Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

ISSN: 0169-4243 (Print) 1568-5616 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tast20

The bond of near-surface mounted reinforcement

to low-strength concrete

Abdellah Douadi, Abdelghani Merdas & Łukasz Sadowski

To cite this article: Abdellah Douadi, Abdelghani Merdas & Łukasz Sadowski (2019): The bond
of near-surface mounted reinforcement to low-strength concrete, Journal of Adhesion Science and
Technology, DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2019.1592944

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1592944

Published online: 05 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tast20
JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1592944

The bond of near-surface mounted reinforcement to

low-strength concrete
Abdellah Douadia, Abdelghani Merdasa and Łukasz Sadowskib
a
Research Unit on Emerging Materials (RUEM), University Ferhat Abbas Setif 1, Setif, Algeria; bFaculty
of Civil Engineering, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wrocław, Poland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper focuses on the bond between near-surface mounted Received 24 October 2018
(NSM) reinforcement and low-strength concrete. In order to inves- Revised 13 February 2019
tigate this, eight beams made of low-strength concrete were Accepted 28 February 2019
made. The compressive strength of this concrete varied from
KEYWORDS
14.22 MPa to 16.83 MPa. These beams were then tensioned under Bond strength; near-surface
monotonic loading until failure. The test setups differed in terms mounted reinforcement;
of their groove size and the type of reinforcement (a rod and carbon fiber reinforced
plate of carbon fiber reinforced polymer, prestressing steel). Based polymer; prestressing steel
on the achieved results and analysis, it was found that the NSM
method can be applied to low-strength concrete. Furthermore,
the application of a NSM reinforcement rod and plate, made of
the carbon fiber reinforced polymer, and prestressing steel
showed a satisfactory bond strength when compared to low-
strength concrete. However, the carbon plates performed better
in terms of failure load and rate use than the rods made of car-
bon and the prestressing steel. Moreover, the results showed that
the increase of groove size for the near-surface mounted
reinforcement made of prestressing steel did not have an effect
on the failure mode. In addition, a significant increase of the fail-
ure load was observed for the prestressing steel. Finally, the effect
of concrete strength was analyzed and compared with the results
found in literature.

1. Introduction
Due to the fact that many concrete structures have recently reached the end of their
service life, researchers are focusing on the development of efficient repair techniques.
Some concrete structures are being made with low-strength concrete (below 15 MPa).
Nowadays, the challenge is to repair these kinds of concrete structures. According to
Capozucca [1], research has recently been focused on the use of composite materials,
such as carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP). Al-Mahmoud et al. [2] and Parretti
et al. [3] claim that the near-surface mounted (NSM) method presents many advan-
tages. Chen et al. [4] believe that the application of the NSM technique minimizes the

CONTACT Łukasz Sadowski lukasz.sadowski@pwr.edu.pl Faculty of Civil Engineering, Wrocław University of

Science and Technology, Wybrze_ze Wyspianskiego 27, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. DOUADI ET AL.

problems of preliminary debonding. Moreover, the application of the NSM method

increases the mechanical performance of strengthened concrete structures. This per-
formance depends mainly on the bond strength of the NSM reinforcement to low-
strength concrete, which is of fundamental importance for the behaviour and durability
of concrete structures repaired with the NSM technique.
The main goal of the article is to study the bond of NSM reinforcement to low-
strength concrete and to find out if the NSM method can be applied to low-strength
concrete. The aim is also to investigate whether prestressing steel can be used as an
alternative to CFRP bars.
To achieve the above-mentioned goals, the selected physical and mechanical proper-
ties of low-strength concrete and reinforcement were studied. Then, tests were carried
out in order to characterize the influence of concrete strength, the dimensions of
grooves, and the type of reinforcement on the bond behaviour of NSM reinforcement
to low-strength concrete by using the beam pull-out test to minimize the problem of
eccentricity and to facilitate the implementation of the sealing material.

