Realistic Bond Strength of FRP Rebars in NSC

from Beam Specimens

Roman Okelo, A.M.ASCE1

Abstract: The bond strength of reinforcing bars in concrete is a prerequisite for the evaluation of the development length in reinforced
concrete structures. This study concerns these phenomena for fiber reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 rebars in normal strength concrete 共NSC兲.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Three different types of rebars were tested using the beam specimen: Carbon, glass, and steel. This involved a total of 26 beam specimens
containing 10, 16, and 19 mm rebars. The test embedment lengths were 10, 15, and 20 times the rebar diameter 共db兲. For each rebar tested,
the results concern load deflection curves, bond stress-slip responses, and the mode of failure. The results showed that the bond strength
of a FRP rebar is, generally, lower than that of steel rebar. Based on this and previous research, proposals for the average bond strength
and for the development length of straight FRP rebars under tension in NSC are made.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0893-1321共2007兲20:3共133兲
CE Database subject headings: Bonding; Concrete beams; Polymers; Pullout resistance; Reinforcement; Slip.

Introduction Therefore, in conjunction with the studies previously con-

The investigation of the bond strength of reinforcing bars in con-
crete is usually carried out by the pullout test method 共RILEM
1994b兲 because it is economically feasible. Moreover, many of
the influencing parameters on the bond behavior can be consid-
ered in such a test program. However, some researchers have
noted the fact that the results of pullout tests give an upper bond
value for the bond-slip performance of a reinforcing bar
共Benmokrane et al. 1996兲. This is because, in the pullout test,
splitting of the concrete is avoided by the thickness of the con-
crete cover and by the confining action of the reaction plate on the
concrete specimen 共Okelo 2002兲. In beam tests 共RILEM 1994a兲
the concrete surrounding the reinforcing bar is under tension,
eventually causing diagonal tension cracking at low stresses and
hence reducing bond strength despite the confinement provided
by the stirrups. Basically, the test rebar is in an area of flexural
tension under a moment gradient and constant shear. According to
Benmokrane et al. 共1996兲, the bond strength from beam tests is
lower 共55–95%兲 than that from pullout tests. Therefore, more re-
alistic and better results may be simulated by bond beam tests.
A limited number of literature relevant to the development
length of FRP rebars in concrete have been published by the
following authors: ACI 共2001兲; Pleimann 共1987, 1991兲; Faza and
GangaRao 共1990兲; Ehsani et al. 共1996兲; Tighiouart et al. 共1998兲.
However, due to the complexity of the parameters influencing the
bond strength of fiber reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 rebars in con-
crete, current research data are insufficient for a definitive estab-
lishment of a relationship for the development length.
1
Structural Engineer, APM and Associates, Inc., 100 North Central
Expwy., Suite 210, Dallas, TX 75201. E-mail: rokelo@msn.com
Note. Discussion open until December 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 pos-
sible publication on March 30, 2004; approved on September 25, 2006.
This paper is part of the Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 20, No.
3, July 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 0893-1321/2007/3-133–140/$25.00.
ducted by Yuan and Okelo 共2001, 2002兲 and Okelo and Yuan
共2004, 2005兲, additional experimental work was necessary so as
to develop a basis for formulating a bond model for straight FRP
reinforcing bars in NSC. The research program and relevant re-
sults are summarized in this paper.
Significance
Fiber reinforced polymer composite rebars are the alternative to
steel rebars for reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, es-
pecially where improved corrosion resistance or electromagnetic
transparency is necessary. This is because FRP rebars are light
weight, noncorrosive, nonmagnetic, and have high tensile
strength. However, such structural applications cannot materialize
without comprehensive information on the bond characteristics
and development length of FRP rebars embedded in concrete. The
ultimate goal of this study is to contribute to more economical
and durable design of concrete structures.
Experimental Program
The experimental program consisted of a total of 26 concrete
beams reinforced with either FRP or steel reinforcing bar as
shown in Figs. 1 and 2. It was divided into seven series. One of
the series, consisting of two beams, was reinforced with steel
rebar for comparison purposes. Three different reinforcing bar
diameters were considered to investigate the effects of the rein-
forcing bar diameter on the bond strength 共see Table 1兲. An over-
view of the test parameters is also given in Table 1. Details are
given next.
Tests Specimens and Loading
The test beams consisted of two rectangular reinforced concrete
blocks joined at the top by an intermediate hinge and at the bot-
tom by the reinforcement 共FRP or steel reinforcing bar兲 to be

