Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol.

32, December 1999, pp 761-768

Bond mechanism of FRP rebars to concrete

A. Katz
National Building Research Institute, Department of Civil Engineering, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel

Paper received: March 8, 1999; Paper accepted: May 26, 1999


The bond mechanism of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Une étude a été menée sur le mécanisme de l’adhérence au béton
(FRP) rebar to concrete was studied. Five different types de barres nervurées en polymère renforcé par des fibres (PRF). Cinq
of 12.7 and 12.0-mm rebar subjected to different surface différents types de barres nervurées, de 12,7 mm et de 12,0 mm,
treatments were tested, and the bond mechanism was présentant différents traitements de surfaces, ont été testés. Le méca-
compared with that of untreated FRP rods and ordinary nisme de l’adhérence a été comparé au mécanisme de barres PRF
deformed steel. non-traitées et à celui de barres crénelées en acier ordinaire.
High bond values were obtained for rods exhibiting a Des valeurs élevées d’adhérence ont été obtenues avec des barres
stiff deformed surface, on which large deformations ayant une surface rigide déformée, où d’importantes crénelures ont
were molded by resin, and for rods with a rough surface été formées par la résine, ou avec des barres ayant une surface
whereby the roughness has resulted either from winding inégale, dont les aspérités avaient été obtenues par l’enroulement
a helical fiber together with embedded sand particles or d’une fibre hélicoïdale et l’enrobage de particules de sable ou encore
from using excess polymer. The bond values recorded en utilisant un surplus de polymère. Les valeurs d’adhérence
were equivalent to or larger than those of ordinary étaient similaires ou supérieures à celles des barres crénelées en acier
deformed steel. Low bond strength was obtained both ordinaire. Une adhérence inférieure a été obtenue avec une barre
for rods with a thick polymeric layer of low mechanical couverte d’une couche épaisse de polymère ayant des qualités méca-
properties and for rods with smooth surfaces. niques inférieures ou avec une barre à surface lisse.
Different pre-peak and post-peak behavior was En comparant les courbes de force d’extraction-glissement, un
observed for the various rods when the entire set of P-s comportement différent avant et après le sommet a été observé pour
(Pullout load vs. slip) curves were compared. Brittle les différentes barres. Un comportement fragile a été noté aux
behavior was apparent wherever the external layer of the endroits où la couche extérieure de la barre présentait d’importantes
rod exhibited large deformations formed in a stiff crénelures, formées dans un polymère rigide. Aux endroits où la sur-
matrix. Where the surface was rough, more ductile face était inégale, un comportement plus ductile a été observé. Le
behavior was detected. The wedging of particles into clavetage des particules dans la surface est susceptible de modifier le
the surface can alter the load-slip behavior, from one of comportement de la force d’extraction-glissement d’un affaiblisse-
slip-weakening to one of slip-hardening. ment du glissement vers un durcissement de ce dernier.

1. INTRODUCTION FRP rods are generally manufactured by pultrusion
where the longitudinal fibers are drawn through a resin
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) rods are being pro- bath and then pass through a die, which gives the rod its
posed today as reinforcing bars (“rebars”) for concrete. f inal shape. Unless additional treatment is given, a
This type of rebar is designated to provide a solution to smooth surface is obtained on the rods, which prevents
the problem of corrosion of ordinary steel in reinforced good adhesion, or bonding, to the surrounding concrete
concrete which does not always exhibit good corrosion [5]. Thus additional means are usually needed to
resistance despite new protection techniques [1, 2]. FRP improve the bond. Several methods have been developed
rebars exhibit good mechanical properties as well as cor- in order to improve the bond, mainly by application of
rosion resistance in the aggressive environment of the deformations on the surface by different techniques.
concrete and in corrosive service conditions [3, 4]. Benmokrane et al. [6] found that double wrapping of a

Editorial Note
Dr. A. Katz is a RILEM Senior Member. He works at the National Building Research Institute, a RILEM Titular Member.