2. Literature survey
Table 1 shows a general overview of the recent research, the studied parameters and
the selected results obtained using the NSM technique.
Based on the performed literature review presented in Table 1, it was realized that
most of the tests are related to studying the bond between different types of NSM
reinforcement and concrete with compressive strength greater than 19 MPa. There is a
lack of knowledge of the bond between NSM reinforcement and low-strength concrete.
It is also visible from Table 1 that most of the research used CFRP rods, plates or strips
as NSM reinforcement. There have been no attempts to use prestressing steel instead
of CFRP as an effective alternative for NSM reinforcement.

3. Material description
3.1. Concrete
The Dreux-Gorisse method was used to design the concrete mix [20]. The particle size
analysis tests for the used aggregates, sands and cement was carried out according to NF
P18-560 [21], while that of the cement was carried out using a Mastersizer 2000 laser ana-
lyser (Figure 1). Table 2 presents the mix design and principal properties of the concrete.
For the manufacturing of the concrete, a mixer of 100 L capacity with a vertical axis
was used. The mixing procedures were carried out as follows: the gravels, sands and
cement were mixed for 90 s. After that, water was added and mixed for another minute.
The casting of the concrete was carried out in two layers for each specimen, and then
compacted on a vibrating table 50 Hz for 30 s. After filling the moulds, the upper surfa-
ces were smoothed manually and covered with a plastic sheet.
The specimens were kept in a laboratory at a temperature of 25
C for 28 days,
where the humidity varied between 23% and 41%. To characterize the compressive
strength and the elastic modulus of the used concrete, uniaxial compressive tests were
carried out on the 28th day on 16  32 cm cylindrical specimens, following the
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3

Table 1. A general overview of the recent state-of-the art, the studied parameters and the
selected results obtained using NSM technique.
The compressive
strength of
repaired Type of near-surface
Authors concrete[MPa] mounted reinforcement Selected results
De Lorenzis et al. [5] 22 Ribbed rod glass and carbon Changes of the type of reinforcements
affect the bond
Novidis et al. [6] 30 Sandblasted rod of CFRP Increasing the groove size, leads to the
increase of the bond strength
Galati et al. [7] 40 CFRP spirally-wound and The increase in the mechanical properties
sand-coated rod of the epoxy resin induces an increase in
the pull-out force.
Bilotta et al. [8] 19 Carbon strip The tensile strength of the fibre
reinforced polymer (FRP) materials is better
exploited by the NSM technique than
those attained in EBR systems
Soliman et al. [9] 38;44 Rod of CFRP Increasing the groove size for specimens
with cement adhesive decreased the fail-
ure load.
Dongkeun Lee 28.5 Rod smooth and roughened The change in surface type of the rein-
et al. [10] of CFRP, round spirally forcements will affect the maximum pull-
wound and sand coated rod out force.
Kalupahana et al. [11] 60 Squar, rod and Rectangular Rectangular bars seem to be the most
of CFRP effective form that round and square bars.
Lluıs Torres et al. [12] 23 Rod of carbon and glass The change of type of the reinforcement
inducean increase in the pull-out force.
Sharaky et al. [13,14] From 22 to 42.2 Rod of CFRP Increasing the groove size (width or
depth), or concrete strength leads to
higher average bond strength.
Al-Saadi et al. [15]; 32 Smooth or rough CFRP strip The roughness of the surface improved the
Khshain et al. [16] pull-out force.
Renata Kotynia 35.4 Bar of GFRP The increase in the bar diameter induced
et al. [17] an increase in the pull-out force.
Merdas et al. [18] 37.5 Rod and plate of CFRP A far better performance in terms of bond
stress, pullout load by carbon plates.
Merdas et al. [19] From 37.5 Rod of CFRP and smooth The increasing in the concrete strength
to 73.5 steel bar improved the pull-out force. A far better
performance in terms of bond stress, pull-
out load was achieved by carbon plates
compared to steel.

standard NF P 18-406 [22]. The specimens were surfaced with sulphur and the com-
pressive strength of the concrete was determined by averaging the values obtained on
the 16  32 cm cylindrical specimens.
The modulus of elasticity was later determined by taking the average of the secant
modules obtained on the loading curves of the last two cycles. The tensile strength on
the 28th day was obtained from a tensile test using the standard NF P 18-406 [23].
The chemical and mineralogical properties of the cement were investigated at Ain El
Kbira laboratory (http://www.scaek.dz/). The chemical composition was determined using
X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. The mineralogical composition was calculated using the
Bogue equations. The specific gravity and Blaine fineness was determined using the pycnom-
eter method and a Mastersizer 2000 laser analyser. Table 3 summarizes the obtained results.

