Construction and Building Materials 289 (2021) 122844

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Bar surface treatment effect on the bond-slip behavior and mechanism

of basalt FRP bars embedded in concrete
Mohamed F. M. Fahmy a,b, ShehabEldeen A. S. Ahmed a, Zhishen Wu a,⇑
a
International Institute for Urban Systems Engineering, Southeast Univ., Nanjing 210096, China
b
Faculty of Engineering, Civil Engineering Dept., Assiut Univ., Assiut 71516, Egypt

h i g h l i g h t s

The surface treatment of smooth Basalt FRB bars has an enormous effect on every aspect of the bond behavior.

Wounded BFRP bars have a superior bond performance compared to other Basalt FRP and steel bars.

The geometry of the bar surface profile can be useful tools to produce Basalt FRP bars with desired bond behavior.

The proposed model can be used to predict the bond-slip behavior of Basalt FRP bars.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study aims to explore the bond-slip behavior of BFRP bars. A series of standard pull out tests was
Received 27 September 2020 conducted in order to examine the bond behavior of BFRP bars with 4 different surface treatments
Received in revised form 7 February 2021 (smooth, wounded, wrapped, and sand-coated) compared to deformed steel bars. The investigated
Accepted 23 February 2021
parameters included the bar diameter, the concrete compressive strength, in addition to the surface
Available online 7 April 2021
treatment of the bar. The results showed the significant effect of the bar surface treatment on the bond
behavior of BFRP bars. Different surface treatments resulted in different failure mechanisms and behav-
Keywords:
ior. Sand coating BFRP bars showed its advantage in enhancing the bond stiffness while wounding BFRP
Basalt fiber reinforced polymers bars
Bond
bars was proved to be very effective in increasing the bond strength. In addition, the bond behavior of
Surface treatment BFRP bars can be represented using BPE bond-slip model. Increasing concrete compressive strength
Model caused an increase in the bond strength with a minor effect on other bond-slip behavior characteristics.
Concrete strength Bond specimens reinforced by bars with different bar diameters exhibited different failure modes. The
Diameter bond-slip relationship of wounded BFRP bars is strongly dependent on the geometry of the bar surface
profile. Moreover, the geometric details of the bar rib spacing, width, and height can be utilized to pro-
duce bars with desirable bond-slip features.
Ó 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction composites offer a solution to the drawbacks of traditional steel

Steel reinforcement corrosion is the main reason for RC struc-
tures deterioration. Millions are spent every year to repair the
damage from the corrosion. Also, the elastoplastic characteristic
of the steel reinforcement is hindering the recovery of structures’
function after extreme events [27]. Fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) composites like carbon FRP (CFRP), glass FRP (GFRP), and ara-
mid FRP (AFRP) are known for their high strength, light weight,
corrosion resistance, and elastic behavior compared to the conven-
tional reinforcing steel. Therefore, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.fahmy@aun.edu.eg (M. F. M. Fahmy), shehab-el-deen@aun.
edu.eg (S. A. S. Ahmed), zswu@seu.edu.cn (Z. Wu).
reinforcement. And as a result, research about using FRP bars alone
or with traditional steel reinforcement as internal reinforcement in
new RC structures has gained wide interest.
The newly developed basalt FRP (BFRP) is made of basalt fibers
which are processed by melting basalt rocks like glass fibers. These
fires are non-toxic and friendly to the environment [23]. BFRP
offers higher strength and elastic modulus, similar cost, and more
chemical stability than E-glass FRP as well as a wider range of
working temperatures and much lower cost than CFRP. Its strength
is five times higher and its density is one-third compared to the
low-carbon steel [26]. As a result, BFRP bars have the potential to
replace the usual FRP bars in RC structures. But the lack of research
studies on BFRP as reinforcing materials is the reason that BFRP

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122844
0950-0618/Ó 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
M. F. M. Fahmy, S. A. S. Ahmed and Z. Wu Construction and Building Materials 289 (2021) 122844

bars not being listed among the approved FRP reinforcing bars in
7 3 (a) (b) 3 7 (c) 10 2.5
most design codes [10].
The behavior of RC structure is mainly dependent on the bond 10.4 11.2 10
between the reinforcement and the surrounding concrete espe-
cially in connection regions such as beam-column and column-
footing connections. As the behavior of the whole system depends
to a great degree on the behavior of these regions. Therefore, a
(d) (e) 5
good understanding of the bond behavior of FRP bars is a must.
While the studies on the bond properties of BFRP are highly out-
numbered by these on the bond properties of the GFRP and CFRP,
comprehensive knowledge of BFRP’s bond properties is essential Fig. 1. Details of the 10 mm investigated bars: (a) Smooth bar; (b) Helically
to promote the BFRP to be used widely in the practice. wounded bar; (c) Helically Wrapped bar; (d) Sand-coated bar; (e) Steel bar.

