Anda di halaman 1dari 4

CICE 2010 - The 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering September 27-29, 2010, Beijing, China

Development Length of Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP)/Steel Wire Composite Rebar
Qingduo Hao (haoqingduo@163.com) School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China Yanlei Wang & Jinping Ou School of Civil & Hydraulic Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China

ABSTRACT The bond between glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP)/steel wire composite rebars and concrete is the key problem to the performance of concrete structures reinforced with GFRP/steel wire composite rebars. In this study, pull-out test was tested to experimentally investigate the bond strength of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars to concrete. The test variables were the nominal diameter, the embedded length, the concrete compressive strength, the concrete cover thickness and the concrete cast depth. Based on the two modification factors of 1.2 and 1.6 to account for the top rebar effect and concrete cover effect, respectively, a new formula is proposed for the calculation of development length for GFRP/steel wire composite rebars. KEY WORDS

INTRODUCTION

Based on the hybrid theory, GFRP/steel wire composite rebars were manufactured to enhance the ductility and elastic modulus of GFRP rebars. The tensile strength of non-corrosion GFRP/steel wire composite rebar is larger than that of ordinary steel rebar, and the typical stressstrain relationship of GFRP/steel wire composite rebar exhibits the similar yielding characteristics to that observed for ordinary steel rebar. Therefore, GFRP/steel wire composite rebars offer a superior alternative to ordinary steel rebars in concrete structures (ACI 440 2001, Hao 2006). So far, few studies recommending design guidelines for bond of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars to concrete have been reported in the literature. And the lack of information and design guidelines on their bond properties to concrete is one of the important factors limiting the filed application of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars to civil engineering. Moreover, the direct utilization of design guidelines for RC structures for the calculation of development length of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars is unwarranted because of the inherent differences between steel rebars and GFRP/ steel wire composite rebars in terms of their tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, and surface configurations (Hao 2007a,b, Ehsani 1997). Thus, pull-out specimens were tested to investigate the effect of nominal diameter, embedded length, concrete compressive strength, concrete cover thickness, and concrete cast depth on bond behavior of GFRP/steel

wire composite rebars to concrete. The primary objective of this research project was to study the bond behavior and develop design recommendations for anchorage of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars to concrete. The present paper focuses on the development of a new formula for the calculation of development length for GFRP/steel wire composite rebars (Ehsani 1996, Tastani 2006).

2 GFRP/STEEL WIRE COMPOSITE REBAR


The GFRP/steel wire composite rebars used in this test are supplied by Harbin Tider Science & Technology Inc.. These rebars had nominal diameter (d) of 8, 10, 12, and 14mm. They were generally manufactured using the so-called pultrusion process, and were made of continuous longitudinal glass fibers, steel wire, and epoxy resin. Two kinds of steel wire in nominal diameter of 1.5mm and 2.0mm were used. The cross section of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars can be seen in Figure 1. During manufacturing, surface treatment was adopted to enhance the bond between GFRP/steel wire composite rebar and concrete. The longitudinal fibers and steel wire were wrapped in a helical pattern with two small strand fibers which were tight to induce indentations on the surface before heat-curing. The surface configurations and the rib geometries of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars can be seen in Figure 2.

L. Ye et al. (eds.), Advances in FRP Composites in Civil Engineering Tsinghua University Press, Beijing and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

September 2729, 2010, Beijing, China


1.25

293

steel wire

steel wire

Modification Factor

glass fiber

glass fiber

Max. Recommendation Value=1.2


1.20 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00

d=8mm
glass fiber

d=10mm
glass fiber

steel wire

steel wire

20

30

40

Concrete Compressive Strength(MPa)

d=12mm

d=14mm

Figure 1 Schematic of cross section of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars


Spacing Angle

Figure 3 Modification factor of concrete cover

3.2

Critical value of slip

Width of Fiber Strand

Height

GFRP/Steel Wire Composite Rebar

Figure 2 Schematic of rib geometries of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars

