Structures 54 (2023) 263–279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Shear performance of the epoxy-bolt interface between UHPC slabs and

GFRP girder
Pu Zhang a, Fang Xu a, Erjun Peng a, Ye Liu b, *, Shamim Ahmed Sheikh a, c
a
School of Civil Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
b
Key Laboratory of Deep Underground Science and Engineering (Ministry of Education), College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065,
China
c
Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto, M5S, 1A4, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The shear performance of the epoxy-bolt interface between ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) slabs and
FRP-UHPC hybrid beams glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) girder was evaluated via push-out tests. A total of thirteen GFRP-concrete
Epoxy-bolt interface push-out specimens, including eleven GFRP-UHPC specimens with an epoxy-bolt interface, one GFRP-UHPC
Push-out test
specimen with a bolt interface and one GFRP-normal-strength concrete (NSC) specimen with a bolt interface,
Shear performance
were compared. Experimental parameters included the concrete strength, interface type, bolt spacing (sbolt), bolt-
embedding length (hbolt), bolt number (nbolt), bolt diameter (dbolt) and bolt strength (σbolt). The test results
revealed four failure modes, i.e., debonding of the epoxy layer, bolt shank shear failure, GFRP flange shear-out
failure and concrete failure. Compared to the GFRP-UHPC specimen with a bolt interface, the bearing capacity
and shear stiffness of the GFRP-UHPC specimen with an epoxy-bolt interface were approximately 10% and 40%
higher, respectively, and the ultimate slip was approximately 3.5% lower. The employment of the UHPC slab
substantially improved the shear stiffness by 19% compared with the GFRP-NSC push-out specimen. The nbolt,
dbolt and σ bolt showed a positive influence on the bearing capacity, whereas the hbolt showed a negative influence.
The epoxy-bolt interface was recommended in the GFRP-UHPC hybrid beams to improve the composite action.
Finally, the bearing capacities of the GFRP-UHPC push-out specimens with the epoxy-bolt interface were
predicted.

1. Introduction
For a long time, steel–concrete composite structures have been
widely used in bridges and high-rise buildings due to their excellent
performance and rapid construction [1–3]. Steel corrosion is becoming
an increasingly significant challenge for infrastructures worldwide, as it
not only affects the structural performance but also reduces the service
life of infrastructures. Therefore, high-performance materials with
excellent corrosion resistance have shown great potential for improving
the durability and prolonging the service life of such infrastructures [4].
Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) materials have been widely used in civil
infrastructure due to their excellent mechanical properties, such as light
weight, high strength-to-weight ratio, excellent fatigue strength, dura­
bility and corrosion resistance [5,6]. FRP-concrete hybrid beams, con­
sisting of an FRP profile and concrete slab on the top, can take advantage
of the properties of FRP composites under tension and concrete under
compression, which has been extensively studied [7,8] and has been
applied in building and bridge engineering [9–12].
The composite action between the concrete slab and the FRP profile
is a prerequisite for FRP-concrete hybrid beams to achieve desirable
mechanical properties [13]. Therefore, the shear connection method in
the hybrid beam is of pivotal importance and has become a primary
research topic. As shown in Fig. 1, some commonly used shear con­
nectors for FRP-concrete hybrid beams were summarized, including FRP
ribs [14,15], perforated FRP ribs (PFRs) [15–17], FRP dowels [18,19],
FRP shear keys (FSKs) [20–26], adhesive bonding [27–29], FRP stay-in-
place (SIP) [20] and steel bolts [27,28,30–32]. Among these shear
connectors, steel bolts have frequently been used due to their convenient
construction, good ductility and assembly. Studies have shown that
hybrid beams using steel bolt connectors exhibit high interface bearing
capacity [16,30,33–36], whereas holes for installing steel bolts lead to
discontinuities in FRP fibres and relatively large slippage along the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liu.ye@scu.edu.cn (Y. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.05.014
Received 14 December 2022; Received in revised form 27 April 2023; Accepted 4 May 2023
Available online 21 May 2023
2352-0124/© 2023 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Zhang et al.
interface [13,37]. From the study of Zou et al. [13], the natural bond
between FRP and concrete was less than 0.5 MPa, which could be
neglected. The addition of an adhesive at the interface could be an
attractive solution due to the advantages of filling the interfacial gap and
providing higher anti-slip stiffness [38]. Therefore, it is preferable to
combine the steel bolt connector with the adhesive bonding at the
interface of FRP-concrete hybrid beams. In the literature [27,28], the
flexural behavior of FRP-normal concrete composite beams with an
epoxy-bolt interface was studied, and the results showed that beams
with an epoxy-bolt interface exhibited significant improvement in per­
formance compared to those with a pure bolt or epoxy interface.
To improve the strength, stiffness and durability, normal concrete
can be replaced by ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC) to form FRP-
UHPC hybrid beams. The feasibility and effectiveness of FRP-UHPC
hybrid beams have been studied and proven by scholars [18,39–41],
and investigators have focused on mechanical connections, including
dowels and bolts, between FRP shapes and concrete [30]. To the best of
the author’s knowledge, extremely limited studies on the shear perfor­
mance of interfaces combining bolts and adhesives for FRP-UHPC hybrid
beams have been conducted. Nguyen et al. [36] studied the bolt-
adhesive combined interface for FRP-UHPC hybrid beams under push-
out tests, but in their study, the shear strength of the bolt connectors
was lower than the shear strength of the adhesive, which resulted in the
failure of bolts immediately after the failure of adhesive, i.e., a relatively
brittle failure mode. In addition, the adhesive adopted by Nguyen et al.
[36] was the structural adhesive that could only be used for the precast
UHPC slabs.
To eliminate this knowledge gap, make full use of the excellent
mechanical properties and durability of FRP and UHPC and promote
future application of FRP-UHPC composite structures, the shear per­
formance of the epoxy-bolt interface for GFRP-UHPC hybrid beams was
studied and reported via push-out tests in this study. The epoxy used in
this study provided lower shear resistance than the bolts to avoid brittle
failure, and a wet bond interface was adopted in this study to connect
the FRP girder and the fresh UHPC. Canning et al. [34] showed that a
fresh concrete-compatible adhesive bond was the most practical type of
connection and still achieved a high level of composite action. This
paper includes (1) the experimental results of thirteen GFRP-UHPC/
normal-strength concrete (NSC) push-out specimens to evaluate the
shear performance at the epoxy-bolt interface and failure modes, (2) an
Fig. 1. Shear connectors of FRP-concrete hybrid beams/decks: (a) FRP ribs, (b) PFR, (c) FRP dowels, (d) FSK, (e) adhesive bonding, (f) SIP, and (g) steel bolts.
264
Structures 54 (2023) 263–279
analysis of the GFRP flange strain distribution and slippage between the
GFRP girder and the UHPC/NSC slab and (3) a predicting method of the
bearing capacities of the GFRP-UHPC push-out specimens with the
epoxy-bolt interface.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test details
Thirteen GFRP-concrete push-out specimens were tested in this
study, including eleven GFRP-UHPC push-out specimens with an epoxy-
bolt interface, one GFRP-UHPC push-out specimen with a bolt interface
and one GFRP-NSC push-out specimen with a bolt interface, as listed in
Table 1. One typical push-out test specimen was a short piece of GFRP I-
section girder connected to two UHPC (or NSC) slabs by epoxy adhesive
and bolts (or only bolts). It should be noted that repeated specimen was
not conducted in this study, which is the usual procedure in the push-out
test.
The experimental parameters included the concrete strength (UHPC
or NSC), the interface type (epoxy-bolt interface or bolt interface), the
bolt spacing sbolt (100 mm, 150 mm or 200 mm), the bolt embedding
length in the concrete hbolt (40 mm, 70 mm, 100 mm or 130 mm), the
bolt number nbolt (4, 8 or 12), the bolt diameter dbolt (10 mm, 14 mm or
18 mm) and the bolt strength σ bolt (400 MPa or 800 MPa). The nomen­
clature of the tested specimens listed in Table 1 is explained as follows.
The symbols C1 and C2 represent the epoxy-bolt interface and bolt
interface, respectively. The symbols H and L represent the grade 8.8
high-strength steel bolt and grade 4.8 normal-strength steel bolt,
respectively. The symbols U and N denote UHPC and NSC, respectively.
The configurations of the tested push-out specimens are depicted in
Fig. 2. The short piece of the GFRP I-section girder had a cross section of
200 mm × 122 mm × 14 mm × 18 mm (girder depth × flange width ×
flange thickness × web thickness), as shown in Fig. 2(a). The two UHPC/
NSC slabs, which are shown in Fig. 2(b) and (c), had dimensions of 300
mm × 150 mm × 500 mm (width × thickness × height). There was no
reinforcement present in the slabs of all specimens. The GFRP and
concrete components were connected by bolts with/without an epoxy
interface. The bolts were fixed to the GFRP flanges at a fixed torque, and
the predesigned hbolt (40 mm, 70 mm, 100 mm or 130 mm) was reserved
before casting the UHPC/NSC (see Fig. 2(d)). The epoxy interface was
P. Zhang et al. Structures 54 (2023) 263–279

