Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Sherbrooke of University, QC, Canada J1K 2R1
Civil Engineering Laboratory, National Engineering School of Tunis, Tunisia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 28 March 2009
Received in revised form 8 December 2009
Accepted 17 December 2009
Available online 9 February 2010
Keywords:
Bond
Concrete
FRP bars
Pull-out testing
Bondslip modelling
Temperature effect
a b s t r a c t
Eighty pull-out specimens were used to study the effect of temperature ranging from 20 C to 80 C in dry
environment on bond properties between Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars and concrete. The
pullout-test specimens were subjected during 4 and 8 months to high temperatures up to 80 C and then
compared to untreated specimens (20 C). Experimental results showed no signicant reduction on bond
strength for temperatures up to 60 C. However, a maximum of 14% reduction of the bond strength was
observed for 80 C temperature after 8 months of thermal loading. For treated specimens, the coefcient
b in the CMR model, which predicts the bondstressdisplacement behavior, seems to be dependant with
the temperature.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Corrosion of steel in concrete has been identied as the prime
factor of deterioration and structural deciency. Various remedies,
including replacing deteriorated concrete and using epoxy-coated
or galvanized steel, have been proven to be costly and inadequate
over the long run. Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars are a promising solution to this problem. Other attractive properties of FRP
materials include light weight, corrosion resistance, and high
strength. Glass FRP (GFRP) bars are gaining popularity as reinforcement for concrete bridge deck slabs and other concrete structures
due to their low initial cost compared to carbon FRP bars [16].
However, the surface deformation and mechanical properties of
FRP reinforced bars are different from those of conventional steel
bars. Therefore, the design guidelines for steel reinforcing bars cannot be directly used for FRP reinforcing bars, Benmokrane et al. [7].
FRP materials are an isotropic and characterized by high tensile
strength only in the direction of the reinforcing ber. The transverse coefcients of thermal expansion (CTE) controlled by the resin is up to three to six times the CTE of the concrete [8]. This
anisotropic behaviour should affect the shear strength action of
the FRP bar, as well as, the bond performance of FRP bars when
487
Table 1
Experimental program.
Bar
diameter
(db, mm)
8
16
2. Experimental study
Embedment
length
Temperature
(C)
Samples number
for each ageing
case
5db
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
5db
Time
exposure
(months)
4
8
4
8
Nominal
diameter
(mm)
Glass
Glass
16
Table 2
Properties of the GFRP bars used in this study [14].
Type
of
bar
bond strength (about 43%) which reects its low glass transition
temperature (Tg) of the resin. For the CPH and CPI rods, the decrease of bond strength is relatively moderate, and they both have
approximately the same reduction (20%). For the CB rod, the reduction is the smallest (3%), indicating that the bond relies mainly on
the polymeric system. It is possible to conclude from the above
that improving one or some of the followings can modify the bond
at high temperature: (i) Use of a polymer with high Tg in order to
increase the temperature at which the reduction in bond begins.
(ii) Use of a polymer with a high extent of crosslinks to moderate
the gradient of bond loss. (iii) Improvement of the inorganic system, which supports the bond at a high temperature where the
polymer practically ceases to contribute to the bond. We noted
that in the same study [11], and at 200 C, the bond strength exhibited a severe reduction of 8090% (for CB, CPH, CPI and NG rod).
We conclude from these works, that reduction in the bond
strength depends on the transverse coefcients of thermal expansion. A limited experimental data is available on the GFRP bond effects due temperature ranging from 20 C to 80 C, when applied
for a relatively long period of time. The major focus of the present
paper is to evaluate the long term effect of temperature ranging
from 20 C to 80 C on bond properties of GFRP bars embedded
in normal concrete. Results from a total of 80 specimens 8 mm
and 16 mm diameters GFRP bars, after more than 5000 h
(240 days) of exposure under high temperatures up to 80 C are reported. The thermal effects on the average bond strength are compared to untreated specimens (20 C). Based on the available
experimental tests, the main parameters a of the BerteroPopov
Elingehhausen (BPE) model and of the Cosenza, Manfredi Realfonzo (CMR) model (b, Sr) have been calibrated. The relationship between temperature and the parameters are established using the
CMR and BPE models.
