See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312469694

Force-Based Model for Straight FRP Anchors Exhibiting Fibre Rupture Failure
Mode

Conference Paper · December 2016

CITATION READS

1 112

3 authors:

M. C. Griffith Jason Ingham

University of Adelaide University of Auckland
195 PUBLICATIONS   2,345 CITATIONS    426 PUBLICATIONS   2,541 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Enrique del Rey Castillo

University of Auckland
10 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design Equations for FRP Anchors to Strengthen Existing RC Buildings View project

Earthquake response of concrete masonry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Enrique del Rey Castillo on 17 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 FORCE-BASED MODEL FOR STRAIGHT FRP ANCHORS EXHIBITING FIBRE
RUPTURE FAILURE MODE
E. del Rey Castillo1, M. Griffith2 and J. M. Ingham3
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Email: edel146@aucklanduni.ac.nz
2
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, University of Adelaide, Australia
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the University of Auckland, New Zealand

ABSTRACT
The use of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials as Externally Bonded Reinforcements (EBR) is an
established technique for structural improvement of existing buildings. Nevertheless the technique features
disadvantages, and premature FRP-to-concrete debonding has been commonly highlighted as one of the main
problems, together with the difficulty to fully wrap the structural element when the structure presents complex
geometries. FRP straight anchors are used to transfer the forces from the FRP sheet into the structural element,
eliminating these two problems, but a comprehensive design method for FRP anchors has not yet been established
despite the increased use and research on FRP anchors.
An extensive experimental programme has been carried out as part of an on-going research project with the
ultimate goal being the development of a design methodology to enable engineers to efficiently and reliably design
FRP anchors. The influence of a number of parameters on the capacity of straight FRP anchors has been
investigated in the research, but only the anchor size and the fanning angle of the fan portion are reported here.
The model that defines the relationship between anchor size, fanning angle and the capacity of the anchor
exhibiting fibre rupture is described.
KEYWORDS
FRP, FRP anchor, EBR, fibre rupture, strengthening, retrofit, model
INTRODUCTION
Externally Bonded Fibre Reinforced Polymer Reinforcements (FRP-
EBR) of Reinforced Concrete (RC) structures have been extensively
investigated by the research community and widely used by practicing (1) Dowel
engineers. Two of the main problems of FRP-EBR systems reported in
the literature and encountered by engineers are the premature FRP-to-
concrete debonding (Chen & Teng 2001) and the presence of (3) Key portion
obstructions that prevent the RC structural member to be fully wrapped
(Kim et al. 2009). Amongst the existing anchorage systems to overcome
these problems FRP anchors have been highlighted in multiple
occasions as the best solution, due mainly to the better properties of FRP
materials when compared to more traditional materials such as steel, the
high strength vs weight ratio and the better compatibility of FRP to FRP
systems compared to FRP to other materials systems, as example given
by Kalfat (2013). An FRP anchor consists of a bundle of fibres, or a Fanning
rolled FRP sheet, that is soaked into epoxy resin before one end of the angle α
bundle ((1) anchor dowel) is introduced into a hole that has been pre- (2) Fan
drilled into the structural element and the other end is splayed into a fan component
shape ((2) fan component) and bonded with epoxy resin to the FRP
FRP sheet
sheet, with the fibres’ transition from the dowel to the fan through the
small part of the anchor ((3) key portion), see Figure 1. Figure 1 Straight anchor and main
parts
The main problem for a wide implementation of FRP anchors is the absence of design guidelines that would enable