The effect of the surface condition of the bar is one of the most
influential parameters on the bond behavior of the reinforcing bars
to concrete. The bar surface condition and the rib geometry govern
the bond strength and behavior of steel bars [13].
ACI 440.1R-15 [1] affirms that the surface texture of FRP bars
has a great effect on the bond mechanism of the bar to concrete.
And both CSA S806-12 and CSA S6-14 [7] specify coefficients for
different bar surface conditions in the equations to determine the
development length of FRP bars.
Many studies emphasized the great influence of the bar surface
condition on the bond-slip relationship of GFRP bars (Malvar [20],
Harajli and Abouniaj [16], and Xue et al. [28] among them). Hao
et al. [15] carried out a study on the geometric details of the sur-
face of GFRP bars and offered some recommendations for the opti-
mum rib height and spacing. Okelo and Yuan [22], Aiello et al. [4],
AL-Mahmoud et al. [2], and Baena et al. [5] reported that the bond
behavior of CFRP bars is highly dependent on the bar surface
treatment.
Few studies investigated the bond behavior of BFRP bars. Gu
and Dong [14] explored the effect of the rib height and spacing
on the bond performance of wounded BFRP bars. El Refai et al.
[10] and Altalmas et al. [3] explored the bond behavior of sand-
coated BFRP bars. The bond performance of BFRP bars with shallow
spiral grooves and sand-coated bars were studied by El Refai et al.
[11], and the authors reported that the bar surface treatment had a
great effect on the failure mechanism, bond stress, and the slip cor-
responding to the peak bond stress. Ibrahim et al. [18] tested heli-
cally wrapped BFRP bars with various ribs’ spacing and concluded
that the ribs spacing affected the bond stiffness. Shen et al. [25]
investigated the effect of the bar diameter and the concrete com-
pressive strength on the bond behavior of BFRP bars with shallow
helical grooves on the surface. Ahmed et al. [24] investigated the
cyclic bond behavior of bars with different surface conditions
and diameters subjected to various loading conditions. However,
the effect of the various surface conditions on the bond-slip rela-
tionship of BFRP bars has not been fully understood yet.
This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation
on the bond behavior of BFRP bars with 4 different surface treat-
ments compared to that of deformed steel bars. The effect of the
concrete compressive strength and the bar diameter on the bond
performance of BFRP bars was also examined. In addition, the bond
resistance mechanism and the effect of the bar surface geometry
on the bond-slip relationship were spotted. The applicability of
BPE [12] bond-slip model on BFRP bars was also assessed in this
study.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Material properties
2.1.1. BFRP and steel bars
Four BFRP bars with different surface conditions as well as
deformed steel bars were used as shown in Fig. 1. Table 1 summa-
2
rizes the physical and mechanical properties of the bars used.
These different surface treatments were chosen to present the
most common surface conditions of FRP bars. The bars were basalt
fiber-reinforced epoxy and the fiber content was 60% of the cross-
sectional area. All BFRP bars were based on the bar with very small
indentations on its surface (Fig. 1(a)), which will be called smooth
from now on. The first surface treatment (Fig. 1(b)) was made by
automatically wounding the surface of the smooth bar by a tight
strand around the bar during the production of the bars in order
to form a helical groove in the bar surface. Then those wounding
strands were removed at the end of the production line. The second
surface treatment (Fig. 1(c)) was made by manually wrapping
fibers strands around the bar after the production of the bar itself.
The wrapped fibers were attached to the bar surface using epoxy
resin. Sand-coating (Fig. 1(d)) was the third surface treatment of
the original smooth bar. The original smooth bars were manually
coated with epoxy resin then covered by fine sand. Additionally,
deformed steel bars (Fig. 1(e)) of the same diameter were used
for the sake of comparison.
In order to explore the effect of the bar diameter, the bond
behavior of wounded BFRP bars with diameters of 12 and 16 mm
was explored as well (see Fig. 2).
2.1.2. Concrete
Concrete with a cubic compressive strength of 45 and 60 MPa
was used to construct pullout test specimens. The concrete had
the following mix proportions: fine aggregate = 536 kg/m3, Coarse
aggregate (crushed basalt with a maximum size of 20 mm) = 107
6 kg/m3, W/C ratio = 0.45, and 42.5 ordinary Portland cement = 410
and 474 kg/m3 for the lower and the higher concrete grades,
respectively. 100 mm concrete compressive test cubes were cast
and tested on the same day of bond specimens testing.
2.2. Specimens preparing and casting
Confirming to Canadian standards [6]) 150 mm plain concrete
cubes were used and the embedment length of the tested bars
was 5 times the nominal diameter. Soft PVC tubes were used along
the unbonded length in order to break the bond, as shown in Fig. 3
(a). Those PVC tubes were closed by soft clay before casting to pre-
vent the concrete from getting into the tubes and disturbing the
predefined bonded length. One week before testing the specimens,
the loaded ends of the specimens were attached to 300 mm grip-
ping steel tubes with an inner diameter of 20 mm and 5 mm thick-
ness filled with epoxy resin.
2.3. Testing rig and instrumentations
A steel testing setup (Fig. 3(b)) was designed and fabricated to
facilitate applying pullout loads. 900 kN hydraulic testing machine
applied the load and three linear variable differential transducers
(LVDT) were attached and calibrated before the start of every test
M. F. M. Fahmy, S. A. S. Ahmed and Z. Wu Construction and Building Materials 289 (2021) 122844

Table 1
Physical and mechanical properties of tested BFRP and steel bars.

Bar Type Surface condition db (mm) din (mm) h (mm) w (mm) Sr (mm) fy* (MP) fu* (MP) E* (GPa)
BFRP Smooth 10 10 0.2 7 10 400 540 200
BFRP Sand-coated 10 NA NA NA NA NA 1100 55
BFRP Wrapped 10 10 1 3 10 NA 1100 55
BFRP Wounded 10 10 0.6 7 10 NA 1100 55
BFRP Wounded 12 12 0.7 8.6 12 NA 1100 55
BFRP Wounded 16 16 0.96 12.6 16 NA 1100 55
Steel Steel 10 10 0.9 1.7 5 NA 1100 55

Notes: db = nominal diameter; din = inner diameter; h = rib height; w = rib width, Sr = rib spacing; fy = yield stress; fu = tensile strength; E = elastic modulus; NA = not applicable.
* Properties reported by the manufacturers.