Tensile
modulus of
elasticity
(GPa)
Ultimate
tensile
strength
(MPa)
Coefcient of
thermal
expansion
(mm/mm/C)
Density
60 1.9
738 22
0.6 105
(axial)
2.2 105
(radial)
2.2
The Glass FRP bars Combar used in pull-out specimens were manufactured
by using ber composites and were combined with synthetic resin to achieve improved properties, such as higher strength and elevated modulus of elasticity [14].
The tensile properties of the bars used in this investigation are presented in
Table 2. These properties are based on the experimental tests conducted at the
laboratories of Schock Bauteile GmbH, Munich Technical University, and Syracuse
University [15]. Two nominal diameters were used in this study: 8 mm and
16 mm for the GFRP bars.
Table 3
Concrete composition and characteristics.
Water (kg/m3)
Sand (kg/m3)
Slump (mm)
204
300
857
296
691
30 3
90 2
488
Fig. 3. Setup of the pull-out test: (a) schematic and (b) photo.
Fm
489
were used for the GFRP bar to monitor the displacements. Three LVDTs were placed
at 120 segment orientation at the loaded end, and one LVDT at the free end (Fig. 3).
sm
where Fm, is the Peak recorded load (N) during the pull-out test, db is the nominal bar
diameter (mm), and Leb is the embedment length of GFRP bar (mm).
Table 4 presents the average bond strength values for each diameter and for
each temperature after 4 and 8 months of ageing. Fig. 6 shows the maximal bond
strength in dry environment after 120 and 240 days of ageing. The 16 mm-diameter
bar developed lower bond strength than that of the 8 mm-diameter bar, (about
14 MPa for the 8 mm and 11 MPa for the 16 mm diameter).This diameter effect,
is due to a difference in the contact surface (larger for 16 mm diameter) at the interface bar/concrete. The bond strength decreases when the diameter increases (diameter effect). This nding is in agreement with the results by Boyle and Karbhari [17],
Nanni and Faza [18], Tighiouart et al. [19].
After 120 days of ageing of the GFRP bar in dry environment, and at temperature up to 60 C, the average bond strengths do not show any signicant reduction
(1.81% and 3.36% respectively for the 8 mm and 16 mm). For the 80 C temperature,
the maximum reductions after 4 months of thermal loading were 9.39% and 13.71%,
respectively for the 8 mm and 16 mm GFRP bars, compared to the reference results
at 20 C.
After 240 days of ageing in dry environment at temperature up to 60 C, the
average bond strengths also did not show any signicant reduction (1.96% and
3.54% respectively for the 8 mm and 16 mm). However, for the 80 C temperature,
the maximum reductions after 8 months of ageing in dry environment were 9.64%
and 14.14%, respectively for the 8 mm and 16 mm, compared to the reference results at 20 C. Fig. 7 presents the curve ttings of the thermal degradation of the
bond strengths for the two GFRP bars tested in this study. As shown in Fig. 7a
and b, it is concluded that the third degree polynomial equations sm = f(T) predict
with good accuracy the thermal degradation of the bond strength from 20 to
80 C. These equations are very useful to predict the bond strength for design
purpose.
In a similar study by Alvarez et al. [20], for the investigation of the thermal effect on bond properties with GFRP V-Rod bar, with a modulus of elasticity 44 GPa
and a CTE of 3.4 105 mm/mm/C, the average bond strength reduction is found
to be up to 27% and 32% for the specimens which are subjected to 60 and 80 C,
respectively. This comparison shows that the thermal effect on bond strength of
Table 4
Specimens and summary of test results.
Temperature
(C)
20
40
60
80
a
8 months
8 mm
(GFRP)
16 mm
(GFRP)
8 mm
(GFRP)
16 mm
(GFRP)
14.37 0.40
14.27 1.04
14.11 0.75
13.02 0.22
11.01 0.25
10.87 0.36
10.64 0.15
9.50 0.27
14.32 1.19
14.22 1.99
14.04 1.24
12.94 1.49
11.03 0.92
10.86 0.21
10.64 0.44
9.47 0.93
Fig. 6. Loss in bond strength in dry environment after 120 and 240 days of ageing.
pdb Leb
490
GFRP Combar is less pronounced than that of GFRP V-Rod bar due to a lower CTE
and higher elasticity modulus (60 GPa).