3.2. Reinforcement
Two different types of reinforcement were used in this work: smooth carbon fiber
(a rod of 8 mm in diameter and a plate of 10 mm in width and 2.5 mm in thickness)
4 A. DOUADI ET AL.

Figure 1. The particle size analysis of used aggregates, sand and cement.

Table 2. Mix design and principal properties of concrete.

Constituents Quantity
Coarse Sand 0/5 (kg/m3) 574
Fine sand 0/5 (kg/m3) 305
Coarse aggregate 8/15 (kg/m3) 545
Coarse aggregate 15/25 (kg/m3) 455
Total water (kg/m3) 182
Cement CPJ-CEM II 42.5 (kg/m3) 350
Compressive strength (MPa) 15.37 ± 1.08
Tensile strength (MPa) 1.62 ± 0.22
Young’s modulus (GPa) 27.6 ± 0.67

and prestressing steel with a diameter of 6 mm. The reinforcement was supplied by the
SOFICAR FranceV R (https://www.toray-cfe.com/en/) and TREFISOUD EL Eulma
(http://www.trefisoud.com/index1.html) companies. Each type of reinforcement was
tested to determine its tensile strength and modulus of elasticity according to standard
EN 10002 [24]. The selected mechanical properties of the reinforcements, as declared
by the manufacturer and tested in a laboratory, are presented in Table 4.
The microstructure of the reinforcement was observed using a Leica S430i-type
scanning electron microscope. The objective was to characterize the cross section and
longitudinal section of the carbon reinforcement: the percentage of fibers and devel-
oped perimeter per unit length.
Figure 2 compares the scanning electron microscopy observation series of the 8 mm
carbon rods with the observations of the smooth prestressing steel reinforcements. It is
visible from Figure 2 that the carbon rod has a smooth outer surface when compared
to the prestressing steel. The longitudinal and transversal sections of the prestressing
steel show a solid surface, which is not the case with the carbon rod. The cross-section
shows that the reinforcement consists of carbon fibers covered by epoxy resin matrix.
The rate of resin contained in the carbon rod was equal to 35%, and the number of
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5

Table 3. Chemical, mineralogical and physical properties of cement.

Content (%)
SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO SO3 K2O Cl Loss on ignition
23.30 5.94 5.29 56.68 2.05 0.44 0.007 2.97
Mineralogical composition using the Bogue equation
C3S C2S C3A C4AF
67.35 9.42 3.33 16.20
Physical properties
Specific gravity (g/cm3) Blaine fineness (cm2/g)
3.11 3475

Table 4. Selected mechanical properties of reinforcement.

Carbon rod Carbon plate Prestressing steel
Declared Obtained Declared Obtained Declared Obtained
by the in the by the in the by the in the
manufacturer laboratory manufacturer laboratory manufacturer laboratory
Modulus of 160 179.46 ± 0.88 160 179.85 ± 0.04 170 160.22 ± 1.76
elasticity (GPa)
Tensile 3000 2561.23 ± 30.19 3000 2538.15 ± 128.83 1850 1800.43 ± 3.87
strength (MPa)

fibers in the 8 mm diameter reinforcement is thus more than one million. In the longi-
tudinal direction, the fibers were arranged parallel to each other and separated by
epoxy resin films, which was not the case in the longitudinal direction. The cross-sec-
tional and longitudinal sections of the prestressing steel have a certain homogeneity
due to the outer surface of the carbon rod containing voids between the carbon fibers.

3.3. Adhesive
The adhesive used in this work is an epoxy resin (MEDAPOXY REP) manufactured by the
company GANITEX (http://www.granitex.dz/), and is a paste especially formulated for bond-
ing the NSM reinforcement with concrete. It was supplied with two components (resin and
hardener). The following properties are provided by the supplier: the compressive strength at
28 days of the epoxy resin is equal to 68 MPa according to standard NF P18-923 [25], and
the pull-off adhesion value to concrete is equal to 3 MPa according to standard NF P18-923
[26]. The hardening of the epoxy resin was complete after 7 days at a temperature of 20
C.