1359-5997/99 © RILEM 761

Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 32, December 1999

helical f iber around the rod produces Table 1 – Properties of the FRP rods used in the study
deformations which significantly improve Rod type R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
the bond but the bond value obtained was
somewhat lower than that obtained with Nominal diameter 12.7 mm 12.7 mm 12.7 mm 12.7 mm 12.0 mm
ordinary deformed steel. Other means, Resin Vinylester Vinylester Polyester Vinylester Polyester
such as machining of rods, embedding sand Weight fraction of
particles on the surface, and roughening by longitudinal fibersa 68% 68% 54% 66% 71%
sand blasting have all been tested and are Tensile strength (MPa) 740 b b
covered in a review by Cosenza et al. [7]. ~700 ~700 770 ~1250
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 53.5 b b
A considerable amount of data has lately ~40 ~40 42 52
been obtained on the bond of FRP rods to Sand coating X X

Means to improve bond

concrete such as bond values, complete slip Helical wrapping X X X
behavior during pullout obtained by analyz-
Deep dents X
ing cur ves of pullout load, P, or bond
strength, τ, vs. slip of the rod, and the distri- Deformations by resin X X
bution of the bond along the rod [7, 8]. (excess (Molded)
However, despite this wealth of information,
the mechanisms of bond and bond failure a - Determined according to ASTM D2584. Total weight includes the polymer at the surface.
have not been studied in details. These b - Estimation only, manufacturer’s data were not available.
mechanisms are differ-
ent for different surface R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
treatments of the rods
and influence the values
of bond strength and
the pre-peak and post-
peak behavior during
pullout of the rods.
Concrete strength,
on the other hand, was
found to have no effect
on the bond strength
of FRP rebar to con- Fig. 1 – Images of the tested rods.
crete [9-11]. Challal
and Benmokrane [9] tested the bond strength of FRP Fig. 1 presents images of the rods. Several means were
rebar to normal and high strength concrete (31 and 79 used to improve the bond of the rods to concrete: sand
MPa) and found that bond failure is related to the prop- coating, helical wrapping, formation of deep dents in the
erties of the rod’s external surface and not to the proper- rod and formation of deformations on the surface (see
ties of the concrete. FRP reinforcement is different from also Table 1). Helical wrapping was used in rods R1, R2
steel reinforcement as for the latter the failure of bond is and R3. In R3 the wrapping was tight in order to form
related mainly to concrete properties and not to the deep dents in the rod. Sand was embedded in the surface
properties of the steel rebar (for example linear relation of rods R1 and R3. The sand particles used in R1 were
with the square root of concrete compressive strength as small (0.1-0.4 mm) compared with the sand used in R3
suggested by ACI code 318). (0.5-1.0 mm). In rod R1 the sand was embedded in the
The failure mechanisms of the bond to concrete of resin of the surface of the rod which is similar to the one
FRP rods were studied in this work. Five types of com- in the core. In R3 a thick layer (1.0-1.5 mm) of a differ-
mercial rods, having different surface shapes and compo- ent resin was used in the surface to embed the send parti-
sitions, were investigated in order to obtain a better cles. This layer had a sticky touch and it appeared later by
understanding of the parameters affecting the bond and DSC analysis [14] that polymerization of the polymer at
pre-peak and post-peak behavior. This study was aimed the surface has not been competed; in addition it partially
to serve as the basis for a comprehensive study on the concealed the deep dents formed by the helix thus their
effect of high temperature [12] and cyclic loading [13] on efficiency as a means to improve the bond was reduced.
the bond properties of FRP rebars. Roughening of the surface of rod R2 was achieved
by using excess of resin which formed irregular deforma-
tions of approximately 0.5-1.0 mm. Deformations, simi-
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM lar to the deformations of ordinary deformed steel, were
shaped on the surface of rod R4.
2.1. Materials R5 was a smooth round FRP rod without any modi-
fication of its texture for improved bond. Rod R6 was
FRP rods: Five types of commercial rods were an ordinary deformed steel rebar used for concrete rein-
tested. The properties of the rods are listed in Table 1. forcement, comply with ISO 6935-2.


