TRANSVERSE SHEAR OF GFRP RODS:

TEST METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL

FOR DURABILITY ASSESSMENT
T. R. Gentry1
1
Associate Professor, School of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology

ABSTRACT
Recent efforts have led to the standardization of test methods for FRP materials for
reinforcing and repairing concrete. These efforts are transitioning standards, originally
published by the American Concrete Institute (Committee 440K), as ASTM standards
under ASTM Committee D30, Composite Materials. One of the methods under
development involves the transverse shearing of FRP rods. FRP rods come under shear
loading when crossing transverse cracks, such as when they are used as dowels in concrete
pavements or as shear reinforcements in cracked wood timbers.
The paper reviews the draft ASTM test method, which has been developed using a modular
fixture to allow for shearing of smooth and deformed bars with a diameter of 10 mm (#3) to
32 mm (#10). The paper presents test results on smooth pultruded rods and commercial
GFRP rebar produced in North America. The paper details test parameters and variables
that impact the outcomes of the tests. The paper also explores the potential for use of the
test for durability screening. Another D30/440 test method, also under development,
involves the alkaline conditioning and subsequent tension testing of FRP rods used for
concrete reinforcement. In this paper, we explore the use of a combination of the alkaline
test method conditioning, with the transverse shear method for tracking mechanical
property changes.

1. INTRODUCTION

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites for concrete reinforcement have been under
development since the late 1980’s. Early research evaluated the material properties of these
first FRP reinforcements, identified the most promising applications, and demonstrated that
FRP concrete reinforcements were both structurally viable and sufficiently cost-effective to
justify commercial production. Later research and standardization activities led to the
publication of internationally-recognized codes and standards for FRP materials and
products, as well as design guidelines and codes for application of these products. From
the author’s perspective, these 25 years of research and standards development has

Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Durability & Sustainability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation
20-22 July 2011 Loews Le Concorde Hotel Quebec City, Quebec Canada
followed a timeline highlighted by the following activities and milestones – in rough
chronological order:
1. Materials and Applications Research
2. Demonstration Projects
3. State of the Art Reports
4. Design Guides
5. Building Code Requirements
6. Material and Product Specifications
7. Construction Specifications
8. Test Methods
Each of these eight activities are still in various states of completeness and work is ongoing,
as new materials and products emerge from industry, and new information regarding FRP
concrete reinforcements emerges from the research community. As of 2010, the market for
FRP reinforcements for concrete has matured, and is split between internal reinforcements,
used primarily for new construction in corrosive-prone environments or in other specialty
applications requiring non-metallic reinforcements, and externally bonded reinforcements,
used primarily for repair or strengthening of concrete or other structural materials.
This paper focuses on the last activity in the timeline: the development of test methods.
Standardized test methods are developed late in a product development and commercial-
ization process – as the materials, geometries, and application methods for the given
product must be established before the test methods can be finalized. In addition, test
method development is equally the business of the engineers and manufacturers, and thus
requires agreement from both parties during the development of consensus standards.

1.1 Test Method Development in the United States

In the United States, most authoritative work regarding FRP concrete reinforcements has
come from American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440: Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement. The development of test methods for FRP concrete reinforcements began
within Committee 440 in the late 1990’s. Early work on test methods for FRP
reinforcements can be found in a papers by Nanni et al [1] and Benmokrane et al [2]. The
first set of guide test methods for FRP concrete reinforcements was published by ACI
Committee 440 in 2004 [3]. Some of these methods were adapted from schematic test
method proposals developed earlier by the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers [4].
In the United States, test method development has transitioned from ACI to ASTM, per an
agreement between the two organizations. This activity has resulted in the publication of
four ASTM standards encompassing the information from seven sections in the original
440R.3R (Table 1). The publication of two additional ASTM standards is anticipated in
2011, with one standard still in the balloting in review process. The original ACI guide
methods have been strengthened through the ASTM balloting and revision process, with
additional laboratory testing and test fixture development taking place for many of the
standards. An example of this process is detailed in a recent paper by Eveslage et al.

Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Durability & Sustainability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation
20-22 July 2011 Loews Le Concorde Hotel Quebec City, Quebec Canada
detailing the research undertaken to assess and improve the test method for laminate pull-
off from a concrete substrate, now published as ASTM D7522 [5].

Table 1: ASTM D30 and ACI 440 Test Methods

ASTM ACI 440.3R
Title Year
No. Methods
D7205 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Fiber B.1, B.2 and 2006
Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars Appendix A
D7337 Standard Test Method for Tensile Creep Rupture of B.8 2007
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars
D7522 Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength for FRP L.1 2007
Bonded to Concrete Substrate
D7565 Standard Test Method for Determining Tensile L.2 and 2009
Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Appendix B
Composites Used for Strengthening of Civil
Structures
WK22346 (1) Method For Determining Apparent Overlap Splice L.3 2011 (2)
Shear Strength Properties Of Wet Lay-Up Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites Used For
Strengthening Civil Structures
WK22348 Standard Test Method for Transverse Shear Strength B.4 2011 (2)
of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars
WK27200 Standard Test Method for Alkali Resistance of Fiber B.6 (3)
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Matrix Composite Bars
used in Concrete Construction
(1) “WK” identifies a work item – a draft test method in the process of being balloted.
(2) Test method has passed ASTM balloting and will be published in 2011.
(3) Test method is undergoing ASTM ballot process, publication date unknown.

