Development lenght of FRP straight rebars.pdf
-
Upload
sushil-dhungana -
Category
Documents
-
view
16 -
download
0
Transcript of Development lenght of FRP straight rebars.pdf
-
Development length of FRP straight rebars
E. Cosenza, G. Manfredi, R. Realfonzo*
Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy
Received 25 June 2001; revised 8 July 2002; accepted 13 July 2002
Abstract
In recent years, some attempts have been performed to extend general design rules reported in the codes for steel reinforced concrete to
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials; this is the case of relationships adopted in the evaluation of the development length clearly
derived by extension of the formulations used for steel rebars. However, such relationships seem to be inappropriate for FRP reinforcing bars:
in fact, experimental test results have shown that bond behaviour of FRP bars is different from that observed in case of deformed steel ones.
As a consequence, a new procedure for the evaluation of development length based on an analytical approach is needed in order to directly
account for the actual bond-slip constitutive law as obtained by experimental tests on different types of FRP reinforcing bars.
An analytical solution of the problem of a FRP rebar embedded in a concrete block and pulled-out by means of a tensile force applied on
the free end is presented herein. Such solution leads to an exact evaluation of the development length when splitting failure is prevented.
Finally, based on the analytical approach, a limit state design procedure is suggested to evaluate the development length.q 2002 ElsevierScience Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: FRP reinforcing bar
1. Introduction
From design point of view, the study of concrete
structures reinforced using FRP reinforcing bars has been
initially developed by extending the wide body of
information gathered in a century of use of steel reinforced
concrete. Studies have been often carried out by comparing
performances obtained by using steel or FRP reinforcing
bars; moreover, the manufacturing technologies have been
oriented to fabricate composite bars which are similar, in
shape and dimensions, to those made of deformed steel.
One of the critical aspects of structural behaviour is the
development of an adequate bond behaviour; a number of
tests have been performed by several authors on FRP
reinforcing bars in order to study their bond performance
and to compare such bond properties with those evidenced
by deformed steel bars. On this topic, three state-of-art
reports have been recently published by Cosenza et al. [8],
Tepfers [21] and fib Task Group 5.2 [12].
From the experimental results, it was concluded that
bond between FRP reinforcement and concrete is controlled
by several factors such as the mechanical and geometrical
properties of bars and the compressive strength of concrete.
In particular, the interaction phenomena are governed by
shear strength and deformability of ribs, which are
remarkably lower than those of steel bars; this leads to
increased slips between rebars and concrete and different
failure mechanisms [13,15,16]. Mechanical properties of
resin, which the matrix is made of, have a remarkable
influence on the interaction behaviour since they strongly
affect strength and deformability of ribs and indentations
located on the outer surface.
Therefore, by comparing FRP and steel rebars, it has been
noted that the differences in bond behaviour are due to some
properties of FRP reinforcing bars; this underlines the
inadequacy of extending the design rules for steel reinforced
concrete to FRP reinforcing bars. Therefore, a critical review
of the design methodology is needed in order to introduce this
new type of bars as reinforcement for concrete structures.
Despite the above remarks, some attempts have been
performed in order to extend to such new materials, with
some minor modifications, the general design rules reported
in the codes traditionally used for steel reinforced concrete;
this is the case of the relationships adopted in the evaluation
of the embedment length clearly derived by extension of the
formulation used for steel bars [3,14].
1359-8368/02/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S1 35 9 -8 36 8 (0 2) 00 0 51 -3
Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 493504
www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 39-81-7683485; fax: 39-81-7683406.E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Realfonzo).
-
This paper analyses the problem of evaluating the
development length of deformed FRP reinforcing bars and
presents a new approach based on an analytical formulation.
Such a procedure is based on the analytical study of the
problem of a rebar embedded in a concrete block and
pulled-out by means of a tensile force applied at one end. In
order to integrate the differential equation that governs such
problem, the definition of a suitable bond-slip constitutive
relationship is needed.
Recently, Pecce et al. [18] proposed a numerical procedure
for evaluating the constitutive bond-slip relationship. Based
on the experimental bond test results, such procedure is able
to identify values of the parameters which define the
modified version [8] of the Eligehausen, Popov and Bertero
relationship [10]. In this way, a suitable constitutive ts lawwas proposed in the case of a recently introduced GFRP
reinforcing bars (C-Bare by Marshall Inc.); however, theabove-mentioned numerical procedure could allow to derive
a constitutive relationship for any type of bars.
The presented analytical approach has been developed by
considering the Eligehausen et al., modified law as bond-
slip (ts ) relationship; a numerical example is carried outin case of C-Bare using the constitutive ts law suggestedby Pecce et al. [18].
Finally, based on the analytical approach, a design
procedure is proposed to evaluate the development length.
The method, which represents a first proposal, takes into
account the actual bond-slip constitutive laws of the different
FRP rebars and introduces some different safety factors.
