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
A B S T R A C T
The bond mechanism of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) rebar to concrete was studied. Five different types
of 12.7 and 12.0-mm rebar subjected to different surface
treatments were tested, and the bond mechanism was
compared with that of untreated FRP rods and ordinary
deformed steel.
High bond values were obtained for rods exhibiting a
stiff deformed surface, on which large deformations
were molded by resin, and for rods with a rough surface
whereby the roughness has resulted either from winding
a helical fiber together with embedded sand particles or
from using excess polymer. The bond values recorded
were equivalent to or larger than those of ordinary
deformed steel. Low bond strength was obtained both
for rods with a thick polymeric layer of low mechanical
properties and for rods with smooth surfaces.
Different pre-peak and post-peak behavior was
observed for the various rods when the entire set of P-s
(Pullout load vs. slip) curves were compared. Brittle
behavior was apparent wherever the external layer of the
rod exhibited large deformations formed in a stiff
matrix. Where the surface was rough, more ductile
behavior was detected. The wedging of particles into
the surface can alter the load-slip behavior, from one of
slip-weakening to one of slip-hardening.
1. INTRODUCTION
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) rods are being pro-
posed today as reinforcing bars (“rebars”) for concrete.
This type of rebar is designated to provide a solution to
the problem of corrosion of ordinary steel in reinforced
concrete which does not always exhibit good corrosion
resistance despite new protection techniques [1, 2]. FRP
rebars exhibit good mechanical properties as well as cor-
rosion resistance in the aggressive environment of the
concrete and in corrosive service conditions [3, 4].
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
TECHNICAL REPORTS
R É S U M É
Une étude a été menée sur le mécanisme de l’adhérence au béton
de barres nervurées en polymère renforcé par des fibres (PRF). Cinq
différents types de barres nervurées, de 12,7 mm et de 12,0 mm,
présentant différents traitements de surfaces, ont été testés. Le méca-
nisme de l’adhérence a été comparé au mécanisme de barres PRF
non-traitées et à celui de barres crénelées en acier ordinaire.
Des valeurs élevées d’adhérence ont été obtenues avec des barres
ayant une surface rigide déformée, où d’importantes crénelures ont
été formées par la résine, ou avec des barres ayant une surface
inégale, dont les aspérités avaient été obtenues par l’enroulement
d’une fibre hélicoïdale et l’enrobage de particules de sable ou encore
en utilisant un surplus de polymère. Les valeurs d’adhérence
étaient similaires ou supérieures à celles des barres crénelées en acier
ordinaire. Une adhérence inférieure a été obtenue avec une barre
couverte d’une couche épaisse de polymère ayant des qualités méca-
niques inférieures ou avec une barre à surface lisse.
En comparant les courbes de force d’extraction-glissement, un
comportement différent avant et après le sommet a été observé pour
les différentes barres. Un comportement fragile a été noté aux
endroits où la couche extérieure de la barre présentait d’importantes
crénelures, formées dans un polymère rigide. Aux endroits où la sur-
face était inégale, un comportement plus ductile a été observé. Le
clavetage des particules dans la surface est susceptible de modifier le
comportement de la force d’extraction-glissement d’un affaiblisse-
ment du glissement vers un durcissement de ce dernier.