2.4. Loading protocol

Because controlling the displacement is more representative of

the practical loading scenarios, all tests were displacement con-
trolled and the tests were stopped at 20 mm displacement. Accord-
ing to Canadian standards (CSA S806-12 [6]), the loading rate shall
not be greater than 1.27 mm/min so the loading rate during all
tests was 1 mm/min.

2.5. Test matrix

Table 2 summarizes the details of all tested 20 specimens. Test

specimens were labeled such that the 1st Latin letter represents
the bar material where (F) and (S) stand for BFRP and steel, respec-
tively. The 2nd and the 3rd letters refer to the bar surface treat-
ment as (Wn), (Wr), (Sm), and (Sc) stand for helically wounded,
helically wrapped, smooth, and sand-coated surface treatments,
respectively. Then come two numerals that represent the bar
diameter, and the number between the brackets is for the speci-
men number. For example, FWn10 (3) refers to a specimen rein-
forced by a 10 mm diameter helically wounded BFRP bar and it
was the 3rd tested specimen with the same investigated
parameters.
Fig. 2. Wounded BFRP bars of different diameters.

3. Test results and discussion

to measure the free end slip of the bar, the concrete surface dis-
placement, and displacement of the loaded end. A data acquisition
system was used to record the readings of the LVDTs. The measure-
ment rate was set to 1 s for both the testing machine and the data
logger.
3.1. Failure mode
All specimens failed by pull-out except 6 specimens; 5 experi-
enced concrete splitting, and one failed by bar buckling due to an

Fig. 3. (a) Bond test specimen configuration; (b) test setup.

3
M. F. M. Fahmy, S. A. S. Ahmed and Z. Wu Construction and Building Materials 289 (2021) 122844

Table 2
Bond test results of BFRP and steel bars.

Specimen Failure mode fc (MPa) smax (MPa) Sm (mm) sO (MP) S1 (mm) S2 (mm) Kd (MPa/mm) sr (MP) sr / smax
FWn10(1) P 60 20.37 2.9 4.78 1.8 3.7 3 1.83 0.09
FWn10(2) P 60 21.47 3.2 3.31 2.2 4.1 2.8 3.44 0.16
FWn10(3) P 60 20.08 1.9 4.95 1.7 4.35 2.45 3.41 0.17
FWn10(4) S 60 21.07 1.3 6.14 – – – – –
FWn10(5) P 45 19.3 3.3 6.11 1.8 3.9 2.25 4.25 0.22
FWn10(6) P 45 19 2.8 5.63 1.9 3.5 2.55 3.04 0.16
FWn10(7) P 45 19.87 2.72 4.87 2.05 3.7 2.6 3.97 0.2
FWn10(8) S 45 18.09 1.52 5.65 – – – – –
FSm10(1) P 60 9.42 3.54 3.17 2.5 4.4 0.72 3.39 0.36
FSm10(2) P 60 9.58 3.54 3.05 2.6 4.7 0.7 2.87 0.3
FSc10(1) P 60 10.14 2.50 5.73 1.70 5.70 0.35 7.1 0.7
FSc10(2) P 60 8.04 – – – – – 6.27 0.78
FWr10(1) P 47 11.52 2.27 5.43 2.0 2.70 1.1 4.84 0.42
FWr10(2) P 47 11.38 1.93 5.76 1.7 2.5 0.9 5.46 0.48
St10(1) P 47 14.97 0.79 8.54 0.4 1.7 2 2.99 0.2
St10(2) BB 47 – – – – – – – –
FWn12(1) P 45 21.13 3.84 6.97 2.2 5.15 1.8 6.76 0.32
FWn12(2) P 45 19.56 3.47 6.43 2.2 4.6 1.7 5.48 0.28
FWn16(1) S 45 11.69 1.09 4.18 – – – – –
FWn16(2) S 45 12.08 2.33 3.71 – – – – –

