BERAVIOR AND MODELING OF BOND OF FRP REBARS TO CONCRETE

By E. Cosenza; G. Manfredi/ and R. Realfonzo3

ABSTRACT: In the field of reinforced-concrete (RC) structures, the use of fiber reinforced plastic rebars (FRP
rebars) as an alternative to the steel reinforcements appears very promising, especially if such structures are
exposed to corrosive environments. However, a better understanding of the mechanical behavior of FRP
reinforc~ments-in particular bond behavior-is needed in order to use them for practical purposes. For this
reason, In the last few years a number of tests on several types of FRP rebars has been conducted in order to
evaluate the interaction phenomena between FRP rebars and the concrete matrix and to evidence behavioral
differences with respect to the deformed steel rods. In this paper a state-of-the-art report on the bond of FRP
bars to concrete is presented. Numerous tests are analyzed to better understand bond mechanisms and the
influence of type of fiber, outer surface (shape and type of matrix), and other significant parameters (Le.,
confining pressure, bar diameter, compressive concrete strength) on bond performances. Furthermore, some
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

analytical models of bond-slip behavior are examined to assess their adequacy to reproduce the experimental
bond behavior. In particular, the investigation focuses on the reliability of the well-known model by Malvar (the
first one dedicated to FRP reinforcements) as well as on the model by Eligehausen, Popov, and Bertero, devel-
oped for .steel reinforcements but successfUlly applied to FRP ones. In addition, the effectiveness of two analytical
formulations proposed by the authors, the first one representing the ascending branch of the bond-slip curve and
the second the entire curve, is demonstrated.

INTRODUCTION velopment of analytical models, calibrated to the experimental

To improve the durability of reinforced-concrete (Re) struc-
tures the use of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) rebars appears
very promising since, with respect to steel reinforcements, they
present a much higher corrosion resistance.
In the field of reinforced-concrete constructions, FRPs are
generally made of organic fibers, such as carbon (CFRP) and
glass (GFRP), or inorganic fibers, such as aramid (AFRP) and
polyvinyl alcool (VFRP).
Due to the lack of well-established standards, a wide variety
of FRP rebars is today commercialized, going from the simple
smooth rebars to rebars treated to improve bond characteris-
tics. The processes developed to improve bond behavior can
be classified into two main categories: deformation of the outer
surface (ribbed, indented, braided rebars) and surface treat-
ments (grain-covered rebars). In the following, the benefits
achieved by both techniques are discussed.
Most of the early design guidelines, as well as the design-
oriented research studies, have extended the methodologies de-
veloped for steel reinforced concrete structures to those rein-
forced with FRP rebars. However, many experimental studies
have demonstrated that some key properties of the physical
and mechanical behavior of FRP rebars are qualitatively and
quantitatively different from the well-known properties of steel
rebars. Such differences arise both from significant variations
in the material properties and from remarkable changes in the
interaction mechanisms between the reinforcement and the
concrete matrix. Therefore, it is believed that a rational ap-
proach to the design of FRP reinforced structures should be
based on the development of theories fully dedicated to FRPs.
Then, a better understanding of physical behavior is needed in
order to assess correctly the dominating factors and their quan-
titative influence. Furthermore, there is a primary need for de-
'Full Prof., Dipartimento di Analisi e Progettazione Strutturale, Univ.
di Napoli "Federico II", Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples. Italy.
'Res., Dipartimento di Analisi e Progettazione Strutturale. Univ. di
Napoli "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
'Postdoctoral Fellow. Dipartimento di Analisi e Progettazione Strut-
turale, Univ. di Napoli "Federico II". Naples. Italy.
Note. Discussion open until October I, 1997. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on December 2. 1996. This paper is part of the 10ur-
nal ojCompositesjor Construction, Vol. 1. No.2, May, 1997.©ASCE,
ISSN 1090-0268/97/0002-0040-0051/$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No.
14633.
40/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997
results, which a new theory for FRP reinforced structures is to
be based on.
To this purpose, this paper focuses on bond behavior, which
is indeed a critical aspect of the structural behavior for any
type of reinforcement, including FRP composite materials. In
fact, the performance of both reinforced and prestressed con-
crete members depends on the properties of concrete and of
reinforcement, as well as on bond behavior between the two
components. In the case of reinforced concrete structures, both
at the serviceability and at the ultimate state, the resisting
mechanisms under bending, shear, and torsion are related to
the development of an adequate bond; moreover, many veri-
fications at the serviceability limit state, such as the control of
cracks amplitude and structure deformations, involve evalua-
tion of the effects of the tension stiffening that directly arises
from bond. In case of prestressed concrete structures, a key
issue to be dealt with is the transfer of stress by bond from
the tendons to the concrete.
In recent years many experimental studies have been con-
ducted in order to investigate bond between FRP rebars and
concrete; such studies have been aimed either at understanding
the resisting mechanisms activated in pullout tests and at de-
termining the bond (T)-slip (s) constitutive laws. Furthermore,
comparisons of bond strength and deformability between steel
and FRP rods have been carried out.
Therefore, this paper initially reports on a critical state-of-
the-art research on the bond behavior of FRP rebars. Bond
mechanisms are analyzed in order to understand how different
types of FRP reinforcements interact with concrete. A wide set
of bond tests is also examined to define mean values for bond
strength; then, the experimental T-S behavior is analyzed and
a comparison between FRP and steel reinforcements is per-
formed. Furthermore, the effect of factors such as shape of the
outer surface of rebars, coating with sand, concrete compres-
sive strength (!c), confinement pressure, bar diameter, bar po-
sition in the cast, bar position in the specimen, embedment
length, temperature change, and environmental conditions on
the actual bond stress-slip curves is discussed.
Subsequently, the paper is aimed at estimating the adequacy
of some analytical models for the constitutive bond-slip rela-
tionship (T-S curve) of FRP rebars. Namely, the well-known
model by Malvar (1994), which was the first one to be pro-
posed for FRP reinforcements, and the model by Eligehausen
et al. (1983), which was proposed for steel reinforcements, are