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007 / 133

J. Aerosp. Eng., 2007, 20(3): 133-140


Fig. 1. Surface deformations and characteristics of the rebars
共R1–R3兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tested for bond with the concrete, as shown in Fig. 2. A cross
section of 102⫻ 228 mm was constant for all specimens. The
main tensile reinforcement, a single rebar, was either carbon FRP
共CFRP兲 共#10 or #16兲, glass FRP 共GFRP兲 共#10 or #19兲, or steel
共#10兲 共see Figs. 2 and 3兲. The beams were designed to fail by
crushing of the concrete. This was accomplished by using a rein-
forcement ratio greater than the balanced reinforcement ratio
共␳fb兲. The balanced reinforcement ratio is the amount of tensile
reinforcement required for a simultaneous occurrence of the
crushing of the compression concrete on one side of a member
and the yielding of the tensile reinforcement on the other side 共in
case of steel兲. Shear reinforcement in the form of double closed
vertical deformed steel stirrups 共#10兲 were used. They were
spaced at 102 mm intervals, and with a clear cover of 25 mm 共or
19 mm兲 all around, to prevent shear failure. The stirrups were
supported by two #10 deformed steel rebars placed at the top of
the beams in the compression zone. The concrete cover below the
bottom of the reinforcing bar was 38 mm. The reinforcement lay-
out is displayed in Fig. 3.
The behavior of this specimen is similar to that of a tied arch
with an intermediate hinge. When subjected to a vertical load at
midspan, a horizontal tension force is produced in the reinforcing
bar that pulls the rebar out. Some advantages of this system con-
figuration over the beam specimen are that it is small in size, easy
to handle, and relatively inexpensive. Additionally, during load-
ing, the location of the resultant of the internal forces is known.
The compressive force in the beam at midspan is located at the
center of the hinge and the internal moment lever arm is known,
and is constant for any given load level. This allows an accurate
computation of the tensile stress in the rebar.
Only one side of the beam was the test region, with the rein-
forcing bar having a limited bonded length and being unbonded
Fig. 2. Test specimen and loading 共mm兲
134 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007
J. Aerosp. Eng., 2007, 20(3): 133-140
Table 1. Experimental Beam Program
Parameter Possible configurations
Fiber type Carbon Glass Steel
Bonded length ⫻db 共mm兲 10 15 20
Concrete mix M0 M1 M0
Clear cover 共mm兲 38 38 38
Rebar size 共mm兲 10 16 19
共using a bond breaker兲 in the other remaining part. The bond
breaker was a soft polyvinyl chloride tubing with inside diameter
of 12.7 or 15.9 mm. Otherwise, the rebar was fully bonded on the
other side of the beam, such that failure would occur in the test
region. Two #19 auxiliary threaded rods were used perpendicular
to the rebar for handling the specimen. The test rebar extended
254 mm out from the face of the specimens for the purpose of
mounting the linear voltage differential transducers 共LVDTs兲. The
anchorage lengths were 10, 15, and 20 times the rebar diameter
共db兲. Concrete strength was varied by using two different concrete
mixes.
For each of the beam series tested, six standard
152⫻ 304 mm control cylinders were cast and cured under the
same curing conditions as the specimens. Three of them were
tested for the compressive strength and modulus of elasticity and
the other three were for determining the splitting tensile strength.
For the construction of the beam specimens, concrete was placed
in the plywood forms by hand, in three layers and each layer was
consolidated using a form vibrator. They were then smoothed
with a trowel and finished. The cylinders were also placed in three
layers; but, were consolidated by rodding after each step. Imme-
diately following casting, the specimens and the cylinders were
then covered with a plastic sheet and kept moist in the laboratory
for fourteen days before testing. Prior to testing, the control cyl-
inders for compressive strength were capped with standard sulfur
capping compound according to ASTM Standard C 617 共1998兲.
Test Setup, Instrumentation, and Test Procedure
The beams spanning of 1,117 mm was subjected to four-point
flexural loading with a shear span of 457 mm and tested under
static loading conditions up to failure 共Fig. 2兲. They were loaded
Fig. 3. Reinforcement layout for the beams 共mm兲

