Machine Translated by Google

Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Bond behavior between GFRP bars and seawater sea-sand fiber-reinforced

ultra-high strength concrete
Jun-Jie Zeng a, JinJing Liao a , Yan Zhuge b , Yong-Chang Guo a,*, Jie-Kai Zhou a , Ze-Hao Huang a,
Lihai Zhang c
a
School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China
b
UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, South Australia 5095 Australia
c
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: To tackle the challenge of steel corrosion in conventional reinforced concrete (RC) structures, particularly in
Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars maritime environment, the implementation of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars in seawater sea-sand
Ultra-high strength concrete
concrete (SSC) structures becomes increasingly popular due to their excellence corrosion resistance. However,
Seawater sea-sand concrete
the bond characteristics of GFRP bars in fiber reinforced ultra-high strength SSC have not been explored. To this
Bond strength
end, a series of pull-out tests on 63 specimens were performed in this study to investigate the influences of different
Polyethylene (PE) fibers
Pull-out test GFRP bar diameters of (ie, 6 mm, 10 mm and 16 mm), anchorage lengths (ie, 2.5 and 5 times of the bar diameter),
Design code assessment concrete types (SSC and conventional concrete), and polyethylene (PE) fiber contents (ie, 0, 0.5% and 1% volume
fraction) on bond characteristics. The results show that similar to FRP-conventional concrete bond joints, larger bar
diameter and longer anchorage length would lead to bond strength reductions for FRP-SSC bond joints. A 0.5%
PE fiber addition in SSC would lead to a 3–10% increase in bond strength.
However, further increase in PE content to 1% may not necessarily result in further increase in bond strength.
Furthermore, the assessment of different design codes revealed that, although ACI440.1R-15 yield relatively more
accurate estimates for bond strength than other design codes, the bond strength could be overestimated if the bar
diameter is greater than 16 mm or the anchorage length is less than 5 times the bar diameter.

1. Introduction
The corrosion of steel reinforcements in reinforced concrete (RC)
structures will lead to severe deterioration in strength and ductility.
Maintaining and repairing conventional RC structures, especially for those
in a maritime environment, are costly and labor-consuming [1].
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars have become a plausible alternative
to traditional steel bars due to its high strength-to-weight ratio and excellent
corrosion resistance [2–18]. On the other hand, natural sea-sand can be
treated as a good source of fine aggregates for concrete production, which
can alleviate the overexploitation of river-sand [19–23]. Furthermore, for
constructions in a maritime environment, seawater can be directly used
as the blending water without further process if FRP bars are used as
reinforcements. Therefore, if with satis-factory material performance,
marine constructions with seawater sea-sand concrete (SSC) and FRP
bars as reinforcements have two distinct advantages: (1) reduction in
maintenance as FRP bars have superior
corrosion resistance and (2) reduction in transportation cost as the raw
materials for concrete production can be exploited near site [20–22]. To
demonstrate the considerations of this new type of RC structures, the
bond behavior of FRP bars in seawater sea-sand concrete shall be
thoroughly investigated.
To date, the existing literatures mainly focus on the characteristics of
bond strength of FRP bars in conventional concrete [1,24–27,31].
Achillides and Pilakoutas [1] studied the effects of FRP bar diameter and
concrete strength on their bond behavior, and found out that the bond
strength of a larger diameter bar was less than that of smaller one, for
which three factors (embedment length, Poisson's effect and shear lag)
were believed to be the causes. Xue et al. [18] revealed that a bond length
of less than 5 times of bar diameter failed in the pullout failure mode. Refai
et al. [24] revealed that the average bond strength of basalt FRP (BFRP)
bars is 75% of that of glass FRP (GFRP) bars. Lee et al. [25] discovered
that although increasing concrete strength could enhance the bond
strength of GFRP bars, the increasing rate was much smaller than

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: guoyc@gdut.edu.cn (Y.-C. Guo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113787
Received 7 September 2021; Received in revised form 20 November 2021; Accepted 19 December 2021
Available online 20 January 2022
0141-0296/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Machine Translated by Google
JJ. Zeng et al.
using steel bars, which was also attributed to the interlaminar shear
failure in GFRP bars [25]. Islam et al. [26] revealed that bond strength
was inversely proportional to the anchorage length [26]. Wei et al. [27]
found that fiction played the dominant role for sand coated bars,
whereas mechanical interlocking was responsible for FRP bars with
helical wrapping and screw thread. However, very limited studies have
been reported on behavior of FRP bar-SSC bond joints [7,32] or FRP-
ultra-high strength concrete (UHSC) bond joints, while the effects of
fibers on FRP bar-SSC bond joint behavior have never been evaluated.
Although an FRP bar has higher tensile strength than a steel bar,
the bond strength and ductility of an FRP bar in conventional concrete
is inferior to a steel bar with the same size [ 1,25,33]. Particularly, this
shortcoming can be compensated by adding steel fibers or synthetic
fiber to concrete [27]. Won et al. [28] reported a 40–70% increase in
bond strength of GFRP bars in high strength concrete with 40 kg/m3
steel fiber addition. Kim et al. [29] compared the bond enhancement
effects of three types of fibers (steel, polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl
alcohol (PVA) fibers) for GFRP bars in high strength concrete. It was
discovered that PVA and hooked-end steel fibers had better performance
in resisting crack initiation and propagation [29]. Combined use of steel
fibers and PVA fibers has been proposed by Ding et al. [30] to improve
the bond strength of GFRP bars in normal concrete. The results
demonstrate a positive synergetic effect of the fibers as the increase in
bond strength of hybrid fibers mathematically exceeds the direct
summation of the increased bond strength from the monotonic use of
the two individual fibers [30] .
On the other hand, ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) with the
addition of polyethylene (PE) fibers or UHSC [34–40] has recently
become increasing popular. In fact, normal strength concrete reinforced
with FRP may easily experience violation of service limit state as the
stiffness of both FRP and normal strength concrete is relatively lower
compared with conventional steel reinforcement. Therefore, adopting
UHSC and FRP could be a plausible option for FRP-RC structures.
Furthermore, if the UHSC is cast with seawater and sea-sand, the
presence of extraneous substance in sea-sand and various ions in
seawater may affect the concrete strength, and thereby affect the bond
performance of FRP bars in SSC. In addition, it has been experimentally
demonstrated that mortars with PE fiber addition had better resistance
to chloride attack and corrosion [41] so that unlike steel fibers the
strengthening (or enhancement) effect of PE fibers to concrete strength
and further to the bond strength will not be compromised, making FRP-
fiber-reinforced SSC structures ideal for marine construction. Therefore,
addition of PE fibers to SSC is also beneficial for the bond strength with
FRP bars. However, the bond behavior between FRP and fiber-
reinforced SSC has not been explored.
In this study, a series of pull-out tests were carried out to study the
bond behavior of GFRP bar-SSC bond joints, especially with the addition
of PE fibers. 63 specimens with different combinations of FRP bar di-
ameters (6 mm, 10 mm and 16 mm), anchorage lengths (2.5 and 5
times of the bar diameter), concrete types (SSC and conventional
concrete), and PE fiber contents (0 , 0.5% and 1% volume fraction)
were fabricated and tested. In addition, the accuracy of current design
codes in esti- mating the bond strength was also assessed by using the
experimental data obtained in this study.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Design of samples
The specimens were constrained by three sets of GFRP bars and
two types of concrete. The three sets of GFRP bars were distinguished
by bar diameters (db) of 6, 10 and 16 mm. The two types of concrete
(ie, SSC and conventional concrete) had an identical mix proportion,
but were made from different water and fine aggregates (ie, seawater
and sea-sand for SCC concrete, freshwater and river-sand for
conventional con-crete ). Therefore, there were 6 primary specimen categories due16tomm
Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787
different combination of GFRP bars and concrete types. As suggested
by ACI 440.1R-15 [42], an anchorage length (la) of five times of the bar
diameter (5db) was selected for the 6 primary specimen categories.
However, in order to assess the effect of anchorage length on bond
behavior, one additional primary specimen category with a smaller
anchorage length (la = 2.5db) was considered for the 10 mm-diameter
GFRP bar-SSC bond joints. Additionally, PE fibers with three volume
fractions (0%, 0.5% and 1%) were added to each primary specimen
category, which gives rise to 21 specimen types. Moreover, three
duplicated samples were prepared for each specimen configuration to
gain confidence on test results. Therefore, there were totally 63 speci-
mens prepared and tested in this study. The variables considered for
bond strength are bar diameters, concrete types, anchorage lengths
and PE fiber contents. The specimen details are given in Table 1. A
sketch of the specimens is shown in Fig. first.
The specimen nomenclature is comprised by five parts linked by a
hyphen symbol. The first part indicates the concrete type (“C” for con-
ventional freshwater river-sand concrete, “S” for SSC). The second part
states the PE fiber content (0PE, 5PE and 10PE stands for PE fiber
volume fraction of 0%, 0.5% and 1.0% in the concrete, respectively).
The third nomenclature specifies the GFRP bar diameter (ÿ6, ÿ10 and
ÿ16 denotes the bar diameter of 6, 10 and 16 mm, respectively). The
fourth term describes the bar anchorage length in the concrete (2.5D
and 5D means 2.5 and 5 times of the bar diameter, respectively). The
last one is an Arabian number (1, 2 and 3) to distinguish the three
duplicated samples. For example, S-10PE-ÿ10-5D-2 means the
specimen is the second duplicated sample, consisting of a GFRP bar of
10 mm diameter anchored in an SSC cube with 1% PE fiber content,
and the anchorage length is 50 mm ( 5 times of bar diameter).
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Concrete
Both types of concrete (C and S) were UHSCs with a target strength
of 120 MPa. Both types of concrete were made of the same batch of
cement, coarse aggregate (gravels), silica fume and ultra-pulverized fly
ash (Fig. 2). Tap water and river-sand with a fineness modulus of M2.0
were used to cast the conventional concrete, whereas the SSC was
made of simulated seawater and sea-sand (fineness modulus of M1.8).
The in-gredients of simulated seawater are given in Table 2, which is
compliant with ASTM standard D1141 [43]. As shown in Fig. 2,
compared with river-sand, the sea-sand was finer and contained more
foreign objects such as broken shells. PE fibers were also added to
both types of concrete to mitigate the crack development, expecting of
an enhanced bond behavior of joints with fiber-reinforced SSC. The
mechanical properties of the PE fibers are detailed in Table 3.
The mix proportions of both types of concrete are given in Table 4.
During casting, the dry cementitious materials and aggregates were first
mixed for 2 min. Then, water and superplasticizer were mixed together
in advance and added into the dry materials in two times, each with half
the amount and 2-minute mixing. After forming a flowable matrix, the
PE fibers were evenly distributed into the mixture and further mixed for
10 min to achieve a uniform distribution of fibers in the concrete. For
each mix proportion in Table 4, three standard cylinders of 150 mm in
diameter and 300 mm in height were prepared for concrete strength
tests. The strength tests were conducted as per GB50010-2010 [44]
after a 28-day curing, using a 500-ton MATEST machine. The key
concrete properties are summarized in Table 5.
2.2.2. GFRP bar
The GFRP bars adopted in this study were manufactured by
DEXTRA Group. The GFRP longitudinal fibers were glued together by
thermo-setting resin. The surface of the bar was treated by helical
wrapping (at a spacing of 15 mm) and sand coating (Fig. 3). The
equivalent diameters of the GFRP bars with a nominal diameter of 6, 10
and
thewere measured by the drainage method [27] to be 7.1, 10.2 and 16.0 m
2
Machine Translated by Google

