CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background
Fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) are being widely used to strengthen and repair existing
reinforced concrete (RC) structures in the construction industry over the past decade and
possess many advantages with respect to the traditional methods. The use of FRP materials for
strengthening concrete structures was developed in Europe and Japan in the 1980s, and since
then several thousand projects have utilized FRP systems worldwide. FRP laminates or sheets
are typically applied to structural members as externally bonded (EB) reinforcement with the
help of an adhesive (epoxy) or as near surface mounted reinforcement. ACI 440 2R-17 “Guide
for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening
Concrete Structures” is one of the few guides for the design of FRP strengthening application
available to engineers.
However, because concrete members retrofitted by externally bonded FRP sheets can
fail prematurely in debonding because of the fracture between FRP and concrete, FRP tensile
strength cannot be fully utilized in engineering practices. One of the primary methods to
improve the bond performance of the FRP materials to the concrete surface is by using an
anchorage technique. Of the anchorage systems tested to date, the FRP anchors are shown to
be a promising solution to increase the effective tension transferred to the FRP sheets.
Research on the fundamental strength and behavior of FRP anchors in isolation has,
however, been much more limited and such research has been predominantly experimental in
nature. Studies to date have reported the pullout strength and behavior as well as the shear
strength and behavior of FRP anchors. It is the result of such limited fundamental
understanding and associated design guidance, especially in the case of the pullout strength
and behavior of FRP anchors, which is hindering the rational design and wide-scale use of FRP
anchors.

1.2. Objective
FRP anchors can be subjected to predominantly pullout (tensile) forces or shear forces,
or combinations of the two depending on the strengthening solution, geometrical configuration
and load pattern of the reinforced member. Anchors subjected to pullout can be also referred
to as 180o anchor spikes, as they are installed in-plane with the anchored FRP, this
configuration is used, for instance, in T-beams in which there is an inner corner where anchor
dowels can be inserted. On the other hand, FRP anchors used in flexural strengthening of RC

1
columns are also often subjected to pullout forces because the angle between FRP anchors and
EB-FRP reinforcement is usually 180o. Therefore, FRP anchors subjected to pullout forces are
common when EB-FRP systems are used in the strengthening process. Direct pullout test is the
simplest and most common way to investigate the bond properties of the FRP materials bonded
to the concrete.
It is, therefore, the purpose of this thesis to conduct further research on FRP anchors.
The objective of this research is:
• To study the effectiveness of FRP anchor under tension (pullout) embedded into
uncracked concrete cylinder.
• To investigate the behavior as well as the pullout strength and failure mode of the test
specimens.
• To identify the key parameter influencing the strength.
• To formulate an analytical model to be able to predict the behavior of such anchors.

1.3. Scope of study

This research is involved a total of 100 pullout tests are conducted on CFRP anchors
bonded to concrete using chemical epoxy. The test parameters were embedment length, anchor
hole diameter and compressive strength of concrete. The results obtained from this study
provide experimental information for the design of adhesive CFRP anchor.

1.4. Organization of the thesis

A brief overview of FRP composites and FRP anchors, along with the research
objective of this thesis, is presented in chapter 1.
Chapter 2 provides an updated literature that covers the key aspects related to this
research project.
Chapter 3 detail information about the test specimens, instrumentation and test
procedure is presented.
Chapter 4 discusses about test results and failure modes.
Chapter 5 presents conclusions drawn from the experimental of this study, and provides
recommendations for future work.

2
 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction
This chapter briefly covers the use of FRP strengthening systems, basic concepts of
FRP materials and strengthening of RC structures using externally bonded FRP composites
with an emphasis on debonding behavior of FRP concrete interface and FRP anchors. This
chapter also outlines some of the most recent experimental research performed on the FRP
anchors under pure tension (pullout) loading. Analytical models for predicting the pullout
failure mode and strength of FRP anchors based on pullout tests are also presented.