Fig. 4. Test setup and automatic data acquisition system
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
by Tinius-Olsen universal testing machine, with a capacity of
1,779 kN, modified with MTESTWindows controller 共Fig. 4兲.
Testing was performed by loading the beams in displacement-
controlled mode until failure 共either pullout of the rebar or rebar
fracture or concrete shear compression failure兲. The two concen-
trated vertical loads were applied gradually through a short steel
plate on the top of the beams. The rate of loading was
0.0203 mm/ s.
Electric strain gauges were applied on the surface of some
rebars to monitor the strain on the rebar during the tests 共Fig. 2兲.
One strain gauge was placed within the bonded length and the
other one was installed in the unbonded length at midspan. They
were also instrumented with two spring-loaded LVDTs to monitor
the free end slip of the rebar as shown in Figs. 2 and 4. The
LVDTs were attached symmetrically around the rebar with stan-
dard clamps. An automatic data acquisition system was used to
monitor loadings, as well as deflection and deformations in the
concrete and reinforcement 共Fig. 4兲.
The control cylinders were also tested in Tinius-Olsen univer-
sal testing machine according to ASTM Standard C 39 共1999兲 to
determine the compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity
of the concrete; and according to ASTM Standard C 496 共1996兲 to
determine the splitting tensile strength. They were tested imme-
diately after the beam tests. Testing was conducted by loading the
cylinders also in displacement-controlled mode until failure. The
rate of loading was 0.0203 mm/ s for the compressive strength
test.
Materials
Concrete
Normal strength concrete was prepared in the laboratory accord-
ing to ASTM Standard C 192–95 共1995兲, with the composition as
given in Table 2. Type I Portland cement was used. The nominal
maximum coarse aggregate size was 12.7 mm and the fine aggre-
Table 2. Composition and Characteristics of Concrete
Concrete mix
Ingredients M0 M1
Water 共kg/ m 兲3
182 185
Cement 共kg/ m3兲 349 408
Coarse aggregate 共kg/ m3兲a 905 905
Fine aggregate 共kg/ m3兲b 881 798
Air content 2.5 2.5
a
Maximum aggregate size was 12.7 mm.
b
Size interval was 0 – 4.75 mm.
JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007 / 135
J. Aerosp. Eng., 2007, 20(3): 133-140
gate size interval was 0 – 4.75 mm. Forms constructed out of ply-
wood were used to cast the concrete around the rebar. The con-
crete mix was designed based on the absolute volume method and
it was non-air-entrained with an air content of 2.5%. It was mixed
in a ⬃0.2 m3 effective capacity rotating mixer. The fine and
coarse aggregates were first mixed together, then cement was
added and allowed to mix thoroughly. Finally water was added
and allowed to mix until the concrete became uniform in appear-
ance. The ratio of cement to water 共w / c兲 was 0.52 for Mix M0