JJ. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787

Table
1 Details and key test results of samples.
Specimen Concrete type PE fiber content (%) db (mm) is (mm) ÿmax (MPa) sm (mm) Average ÿmax (MPa) Average sm (mm) Failure mode

C-0PE-ÿ10-5D-1 C 0 ten 5db 20.38 4.30 23.35 5.40 P

C-0PE-ÿ10-5D-2 C 0 ten 5db 26.39 7.53 P

C-0PE-ÿ10-5D-3 C 0 ten 5db 23.29 4.36 P

C-5PE-ÿ10-5D-1 C 0.5 ten 5db 24.36 6.98 24.05 5.52 P

C-5PE-ÿ10-5D-2 C 0.5 ten 5db 24.69 5.34 P

C-5PE-ÿ10-5D-3 C 0.5 ten 5db 11.23 4.23 P

C-10PE-ÿ10-5D-1 C first ten 5db 26.59 4.43 25.96 4.08 P

C-10PE-ÿ10-5D-2 C first ten 5db 25.24 4.07 P

C-10PE-ÿ10-5D-3 C first ten 5db 26.03 3.75 P

S-0PE-ÿ10-5D-1 S 0 ten 5 db 22.96 3.07 22.77 5.34 P

S-0PE-ÿ10-5D-2 S 0 ten 5db 21.84 5.42 P

S-0PE-ÿ10-5D-3 S 0 ten 5db 23.49 7.53 P

S-5PE-ÿ10-5D-1 S 0.5 ten 5db 23.35 5.27 23.98 5.81 P

S-5PE-ÿ10-5D-2 S 0.5 ten 5db 23.33 5.29 P

S-5PE-ÿ10-5D-3 S 0.5 ten 5db 25.27 6.85 P

S-10PE-ÿ10-5D-1 S first ten 5db 24.20 5.12 24.51 4.97 P

S-10PE-ÿ10-5D-2 S first ten 5db 10.26 6.80 P

S-10PE-ÿ10-5D-3 S first ten 5db 23.23 2.99 P

S-0PE-ÿ10-2.5D-1 S 0 ten 2.5db 31.33 4.30 26.5 3.21 P

S-0PE-ÿ10-2.5D-2 S 0 ten 2.5db 20.19 2.71 P

S-0PE-ÿ10-2.5D-3 S 0 ten 2.5db 27.97 2.63 P

S-5PE-ÿ10-2.5D-1 S 0.5 ten 2.5db 25.94 2.33 28.58 2.72 P

S-5PE-ÿ10-2.5D-2 S 0.5 ten 2.5db 28.98 1.07 P

S-5PE-ÿ10-2.5D-3 S 0.5 ten 2.5db 30.83 4.77 P

S-10PE-ÿ10-2.5D-1 S first ten 2.5db 21.72 2.51 24.28 2.02 P

S-10PE-ÿ10-2.5D-2 S first ten 2.5db 21.87 1.64 P

S-10PE-ÿ10-2.5D-3 S first ten 2.5db 29.25 1.92 P

C-0PE-ÿ6-5D-1 C 0 6 5db 24.05 3.11 22.32 2.48 P

C-0PE-ÿ6-5D-2 C 0 6 5db 20.59 3.11 P

C-0PE-ÿ6-5D-3 C 0 6 5db 22.33 1.21 P

C-5PE-ÿ6-5D-1 C 0.5 6 5db 23.24 2.26 24.98 3.64 P

C-5PE-ÿ6-5D-2 C 0.5 6 5db 25.45 2.45 P

C-5PE-ÿ6-5D-3 C 0.5 6 5db 26.26 6.22 P

C-10PE-ÿ6-5D-1 C first 6 5db NR NR 24.07 2.95 P

C-10PE-ÿ6-5D-2 C first 6 5db 23.99 2.14 P

C-10PE-ÿ6-5D-3 C first 6 5db 24.15 3.75 P

S-0PE-ÿ6-5D-1 S 0 6 5db 23.46 3.11 21.62 3.80 P

S-0PE-ÿ6-5D-2 S 0 6 5db 22.48 3.14 P

S-0PE-ÿ6-5D-3 S 0 6 5db 18.90 5.15 P

S-5PE-ÿ6-5D-1 S 0.5 6 5db 20.14 2.56 23.90 3.61 P

S-5PE-ÿ6-5D-2 S 0.5 6 5db 25.80 2.14 P

S-5PE-ÿ6-5D-3 S 0.5 6 5db 25.76 6.14 P

S-10PE-ÿ6-5D-1 S first 6 5db 21.72 1.88 22.80 3.20 P

S-10PE-ÿ6-5D-2 S first 6 5db 23.89 6.15 P

S-10PE-ÿ6-5D-3 S first 6 5db 22.80 1.58 P

C-0PE-ÿ16-5D-1 C 0 16 5db 17.12 5.92 19.08 4.11 P

C-0PE-ÿ16-5D-2 C 0 16 5db \ \ CS

C-0PE-ÿ16-5D-3 C 0 16 5db 21.03 2.31 P

C-5PE-ÿ16-5D-1 C 0.5 16 5db 16.74 5.51 17.52 5.16 P

C-5PE-ÿ16-5D-2 C 0.5 16 5db 15.99 2.33 P

C-5PE-ÿ16-5D-3 C 0.5 16 5db 19.83 7.64 P

C-10PE-ÿ16-5D-1 C first 16 5db 17.16 6.41 18.76 4.85 P

C-10PE-ÿ16-5D-2 C first 16 5db 21.47 1.52 P

C-10PE-ÿ16-5D-3 C first 16 5db 17.65 6.61 P

S-0PE-ÿ16-5D-1 S 0 16 5db 16.97 5.52 17.71 6.70 P

S-0PE-ÿ16-5D-2 S 0 16 5db 18.45 7.88 P

S-0PE-ÿ16-5D-3 S 0 16 5db _ \ \ CS

S-5PE-ÿ16-5D-1 S 0.5 16 5db 19.79 1.84 19.12 3.30 P

S-5PE-ÿ16-5D-2 S 0.5 16 5db 21.32 4.31 P

S-5PE-ÿ16-5D-3 S 0.5 16 5db 16.24 3.76 P

(continued on next page)

3
Machine Translated by Google

JJ. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787

Table 1 (continued )

Specimen Concrete type PE fiber content (%) db (mm) is (mm) ÿmax (MPa) sm (mm) Average ÿmax (MPa) Average sm (mm) Failure mode

S-10PE-ÿ16-5D-1 S first 16 5db 19.87 7.90 18.79 5.63 P

S-10PE-ÿ16-5D-2 S first 16 5db 21.36 2.50 P

S-10PE-ÿ16-5D-3 S first 16 5db 15.14 6.49 P

Note:db — Bar diameter; la — Bar anchorage length; ÿmax — The maximum bond stress; sm — Slip distance at maximum bond stress; “C” — Conventional concrete; "S"
— SSC; “P” — direct pull-out failure mode; “CS” — concrete splitting failure mode; “NR” — results not retrieved due to machine fault.

Fig. 1. Sketch of the pull-out specimens.

Fig. 2. Samples of concrete components.

Table 2
Ingredients of the simulated seawater.

Ingredient NaCl MgCl2 Na2SO4 CaCl2 KCl NaHCO3 KBr H3BO3 SrCl2 NaF

Content (g/L) 24.53 5.2 4.09 1.16 0.695 0.201 0.101 0.027 0.025 0.003

respectively. loading rate was fixed at 1 mm/min. All GFRP bar specimens exhibit a
For GFRP bars in each size, five samples with a length of 800 mm linear stress–strain response until failure. The mechanical properties of
were prepared for coupon tensile tests. The coupon tests were GFRP bars are summarized in Table 6.
conducted as per GBT 30022-2013 [45], using a MTS370 testing machine. The

4
Machine Translated by Google

JJ. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787

Table free end of 50 mm and a loading end of 150 mm. The loading end was
3 Mechanical properties of PE fibers. adhered with a steel tube to avoid damage to the bar during testing. As per
Diameter Length Density (g/ Tensile Tensile Rupture
ACI 440-1R-15 [42], the concrete cubes had a width of 200 mm, and thus
(ÿm) (mm) cm3 ) elastic strength strain the concrete cover (c) for the specimen was 100 mm and the con-crete
modulus (MPa) cover to bar diameter ratio (c/ db ) was 10. The target anchorage length was
(GPa)
achieved by introducing a PVC tube in the concrete (the segment in the PVC
19–43 6 0.97–0.98 110 >3000 2–3% tube was a free segment) as shown in Fig. 4. The PVC tube eliminates the
contact between concrete and GFRP bar outside the desired anchorage
length zone. After casting, the samples were left for hardening for 48 hours,
Table and then were cured in freshwater for 28 days.
4 Mix proportions for SSC and conventional concrete. The leaching effect from SSC is minimal as the curing period is short and the
concentration difference is low.
Mix materials C- C- C- S- S- S-

0PE 5PE 10PE 0PE 5PE 10PE

Ordinary Portland 644 644 644 644 644 644 2.4. Test procedures
cement (Grade PO
42.5) (kg/m3 )
165 165 165 165 165 165
The pull-out tests were conducted by an MTS370 test machine, which
Ultra-pulverized fly ash (kg/
m3 )
was equipped with an electric load cell and a displacement measurement
Silica fume (kg/m3 ) 89.8 89.8 89.8 89.8 89.8 89.8 system. The test set-up is shown in Fig. 5. The concrete cube was placed in
Sea-sand or river sand 617 617 617 617 617 617 a reaction rig. The face of concrete cube towards the loading end was
(kg/m3 ) confined by a bearing plate to prevent the formation of concrete cone [26].
Coarse aggregates 1008 1008 1008 1008 1008 1008
The loading end of the specimen was gripped to the loading machine, and
(gravels with 10 mm
maximum particle size) the reaction rig was secured to the fixed end of the machine.
(kg/m3 ) Two linear displacement transducers (LVDTs) were installed by a rack to
seawater or freshwater 171 171 171 171 171 171
measure the slip of the GFRP bar relative to the concrete cube from the
(kg/m3 )
17.96 17.96 0 17.96 17.96 17.96 17.96 0 11.76
loading end. In addition, the relative displacement between the concrete and
Superplasticizer (kg/m3 )
PE fiber (kg/m3 ) 5.88 11.76 5.88 the free end of the GFRP bar was recorded by another two LVDTs.
W/CM ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 The test was displacement-controlled, which was performed at a con-stant
rate of 1 mm/min. The load was measured by the electric load cell of the
machine. The readings of the loads and displacements were automatically
Table recorded by a data logger at 1 Hz.
5 Mechanical properties of the concrete.
3. Test results and discussion
Concrete Compressive strength, f' c Young's modulus, Ec Slump-flow
type (MPa) (GPa) (mm)
3.1. Bond failure modes and mechanisms
C-0PE 110.09 41.20 220
C-5PE 113.18 39.83 150
C-10PE 109.07 39.49 60 The failure modes of the specimens in this study can be categorized into
S-0PE 114.34 42.53 220 two types: pull-out failure (for most of the specimens) and concrete
S-5PE 111.45 41.67 145
S-10PE 107.70 38.46 55
Table 6
Mechanical properties of GFRP bars.
2.3. Specimen preparation GFRP Equivalent Ultimate tensile Tensile elastic
bar. bar diameter (mm) strength, fb (MPa) modulus, Eb (GPa)
The pull-out specimens were prepared by anchoring a GFRP bar in the 7.1 1262.4 49.31
ÿ6
center of a concrete cubes. The dimensions of the specimens are shown in ÿ10 10.2 1137.1 50.65
Fig. 1. The GFRP bar had a total length of 650 mm, including a ÿ16 16.0 836.4 47.49

Fig. 3. Samples of GFRP bars.