Table 1
Test matrix of the push-out specimens.
Specimen Normal section Concrete Interface type σbolt dbolt hbolt nbolt sbolt
(MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm)

C1-H-U1 Fig. 2(e) UHPC Epoxy-bolt 800 14 100 8 150

C1-H-U2 Fig. 2(g) UHPC Epoxy-bolt 800 14 100 8 100
C1-H-U3 Fig. 2(h) UHPC Epoxy-bolt 800 14 100 8 200
C1-H-U4 Fig. 2(e) UHPC Epoxy-bolt 800 14 40 8 150
C1-H-U5 Fig. 2(e) UHPC Epoxy-bolt 800 14 70 8 150
C1-H-U6 Fig. 2(e) UHPC Epoxy-bolt 800 14 130 8 150
C1-H-U7 Fig. 2(i) UHPC Epoxy-bolt 800 14 100 4 150
C1-H-U8 Fig. 2(j) UHPC Epoxy-bolt 800 14 100 12 150
C1-H-U9 Fig. 2(e) UHPC Epoxy-bolt 800 10 100 8 150
C1-H-U10 Fig. 2(e) UHPC Epoxy-bolt 800 18 100 8 150
C1-L-U11 Fig. 2(e) UHPC Epoxy-bolt 400 14 100 8 150
C2-H-U12 Fig. 2(f) UHPC Bolt 800 14 100 8 150
C2-H-N13 Fig. 2(f) NSC Bolt 800 14 100 8 150

Note: σbolt = nominal tensile strength of the bolt; dbolt = bolt diameter; hbolt = bolt-embedding length in concrete; nbolt = bolt number; and sbolt = longitudinal bolt
spacing.

approximately 0.5–1.0 mm thick. Specific details of the various speci­
mens can be found in Fig. 2(e)-(j), where the transverse spacing of the
bolts was kept at 80 mm and the longitudinal spacing was varied,
ranging from 100 mm to 150 mm and 200 mm.
from three prism specimens with dimensions of 150 mm × 150 mm ×
300 mm. The average values of the compressive strength, tensile
strength and elastic modulus of the UHPC were 152.7 MPa, 8.3 MPa and
43.4 GPa with coefficients of variation of 0.027, 0.039 and 0.025,
respectively.

2.2. Materials
2.2.3. NSC
C40 NSC was used in this study. According to GB/T 50081-2019
2.2.1. GFRP
[47], the compressive strength of NSC was tested at 28 days using
As shown in Fig. 3, the GFRP I-section girder, commercially available
three 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm cubes that were simultaneously cast
from KangTe Composite Company, Nanjing, China, was made of E-glass
with the push-out specimen, and the result was 43.8 MPa with a coef­
fibres and unsaturated resin by using a pultrusion process. The volume
ficient of variation of 0.016.
percentage of fibres was 80% according to the manufacturer. Unidi­
rectional rovings were paved in the 0◦ direction in the core and sand­
2.2.4. Epoxy
wiched between two surface layers that were paved with one layer of
A two-component epoxy of carbon fibre strand rod (CFSR)-type
90◦ fibres and two layers of 45◦ fibres. The surface density of the surface
impregnated AB glue was used as the bonding adhesive at the GFRP-
layer was 780 g/m2. In addition, the flanges and web of the GFRP girder
UHPC interface, and the mass ratio of the epoxy resin to curing agent
had the same fibre layout and structure. The density of the GFRP girder
was 2:1. The mechanical properties of the epoxy were tested through the
was 2100 kg/m3, as provided by the manufacturer.
tensile test per GB/T 2567-2021 [48]. Five replicate specimens were
To assess the material properties of the GFRP girder in different di­
adopted, and the average values of the tensile strength, elastic modulus,
rections, a series of coupon tests were carried out, and the coupon
ultimate elongation and Poisson’s ratio were 39.2 MPa, 2983 MPa,
specimens were cut from the same batch of GFRP girders used in the
1.33% and 0.36 with coefficients of variation of 0.02, 0.027, 0.03 and
push-out test. According to GB/T 3356-2014 [42] and ASTM D3039/
0.023, respectively. Fig. 4 shows the flange of the GFRP girder and steel
D3039M-00 [43], the tensile mechanical properties in the longitudinal
bolts applied with the epoxy.
direction (0◦ ) and transverse direction (90◦ ) of the GFRP girder were
measured (three replicate specimens in each direction), including the
2.2.5. Steel bolts
tensile strength, tensile modulus and Poisson’s ratio. According to GB/T
The grades of the steel bolts were M4.8 normal-strength bolts and
14208.3-2009 [44], compressive tests were performed to obtain the
M8.8 high-strength bolts with nominal tensile strengths of 400 MPa and
compressive strength and compressive modulus of the GFRP girder in
800 MPa, respectively. The diameter of the bolts ranged from 10 mm to
both the longitudinal and transverse directions and Poisson’s ratio in the
14 mm and 18 mm, and the thread pitch ranged from 1.5 mm to 2 mm
material compression direction (three replicate specimens in each di­
and 2.5 mm. Steel washers with outer diameters ranging from 20 mm to
rection). According to ASTM D3039/D3039M-00 [43], a ± 45◦ shear
28 mm and 34 mm, inner diameters ranging from 10.5 mm to 14.5 mm
test of the GFRP girder was carried out using three replicate specimens
and 18 mm, and thicknesses of 2 mm were used to disperse the stress
to obtain the shear strength and shear modulus. It should be noted that
caused by the pretightening force of the steel bolts and prevent damage
the shear specimens were obtained by cutting along the angle of 45◦
to the GFRP flanges under concentrated stress. In addition, the surface of
with longitudinal fibres of the GFRP girder. The average material
the steel bolts was oxidized and blackened to improve their corrosion
properties of the GFRP girder are listed in Table 2.
resistance. The photo of the steel bolts is shown in Fig. 5.

2.2.2. UHPC
The mix proportion of the UHPC is listed in Table 3. The mix had a
low water-to-binder ratio of approximately 19.4%; thus, the hardened
UHPC could be very dense. The slump flow of the UHPC was 78 cm per
JGJ/T 283-2012 [45], which revealed the good working performance of
the UHPC. According to GB 50010-2010 [46], the compressive strength
of the UHPC (fc) was tested at 28 days using three 150 mm × 150 mm ×
150 mm cubes that were simultaneously cast with slab components. The
tensile strength was obtained from three dog bone-shaped specimens
according to GB50010-2010 [46]. The elastic modulus (Ec) was obtained
2.3. Test setup
Fig. 6(a) shows the test setup for the push-out specimens. The push-
out test was carried out on a 500-t loading apparatus. The bottom of the
concrete (UHPC or NSC) slabs on both sides and the top surface of the
GFRP I-girder were paved with fine sand for levelling, thereby ensuring
a uniform stress distribution when loaded by the actuator. At the
beginning of the test, preloading was carried out by a monotonic force
controller at a loading rate of 1 kN/s and stopped at 30 kN, which aimed

265
P. Zhang et al.
Fig. 2. Details of push-out specimen. (Unit in mm). Note: Specific normal sections (e)-(i) of the corresponding specimens are listed in Table 1.
at checking the workability of the test setup and eliminating possible
gaps between the actuator and push-out specimen. Then, formal loading
was initiated at a loading rate of 0.5 kN/s until reaching the final failure.
The vertical deformation of the concrete slabs was measured by the
average value of four linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs)
1–4 installed in the middle height of the slabs, and the vertical
displacement of the GFRP girder was obtained from the average value of
LVDTs 5 and 6 that were placed on both sides of the web. Thus, the
relative slip between the GFRP girder and two concrete slabs, s, can be
obtained by Eq. (1).
s = s1 − s2 (1)
266
Structures 54 (2023) 263–279
where s1 and s2 are the average vertical displacements of the GFRP
girder and concrete slabs, respectively.
The layout of the strain gauges arranged in specimen C1-H-U1 is
presented in Fig. 6(b) as an example. Three strain gauges (one strain
gauge arranged in the middle of the upper and lower bolt holes and two
strain gauges with a spacing of 30 mm arranged around the lowest bolt
hole) were arranged on the GFRP flange to measure the strain distri­
bution. Because of the existence of variables such as the bolt spacing and
bolt number, the positions of the strain gauges in different specimens
were not all the same, and the specific strain gauge layouts can be found
in Section 4.
P. Zhang et al. Structures 54 (2023) 263–279

(a) Illustration of the lay-up design of pultruded GFRP I-

(b) Photo
section girder
Fig. 3. Details of the GFRP I-section girder.

