interface,
while other types of adhesive (acrylics, polyurethane and phenol-resorcinolformaldehyde) led to adhesive failure or adhesion failure at the adhesive/timber
interface. The latter corresponded with lower pull-out strengths. Epoxy has better
gap-filling qualities. (Broughton and Hutchinson, 2001)
In pull-out testing, the peak shear stress is also a function of end-constraint, which
is the hole diameter in the base plate, against which the pull-out is made
(Broughton and Hutchinson, 2001).
Joint design can be arranged in such a way to increase stress transfer always
keeping in consideration the failure mode. One can try to deal with a dominating
failure mode for a particular joint design to further increase strength. In improving
24
Chapter 2
Literature Review
bond, one should keep in mind that bond can be of two main types, mechanical
and chemical. Several methods to enhance both types of bond exist.
25
Chapter 3 Experimental Methodology

3.1 Overview
As pointed out in Chapter 1 the experimental programme of this study consists in
the testing of full scale beams loading and pull-outs. This chapter is organised in
the following manner.
Firstly, a brief discussion on principal stresses is made. Then the experimental
method adopted for the full scale beam loading test is explained. This consists in
the test setup adopted, a description of the materials used, a description of the
testing configurations, the preparation procedures and the testing procedures.
Lastly the experimental method adopted for the pull-out tests is presented in a
similar way to that of the full-scale beam loading tests.
For the pull-out test a bond length of 100mm was tested which is approximately
half the length of GFRP rebars used for the full scale beam loading test. The same
bondline thickness, and materials were used as well.
Some additional information is given in Appendix B.
26
Chapter 3
Experimental Methodology
3.2 Full Scale Beam Loading Test
3.2.1 Shear stresses

A beam element is inevitably subjected to both flexure and shear. It can be loaded
in such a manner so that it will be more likely to fail in shear than in flexure. If the
shear span length (marked a in fig. 3.2 a, b) is low, the ratio of applied shear load
to moment increases. ASTM D 198-99 states that timber beams with a shear spandepth ratio less than 5 are most likely to fail in shear. When the shear span-depth
is low, the applied load is close to the support and the principal stresses within the
region are rotated to close to 450 to the horizontal. Recalling Mohrs Circle of
stresses reminds that in these circumstances, vertical and horizontal shear
stresses are close to maximum. These principal stress lines can be considered as
the load paths through which the forces in a structure flow (fig. 3.1). The
computation of principal stresses and their direction shown diagrammatically in fig.
3.1 is shown in Appendix B.1.
Although the test setup used in this experimental programme is slightly different
from that recommended by ASTM D198-99, the effect of the applied force is still
the same as can be observed in fig. 3.2 a, b, in the sense that a large shear force
results in the region between support and point load.
27
Chapter 3
Fig 3.1 Principal stresses and principal directions of test setup used (the magnitude of the arrows
are indicative of the stress magnitude)
(a)
(b)
Fig 3.2 (a) The test setup as recommended by ASTM D 198-99, (b) The test setup as used in
this experimental programme
28
Chapter 3
3.2.2 Test Setup

Testing of full scale timber beams was carried out under a three-point loading test
setup, as shown in fig. 3.3 (refer also to Appendix B.6). All beams spanned
1500mm between simple supports, with a point load applied at a distance 500mm
away from the support. The shear span-depth ratio adopted was equal to 2.5,
which followed the recommendation made in ASTM D198-99, of limiting the shear
span-depth ratio to 5 for timber beams, so that they would be likely to fail in shear.
When one end of a timber beam was tested, the beam was inverted by 1800 on
plan, and then the other end was tested in a different test. This procedure made it
possible that, with limited resources, more results could be obtained, since from
every one timber beam, two results were obtained instead of one.
EN 408 recommends that testing of full-scale beams should take 300 seconds +/120 seconds to reach ultimate failure. An assumption that the timber grade was
C16 was made. Following Eurocode 5 design equations for shear and bending,
without safety factors, it was predicted that the ultimate failure load was equal to
about 64kN (Appendix B.2). On this basis the loading rate used was of 5kN every
30 seconds. During testing, it was found that the ultimate failure load was much
higher than 64kN, but nevertheless the loading rate was kept as 5kN every 30
seconds.
29
Chapter 3
Fig. 3.3 Schematic of the test setup (dimensions are in millimeters)
3.2.3 Materials
3.2.3.1
Timber
The timber beams used in this study were sourced from local supplier Joseph
Caruana Co. Ltd. and imported from Austria. The beams were made of larch wood
(Larix deciduas, known locally as red deal or ta l-ahmar), a softwood. No
certification of the timber beams quality was available. However BS EN 1912: 2004
indicates that this species can have a grade of C30, C24 or C16. The grading of
the timber beams quality was not considered to be important as comparison of the
performance of the reinforced timber beam configurations was made with that of
the control beams. Larch wood is a moderately heavy timber, with density being in
the range between 480 and 640 kg/m3 when dry (Patterson 1988).
The beams were stored in a private garage for about three months after being
bought and then transported to the Civil Engineering Laboratory at the Faculty for
the Built Environment at the University of Malta, about a month before testing
commenced.
The beams nominal cross-section was 200mm by 200mm.
30
Chapter 3
3.2.3.2
Reinforcement
Aslan 100 GFRP rebars of 6mm rebar diameter (6.35mm nominal diameter) were
used. These are manufactured by Hughes Brothers, Inc., USA and were supplied
by J.M.V. Ltd.
Aslan 100 GFRP rebars are made up of E-glass fibres in a vinyl ester matrix. The
surface of Aslan 100 GFRP is finished by helically over-wound fibres, and a sand
coating to enhance bond. Some properties are given in table 3.1 and are those
quoted from the manufacturer.
Bar
Size
(mm)
6
Cross Sectional
Area
(mm2)
31.67
Shear
Strength
(MPa)
152
Tensile
Strength
(MPa)
825
Tensile Modulus of
Elasticity
(GPa)
40.8
Table 3.1 Properties of GFRP rebars (refer also to Appendices B.3 and B.4)
3.2.3.3
Adhesive
Sika AnchorFix-2, a two-part epoxy-acrylate adhesive was used to fix rebars. Its
compressive strength is quoted by its manufacturer as being 60N/mm2 tested
according to ASTM D695 (refer also to Appendix B.5). A pull-out test was carried
out to investigate the bond strength developed with the wood and with the rebars.
This adhesive was applied by a gun which facilitates the filling up of holes made to
receive the rebars.
3.2.4 Testing Configurations

In this research nine timber beams were tested. Each beam was tested twice in
two separate three-point loading tests. The variables for this research were the
angle of the GFRP rebars with the horizontal and the timber beam condition.
31
Chapter 3
Details and diagrams of the configurations that were tested are shown in table 3.2
and in fig. 3.4. One 6mm diameter GFRP rebar was installed in the centre of the
beams width at the positions shown in the elevations of fig. 3.4. Each configuration
was tested three times to obtain certain statistical reliability from the test results.
Strain gauges were fixed to each GFRP rebar at the centre of their length at which
position the tensile stresses were expected to be maximum due to the highest
bonded length. Tensile stresses were not expected to be large, because of the
very short bonded length, which is a problem characteristic of shear reinforcement.
The GFRP rebars were expected to act as dowels, resisting horizontal shear
displacement, as is likely in timber beams, because of their orthotropic nature.
Beam
End
Series
CN
CD
IN
ID
VN
VD
Beam
Angle of
Timber Beam
Spacing of
End
Reinforcement
Reinforcement
End
Reinforcement
Mark
with Horizontal
Condition
C1N
C2N
C3N
C1D
C2D
C3D
I1N
I2N
I3N
I1D
I2D
I3D
V1N
V2N
V3N
V1D
V2D
V3D
"new"
none
none
none
"damaged"
"new"
60 degrees
"damaged"
3* 6mm
GFRP rebars
200mm
"new"
90 degrees
"damaged"
Table 3.2 Details of the tested configurations
Notes:
C Control specimen
32
Chapter 3
V Vertically inserted GFRP rebars into specimen

I Inclined inserted GFRP rebars into specimen
N New timber beams
D Simulated Damaged timber beams
A number 1,2,3 was added for the three identical test configurations so that each
tested beam can be easily distinguishable.
Fig. 3.4 Diagrams of configurations tested, the dimensions of the damaged series are the same
as those for the new series (all dimensions are in millimetres)
33
Chapter 3
End A
V1D
V2D
V3N
I1D
I2D
I3D
C2D
C1N
C3N
End B
V1N
V2N
V3D
I1N
I2N
I3N
C1D
C2N
C3D
Width (b) Depth (d) Length (l) Surface Moisture (%)

195
197
2564
9.3
197
196
2586
11.3
198
198
2548
11.5
198
199
2564
12.3
198
199
2553
12.6
198
198
2539
10.4
194
198
2567
9.8
197
197
2560
11.3
10.2
196
196
2586
Table 3.3 Dimensions and surface moisture of the nine timber beams used with their respective
marking at each end (all dimensions are in millimetres)
Table 3.3 presents the dimensions and surface moisture contents of all the tested
timber beams measured some few days before testing commenced. The width
dimension refers to the horizontal dimension while the depth dimension refers to
the vertical dimension of the timber beam cross-section. Widths, depths and
surface moisture contents were measured at three different locations along the
beam length on all four sides of the beam; 300mm from each end and at the centre
of the length. The values shown in the table are averages of values obtained at
these three locations. The quoted length of the timber beam is the minimum length
when measuring the length along the four corners of the cross-section. The length
varied at these locations due to the fact that the timber beams were bought double
the size needed and were cut manually by a chain saw.
Each beams longitudinal side was marked as being the left, right, top or bottom
side. The applied load was applied to the side chosen to be the top. The right side
of the beam is that side on the right hand side when looking from end A towards
end B with the top side of the beam facing up.
34
Chapter 3
3.2.5 Preparation Procedures

3.2.5.1
Timber Beams
The horizontal cuts were made at mid-depth, from the beam end up to the position
of the load application point for those timber beams to be tested as damaged. This
simulated a weathered timber beam with a horizontal split. The cuts were initiated
by means of a drunking saw (cross cut), and finished by a hand saw (fig. 3.5). This
method made the best use of the tools available.
Fig. 3.5 Making of the simulated damage
A procedure to drill holes to receive the GFRP rebars was then initiated. The
positions of the holes were marked on the bottom side of the beams. Drill jigs were
then created for the 600 and the 900 holes. The 600 drill jig was created from a
rectangular piece of timber following the described procedure. A 600 angle was
marked accurately on it. This mark was then placed parallel with a punch drill bit
and the rotating table was set parallel to the bottom side of the rectangular piece of
timber. This was achieved by the aid of a rotating L-square (fig. 3.6). A 900 drill jig
was created following the same procedure.
35
Chapter 3
Fig. 3.6 Creation of drill jig
The drill jigs were positioned and clamped on the timber beams with the marked
guides (fig. 3.7b). The holes were drilled by a hand drill, firstly to a diameter of
10mm and then re-drilled to a diameter of 12mm. The hole diameter of 12mm was
chosen so that, to have around 2.5mm bondline with a GFRP nominal diameter of
6.35mm. A wood drill bit of 11mm would have been preferred but was not found on
the market. The last 12mm of the beams depth were left undrilled to facilitate the
application of the adhesive. This was achieved by marking the drill bit with a piece
of tape to act as guide (fig. 3.7a).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3.7 Drilling of holes
36
Chapter 3
The checks and knots of all sides of the beams were plotted prior to testing and are
shown later on the same plots of the cracks.
3.2.5.2
Strain Gauges
Type TML BFLA-2-5-5L strain gauges were fixed to the GFRP rebars. Prior to
fixing of the strain gauges, the GFRP rebars were smoothened by a hand file to an
area slightly larger than that of the strain gauge at the position where the strain
gauges were to be fixed, in order to ensure good adhesion. The smoothened area
was cleaned by means of cotton buds immersed in white spirit. The white spirit was
then dried by a tissue paper. The strain gauges were then placed with bonding
face down on a plastic sheet. A transparent tape was bonded to the other side of
the strain gauge. The tape was then lifted carefully, bending as little as possible the
strain gauge. The strain gauge was now fixed to the tape with the bonding face
exposed. CN adhesive was applied on the cleaned surface of the GFRP rebar and
the strain gauge was placed on this surface. The strain gauge was pressed by the
finger through the tape for a couple of minutes to allow for curing. The tape was
then removed. A layer of electrical insulating tape was applied around the strain
gauge and the exposed wire to protect the strain gauge. Finally each strain gauge
resistance was checked by means of an ohm metre and all strain gauges were
found to be in the range of the required resistance specified by the manufacturer of
121.0 +/- 0.5 ohms (fig. 3.8). Therefore it was ensured that none of the strain
gauges was damaged in the process.
37
Chapter 3
Fig. 3.8 Checking the electrical resistance by means of an ohm metre
3.2.5.3
Insertion of GFRP rebars
The holes were cleaned by firstly placing the timber beams with holes down so as
to aid any timber debris to fall. An air gun connected to a compressor was used to
further clean the holes. The beam was then rotated so the holes would point
upwards. The adhesive cartridge was opened. The static mixer fixed with an
extension to reach the entire depth of the holes was screwed to the cartridge. The
cartridge was placed into a gun. The first few pumps of the adhesive were
discarded so as to ensure adequate mixing of the two-part adhesive. After this the
holes were filled up to about two-thirds of their volume with the adhesive (fig. 3.9a).
The GFRP rebars were then inserted in a rotating manner so as to expel any
trapped air (fig. 3.9b). It was observed that in all insertions some extra adhesive
flowed out of the hole. This ensured adequate filling of the holes. The installation of
38
Chapter 3
the GFRP rebars was carried out at an ambient temperature of 16.30C. A relative
humidity reader was unavailable.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3.9 Inserting the GFRP rebars
3.2.6 Testing Procedures