5
Machine Translated by Google
JJ. Zeng et al.
Fig. 4. Specimen preparation.
Fig. 5. Pull-out test set-up.
cube splitting (two samples). Due to machine fault, the results for C-10PE-ÿ6-5D-1
were not retrieved. However, the failure mode can still be visually identified as a pull-
out failure. The two specimens failed from concrete splitting were both with a bar
diameter of 16 mm (S-0PE-ÿ16- 5D-3 and C-0PE-ÿ16-5D-2). During the test, the
concrete cube suddenly split into two pieces, which was associated with a loud
cracking sound.
The concrete splitting failure could potentially be attributed to the use of GFRP bar
with 16 mm diameter. During the test, the radiant component of friction and mechanical
interlocking would cause tensile stress in the concrete cube [27]. When exceeds the
concrete tensile strength at a certain weak interface, concrete splitting will occur [25].
Pulling out a bar with 16 mm diameter requires greater loads, which may increase the
tensile stress, and thus increase the probability of splitting failure.
Similarly, Islam et al. [26] also found out that the 16-mm-diameter bar was more likely
to trigger concrete splitting. However, given the duplicated samples did not experience
similar failure, the concrete splitting could also be individual cases that were related to
the concrete casting quality. However, the occurrence of concrete splitting was only
around 3% in this study, which did not affect the creditability of the pull-out tests in the
present study.
The majority of the specimens failed from direct pull-out, which typically manifested
as abrasions on both sides of concrete and the GFRP bar, and stripping of sand grains
[46]. In some cases, concrete crushing was clearly visible at the failure interface as
shown in Fig. 6 (a), and
6
Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787
some concrete debris were attached to the GFRP bar in the spacing of the helical
wrapping. In some other cases as shown in Fig. 6(b), white debris (resin residue) were
attached to concrete and the bar was significantly damaged with the helical wrapping
broken and surface resin peeled off.
These two failure modes signify two different failure mechanisms. For the one
represented by Fig. 6 (a), shear failure mainly occurs between the concrete and the
outer resin surface of the GFRP bar. Since the
concrete was crushed at the interface, the bond strength was predomi- nated by the
concrete shear strength [1,25,47]. This failure mechanism is very similar to the pull-out
of a deformed steel bar. However, the other failure mechanism shown in Fig. 6 (b) is
more frequent with FRP bars, in which the shear failure occurs between the bar fiber
and the outer resin surface. In this case, the helical ribs and resin-rich surface were
ripped off from the bar, and the bond strength was controlled by the shear strength
between the bar fiber and resin [1,25,47]. The two typical failure mechanisms observed
in this study are consistent with previous findings [1,25,47].
3.2. Typical average bond stress-slip curves
The slip displacement s and average bond stress ÿ can be computed by Eqs. (1)
and (2) [48]. As examples, the bond-slip curves of the S-0PE-ÿ10-5D, S-5PE-ÿ10-5D
and S-10PE-ÿ10-5D specimens are shown in Fig. 7. The key results of all test samples
are summarized in Table 1.
P
s = sl ÿ l2 (first)
EbAb
P
ÿ= (2)
ÿdbla
where P is the applied tensile force; sl is the displacement measured from the loading
end; Ab, Eb, db and la are the area, tensile elastic modulus, diameter and anchorage
length of GFRP bar, respectively; l2 is the length between the end surface of the
loading tube and the top surface of the anchorage length (l2 = L ÿ l1 ÿ la ÿ l3), which
is illustrated in Fig. first.
It is shown that the average bond stress-slip curves generally consist of four
stages in sequence [49]: a micro-slip stage up to 1–2 mm which is characterized as
an increasing line with a very steep slope; a slip stage to the peak bond strength at
around 4–5 mm in which the increase of bond stress slows down and thus the bond-
slip curve becomes a curvy line with a deteriorated slope; a descending stage in which
the bond stress decreases steadily to around 10–15 mm of slip; and finally a residual
part which appears to be a flat line stabilized at 60–70% of the peak bond stress. The
steep increasing before the peak point indicates that mechanical interlocking could be
the governing bond mechanism as a large bond stress is generated under a very small
slip [61]. For all specimens, there is no sight of fluctuations in the descending stage
and residual stage, implying that friction could be the dominant mechanism for the
post-peak bond behavior [27]. The bond-slip curves of certain samples (eg, S-5PE-
ÿ10-5D-1 and S-10PE-ÿ10-5D-2) show a small stress reduction in the transition from
the micro-slip stage to the slip stage, after which the bond stress recovers quickly and
continues rising
Machine Translated by Google

JJ. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787

Fig. 6. Typical failure modes of two shear mechanisms.

Fig. 7. Typical average bond stress-slip curves – examples from S-0PE-ÿ10-5D, S-5PE-ÿ10-5D and S-10PE-ÿ10-5D specimens.