2. TRANSVERSE SHEAR OF FRP BARS

The remainder of this paper focuses primarily on the development of the transverse shear
test method, a brief description of typical test results on smooth rods and production GFRP
rebar, and its applicability for durability testing of GFRP bars. FRP bars are loaded in
transverse shear as a consequence of dowel action in reinforced concrete beams. They may
also be inserted as dowels at joints in concrete pavements, or be used to reinforced concrete
or other materials in direct shear. Papers by Amy and Svecova (shear strengthening of
timber) [6], Dulude et al. (punching shear strength of GFRP-reinforced concrete) [7], Eddie
et al (dowels in concrete pavements) [8] and Gentry (shear strengthening of glued-
laminated timber) [9] discuss applications in which the FRP bar are loaded in transverse
shear.

Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Durability & Sustainability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation
20-22 July 2011 Loews Le Concorde Hotel Quebec City, Quebec Canada
This paper introduces the transverse shear test as developed for the forthcoming ASTM test
method and summarizes details of the test fixture. The paper discusses details of running
and controlling the test, and test conditions that affect the outcomes of the test. Finally the
paper discusses the potential for the transverse shear test as a substitution for the more
complex tension test currently used when assessing the alkaline resistance of GFRP bars.

2.1 Summary of the Transverse Shear Test

The transverse shear test fixture cradles a 225 mm length of bar, fully supported along its
length except for a 25 mm gap centered along the length of the bar. The bar is pressed
down onto the supporting seat with set screws to hold it in place. A steel blade, 25 mm
thick and machined to fit snugly around the perimeter of the bar, is pressed on the bar with
a universal testing machine, causing the middle 25 mm section to be sheared from the bar.
Two lower blades, with the same diameter slots as the upper blade, support the bar adjacent
to the shearing planes. Two shear planes are formed during the test so that the bar fails in
double shear.
The transverse shear test fixture is shown in Fig. 1(A), along with a section of 9.5 mm
diameter smooth rod that has been sheared in the fixture. The upper blade is shown sitting
loose at the upper left of the fixture. In Fig. 1(B), the lower assembly is shown
disassembled. The fixture comes apart to allow for swapping of the lower blades, which are
specific to the diameter of the bar being sheared.
The standard calls for the test to be completed by inserting the assembled fixture into a
universal compression machine, and compressing the upper blade with the machine in
displacement control. According to the draft standard, the displacement rate should be
selected so that the test article fails at a time between 1 and 10 minutes.

Upper
blade

Lower 
blades
(A) (B) Bar seat
Fig. 1: Transverse shear fixture: (A) fixture assembled with 9.5 mm rod, sheared; (B) low portion of
fixture disassembled showing two bar seats, two lower blades, two guides, and tie rods. The upper
blade and straps are not shown in (B).

Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Durability & Sustainability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation
20-22 July 2011 Loews Le Concorde Hotel Quebec City, Quebec Canada
2.2 Typical Test Results with GFRP Bars

The primary test result is the transverse shear stress, calculated as the one-half of the peak
failure load (to account for double shear) divided by the cross-sectional area of the
specimen. Two typical stress-displacement diagrams are show in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2(A), the
diagram exhibits the behavior typically observed when two shearing faces form
simultaneously. In Fig. 2(B), the observed behavior demonstrated when one face forms and
begins to shear, and the second face forms somewhat later. Note that the slope of the
diagram is not consistent, and that no useful stiffness or “modulus” value is provided by the
test (see notation (1) in Fig. 2).
(two data sets shown)
160
(3)
(2)
140
(2) (3)
120

100
Stress (MPa)

(1)

80

60
(A)

40 (B)
20

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 2: Example stress-displacement diagram from transverse shear tests; two tests shown. In test
(A) both failure surfaces form simultaneously, in test (B) the second failure surface forms after the
first failure surface.