2. Evaluation of the basic development length
Under the assumption of constant distribution of bond
stresses t, the problem of a diameter f reinforcing bar
embedded in a concrete block for a length Ld and subjected
to a tensile force T is governed by the following equilibrium
equation:
T Ldptf 1If Ab is the rebar area and ff the tensile stress, the tensile
force T can be written as:
T Abff 2From Eqs. (1) and (2), it follows:
Ld Abffptf 3
or, alternatively:
Ld fff4t
4For deformed steel bars, it has been found that bond strength
tm is a linear function of the square root of the compressiveconcrete strength f 0c [10]:
tm kf 0c
p5
where k is a constant.
Therefore, from Eqs. (3) and (5):
Ld Abffpkf
f 0c
p 6and setting K pkf; it follows:
Ld AbffK
f 0c
p 7Eq. (7) represents the well known basic development
length, generally indicated with Ldb; K depends on the
relationship between the bond strength and the compressive
concrete strength and on the bar diameter.
In case of #3 to #11 deformed steel reinforcing bars, the
Nomenclature
Ab transverse section area of the bar
cb bar perimeter
f bar diameterE elastic modulus of the FRP rebar
Ef elastic modulus of steel rebars
f 0ck characteristic compressive strength of concretefb0d design bond strength
fc compressive concrete strength
f 0c compressive concrete strengthfd design tensile strength of the FRP rebar
ff tensile stress of the FRP rebar
ft tensile concrete strength
fu tensile strength of the bar
fyf yielding strength of steel rebar in tension
Ld development length
Ldb basic development length
s slip
sm slip at peak bond strength
wlim allowable crack width
a,p parameters of the Eligehausen et al., modifiedbond-slip law (Eqs. (16) and (17))
1 tensile straingE safety factor that affects the elastic modulusgg global safety factorgm material safety factors tensile stresssu tensile strength of the FRP barsuk characteristic value of tensile strength of the
FRP rebar
syk characteristic yielding strength of steel rebarst bond stresstm maximum bond strength
E. Cosenza et al. / Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 493504494
-
ACI 318-89 [1] assumed a value of K equal to 25 thus
leading to the following expression of Ldb:
Ldb 0:04Abfyf
f 0cp 8
where fyf and f0c are the yielding strength of steel bars and
compressive concrete strength, respectively (psi), and Ab, is
the rebar area (in.2).
According to ACI 318-89, the development length Ld is
provided by:
Ld Y
fi
Ldb 9
whereQ
fi indicates the product of some modification
factors that take into account the influence on bond of some
key parameters (i.e. cover, spacing, transverse reinforce-
ment).
Some modifications of Eq. (8) have been subsequently
reported by ACI 318-95 [2].
In order to extend Eq. (7) to FRP reinforcing bars, several
investigators have attempted to evaluate experimentally
values of K for different types of FRP bars [5,9,11,19].
Furthermore, based on experimental results, in case of
FRP reinforcing bars, some authors proposed simplified
expressions of Ldb; these expressions, clearly design
oriented, are not suitable for all types of FRP reinforcing
bars, because they are practically appropriate only for the
selected bars. An example is given by [6,7]:
Ld 20f 10Recently, formulations for evaluating the basic develop-
ment length have been proposed in new codes for design
of concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars. This is
the case of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)
Design Code [14] and of the ACI Committee 440 Guide
[3].
In the case of JSCE code, Ldb is clearly derived from
Eq. (4):
Ldb a1 ffd4fb0d
11
where fd is the design tensile strength, fb0d, the design bond
strength and a1 is a coefficient less than 1.The Japanese code states that the basic development
length shall not be taken less than 20 times the bar diameter.
The ACI Committee 440, for failure controlled by
pullout, proposes (in SI units):
Ldb fffu18:5
12
where Ldb is in mm, ffu (ultimate design strength of FRP
reinforcing bars) in MPa and f is in mm.In the ACI guide, two modification factors greater than 1
are considered in order to prevent splitting of concrete and
to evaluate the development length of top bars.
The above relationships seem to be unsuitable for FRP
reinforcing bars since they have been derived by adopting
a linear relationship between bond strength and the square
root of the compressive concrete strength f 0c: Severalinvestigators have shown that such a relationship does not
hold true for FRP reinforcing bars [6,13,15,16].
Therefore, the development of a new procedure to
evaluate the development length of FRP bars, based on an
analytical approach, is needed. It should take into account
the actual bond-slip constitutive law, as obtained by
experimental tests.
3. The problem of the rebar pull-out
The problem of a rebar embedded in a concrete block and
pulled-out by means of an applied tensile force is analysed
in the following.
A closed form solution is obtained by adopting linear
elastic constitutive laws for the materials and the Eligehau-
sen et al., modified relationship [8,18] as bond-slip
constitutive law. Such an analytical solution allows to
obtain slip, normal stress and bond stress distributions along
the rebar (i.e. at a generic abscissa x ). Furthermore, such a
solution leads to an exact evaluation of the development
length.
The studied case is schematically shown in Fig. 1, where
the origin of the x-axis is in the free end of the bar.
The differential equation that governs the bond problem
[20] is obtained by considering:
the equilibrium of rebar:
pf2
4ds pft dx 13
a linear elastic behaviour for the rebar that, if thecontribution of concrete in tension is neglected, is given
by:
s E1 E dsdx
14
where E and f are the elastic modulus and the diameterof the rebar, respectively.