7
Machine Translated by Google
JJ. Zeng et al.
to the peak stress. This is likely caused by the stripping of some sand
grains on the bar resin surface.
3.3. Parametric analyses
3.3.1. Influences of SSC
Using the specimens with 10 mm diameter bar and 5db embedment
as examples, the bond-slip curves of selected specimens cast by SSC
and conventional concrete are compared in Fig. 8. It is shown that at
each PE fiber content, the bond-slip curves of the two concrete types are
generally close to each other. The difference in the initial stiffness be-
tween S-10PE-ÿ10-5D and C-10PE-ÿ10-5D was due to the aforemen-
tioned small stress reduction which is possibly caused by the stripping of
sand grains, whereas the bond strength of these two specimens are very
close (difference ~3%). The residual strength is closely related to the
different failure modes (eg, delamination of bar surface) or failure status
(eg, severity of concrete facture), and thus some discrepancies between
the two specimens are noticed. Fig. 9 compares the average bond
strength of the three duplicated specimens at each PE fiber con-tent. In
general, the bond strength of SSC is slightly lower than that of conventional
concrete, but the difference is inconspicuous with a maximum reduction
merely at 5%. These comparisons suggest that the influence of SSC on
bond strength is minimal. Similar conclusion was drawn by Soares et al.
[50], in their experiments the seawater was extracted directly from ocean.
Compared with freshwater and river-sand, the seawater and sea-sand
are generally different in two aspects. First, seawater contains higher
level of Clÿ which could erosion of steel bar in a long run. However, this
effect cannot affect the results of short-term pull-out test with GFRP bars.
Furthermore, other ions in seawater could affect the chemical bonding
between concrete and bar. However, the effect of chemical bonding on
bond-slip curve is minimal as slip occurs very early in a very small bond
stress. Therefore, the difference of replacing freshwater by seawater is
barely seen. Second, the sea-sand is less uniform than river sand as it
contains more extraneous constituents (eg, broken shells), which is likely
to affect the quality of concrete. This could be the reason for the
marginally lower bond strength of the specimens cast by SSC. On the
other hand, the potential leaching effect of SSC cured in fresh water may
be another cause for the slightly lower concrete and thus bond strength.
Fig. 8. Comparison of average bond stress-slip curves of conventional concrete
and SSC.
8
Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787
Fig. 9. Effects of SSC on bond strength.
3.3.2. Influences of PE fiber contents
Similarly, the influences of PE fiber contents are also examined by
comparing the bond strengths shown in Fig. 10. By taking the S-ÿ10-5D
specimens at three PE fiber contents as examples, it is evident that with
the increase of PE fiber content, the average bond strength of specimens
is enhanced for most of the specimens with 6- and 10- mm-diamter bars.
The enhancement effect is more efficient with 1% PE fiber content, as
the average bond strength is increased by around 10% for compared
with the samples without PE fiber addition. Although UHSC is usually
more brittle with a lower ductility, many studies [34,35,51,52] have
demonstrated that by adding PE fibers to UHSC, the tensile and shear
performance of the concrete can be significantly improved. Therefore, if
the shear failure occurs at the interface between concrete and resin
surface of the GFRP bar, the bond strength can be enhanced. This is
because the crack development of the concrete surrounding the bar can
be restrained by PE fibers. However, for the specimens with a 16- mm-
diameter bar, the enhancement effect of PE fibers in bond strength
seems to be unclear, as the difference of the bond strength between
specimens with 0.5% and 1% PE fiber content is less noticeable ( eg,
1.7% for SSC). This could be due to the concrete strength in this study
being so high that the failure mechanism may have changed. The shear
failure may have switched to the delamination failure between resin and
fiber in the bar, and thus further increase of PE fiber content or the
concrete strength has no significant effect on the bond strength for joints
with 6- and 10-mm-diameter bars , and has little effect for 16-mm-diameter bar.
Similar observations were also reported by Lee et al. [25].
The different trends for the specimens with a 16-mm-diameter bar
may also be due to the concrete quality when casting with PE fibers. It is
easy for PE fibers to form cluster in concrete when the fiber content is
relatively high. If the fiber clusters happen to be located in the concrete-
bar interface or in the concrete surrounding the bar, they will disturb the
concrete matrix and impair sufficient compaction around the bar [62].
In this case, the fiber clusters will act as defects rather than strengthen-
ment to the concrete, and the bond strength will decline as a result.
3.3.3. Influences of bar diameters
Using the SSC samples with an anchorage length of 5db as exam-
ples, Fig. 11 compares the bond strengths of specimen with three bar
diameters (6, 10 and 16 mm). It can again be viewed that the differences
of bond strength between the specimens cast by conventional concrete
and seawater sea-sand concrete are very small for each graph (around
5%). It is also shown that the bond strengths of the specimens with 6 mm
and 10 mm bar diameter at the same level of PE fiber contents, are
Machine Translated by Google
JJ. Zeng et al.
(a). GFRP bar of 6 mm diameter
(c). GFRP bar of 16 mm diameter
Fig. 10. Effects of PE fiber contents on bond strength.
generally close to each other (average difference at around 5%). How-
ever, further increase in bar diameter tends to cause more distinct
deterioration in bond strength. For example, when increasing the bar
diameter from 10 mm to 16 mm, the average bond strengths decline by
22.2%, 20.3% and 23.4% for the specimens with 0%, 0.5% and 1% PE
fiber, respectively. The finding of smaller bond strength for larger
diameter bar is consistent with many previous studies [46–50]. It is
generally believed that the Poisson effect and bleeding water are
responsible for the strength reduction. Due to the Poisson effect, a bar
in tension tends to experience a slight size reduction in radial direction,
which could weaken the bond between bar and concrete [1]. The Poisson
effect is more pronounced for specimen with a greater bar diameter [1].
Water bleeding in concrete could be another possibility. A bar with larger
diameter tends to have more water trapped beneath it, which may give
rise to more voids around the bar that impairs the bond with the
surrounding concrete [26,33,46,53].
Although the bond strength reduces with the increase of bar diam-
eter, the reduction percentage varies in different studies. For example,
Wei et al. [27] studied the pull-out behavior of BFRP bar of three di-
ameters (db = 8, 10 and 12 mm) in normal strength concrete (compressive
strength at 32.6 MPa), and concluded that the effects of bar diameter on
bond strength were dismissed as the maximum
9
Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787
(b). GFRP bar of 10 mm diameter
reduction was just around 1.5%. The specimen specifications of Xue et
al.'s pull-out tests [49] are similar to the current study, except for the
concrete grade. In Xue et al.'s tests [49], GFRP bars in three diameters
(db = 6, 9.5 and 16 mm) were embedded in C30 concrete with a 5db
anchorage length. The average bond strengths in their study were 17.43,
14.52 and 13.93 MPa for db = 6, 9.5 and 16 mm, respectively. It is
shown that the level of bond strengths in Xue et al.'s tests are much
lower than those in the present study. More importantly, the bond
strength reduction from the 6-mm-diameter bar to the 9.5-mm-diameter
bar is more pronounced (ie, 17%), compared with the results in this study (ie 5%).
This comparison demonstrates that using UHSC could somewhat
compensate the bond strength reduction for small-diameter bars (db < 10 mm).
However, the compensation is minimal for large diameter bars (db > 16
mm), since the bond strength reduction rates from 6 mm diameter bar to
16 mm diameter bar in both studies are around 20%.
3.3.4. Influences of anchorage lengths
The bond strength comparisons for different anchorage lengths are
plotted in Fig. 12, using the 10-mm-diameter GFRP bars in SSC for ex-
amples. Similar to most previous investigations [1,25,26,33,46–50], the
results show that bond strength generally received with an increasing
anchorage length, ie, 14% and 18% reduction from 2.5db to 5db
Machine Translated by Google

JJ. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787

(a). 0% PE fiber content (b). 0.5% PE fiber content

(c). 1% PE fiber content

Fig. 11. Effects of on bar diameters on bond strength.

towards the free end. During the pull-out test, the bond stress flow transferred
slower for a longer anchorage length. Therefore, as the test continued, the
greatest load increment occurred at the loading end, making the local debonding
failure initiated earlier that prevented further increase of bond strength. However,
it should be noted that although the smeared bond strength is reduced, more
pull-out forces are required for specimens with longer anchorage length.

The standard deviation of the three duplicated samples of S-10PE-ÿ10-2.5D

is relatively larger (at 3.5) compared with those of other samples (at around 1–
2). This may be caused by the impaired flow-ability with 1% PE fiber addition.
As shown in Table 5, the slump-flow of SSC with 1% PE fiber addition is reduced
by 75% compared with specimens without PE fiber addition. The casting quality
of concrete may interfere with the bond strength of the specimens with 1% PE
fiber content, and thus the effect of the variation in anchorage length becomes
unclear.

Fig. 12. Effects of anchorage lengths on bond strength.

4. Assessments of design codes
anchorage length for the specimens with 0% and 0.5% PE fiber content,
respectively. This is because the bond stress distribution along the anchorage 4.1. Current design code
length is nonlinear rather than uniform [26,60]. The bond stress is the highest at
the loading end and attenuates dramatically Four design codes on bond strength of FRP bar in concrete are summarized

ten
Machine Translated by Google

JJ. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787

in this section, they are ACI440.1R-15 [42], CSA-S806–12 [54], CSA-S6–14 [55] and (c) JSCE 1997
JSCE 1997 [56].
JSCE 1997 [56] is recommended by the Japan Society of Civil En-gineer, it adopts
(a) ACI440.1R-15 the similar concept to the two Canadian codes that the effects of concrete strength, bar
size and transverse reinforcements are incorporated. The expression of JSCE 1997 [56] is
ACI440.1R-15 [42] is published by American Concrete Institute (ACI), the expression given below.
of bond strength is modified from the finding of Wambeke and Shield [57] which is given
below: fbod (6)
ÿmax =
ÿ1
c
ÿmax = 4 + 0.3 + 100 db db (3) c
ÿÿÿÿ

0.28ÿ2f '
0.083 ' andkc = + 15 + Atr Ef
c ÿf la fbod = c
1.3 sdb
db Es

where f' is the compressive strength of concrete. c is the concrete cover,
c
it is taken as the smaller value of the cover to the bar center or 1.5 times
of the bar center-to-center spacing over the potential bond failure plane.
The rest of the nomenclatures are given in Table 6. Furthermore, the ratio of c/ db is limited
to be less than 3.5, which indicates when exceeding certain limit concrete cover has no
influence. As stated earlier, the c/ db ratios for the specimens in this study have exceeded
3.5, and thus c/ db = 3.5 is used throughout. It should be noted that the concrete cube size
and anchorage length (5db) adopted in this experi-ment study are compliant with the
requirements of ACI440.1R-15 [42].
where fbod is the design bond strength of concrete. ÿ2 is the modification factor for bond
strength, it has the similar concept to k6 in Eq. (5) that ÿ2 is 1.0 when FRP bar has the
same (or more) bond strength as the deformed steel bar with the same size, otherwise it
should be reduced as per experimental results. In the absence of comparative test data in
this study, ÿ2 is taken as 0.8 similar to k6. c is the smaller value of the cover to the bar
center or half of the bar center-to-center spacing. Atr/ s is the area to spacing ratio of the
transverse reinforcements, and Ef / Es is the elastic modulus ratio of FRP to steel for the
transverse reinforcements, both ratios are not relevant to this study. Therefore, kc = c/ db
which is over 2.5 for all cases in this stud. And ÿ1 is dependent on kc, in this study ÿ1 =

(b) CSA-S806–12 and CSA-S6–14 0.6 (for kc ÿ 2.5).

