Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 479485

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Bond between carbon bre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars and ultra high
performance bre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): Experimental study
Sayed Ahmad Firas, Foret Gilles *, Le Roy Robert
Universit Paris-Est, UR Navier, Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, 6&8 Av. Blaise Pascal, Champs sur Marne, 77455 Marne-la-Valle Cedex 2, France

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 8 July 2009
Received in revised form 17 December 2009
Accepted 2 February 2010
Available online 5 March 2010
Keywords:
CFRP bars
UHPFRC
Bond
Pullout test

a b s t r a c t
Carbon bre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars are currently used to reinforce concrete in an attempt to
overcome the corrosion issue encountered with ordinary steel. In order to exploit more efciently their
tensile capacity, it is interesting to use CFRP bars as prestressing tendons. This application requires a high
quality concrete matrix. The advantageous characteristics of UHPFRC, such as high strength, good ductility and durability, mean that a UHPFRC structure prestressed with CFRP bars may be lighter and require
less maintenance. Since the exural behaviour of prestressed concrete members reinforced with CFRP
bars is highly dependent on the bond between the two materials, an experimental program was carried
out in order to investigate the bond of CFRP bars embedded in UHPFRC. Two types of surface, smooth and
sand-coated, were investigated. Pullout tests were performed to examine the effect of varying parameters
such as embedment length, bar diameter and concrete age. The results clearly show that the bond
strength of macroscopically smooth bars embedded in UHPFRC is close to that of sand-coated bars. It
was also found that ultimate bond strength decreases with bar diameter and with embedment length.
Moreover, the bond strength can be expected during early age (3 days). A post-test examination revealed
that damage occurred only in the outer layers of the CFRP bars.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent years, bre-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars or strips
have been proposed as the main reinforcement for reinforced
and prestressed concrete members [13]. This type of bar is suitable for overcoming the corrosion issue posed by ordinary steel
bars in reinforced concrete. CFRP bars have many distinct advantages over steel reinforcement including a high strength-to-weight
ratio, high durability, ease of handling due to their light weight,
high tensile strength, excellent fatigue characteristics and electromagnetic neutrality. A wide variety of CFRP bars is currently commercially available. They can be produced with either a smooth or
a deformed surface in order to improve bond with the concrete.
For economic reasons, some authors consider the use of CFRP
bars as prestressing tendons [3]. However, to use the tensile capacity of CFRP tendons over its whole range in prestressed structural
members, a high quality concrete matrix is required. Since CFRP
tendons and concrete are brittle materials, ultra high performance
bre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) is used in this study because of
its main characteristics, i.e. high strength in compression and
tension, excellent durability, and ductility which prevents brittle
fracture of the elements.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 164 15 37 13; fax: +33 164 15 37 41.
E-mail address: gilles.foret@enpc.fr (G. Foret).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.02.006

Thanks to the advantageous characteristics of CFRP and

UHPFRC, a UHPFRC structure prestressed with CFRP bars may
provide lighter structures which require less maintenance.
Since the performance of prestressed concrete elements reinforced with CFRP bars depends primarily on the properties of the
bond between the reinforcement and the surrounding concrete,
an adequate level of bonding is required between those two components to transmit forces from one to the other. The replacement
of steel with CFRP changes the mechanism of load transfer between the concrete and the reinforcement. This is because CFRP
materials are anisotropic; their shear and transverse properties
are due to the resin whereas their longitudinal properties are due
to the bre [46].
Several studies have been performed in order to examine the
bond between FRP bars and concrete. Various bars with different
shapes of outer surface have been evaluated. The main objective
was to understand the interaction mechanisms activated in pullout
tests and to determine the constitutive relationship of bond
(s)slip.
An examination of various experimental results, including tests
on beams and pullout specimens, reveals that bond strength varies
substantially. It is believed that these variations are caused by a
variety of factors such as the nature of the chemical bond, friction
due to the surface roughness of the FRP rods and their mechanical
interlock with the concrete [68]. Parameters such as the type of