The beams were transported and placed in the rig by hand. Two transverse
Universal Beam sections where clamped in position on top of the rig frame to
support the test specimens. Steel spacers were used both at the supports and at
the load point together with steel bearing plates. The dimensions of the bearing
plates at the supports were of 12mm thickness, 90mm width and 215mm length
which was enough to span the width of the beams. The bearing plate at the point
load was circular with a thickness of 30mm and a diameter of 220mm. This bearing
plate was used from the fourth test onwards after another two bearing plates were
used without spacers and were bent. The three tests that used different bearing
plates and their dimensions are indicated in Chapter 4.
The hydraulic jack used at the point load position was of 200kN capacity. In order
to ensure calibration of the loading equipment used, the load cell together with the
Peckel Data Logger2500 system was tested by a compression testing machine.
39
Chapter 3
Calibration was ensured by observing that the results obtained by the data logger
were in agreement with those of the compression testing machine.
Load-displacement data was not recorded. This was not considered to be
important. It was expected that if there was any difference between the loaddisplacement behaviour of specimen reinforced for shear, and that of the control
specimens, this would be minimal. Observance of the ultimate loads reached and
the failure modes were deemed to give satisfactorily results for the scope of this
study.
The load cell and strain gauges were connected to a CJC750 connection board.
This connected them electrically to the data logger. Two lead wires were used with
each strain gauge. One lead wire was connected to input connections D and E with
E having one of the wires of the strain gauge as well. The other lead wire
connected G and F with F having the other wire of the strain gauge connected to it
as well. It was made sure that the connection mark on the terminal board
corresponded to that of the data logger. The corresponding strain gauge with the
input channel was noted so that the readings obtained from the Peckel Data
Logger 2500 could be identified with the corresponding GFRP rebar.
The settings for each channel were inputted before any testing could commence.
These inputs had to correspond to the type of material being tested and to the type
of strain gauge used. The Youngs Modulus of the GFRP rebars used, and the K
factor which was provided with the strain gauges were inputted.
40
Chapter 3
After the test setup was completed, the beam was loaded up to ultimate failure.
Photos were taken at every load increment from the left and right sides of the
beam, and these were more frequent when failure approached.
3.3 Direct Pull-out Testing
3.3.1 Materials
The timber, GFRP rebars and adhesive used for this test were of the same quality
of those used for the full scale beam loading test.
3.3.2 Test Setup and Testing Configurations

The direct pull-out test made use of Instron Model 1331 tensile testing machine. Its
maximum capacity was of 5kN. The test setup is shown in fig. 3.10. The angle
between the grain direction and the direction of the inserted GFRP rebar was
varied. The angles investigated were three; the 900, 600 and 450 angle (fig. 3.11).
Five samples for each angle were tested. The sample marking was of this format
## - #. The first two digits refer to the angle between the grain direction and the
direction of the inserted GFRP rebar and the last digit was assigned a number from
1 to 5 so that each sample could be easily identifiable. An example of such
marking is 90-3.
41
Chapter 3
Fig. 3.10 Pull-out Test Setup (dimensions are in millimeters)
Fig. 3.11 The pull-out tested configurations
42
Chapter 3
3.3.3 Preparation Procedures

3.3.3.1
Attachment to Tensile Machine
A mild steel attachment to be added to the tensile testing machine and to hold
down the timber blocks was prepared. Drawings of this attachment can be found in
Appendix B.7. This attachment was designed in such a way so as to ensure failure
from the bonded embedded length of the GFRP rebar, and not by timber crushing.
3.3.3.2
Timber Blocks
The timber blocks were cut from one beam (fig. 3.12a). A beam side was marked
with the required dimensions and grain angles of the timber blocks. These were
then cut by means of a chain saw, a bend saw and a cross-cut. The dimensions of
the timber blocks were not critical to be equal since the area to be effected by the
pull-out test was expected to be quite small. The dimension that was more
important is the bonded length of the GFRP rebar with timber and this was taken
as 100mm for all blocks. The contact surface dimensions described by the width
and the length were 124mm +/- 5mm and 196mm +/- 2mm respectively. The length
dimension corresponds to the width of the timber beam.
The surface to be used as the contact surface with the fabricated attachment was
smoothened (fig. 3.12b). Holes of a 12mm diameter were drilled at the centre of
the contact surface, to imitate the position of the GFRP rebars used in the full scale
beam loading tests, to a depth of 100mm. Whenever a check was present at this
position the hole was made at another unchecked position. It was observed that a
couple of timber blocks developed checks at the position of the hole, some time
after the hole was done.
43
Chapter 3
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3.12 Preparation of timber block samples
3.3.3.3
GFRP Rebars
A consideration in the preparation of the GFRP rebars was the thickening of the
top part which was to be clamped by steel jaws of the tensile testing machine. This
procedure was carried out in order to avoid failure at this part, as a result of high
complex stresses at this section. The top parts of the GFRP rebars were cleaned
from their rough surface by means of a grinder (fig. 3.13a). Uni-directional glass
fibre fabric was cut at a slight angle to its direction. GFRP rebars were then held
rigidly by means of a chuck. To avoid crushing of the GFRP rebars, a piece of
paper was used between the chuck and the GFRP rebars. Sikadur-32 epoxy resin
was applied on the top part surface of the GFRP rebars. The glass fibre fabric was
placed and rotated around this same part of the GFRP rebars, always
impregnating with the epoxy resin (fig. 3.13b). To expel any trapped air, a thread
line was rotated around the GFRP rebars throughout the length where the fabric
was applied (fig. 3.13c). The rebars were again impregnated with epoxy resin. After
this process the GFRP rebars were suspended in a downward position and left to
cure for 5 days. It was then required to smoothen the surface of this thickened
section. Sanded paper and a lathe were used for smoothening (fig. 3.13d).
44
Chapter 3
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 3.13 Preparation of the GFRP rebars
3.3.3.4
Insertion of GFRP bars
The GFRP rebars were inserted into the timber blocks in the same manner as in
the full scale beams. The application of the adhesive was carried out at an ambient
temperature of 17.20C and a relative air humidity of 36%.
3.3.4 Testing Procedures

The attachment was attached to the lower part of the tensile testing machine and it
was visually ensured to be level. The timber block was then placed in the
attachment with the bonded-in GFRP rebar passing through the top hole of the
attachment. A fibre board of thickness 12mm was placed between the steel
attachment and the timber block face to avoid any point stresses. The top end
45
Chapter 3
section of the GFRP rebar was clamped by means of steel jaws. Prior to testing the
attachment top face was set in close proximity to the timber block top face but care
was taken not to pull the specimen prior to test commencement. (fig. 3.14). A
testing rate of 2mm/min was used. The axial displacement and axial force were all
set to zeros and testing commenced. Axial displacements and axial forces were
recorded by means of a data logger connected to the tensile testing machine.
The first sample tested, being sample 90-5, failed by the ripping off of the
thickened top end due to improper mixing proportions of the adhesive at certain
instances in the sample preparation. This was then scraped off and re-tested. It
then failed from the bonded length and the test was deemed satisfactory. It was
thus decided that the samples having a soft thickened part should be scraped off
before testing.
Fig. 3.14 Preparation of the GFRP rebars

46
Chapter 4 Results and Analysis of Results

4.1 Overview
In this chapter the results and analysis of the information collected from the
experimental programme will be presented. In the first section the ultimate failure
loads of the beams will be presented. The second section presents the failure
modes of the tested beams. This is done by presenting observations made
together with photos and crack patterns of all the tested beams. The final sections
of this chapter present the results obtained from the direct pull-out test together
with observations made of the failure modes and an observation of the failure
modes of rebars used in the structural sized beams. Some graphs and photos are
presented in Appendix A.
4.2 Ultimate Loads

The ultimate loads carried by each timber beam were extracted from the data
recorded during testing. An explanation of how they were extracted is presented in
Appendix A.1.
From the viewpoint of the ultimate load results no major enhancement was noted
(figs. 4.1 and 4.2). When comparing the averages of the reinforced timber beams
with their respective control beams (new or damaged), a load-carrying capacity
47
Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
improvement was not noted for the new beams tested series. An improvement
was noted for the damaged beams however the level of certainty of these results
has to be questioned because of a large variability in the control damaged beams
with C3D reaching the highest ultimate load. The average ultimate load of VD
series showed an increase of 21.64%, and that of the ID series showed an
increase of 22.39% when compared to that reached by CD series.
Fig. 4.1 Ultimate loads of new timber beam series
48
Chapter 4
Fig. 4.2 Ultimate loads of damaged timber beam series
Beam Series
Average
Ultimate Load
[kN]
Variance
CN
IN
VN
CD
ID
VD
149.24 133.04 147.15
71.81
87.89
87.35
264.1
1805.5
170.1
126.4
301.9
7.0
Table 4.1 Average ultimate loads and variance of tested timber beams
If we were to eliminate the extremities of the new beam test series where the
variance is large (table 4.1), namely beams C2N and I3N, then a slight
improvement in the ultimate load capacity would become apparent. However this
approach is not appropriate. Strength enhancement measures should be aimed at
reducing the level of uncertainty, and thus variance especially for a variable
material such as timber, but not in this way. The idea is to reach ultimate loads that
have a comfortable margin in comparison with those reached by the control beams
for all tested beams.
49
Chapter 4
If we were to eliminate the extremities of damaged beam test series, namely

C2D and C3D, the ultimate load increase margin would be narrowed.
4.3 Failure Modes

Considering that from the ultimate load capacities obtained, it is difficult to interpret
the results, the observation of the failure modes plays a more important role. In this
analysis the sequential order of the forming cracks was noted for most beams. The
initiation of failure was then identified as being either of a bending type or of a
horizontal shear type, depending on the type of the first crack observed. For some
new beams the predominant failure mode was also identified. Considering that
the predominant failure modes were horizontal shear or bending, it made less
sense to speak of the predominant failure mode for the damaged beam series.
Whenever there was a horizontal cut, it was difficult to develop shear failure, and
shear displacement was likely to occur at the cut location.
The crack patterns on the sides and bottom of the beams were plotted, and are
presented as explained in fig. 4.3. It was considered useless to plot crack patterns
on the top side of the beams for most beams, since only a slight mark of the
bearing plate could be observed in most of the cases. This was not considered to
affect the failure modes. It could have caused an earlier failure for one case only,
that of beam I3N, due to a wrong bearing plate used.
Observation of the failure modes was aided by photos taken during testing from
both sides of the beams. Photos were taken manually at each load increment with
the rate increasing when ultimate failure was approaching. The sequence of the
photos was more important than identifying the exact instant at which a particular
photo was taken.
50
Chapter 4
Fig 4.3 Convention used for the presentation of crack patterns
Each tested beam will be commented upon in this section. The development of
cracks was noted from the photos taken during testing. The instants of the
occurrence of noted cracks are indicated on the load-against-time graphs of the
respective beams in Appendix A.1. These noted cracks are cross-referenced to the
crack patterns presented for each beam. The quoted applied loads are idealised, in
the sense that they are quoted as if the load increments were applied in exact
steps of 5kN. They refer to the initial peaks of every time interval as recorded by
the data logger.
Unless otherwise stated, the bearing plate at the applied point load was circular
with a thickness of 30mm and a diameter of 220mm. A circular spacer with a
thickness of 107mm, and a diameter of 155mm, was used between this bearing
plate and the load cell.
51
Chapter 4
4.3.1 C1N
The bearing plate used for this test was a square one with dimensions of 210mm
by 210mm and a thickness of 12mm. No spacer was used between the hydraulic
jack and the bearing plate.
Observations (fig. 4.6)
(i)
Load at 130kN The check closest to the load path between the applied
load and the support on right side of beam started to extend towards the
end of the beam. A shear plane failure started to develop.
(ii)
Load at 145kN First visible horizontal shear displacement at beam end.
(iii)
Load at 150-155kN Complete horizontal shear displacement at beam end

(fig. 4.4 a, b).
(a)
(b)
Fig 4.4 Horizontal shear failure of beam C1N (a) End view & (b) Right side
(iv)
Post-failure Instant appearance of bending cracks of the simple tension

type on both sides of the beam (fig. 4.5 a, b).
52
Chapter 4
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.5 Bending failure of beam C1N (a) Left side & (b) Right side
Crack Pattern
Fig. 4.6 Crack pattern for beam C1N
The predominant failure mode for this beam was horizontal shear. It was followed
by bending failure in the shear span.
53
Chapter 4
4.3.2 C2N
The same bearing plate without spacers used for C1N was used for this test. This
plate was bent due to the high loads reached and it was decided for the next tests
that the rig frame beam should be raised and spacers included.
(i)
Load at 180kN Instant appearance of bending cracks of the brittle tension

type (fig. 4.7 a, b, c).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 4.7 Bending failure of beam C2N (a) Left side, (b) Right side & (c) Bottom side
54
Chapter 4
Crack Pattern
This beam end resulted to be very strong in shear. The predominant failure mode
was bending outside the shear span. It reached the highest ultimate load of
167.91kN from all tested beams. It had a check on its left side which did not
propagate to a larger crack while loading. This check was shallow as the pith was
close to the left side surface of the beam. The presence of knots was very limited.
4.3.3 C3N
This beam was loaded for three consecutive times due to loss of data in the first
two tests. The first time it reached an applied load of about 60kN and the second
time it reached an applied load of about 32kN before being unloaded to restart the
test. In the third test the ultimate load was of 141.57kN.
55
Chapter 4

(i)
Load at 160kN Appearance of bending cracks of the cross-grain tension

type on the left side of the beam (fig. 4.9 a) and of simple tension and
splintering tension on the right side (fig. 4.9 b) of the beam in the same
instant with horizontal shear displacement on the end of the beam (fig. 4.9
b).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 4.9 Beam C3N at ultimate failure
(a) Left side, (b) Right side & (c) Bottom side
56
Chapter 4
Crack Pattern
It is difficult to determine the predominant failure mode for this beam since
horizontal shear displacement at the end of the beam and bending cracks were
visible at the same instant which corresponded to the instant when ultimate failure
occurred. Side shear cracks were not clear from the photos taken during testing.
The appearance of shear displacement at the end of the beam is likely to be
preceeded by other failures in the span of the beam especially by shear failure.
Similarities between the crack pattern for this beam and that of beam C1N could be
drawn, in the sense that the bending crack formed inside the shear span. This
makes it more likely that the predominant failure mode for this beam was horizontal
shear and then led to a bending failure.
57
Chapter 4
4.3.4 I1N
Observations (fig. 4.12 a, b)
(i)
Load at 110kN First bending crack became apparent on the right side of
the beam, outside the shear span, and at a knot location (fig. 4.11).
(ii)
Load at 130kN Second bending crack became apparent at the same knot
location (fig. 4.11).
(iii)
Load at 150kN On the left side of the beam, a first bending crack became
apparent. Shear displacement was visible at the end of the beam. The shear
crack was developed vertically rather than horizontally. This crack raises
questions. Did the GFRP rebars arrest the shear crack from propagating
and reaching the right side of the beam or was it just a coincidence that the
shear crack from the left side joined to a check present on the top side of
the beam?
Fig. 4.11 Right side of beam I1N after test