and 0.45 for Mix M1. Immediately after mixing, the slump of
each batch of concrete was measured in accordance with ASTM
Standard C 143–98 共1998兲.
Reinforcing Bars, Fibers, and Resin
The FRP reinforcing bars 共CFRP and GFRP兲 used in this study
were supplied by an international manufacturer. The surface de-
formations and characteristics of the rebars are shown in Fig. 1
共Okelo and Yuan 2005兲. These rebars have nominal diameter of
10, 16, and 19 mm. They are generally manufactured using the
pultrusion process, and are made of continuous longitudinal fibers
bound together with a thermosetting vinyl ester resin. The bond
improvement is achieved through the following means: either sur-
face texture or helical wrapping with sand coating. The fiber vol-
ume fraction ranges from about 50 to more than 70%. The steel
reinforcing bar was supplied by a local manufacturer. The rebar
surface deformation pattern is of the S type, it consists of two
longitudinal ribs connected by circular ribs perpendicular to the
rebar axis 共Fig. 1兲. The tensile strengths were: 550 MPa 共steel兲;
620– 760 MPa 共GFRP兲; and 717– 1135 MPa 共CFRP兲. The
Young’s moduli 共axial direction兲 provided by each manufacturer
were: 200 GPa 共steel兲; 40.8 GPa 共GFRP兲; and 115– 122 GPa
共CFRP兲. All the FRP rebars follow a linear stress–strain behavior
up to failure.
Test Results
Test results in terms of ultimate load on the beam, average bond
strength, free end slip, and failure mode are summarized in Table
3. A four-part notation system was used to identify the beam
specimens according to the related research variables. The first
part indicates the beam reinforcing fiber 共e.g., C = carbon fiber兲.
The second part is the diameter of the rebar in millimeters 共10
= # 3兲. The third part is the concrete mix 共1 = Mix 1兲. The last
three numerals in the notation indicate the bonded length in mil-
limeters 共e.g., 10 times the rebar diameter兲. As the concrete com-
pressive strength of the batches varied, a modified bond strength
is also given in the table for comparison purposes. The modified
bond strength is obtained by normalizing the test result with re-
spect to a nominal concrete strength of 40 MPa. Most of the
specimens failed in pullout mode; but, in some cases, failure of
concrete in shear compression, rebar fracture 共flexure兲, and split-
ting of the concrete were observed. The details of the specimen’s
behavior follow.
Load–Deflection Curves
Load versus deflection curves for the different series are shown in
Fig. 5 for Series E; Fig. 6 for Series F, and Fig. 7 for Series G.
Depending on the type of reinforcement and failure mode, the
curves comprise mostly of two phases: ascending 共prepeak兲 and
descending 共postpeak兲. However, the curves are slightly different,
especially in the descending phase due to the different failure
 Table 3. Bond Strength Results for the Test Specimens
Concrete
strength Ultimate stated