2.2. FRP Structural Strengthening Applications

The strengthening or retrofitting of reinforced concrete (RC) structures is frequently
required because of excessive loading as a result of changes in use, modifications to design
codes, improper maintenance or exposure to environmental effects, such as corrosion and
seismic activity. Various strengthening techniques that have been developed and implemented
in recent years with some success include steel-plate bonding, external post-tensioning,
reinforced concrete jacketing and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement. Among these
techniques, the FRP strengthening technique is the most popular in the construction industry
because of its light weight, easy implementation, high tensile strength, electromagnetic
neutrality, durability and high resistance to corrosion. FRP composites have been used
successfully in strengthening RC beams, slabs, columns, beam-column joints, and walls. In
addition, strengthening schemes have been carried out for unique applications such as storage
tanks and tunnels.
Since FRP materials have very high tensile strength in the direction of the fibers, and
essentially zero strength in compression and bending, they are most efficient when installed on
structural elements such that the fibers are loaded primarily in tension. Below is a summary of
FRP structural strengthening applications.
Beams: FRP materials can be applied to the tension side of beams to increase flexural
capacity, and on the sides of beams to increase shear capacity. A specific example of flexural
strengthening is applying FRP materials to the tension side of a beam to provide continuity in
a beam that does not have continuous tensile reinforcement where it ties into a column.
Slabs: FRP materials can be used to strengthen the positive and negative flexural
capacity of slabs, as with beams. It can also be used to resist punching shear, and add strength

3
around openings in slabs. Since FRP composites have negligible thickness, it will not reduce
overhead clearance when applied to ceilings.
Columns: FRP materials can increase confinement in columns, especially those with
circular cross sections, by wrapping the FRP around the column. By increasing confinement,
the axial and flexural capacity and the ductility of the column can also be increased.

2.3. Types of FRP systems

FRP is a composite made of high-strength fibers and a matrix for binding these fibers
to fabricate structural shapes. There are several materials commonly used in FRP systems, and
they come in several different forms. ACI 440.2R-17 recognizes three common types of fibers
used for FRP systems include (GFRP), aramid (AFRP), and carbon (CFRP) fibers. Polyester,
vinyl ester, and epoxy are the most common polymeric matrix materials. Glass is currently the
most common material used in FRP systems. However, despite its higher cost, carbon is
gaining popularity since it has higher strength and tensile modulus.

Table 2.1: Tensile properties of fibers (ACI 440.2R-17)

Elastic modulus Ultimate strength Rapture strain,
Fiber type
(GPa) (MPa) minimum (%)
Carbon
General 220 to 240 2050 to 3790 1.2
High-strength 220 to 240 3790 to 4820 1.4
Ultra-high-strength 220 to 240 4820 to 6200 1.5
High-modulus 340 to 520 1720 to 3100 0.5
Ultra-high-modulus 520 to 690 1380 to 2400 0.2
Glass
E-glass 69 to 72 1860 to 2680 4.5
S-glass 86 to 90 3440 to 4140 5.4
Aramid
General 69 to 83 3440 to 4140 2.5
High-performance 110 to 124 3440 to 4140 1.6

ACI 440.2R-17 also recognize four forms of FRP systems: wet layup systems, prepreg
systems, precured systems and near-surface-mounted (NSM) systems. With wet layup systems
dry sheets of fibers are impregnated with resin on-site and then cured in place. The sheets are

4
either saturated with resin and then applied shortly after to the concrete surface, or are applied
first and then saturated with resin. With prepreg systems the FRP sheets are saturated with resin
off-site, and then cured in place. Sometimes additional resin is required to adhere the sheet to
the concrete surface, and often additional heating is required for curing. Precured systems are
impregnated with resin and cured offsite, and then typically applied to the concrete with
adhesive. NSM systems are precured FRP bars or plates that are bonded into premade grooves
on the surface of the concrete. FRP sheets consist of either unidirectional or multidirectional
fibers.

