Bond Performances of FRP Rebars-Reinforced Concrete

Maria Antonietta Aiello1; Marianovella Leone2; and Marisa Pecce3

Abstract: The structural performance of reinforced concrete elements is related to the interface behavior of rebars to concrete. In the last
decade several research works were carried out to investigate the bond between fiber-reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 rebars and concrete,
however some aspects need further studies in order to obtain reliable design indications. In this paper the analysis of bond was performed
referring to different kinds of FRP rebars and some varying influential parameters 共surface treatment, kinds of fibers, and kinds of test兲.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 12/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Results obtained show the role of the investigated parameters on bond stress law; in particular the surface treatments involve different
transfer mechanisms passing from simple chemical adhesion and friction, for sanded rebars, to a relevant contribution of mechanical
interlocking for deformed rebars. The kind of test utilized influences the most significant parameters of the bond stress–slip law and in
different ways depending on the kind of rebars. Finally the kind of fibers causes a variation of interface stiffness. In addition a calibration
of experimental bond–slip laws was performed on the basis of available theoretical models and the results are discussed.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0899-1561共2007兲19:3共205兲
CE Database subject headings: Bonding; Fiber reinforced polymers; Concrete, reinforced; Structure reinforcement.

Introduction bond–slip law; this relationship controls the collapse as well as

Fiber-reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 reinforcement became very at-
tractive in the field of reinforced concrete structures both for new
constructions and strengthening or upgrading of existing struc-
tures. The success of the composite reinforcement is mainly
linked to their high mechanical performances, low weight, satis-
factory durability in an aggressive environment, and tailorability.
Several applications have been made all over the world and an
increasing market with a high variety of reinforcement is regis-
tered at present. Much research has been carried out on this topic
and results are available in the literature. In many countries codes
have been proposed for design 共ACI 2001; JSCE 1997; FIB
2000兲.
However some aspects of the mechanical behavior of FRP
reinforced concrete need further studies and the lack of reliable
theoretical models is in many cases still an obstacle to a wider use
of nonmetallic reinforcement in concrete.
A relevant behavioral problem is the bond between concrete
and reinforcement and, in fact, the effectiveness of the system
concrete-reinforcement depends on the transfer mechanisms at the
interface. As is well known, the structural performance, both
under service and ultimate conditions, is greatly influenced by the
1 1995兲 as well as the environmental conditions 共FIB 2000兲. In
Associate Professor, Dept. of Engineering Innovation, Univ. of
Lecce, Via per Arnesano, 73100 Lecce, Italy 共corresponding author兲.
E-mail: antonietta.aiello@unile.it
2
Ph.D. Student, Dept. Engineering Innovation, Univ. of Lecce, Via per
Arnesano, 73100 Lecce, Italy. E-mail: marianovella.leone@unile.it
3
Full Professor, School of Engineering, Univ. of Sannio, Benevento,
Italy. E-mail: pecce@unina.it
Note. Associate Editor: Houssam A. Toutanji. Discussion open until
August 1, 2007. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on December 23,
2003; approved on September 20, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal
of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 3, March 1, 2007.
©ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/2007/3-205–213/$25.00.
the tension stiffening contribution at the ultimate condition, the
cracks widths and cracks spacing, and the deformability of mem-
bers under service conditions.
The relevant difference between the properties of FRP and
steel rebars requires that specific features of FRP reinforcement
must be taken into account in order to develop reliable bond–slip
theoretical models. The constitutive relationship of FRP rebars is
linear–elastic and generally characterized by high strength and
low elastic modulus with respect to steel rebars, the composite
material is anisotropic, and a great variety of surface treatment is
available. Many experimental and theoretical investigations have
been carried out on bond and several experimental results are
available in the literature 共Aiello et al. 2001; 2002; Cosenza et al.
1995, 1997; Focacci et al. 2000; Malvar 1995; Nanni et al. 1995;
Nurchi and Matthys 2002; Tepfers and Karlsson 1997兲. However
some drawbacks arise in carrying out an effective bond–slip law
because a wide number of parameters are involved. In particular,
the bond–slip law mainly depends on the diameter of the rebar
共Nanni et al. 1995; Nurchi and Matthys 2002兲, the material uti-
lized 共fibers and resin兲 共Nanni et al. 1995; FIB 2000兲, the kind of
the outer surface 共Aiello et al. 2002; Nurchi and Matthys 2002兲,
the concrete strength 共FIB 2000兲, the degree of confinement 共Mal-
var 1994; FIB 2000兲, the casting position 共Alunno Rossetti et al.
addition, the obtained results are in many cases difficult to com-
pare depending on the kind of test performed, even if similar
materials are analyzed; in fact the lack of standard tests causes a
great variability of bond–slip laws.
In this paper an experimental investigation on bond–slip per-
formance between different FRP rebars and concrete is reported
and the results are analyzed and discussed. In particular, the role
of the type of rebar, procedure of experimental test, and bonded
length are addressed. Bond tests were performed by a traditional
共ConfibCrete 2000; Malvar 1995; Nurchi and Matthys 2002兲 and
a modified pullout test. For the traditional pullout test once a
tensile force is applied to pull the rebar, a compression reaction
acts on the concrete surface at the loaded end; the introduced