Table 2 – Concrete composition and properties specimen. Each sample had an embedment length of
Water (w) 200 kg/m3
60 mm following a zone of a bond breaker of 60 mm (see
Fig. 3). This setup is a modification of the one described
Cement (c) 330 kg/m3 in Bank et al. [5], overcoming the problems of concrete
Coarse aggregate, 9.5-19 mm 645 kg/m3 splitting during pullout described in the cited work.
Mid size aggregate, 4.75 mm 322 kg/m3 Additional specimens were prepared vertically. In this
case the rods were embedded vertically at the bottom of a
Sand (fineness modulus: 1.6) 853 kg/m3
150 mm diameter concrete cylinder. The embedment
Slump 130 mm length was again 60 mm after a bond breaker of 60 mm.
w/c ratio 0.6 The pullout behavior of these samples (bond strength, P-s
28 day compressive strength 32.4 MPa
behavior and type of damage) was similar to that of the
horizontal setup; thus only the results obtained with the
horizontal setup will be discussed in the following.


3.1. Bond strength
Bond strength (τ) was determined using equation 1
Fig. 2 – Cross section along the specimen (a and b- specimens for based on the maximum pullout load (Pmax), assuming a
pullout). uniform bond stress distribution along the embedded
length in concrete (l ). The bond strength was calculated
using the nominal rod diameter (d ), though for some of
Bond Breaker the rods the actual diameter was somewhat larger than
the nominal one (mainly in R3, where the actual diame-
ter was larger by approximately 3 mm than the nominal
one). The results are summarized in Fig. 4.
τ= (1)
The bond strengths of the rods were quite similar
(12-14 MPa) except those of rods R3 and R5 (see Fig. 4).
A gap of approximately 0.5-1.0 mm wide was clearly
seen between rod R3 and the concrete (see Fig. 5). This
gap was probably the result of dissolution of some of the
polymer at the surface, which prevented hydration of the
Fig. 3 – Specimens ready for casting.
cement in this region. The gap was seen in both rod ori-
entations (horizontal and vertical casting), therefore it
Concrete: Ordinary concrete was prepared with a could not be associated with the casting direction. As a
compressive strength of 32.4 MPa after curing in 20°C result, the rod-concrete bond in this type of rod was
water for 28 days. Concrete composition and properties
are listed in Table 2.

2.2. Specimen description

Specimens consisted of a 1.00 m long rod horizon-
tally embedded in a concrete block of dimensions
150 × 150 × 420 mm, as can be seen in Fig. 2. Bond
breaker left on the rods on the last 60 mm of embed-
ment where they protrude from the concrete block, in
order to minimize stress concentration near the bound-
aries, according to RILEM/FIP recommendation RC6.
Fig. 3 presents the rods in the molds, ready for casting.
One day after casting specimens were demolded and
placed in water at 20°C until the age of 90 days.
After aging the specimens were sectioned at a distance
of 120 mm from either end, as can be seen in Fig. 2. This
way two samples for pullout were obtained from each Fig. 4 – Bond strengths obtained with the tested rods.

Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 32, December 1999

the bonding mechanisms of rods R1 and R4 (winding a

helical f iber and sand coating versus deformations
molded in the resin) the bond strengths were quite simi-
lar. Moreover, rod R2, with only helical wrapping and a
rough surface formed by excess of polymer, exhibited a
good bond to the concrete (12.2 MPa) which was similar
to that of steel rebar.