480

F. Sayed Ahmad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 479485

surface deformation, the loading rate, the manufacturing process,

the type and contents of the constitutive materials (resin and bres), embedment length, bar diameter, the hydrostatic pressure
on the FRP bars due to concrete shrinkage, the expansion of FRP
bars due to temperature changes and moisture absorption greatly
inuence bond properties [6,9,10]. In addition, bond strength is
also sensitive to the experimental setup. Yet it is still not clear
how the appropriate bond can be best achieved, whether the FRP
surfaces should be covered with sand, have lugs or wavy deformations, or whether such features should be combined [11].
Experimental work was carried out in order to investigate the
bond of CFRP bars embedded in UHPFRC considering two types
of surface: smooth and sand-coated. Pullout tests were performed
to examine the effect of varying parameters such as embedment
length, bar diameter and concrete age. The experimental results
obtained are presented as the relationship between average shear
stress and free-end slip.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Material properties
The smooth bars (Compodex J155-2) were supplied by Etandex Company. They
were manufactured by the pultrusion process, and are made up of continuous longitudinal carbon bres bound together with an epoxy resin. The outer layer of the
bar was wrapped in a special sheet (peel ply) during the manufacturing process,
that protects the surface during transport and absorb any excess resin (Fig. 1).
The bars had a carbon bre content of 65%. The average tensile strength and Youngs
modulus values were 2400 MPa and 158 GPa, respectively.
The sand-coated bars (Carbopree) were supplied by their manufacturer, Sireg.
These bars were also manufactured by the pultrusion process. The carbon bres
were bound together with a vinylester resin (Fig. 1). The average tensile strength
and Youngs modulus values were 2300 MPa and 130 GPa, respectively.
The ready-mix concrete (BSICERACEM) used was an ultra high performance bre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) manufactured by Eiffage. The proportions and
characteristics are shown in Table 1. Nine standard 110  220 mm control cylinders
were cast and cured under the same conditions as the test specimens. The compressive strength of three control cylinders was measured after 3, 14 and 28 days.
2.2. Pullout specimens
The direct pullout test method was preferred because it is simple and leaves the
free end accessible for the slip to be measured. The specimens were concrete cylinders of 110 mm diameter with centrally placed CFRP bars. They were cast vertically
and were of varying heights depending on the embedded length.
Two series of specimens representing a total of 60 specimens were investigated,
as detailed in Table 2. Tests were performed on various specimens to evaluate the
bond strength for the two types of bars. The parameters considered in this study
were the bar diameter d (8, 10 ,12 mm for the smooth bars and 7.5 mm for the
sand-coated bars), the embedded length l (5d, 10d, 15d and 20d) and the concrete
age (3 days, 14 days, 28 days and 3 months). Additional specimens with deformed
steel bars were used for comparison purposes. Each bond strength value represents
the average of the results for at least three specimens.
The concrete cylinder with the embedded CFRP bar was positioned in a special
steel frame placed in the testing machine. The compressive stress generated by the
support plate on the loaded end has a benecial effect on the bond mechanism and

Table 1
Composition and characteristics of BSICERACEM concrete.
Composition for 1 m3
Premix EIFFAGE B1M2 (kg)
Water (kg)
W/C
Superplasticizer Glenium G51 (kg)
Fibres metal (kg)

2349
195
0.2
50
195

Properties
Modulus of elasticity E (GPa)
Flow test (mm)
Voids ratio (%)
Poissons ratio
Compressive strength at 3 days (MPa)
Compressive strength at 14 days (MPa)
Compressive strength at 28 days (MPa)
Density (t/m3)

6065
600650
1.9
0.2
120
155
170
2.8

increases the bond strength [12,13]. For this reason, a debonded section 70 mm
long was created on each embedded bar by wrapping it in a plastic pipe on the
loaded side. A special tab grip adapter was used to clamp the CFRP bars in the testing machine without premature fracture in the grip region. This tab consisted of
two steel plates separated by a 23 mm gap each with a circular groove with a
diameter similar to that of the CFRP bar. The two plates were placed on either side
of the bar and clamped together by the machine wedge grips. The grooves were
coated with a ne layer of instantaneous glue (cyanoacrylate), Figs. 2 and 3.
Loads were applied to the pullout specimens using an MTS machine with a loading rate of 0.02 mm/s. The relative displacement between the bar and the concrete
was measured at the free end of the specimen with two linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs), Fig. 3. The bond strength was calculated as the ultimate pullout load divided by the area of the embedded length of a nominal diameter bar,
which is equivalent to assuming a uniform bond stress at the ultimate load.