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007 / 205

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2007, 19(3): 205-213

 variation of the test procedure allowed to avoid the compression
action on the concrete. As is well known, this action is a peculiar
characteristic of the traditional pullout test and represents its main
weakness, because the compression on concrete eliminates trans-
verse tension cracking that, generally, has an adverse effect on the
bond stress 共ACI Committee 408 1966兲. Moreover the compres-
sion action on the concrete is not representative of the service
behavior of reinforced concrete beams. Therefore, the necessity to
better understand the influence of this action on the concrete,
induced by the traditional pullout test, seems to be essential in
order to reduce the gap between laboratory test and service con-
ditions. Slip between concrete and reinforcement at the loaded
and free ends were recorded as well as the bond failure mode. The
experimental bond–slip laws are evaluated considering a uniform
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 12/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
distribution of bond stress on the embedded length of the rein-
forcement. This assumption gives a negligible approximation
when referring to short bond lengths as those utilized in the
present work 共FIB 2000兲. Similar tests have been performed on
traditional steel rebars for comparison. The influence of param-
eters considered in the experimental investigation on bond–slip
laws is analyzed. The effect of the surface treatments was ob-
served on both the bond stress-slip curves and the contribution of
different transfer mechanisms 共chemical adhesion, mechanical in-
terlocking, friction兲 at the interface. The type of test performed
also confirms the need for standardization 共Aiello et al. 2001;
Tepfers 2002兲. The scatters generally observed between similar
tested specimens, as reported in other papers, have often been
registered in the undertaken research, evidencing that an improve-
ment of quality control of production should be considered.
Finally a theoretical investigation has been carried out in order
to provide bond–slip laws useful for design purposes and referred
to the specific kinds of analyzed rebars. In particular different
theoretical approaches available in the literature were considered
and bond–slip relationships were calibrated on the basis of experi-
mental results. The effectiveness of the defined laws is discussed
comparing theoretical and experimental results.
Research Significance
During the last 10 years a significant amount of research has dealt
with the use of FRP materials as an alternative to conventional
steel reinforcement in concrete structures, mostly when subjected
to adverse environmental conditions. In facts FRPs are character-
ized by high corrosion resistance, high strength-to-weight ratio,
and tailorability which allows a flexible design of the reinforce-
ment depending on specific requirements. On the other hand the
main disadvantages are higher deformability with respect to steel
and the fragile behavior.
The performance of structural reinforced concrete members
depends on the properties of the concrete, the reinforcement, and
the bond between these two components. In particular, the bond
strength is a fundamental aspect of the structural behavior, since
the effectiveness of the concrete-reinforcement system depends
on the interface.
The study reported in this paper, which addressed a theoretical
and experimental investigation on the bond between some kinds
of FRP rebars and concrete, is part of a wider research project on
the bond between FRP reinforcement and concrete 共rebars, sheets,
laminates兲. The undertaken research work, still in progress, aims
to contribute to a better understanding of the interface behavior
between concrete and composite reinforcement proposing, finally,
useful indications for a design point of view.
206 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2007, 19(3): 205-213
Fig. 1. FRP rebars utilized
Experimental Investigation
An experimental investigation was carried out to analyze the bond
performance between different kinds of FRP rebars and concrete.
The same tests were performed on traditional steel rebars for
comparison.
Materials
The experimental analysis was performed on several types of FRP
rebars as follows:
1. Aramid fiber-reinforced polymers 共AFRP兲, carbon fiber rein-
forced polymers 共CFRP兲 and glass fiber reinforced polymers
共GFRP兲 externally sanded and spiral wound with fibers; in
particular AFRP rebars are wound with aramid fiber filament
while CFRP and GFRP rebars are wound with carbon fiber
filament;
2. GFRP ribbed rebars;
3. CFRP and GFRP fine sanded rebars;
4. CFRP and GFRP coarse sanded rebars; and
5. Traditional smooth and ribbed steel rebars.
In Fig. 1 the types of tested rebars are shown.
In the following the rebars are indicated by notation: labels
“AFRPsw,” “CFRPsw,” and “GFRPsw,” refer to AFRP, CFRP,
and GFRP sanded and spiral wound with fiber rebars respectively;
labels “CFRPfs,” “GFRPfs,” “CFRPcs,” and “GFRPcs” mark
CFRP and GFRP fine sanded, and CFRP and GFRP coarse sanded
rebars, respectively; “GFRPr” indicates GFRP ribbed rebars; and
finally labels “SS” and “SR” designate smooth and ribbed steel
rebars, respectively.
The tested rebars have different types of surface treatments to
improve bond, namely, externally sanded and spiral wound with
fibers treatment increments the chemical adhesion and, at the
same time, the mechanical interlocking, the sanded treatment
共both simply and coarse兲 especially contributes to chemical adhe-
sion; finally, ribbed treatment furnishes an increased mechanical
interlocking.
The mechanical proprieties of the FRP rebars were experimen-
tally estimated. The results were averaged and reported in Table
1, where ␾⫽nominal diameter of the rebars. In same cases the
exact value of the ultimate strength is not reported because the
crisis occurred at the end of the rebar gripped by the testing
machine. The yielding strength of steel rebars was also experi-
 Table 1. Mechanical Proprieties of FRP Rebars
Fiber volume
Number of fraction Diameter 共␾兲 Young modulus Ultimate strength
Rebar specimens 共%兲 共mm兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲
AFRPsw 3 55 7.50 69,213共COV⫽0.40%兲 1,549 共COV⫽0.89%兲
GFRPsw 3 55 8.50 46,832共COV⫽2.71%兲 8.22 共COV⫽0.95%兲
CFRPsw 3 60 8.50 169,370共COV⫽4.10%兲 ⬎1,145
CFRPfs, CFRPcs 6 60 8.00 121,799共COV⫽7.82%兲 ⬎1,092
GFRPfs, GFRPcs 6 50 8.00 42,073共COV⫽9.51%兲 ⬎784
GFRPr 3 60 12.70 41,510共COV⫽6.30%兲 600a
a
Pecce et al. 共2001兲.