CSA-S806–12 [54] and CSA-S6–14 [55] are both Canadian stan-dards, they are
applicable to bond design of FRP bars in conventional concrete for building structures and
highway bridges, respectively. The general form of the bond strength formula is established
based on numerous experimental observations [1,33,53,58,59], in which the bond strengths
of FRP bars show correlation goods to square root of concrete compressive strength, but
are inversely proportional to bar size. The expressions of bond strength specified by CSA-
Table 7 summarizes the main factors considered by the four selected design codes for
bond strength estimation. It is shown that all selected design codes have accounted for the
effects of the concrete strength, the bar diameter and the concrete cover thickness.
However, only ACI440.1R-15 [42] considers the influences of the anchorage length.
The effects of the reinforced fiber and its content can be partially and implicitly accounted
for by the concrete strength. It should be noted that
ÿÿÿÿ

S806–12 [54] and CSA-S6–14 [55] are shown in Eq. (4) and Eq. (5), respectively. '
CSA-S806–12 [54] and CSA-S6–14 [55] have limitations on
ÿÿÿÿ
c ÿf values c
'
(ie, ÿ ÿf 5 and 8 MPa for CSA-S806–12 [54] and CSA-S6–14 [55],
ÿÿÿÿ

' respectively). Similarly, JSCE 1997 [56] also regulates fbod to be less than 3.2 MPa. Given
f
dcs c ÿ that the above regulations are for normal strength concrete, and UHSC with PE fiber
ÿmax (4)
= 1.15k1k2k3k4k5ÿdb
reinforcement tends to have higher tensile and shear strength, the limitations on concrete
strength are temporarily ignored in the assessment of this study.
Ef
( dcs + ktr Es ) fcr
ÿmax = (5)
0.45k1k6ÿdb 4.2. Assessment

ktr = Atrftr,y Ef
10.5sn and( dcs + ktr Es ) ÿ 2.5db Fig. 13 compares the test results and code predictions on the average bond strength
of the specimens. Two criteria, ie, the mean (M) and the average absolute error (AAE), are
where k1 is the bar location factor, taken as 1.0 for this study. k2 is the concrete density employed to evaluate the performance of the design codes. Their expressions are given
factor, taken as 1.0 for this study (ie, 1.0 for normal density concrete). k3 is the bar size in Eq. (7) and Eq. (8). The M and AAE results are labeled in each comparison figure.
factor, taken as 0.8 for this study (ie, 0.8 for bar cross-sectional area ÿ 300 mm2 ). k4 is
the bar fiber factor, taken as 1.0 for this study (ie, 1.0 for GFRP). k5 is the bar surface
predi
factor, taken as 1.0 for this study (ie, 1.0 for surface-roughened or sand-coated surfaces). M= ÿn i=1 testi (7)
n
k6 is the bar surface profile factor, which is equal to the ratio of bond strength of a FRP bar
to the bond strength of a steel bar with the same cross-sectional area (ÿ 1.0). Without the ÿ ÿ

exact experimental data, k6 can be taken as 0.8 (CSA-S6–14 [55]). dcs is the lesser of the
ÿ ÿ

testiÿ predi
ÿn i=1
ÿ ÿ

testi
cover to the bar center or 2/3 of the bar center-to-center spacing. ktr is the transverse AAE = ÿ ÿ

(8)
n
reinforcement index, it is related to the cross-sectional area (Atr), yield strength (fy,tr) and
maximum spacing (s) of the transverse reinforcement and the number of developed bars where testi is the i th th
test data; predi is the code prediction for the i data; data;

over the bond failure surface (n ). Ef and Es are the Young's modulus of an FRP bar and a
n is the total specimen number in this study.
steel bar, respectively. In the current case, there is no transverse reinforce-ment, and thus It is shown that the predictions of the two Canadian codes [54,55] and JSCE 1997 [56]
ktr is zero and dcs is taken to be 2.5db. fcr is the cracking are generally insensitive to the variations of pa-rameters in this study, as the predictions
by each design code generally stay at the same level for all specimens (eg, around 9 MPa
for the two Canadian codes [54,55], 30 MPa for JSCE 1997 [56]). The two Canadian codes
ÿÿÿÿ
[54,55] seem to be overly conservative, the average predicted bond strengths are only
' equal to around 40% of the test bond strength.
strength of concrete, taken as 0.4 density c ÿf in this study (ie, for normal
concrete).
This is probably because the two Canadian codes ignore the effect of bar anchorage
length. By contrast, anchorage length is explicitly extracted

11
Machine Translated by Google

JJ. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787

Table
7 Code considerations of main factors on bond strength.

Design code Bar diameter Bar surface treatment Concrete strength Concrete cover thickness Anchorage length Transverse reinforcement

ACI440.1R-15 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ × ÿ ÿ ÿ ×
CSA-S806–12 ÿ ÿ ÿ × ×
CSA-S6–14 ÿ ÿ ÿ × ÿ
JSCE 1997 × ÿ ÿ × ÿ

Note: “ÿ” — considered; “×” — not considered.

(a). ACI440.1R-15 [42]

(b). CSA-S806–12 [54]

Fig. 13. Performance of the selected design codes.

for by ACI440.1R-15 [42]. As per Eq. (3), the bond strength is linearly
inversely proportional to the anchorage length. This modification has
significantly increased the accuracy of the estimation, as the AAE of
ACI440.1R-15 [42] has been reduced to 16.6% compared with 58%
for the two Canadian codes [54,55]. However, it is still obvious that
ACI440.1R-15 [42] overestimates the bond strength for the specimens
with smaller anchorage length (ie, 2.5db) by more than 40%. Besides,
around 20% overestimations in bond strength are also noted for the
specimens with relatively larger bar diameters (ie, 16 mm). These re-
sults indicate that ACI440.1R-15 [42] could be unsafe for design of
bigger bars or smaller anchorage lengths. JSCE 1997 [56] is likely to
produce the most unsafe design among the four selected codes, the

twelfth
Machine Translated by Google

JJ. Zeng et al. Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787

(c). CSA-S6–14 [55]

(d). JSCE 1997 [56]

Fig. 13. (continued).

estimated bond strengths are generally 44% greater than the test out- 5. Conclusions
comes. For the specimens with a 16-mm-diameter bar, the over-
estimations surge to be more than 70%. Correspondingly, the AAE of In the present study, a series of pull-out tests were conducted on 63
the predictions of JSCE 1997 [56] are more than 40%. This is because of the GFRP bar-SSC bond joints. The effects of different bar diameters,
ÿÿÿÿ