4. Experimental setup and results

4.1. Specimen detail
Eight beams were tested in four series under monotonic loading until failure. In this
experimental study, the parameters studied to characterize the bond behaviour are:

 Type of concrete: a single concrete with a low mechanical characteristic of 15 MPa.

 Type of reinforcement: a smooth carbon plate, a smooth carbon rod and smooth
prestressed steel, as shown in Table 5.
6 A. DOUADI ET AL.

Figure 2. Scanning electron microscopy observation of rod of CFRP and prestressing steel, (a) longitu-
dinal section of reinforcements, (b) cross section of reinforcements, (c) outside surface of reinforcements.
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7

Table 5. Specimens detail.

Dimension of Type of
Serie BTwh Adhesive type reinforcement (mm) reinforcement Groove size (mm2) Bond length (mm)
BC12  12 epoxy 8 Carbon rod 12  12 40
BD8  15 epoxy 2.5  10 Carbon plate 8  15 40
BE9  9 epoxy 6 Prestressing steel 99 40
BE12  12 epoxy 6 Prestressing steel 12  12 40

Figure 3. The different steps to prepare the samples: (a) the shape of concrete block, (b) cleaning of
the grooves using compressed air, (c) masking procedure, (d) filling the grooves with epoxy resin.

 Size of groove: two sizes of groove were used, as recommended by De Lorenzis

et al. [5], for the 1.5db and 2db CFRP rods(db is the diameter of the rod).

4.2. Preparation of specimens

Figure 3 shows the different steps for making the samples; the shape of concrete blocks
was shown in Figure 3(a) (100  180  400 mm). After 24 h of preparing the prisms,
the samples were kept at a laboratory temperature of 25
C for 28 days. The grooves
were made using a piece of wood glued to the end of the mould before the concrete
was cast. After 28 days, and in order to ensure a dry surface before the bonding of the
reinforcement to the concrete, the grooves were cleaned with compressed air (Figure
3(b)). During the operation of the glue reinforcement to the concrete, a masking
8 A. DOUADI ET AL.

Figure 4. The configuration adopted (dimension in mm): (a) experimental set up for pull-out bend-
ing test, (b) beam before loading.
procedure was adopted in order to avoid gluing the epoxy in unwanted areas (Figure
3(c)). The zone of the tested bond was located in block A, the used bond length Lb was
fixed at 40 mm, and the fixation of the reinforcement in block B was carried out on the
whole of the available length (Figure 3(d)) with the same resin used for block A. This
ensured that bond failure occurred in block A.

4.3. Testing set-up and results

The test provision adopted in this work, in order to characterize the bond behaviour
between the reinforcements and concrete according to the NSM technique, is similar to
that proposed by RILEM [27] (Figure 4(a)).
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9

Table 6. Experimental results.

BTwh Fmax (kN) Average (kN) S.D (kN) C.V (%) Smax (mm) su (MPa) Failure mode
BC12 3 12 13.72 13.61 0.11 0.807 0.79 13.54 Concrete failure
13.50
BD8 3 15 14.80 14.59 0.20 1.43 0.46 18.46 Concrete failure
14.38
BE9 3 9 7.32 7.39 0.06 0.89 0.37 9.80 Concrete failure
7.45
BE12 3 12 8.54 8.37 0.16 1.98 0.65 11.11 Concrete failure
8.20

10
16 (a) BD8x15 (b) BE 12x12
14 BC 12x12 BE 9x9
Adhesive: Epoxy resin 8
12 Reinforcement: CFRP bar (rod or plate)
Adhesive: Epoxy resin

Pull-out force (kN)

Pull-out force (kN)

Reinforcement: Prestressing steel

10 6

4
6

4
2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2

Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

Figure 5. Load-displacement for reinforcements: (a) load-displacement for CFRP (rod and plate), (b)
load-displacement for prestressing steel.