mentally evaluated. The mean value was ␴y = 547.34 MPa

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 12/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

bond stress within the bonded length. The value of 7␾ of bond

共COV= 2.04% 兲 and ␴y = 535.66 MPa 共COV= 1.15% 兲 for SR and
SS rebars, respectively.
The compression and tensile strength of concrete was deter-
mined by standard tests 共UNI EN 2003, 2002兲; the tests were
carried out at different times, thus the mechanical properties of
the concrete were different. This variability was taken into ac-
count in the performed analysis. In particular, when comparisons
between specimens made by different types of concrete are re-
ported, bond values were corrected by the coefficent
length was chosen only for FRPsw rebars because bond length of
5␾ 共40 mm兲 could be nonsignificant for this kind of FRP rebar. In
fact, as reported subsequently, the spirally step for FRPsw rebars
changes in a range from 24 to 42 mm; therefore to define bond–
slip law bond length equal to 7␾ 共56 mm兲 seems to be more
suitable.
The setup test consisted of a prismatic concrete cube, with side
dimension of 200 mm for the pullout test and 250 mm for the
modified pullout test, with FRP and steel rebars located in the

冉 冊
centers. Two samples for each kind of specimen were performed
1/2
fc except for pullout specimens with FRPsw rebar whereby three
共1兲
f cREF samples were realized. The sketches of the test set up are shown
in Figs. 2 and 3. With regard to the traditional pullout test, speci-
where f c⫽concrete compressive strength of each specimen and
mens were placed within a steel box; a steel bar was welded at the
f cREF⫽compressive strength of concrete chosen as reference be-
bottom surface of the box and gripped within the testing machine.
tween those utilized. This way to make dimensionless bond val-
Concerning the modified pullout test four steel bars were embed-
ues seems to be consistent with the indications provided by 共CEB
ded within the concrete specimens and fixed to a steel plate. A
1991兲 on the relationship between bond strength value and com-
steel bar welded at the plate was gripped within the testing ma-
pressive concrete strength.
chine and the pullout force was applied to the FRP rebar at the
The compression strength of concrete was estimated on three
opposite side.
single cubes 共150⫻ 150⫻ 150 mm兲 the mean value was
To measure the slip between concrete and reinforced rebars,
f c1 = 40.37 MPa for the tests with AFRPsw, CFRPsw, and
three displacement transducers were utilized for both test setups.
AFRPsw rebars; f c2 = 46.82 MPa for the test with CFRPfs rebars;
Two LVDTs were placed at the loaded end and the corresponding
f c3 = 30.53 MPa for the test with steel rebars; while
slip was determined as the mean value of the two measurements,
f c4 = 52.73 MPa for the GFRPfs, GFRPcs, CFRPcs, and GFRPr.
while one LVDT was placed at the free end.
The mean tensile strength, determined by the standard splitting
In the following section the specimens are listed using these
test on three single cylinders 共diameter of 150 mm and height of
codes: the first letter A or B indicates pullout test or modified
300 mm兲, was f ct1 = 4.28 MPa for the tests with AFRPsw,
pullout test, respectively, the second number either 5␾ or 7␾
CFRPsw, and GFRPsw rebars; f ct2 = 4.35 MPa for the tests with
indicates the specimens bond length, the third notation indicates
CFRPfs rebars; f ct3 = 2.86 MPa for the tests with steel rebars;
while f ct4 = 4.36 MPa for the test with CFRPcs, GFRPfs, GFRPcs,
and GFRPr rebars.

Experimental Setup

To analyze the bond between FRP rebars and concrete, two types
of tests were performed. The first type of test was a traditional
pullout test and the other type was a modified pullout test; in the
last one compression stresses on the concrete were avoided. In
both cases for tests with AFRPsw, CFRPsw, and GFRPsw rebars,
the bond length, Lb, was considered as a variable parameter and
the chosen values were 5␾ and 7␾, where ␾⫽bar diameter, while
only one bonded length equal to 5␾ was analyzed for the tests
with the other rebars. A value of 5␾ seems to be appropriate in
order to evaluate a local bond stress–slip law assuming a uniform
stress distribution 共FIB 2000兲. In fact as reported in other studies
共Cosenza et al. 1995兲 the maximum bond strength decreases, in-
creasing the bond length due to the nonuniform distribution of the Fig. 2. Test setup—modified pullout test