slip cracks completely penetrated along the GFRP-UHPC interface. The

Table 2
epoxy layer completely debonded, and the bolts became the only shear
Average material properties of the GFRP girder.
connectors contributing to the interfacial force transfer. It should be
Test Strength Modulus Ultimate Poisson’s noted that failure mode I is a failure mode that mainly occurred at an
(MPa) (GPa) strain (%) ratio
early loading stage rather than the final failure mode.
Longitudinal 614.5 48.9 1.07 0.20 Fig. 7(c) shows the failure mode II, i.e., the bolt shank shear failure,
tension
which was found in all specimens except specimens C1-H-U2, C1-H-U10
Transverse tension 59.6 16.3 0.34
Longitudinal 598.8 39.4 1.10 0.35 and C2-H-N13. The sbolt was decreased in specimen C1-H-U2 and the dbolt
compression was increased in specimen C1-H-U10, which resulted in an earlier failure
Transverse 162.3 18.1 1.10 of the GFRP flanges before the occurrence of bolt shank shear failure. For
compression specimen C2-H-N13, concrete failure occurred before failure mode II
± 45◦ shear 30.8 10.1 0.66
due to the low concrete strength. For these specimens that experienced
–

3. Test results and discussion
3.1. Failure modes
Four types of typical failure modes observed in the push-out speci­
mens in this study are shown in Fig. 7: (I) debonding of the epoxy layer,
(II) bolt shank shear failure, (III) GFRP flange shear-out failure and (IV)
concrete failure. The failure modes of all specimens are shown in Fig. 8,
and the final failure mode for each specimen is listed in Table 4.
Fig. 7(b) shows the failure mode I, in which the debonding of the
epoxy layer mainly occurred at an early loading stage in all specimens
with an epoxy-bolt interface. This phenomenon is explained as follows.
The load applied to the GFRP I-section girder in the push-out specimens
with an epoxy-bolt interface was transferred to the UHPC slabs mostly
by the epoxy adhesive prior to interfacial debonding. The loading pro­
cess of these specimens that exhibited failure mode I was similar. From
the initial loading to approximately 0.35pu (pu = ultimate load), a slight
peeling sound was heard, and slip cracks began to appear at the interface
between the GFRP girder and UHPC slabs from the load end. As the load
increased, the peeling sound gradually became louder, and slip cracks
gradually developed at the free end. Finally, at approximately 0.6pu, the
failure mode II, from approximately 0.7pu to 0.9pu, small cracks in the
GFRP flanges around the bolt holes were found, fibre tearing sounds
were heard, and the bolts were inclined. With increasing load, the
tearing sound of the fibres became louder and more frequent. Finally, at
pu, the steel bolts on one side shear-fractured in the shanks, as it was
difficult to ensure a completely uniform stress state of the bolts on both
sides during the test. In addition, no cracks around the bolt shank could
be observed in the UHPC slabs because the stresses transferred from the
bolts borne by the UHPC slabs ranged from 18 MPa to 91 MPa, which
were far less than the compressive strength of the UHPC (152.7 MPa).
Fig. 7(d) shows the failure mode III, i.e., the GFRP flange shear-out
failure, which was observed in specimens C1-H-U1, C1-H-U2, C1-H-
U4, C1-H-U7, C1-H-U8 and C1-H-U10. From approximately 0.7pu to
0.9pu, small cracks occurred in both GFRP flanges around the lowest bolt
holes, and a similar experimental phenomenon was reported by Zou
et al. [10]. After 0.9 pu , these cracks gradually became wider and longer
at the GFRP flanges along the line close to the bolts (red line in Fig. 7(d)).
Finally, at pu, cracks were seen from the top to the bottom on one side or
both sides of the GFRP flanges. Both failure modes II and III occurred in
specimens C1-H-U1, C1-H-U4, C1-H-U7 and C1-H-U8. It should be
emphasized that the bolt shank shear failure was the control failure
mode for the specimens that occurred both failure modes II and III, and

Table 3
Mix proportions of UHPC.
Portland cement (P.O 52.5) Fly Silica 0–1 mm 1–3 mm Superplasticizer Water binderratio Steel
ash fume sintered sintered (W/B) fibre
bauxite bauxite

1 0.09 0.21 0.225 1 7.5% 0.194 3%

Note: The mass of cement was taken as 1, and the mass ratios of the fly ash, silica fume, sintered bauxite and superplasticizer to cement are listed in Table 1. The volume
ratio of steel fibres to UHPC was 3%.

267
P. Zhang et al. Structures 54 (2023) 263–279

implies the full utilization of the performance of the GFRP girder.

However, the shear failure of the GFRP web was not observed in this
study. It can be explained as follows. As can be seen from Fig. 8(a), a 40
mm thick loading steel plate was placed on the top of the GFRP profile to
ensure that the load was uniformly applied to the GFRP I-girder, so that
the push-out specimen was in a pure shear stress state. With this
arrangement, the stress of the GFRP web remained relatively low during
the loading process. In addition, the thickness and the shear strength of
the GFRP web were 18 mm and 30.8 MPa, respectively, providing
adequate resistance to the load. When the four types of failure modes
mentioned above occurred, the shear stress was lower than the shear
strength of the GFRP web, therefore, the GFRP web did not undergo the
shear failure.

3.2. Ultimate load and slip

The test results of all push-out specimens are summarized in Table 4.

su expresses the relative slip along the GFRP-concrete interface related to
pu. ks refers to the shear stiffness, which was mainly used to evaluate the
anti-slip performance of the push-out specimen during the entire loading
process and can be calculated from Eq. (2) per Eurocode 4 [49].

Fig. 4. Apply the epoxy. ks =

0.7pu
(2)
Sy

where sy is the relative slip corresponding to 0.7 times pu. The load-slip
relationship of all specimens is illustrated in Fig. 9, where the abscissa
represents the slip value and the ordinate shows the applied load.
As shown in Fig. 9 and tabulated in Table 4, the pu values of speci­
mens with the epoxy layer ranged from 302.1 kN to 874.4 kN, and a
comparison between the ultimate loads of specimens C1-H-U1 and C2-
H-U12 demonstrated that the use of the epoxy layer resulted in a 10%
increase in the ultimate load, which proved the positive effect of the
employment of epoxy resin. The most significant increase in pu was
caused by the change in nbolt and dbolt. The pu of specimen C1-H-U8 with
a bolt number of 12 (874.4 kN) was 189% higher than that of specimen
C1-H-U7 with a bolt number of 4 (302.1 kN), and the pu of specimen C1-
H-U10 with a bolt diameter of 18 mm (873.8 kN) was 177% higher than
that of specimen C1-H-U9 with a bolt diameter of 10 mm (315.2 kN).
To clearly show the contribution of each bolt, the load per bolt (qu)
was calculated (see Table 4). The largest and smallest qu of all specimens
could be found in specimen C1-H-U10 with a qu of 109.2 kN and spec­
imen C1-H-U9 with a qu of 39.4 kN, respectively; therefore, it is obvious
to draw the conclusion that the load borne by each single bolt was
positively correlated with the bolt diameter. Almost the same qu values
were found in specimens C1-H-U1 (76.4 kN), C1-H-U7 (75.5 kN) and C1-
H-U8 (72.9 kN), which showed that the change in the number of bolts
had no obvious effect on qu.
The shear failure of the GFRP flange was caused by the stress of the
bolt hole against the bolt being greater than the shear strength of the
Fig. 5. Steel bolts.
GFRP, but the rule between the value of qu and flange shear failure has
not been found. The reason can be explained as follows: (1) the qu did
these two failure modes occurred on different sides of the GFRP I-girder.
not represent the real situation of the bolt stress, as the load was usually
Fig. 7(e) shows the failure mode IV, that is, the concrete failure,
not evenly distributed among each bolt. The actual force of at least one
which only occurred in specimen C2-H-N13 using NSC slabs. During the
of the bolts would always be greater than qu. (2) The value of qu was not
loading process, the cracks continued to develop and widened from the
the only factor that affected the GFRP flange shear-out failure. Factors
bottom of the NSC slabs along the transverse and longitudinal directions.
such as the bolt spacing, bolt number and bolt embedding length in
Finally, the concrete was penetrated by cracks and destroyed before the
concrete would change the stress state of the GFRP flanges.
GFRP girder or bolts were damaged, which demonstrated a low utili­
A comparison of the slip at the ultimate load of each specimen shows
zation of the bolt materials and GFRP girder. The above phenomenon
that the su values of all specimens with the epoxy layer, except for
was attributed to the lower compressive strength of NSC (43.8 MPa)
specimen C1-H-U5 with a su of 6.57 (explained in Section 4.4), ranged
than UHPC (152.7 MPa), as presented in Section 2.3. The failure mode
from 2.09 to 5.27 mm, which was less than that of C2-H-U12 without
IV was regarded as an unsatisfactory failure mode and can be prevented
epoxy (5.38 mm). It could be proven that the use of epoxy significantly
by using UHPC.
reduced su. Likewise, the variation in ks demonstrated that the shear
The shear failure of the GFRP web may occur when the GFRP web is
stiffness significantly increased with the use of the epoxy interface, i.e.,
relatively thin or the shear strength is relatively low. This failure mode
better anti-slip performance was obtained by using the epoxy. An

268
P. Zhang et al. Structures 54 (2023) 263–279

(a) Push-out test (b) Layout of strain gauges

Fig. 6. Test setup. (Unit in mm).