58
Chapter 4
Crack Pattern
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.12 Crack pattern for beam I1N; (a) Top side, (b) All other sides
Failure was initiated by bending cracks on the right side of the beam while shear
and bending cracks followed on the left side. Most probably the predominant failure
mode for this beam was bending which was followed by a shear failure.
59
Chapter 4
After the test a gap was visible between GFRP rebar 3 (refer to Appendix A.1 for
rebar marking explanation) and the timber beam. This is an indication of bending
weakening by creating discontinuities at the bottom side of the beam, an effect
which is similar to that of knots. This effect was evident on other beam samples.
4.3.5 I2N
(i)
Load at 140kN A cross-grain bending crack became visible on the right

side (fig. 4.13 b). At this same instant a drop in the tensile force of rebar 3
was observed. This shows that the bending crack propagated up to the
location of rebar 3 reducing its bonded area and thus its tensile force.
(ii)
Load at 160kN A second bending crack became visible on the right side
(fig. 4.13 a).
(iii)
Post-failure A bending crack became visible on the left side of the beam.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.13 Bending cracks of beam I2N (a) Right side of beam, (b) Bottom side looked at from the
right side
60
Chapter 4
Crack Pattern
Fig. 4.14 Crack pattern for beam I2N
The predominant failure mode was bending failure. It occurred outside the shear
span and was not followed by shear failure.
This beam can be compared to beam C2N. The checks present in the shear zone
on the left side of I2N were similar to those present in the same location of beam
C2N. Their depth into the beams cross-section was also limited. This factor may
have made it more difficult for the beam to fail in shear. In fact both beams had a
predominant bending failure mode. Both beams obtained the highest ultimate loads
in their respective series groups. The defects in I2N were made clear in the
bending failure line especially at the bottom face of the beam. Contrary to the brittle
tension line visible at the bottom face of C2N the failure line in the bottom face of
I2N followed the grain, and joined the locations of knots and GFRP rebar 3.
61
Chapter 4
4.3.6 I3N
The bearing plate used for this test was of dimensions 220mm by 100mm with a
thickness of 12mm. No spacer was used.
(i)
Load at 125kN Bending crack became visible on the right side (fig. 4.15
b).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.15 Beam I3N after the test (a) Bearing failure due to plate used, (b) Bottom side seen from
the right side
This was the first beam tested. The small sized bearing plate used for this test was
not fit for the purpose. It might have been the cause for the beam reaching a very
low ultimate load when compared to the rest of the new beam series. A bearing
failure (fig. 4.15 a) was observed.
62
Chapter 4
Crack Pattern
Fig. 4.16 Crack pattern for beam I3N
4.3.7 V1N
Observations (fig. 4.19 a, b)
(i)
Load at 105kN Appearance of first bending crack of the cross-grain

tension type on the right side outside the shear span (fig. 4.17).
(ii)
Post-Failure Horizontal shear displacement was observed at the beams

end at positions of pre-existing checks (fig. 4.18).
(iii)
Post-Failure Bending cracks were observed on the left side of the beam.
63
Chapter 4
Fig. 4.17 First bending crack on the right side of beam V1N
Fig. 4.18 Shear displacement at the end of beam V1N
64
Chapter 4
Crack Pattern
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.19 Crack pattern for beam V1N; (a) Top side, (b) All other sides
The ultimate failure for this beam was initiated by bending cracks followed by shear
failure. The shear failure was not much pronounced. End displacement was only
visible at positions of pre-existing checks. The end displacement was similar to that
of I1N in the sense that a total horizontal failure plane was not formed; this might
65
Chapter 4
indicate an arrestment of the shear crack propagating throughout the beams width
by the GFRP rebars.
4.3.8 V2N
(i)
Load at 160kN Bending cracks were visible on the right side of the beam
(fig. 4.20).
(ii)
Post-Failure Horizontal shear displacement was visible at the end of the

beam (fig. 4.20).
Fig. 4.20 Beam V2N after failure
66
Chapter 4
Crack Pattern
Fig. 4.21 Crack pattern for beam V2N
The failure mode for this beam is similar to that of C3N in the sense that bending
cracks and horizontal shear displacement at the beams end were visible at almost
the same instant. The difference between this beam and C3N is that in beam V2N
bending cracks were visible in a couple of photos prior to horizontal shear
displacement being visible. This might indicate that the failure for this beam was
initiated by bending failure followed by shear failure. The occurrence of bending
failure made it easier for shear failure to follow. With bending cracks forming the
beam becomes less stiff and thus it will deflect more. With more deflections the
possibility of shear sliding increases.
67
Chapter 4
4.3.9 V3N
(i)
Load at 140kN First bending crack was visible on the right side of the
beam at the bottom end beneath the point of applied loading (fig. 4.22).
(ii)
Load at 155kN Horizontal shear displacement at end of beam (fig. 4.23).
Fig. 4.22 First bending crack of beam V3N
Fig. 4.23 Shear failure of beam V3N
68
Chapter 4
(iii)
Post-Failure The first bending crack on the left side at the bottom end
beneath the point of applied loading became visible with a more pronounced
horizontal shear displacement at the end (fig. 4.24).
Fig. 4.24 First bending crack on the left side of beam V3N
Crack Pattern
Fig. 4.25 Crack pattern for beam V3N

69
Chapter 4
The failure mode for this beam was initiated by bending which was followed by a
shear failure at the ultimate failure of the beam.
4.3.10 C1D
The horizontal cut made was not wide. This beam had lengthwise deep checks at
mid-depth on its right side. Minor horizontal displacements were observed at the
end prior to bending failure.
(i)
Load at 75kN First bending crack appeared on the left side.
(ii)
Load at 85kN First bending crack appeared on the right side and second
bending crack appeared on the left side.
Crack Pattern
Fig. 4.26 Crack pattern for beam C1D

70
Chapter 4
The beam failed in bending however prior shear displacement at the end was
observed. The bending crack formed approximately at the location vertically
downwards beneath the applied load.
4.3.11 C2D
The horizontal cut was not wide in general but was wider on the left side close to
the applied load. Minor horizontal displacements were observed at the end prior to
bending failure. This beam had lengthwise deep checks at mid-depth on its right
side.
(i)
Load at 30kN Bending cracks were observed on both sides of the beam.
Crack Pattern
71
Chapter 4
The beam failed in bending however prior shear sliding was observed. The
bending crack formed approximately at the location vertically downwards beneath
the applied load.
4.3.12 C3D
Minor horizontal displacements were observed at the end prior to bending failure.
(i)
Load at 120kN Bending cracks were visible on both sides of the beam at
mid-depth above the horizontal cut (fig. 4.28 a, b).
(ii)
Load at 125kN Bending cracks were observed on both sides of the beam
at the bottom fibres (fig. 4.28 a, b).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.28 Beam C3D after failure (a) Right side of beam, (b) Left side of beam
From the crack pattern it can be observed that the horizontal cut made prior to the
test extended further into the span during the test. The horizontal cracks that
formed were of a very fine width.
Large shear displacements at the end of the beam followed ultimate failure.
72
Chapter 4
Crack Pattern
4.3.13 I1D
The horizontal cut made was a bit wide. Almost none or minor horizontal
displacements were observed even after ultimate failure.
Both shear cracks and bending cracks were observed. It is difficult to say which
failure predominated since none of the cracks were visible from the photos taken
during the test. The fact that minor horizontal displacements were visible at the end
of the beam and shear cracks at mid-depth into the span were observed (fig. 4.30
b) might indicate that the GFRP rebars provided a restraint to shear displacement
at the end of the beam. A possibility is that this same shear displacement could not
be resisted by the beam and thus the beam section adjacent to the shear span
73
Chapter 4
failed in shear. It could be the case that bending failure at the bottom of the beam
followed this shear crack as bending failure was intended outside the shear span.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.30 Beam I1D after failure (a) Left side, (b) Right side
In fig. 4.30a, bending cracks at mid-depth and bottom end of the beam can be
observed and in fig. 4.30b, a bending crack at the bottom end and a shear crack at
mid-depth into the span of the beam can be observed.
74
Chapter 4
Crack Pattern
Fig. 4.31 Crack pattern for beam I1D
4.3.14 I2D
The horizontal cut made was a bit wide. End shear displacement was observed to
increase slightly with increasing load but was considerable at ultimate failure.
(i)
Load at 100kN First bending crack was visible at mid-depth on the right
side of the beam.
(ii)
Load at 105kN First bending crack on the left side of the beam was
observed.
(iii)
Load at 110kN Second bending crack on the left side.
(iv)
Load at 115kN Third bending crack on the left side was visible with which
a larger end displacement occurred.
75
Chapter 4
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.32 Beam I2D at ultimate failure (a) Left side (b) Right side
In fig. 4.32 a and b, photos of the beam at ultimate failure are shown.
Crack Pattern
76
Chapter 4
4.3.15 I3D
The horizontal cut made was not wide. Minor horizontal displacements were
observed at the end prior to bending failure. Large end displacements did not
occur.
(i)
Load at 85kN Bending crack became visible.
Crack Pattern
4.3.16 V1D
This beam had some deep checks along a considerable length on its right side.
Minor horizontal end displacement was visible during the testing.
77
Chapter 4
(i)
Load at 80kN Bending cracks were observed on both sides of the beam at
knot locations in close proximity to the loading point (fig. 4.35 a, b).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.35 Beam V1D at ultimate failure (a) Left side (b) Right side
Crack Pattern
Fig. 4.36 Crack pattern for beam V1D
78
Chapter 4
4.3.17 V2D
Observations (fig 4.38)
The cut made was a bit wide. Shear displacement at the end of the beam could be
observed throughout the test. However larger shear displacements were only
evident after bending failure.
(i)
Load at 105kN First minor bending crack on the right side of the beam.
(ii)
Load at 110kN Bending crack on the right side of the beam at mid-depth.
Appearance of bending cracks on the left side of the beam.
(iii)
Post-failure Full development of first bending crack on the right side (fig.
4.37).
Fig. 4.37 Beam V2D after failure
79
Chapter 4
Crack Pattern
4.3.18 V3D
(i)
Load at 70kN First bending crack visible on the right side of the beam
outside the shear span at knot location (fig. 4.39).
(ii)
Load at 100kN The second bending crack on the right side occurred at
mid-depth while the first bending crack developed further (fig. 4.40 a). On
the left side of the beam a first bending crack appeared at the same instant
that an inclined check towards the loading point extended further towards
the loading point to form a shear crack (fig. 4.40 b).
80
Chapter 4
Fig. 4.39 First bending crack on the right side of beam V3D
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.40 Beam V3D at ultimate failure; (a) Right side (b) Left side
81
Chapter 4
Crack Pattern
4.4 General Observations of Failure Modes

The ultimate loads reached do not indicate any strength enhancement for the new
beams. However by observing failure initiation type of the beams, one could take
a hint that shear enhancement was made (table 4.2). Two control beams, C1N and
C3N, of the new beam series had shear failure as initiation of failure. None of the
six reinforced new timber beams had shear initiated failure.
The damaged beams were expected to fail in bending since horizontal shear
resistance of the beam was vastly diminished by the horizontal cut. This in turn
reduced the bending capacity of the beam. Shear displacements were observed
accompanying bending failures. The GFRP rebars were aimed at reducing this
shear displacement by reconnecting the top part of the beam with the bottom part.
82
Chapter 4
It was not expected to regain the original strength of the beams with such a small
reinforcement ratio.
Beam
Initiation of Failure
C1N
Horizontal Shear
C2N
C3N
Bending
Horizontal Shear
I1N
I2N
I3N
Bending
Bending
Bearing
V1N
V2N
V3N
Bending
Bending
Bending
C1D
C2D
C3D
Bending
Bending
Bending
I1D
I2D
I3D
Shear into the span

Bending
Bending
V1D
V2D
V3D
Bending
Bending
Bending
Table 4.2 Failure modes of the tested timber beams
83
Chapter 4
4.5 Direct Pull-out Test Results

Graphs of axial pull-out force against axial displacement were plotted from data
recorded by the data logger connected to the tensile testing machine. The test was
initiated with the timber block in close proximity to the hold-down plate but not
touching to it to avoid any damage to the test samples prior to testing (fig. 4.42).
The first part of the test reading therefore showed a large axial displacement for a
very low force. This part of the data was omitted since it involved bringing the
timber block in full contact with the hold-down plate.
Fig. 4.42 Typical timber block position at initiation of test
The ultimate pull-out forces were extracted from the graphs shown in figures 4.43,
4.44 and 4.45 for each tested sample and these were taken to be the highest loads
reached by each test sample. These values are quoted in table 4.3 together with
their respective axial displacement. Values for the bond stresses ( b ) are also
tabulated. These were calculated for an embedment length (L) of 100mm both at
the rebar/adhesive interface and at the timber/adhesive interface considering a
rebar diameter ( ) of 6mm for the rebar/adhesive interface and a hole diameter
( ) of 12mm for the timber/adhesive interface. It is commonly understood that a
84
Chapter 4
linear relationship between pull-out force and embedment length exists. The
following formula was used.
Fig. 4.43 Force against Displacement for 45 series

85
Chapter 4
Pull-out
Force
Axial
Displacement
[kN]
45-1
45-2
45-3
45-4
45-5
Sample
Bond stress
[mm]
Rebar/Adhesive
[N/mm2]
Timber/Adhesive
[N/mm2]
11.3386
9.6264
7.6594
6.4151
5.1931
4.1277
4.9332
2.8677
2.2613
2.0121
6.0153
5.1070
4.0634
3.4033
2.7550
3.0077
2.5535
2.0317
1.7016
1.3775
60-1
60-2
60-3
60-4
60-5
7.3975
8.0459
9.6384
/
7.4311
3.4204
3.3219
4.4284
/
2.8180
3.9245
4.2685
5.1133
/
3.9423
1.9622
2.1342
2.5567
/
1.9712
90-1
90-2
90-3
90-4
90-5
9.3714
8.4220
9.0653
8.2412
6.9475
3.7205
3.1175
4.4243
3.8238
3.0160
4.9717
4.4680
4.8093
4.3721
3.6858
2.4858
2.2340
2.4046
2.1860
1.8429
Table 4.3 Pull-out test results at ultimate
86
Chapter 4
Sample
Series
Average
Pull-out
Force
[kN]
450
600
900
8.0465
8.1282
8.4095
Average Bond Stress
Pull-out
Force
Variance
Rebar/Adhesive
Timber/Adhesive
[N/mm2]
[N/mm2]
4.8575
0.8268
0.7043
4.2688
4.3122
4.4614
2.1344
2.1561
2.2307
Table 4.4 Pull-out average test results and variance for each tested series at ultimate
The large variance in series group 45 may be partly explained by the fact that 45-3
and 45-4 had checks passing through the GFRP insertion hole (fig. 4.46 a). These
may reduce bond area. These checks developed after the test specimens were cut
to size and before rebar insertion. The fact that the test specimens were prepared
partly in a different location to that of testing might have subjected the timber
blocks to a different ambient moisture content and thus to shrinkage and swelling.
Sample 60-5 suffered from this problem as well. Sample 60-4 was pulled out
excessively by mistake before readings were taken. Figure 4.46b shows a typical
unchecked specimen.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.46 Pull-out samples prior to testing