' anchorage lengths, and PE fiber contents on the bond behavior were
term f' c is used in the formulation rather than c fÿ for the other three evaluated. Finally, the performances of the current design codes in
codes. codes. Furthermore, the expression of JSCE 1997 [56] is
estimating the bond strength were assessed. The following are some
predominated by the concrete strength, whereas the effects of the bar major conclusions:
diameter is only included as a reduction factor. This expression will
easily make over-estimations for high or UHSCs with no other parameter • The bond strength of GFRP bars decreases with the increase of bar
(eg, bar diameter or anchorage length) to factor down the results. diameter. For example, when increasing the bar diameter from 10
However, it should be noted that if the limit of fbod ÿ 3.2 MPa is followed, mm to 16 mm, the average bond strengths decline by 22.4%, 18.6%
the bond strength estimated by JSCE 1997 [56] is just around 5 MPa, and 23.5% for the specimens with 0%, 0.5% and 1% PE fiber
which would be overly conservative. In summary, assessments content, respectively.
conducted in this section suggest that the more influential parameters (eg, c db, la,
• PEf' fiber addition could increase the bond strength by restraining the
) being explicitly considered in the design expression, the more accurate crack propagation. For example, by increasing the PE fiber content
predictions can be produced. from 0% to 0.5%, bond strengths of GFRP bars (6 mm, 10 mm and 16