engineers to reliably determine the anchor strength and predict its behaviour (Kim & Smith 2009; Kalfat et al.
2013). Previous efforts have been undertaken to characterize the strength and behaviour of the anchor dowel, with
a design model developed by Kim and Smith (2010) based on the failure modes related to the anchor dowel, but a
thorough research has not yet been conducted on the behaviour of the key portion and the fan component. Reported
herein are the results of 72 tests as part of an experimental campaign aimed to characterize the behaviour of the
key and the fan components of straight anchors. Two main failure modes have been identified related to the dowel
and fan components, fibre rupture and fan-to-sheet debonding respectively, with the tests reported here being
focused on the fibre rupture failure mode, which all tests exhibited, and further research being continued in order
to characterize the fan-to-sheet debonding failure mode.
TEST SET-UP, MATERIALS AND SPECIMEN PROPERTIES
An innovative test set-up unique for the on-going research programme was designed, with the main objective of
replicating as close as possible a commonly used real application while aligning the applied load with the installed
anchor and preventing induced moments or shear forces on the anchor, for more details of the test set-up the reader
is referred to (del Rey Castillo et al. 2015). The applied tensile load was recorded with a load cell and displacements
and strains were measured with the Digital Image Correlation (DIC) technique, but only loads are reported here.
The base material used to manufacture the FRP anchors was supplied as a bundle of fibres with a standard fibre
content and the bundles were then combined and/or divided to manufacture anchors with different fibre contents.
The manufacturer-specified material properties for the FRP products used in this research are given in Table 1.
The properties are expressed as net-fibre laminate properties.
Table 1 Manufacturer-specified FRP material net-fibre properties
Net fibre Tensile Modulus (GPa) Tensile strength (MPa) Ultimate strain
thickness
1
(mm) Ave Design Ave Design1 Ave Design1
CFRP fabric 1 0.343 - 64.8 1241 1055 0.016 0.010
CFRP fabric 2 0.331 75.7 68.1 968 833 0.013 0.011
CFRP Anchor 28 mm2 - 230 - 2100 - 0.016
1
Design values defined as average values minus two standard deviations
Concrete of two strengths
Table 2 Concrete mechanical properties
were used but the
influence of this property Weak 1 Weak 2 Strong 1 Strong 2 Strong 3
on the final strength of Characteristic
25.7 MPa 24.9 MPa 42.5 MPa 35.9 MPa 38.2 MPa
the anchor is negligible. ultimate
SD=2.1 SD=0.7 SD=3.4 SD=2.0 SD=1.0
The compressive and compressive
CoV=0.08 CoV=0.03 CoV=0.08 CoV=0.06 CoV=0.03
tensile strength reported strength
in Table 2 of each Characteristic
3.2 MPa 2.9 MPa 2.4 MPa 3.2 MPa 2.9 MPa
concrete mix was ultimate
SD=0.15 SD=0.17 SD=0.00 SD=0.38 SD=0.46
determined using NZS tensile
CoV=0.05 CoV=0.06 CoV=0.00 CoV=0.12 CoV=0.16
3112-2(1986). strength
Amongst the several parameters considered in the research two have been reported herein, the anchor size (how
many bundles of fibres have been used to manufacture the anchor and the corresponding net cross section area)
and the fanning angle α (angle from the middle to the end of the fan component, see Figure 1). The specimens and
the parameters used in the construction of the anchors are listed in Table 3, with the names indicating the number
of bundles used in the anchor assemblage (0.5 to 6 bundles), which linearly correspond to the Net Cross Section
Area in mm2, and the intended fanning angle α (15, 27 and 60 degrees) at the time of the anchor construction. The
intended angle did not always correspond with the final angle obtained, which was measured once the resin was
cured and is reported in Table 3 as Fanning Angle α in Degrees. As can be observed in the table, anchors featuring
6 bundles and an angle α equal to 15 and 60 degrees were not tested, the reasons being the large strength of the 15
degrees 6-bundle anchors that prevented the specimen to be properly tested with the available equipment or the
infrequently used angle of 60 degrees with big anchors.