(a) Typical specimen with check, (b) Typical proper specimen
87
Chapter 4
From the average pull-out forces no major difference was observed between the
different inclination angles with respect to the grain direction.
4.5.1 Failure modes

A failure at the timber/adhesive interface was observed for all tested samples (fig.
4.47 a, b). It was decided to open up some representative samples to better
observe this interface. Two samples from each series for which the ultimate pullout force was close to the average ultimate pull-out force of the same series were
opened. These were 45-2, 45-3, 60-2, 60-5, 90-2 and 90-4.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.47 Typical pull-out failure; (a) Sample 45-2, (b) Sample 90-4
88
Chapter 4
Fig. 4.48 Sample 45-2
89
Chapter 4

90
Chapter 4
The samples were opened up by the use of a baton and a flat-tipped chisel. This
process was carried out cautiously to avoid damaging the bonded area of the
samples. Some general observations, photos taken by a camera (figs. 4.48 4.53)
and stereoscope images are presented (Appendix A.2).
In general an adhesive penetration problem was observed making the bond more a
frictional type (mechanical) than a chemical one. Most of the adhesive remained
bonded to the GFRP rebar. On the exposed surface of the adhesive some timber
particles were observed especially at those locations where the adhesive was in
contact with the early wood of the growth ring. This was more evident with the
samples from series group 45 followed by those from series group 60 and least by
those in series group 90.
It seems that the early wood was disturbed by the drilling process unlike the late
wood which due to being harder was smoothened. Surface smoothening of the
timber most probably reduced the bond since it reduced the interlock between the
adhesive and the timber. The disturbed particles remained connected to the rest of
the timber and were more easily covered with adhesive. Their contribution in
increasing the pull-out force was most probably very insignificant. The highest
average pull-out force was achieved by series group 90 in which series the least
timber particles were observed on the adhesive surface. However one should note
that the highest singular ultimate pull-out forces were achieved by samples from
the 45 and 60 series.
At some locations an adhesive failure was observed, in which the adhesive
remained bonded to the timber. Some trapped air was also evident.
91
Chapter 4
4.6 Rebar Forces in Full Scale Beam Loading Test

Bond forces were assumed linearly proportional to embedment length. Every force
should have an equal and opposite reaction if equilibrium is to be maintained. A
pull-out force applied on to a bonded rebar is resisted by a bond force (fig. 4.54a).
For the case of bonded-in rebars in structural elements which are expected to work
in tension two equal bond forces are expected to work in opposite directions and
on opposite ends. Therefore we can assume that two equal bond lengths are
required (fig. 4.54b). For long lengths, at ultimate, the bond stress reaches a
plateau which is equal to the tension capacity of the rebar. From the pull-out forces
obtained, being much smaller than the tensile capacity of the GFRP rebar, it was
assumed that this plateau would not be reached in our case. The ultimate bond
forces for the bonded-in rebars used in structural sized timber beams were
calculated by using half the rebar length and the average bond stresses obtained
from the pull-out test (table 4.5). It should be noted that generally in design
characteristic values are used.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.54 (a) Bond stresses in pull-out testing, (b) Bond stresses in structural elements
92
Chapter 4
Beam
Series
Inclined
Vertical
[mm]
Half
Rebar
Length
[mm]
Bond Stress
Rebar/Adhesive
Interface (Pull-out)
[N/mm2]
Ultimate
Bond
Forces
[kN]
217
188
108.5
94
4.3122
4.4614
8.8192
7.9050
Rebar
Length
Table 4.5 Ultimate bond forces for GFRP rebars as used in the full-scale beam configurations
Table 4.6 shows the forces recorded in the rebars at the time corresponding to
ultimate failure of the beam. The positions of rebars 1, 2 and 3 are explained in
Appendix A.1. Some strain gauges provided no readings. They could have been
damaged during installation.
Beam
I1N
I2N
I3N
V1N
V2N
V3N
I1D
I2D
I3D
V1D
V2D
V3D
Beam
Ultimate
Failure
Load
[kN]
137.91
147.46
113.75
145.84
150.19
145.42
85.05
100.46
78.16
74.65
96.03
91.37
Force in Rebars at Ultimate

Failure of Beam
Rebar 1
Rebar 2
Rebar 3
[kN]
[kN]
[kN]
0.29
1.03
0.06
/
3.13
2.37
1.14
14.14
/
20.76
/
10.98
1.23
/
1.29
0.37
0.55
0.3
0.17
/
5.03
2.8
6.01
15.86
/
1.18
1.89
2.26
0.77
1.88
/
6.54
/
8.61
2.62
3.35
Table 4.6 Forces in rebars at ultimate failure of beam
Using the ultimate bond forces shown in table 4.5 and the forces in the rebars,
table 4.7 was constructed. The ultimate bond forces were compared with the
values of the forces in rebars shown in the graphs of Appendix A.1. A bond failure
is said to occur if the forces recorded in the rebars exceed the respective value of
93
Chapter 4
the ultimate bond forces obtained, as quoted in Table 4.5. Pre Ult refers to a bond
failure occurring before ultimate beam failure while Post Ult refers to a bond
failure occurring after ultimate beam failure.
Beam
Beam
Ultimate
Failure
Load
[kN]
I1N
I2N
I3N
V1N
V2N
V3N
I1D
I2D
I3D
V1D
V2D
V3D
137.91
147.46
113.75
145.84
150.19
145.42
85.05
100.46
78.16
74.65
96.03
91.37
Bond stress failure of rebars

Rebar 1
Rebar 2
Rebar 3
[kN]
[kN]
[kN]
No
No
No
/
No
Post Ult
No
Pre Ult
/
Pre Ult
/
Pre Ult
No
/
No
No
No
Post Ult
No
/
No
No
No
Pre Ult
/
No
No
No
No
No
/
Post Ult
/
Pre Ult
No
No
Table 4.7 Rebar bond failures in full scale beam loading test specimen
The fact that rebars failed mostly in the damaged beams, shows that they are
mostly needed in damaged beams as larger forces were transferred to them. Large
forces were observed to be transferred to the rebars when ultimate failure
approached and thus when horizontal displacements were expected to be at
maximum (figs. A.1.14.b, A.1.16.b and A.1.18.b). Rebars used as shear
reinforcement in timber beams are therefore most effective when the timber beams
are subjected to shear displacements. This was also very evident in the readings of
beam V3N (fig. A.1.9.b). Forces transferred to GFRP rebars after shear failure
occurred, were much larger than those transferred previously throughout the test.
A potential of load carrying capacity after ultimate shear failure is also evident as
94
Chapter 4
the load carried by the beam was on the increase for a good period of time after
ultimate failure (fig. A.1.9.a)
4.6.1
Failure Modes
In order to further investigate the failure modes at the rebar locations in the
reinforced timber beams it was decided to expose a sample of rebars. Bond
problems discussed previously will not be discussed but other failure modes will be
given due attention. The same procedure used for opening the rebars of the pullout test was used for these rebars. Rebars from beams which experienced shear
failure were preferred irrespective of whether shear failure was the predominant
failure or not. The damaged beam series have all experienced shear
displacements due to the horizontal cut at mid-depth. Rebars 1 were preferred due
to being at a position where the largest shear displacement occurs, however one
rebar 2 sample was opened as well. This was done in order to obtain a balanced
sample set from the point of view of bond failure. From the exercise that was
presented previously three opened rebars did not experience bond failure, three
experienced bond failure and two had no data recorded. A list of the opened up
rebars is presented in table 4.8.
Beam
Rebar
I1N
1
V1N
1
V2N
2
V3N
1
I1D
1
I3D
1
V1D
1
V3D
1
Table 4.8 Opened up rebars from the full scale beam specimens
95
Chapter 4
I1N Rebar 1 No failure at the location of rebar 1 (fig. 4.55).
Fig. 4.55 I1N Rebar 1
V1N Rebar 1 We do probably have an adhesive shear failure (fig. 4.56). This
looks more likely when one takes a look at the checks on the top of the beam
which were observed to form a failure plane during testing. These checks passed
exactly adjacent to the bar coinciding with the adhesive region.
V2N Rebar 2 It looks like there has been an adhesive shear failure or tension
failure (fig 4.57 a, b) and a rebar shear failure as the rebar appears minorly bent
(fig 4.57b) and the adhesive cracked at the same location. The minor bent however
is hardly visible and the previous proposition is dubious.
V3N Rebar 1 From figures A.1.9.a and A.1.9.b and from the observations made
previously of the beam failure modes it can be observed that the forces in the
rebars experienced an increase after shear failure. V3N Rebar 1 is illustrated in fig.
4.57c.
96
Chapter 4
Fig. 4.56 V1N Rebar 1
97
Chapter 4
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 4.57 (a) & (b) V2N Rebar 2, (c) V3N Rebar 1
I1D Rebar 1 The data collected by the strain gauges for the rebars of beam I1D
follow a different trend to those of I2D and I3D. This could be either the product of
inaccuracies in readings or due to a different failure mode involving a larger extent
of a shear failure outside the shear span and into the beam. There was a bond
failure at the tape location used for the fixing of the strain gauge (fig. 4.58) however
one should note that this failure was present in general.
98
Chapter 4
Fig. 4.58 I1D Rebar 1
I3D Rebar 1 The adhesive seems to be in tact at most locations however some
cracks are apparent. This could be tension failure in the adhesive (fig. 4.59).
Fig. 4.59 I3D Rebar 1
V1D Rebar 1 Most probably an adhesive failure predominated. When the rebar
was opened the adhesive was shattered (fig. 4.60).
99
Chapter 4
Fig. 4.60 V1D Rebar 1
V3D Rebar 1 Probably the GFRP rebar has undergone a shear failure since the
rebar appeared bent (fig. 4.61 a, b). An adhesive failure was likely as well (fig. 4.61
a, b).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.61 V3D Rebar 1
100
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

for Future Work
5.1 Overview
A main objective of this dissertation was to investigate the effectiveness of small
shear reinforcement ratios applied both to new and damaged timber beams.
Small diameter GFRP rebars were used for this scope. Tested reinforced beam
configurations used three 6mm diameter GFRP rebars, inserted at spacing equal
to the beams depth along the shear span. Two angles with the horizontal were
studied namely 600 and 900. The following conclusions were made.
5.2 Conclusions
5.2.1 Effectiveness of Shear Enhancement Method Applied

From the point of view of the ultimate loads obtained for the new beam series, it
appears that the shear enhancement method used was ineffective. This results
from the fact that the average ultimate load for the control new beam was not
exceeded by either of the reinforced configurations. However, from the point of
view of the failure modes of the new beam series, a small degree of shear
enhancement was noted. From the three control new beams, C1N and C3N had
101
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work
failure initiated by shear. For the reinforced beams, on the other hand, failure was
in general initiated by bending failure.
From the point of view of the ultimate loads obtained for the damaged beam
series, the shear enhancement method was effective to a certain amount. When
comparing the average ultimate loads reached by the repaired damaged beams
to that obtained by the control damaged beams, a considerable increase was
noted. For beam test configurations with vertically inserted rebars, an increase of
21.64%, and for those with inclined inserted rebars an increase of 22.39%, were
obtained. The ultimate loads obtained for the repaired damaged beams were much
lower than those obtained by the control new beams. Full strength recovery was
not probably to be expected by this small reinforcement ratio. One should note that
this result is subject to the limitations of the programme of study undertaken, and
should be investigated by further tests. The ultimate loads obtained by the control
damaged beams were subjected to a large variance (table 4.1).
5.2.2 Rebar Forces

The tension forces obtained for GFRP rebars in the damaged beam series were
in most cases much larger than those obtained for GFRP rebars in the new beam
series. In the damaged beams, more shear displacement was expected as a
result of the cut at mid-depth. Shear displacements were observed in the tested
damaged beams. This showed that GFRP rebars, used as dowels, for the shear
enhancement of timber beams, became most effective when the beams started to
displace in shear. The effectiveness of dowels depends on the extent of the shear
failure of timber beams.
102
Chapter 5
The rebar forces obtained in the damaged beam series were, in most cases,
much larger than those obtained in the direct pull-out test. This showed that a great
potential of residual strength, after bond failure, exists.
An interesting result was that of beam V3N. Forces obtained for beam V3N rebars
showed a large increase after horizontal shear failure occurred. The increase in
forces in the rebars corresponded to a sustainment of a considerable applied load
after ultimate failure had taken place. The post-failure capacity of reinforced new
timber beams was not the scope of this study, however it would be an interesting
area to study.
5.2.3 Failure Modes

The failure modes of the control new beams might indicate that bending and
shear failure are almost equally likely to occur for the test setup adopted. It was
pointed out previously that the failure modes for the reinforced new beams were
in general initiated by a bending failure. This might indicate that shear
enhancement of new beams had been achieved. The forces recorded in the
rebars for these beams were very small. It could be the case that a minor shear
enhancement could offset the failure mode towards bending, making the latter
slightly more likely than shear failure.
5.2.4 Insertion Angle of Rebar

