Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb
Abstract
In recent years, some attempts have been performed to extend general design rules reported in the codes for steel reinforced concrete to
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials; this is the case of relationships adopted in the evaluation of the development length clearly
derived by extension of the formulations used for steel rebars. However, such relationships seem to be inappropriate for FRP reinforcing bars:
in fact, experimental test results have shown that bond behaviour of FRP bars is different from that observed in case of deformed steel ones.
As a consequence, a new procedure for the evaluation of development length based on an analytical approach is needed in order to directly
account for the actual bond-slip constitutive law as obtained by experimental tests on different types of FRP reinforcing bars.
An analytical solution of the problem of a FRP rebar embedded in a concrete block and pulled-out by means of a tensile force applied on
the free end is presented herein. Such solution leads to an exact evaluation of the development length when splitting failure is prevented.
Finally, based on the analytical approach, a limit state design procedure is suggested to evaluate the development length. q 2002 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: FRP reinforcing bar
1. Introduction
From design point of view, the study of concrete
structures reinforced using FRP reinforcing bars has been
initially developed by extending the wide body of
information gathered in a century of use of steel reinforced
concrete. Studies have been often carried out by comparing
performances obtained by using steel or FRP reinforcing
bars; moreover, the manufacturing technologies have been
oriented to fabricate composite bars which are similar, in
shape and dimensions, to those made of deformed steel.
One of the critical aspects of structural behaviour is the
development of an adequate bond behaviour; a number of
tests have been performed by several authors on FRP
reinforcing bars in order to study their bond performance
and to compare such bond properties with those evidenced
by deformed steel bars. On this topic, three state-of-art
reports have been recently published by Cosenza et al. [8],
Tepfers [21] and fib Task Group 5.2 [12].
From the experimental results, it was concluded that
bond between FRP reinforcement and concrete is controlled
by several factors such as the mechanical and geometrical
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 39-81-7683485; fax: 39-81-7683406.
E-mail address: robrealf@unina.it (R. Realfonzo).
1359-8368/02/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 5 9 - 8 3 6 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 5 1 - 3
494
Nomenclature
Ab
cb
f
E
Ef
0
f ck
fb0d
fc
f c0
fd
ff
ft
fu
fyf
Ld
Ldb
s
sm
wlim
a,p
1
gE
gg
gm
s
su
suk
syk
t
tm
Ab ff
ptf
or, alternatively:
Ld
fff
4t
For deformed steel bars, it has been found that bond strength
tm is a linear function of the square root of the compressive
concrete strength f 0c [10]:
p
5
tm k f 0c
where k is a constant.
Therefore, from Eqs. (3) and (5):
Ld
Ab ff
p
pkf f 0c
Ab ff
p
K f 0c
where fyf and f 0c are the yielding strength of steel bars and
compressive concrete strength, respectively (psi), and Ab, is
the rebar area (in.2).
According to ACI 318-89, the development length Ld is
provided by:
Y
Ld
fi Ldb
9
Q
where fi indicates the product of some modification
factors that take into account the influence on bond of some
key parameters (i.e. cover, spacing, transverse reinforcement).
Some modifications of Eq. (8) have been subsequently
reported by ACI 318-95 [2].
In order to extend Eq. (7) to FRP reinforcing bars, several
investigators have attempted to evaluate experimentally
values of K for different types of FRP bars [5,9,11,19].
Furthermore, based on experimental results, in case of
FRP reinforcing bars, some authors proposed simplified
expressions of Ldb; these expressions, clearly design
oriented, are not suitable for all types of FRP reinforcing
bars, because they are practically appropriate only for the
selected bars. An example is given by [6,7]:
Ld 20f
10
Recently, formulations for evaluating the basic development length have been proposed in new codes for design
of concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars. This is
the case of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)
Design Code [14] and of the ACI Committee 440 Guide
[3].
In the case of JSCE code, Ldb is clearly derived from
Eq. (4):
Ldb a1
ffd
4fb0d
Ldb
fffu
18:5
pf2
ds pft dx
4
s E1 E
12
13
11
495
ds
dx
14
15
496
tm, the maximum bond strength, sm, the slip at peak bond
strength and su is the ultimate slip.
By using such a law when integrating Eq. (15), two cases,
A (s # sm) and B (s . sm) have to be separately considered.
3.1. Case A (s # sm)
Considering Eq. (16), it is possible to rewrite Eq. (15) as:
2
ds
4t m a
2
s 0
2
Efsam
dx
18
tx
sx E
ds
dx
20
pf ds
;
4 dx
17
s1 f 1 a
1a
l0m
4t m 1 2 a
12a
23
where ps
24
sm
lm
12a
ps
sx
x
1a
where ps
ps 2 1
25
lm
s1
12a
pt
tx
x
2a
where pt
ps 2 2
26
lm
tm
12a
Eqs. (24) (26) provide simple expressions of s, s and t as a
function of x=lm : In particular, it can be noticed that:
for a 0, the slip s is a quadratic function of the abscissa
x, while the normal stress s is linear and the bond stress t
assumes the constant value tm;
for a 1/3, sx is cubic, s(x) is parabolic and t(x) is
linear.
For s , s1, the development length l can be evaluated
from Eq. (25) by setting x l; then, the following
expression of l is obtained:
12a=1a
s
l lm
27
s1
For 0 , s # s1, Eq. (27) provides values of the length l less
than the value lm derived from Eq. (23).
