140040J

COMPARISON OF ANCHORAGE PROPERTIES OF GLASS FIBER

REINFORCEMENT POLYMER (GFRP) AND CARBON FIBER
REINFORCEMENT POLYMER (CFRP) BARS IN NORMAL WEIGHT
CONCRETE
K.A.D.Y.T.K. Arachchi
University of Moratuwa, Katubedda , Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, tharikakahandawa@gmail.com
Dr. (Mrs.) J.C.P.H. Gamage
University Of Moratuwa, Katubedda, Moratuwa, Sri Lanaka.

Abstract: The use of steel reinforcement has been the most common construction technique in civil
engineering structures. However with the advancement of technology the industry is now moving towards the
fibre reinforcement methods. Carbon Fibre Reinforcement Polymers (CFRP) and Glass Fibre reinforcement
Polymers (GFRP) are used as effective substitutes in structures. In case of GFRP, they are light in weight and
advantageous in corrosive environments. But they are brittle in compression although they have excellent
tensile capacity. Therefore the details of the reinforcement bars is critical when designing for FRP. Even
though the industry is now moving towards CFRP in constructions the use of GFRP in still hesitated upon due
to lack of accurate details. Among other specifications, the bond and anchorage of GFRP bars are paid more
attention as in structural design it is important that the anchorage properties of the reinforcement are properly
understood so that the pull out failures could be avoided. The type of surface of the GFRP bars as sand coated
or ribbed, the type of anchorages as straight or hooked could have a considerable influence on the anchorage
properties of the reinforcement. And the existing design manuals for the design of GFRP bars has not been
able to predict the capacity of the structures accurately as for steel designs. Therefore the research addresses
the problem of finding better anchorage mechanism by comparing the anchorage properties of CFRP bars and
GFRP bars in normal weight concrete.
Keywords: GFRP; CFRP; Anchorage; Bond; Reinforcement

1. Introduction elements. Therefore it is particularly important to

understand the bond and anchorage behaviour of
Glass Fibre Reinforcement Polymer (GFRP) is
reinforcement bars with the surrounding concrete.
increasingly becoming a popular reinforcement
(Sulaiman, et al., 2017). Although there have
material in the civil engineering sector. The
been experiments conducted on GFRP bars and
typical steel bars are obviously more vulnerable
different anchorage types , the lack of proper
to corrosion and deterioration in tropical whether
design code manual for GFRP reinforcement
conditions. Therefore alternative methods of
design makes it important that the properties are
reinforcement like Fibre Reinforcement Polymer
compared against a known reinforcing material.
(FRP) like CFRP and GFRP are gaining attention
Sufficient development length of reinforcing bars
in the industry. Glass fibre-reinforced polymer
plays an important role in preventing bond
(GFRP) reinforcing bars have been introduced as
premature failure and ultimately ensures the
a lightweight, corrosion-resistant material which
safety of the structures. Anchorage reliability of
offers a viable replacement for traditional steel
GFRP bars to concrete therein is one of the most
reinforcing bars, especially when the structures
critical indices for implementation of such
are located in aggressive environments such as
engineered material to the concrete structures.
coastal regions and those subjected to de-icing
(Yan & Lin, 2016). When anchorage and bond
salts. (Vint & Sheikh, 2014). Although the use of
strength of reinforcing bars are considered the
CFRP has become a popular reinforcement
parameters tested includes the effects of concrete
material in the recent construction, the industry
cover, embedment length, concrete type, rib
still hesitates upon using GFRP as a structural
geometry of reinforcement, bar diameter, number
alternative since it lacks empirical details.
of stirrups, lap splice region, type of confinement,
The interaction between reinforcement bars and shape of transverse reinforcement, pre-flexural
concrete is particularly essential in predicting the crack condition, water/cement ratio, cement
ultimate failure of reinforced concrete (RC) content and transverse reinforcement ratio.