Table 3 Specimens tested and most important parameters used in the anchor construction
Net Net Net
Fanning Fanning Fanning
Cross Cross Cross
Name Angle α Name Angle α Name Angle α
Area Area Area
(DEG) (DEG) (DEG)
(mm2) (mm2) (mm2)
0.5-15a 14 18.0 1-60a 28 56.0 2-27a 56 26.0
0.5-15b 14 11.5 1-60b 28 53.5 2-27b 56 27.5
0.5-15c 14 11.5 1-60c 28 52.5 2-27c 56 23.5
0.5-15d 14 11.5 1-60d 28 52.5 2-27d 56 21.5
0.5-15e 14 11.0 1-60e 28 51.5 2-27e 56 26.0
0.5-15f 14 15.5 1.5-15a 42 14.5 2-60a 56 49.5
0.5-15g 14 12.0 1.5-15b 42 13.0 2-60b 56 52.0
0.5-27a 14 21.0 1.5-15c 42 14.0 3-15a 84 17.5
0.5-27b 14 24.0 1.5-15d 42 15.5 3-15b 84 11.5
 Table 3 continues
0.5-27c 14 21.5 1.5-15e 42 14.0 3-15c 84 11.5
0.5-27d 14 29.0 1.5-15f 42 13.5 3-15d 84 18.0
0.5-60a 14 52.0 1.5-27a 42 22.5 3-15e 84 13.5
0.5-60b 14 46.0 1.5-27b 42 24.5 3-27a 84 27.0
1-15a 28 16.5 1.5-27c 42 22.5 3-27b 84 24.5
1-15b 28 15.0 1.5-27d 42 24.0 3-27c 84 20.0
1-15c 28 15.5 1.5-27e 42 24.5 3-27d 84 24.0
1-15d 28 15.0 1.5-60a 42 37.5 3-27e 84 25.0
1-15e 28 15.0 1.5-60b 42 57.5 3-60a 84 55.5
1-15f 28 14.0 1.5-60c 42 58.0 3-60b 84 60.0
1-27a 28 28.0 2-15a 56 9.0 6-27a 168 28.5
1-27b 28 28.0 2-15b 56 11.5 6-27b 168 25.0
1-27c 28 26.5 2-15c 56 14.5 6-27c 168 29.0
1-27d 28 25.5 2-15d 56 16.0 6-27d 168 29.5
1-27e 28 23.5 2-15e 56 14.0 6-27e 168 25.5

RESULTS

The failure mode for all the tests reported herein is fibre Rupture of the anchor, either at the Key portion (R k), at
Middle length (Rm) or at the Top of the anchor (Rt) as shown in Figure 2. These three sub-failure modes did not
have an influence on the final strength of the anchor but indicate that the fan-to-sheet debonding mechanism had
already commenced for the Rm and Rt modes. In 27 tests (37.5% of 72 tests in total) this fibre rupture occurred
after the FRP sheet had debonded from the concrete substrate, either completely (Complete Concrete Debonding
or CCD) or partially (Partial Concrete Debonding or PCD) but the ultimate strength was not affected by the FRP-
to-concrete debonding as already reported before, see (del Rey Castillo et al. 2015). Therefore 9 sub-Failure Modes
(FM) exist and are reported in Table 4, Rk (40.3% of 72 test), Rm (9.7%), Rt (12.5%), PCD+Rk (9.7%), PCD+Rm
(4.2%), PCD+Rt (0.0%), CCD+Rk (9.7%), CCD+Rm (13.9%) and CCD+Rt (0.0%).

(b) Rupture at (c) Rupture at anchor

(a) Rupture at the key portion (Rk)
anchor mid-length (Rm) top (Rt)
Figure 2 Three variations of fibre rupture failure mode

