Bond Performance of Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Polymer

Bars to Concrete
Ahmed El Refai, Ph.D., P.E. 1; Mohamed-Amine Ammar 2; and Radhouane Masmoudi 3

Abstract: This paper presents the test results of a study on the bond behavior of basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) bars to concrete.
Thirty six concrete cylinders reinforced with BFRP bars and twelve cylinders reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

were tested in direct pullout conditions. Test parameters included the FRP material (basalt and glass), the bar diameter, and the bar embedment
length in concrete. Bond-slip curves of BFRP and GFRP bars revealed similar trends. BFRP bars developed average bond strength 75% of
that of GFRP bars. All BFRP specimens failed in a pullout mode of failure along the interfacial surface between the outer layer of the bar and
the subsequent core layers. The influence of various parameters on the overall bond performance of BFRP bars is analyzed and discussed.
The well-known BPE and modified-BPE analytical models were calibrated to describe the bond-slip relationships of the bars. Test results
demonstrate the promise of using the BFRP bars as an alternative to the GFRP bars in reinforcing concrete elements. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000487. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) offer a promising solution to
infrastructure decay that results from corrosion of reinforcing steel
bars. As a result, conventional FRP materials such as glass, carbon,
and aramid FRPs have been widely used in reinforcing and
strengthening concrete structures. Basalt fibers have been recently
used in developing a new FRP composite, referred to as basalt
fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP). Recently, BFRP bars have
emerged as a promising alternative to conventional FRP bars in
reinforcing concrete structures.
Basalt fibers are processed from basalt rocks through a melting
process similar to that used for glass fibers. The fibers are environ-
mentally safe, nontoxic, noncorrosive, and have good magnetic
insulation properties (Palmieri et al. 2009). They are characterized
by their high resistance to alkalinity in surrounding concrete, over-
coming a common drawback of glass fibers (Sim et al. 2005;
Palmieri et al. 2009). They have an excellent resistance to high tem-
perature and high moisture conditions (Militky et al. 2002; Palmieri
et al. 2009). Moreover, the fibers have outstanding chemical
stability (Wei et al. 2010, 2011) and excellent fatigue resistance
(Wu et al. 2010).
Several studies (Sim et al. 2005; Carmignato et al. 2009;
Lopresto et al. 2011) have documented the mechanical character-
istics of basalt fibers and basalt composites. However, research on
the feasibility of using BFRP products in reinforcing and strength-
ening concrete structures has been very limited (Sim et al. 2005;
Liu et al. 2006; Ludovico et al. 2010). Lack of knowledge and
research studies on basalt products as reinforcing materials has
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Water Engineering, Laval Univ.,
Québec City, QC, Canada G1V 0A6 (corresponding author). E-mail:
ahmed.elrefai@gci.ulaval.ca
2
M.Sc. Candidate, Laval Univ., Québec City, QC, Canada G1V 0A6.
E-mail: mohamed-amine.ammar.1@ulaval.ca
3
Professor, Sherbrooke Univ., Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1K 2R1.
E-mail: radhouane.masmoudi@usherbrooke.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 18, 2013; approved on
March 12, 2014; published online on August 11, 2014. Discussion period
open until January 11, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con-
struction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/04014050(12)/$25.00.
resulted in BFRP bars not being listed among the approved FRP
reinforcing bars in most design codes (American and Canadian
codes are examples). Therefore, there is not yet a formulation in
the technical and scientific communities for the use of BFRP
reinforcing bars in structural applications, especially in North
America.
The wide acceptance of BFRP bars in construction necessitates
comprehensive investigation of their structural and mechanical
performance to ensure their suitability for civil-engineering appli-
cations. One of the fundamental aspects of structural behavior is
bond development, as bond governs the serviceability, ductility,
and capacity of concrete structures. Previous studies have exten-
sively reported on the bond performance of FRP bars made with
glass, carbon, and aramid in concrete (Tepfers et al. 1998;
Achillides and Pilakoutas 2004; Alvarez-Villarreal 2004; ACI
2006; Tastani and Pantazopoulou 2006; Sayed et al. 2011). Test
results showed that concrete strength, bar diameter, bar embedment
length in concrete, and bar confinement significantly affect the
bond development of FRP reinforcing bars (Ehsani et al. 1997;
Hamad et al. 2004; Aiello et al. 2007; Davalos et al. 2008). Accord-
ing to Bank et al. (1998) and Harajli and Abouniaj (2010), bond is
strongly dependent on the surface characteristics of the FRP bar
and its treatment. Achillides and Pilakoutas (2004) and Davalos
et al. (2008) reported that bond of FRP bars to concrete depends
on the type of fibers used in manufacturing the bar. According to
Cosenza et al. (2002), the mechanical properties of the resin matrix
have a significant influence on the bond performance of FRP bars,
as they strongly affect the strength and the deformability of the ribs
and indentations located at the outer layer of the bar.
In contrast to steel reinforcing bars, FRP bars have no standardi-
zation for their surface treatment. The unique characteristics of
every FRP material and the wide variety of fiber/resin interfaces
made the bond behavior of FRP bars hard to predict apart from
experimental investigations. Proper assessment of the parameters
that are commonly known to influence bond of FRP bars to con-
crete is crucial to understand how BFRP bars develop their bond
strength. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, very limited studies
have been conducted to study the bond behavior of BFRP bars
(Ramakrishnan et al. 1998; Brik 2003; Parnas et al. 2007). Most
of these studies were preliminary investigations where major

© ASCE 04014050-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.

 Table 1. Concrete Mix Design
Constituent Quantity (kg=m3 )
Portland cement 474
Water 211
Coarse aggregate (14 mm) 381.5
Coarse aggregate (10 mm) 230.5
Fine aggregate 912
Air entraining agent 85.5
Fig. 1. Fiber-reinforced polymer bars used in this study (image by
Super-plasticizer 94.7
author)

Table 2. Nominal and Actual Diameters of BFRP and GFRP Bars

BFRP BFRP BFRP GFRP
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bar diameter (8 mm) (10 mm) (12 mm) (10 mm)

Nominal diameter (mm)a 8.00 10.00 12.00 10.00
Measured diameter (mm)b 8.63 10.20 12.42 11.32
a
Reported by the manufacturer.
b
Measured using the Archimedes method.

parameters known to influence the bond performance of FRP bars

were not thoroughly investigated.
The present study is part of a large research program aiming at
assessing the use of BFRP bars in construction towards their con-
sideration in concrete design codes. This paper presents the results
of pullout tests carried out on concrete cylinders reinforced with
BFRP bars. GFRP-reinforced specimens were also tested for
comparison. Failure mechanism and bond-slip relationships are
reported for both basalt and glass specimens. The study also
assesses the applicability of the BPE bond-slip model (Eligehausen
et al. 1983) and the modified-BPE model (Cosenza et al. 1997) to
BFRP bars.