CE 4902A02 – 2017 – Literature Review 1


(Sulaiman, et al., 2017). Therefore in order to
understand the anchorage properties of GFRP and
CFRP bars, there have been many experiments
conducted all or some of these parameters.
2. Properties of GFRP and Types
GFRP is a category of plastic composite that
specifically uses glass fibre materials to
mechanically improve the strength and stiffness
of plastics. (Landesmanna, Serutia, , & Batistaa,
2015) When investigating the properties of
GFRP, the attention must be paid to starting from
the manufacturing process of the bars. GFRP
consists of glass fibres as load carrying elements
and resin which transfers and distributes the load
among the fibres. Microstructural patterns of the
fibres and resin play a crucial role in
understanding the GFRP behaviour. Different
manufacturing parameters (such as pulling speed
and dye temperature) lead to various GFRP
microstructural patterns including the presence of
voids and defects at various locations of GFRP
cross-section. (Gooranorimi, Suaris, Dauer, &
Nanni, Microstructural investigation of glass
fiber reinforced polymer bars, 2016)
GFRP bars have relatively low stiffness in
comparison with steel, which results in large
deflections. They show a brittle behaviour than
the traditional steel reinforcements. This often
makes the limit of deflection and crack width at
service loads the governing criteria in design of
members. (Kharal & Sheikh, Tension Stiffening
and Cracking Behavior of Glass Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer-Reinforced Concrete, 2016)
As mentioned above, it is important that the bars
are properly manufactured as to avoid premature
failures. All two bar types are manufactured using
similar pultrusion processes for the GFRP bar
core. The difference is in the manufacturing
process for the bars’ surface profiles. Bar Type A
has a sand-coated surface that is applied using an
in-
line
A mechanism transfer inside reinforced concrete
B
Figure 1 - Types of bars
CE 4902A02 – 2017 – Literature Review
140040J
coating process during the pultrusion of the bar.
Lastly, Bar Type B has a ribbed bar surface that
is cut into the rod after curing is completed. (Vint
& Sheikh, 2014)
3. Bond and Anchorage
The interaction between ribbed bars and
surrounding concrete known as bond resistance is
made up of three different components:
(i) Chemical adhesion
(ii) Friction
(iii) Mechanical interlocking between bars
and concrete.
For plain bar, only adhesion and friction
mechanisms are contributed into the bond
strength resistance. Although these two
mechanisms can be considered similar, they exist
in different scales. For ribbed bar, adhesion and
friction play a minor role. As the bar is tensioned,
the adhesion effects quickly disappeared between
bars and surrounding concrete; leaving the
tension load being transferred through the ribs of
the bars or ribs interlocking. The tensile force
transferred from a ribbed bar to surrounding
concrete resulted in the development of bearing
stresses, which can be divided into longitudinal
and radial component. (Sulaiman, et al., 2017)
When the traditional steel reinforcement is taken
as an example, initially the steel train and
concrete strain are in equilibrium. When a point
load is applied on the structure, first flexural
cracks starts forming. In order to achieve an
equilibrium state, the reinforcement must transfer
the stresses across the crack where a portion of
tensile stresses is transferred to concrete via
bonding between flexural cracks. Later hear and
lateral cracks occurs. As the shear crack
happened, a sudden increment of tensile force
inside reinforcement in the shear span is occurred.
To overcome the problem, a certain transmission
length for anchorage is needed in order to transfer
the tensile force to surround concrete by bond
stresses. (Sulaiman, et al., 2017)
There are three types of anchorage regions force
which are:
(1) End region
(2) Cut-off region
(3) Splice region.
2