error during loading. Those specimens were excluded from the
afterward discussion.
In order to inspect the surfaces of the bars and the concrete in
the bonded region, a number of specimens were cut after the tests
and examined. In the case of steel bars, the failure happened only
to the surrounding concrete within the bonded length with no
damage to the steel bar itself. Typically, the ribs of the steel bar
crushed the adjacent concrete and the bars were pulled out after
they cleared the concrete from their way. This well-known failure
mechanism can be identified by two observations shown in Fig. 4(a
and b). First, the existence of concrete particles that were trapped
between the ribs of the steel bar, and second the smooth wider
tube that was formed in the concrete in the bonded zone.
Regarding BFRP bars, the failure was more concentrated to the
surface of BFRP bars with different mechanisms based on the bar
surface treatment. Starting with the smooth bars, the bar surface
within the bonded zone was rubbed against the concrete and the
fibers on the bar surface were worn by friction, as shown in
Fig. 4(c). Scratches on the bar surface and some fibers’ traces on
the surfaces of the concrete in the bonded length were found.
Helically wrapped bars within the bonded zone were clear of
the wrapping threads completely (see Fig. 4(d)). It is expected that
the resin that was attaching the wrapping fibers to the bar surface
failed and the outer surface treatment detached from the bar,
transforming the bar into a smooth one.
Failure of sand-coated bars happened to the interface between
the sand coating layer from one side and the original smooth bar
surface from the other side. This failure was identified by the bare
surface of the bar along the bonded region as displayed in Fig. 4(e),
with traces of fibers attached to the concrete surface, as shown in
Fig. 4(f). Accordingly, it can be inferred that the sand coating layer
had improved the chemical adhesion and the friction bond, and as
a result, the failure moved from the concrete-bar interface to the
interface between the bar surface and the sand coating layer.
Differently, the helically wounded bars showed distinctive fail-
ure characteristics; the extruded bar ribs were worn and flattened
against the concrete. Fig. 4(g) shows the unbonded zone of the bar
where the hills and valleys of the bar surface are still obviously vis-
ible, but this curvy pattern disappeared in the bonded area. This
abrasion of the bar’s surface extensively reduced the height of
the bar’s ribs and the outer diameter of the bar was decreased.
On the other hand, the concrete around the bar was slightly dam-
aged and the concrete lugs were almost intact as shown in Fig. 4
(h).
4
3.2. Monotonic bond-slip behavior
Assuming a uniform distribution of bond stresses along the
bonded length of the bar, the average bond stress (s) was calcu-
lated as follows:
P
s¼ ð2Þ
pdb Lb
where P is the pullout force, db is the nominal diameter of the bar,
and Lb is the bonded length. The maximum bond stress (smax) and
the corresponding free end slip (Sm) values are listed in Table 2.
Figs. 5 and 6 show the bond-slip relationships of representative
specimens of the tested bars.
3.3. Bond-slip behavior quantification
To be able to compare the bond behavior of the tested bars, it
was essential to describe the behavior quantitatively. The behavior
of the most investigated BFRP bars in this study appeared to follow
BPE model, which was developed by Eligehausen et al. [12] to
describe the bond behavior of steel bars. Then it was used by many
scholars (Cosenza et al. [9]; El Refai et al. [10], and Ibrahim et al.
[19] among them) to represent the bond behavior of FRP bars as
well. According to BPE bond-slip model, the bond stress is given
by the following equations.
 a
S
s ¼ smax forS  S1 ð2Þ
S1
s ¼ smax forS1 < S  S2 ð3Þ
s ¼ ðsmax  K d ðS  S 2 ÞÞforS2 < S  Sr ð4Þ
s ¼ sr forS  Sr ð5Þ
As shown in Fig. 7, this model fitted well to the bond-slip
behavior of BFRP bars. BPE bond-slip model (Fig. 7a) consists of 4
different regions start with an increasing nonlinear segment fol-
lowed by a plateau where the maximum bond stress maintained,
then a linear descending branch and ends with a region that can
be described by a constant value of residual bond strength. The free
end slip corresponding to 95% of the bond strength before and after
the slip corresponding to bond strength (Sm) was utilized to define
the transition points S1 and S2 of BPE model as shown in Fig. 7.
These Two points define the borders between the 1st and 2nd as
M. F. M. Fahmy, S. A. S. Ahmed and Z. Wu Construction and Building Materials 289 (2021) 122844

(a) (b)

Concrete crushed between bar Concrete lugs crushed

(c) (d)

Bar surface abrasion

bar ribs lost

(e) (f)

missing parts from fibers form the

the bar surface bar surface

(g) bar ribs worn (h) slightly damaged concrete lugs

Fig. 4. Observed failure surfaces: (a) steel bar surface; (b) concrete surface damage of a steel bond specimen; (c) smooth BFRP bar’s surface; (d) wrapped BFRP bar’s surface;
(e) sand-coated BFRP bar’s surface; (f) concrete surface of a sand-coated bond specimen; (g) wounded BFRP bar’s surface; (h) concrete surface of a wounded bond specimen.

wrapped bars showed a different behavior with a linear increase

in the bond stress just after the first slip of the bar, combined with
a very sharp bond strength peak. In order to have a better under-
standing of the effect of surface treatment on the bond behavior
of BFRP bars, the characteristics of the bond-slip behavior were iso-
lated and discussed separately afterward.

3.4.1. Bond stress at the onset of the slip

Fig. 5. Representative relationships between bond stress and free end slip for bars
with different surface treatments.
well as the 2nd and 3rd regions, respectively. The parameters of
the bond-slip behavior were calculated for all specimens and
reported in Table 2 and their average values are given in Table 3.
3.4. Effect of the bar surface treatment on the bond-slip behavior
As can be noticed in Figs. 5 and 6, smooth, sand-coated, and
wounded BFRP bars shared a similar bond-slip profile. However,
5
All bars showed an initial loading stage where the bond stress
increased with almost no slip at the free end. This stage ended once
the chemical adhesion broke and static friction (the friction that
happens before the bar movement) had been overwhelmed. The
bond stress at the onset of the slip (so) values are given in Table 2,
and the average values of the 5 bar types are shown in Fig. 7. It can
be seen that sand coating, wounding, or wrapping BFRP bars sim-
ilarly resulted in a higher so when compared to smooth bars. How-
ever, coating smooth bars with sand increased the chemical bond
between the bar surface and the concrete more than any other
tested surface treatment. Thus, sand-coated bars had the highest
initial bond stiffness among all BFRP bars (See Fig. 6(b)) and devel-
oped the highest ratio (57%) of their bond strength before the first
slip compared to other BFRP bars as illustrated in Fig. 8. Also, steel
bars developed higher bond stresses before the first slip compared
to all BFRP bars. The higher stiffness of steel bars compared to BFRP
bars is the reason behind the early development of bond stresses
associated with steel reinforcement bars. Similar observations
were reported in Chaallal and Benmokrane [8], Nanni et al. [21],
M. F. M. Fahmy, S. A. S. Ahmed and Z. Wu Construction and Building Materials 289 (2021) 122844

(a)

Fig. 6 (b)

Fig. 7a. Bond stress at the onset of the slip for different bar types.

(b)
happens during the bar movement) resisted the force. Figs. 5 and 6
clarify that the steel bar exhibited the highest bond stiffness fol-
lowed by wounded BFRP bars. In addition, coating BFRP bars with
sand appeared to increase the bond stiffness of smooth BFRP bars
more than wrapping them. Still, smooth, wrapped, and sand-
coated bars had lower stiffnesses than helically wounded bars.