A series of tests on smooth 9.5 mm diameter pultruded rods, constructed of unidirectional

E-glass fiber (≈60% volume fraction) and an unsaturated polyester resin, were completed to
explore the range of test parameters. Two key parameters were identified in the testing: (1)
the speed of testing and (2) the tightness or fitment of the cutting blades relative to the
perimeter of the test article.
Table 2 shows test results for 4 sets of 5 specimens tested at different displacement rates,
spanning the range of times allowed by the draft standard. The baseline set was tested at a
displacement rate of 0.91 mm/min which led to an average failure time of 2.6 minutes. The
coefficients of variation in the test are quite low, especially for a test on FRP composite
materials. The tests at slower displacement rates failed at significantly lower force levels. It
is likely that the transverse shear strength is a matrix dominated property, especially in
uniaxial FRP rods, and that tests at low displacement rates are allowing the matrix to creep,

Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Durability & Sustainability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation
20-22 July 2011 Loews Le Concorde Hotel Quebec City, Quebec Canada
and thus bringing an element of creep rupture into the test. It is therefore recommended that
the tests take place over a shorter time period, with failure occurring between 1 and 3
minutes.
Table 2: Transverse Shear Strength of 9.5 mm GFRP Rods versus Displacement Rate
Δ rate Time to Shear Strength % Change
Test Speed COV
(mm /min.) Failure (min.) (mPa) from Baseline
Very Slow 0.15 10.3 137.0 1.82% -15.43%
Slow 0.31 5.0 141.9 1.22% -12.43%
Baseline 0.91 2.6 162.0 1.99% 0.00%
Fast 1.84 1.2 167.9 0.90% 3.64%
Table 3 shows the result of the same rods tested with 3 different sets of blades, representing
a tight, close and loose fit of the rod relative to the machined width of the slot (all tests run
at a displacement rate of 0.91 mm / min.). The results show that the apparent shear
strengths are highly sensitive to the width of the slot. The highest transverse shear strength
is recorded for rods with tight fitting blades. This is a significant finding as the method is
also used with textured FRP bars used as concrete reinforcements, and the ability to fit
these bars into a “tight” set of blades will be made problematic by the texture on the outside
of the bars (see text that follows).
Table 3: Transverse Shear Strength of 9.5 mm GFRP Rods versus Slot Width
Rod Slot % Change
Slot to Transverse Shear
Fitment Diameter Diameter COV from
Rod Ratio Strength (MPa)
(mm) (mm) Baseline
Tight 9.53 9.91 1.04 162.0 1.99% 100.0%
Close 9.53 11.40 1.20 120.3 1.44% -25.8%
Loose 9.53 14.76 1.55 97.1 4.14% -40.1%

3. TRANSVERSE SHEAR TESTING OF GFRP REBAR

The major suppliers of GFRP reinforcing bars in North America provided bars for testing in
the prototype fixture. Bar “A” has a helical wrap with a moderate amount of abrasive
surface material to promote bond. Bar “B” is highly textured, with a significant amount of
larger-size abrasive material. The transverse shear strength of the three smallest bar sizes
are given in Table 4 below. The bars were tested at a displacement rate leading to shear
failures at approximately three minutes into the loading regime (see Table 2). The cutting
blades were the same for the both the “A” and “B” bars, and were machined to fit as tightly
as possible on the bars, without necessitating the removal of any of the surface texture on
the bars.
The transverse shear strength is calculated using the so-called “standard” cross-sectional
area for U.S. reinforcing bars. The apparent shear strengths as calculated are significantly
higher for the GFRP rebar than the 9.5 mm smooth rod, even though the internal con-
struction of the smooth rods and GFRP bar is similar. This is largely because the GFRP

Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Durability & Sustainability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation
20-22 July 2011 Loews Le Concorde Hotel Quebec City, Quebec Canada
rebar have larger actual cross-sectional areas than the standard area, and have higher
transverse strength values when calculated on a standard area basis.
Table 4: Transverse Shear Strength of Commercially Produced GFRP Bars
Standard Cross- Bar Type “A” Bar Type “B”
Bar Size Sectional Area Transverse Shear Transverse Shear
(mm2) COV COV
Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa)
#3 71.0 212.5 2.62% 235.3 4.74%
#4 129.0 209.7 1.36% 192.5 1.99%
#5 200.0 199.2 2.07% 188.3 4.44%

4. DURABILTY TESTING USING TRANSVERSE SHEAR TEST

A common screening test for durability of GFRP reinforcing bars uses an aqueous alkaline
environment at elevated temperature and ASTM D7205 [10] to measure the change in
tensile strength as a function of environmental conditioning. The aqueous environment is
intended to match the inherent porewater chemistry of Portland cement concrete [11].
Much of the work on alkaline durability of GFRP bars has been reported by Benmokrane
and colleagues [12-14].
A short experiment was completed to determine whether the transverse shear test could be a
substitute for the more complex tensile test, when considering the alkaline conditioning
environment. The tension test is somewhat problematic, due to the requirement for affixing
anchors to the ends of the bars, and the need to isolate the anchors from the conditioning
environment. In this demonstration, short conditioning times were used as the sample rods
were pultruded using an unsaturated polyester resin, which provides significantly lower
protection to the glass fibers, than the vinylester resins typically called for in GFRP rebar
[15]. As a result, the polyester-glass rods degrade quickly. The rods were conditioned at
60ºC in an an alkaline solution containing calcium, sodium, and potassium oxides, held at a
pH of 12.8 ± 0.2 per the draft ASTM standard on Alkali Resistance.
The results in Table 5 show that the degradation trends match those observed by
Benmokrane and others. Whether the degradation rates for the transverse shear strength
match those for the tensile strength will be the subject of a forthcoming paper by the author.
Table 5: Transverse Shear Strength of 9.5 mm GFRP Rods under Alkaline Conditions
Transverse Shear
Time COV % Change from Baseline
Strength (mPa)
baseline 162.0 1.99% 0.0%
3 days 163.3 1.05% 0.8%
7 days 130.3 5.89% -19.6%
14 days 120.6 3.81% -25.6%

Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Durability & Sustainability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation
20-22 July 2011 Loews Le Concorde Hotel Quebec City, Quebec Canada
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The transverse shear test is a significant addition to the body of test methods and
specifications for FRP reinforcing bars. The transverse shear strength of smooth rods and
textured rebar are easy to establish using the proposed test fixture, and the test results show
little variability when the test parameters associated with testing speed and cutting blade to
bar diameter are held constant. The blades should be manufactured so that they fit as tightly
as possible onto the rod or bar – otherwise, a downward bias in measured transverse shear
strength can be expected. Initial test results show that the method could be an inexpensive
means for testing degradation of bars in alkaline environments, eliminating the need for
complex fixturing of tension specimens and the isolation of tension anchors from
environmental conditions. Future research will be needed to correlate the strength loss in
transverse shear to the strength loss in tension in such environmental screening tests.

6. REFERENCES

1. Nanni, A., C.E. Bakis, and T.E. Boothby, “Test Methods for FRP-Concrete Systems
Subjected to Mechanical Loads: State of the Art Review,” Journal of Reinforced
Plastics and Composites, 14(6), 1995, 524-588.
2. Benmokrane, B., P. Wang, T.R. Gentry, and S. Faza. “Tests methods to determine
properties of FRP rods for concrete structures” in Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Composites in Construction, July 20-21, 2001. Capri, Italy: American
Society of Civil Engineers.
3. ACI 440.3R-04: Guide Test Methods for Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) for
Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures. American Concrete Institute:
Detroit, Michigan, 2004.
4. JSCE, “Recommendation for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Using
Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials”, Concrete Engineering Series, A. Machida,
ed., Vol. 23, Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, 1997.
5. Eveslage, T., J. Aidoo, K.A. Harries, and W. Bro, “Effect of variations in practice of
ASTM D7522 standard pull-off test for FRP-Concrete interfaces,” Journal of Testing
and Evaluation, 38(4), 2010.
6. Amy, K. and D. Svecova, “Strengthening of dapped timber beams using glass fibre
reinforced polymer bars,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 31(6), 2004, 943-
955.
7. Dulude, C., E. Ahmed, and B. Benmokrane. “Punching shear strength of concrete flat
slabs reinforced with GFRP bars”, in 2nd International Structures Specialty
Conference, CSCE, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 2010.
8. Eddie, D., A. Shalaby, and S. Rizkalla, “Glass fiber-reinforced polymer dowels for
concrete pavements”, ACI Structural Journal, 98(2), 2001, 201-206.
9. Gentry, T.R., “Performance of Glued-Laminated Timbers with FRP Shear and
Flexural Reinforcement”, Journal of Composites for Construction, (15)5, 2011.
10. ASTM D7205 - Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Matrix Composite Bars. American Society of Testing and Materials, 2006.

Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Durability & Sustainability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation
20-22 July 2011 Loews Le Concorde Hotel Quebec City, Quebec Canada
11. Gentry, T.R. “Life Assessment of Glass-Fiber Reinforced Composites in Portland
Cement Concrete”, Proceedings, 16th Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Composites, 2001.
12. Benmokrane, B., P. Wang, T.M. Ton-That, H. Rahman, and J.-F. Robert, “Durability
of glass fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcing bars in concrete environment,” Journal
of Composites for Construction, 6(3), 2002, 143-153.
13. Debaiky, A.S., G. Nkurunziza, B. Benmokrane, and P. Cousin, “Residual tensile
properties of GFRP reinforcing bars after loading in severe environments” Journal of
Composites for Construction, 10(5), 2006, 370-380.
14. Robert, M., P. Cousin, and B. Benmokrane, “Durability of GFRP reinforcing bars
embedded in moist concrete”, Journal of Composites for Construction, 13(2), 2009,
66-73.
15. Gentry, T.R., L.C. Bank, A. Barkatt, and L. Prian, “Accelerated test methods to
determine the long-term behavior of composite highway structures subject to
environmental loading,” Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 20(1),
1998, 38-50.

Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Durability & Sustainability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation
20-22 July 2011 Loews Le Concorde Hotel Quebec City, Quebec Canada
Appendix
ASTM D7617/D7616M - 11: Standard Test Method for Transverse Shear Strength of
Fiber-reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars

Note: The accompanying ASTM standard is not re-produced in the conference proceedings
due to copyright restrictions. The standard is available for download at the ASTM website:
www.astm.org/standards.

Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Durability & Sustainability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation
20-22 July 2011 Loews Le Concorde Hotel Quebec City, Quebec Canada
 Designation: D7617/D7617M – 11
Standard Test Method for
Transverse Shear Strength of Fiber-reinforced Polymer
Matrix Composite Bars1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D7617/D7617M; the number immediately following the designation indicates the
year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last
reapproval. A superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope
1.1 This test method specifies the test requirements for
(FRP) composite smooth round rods and textured bars for
determining the transverse shear strength via a double shear
fixture. FRP rods and bars are often loaded in transverse shear
when these elements are used as dowels in concrete pavements,
as stirrups in concrete beams, or as shear reinforcements in
glued-laminated wood beams, for example.
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units
are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in
each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each
system shall be used independently of the other. Combining
values from the two systems may result in non-conformance
with the standard.
1.2.1 Within the text, the inch-pound units are shown in
brackets.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:2
A615/A615M Specification for Deformed and Plain
Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement
D883 Terminology Relating to Plastics
D3878 Terminology for Composite Materials
D5229/D5229M Test Method for Moisture Absorption
Properties and Equilibrium Conditioning of Polymer Ma-
trix Composite Materials
D7205/D7205M Test Method for Tensile Properties of Fi-
ber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars
1
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D30 on
Composite Materials and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D30.05 on
Structural Test Methods.
Current edition approved March 1, 2011. Published May 2011. DOI: 10.1520/
D7617_D7617M-11.
2
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
1
E4 Practices for Force Verification of Testing Machines
E6 Terminology Relating to Methods of Mechanical Testing
E122 Practice for Calculating Sample Size to Estimate,
With Specified Precision, the Average for a Characteristic
of a Lot or Process
E456 Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
3. Terminology
3.1 Terminology in D3878 defines terms relating to high-
modulus fibers and their composites. Terminology in D883
defines terms relating to plastics. Terminology in E6 defines
terms relating to mechanical testing. Terminology in E456
defines terms relating to statistics and the selection of sample
sizes. In the event of a conflict between terms, Terminology in
D3878 shall have precedence over the other terminology
standards.
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.2.1 bar, n—a linear element, with a substantially round
cross section, often with surface undulations or a coating of
particles that promote mechanical interlock with concrete.
3.2.2 double shear fixture, n—a test fixture that results in the
desired shear force being applied to two distinct sections of the
specimen.
3.2.3 failure, n—cleavage of the bar under test into three
pieces or into two pieces where the second non-cleaved shear
plane is highly damaged.
3.2.4 nominal cross sectional area, n—a measure of cross
sectional area of a bar, determined over at least one represen-
tative length, used to calculate stress.
3.2.5 projected outer diameter, n—the smallest diameter of
a circle through which a bar, with its undulations or coatings,
will pass. The bar may touch the circle but must pass through
without undue force.
3.2.6 rod, n—a bar with a smooth circular cross section and
no texture or deformations.
3.2.7 standard cross sectional area, n—the cross sectional
area of a standard numbered steel concrete reinforcing bar as
given in A615/A615M, Table 1.
3.2.8 surface undulation, n—variation in the area, orienta-
tion, or shape of cross section of a bar along its length, intended
to enhance mechanical interlock between a bar and concrete,
made by any of a number of processes such as, for example,
indentation, addition of extra materials, and twisting.
 D7617/D7617M – 11
3.3 Symbols:
3.3.1 A—nominal or standard cross sectional area of a rod
or bar, see D7205/D7205M.
3.3.2 PS—maximum shear force carried by specimen N
[lbf].
3.3.3 tu—transverse shear strength, MPa [psi].
4. Summary of Test Method
4.1 A length of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) rod or bar is
fitted into a double shear fixture with appropriate cutting blades
and clamped into place. The shear fixture is mounted into a
universal mechanical testing machine and monotonically
loaded to failure while recording force and crosshead displace-
ment.
5. Significance and Use
5.1 This test method for transverse shear strength is in-
tended for use in laboratory tests in which the principal
variable is the size or type of FRP bars. The test may be used
for smooth round rods or on bars with a textured or undulating
surface added to promote bond of the bars to Portland cement
concrete. This test method establishes values of transverse
shear strength for material specifications, quality control,
quality assurance, research and development, and may also be
used for structural design purposes.
5.2 Experience with this test method and the accompanying
fixture is primarily with smooth rods and textured bars with
NOTE—The blades should fit snugly around the bar without binding.
FIG. 1 Potential Interference for Undulating or Textured Bar
2
diameters ranging from 6 mm to 25 mm [0.25 in. to 1 in.]. The
method may be used for rods or bars of larger diameters, but
the overall geometry of the test fixture may need to be
increased.
6. Interferences
6.1 Blade Alignment—The two lower and one upper blade
used for shearing the specimen are machined to fit the
projected outer diameter of the bar. The slot width and diameter
of the blades should be selected so that the bar fits snugly into
the fixture, but does not bind. The test results may be sensitive
to the slot width for bars which have significant texture or
deformations. See Fig. 1.
6.2 Surface Texture—The method has been used with tex-
tured bars with surface roughness amplitudes of up to 6 5%
variation in diameter relative to the average bar diameter as
measured with a dial caliper. Use on bars with greater variation
in surface roughness or regions with substantially-reduced
cross-sections may lead to increased scatter in test results or
failure of the specimens away from the two shearing planes.
6.3 Measurement of Cross Sectional Area—The nominal
cross sectional area of textured or undulating bars is measured
by immersing a prescribed length of the specimen in water to
determine its buoyant weight, as described in D7205/D7205M.
Bar configurations that trap air during immersion (aside from
minor porosity) cannot be assessed using this method. This
 D7617/D7617M – 11
method may not be appropriate for bars that have large
variations in cross sectional area along the length of the bar.
6.4 Clamping Force—The bar should be firmly clamped to
the bar seats before testing. Testing without sufficient clamping
will lead to lower apparent transverse shear strength results.
Experience with the fixture and small-diameter glass-
reinforced FRP rods has shown that two set screws on one end
of the bar and one set screw on the other end is sufficient for
this clamping.
6.5 System Alignment—The test is typically completed on
universal testing machine with compression platens. Care
should be taken that bottom compression platen is completely
flat and large enough for entire surface of test fixture to bear,
and is perpendicular to the axis of loading.
7. Apparatus
7.1 The test fixture consists of two bar seats, two lower
blades, and two guides machined from steel. These parts are
bolted together with two threaded rods with washers and nuts
FIG. 2 Transverse Shear Fixture Assembled (Side Views and Axonometric View)
3
as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Thin shim stock (suggested
thickness of 0.08 mm [0.003 in.]) may be placed between the
bar seats and the guides to ensure a close running fit of the
upper blade between the two lower blades (see Fig. 5a and b
and Fig. 6a and b). The upper blade is loose, and is fit onto the
bar prior to testing.
NOTE 1—Other versions of this test fixture have been developed that
combine the two lower bar seats into one unified component with a fixed
gap of 50 mm [2.0 in.] between the bar seats to allow for insertion of the
lower blades. These fixtures are acceptable for use with this standard but
the fit between the lower and upper blades is not adjustable.
7.2 Dimensional Tolerances—Dimensional tolerances for
the components of the test fixture produced in U.S. customary
units shall be standard tolerances as follows: Unless noted
otherwise on the drawings, dimensions given to one decimal
place (0.X in.) shall be 60.05 in., dimensions given to two
decimal places (0.0X in.) shall be 60.01 in., and dimensions
given to three decimal places (0.00X in.) shall be 60.005 in.
For components produced in SI units, standard tolerances for
 D7617/D7617M – 11