No major difference was observed between the performance of inclined and
vertical rebars, especially in the damaged beam series. This is most probably due
to a very slight difference in their bond length.
103
Chapter 5
5.2.5 Adhesive
From the failure mode of the pull-out test samples it was observed that bonding
between the timber and the adhesive was poor.
From the opening of the timber in the vicinity of the rebars used in the full scale
beam loading tests, it was observed that the adhesive was cracked. It provided the
weakest link in the stiffness of the dowel-type reinforcement. The adhesive failure
was easily observable. Two cases might have had GFRP rebar shear failure. The
failure of the other components, namely timber and GFRP rebar, could have also
occurred more frequently, but might have been difficult to observe with the naked
eye.
5.3 Recommendations for Future Work
The application of the shear enhancement method studied is not

recommended for new timber beams. A method that involves flexural
strength enhancement together with shear enhancement should be
considered for new timber beams. As was pointed out in the literature
review, flexural enhancement of timber beams alone might make shear
failure the critical failure mode for timber beams. Another approach would
be to design the timber beams in such a way so as to fail in shear, in order
to obtain results at the ultimate capacity of the reinforcement system used.
Timber beam properties vary, since it is a natural material. It is difficult to

say at which load a reinforced beam would have failed, had it been
unreinforced. An interesting approach would be of testing new timber
104
Chapter 5
beams up to shear failure (or bending failure), and then apply a repair
method and test its effectiveness post-repair.
Further research can be twofold. On the one hand, timber failure, involving
mechanical weathering and decay, could be studied. On the other hand, an
exhaustive literature review of strength enhancement methods as applied to
timber beams can be conducted. Application of shear repair by the use of
dowels can be tailor made for mechanically weathered timber beams, by
inserting dowels at locations where shear failure is highly possible to occur.
For the damaged beam series, as tested in this study, the reinforcement
ratio could be increased in steps, with the aim at arriving at a reinforcement
ratio that attains full strength when compared to that of new beams. The
reinforcement ratio could make use of variables such as rebar thickness,
spacing and location of insertion. An improvement in the results obtained,
would be, the measurement of shear displacements at the timber beam end.
Further pull-out testing of bonded rebars is to be carried out, with the aim of
understanding how to obtain larger pull-out forces. This in turn might reduce
on the material required for shear repair of timber beams, through a better
bond performance between rebars and timber. Several variables could be
considered and these include type of adhesive, bond-line thickness, method
of insertion, rebar thickness and rebar material. One could consider other
techniques as well to improve the pull-out force that could be induced.
More research is required on the stiffness of the reinforcement system used

as a whole. This involves variables such as timber embedment strength,
load-penetration of rebars into timber, shear resistance of rebars, bonded
105
Chapter 5
rebar geometry and adhesive properties. One should be aware that a

configuration with increased stiffness does not necessarily imply better bond
between the reinforcement used and the timber as well.
Since no major difference was observed between the performances of the

two insertion angles researched in this study, one insertion angle of the
rebars can be considered for further research. For practicality reasons one
can work with vertically inserted rebars only. Inclined angles might make a
significant difference only for deeper beams, for which bond length required
is significantly larger.
106
References
[1]
Akbiyik A., (2005), Feasibility investigation into shear repair of timber

bridge stringers, Master of Science Thesis, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Tulane University.
[2]
Andre A., (2006), Fibres for Strengthening of Timber Structures,

Research Report, Lulea University of Technology, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Division of Structural Engineering.
[3]
ASTM D 198-99, (2000), Standard Test Methods of Static Tests of

Lumber in Structural Sizes.
[4]
Bakis C.E., Bank L.C., Brown V.L., Cosenza E., Davalos J.F., Lesko
J.J., Machida A., Rizkalla S.H., and Triantafillou T.C., (2002), FiberReinforced Polymer Composites for Construction State-of-the-Art
Review, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 6, No. 2, May 1,
2002.
[5]
Balendran R.V., Rana T.M., Maqsood T., and Tang W.C., (2002),
Application of FRP bars as reinforcement in civil engineering
structures, Structural Survey, Vol. 20, No. 2.
[6]
Bodig J., and Jayne B.A., (1982), Mechanics of Wood and Wood
Composites, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
107
References
[7]
Broughton J.G., and Hutchinson A.R., (2001) Pull-out behaviour of steel

rods bonded into timber, Materials and Structures, Vol. 34, March 2001.
[8]
Burgers T.A., Gutkowski R.M., Radford D., and Balogh J., (2005),
Composite repair of full-scale timber bridge chord members through the
process of shear spiking, Report no. 05-173, Mountain-Plains
Consortium, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
[9]
Connolly
T.,
and
Mettem
C.J.,
TRADA
Technology
(2003),
Development of Eurocode-type design rules for axially loaded bondedin rods Licons CRAF-1999-71216.
[10]
Desch H.E., and Dinwoodie J.M., (1996), Timber: Structure, Properties,

Conversion and Use, 7th Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
[11]
Denzler J.K., and Glos P., (2006), Determination of shear strength

values according to EN 408, Materials and Structures, Vol. 40,
February 2007.
[12]
Dinwoodie J.M. (2000), Timber: Its nature and behaviour, 2nd Edition, E
& FN Spon, New York.
[13]
EN 338:2003 Structural timber Strength classes
[14]
EN 408:2003, Timber structures Structural timber and glued

laminated timber Determination of some physical and mechanical
properties.
[15]
EN 1912:2004, Structural timber strength classes assignment of

visual grades and species.
[16]
EN 1995-1-1:2004, Common rules and rules for building.
108
References
[17]
Felligioni L., Lavisci P., Duchanois G., De Ciechi M., and Spinelli P.,
(2003) Influence of glue rheology and joint thickness on the strength of
bonded-in rods, Holz als Roh- and Werkstoff.
[18]
Fortius, BK International, Belgium, Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar for Wood

and Natural Stone Repair
[19]
Gutkowski R.M., and Forsling H., (2007), Durability and ultimate flexural
loading of shear spike repaired, large-scale timber railroad bridge
members, Report no. 07-190, Mountain-Plains Consortium, sponsored
by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
[20]
Gutkowski R.M., Schilling TJ. T., Balogh J., and Radford D.W., (2008),
FRP Z-Spike Repairing of Wood Railroad Crossties, Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 2, February 2008.
[21]
Harvey K., and Ansell M.P., Improved timber connections using

bonded-in GFRP rods, funded by The Engineering and Physical
Sciences
Research
Council
(EPSRC)
and
Composites
Local
Reinforcement for Timber Structures (COLORETIM), (Downloaded from

http://timber.ce.wsu.edu/Resources/papers/P4.pdf
on
the
15th
of
February 2010)
[22]
Hughes Bros, Inc., USA, (2007), Aslan 100 Product Catalogue
[23]
Miller N.J., Gutkowski R.M., Balogh J., and Radford D.W., (2008), Zspike rejuvenation to salvage timber railroad bridge members, Report
no. 08-208, Mountain-Plains Consortium, sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
109
References
[24]
Patterson D., (1988), Commercial Timbers of the World, 5th Edition,

Gower Technical Press, Great Britain.
[25]
Radford D.W., Peterson M.L., and VanGoethem D., (2000), Composite

Repair of Timber Structures, Report no. 00-112, Mountain-Plains
Consortium, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
[26]
Rammer D.R., Soltis L.A., and Lebow P.K., (1996), Experimental Shear
Strength of Unchecked Solid-Sawn Douglas-fir, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.
[27]
Schilling T.T.J., Gutkowski R.M., and Radford D., (2004), Composite

repair of railroad crossties through the process of shear spiking, Report
no. 04-163, Mountain-Plains Consortium, sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
[28]
Sika Limited, United Kingdom, (2006), Sika AnchorFix 2, Product

Data Sheet.
[29]
Steiger R., Fibre reinforced plastics (FRP) in timber structures

investigations and developments, Swiss Federal Laboratories for
Materials Testing Research, EMPA, Wood Department, Dbendorf,
Switzerland (Downloaded from http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/
empa/*/33906/---/l=1 on the 10th of November 2009).
[30]
Svecova D., and Eden R.J., (2004), Flexural and shear strengthening of
timber beams using glass fibre reinforced polymer bars an
experimental investigation, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol.
31.
110
References
[31]
Svecova D., and Amy K., (2004), Strengthening of dapped timber

beams using glass fibre reinforced polymer bars, Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 31.
[32]
Tampone G., (1996), Il Restauro delle Strutture di Legno, Editor Ulrico

Hoepli, Milan, Italy.
[33]
Buell T. W., and Saadatmanesh H., (2005), Strengthening Timber

Bridge Beams Using Carbon Fiber, Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 131, No. 1, January 2005.
[34]
TRADA (1992), Assessment and repair of structural timber, Wood

Information Sheet Section 1 Sheet 34, England.
[35]
Triantafillou T.C., (1997), Shear reinforcement of wood using FRP

materials, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 2, May
1997.
111
Appendix A Results
A.1 Graphs
Appendix A.1 presents graphical results obtained from the tests carried out.
The ultimate load carried by each timber beam was obtained from the graphs of
load (kN) against time (s) by following the described procedure hereunder. The
loading rate was approximately 5 kN per 30 seconds. Every time interval at the
instant when a load increment was applied we had a slight peak for that period
of time which decreased slowly for the time interval that trespassed before
another load increment was applied. This effect increased with increasing load
levels. This observation can be attributed to two factors mainly that the linear
hydraulic actuator used during testing leaked hydraulic and secondly to the
viscoelastic behaviour of timber. The lowest load value for each time interval
was considered. From these values the value prior to the most considerable
drop in these values was taken to be as the ultimate load. This procedure is
shown graphically in fig. A.1.1 by the line marked as actual load.
Rebars 1 and 3 refer to the rebars closer to the support and closer to the applied
load respectively. Rebar 2 refers to the rebar in between. This is shown
diagramatically in fig. A.1.
The described procedure was followed to obtain the tensile forces in the GFRP
rebars. The strain in the rebars was measured by the data logger in microstrain
112
Appendix A
Results
during testing. This was converted to strain. The Young Modulus, E and the
cross-sectional area of the GFRP rebar were obtained from the Aslan GFRP
rebar product data sheet. The strain was multiplied by E to convert it to stress
and this stress was then multiplied by the cross-sectional area to convert it to a
force.
Fig. A.1 Rebar marking
A.1.1 Beam C1N
Fig.A.1.1 C1N Load against Time
113
Appendix A
Results
A.1.2 Beam C2N
Fig. A.1.2 C2N Load against Time
A.1.3 Beam C3N
Fig. A.1.3 C3N Load against Time

114
Appendix A
Results
A.1.4 Beam I1N
Fig. A.1.4.a I1N Load against Time
Fig. A.1.4.b I1N Tensile forces in Rebars against Time

115
Appendix A
Results
A.1.5 Beam I2N
116
Appendix A
Results
A.1.6 Beam I3N

117
Appendix A
Results
A.1.7 Beam V1N
Fig. A.1.7.a V1N Load against Time
Fig. A.1.7.b V1N Tensile forces in Rebars against Time

118
Appendix A
Results
A.1.8 Beam V2N
119
Appendix A
Results
A.1.9 Beam V3N

120
Appendix A
Results
A.1.10 Beam C1D
Fig. A.1.10 C1D Load against Time
A.1.11 Beam C2D

121
Appendix A
Results
A.1.12 Beam C3D
122
Appendix A
Results
A.1.13 Beam I1D
Fig. A.1.13.a I1D Load against Time
Fig. A.1.13.b I1D Tensile forces in Rebars against Time
123
Appendix A
Results
A.1.14 Beam I2D
124
Appendix A
Results
A.1.15 Beam I3D

125
Appendix A
Results
A.1.16 Beam V1D
Fig. A.1.16.a V1D Load against Time
Fig. A.1.16.b V1D Tensile forces in Rebars against Time

126
Appendix A
Results
A.1.17 Beam V2D

127
Appendix A
Results
A.1.18 Beam V3D
128
Appendix A
Results
A.2 Pull-out Test Photos

A.2.1 Sample 45-2
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Fig. A.2.1 Stereoscope images of sample 45-2; (a)-(c) Adhesive on GFRP rebar, (d)-(f) Timber
part
129
Appendix A
Results
A.2.2 Sample 45-3
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. A.2.2 Stereoscope images of sample 45-3; (a)-(d) Adhesive on GFRP rebar
A.2.3 Sample 60-2
(b)
(a)
130
Appendix A
Results
(d)
(c)
Fig. A.2.3 Stereoscope images of sample 60-2; (a)-(b) Adhesive on GFRP rebar, (c)-(d) Timber
part
A.2.4 Sample 60-5
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. A.2.4 Stereoscope images of sample 60-5; (a)-(d) Adhesive on GFRP rebar
131
Appendix A
Results
A.2.5 Sample 90-2
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Fig. A.2.5 Stereoscope images of sample 90-2; (a)-(e) Adhesive on GFRP rebar, (f) Timber part
132
Appendix A
Results
A.2.6 Sample 90-4
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Fig. A.2.6 Stereoscope images of sample 90-4; (a)-(d) Adhesive on GFRP rebar, (e)-(f) Timber
part
133
Appendix B - Testing and Materials Data

B.1 Computation of principal stresses and their direction
The principal stresses and the principal directions of our test setup will be
computed following the explained procedure. Bending and shear stresses in the
directions of x and y (fig. B.1.a) will be first found for the points within the shear
span, as shown in fig. B.1.b.
Fig B.1.a Bending and shear stresses of a rectangular beam
134
Appendix B
Testing and Materials Data
Fig B.1.b Points considered in the calculation of principal stresses (dimensions are in millimetres)
For a rectangular cross-section the shear stress is given by:
xy =
V
Ib
y dA
A'
which can be expressed as
xy =
12V d 2
y2
2
bd 3 8
The bending stress for an element can be obtained by the use of the fundamental
bending equation and is given by:
x =
My
I
d
-d
In our case y lies in the range defined by
y
2 .
2
135
Appendix B
The principal stresses will be found by using the following equations:
1 =
1
1
x +
x2 + 4 xy 2
2
2
2 =
1
1
x x2 + 4 xy 2
2
2
And the principal directions will be found from the following equation:
2 xy
1
tan-1
2
x
Fig. B.1.c The conversion of stresses to principal stresses for a point (in bending compression)
above the Neutral Axis
Table B.1.a converts flexural and shear stresses in the x and y direction to principal
stresses (fig. B.1.c) following the above described procedure. Shear stresses are
maximum at an angle of 450 to the principal stresses direction.
136
Appendix B
Cross-section Geometric
Properties
b
d
[mm]
[mm]
200
200
[mm4] 1.33E+08
Consider fig 3.2 (b) with an applied load P of 120,000

N
The vertical shear force, V (2/3 P) at every point of the cross-section at the shear
span will be equal to 80,000 N
Point
11
12
13
14
15
21
22
23
24
25
31
32
33
34
35
41
42
43
44
45
51
52
53
54
55
xy
Mx
[mm]
[N/mm2]
[m]
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
-50
-50
-50
-50
-50
0
0
0
0
0
50
50
50
50
50
100
100
100
100
100
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
x
1
2

[kNm] [N/mm2]
[N/mm2]
[N/mm2]
[ 0]
4
12
20
28
36
4
12
20
28
36
4
12
20
28
36
4
12
20
28
36
4
12
20
28
36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.62
0.93
0.62
0.46
0.37
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.12
5.43
8.12
10.96
13.87
3.00
9.00
15.00
21.00
27.00
-3.00
-9.00
-15.00
-21.00
-27.00
-3.12
-5.43
-8.12
-10.96
-13.87
-3.00
-3.00
-3.00
-3.00
-3.00
-1.62
-0.93
-0.62
-0.46
-0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-35.8
-22.5
-15.5
-11.6
-9.2
-45.0
-45.0
-45.0
-45.0
-45.0
35.8
22.5
15.5
11.6
9.2
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
-3.0
-9.0
-15.0
-21.0
-27.0
-1.5
-4.5
-7.5
-10.5
-13.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
4.5
7.5
10.5
13.5
3.0
9.0
15.0
21.0
27.0
Table B.1.a Computations of principal stresses together with principal directions from the quoted
equations
137
Appendix B
B.2 Calculation of Loading Rate