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51

 applied to simulate a very broad set of experimental curves.
Furthermore, the performances of two analytical models de-
veloped by the authors are investigated in order to demonstrate
their effectiveness compared to the existing models. A statis-
tical analysis has been also performed in order to optimize the
selection of the model parameters and define the scatter be-
tween experimental data and analytical predictions.
MECHANICS OF STRESS TRANSFER FROM FRP
REBARS TO CONCRETE
Bond of FRP performs differently from that of conventional
steel reinforcements because of the different manufacturing of
the outer surfaces and of substantial material differences in
both longitudinal and transverse directions.
The mechanics of stress transfer by bond between FRP re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
bars and concrete has been investigated by many authors, with
reference to several types of bars characterized by various sur-
face configuration, by different quality and quantity of fibers,
and by the use of different resins as binders. From the ex-
perimental results it is possible to observe that the bond of
FRP reinforcement to concrete is controlled by several factors,
including the following: chemical bond; friction due to surface
roughness of FRP rods; mechanical interlock of the FRP rods
against the concrete; hydrostatic pressure against the FRP rods
due to shrinkage of hardened concrete; and swelling of FRP
rods due to temperature change and moisture absorption. Dur-
ing initial pullout, the chemical bond (adhesion) is the main
resisting mechanism; afterwards, it is replaced by friction and!
or mechanical interlock. Since chemical bond between con-
crete and FRP generally is extremely low, friction and me-
chanical interlock really become the primary mean of stress
transfer.
Based on these considerations, a first attempt at classifica-
tion for bond mechanism may come from the work by Kan-
akubo et ai. (1993). The authors identified two types of bond-
resistant mechanisms: one is the friction-resistant type, while
the other one is the bearing;.resistant type (when the mechan-
ical interlock becomes dominant). According to Kanakubo et
aI., smooth and strand-shaped bars exhibit a friction-resistant
bond while ribbed FRP bars develop a bearing-resistant bond.
Another classification for bond behavior was suggested by
Makitani et al. (1993). The authors defined two possible be-
haviors depending on the adopted surface process: the first,
typical of straight grain-covered rebars, is characterized by a
very small slip (sm) corresponding to the peak bond strength
(Tm); the second, relative to braided rods, is characterized by
much larger values of the slip Sm'
It should be noticed, based on observations made by other
researchers, that the preceding classifications are rather inad-
equate, especially when characterizing the mechanism of load
transferring along the interface between FRP-deformed rods
and concrete. In this case, the anisotropic nature of the FRP
materials needs to be accounted for since it results in different
mechanical and physical properties in the longitudinal and
transverse directions. Anisotropy is a result of the fact that
shear and transverse properties of bars are dominated by resin
while longitudinal properties are influenced by fibers. Resin-
dependent strength may be lower than the concrete compres-
sive strength, thus resulting in a different bond interaction
from that of steel reinforcements with failure due to damage
of ribs instead of cracking of concrete. Therefore, failure
stresses and strains in the longitudinal and transverse direc-
tions are very influential on bond behavior. Such properties-
highly dependent on temperature and environmental condi-
tions-are especially important to determine the pullout
strength and the earlier failure modes of FRP rods (matrix- or
fiber-dominated failure modes).
Although bond behavior is dependent on various effects, it
J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51
seems convenient to separate the straight rebars (i.e., smooth,
grain-covered, sandblasted-type rods) from the deformed ones
(ribbed, indented, twisted, braided) and then to understand,
within each of the two groups, differences in the bond mech-
anisms and the influence of some significant parameters on
bond strength.
Straight FRP Rods
In the following the term "straight" FRP rods will be used
both for smooth rods and for rods obtained by an external
surface process that does not provide ribs or indentations (i.e.,
for grain-covered and sandblasted-type rebars).
The available tests have widely shown that in the case of
straight rebars two components of bond appear: adhesion (first
phase) and friction (second phase). Therefore, no contribution
is a result of mechanical interlocking. As a confirmation, the
results reported by Nanni et ai. (1995) show that in this case
bond strength is not dependent on concrete strength; in fact,
the concrete around the reinforcement is stressed to a small
degree by bond mechanisms and there are no microcracks.
For what concerns smooth rebars, friction appears to be the
major source of pullout resistance since adhesion vanishes as
soon as the rod slips relative to the concrete. Moreover, the
experimental tests have shown that the friction component of
bond strength essentially depends on the resin quality; in fact,
the different smoothness of the resin influences the bond.
Two further effects influence pullout resistance: transverse
hydrostatic strains that develop within the rod in addition to
longitudinal strain during the debonding process, and the hy-
drostatic pressure due to shrinkage of surrounding hardened
concrete. The last effect could become significant depending
on the specimen condition (AI-Zahrani 1995).
To verify that surface condition has a significant effect on
bond resistance of smooth FRP rebars, AI-Zahrani studied the
experimental behavior of smooth glass-vinyl ester rods after
removing the resin-rich layer. The experimental results showed
an increase in the bond strength (five times higher than unal-
tered smooth rods) due to the "skin-removed effect," proving
that the rod surface condition (composition of the resin-rich
surface layer and its smoothness) clearly affects the adhesion
and friction components of the bond strength.
The influence of the smoothness of the outer surface on the
bond behavior of straight FRP rebars is confirmed by the test
results obtained by Makitani et ai. (1993) for sanded rebars.
According to their results, sanding leads to an increase of
chemical bond, thus resulting in a large increment of bond
strength. However, sand-covered continuous fiber bars show
good bond performance initially, but the interface between
sand grains and bars detaches abruptly, with a brittle bond
failure (Itoh et ai. 1989).
An intermediate behavior between smooth and sanded re-
bars has been found by Alunno Rossetti et al. (1995) and
Faoro (1992) for rebars obtained with some different external
surface process (i.e., sandblasted-type rebars, bars with epoxy
powder coating, bars with polyamide sheathing). Such tests
have proved that chemical bond is not negligible any more;
however, bond resistance has resulted in values lower than
those for grain-covered rods.
Deformed FRP Rods
The previous sections emphasized that, in order to improve
bond behavior between concrete and FRP rebars, some pro-
cesses have been developed to produce deformed rods, thus
obtaining a wide range of commercial types of rebars. It is
worth mentioning the following types of deformed FRP rods:
ribbed-type rods, braided rods, indented rods, twisted strands,
spiral glued-type rebars; moreover, within each type, various
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997/41
 products, made of different materials (fibers and resins) and
having different geometry (i.e., spacing and size of ribs), are
commercially available since no standards have been devel-
oped so far.
Obviously, all these differences in geometrical and mechan-
ical properties introduce a wide randomness that can justify
differences (often strong) in bond behavior that each type of
rebar exhibits when performing pullout tests. However, at least
in principle, it is possible to state that, for deformed rods, the
bearing component of bond (mechanical interlock) may be-
come dominant, and then it has to be considered in addition
to friction and adhesion.
In fact, during pullout tests, the rod is directly sustained by
the interaction between surface deformations and the concrete
matrix. For the indented FRP rods to be pulled through the
surrounding rigid conCrete, transverse compression and shear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
concrete surface is not crushed significantly, whereas there is
strong damage to the bar outer surface.
A friction-type bond behavior was also noticed by Kanak-
ubo et al. (1993) in the case of pullout tests of braided rebars
and by Larralde and Silva Rodriguez (1993), who tested GFRP
rebars with a spiral indentation. In the latter case, the authors
found slight cracking of the concrete matrix only and, then,
concluded that adhesion and friction are the primary compo-
nent of the bond of FRP rebars to concrete. The same findings
were obtained by Benmokrane et a1. (1996) from bond tests
on GFRP smooth rods whose surfaces were subsequently de-
formed by helically winding the same kind of fibers.
A bond mechanism involving both friction and mechanical
interlock has been found by Malvar (1994) for two types of
fiber-glass deformed rebars: the first one presented indenta-
tions obtained by stressing the external surface (indented-type

deformation in a plane containing the radial and longitudinal
directions must develop. The longitudinal shear modulus of
the FRP rod in this plane is the ruling constitutive parameter
for such action.
Therefore, bond behavior of the deformed rebars depends
on the manner the interlocking interaction possibly activates;
this is influenced by the rebar geometry (spacing and dimen-
sion of ribs), the concrete properties, and mainly the mechan-
ical characteristics of the reinforcement.
In some conditions deformed rebars do not develop inter-
locking mechanisms. As an example Malvar (1994) found that
deformed rebars obtained by gluing a fiber spiral on the outer
surface possess a bond behavior similar to that of smooth re-
bars with no mechanical interlock. In this case, tests have
shown that the bond collapse is due to the detachment of the
spiral, whereas the concrete remains uncrushed. Therefore,
bond performances are independent of both concrete com-
pressive strength and confinement pressure.
An analogous behavior has been found by Hattori et a1.
(1995) for CFRP cables consisting of seven straight bundles
of carbon fibers that are twisted into a cable (twisted strands).
Observation of the interface after testing indicated that the
rods); the second one had an external helicoidal tow that
provided a protruding deformation (ribbed type). In these
cases, the observation of specimens after tests has shown both
a certain damage of the outer surface of the bars and a wide
diffusion of cracks in the concrete matrix; such cracking evi-
denced that a bearing-type mechanism was activated.
A similar observation was reported by Hattori et al. (1995)
in the case of spirally wounded aramid bars. In such case, the
authors noticed a dependence of the maximum bond stress on
the concrete compressive strength; they also found that the
mechanical properties of binding material (resin), as well as
those of concrete, have great influence on the pullout behavior
of the FRP rebars. Therefore, the authors concluded that the
pullout mechanism of the FRP reinforcements differ from that
of deformed steel bars, whose bond behavior is influenced by
strength of the concrete matrix only.
Differences between bond behavior of FRP and conven-
tional deformed steel reinforcements were also noticed by
Chaallal and Benmokrane (1993); they found that bond
strength of GFRP deformed rods embedded in high-strength
concrete (HSC) is similar to that obtained when such rods
were embedded in normal-strength concrete (NSC). Their find-