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007 / 207

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2007, 19(3): 205-213


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 12/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Test setup—traditional pullout test
the kind of rebar, and the final number indicates the specimens
position in the test sequence, for example, 1 indicates the first
specimen; 2, the second specimen, etc.
Experimental Results and Discussion
For all tested specimens the bond stress, ␶, and the corresponding
slip, s, both at the loaded end and free end, were evaluated. An
assumed uniform distribution of bond stresses within the bond
length gives
F
␶= 共2兲
␲␾Lb
F being the pullout force.
In Figs. 4 and 5, the bond stress versus the measured slip is
reported for sanded and spiral wound with fiber FRP rebars and
for ribbed GFRP rebars, respectively. Analyzing the two figures
the presence of different stages can be seen. In the first stage,
almost up to a bond stress of 2 MPa for AFRPsw and GFRPsw
rebars and of about 4 MPa for CFRPsw, the chemical adhesion
between concrete and reinforcement governs the bond mechanism
and it avoids slip. In fact, the presence of sand on the rebar
surface leads to an increase of chemical bond 共Makitani et al.
1993兲. For GFRPr rebars low slip values were observed up to a
bond stress value of about 7 MPa. In the second stage, up to
maximum bond stress, the bond between rebars and concrete is
due to the mechanical interlocking. When the peak stress is
reached the slip increases and the load decreases; at this stage the
Fig. 4. Experimental result of FRP sanded and spiral wound with
fibers rebars—pullout test—free end
208 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2007, 19(3): 205-213
Fig. 5. Experimental result of GFRP ribbed rebars—modified pullout
test
mechanical contribution is progressively reduced and, finally, the
friction through wedging of the rebar deformations on the sur-
rounding concrete becomes the predominant bond mechanism. As
observed after tests, analyzing the appearance of the rebars sur-
face, the increase of stress involves a deterioration of rebar sur-
face and the damage or complete rupture of the wound fibers and
the ribs. The descending branch is followed, in some cases, by a
further increase of the bond stress. This phenomenon, also ob-
served by other researchers 共Achilledes et al. 1997兲, is linked to
the kind of test performed, with reference to the position of the
bond length. In fact, when the nonembedded part of the rod is
pulled into the bond region, it adds resistance to the pullout load;
thus this effect should not be attributed to a real bond character-
istic of the rebar.
In Fig. 6 the typical experimental results for CFRPfs, CFRPcs,
GFRPfs, and GFRPcs rebars are presented. Again the bond–slip
curves present different stages, but in this case the bond mecha-
nisms are different. The first part is due to the chemical adhesion,
given by the sand applied on the surface; the friction between
concrete and reinforcement characterizes the next one, after
which the chemical bond is lost. The peak of the bond stress is
attained at low slip value, therefore a sudden drop of the bond
stress can be observed, after which the value remains at a constant
increasing slip. In Fig. 6 it is possible to note as the value of the
friction bond stress is higher for coarse sanded rebars than for fine
sanded rebars; however relevant scatters can be observed for re-
bars with the same types of surface treatments probably due to
imperfections introduced during the fabrication process.
In Table 2 results obtained for most of the specimens tested are
summarized in terms of pullout force, maximum bond stress, and
Fig. 6. Experimental result of CFRP and GFRP coarse and fine
sanded rebars pullout test—free end
 Table 2. Experimental Results observed between similar specimens; that is specimens made with
Slip at Slip at the same kind of fiber, the same kind of fiber volume fraction, and
Lb ␶m free end loaded end the same kind of surface treatments. It can be explained by the
Specimen 共mm兲 共MPa兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 presence of imperfections within the rebars in terms of nonhomo-
geneous resin distribution and possible misalignment of fibers. In
A.5␾.AFRPsw.1 40 10.66 5.43 6.57
addition the observed different distribution of the surface defor-
A.5␾.AFRPsw.2 40 14.32 7.11 7.99
mation within the utilized bonded length can also affect the
A.5␾.AFRPsw.3 40 13.53 3.28 5.17
repeatability of experimental results. In fact, scatters are more
A.7␾.AFRPsw.1 56 11.08 5.44 6.78
pronounced for CFRPsw and GFRPsw rebars than for AFRPsw
A.7␾.AFRPsw.2 56 10.17 3.79 4.87 ones, with the spiral steps winding rebars 36, 42, and 24 mm,
A.5␾.CFRPsw.2 40 15.08 11.83 13.29 respectively, and therefore, with a more uniform distribution in
A.7␾.CFRPsw.1 56 15.58 8.439 10.22 the last case. Therefore, in the last case with the shortest surface