Compressive Splitting Load Ave. bond Freeend Mod. bond

f c⬘ T Pmax stress u slip␦ fe stress u*f Failure
Seriesa Specimenb Fiberc 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共kN兲 共MPa兲 共mm兲 共MPa兲 modee
A* S-10-0-100 S 32.5 2.64 20.9 10.9 0.48 12.2 P
S-10-0-200 S 19.5 5.1 — 5.7 P
B* C-10-0-100 C 33.3 2.54 17.8 9.4 — 10.3 P
C-16-0-160 C 11.1 2.3 4.49 2.5 P
G-10-0-100 G 1.6 0.8 — 0.9 P
G-19-0-190 G 25.7 3.4 2.13 3.7 P
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C C-10-0-150 C 32.4 2.71 28.9 10.1 0.86 11.2 P

C-16-0-240 C 64.7 8.2 3.09 9.1 SC
G-10-0-150 G 26.8 9.4 — 10.4 R
G-19-0-285 G 69.6 6.1 4.04 6.8 SC
D C-10-0-200 C 31.3 2.36 45.9 12.1 0.99 13.7 P
C-16-0-320 C 101.5 9.6 — 10.9 P
G-10-0-200 G 38.3 10.1 — 11.4 R
G-19-0-380 G 92.4 6.1 15.14 6.9 SC
E C-10-1-100 C 36.9 2.55 25.4 13.4 0.74 13.4 P
C-16-1-160 C 37.1 7.7 1.45 7.7 P
G-10-1-100 G 32.6 17.2 0.05 17.2 R
G-19-1-190 G 51.9 6.8 15.11 6.8 SC
F C-10-1-150 C 41.5 2.19 45.7 15.9 1.39 15.9 P
C-16-1-240 C 95.1 11.9 2.26 11.9 SP
G-10-1-150 G 34.3 11.9 — 11.9 R
G-19-1-285 G 78.8 6.9 3.35 6.9 SC
G C-10-1-200 C 39.3 2.36 44.7 11.8 0.86 11.8 P
C-16-1-320 C 97.5 9.2 0.79 9.2 P
G-10-1-200 G 36.4 9.6 0.03 9.6 R
G-19-1-380 G 108.7 7.1 18.14 7.1 SC
a*
⫽specimens with electric strain gauges.
b
F-BD-M-BDL: F⫽fiber; BD⫽rebar diameter 共mm兲; M⫽concrete mix; and BDL⫽bonded length 共mm兲.
c
C⫽carbon; G⫽glass; and S⫽steel.
d
—⫽not measured.
e
P⫽pullout; R⫽rebar fracture 共flexure兲; SC⫽shear compression; and SP⫽splitting.
u = u共40/ f c⬘兲0.5.
f *

Fig. 5. Applied load versus deflection curves, Series E Fig. 6. Applied load versus deflection curves, Series F

136 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007

J. Aerosp. Eng., 2007, 20(3): 133-140

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

Fig. 7. Applied load versus deflection curves, Series G Fig. 9. Average bond stress–slip relationships for FRP reinforced
beams, Series F

modes. Initially, the beams are uncracked and stiff. With further P
loading, cracking occurs in the shear span when the applied mo- M= a 共1兲
2
ment exceeds the cracking moment M cr, causing a reduction in
the initial stiffness as can be seen in the curves.
M Pa
In most cases, among the FRP reinforcing bars, the CFRP T= = 共2兲
rebar #16 shows the highest stiffness with the smallest deflection j 2j
at peak load and the GFRP rebar #10 indicates the lowest stiffness where M⫽bending moment 共N mm兲; P⫽applied load 共N兲;
with the largest deflection at peak load, as displayed in Figs. 5–7. a⫽shear span 共mm兲; T⫽tensile load 共N兲, and j⫽distance between
Otherwise, all the curves rise steadily up to the peak load, fol- the resultant tensile and compressive forces on the cross section at
lowed by a sudden drop in the load in case of either shear com- midspan 共mm兲. The average bond stress over the embedment
pression or splitting or rebar fracture 共flexure兲 failure. But, for length can then be calculated as follows:
pullout failure mode, the load drops gradually in the descending
phase as the rebar is pulled out of the specimen. T
uf = 共3兲
␲dbLd
Average Bond Stress–Slip Relationships where u f ⫽average bond stress 共MPa兲; db⫽nominal rebar diam-
eter 共mm兲, and Ld⫽embedment length 共mm兲.
Average Bond Stress
For a beam subjected to the loading conditions as given in Fig. 2, Slip
the tensile load and the correlated bond stress acting on the rein- The free end slip is the average of the readings from the two
forcement in the beam can be calculated by pure bending moment LVDTs. The experimental average bond stress versus free end slip
as follows: diagrams for some of the tested specimens are displayed in Fig. 8
for Series E; Fig. 9 for Series F, and Fig. 10 for Series G. Gen-

Fig. 8. Average bond stress–slip relationships for FRP reinforced Fig. 10. Average bond stress–slip relationships for FRP reinforced
beams, Series E beams, Series G

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007 / 137

J. Aerosp. Eng., 2007, 20(3): 133-140

 A f,bar f fu db f fu
lbf = = 共5兲
␲dbu f 4u f
According to ACI 440 共2001兲 共see also Orangun et al. 1977兲, a
general expression for the average bond strength can be written as