TABLE 1. Straight Rods: Main Data of Considered Tests

Type of Type of Tm
rebar Test fiber Description of rebar (MPa) Reference
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Smooth CE6 Carbon Smooth rod-matrix: epoxy 2.37 Nanni et aI. (1995)
CE12 Carbon Smooth rod-matrix: epoxy 1.52 Nanni et aI. (1995)
GY6 Glass Smooth rod-matrix: vinyl ester 1.42 Nanni et aI. (1995)
GY12 Glass Smooth rod-matrix: vinyl ester 1.02 Nanni et aI. (1995)
CY6 Carbon Smooth rod-matrix: vinyl ester 0.77 Nanni et aI. (1995)
CY12 Carbon Smooth rod-matrix: vinyl ester 0.76 Nanni et aI. (1995)
A3R Glass Smooth rod-matrix: polyester 0.69 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
A7R Glass Smooth rod-matrix: polyester 0.69 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
B3R Glass Smooth rod-matrix: polyester 1.02 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
B7R Glass Smooth rod-matrix: polyester 1.69 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
Sanded CA Aramid Grain covered 12.08 Itoh et aI. (1989)
CC Carbon Grain covered 11.36 Itoh et aI. (1989)
CG Glass Grain covered 11.60 Itoh et aI. (1989)
C2 Carbon Sand is stuck to the surface of a bar 14.04 Makitani et aI. (1993)
GFSA Glass Bar with sanded surface 11.19 Faoro (1992)
Others AIR Glass Rough surface sandblasted-type bar-matrix: polyester 1.00 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
A2R Glass Rough surface sandblasted-type bar-matrix: polyester 1.39 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
A4R Glass Rough surface sandblasted-type bar-matrix: polyester 0.69 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
A5R Glass Rough surface sandblasted-type bar-matrix: polyester 3.31 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
A6R Glass Rough surface sandblasted-type bar-matrix: polyester 4.03 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
BIR Glass Rough surface sandblasted-type bar-matrix: polyester 2.71 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
B2R Glass Rough surface sandblasted-type bar-matrix: polyester 2.36 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
B4R Glass Rough surface sandblasted-type bar-matrix: polyester 2.36 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
B5R Glass Rough surface sandblasted-type bar-matrix: polyester 4.14 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
B6R Glass Rough surface sandblasted-type bar-matrix: polyester 5.41 Alunno Rossetti et aI. (1995)
GFEP Glass Bar with epoxy powder coating 9.02 Faoro (1992)
GFPA Glass Bar with polyamide sheathing 5.37 Faoro (1992)

42/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51

 ings suggest that bond strength does not vary linearly with the
square root of the concrete compressive strength (fc) as in the
case of steel reinforcements. Such difference in bond behavior
between FRP and steel rebars is due to (according to the au-
thors) the fact that the surface deformations of the GFRP rod
appear not to be able to provide enough lateral confinement
through rib bearing.
The findings from Chaallal and Benmokrane are helpful to
explain the experimental results obtained by Nanni et al.
(1995) for machined rods (deformed rods obtained by ma-
chining some glass fiber smooth rods with a lathe). Nanni et
al. observed that a friction-type bond behavior, without me-
chanical interlocking, developed and failure was essentially
due to shearing off of the rings without damage to the sur-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
rounding concrete. As a result, no dependence of bond resis-
tance on the concrete compressive strength was observed.
A study by AI-Zahrani et al. (1996) clarifies the foregoing
issue, since it is demonstrated that bond behavior is controlled
by the mechanical interlock and shear strength of the lugs until
the failure of lugs. After the shearing off of the lugs, friction
between rods and concrete tlominates the bond mechanism.
Very similar conclusions were drawn previously by Daniali
(1992), who, after testing E-glass fiber deformed rebars made
of vinyl ester resin, stated that concrete shears the ribs on the
surface of the FRP bars, causing large slippage and bond fail-
ure, in contrast to what occurs if deformed steel rebars are
used (i.e., concrete between the ribs is sheared off).
Finally, it has to emphasized that, for deformed bars, sand-

TABLE 2. Deformed Rebars: Main Data of Considered Tests

Tm
Type of rebar Test Type of fiber Description of rebar (MPa) Reference
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Twisted C3 Carbon A bar is constituted of seven strands twisted 4.30 Makitani et al. (1993)
F Polyethylene Twisted fonn 4.44 Itoh et al. (1989)
CH Carbon Twisted cable-matrix: epoxy 3.72 Hattori et al. (1995)
Glued C E-glass Surface tow glued to the exterior of the bar to provide only 4.398 Malvar (1994)
surface defonnations 4.62b
4.74'
4.62d
5.22"
Ribbed A E-glass External helicoidal tow that provides both a protruding defor- 4.768 Malvar (1994)
mation and a small indentation. 6.20b
9.99'
11.62d
Al Aramid Ararnid fiber is wound spirally round a bar 16.49 Makitani et al. (1993)
CI Carbon Carbon fiber is wound spirally round a bar 13.83 Makitani et al. (1993)
GI Glass Glass fiber is wound spirally round a bar 15.46 Makitani et al. (1993)
VI Vinylon The crossed vinylon fibers are wound round a bar 9.11 Makitani et al. (1993)
BA Aramid With spiral thread 11.56 Itoh et al. (1989)
BC Carbon With spiral thread 17.34 ltoh et al. (1989)
BG Glass With spiral thread 16.62 Itoh et al. (1989)
D Polyethylene With spiral fiber 8.17 Itoh et al. (1989)
E Carbon With spiral fiber belt 18.04 Itoh et aI. (1989)
CDU Carbon Cross wound-untwisted; wound fiber: carbon 8.23 Itoh et aI. (1989)
CST Carbon Spirally wound-twisted; wound fiber: carbon 11.27 Itoh et al. (1989)
VDT Carbon Cross wound-twisted; wound fiber: vinylon 9.42 Itoh et aI. (1989)
VDU Carbon Cross wound-untwisted; wound fiber: vinylon 10.95 ltoh et aI. (1989)
VST Carbon Spirally wound-twisted; wound fiber: vinylon 11.00 Itoh et al. (1989)
VSU Carbon Spirally wound-untwisted; wound fiber: vinylon 7.96 Itoh et al. (1989)
AH Aramid Spiral wound round bar-matrix: vinyl ester 10.26 Hattori et al. (1995)
CE Carbon Machined rod-matrix: epoxy 23.02 Nanni et al. (1995)
CV Carbon Machined rod-matrix: vinyl ester 12.19 Nanni et al. (1995)
GV Glass Machined rod-matrix: vinyl ester 13.21 Nanni et al. (1995)
H5 Glass Machined rod-matrix: vinyl ester 12.00 Nanni et al. (1995)
LlO Glass Machined rod-matrix: vinyl ester 8.49 Nanni et al. (1995)
HIO Glass Machined rod-matrix: vinyl ester 8.12 Nanni et al. (1995)
HS Glass Machined rod-matrix: vinyl ester 11.27 Nanni et al. (1995)
LS Glass Machined rod-matrix: vinyl ester 12.24 Nanni et al. (1995)
Indented and B E-glass Surface tow stressed to obtain indentations. Surface indenta- 5.408 Malvar (1994)
braided tions appear very pronounced in some bars and nonexis- 8.26"
tent in others. 8.86'
9.4l d
14.28"
D E-glass Similar indentations to the one in type B. These bars have an 3.428 Malvar (1994)
outer veil to protect the glass fibers. 7.46b
10.39'
12.08d
13.51"
A3 Aramid A bar is fonned to the braid 11.77 Makitani et al. (1993)
CFCC Carbon Commercially available stranded cable made of carbon epoxy 9.77 Nanni et al. (1995)
Braided and A2 Aramid A bar is fonned to the braid on which sand is stuck 19.24 Makitani et al. (1993)
sanded C4 Carbon A bar is fonned to the braid on which sand is stuck 16.32 Makitani et al. (1993)
8500 pSI confimng pressure.
b 1,500 psi confining pressure.
'2,500 psi confining pressure.
d3.500 psi confining pressure.
84,500 psi confining pressure.