13
Machine Translated by Google
JJ. Zeng et al.
mm diameter) in SSC are increased by around 3–10%. However, for the 6 mm and
16 mm diameter bars, no further increases are ob-tained when further increasing
the PE content to 1%.
• A typical average bond stress-slip curve of the specimens in this study consists of
an initial micro-slip stage with large stiffness, a slip stage with deteriorated stiffness
to the peak bond stress, a post-peak descending stage and a residual stage with
almost constant bond
stress.
• In short term, SSC has little influence on the bond strength, the maximum difference
is only 3%, compared with the samples made of conventional freshwater river-sand
concrete with the same values
of parameters (ie, bar diameter, anchorage length and PE fiber content).
• The bond strength generally reduces with increasing anchorage length. For example,
for specimens with a PE fiber content of 0% and 0.5%, the increase of the
anchorage length from 2.5db to 5db could reduce the bond strength by 14% and
18%, respectively. • Among current design codes, ACI440.1R-15 can
yield relatively more accurate estimates for bond strength of GFRP bars in ultra-high
strength SSC, as it considers the effect of anchorage length. How-ever,
ACI440.1R-15 could overestimate the bond strength if the bar diameter is greater
than 16 mm or the anchorage length is less than 5db. In addition, the predictions
of CSA-S806–12 [54] and CSA-S6–14 [55] could significantly underestimate the
bond strength by approximately 60%, while the predictions from JSCE 1997 [56]
tend to significantly overestimate the bond strength by 44% compared with the test
results.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jun-Jie Zeng: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. JinJing Liao: Investigation, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Writing – original draft.
Yan Zhuge: Supervision, Writing – original draft. Yong-Chang Guo: Supervision,
Writing – original draft. Jie-Kai Zhou: Writing – review & editing. Ze-Hao Huang:
Investigation. Lihai Zhang: Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this
paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support received from the Natural Science
Foundation of China (Nos. 52008116, 12032009), the Guangzhou Science and
Technology Department (No. 201904010163), the Natural Science Foundation of
Guangdong Province (Nos.
2019A1515011637 and 2021B1515020029), the Guangzhou Education Bureau
(202032852).
References
[1] Achillides Z, Pilakoutas K. Bond behavior of fiber reinforced polymer bars under direct
pullout conditions. J Compos Constr 2004;8(2):173–81.
[2] Zeng JJ, Chen SP, Zhuge Y, Gao WY, Duan ZJ, Guo YC. Three-dimensional finite
element modeling and theoretical analysis of concrete confined with FRP rings. Eng
Struct 2021;234:111966.
[3] Liao JJ, Zeng JJ, Gong QM, Quach WM, Gao WY, Zhang L. Design-oriented stress
-strain model for FRP-confined ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). Constr
Build Mater 2022;318:126200.
[4] Lin X, Zhang YX. Evaluation of bond stress-slip models for FRP reinforcing bars in
concrete. Compos Struct 2014;107:131–41.
[5] Yan ZW, Bai YL, Ozbakkaloglu T, Gao WY, Zeng JJ. Rate-dependent compressive
behavior of concrete confined with Large-Rupture-Strain (LRS) FRP. Compos Struct
2021;272:114199.
14
Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787
[6] Pan BZ, Liu F, Zhuge Y, Zeng JJ, Liao JJ. ECCs/UHPFRCCs with and without FRP
reinforcement for structural strengthening/repairing: A state-of-the-art review.
Constr Build Mater 2022;316:125824.
[7] Dong ZQ, Wu G, Zhao XL, Lian JL. Long-term bond durability of fiber-reinforced
polymer bars embedded in seawater sea-sand concrete under ocean environments.
J Compos Constr 2018;22(5):04018042. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000876.
[8] Zhang YR, Wei Y, Bai JW, Wu G, Dong ZQ. A novel seawater and sea sand concrete
filled FRP-carbon steel composite tube column: concept and behavior. Compos
Struct 2020;246(8):112421.
[9] Zeng JJ, Zheng YW, Liu F, Guo YC, Hou C. Behavior of FRP ring-confined CFSTs
under axial compression. Compos Struct 2021;257:113166. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113166.
[10] Wu YF, Jiang C. Effect of load eccentricity on the stress–strain relationship of FRP-
confined concrete columns. Compos Struct 2013;98:228–41.
[11] Lai MH, Liang YW, Wang Q, Ren FM, Chen MT, Ho JCM. A stress-path dependent
stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete. Eng Struct 2020;203:109824.
[12] Bai YL, Yan ZW, Ozbakkaloglu T, Gao WY, Zeng JJ. Mechanical behavior of large-
rupture-strain (LRS) polyethylene naphthalene fiber bundles at different strain
rates and temperatures. Constr Build Mater 2021;297:123786.
[13] Song J, Gao WY, Ouyang LJ, Zeng JJ, Yang J, Liu WD. Compressive behavior of
heat-damaged square concrete prisms confined with basalt fiber-reinforced
polymer jackets. Eng Struct 2021;242:112504.
[14] Ren FM, Liang YW, Ho JCM, Lai MH. Behavior of FRP tube-concrete-encased steel
composite columns. Compos Struct 2020;241:112139.
[15] Zeng JJ, Liao JJ, Ye YY, Guo YC, Zheng Y, Tan LH. Behavior of FRP spiral strip-
confined concrete under cyclic axial compression. Constr Build Mater 2021;295:
123544.
[16] Liao JJ, Yang KY, Zeng JJ, Quach WM, Ye YY, Zhang L. Compressive behavior of
FRP-confined ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) in circular columns. Eng
Struct 2021;249:113246.
[17] Zhou JK, Lin WK, Guo SX, Zeng JJ, Bai YL. Behavior of FRP-confined FRP spiral
reinforced concrete square columns (FCFRCs) under axial compression. J Build Eng
2021;45:103452.
[18] Xue W, Zheng Q, Yang Yu, Fang Z. Bond behavior of sand-coated deformed glass
fiber reinforced polymer rebars. Reinfor Plast & Compos 2014;33(10):895–910.
[19] Zeng JJ, Gao WY, Duan ZJ, Bai YL, Guo YC, Ouyang LJ. Axial compressive behavior
of polyethylene terephthalatecarbon FRP-confined seawater sea-sand concrete in
circular columns. Constr Build Mater 2020;234:117383.
[20] Zeng JJ, Ye YY, Quach WM, Lin G, Zhuge Y, Zhou JK. Compressive and
Transverse Shear Behavior of Novel FRP-UHPC Hybrid Bars. Compos Structure
2022; 281:115001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.115001.
[21] Li YL, Teng JG, Zhao XL, Singh Raman RK. Theoretical model for seawater and sea
sand concrete-filled circular FRP tubular stub columns under axial compression.
Eng Struct 2018;160:71–84.
[22] Xiao JZ, Qiang CB, Nanni A, Zhang KJ. Use of sea-sand and seawater in concrete
construction: Current status and future opportunities. Constr Build Mater 2017;
155:1101–11.
[23] Ahmed A, Guo S, Zhang ZH, Shi CJ, Zhu Deju. A review on durability of fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) bars reinforced seawater sea sand concrete. Constr Build