冑 f ⬘c
u f = K1 共6兲
db
where f ⬘c ⫽specified compressive strength of concrete 共MPa兲 and
K1⫽constant 共9.5 for steel rebar兲. Substitution of Eq. 共6兲 into
Eq. 共5兲 leads to the expression for the development length of a
reinforcing bar as follows:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

d2b f fu
lbf = K2 共7兲
Fig. 11. Comparison of the proposed equation and the test results 冑 f ⬘c
where K2⫽new constant.
erally, the load-free end slip curves initially rise steeply reaching Based on a previous study by Okelo and Yuan 共2005兲, and in
a plateau. After a significant amount of slip at almost constant consistency with the ACI 440 共2001兲 format, relationships as
load, the curves either drop suddenly or gradually, depending on given in Eq. 共8兲 or 共9兲 may be used to represent the average bond
the failure mode. This behavior can be explained by the fact that, strength as a function of the concrete compressive strength and
initially, the load is transferred from the rebar to the concrete at rebar diameter for all the tested specimens
the loaded end. Hence, in most cases, there is no relative slip of
the rebar at the free end until close to the peak load. These ex- 冑 f ⬘c
perimental curves can be used to obtain the local bond stress-slip u f = 14.7 共MPa兲 共8兲
db
relationship of the FRP rebars. The importance of finding the
local bond-slip constitutive law is that it completely characterizes
the bond behavior of the system and can be used, e.g., in finite- 冑 f ⬘c
element simulations to evaluate the development length of the uf = 7 共psi兲 共9兲
db
given type of FRP rebar. The maximum average bond strength
and the corresponding slip are given in Table 3. in which u f ⫽average bond strength in MPa 共psi兲; f ⬘c ⫽specified
concrete compressive strength in MPa 共psi兲; and db⫽effective
rebar diameter 关mm 共in.兲兴.
Discussions

Development Length of a Straight Rebar
For a rebar embedded in concrete with a length equal to its basic
development length, lbf , equilibrium condition can be established.
Assuming a uniform distribution of stress, the force on the rebar
is resisted by an average bond stress, u f , acting on the surface of
the rebar. Hence, the following relationship can be derived:
u f ␲dblbf = A f,bar f fu
where u f ⫽average bond stress 共MPa兲; db⫽diameter of rebar
共mm兲; lbf ⫽basic development length of a rebar 共mm兲; f fu⫽design
tensile strength of rebar, considering reductions for service
environment 共MPa兲; and A f,bar⫽area of one rebar 共mm2兲. From
Eq. 共4兲, the development length can be expressed as
Comparison of Eq. „8… with the Test Results
Of the 26 beam specimens tested, 6 of them, Series A and B, had
electrical strain gauges installed on the rebars for strain measure-
ments. As protective coatings were used for the gauges, the effec-
tive bonded length was reduced. Hence, these results 共see Table 3兲
are not representative and are not considered any further.
Fig. 11 compares the test results with the expression in Eq. 共8兲.
共4兲
For simplicity, the average bond force is plotted as a function of
the concrete compressive strength. Although only a narrow con-
crete strength range is used, it shows that most of the test results
are enclosed by the relationship. Hence the average bond strength
for a straight FRP rebar in normal strength concrete 共NSC兲 can be
expressed by Eq. 共8兲 and 共9兲.

Table 4. Comparison of the K2 Factors for Development Length 共in Customary Units兲
Type of fibera
Rebar size
Literature Type of specimen 共#兲a Glass Aramid Carbon
Faza and GangaRao 共1990兲 Pullout and cantilever beam — 1/16.7 1/16.7 1/16.7
Pleimann 共1987, 1991兲 Pullout 2/3/4 1/19.4 1/18 —
Ehsani et al. 共1996兲 Pullout and beam 3/6/9 1/21.3 — —
Tighiouart et al. 共1998兲 Beam 4/5/6/8 1/5.6 — —
Writer Pullout and beam 2/3/5/6 1/28 1/28 1/28
a
—⫽not available.