3.2. Damage to the rod and concrete

Close examination of the rods’ surfaces (see Fig. 6)
showed moderate damage to the surface of rods R1 and
R2 after pullout; the damage was local and did not
extend to wide areas of the surface. In some areas over
the surface the polymer was either removed together
with the sand particles (R1) or it was abraded seriously
with concrete particles still adhering to these areas (R2).
However, clean and undamaged zones were also seen in
some parts of the surface. Examination of the walls of
Fig. 5 – Gap between rod Type R3 and the concrete. the cavity left in the concrete after pullout showed either
mild damage to the concrete or none.
When steel rod, R6, was pulled out the damage was
weak and could depend only on the weak friction restricted to the concrete, and the rod did not suffer any
between the sand particle protruding through the sepa- damage, as can be seen in Fig. 6. The spaces between the
ration layer into the concrete. The surface of rod R5 was deformations were filled with concrete fragments, while
very smooth and devoid of any means to enhance the no damage to the rod itself or its deformations was seen.
bond. In addition, polymer composition at the surface Examination of the concrete walls after pullout showed
(polyester, with poor wetting properties) further reduced no signs of the deformations (as was seen in the case of
the possibility of a bond to concrete, leading to the very rod R4, for example), which led to the conclusion that
weak bond strength observed. Bond values of 1.0 MPa the entire concrete layer surrounding the rod and its
and 0.75 MPa were also reported by Bank et al. [5] for deformations were removed during the pullout and that
smooth polyester and vinyl-ester FRP rods, respectively. the damage in the case of steel rod is solely located in the
A comparison between rods R1 and R4 shows that concrete layer.
under normal service conditions the bond strength is The whole external layer of rod R3 was sheared off
somewhat higher than that of ordinary deformed steel from the rod, as can be seen in Fig. 6, despite the
(13.7 and 14.6 MPa, respectively, vs. 12.1 MPa for the deformed core and the separating layer between the rod
steel). It appears that despite the substantial differences in and the concrete. It seems that a poor bond between the

R1 R2

R3 R4

R5 R6

Fig. 6 – Damage to the rods after pullout. R1 and R2 - moderate abrasion, R3 - removal of the external layer, R4 -
shear of the deformations, R5 - no abrasion/shear only local peeling, R6 - shear of concrete between the deformations.


external layer of polymer and the core of the rod was the
main reason for the bond failure of these rods, due to the
low quality of this layer as described before.
Shearing of the deformations on the surface of rod R4
was the main reason for failure, as can be seen in Fig. 6.
The surface of the rod between the deformations
remained smooth and almost untouched, and it seems that
there was no close contact between this part of the rod
and the surrounding concrete. It should be noted that the
polymer at the surface of rod R4 is extremely smooth and
water repellent thus intimate contact between the rod and
concrete could not be expected, and the bond relies
mainly on the mechanical anchoring of the deformations.
The broken deformations could be seen in the concrete
after the pullout, as seen in Fig. 7.
As to rod R5, no roughness of whatever degree (sand
particles, deformation, helix, etc.) could add mechanical
anchorage, and indeed very low bond strength was
observed in this type as was discussed before. Areas of
local peeling could be seen on the surface of rod type
R5, as shown in Fig. 8. It seems that the main contribu-
tion to the bond of the rods came from the entrapment
of small concrete particles between the surface of the rod
and the surrounding concrete, leading to a wedging Fig. 7 – Residues of deformations from rod R4 in the concrete
effect. These findings are similar to the ones reported by after pullout.
Bank et al. [5] for smooth rods.

3.3. Pullout load-slip behavior.

A typical P-s curve is presented in Fig. 9. A linear
relationship between the load and the slip is identified in
the pre-peak zone, testifying to an elastic relationship. At
a certain point the curve def lects from linearity with
additional slip and load, until maximum load is obtained.
After reaching the maximum load, a reduction begins.
The different aspects of the pre-peak and post-peak
zones will be discussed in the following.
Pre-peak behavior: Three aspects were studied in the
investigation of the pre-peak behavior: s/s0, P/P0 and
Fig. 8 – Local peelings on the surface of rod R5 after pullout.
A/A0, where s/s0 is the ratio of the slip at the maximum
load relative to the elastic slip; P/P0 is the ratio of the
peak load to the maximum linear load; and A/A0 is the
ratio between the area under the load-slip curve to peak
load and the area to the maximum linear load. These
values have an important effect on the failure mode of
the loaded reinforced concrete members indicating
whether large deformation is expected before failure,
whether additional load bearing may be expected or
whether a large amount of energy is likely to be con-
sumed by the slip beyond the linear zone. Fig. 10 pre-
sents these parameters for the tested rods. Rod Type R5
is not shown in the figure, as its particular mode of fail-
ure did not allow such analysis.
Extra slippage beyond the linear P-s relationship (s/s0)
was seen for most of the rods, apart from rod type R4.
The s/s0 values were approximately 1.6 for rods R1, R2
and R6, 1.9 for rod R3 and only 1.2 for R4. The
increase in the pullout load, P/P0, was smaller, approxi-
mately 1.2 for all the types of rods. Fig. 9 – Typical P-s curve of rod type R2.

Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 32, December 1999

of micro-cracks in the concrete or cumulative damage to

the anchoring points on the surface of the rod. However,
in this case it seems that no damage occurred almost
until the peak load was reached. This behavior is drasti-
cally different from the one exhibited by the steel rod
despite the similarity in the external shape of these rods.
The failure of the steel rod, R6, is associated only with
the failure of the surrounding concrete, as discussed
before, where micro-cracks are known to develop exten-
sively in the concrete before failure. Failure of the stiff
deformations of rod R4 is relatively brittle, thus no pro-
gressive failure while maintaining the load could be seen.
It seems that the geometry of the deformation has a
strong influence on the pre-peak behavior of the rods. In
the cases were the deformations are large (rod R4) they
shear off without exhibiting pre-peak ductility. In the
Fig. 10 – The parameters s/s0, P/P0 and A/A0 for the tested rods.
case of relatively small and fine deformations, the dam-
age involves rod and concrete in combination, leading to
a progressive and more closely pseudo-ductile pre-peak
Post-peak behavior: Assuming uniform bond stress
distribution along the rod, a linear reduction in the pull-
out load is expected after maximum, as the embedded
length is shortening (see line a in Fig. 11). Katz et al. [15]
presented a model of slip-weakening and slip-hardening
during pullout of fibers from a cement matrix. In the
case of slip-weakening (line b in Fig. 11) a significant
reduction in the load is seen in the curve of pullout load
vs. free-end-slip, after the maximum load. The reduc-
tion is explained by progressive damage to the surround-
ing matrix caused by a stiff fiber. This case is similar to
Fig. 11 – Models of post-peak P-s relationship according to Katz
et al. [15].
the pullout behavior of a steel rod. The phenomenon of
slip-hardening (see line c in Fig. 11) is typical to pullout
of polymeric fibers and is explained by the entrapment
It seems that fine roughening of the surface of the of cement crumbs between the fiber and the matrix.
FRP rods, either by embedding sand particles or by an These crumbs are stiffer than the f iber and act as
excess of resin, together with helical wrapping, led to anchors, which improve the bond as the pullout length
improved ductility of the pullout while the load was increases. In the case of FRP rods the pullout mecha-
being maintained, as was seen with respect to rods R1 nism is somewhat more complicated as a result of the
and R2. It is possible that the fine particles of the sand or special means used to enhance the bond of the rebars to
the fine polymer deformations together with the helical concrete as will be discussed in the followings.
wraps provided strong mechanical interlocking with the Fig. 12 presents the curves of pullout load vs. free end
surrounding concrete. Failure of the bond with these slip of the various types of rods on a normalized scale, rela-
rods was not sudden due to the many small anchoring tive to the maximum pullout load. The reader should not
points distributed over the surface. The failure of these confuse the actual pullout loads with the normalized ones,
points is probably progressive, resulting in the pseudo- as only the mode of failure is discussed here and not the
ductile manner of pre-peak behavior. absolute values. Three modes of post-peak behavior were
The better slip behavior of rod R3 is probably a result identified: (I) Preserving the maximum load for additional
of the thick polymeric layer on the surface of the rod, slip of 5-10 mm followed by a rapid drop in the load there-
which is also of low mechanical properties. This thick after (see Fig. 12a). The load-bearing becomes insignifi-
layer allows additional plastic slip, s/s0, before failure as cant after a pullout slip of 20-30 mm (out of 60 mm
compared with the behavior of rods R1 and R2 embedment length). (II) Rapid drop in the load after it
described before which had a thin and stiff external layer. attained the maximum (Fig. 12b). The drop in the load is
The overall effect is of a large A/A0 value, indicating either sharp, followed by a linear decrease in load to com-
plastic behavior prior to failure. plete pullout (see rods type R4a and R6) or rather moder-
Large deformations, made of a stiff polymer probably ate to negligible values after a relatively short slip of 10-15
produced the stiffer behavior observed in rods Type R4. mm. (III) Non-uniform decrease in the load, with local
The load increases linearly almost up to the peak load. zones of increased load (Fig. 12c).
The non-linear portion of the ascending curve is associ- Mode I represents a combined rod-matrix damage,
ated with progressive damage, such as the development which is typical to cases of using polymers of good