Figure 2 – Anchorage regions
There are two main types of anchorage failure
which are splitting failure and pull-out failure.
Figure 3 - Anchorage failure modes
(Sulaiman, et al., 2017)
4. Pull-out tests
Pull-out tests with centric bar placement in
concrete can be used for experimental
determination of the local bond slip relation
between bar and concrete. The bond length
should be such that the bond stresses are evenly
distributed in all loading stages. This means that
the anchored length should be between 3 and 5
bar diameters. The type of bond failure, such as,
concrete shear failure, shearing off of the surface
deformations of the bar, or squeezing out the bar
from the concrete, should be recorded. (Apinis,
Tamuzs, Modniks, & Tepfers, 1999)
The Standard Test Method for Strength of
Anchors in Concrete and Masonry Elements
(ASTM E488-96) is used as a guideline when
designing the slab layout for this research
program. (Vint & Sheikh, 2014)
5. Past Studies
All bars failed by bar pull out; however, the
shearing interface is varied depending on the
surface profile. When Bar Type A is pulled out of
the concrete, the sand coating is completely
CE 4902A02 – 2017 – Literature Review
140040J
sheared off. This suggests the shearing interface
is between the core of the bar and the sand coated
surface profile. For Bar Type B, the concrete is
sheared between the ribs when pull out occurs.
Thus the shearing interface is between the ribs of
the bar and the concrete. The location of the
shearing interface suggests that the connection
between the core and the surface profile of the
two bars is strongest for Bar Type B, even though
Bar Type A was able to sustain the highest peak
average bond stress. (Vint & Sheikh, 2014)
Previous studies have confirmed that the bond
stress is influenced by concrete strength,
reinforcement diameter, reinforcement
deformation, geometry of ribbed bar, yielding of
reinforcement and the position of the
reinforcement during casting.
Fig. 4 illustrates the equilibrium conditions of
reinforcement bar with defined bar length, x.
From the figure, the bond stress, τ can be defined
as the change of stresses in the reinforcement bar
with x. The τ can be determined by dividing the
tensile force with area of reinforcement bar
embedded within concrete. Considering this, the
τ can be estimated by Eq. (1) as follows:
τ (πdb x) = Ab (fs + Δ fs) − Ab fs (1)
Then, by rearranging Eq. (1):
𝐴 Δf 𝑑𝑏 Δ𝑓𝑠
τ = 𝜋𝑑𝑏 = (2)
𝑏𝑥 4𝑥
Where Ab is the reinforcement bar cross sectional
area; db is the reinforcement bar diameter and fs
is the stress in reinforcement bar.
Figure 4
As the steel stresses were in elastic range, the
bond stress can be assumed to be in uniformly
distributed along embedded bar. For uniform
bond, stress resistance or maximum bond stress
can be simplified as:
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜏= 𝜋𝑑𝐿𝑑
(3)
Where 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum pull-out load; d is
diameter of the reinforcement bar and L d is the
embedment reinforcement length. (Sulaiman, et
al., 2017)
Design of anchorage region (Model Code, 1990)
3