138 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007

J. Aerosp. Eng., 2007, 20(3): 133-140

 Thus, substitution of Eq. 共8兲 and 共9兲 in Eq. 共5兲 yields the strength in a beam specimen can be as high as in a pullout
expression for the development length, with K2 = 1 / 共4 ⫻ K1兲 specimen.
= 1 / 58.8 共1/28兲 as follows: 6. The bond test method adopted in this experimental program
appears to be an efficient tool for investigation of bond. It
1 d2b f fu gives reliable data while maintaining a manageable specimen
lbf = 共mm兲 共10兲
58.8 冑 f ⬘c size.
7. The proposed equations for predicting the bond strength and
the development length for FRP rebars in NSC are in good
1 d2b f fu agreement with the limited data available in literature.
lbf = 共inches兲 共11兲
28 冑 f ⬘c
where f ⬘c ⫽specified compressive strength of concrete 关MPa 共psi兲兴; Acknowledgments
db⫽diameter of reinforcing bar 关mm 共in.兲兴; lbf ⫽basic develop-
ment length of a rebar 关mm 共in.兲兴; and f fu⫽design tensile strength The writers wish to acknowledge Doug Gremel of Hughes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of rebar, considering reductions for service environment 关MPa Brothers for his cooperation and support in the form of material
共psi兲兴. donations.
In Table 4, a comparison of the K2 factors from literature is
given. The value given by Tighiouart et al. 共1998兲 is a little high.
Otherwise, the value given here is closer to the other ones in
Table 4. Notation
Generally, based on this research, the bond behavior of CFRP
reinforcing bars is better than the one of GFRP and aramid FRP The following symbols were used in this paper:
共AFRP兲 rebars. Hence, the K1 factor may be higher 关14.7 instead A ⫽ nominal cross-sectional area of a FRP reinforcement
of 14.25 as given by Ehsani et al. 共1996兲兴. Hence, the proposed 共mm2兲;
bond model would lead to a more economic design for FRP rein- A f,bar ⫽ area of one rebar 共mm2兲;
forced concrete structures. a ⫽ shear span 共mm兲;
db ⫽ effective rebar diameter 共mm兲;
E ⫽ guaranteed modulus of elasticity of FRP defined as
the mean modulus of a sample of test specimens
Summary and Conclusions
minus three times the standard deviation 共MPa兲;
Beam tests are more realistic and they better simulate the real f ⬘c ⫽ specified compressive strength of concrete 共MPa兲;
behavior of flexural members. Hence, in this paper, 26 beams 冑 f ⬘c ⫽ square root of the specified compressive strength of
were constructed and tested to study the influence of fiber type, concrete 共MPa兲;
bonded length, concrete mix, and rebar diameter on the bond f fu ⫽ design tensile strength of rebar, considering
strength of FRP reinforcing bars; and to provide experimental reductions for service environment 共MPa兲;
data for the development of a criteria for the design of FRP- K ⫽ constant;
reinforced concrete members. The beam specimens and their cor- lbf ⫽ Ld, basic development length of a FRP rebar 共mm兲
responding reinforcement were designed to fail by crushing of the 共embedment length兲;
concrete. Shear reinforcement in the form of double closed verti- M ⫽ bending moment 共kNm兲;
cal deformed steel stirrups were used. The following conclusions M cr ⫽ cracking moment 共kNm兲;
are summarized from the tests: P ⫽ tensile load 共N兲;
1. The bond strength of FRP reinforcing bars is generally lower Pmax ⫽ maximum tensile load 共N兲;
than that of steel reinforcing bars, depending on the rebar T ⫽ splitting concrete strength 共MPa兲;
diameter. For CFRP reinforcing bars, the average bond T ⫽ tensile load 共kN兲;
strength is approximately 85% of that of steel reinforcing u ⫽ average bond stress 共MPa兲;
bars. uf ⫽ average bond strength 共MPa兲;
2. Analogously, for the same reinforcing bar diameter, the ␦fe ⫽ free end slip 共mm兲; and
CFRP rebar showed higher bond strength values than the ␳fb ⫽ balanced reinforcement ratio.
GFRP rebar. This probably may be attributed to the different
stiffness of the rebars.
3. The mode of failure of bond is dependent on the concrete References
compressive strength, the shape 共and composition兲 of the re-
bar’s surface, rebar size, and embedment length. For short American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2001兲. “Guide for the design and
embedment lengths with low compressive strengths and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI 440.1R-01,
small rebar sizes, actual pullout of the rebar occurs. For Detroit.
longer embedment lengths with higher compressive Benmokrane, B., Tighiouart, B., and Chaallal, O. 共1996兲. “Bond strength
strengths, either rebar fracture 共flexure兲 or splitting or shear and load distribution of composite GFRP reinforcing bars in con-
crete.” ACI Mater. J., 93共3兲, 246–253.
compression failure of the concrete takes place.
Ehsani, M. R., Saadatmanesh, H., and Tao, S. 共1996兲. “Design recom-
4. As for steel, the average maximum bond strength of FRP mendations for bond of GFRP rebars to concrete.” J. Struct. Eng.,
reinforcing bars decreases as the reinforcing bar diameter 122共3兲, 247–254.
increases. Faza, S. S., and GangaRao, H. V. S. 共1990兲. “Bending and bond behavior
4. Depending on the geometrical dimensions of the beam, 共e.g., of concrete beams reinforced with plastic rebars.” Transportation Re-
the ratio of shear span to depth, a / d兲, the average bond search Record 1290, Transportation Research Board, Washington,