The Ultimate Tensile Load (UL) at failure is reported in kN in Table 4, together with the Real Strength (RS) in
MPa based on the ultimate load and the anchor net cross section area. The Efficiency (Eff) was obtained as the
percentage ratio of the Real Strength to the manufacturer-specified strength as given in Table 1. The manufacturer
specifies the strength of one bundle so the manufacturer strength of multiple bundle anchors was linearly calculated
by multiplying the manufacturer strength of one bundle by the number of bundles used to manufacture the anchor.
 Table 4 Test results
UTL1 RS2 Eff3 UTL1 RS2 Eff3
Name FM4 Name FM4
(kN) (MPa) (%) (kN) (MPa) (%)
0.5-15a 39.0 2787 132.7 Rm 1.5-27b 65.1 1549 73.8 PCD+Rk
k
0.5-15b 36.6 2612 124.4 R 1.5-27c 91.6 2180 103.8 CCD+Rk
m
0.5-15c 39.7 2835 135.0 R 1.5-27d 69.8 1662 79.1 Rm
0.5-15d 32.0 2287 108.9 Rk 1.5-27e 81.5 1940 92.4 Rm
0.5-15e 29.9 2134 101.6 Rk 1.5-60a 70.8 1685 80.2 Rk
k
0.5-15f 32.2 2298 109.4 R 1.5-60b 65.1 1550 73.8 Rk
k
0.5-15g 40.7 2910 138.6 R 1.5-60c 56.3 1340 63.8 Rk
t
0.5-27a 32.6 2328 110.9 R 2-15a 100.8 1799 85.7 PCD+Rm
k
0.5-27b 32.0 2287 108.9 R 2-15b 120.8 2158 102.7 PCD+Rk
k
0.5-27c 35.4 2527 120.3 R 2-15c 92.3 1648 78.5 CCD+Rm
k
0.5-27d 35.3 2523 120.2 R 2-15d 109.8 1961 93.4 CCD+Rk
0.5-60b 25.1 1795 85.5 Rk 2-15e 92.1 1644 78.3 PCD+Rk
0.5-60d 33.8 2414 115.0 Rk 2-27a 94.6 1689 80.4 Rt
1-15a 81.5 2911 138.6 Rk 2-27b 82.8 1479 70.4 Rt
k
1-15b 65.1 2327 110.8 R 2-27c 78.1 1395 66.4 PCD+Rm
k
1-15c 59.3 2119 100.9 R 2-27d 78.1 1394 66.4 Rk
m
1-15d 80.3 2869 136.6 CCD+R 2-27e 81.6 1458 69.4 Rk
k
1-15e 62.0 2216 105.5 R 2-60a 67.4 1204 57.4 Rt
t
1-15f 77.0 2749 130.9 R 2-60b 80.9 1444 68.8 Rk
1-27a 55.2 1971 93.9 CCD+Rk 3-15a 156.0 1857 88.4 Rk
1-27b 55.2 1971 93.9 CCD+Rm 3-15b 169.2 2014 95.9 Rt
k
1-27c 52.5 1875 89.3 CCD+R 3-15c 156.1 1858 88.5 Rk
k
1-27d 51.2 1829 87.1 R 3-15d 119.3 1421 67.7 Rk
k
1-27e 57.3 2046 97.4 R 3-15e 150.7 1795 85.5 PCD+Rk
m
1-60a 35.6 1271 60.5 CCD+R 3-27a 122.7 1461 69.6 Rk
m
1-60b 26.7 954 45.4 CCD+R 3-27b 111.1 1323 63.0 PCD+Rk
m
1-60c 31.1 1111 52.9 R 3-27c 105.1 1251 59.6 CCD+Rk
1-60d 37.6 1343 63.9 PCD+Rm 3-27d 113.1 1346 64.1 CCD+Rk
1-60e 35.2 1257 59.9 Rt 3-27e 123.1 1465 69.8 CCD+Rm
1.5-15a 77.1 1836 87.4 Rk 3-60a 96.3 1147 54.6 Rt
k
1.5-15b 85.6 2039 97.1 R 3-60b 89.7 1068 50.9 Rt
k
1.5-15c 106.9 2546 121.2 PCD+R 6-27a 122.7 730 34.8 CCD+Rm
m
1.5-15d 105.4 2510 119.5 R 6-27b 145.3 865 41.2 CCD+Rk
k
1.5-15e 91.5 2179 103.8 PCD+R 6-27c 164.5 979 46.6 CCD+Rm
k
1.5-15f 85.6 2039 97.1 R 6-27d 144.0 857 40.8 CCD+Rm
1.5-27a 92.1 2194 104.5 Rm 6-27e 168.2 1001 47.7 CCD+Rm
1
Ultimate Load in kN, 2Real Strength in MPa, 3Effiency in %, and 4Failure Mode, see above for more details
FORCE TRANSFER MECHANISM AND TENSILE STRENGTH MODEL
The tensile force is transferred from the FRP sheet to the FRP anchor through the fan
component and into the RC structure via the dowel, see Figure 3, with the force in the
sheet being equal to the force in the dowel for the system to be in equilibrium, Eq 1a. Fdowel
By dividing the fan component into infinitesimal parts the infinitesimal force fi is
obtained, having this force two components being perpendicular and parallel to the
force, as already hypothesized by Kobayashi (2001). Each of the parallel components
fi*cos(αi)