FRP rods are generally manufactured by pultrusion
where the longitudinal fibers are drawn through a resin
bath and then pass through a die, which gives the rod its
f inal shape. Unless additional treatment is given, a
smooth surface is obtained on the rods, which prevents
good adhesion, or bonding, to the surrounding concrete
[5]. Thus additional means are usually needed to
improve the bond. Several methods have been developed
in order to improve the bond, mainly by application of
deformations on the surface by different techniques.
Benmokrane et al. [6] found that double wrapping of a
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
behavior during pullout obtained by analyz-
Deep dents
ing cur ves of pullout load, P, or bond
strength, τ, vs. slip of the rod, and the distri- Deformations by resin
bution of the bond along the rod [7, 8].
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
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
rebar to normal and high strength concrete (31 and 79
MPa) and found that bond failure is related to the prop-
erties of the rod’s external surface and not to the proper-
ties of the concrete. FRP reinforcement is different from
steel reinforcement as for the latter the failure of bond is
related mainly to concrete properties and not to the
properties of the steel rebar (for example linear relation
with the square root of concrete compressive strength as
suggested by ACI code 318).
The failure mechanisms of the bond to concrete of
FRP rods were studied in this work. Five types of com-
mercial rods, having different surface shapes and compo-
sitions, were investigated in order to obtain a better
understanding of the parameters affecting the bond and
pre-peak and post-peak behavior. This study was aimed
to serve as the basis for a comprehensive study on the
effect of high temperature [12] and cyclic loading [13] on
the bond properties of FRP rebars.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1. Materials
FRP rods: Five types of commercial rods were
tested. The properties of the rods are listed in Table 1.
X X X
X
X X
(excess (Molded)
resin)
R3 R4 R5 R6
Fig. 1 presents images of the rods. Several means were
used to improve the bond of the rods to concrete: sand
coating, helical wrapping, formation of deep dents in the
rod and formation of deformations on the surface (see
also Table 1). Helical wrapping was used in rods R1, R2
and R3. In R3 the wrapping was tight in order to form
deep dents in the rod. Sand was embedded in the surface
of rods R1 and R3. The sand particles used in R1 were
small (0.1-0.4 mm) compared with the sand used in R3
(0.5-1.0 mm). In rod R1 the sand was embedded in the
resin of the surface of the rod which is similar to the one
in the core. In R3 a thick layer (1.0-1.5 mm) of a differ-
ent resin was used in the surface to embed the send parti-
cles. This layer had a sticky touch and it appeared later by
DSC analysis [14] that polymerization of the polymer at
the surface has not been competed; in addition it partially
concealed the deep dents formed by the helix thus their
efficiency as a means to improve the bond was reduced.
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-
lar to the deformations of ordinary deformed steel, were
shaped on the surface of rod R4.
R5 was a smooth round FRP rod without any modi-
fication of its texture for improved bond. Rod R6 was
an ordinary deformed steel rebar used for concrete rein-
forcement, comply with ISO 6935-2.

762
Katz

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. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fig. 2 – Cross section along the specimen (a and b- specimens for
pullout).
Bond Breaker
Fig. 3 – Specimens ready for casting.
Concrete: Ordinary concrete was prepared with a
compressive strength of 32.4 MPa after curing in 20°C
water for 28 days. Concrete composition and properties
are listed in Table 2.
3.1. Bond strength
Bond strength (τ) was determined using equation 1
based on the maximum pullout load (Pmax), assuming a
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
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.
Pmax
τ= (1)
πdl
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
cement in this region. The gap was seen in both rod ori-
entations (horizontal and vertical casting), therefore it
could not be associated with the casting direction. As a
result, the rod-concrete bond in this type of rod was

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.

763
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 32, December 1999
Fig. 5 – Gap between rod Type R3 and the concrete.
weak and could depend only on the weak friction
between the sand particle protruding through the sepa-
ration layer into the concrete. The surface of rod R5 was
very smooth and devoid of any means to enhance the
bond. In addition, polymer composition at the surface
(polyester, with poor wetting properties) further reduced
the possibility of a bond to concrete, leading to the very
weak bond strength observed. Bond values of 1.0 MPa
and 0.75 MPa were also reported by Bank et al. [5] for
smooth polyester and vinyl-ester FRP rods, respectively.
A comparison between rods R1 and R4 shows that
under normal service conditions the bond strength is
somewhat higher than that of ordinary deformed steel
(13.7 and 14.6 MPa, respectively, vs. 12.1 MPa for the
steel). It appears that despite the substantial differences in
R1
R3
R5
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.
764
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
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
restricted to the concrete, and the rod did not suffer any
damage, as can be seen in Fig. 6. The spaces between the
deformations were filled with concrete fragments, while
no damage to the rod itself or its deformations was seen.
Examination of the concrete walls after pullout showed
no signs of the deformations (as was seen in the case of
rod R4, for example), which led to the conclusion that
the entire concrete layer surrounding the rod and its
deformations were removed during the pullout and that
the damage in the case of steel rod is solely located in the
concrete layer.
The whole external layer of rod R3 was sheared off
from the rod, as can be seen in Fig. 6, despite the
deformed core and the separating layer between the rod
and the concrete. It seems that a poor bond between the
R2
R4
R6
Katz

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.