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997/43

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51

 ing plays a role similar to that observed for smooth ones, since
it improves bond performances but leads to more brittle bond
behavior.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS: EFFECT OF SURFACE
AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES
This section is aimed at evaluating the bond-slip constitutive
relationship (T-S) and the bond resistance from test data. Ac-
cording to conclusions reported in the previous section, it is
very clear that both behavioral aspects are strongly dependent
on the bond mechanisms (friction and bearing type). Bond
mechanisms, in turn, primarily depend on the shape of outer
surface, type of resin, and strength of concrete. However,
many other parameters influence the bond performances, such
as confinement pressure, bar diameter, rod position in the cast,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sive stress is applied to concrete when performing pullout tests
(Mashima and Iwamoto 1993). In any case, a more refined
discussion on advantages and disadvantages of the two types
of test procedure is carred out by AI-Zaharani (1995).
In most cases, values of Ton have been defined by the authors
as maximum average stress, i.e., dividing the pullout load by
the contact area between bar and concrete; furthermore, the
slip Son has been generally evaluated at the unloaded end of the
reinforcement. It should also be emphasized that the tests have
been conducted on specimens having rather different mechan-
ical properties and dimensions: as an example, the concrete
compressive strength Ie ranges between 25 and 70 MPa and
the bar diameter between 8 and 18 mm. When available, other
significant parameters, such as Young's and Poisson's moduli,
present rather large scatters (see list of references in Tables 1
and 2). As regards embedment length, values reported by the

rod position in the specimen (top or bottom rebar), embedment authors are often rather small (on the average five to 10 times
length, temperature change, and environmental conditions. the bar diameter).
In the following, a critical review of an extensive set of
such bond tests is presented. For the sake of clarity, the ex-
perimental results are classified based on the shape of the outer Straight FRP Rods
surface as previously done for bond mechanisms. In particular, Tests on smooth as well as grain-covered FRP rods are con-
the average performances in terms of strength and deform- sidered here (see Table 1). It can be seen that, apart from test
ability are evaluated for the two categories of rebars (straight procedure and material mechanical properties, bond strength
and deformed rods). Within each category, the further depen- (Ton) for smooth rebars is rather poor (Ton < 2.37 MPa).
dence of bond on the mechanical properties of reinforcements A remarkable increase of Ton is obtained with proper surface
and concrete is also evidenced. The effect of the other afore- treatments. By sanding the outer surface of smooth rebars,
mentioned factors is discussed in the following section. bond resistance Ton greatly amplifies (Ton> 10 MPa), thus at-
Based on the proposed classification, the main data of the taining values similar or even larger than those of steel rein-
considered tests are reported in Tables 1 and 2 for straight and forcements.
deformed rods, respectively. The two tables report on: type of Table 1 also reports test data for the so-called sandblasted-
rod (i.e., smooth, ribbed, indented, braided); test identification; type rebars whose surface is treated differently (Alunno Ros-
type of used fiber; description of the type of outer surface and setti et al. 1995).
type of matrix; values of the maximum bond stress (Ton); and Although values of Ton are lower than those of sanded rebars,
references. a remarkable increase (Ton up to 5.41 MPa) is obtained com-
Part of the selected experimental data come from pullout pared to smooth rebars.
tests and the rest from hinged-beam tests. It should be em- Such increments in strength are due to an increase of chem-
phasized that a pullout test does not reflect the actual condition ical bond (up to 10 times for grain-covered rebars) and of the
of reinforcements in reinforced-concrete members under bend- friction coefficient associated with the outer-surface roughness.
ing (Larralde and Silva Rodriguez 1993); in fact, a compres- However, for grain-covered rebars the increases in bond
strength are counterbalanced by a more brittle T-S relationship.
TABLE 3. Mean Values and Coefficients of Variation for Test The mean values of the bond strength Ton and the associated
Results slip Sm are reported in Table 3 along with the coefficient of
Number 'T m sm variation (COV). For what concerns smooth rods, their relative
Type of outer surface of tests (MPa) COV (mm) COY low bond values (Ton = 1.19 MPa) lead to the conclusion that
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) it is not safe to use smooth bars as reinforcement in concrete
Smooth rebars 10 1.19 0.44 0.26 1.29 structures.
Grain covered 5 12.05 0.09 0.13 0.37 Fig. 1 shows the experimental values of Ton and Son' with their
Sandblasted-type rebars 10 2.74 0.52 1.08 1.73 means, for smooth and grain-covered rebars.
Twisted strands 3 4.15 0.08 0.45 0.24 For smooth rods, it has to be shown that the effect of con-
Ribbed type 27 11.61 0.34 1.23 1.19 crete mechanical properties appear to be negligible, being the
Indented and braided 12 10.20 0.10 2.14 0.61
2 17.78 0.08 0.15 0.00
bond performances dependent on the type of fibers and ma-
Braided and sanded
trix only. This has been found by Nanni et al. (1995), who
25 ~--------"'---------:-1 25 ~-----.-----'- - - - - - - - - - - - ,
m[MPa] Smooth 1: ",IMI-nt Grain covered
(a) 20
(b)
20

15
15
•
10 10
,-
····t······ •
A = mean value

A = mean value
5 5

o I !., ,....•., , J, ,.,.,. ',.,.,.•' , ,.,. ,..•.~.~~.[I~~J .. S on (nun)

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

FIG. 1. Smooth and Grain-Covered Rebars: Values of 'T... and 8 m

44/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51

 t [MPs)
2.5
2 with no bearing-type behavior.
CEe
1.5
Gve
'-'---'-'-'-'-_.__._._._-_._._._c.:!..
0.5
s[mm]
00L -~-0.L..5-~-'-~~1:i:.5~~~2~~-2:':.5;--~----:3
FIG. 2. Influence of Smoothness of Outer Surface on Bond
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Behavior
12...----------------------,
9 stiffness.
6 are rather scattered, especially those for rib-type rods. Such
GFSA
/ ~~~.
.......................................·..· · · GV6
2 s[mm]
FIG. 3. Bond-5l1p Experimental Laws for Smooth, Graln-Cov-
ered, and Sandblasted-TYpe Rebars
carried out tests on smooth rods by varying the type of fiber
(carbon or glass) and matrix (epoxy or vinyl ester resin).
Fig. 2 reports some of their results, which clearly show the
dependence of T-S curves on matrix and fibers, confirming that
in the case of smooth rebars the composition of the resin-rich
surface layer and its smoothness are the critical parameters.
All curves in Fig. 2, as well as those representing experi-
mental T-S relationships in the subsequent figures, are labeled
with the same identifications reported in Tables I and 2 in
order to enable definition of their source.
Further observation about the T-S relationship can be drawn
from Fig. 3, which displays typical T-S curves for smooth,
grain-covered, and sandblasted-type rebars. For smooth and
sandblasted-type rods, it can be seen that a rather constant
trend characterizes the curves after attaining T m (friction be-
havior); furthermore, very low values of adhesion are ob-
served. For grain-covered rebars, the behavior is quite different
since values of bond strength are larger, chemical bond is not
negligible, stiffness is higher, and then values of Sm are lower.
In addition, the softening branch is fastly. degrading after
reaching the maximum bond strength, denoting a very brittle
behavior.
Deformed FRP Rods
As already mentioned the surface treatments, leading to fab-
rication of deformed FRP rods, intend to increase friction,
compared to smooth rods, and to obtain further contributions
to bond strength from mechanical interlocking.
Several types of rebars belong to this category, having dif-
ferent bond mechanisms, which result in different bond-resis-
tance and bond-constitutive relationships. This can be seen
from Table 2, which reports values of Tm for each considered
test, and from Table 3, which reports average values of Tm and
Sm over the entire experimental test set.
For both twisted and spiral glued bars, values of T m are
slightly larger than those for smooth bars, the former reaching
a mean value of 4.15 MPa, the latter a mean value of about
4.50 MPa; in both cases bond resistance develops from friction
Carbon' EpolCy For ribbed and indented rebars, several bond tests have ev-
Glus • Vinyl eate, idenced much better performances, with remarkably higher
values of T m compared to smooth bars, independent of the ac-
tivated bond mechanism. This is confirmed by Nanni et al'
Carbon· Vinyl eate, (1995) for "machined rods," which present a bond strength
one order magnitude higher than that of corresponding smooth
rods.
Furthermore, a comparison between values of Tm for ribbed
and indented FRP rebars and those for deformed steel rein-
forcements demonstrates that, for a given diameter, the former
possess slightly lower bond resistance than the latter.
When sand coating is applied to deformed FRP rods, values
of T m are even larger (>16 MPa), thus exceeding the bond
............ SmO(l/h
.•••••. SarulhIQS,-.J-/l~
strength of deformed steel rods. In fact, sand grains that are
- - Grain covered glued on the surface, provide a further increase in strength and
Fig. 4 shows values of T m and of the corresponding slip Sm
for all types of deformed rods. It can be seen that such values
scatter is due to the large variability of the tested rebars since
no standardization has been developed yet. Namely, the dif-
ferences in geometry and in the mechanical properties of fibers
and resins, resulting (as already said) in the activation of dif-
ferent mechanisms, generate rather different bond resistance.
The experimental T-S curves for some deformed rods are
4 shown in Fig. 5: a large variation in the bond resistance as
well as in the overall bond behavior emerges. Twisted strands
present a clearly frictional behavior with a constant plateau at
about 3 MPa.
From the experimental bond-slip curves for ribbed and in-
dented rods, it can be concluded that the ultimate bond
strength Tm is somehow similar to that of steel reinforcements
but occurs at a considerably larger level of slip (sm)' Finally,
the T-S curves for sanded deformed rods evidence a noteworthy
increase in adhesion, a considerable bond resistance, a limited
slip Sm' and a strong slope of the softening branch.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS: EFFECT OF OTHER
PARAMETERS
The large scatter in the data presented in previous sections
is partially due to the influence of parameters in addition to
those already considered. The most significant observations on
the effect of t4ese further parameters are summarized in the
following section.
Effect of Confinement Pressure
The effect of confinement pressure on the interaction be-
tween reinforcing rebars and surrounding concrete has been
studied by Soroushian et al. (1991) in the case of steel rein-
forcements.
For what concerns FRP rebars, an extensive study was car-
ried out by Malvar (1994), which was aimed at investigating
the bond-slip behavior of four commercially available FRP
reinforcing rebars. The main characteristics of the selected bars
(identified as A, B, C, and D) are reported in Table 2. The
experimental data were obtained for five levels of constant
radial-confining stress. The obtained results have shown a
strong dependence of bond strength on the confinement for
both deformed and stressed rebars (types A, B, and D), while,
for bars with a spiral glued to the outer surface (type C), the
response was almost unaffected by confinement. In this last
case, in fact, it was observed that the spiral (initially glued to
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION f MAY 1997/45
J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51
 25,...--------------..----- 25
't,.[MPa) Twisted 'tIllIMPaj Indented & Braided
20
(a) (b)
20