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007 / 139

J. Aerosp. Eng., 2007, 20(3): 133-140

 D.C., 185-193.
Okelo, R. 共2002兲. “Development and splice lengths criteria for straight
fiber reinforced polymer composite bars in tension.” Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Texas at
Arlington, Arlington, Tex.
Okelo, R., and Yuan, R. L. 共2004兲. “Realistic bond strength of FRP rebars
in NSC from beam specimens.” 9th ASCE Aerospace Division Int.
Conf. on Engineering, Construction and Operations in Challenging
Environments, Houston, 609–616.
Okelo, R., and Yuan, R. L. 共2005兲. “Bond strength of fiber reinforced
polymer rebars in normal strength concrete.” J. Compos. Constr.,
9共3兲, 203–213.
Orangun, C. O., Jirsa, J. O., and Breen, J. E. 共1977兲. “A reevaluation
of test data on development length and splices.” ACI J., 74共11兲,
114–122.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 07/01/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pleimann, L. G. 共1987兲. “Tension and bond pullout tests of deformed
fiberglass rods.” Final Rep. for Marshall–Vega Corporation, Mar-
shall, Ark., Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville,
Ark., 5–11.
Pleimann, L. G. 共1991兲. “Strength, modulus of elasticity, and bond of
140 / JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2007
J. Aerosp. Eng., 2007, 20(3): 133-140
deformed FRP rods.” Proc., Specialty Conf. on Advanced Composite
Materials in Civil Engineering Structures, Materials Engineering Di-
vision, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., 99–110.
RILEM. 共1994a兲. “Bond test for reinforcement steel. 1. Beam test.”
RILEM technical recommendations for the testing and use of con-
struction materials, RC5, E & FN Spon, London.
RILEM. 共1994b兲. “Bond test for reinforcement steel. 2. Pullout test.”
RILEM technical recommendations for the testing and use of con-
struction materials, RC6, E & FN Spon, London.
Tighiouart, B., Benmokrane, B., and Gao, D. 共1998兲. “Investigation of
bond in concrete member with fiber reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 bars.”
Constr. Build. Mater., 12共8兲, 453–462.
Yuan, R. L., and Okelo, R. 共2001兲. “Round robin tests on the bond
strength of FRP reinforcement.” Technical Rep. for the Texas Depart-
ment of Transportation (TxDOT), Austin, Civil Engineering Dept.,
Univ. of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Tex.
Yuan, R. L., and Okelo, R. 共2002兲. “Bond characteristics of FRP rebars
in concrete.” Proc., 34th Int. SAMPE Technical Conf., Baltimore,
664–671.