3.4.3. Bond strength

Fig. 6. Representative relationships between bond stress and loaded end slip for
bars with different surface treatments.
As shown in Fig. 9, the average bond strength of sand-coated
bars was comparable to that of smooth bars, and wrapped bars
had a higher average bond strength by 21%. However, wounding
smooth BFRP bars resulted in a massive increase of 114% on aver-
age. This high bond stress allowed the BFRP to develop high axial
stresses in the bar up to 45% of its ultimate stress in spite of the
short-anchored length. Accordingly, it can be inferred that wound-
ing BFRP bars is significantly effective in increasing the bond
strength of BFRP bars followed by wrapping the smooth bar with
BFRP strands. Moreover, the sand coating technique did not
improve the bond strength, and steel bars showed higher bond
strength than all BFRP bars except the wounded one. Gu and Dong
[14] reported that wounded BFRP bars with different surface pro-
files and smooth bars embedded in 35 MPa concrete had an aver-
age bond strength of 17.1 and 11.6 MPa, respectively. El Refai et al.
[11] tested BFRP bars that had been wounded and sand-coated at
the same time. The bars were embedded in 63 MPa concrete and
had an average bond strength of 14.6 MPa.

3.4.4. Slip at maximum bond stress (Sm)

Fig. 10 presents the values of the slip corresponding to the bond
strength. Steel bars developed their bond strength early at
0.79 mm slip. Although wrapping, sand-coating, and wounding
smooth BFRP bars decreased Sm, all BFRP had much larger values
of Sm compared to that of the steel bars. Wounded BFRP bars exhib-
ited large Sm values of 2.67 and 2.94 mm for concrete grades of 60
and 45 MPa, respectively. Similar results were reported in previous
research. Whereas Shen et al. [25] stated that wounded BFRP bars
slipped 3.15 mm on average at the maximum bond stress. Gu and
Fig. 7. BPE Bond model. Dong [14] noted that, at the bond strength, smooth and wounded
bars embedded in 35 MPa concrete had an average free end slip
and Baena et al. [5] regarding sand-coated GFRP bars and steel of 4.88 and 3.65 mm, respectively.
bars.
3.4.5. Slip at the end of the bond stress ascending branch (S1)
3.4.2. Bond stiffness As shown in Fig. 11, the slip at the end of the first ascending
After the first loading stage, the bond stiffness degraded and stage (S1) values for all BFRP bars except smooth bars were compa-
both mechanical interlock and the kinetic friction (the friction that rable between 1.7 and 1.9 mm. It is obvious that all surface
6
M. F. M. Fahmy, S. A. S. Ahmed and Z. Wu Construction and Building Materials 289 (2021) 122844

Table 3
Average BPE bond model parameters.

Bar type a smax (MPa) S1 (mm) S2 (mm) Kd (MPa/mm) sr (MPa) sr/smax

Steel 0.35 14.97 0.4 1.7 2 2.99 0.2
Smooth BFRP 0.28 9.5 2.6 4.55 0.71 3.13 0.33
Sand-coated BFRP 0.2 10.11 1.7 5.7 0.35 7.11 0.7
Wrapped BFRP 0.36 11.45 1.85 2.6 1 5.15 0.45
Wounded BFRP (fc = 60 MPa) 0.43 21.34 1.80 3.91 2.71 4.1 0.19
Wounded BFRP (fc = 45 MPa) 0.4 19.39 1.92 3.7 2.47 3.64 0.19

Fig. 8. The ratio between the bond stress at the slip onset and bond strength for Fig. 10. Slip corresponding to the bond strength of different bar types.
different bar types.

Fig. 9. Bond strength of different bar types.