15 15
• .: •
10
6. = mean value
10 It· . &. .., .... •
.....................................................................
6. =mean value
I
!
••
5 ,
4· ...................... 5 •
i
i Sill (Ilun)
• _Il.[mln)
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 2 4 6 8 10

25

.r
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ribbed
(c)
i Deformed & Sanded
20 (~
.....................................+. .
• 15
i 6.= mean value
10 i
5 •
• 6. = mean value

5 I
8 .. [mml 1 8 m [mml
00·1---1..-.-'--1..-.--1..-.--1..-.--1..-.----..1
2 4 6 8 10 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

FIG. 4. Deformed Rebars: Values of 'I'm and B m

20,.--------------------, Results obtained by Benmokrane et al. (1996) confirm the

..........
16
.......................
12
4 •••••••• _•••••••••••••••••••••••••.CH
oOI..-------.l.------'-----...I.6--.-,[~mm-,1,........J8
FIG. 5. Bond-Slip Experimental Laws for Different TYpes of
Outer Surfaces
the bar) would break and separate from the bar during the test
while the concrete cylinder never splits; therefore, most of the
confining stress was carried by the concrete cylinder without
transferring to the bar-concrete interface: as a result, bond re-
sistance was only provided by friction between the bar itself
and the concrete.
Effect of Bar Diameter
The effect of bar diameter on bond resistance of straight
FRP rods has been investigated by Nanni et al. (1995) and by
Benmokrane et al. (1996).
In particular, Nanni et al. carried out tests on glass-vinyl
ester smooth rods with diameters of 12.7 and 6.3 mm (GV12
and GV6, respectively), carbon-vinyl ester smooth rods (CV12
and CV6), and carbon-epoxy smooth rods (CE12 and CE6)
having a constant embedment length of 63 mm (Le., embed-
ment length-to-diameter ratios of 5 and 10). The experimental
results obtained by the authors showed that, as for steel, the
average bond resistance of FRP rods increases as bar diameter
decreases.
46/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997
- Rlhh<'d
•• - .... , TlI'iSled
preceding findings since for GFRP rods having diameters of
_.-.- Inde",ed andlor Bra'dItd
............ ntftJrt"C'd and Sa"ded 12.7, 15.9, 19.1, and 25.4 mm, values of bond strength T m
................. ......... equal to 10.6,7.3,6.6, and 6.4 MPa, respectively, were found .
. .....~.
Effect of Bar Position in the Cast
The effect of bar position in the cast was investigated by
Alunno Rossetti et al. (1995) for straight rebars (smooth and
sandblasted-type rods). The authors carried out some pullout
tests on specimens where the bar had two different positions
relative to the cast: orthogonal (position A) and parallel (po-
sition B).
The test results showed a significant influence of bar posi-
tioning on the bond behavior; in particular, because of bleed-
ing and segregation during cast, bars in position A systemat-
ically presented a lower bond strength (about 1.5 to 2.0 times
lower) than those in position B, with a trend similar to that of
steel reinforcements.
Top-Bar Effect
The top-bar effect has been explored with reference to FRP
rebars by Ehsani et al. (1993), Chaallal and Benmokrane
(1993), and Benmokrane and Masmoudi (1996).
Namely, Ehsani et al. conducted tests on two types of spec-
imen: in the first, the reinforcement was cast with a clear cover
of 19 mm from the bottom of the specimen; in the second, the
reinforcement was cast with approximately 280 mm of con-
crete below the bar and a clear cover of 19 mm from the top
of the specimen. The two tests indicated that the allowable
bond stress in the top bar was 66% of that for the bottom bar.
Chaallal and Benmokrane evaluated the "top cast modifi-
cation factor" defined as the ratio of the pullout strength of
the bottom rods to that of the top rods. They found that such
ratio depends to a small degree on the concrete strength; in
particular, for NSC the average ratio was 1.23 while for HSC
the average value was 1.18.