Design bending moment capacity about z-z axis, Mz
fmk bh 2
My =
6
Taking Larix Deciduas as C16
16 * 200 * 2002
My =
6
M y = 21.33kNm
Design horizontal shear strength, Vd
Vd = fvk bh
Vd = 1.8 * 200 * 200
Vd = 72kN
Moment acting on test beam configuration
Reaction at end A = RA =
2P
3
Moment at Point Load = RAa =
1000P
3
To fail in bending
P=
3M y
1000
= 63.99kN
To fail in shear
138
Appendix B
P=
3Vd
= 108kN
2
Therefore for beam to fail in 300s +/- 120s a loading rate of 5kN every 30 seconds
is adequate.
B.3 Tensile testing report of Aslan 100 6mm GFRP Rebar
139
Tensile Testing of GFRP Rebar

R Colberg
6/13/2007
Tested By
Test Date
RB2
5033
Rebar Size
Stock Order
TEST MACHINE
Filament Diameter
Date Produced
Baldwin Model 120 CS S/N: 1005

Lot Color Code
Electromechanical
Matrix
120,000 lbs Capacity Tension/Compression
Certification Number 792465-1
Formulation
By Instron 25-July-07
Test Temp
Operating System - MTEST Windows
Grip V Style
Test R/H
Load Rate
Sample
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
7,437.9
7,344.9
7,318.3
7,757.0
7,400.0
7,469.5
7,257.8
7,275.7
Average Tensile
Sigma
3 Sigma
-3 Sigma
6/8/2007
Clear
VE
RBVEIP234
72.4F
45%
0.30"/min
Tensile Strength
(psi)
(MPa)
Load @ Failure
(lbs)
151,484.7
149,590.6
149,048.9
157,983.7
150,712.8
152,128.3
147,816.7
148,181.3
PSI
150,868.4
3,043.4
9,130.1
141,738.3
Sizing
Yield
# of Ends
Sample Length
Anchor Length
Free Length
Potting Material
Ultimate Strain
Modulus of
Modulus of
(in/in)
Elasticity (psi) Elasticity (GPa)
1,044.5
1,031.4
1,027.7
1,089.3
1,039.2
1,048.9
1,019.2
1,021.7
MPa
1,040.2
21.0
63.0
977.3
E-Glass
23 Micron
Silane
113
11
48.0
10.0
27.25
Blue Bustar
Reinforcement
Work Order
0.0223
0.0208
0.0210
0.0224
0.0211
0.0212
0.0213
0.0214
0.0214
Averages
6,784,692
7,195,168
7,095,979
7,042,477
7,155,803
7,187,651
6,943,009
6,917,249
7,040,254
46.8
49.6
48.9
48.6
49.3
49.6
47.9
47.7
48.5
Extensometer Epsilon Model 3543

Distance from Anchors
LBS of Load at Removal
Percent of Load at Removal
Lot Comments 210-533 VE Resin Used
Span
10.625
2,946
50%
6.0"
Surface: Undulated Externally Wrapped

Sample
Spacing of Wrap .75 - 1.0

Silica Sand applied to Surface During Process
Mode of Failure
Delam Top
Delam Center
Delam Top
Delam Top
Delam Bottom
Delam Top
Delam Top
Delam Center
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Rebar
Size
* Samples cut using Diamond Blade Cutoff Saw

** Anchorages are cut to length and wheel abrated
Schedule 40 Pipe
Additional Lab Test Data

Glass to Matrix
Barcol Hardness
Wicking
Required Tensile Load Cell Min

Strength(psi / MPa)
(lbs / N)
Nominal
(in / mm)
Standard CSA
A (in / mm)
120,000
5,892
0.2500
0.0491
827.4
26,203
6.35
31.7
Hughes Brothers, Inc.
Apparent Shear
78.02 / 21.98
By Weight
65.2
ASTM D2583
Not Continuous
0.0 psi
ASTM D5117
ASTM D4475
Metric Reference
Seward, NE
Per ASTM D7205-06
Appendix B
B.4 Aslan 100, Product Data Sheets
141
Aslan 100
FIBERGLASS REBAR
Aslan 100
FIBERGLASS REBAR
Concrete in
Corrosive Applications
Concrete Exposed to De-Icing Salts
Bridge decks, Median barriers, Approach slabs,

Parking structures, Railroad crossings, Salt storage facilities
Concrete Exposed to Marine Salts
Seawalls, Buildings & structures near

waterfronts, Aquaculture operations, Artificial reefs and water breaks, Floating marine docks
Tunneling and Mining Applications
Soft-eye openings for tunnel boring machine (TBM's) and

temporary works, Rock nails, Electrolytic and ore extraction tanks
Other Corrosive Applications
Concrete used in chemical plants and containers
Pipeline and chemical distribution facilities
Any polymer concrete requiring reinforcement
Architectural precast and cast stone elements
Thin concrete sections where adequate cover

is not available
Swimming Pools Architectural Cladding Brine Tanks
Impervious to chloride ion and low pH chemical attack

Tensile strength greater than steel
1/4th weight of steel reinforcement
Transparent to magnetic fields and radio frequencies
Non-conductive
Thermally non-conductive
Where should GFRP

Rebar be considered?
Potential of
GFRP Rebar
Significantly improve the
longevity of civil engineering
structures
Strengthen and rehabilitate
masonry structures
Aslan 100
FIBERGLASS REBAR
Benefits of GFRP Rebar
Any concrete member susceptible to corrosion of steel reinforcement by chloride ion or

chemical corrosion
Any concrete member requiring non-ferrous reinforcement due to electro-magnetic
considerations
As an alternative to epoxy, galvanized or stainless steel rebar
Only in secondary load bearing members
Strengthening existing unreinforced masonry walls for seismic, wind or blast loads
Rehabilitate existing masonry
Concrete in
Electromagnetic
Applications
MRI rooms in hospitals
Airport radio & compass calibration pads

Electrical high voltage transformer vaults and
support pads
Concrete near high voltage cables and
substations
Masonry Strengthening
Flexural and shear strengthening of existing unreinforced
masonry for seismic, wind or blast loading events.
Rehabilitate existing masonry with step cracks and other bed

joint issues.
Aslan 100
FIBERGLASS REBAR
Physical Properties - Aslan 100, 101 GFRP Rebar

Aslan 100 Vinylester Matrix GFRP Rebar
Aslan 101 Polyester Matrix GFRP Rebar for non-portland cement and temporary use applications.
I. Tensile Stress, Nominal Diameter & Cross Sectional Area
Diameter

Size
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(mm)
(in)
6
1/4
10
3/8
13
1/2
16
5/8
19
3/4
22
7/8
25
1
29 1-1/8
32 1-1/4
Guaranteed
Tensile Strength
Area
(mm2)
31.67
71.26
126.7
197.9
285.0
387.9
506.7
641.3
791.7
(in2)
0.049
0.110
0.196
0.307
0.442
0.601
0.785
0.994
1.227
(MPa)
(ksi)
825 120
760 110
690 100
655 95
620 90
586 85
550 80
517 75
480 70
Ultimate
Tensile Load
Tensile Modulus
of Elasticity
kN
(GPa)
26.2
54.0
87.3
130
177
227
279
332
382
kips
5.89
12.1
19.6
29.1
39.8
51.1
62.8
74.6
85.9
40.8
40.8
40.8
40.8
40.8
40.8
40.8
40.8
40.8
(psi 106)
5.92
5.92
5.92
5.92
5.92
5.92
5.92
5.92
5.92
Hughes Brothers reserves the right to make improvements in the product and/or process which may result in benefits or changes to some physical-mechanical characteristics. The data contained herein
is considered representative of current production and is believed to be reliable and to represent the best available characterization of the product as of May 2007. Tensile tests per ASTM D7205.
Cross Sectional Area

The cross sectional area of the rebar may be
determined by immersing a sample in water and
measuring the volume displacement of the piece.
When calculating the cross sectional area, the cross
section is assumed to be a circle. Per ASTM D7205.
Tensile Stress
Tensile stress values shown are
determined as the average failure
load divided by the cross sectional
area based on nominal bar diameter,
less three standard deviations. Tensile
stress varies as diameter increases
due to shear lag which develops
between the fibers in the larger sizes.
For AC1440.1R-06 design, this value is
the guaranteed tensile strength, ffu*.
Results of destructive tensile testing performed at

Penn State University
Typical Stress / Strain Curve for GFRP Rebar

700
600
Stress (MPa)
Nominal Diameter
The nominal diameter of the rebar is the
average diameter and assumes the
shape of the rebar is a circle. Nominal
diameter should be used for design.
500
400
300
200
E=40.798 GPa
100
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
Strain
0.02
Certification of Measured Mechanical Properties

Test reports from an independent lab are available on request for each production lot. Reports
show the tensile strength of the sample population, average tensile modulus and the calculated
ultimate strain for each tensile test based on the average modulus. Per ASTM D7205.
0.025
Physical Properties - Continued
Aslan 100
FIBERGLASS REBAR
II. Modulus of Elasticity
The variation in the Modulus of Elasticity of different

diameter bars is much smaller than that of
the tensile stress.
Modulus of Elasticity ....... 40.81 G PA

(5.92 X 106 psi)
Published values are an average modulus from a

population of samples.
Extensometer
measuring elongation
during tensile test.
III. Bond Stress to Concrete
The bond stress to concrete shown is based on pull out tests performed using test methods proposed in
ACI 440.3R-04 Method B.3. This method is used as it is easily repeatable and gives an indication of relative performance.
Forms constructed out of plywood are used to cast a concrete block around one meter long rods as shown
below.
Embedment Length
Concrete Block
FRP Rebar
Free End
Load End
Bond Breaker
In order to control the embedment length within the block, the rods are prepared with a bond breaker which
consists of soft plastic tubing placed around the rods to prevent contact between the rod and concrete.
The embedment length is 5 bar diameters.
The concrete used is a high early strength portland cement, fine aggregate (all purpose sand) and water
(49.89 kg cement, 45.36 sand and, 12.5 l water). The 14 day compressive strength of cylinders is typically 45MPa.
Previous research has shown that bond strength does not vary significantly with varying concrete strength,
provided the concrete block is properly sized to prevent splitting.
Loads are measured by the electronic load cell of a test frame and the slip between the rod & concrete is
measured by six DC voltage LVDTs, three at each end.
While the free end LVDTs measure direct indication of free end slip, the loaded end measurements need
to be adjusted for elongation of the rod between the actual loaded end of the embedment length and the
attachment point of the LVDTs.
Phone: 800-869-0359
402-643-2991
210 N. 13 Street
Fax:
402-643-2149
Seward, NE 68434
www.hughesbros.com
Email: doug@hughesbros.com
th
May 2007
Typical Load/Slide Curve for GFRP Rebar

60
Where AR is the effective cross sectional

area of the rod.
Bond Stress is calculated as
Tb =
P
Ab
Where P = Load
Ab = db Lb
db = Effective Bar Diameter
Lb = Embedment Length
20
50
40
16
30
12
Load End Slip
Free End Slip
20
10
0
4
0
4
5
6
Slip (mm)
Bond Stress (MPa)
Load Length
E AR
Load (kN)
Aslan 100
FIBERGLASS REBAR
Actual Slip = Measured Slip -
Bond of GFRP to concrete is controlled by the following internal mechanisms: chemical bond,
friction due to surface roughness of the GFRP rods, mechanical interlock of the GFRP rod against
the concrete, hydrostatic pressure against the GFRP rods due to
shrinkage of hardened concrete and swelling of GFRP rods due to
moisture absorption and temperature change. Friction and mechanical
interlock are considered to be the primary means of stress transfer.
Bond stress pull out test in fixture.
Maximum Bond Stress................................................................................. 11.6 MPa (1679 psi)

Based on pull out tests performed using the Penn State method.
IV. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion:

Transverse Direction 18.7 x 10-6/oF
33.7 x 10-6/oC
Longitudinal Direction 3.66 x 10-6/oF
6.58 x 10-6/oC
V. Barcol Hardness:

50 min. per ASTM D2583
VI. Glass Fiber Content by Weight:

70% minimum per ASTM D2584
VII. Specific Gravity:
2.0 per ASTM D792
Shear Strength Test Fixture
VIII. Shear Stress:

Shear stress ACI 440.3R-04 Method B.3; 22,000 psi (152 MPa)
Aslan 100
FIBERGLASS REBAR
Durability
Potential durability versus traditional steel reinforcement is one of

the chief benefits of GFRP Rebar. However, being a relatively
new material for use as a concrete reinforcement, decades of
performance data are not available. Therefore, durability or
longevity is one of the key issues concerning GFRP reinforcement.
In environments that would degrade steel reinforcement, there
is little concern that these same agents (low pH solutions) will
degrade the quality of GFRP rebar. High pH or alkaline solutions
will, however, degrade glass fibers. Research has focused on
encapsulating the glass fibers in a resin matrix that protects them
from potential alkaline degradation. Aslan 100 is produced using a
vinylester resin matrix.
Microscopy photo of Hughes Brothers

Rebar - 60 X
Typical portland concrete pour water is very alkaline with a pH

of approximately 13. It is presumed that any water that hydrates
through the concrete also creates a high pH solution that could
potentially degrade the rebar.
Most durability studies have focused on subjecting GFRP Rebars
to alkaline solutions of 13pH at elevated temperatures to simulate
service lives on the order of 50 years.
Fortunately, research from the ISIS network in Canada which
involved extracting GFRP bars from several bridges and structures
across Canada that have been in service from between 5 and 8
years reveals NO DEGRADATION of the GFRP bars. (Durability of
GFRP Reinforced Concrete from Field Demonstration Structures
M. Onofrei University of Manitoba May 2005). This performance
matches that of GFRP dowel bars that had been extracted from
service in Ohio after 20 years.
Microscopy photo of Hughes

Brothers Rebar - 240 X
If used in polymer concrete, a plastic matrix, or as temporary

reinforcing in portland concrete, a separate GFRP rebar formulation,
Aslan 101, is available.
Phone: 800-869-0359
402-643-2991
210 N. 13 Street
Fax:
402-643-2149
Seward, NE 68434
www.hughesbros.com
th
May 2007
Aslan 100
FIBERGLASS REBAR
Creep
When subjected to a constant load, all structural materials,

including steel, may fail suddenly after a period of time,
a phenomenon known as creep rupture. Creep tests
conducted in Germany by Bundelmann & Rostasy in 1993,
indicate that if sustained stresses are limited to less than
60% of short term strength, creep rupture does not occur
in GFRP rods. For this reason, GFRP rebars are not
suitable for use as prestressing tendons. In addition,
other environmental factors such as moisture can affect
creep rupture performance.
Sierrita de la Cruz Creek Bridge,

RM1061 Amarillo Texas.
Based on ACI 440 design guidelines, sustained stress may

not exceed 20% of minimum ultimate tensile stress.
Available ACI Bends
For a summary of the recommended design guidelines, refer to

AC440.1R-06 or your controlling national guide.
Dia.
Stirrups, Shapes and Bends
Bends in Hughes Brothers GFRP Rebar are fabricated by shaping

over a set of molds or mandrels prior to thermoset of the resin matrix.
Field bends are not allowed.
All bends must be made at the factory.
Research has shown that bends typically maintain 38% of ultimate

tensile strength through the radius. (Eshani, Rizkalla)
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
Inside Bend Dia.