NOTE—(1) Assembled fixture with sheared specimen and (2) main body of fixture disassembled (note presence of shim stock on guides).
FIG. 3 Photographs of Test Fixture

dimensions given to zero decimal places (X mm) shall be 60.1
mm, dimensions given to one decimal place (0.X mm) shall be
60.25 mm, dimension given to two decimal places (0.0X mm)
shall be 60.10 mm.
7.3 Bar Seats—The two bar seats are identical and have a
v-shaped bed for supporting the ends of the bars (see Fig. 4a
and b).
7.4 Blades—The lower blades and upper blade should be
machined from tool steel, hardened to 55 to 58 HRC.
7.4.1 Lower Blades—The two lower blades are machined
from 12 mm [0.500 in.] thick steel having a precision ground
finish of 0.80 µm [32 µin.] or better. The slots in the lower
blades are machined based on the diameter of the bars to be
tested. For smooth round rods, the width of the slot shall be
0.10 mm [0.004 in.] wider than the measured diameter of the
rods. For textured or undulating bars the slot shall be equal to
the projected outer diameter from the roughly circular bar. The
depth of the semi-circle at the bottom of the slot shall be
established so that the diameter of the semi-circle is tangent
with the angled side of the bar seat (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
7.4.2 Upper Blade—The upper blade is machined from 25
mm [1.000 in.] thick steel having a precision ground finish of
0.80 µm [32 µin.] or better. The upper blade has the same
machined slot and diameter as the two lower blades (see Fig.
7a and b).
NOTE 2—This standard does not give specific dimensional require-
ments for the slots and diameters of the lower and upper blades, as a wide
range of textured bars and smooth rods, produced under both SI and US
Customary standards, may be tested using this method. Fig. 5 and Fig. 7
depict the dimensions of lower and upper blades for a 3/8 in. and a 10 mm
smooth rod. In U.S. practice, blades for the apparatus are typically made
for smooth and textured rods in diameters that range between 6 mm (0.25
in.) to 25 mm (1 in.).
7.5 Guides—The guides are machined from the same steel
as the upper blade. The two guides are of equal thickness to the
upper blade and may be tapered to facilitate insertion of the