can be calculated with the cosine of their corresponding fanning angle αi, and the sum
of all the fi components equals the force transmitted to the dowel. Thus the Ultimate
Load of the anchor exhibiting fibre rupture failure mode (Nfr) in N is equal to two
times the cross sectional area in the dowel (Adowel) in mm2 multiplied by the tensile
α0 fi
strength of the FRP (sFRP) in MPa and by the sum of the parallel components of the αi
force, reduced by a Efficiency Coefficient yeff, as shown in Eq 1b.
Fsheet

 F  0 F sheet
 Fdowel (1a)
Figure 3 Force transfer
n
2 can be assimilated into yeff
N fr  2 eff  FRP  cos( i )Adowel (1b)
mechanism
i
 1
In order to calculate the sum of the cos(αi) the integral between
0 and α0 (maximum angle α) of the cosine function can be used, 0.8
see Figure 4 and Eq 2a. However, the use of this equation would
imply that for a fixed cross section area the quantity of fibres in
0.6
the anchor increases as the angle increases. This behaviour does
not represent the reality because the number of fibres remains
0.4
constant for a constant cross sectional area although the fibres
are less densely distributed in the anchor. To account for this
effect an average value α’ has to be used, which is calculated by 0.2
dividing the area by the maximum angle α0, and by substituting
Eq 1b into equation 2b to obtain and expression for Nfr. 0
0 0.26 0.52 0.78 1.04 1.3 1.56
Fanning angle  (RAD)
Figure 4 Representation of sin(α)/α in
Radians
0 0
0 equals to 0

 cos( )   cos( )d  sin( )

i
 sin( 0 )  sin(0) (2a)
0 0 0

sin( 0 ) sin( 0 )
'  N fr   eff  FRP Adowel (2b)
0 0

The efficiency coefficient for each test was then Net cross section Model Eq
obtained dividing the ultimate load (UL in Table 4) area (mm2)
by the tensile strength (sFRP) and the cross sectional sin( )
14  efficiency
14
 1.20 (3a)
area (Adowel). This coefficient was then plotted against 
the angle α for each anchor size, see Figure 5 (a) to
sin( )
(e) and the best fit obtained, see Eq 3 (a) to (e). The 28  efficiency
28
 0.99 (3b)
coefficients were correlated with their size as per 
Figure 5 (f) and the best fit again obtained for the sin( )
efficiency factor as a function of the cross sectional 42  efficiency
42
 0.97 (3c)
area, see Eq 3f. Anchors featuring 6 bundles and an 
angle α equal to 15 and 60 degrees were not tested, sin( )
the reasons being the large strength of the 15 degrees 56  efficiency
56
 0.80 (3d)

six-bundle anchors that prevented the specimen to be
properly tested with the available equipment and the sin( )
84  efficiency
84
 0.75 (3e)
infrequent use of angles of 60 degrees with such big 
anchors. The average efficiency coefficient (0.4) for
these tests was used in equation 3f. -  efficiency
A dowel 0.26
 2.41Adowel (3f)