The test beam consisted of two parallelepiped concrete blocks (A and B), connected
in the lower part by the reinforcement in which the bond was studied, and in the upper
part by a steel hinge (Figure 4(b)). The system was loaded in simple flexion (4 points)
by two equal forces and arranged symmetrically with respect to the central section of
the beam.
The samples were tested until failure using the RILEM configuration and a compres-
sive machine with a capacity of 50 kN and a loading speed of 2 mm/min. Table 6 sum-
marizes the denomination and average results obtained for each configuration. The
first letter of specimen BTwh, B, refers to the bond test, the next letter C refers to the
carbon rod, D refers to the carbon plate, E refers to the prestressed steel, while w and h
refer to the width and height of the groove respectively. Figure 5 shows the pull-out
force-slip. The maximum applied pull out force on the reinforcement (Fmax) is deter-
mined from the following equation:

Pða1a2Þ
Fmax ¼ (1)
2la

 P: the total force P applied on the beam sample and is measured with the load
cell of the test device
 la: the distance between the centre of gravity of the steel hinge and the centre of
gravity of the reinforcement.
10 A. DOUADI ET AL.

 a1: the distance between the support and the median.

 a2: the distance between the point of application of the load and the median.
 S.D and C.V are, respectively, the standard of derivation and coefficient
of variation.
 Smax: slip (mm) at the loaded end and at maximum pull-out force.
The average ultimate bond stress (su) may be calculated using relations (2) and (3)
for the rod and prestressing steel of CFRP and the CFRP plate, respectively:

Fmax
su ¼ (2)
paLb

Fmax
su ¼ (3)
2Wf Lb

 ɸ and Wf are, respectively, the diameter of the rod or prestressing steel of CFRP
and the width of the CFRP plate, while Lb is the bond length.

From the evaluation of the pull-out force-slip relationships in Figure 5, it is shown,

after an initial linear branch, that the behaviour becomes nonlinear because of the non-
linear behaviour of the epoxy adhesive [16]. The peak load occurred for a slip in the
range of 0.35–0.8 mm.

5. Discussion of results
5.1. Effect of change in groove size
For the BE9  9 and BE12  12 samples reinforced with prestressing steel, the increase in
the groove size caused an increase in the failure load. This may be explained by the
increase in the resin-concrete contact surface, which will lead to a significant reduction
in the tensile stresses induced between the adhesive and the concrete. The results are
consistent with the reported results from Sharaky et al. [14].

5.2. Effect of the type of reinforcement

A ranking system was built to evaluate the performance of the reinforcements, as
shown in Figure 6. This ranking is based on two criteria: the maximum pull-out force
and the use of the tensile capacity of the reinforcement. Table 7 summarizes the
obtained results.

 C.S and Per are, respectively, the cross section and perimeter of the reinforce-
ment bar.
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11

20 25
Maximum Pull-Out Force (kN)
18 CFRP Utilization (%)

16 20
Maximum Pull-Out Force (kN) 14

CFRP Utilization (%)

12 15

10

8 10

4 5

0 0
BC12×12 BD8×15 BE9x9 BE12×12

Reinforcement Series
Figure 6. Ranking system for different type of reinforcements.

Table 7. The utilisation of tensile capacity of reinforcement.

BTwh Reinforcement type C.S (mm2) Per (mm) C.S/Per ratio ffu (MPa) rmax/ffu (%) Fmax (kN)
BC12  12 Carbon rod 50.24 25.12 2 2561.23 10.58 13.61
BE9  9 Prestressing steel 28.26 18.84 1.5 1800 14.52 7.39
BE12  12 Prestressing steel 28.26 18.84 1.5 1800 16.46 8.37
BD8  15 Carbon plate 25 25 1 2538.15 23.02 14.59

 rmax: axial stress in reinforcement (MPa) at maximum pull-out force.

Fmax
rmax ¼ (4)
C:S

 ffu: tensile strength of the reinforcement bar (MPa).