3 ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS


3.1 3.1.1 Modification factor Modification factor of concrete cover

The failure mode for all specimens with concrete cover ranging from one to three times of rebar diameters was found to be due to concrete splitting. The distribution of the ratios of measured bond strength in specimens with concrete cover more than three rebar diameters to those with three rebar diameter is shown in Figure 3. A confinement factor of 1.2 will cover all cases when the concrete cover is three rebar diameter or less. Thus, according to the analysis on the determination of concrete cover thickness(ACI 440 2006), the basic development length must be multiplied by a confinement factor of 1.2 for cases with a concrete cover of two rebar diameter of smaller, and 1.0 when the cover is greater than two rebar diameter to account for the influence of concrete cover. 3.1.2 Modification factor of top-bar The casting position has been shown to significantly influence bond strength under monotonic static loading. The top-bar modification factor is defined as the ratio of the ultimate bond strength reached when pulling out the bottom rebar to that reached when pulling out the top rebar. Test results indicate 12 pairs of specimens in which pullout failure rather than rebar rupture controlled. All values are less than 1.6. Therefore, it is recommended that a factor of 1.6 be used to account for the top-bar effect(ACI 440 2006).

The above slip limitations for ordinary steel rebars cannot be directly utilized in evaluation of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars which differ from ordinary steel rebars in two important aspects (Achillides 2004). First, lower modulus of elasticity of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars results in greater elongation and contributes to the loaded-end slip. Second, the surface configurations of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars cannot resist large bond stresses and result in greater loaded-end and free-end slips. Thus, new criteria for bond of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars needed to be developed. These criteria were developed based on load-slip relationships and are presented in the following section. The typical load-slip relation curves for specimens with different embedment lengths shown that various embedment lengths have only a minor influence on the load values until the loaded-end slip is 0.41 mm. It can be seen that various embedment lengths have only a minor influence on the load values until the free-end slip is 0.183 mm. A similar trend was observed in most of the other specimens. Thus, the critical slip value at the free and loaded ends is 0.183mm and 0.41mm, respectively. (Cairns 1995, CSA 2002, Tighiouart 1998) 3.3 Basic development length The transmission of bond stress between GFRP/steel wire composite rebars and concrete is shown in Figure 4. Under the assumption of constant distribution of bond stress W , the problem of a diameter d GFRP/steel wire composite rebar embedded in the concrete member for a length la and subjected to a pull-out force is governed by the following equilibrium equation (Cosenza 2002):

Figure 4 Schematic of transmission of bond stress

294

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering

W Sdla

AG f G

(1)

From Eq. (1), it follows: AG f G la W Sd

(2)

Where, W is average bond strength in MPa; d is diameter of the rebar in mm; la is embedded length in mm; AG is the cross section area of the rebar in mm2; and f G is the normal tensile stress of the rebar in MPa. For GFRP/steel wire composite rebars, it has been found that the average bond strength W is a linear function of the square root of the concrete compressive strength f c' :

tensile force was replaced with Tc . The next objective was to determine the bond factor K , such that after the application of the relevant factors for top-bar, concrete cover thickness, etc., the resulting equations would yield a conservative development length. Therefore, the basic development length equation was modified for the use of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars as: lbd 0.028 AG f y f c' (9)

k f c'

(3)

Where, k is a constant. Therefore, from Eqs. (2) and (3):

which was based on the pull-out test results. The 0.028 coefficient ensures that all development lengths calculated based on (9) will be larger than the measured ones. 3.4 Bond strength From Eqs. (1) and (9), the bond strength of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars to concrete can be calculated as:

la

AG f G Sdk f c'
And setting K

(4)

1 , it follows: Sdk (5)

W 11.37

f c' d

(10)

la

AG f G f c'

Where, K is the bond factor reflecting the effect of rib spacing, rebar diameter, embedded length, concrete compressive strength, concrete cover thickness, and concrete cast depth on bond behavior of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars to concrete. The basic development length is defined as the minimum embedded length required to develop the ultimate strength of the rebar. Hence, the basic development length lbd can be calculated by the following equation:
lbd K AG f y f c'

(6)

Where, f y is the design tensile strength of GFRP/ steel wire composite rebar considering reductions for service environment, and can be calculated as:

The bond strength calculated from Eq. (10) must be adjusted by three steps(Chaallal 1993). First, all stresses corresponding to top rebars were divided by 1.6 to account for the top-bar effect. Second, the stresses for those specimens with concrete cover of two bar diameter or smaller were divided by 1.2 to account for the small cover. Even with these conditions, some of the bond stresses were still too high, resulting in unconservative development length calculation. Therefore, the third modification was to impose a maximum bond stress limit on these values. Analysis of the data indicated that an upper limit of 6.0 MPa for GFRP/steel wire composite rebars could ensure that all development lengths calculated based on adjusted bond stresses will be larger than the measured ones. The above bond stress limit of 6.0 MPa can be incorporated into (1) and rewritten in another form, which is more familiar to design engineers as lbd 0.0417df y (11)

fy

0.7f u*

(7)

4 CONCLUSIONS
Pull-out specimens were tested to develop design guidelines for bond of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars to concrete. Based on the theoretical analysis of the test results, the following conclusions were drawn: (1) The embedment length has little effect on the bond stresses attained by GFRP/steel wire composite rebars until the loaded-end slip reaches 0.41 mm or the free-end slip reaches 0.183 mm. Therefore, it is recommended that the allowable slips at the loaded-end and free-end of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars be limited to 0.41 mm and 0.183 mm, respectively.

Where, f u* is guaranteed tensile strength of the GFRP/ steel wire composite rebar, defined as the mean tensile strength of a sample of test specimens minus three times the standard deviation. From Eqs. (1) and (6), the factor K listed in column 9 of Table 3 was calculated as: K f c'

W c Sd

(8)

Where, W c is the critical bond stress in MPa. The value of W c was calculated from (1), when the applied

September 2729, 2010, Beijing, China

295 Structures26: 167-175. CSA S806-02. 2002. Design and construction of building components with fiber reinforced polymers. Canadian Standards Association. Toronto (Ont., Canada). Cosenza E., Manfredi G., Realfonzo R.. 2002. Development length of FRP straight rebars. Composites: Part B33: 493504. Ehsani M. R., Saadatmanesh H., Tao S.. 1996. Design recommendations for bond of GFRP rebars to concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering (3): 247-254. Ehsani, M.R., Saadatmanesh, H., Tao, S.. 1997. Bond behavior of deformed GFRP rebars. Journal of Composites Materials 14:1413-1430. Hao, Q.D., Wang, B., Ou, J.P.. 2006. Fiber reinforced polymer rebars application to civil engineering. Concrete 9(1): 38-40 (in Chinese). Hao, Q.D., Zhang, Z.C., Wang, Y.L., Ou, J.P.. 2007a. Comparison experimental study on bond behavior of deformed GFRP rebars with different outer surface. FRP/CM (2):37-39 (in Chinese). Hao, Q. D., Wang, Y. L., Ou, J. P. et al.. 2007b. Bond Strength Improvement of GFRP Rebars with Different Rib Geometries Journal of Zhejiang University Science A9(8): 1356-1365. Tastani, S. P., Pantazopoulou, J.. 2006. Bond of GFRP bars in concrete: experimental study and analytical interpretation. Journal of Composites for Construction10(5):381-391. Tighiouart, B., Benmokrane, B., Gao, D.. 1998. Investigation of bond in concrete member with fiber reinforced polymer FRP bars. Construction and Building Materials12:162-453.

(2) The effect of concrete cover and top-bar on bond behavior of GFRP/steel wire composite rebars to concrete is significant. Therefore, it is recommended that one factor of 1.2 to account for the effect of concrete cover and the other factor of 1.6 to account for the top-bar effect. (3) For straight GFRP/steel wire composite rebars, the development length, ld should be computed as a product of (9) multiplied by top-bar modification factor and concrete cover modification factor. This figure shall not be less than the values obtained from (11). Finally, a minimum development length of 381 mm or 20 times the rebar diameter must be provided.

REFERENCES
Achillides, Z., Pilakoutas, K.. Bond behavior of fiber reinforced polymer bars under direct pullout conditions. Journal of Composites for Construction, 2004, 8(2): 173-181. ACI 440 Committee. 2001.Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, USA. ACI 440.1R-06. Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars. Farmington Hills (MI, USA): American Concrete Institute, 2006. Cairns, J., and Abdullah, R.. 1995. An evaluation of bond pullout tests and their relevance to structural performance. Struct. Eng. 73(11): 179185. Chaallal O., Benmokrane B.. 1993. Pullout and bond of glass-fiber rods embedded in concrete and cement grout. Materials and