A.7␾.CFRPsw.2 56 8.72 12.27 13.15 deformation step, a more uniform distribution of surface deforma-
A.5␾.GFRPsw.2 40 17.41 10.26 15.25 tions is expected in a short bond length. The peak bond stress for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 12/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A.7␾.GFRPsw.1 56 14.14 13.34 17.55 all FRP rebars with deformed surface is generally with compa-
A.7␾.GFRPsw.2 56 10.23 7.45 9.86 rable to and even higher than that recorded for steel rebars.
B.5␾.AFRPsw.1 40 12.85 5.47 7.46 Examining the maximum bond stress for both fine and coarse
B.5␾.AFRPsw.2 40 15.74 7.08 9.04 sanded FRP rebars, it seems possible to define an unique value of
B.7␾.AFRPsw.2 56 13.12 4.47 5.61 bond stress. In fact, the mean value of maximum bond stress for
B.5␾.CFRPsw.1 40 18.02 7.09 7.77 CFRPfs, CFRPcs, GFRPfs, and GFRPcs rebars was 3.86 MPa
B.5␾.CFRPsw.2 40 18.87 7.26 9.73 共COV= 18.81% 兲. The value of COV is probably linked to the
B.7␾.CFRPsw.2 56 17.69 6.53 8.53 nonuniform distribution of the sand within the bonded length and,
B.5␾.GFRPsw.2 40 24.81 10.68 19.46 in same cases, to a poor quality of the surface treatment, instead
B.7␾.GFRPsw.2 56 10.23 7.45 10.02
of a real different behavior, in terms of the bond.
In Fig. 7, a comparison between results obtained for the two
˜ SR.1
A.5␾ 66.5 9.21 1.04 2.01
kinds of test, for steel rebars, AFRPsw, GFRPr, and GFRPcs re-
˜ SR.2
A.5␾ 66.5 8.52 1.76 2.25 bars is reported. The traditional pullout tests give bond strength
˜
B.5␾SR.1 66.5 6.57 1.93 2.60 lower and deformability higher than the modified pullout tests for
˜ SR.2
B.5␾ 66.5 6.58 1.56 1.60 FRPsw rebars; whereas the opposite behavior was observed for
GFRPr and steel rebars. The compression action on concrete in
A.5␾.SS.1 60 0.65 10.09 10.35
pullout test is beneficial when steel and GFRPr rebars are used,
A.5␾.SS.2 60 1.47 15.54 15.67
because that action reduces possible concrete cracking 共ACI
B.5␾.SS.1 60 1.10 12.99 13.61
1966兲. In contrast the compression on the concrete gives a nega-
A.5␾.CFRPfs.1 40 2.74 0.017 0.528 tive effect on the bond, referring to FRPsw rebars. In fact, the
A.5␾.CFRPfs.2 40 4.98 0.028 0.642 stress increase at the interface promotes the damage of ribs, con-
B.5␾.CFRPfs.1 40 4.23 0.024 0.386 sidering that in this case surface deformations are less effective in
B.5␾.CFRPfs.2 40 2.86 0.184 1.42 terms of mechanical interlocking with respect to the previous
A.5␾.CFRPcs.1 65.2 3.29 0.057 0.588 cases.
A.5␾.CFRPcs.2 64.7 3.99 0.011 0.135 Finally the experimental results on both fine and coarse sanded
B.5␾.CFRPcs.1 65.0 5.49 0.004 0.189 FRP rebars seem to be independent of the kind of test.
B.5␾.CFRPcs.2 67.8 6.38 0.086 0.266 Bond–slip curves obtained for different kinds of surface treat-
A.5␾.GFRPfs.1 52.5 4.20 0.007 0.341 ments of CFRP and GFRP tested rebars are compared, as reported
A.5␾.GFRPfs.2 52.2 3.38 0.014 0.298 in Figs. 8 and 9. The comparison shows the relevant difference of
B.5␾.GFRPfs.1 52.5 4.99 0.009 0.852 bond mechanisms with varying surface treatments; in fact the
B.5␾.GFRPfs.2 52.5 3.47 0.011 0.296 contribution of mechanical interlocking, when rebars present a
A.5␾.GFRPcs.1 55.0 3.89 0.093 0.389
deformed surface, is very effective for attaining very high bond
stresses if compared with those of rebars only sanded, for which
A.5␾.GFRPcs.2 55.2 3.44 0.065 0.396
the mechanical contribution is small. In addition, when most of
B.5␾.GFRPcs.1 55.0 3.73 0.010 0.702
the lugs are damaged, after the attainment of the peak bond stress,
B.5␾.GFRPcs.2 55.2 4.80 0.001 0.471
the softening branch is still above that of both fine and coarse
A.5␾.GFRPr.1 72.5 14.16 0.439 1.388 sanded rebars, indicating that surface deformations are in a small
A.5␾.GFRPr.2 72.5 16.12 0.541 1.806 part still working to improve the bond response with respect to
B.5␾.GFRPr.1 72.5 13.44 0.557 1.764 sanded rebars. The first stage of all curves, corresponding to the
B.5␾.GFRPr.2 72.5 13.54 0.821 2.058 chemical adhesion, is coincident and related slips are almost zero.
The maximum bond stress referred to deformed rebars is very
high with respect to fine and coarse sanded rebars, in particular
slip corresponding to the maximum bond stress at loaded and free for CFRPsw rebars the value is variable in a range from 15 to
ends. Missing results are those considered not acceptable 19 MPa, almost four times than that of both fine and coarse
for unforeseen problems with test apparatus 共A.5␾.CFRPsw.1, sanded CFRP rebars while for GFRPsw and GFRPr rebars the
A.5␾.CFRPsw.3, A.5␾.GFRPsw.1, A.5␾.GFRPsw.3, maximum bond stress was from 12 to 14 MPa, three times larger
B.7␾.AFRPsw.1, B.7␾.CFRPsw.1, B.5␾.GFRPsw.1, than that of GFRPfs and GFRPcs rebars.
B.7␾.GFRPsw.1 and B.5␾.SS.2兲. Analyzing results for sanded Fig. 8 shows a significant difference in term of slip, at the
and spirally wound with fiber FRP rebars, relevant scatters can be same level of load, between GFRPsw and GFRPr rebars. This