Experimental Program
Fig. 2. Pullout test specimens (image by author)

Material Properties
Pullout specimens were constructed using concrete with an average
compressive strength of 50 MPa. This high-strength concrete was
used to ensure that bond failure occurred at the bar–concrete inter-
face and not in concrete and to follow current engineering practice
to use high-strength concrete with FRP reinforcement. The con-
crete mix had a maximum aggregate size of 14 mm and a water–
cement ratio of 0.45 (Table 1). The measured slump was 110 mm,
which allowed good compaction around the bars without excessive
bleeding. Concrete compressive strength was determined using
standard cylinders of 100-by-200 mm. Both pullout specimens
and cylinders were cured at a temperature of 20°C
2°C and a
humidity of 95% for 28 days.
BFRP and GFRP bars were used in this study. Table 2 shows
the nominal and actual diameters of the bars. The actual diameter
of the GFRP bars is larger than that of the BFRP bars by 11%. Prior
to pullout testing, tensile tests were carried out on bare bars to
characterize their mechanical properties (Table 3). Bar characteris-
tics reported by the manufacturers are also given in Table 3. As
per the manufacturers’ specifications, BFRP and GFRP bars are
pultruded using epoxy and vinyl ester resins, respectively. Both
FRP bars are sand-coated on their surfaces. Visual inspection of
the bars reveals uniform and consistent sand coating on GFRP
bar surface whereas the BFRP bar surface shows shallow spiral
indentations spaced at 2.75 mm along the bar (Fig. 1).
Test Specimens
Cylindrical molds 150 mm in diameter and 300 mm high were used
to prepare the pullout specimens. BFRP and GFRP bars 1,000 mm
long were concentrically positioned in the molds using the wooden
frame shown in Fig. 2. Prior to casting, FRP bars were properly
marked so that the embedment length, Ld , would lie in the middle

Table 3. Design Properties of BFRP and GFRP Bars

Tensile strength (MPa) Ultimate strain (%) Elastic modulus (GPa)
Bar Resin type Guaranteeda Testedb Guaranteeda Testedb Guaranteeda Testedb
BFRP rockbar Epoxy 1,168 1,017 2.20 2.12 50 48
GFRP V-rod Vinyl ester 889 986 1.66 1.86 53.4
2.5 53
a
Reported by the manufacturer.
b
Tested by the authors.

© ASCE 04014050-2 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.