According to Eq. (23), another expression of l can be
easily derived from Eq. (27):
2a=1a
s
1a
l l0 1
28
s
12a
where:
l 0 l 0 s
fs
4t m
29
conditions:
slm sm ;
ds
dx
497
xlm
1lm
s1
E
sm
p
9
s
=
2p
sinvx 2 lm
;
1a
31
where:
s s
4ptm
1
2p 1 a
v
lm 1 a 1 2 a
E f sm
Finally, by substituting Eq. (31) into Eq. (17), the
distribution law of bond stresses along the bar is given by:
s
tx
2p
sinvx 2 lm
cosvx 2 lm 2
32
1a
tm
while, remembering Eq. (14), sx is provided by:
s
sx
1a
sinvx 2 lm
cosvx 2 lm
s1
2p
33
34
ds
4ptm
41 ptm
s
2
Efsm
Ef
dx
30
498
tb s 20:5s1=4
36
tb s 16:5 2 7:4s
37
tm (Mpa)
0.253 (0.136)
14.65 (0.083)
0.245 (0.465)
0.128 (0.449)
499
s s1 280 MPa;
s sm 0:25 mm
t tm 14:6 MPa;
500
Fig. 4. Trends of normal stress, bond stress and slip along a GFRP C-Bare.
39
sd
suk
gm
40
sd s1
41
501
44
45
a
a
fsm 1 a
fsm 1 a
A value of slim can be also obtained considering a threshold
for s at the serviceability state level: for example, an
allowable stress limit slim 0.25ffu could be suggested in
case of glass FRP (GFRP) bars.
This value of slim can indirectly provide also a limit to
avoid a creep failure of the FRP reinforcing bar; it is worth
to notice that, in order to avoid failure due to creep rupture
of FRP, in the ACI Committee 440 code a stress limit equal
to 0.20ffu under all sustained loads (i.e. dead load plus the
sustained portion of the live loads) has been assumed in the
case of GFPR reinforcing bars [3].
In order to verify that serviceability checks are satisfied,
the ratio sd/slim has to be rather low; in particular, such ratio
must be less than the ratio of the design load at the ultimate
state level to the design load at the serviceability level
(about 1.50). Conversely, if sd/slim is greater than the above
ratio, the design will be conditioned by the checks at
serviceability and the stress level under ultimate load
conditions will be less than the design value sd.
502
46
Depending on the state level in the JSCE Recommendation [14], two different proposals for the elastic modulus
are reported, thus obtaining two tensile force strain
design curve (see Figs. 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 in the JSCE
Recommendation).
As underlined above, from Eq. (27), it can be noticed that
when the elastic modulus increases, the development length
increases. Therefore, in the evaluation of the development
length, a safety factor gE less than 1 should be used in order
to increase the value of E obtained from the experimental
test results:
Ed E=gE
47
sd s1 280 MPa
(b) in the case of reinforcement located in the bottom of
the concrete element (gt 1) and for concrete cover
larger than 2f (gc 1), the development length Ldb
6. Concluding remarks
The problem of the evaluation of the development
length in case of FRP reinforcing bars has been studied.
Despite of an extensive state-of-the-art research, which
extended the code design formulas for steel reinforced
concrete structures, a new design procedure has been
proposed based on the analytical formulation.
It is considered that, since these bars are made of new
materials, the design procedure has to be derived in a
rational manner, i.e. neglecting approximate approaches
or formulations derived from classical theories (used for
steel reinforced concrete structures) and accounting for
the actual bond-slip constitutive laws.
Therefore, a suitable assessment of the actual bond
behaviour is a main step of the proposed procedure. The
constitutive bond-slip relationship has to be identified for the
considered FRP rebar from experimental tests. The highest
bond strength will be obtained for specimens characterised
by a well-confined situation, while tests on elements in a not
so well confined situation will allow the evaluation of the
influence of the splitting on bond resistance.
503
References
[1] ACI, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete. ACI
318-89, Detroit, MI: American Concrete Institute; 1989. revised
1992.
[2] ACI, Building code requirements for structural concrete. ACI 318-95,
Detroit, MI: American Concrete Institute; 1995.
[3] ACI, Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced
with FRP bars. ACI Committee 440, Draft, Detroit, MI: American
Concrete Institute; 2000.
[4] Benmokrane B, Masmoudi R. FRP C-Bar as reinforcing rod for
concrete structures. In: El-Badry M, editor. Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridge
Structures, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 1996.
[5] Brown VL, Bartholomew CL. FRP reinforcing bars in reinforced
concrete members. ACI Mater J 1993;90(1).
[6] Chaallal O, Benmokrane B. Pullout and bond of glass-fibre rods
embedded in concrete and cement grout. Mater Struct 1993;26.
[7] Chaallal O, Benmokrane B, Masmoudi R. An innovative glass-fibre
composite rebar for concrete structures. Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridge
Structures, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; 1992.
[8] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Behaviour and modeling of
bond of FRP rebars to concrete. J Compos Construct, ASCE 1997;
1(2).
[9] Ehsani MR, Saadatmanesh H, Tao S. Design recommendations for
bond of GFRP rebars to concrete. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1996;
122(3).
[10] Eligehausen R, Popov,EP, Bertero VV. Local bond stress slip
relationships of deformed bars under generalized excitations. Report
no. 83/23, EERC, University of California, Berkeley; 1983.
[11] Faza SS, Gangarao HVS. Theoretical and experimental correlation of
behavior of concrete beams reinforced with fiber reinforced plastic
504
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]