765
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 32, December 1999
Fig. 10 – The parameters s/s0, P/P0 and A/A0 for the tested rods.
Fig. 11 – Models of post-peak P-s relationship according to Katz
et al. [15].
It seems that fine roughening of the surface of the
FRP rods, either by embedding sand particles or by an
excess of resin, together with helical wrapping, led to
improved ductility of the pullout while the load was
being maintained, as was seen with respect to rods R1
and R2. It is possible that the fine particles of the sand or
the fine polymer deformations together with the helical
wraps provided strong mechanical interlocking with the
surrounding concrete. Failure of the bond with these
rods was not sudden due to the many small anchoring
points distributed over the surface. The failure of these
points is probably progressive, resulting in the pseudo-
ductile manner of pre-peak behavior.
The better slip behavior of rod R3 is probably a result
of the thick polymeric layer on the surface of the rod,
which is also of low mechanical properties. This thick
layer allows additional plastic slip, s/s0, before failure as
compared with the behavior of rods R1 and R2
described before which had a thin and stiff external layer.
The overall effect is of a large A/A0 value, indicating
plastic behavior prior to failure.
Large deformations, made of a stiff polymer probably
produced the stiffer behavior observed in rods Type R4.
The load increases linearly almost up to the peak load.
The non-linear portion of the ascending curve is associ-
ated with progressive damage, such as the development
766
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
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
behavior.
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
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
of cement crumbs between the fiber and the matrix.
These crumbs are stiffer than the f iber and act as
anchors, which improve the bond as the pullout length
increases. In the case of FRP rods the pullout mecha-
nism is somewhat more complicated as a result of the
special means used to enhance the bond of the rebars to
concrete as will be discussed in the followings.
Fig. 12 presents the curves of pullout load vs. free end
slip of the various types of rods on a normalized scale, rela-
tive to the maximum pullout load. The reader should not
confuse the actual pullout loads with the normalized ones,
as only the mode of failure is discussed here and not the
absolute values. Three modes of post-peak behavior were
identified: (I) Preserving the maximum load for additional
slip of 5-10 mm followed by a rapid drop in the load there-
after (see Fig. 12a). The load-bearing becomes insignifi-
cant after a pullout slip of 20-30 mm (out of 60 mm
embedment length). (II) Rapid drop in the load after it
attained the maximum (Fig. 12b). The drop in the load is
either sharp, followed by a linear decrease in load to com-
plete pullout (see rods type R4a and R6) or rather moder-
ate to negligible values after a relatively short slip of 10-15
mm. (III) Non-uniform decrease in the load, with local
zones of increased load (Fig. 12c).
Mode I represents a combined rod-matrix damage,
which is typical to cases of using polymers of good
Katz
Fig. 12 – Normalized Pullout load vs. slip curves of the tested rods.
mechanical properties on the surface of the rod, with
additional fine mechanical means to enhance the bond,
such as sand particles embedded in the resin, helical
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
maximum load for additional pullout length. It appears
that the stiff sand particles in rod R1 contributed more
effectively to preserve the maximum load than the poly-
meric roughness of rod R2. However, this layer was
destroyed more rapidly when further slip of the rod
occurred, exhibiting a more rapid drop in the load at a
relatively short additional slip (Fig. 12a).
The mechanism of failure in mode II represents vari-
ous types of brittle and rapid destruction of the bond,
either in the rod or in the concrete. For rods of type R3,
a complete separation of the outer layer of polymer was
seen after complete pullout, as can be seen in Fig. 6.
Shear stress, during slippage, led to delamination and to
rapid post-peak failure. As the external polymeric layer
767
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
rod is smooth and the bond is maintained mainly
through the entrapment of concrete crumbs between the