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51

 Finally, Benmokrane and Masmoudi obtained a value for
the top cast modification factor equal to 1.1 from pullout tests
on Type I-Grade B C-Bar. The average compressive strength
of concrete was equal to 52 MPa.
Effect of Embedment Length
The effect of the embedment length was studied by Nanni
et aI. (1995) for a glass-vinyl ester machined bar. The follow-
ing two cases were investigated: embedment of 10 diameters
(test HIO) and embedment of five diameters (H5). The test
results, reported in Table 2, led the authors to conclude that
the specimens with shorter embedment length develop higher
nominal bond strength.
This observation is confirmed by findings of Makitani et aI.
(1993), who conducted bond tests on beam specimens. Car-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
bon, aramid, glass, and vinylon rebars-characterized by dif-
ferent shapes of the outer surface (smooth, grain-covered,
braided, and ribbed)-were used as reinforcement; three val-
ues of the embedment length-to-diameter ratio were consid-
ered (10, 20, and 40).
Effect of Temperature Change
The effect of temperature changes on the pullout resistance
of smooth rods was investigated by AI-Zaharani (1995). The
author carried out an experimental program consisting of pull-
out tests at different thermal conditions. In particular, three
conditions, characterized by different curing and testing tem-
peratures, but the same absolute difference in temperature (dt
= 40°C) between curing and testing, were considered. The re-
sults showed a much lower bond resistance when reducing the
temperature between curing and testing by dt than when in-
creasing it. This effect is due to bar contraction and expansion,
caused by the temperature reduction and increase, respectively,
since both phenomena significantly influence the friction com-
ponent of the bond mechanism. Therefore, besides the surface
roughness, the coefficient of thermal expansion of FRP rods
is an important parameter for determining the bond behavior
of smooth rods, since it is responsible for a change in radial
pressure on the rod when thermal conditions vary.
Honma and Maruyama (1989) investigated the effect of
temperature on CFRP rods, performing tests at room temper-
ature after maintaining the specimens for 3 hours at different
preset temperatures (from +20°C to + 100°C); they found that
high temperature has a very detrimental effect on bond, prob-
ably as a result of the lower shear stiffness of the matrix of
FRP rods.
Effect of Environmental Conditions
A further significant issue is the evaluation of the effect of
environmental conditions on bond characteristics. In this field,
it is worth mentioning the works by Mashima and Iwamoto
(1993), concerning the change in bond characteristics of FRP
rebars to concrete due to repeated freeze and thaw actions, and
by AI-Dulaijan et aI. (1996), which was aimed at establishing
the effect of accelerated environmental conditioning on the
bond behavior of GFRP rods.
Mashima and Iwamoto performed bond tests on cubic spec-
imens (10 X 10 X 10 cm) with an FRP rod embedded at the
center of the specimen cube. Carbon, vinylon, glass, and ar-
amid FRP rods were used. After numerous freezing and thaw-
ing cycles, they observed that in the case of GFRP, CFRP, and
VFRP rebars the bond strength was not changed appreciably,
while the bond resistance of AFRP rods reduced gradually
with progress in freezing and thawing.
The experimental program carried out by AI-Dulaijan et aI.
consisted of FRP/concrete direct pullout tests, FRP sonic res-
J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51
onance tests, and FRP short-beam shear-strength tests. Three
glass/vinylester rod types with different shapes of the outer
surface were used; the conditioning consisted of immersing
for 28 days the FRP/concrete specimens in a solution with
high pH and temperature. The results. showed a remarkable
reduction in bond strength with respect to unconditioned spec-
imens for all rod types; such reduction was mainly due to
degradation of resins; furthermore, a worsening in the me-
chanical properties was observed for the conditioned speci-
mens.
ANALYTICAL MODELS OF BOND-SLIP BEHAVIOR
To perform numerical analysis of behavior of reinforced-
concrete members and structures including the interaction be-
tween concrete and reinforcement, an analytical model of the
bond-slip constitutive law is needed. In spite of the numerous
formulations proposed in the past for steel rods (from simple
linear to more refined nonlinear models), for FRP rebars an
extensive research effort is still needed; furthermore, the few
available formulations for FRP rebars still have to be validated
by comparison with experimental results.
In the following, a brief review of the available models for
FRP rebars is reported along with an assessment of their re-
liability to simulate the experimental results. It should be em-
phasized that the analytical models of the T-S relationship al-
ready developed are aimed at identifying a general law, which
holds always by determining its parameters by curve fitting.
No specific formulations for the different types of rebars have
been developed so far.
Malvar Model
The first modeling of the bond phenomenon in the case of
FRP rods was given by Malvar (1994), who carried out an
extensive experimental research on GFRP bars characterized
by different shapes of the outer surface. Tests were performed
for different values of the confinement pressure and for a fixed
tensile strength of the concrete (tests A, B, C, and D reported
in Table 2).
According to test results, Malvar proposed a refined model
of the overall bond behavior, depending on two empirical con-
stants (F and G) to be determined by curve-fitting the experi-
mental T-S curves. This type of model is represented by the
following relationship:
..!.. _ F(sls m) + (G - 1)(SISm)2
(1)
'rm - 1 + (F - 2)(slsm )+ G(SISm )2
where 'r m , Sm = peak bond stress, slip at peak bond stress; and
F, G = empirical constants determined for each bar type.
Moreover, in order to obtain, for a given value 0' of the
confinement pressure, an estimate of the T m and Sm values, Mal-
var provided two other relationships:
'rm
f, =A + 8(1 - exp{ -CO'If,}); Sm =D + EO' (2)
where 0' = confining axisymmetric radial pressure; f, = tensile
concrete strength; and A, B, C, D, E = empirical constants
determined for each type of rebar.
Eligehausen, Popov, and Bertero Model (BPE Model)
The well-known bond-slip analytical law proposed by Eli-
gehausen et al. (1983) for deformed steel rods has been suc-
cessfully applied to FRP rebars by Faoro (1992), Alunno Ros-
setti et al. (1995), and Cosenza et al. (1995). Such analytical
law [see Fig. 6(a)] expresses the ascending branch of the bond-
slip (s S Sl) relationship as follows:
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION I MAY 1997/47
 t

I !
it 3
821 83 i i
8 0
FIG. 6. (a) BPE Model; (b) Modified BPE Model

where T m = peak bond stress; and s, and 13 = parameters based

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(3)
on curve-fitting of the actual data.
It is possible to observe that the CMR model provides an
where Tl = maximum bond strength; and SI = corresponding initial slope (Le., for slip S = 0) equal to infinity, thus allowing
slip (therefore TI = T m and SI = sm)' the physical phenomenon of adhesion to be reproduced quite
In (3) a is a curve-fitting parameter that must not be larger well. The BPE model features the same property [see (3)],
than 1, to be physically meaningful: the value of a proposed whereas the initial slope provided by the Malvar model has a
by Eligehausen et al. (1983) in the case of steel bars and sub- finite value, equal to FTm/Sm (Le., equal to F times the secant
sequently adopted in the "CEB-FIP Model Code 1990" tangent at the peak bond stress).
(1991) is equal to 0.40.
Furthermore, the BPE model presents a second branch with
constant bond (T =TI) up to a slip S =S2; a linearly descending
ANALYTICAL VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
branch from (S2' TI) to (S3' T3); and a horizontal branch for S Based on the available experimental tests, the main param-
> S3, with a value of T due to the development of friction (T eters of the modified BPE model (a, p, T3) and of the CMR
= T3)' Values of S2, S3' and T3 have to be calibrated on the basis model (13, s,) have been calibrated. Parameters 13 and s, of the
of the experimental results. CMR model [see (5)] have been obtained from the experi-
mental data by the least-square error method, while parameter
BPE Modified Model a of the BPE model [see (3)] has been evaluated by equating
Cosenza et al. (1996) proposed an alternative analytical the area AT1 underneath the ascending branch of the analytical
model obtained by slightly modifying the BPE one. In fact, in bond-slip curve [see Fig. 6(b)] given by
the case of FRP rebars, the comparison between the experi-
mental curves and the analytical ones obtained by applying AT! =
SI T(s)'ds = lSI ()" 'ds = - -
S T 1 'SI
(6)
the original BPE model has shown a lack of the second branch,
thus suggesting not to consider it. Then the modified BPE
l o 0
Tj' -
Sl 1+ a

law-shown in Fig. 6(b)-presents the same ascending to the area A Ts underneath the ascending branch of each actual
branch as the original one [see (3)], a softening branch, having curve.
slope P' T/SI from (SI> TI) to (S3' T3)' which is given by In (6) TI and SI represent the bond strength and the corre-
sponding slip, respectively. Therefore, a can be expressed as
2.. =
TI
1- p (!... -
SI
1) (4)
a function of A TI through