(a) Summary of failure modes

(b) Debonding of the epoxy layer (c) Bolt shank shear failure

(d) GFRP flange shear-out (e) Concrete failure

Fig. 7. Failure modes.

increase between 44% and 216% could be observed in the specimens
with an epoxy-bolt interface, except for specimen C1-H-U7 with a ks of
170.5 kN/mm (explained in Section 4.5), compared with specimen C2-
H-U12 without epoxy (189.9 kN/mm). Furthermore, the su values of
specimens C1-H-U9 and C1-L-U11 were the two smallest, whereas their
ks values were the two largest. This phenomenon is explained as follows.
After the epoxy resin was completely debonded, the bolts could not
withstand the load transmitted from the loading section due to the
decrease in dbolt in specimen C1-H-U9 and σ bolt in specimen C1-H-U11
and were quickly cut off. Their ultimate loads were only 36% − 79%

269
P. Zhang et al.
(a) C1-H-U1
(c) C1-H-U3
(e) C1-H-U5
(g) C1-H-U7
Fig. 8. Failure modes of all specimens.
of the other specimens with 8 bolts and epoxy-bolt interfaces, and their
slip values at 0.70pu (16% − 76% of other specimens with 8 bolts and
epoxy-bolt interfaces) were small, which led to a larger ks per Eq. (2).
4. Discussion
4.1. Effect of concrete strength
To study the influence of the concrete strength on the shear perfor­
mance of the push-out specimen, specimens C2-H-U12 using UHPC slabs
and C2-H-N13 using NSC slabs were compared. The failure modes of the
two specimens were worthy of attention. Specimen C2-H-U12 eventu­
ally suffered bolt shear shank failure; however, specimen C2-H-N13
suffered concrete failure. Based on experimental observations, spec­
imen C2-H-N13 with NSC slabs exhibited many cracks due to splitting,
while no visible cracks could be seen in specimen C2-H-U12 using UHPC
slabs. The integrity of the UHPC slabs was well maintained, which
270
Structures 54 (2023) 263–279
(b) C1-H-U2
(d) C1-H-U4
(f) C1-H-U6
(h) C1-H-U8
proved that the use of UHPC could enhance the durability and sustain­
ability of the structure. The earlier failure of the NSC than the bolts
demonstrated a low utilization ratio of the shear connector in specimen
C2-H-N13.
Fig. 10(a) and Table 4 clearly show that pu of specimen C2-H-U12
using UHPC slabs was 2.6% higher than that of specimen C2-H-N13
using NSC slabs, which surprisingly indicated that the use of UHPC
only had a small influence on the bearing capacity of specimens with a
bolt number of 8 and a bolt diameter of 14 mm. The stresses borne by the
concrete slabs transferred from the bolts of specimens C2-H-U12 and C2-
H-N13 were approximately 38.3 MPa and 39.5 MPa at the failure point,
respectively. The excellent compressive property of UHPC was not re­
flected due to the small capacity of a single bolt connector. The variation
law of qu was the same as that of pu because the number of bolts of these
two specimens was equal.
Fig. 10(a) shows that the interfacial slip of specimen C2-H-U12 was
always smaller than that of specimen C2-H-N13 until the load was close
P. Zhang et al. Structures 54 (2023) 263–279

(i) C1-H-U9 (j) C1-H-U10

(k) C1-L-U11 (l) C2-H-U12

(m) C2-N-U13
Fig. 8. (continued).

Table 4 1000
Test results of the push-out specimens. C1-H-U1
900 C1-H-U2
Specimen pu qu su sy ks (kN/ Final failure C1-H-U3
(kN) (kN) (mm) (mm) mm) mode 800 C1-H-U4
C1-H-U5
C1-H-U1 610.8 76.4 5.07 1.57 272.3 II C1-H-U6
C1-H-U2 511.1 63.9 4.23 0.90 397.5 III 700 C1-H-U7
C1-H-U3 625.9 78.2 5.27 1.63 268.8 II C1-H-U8
Load (kN)

C1-H-U4 641.5 80.2 5.07 1.35 332.6 II 600 C1-H-U9

C1-H-U5 629.9 78.7 6.57 1.53 288.2 II C1-H-U10
C1-H-U6 528.9 66.1 3.17 0.91 406.8 II 500 C1-L-U11
C1-H-U7 302.1 75.5 4.66 1.24 170.5 II C2-H-U12
C1-H-U8 874.4 72.9 5.07 1.59 385.0 II 400 C2-H-N13
C1-H-U9 315.2 39.4 2.60 0.37 596.3 II
C1-H- 873.8 109.2 4.72 1.93 316.9 III 300
U10
C1-L-U11 403.6 50.5 2.09 0.68 415.5 II 200
C2-H- 556.0 69.5 5.38 2.05 189.9 II
U12 100
C2-H- 541.8 67.7 4.83 2.38 159.4 IV
N13 0
5 Slip (mm)
Fig. 9. Load-slip curves.

271
P. Zhang et al. Structures 54 (2023) 263–279

(a) Load-slip curves (b) Load-strain response

Fig. 10. Effect of concrete strength.

to pu of specimen C2-H-N13. As listed in Table 4, su in specimen U2-H-

U12 (5.07 mm) increased by 11% compared with the slip in specimen
C2-H-N13 (4.83 mm), which might be contrary to the previous study
[10] that the specimens using UHPC should have a lower su compared
with the specimens using NSC under the same experimental conditions
due to the strong constraining force of UHPC on bolts. This contradiction
could be attributed to the following reasons: (1) the concrete was
damaged before the bolts failed in specimen C2-H-N13, which prevented
the bolt from yielding and the development of interfacial slipping
resulting from the yield of the bolts. (2) According to Eq. (1), the large
number of cracks that appeared in the NSC slabs significantly increased
the vertical displacement of the concrete slabs (s2), which caused a
decrease in the calculation of the relative slip (s = s1-s2). However, the ks
of specimen C2-H-U12 was approximately 19% higher than that of
specimen C2-H-N13, which was attributed to UHPC having a higher
elasticity modulus and compressive strength than NSC. It could be
concluded that compared with the specimen using NSC slabs, the spec­
imen using UHPC slabs had a better constraining effect on the high-
strength bolts in the UHPC slabs, and the ultimate load and shear stiff­
ness were improved. The concrete slab failure could be prevented by
using UHPC, allowing the shear performance of the bolted connector to
be fully exerted. Thus, it is recommended to preferentially choose UHPC
rather than NSC for composite structures if large bolts are used or higher
durability is needed. Fig. 11. Bearing failure.
The comparison of the strain distributions in the GFRP flanges of
specimens C2-H-U12 and C2-H-N13 is shown in Fig. 10(b), where the failure occurred at point B but not at point A.
negative strain represents the compressive state and the positive strain For specimen C2-H-N13, bearing failure did not occur at point B at
represents the tensile state. For specimens C2-H-U12 and C2-H-N13 0.7pu, and the strain value at point B was always less than that of
without the epoxy interface, almost no strain developed at points A, B specimen C2-H-U12 at the same load level. The maximum difference in
and C when the load was less than 50 kN due to the static friction be­ strain values of specimens C2-H-N13 and C2-H-U12 was observed at 450
tween the concrete and the GFRP I-girder. A difference between the kN, and the strain value of the latter was 2.5 times that of the former.
strains recorded for strain gauges B and C was observed in these two This phenomenon demonstrates that the load borne by a single bolt of
specimens when the load was greater than 50 kN, which indicated a slip specimen C2-H-N13 was always less than that of specimen C2-H-U12
between the girder and slabs. Furthermore, strain gauge B showed a and proves that the material properties of the bolts in specimen C2-H-
negative value after the load became greater than 50 kN, meaning that N13 were not fully utilized.
point B was in the compressive state as the bolt shank contacted the
upper edge of the bolt hole (see Fig. 10(b)).
4.2. Effect at the epoxy interface
For specimen C2-H-U12, the stress at point A was mainly transferred
from point B, and when the load was less than 200 kN, the difference
Fig. 12(a) shows the load versus slip responses of the specimens with
between the strains recorded for strain gauges A (309 με) and B (835 με)
two different interfaces by comparing specimens C1-H-U1 with the
was relatively small. This implied that the bearing failure (see Fig. 11
epoxy-bolt interface and C2-H-U12 with the bolt interface. As indicated
and can also be found in Nguyen [36]) did not occur at the locations of
in Fig. 12(a) and tabulated in Table 4, the pu and qu of C1-H-U1 were all
strain gauge B under this load. With increasing load, the difference be­
higher than those of specimen C2-H-U12 by almost 10%, which indi­
tween the average strains of points A and B increased. The average
cated that the use of an epoxy interface had a positive effect on
strains of points A and B were 619 με and 3473 με at 0.7pu (i.e., 70% of
improving the ultimate bearing capacity and shear capacity of a single
the ultimate load where the small cracks appeared around the bolt
bolt. Fig. 12(a) shows that the curve of specimen C1-H-U1 behaved
holes). The corresponding shear stresses at points A and B were 6.2 MPa
almost linearly, and the slip was very small (0.19 mm) when the load
and 35.1 MPa, respectively, which were approximately 0.2 and 1.1 times
was less than 0.35pu. This phenomenon indicated that the load at the
the shear strength of the GFRP flange (Table 2). Obviously, local shear
GFRP-UHPC interface was mainly transferred by the epoxy adhesive