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007 / 209

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2007, 19(3): 205-213

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 12/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Experimental comparison between two kind of test—bond stress versus slip at free end

result confirms again the greater effectiveness of the ribs of
GFRPr rebars in term of shape and distribution.
In Fig. 10 the influence of rebars deformability on the bond
performance is evidenced. The ratio between the bond stress and
the maximum bond stress versus the difference between the slip at
the loaded end and the slip at the free end is plotted. As expected,
the difference between the slip at the loaded end and the slip at
the free end increases, increasing the rebar deformability, being
the highest value attained for GFRP rebars and the lowest for
steel rebars because GFRP rebars have the lowest elastic modu-
lus. The influence of the scatters between the slip at the loaded
end and the slip at the free end has been investigated in more
detail in Pecce et al. 共2001兲. In fact, in the paper of Pecce et al.
共2001兲, results obtained by the bond test on GFRP rebars evi-
denced as the slip value measured at the loaded end was signifi-
cantly larger than that measured at the free end. In spite of this
authors justified that difference with the lower elastic modulus of
the utilized rebars 共about 1/5 of steel兲, emphasizing the need to
take into account the deformation of the rebar within the embed-
ded length, as generally made for steel rebars.
Theoretical Analysis
A theoretical investigation has been carried out in order to pro-
vide bond–slip laws useful for design purposes. In this paper three

Fig. 8. Experimental comparison between different kind of surface Fig. 9. Experimental comparison between different kinds of surface
treatments for CFRP rebars—bond stress versus slip at free end treatments for GFRP rebars—bond stress versus slip at free end

210 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2007, 19(3): 205-213

 ␶
= 关1 − exp共− s/sr兲兴␤ 共4兲
␶m
where ␶m⫽maximum bond stress; and sr and ␤⫽parameters
to be calibrated; and
3. mB.E.P. model 共Focacci et al. 2000兲

冉 冊
␶ = Cs␣ 1 −
s
s̄
共5兲

where ␣ and s̄⫽parameters to be calibrated.

The B.E.P. model was shown to be very effective for predict-
ing bond performance of steel rebars; the C.M.R. model was as-
sessed by analyzing several experimental data available in the
literature on bond behavior of different kinds of FRP rebars; and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 12/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Experimental comparison between different kinds of

rebars—influence of modulus of elasticity
theoretical approaches, available in the literature, were considered
and bond stress 共␶兲–slip共s兲 relationships were calibrated on the
basis of the experimental results obtained.
In particular, the utilized relationships are reported as follows:
1. B.E.P model 共Eligehausen et al. 1982兲
␶ = Cs␣
where C = ␶m / sm␣ where ␶m and sm⫽maximum bond stress and
the corresponding slip, respectively, and C and
␣⫽parameters to be calibrated;
2. C.M.R. model 共Cosenza et al. 1997兲
finally Focacci et al. proposed the mB.E.P. model on the basis of
experimental results on GFRP rebars sanded and spiral wound
with glass fiber.
The calibration was made in different ways for deformed FRP
rebars 共AFRPsw, CFRPsw, GFRPsw, and GFRPr兲. In order to
investigate the influence of the kind of test calibrations were
made for each type of rebar analyzed, dividing the results ob-
tained at the loaded end and the free end, collecting experimental
data referred to both pullout and modified pullout tests. In order
to evaluate the influence of rebar deformability, calibrations were
共3兲 made from results obtained at the free and the loaded end for each
kind of rebar. Finally, all curves referring to the same kinds of
rebars were calibrated. The calibration results are reported in
Table 3. In the table the ␹2 value, which represents the parameter
used to estimate the effectiveness of the calibration, is also re-
ported. The ␹2 value gives a measure of the difference between

Table 3. Calibration of Experimental Results

B.E.P. C.M.R. m.B.E.P.
C ␣ ␹2 sr ␤ ␹2 C ␣ s̄ ␹2
共a兲 Calibration for each kind of rebar and associated slip
AFRPsw.free end 5.234 0.585 2.159 1.697 1.096 2.094 5.510 0.762 16.844 1.955
AFRPsw.loaded end 4.095 0.643 1.504 2.091 1.261 1.724 4.062 0.804 24.228 1.404
CFRPsw.free end 6.804 0.398 3.979 4.420 0.588 3.967 6.572 0.559 29.227 3.827
CFRPsw.loaded end 5.104 0.508 3.854 4.094 0.862 3.368 4.584 0.766 23.516 3.245
GFRPsw.free end 3.790 0.687 11.717 4.124 1.297 12.074 3.048 0.977 26.876 11.544
GFRPsw.loaded end 1.619 0.914 6.507 5.092 2.075 7.894 1.483 0.992 127.699 0.502
GFRPr.free end 18.614 0.529 1.284 0.268 0.838 1.154 28.936 0.715 1.812 1.079
GFRPr.loaded end 8.831 0.749 0.384 0.743 1.397 0.486 10.6948 0.929 6.481 0.339
共b兲 Calibration for each kind of rebar and test
A.AFRPsw 4.223 0.613 1.184 2.103 1.046 1.353 4.331 0.728 26.358 0.132
B.AFRPsw 5.285 0.564 2.676 1.858 1.170 2.400 5.301 0.793 17.215 2.260
A.CFRPsw 4.039 0.584 1.720 3.240 1.314 1.429 — — — —
B.CFRPsw 6.803 0.477 1.464 3.561 0.698 1.660 6.844 0.532 59.253 1.447
A.GFRPsw 2.293 0.727 3.013 3.734 1.788 2.839 1.611 1.087 28.848 2.590
B.GFRPsw 6.157 0.512 7.956 5.735 0.917 6.844 5.102 0.735 41.615 6.713
A.GFRPr — — — — 0.379 9.492 — — — —
B.GFRPr 10.422 0.309 6.645 2.203 0.352 6.567 — — — —
共c兲 Calibration for each kind of rebar
AFRPsw 4.684 0.596 2.237 1.993 1.108 2.290 4.767 0.761 21.018 2.082
CFRPsw 5.915 0.451 4.363 4.139 0.735 4.054 5.495 0.674 24.532 3.931
GFRPsw 3.023 0.700 12.508 5.713 1.167 12.893 2.594 0.863 56.034 12.362
GFRPr 10.463 0.309 6.789 1.704 0.365 6.708 — — — —