2.4. Failure Modes of Structures Strengthened with FRP Materials

RC elements strengthened with FRP systems have several additional failure modes
compared with RC elements that are not strengthened with FRP systems. It is essential that the
engineer accounts for all relevant failure modes, as they can have very different failure loads,
and behaviors. Research has demonstrated that the effectiveness of the FRP when applied to
concrete members are largely governed by the strength of the bond between the FRP and the
concrete. As a result, failure of strengthened members is usually a result of FRP debonding
from the concrete substrate.
FRP design guidelines such as: ACI 440.2R-17 and Concrete Society Technical Report
No. 55 acknowledge many modes of debonding failure for flexural and shear strengthened
members such as: FRP rupture, shear failure, concrete cover separation failure, plate end
interfacial debonding, intermediate flexural or flexural-shear crack-induced interfacial
debonding (otherwise known as IC debonding) and shear-induced debonding [also referred to
as critical diagonal crack (CDC) debonding]. Such premature failure modes can bring a few
serious issues, not only because FRP composites cannot fully play out their high tensile
performance but also because the strengthening member will suffer low efficiency and ductility.

5
 Figure 2.1: Debonding and delamination of externally bonded FRP systems.

2.5. Failure Prevention Methods

This section presents methods to prevent or delay the debonding failure modes
discussed in section 2.4. Usually, the preferred failure mode is rupture of the FRP laminate,
which occurs when the strain induced in the laminate exceeds the strain capacity of the
laminate. This is preferred because it means the full strength of the sheet was utilized. It is also
easier to accurately predict ultimate capacity when the failure mode is FRP rupture, compared
to debonding failure. There are two applicable approaches to avoid this type of failure mode,
by limiting the maximum FRP strain below the FRP debonding strain as specified by ACI
440.2R-17, or by using an anchorage technique, which secures the flexural FRP sheets to the
RC beams. ACI 440.2R-17 mentions the use of mechanically fastened metallic anchors and
transversely placed FRP sheets, or U-wraps, to prevent or delay the process of debonding.
However, it does not give any details into mechanical anchor design, and does not mention the
use of FRP anchors.
Research has shown that FRP anchors are effective in delaying or preventing debonding
failures. Figure 2.2 shows how FRP sheets can be positioned for flexural and shear
strengthening applications. It also shows where intermediate cracks commonly form, which is
where debonding failures often initiate due to high stress concentrations. For FRP that is placed
on the tensile side of a beam or slab, FRP anchors can be placed at the end of the sheet to delay
or prevent plate end debonding, and at multiple locations along the length of the sheet to delay

6
or prevent intermediate crack induced debonding. For shear strengthening applications the FRP
is placed on the sides of the beam. Often it is not practical to have the FRP sheet wrap around
the top of the beam, for instance, with T-beams and beams that are integral with a slab, which
is the preferred wrapping scheme. When the sheet cannot be wrapped around all four sides of
the beam, FRP anchors placed at the sheet ends can delay or prevent debonding.

Figure 2.2: Common FRP anchor locations

2.6. FRP Anchor Fabrication Techniques

Of the anchorage systems tested to date, the FRP anchor is a particularly attractive
solution because it is non-metallic and can be applied to wide shaped structural elements such
as slabs and walls. FRP anchor is essentially a rolled fiber sheet or a collection of bundled fiber
strands in which one end of the anchor is inserted into an epoxy filled hole in the concrete
member. This epoxied end is referred to as the anchor dowel. The other end of the anchor is
known as the anchor fan which is threaded through and splayed onto the surface of the FRP
strengthening plate.

2.7. Previous pullout tests

The mechanism of a FRP anchor is similar to that of an adhesive metallic anchor, which
consists of a reinforcing bar or a threaded rod inserted into a predrilled hole in hardened
concrete with a structural adhesive such as epoxy, polyester, or vinylester. The operating
principle of these anchors depends on the transfer of tension loads from the embedment element
to the concrete through a chemical bond. Research conducted on the pullout strength and
behavior of isolated FRP anchors has been primarily limited to the studies of Özdemir (2005),
Kim and Smith (2009), and Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2009). The main parameters varied
in these studies were anchor diameter, anchor embedment depth, anchor fiber content and
concrete compressive strength. All three studies reported experimental results, while the first

7
and third studies reported analytical models which were largely based on traditional pullout
strength models of adhesive metallic anchors. Pullout tests on FRP anchors have revealed
similar failure modes to the modes presented in Figure 2.3 for adhesive metallic anchors.