1.6 1.4
14 mm2 28 mm2
Efficiency Coefficient

Efficiency Coefficient

R2=0.25 1.2 R2=0.30

1.4
sin( ) sin( )
 efficiency  0.99
28
 efficiency  1.20
14


1 
1.2
0.8

1
0.6

0.8 0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Fanning angle  (RAD) Fanning angle  (RAD)
(a) Efficiency VS angle α for half-bundle anchors (b) Efficiency VS angle α for one-bundle anchors
 1.4
42 mm2 56 mm2
1.3
Efficiency Coefficient

Efficiency Coefficient
R2=0.33 1.2 R2=0.26
1.2
1.1 sin( ) sin( )
 efficiency  0.80
56
 efficiency  0.97
42
1
1  

0.9 0.8
0.8
0.6
0.7

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.4

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Fanning angle  (RAD) Fanning angle  (RAD)
(c) Efficiency VS angle α for one-and-half-bundle (d) Efficiency VS angle α for two-bundle anchors
anchors

1 2
84 mm2 Efficiency Coefficient Efficiency
R2=0.32
Efficiency Coefficient

0.9 R2=0.33
1.5
sin( ) 0.33
 efficiency  0.75
84
 efficiency
A
0.8 dowel
 2.9* Adowel

1
0.7

0.5
0.6

0.5 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 50 100 150 200
2
Fanning angle  (RAD) Cross Section Area (mm )
(e) Efficiency VS angle α for three-bundle anchors (f) Efficiency VS cross section area

Figure 5 Calibration of theoretical model with experimental results

For consistency with the equation described

in Eq 1b the inverse of the cosine is applied
to obtain a cosine function, Eq 4a, but for
simplicity 0.57α0 can be used for the range of
angles under study (0 to 60 degrees), see
Figure 6. By substituting this relationship
into Eq 1b the governing equation 4b for Nfr
is obtained, and by solving y for Eq 3f the
final equation is obtained, Eq 4c. The three
dimensional surface describing Eq 4c can be
seen in Figure 8, together with the
experimental data points. For the biggest
anchors made with six bundles the equation
overestimated the strength and further
research is needed in order to adjust these
values. The influence of the fanning angle on
the total capacity of the anchor is larger as the
anchor increases its size and anchors with a
more narrow angle α are more efficient than Figure 6 Comparison of sin(α)/α and cos(0.57α)
anchors with a more obtuse angle α.
 sin( 0 ) sin( 0 )
'  cos1 ( ')  cos 1 (
)  cos(0.57 0 ) (4a)
0 0
n
sin( )
i cos(i )  ( )0  cos(0.570 )  N fr   eff  FRP cos(0.570 ) Adowel (4b)
0

N fr  2.9 FRP cos(0.570 ) Adowel

2/3
(4c)

In order to obtain the lower bound equation for use in design the standard deviation was analysed for each group
of data points with the same anchor size and fanning angle, but no trend was found within each anchor size, see
Figure 7a. The standard deviation was then studied for the different anchor sizes, and, as can be observed in Figure
7b, it was established that the standard deviation increases as the anchors increased in size, following a power
equation. By subtracting the standard deviation from the model the lower bound model can be found, see equation
4d, with the representation of this model being reported in Figure 8 together with the data from the experimental
results. The ultimate force in kN as predicted by the model for each specimen is represented with a square and the
recorded force is represented with a circle, with the difference between the two forces being represented with a
solid line. As can be observed in Figure 8 the influence of the fanning angle on the total capacity of the anchor is
larger as the anchor increases in size, and anchors with a narrower angle α are more efficient than anchors with a
more obtuse angle α.
20 30
14 mm2
Standard Deviation (kN)
Standard Deviation (kN)

28 mm2 25
15
42 mm2 20
56 mm2
10 84 mm2 15

10 R2=0.76
5 0.67
 efficiency
A
5
dowel
 1.2* Adowel

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100
2
Fanning angle  (DEG) Cross Section Area (mm )
(a) Standard Deviation for each anchor size (b) Standard deviation for the test population
Figure 7 Verification of data normal distribution

fr   FRP cos(0.570 )(2.9 Adowel  1.2 Adowel )