It is visible from Figure 6 and Table 7 that the percentage of the efficiency of use of
the tensile capacity of the reinforcements is low due to the use of a small bond length.
The use of the tensile capacity depends on the ratio of the cross section/perimeter (C.S/
Per). As the ratio between the C.S and Per decreases, the effectiveness of using the full
tensile capacity increases.
The best reinforcement used in this work was the carbon plate. It had a lower ratio
of C.S/Per and showed a better performance in terms of pull-out force and the percent-
age of the efficiency of use of tensile capacity. The rate of use of the carbon plate was
greater than that in the carbon rod, with an increase of 12.5%, and greater than the
prestressing steel by 8%. This can be explained by the shape of the reinforcement, and
not by the contact surface, since carbon fiber rods offer a larger contact surface than
smooth plates. The CFRP rods for the BC12  12 series showed the lowest ranking in
terms of efficiency of use of tensile capacity.
12 A. DOUADI ET AL.

Figure 7. Failure mode, (a) failure mode for specimens, (b) crack propagation.

5.3. Failure mode

Figure 7 shows the failure mode obtained for all the specimens. The failure mode
found in all the tests is for that of concrete, where cracks begin to propagate from the
free end to the loaded end. Failure occurs when cracking reaches the loaded end, which
may be explained by the low strength of the concrete and the short anchor length used
in this configuration.

5.4. Local bond stress–slip relationship

Studying the bond-slip relationship will be valuable when evaluating the bond capacity
of members adjacent to cracks, where the local strain compatibility between the bar
and the surrounding concrete is wasted. The bond-slip curve of NSM prestressing steel
is analyzed by the equation used by Xing et al. [28] to determine the bond-slip curve of
reinforcing bars and surrounding concrete.
 a
S
Ascent : sav ¼ su (5)
Su
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13

Table 8. Calibrated parameters in the s –slip relationships.

Prestressing steel
Specimen su (MPa) Su (mm) a b
BE9  9 9.88 0.39 0.35 0.5
BE12  12 11.32 0.67 0.3 2
Carbon rod or plate
Specimen sm (MPa) Sm (mm) a a0
BC12  12 13.43 0.77 0.42 0.67
BD8  15 18.50 0.43 0.35 0.75

S=Su
Downgrade : sav ¼ su  3 ; (6)
b SSu 1 þ S=Su

Where:

 sav: is the average bond stress of the NSM prestressing steel bar.
 S: is the slipping NSM prestressing steel bar.
 su: is the bond strength at the maximum load
 Su: is the slipping at the maximum load.
 a and b are parameters of ascent and downgrade of the bond stress-slip curve,
respectively.

For specimens with a NSM CFRP bar (rod or plate), the bond–slip law is well
interpreted by the ascending and descending branch that is used by De Lorenzis
el al. [5].
 a
S
sðsÞ ¼ sm ; 0  S  Sm (7)
Sm

For the descending branch, the following equation was adopted

 a0
S
sðsÞ ¼ sm ; S  Sm (8)
Sm

 s and S are, respectively, the local bond stress and the local slip.
 sm and Sm are the bond stress and slip at the peak point.
 a et a0 are parameters that vary between 0 and 1 for a, and between 1 and 0
for a0 .

Table 8 gives the values of the unknown parameters calibrated by the best fitting
experimental results obtained for typical representative curves.
Comparisons between su calculated according to Equations (5–8) for both ascending
and descending branches, and the experimental results for the four configurations
(BE9  9, BE12  12, BC12  12, BD8  15) are shown in Figure 8.
14 A. DOUADI ET AL.

(a) (b)
12 Prediction

Average Bond Stress (MPa)

Average Bond Stress (MPa) 10 Prediction Test
Test
10
8
8
6
6

4
4

2 2

0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2

Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

(c) (d) 20
14 Prediction
Prediction
Test
Average Bond Stress (MPa)

Test

Average Bond Stress (MPa)

12
15
10

8
10
6

4
5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

Figure 8. Comparisons of bond-slip curve between test results and predicted results: (a) specimen
BE9  9, (b) specimen BE12  12, (c) specimen BC12  12, (d) specimen BD8  15.

It can be concluded from Figure 8 that the predicted curves agree with the test
curves of the specimens.