treatments of smooth BFRP bars similarly resulted in a reduction in
S1. On the other hand, S1 value for steel bars was much lower
(0.4 mm) than BFRP bars and this explains the higher bond stiff-
ness of steel bars.
3.4.6. Bond behavior plateau
The surface treatment technique had a pronounced effect on the
bond plateau width (S2-S1), as can be seen in Fig. 12. The Bond pla-
teau length can be used to represent the bond ductility which can
be expressed by the ability of the bar to undergo large slip while
maintaining its bond strength. While sand coating surface treat-
ment resulted in a massive increase in the plateau width by more
than 100%, other treatment techniques had less effect. Wounded
7
Fig. 11. Slip at the end of the bond stress increasing branch (S1) of different bar
types.
bars showed nearly the same plateau width, and wrapped bars
had a very short plateau of 38% of that of the smooth bars. Not only
steel bars, that showed the least bond ductility, had a narrower
plateau than all BFRP bars except the wrapped bars, but this pla-
teau ended very early. So early such that bond stresses started to
degrade before all BFRP bars reach their bond strength. Wrapped
bars showed low bond ductility characterized by a narrow and
sharp bond strength peak. Whereas sand-coated, wounded, and
smooth BFRP bars had a high bond ductility that can provide a
new desirable failure mode for some types of FRP and hybrid rein-
forced structures as suggested by Ibrahim et al. [17] and Ibrahim
et al. [19].
M. F. M. Fahmy, S. A. S. Ahmed and Z. Wu
Fig. 12. Plateau width of different bar types.
3.4.7. Bond degrading stiffness (Kd)
After the end of the bond stress stability stage, bond stress
degrades with the increase of the slip. The speed of this degrada-
tion can be measured using Kd index that represents the slope of
this linear stage. Fig. 13 shows that wounded BFRP had the steepest
bond stress degradation among all studied bar followed by steel
bars. Wrapped bars had a 41% higher slope and sand-coated bars
had a 50% lower slope compared to their original form (smooth
bars). What’s more, Fig. 13 implies that the degradation stiffness
is related to the bond resistance mechanism of the bar. Those bars
that relied mainly on the mechanical interlock showed more brittle
behavior with higher Kd values such as wounded BFRP and steel
bars. While sand-coated and smooth bars showed a more ductile
degradation of bond stresses because they depend on the surface
friction more than mechanical interlock. With this in mind, it is
clear now that wounded bars showed larger Kd values than
wrapped because the former had firmer ribs that increased the
share of the mechanical interlock resistance in the whole bond
resistance. Also, sand coating smooth bars covered the small
indentations on the bar surface (see Fig. 1(d)) and reduced its
mechanical interlock resistance. As a result, smooth bars had stee-
per degradation than sand-coated bars.
Fig. 13. Bond stress degradation slope of different bar types.
8
Construction and Building Materials 289 (2021) 122844
3.4.8. Residual bond strength (sr)
At the end of the monotonic bond behavior, reinforcing bars
tend to uphold a certain value of residual bond strength. One major
difference between the steel and FRP bars, in general, is the pattern
of this residual bond strength. It is clear from Fig. 2 that the bond
stress of steel bars continued to decrease with a reduced slope.
Contrarily, BFRP bars displayed a wavy change in the residual bond
strength. Similar observations appeared in the literature such as
Okelo and Yuan [22] for wounded CFRP bars, Xue et al. [28] for
GFRP bars, and Ibrahim et al. [17] for BFRP bars. Steel bars pre-
served the lowest residual bond strength among all bar types. This
is associated with the harsh bond failure mechanism of steel bars
as previously mentioned. On the other hand, the bond failure of
BFRP bars was less severe because both BFRP and concrete had
comparable hardness. And this the reason that all BFRP bars had
higher residual bond strength than steel bars. Furthermore, the
minimum residual bond strength of wounded, wrapped and
sand-coated bars increased by 24, 65, and 127%, respectively, com-
pared to the smooth bar (see Fig. 14).
3.5. Concrete strength effect
As can be seen in Figs. 5 and 6, the concrete strength within the
studied range had a minor effect on the behavior of the wounded
BFRP bars. This is can be attributed to the characteristics of the
bond failure of BFRP bars where most of the damage occurs to
the bar surface. Increasing the concrete compressive strength by
33% (corresponding to 15% increase in the concrete strength square
root) resulted in an increase in the bond strength by 9%. Similarly,
Shen et al. [25] reported that an increase in the concrete strength
by 65% (corresponding to 28% increase in the concrete strength
square root) resulted in only 19% increase in the bond strength
of smooth BFRP bars. The effect of the compressive concrete
strength was negligible except on bond stress plateau width and
residual bond strength. Increasing the concrete compressive
strength increased the plateau width by 20% and decreased the
residual bond strength by 23%.
3.6. Bar diameter effect
The bond-slip relationships of 10, 12, and 16 mm diameter
wounded BFRP bars are presented in Figs. 15 and 16. Changing
the bar diameter altered the failure mode, as increasing the diam-
eter decreased the clear concrete cover around the bar. Therefore,
Fig. 14. Residual bond strength of different bar types.
M. F. M. Fahmy, S. A. S. Ahmed and Z. Wu Construction and Building Materials 289 (2021) 122844

(sr/smax) were higher for 12 mm diameter bars. Also, the bond

stress degradation slope (Kd) of the 12 mm bars were lower com-
pared to that of 10 mm bars.

3.7. Bond resistance mechanism of wounded BFRP bars

Figs. 17 and 18 present the geometry of bar surface profiles of

Fig. 15. Bond stress versus free end slip of wounded BFRP bars with different
diameters.
10 and 12 mm wounded BFRP bars, respectively. The dimensions
of the bars’ surface profiles that were used to plot these figures
were given in Table 1. Also, representative bond-slip relationships
of both bars were plotted in the same figures to show that the
bond-slip relationship of wounded BFRP bars is directly linked to
bar surface geometry. The displacements corresponding to the
maximum bond stress were 3.25 and 3.84 mm for 10 and 12 bars,
respectively. Both of these two values represented 93 and 89% of
rib width of 10 and 12 mm bars, respectively. Moreover, the dis-
placements at the minimum bond stress at the first valley were
associated with the middle of valleys of the bar surface profile. This
correlation between the bond behavior of the bar and its surface
profile can be explained by the following.
At early loading, the chemical adhesion and static friction
between the bar and concrete resist the pullout force with no slip
as represented by position 0 in Fig. 19. Then these two bond com-
ponents (chemical adhesion and static friction) are overwhelmed

Fig. 16. Bond stress versus loaded end slip of wounded BFRP bars with different
diameters.

the chance of splitting failure occurrence increased. While the

majority of the specimens reinforced with 10 and 12 mm bars Fig. 17. The relationship between the bond-slip behavior and the bar surface profile
failed mainly due to pull out, specimens reinforced with of 10 mm wounded BFRP bars.
16 mm bar failed by concrete splitting due to the lower concrete
cover to bar diameter ratio (c/db). The comparison between the
bond-slip behavior of 10, 12, 16 mm bars revealed some important
differences. Concerning the bond-slip relationship outline,
16 mm bar that failed due to splitting showed a totally different
behavior characterized by a very sharp bond stress peak combined
with very rapid degradation of the bond stress. And the most nota-
ble dissimilarity is the disappearance of the wavy residual bond
strength stage which was mainly attributed to the loss of the fric-
tion between the bar and the concrete after splitting occurred.
Unlike pull out failure, when concrete split, the lateral pressure
of the concrete on the bar diminished and the friction between
the bar surface and the concrete radically reduced and did not fol-
low the bar surface profile anymore.
By comparing the bond behavior of 10 and 12 mm bars, it is
obvious that the 12 mm diameter bars had a wider bond stress pla-
teau. This is attributed to the wider absolute rib width of 12 mm
(8.6 mm) bars compared to that of 10 mm bars (7 mm) (revisit
Table 1). The same behavior was noticed in Hao et al. [15] in their
investigation to find the optimum rib geometry of GFRP bars. Addi- Fig. 18. The relationship between the bond-slip behavior and the bar surface profile
tionally, the residual strength (sr) and its ratio to the bond strength of 12 mm wounded BFRP bars.