surface of the rod and the surrounding concrete. This
can be identified by the increased pullout load in the
descending part of the curve in Fig. 12c.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The mechanical and physical properties of the exter-
nal layer of FRP rods have an important effect on the
bond of these rods to concrete. In the cases in which the
external layer of the rod was made of a polymer having
good mechanical properties, good bonding to the con-
crete was obtained (12.2-13.8 MPa) for various tech-
niques of bond improvement. When the mechanism of
bond improvement was based on fine roughness of the
surface together with helical wrapping, the maximum
load was maintained during additional slip before the
reduction in the pullout loads began. The reduction of
load after its peak was relatively moderate. When large
deformations were molded on the surface, a more
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 32, December 1999
closely brittle failure was identified.
When the external layer of the rod was thick and was
made of a different polymer with low mechanical prop-
erties, small values of bond were obtained (4.0 MPa).
This layer sheared off at relatively small loads, thus the
use of other means to improve the bond, such as embed-
ment of sand particles over the surface or creation of
large deformations by tight wrapping of a helical fiber
around the core, were not effective.
Unlike in the polymeric rods where either the rod or
both the rod and the surrounding concrete were dam-
aged, the damage in the pullout of deformed steel was
located solely in the surrounding concrete. As a result
fair bond strength could be achieved, accompanied by a
sudden drop in loads after the peak load has been
obtained when the concrete failed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank the Hughes Brothers,
Creative Pultrusion Inc., International Grating Inc.,
Marshal Industries Composites Inc. and Pasgon Ltd. for
providing the FRP rods for this study.
REFERENCES
[1] Rasheeduzzafar, A., Dakhil, F., Bada, M. and Khan, M.,
‘Performance of corrosion-resistance steel in chloride-bearing
concrete’, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Materials Journal 89 (5)
(1992) 439-448.
[2] Clear, K. C., ‘Effectiveness of epoxy-coated reinforcing steel’,
Concrete International 14 (5) (1992) 58-64.
[3] Uomoto, T. and Ohga, H., ‘Performance of Fiber Reinforced
Plastics for Construction Reinforcement’, Proceedings of
768
Advanced Composites Materials in Bridges and Structures, M.
M. El-Bardy Editor, The Canadian Society for Civil Engineers,
1996, 125-132.
[4] Nanni, A., Okamoto, T., Tanigaki, M. and Osakada, S., ‘Tensile
properties of braided FRP rods for concrete reinforcement’,
Cement & Concrete Composites 15 (3) (1993) 121-129.
[5] Bank, L. C., Puterman, M. and Katz, A., ‘The effect of material
degradation on bond properties of FRP reinforcing bars in con-
crete’, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Materials Journal 95 (3)
(1998) 232-243.
[6] Benmokrane, B., Tighiouart, B. and Chaallal, O., ‘Bond strength
and load distribution of composite GFRP reinforcing bars in
concrete’, Ibid. 93 (3) (1996) 246-253.
[7] Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G. and Realfonzo, R., ‘Behavior and
modeling of bond of FRP rebars to concrete’, Journal of
Composites for Construction, 1 (2) (1997) 40-51.
[8] Nanni, A., Al-Zaharani, M. M., Al-Dulaijan, S. U., Bakis, C. E.
and Boothby, T. E., ‘Bond of FRP Reinforcement to Concrete-
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
(1993) 167-175.
[10] Al-Zaharani M. M., ‘Bond Behavior of Fiber Reinforced
Plastics (FRP) Reinforcement with Concrete’, Ph.D. Thesis,
Pennsylvania State University, 1995.
[11] Tepfer, R. and Karlsson, M., ‘Pullout and Tensile
Reinforcement Splice Tests Using FRP C-Bar’, Proceedings of
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-
ture on the bond strength of FRP rebars’, Journal of Composites in
Construction 3 (2) (1999) 73-81.
[13] Katz, A., ‘Bond to concrete of FRP rebars after cyclic loading’,
Accepted for publication in Composites for Construction, 1999.
[14] Katz, A. and Berman N., ‘Modeling the effect of high tempera-
ture on the bond of FRP rebars to concrete’, Submitted for pub-
lication in Cement and Concrete Composites, 1998.
[15] Katz, A., Li, V.C. and Kazmer A., ‘Bond properties of carbon
fiber in cementitious matrix’, ASCE J. of Materials in Civil
Engineering 7 (2) (1995) 125-128.