 third of the cylindrical mold. Plastic tubes were used as bond break-
ers at top and bottom of the specimen. This arrangement was
chosen to prevent compressive stresses induced during the pullout
testing from influencing the bond behavior of the bar (Achillides
and Pilakoutas 2004). Embedment lengths were designed as multi-
ples of the bar diameter to facilitate comparisons between bars of
different diameters.
Test Setup and Procedure
Pullout arrangement is shown in Fig. 3. Concrete specimens were
placed in a specifically made steel frame that was positioned in the
testing machine. The frame consisted of a 25-mm-thick bearing
plate connected to the rigid base of the machine with four rods with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
20 mm diameters. Prior to load application, specimens were seated
on two horizontal steel beams to allow the instrumentation of the
specimen.
Two circular steel plates and a rubber plate were introduced
between the concrete specimen and the bearing plate to secure the
contact between the top surface of concrete and the bearing plate.
This arrangement was necessary to minimize the effect of surface
irregularities on the specimen’s alignment and to prevent accidental
lateral movement during testing. Two linear variable displacement
transducers (LVDT) were attached to the loaded end of the FRP
bar by steel brackets to record the bar slip relative to the top surface
of concrete. Two other LVDTs were attached to the free (unloaded)
end of the bar, which extended outside the concrete cylinder. The
instrumented test specimen was positioned in an MTS universal test-
ing machine (MTS Systems Corporation, Eden Prairie, Minnesota)
with a load cell capacity of 500 kN. Direct tensile load was applied to
the bar in a strain-control mode at a rate of 1.2 mm= min according to
CSA-S806-02 (CSA 2002) guidelines. The test was halted when no
more load could be carried by the bar. During the test, a data acquis-
ition system (MTS Systems Corporation, Eden Prairie, Minnesota)
recorded the load and slip readings at a rate of 5 readings=s.
Test Matrix
The test matrix is shown in Table 4. BFRP bars with three nominal
diameters (8, 10, and 12 mm) were used. GFRP bars with a nominal
diameter 10 mm were also tested for comparison. Four embedded
lengths taken as multiples of the bar diameter (5, 7, 10, and
15 times the bar diameter) were investigated in the study. The
selection of test parameters was based on previous experience of
the bond behavior of GFRP bars in concrete.
Fig. 3. (a) Test setup; (b) LVDTs at the loaded end; (c) LVDTs at the
unloaded end (images by author)
© ASCE 04014050-3
J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.
For each set of parameters, three specimens were tested to
ensure the reliability of the test results. Specimens are labeled
as follows: the first character marks the bar type (B for basalt and
G for glass), followed by the bar diameter (8, 10, or 12 mm). The
numeral next to the bar diameter refers to the embedment length.
The last digit refers to the specimen number in its group. For
instance, B12-120-3 refers to a BFRP-reinforced specimen with
a bar diameter of 12 mm and an embedment length of 120 mm
(equivalent to 10 times the bar diameter). The last digit refers to
the third specimen of its set.
Experimental Results and Discussion
Test results of 48 pullout specimens are shown in Table 4. The
maximum bond stress, τ max , of the bar is determined as follows:
P
τ max ¼ ð1Þ
πdLd
where P = tensile load; d = bar diameter; and Ld = bar embedment
length in concrete. Actual bar diameters were used in calculations.
At any stage of loading, bar slip at the unloaded ends was obtained
directly from the bottom LVDTs’ readings. For the loaded end, the
elongation of the bar between the upper LVDT support and the
beginning of the bonded zone was subtracted from the LVDT meas-
urement. GFRP specimens that failed by concrete splitting during
the tests were not used in calculations.
Bond Stress-Slip Response
Figs. 4 and 5 depict relationships between bond stress and slip his-
tories of representative BFRP specimens with different diameters
and embedment lengths at both the unloaded and loaded ends,
respectively. Fig. 6 compares the bond-slip curves at the unloaded
ends of BFRP and GFRP specimens with bar diameter of 10 mm.
The bar slip in some specimens was not fully recorded due to an
unexpected damage of the LVDTs. These specimens can be clearly
identified in the plots.
As seen from Figs. 4–6, all BFRP and GFRP curves showed an
initial ascending branch up to maximum stress, τ max . The increase
in bond stress was accompanied by an increase in slip between the
bar and the surrounding concrete. Bond-slip curves also showed a
falling branch, or softening branch, after the maximum bond stress
was attained. This portion of the curve was characterized by a sig-
nificant decrease in the bond stress accompanied by an increase in
the bar slip.
Bond-slip curves of BFRP and GFRP bars of 10 mm diameter
demonstrate similar trends, as shown in Fig. 6. The ascending and
softening branches can be clearly identified from the plots. Fig. 7
compares the maximum stresses developed by the bars. BFRP bars
developed 71 and 79% of the bond strength of GFRP bars for em-
bedment lengths of 5d and 10d, respectively, with an average value
of 75%. Bond strengths of specimens with embedment lengths 7d
and 15d were not compared due to the different modes of failure
exhibited in each type of bar. The slip measured at the unloaded
ends at maximum stress was negligible in both bars (average of
0.16 and 0.07 mm for BFRP and GFRP bars, respectively). At the
loaded ends, average slips of 1.01 and 0.67 mm were encountered
at maximum stress for BFRP and GFRP bars, respectively.
At all stages of loading, bar slip at the unloaded ends was sig-
nificantly smaller than that at the loaded ends. In fact, slip initiated
at the loaded end almost at the beginning of the test after the chemi-
cal adhesion broke between the bar and concrete. Adhesion of FRP
bars to concrete is the principal component that describes the bond
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 4. Bond Test Results of BFRP and GFRP Specimens
Ascending branch Softening branch
Test Failure mode τ max (MPa) smax;fe (mm) smax;le (mm) τ ons;fe (MPa) τ ons;le (MPa) αBPE τ r;fe (MPa) τ r;le (MPa) PBPE
BFRP specimens
B08-40-1 P 16.56 0.01 0.45 14.22 0.55 0.050 10.80 15.30 0.030
B08-40-2 P 15.81 0.15 0.60 14.60 1.40 0.015 10.00 11.92 0.030
B08-40-3 P 19.81 0.10 0.98 19.45 0.38 0.010 14.50 14.34 0.016
B08-56-1 P 14.10 NA 0.00 12.18 NA NA 11.90 9.92 NA
B08-56-2 P 14.01 0.12 0.73 13.25 0.45 0.050 9.50 9.00 0.030
B08-56-3 P 21.60 NA 1.20 19.98 0.80 NA 13.50 13.12 NA
B08-80-1 P 18.07 0.10 1.07 17.93 2.30 0.050 13.50 13.36 0.012
B08-80-2 P 11.80 0.01 0.55 11.79 2.80 0.012 7.50 7.74 0.003
B08-80-3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
B08-120-1 P 13.74 0.20 1.87 13.37 1.30 0.015 10.40 11.05 0.020
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B08-120-2 P 15.27 0.13 2.16 14.96 1.30 0.030 9.39 12.20 0.012
B08-120-3 P 10.65 0.16 1.63 10.40 0.90 0.040 5.01 7.50 0.022
B10-50-1 P 14.37 0.29 0.89 12.43 0.70 0.080 7.30 9.22 0.055
B10-50-2 P 13.71 0.23 0.00 11.30 NA 0.080 9.00 7.96 0.045
B10-50-3 P 15.30 0.05 0.11 15.69 0.60 0.015 10.00 12.56 0.012
B10-70-1 P 18.10 0.20 0.48 10.04 0.40 0.060 7.60 6.61 0.040
B10-70-2 P 17.11 0.20 0.85 9.24 0.46 0.075 7.00 6.70 0.040
B10-70-3 P 14.64 0.20 0.85 7.98 0.40 0.075 7.00 6.57 0.040
B10-100-1 P 13.26 0.01 1.24 12.03 0.80 0.050 8.50 12.14 0.002
B10-100-2 P 12.76 0.01 1.44 11.78 0.32 0.080 8.70 12.19 0.001
B10-100-3 P 13.92 0.16 1.47 12.89 0.32 0.045 NA 9.15 0.015
B10-150-1 P 10.80 0.23 1.33 10.59 1.50 0.040 5.30 6.40 0.022
B10-150-2 P 12.71 0.23 1.58 12.55 1.28 0.040 8.25 9.30 0.020
B10-150-3 P 10.48 0.17 1.83 10.22 0.25 0.040 6.00 8.44 0.018
B12-60-1 P 16.51 0.20 0.84 12.96 1.30 0.070 10.00 10.17 0.027
B12-60-2 P 17.02 0.25 0.56 13.37 0.30 0.070 12.50 12.57 0.032
B12-60-3 P 17.40 0.00 0.00 17.21 0.27 0.070 12.00 12.03 0.000
B12-84-1 P 17.97 0.00 0.75 9.04 0.10 NA 6.10 6.00 NA
B12-84-2 P 12.35 0.15 0.66 5.99 NA 0.080 4.50 3.90 0.030
B12-84-3 P 13.87 0.13 0.98 7.22 0.10 0.080 6.00 5.53 0.025
B12-120-1 P 14.32 0.28 0.00 12.80 NA 0.025 11.00 NA 0.027
B12-120-2 P 14.42 0.19 1.36 14.17 0.97 0.040 10.50 10.70 0.017
B12-120-3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
B12-180-1 P 10.91 0.25 2.31 10.50 0.25 0.036 NA NA 0.022
B12-180-2 P 11.68 0.30 2.37 11.15 0.40 0.036 6.00 9.98 0.022
B12-180-3 P 12.18 0.25 2.14 11.83 0.40 0.030 6.70 10.20 0.017
GFRP specimens
G10-50-1 P 20.07 0.36 0.03 12.13 0.78 0.070 4.60 4.90 0.300
G10-50-2 P 21.03 0.00 1.32 16.69 0.45 NA 12.50 14.00 NA
G10-50-3 P 20.44 0.02 0.00 NA 1.80 NA 7.00 6.73 NA
G10-70-1 S 17.35 0.00 0.92 17.08 NA NA 8.00 5.83 NA
G10-70-2 S 18.22 0.00 1.67 18.09 0.70 NA 6.50 5.62 NA
G10-70-3 S 20.75 0.00 1.13 NA 0.96 NA NA 0.34 NA
G10-100-1 P 17.52 0.16 0.00 15.45 0.16 0.070 NA 1.05 0.140
G10-100-2 R 15.21 0.01 0.00 15.17 1.00 NA NA NA NA
G10-100-3 P 17.88 0.12 0.78 15.16 NA 0.030 NA 2.02 0.060
G10-150-1 R 12.37 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
G10-150-2 R 11.56 0.01 1.78 NA 1.30 NA NA NA NA
G10-150-3 R 11.71 0.01 0.80 NA NA 0.030 NA NA 0.005
Note: τ max = maximum bond stress; smax;le and smax;fe = slip corresponding to maximum stress at loaded and unloaded end, respectively; τ ons;le and τ ons;fe =
bond stress at onset of slip at loaded and unloaded end, respectively; τ r;le and τ r;fe = residual bond stress at loaded and unloaded end, respectively; P = pullout;
S = concrete splitting; R = bar rupture; NA = test data is not available.