9
M. F. M. Fahmy, S. A. S. Ahmed and Z. Wu
Fig. 19. Bond resistance mechanism of wounded BFRP bars.
by the increasing pullout load and slip starts to occur (position 1).
This movement of the bar initiates the mechanical interlock resis-
tance that causes the following 3 responses from the bar and the
10
Construction and Building Materials 289 (2021) 122844
Fig. 20. Forces that control the bond resistance.
concrete. (1) The bar applies larger bearing forces that produce
splitting forces on the surrounding concrete (see Fig. 20). Thus,
the concrete deforms laterally. (2) The bar surface wears down,
and (3) the bar shrinks laterally because of its low lateral modulus
of elasticity. The increasing bearing force typically leads to higher
friction force and as a result, higher bond stress is generated. When
the highest point of the bar rib reaches the narrowest section
between the concrete lugs (position 2) at a displacement corre-
sponding to half of the rib width, the bar experiences the maxi-
mum contraction, the radial splitting forces reach their peak, and
therefore the bond stress achieves its highest value. This also
explains why splitting failure occurs before reaching this peak
point and not after as the radial splitting forces do not increase
after that point. With a further slip, the bar maintains its bond
strength up to a certain slip depending on the top width of the
bar rib. After that, the bar rib enters another section where the dis-
tance between the concrete lugs is widening (position 3). Hence,
the bar contraction and the concrete deformation decrease, and
both materials start to recover their original form gradually. This
stage is responsible for the bond degradation that comes after
the bond plateau. At the end of this stage, the bar and the concrete
attain their original forms but with considerable wear and damage
of the bar surface caused in all earlier stages. This is the point
where the bond degrades to the minimum value and that’s why
it happens at a slip proportional to Sr þw 2
(position 4). Where Sr
and w are the bar rib spacing and width, respectively. After that,
the bar starts another cycle of this movement. But because of the
extensive damage that happened during the last cycle, the bond
stress never achieves its former peak again.
This direct influence of the bar surface profile on its bond
behavior suggests that this type of surface treatment (wounding)
is highlighting the ability to produce BFRP bars with desirable bond
behavior easily by choosing a certain combination of ribs’ spacing,
height, and width. However, this explanation of bond-slip behavior
is only valid to wounded BFRP bars and did not fit the tested bars
with other surface treatments. That is because sand-coated and
wrapped bars failed by losing the outer surface treatment layer
of the bar as discussed earlier. So, research efforts need to be made
for the sake of proposing design rules of the bar surface to accom-
plish specific bond performance.
4. Conclusions
The results of the bond behavior of BFRP bars with different sur-
face treatments as well as steel bars were presented and analyzed.
Based on the results of this study the following conclusions can be
drawn.
M. F. M. Fahmy, S. A. S. Ahmed and Z. Wu

The general bond-slip behavior of BFRP bars is mainly different
than that of steel bars. The failure modes of BFRP and steel bars
are entirely distinctive. Smooth bars and wounded BFRP bars
experienced abrasion of the bar surface. Sand-coated and
wrapped BFRP bars failed due to the failure of the interface
between the bar and surface treatment. Specimens reinforced
with steel bars exhibited concentrated damage to the concrete
layer surrounding the bar. In general, BFRP bars had less stiff
bond behavior, much higher bond ductility, and more gentle
failure than steel reinforcing bars.

The surface treatment of smooth BFRB bars showed an enor-
mous effect on every aspect of the bond behavior. Overall, BFRP
bar surface treatments resulted in a stiffer behavior, higher
bond strength, and higher residual bond strength. Wounded
bars achieved a massive increase in the bond strength combined
with a significant increase in the degradation rate of the bond
stress. Sand-coating technique enhanced the chemical and the
friction bond as well as extended the bond plateau stage but
with no effect on the bond strength. Wrapped bars showed a
different bond-slip relationship compared to other BFRP bars
but with less impact on the bond behavior characteristics than
other surface treatments. After all, wounded BFRP bars showed
a superior bond performance compared to all BFRP and steel
bars.

In agreement with previous research efforts, the investigated
range of concrete compressive strength marginally affected
the bond behavior because the failure was more concentrated
to the wounded BFRP bar surface not to the concrete. Still, the
bond strength of wounded BFRP bars increased with the
increase of the concrete compressive strength.

The results of the tests on different bar diameters revealed that
the bar diameter has a slight effect on the bond strength, but the
geometric details of the bar surface profile had a major effect on
the bond behavior.

The proposed bond resistance mechanism of wounded BFRP
bars shows that the bond-slip relationship of wounded BFRP
bars is directly linked to bar surface geometry. The ribs’ spacing,
height, and width may be useful tools to produce BFRP bars
with desired and controlled bond behavior.