2/3 1/3
N low (4d)

Figure 8 Representation of Nfr from Eq 4d

 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS

Reported herein are the results of 72 tests on CFRP straight anchors that exhibited fibre rupture failure mode with
varying anchor size and fanning angle α. The sub-failure mode that the anchor exhibited did not affect the strength
of the anchor, as long as the anchor could resist the energy released when the FRP-to-concrete debonding occurred.
Anchors featuring an acute fanning angle generally behave better than anchors with a more obtuse angle, but this
influence is almost negligible for small anchors and becomes more critical as the anchor size increases. Only
ultimate loads are reported here, although strains and displacements were measured using the DIC technique.
The force transfer mechanism between sheet, anchor and concrete substrate is analysed and a number of equations
for different anchor sizes with a varying fanning angle α are reported (Eq 3a to f). A final equation and the
corresponding lower bound equation are described, taking into consideration both anchor size and angle α to help
engineers to calculate the final strength and anticipate the behaviour of straight CFRP anchors in a reliable way.
Practicing engineers now have a tool to predict the maximum load that an FRP anchor is able to withstand for a
given size and fanning angle α.
However, the behaviour of the anchor is not yet fully understood, especially for big anchors that are difficult to
test. A numerical model will help to understand the fracture mechanism and the influence of fanning angle α on
the final strength of the anchor. A sensitivity analysis can be carried out to consider anchors with larger cross
sectional areas and to increase the range of FRP and epoxy resin properties under study. Finally, a real case study
application will be tested in order to verify the validity of the equations and investigate the influence of tensile-
compression cycles on the anchor strength and behaviour.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the support of the technical staff of the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of Auckland, as well as Contech Limited and Sika (NZ) for supplying the CFRP and
epoxy resin used in the experimental campaign reported here. The funding support provided by the New Zealand
Earthquake Commission is highly appreciated.

REFERENCES

Chen, J.F. & Teng, J.G., 2001. Anchorage strength models for FRP and steel plates bonded to concrete. Journal
of Structural Engineering, 127(7), pp.784–791.
Kalfat, R., Al-mahaidi, R. & Smith, S.T., 2013. Anchorage Devices Used to Improve the Performance of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Retrofitted with FRP Composites : State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of
Composites for Construction, 17(1), pp.14–33.
Kim, I., Jirsa, J.O. & Bayrak, O.Oehlers, D.J., Griffith, M.C. & Seracino, R., 2009. Use of CFRP anchors to
strengthen lap splices of rectangular RC columns. In (D. J. Oehlers), (M. C. Griffith), & (R. Seracino), eds.
FRPRCS - 9. Sydney, Australia: University of Adelaide, pp. 1–5.
Kim, S.J. & Smith, S.T., 2009. Behaviour of Handmade FRP Anchors under Tensile Load in Uncracked Concrete.
Advances in Structural Engineering, 12(6), pp.845–865.
Kim, S.J. & Smith, S.T., 2010. Pullout Strength Models for FRP Anchors in Uncracked Concrete. Journal of
Composites for Construction, 14(4), pp.406–414.
Kobayashi, K., Fujii, S., Yabe, Y., Tsukagoshi, H. & Sugiyama, T.Burgoyne, C., 2001. Advanced wrapping system
with CF anchor - Stress transfer mechanism of CF anchor. In (C. Burgoyne), ed. FRPRCS-5. Cambridge:
Thomas Telford, pp. 379–388.
NZS 3112-2, 1986. Methods of test for concrete, Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Standards (NZS).
del Rey Castillo, E., Rogers, R., Griffith, M.C. & Ingham, J.M., 2015. Tensile Strength of Straight Frp Anchors in
Rc Structures. In The 12th International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymers for Reinforced Concrete
Structures (FRPRCS-12) & The 5th Asia-Pacific Conference on Fiber Reinforced Polymers in Structures
(APFIS-2015) Joint Conference. Nanjing, China.

View publication stats