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007 / 211

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2007, 19(3): 205-213

 sanded FRP rebars the bond is attributed to chemical adhe-
sion, given from the sand applied on the surface, and friction;
therefore a sudden drop of bond stress occurs after chemical
bond is lost.
2. The effectiveness of the surface treatment influences the
bond–slip law. In fact the imperfections within the reinforce-
ment give more scatter in the experimental results.
3. The type of test has a different influence depending on the
rebars investigated. In fact, the compression stress on the
concrete 共pullout test兲 involves a reduction of the bond
strength for the sanded and spiral wound FRP rebars, while
the opposite effect is recorded for steel and ribbed rebars.
4. The rebar deformability influences the bond–slip law, mostly
Fig. 11. Calibration of all experimental data referred to AFRPsw
when the ribs effectiveness is smaller.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 12/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

rebars
5. The assessment of a bond–slip law of general validity re-
quires a wider investigation aiming to define a theoretical
experimental results and theoretical prediction, depending also on relationship taking into account the specific kind of surface
the number of experimental data and the number of imposing treatments and the rebars deformability, but first a standard-
conditions on the expected theoretical law. ization of bond test procedure is necessary.
The calibration results, in terms of ␹2, evidenced as the theo-
retical relationships present the same level of effectiveness even if
the experimental point reported in Fig. 11 seems better fitted by
the C.M.R. model curves, mostly increasing the load. Fig. 11 Notation
shows all the experimental data obtained for the bond test with
AFRPsw rebars together with the theoretical curves resulting in The following symbols are used in this paper:
the calibration reported in Table 3 共first row兲. A ⫽ pullout test;
Analyzing Table 3, and in particular the ␹2 value, it appears B ⫽ modified pullout test;
that the calibration results are dependent on different parameters B.E.P ⫽ analytical relationship of Bertero Elighenausen and
in relation to the kind of rebars. In particular the kind of test Popov;
adopted seems very influential for CFRPsw and GFRPsw rebars, F ⫽ pullout force;
while for GFRPr rebars deformability is more significant. For Fmax ⫽ maximum pullout force;
AFRPsw the results are similar, irrespective of the kind of test f c ⫽ compression strength of concrete;
and the slip end considered. In Table 3 it appears as, in some f cREF ⫽ compression strength of concrete for specimens as
cases, calibrated parameters are absent because the theoretical reference;
relationships are unable to fit experimental points. f ct ⫽ tensile strength of concrete;
Obtained results confirm the relevant influence of the surface f c1 ⫽ compression strength of concrete for specimens
treatment on ␶-s law not only in terms of typology 共ribbed, with AFRPsw, GFRPsw, and CFRPsw rebars;
sanded, and spiral wound兲 but also in terms of specific properties f c2 ⫽ compression strength of concrete for specimens
within the same typology. In fact for sanded and spiral wound with CFRPfs rebars;
rebars the results were different, depending also on the ribs ge- f c3 ⫽ compression strength of concrete for specimens
ometry and distribution. The Young’s modulus of the rebar, on the with steel rebars;
other hand, influences the ␶-s law, mostly when surface deforma- f c4 ⫽ compression strength of concrete for specimens
tions are more efficient. Finally, the definition of a standard test to with CFRPcs, GFRPfs, GFRPcs, and GFRPr
determine the bond–slip law seems essential, allowing one to as- rebars;
sess a generic procedure to evaluate bond quality as required at f ct1 ⫽ tensile strength of concrete for specimens with
the design stage. AFRPsw, GFRPsw, and CFRPsw rebars;
f ct2 ⫽ tensile strength of concrete for specimens with
CFRPfs rebars;
Conclusions f ct3 ⫽ tensile strength of concrete for specimens with steel
rebars;
In this paper the bond performance between different kinds of f ct4 ⫽ tensile strength of concrete for specimens with
FRP rebars and concrete was analyzed. At this end the pullout test CFRPcs, GFRPfs, GFRPcs, and GFRPr rebars;
and modified pullout test were performed. Lb ⫽ bonded length;
In particular the following concluding remarks can be made: s ⫽ slip;
1. Bond performance depends to a great extent on the surface s̄ ⫽ unknown parameter;
treatment both in terms of bond mechanisms and bond sm ⫽ slip at maximum bond stress;
strength. In the case of deformed FRP rebars 共AFRPsw, sr ⫽ unknown parameter;
CFRPsw, GFRPsw, and GFRPr兲 the contribution of mechani- ␣ ⫽ unknown parameter;
cal interlocking is very effective, allowing the attainment of ␤ ⫽ unknown parameter;
high peak bond stress, namely 3–4 times that of sanded re- ␶ ⫽ bond stress;
bars. In addition, varying the kind of surface deformations, ␶m ⫽ maximum bond stress;
slip values vary as well, resulting in ribbed rebars lower than ␾ ⫽ rebar diameter; and
for sanded and spiral wound rebars. For both fine and coarse ␹2 ⫽ statistical parameter.