and, finally, for S > S3' a horizontal branch simulating the fric- (7)
tion component T 3.
Therefore, in the case of the modified model, only three TABLE 4. Mean Values and Coefficients of Variation for Theo-
parameters have to be estimated: parameter a, which the as- retical Parameters
cending branch depends on; parameter p, accounting for the
softening; and the friction component T3 of the bond resistance. Modified BPE Model CMR Model
Furthermore, this simplified formulation, which appears more T3 s,
suitable for FRP rebars, provides powerful analytical solutions Type of outer surface Ol p (MPa) 13 (mm)
for different problems in the structural mechanics of concrete (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
members reinforced with FRP rebars. Smooth (number of tests = 10) 0.145 1.87 0.99 0.314 0.11
(0.44) (0.53) (0.47) (0.90) (0.81)
CMR Model Grain covered (number of tests = 5)
0.067 3.11 3.17 0.138 0.07
(0.81) (0.96) (0.22) (1.50) (0.12)
Most structural problems are to be dealt with at the ser- Sandblasted-type (number of tests 0.251 2.63 1.38 0.559 0.41
viceability state level; therefore, a refined modeling of the = 8) (0.97) (0.47) (0.53) (0.52) (1.81)
T-S curve is needed for the ascending branch only (Le., for slip Twisted (number of tests = 3) 0.175 4.15 3.68 0.593 0.12
less than sm). (0.44) (0.11) (0.15) (0.57) (0.24)
For this reason, a new model for the ascending branch of Ribbed (number of tests = 27) 0.283 14.88 7.79 0.575 0.45
(0.56) (1.20) (0.60) (0.52) (1.60)
the T-S curve has been proposed by Cosenza et al. (1995). This 12.80 6.26 0.473 0.78
Indented and braided (number of 0.177
model represents an alternative to the BPE model [(3)] and is tests = 12) (0.05) (0.61) (0.36) (0.66) (0.76)
defined by the following expression: Braided and sanded (number of 0.069 0.95 7.13 0.025 0.08
tests = 2) (0.07) (0.16) (0.33) (0.60) (0.07)
-TT = (1 - exp{ -s/s,})~ (5) Note: Numbers in parentheses represent the coeffiCient of vanatlOn.
m

48/ JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51

 Finally, the value of p, which characterizes the slope of the
softening branch of the modified BPE model [see (3)], has
been evaluated by balancing over the softening range the areas
underneath the experimental and analytical curves.
Based on the analogy of the classification developed for the
experimental results here, the mean values of the aforemen-
tioned model parameters have been grouped according to the
shape of the rebars. Table 4 reports such mean values along
with the coefficient of variation. The values reported in Table
4 confinn that not only bond resistance, but also trend of the
bond-slip constitutive law is strongly dependent on the type
of rebar.
Very low values of ex, characterizing the first branch, have
been obtained for sanded rebars (with or without defonna-
tions) by using both the analytical models; in fact, in this case
bond strength develops without significant slips and the as-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Looking at the entire T-S curve, it can be observed that the
highest values of the friction component T3 have been found
for deformed rebars (rib and indented type). Moreover, in the
case of straight rods (smooth, grain-covered, and sandblasted-
type rods), the friction component T3 represents the dominant
component of bond resistance; this emerges by the com-
parison between values T3 (Table 4) and values of T.. (Table
3).
Values of T3 amplify from smooth rods to sandblasted-type
rods and then to grain-covered rods, thus confinning that the
surface treatment influences bond behavior to a large extent.
It should also be emphasized that rather high coefficients of
variation of the main parameters of both models were found,
because of the variations in test procedures and in the material
mechanical properties.
Some comparisons between actual and analytical T-S curves

cending curves can be well reproduced using a rigid law. are reported in Figs. 7 -10. To better estimate the relative ad-
Moreover, looking at the BPE model, a mean value of ex equal equacy of different models, each analytical curve is obtained
to about 0.23 has been computed for defonned bars (including by using the coefficients calibrated to its experimental coun-
both ribbed and indented ones); then, the comparison between terpart instead of using the mean values of Table 4. In partic-
the foregoing value and the one proposed for defonned steel ular, Fig. 7 shows a comparison between the BPE model, the
bars (ex = 0.40) show that the FRP defonned rebars have a CMR model, and two experimental curves; it is seen that the
stiffer initial bond behavior than the steel ones. best correlation of the test results is obtained by the CMR
18
model, which seems to be the most suitable formulation for
the ascending branch.
16 A comparison of the analytical curves obtained with the
14 modified BPE model and the experimental results is reported
in Figs. 8 and 9 for smooth and deformed rods, respectively.
12
The experimental bond behavior of defonned and smooth bars
10 is quite different: in most cases T-S curves of defonned rebars
are characterized by remarkable softening, whereas, as already
shown, bond behavior of smooth bars is practically rigid-plas-
tic, with s.. being very small and the softening branch almost
4 • TestBC C.M.R. Model flat. In spite of the significant change in behavior, plots of Figs.
• Test VI B.P.E. Model 8 and 9 show a reasonable agreement between numerical and
2 actual values for both types of rebars.
s[mm]
o L - _ - L_ _.l..-_----'-_ _.J......_---'-_ _. . . l . . - _ - - - - I . _ - ' Finally a comparison of the Malvar and the BPE models
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.6
with some experimental curves is reported in Figs. lO(a) and
FIG. 7. BPE Model versus CMR Model lO(b).

2.------------------...,
(MPal o Tes/83R Tes/CV6
D
- - B.P.F.. Maciel o Tes/eVJl
1.6 - - B.P.E. Model

1.2

000 0

0.4

(a) s[mm) s[mml

°0.L----'---........,2'"-----~3'----...
4'--~~5
2 3 4 5

2.-------------------,
rt (MPal o Tes/A3R Test GV6
D

- - B.P.E. Model Test GVJ2

o
1.6 - - B.P.E. Model
w

1.2

0.8 ..........

0.4
"
(c)
8 [mml 8 [mm)
°0.L----l..--........,2'"-----~3'----...
4'--....:.~5
2 3 4 5
FIG. 8. BPE Model versus Experimental Curve: Straight Rebars

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION / MAY 1997/49

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51

 16
t[MPlI]

o Te.vIA o Te.YIAH
- - IloP.H. Model I:! - - B.P.f:. Model

o 8

~ [mml ()
3 4 () 4

16
t [MPlI]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

o Test BA o TestH5
- - B.P.E. Model 12 - B.P.E. Model

(d)
s[mml s mm
°O·'-----~---~2----3~-.:.l:.:::.::.1.J4
2 3 4
FIG. 9. BPE Model versus Experimental Curve: Deformed Rebars

Thus, both the Malvar model and the modified BPE model
yield good correlation of the entire experimental bond-slip
curves. If one looks at the ascending branch only, which is of
great interest for many practical applications, the CMR model
c T('.'1tF
• n',ytCE6 appears to be the most reliable; however, rather satisfactory
........ MALVAR M",',I correlations can be also obtained by the BPE model, whereas
- M",I(fi<!d B.P.E. Model
the analytical model by Malvar is not very suitable since it
.................... underestimates the initial stiffness compared to the experi-
mental values.

(a) s[mm)
SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
°O·L----:O,.-\.4:---0::-.8:---..,.1-'::.2--:-1,.-\.8:-....:..;~2
In this paper results from several recent experimental stud-
4.5 ........ , " ,' . ies, which have investigated the bond behavior between FRP
t [MPs] rebars and the concrete matrix, are discussed in order to clarify
some important issues and to provide a rational state of the
art on this subject.
3 o T,wF
From the discussion the following observations emerge.
• TestCE6 FRP smooth rods are inadequate for use in reinforced con-
........ MA LVAR Model
- Modified B.P.E. Model crete structures. In fact, the actual bond-slip curves show very
low values of bond strength due to the activation of a friction
1.5 mechanism with large damage of the rebar surface, without
cracks in the surrounding concrete. Moreover, the bond
strength is seen to be dependent on fiber and resin properties,
(b) whereas it is not affected by concrete strength.
s[mml
°O·L...---=O-=.O=-S-----;O"".1-=S---:-O::-.2::::S:-----..,..;;,:;.;.:~O.35 Sand-covered continuous fiber rebars show good bond re-
sistance; however, the interface between sand grains and bars
FIG. 10. BPE versus Malvar Model: (a) Entire Curve; (b) First detaches abruptly, thus leading to a brittle bond failure.
Branch Deformation of a smooth rod surface obtained by gluing a
spiral on it does not result in any significant improvement in
Fig. IO(a) shows the comparison over the entire curve; bond behavior. In fact, the test results show that the bond
therefore, parameters F and G of the Malvar law have been collapse is due to the detachment of the spiral, while the con-
determined by curve-fitting the two selected experimental crete is uncrushed. Therefore, the bond strength is provided
curves. A good agreement between both the analytical models by a friction mechanism and Tm values are slightly higher than
and the experimental data can be observed. Nevertheless, the those of smooth bars.
examination of Fig. lO(b), which reports a magnification of Twisted strands present slightly larger values of bond
the ascending branch, indicates that a better modeling of the strength T m compared to those obtained for smooth rebars. A
initial behavior is provided by the BPE model, which closely low dependency of bond resistance on the concrete compres-
predicts the initial stiffness of the experimental curves. sive strength has been evidenced by tests.
50 I JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION I MAY 1997