5.5. Effect of the concrete strength of concrete

Figure 9 shows a comparison of the results obtained in this research with the Meradas
et al. [19] results of a carbon fiber rod. Special focus was placed on analysing the effect
of the compressive strength of concrete on the bond strength of the NSM reinforcement
to the concrete. It is visible from Figure 8 that the pull-out force increases with the
increase of the compressive strength of the concrete. For a concrete strength greater than
30 MPa, the most commonly observed failure mode was bond failure at the bar–epoxy
interface. In this case the concrete strength has no effect on the failure mode. However,
for low-strength concretes with the compressive strength, the failure occurred in
the concrete.

6. Conclusion
In this study, the bond behaviour between concrete and NSM reinforcements using
epoxy adhesive was examined, and a mechanical and physical characterization of the
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 15

25

20

Maximum pull-out force (kN)

15

10

0
15.37 MPa 37.5 MPa 57 MPa 73.5 MPa
Result obtained l________ Merdas et al. results _________l
Concrete type
Figure 9. Effect of changing the type of concrete.

materials (reinforcements, concrete) was studied. The reinforcements were observed

using a scanning electron microscope, and the longitudinal and transversal sections of
the prestressing steel showed a solid surface when compared to the carbon rod. The
cross-section shows that the reinforcement consists of carbon fibers covered by an
epoxy resin matrix.
A total of eight beams were tested using beam-out tests under monotonic loading
until failure. The following conclusions can be drawn:

 The NSM reinforcement method using reinforcements such as a carbon rod

plate, or prestressing steel can be used with concrete with low mechanical
characteristics.
 According to the NSM technique, the use of prestressing steel as reinforcements
in concrete is valid. The reinforcements have good bond properties with concrete,
but have more drawbacks and less benefits than CFRP, such as being heavier.
 Increasing the groove size for specimens with epoxy adhesive and prestressed steel
did not have a significant influence on the mode of failure.
 The increase of the size of the groove induces an increase in the failure load.
 The carbon plates have a better performance in terms of failure load and rate use.
 The failure mode observed for all specimens is failure in the concrete. This may
be explained by the low strength of the concrete. Although the bond length used
is low, neither the interfacial reinforcing-resin failure, nor the interfacial resin-con-
crete failure is observed, which implies the good quality of the reinforcing materi-
als and the effectiveness of this NSM technique. It is recommended to carry out
the same work with longer bond lengths in order to stress the resin and the
reinforcement.
16 A. DOUADI ET AL.

 The adopted analytical models fit well with the experimental bond stress-slip rela-
tionship of prestressing steel and CFRP.
 When comparing the results obtained by Merdas et al. [19], it can be clearly seen
that the pull-out force increases with the increase in concrete strength.
 For concretes with a mechanical strength 15 MPa, the failure mode is controlled
by the shear resistance of the concrete. Unlike concrete with a mechanical strength
greater than 30 MPa, the failure mode is controlled by the interfacial shear
strength between the resin and the CFRP bar.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Pr Chabane Bousbaa, Pr Nourredine Bouaouadja and
Pr Taher Douadi for their assistance in helping us complete the research.
The writers would also like to thank, in no particular order, Granitex, Ouahiba Brazene,
Fatima Douadi, Mr Cherif Boulebchouche, TREFISOUD EL Eulma, and SOFICAR FranceV R

for their kind support involving the partial materials used in the study.