From Eqs. (13) and (14), the following differential
equation is obtained:
d2s
dx22
4
Eftx 0 15
The Eligehausen et al. modified model [8,18]shown in
Fig. 2is considered herein. Such a constitutive law is
given by:
(A) for s , sm; an ascending branch which is formallycoincident with the first branch of the Eligehausen, Popov
E. Cosenza et al. / Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 493504 495
-
and Bertero law [10]:
ts tm ssm
a16
(B) for sm , s , su a softening branch given by:
ts tm 1 p2 p ssm
17
where a is a coefficient which describes the ascendingbranch, p, a coefficient which defines the softening branch,
tm, the maximum bond strength, sm, the slip at peak bondstrength and su is the ultimate slip.
By using such a law when integrating Eq. (15), two cases,
A (s # sm) and B (s . sm) have to be separately considered.
3.1. Case A (s # sm)
Considering Eq. (16), it is possible to rewrite Eq. (15) as:
d2s
dx22
4tmEfsam
sa 0 18
By integrating Eq. (18) with the following boundary
conditions:
s0 0; dsdx
x0
10 0
i.e. considering a perfect anchorage of the bar, the following
solution is obtained:
sx 2tmEfsam
12 a21 a
" #1=12ax2=12a 19
that provides the trend of the slip s along the bar.
Trends of the bond stress t and of the tensile stress sare derived by considering Eqs. (13) and (14), respect-
ively:
tx pf4
ds
dx; sx E ds
dx20
Using the above-presented relationships, two characteristic
limit values can be derived from Eqs. (19) and (20):
the limit tensile stress in the bar s1; the limit development length lm.
The first value represents the stress in the bar
corresponding to a slip equal to sm:
s1 ssm 8E
f
tmsm1 a
s21
The value lm represents an upper bound of the development
length related to the ascending branch of the bond-slip law,
i.e. the development length that corresponds to a stress
applied to the rebar equal to s1. In fact, setting s sm in Eq.(19), the corresponding value of x represents lm:
lm Ef
2
smtm
1 a12 a2
s22
Furthermore, considering Eqs. (21) and (22), lm can be also
written as:
lm s1f4tm
1 a12 a
l0m 1 a12 a
23
where l0m is the development length evaluated for s s1and t constant tm.
Fig. 1. The studied cases.
Fig. 2. Eligehausen et al., modified ts law.
E. Cosenza et al. / Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 493504496
-
A reduction of the rebar elastic modulus E results in
an increment of slips s (Eq. (19)) and in a reduction of
the embedment length (Eq. (22)). Eq. (23) confirms that
lm is greater than l0m, since (1 a )/(1 2 a ) is greaterthan 1.
Eqs. (19), (20) and (22) lead to the following useful
relationships:
sxsm
xlm
pswhere ps 2
12 a24
sxs1
xlm
pswhere ps 1 a
12 a ps 2 1 25
txtm
xlm
ptwhere pt 2a
12 a ps 2 2 26
Eqs. (24)(26) provide simple expressions of s, s and t as afunction of x=lm: In particular, it can be noticed that:
for a 0, the slip s is a quadratic function of the abscissax, while the normal stress s is linear and the bond stress tassumes the constant value tm;
for a 1/3, sx is cubic, s(x) is parabolic and t(x) islinear.
For s , s1, the development length l can be evaluatedfrom Eq. (25) by setting x l; then, the followingexpression of l is obtained:
l lm ss1 12a=1a
27
For 0 , s # s1, Eq. (27) provides values of the length l lessthan the value lm derived from Eq. (23).
According to Eq. (23), another expression of l can be
easily derived from Eq. (27):
l l0 s1s 2a=1a 1 a
12 a28
where:
l0 l0s fs4tm
29
is the development length evaluated in case of t constant tm.
It has to be underlined that Eq. (29) can be obtained from
Eq. (28) by setting a 0, i.e. by assuming a rigid-plasticbond-slip constitutive law.
Finally, from Eq. (28), it can be seen that the value of the
development length l is greater than l0.
3.2. Case B (s . sm)
Considering Eq. (17), the differential Eq. (18) becomes:
d2s
dx2 4ptm
Efsms 41 ptm
Ef30
and integrating Eq. (30) with the following boundary
conditions:
slm sm; dsdx
xlm
1lm s1E
the function sx is obtained:sxsm
1p
1 p2 cosvx2 lm(
2p
1 a
ssinvx2 lm
9=; 31
where:
v 4ptmEfsm
s
1
lm
2p
1 a
s1 a12 a
Finally, by substituting Eq. (31) into Eq. (17), the
distribution law of bond stresses along the bar is given by:
txtm
cosvx2 lm2
2p
1 a
ssinvx2 lm 32
while, remembering Eq. (14), sx is provided by:sxs1
cosvx2 lm 1 a
2p
ssinvx2 lm 33
It is possible to demonstrate by Eq. (30) that the
development length l can be obtained by:
l lm 1 12 a2
2p1 a
sarcsin
At2
Atmax
s" #8