3. Experimental results
The bondslip curves for each specimen were plotted using the
experimental results obtained directly from the slip measurements
at the free end (bottom LVDT). The average bond stress, sav, at any
stage during loading is given by the equation:

sav

pdl

where F is the pullout load, l is the embedment length, and d is the

bar diameter.
Table 2 contains a summary of the average bond strength results for all the specimens. The notation adopted for the specimens
is as follows: the rst number indicates the bar diameter, the letter
S or SC denotes the surface type (smooth or sand-coated), the
next number is the embedment length to bar diameter ratio, and
the last number is the concrete age at which the specimens were
tested. For example, 8S5-28 refers to an 8 mm bar with smooth
surface and an embedment length equal to ve times the bar diameter, tested after 28 days. Three specimens with a deformed steel
bar were also tested for comparison purposes.
Typical average bond stress vs. free-end slip diagrams are displayed in Fig. 4, for both smooth and sand-coated bars. The two
bars exhibit similar behaviour, characterised by a continuous increase in the shear stress up to a peak value followed by a sudden
drop in the bond strength brought about by the failure of the outer
layer of the CFRP bar. However, some residual bond strength remains during the bar pullout phase because of friction.
3.1. Effect of the surface conguration

Fig. 1. Used CFRP bars.

As illustrated by Figs. 4 and 5, both types of bars gave a generally similar shape of curve, with a bond strength 15% lower for the
smooth bar, probably because its low roughness affected the friction mechanism. The residual bond strength value (post-peak) rep-

481

F. Sayed Ahmad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 479485

Table 2
Summary of experimental results.
Specimens

Bar diameter
(mm)

Embedment
length (mm)

Concrete
age (days)

Maximum average
bond strength (MPa)

Slip at maximum average bond

strength (mm)

Smooth bars
8S5-3
8S5-14
8S5-28
8S5-90
8S10-3
8S10-14
8S10-28
8S10-90
8S15-28
8S20-3
8S20-14
8S20-28
8S20-90
10S5-28
12S5-28
7SC5-28

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
10
12
7.5

40
40
40
40
80
80
80
80
120
160
160
160
160
50
60
37.5

3
14
28
90
3
14
28
90
28
3
14
28
90
28
28
28

22.05
22.74
23.27
24.26
19.1
19.65
20.6
21.8
16.27
12.54
12.62
12.94
13.12
21.88
20.6
27.22

0.14
0.12
0.08
0.074
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.1
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.0081
0.08

Sand-coated bars
7SC10-28
7SC15-28
7SC20-28

7.5
7.5
7.5

75
112.5
150

28
28
28

22.76
19.89
15.45

0.06
0.068
0.086

Steel deformed bars

8Std5-28

40

28

50

0.038

Fig. 2. Pullout setup.

resented 4060% of the peak bond value for both the sand-coated
and smooth bars. The deformed steel bar had a higher bond
strength (twice that of the CFRP bars) and exhibited plastic
behaviour before failure. Fig. 5 clearly shows that when the free
end started to slip, the average ratio of the bond stress to the maximum bond strength was around 20% for both CFRP surface congurations. In addition, the peak bond value for both CFRP bars
occurred at the same slip value of 0.08 mm, whereas for the steel
bar it occurred at a value of 0.038 mm. After the outer layer peeled
off, the sand-coated bar failed in a more brittle manner and had
lower residual bond stress than the smooth bar.
The bond mechanisms at the CFRP/concrete interface that are
the most commonly described in the scientic literature [13,15]

Fig. 3. Tab grip adapters.

are chemical and friction bonds, in the case of both smooth and
sand-coated bars. From Fig. 5, it can be seen that the trend of the

482

F. Sayed Ahmad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 479485

of smooth FRP rods after removal of the resin-rich layer. His

experimental results showed the bond strength was ve times
higher than for unaltered smooth rods.
The high radial connement pressure caused by the autogenous
shrinkage of UHPFRC during curing (due to the large quantity of
cement and silica fume) improved the friction bond. The same
ndings have been reported by other authors [6,7,16].
Owing to its high specic surface area, the presence of silica
fume affected the morphology of the CFRP bar-paste transition
zone by reducing the preferential orientation of calcium hydroxide crystals, which decreases fresh concrete bleeding. In addition, it increased autogenous shrinkage and reduced concrete
creep [1720], leading to a further improvement in bond
strength.
Fig. 4. Effect of surface conguration on the bondslip relationship (l = 5d, 28 days).