sheared in the interface with the core, the sand particles

embedded in this layer could not provide post-peak
resistance, as was seen in rod R1, discussed before.
A rapid drop in the load seen in Mode II was also
observed for some of the polymeric rods of Type R4 and
for the steel rods R6 (Fig. 12b); but it is clear that the
mechanism of failure was different. For the polymeric
rod R4, shear of the large deformations on the surface
led to a rapid drop in the bond strength, which was sup-
ported only by the anchoring capacity of the deforma-
tions. After the deformations were sheared, the residual
bond was supported only by some friction between the
concrete and the remaining smooth surface of the rod.
Thus a sudden drop in the loads was seen at the onset of
failure of the deformations.
The stiff steel deformations in rods Type R6 led to
the destruction of the surrounding concrete during pull-
out. Thus brittle failure of the concrete led to the sud-
den drop of load after the peak pullout load.
Failure Mode III is characterized by an uneven post-
peak behavior (Fig. 12c). The pullout load first reduces
and then increases during slippage of the rod, exhibiting
slip-hardening behavior. Some of the rods Type R4
exhibited failure mechanism of Mode III in addition to
failure in mode II discussed above (see rod Type 4b in
Fig. 12). It seems that the post peak behavior of this rod
depends strongly on the orientation of the plane of
destruction of the deformations. When the plane was
perfectly parallel to the rod’s axis the drop of load was
rapid, as characterized in Mode II. However, when this
plan was somewhat inclined to the rod’s axis, a wedging
effect was obtained, which provided extra friction that
prevented the rapid drop in loads. More abrasion could
be seen on the surface of these rods, relative to the clean
surface seen in Fig. 6. It should be noted that in most
cases the failure of rods R4 was in Mode II.
The pullout behavior of rods Type R5 is character-
ized as Mode III. As discussed before, the surface of the
Fig. 12 – Normalized Pullout load vs. slip curves of the tested rods.
rod is smooth and the bond is maintained mainly
through the entrapment of concrete crumbs between the
mechanical properties on the surface of the rod, with surface of the rod and the surrounding concrete. This
additional fine mechanical means to enhance the bond, can be identified by the increased pullout load in the
such as sand particles embedded in the resin, helical descending part of the curve in Fig. 12c.
wrapping with additional f iber, excess polymer, etc.
(typical of rods R1 and R2). The fine roughness and
helical wrapping contribute to the sustainment of the 4. CONCLUSIONS
maximum load for additional pullout length. It appears
that the stiff sand particles in rod R1 contributed more The mechanical and physical properties of the exter-
effectively to preserve the maximum load than the poly- nal layer of FRP rods have an important effect on the
meric roughness of rod R2. However, this layer was bond of these rods to concrete. In the cases in which the
destroyed more rapidly when further slip of the rod external layer of the rod was made of a polymer having
occurred, exhibiting a more rapid drop in the load at a good mechanical properties, good bonding to the con-
relatively short additional slip (Fig. 12a). crete was obtained (12.2-13.8 MPa) for various tech-
The mechanism of failure in mode II represents vari- niques of bond improvement. When the mechanism of
ous types of brittle and rapid destruction of the bond, bond improvement was based on fine roughness of the
either in the rod or in the concrete. For rods of type R3, surface together with helical wrapping, the maximum
a complete separation of the outer layer of polymer was load was maintained during additional slip before the
seen after complete pullout, as can be seen in Fig. 6. reduction in the pullout loads began. The reduction of
Shear stress, during slippage, led to delamination and to load after its peak was relatively moderate. When large
rapid post-peak failure. As the external polymeric layer deformations were molded on the surface, a more

Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 32, December 1999

closely brittle failure was identified. Advanced Composites Materials in Bridges and Structures, M.
When the external layer of the rod was thick and was M. El-Bardy Editor, The Canadian Society for Civil Engineers,
1996, 125-132.
made of a different polymer with low mechanical prop- [4] Nanni, A., Okamoto, T., Tanigaki, M. and Osakada, S., ‘Tensile
erties, small values of bond were obtained (4.0 MPa). properties of braided FRP rods for concrete reinforcement’,
This layer sheared off at relatively small loads, thus the Cement & Concrete Composites 15 (3) (1993) 121-129.
use of other means to improve the bond, such as embed- [5] Bank, L. C., Puterman, M. and Katz, A., ‘The effect of material
ment of sand particles over the surface or creation of degradation on bond properties of FRP reinforcing bars in con-
crete’, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Materials Journal 95 (3)
large deformations by tight wrapping of a helical fiber (1998) 232-243.
around the core, were not effective. [6] Benmokrane, B., Tighiouart, B. and Chaallal, O., ‘Bond strength
Unlike in the polymeric rods where either the rod or and load distribution of composite GFRP reinforcing bars in
both the rod and the surrounding concrete were dam- concrete’, Ibid. 93 (3) (1996) 246-253.
aged, the damage in the pullout of deformed steel was [7] Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G. and Realfonzo, R., ‘Behavior and
modeling of bond of FRP rebars to concrete’, Journal of
located solely in the surrounding concrete. As a result Composites for Construction, 1 (2) (1997) 40-51.
fair bond strength could be achieved, accompanied by a [8] Nanni, A., Al-Zaharani, M. M., Al-Dulaijan, S. U., Bakis, C. E.
sudden drop in loads after the peak load has been and Boothby, T. E., ‘Bond of FRP Reinforcement to Concrete-
obtained when the concrete failed. Experimental Results’, Proceedings, 2nd Int. RILEM
Symposium, FRPRCS-2, Taerwe, L. Editor, 1995, pp. 135-145.
[9] Chaallal and Benmokrane, ‘Pullout and bond of glass-fiber rods
embedded in concrete and cement grout”, Mater. Struct. 26
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (1993) 167-175.
[10] Al-Zaharani M. M., ‘Bond Behavior of Fiber Reinforced
The author wishes to thank the Hughes Brothers, Plastics (FRP) Reinforcement with Concrete’, Ph.D. Thesis,
Creative Pultrusion Inc., International Grating Inc., Pennsylvania State University, 1995.
[11] Tepfer, R. and Karlsson, M., ‘Pullout and Tensile
Marshal Industries Composites Inc. and Pasgon Ltd. for Reinforcement Splice Tests Using FRP C-Bar’, Proceedings of
providing the FRP rods for this study. the Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP)
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Japan Concrete
Institute, Vol. 2, 1997, 357-364.
[12] Katz, A., Berman N. and Bank, L. C., ‘Effect of high tempera-
REFERENCES ture on the bond strength of FRP rebars’, Journal of Composites in
Construction 3 (2) (1999) 73-81.
[1] Rasheeduzzafar, A., Dakhil, F., Bada, M. and Khan, M., [13] Katz, A., ‘Bond to concrete of FRP rebars after cyclic loading’,
‘Performance of corrosion-resistance steel in chloride-bearing Accepted for publication in Composites for Construction, 1999.
concrete’, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Materials Journal 89 (5) [14] Katz, A. and Berman N., ‘Modeling the effect of high tempera-
(1992) 439-448. ture on the bond of FRP rebars to concrete’, Submitted for pub-
[2] Clear, K. C., ‘Effectiveness of epoxy-coated reinforcing steel’, lication in Cement and Concrete Composites, 1998.
Concrete International 14 (5) (1992) 58-64. [15] Katz, A., Li, V.C. and Kazmer A., ‘Bond properties of carbon
[3] Uomoto, T. and Ohga, H., ‘Performance of Fiber Reinforced fiber in cementitious matrix’, ASCE J. of Materials in Civil
Plastics for Construction Reinforcement’, Proceedings of Engineering 7 (2) (1995) 125-128.


Vous aimerez peut-être aussi