performance of the bar at initial loading stages. Once adhesion
between the bar and concrete breaks, the loaded end starts to slip
and friction between the outer layer of the bar and concrete controls
the bond mechanism. Achillides and Pilakoutas (2004) reported
that adhesion of GFRP and CFRP bars depends on the bar diameter
regardless of its fiber material. Average adhesion stresses of 0.82
and 0.86 MPa were reported for both types of bars of 8.5 mm diam-
eter, respectively (Achillides and Pilakoutas 2004). In the current
study, adhesion stresses were obtained from the bond-slip curves at
the points where the initial slope of the ascending branch changed
abruptly. These stresses are listed in Table 4 for all specimens.
Average adhesion of 1.37, 0.67, and 0.51 MPa was determined
for BFRP bars with 8, 10, and 12 mm diameters, respectively, com-
pared to 1.09 MPa for the 10-mm-diameter GFRP bar. These
stresses are depicted in Fig. 8(a) in MPa and as percentages of
the ultimate stresses attained. These findings demonstrate that
the adhesion developed by BFRP bars to concrete is approximately
62% of that developed by the GFRP bars.

© ASCE 04014050-4 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Representative bond-slip curves for BFRP bars at unloaded ends: (a) Ld ¼ 5d; (b) Ld ¼ 7d; (c) Ld ¼ 10d; (d) Ld ¼ 15d

Fig. 5. Representative bond-slip curves for BFRP bars at loaded ends: (a) Ld ¼ 5d; (b) Ld ¼ 7d; (c) Ld ¼ 10d; (d) Ld ¼ 15d

Adhesion stresses shown in Fig. 8(a) for BFRP bars confirm
the findings of Achillides and Pilakoutas (2004) that adhesion de-
pends on the bar diameter. Test results show that the stress needed
to mobilize slip of BFRP bars of small diameters is larger than
that needed for bars with large diameters. For instance, the 8-mm-
diameter BFRP bars slipped at a stress of 1.37 MPa, which repre-
sents 9% of their maximum bond stress, while the 12-mm bars
slipped at a stress of 0.51 MPa (4% of their maximum stress).
A similar trend was also observed at the unloaded ends of the
BFRP bars. In fact, the slip recorded at the unloaded ends of both
BFRP and GFRP bars remained practically zero until the bond
stress reached levels close to the bond strength of the bar. The ratio
of bond stress at onset of slip at the unloaded ends to the ultimate
stress is shown in Fig. 8(b). Bars with small diameters encountered
slip at higher stress than those with large diameters. Bond stress of
8-mm BFRP bars reached 14.77 MPa (95% of its ultimate stress)

© ASCE 04014050-5 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Comparison between bond-slip curves for BFRP and GFRP bars at unloaded ends: (a) Ld ¼ 5d; (b) Ld ¼ 7d; (c) Ld ¼ 10d; (d) Ld ¼ 15d

25 100% 2
Splitting failure
B10
Stress at onset slip / ultimate stress

20.51 G10

Stress at onset of slip, MPa

80%
20 18.77 1.5
1.37
Bond strength, MPa

16.62 16.87
Bar rupture
14.62 60% 1.09
15
13.31 1
11.88
11.33
40% 0.67
10
0.51
0.5
20%
9%
5 5% 7%
4%
0% 0
(a) BFRP-8 mm BFRP-10 mm BFRP-12 mm GFRP-10 mm
0
5d 7d 10d 15d 100% 95% 20
Embedment length, mm
Stress at onset slip / ultimate stress

84%
81% 80%
Stress at onset of slip, MPa
Fig. 7. Comparison between bond strength of BFRP and GFRP bars 80% 14.77
15
13.20
11.67 11.74
before the bar started to slip at the unloaded end. This stress 60%
decreased to 11.74 MPa (81% of the maximum stress) for the 10
12-mm-diameter bars. On the other hand, stresses that mobilized
40%
slip of the 10-mm BFRP and GFRP bars were 11.67 and
13.20 MPa, representing 84 and 80% of the corresponding ultimate
5
stresses, respectively. These stresses are listed in Table 4 for all test 20%
specimens. The obtained stresses are consistent with the stresses
reported by Achillides (1998) and Achillides and Pilakoutas (2004).
0% 0
(b) BFRP-8 mm BFRP-10 mm BFRP-12 mm GFRP-10 mm
Residual Bond Stress
Fig. 8. Ratio of bond stress to ultimate stress at onset of slip at
Residual stress, or postmaximum stress, describes the bond
(a) loaded ends; (b) unloaded ends
performance of the FRP bar after reaching its ultimate bond stress.

© ASCE 04014050-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.