J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51

 In the case of defonned rebars, different bond mechanisms
have been found, depending on the shape of the outer surface,
the compressive strength of concrete, and primarily, the me-
chanical properties of the reinforcements. Only when rebars
possess adequate characteristics to provide enough lateral con-
finement through bearing ribs, is a bearing type of mechanism
activated and a dependence of bond strength on the concrete
compressive strength observed.
Good bond perfonnances can be generally obtained for both
rib type and indented bars; although in both cases maximum
average bond stress similar to that of defonned steel bars was
observed, the free end slip at the same bond stress was larger
than that for the steel ones.
The best perfonnances in tenns of bond stiffness and
strength are obtained for both defonned and sanded rods, but
a brittle bond behavior has been evidenced.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Four analytical fonnulations have been considered to rep-
resent bond-slip behavior. The Malvar model is able to repro-
duce the entire constitutive T-S curve by means of only one
relation, but it appears less reliable to model the ascending
branch than the BPE and the CMR models. The modified BPE
model is also suitable for reproduction of the entire curve;
furthennore, it shows a good agreement with the experimental
data even within the first branch. The CMR model describes
only the ascending branch, but, in this range, it is proved to
lead to the best simulations.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
AI-Dulaijan, S. U., Nanni, A., AI-Zaharani, M. M., Bakis, C. E., and
BoothbY, T. E. (1996). "Bond evaluation of environmentally condi-
tioned GFRP/concrete systems." Proc., 2nd Int. Cant on Advanced
Compos. Mat. in Bridge Struct., M. EI-Badry, ed.
Alunno Rossetti, V., Galeota, D., and Giammatteo, M. M. (1995). "Local
bond stress-slip relationships of glass fibre reinforced plastic bars em-
bedded in concrete." Mat. and Struct., 28(180).
AI-Zaharani, M. M. (1995). "Bond behaviour of fiber reinforced plastic
(FRP) reinforcements with concrete," PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State
Univ., University Park, Pa.
AI-Zaharani, M. M., Nanni, A., AI-Dulaijan, S. U., and Bakis, C. E.
(1996). "Bond of FRP to concrete in reinforcement rods with axisym-
metric deformations." Proc., 2nd Int. Cant on Advanced Compos. Mat.
in Bridge Struct., M. EI-Badry, ed.
Benmokrane, B., and Masmoudi, R. (1996). "FRP C-bar as reinforcing
rod for concrete structures." Proc.• 2nd Int. Cant on Advanced Com-
pos. Mat. in Bridge Struct., M. EI-Badry, ed.
Benmokrane. B., Tighiouart, B., and Chaallal, O. (1996). "Bond strength
and load distribution of composite GFRP reinforcing bars in concrete."
ACI Mat. J., 93(3).
Chaallal, 0., and Benmokrane, B. (1993). "Pullout and bond of glass-
fibre rods embedded in concrete and cement grout." Mat. and Stmct.,
26.
Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB). (1991). "CEB-PIP model
code 1990." Bull. d'information, Lausanne, SWitzerland, 203-205.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. (1995). "Analytical mod-
elling of bond between FRP reinforcing bars and concrete." Proc., 2nd
Int. RILEM Symp. (FRPRCS-2J, L. Taerwe, ed.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. (1996). "Bond character-
istics and anchorage length of FRP rebars." Proc., 2nd Int. Cant on
Advanced Compos. Mat. in Bridge Struct., M. EI-Badry, ed.
Daniali, S. (1992). "Development length for fibre-reinforced plastic
bars." Proc., 1st Int. Cont on Advanced Compos. Mat. in Bridge
Struct.• K. W. Neale and P. Labossi~re, eds.
Ehsani, M. R., Saadatrnanesh, H., and Tao, S. (1993). "Bond of GFRP
rebars to ordinary-strength concrete." Proc.• Int. Symp. on Fiber Re-
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 MAY 1997/51
J. Compos. Constr., 1997, 1(2): 40-51
inforced Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Struct.; ACI SP-/38, A.
Nanni and C. W. Dolan, eds.
Eligehausen, R., Popov. E. P., and Bertero, V. V. (1983). "Local bond
stress-slip relationships of deformed bars under generalized excita-
tions." Rep. No. 83/23, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr. (EERC), Univ. of
California, Berkeley, Calif.
Faoro, M. (1992). "Bearing and deformation behaviour of structural com-
ponents with reinforcements comprising resin bounded glass fibre bars
and conventional ribbed steel bars." Proc.• Int. Cant on Bond in Con-
crete.
Hattori, A., Inoue, S., Miyagawa, T., and Fujii, M. (1995). "A study on
bond creep behavior of FRP rebars embedded in concrete." Proc.• 2nd
Int. RILEM Symp. (FRPRCS-2J, L. Taerwe, ed.
Honma, M., and Maruyama, T. (1989). "Bond properties of carbon fiber
reinforced plastic rods at elevated temperatures." Pruc.• Arch. Inst. of
Japan Convention. Vol. C (in Japanese).
Itoh, S., Maruyama, T., and Nishiyama, H. (1989). "Study of bond char-
acteristics of deformed fiber reinforced plastic rods." Proc.• Japan
Concrete Inst., 11(1) (in Japanese).
Kanakubo, T., Yonemaru, K., Fukuyama, H., Fujisawa, M., and Sonobe,
Y. (1993). "Bond performance of concrete members reinforced with
FRP bars." Proc., Int. Symp. on Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforce-
ment for Concrete Struct.; ACI SP-/38, A. Nanni and C. W. Dolan,
eds.
Larralde, J., and Silva Rodriguez, R. (1993). "Bond and slip of FRP
rebars in concrete." J. Mat. in Civ. Engrg., ASCE, 5(1).
Makitani, E., Irisawa, I., and Nishiura, N. (1993). "Investigation of bond
in concrete member with fiber reinforced plastic bars." Proc., Int.
Symp. on Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Stmct.;
ACI SP-138, A. Nanni and C. W. Dolan, eds.
Malvar, L. J. (1994). "Bond stress-slip characteristics of FRP rebars."
Rep. TR-2013-SHR, Naval Fac. Engrg. Service Ctr., Port Hueneme,
Calif.
Mashima, M., and Iwamoto, K. (1993). "Bond characteristics of FRP rod
and concrete after freezing and thawing deterioration." Proc., Int.
Symp. on Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Struct.;
ACI SP-138, A. Nanni and C. W. Dolan, eds.
Nanni, A.• AI-Zaharani, M. M., AI-Dulaijan. S. U., Bakis, C. E., and
Boothby, T. E. (1995). "Bond of FRP reinforcement to concrete-
experimental results." Proc., 2nd Int. RILEM Symp. (FRPRCS-2J, L.
Taerwe, ed.
Soroushian, P., Choi, K. B., Park, G. H., and Aslani, F. (1991). "Bond
of deformed bars to concrete: effects of confinement and strength of
concrete." ACI Mat. J., 88(3).
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper;
A,B,C,D,E empirical constants of Eqs. (2);
F,G empirical constants of Malvar model;
fc compressive concrete strength;
f, tensile concrete strength;
p parameter of BPE modified model [Eq. (4)];
S = slip;
Sm slip at maximum bond stress;
S, = slip at end of BPE model ascending branch;
S2 slip at beginning of BPE model softening
branch;
S3 slip at beginning of BPE model frictional
branch;
<X parameter of BPE model [(Eq. 3)];
~, Sr = parameters of CMR model [(Eq. 5)];
CI = confining axisymmetric radial pressure;
T bond stress;
Tm maximum bond stress;
TI = maximum bond stress of BPE model; and
T3 = frictional component of BPE model bond.