References
[1] Capozucca R. Damage to reinforced concrete due to reinforcement corrosion.
Construction Building Mater. 1995;9:295–303.
[2] Al-Mahmoud F, Castel A, François R, et al. Strengthening of RC members with near-
surface mounted CFRP rods. Composite Structures. 2009;91:138–147.
[3] Parretti R, Nanni A. Strengthening of RC members using near-surface mounted FRP
composites: design overview. Adv Struct Eng. 2004;7:469–483.
[4] Chen J, Teng J. Anchorage strength models for FRP and steel plates bonded to con-
crete. J Struct Eng. 2001;127:784–791.
[5] De Lorenzis L, Rizzo A, La Tegola A. A modified pull-out test for bond of near-surface
mounted FRP rods in concrete. Composites Part B Eng. 2002;33:589–603.
[6] Novidis D, Pantazopoulou S, Tentolouris E. Experimental study of bond of NSM-FRP
reinforcement. Construction Building Mater. 2007;21:1760–1770.
[7] Galati D, De Lorenzis L. Effect of construction details on the bond performance of
NSM FRP bars in concrete. Adv Struct Eng. 2009;12:683–700.
[8] Bilotta A, Ceroni F, Di Ludovico M, et al. Bond efficiency of EBR and NSM FRP sys-
tems for strengthening concrete members. J Compos Constr. 2011;15:757–772.
[9] Soliman SM, El-Salakawy E, Benmokrane B. Bond performance of near-surface-
mounted FRP bars. J Compos Constr. 2011;15:103–111.
[10] Lee D, Cheng L, Yan-Gee Hui J. Bond characteristics of various NSM FRP reinforce-
ments in concrete. J Compos Constr. 2013;17:117–129.
[11] Kalupahana W, Ibell T, Darby A. Bond characteristics of near surface mounted CFRP
bars. Construction Building Mater. 2013;43:58–68.
[12] Torres L, Sharaky IA, Barris C, et al. Experimental study of the influence of adhesive
properties and bond length on the bond behaviour of NSM FRP bars in concrete.
J Civil Eng Manag. 2016;22:808–817.
[13] Sharaky IA, Torres L, Baena M, et al. An experimental study of different factors affect-
ing the bond of NSM FRP bars in concrete. Composite Structures. 2013;99:350–365.
[14] Sharaky IA, Torres L, Baena M, et al. Effect of different material and construction
details on the bond behaviour of NSM FRP bars in concrete. Construction Building
Mater. 2013;38:890–902.
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 17

[15] Al-Saadi NTK, Al-Mahaidi R, Abdouka K. Bond behaviour between NSM CFRP strips
and concrete substrate using single-lap shear testing with cement-based adhesives.
Austr J Structural Eng. 2016;17:28–38.
[16] Khshain NT, Al-Mahaidi R, Abdouka K. Bond behaviour between NSM CFRP strips
and concrete substrate using single-lap shear testing with epoxy adhesive. Composite
Struct. 2015;132:205–214.
[17] Kotynia R, Szczech D, Kaszubska M. Bond behavior of GRFP bars to concrete in beam
test. Proc Eng. 2017;193:401–408.
[18] Merdas A, Fiorio B, Chikh N-E. Etude de lʼadherence des joncs et des plats composite
avec le beton par flexion (beam test) [Study of the adhesion of composite strips and
rods to concrete by bending (the beam test)]. Comptes Rendus Mecanique. French.
2011;339:796–804.
[19] Merdas A, Fiorio B, Chikh N-E. Aspects of bond behavior for concrete beam strength-
ened with carbon fibers reinforced polymers–near surface mounted. J Reinforced
Plastics Composites. 2015;34:463–478.
[20] Deux G, Festa J. Nouveau Guide du Beton et de ses Constituants [A new guide to con-
crete and its constituents]. Paris: Editions Eyrolles; 1998 (French).
[21] NF P18-560. Essai d’analyse granulometrique par tamisage [Particle size distribution by
sieving]; 1981. French.
[22] NF P18-406. Essai de compression [Compression test]; 1981. French.
[23] NF P18-408. Essai de traction [Tensile test]; 1981. French.
[24] EN 10002. Metallic materials-tensile testingpart1: method of test at ambient, 2001.
[25] NF P18-937. Produits et systemes pour la protection et la reparation des structures en
beton – Methodes d’essais – Determination de la resistance a la compression pour les
mortiers de reparation [Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete
structures. Test methods. Determination of compressive strength of repair mortar];
1998. French.
[26] NF P18-923. Produits et systemes pour la protection et la reparation des structures en
beton - Methodes d’essais – Mesurage de l’adherence par traction [Products and sys-
tems for the protection and repair of concrete structures – Test methods –
Measurement of direct traction adhesion]; 1999. French.
[27] RILEM. RILEM technical recommendations for the testing and use of construction
materials. Milton: Taylor & Francis; 1994.
[28] Xing G, Zhou C, Wu T, et al. Experimental study on bond behavior between plain rein-
forcing bars and concrete. Adv Mater Sci Eng. 2015;2015:604280–604289.