BPE bond-slip model can be utilized to represent the bond-slip
behavior of BFRP bars.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mohamed F. M. Fahmy: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writ-
ing - review & editing. ShehabEldeen A. S. Ahmed: Methodology,
Data curation, Writing - original draft. Zhishen Wu: Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] ACI Committee 440, Guide for the design and construction of structural
concrete reinforced with FRP bars, 2015.
11
Construction and Building Materials 289 (2021) 122844
[2] F. Al-Mahmoud, A. Castel, R. François, C. Tourneur, Effect of surface
preconditioning on bond of carbon fibre reinforced polymer rods to concrete,
Cem. Concr. Comp. 29 (9) (2007) 677–789.
[3] A. Altalmas, A. El Refai, F. Abed, Bond degradation of basalt fiber-reinforced
polymer (BFRP) bars exposed to accelerated aging conditions, Constr. Build.
Mater. 81 (2015) 162–171.
[4] A. Aiello, M.L. Maria, M. Pecce, Bond performances of FRP rebars-reinforced
concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (3) (2007) 205–213.
[5] M. Baena, L. Torres, A. Turon, C. Barris, Experimental study of bond behaviour
between concrete and FRP bars using a pull-out test, Compos. B Eng. 40 (8)
(2009) 784–797.
[6] CSA S806–12, Design and construction of building structures with fibre-
reinforced polymers, Mississauga: Canadian Standards Association (2012).
[7] CSA S6–14, Canadian highway bridge design code, Canad. Stand. Assoc. (2014).
[8] O. Chaallal, B. Benmokrane, Pullout and bond of glass-fibre rods embedded in
concrete and cement grout, Mater. Struct. 26 (3) (1993) 167–175.
[9] E. Cosenza, G. Manfredi, R. Realfonzo, Behavior and modeling of bond of FRP
rebars to concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 1 (2) (1997) 40–51.
[10] E.l. Refai, F.A. Ahmed, A. Altalmas, Bond durability of basalt fiber-reinforced
polymer bars embedded in concrete under direct pullout conditions, J.
Compos. Constr. 19 (5) (2014) 04014078.
[11] E.l. Refai, M.-A. Ahmed, R. Masmoudi, Bond performance of basalt fiber-
reinforced polymer bars to concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 19 (3) (2014)
04014050.
[12] Eligehausen, Rolf, Egor P. Popov, Vitelmo V. Bertero, Local bond stress-slip
relationships of deformed bars under generalized excitations (1982).
[13] FIB Bulletin 10, Bond of Reinforcement in concrete, state-of-the-art report,
Fédération internationale de la précontrainte. Lausanne, Switzerland. 434p.
2000.
[14] X. Gu, Q. Dong, Laboratory test and numerical simulation of bond performance
between basalt fiber reinforced polymer rebar and concrete, J. Test. Eval. 40 (7)
(2012) 1–8.
[15] Q. Hao, Y. Wang, Z. He, O.u. Jinping, Bond strength of glass fiber reinforced
polymer ribbed rebars in normal strength concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2)
(2009) 865–871.
[16] M. Harajli, M. Abouniaj, Bond performance of GFRP bars in tension:
experimental evaluation and assessment of ACI 440 guidelines, J. Compos.
Constr. 14 (6) (2010) 659–668.
[17] A.MA. Ibrahim, W.u. Zhishen, M.FM. Fahmy, D. Kamal, Experimental study on
cyclic response of concrete bridge columns reinforced by steel and basalt FRP
reinforcements, J. Compos. Constr. 20 (3) (2015) 04015062.
[18] A.MA. Ibrahim, M.FM. Fahmy, W.U. Zhishen, Numerical simulation on
fracturing bond mechanisms of different basalt FRP bars, J. Japan Soc. Civil
Eng. (Appl. Mech.) 71 (2) (2015) 289–298.
[19] A.MA. Ibrahim, M.FM. Fahmy, W.u. Zhishen, 3D finite element modeling of
bond-controlled behavior of steel and basalt FRP-reinforced concrete square
bridge columns under lateral loading, Compos. Struct. 143 (2016) 33–52.
[20] L. Javier Malvar, Bond stress-slip characteristics of FRP rebars, No. NFESC-TR-
2013-SHR. NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER PORT HUENEME
CA, 1994.
[21] A. Nanni, M. Al-Zaharani, S. Al-Dulaijan, C. Bakis, I. Boothby, 17 bond of FRP
reinforcement to concrete-experimental results, in: Non-Metallic (FRP)
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Proceedings of the Second
International RILEM Symposium, vol. 29, p. 135. CRC Press, 1995.
[22] R. Okelo, R.L. Yuan, Bond strength of fiber reinforced polymer rebars in normal
strength concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 9 (3) (2005) 203–221.
[23] A. Palmieri, S. Matthys, M. Tierens, Basalt fibres: mechanical properties and
applications for concrete structures, in: International Conference on Concrete
Solutions, 2009, pp. 165–169.
[24] Shehab Eldeen A.S. Ahmed, Mohamed F.M. Fahmy, Zhishen Wu, Experimental
study and numerical modeling of cyclic bond-slip behavior of basalt FRP bars
in concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 22 (6) (2018) 04018050.
[25] Dejian Shen, Binod Ojha, Xiang Shi, Hui Zhang, Jiaxin Shen, Bond stress–slip
relationship between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer bars and concrete using
a pull-out test, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 35 (9) (2016) 747–763.
[26] Wu. Zhishen, Wang Xin, Wu. Gang, Advancement of structural safety and
sustainability with basalt fiber reinforced polymers, Proc. of CICE 2012 6th
International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, 2012.
[27] Z. Wu, M.F.M. Fahmy, G. Wu, Safety enhancement of urban structures with
structural recoverability and controllability, J. Earthquake Tsunami 3 (Pt. 3)
(2009) 143–174.
[28] Weichen Xue, Yu. Qiaowen Zheng, Yang, and Zhiqing Fang, Bond behavior of
sand-coated deformed glass fiber reinforced polymer rebars, J. Reinf. Plast.
Compos. 33 (10) (2014) 895–910.