3"
4.25"
4.25"
4.5"
4.5"
6"
6"
Bent portions of GFRP rebars have a lower tensile

strength than straight portions.
Studies indicate that the maximum load carrying
capacity of the bent portion of GFRP rebar is 38%
of the straight bar.
It is recommended that you work with the factory in the
early stages of design, as not all standard bends and
shapes are readily available. For example, a J-Hook at
the end of a 10 meter length of rebar would be achieved
by lap splicing a J-hook piece to the 10 meter rebar.
The narrowest inside stirrup width is 10", (15 inches
for #7 & #8 bar).
Bends are limited to shapes that continue in the

same circular direction. Otherwise lap splices are
required.
Due to the low E Modulus of GFRP bars, it is possible

to field bend large radius shapes. Care must be taken
to avoid bending stresses that exceed the ACI440
recommendation of 20% of ultimate sustained stress in
the bar. For this reason, the minimum allowable radius for
field curved GFRP bars is shown.
Some bent shapes are made using

appropriate lap splicing.
Large Radius Curves

Minimum
Bar Diameter Allowable Radius
#2 6mm
34" 864mm
#3 9mm
51" 1295mm
#4 13mm
67" 1702mm
#5 16mm
84" 2134mm
#6 19mm
101" 2565mm
#7 22mm
118" 2997mm
#8 25mm
135" 3429mm
#9 29mm
152" 3861mm
#10 32mm
186" 4267mm
Aslan 100
FIBERGLASS REBAR
Design Considerations
In 2006, ACI committee 440 published

ACI440.1R-06 Guide for the Design an
Construction of Concrete Reinforced with
FRP Bars. To date, this represents the
most authoritative guide on the subject of
FRP reinforced concrete design. Other
authoritative design guidance can be found in
the Canadian CSA S806 Building Code and
the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
Section 16.
The designer should understand that a

direct substitution between GFRP and steel
rebar is not possible due to various differences in the mechanical
properties of the two materials.
One difference is that all FRPs are linear elastic up to failure and
exhibit no ductility or yielding. In traditional steel reinforced concrete
design, a maximum amount of steel is specified so that the steel will
yield and give warning of pending failure of the concrete member.
ACI440.1R-06 gives the option of two failure modes to the designer,
an over reinforced section where compression failure of the concrete
is the preferred mode of failure. Or, failure by rupture of the FRP
reinforcing in which case serviceability requirements, deflection and
crack widths, must be satisfied in order to give a warning of pending
failure. In either case, the suggested margin of safety against failure is
higher than that used in traditional steel-reinforced concrete design.
Test beam at Purdue University.
Another major difference is that serviceability will be more of a design

limitation in GFRP reinforced members than with steel. Due to it's
lower modulus of elasticity, deflection and crack widths will affect the
design.
Outside of North America, the ASCE Journal of Composites has
published design guidelines for GFRP Reinforced Concrete for
Construction (Aug 1997 Vol.1 No 3 ISSN 1090-0268 Code: JCCOF2)
based on the extensive work performed in Japan for the Japanese
Ministry of Construction. Additional design guidelines have been
published by the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code; Section
16 Fibre Reinforced Structures and Commentary for Section 16
and the Canadian CSA S806 Code for Buildings. Modifications to
Norwegian Standard NS3473 when using fiber reinforced plastic
(FRP) reinforcement, April 29, 1998. From the United Kingdom,
the Institution of Structural Engineers, Interim Guidance on the
Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures Using Fibre Composite
Reinforcement, August 1999. Active efforts are also underway for a
European Eurocode 2 under the efforts of FIB Task Group 9.3 FRP
(Fibre Reinforced Polymer) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures.
Links to many of these activities can be found via the Hughes
Brothers web site.
Concrete strain gauge for long term

monitoring.
Phone: 800-869-0359
402-643-2991
210 N. 13 Street
Fax:
402-643-2149
Seward, NE 68434
www.hughesbros.com
th
May 2007
Aslan 100
FIBERGLASS REBAR
Hughes Brothers only guarantees the performance of its material

to meet minimum ultimate requirements as listed. The use of
competent experienced engineering personnel should always be
employed in the design and construction of concrete reinforced
structures.
Subjects covered in the ACI440.1R-06 design guide include:
Flexure
Shear
Temperature and Shrinkage Reinforcement
Development Length and Splices
Current knowledge restricts the use of FRP bars for:
Compression Reinforcement in both beams and columns
Seismic Zones
Moment Frames
Zones where moment redistribution is required
Structures subject to high temperature
Traditional construction methods are used.
Lap Splice - Tension
As determined by 440.1R-06.
L i g h t w e i g h t o f G F R P re b a r a i d s
installation.
Design Assistance
To aid the designer unfamiliar with the new ACI440.1R06 guide, Hughes Brothers engineering staff are
available to assist you.
10
Plastic coated wire ties are recommended.

Nylon zip-ties may be used for completely
non-magnetic applications.
This has important implications in areas that are subject to new seismic codes, hurricane
wind loading or even blast mitigation schemes. In addition, Aslan 100 GFRP bars can
be used to restore or increase the structural strength of existing masonry walls that have
already cracked.
Aslan 100
Aslan 100 GFRP bars can be used to increase the strength of existing unreinforced
masonry walls in flexure (out-of-plane) and shear (in-plane).
FIBERGLASS REBAR
Masonry Strengthening
In many instances the strengthening procedure can maintain the visual appearance of the
existing masonry, particularly in the case of shear reinforcing.
The technique used
is known as Near
Surface Mount or NSM
strengthening. The
procedure consists of:
1) grooving of slots having

a width and depth of
approximately 1.5 times the
bar diameter,
2) cleaning the groove,
3) applying a structural
epoxy or cementitious based
paste into the groove,
4) insertion of the GFRP bar
in the groove,
5) finishing for appearance.
If hollow Concrete Masonry Units

(CMU) are being strengthened, the
groove depth should not exceed
the thickness of the masonry unit
shell to avoid local fracture of the
masonry. It is also recommended
to mask off the groove to avoid
staining the surrounding masonry
during the application of epoxy or
cementitious pastes.
Phone: 800-869-0359
402-643-2991
210 N. 13 Street
Fax:
402-643-2149
Seward, NE 68434
www.hughesbros.com
th
May 2007
11
Aslan 100
FIBERGLASS REBAR
Handling and Placement
When necessary, cutting of GFRP rebars should be done

with a masonry or diamond blade, grinder or fine blade saw.
A dust mask is suggested when cutting the bars. It is
recommended that work gloves be worn when handling and
placing GFRP rebars.
Sealing of cut ends is not necessary since any possible
wicking will not ingress more than a small amount into the
end of a rod.
Traditional rebar chairs are used but with
GFRP rebar has a very low specific gravity and may greater frequency. ie. 2/3rds spacing used
float in concrete during vibration. Care should be exercised with steel.
to adequately secure GFRP in formwork using chairs, plastic
coated wire ties or nylon zip ties.
Quality Assurance
To provide for lot or production run traceability, each lot is

color coded.
Individual rebars are tensile tested based on a random

statistical sampling, with a minimum of 5 samples tested per
prodution lot.
Certifications of conformance are available for any given
production lot.
In addition, quality assurance tests are routinely performed
to determine:

- Glass content - i.e. impregnation ASTM D2584

Cutting should be done with fine blade saw,

masonry, diamond blade or grinder. Shearing
is NOT permitted.
- Die wicking - checking for voids ASTM D5117

- Barcol hardness ASTM D2583
- Cross sectional area ASTM D7205
- Mass uptake in water ASTM D570
- Inter-laminear shear or shear in flexure ASTM D4475
- Shear strength by double shear method. ACI 440.3R Method B.4
- Tensile, modulus and strain per ASTM D7205

210 North 13th Street
Seward, Nebraska 68434
Phone 800.869.0359 or 402.643.2991 / Fax 402.643.2149
www.hughesbros.com
Moisture uptake testing

in lab.
2007
ASLAN 100 GFRP REBAR

for Wood and Natural Stone Repair
Description
ASLAN 100 GFRP rebar is a structural
fibreglass reinforcing rod, which is corrosion
resistant, non-conductive and one-fourth the weight
of steel rebar.
It more closely matches the characteristics of wood
for modulus of elasticity, expansion and contraction
than does typical steel reinforcing rod.
Uses
To make load bearing connections, pinning and
reinforcing wood (and concrete) elements.
Typical applications include attachment of
reinforcement of rafters, trusses, purlins, framing
members, beams, sills, columns, logs, timbers,
etc It can be used for casting wood (and concrete
elements). ASLAN 100 GFRP rebar can be used
with epoxy adhesives for attaching the reinforcing
rod to the elements and the elements to one another.
Properties
Made from continuous drawn E-glass roving
saturated with vinyl ester resin. The rod features a
helical wrapped deformed surface and sand coating
to enhance bonding with epoxy, concrete or grout.
Bond shear (between rebar and epoxy
Modulus of elasticity:
40,8 GPa
Single transverse shear:
152 MPa
Tensile strength (12,5mm):
690 MPa
(20 mm)
620 MPa
Bonding stress:
11,6 MPa
Thermal coefficient of expansion: 21-23 10-6 /C
Specific gravity:
1,90
To be used in connection with High Tensile and

Shear strength epoxies: minimum 20 MPa tensile
strength, 40 MPa compression strength and 8 GPa
E-modulus.
Sizes
Glass fibre rebars are available in lengths of 6
meter.
Sizes: diameters 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28 and
32 mm (as derived from US-types #2 to #10) are
available. Size 19 mm is most frequently used for
wood repair.
Glass fibre rebars should not be kept in the sun for
extended periods of time and should be held on
pallets.
FORTIUS, BK International, Grasbos 50, B-3294 Diest, Belgium

Tel: + 32 13 326873 Fax + 32 13 326874 e-mail: info@fortius.be
Application
In the case of repair of the damaged heads of
wooden rafters.
Support the wooden structure in order to avoid
rocking, slipping or collapsing.
Remove the surrounding masonry around the
wooden rafter head to a maximum of 25 cm.
Put the wooden rafter back to its original
height, if this is necessary.
Eliminate all the wood that is attacked or
weakened. Wood within 10 cm of the
connection must be free of decay. If necessary,
saw of head of rafter. The situation of
contiguous wood can be controlled by some
checks.
Cut the GFRP rebars at the required length. See
handling and placement. Keep the rebars dry,
clean and free from oils from hands and tools
until ready for use. Scrub with acetone if
necessary to prepare surface of rebar.
Drill 3 holes of 30 cm long and 25 mm wide
(longitudinally) into the wooden rafter. Avoid
locating holes within 4 cm of checks. Relocate
hole position with project manager. Blow out
all dust in the holes and fill them with an
approved epoxy resin.
Then introduce the GFRP bars of 19 mm. The
GFRP bars are necessary to insure the
mechanical connection between the remaining
piece of the rafter and the prosthesis.
If necessary for aesthetic reasons, lost
formwork, made in the same wood species as
the original rafter, is installed in the appropriate
place.
In other cases, smooth formwork can be placed
temporarily for subsequent removal.
The wood must be dry and have a low moisture
content at the time of application. (See epoxy
resin manufacturers' instructions). Protect area
from moisture to allow epoxy to cure
completely.
Place the epoxy resin based repair material in
the formwork.
After hardening of the epoxy mortar, the
smooth formwork can be removed and the
wood can be treated, profiled and coloured as
appropriate. The lost formwork remains in
place, of course.
The supports can be removed after 7 days and
the wooden rafters can be charged again.
Handling and Placement

It is recommended that work gloves be worn when
handling and placing GFRP rebars.
Cutting of GFRP rebars should be done with a
masonry or diamond blade, grinder or fine blade
saw. It is recommended to use a dust mask and
safety goggles.
FORTIUS, BK International, Grasbos 50, B-3294 Diest, Belgium

Tel: + 32 13 326873 Fax + 32 13 326874 e-mail: info@fortius.be
Appendix B
B.5 Sika Anchor-Fix 2, Product Data Sheet
156
Product Data Sheet

Edition 25/08/2006
Identification no:
02 04 02 06 001 0 000020
Sika AnchorFix-2
Construction
High-performance anchoring adhesive

Product
Description
Solvent- and styrene free, epoxy acrylate based, two part anchoring adhesive.
Uses
As a fast curing anchoring adhesive for all grades of:

Rebars / reinforcing steel
Threaded rods
Bolts and special fastening systems
Concrete
Solid masonry
Steel
Prior to any application, the suitability of the Sika AnchorFix Adhesive for the
substrate in terms of the desired bond strength, and for the prevention of surface
staining or discolouration, must be confirmed by testing in a sample area. This is
due to the wide variation of possible substrates, particularly in terms of strength,
composition and porosity:
Hard natural stone
Solid rock
Characteristics /
Advantages
Fast curing
Standard guns can be used
High load capacity
Non-sag, even overhead
Styrene-free
Low odour
Low wastage
No transportation restrictions
Sika AnchorFix-2
1/9
Tests
Approval / Standards
European Technical Approvals for threaded rods:
European Technical Approval ETAG 001 Part 5 Option 7

Galvanised anchor
Stainless steel anchor
EC Cert. 0679-CPD-0027
EC Cert. 0679-CPD-0028
ETA-05 / 103
ETA-05 / 104
Testing according to ICC / ICBO standards.

Fire resistance:
Test report from the University of Brunswick
Report No. 3551/4926
Tests according DIN EN 1363-1 (ISO 834)
Product Data
Form
Colours
Part A:
Part B:
Part A+B mixed:
Packaging
300 ml standard cartridge, 12 per box.

Pallet: 60 boxes with 12 cartridges.
light green
black
light grey
550 ml standard cartridge, 12 per box.