Mater 2020;256:119484.
[24] El Refai A, Ammar MA, Masmoudi R. Bond performance of basalt fiber-reinforced
polymer bars to concrete. J Compos Constr 2015;19(3):04014050. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000487.
[25] Lee JY, Kim TY, Kim TJ, Yi CK, Park JS, You YC, et al. Interfacial bond strength of
glass fiber reinforced polymer bars in high-strength concrete. Compos Part B - Eng
2008;39(2):258–70.
[26] Islam S, Afefy HM, Sennah K, Azimi H. Bond characteristics of straight- and
headed-end, ribbed-surface, GFRP bars embedded in high-strength concrete. Constr
Build Mater 2015;83:283–98.
[27] Wei W, Liu F, Xiong Z, Lu Z, Li L. Bond performance between fiber-reinforced
polymer bars and concrete under pull-out tests. Constr Build Mater 2019;227:
116803.
[28] Won JP, Park CG, Kim HH, Lee SW, Jang CI. Effect of fibers on the bonds between
FRP reinforcing bars and high-strength concrete. Compos Part B - Eng 2008;39:
749–55.
[29] Kim B, Doh JH, Yi CK, Lee JY. Effects of structural fibers on bonding mechanism
changes in interface between GFRP bar and concrete. Compos Part B - Eng 2013;45
(1):768–79.
[30] Ding Y, Ning X, Zhang Y, Pacheco-Torgal F, Aguiar JB. Fibers for enhancement of the
bond capacity between GFRP rebar and concrete. Constr Build Mater 2014;51:
303–12.
[31] Li J, Gravina RJ, Smith ST, Visintin P. Bond strength and bond stress-slip analysis of
FRP bar to concrete incorporating environmental durability. Constr Build Mater
2020;261:119860.
[32] Yang S, Yang C, Huang M, Liu Y, Jiang J, Fan G. Study on bond performance
between FRP bars and seawater coral aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater 2018;
173:272–88.
[33] Tighiouart B, Benmokrane B, Gao D. Investigation of bond in concrete member
with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. Constr Build Mater 1998;12(8):453–62.
[34] Yu KQ, Yu JT, Dai JG, Lu ZD, Shah SP. Development of ultra-high performance
engineered cementitious composites using polyethylene (PE) fibers. Constr Build
Mater 2018;158:217–27.
[35] Huang BT, Wu JQ, Yu J, Dai JG, Leung CKY, Li VC. Seawater sea-sand engineered/
strain-hardening cementitious composites (ECC/SHCC): Assessment and modeling
of crack characteristics. Cem Con Res 2021;140:106292.
Machine Translated by Google
JJ. Zeng et al.
[36] Xiao QG, Teng JG, Yu T. Behavior and modeling of confined high-strength concrete. J
Compos Constr 2010;14(3):249–59.
[37] Zeng JJ, Ye YY, Gao WY, Smith ST, Guo YC. Stress-strain behavior of polyethylene terephthalate
fiber-reinforced polymer-confined normal-, high- and ultra high- strength concrete. J Build
Eng 2020;30:101243.
[38] Li J, Wu C, Hao H. An experimental and numerical study of reinforced
conventional concrete and ultra-high performance concrete columns under lateral impact loads.
Mater Design 2015;82:64–76.
[39] Wang W, Wu C, Liu Z, Si H. Compressive behavior of ultra-high performance fiber -reinforced
concrete (UHPFRC) confined with FRP. Compos Struct 2018;204: 419–37.
[40] Guler S. Axial behavior of FRP-wrapped circular ultra-high performance concrete specimens. Struct
Eng Mech 2014;50(6):709–22.
[41] Aattache A, Soltani R. Durability-related properties of early-age and long-term
resistant laboratory elaborated polymer-based repair mortars. Constr Build Mater 2020;235:117494.
[42] ACI-440.1R-15, Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars, ACI
Committee 440, Farmington Hills MI; 2015.
[43] ASTM D1141, Standard Practice for the Preparation of Substitute Ocean Water, West
Conshohocken USA; two thousand and thirteen.
[44] GB50010-2010, Code for design of concrete structures. Beijing: China Planning
Press; 2015.
[45] GB/T 30022-2013, Test method for basic mechanical properties of fiber reinforced polymer bar.
Beijing: China Planning Press; two thousand and thirteen.
[46] Saleh N, Ashour A, Lam D, Sheehan T. Experimental investigation of bond
behavior of two common GFRP bar types in high-strength concrete. Constr Build Mater
2019;201:610–22.
[47] Yoo DY, Kwon KY, Park JJ, Yoon YS. Local bond-slip response of GFRP rebar in ultra-high-
performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Compos Struct 2015;120:53–64.
[48] Hao Q, Wang Y, He Z, Ou J. Bond strength of glass fiber reinforced polymer ribbed rebars in
normal strength concrete. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(2):865–71.
[49] Xue W, Yang Yu, Zheng Q, Fang Z. Modeling of bond of sand-coated deformed glass fiber-
reinforced polymer rebars in concrete. Polym Polym Compos 2016;24(1): 45–56.
15
Engineering Structures 254 (2022) 113787
[50] Soares S, Freitas N, Pereira E, Nepomuceno E, Pereira E, Sena-Cruz J. Assessment of GFRP
bond behavior for the design of sustainable reinforced seawater concrete structures. Constr
Build Mater 2020;231:117277.
[51] Sui L, Zhong Q, Yu K, Xing F, Li P, Zhou Y. Flexural fatigue properties of ultra-high performance
engineered cementitious composites (UHP-ECC) reinforced by polymer fibers. Polymers
2018;10:892. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym10080892.
[52] Ding Y, Yu KQ, Yu JT, Xu SL. Structural behaviors of ultra-high performance engineered
cementitious composites (UHP-ECC) beams subjected to bending- experimental study.
Constr Build Mater 2018;177:102–15.
[53] Hao QD, Wang B, Ou JP. Fiber reinforced polymer rebar's application to civil engineering.
Concr J 2006;9:38–40.
[54] CAN/CSA-S806, Design and construction of building structures with fiber reinforced
polymers. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Standards Association; 2012.
[55] CAN/CSA-S6, Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada:
Canadian Standards Association; 2014.
[56] JSCE 1997, State-of-the-art report on continuous fiber reinforcing materials.
Concrete Engineering Series 3, Tokyo, Japan; 1997.
[57] Wambeke BW, Shield CK. Development length of glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars in concrete.
ACI Struct J 2006;103(1):11–7.
[58] Okelo R, Yuan RL. Bond strength of fiber reinforced polymer rebars in normal
strengthconcrete. J Compos Constr 2005;9:203–13.
[59] Aly R, Benmokrane B, Ebead U. Tensile lap splicing of fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcing bars
in concrete. ACI Struct J 2006;103:857–64.
[60] Liao JJ, Zeng JJ, Bai YL, Zhang L. Bond strength of GFRP bars to high strength and ultra-high
strength fiber reinforced seawater sea-sand concrete (SSC). Compos Struct 2022:115013.
[61] Antonietta Aiello M, Leone M, Pecce M. Bond performances of FRP rebars- reinforced
concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 2007;19(3):205–13.
[62] Hossain KMA, Ametrano D, Lachemi M. The bond between glass-fibre-reinforced polymer bars
and ultra-high-strength concrete. Constr Mater 2018;171(4):161–76. https://doi.org/10.1680/
jcoma.16.00032.