Figure 2.3: Typical adhesive anchor failure modes

2.7.1. Özdemir (2005)

Özdemir reported anchors failing by rupture of the FRP (also referred to as FRP
rupture), concrete cone failure, as well as combined concrete cone and bond failure between
the FRP anchor and anchor hole face. The first series of tests mostly failed by FRP rupture
while the second series tests, with improved anchor design, reported all three failure modes.
For the first set of tests, Özdemir tested a total of 153 pullout specimens. However, only 127
tests were considered because the quality of 26 tests were not as desired, and therefore they
were excluded. The study parameters were the embedment length (70, 100, and 150 mm), the
hole diameter (12,14, and 16 mm), CFRP amount (width of pre-cut CFRP sheet = 80, 120, and
150 mm), and concrete compressive strength (10, 16, and 20 MPa). The author stated that it
was hard to make any conclusions out of the test results as the results had no clear correlation.
It was observed, though, that the optimum embedment depth was 100mm. Seventeen additional
tests were carried out in the second series of the pullout tests. All seventeen specimens were
made of the same width of pre-cut CFRP sheet (120 mm) and had a hole diameter of 20 mm.
The varied parameters were the embedment depth (50, 70, 100, 150 mm) and concrete strength
(10 and 16 MPa). Özdemir confirmed from the second set of pullout tests that the optimum
embedment length for FRP anchors was 100mm.

2.7.2. Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu (2009)

Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu tested 81 FRP anchors under pure tension (pullout). The
parameters were embedment length (25, 50, 75, and 100 mm), the hole diameter (12.7, 15.9,
and 19.1 mm), concrete strength (25 and 50 MPa), and the angle of anchor inclination (0o, 15o,

8
30o, and 45o). It was observed that 84% of the tested anchors failed by either cone failure or
combined cone and bond failure, 10% failed by FRP rapture, and 6% failed by concrete
splitting. Cone failure mode was observed for all FRP anchors with 25 mm embedment length,
and depth of the concrete cone was 25 mm as well. However, it was found that the depth of the
concrete cone reduced when the embedment length increased. The average bond stress
decreased when increasing the embedment length, suggesting that the stress distribution along
the length of the anchor was not uniform. The average bond strength also decreased with
increasing the anchor diameter. The authors related this observation to the effects of Poisson’s
ration. Concrete strength did not have a significant effect on the bond strength. By looking at
all the 81 tested anchors including those that failed in FRP rupture, the maximum achieved
pullout force did not exceed 50% of the nominal FRP strength. This was judged to be greatly
related to the quality of the manufacturing process of FRP anchors. Therefore, the authors
recommended a reduction factor of 0.33 when calculating the tensile strength of handmade
FRP anchors.

2.7.3. Kim and Smith (2009)

Kim and Smith tested a total of 27 FRP anchors under pure tension loading. The
parameters were the embedment length (20, 40 and 60 mm), the hole (anchor) diameter (12,
14, and 16 mm), and the amount of CFRP (width of rolled CFRP sheet = 60, 110 and 130 mm).
The observed failure modes were concrete cone failure, combined concrete cone and bond
failure, FRP rapture, and bone failure. They showed hand-made FRP anchors to possess a
tensile strength as low as 65% of the strength of flat FRP tensile coupons. Concrete cone failure
was observed for all FRP anchors with 20 mm embedment. All other failure modes mentioned
earlier were observed for anchors with embedment length of 40 mm and larger. With significant
variation in the test results, it was observed that anchors with 14 mm anchor hole diameter had
higher pullout strength than those with 16 mm hole diameter. FRP anchor failure was seen in
most of the anchors with 60 mm embedment. The pullout strength clearly increased with the
increase of the embedment length. Compared to the nominal strength of FRP stated by the
manufacturer, the maximum pullout force achieved by FRP anchors with 20, 40 and 60 mm
embedment length were 34%, 47%, and 60%, respectively. However, the authors stated that
more tests were required to verifying their conclusions. It was claimed that the variation of the
results was mainly due to the challenge associated with the manufacturing process of FRP
anchors.