Pallet: 50 boxes with 12 cartridges.
Storage
Storage Conditions /
Shelf-Life
15 months from date of production if stored properly in original unopened, sealed

and undamaged packaging in cool and dry conditions at temperatures between
+5C and +20C. Protect from direct sunlight.
All Sika AnchorFix-2 cartridges have the expiry date printed on the label.
Technical Data
Density
Part A: 1.62 - 1.70 kg/l

Part B: 1.44 - 1.50 kg/l
1.60 - 1.68 kg/l (part A+B mixed)
Curing Speed
Temperature
Open Time Tgel
Curing Time Tcur
+20C - +35C
1 minute
40 minutes
+10C - +20C
4 minutes
70 minutes
+5C - +10C
8 minutes
100 minutes
0C - +5C
-*
180 minutes
-5C - 0C
-*
24 hours
*Min. cartridge temperature = +5C
Sag Flow
Non-sag, even overhead.
Layer Thickness
3 mm max.
Sika AnchorFix-2
2/9
Mechanical / Physical
Properties
Compressive Strength
60 N/mm2
Design
Terminology and Abbreviations:
(According to ASTM D695)
hef
NRK, NRd
NRK, NRd
Tinst
Tinst
CcrN
ScrN
do
ho
hmin
hef
fcm
ScrN
S
CcrN
C
hO
dO
d
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
C1
C2
CcrN
fcm
hmin
Min. concrete thickness (mm)

Effective anchorage depth (bond length) (mm)
Concrete compressive strength (N/mm2)
Minimum anchor spacing to achieve NRK (mm)
Anchor spacing (mm)
Minimum close edge distance to achieve NRK (mm)
Close edge distance (mm)
Hole depth (mm)
Drilled hole diameter (mm)
Stud or bar nominal diameter (mm)
NRK = Characteristic tensile load (kN)

NRd = Recommended load = NRK multiplied with a total safety factor
RfcN
RfcV
RfsN
RfsV
Tinst
=
=
=
=
=
Close edge reduction factor, tension only

Close edge reduction factor, shear only
Close spacing reduction factor, tension only
Close spacing reduction factor, shear only
Max. installation torque (Nm)
Sika AnchorFix-2
3/9
Load Capacity Data for all Thread Rods for concrete C20/25 (according ETAG001)
Anchor
dia
d
[mm]
Hole
dia
Hole depth
do
ho = hef
[mm]
[mm]
Brush size
Characteristic
distances
min concrete
thickness
Resin
vol
Max
installation
torque
[mm]
[ml]
[Nm]
Characteristic
load
hmin
Resistance to tensile loads

in C20/25 concrete [kN] to
ETAG 001
Edge
Spacing
Ccr,N
Scr,N
Design
resistance
Tinst
NRk
NRd
64
128
100
2.8
10
16
7.4
10
64
S14
80
80
160
110
3.4
20.5
9.5
96
96
192
125
4.1
25
11.6
10
12
80
S14
80
160
110
4.5
20
25
11.6
90
90
180
120
5.0
29.0
13.4
120
120
240
150
6.7
40
18.5
12
14
96
M20
96
192
125
6.9
40
40
18.5
110
110
220
140
7.8
46.0
21.3
144
144
288
175
10.3
60
27.8
16
18
128
M20
128
256
160
12.2
80
60
27.8
192
192
384
225
18.8
95
44.0
20
22
160
L29
160
320
200
21.7
150
75
34.7
170
170
340
220
23.0
80.0
37.0
240
240
480
280
32.5
115
53.2
24
26
192
L29
192
384
240
34.2
200
115
53.2
210
210
420
270
37.4
125
57.9
288
288
576
335
51.3
170
78.7
Important Note:
The anchor hole must be dry.
Increasing Factor for concrete:
C30/37
C40/50
C50/60
1.04
1.07
1.09
Close edge (C) and anchor spacing (S) distances:

The characteristic edge distance (CCr,N) is 1.0 x hef
The characteristic spacing distance (Scr,N) is 2.0 x hef
the minimum edge (Cmin) and spacing (Smin) distance are 0.5 x hef
All load capacity values assume adequate steel strength; the anchor tests were
carried out using 10.9 or 12.9 steel.
Concrete capacity reduction factors, tension (
N):
Single anchor, close edge C:

1
c,N = 0.5 (C/hef) + 0.5
Two anchors, close spacing S:
1
s,N = 0.25 (S/hef) + 0.5
Two anchors, c/l perpendicular to close edge C1:
1
sc,N = 0.25 (S/hef) + 0.25 (C1/hef) + 0.25
Two anchors, c/l parallel to close edge C2:
cs,N = 0.25 (C2/hef) + 0.125 (S/hef) + 0.125 (C/hef) (S/hef) + 0.25
Concrete capacity reduction for more complex anchor configurations in tension, and
for shear forces acting towards a close edge, should be determined using the
design method A, given in ETAG 001, Annex C.
Sika AnchorFix-2
4/9
Load Capacity Data for Reinforcing Bar Anchors:

Requirements for the calculation of the characteristic load capacity:
Reinforcing bar S500 ribbed
(the load capacity of the reinforcing bar itself must also be verified)
Min. concrete C20 / 25
The anchor hole must be dry
Bar diameter d (mm)
10
12
14
16
20
25
Hole diameter dO (mm)
10
12
14
18
20
25
32
Minimum anchor
embedment hmin (mm)
60
80
90
100
115
130
140
150
Equation for tensile load capacity:
NRK =
hef - 50
2,0
Equation for shear load capacity:
VRK =
hef * dO * fcm
(fcm 50)
1000
Reduction Factors for Close Edge Distances and Anchor Spacing:

Close edge, tension:
RfcN = 0,4(C/hef) + 0,4
1
1
(Valid for 0,5

(Valid for 0,25
(C/hef)
(S/hef)
1,5)
Close spacing, tension:
RfsN = 0,25(S/hef) + 0,5
Close edge, shear:
RfcV = 0,6(C/hef) - 0,2
(Valid for 0,5
(C/hef)
2,0)
2,0)
Close spacing, shear:
RfsV = 0,1(S/hef) + 0,4
(Valid for 1,0
(S/hef)
6,0)
Close spacing in shear must be considered if S < 3C and when C < 2hef
Important Note:
The load capacity of the thread rod itself must also be verified.
The anchor hole must be dry.
Resistance
Thermal Resistance
Service Temperature range of the Cured Adhesive, ETAG 001, part 5:

-40C to +50C*
*Temperature Resistance of the Cured Adhesive, ETAG 001, part 5
+50C long term

+80C short term (1 - 2 hours)
Sika AnchorFix-2
5/9
System
Information
Application Details
Consumption / Dosage
Material consumption per anchor in ml

Drill hole depth in mm
Anchor
Drill
mm
mm
90
110
120
130
140
160
170
180
200
210
220
240
260
280
300
350
10
10
11
12
10
12
10
10
11
12
14
15
12
14
10
10
11
11
12
13
14
16
18
14
18
10
11
14
14
15
18
19
20
22
23
24
26
28
30
32
37
42
16
18
10
11
13
14
15
17
18
19
21
22
23
26
28
30
32
36
40
20
10
12
12
15
16
17
20
21
22
24
25
26
29
31
33
35
40
46
20
24
12
13
14
15
16
18
22
24
26
28
30
32
36
38
42
48
58
66
25
18
19
21
23
24
26
30
31
32
36
38
40
44
46
50
54
64
72
24
26
24
25
28
30
33
35
40
43
45
50
55
58
60
65
70
75
100
125
400
The indicated filling quantities are calculated without wastage. Wastage 10 - 50%.
The filled quantity can be monitored during injection with the help of the scale
on the catridge label.
Substrate Quality
Mortar and concrete must be older than 28 days.

Substrate strength (concrete, masonry, natural stone) must be verified.
Pull-out tests must be carried out if the substrate strength is unknown.
The anchor hole must always be clean, dry, free from oil and grease etc.
Loose particles must be removed from the holes.
Application
Conditions /
Limitations
Substrate Temperature
-5C min. / +35C max.
Ambient Temperature
-5C min. / +35C max.
Material Temperature
Sika AnchorFix-2 must be at a temperature of between +5C and +20C for

application.
Dew Point
Beware of condensation!
Ambient temperature during application must be at least 3C above dew point.
Sika AnchorFix-2
6/9
Application
Instructions
Mixing
Part A : part B = 10 : 1 by volume
Mixing Tools
Getting the cartridge ready:

Unscrew and remove the cap
Pull out the red plug
Cut the film and remove the red plug
Screw on the static mixer
Place the cartridge into the gun and start application
When the work is interrupted the static mixer can remain on the cartridge after the
gun pressure has been relieved. If the resin has hardened in the nozzle when work
is resumed, a new nozzle must be attached.
Sika AnchorFix-2
7/9
Application Method /
Tools
General Remarks:
Drilling of hole with an electric drill to the diameter and depth
required. Drill hole diameter must be in accordance with anchor
size.
The drill hole must be cleaned with a blow pump or by compressed
air, starting from the bottom of the hole. (at least 2x)
Important: use oil-free compressors!
The drill hole must be thoroughly cleaned with the special brush
(brush at least 2x). The diameter of the brush must be larger than
the diameter of the drill hole.
The drill hole must be thoroughly cleaned with the special brush
(brush at least 2x). The diameter of the brush must be larger than
the diameter of the drill hole.
Pump approx. twice until both parts come out uniformly. Do not use
this material. Release the gun pressure and clean the cartridge
opening with a cloth.
Inject the adhesive into the hole, starting from the bottom, while
slowly drawing back the static mixer. In any case avoid entrapping
air. For deep holes extension tubing can be used.
Insert the anchor with a rotary motion into the filled drill hole. Some
adhesive must come out of the hole.
Important: the anchor must be placed within the open time.
During the resin hardening time the anchor must not be moved or
loaded. Wash tools immediately with Sika Colma Cleaner.
Wash hands and skin thoroughly with warm soap water.
Important Note: Anchors in hollow blocks:

Do use Sika AnchorFix-1 for hollow blocks.
Cleaning of Tools
Clean all tools and application equipment with Thinner C immediately after use.
Hardened / cured material can only be mechanically removed.
Value Base
All technical data stated in this Product Data Sheet are based on laboratory tests.
Actual measured data may vary due to circumstances beyond our control.
Local Restrictions
Please note that as a result of specific local regulations the performance of this
product may vary from country to country. Please consult the local Product Data
Sheet for the exact description of the application fields.
Health and Safety

Information
For information and advice on the safe handling, storage and disposal of chemical
products, users should refer to the most recent Material Safety Data Sheet
containing physical, ecological, toxicological and other safety-related data.
Sika AnchorFix-2
8/9
The information, and, in particular, the recommendations relating to the application

and end-use of Sika products, are given in good faith based on Sika's current
knowledge and experience of the products when properly stored, handled and
applied under normal conditions in accordance with Sikas recommendations. In
practice, the differences in materials, substrates and actual site conditions are such
that no warranty in respect of merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose,
nor any liability arising out of any legal relationship whatsoever, can be inferred
either from this information, or from any written recommendations, or from any other
advice offered. The user of the product must test the products suitability for the
intended application and purpose. Sika reserves the right to change the properties
of its products. The proprietary rights of third parties must be observed. All orders
are accepted subject to our current terms of sale and delivery. Users must always
refer to the most recent issue of the local Product Data Sheet for the product
concerned, copies of which will be supplied on request.
Construction
Legal Notes
Sika Limited
Watchmead
Welwyn Garden City
Hertfordshire
AL7 1BQ
United Kingdom
Phone
+44 1707 394444
Telefax +44 1707 329129
www.sika.co.uk, email: sales@uk.sika.com
ISO 14001
ISO 9001
Sika AnchorFix-2
9/9
Appendix B
B.6 Test Rig Setup
Fig. B.6 Test Rig Setup
B.7 Attachment to Tensile Testing Machine
166
168

Dissertation Christian Schembri FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation Christian Schembri FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SHEAR ENHANCEMENT OF

Dissertation presented to the

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

To my parents, Laurence and Maria Dolores

Main Objectives and Structure of this Dissertation .................................. 3

Chapter 2 - Literature Review ............................................................................ 5

Shear strength of timber beams .............................................................. 6

Shear Enhancement of Timber Beams .................................................... 8

2.3.1 The requirement for shear enhancement .......................................... 8

2.3.6 Research using shear spikes to increase bending stiffness ............ 20

Full Scale Beam Loading Test ............................................................... 27

3.2.1 Shear stresses ................................................................................ 27

Direct Pull-out Testing ........................................................................... 41

3.3.1 Materials ......................................................................................... 41

Ultimate Loads....................................................................................... 47

Failure Modes ........................................................................................ 50

4.3.1 C1N ................................................................................................. 52

C1D ............................................................................................. 70

C2D ............................................................................................. 71

C3D ............................................................................................. 72

I1D ............................................................................................... 73

I2D ............................................................................................... 75

I3D ............................................................................................... 77

V1D .............................................................................................. 77

V2D .............................................................................................. 79

V3D .............................................................................................. 80

General Observations of Failure Modes ................................................ 82

Direct Pull-out Test Results ................................................................... 84

4.5.1 Failure modes ................................................................................. 88

Rebar Forces in Full Scale Beam Loading Test .................................... 92

4.6.1 Failure Modes ................................................................................. 95

Conclusions ......................................................................................... 101

5.2.1 Effectiveness of Shear Enhancement Method Applied ................. 101

5.2.4 Insertion Angle of Rebar ............................................................... 103

Recommendations for Future Work ..................................................... 104

References ...................................................................................................... 107

A.2.6 Sample 90-4 .................................................................................... 133

Schematic of reinforced timber beam test configurations 13

Schematic of reinforced timber beam test configurations 16

Schematic of reinforced timber beam test configuration 18

Schematic of reinforced timber beam test configurations 19

Single shear connection modelling the use of hex bolts and

Principal stresses and principal directions of test setup used 28

(a) The test setup as recommended by ASTM D 198-99,

Schematic of the test setup (dimensions are in millimeters)

Diagrams of configurations tested, the dimensions of the 33

Making of the simulated damage

Creation of drill jig

Checking the electrical resistance by means of an ohm metre

Inserting the GFRP rebars

Pull-out Test Setup (dimensions are in millimeters)

The pull-out tested configurations

Preparation of timber block samples

Preparation of the GFRP rebars

Preparation of the GFRP rebars

Ultimate loads of new timber beam series

Ultimate loads of damaged timber beam series

Convention used for the presentation of crack patterns

Horizontal shear failure of beam C1N

Bending failure of beam C1N

Crack pattern for beam C1N

Bending failure of beam C2N

Crack pattern for beam C2N

Beam C3N at ultimate failure