212 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2007, 19(3): 205-213

 References
Aiello, M. A., Leone, M., and Pecce, M. R. 共2001兲. “Experimental analy-
sis on bond between FRP rebars and concrete.” Proc., Int. Conf.,
Composites in Construction—CCC2001, Porto, Portugal, 199–204.
Aiello, M. A., Leone, M., and Pecce, M. 共2002兲. “Influence of surface
treatments on bond between FRP rebars and concrete.” Proc., Int.
Conf., Bond in Concrete—From Research to Standard, Budapest,
Hungary, 667–674.
Alunno Rossetti, V., Galeotta, D., and Giammatteo, M. M. 共1995兲. “Local
bond stress-slip relationship of glass fibre reinforced plastic bars em-
bedded in concrete.” Mater. Struct., 28 共180兲 340–344.
American Concrete Institute Committee 408 共ACI兲. 共1966兲. “Bond
stress—The state of the art.” J. Am. Concr. Inst., November, 1161–
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 12/29/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1188.
American Concrete Institute Committee 440 共ACI兲. 共2001兲. Guide for the
design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP rebars, ACI
400.1R-01, Farmington Hill, Mich.
Comite Euro International du Beton 共CEB-FIP兲. 共1991兲. Model code
1990.
ConfibCrete. 共2000兲 “Development of guidelines for the design of con-
crete structures, reinforced, prestressed, or strengthened with ad-
vanced composites.” ERBFMRX-CT97-0135, EU TMR Network.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. 共1995兲. “Analytical mod-
elling of bond between FRP reinforcement and concrete.” Proc., 2nd
Int. RILEM Symp., FRPRCS-2, L. Taerwe, ed., 164–171.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. 共1997兲. “Behavior and
modeling of bond of FRP rebars to concrete.” J. Compos. Constr.,
1共2兲, 40–51.
Eligehausen, R., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V. 共1982兲. “Local bond
stress-slip relationships of deformed bars under generalized excita-
tions.” Rep. No 83/23, Earthquake Engineering Research Center
共EERC兲, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione 共UNIEN兲. 共2002兲. “Testing hard-
ened concrete—Tensile splitting strength of test specimens.” UNI EN
12390-6, Milan, Italy.
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2007 / 213
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2007, 19(3): 205-213
Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione 共UNIEN兲. 共2003兲. “Testing hard-
ened concrete—Compression strength of test specimens.” UNI EN
12390-3, Milano, Italy.
Fédération International du Béton 共FIB兲. 共2000兲. Bond of reinforcement in
concrete. Bulletin 10, August.
Focacci, F., Nanni, A., and Bakis, C. E. 共2000兲. “Local bond-slip rela-
tionship for FRP reinforcement in concrete.” J. Compos. Constr.,
4共1兲, 24–31.
Japan Society of Civil Engineers 共JSCE兲. 共1997兲. “Recommendation for
design and construction of concrete structures using continuous fiber
reinforcing materials.” Japan.
Makitani, E., Irisawa, I., and Nishiura, N. 共1993兲. “Investigation of bond
in concrete member with fiber reinforced plastic bars.” Proc., Int.
Symp. on Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete
Struct., ACI SP-138, A. Nanni and C. W. Dolan, eds.
Malvar, L. J. 共1994兲. “Bond stress-slip characteristics of FRP rebars.”
Rep. No. TR-2013-SHR, Naval Facility Engineering Service CR., Port
Hueneme, Calif.
Malvar, L. J. 共1995兲. “Tensile and bond proprieties of GFRP reinforcing
bars.” ACI Mater. J., 92共32兲, 276–285.
Nanni, A., Al-Zaharani, M., Al-dulaijan, S., Bakis, C., and Boothy, T.
共1995兲. “Bond of FRP reinforcement to concrete—Experimental re-
sults.” Proc., 2nd Int. Symp., Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures, L. Taerwe, ed., 137–145.
Nurchi, A., and Matthys, S. 共2002兲. “Pull-out on FRP bars in concrete.”
Proc., Int. Conf., Bond in Concrete—From Research to Standard,
Budapest, Hungary, 708–715.
Pecce, M., Manfredi, G., Realfonzo, R., and Cosenza, E. 共2001兲. “Experi-
mental and analytical evaluation of bond properties of GFRP bars.” J.
Mater. Civ. Eng., 13共4兲, 282–290.
Tepfers, R. 共2002兲. “Test system for evaluating of bond properties of FRP
reinforcement in concrete.” Proc., Int. Conf., Bond in Concrete—
From Research to Standard, Budapest, Hungary, 657–666.
Tepfers, R., and Karlsson, M. 共1997兲. “Pull-out and tensile reinforcement
splice tests using FRP C-bars.” Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. Non-Metallic
(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structure, Japan, 8.