272
P. Zhang et al.
(a) Load-slip curves
Fig. 12. Effect of interface.
prior to debonding.
In contrast to specimen C2-H-U12 without the epoxy interface, su in
specimen C1-H-U1 was 3.8% lower and ks in specimen C1-H-U1 was
40% higher due to the contribution of the epoxy bonding. After the
interface slip, the interfacial force was only induced by the bolts;
therefore, the load-slip curves of these two specimens were nearly par­
allel. Furthermore, it is important to note that compared with the study
by Nguyen et al., where the shear failure of the bolts occurred imme­
diately after the debonding of the epoxy layers [36], the brittle failure
mode was avoided, and the bolts carried additional shear loads after
debonding of epoxy layers in this study. Therefore, it is necessary to
design the interface between the girder and slabs with the ultimate
resistance of the epoxy interface smaller than the shear strength of the
bolts to avoid a brittle failure mode.
Fig. 12(b) shows the effect of the epoxy interface on the strain dis­
tributions in the GFRP flanges of specimens C1-H-U1 and C2-H-U12. For
specimen C1-H-U1, there was no significant strain difference among
points A, B and C until the load increased to 0.35pu. This agreed well
with observations from the load versus slip relationship, i.e., there was
almost no slip between the GFRP I-girder and slabs before 0.35pu. After
0.35pu, the strain difference was found between strain gauges B and C,
which indicated the debonding of the epoxy layer. The strain values of
points A and B in specimen C1-H-U1 were less than those in specimen
C2-H-U12 under the same load, proving that the existence of the epoxy
resin could slow down the contact between the bolt shank and upper
edge of the bolt hole.
However, the ultimate strains of points A and B in specimen C1-H-U1
were larger than those in specimen C2-H-U12, as the bolt bore more
force that was originally borne by the epoxy interface after the
debonding of the epoxy layer, and a larger contact stress existed on the
bolt hole. The average strains of points A and B of specimen C1-H-U1 at
0.7pu were 132 με and 1424 με, and the corresponding shear stresses at
(a) Load-slip curves
Fig. 13. Effect of bolt spacing.
273
Structures 54 (2023) 263–279
(b) Load-strain response
points A and B were 1.3 MPa and 14.4 MPa, respectively, which meant
that local shear failure did not occur at 0.7 pu for specimen C1-H-U1. The
local shear failure at point B occurred when the strain value became
3055 με at 0.85pu for specimen C1-H-U1. This shows that the use of
epoxy resin could delay the destruction of GFRP flanges compared with
specimen C2-H-U12, which experienced local shear failure at 0.7pu.
4.3. Effect of the bolt spacing
Fig. 13(a) shows the load versus slip responses of the specimens with
different bolt spacings by comparing specimens C1-H-U1 with a sbolt of
150 mm, C1-H-U2 with a sbolt of 100 mm and C1-H-U3 with a sbolt of 200
mm. Fig. 13(a) shows that the curves of these three specimens almost
coincided with each other at the early loading stage (p < 0.35pu), which
meant that the sbolt had little effect on the shear performance of the
specimens at this stage. This is explained by the load at the GFRP-UHPC
interface being mainly sustained by the epoxy before interfacial
debonding. With increasing the load, the slip of specimen C1-H-U2
increased much faster than those of specimens C1-H-U1 and C1-H-U3,
and the slip of CI-H-U2 was approximately 1.6 times that of specimens
C1-H-U1 and C1-H-U3 at a load of 500 kN.
Compared with specimen C1-H-U2, the pu values of specimens C1-H-
U1 and C1-H-U3 were increased by approximately 19.5% and 22.5%,
respectively. The variation law of qu was the same as that of pu due to the
same bolt number in these three specimens. As the sbolt decreased, the
failure mode changed from bolt shank shear (specimens C1-H-U1 and
C1-H-U3) to GFRP flange shear-out (specimen C1-H-U2), which was
regarded as a premature failure and underutilized the shear capacity of
the bolts. Comparing specimens C1-H-U1 and C1-H-U3 controlled by
bolt shank shear failure, it is obvious that the load-slip curves of these
two specimens were almost the same. Compared with specimen C1-H-
U1, the pu of specimen C1-H-U3 was increased by 2.5%, the su was
(b) Load-strain response
P. Zhang et al.
increased by 3.9%, and the ks was decreased by 1.3%. The small increase
in pu, su and ks means that the sbolt only had little effect (within the
parameter range discussed in this study) on the shear performance of the
specimens with the same number of bolts. Therefore, the sbolt of GFRP-
UHPC structures should be optimally designed in practical engineering
to achieve optimal interface performance while avoiding any wasting of
shear capacity of the bolts.
As the strain values of points B and C were easily affected by the
damage around the bolt hole, only the strain value of point A was
selected, simplifying the data complexity, to analyse the influence of
different bolt spacings on the strain distribution, as shown in Fig. 13(b).
The strain value of point A was always 0 in specimen C1-H-U2 when the
load was less than 200 kN. Then, the strain value began to gradually
increase, indicating that the bolts began to bear the load at the GFRP-
UHPC interface after epoxy interfacial debonding. A sharp increase in
the strain value at point A was found at a load of 450 kN, which meant
that the damage on the GFRP flange began to appear and developed
rapidly. As tabulated in Table 4, specimen C1-H-U2 had the smallest qu
(63.9 kN) among these three specimens, but the strain value of point A at
the failure load was the largest. This phenomenon is explained as fol­
lows. The strain gauge of point A was arranged along the centreline
between the upper and lower bolts, and strains mainly developed along
the failure line. For specimens C1-H-U1 and C1-H-U2, which both
experienced shear-out failure of the GFRP flange, the failure of specimen
C1-H-U1 occurred along the bolt edge (see Fig. 14(a)), while the failure
of specimen C1-H-U2 occurred along the centreline between the upper
and lower bolts (see Fig. 14(b)). Therefore, a larger strain value was
recorded in specimen C1-H-U2 by comparing specimens C1-H-U1 and
C1-H-U3. In addition, it is necessary to mention that specimen C1-H-U2
was the only specimen in which shear failure occurred along the cen­
treline between the upper and lower bolts in this study.
4.4. Effect of bolt-embedding length in concrete
The effect of the bolt-embedding length in concrete (hbolt) was
investigated using specimens C1-H-U1 with a hbolt of 100 mm, C1-H-U4
with a hbolt of 40 mm, C1-H-U5 with a hbolt of 70 mm and C1-H-U6 with a
hbolt of 130 mm, as presented in Fig. 15(a). Compared with specimen C1-
H-U6, the pu values of specimens C1-H-U1, C1-H-U5 and C1-H-U4
increased by 15%, 19% and 21%, respectively, which indicated that
the decrease in hbolt had a positive effect on pu. Likewise, the variation
law of qu was the same as that of pu, which also proved that the decrease
in hbolt increased the shear resistance of a single bolt. The above phe­
nomenon is explained as the small hbolt being more prone to an incli­
nation of bolts (see Fig. 16), and the inclination of bolts in concrete
allowed them to bend and slip inside the UHPC slabs to resist additional
shear force after cracking of the UHPC slabs [36].
Compared with specimen C1-H-U6, the su values of specimens C1-H-
(a) Flange shear-out failure along the bolt edge
Fig. 14. Shear-out failure of GFRP flange of specimens (a) C1-H-U1 and (b) C1-H-U2.
274
Structures 54 (2023) 263–279
U1 and C1-H-U5 increased by 59% and 107%, respectively, which meant
that when the hbolt was in the range of 70 mm − 130 mm, su increased
with decreasing hbolt. Table 4 shows that the two largest ks in these four
specimens could be found in specimens C1-H-U4 with the largest stiff­
ness of bolts and C1-H-U6 with the strongest binding force of concrete on
the bolts. This is mainly because the ks of the specimens could be posi­
tively affected by both the binding force of the concrete acting on the
bolts and the stiffness of the bolts. (1) As shown in Fig. 16, the binding
force of concrete acting on the bolt is positively correlated with the hbolt,
and a small hbolt resulted in a more serious inclination of the bolts in the
concrete, which caused the enlarged vertical displacement (along the
direction of force loading) of the bolt and decreased the anti-slip ability
of the specimens. (2) The typically short and stiff bolts could be seen at
the specimens with a small hbolt [50]. They were not prone to defor­
mation compared with other longer and less stiff bolts under the same
load, which improved the shear stiffness of the specimens. Within the
parameter range discussed in this study, the shear capacity and ductility
can be improved by appropriately reducing the depth of the hbolt when
designing GFRP-UHPC structures.
Fig. 15(b) shows the load–strain distributions at point A of specimens
with different hbolt values. The strain values at point A for specimens C1-
H-U1, C1-H-U5 and C1-H-U6 under the failure load had a positive cor­
relation with qu. Notably, for specimen C1-H-U4 that failed due to the
GFRP flange shear-out, the strain value at point A under the failure load
was not the largest even though it had the largest qu in these four
specimens, as the shear failure of specimen C1-H-U4 occurred along the
bolt edge (see Fig. 7(d)). However, point A was arranged along the
centreline between the upper and lower bolts, resulting in a smaller
strain at point A.
4.5. Effect of the number of bolts
The effect of the number of bolts (nbolt) was investigated using
specimens C1-H-U1 with 8 bolts, C1-H-U7 with 4 bolts and C1-H-U8
with 12 bolts, as presented in Fig. 17(a). Compared with specimen C1-
H-U7, the pu values of specimens C1-H-U1 and C1-H-U8 increased by
102% and 189%, respectively, as the increased number of bolts provided
more interfacial resisting capacity. A critical influence of the nbolt on the
ultimate load of the GFRP-UHPC structures was also pointed out by
Guezouli et al. [51]. The qu values of specimens C1-H-U1 and C1-H-U8
were 1.01 and 0.97 times that of specimen C1-H-U7, which showed
that the change in the nbolt only exhibited an extremely slight effect on
the bearing capacity of a single bolt. The su values of specimens C1-H-
U1, C1-H-U7 and C1-H-U8 were slightly varied with the nbolt, as the
difference in qu between these three specimens was small. The shear
stiffness was significantly increased with the nbolt, and the ks of specimen
C1-H-U8 was 1.4 and 2.3 times those of specimens C1-H-U1 and C1-H-
U7, respectively.
(b) Flange shear-out failure between bolts
P. Zhang et al. Structures 54 (2023) 263–279