The axial and radial GFRP coefcients of thermal expansion are respectively 0.6
and 2.2 105 mm/mm/C. For comparison, the coefcient of thermal expansion of
concrete is between 0.5 and 1.2 105 mm/mm/C, which may explain why there
is no signicant thermal effect for the specimens subjected to temperatures from 20
to 60 C.
s s1
a
s
s1
491
Z s1
Z s1 a
s
s1 s1
As1
ss ds
s1
ds
s1
1a
0
0
In Eq. (3), s1 and s1 represent the bond strength and the corresponding slip, respectively. Therefore, a can be expressed as a function of
As1 given by:
sm sm
As 1
1
Table 5
Mean values for each temperature and diameter of GFRP bars.
GFRP 8 mm
4 months
8 months
CMR model
b
Sr (mm)
BPE model
CMR model
b
Sr (mm)
BPE model
GFRP 16 mm
20 C
40 C
60 C
80 C
20 C
40 C
60 C
80 C
0.458
0.134
0.087
0.463
0.149
0.088
0.476
0.145
0.09
0.496
0.137
0.095
0.416
0.155
0.085
0.425
0.172
0.089
0.456
0.149
0.087
0.512
0.105
0.084
0.458
0.148
0.093
0.463
0.146
0.089
0.477
0.147
0.092
0.498
0.136
0.094
0.417
0.166
0.088
0.425
0.161
0.090
0.458
0.147
0.086
0.515
0.112
0.089
492
Diameter 8 mm :
ss sm 1 esr
b
Diameter 16 mm :
bT 0:0005T 3 0:008T 2 0:0185T 0:426
4. Conclusions
The following conclusions are deduced from the experimental
and analytical results:
For temperature up to 60 C applied for periods of 4 and
8 months, the average bond strengths did not show any signicant reduction.
For the 80 C temperature, the maximum reductions after
8 months of ageing in dry environment were 10% and 14%,
respectively for the 8 mm and 16 mm GFRP bars, compared to
the reference results at 20 C.
No signicant damages were observed on the interface GFRP
rebars/concrete after 240 days of thermal loading in dry
environment.
No signicant effects were detected on the coefcient a of the
BPE modied model submitted to temperature ranging from
20 C to 80 C.
The bond strength decreases when the diameter increases
(diameter effect).
The thermal effect on bond strength of GFRP Combar is less pronounced than that of GFRP V-Rod bar due to a lower CTE and
higher elasticity modulus.
To predict the bondstress slip behavior, the CMR model provides better accuracy with the experimental results, than the
BPE model.
The coefcient b, from the rst branch of the CMR model
increases as temperature increases. This nding is t for temperature ranging from 20 C to 80 C with this particular kind of
rebar and diameters used in this investigation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the manufacturer of the GFRP
Combar (Schck, Baden-Baden, Germany) for providing the GFRP
bars. The opinion and analysis presented in this paper are those of
the authors.
References
493
[16] ACI Committee 440. Guide test methods for ber-reinforced polymers for
reinforcing or strengthening concrete (ACI 440.3R-04). Farmington Hills
(Mich.): American Concrete Institute; 2004. 40p.
[17] Boyle HC, Karbhari VM. Investigation of bond behaviour between glass ber
composite reinforcements and concrete. Polym Plast Technol Eng
1994;33(6):73353.
[18] Nanni A, Faza S. Designing and constructing with FRP bars: an emerging
technology. Concr Int 2002;24(11):538.
[19] Tighiouart B, Benmokrane B, Gao D. Investigation of bond in concrete member
with bre reinforced polymer bars. Constr Build Mater 1998;12(8):45362.
[20] Alvarez A, Zaidi A, Masmoudi R. Bond slip behaviour of FRP bars under low and
high temperature, experimental and theoretical studies. CDCC-2007; 2007. p.
52330.
[21] Eligehausen R, Bertero V, Popov EP. Analytical model for concrete anchorages
of reinforcing bars under generalized excitations. Report No. UCB/ERC 82/23.
EERC, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA; 1982.
[22] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Behaviour and modelling of bond of FRP
rebars to concrete. J Compos Constr 1997;1(2):4051.