9
2.8. Existing pullout model
To the best knowledge of the authors, the only published model for predicting the
pullout strength of FRP anchors is by Kim and Smith (2010). This model considers pullout
resistance as being the minimum predicted for concrete cone failure, combined cone-bond
failure and anchor rupture failure. The transition from concrete cone to combined failure is
determined by the embedment length of the anchor, the anchor rupture failure depends on the
sectional area of the anchor and on the characteristic tensile strength of the FRP. The model
was calibrated using the results reported in Özdemir (2005), Kim and Smith (2009) and selected
data from Ozbakaloglu and Saatcioglu (2009). Based on this statistical study, the final model
is as follows:
𝑃𝑢 = min⁡(𝑃𝑐𝑐 , 𝑃𝑐𝑏 , 𝑃𝑎𝑟 ) (2.1)

𝑃𝑐𝑐 = 9.68 × ℎ1.5

𝑒𝑚𝑏 × √𝑓𝑐
′ (concrete cone failure) (2.2)

𝑃𝑐𝑏 = 𝜏𝑎𝑣𝑔 × 𝜋 × 𝑑0 × ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑏 (combined cone-bond failure) (2.3)

𝑃𝑎𝑟 = 𝛾 × 𝑊𝐹𝑅𝑃 × 𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 × 𝑓𝐹𝑅𝑃 (anchor rupture failure) (2.4)

where 𝜏𝑎𝑣𝑔 , the average shear strength in the adhesive-to-concrete interface, is calibrated as
4.62 MPa for 𝑓𝑐′ < ⁡20⁡MPa⁡ and 9.07 for 𝑓𝑐′ ≥ ⁡20⁡MPa⁡, the factor 𝛾 is introduced to reflect
the reality of a reduction in capacity when such rolled and bundled fibers are tested, and is
given a value of 0.59.
This model works acceptably well for pullout tests with embedment lengths up to 100
mm. The model considered embedment lengths of up to 100 mm because there was no reliable
data with larger embedment lengths. They concluded that more tests are required to improve
the accuracy of the model.

10
 REFERENCES

ASTM (2000). “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composites
Materials.”, ASTM D3039/D3039M, American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), Pennsylvania, USA.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2017). “Guide for the design and construction of
externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structure.” ACI 440.2R-17,
Farmington Hills, MI.
Concrete Society Technical Report No. 55 (2000). “Design guidance for strengthening concrete
structures using fibre composite materials, First Edition.” ISBN 0 946691 84 3.
Cook, R. A., Kunz, J., Fuchs, W., and Konz, R. C. (1998). “Behavior and design of single
adhesive anchors under tensile load in uncracked concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 95(1).
Eligehausen, R., Cook, R. A., and Appl, J. (2006b). “Behaviour and design of adhesive bonded
anchors.” ACI Struct. J., 103(6).
Eligehausen, R., Mallée, R., and Silva, J. F. (2006a). Anchorage in concrete construction,
Ernst & Young, Germany.
Kim, S. J., and Smith, S. T. (2009). “Behaviour of handmade FRP anchors under tensile load
in uncracked concrete.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 12(6).
Kim, S. J., and Smith, S. T. (2010). “Pullout strength models for FRP anchors in uncracked
concrete.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 14(4).
Ozbakkaloglu, T., and Saatcioglu, M. (2009). “Tensile behaviour of FRP anchors in concrete.”
J. Compos. Constr., 13(2).
Özdemir, G. (2005). “Mechanical properties of CFRP anchorage.” MS thesis, Middle East
Technical Univ., Turkey.
McVay, M., Cook, R., and Krishnamurthy, K. (1996). “Pullout simulation of postinstalled
chemically bonded anchors.” J. Struct. Eng., 122(9).

11