(a) Load-slip curves (b) Load-strain response

Fig. 15. Effect of bolt-embedding length.

(a) Specimen with large hbolt (b) Specimen with small hbolt
Fig. 16. Effect of bolt-embedding length for bolt inclination.

(a) Load-slip curves (b) Load-strain response

Fig. 17. Effect of number of bolts.

(a) Load-slip curves (b) Load-strain response

Fig. 18. Effect of bolt diameter.

275
P. Zhang et al.
As shown in Fig. 17(b), the strain values of the three specimens of
point A were similar at pu due to similar qu values. For specimen C1-H-
U7, the strain development of point A initiated when the load
approached 50 kN, whereas the strain at point A of specimen C1-H-U8
with 12 bolts mobilized until the load reached 600 kN. The decrease
in the number of bolts weakened the composite effect between the GFRP
girder and UHPC slabs, which made the epoxy layer more likely to be
peeled off and the bolt work earlier.
4.6. Effect of the bolt diameter
Fig. 18(a) shows the load-slip responses of specimens with different
dbolt values by comparing specimens C1-H-U1 with a dbolt of 14 mm, C1-
H-U9 with a dbolt of 10 mm and C1-H-U10 with a dbolt of 18 mm. As
tabulated in Table 4, the qu of specimen C1-H-U10 was 1.4 and 2.8 times
those of specimens C1-H-U1 and C1-H-U9, respectively. This means that
the qu of the specimen highly increased as the bolt diameter increased.
Therefore, the pu of specimens C1-H-U1 and C1-H-U10 increased by
93.8% and 177.2%, respectively, in contrast to specimen C1-H-U9. The
su of specimen C1-H-U1 was increased by 95% compared with specimen
C1-H-U9, showing that a better ductility could be achieved in the
specimen with the increase in dbolt from 10 mm to 14 mm. However,
compared with specimen C1-H-U1, the su of specimen C1-H-U10 was
decreased by 8%. This is mainly because the bolt diameter of specimen
C1-H-U10 was large, resulting in the earlier failure of the GFRP flanges
before the bolts. By comparing the ks of these three specimens, it can be
found that the ks of specimen C1-H-U9 was 2.2 and 1.9 times those of
specimens C1-H-U1 and C1-H-U10, respectively.
A comparison of strain responses among specimens C1-H-U1, C1-H-
U9 and C1-H-U10 is shown in Fig. 18(b). The strain values corre­
sponding to the peak load at point A increased with the bolt diameter.
This is because the load borne by a single bolt increased as the dbolt
increased, increasing the stress at the bolt hole. For specimen C1-H-U9,
the strain of point A at the ultimate load was 197 με, which was only
approximately one-fifth that of specimen C1-H-U1 and one-seventh that
of specimen C1-H-U10. The smallest strain development of point A in
specimen C1-H-U9 was caused by the smallest dbolt. The bolts in spec­
imen C1-H-U9 could not withstand the load transmitted from the
loading section after the epoxy resin debonding and were soon cut off.
4.7. Effect of the bolt strength
The effect of the bolt strength (σ bolt) was investigated using speci­
mens C1-H-U1 with a σ bolt of 800 MPa and C1-L-U11 with a σ bolt of 400
MPa, as presented in Fig. 19(a). Compared with specimen C1-L-U11, the
qu of specimen C1-H-U1 was increased by 51.3%, and the pu of specimen
C1-H-U1 was also increased by 51.3% by contrast to specimen C1-H-U9.
The obvious difference between these two specimens in slip can be
(a) Load-slip curves
Fig. 19. Effect of bolt strength.
276
Structures 54 (2023) 263–279
found in Fig. 19(a), which shows that the su of specimen C1-H-U1 was
143% larger than that of specimen C1-L-U11, meaning that the specimen
with a higher bolt strength exhibited better ductility. The ks of specimen
C1-L-U11 was 1.5 times that of specimen C1-H-U1. The reason for this
phenomenon was similar to the effect of the bolt diameter on ks, i.e., the
bolts of specimen C1-L-U11 were cut off soon after the debonding of the
epoxy resin.
Fig. 19(b) shows the comparison of the load–strain responses at point
A between specimens C1-H-U1 and C1-L-U11. For specimen C1-L-U11,
the strain of point A at the peak load (210 με) was very small and was
only approximately one-fifth that of specimen C1-H-U1, which was
related to the premature destruction of specimen C1-L-U11. In addition,
the strain curve of specimen C1-L-U11 at point A almost coincided with
that of specimen C1-H-U1, indicating that the pressure on the GFRP
flange provided by the same bolt diameter was the same before the
failure of specimen C1-L-U11.
5. Theoretical analysis of the bearing capacity
5.1. Bearing capacity for bolt shank shear failure
All the GFRP-UHPC specimens exhibited bolt shank shear failure
except for specimens C1-H-U2 and C1-H-U10 in this study. Current
design codes, including ACI 318-11 Building Code [52], AISC Specifi­
cation 2011 [53], AASHTO LRFD Specification 2010 [54] and PCI
Handbook 2004 [55], promulgated Eq. (3) for predicting the bearing
capacity of the epoxy-bolt interface with bolt shank shear failure in a
steel–concrete hybrid beam.
pb = nAbolt σbolt (3)
where pb is the predicted bearing capacity; n presents the bolt number in
one push-out specimen; Abolt refers to the cross-sectional area of a bolt;
and σbolt is the tensile strength of a bolt.
According to GBJ17-88 [56], when bolt shear failure occurs and the
shear surface is located at the thread, the effective area of the high-
strength steel bolts should be used to calculate the shear bearing ca­
pacity of the high-strength steel bolts under shear failure, and the
effective area can be calculated from Eq. (4).
( )2
π 13 √̅̅̅
Ae = d- 3p (4)
4 24
where Ae is the effective area of the bolts and p is the thread pitch of the
bolts.
The related research in FRP-concrete composite structures is rela­
tively scarce. In this study, the main failure mode is bolt shank shear
failure, and FRP profiles have sufficient surplus strength. Therefore, it is
worthwhile to reference the calculation method for the bearing capacity
(b) Load-strain response
P. Zhang et al. Structures 54 (2023) 263–279