 It indicates the additional resistance of the bar to the applied pullout
load along the softening branch. Residual bond stresses for both
BFRP and GFRP bars were determined by visual inspection of
the bond-slip curves of all test specimens. Residual stresses were
evaluated as the bond stresses recorded on the softening branch
before the curve flattens out [e.g., point A in Fig. 6(a)] or dramati-
cally changes its slope [e.g., point B in Fig. 6(b)].
Residual stresses at unloaded and loaded ends are listed in
Table 4. Fig. 9 shows the residual stress obtained for all BFRP
specimens. Test results showed that BFRP specimens exhibited
average residual stresses of 9 and 10 MPa (61 and 68% of the peak
stress attained) at the unloaded and loaded ends, respectively. The
residual stress appears to be independent of the bar diameter.
The resistance of the bar post the peak stress is rather attributed to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the friction resistance of the embedded length of the bar in concrete,
which mainly depends on the surface deformations of the FRP bar
in addition to the resistance of the undamaged part that enters the
embedded zone when the bar starts to slip.
GFRP bars showed average residual stresses of 7.72 and
5.75 MPa representing 39 and 35% of the peak stress at the
unloaded and loaded ends, respectively. This low postpeak stress
was attributed to the failure of the sand-coated surface and its sep-
aration from the bar core. Friction provided by the resulting smooth
surface could not provide enough resistance to the pullout force.
In fact, GFRP bars showed an abrupt decrease in bond stress
100%
Residual stress/maximum stress
80%
73% Average = 68% of maximum stress (BFRP)
66%
60%
40% Average = 35% of maximum stress (GFRP)
35%
20%
0%
8 mm 10 mm
(a) Bar diameter
100%
Residual stress/maximum stress
80%
67% Average = 61% of maximum stress (BFRP)
60%
57%
Average = 39% of maximum stress (GFRP)
40%
39%
20%
0%
8 mm 10 mm
(b) Bar diameter
Fig. 9. Ratio of average residual to maximum bond stress for BFRP
and GFRP bars at (a) loaded ends; (b) unloaded ends
© ASCE
immediately after reaching the ultimate stress. This was accompa-
nied by a significant energy release and sudden explosion. During
this short time, no slip values were recorded. This phenomenon is
shown in Fig. 6(b) for specimen G10-70-1. Negligible slip was
recorded at the ultimate stress of 17.35 MPa before the bar slipped
4.6 mm at a stress of 6.7 MPa. On the other hand, BFRP specimens
showed a smooth transition between the ascending and descending
portions of the bond-slip curve. This was attributed to the gradual
and partial delamination of the interface between the sand-coated
layer and the subsequent layers of the bar, as will be detailed in the
following section.
Another important observation from the tests that slip hardening
was observed in both types of bars, but was more pronounced in the
GFRP ones. In some cases, GFRP specimens restored almost their
full or high percentage of their bond strength [Fig. 6(b)]. Slip hard-
ening can be attributed to many factors such as: (1) the develop-
ment of friction between the embedded portion of the bar and
concrete, (2) the contribution of the undamaged part of the bar that
entered the embedded zone, in addition to (3) the entrapment of
concrete and polymer residues between the bar and the surrounding
concrete.
Bond Failure Mechanism
Failure modes of all specimens are listed in Table 4. All BFRP bars
failed in pullout mode as shown in Fig. 10(a) for specimen B10-
100-2. No visual cracks were observed on the BFRP-reinforced
cylinders even for specimens with large embedment length
BFRP
(15d). GFRP specimens with embedded lengths of 5 and 10 times
GFRP the diameter also failed by pullout of the bars, except one specimen
where the bar ruptured before attaining its bond strength [specimen
G10-100-2 shown in Fig. 10(b)]. Failure of this specimen was
65% attributed to misalignment of the bar during the test.
GFRP-reinforced specimens with embedment lengths of 7 and
15 times the bar diameter exhibited different modes of failure. All
specimens with Ld ¼ 7d failed in a splitting mode where concrete
cracked before the bar was pulled out of the specimen. This mode
of failure is depicted in Fig. 10(c) for specimen G10-70-2. This
finding was inconsistent with the pullout of GFRP bars with
embedment length longer than 7d (e.g., specimens G10-100-1
and G10-100-3). Concrete splitting could be attributed to variations
in the concrete strength of these specimens or to the common scat-
12 mm ter usually encountered in bond tests. On the other hand, GFRP
bars with Ld ¼ 15d ruptured before bond strength was attained.
For specimens with such long embedment length, the pulling force
BFRP was not capable of overcoming the adherence between the bar and
GFRP
concrete. The tensile strength of the bar was achieved and the bar
ruptured before bond strength was mobilized. This mode of failure
58%
12 mm
Fig. 10. Typical modes of failure: (a) bar pullout (specimen B10-
100-2); (b) bar rupture (specimen G10-100-2); (c) concrete splitting
(specimen G10-70-2) (images by author)
04014050-7 J. Compos. Constr.
J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.
 indicates that GFRP bars supersede their BFRP counterparts in
interfacial shear resistance between the grained layer and the core
layers of the bar.
At the end of each test, concrete cylinders were split to visually
assess the conditions of the bar and the surrounding concrete.
Figs. 11(a and b) show the conditions of the bars and concrete
for specimens B8-120-2 and B8-56-1, respectively. Both specimens
failed by pullout of the BFRP bar. It can be noticed that the bar
surface was significantly damaged at the loaded end, and the outer
layer was entirely peeled off (delaminated) from the subsequent bar
layers. White residue was detected close to that end and along the
whole embedded length, which indicates traces of crushed resin.
Close to the unloaded end, the surface layer of the bar was partially
peeled off. At this end, parts of the sand-coated layer can be seen
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
attached to the bar. No apparent damage to the surrounding con-
crete was observed. These findings suggest that bond failure took
place along the interfacial shear surface between the grained layer
and the subsequent core layers of the bar. Failure was therefore gov-
erned by the shear strength along the fibers interface rather than the
shear strength between the bar and concrete. This mode of failure
was anticipated in case of the high-strength concrete used in this
study (Tastani and Pantazopoulou 2006; Davalos et al. 2008).
Damage concentration at the loaded end suggest that peeling off
of the grained layer started at that end and continued along the
embedded portion of the bar until failure occurred. High stresses
usually exhibited at the loaded ends explain the damage concen-
tration on the surface of the bar at that end.
GFRP specimens that failed in pullout mode showed a different
bond failure mechanism. Contrary to what was observed for BFRP
bars, a uniform peeling off of the surface layer was noticed along
the whole length of the embedded portion of the bar. Fig. 11(c)
depicts this mode of failure for specimen G10-70-3. This observa-
tion explains the abrupt failure of GFRP specimens. The sudden
delamination of the grained surface of the bar led to a large energy
release at the end of the test. Moreover, it explains the low residual
stress that GFRP bars developed compared to that of the BFRP
bars. The complete delamination of the grained surface resulted
in a smooth surface incapable of resisting the increasing pullout
Fig. 11. Pullout failure of (a) BFRP specimen B8-120-2; (b) BFRP specimen B8-56-1; (c) GFRP specimen G10-70-3 (images by author)
© ASCE 04014050-8
J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.
force applied. In this case, the residual stress was mostly developed
by the undamaged part of the bar that entered the embedded zone in
addition to the concrete and polymer residues entrapped between
the bar and concrete.
Factors Affecting Bond Behavior
Embedment Length
Relationships between bond strength and the embedment length are
shown in Fig. 12 for GFRP and BFRP bars with different diameters.
For each embedment length, the ultimate bond stress of three tested
specimens is shown. The plot shows the best-fit trend lines obtained
by linear regression of the average stress values. R-squared (R2 ) of
best-fit lines are also shown to describe how well the regression line
fits the recorded data.
From Fig. 12, it can be seen that both BFRP and GFRP bars
revealed similar trends. Bond strength of both types of bars is
inversely proportional to the embedment length, i.e., increasing
the embedment length results in a decrease in the bond strength
of the bar. This observation is valid for all test specimens regardless
of the bar diameter.
The decrease in bond strength with the bar embedment length is
confirmed by many studies (Achillides and Pilakoutas 2004; Sayed
et al. 2011) and is thought to be a result of two main factors, namely
(1) the nonlinear distribution of the bond stress along the embedded
portion of the bar, which increases with the increase of the embed-
ment length, and (2) the reduction in the bar diameter due to
Poisson’s ratio effect, which leads to a reduction in friction along
the embedment length. Boyle and Karbhari (1994) reported that
reduction in bond strength is more pronounced for small cross-
section reinforcing bars. Test results of BFRP specimens confirmed
this finding, as illustrated in Fig. 13(a). Trend lines of the 8-mm bars
showed a steeper slope than that of the 10- and 12-mm bars.
A comparison of the influence of the embedment length on the
ultimate bond stress of BFRP and GFRP bars is shown in Fig. 13(b).
Difference in slopes of both trend lines indicates that the influence
J. Compos. Constr.
 25 25