This model anchorage theory assumed that the
bond stresses at ultimate limit state are distributed
equally along anchorage length and even to bond
strength, fb. Also, it assumed that the pull-out
failure is decisive for anchorage and splitting
failure is pivotal for splicing with the same basic
design equation for anchorage and splicing.
(Sulaiman, et al., 2017)
The efficiency of the anchorage systems used to
enhance bond performance depends on two
components:
(1) The strength of the anchorage system,
which is affected by specimen’s material and
dimension; and,
(2) Bond strength between the GFRP bar
and the anchorage, which is dependent only on
the anchorage length. (Oskouei, Asharafi, &
Bazli, 2017)
Malver investigated the bond characteristics of
FRP bars by using four different CFRP bars, all
with different surface deformations, embedded in
lightweight concrete. The results obtained for
different levels of confining pressure indicate that
surface deformation with a height of at least 6%
of the nominal bar diameter, and deformation
spacing of less than three times the bar diameter,
were sufficient to yield maximum bond stresses
of up to twice the concrete tensile stress. (Malvar,
1995)
6. Conclusion
When the past studies in the matter are observed
and the literature review was conducted as above,
it could be concluded that a research gap exists
between the existing literature of GFRP bars and
their anchorage properties in comparison with
CFRP bars. GFRP bars are advantageous in
normal weight structures if its properties are
given a wider perspective. By comparing the
results from the CFRP bars it is expected that the
anchorage properties of GFRP could be
understood and predicted as CFRP is a common
reinforcement mechanism than the GFRP.
Researches have been already conducted
regarding the different anchorages available for
GFRP in normal weight concrete but the
comparison with CFRP and related predictions
are not yet covered. Since the use of GFRP in
normal weight concrete could be advantageous in
designs, the research gap between the two areas
are to be covered through the research.
The types of tests to be conducted of bars to be
tested and the specimen dimensions on the
CE 4902A02 – 2017 – Literature Review
140040J
standard tests could be identified through the past
researches on the subject. The use of ASTM
E488-96 standards when designing the test
specimens is the standard for the experimental
analysis on the subject. The traditional cylindrical
specimen are expected to be casted with a
diameter of 0.3 m and length 2m. A total number
of 24 cylinders to test for each bar and anchorage
type. They are to be tested for their anchorage
properties using pull-out test, four-point bending
test and cyclic uniaxial flexure under constant
axial load test.
Different design codes give different opinions on
the design of GFRP reinforcement. However
since the design code specifications are more
well- defined when using CFRP bars the aim is to
use the properties of CFRP and compare the
validity of existing design theories for GFRP bars
as well.
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to express her gratitude to
research supervisor Dr (Mrs) J.C.P.H. Gamage
for her guidance through the research. And also
to her colleagues who did research on GFRP
materials parallel this research area. Special
thanks goes to the department of Civil
Engineering of university of Moratuwa for
providing resources and facilities for conducting
the research.
References
Apinis, R., Tamuzs, V., Modniks, J., & Tepfers, R.
(1999). Pull-out, flexural rotation capacity
and creep tests using hybrid composite rods
and CFCC rods for reinforcement in
concrete. Göteborg: Division of Building
Technology,Chalmers University of
Technology.
Gooranorimi, O., Suaris, W., Dauer, E., & Nanni, A.
(2016). Microstructural investigation of glass
fiber reinforced polymer bars. Composites
Part B Engineering.
Kharal , Z., & Sheikh, S. (2016). Tension Stiffening
and Cracking Behavior of Glass Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer-Reinforced Concrete.
ACI Structural Journal, 299-310.
Landesmanna, A., Serutia, , C. A., & Batistaa, E. d.
(2015). Mechanical Properties of Glass Fiber
Reinforced Polymers Members for Structural
4
 140040J

Applications. Materials Research, 1372-

1383.

Malvar, L. J. (1995). Tensile and bond properties of

GFRP reinforcing bars. ACI Mater.

Oskouei, A. V., Asharafi, H., & Bazli, M. (2017).

Enhancement of bond characteristics of
ribbed-surface GFRP bars with concrete by
using carbon fiber mat anchorage.
Construction and Building Materials, 507–
519.

Sathishkumar, T., Satheeshkumar, S., & Naveen, J.

(2014, Vol. 33(13)). Glass fiber-reinforced
polymer composites - a review. Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 1258–
1275.

Sulaiman, M. F., Ma, C.-K., Apandi, N. M., Chin, S.,

Awang, A. Z., Mansur, S. A., & Omar, W.
(2017). A Review on Bond and Anchorage of
Confined High-strength Concrete.
Structures, 97–109.

Vint, L., & Sheikh, S. (2014). Investigation of the

Bond Properties of Alternate Anchorage
Schemes for GFRP Bars. Aci Structural
Journal, January , 59-68.

Yan, F., & Lin, Z. (2016). New strategy for anchorage

reliability assessment of GFRP bars to
concrete using hybrid artificial neural
network with genetic algorithm. Composites
Part B , 420-433.

CE 4902A02 – 2017 – Literature Review 5