of steel–concrete composite structures under bolt shank shear failure.
However, the difference in material properties between FRP and steel
has a certain influence on the performance of push-out specimens.
Therefore, a reduction factor φ was applied to Eq. (3) to calculate the
ultimate load of FRP-UHPC specimens, which has been verified and
developed in the literature of Zou et al. [30] (Push-out test for FRP-
concrete specimens with only bolt interface) and Nguyen et al. [36]
(Push-out test for FRP-UHPC specimens with epoxy-bolt interface and
the strength of the epoxy layers is very high). This study mainly focused
on the push-out test for GFRP-UHPC specimens with an epoxy-bolt
interface, and different from the epoxy used in Nguyen et al. [36], the
epoxy used in this study has a low strength to avoid brittle failure of the
specimens. Moreover, the epoxy used in this study is a liquid impreg­
nating adhesive that can be directly and evenly applied onto the GFRP
flange interface in practical engineering applications prior to pouring
the UHPC, which is more in line with the requirements of practical en­
gineering applications. Therefore, it is necessary to refit the reduction
factor (φ), which was found to be 0.82 on average, based on the ratios of
the experimentally obtained ultimate resistance (pu) to the predicted
ultimate resistance (pb) presented in Table 5. Compared with the φ of
0.65 reported by Zou et al. [30], the φ in this study was higher due to the
use of epoxy resin which increased the reserve strength. Nguyen et al.
[36] reported that φ was approximately 1.0, which is higher than the
value of 0.82 observed in the present study. This phenomenon may be
attributed to the higher ultimate resistance of the epoxy interface in the
study [36] compared to the present study. Therefore, this study rec­
ommends using Eq. (5) to calculate the bearing capacity of GFRP-UHPC
specimens with the epoxy-bolt interface under the bolt shank shear
failure mode.
pb = 0.82Abolt σbolt
5.2. Bearing capacity for GFRP flange shear-out failure
There are relatively few studies regarding the calculation of bearing
capacity for specimens under GFRP flange shear-out failure. Zou et al.
[30] analysed the shear stress and strain distribution of FRP profiles at
the bolt hole by performing the push-out tests on FRP-concrete speci­
mens with only a bolt interface and finite element simulation and ob­
tained the following equation (Eq. (6)) by the force balance of a single
bolt:
pf = 2.44nt(e-0.7dbolt )Sxy
end distance at the edge bolt and the space between two bolts along the
fibre direction; and Sxy presents the shear strength of the FRP.
Nguyen et al. [36] suggested a new equation to replace the equation
of Oehlers and Johnson [57] in the push-out test for FRP-UHPC speci­
mens with epoxy-bolt interfaces. This new equation could account for
the effect of the FRP girder when computing pf (Eq. (7)):
( )0.7 ( )0.5 ( )0.15
fc Ec tdbolt σ FRP EFRP
pf = nAbolt σ bolt (7)
σ bolt Esc Esc
where fc is the specified compressive strength of the concrete; Ec rep­
resents the modulus of elasticity of the concrete; Esc represents the
modulus of elasticity of the shear connector (210 GPa in this study); σ FRP
refers to the bearing strength of the girder flanges; and EFRP is the
equivalent modulus of elasticity of the flanges.
The difference (pointed out in Section 5.1) between this study and
previous research lies mainly in the epoxy-bolt interface. Therefore,
these two equations are worth learning to predict the ultimate load for
specimens under GFRP flange shear-out failure in this study. As
mentioned in Section 3.1, for specimens that experienced both failure
modes II and III, mode II was the control failure, which resulted in the
ultimate load. Eqs. (6) and (7) were used to compare against the
experimentally obtained ultimate load of specimens C1-H-U2 and C1-H-
U10, which solely experienced failure mode III (Table 5). Additionally,
the ratios of the experimentally obtained ultimate load (pu) to the pre­
dicted ultimate load (pf) were used to evaluate the results. As shown in
Table 5, the equation for predicting the ultimate load of specimens
under FRP flange shear-out failure provided by Zou et al. [30] (Eq. (6))
exhibited a large deviation from the experimental results of specimens
undergoing failure mode III. This deviation may be a result of the exis­
(5) tence of an epoxy interface, which altered the stress equilibrium state of
the FRP flange. The equation provided by Nguyen et al. [36] (Eq. (7))
demonstrated good correlation (an average ratio of 1.08) with the
experimental results of specimens C1-H-U2 and C1-H-U10. Therefore,
under FRP flange shear-out failure, Eq. (7) can be used to predict the
ultimate load of the GFRP-UHPC specimens with epoxy-bolt interface
notably, although the results are slightly conservative.
In summary, when given all of the parameters for FRP-UHPC speci­
mens with an epoxy-bolt interface, the failure mode is unknown. Thus,
the predicting equation can be given by the minimum value of Eqs. (4)
and (7):
[ ( )0.7 ( )0.5 ( )0.15 ]
fc Ec tdbolt σFRP EFRP
(6) pu = min 0.82nAbolt σ bolt , nAbolt σbolt
σbolt Esc Esc

where pf is the predicted ultimate load of specimens under GFRP flange (8)
shear-out failure; n presents the bolt number in one push-out specimen; t
is the thickness of the FRP flange; e refers to the minimum value of the 6. Conclusions

Table 5
Thirteen GFRP-concrete push-out specimens were tested in this
Validation in the predicted ultimate shear resistance. study, including eleven GFRP-UHPC push-out specimens with an epoxy-
bolt interface, one GFRP-UHPC push-out specimen with a bolt interface,
Specimens pu Eq. (3) Eq. (6) Eq. (7)
(kN) pb (kN) φ= pf pf/pu pf pf/pu
and one GFRP-normal strength concrete (NSC) push-out specimen with a
pu/pb (kN) (kN) bolt interface. The effects of the concrete strength, interface type, bolt
spacing (sbolt), embedded length in concrete (hbolt), bolt number (nbolt),
C1-H-U1 610.8 736.0 0.83 – – – –
C1-H-U2 511.1 – – 752.3 0.68 470.4 1.09 bolt diameter (dbolt), and bolt strength (σ bolt) on the failure mode, anti-
C1-H-U3 625.9 736.0 0.85 – – – – sliding performance, and ultimate bearing capacity of the specimens
C1-H-U4 641.5 736.0 0.87 – – – – were studied and analysed. The following conclusions were drawn
C1-H-U5 629.9 736.0 0.86 – – – – through experiment and theoretical analysis:
C1-H-U6 528.9 736.0 0.72 – – – –
C1-H-U7 302.1 368.0 0.82 – – – –
C1-H-U8 874.4 1104.0 0.79 – – – – 1. Four typical failure modes of push-out specimens were observed in
C1-H-U9 315.2 371.2 0.85 – – – – this study: (I) the debonding of epoxy layers, (II) bolt shank shear
C1-H-U10 873.8 – – 895.8 0.98 819.8 1.07 failure, (III) GFRP flange shear-out failure and (IV) concrete failure.
C1-L-U11 403.6 492.8 0.82 – – – –
Failure mode I occurred in all specimens with an epoxy-bolt interface
Average – – 0.82 – 0.79 – 1.08
Coefficient of – – 0.056 – 0.362 – 0.009 at the early loading stage. Failure mode II was the control failure
variation mode for the specimens that experienced both failure modes II and
(COV) III, and these two failure modes occurred on different sides of the