Average Bond Strength, MPa

Average Bond Strength, MPa
20 20

15 15

10 R = 0.99 10 R = 0.71

5 5
BFRP bars, d = 8 mm BFRP bars, d = 10 mm
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Embedment Length, mm (b) Embedment Length, mm

25 25
Average Bond Strength, MPa

Average Bond Strength, MPa

20 20

15 15

10 10 R = 0.99
R = 0.93

5 5

BFRP bars, d = 12 mm GFRP bars, d = 10 mm

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
(c) Embedment Length, mm (d) Embedment Length, mm

Fig. 12. Bond strength versus embedment length for (a–c) BFRP bars; (d) GFRP bars (excluding GFRP specimens with Ld ¼ 7d)

of bar embedment length is more pronounced in GFRP bars. If the
embedded length of the bar increases, GFRP bars of similar diam-
eters lose their friction resistance much more abruptly than their
BFRP counterparts. This trend is not valid at long embedment
lengths where failure modes change dramatically from pullout
(e.g., GFRP specimens of Ld ¼ 5d) to bar rupture (e.g., GFRP
specimens of Ld ¼ 15d).
Bar Material and Modulus of Elasticity
Previous experimental studies reported that the bond strength of
FRP bars significantly varies with the bar material (Achillides
and Pilakoutas 2004; Aiello et al. 2007; Wang and Belarbi 2010).
Type of fibers and resins used in manufacturing the FRP bars affect
their mechanical properties and therefore affect their bond to
concrete. Current test results have demonstrated the influence of
the bar material on the bond strength of the bar. As previously
stated, BFRP bars developed an average bond strength of 75%
of that of GFRP bars (Fig. 7). This can be attributed to the low
modulus of elasticity of BFRP bars compared to that of the GFRP
bars (48 GPa versus 53 GPa for BFRP and GFRP bars, respec-
tively). If other parameters were fixed, FRP bars with higher modu-
lus will likely develop higher bond strength to concrete.
Pilakoutas 2004). It is established that the larger the diameter of
the bar, the less bond strength developed during the test. This is
attributed to the nonlinear stress distribution exhibited along the
bar, which is more pronounced in case of large diameters as large
embedment lengths are needed (Arias et al. 2012). In case of steel
reinforcing rebars, the loss of bond strength is explained by the high
quantity of bleeding water trapped beneath the rebar of large diam-
eters, which leads to the creation of air voids underneath the rebar,
therefore reducing the contact area between the rebar and concrete.
Fig. 14 compares the bond strengths of 8-, 10-, and 12-mm
BFRP bars with different embedment lengths. It is observed that
bars with large diameter developed less average bond strength than
those with small diameters. BFRP bars with 8 mm diameters showed
bond strengths 16, 0, 11, and 14% higher than the bond strengths
developed by the 10-mm-diameter bars for embedment lengths of
5, 7, 10, and 15d, respectively, with an average increase of 10%.
These percentages were 3, 11.5, 4, and 12% more than the bond
strength developed by the 12-mm bars for the same embedment
lengths, with an average increase of 7.6%. Despite the variation that
exists in some of the test results, which can be attributed to the varia-
tion in concrete strength of the test specimens or to the inconsistency
in the mechanical properties of the bar, the general trend conforms
to the findings of other researchers that bars with large diameters
develop less average bond strengths than those with small diameters.

Bar Diameter
Many studies have demonstrated the effect of bar diameter on the
bond strength of GFRP and CFRP bars (Benmokrane et al. 1996;
Cosenza et al. 1997; Tighiouart et al. 1998; Achillides and
Surface Deformations
Surface deformations play a major role in developing friction
between the FRP bar and concrete. Deformations could consist

© ASCE 04014050-9 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.

 The effect of surface deformations on the failure modes of both
types of bars was examined. GFRP bars coated with a uniform sand
layer showed good performance until the peak bond stress was
achieved. The bar then failed abruptly as a result of the sudden
detachment of the interface between sand grains and the bar.
For BFRP bars, the spiral indentations created grooved segments
on the bar surface at their locations, which prevented the continuity
of the sand-coated surface. This explains the smooth mode of fail-
ure obtained for BFRP specimens compared to the brittle failure of
GFRP ones. In fact, these indentations were supposed to play the
role of ribs in FRP ribbed bars or the lugs in steel rebars where
mechanical interlocking could be activated. In the authors’ opinion,
the influence of these indentations on the bond strength of the bar
has not been realized. Test results showed partial delamination of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

BFRP bars as shown in Figs. 11(a and b). It is thought that no inter-
locking mechanism has been developed, which is confirmed by the
fact that concrete surrounding the bar remained undamaged. This
mode of failure suggests that adhesion and friction remain the prin-
cipal components in developing the bond strength of the BFRP bar.
This result is consistent with the results reported by Benmokrane
et al. (1996) for GFRP bars having helical windings on their
surface.

Theoretical Analysis

Fig. 13. Average bond strength versus embedment length for (a) BFRP Several analytical models that describe bond-slip relationship for
bars; (b) 10-mm-diameter BFRP and GFRP bars (excluding GFRP FRP bars are available. In this study, the well-known BPE and
specimens with Ld ¼ 7d) modified BPE models were adopted to develop the bond-slip rela-
tionship for BFRP bars. The models were calibrated to describe the
bond performance of BFRP bars based on the current test results.
The BPE model was developed by Eligehausen et al. (1983) and
20 was successfully used to describe the bond-slip relationship of
B8
Average Bond Strength, MPa

17.4 16.9 16.616.6 B10 GFRP and CFRP bars (De Lorenzis et al. 2002; Aiello et al.
14.6 14.7 15.0 14.4 B12 2007; Baena et al. 2009). The model describes the ascending
15
13.3 13.2 branch of the bond-slip relationship as follows:
11.311.6

τ s α
10 ¼ ð2Þ
τ max smax

where τ and s = bond stress and the corresponding slip, respec-

5 tively, at any stage of loading while τ max and smax = their corre-
0
5d 7d 10d
Embedment length
Fig. 14. Influence of the bar diameter on the average bond strength of
BFRP bars
of just resin, fiber-reinforced resins, or resin containing longitudi-
nal continuous fibers [International Federation for Structural Con-
crete (Fib) report 2000]. BFRP and GFRP bars used in this study
were sand-coated on their surface with spiral indentations existing
on the outer layer of BFRP bars. Indentations were created during
the manufacturing process by winding the bar with separate fila-
ments. Epoxy and vinyl ester resins were used in bonding the fibers
in BFRP and GFRP bars, respectively. As previously mentioned,
test results indicate that bond strength of BFRP bars was less than
that of GFRP bars. Moreover, failure of both types of bars occurred
at the interface between the outer layer of the bar and its core,
which suggest that bond strength was governed by the properties
of the bar itself irrespective of the surrounding concrete.
sponding maximum values. The parameter α = a curve-fitting
parameter that has been calibrated for the BFRP and GFRP bars
15d from the current bond test results. This parameter should be less
than 1 to be physically meaningful (Cosenza et al. 1997). The BPE
model proposes a second branch with constant bond (τ ¼ τ max ) up
to a slip s ¼ s2 . At this point, a descending branch with a defined
slope is used to describe the postmaximum bond-slip relationship.
A comparison between the experimental and analytical curves
showed a lack of the softening branch of the BPE model. Therefore,
Cosenza et al. (1997) proposed a modification of the descending
branch as follows:


τ s
¼1−p −1 ð3Þ
τ max smax
where p = parameter based on curve fitting of the experimental
data. The modified model (mBPE) uses the same ascending branch
of the BPE model. However, the model does not show a horizontal
branch after attaining the maximum stress.
Design of FRP-reinforced concrete elements requires that the
anchorage length is such that the unloaded end of the FRP bar does
not slip under the service load applied (De Lorenzis et al. 2002).
Therefore, the parameters of the BEP and the mBPE models (α and

© ASCE 04014050-10 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.

 Table 5. Mean Values, Standard Deviation, and Coefficient of Variation
for the Model Parameters
BFRP GFRP
Model parameter αBPE PBPE αBPE PBPE
Average 0.048 0.023 0.050 0.167
Standard deviation 0.023 0.013 0.023 0.122
Coefficient of variation 0.481 0.577 0.462 0.733

p) were calibrated for both BFRP and GFRP bars using the current
experimental data obtained at the unloaded ends.
The parameter α was evaluated by equating the areas under-
neath the ascending branch, Aτ , of the analytical and experimental
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

bond-slip curves (Cosenza et al. 1997) as follows:

Z s

max s α τ s
Aτ ¼ τ max ds ¼ max max ð4Þ
0 smax 1þα

Similarly, the parameter p was obtained by balancing the areas

underneath the softening branches. The goal was to calibrate the
values of α and p while minimizing the difference between the
calculated areas underneath the analytical and experimental curves
without compromising the trend of the obtained curve (Cosenza
et al. 2002). Values of α and p of each specimen are listed in
Table 5. Mean values, standard deviations, and coefficients of
variation are also shown in Table 5.
The obtained analytical results show that the parameter α for
BFRP bars ranges between 0.01 and 0.08 with a mean value of
0.048. The low values of α characterize the ascending branch of
BFRP bars and indicate the high initial stiffness of the bars at this
stage of loading. In fact, most specimens develop their bond
strength without significant slip at the unloaded ends as previously
mentioned.
The parameter α for GFRP bars ranges between 0.03 and 0.07
with a mean value of 0.05. The obtained value is very close to that
of the BFRP bars, which depicts a similar trend in the bond-slip
relationship for both types of bars. This is attributed to the fric-
tion-type behavior observed for both bars. Analytical values of
α reported by Cosenza et al. (1997) for sanded GFRP bars show
a mean value of 0.069.
The parameter p of the softening branch is obtained for all test
specimens. A mean value of 0.023 is reported for BFRP bars com-
pared to 0.167 for GFRP bars. Such difference in the values of p
explains the variation in the trend of the softening curve of each
type of bars. As observed from the test results, GFRP bars showed
a sharp and sudden decrease in bond stress after reaching the maxi-
mum stress of the bar.
A comparison of the analytical curves obtained from the BPE
and mBPE models and the experimental results is reported in
Figs. 15(a and b) for representative BFRP and GFRP specimens
with embedded lengths of 5d and 10d. Good correlation between
the analytical and actual curves is observed. The calibrated param-
eters for each specimen are used to represent the ascending and
descending branches instead of the mean value. An important
observation is that the GFRP bars exhibit a horizontal branch after
reaching the maximum bond stress. In this case, the second branch
of the initial BPE model is used to represent the GFRP bond
behavior at this stage of loading.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
Pullout test results on BFRP and GFRP bars showed similar trends
of the bond-slip curves for both types of bars, with an ascending
Fig. 15. Analytical versus experimental results for both BFRP and
GFRP bars with (a) Ld ¼ 5d; (b) Ld ¼ 10d
branch up to maximum stress and a softening branch where slip
hardening was noticed. Bond of BFRP bars to concrete was
governed by the same factors that govern conventional FRP bars.
In particular, the following concluding remarks can be drawn from
this study:
1. All BFRP specimens failed in a pullout mode. Failure was
governed by the shear strength along the interfacial surface
between the grained layer and the subsequent core layers of
the bar. BFRP bars developed average bond strength of
75% of that of GFRP bars.
2. BFRP bars with small diameters showed better adhesion to
concrete at initial stages of loading than bars with large dia-
meters. Average adhesion of 10-mm-diameter BFRP bars was
0.67 MPa compared to 1.09 MPa for GFRP bars.
3. BFRP bars exhibited higher residual stress than that of GFRP
bars with an average value of 9 and 10 MPa (compared to 7.72
and 5.75 MPa for GFRP bars) at unloaded and loaded ends,
respectively.
4. At unloaded ends, slip corresponding to the maximum stress
was negligible for both BFRP and GFRP bars of 10 mm dia-
meter (average of 0.16 and 0.07 mm, respectively) compared
to 1.01 mm for BFRP bars and 0.67 mm for GFRP bars at
loaded ends.
5. The BPE and mBPE analytical models can be used to repre-
sent the bond-slip relationship for BFRP bars. Parameters α
and p can be taken as 0.048 and 0.023, respectively.
Finally, this study has gone some way towards enhancing our
understanding of the bond performance of BFRP bars. Despite the
fact that BFRP bars showed lower bond strength than that of their
GFRP counterparts, the current findings have demonstrated the
promise of BFRP bars to be used as reinforcing materials for con-
crete elements. However, caution should be paid when extending
these conclusions to other types of BFRP bars or when different

© ASCE 04014050-11 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.