4
 D7617/D7617M – 11
FIG. 4 a Bar Seat (U.S. Customary Units)
upper blade into the fixture. The holes in the guides align with
the holes in the lower blades and in the bar seats so that the
entire assembly can be bolted together (see Fig. 6a and b).
7.6 Strap—Straps, nominally 12 mm [0.5 in.] thick, and
mounted at the top of both bar seats, are used to clamp the bar
or rod firmly into the bar seats during testing. Socket-head cap
screws pass through threads in the straps and clamp the
specimens onto the bar seats. (see Fig. 8a and b).
7.7 Testing Machine—The testing machine shall be in
conformance with Practices E4 and shall satisfy the following
requirements:
7.7.1 Testing Machine Heads—The testing machine shall
have both an essentially stationary head and a movable head.
The movable head shall be equipped with a deflection measur-
ing device.
7.7.2 Drive Mechanism—The testing machine drive mecha-
nism shall be capable of imparting to the movable head a
controlled velocity with respect to the stationary head. The
5
velocity of the movable head shall be capable of being
regulated as specified in 11.4.
7.7.3 Force Indicator—The testing machine force-sensing
device shall be capable of indicating the total force being
carried by the test specimen. This device shall be essentially
free from inertia lag at the specified rate of testing and shall
indicate the force with an accuracy over the force range(s) of
interest of within 6 1 % of the indicated value. The force
range(s) of interest may be fairly low for modulus evaluation,
much higher for strength evaluation, or both, as required.
8. Sampling and Test Specimens
8.1 Specimens shall be representative of the lot or batch
being tested. In the test section of the specimen, no postpro-
duction machining, abrading, or other such processing is
permitted.
8.2 Sampling—Test at least five specimens per test condi-
tion unless valid results can be gained through the use of fewer
 D7617/D7617M – 11
FIG. 4 b Bar Seat (SI Units) (continued)
specimens, such as in the case of a designed experiment. For
statistically significant data, the procedures outlined in E122
should be consulted. The method of sampling shall be reported.
8.3 The length of the specimen shall be 225 mm [9 in.].
8.4 The cross sectional area of textured or undulating bars
shall be determined in accordance with either of the two
methods described in D7205/D7205M: nominal area or stan-
dard area. The cross sectional area of smooth round rods shall
be determined by measuring the average diameter of the rod to
a precision of 0.02 mm [0.001 in.] and calculating the area of
the rod assuming that it is circular.
9. Calibration
9.1 The accuracy of all measuring equipment shall have
certified calibrations that are current at the time of use of the
equipment.
6
10. Conditioning
10.1 The recommended pre-test condition is effective mois-
ture equilibrium at a specific relative humidity as established
by Test Method D5229/D5229M; however, if the test requestor
does not explicitly specify a pre-test conditioning environment,
no conditioning is required and the specimens may be tested as
prepared.
10.2 The pre-test specimen conditioning process, to include
specified environmental exposure levels and resulting moisture
content, shall be reported with the test data.
10.3 If no explicit conditioning process is performed the
specimen conditioning process shall be reported as “uncondi-
tioned” and the moisture content as “unknown.”
NOTE 3—The term moisture, as used in Test Method D5229/D5229M,
includes not only the vapor of a liquid and its condensate, but the liquid
 D7617/D7617M – 11

NOTE—Depth of slot established so that diameter of slot is tangent to slope of bar seat (U.S. Customary units). Location of optional shims shown (see
section 7.1).
FIG. 5 a Lower Blade for 3⁄8 in. Diameter Smooth Rod

NOTE—Depth of slot established so that diameter of slot is tangent to slope of bar seat (SI units). Location of optional shims shown (see section 7.1).
FIG. 5 b Lower Blade for 10 mm Diameter Smooth Rod (continued)

itself in large quantities, as for immersion.

11. Procedure
11.1 The specimen shall be centered within the shear
apparatus, resting against the bar seats and lower blades.

7
 D7617/D7617M – 11

NOTE—Location of optional shims shown (see section 7.1).

FIG. 6 a Guides (U.S. Customary Units)

NOTE—Location of optional shims shown (see section 7.1).

FIG. 6 b Guides (SI Units) (continued)

11.2 Insert and hand-tighten two set screws in one strap so onto the bar, through the two end holes in the straps. Hand-
that one end of the bar is clamped by the two screws pressing tighten one set screw in the other strap, through the center hole

8
 D7617/D7617M – 11

FIG. 7 a Upper Blade for 3⁄8 in. Diameter Smooth Rod (U.S. Customary Units)

FIG. 7 b Upper Blade for 10 mm Diameter Smooth Rod (SI Units) (continued)

9
 D7617/D7617M – 11

FIG. 8 a Straps (U.S. Customary Units)