277
P. Zhang et al.
GFRP I-girder. Failure mode IV could only be found in the GFRP-NSC
push-out specimen.
2. Since the epoxy resin filled the gap at the UHPC and GFRP interface
and provided shear resistance, the combination between the GFRP
profile and UHPC slabs was stronger. In the case of other variables
unchanged, the ultimate load was increased by 10%, the ultimate slip
was decreased by 3.8%, and the shear stiffness was improved by 40%
with the addition of the epoxy interface. In addition, the failure of the
epoxy interface always occurred before bolt failure, and the brittle
failure of the specimens caused by the ultimate resistance of the
epoxy interface being larger than the shear strength of the bolts was
avoided in this study.
3. The bearing capacity and shear stiffness of the GFRP-concrete push-
out specimens could be improved by replacing the NSC slabs with
UHPC slabs. By using UHPC slabs, the bearing capacity and shear
stiffness improved by 2.6% and 19%, respectively. It is recom­
mended to preferentially choose UHPC rather than NSC for com­
posite structures if large bolts are used or higher durability is
required because concrete slab cracking and failure could be pre­
vented by using UHPC, allowing the shear performance of the bolts
to be fully exerted.
4. With the increase in the sbolt, the shear performance of the specimens
was significantly improved. However, when the sbolt exceeded 150
mm, the effect of the sbolt on the shear performance of the specimens
was limited. The hbolt had a great influence on the ultimate load of the
specimens; the ultimate load of the specimen with a hbolt of 40 mm
was approximately 1.2 times that of the specimen with a hbolt of 130
mm.
5. A larger number of bolts (nbolt), a greater bolt diameter (dbolt) and a
stronger bolt strength (σ bolt) largely improved the shear behavior of
the GFRP-UHPC push-out specimens, leading to both a higher shear
capacity and shear stiffness.
6. An empirical equation to predict the bearing capacity for the GFRP-
UHPC push-out specimens with the epoxy-bolt interface is proposed
by data fitting and validation.
Data availability statement
Data will be made available on request.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grants from financial support from the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1904177), the Excel­
lent Youth Foundation of Henan Province of China (212300410079),
and Project of Young Key Teachers in Henan Province of China
(2019GGJS01).
References
[1] Xu Q, Sebastian W, Lu K, Yao Y, Wang J. Longitudinal shear performance of
lightweight steel-UHPC composite connections based on large-diameter high
strength friction-grip bolts. Eng Struct 2022;260:114220.
[2] Fang Z, Liang W, Fang H, Jiang H, Wang S. Experimental investigation on shear
behavior of high-strength friction-grip bolt shear connectors in steel-precast UHPC
composite structures subjected to static loading. Eng Struct 2021;244:112777.
[3] Etim Offiong, Gand Alfred, Saidani Messaoud, Ekpo Okon Eta, Fom Pam. Push-out
experimental evaluation of pultruded FRP-concrete composites. In 5th
International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies
(SCMT5)2019.
[4] Hai F, Bai Yu, Weiqing L, Yujun Qi, Jun W. Connections and structural applications
of fibre reinforced polymer composites for civil infrastructure in aggressive
environments. Compos B Eng 2019;164:129–43.
278
Structures 54 (2023) 263–279
[5] Bakis CE, Bank LC, Brown VL, Cosenza E, Davalos JF, Lesko JJ, et al. Fiber-
reinforced polymer composites for construction—State-of-the-art review. J Compos
Constr 2002;6(2):73–87.
[6] Fang S, Li L, Luo Z, Fang Z, Huang D, Liu F, et al. Novel FRP interlocking multi-
spiral reinforced-seawater sea-sand concrete square columns with longitudinal
hybrid FRP–steel bars: Monotonic and cyclic axial compressive behaviours.
Compos Struct 2023;305:116487.
[7] Zou X, Feng P, Bao Yi, Wang J, Xin H. Experimental and analytical studies on shear
behaviors of FRP-concrete composite sections. Eng Struct 2020;215:110649.
[8] Chakrabortty A, Khennane A, Kayali O, Morozov E. Performance of outside
filament-wound hybrid FRP-concrete beams. Compos B Eng 2011;42(4):907–15.
[9] Ziehl PH, Engelhardt MD, Fowler TJ, Ulloa FV, Medlock RD, Schell E. Design and
field evaluation of hybrid FRP/reinforced concrete superstructure system. J Bridg
Eng 2009;14(5):309–18.
[10] Siwowski T, Rajchel M, Kulpa M. Design and field evaluation of a hybrid FRP
composite–Lightweight concrete road bridge. Compos Struct 2019;230:111504.
[11] Siwowski T, Rajchel M. Structural performance of a hybrid FRP
composite–lightweight concrete bridge girder. Compos B Eng 2019;174:107055.
[12] Muc A, Stawiarski A, Chwał M. Design of the hybrid FRP/concrete structures for
bridge constructions. Compos Struct 2020;247:112490.
[13] Zou X, Lin H, Feng P, Bao Yi, Wang J. A review on FRP-concrete hybrid sections for
bridge applications. Compos Struct 2021;262:113336.
[14] Keller T, Schaumann E, Vallée T. Flexural behavior of a hybrid FRP and lightweight
concrete sandwich bridge deck. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2007;38(3):879–89.
[15] Huang H, Li Ao, Chen L, Zeng C, Zhu M. Push-out tests for shear connectors in
GFRP-concrete composite bridge deck slabs. J Adv Concr Technol 2018;16(8):
368–81.
[16] XingXing Z, Peng F, JingQuan W. Perforated FRP ribs for shear connecting of FRP-
concrete hybrid beams/decks. Compos Struct 2016;152:267–76.
[17] Liu TianQiao, Feng P, Lu X, Yang J-Q, Wu Y. Flexural behavior of novel hybrid
multicell GFRP-concrete beam. Compos Struct 2020;250:112606.
[18] El-Hacha R, Chen D. Behaviour of hybrid FRP–UHPC beams subjected to static
flexural loading. Compos B Eng 2012;43(2):582–93.
[19] Fam A, Skutezky T. Composite T-beams using reduced-scale rectangular FRP tubes
and concrete slabs. J Compos Constr 2006;10(2):172–81.
[20] Zou X, Feng P, Wang J, Wu Y, Feng Yu. FRP stay-in-place form and shear key
connection for FRP-concrete hybrid beams/decks. Compos Struct 2018;192:
489–99.
[21] Zhang Pu, Hu Yi, Pang Y, Feng Hu, Gao D, Zhao J, et al. Influence factors analysis
of the interfacial bond behavior between GFRP plates, concrete. Structures 2020;
26:79–91.
[22] Zhang Pu, Hu Yi, Pang Y, Gao D, Xu Q, Zhang S, et al. Experimental study on the
interfacial bond behavior of FRP plate-high-strength concrete under seawater
immersion. Constr Build Mater 2020;259:119799.
[23] Zhang Pu, Zhu H, Wu G, Meng S-P, Wu Z-S. Shear capacity comparison of four
different composite interfaces between FRP plates and concrete substrate.
J Compos Constr 2016;20(4).
[24] Joo Hyung Joong, Lee Seung Sik, Yoon Soon Jong, Park Ju Kyung, Youn Seok Goo.
Experimental investigation on the structural behavior of shear connectors used in
the FRP and concrete bridge deck system. Key Engineering Materials: Trans Tech
Publ; 2006. p. 1355-60.
[25] Mohammad M, Valente Isabel B, Barros Joaquim AO. Flexural performance of
innovative hybrid sandwich panels with special focus on the shear connection
behavior. Compos Struct 2017;160:100–17.
[26] Zhang Pu, Huana L, Danying G, Jun Z, Feng Hu, Guobin T. Shear-bond behavior of
the interface between FRP profiles and concrete by the double-lap push shear
method. J Compos Constr 2017;21:04017012.
[27] Alaa K, Sylvain B, Bruno J. Experimental tests and analytical model of concrete-
GFRP hybrid beams under flexure. Compos Struct 2017;180:192–210.
[28] Fam A, Honickman H. Built-up hybrid composite box girders fabricated and tested
in flexure. Eng Struct 2010;32(4):1028–37.
[29] Rajan S. Developments in the durability of FRP-concrete bond. Constr Build Mater
2015;78:112–25.
[30] Z. Xingxing F. Peng W. Jingquan Bolted shear connection of FRP-concrete hybrid
beams Journal of Composites for construction. 22 2018 04018012.
[31] Jin Di, Cao Lu, Jiahao H. Experimental study on the shear behavior of
GFRP–concrete composite beam connections. Materials 2020;13:1067.
[32] Etim O, Gand AK, Saidani M, Fom P, Ganjian E, Okon E. Shear characterisation of
pultruded superstructural FRP-concrete push-outs. Structures 2020;23:254–66.
[33] Manalo AC, Aravinthan T, Mutsuyoshi H, Matsui T. Composite behaviour of a
hybrid FRP bridge girder and concrete deck. Adv Struct Eng 2012;15(4):589–600.
[34] Canning L, Hollaway L, Thorne AM. An investigation of the composite action of an
FRP/concrete prismatic beam. Constr Build Mater 1999;13(8):417–26.
[35] Correia JR, Branco FA, Ferreira JG. Flexural behaviour of multi-span GFRP-
concrete hybrid beams. Eng Struct 2009;31(7):1369–81.
[36] Hai N, Hiroshi M, Wael Z. Push-out tests for shear connections between UHPFRC
slabs and FRP girder. Compos Struct 2014;118:528–47.
[37] Marko P, Zlatko M, Milan V, Dragan B. Bolted shear connectors vs. headed studs
behaviour in push-out tests. J Constr Steel Res 2013;88:134–49.
[38] Hai N, Hiroshi M, Wael Z. Hybrid FRP-UHPFRC composite girders: Part
1–Experimental and numerical approach. Compos Struct 2015;125:631–52.
[39] Zhang Pu, Hu R, Zou X, Liu Ye, Li Q, Wu G, et al. Experimental study of a novel
continuous FRP-UHPC hybrid beam. Compos Struct 2021;261:113329.
[40] Chen D, El-Hacha R. Behaviour of hybrid FRP–UHPC beams in flexure under
fatigue loading. Compos Struct 2011;94(1):253–66.
P. Zhang et al.
[41] XingXing Z, JingQuan W. Experimental study on joints and flexural behavior of
FRP truss-UHPC hybrid bridge. Compos Struct 2018;203:414–24.
[42] GB/T 3356-2014. Test method for flexural properties of orientational fiber
reinforced polymer metrix composite materials. Standardization Administration of
the People’s Repub, Beijing, 2014.
[43] Astm D. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite
materials. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society of Testing and Materials;
2000.
[44] GB/T 14208.3-2009. Textile-glass-reinforced plastics—Determination of
mechanical properties on rods made of roving-reinforced resin—Part 3:
Determination of compressive strength. Standardization Administration of the
People’s Repub, Beijing, 2009.
[45] JGJ/T 283-2012. Technical specification for application of self-compacting
concrete. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, Beijing, 2012.
[46] GB 50010-2010. Code for design of concrete structures. Ministry of Housing and
UrbanRural Development, Beijing, 2010.
[47] Gb, t 50081–2019.. Standard of test methods of concrete physical and mechanical
properties. Beijing: Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development; 2019.
[48] GB/T 2567-2021. Test methods for properties of resin casting body.
Standardization Administration of the People’s Repub, Beijing, 2019.
279
Structures 54 (2023) 263–279
[49] de Normalisation Comité Européen. Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and
concrete structures. part 1-2: General rules-structural fire design. CEN ENV. 1994.
[50] Anderson NS, Meinheit DF. Pryout capacity of cast-in headed stud anchors. PCI J
2005;50(2):90–112.
[51] Samy G, Alain L. Numerical analysis of frictional contact effects in push-out tests.
Eng Struct 2012;40:39–50.
[52] ACI 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary,
Farmington Hills, Michigan: ACI; 2011.:170.
[53] Aisc. Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago, Illinois: American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC); 2011.
[54] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 5th ed. Washington, DC;
2010.
[55] PCI PCI. Design Handbook. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (6 th), Chicago,
IL. 2004.
[56] GBJ17-88, Code for design of steel structures., Ministry of metallurgical industry of
China, Beijing, 1988.
[57] Oehlers DJ, Johnson RP. The strength of stud shear connections in composite
beams. Struct Eng 1987;65:44–8.