 concrete strengths are used. Experimental tests on other types of
commercially available BFRP bars with various properties and
surface deformations are recommended for future studies. Bond
durability data of BFRP bars are also needed to investigate the
bond performance of the bars when exposed to various service
environments.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Magmatech personnel for provid-
ing the BFRP bars needed for this study. Thanks are also extended
to Pultrall personnel for donating the GFRP bars used in the tests.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 08/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
Achillides, Z. (1998). “Bond behavior of FRP bars in concrete.” Ph.D. thesis,
Centre for Cement and Concrete, Univ. of Sheffield, Sheffield, U.K.
Achillides, Z., and Pilakoutas, K. (2004). “Bond behavior of fiber
reinforced polymer bars under direct pullout conditions.” J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2004)8:2(173), 173–181.
Aiello, M. A., Leone, M., and Pecce, M. (2007). “Bond performances of
FRP rebars-reinforced concrete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0899-1561(2007)19:3(205), 205–213.
Alvarez-Villarreal, A. (2004). “Temperature effect on bond properties of
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) bars embedded in concrete.”
M.Sc. thesis, Sherbrooke Univ, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. (2006). “Guide for the
design and construction of structural concrete reinforced with FRP
bars.” ACI 440.1R-06, Farmington Hills, MI.
Arias, J. P. M., Vazquez, A., and Escobar, M. (2012). “Use of sand coating
to improve bonding between GFRP bars and concrete.” J. Compos.
Mater., 46(18), 2271–2278.
Baena, M., Torres, L., Turon, A., and Barris, C. (2009). “Experimental
study of bond behavior between concrete and FRP bars using a pullout
test.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 40(8), 784–797.
Bank, L. C., Puterman, M., and Katz, A. (1998). “The effect of material
degradation on bond properties of fiber reinforced plastic reinforcing
bars in concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 95(3), 232–243.
Benmokrane, B., Tighiouart, B., and Chaallal, O. (1996). “Bond strength
and load distribution of composite GFRP reinforcing bars in concrete.”
ACI Mater. J., 93(3), 246–253.
Boyle, H. C., and Karbhari, V. M. (1994). “Investigation of bond behavior
between glass fiber composite reinforcements and concrete.” Polym.
Plast. Technol. Eng., 33(6), 733–753.
Brik, V. B. (2003). “Advanced concept concrete using Basalt Fiber/BF
composite bar reinforcement.” Final Rep. for Highway-IDEA Project
86, Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) Programs,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2002). “Design and construction of
building components with fiber reinforced polymers.” CAN/CSA-S806-02,
Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Carmignato, S., De Rosa, I. M., Sarasini, F., and Valente, M. (2009).
“Characterisation of basalt fiber reinforced vinyl polyester composite:
An overview.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Innovative Natural Fiber
Composites for Industrial Applications, Univ. of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. (1997). “Behavior and mod-
eling of bond of FRP rebars to concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(1997)1:2(40), 40–51.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. (2002). “Development length
of FRP straight rebars.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 33(7), 493–504.
Davalos, J. F., Chen, Y., and Ray, I. (2008). “Effect of FRP bar degradation
on interface bond with high strength concrete.” Cem. Concr. Compos.,
30(8), 722–730.
De Lorenzis, L., Rizzo, A., and La Tegola, A. (2002). “A modified pullout
test for bond of near-surface mounted FRP rods in concrete.” Compos.
Part B: Eng., 33(8), 589–603.
© ASCE 04014050-12
J. Compos. Constr. 2015.19.
Ehsani, M. R., Saadatmanesh, H., and Tao, S. (1997). “Bond behavior of
deformed GFRP rebars.” J. Compos. Mater., 31(14), 1413–1430.
Eligehausen, R., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V. (1983). “Local bond stress-
slip relationships of deformed bars under generalized excitations.”
Rep. No. UCB/EERC-83/23, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Hamad, B., Rteil, A., and Soudki, K. (2004). “Bond strength of tension lap
splices in high-strength concrete beams strengthened with glass fiber
reinforced polymer wraps.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0268(2004)8:1(14), 14–21.
Harajli, M., and Abouniaj, M. (2010). “Bond performance of GFRP bars
in tension: Experimental evaluation and assessment of ACI 440 guide-
lines.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000139,
659–668.
International Federation for Structural Concrete (Fib) report. (2000). “Bond
of reinforcement in concrete, state-of-art report.” Bulletin 10,
International Federation for Concrete Task Group Bond Models,
Lausanne, Switzerland.
Liu, Q., Shaw, M., Parnas, R., and Mcdonnell, A. (2006). “Investigation
of basalt fiber composite mechanical properties for applications in
transportation.” Polym. Compos., 27(1), 41–48.
Lopresto, V., Leone, C., and De Iorio, I. (2011). “Mechanical characteri-
zation of basalt fiber reinforced plastic.” Compos. Part B, 42(4),
717–723.
Ludovico, M. D., Prota, A., and Manfredi, G. (2010). “Structural upgrade
using basalt fibers for concrete confinement.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000114, 541–552.
Militky, J., Kovacic, V., and Rubnerova, J. (2002). “Influence of thermal
treatment on tensile failure of basalt fibers.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 69(9),
1025–1033.
Palmieri, A., Matthys, S., and Tierens, M. (2009). Basalt fibers: Mechani-
cal properties and applications for concrete structures, Taylor and
Francis, London, 165–169.
Parnas, R., Shaw, M., and Liu, Q. (2007). “Basalt fiber reinforced polymer
composites.” Rep. NETCR63, Institute of Materials Science, Univ. of
Connecticut, Mansfield, CT.
Ramakrishnan, V., Neeraj, S., and Brik, V. (1998). “Performance evaluation
of 3-D basalt fiber reinforced concrete and basalt rod reinforced
concrete.” Final Rep. NCHRP-45, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Sayed, A. F., Foret, G., and Le Roy, R. (2011). “Bond between carbon
fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars and ultra high performance fiber
reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): Experimental study.” Constr. Build.
Mater., 25(2), 479–485.
Sim, J., Park, C., and Moon, D. Y. (2005). “Characteristic of basalt fiber as
a strengthening material for concrete structures.” Compos. Part B,
36(6), 504–512.
Tastani, S. P., and Pantazopoulou, S. J. (2006). “Bond of GFRP bars in
concrete: Experimental study and analytical interpretation.” J. Compos.
Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2006)10:5(381), 381–391.
Tepfers, R., Hedlund, G., and Rosinski, B. (1998). “Pull-out and tensile
reinforcement splice tests with GFRP bars.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on
Composites in Infrastructure, H. Saadatmanesh and M. R. Ehsani,
eds., International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure (ICCI),
Tucson, AZ.
Tighiouart, B., Benmokrane, B., and Gao, D. (1998). “Investigation of
bond in concrete member with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars.”
Constr. Build. Mater., 12(8), 453–462.
Wang, H., and Belarbi, A. (2010). “Static and fatigue bond characteristics
of FRP rebars embedded in fiber-reinforced concrete.” J. Compos.
Mater., 44(13), 1605–1622.
Wei, B., Cao, H., and Song, S. (2010). “Tensile behavior contrast of
basalt and glass fibers after chemical treatment.” Mater. Des., 31(9),
4244–4250.
Wei, B., Cao, H., and Song, S. (2011). “Degradation of basalt fiber and
glass fiber/epoxy resin composites in seawater.” Corros. Sci., 53(1),
426–431.
Wu, Z., Wang, X., Iwashita, K., Sasaki, T., and Hamaguchi, Y. (2010).
“Tensile fatigue behavior of FRP and hybrid FRP sheets.” Compos.
Part B, 41(5), 396–402.
J. Compos. Constr.