FIG. 8 b Straps (SI Units) (continued)

in this strap, to clamp the opposite end of the bar. If specimens
appear to move in the bar seats during testing, or significant
local damage is noted where the set screws meet the bar,
additional set screws should be placed before testing. The
fixture allows for a maximum of three set screws on each end
of the bar.
11.3 Place the upper blade into place onto the bar and center
the fixture in the universal testing machine.
11.4 Complete the test with the test machine in displace-
ment control. The displacement rate should be selected so as to
produce failure within 1 to 10 min. Force should be applied
uniformly without subjecting the specimen to impact.
11.5 Monitor force versus displacement continuously or at
frequent regular intervals. If a transition region or initial failure
is noted, record the load at such points.
NOTE 4—The test method does not require the reporting of force versus
crosshead displacement data, but it is recommended that force and
displacement be monitored continuously during the test to (1) establish
proper displacement rates for a given specimen size, (2) identify the
formation of failure surfaces during the test (see Fig. 9), (3) establish that
the peak loading has been observed in accordance with the requirements
of section 11.6, and (4) assist in troubleshooting.
11.6 Loading shall be continued until the specimen fails (see
Fig. 3). The failure force should be recorded with a precision to
three significant digits. The force may drop slightly and the
stiffness of the specimen may change at the onset of failure,
due to the delay in the formation of the second failure face (see
Note 1 in Fig. 9). Continue loading the specimen until the
second failure face forms or the force has dropped to 70% of
the observed peak force. (see Notes 2 and 3 in Fig. 9).

10
 D7617/D7617M – 11

FIG. 9 Example Shear Stress versus Crosshead Displacement Graph

12. Calculations 13. Validation

12.1 Transverse shear strength shall be calculated according
to Eq 1, with a precision to three significant digits,
PS
tU 5 2A (1)
where:
tU = transverse shear strength, MPa [psi]
PS = maximum failure force, N [lbf]
A = cross sectional area of specimen, mm2[in.2] deter-
mined according to section 8.4
12.2 Statistics—For each series of tests calculate the aver-
age, standard deviation and coefficient of variation (in percent)
of the transverse shear strength as follows:
13.1 Values for shear strength shall not be calculated for any
specimen that fails away from the two shearing planes. Retests
shall be performed for any specimen on which values are not
calculated.
14. Report
14.1 Report the following information, or references point-
ing to other documentation containing this information, to the
maximum extent applicable (reporting of items beyond the
control of a given testing laboratory, such as might occur with
material details or bar fabrication parameters, shall be the
responsibility of the requestor):

x5 S D n
( xi
i51
/n (2)
14.1.1 The revision level or date of issue of this test method.
14.1.2 The date(s) and location(s) of the test.
14.1.3 The name(s) of the test operator(s).
Sn21 5 ŒS n
( xi2 – nx2
i51
DS D/ n–1 (3)
14.1.4 Any variations to this test method, anomalies noticed
during testing or equipment problems occurring during testing.
CV 5 100 3 Sn21/x (4)
14.1.5 Identification of the material tested including (if
available) : material specification, material type, material
where: designation, manufacturer, manufacturer’s lot or batch number,
x = sample mean (average), source (if not from manufacturer), date of certification, expi-
Sn-1 = sample standard deviation, ration of certification, filament diameter, tow or yarn filament
V = sample coefficient of variation, %, count and twist, sizing, form or weave, and matrix type.
n = number of specimens, and 14.1.6 If available, description of the fabrication steps used
xi = measured or derived property.
to prepare the bar including fabrication start date, fabrication

11
 D7617/D7617M – 11
end date, process specification, cure cycle, consolidation
method, and a description of the equipment used.
14.1.7 Description of surface characteristics of the bar.
Indicate the representative length of the bar, if appropriate.
14.1.8 If requested, report density, volume percent rein-
forcement, and void content test methods, specimen sampling
method and geometries, test parameters, and test results.
14.1.9 For textured or undulating bars, average value of the
nominal area of the bar and the projected bar diameter.
14.1.10 Slot width and diameter of the upper and lower
blades.
14.1.11 Results of any nondestructive evaluation tests.
14.1.12 Method of preparing the test specimen, including
specimen labeling scheme and method, specimen geometry,
sampling method, and bar cutting method.
14.1.13 Calibration dates and methods for all measurement
and test equipment.
14.1.14 Type of test machine, control strategy, displacement
rate, and data acquisition sampling rate and equipment type if
applicable.
14.1.15 Conditioning parameters and results, use of travel-
ers and traveler geometry, and the procedure used, if other than
that specified in the test method.
14.1.16 Environment of the test machine environmental
chamber (if used).
14.1.17 Number of specimens tested.
14.1.18 Type of area values used for stress calculation:
nominal area or standard area. Calculation method for nominal
area (if used), in accordance with D7205/D7205M or by
measurement. Specimen diameter if measured.
14.1.19 Maximum force and shear stress for each specimen.
15. Precision and Bias
15.1 Precision—The data required for the development of a
precision statement is not available for this test method.
Precision, defined as the degree of mutual agreement between
individual measurements, cannot yet be estimated because of
an insufficient amount of data.
15.2 Bias—Bias cannot be determined for this test method
as no acceptable reference standard exists.
16. Keywords
16.1 bars; composite bars; composite materials; double
shear; rebar; reinforcing bars; shear properties; shear strength

ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.

This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should
make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.

This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above
address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website
(www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the ASTM website (www.astm.org/
COPYRIGHT/).

12