curves may be divided into two distinct parts. The rst represents
initial pullout where the chemical bond (adhesion) was the main
resisting mechanism which provided load transfer. Free-end slip
started only when a threshold shear stress value was reached
(5 MPa for all types of bar). In the second stage, the continuous
increase in slip led to the total loss of the chemical bond along
the whole bar, but was accompanied by a more active friction bond
mechanism.
The peak bond strength for both CFRP surface nishes was signicant, 23.27 and 27.22 MPa for the smooth and sand-coated bars,
respectively. The results reported in the literature for CFRP bars
embedded in concrete of ordinary/moderate strength [13,15] indicate a bond strength varying from 1 to 3.5 MPa for smooth bars and
816 MPa for sand-coated bars. Therefore CFRP bars embedded in
UHPFRC clearly have better bond performance, particularly for
smooth bars for which the increase exceeded a factor of 6.
With regard to the smooth bars, three effects may have contributed to the enhanced bond strength:

It may be concluded that for smooth bars, the connement

pressure coupled with microscopic interfacial friction allowed
the CFRP bar to attain their maximum bond strength with the
UHPFRC.
In the case of the sand-coated bars, chemical adhesion between
CFRP and concrete also plays a signicant role as the cementitious
gel binds onto the surface of the sand particles during hydration.
As with the smooth bars, both radial connement pressure and
microscopic mechanical interlocking greatly contributes to the
development of enough friction force around the CFRP bars for
them to gain their maximum bond strength. These observations
were also reported for ordinary concrete [6,7,16,21].
4.2. Effect of the embedment length
The experimental results after 28 days for different embedment
lengths (5d, 10d, 15d and 20d) for smooth bars (d = 8 mm) are presented in Table 2 and Figs. 6 and 7. The main ndings were as
follows:

The relatively smooth surface created by the removal of the

absorbing/protecting sheet (peel ply) on the outer surface of
the bar improved both chemical and friction bond strength. Similar observations have been made by Rossetti et al. [14], who
pointed out that behaviour that is intermediate between smooth
and sand-coated bars may be obtained through a variety of
external surface processes (different types of sandblasting,
epoxy powder coating and polyamide sheathing). The test
results from the current study clearly indicate that the chemical
bond is not negligible. Furthermore, the peel ply sheet reduced
the thickness of the resin on the outer surface which increased
the surface stiffness of the bar. The same deduction has been
expressed by Al-Zahrani [15] who studied the bond behaviour

Fig. 5. Enlargement of the rst part of Fig. 4.

The specimens with shorter embedment length developed

higher bond strength, but as the embedment length increased,
the average bond strength diminished pseudo-linearly. This
observation has been conrmed by many studies
[6,7,10,12,15,22,23]. This decrease is caused by the nonlinear
distribution of bond stresses along the CFRP bar embedded in
concrete, and also by Poissons ratio effect where the substantial
elongation of the bar throughout the embedment length leads to
a reduction in friction (a decrease in radial interface pressure
with increasing pullout load).
Doubling the shortest embedment length (5d) reduced the bond
strength by 12%, whereas a large decrease in bond strength
(45%) was observed for the longest embedment length (20d).

Fig. 6. Embedment length effect on the bondslip relationship (smooth bars

d = 8 mm, 28 days).

F. Sayed Ahmad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 479485

483

The Poisson effect can allow a slight reduction in bar diameter as

a result of longitudinal stress. This reduction increases with bar
diameter leading to reduced frictional/mechanical locking
stresses.
The shear stiffness of CFRP bars depends mainly on the shear
stiffness of the resin and the shear strength at the resinbre
interface. When a CFRP bar is pulled in tension by its outer surface, some differential movement between the core and surface
bres takes place which results in a nonuniform distribution of
normal stresses through the bar cross section (shear lag phenomenon), Fig. 9.

Fig. 7. Bond strengthembedment length relationship.

The actual bond strength between the bar and the concrete is
directly related to the value of the normal stress that occurs close
to the bar surface. The stress differences are more pronounced with
large diameter bars, leading to a reduction in the average bond
strength. A similar conclusion was reached by Tepfers [11].
4.4. Effect of concrete age (connement effect)
Studying the effect of concrete age amounts to evaluating the
effect of the connement pressure caused by concrete shrinkage
on the bond strength. The results obtained from pullout tests performed after 3, 14, 28 and 90 days with smooth bars (d = 8 mm) are
displayed in Figs. 10 and 11. The following remarks can be made:

Fig. 8. Effect of bar diameter on the bondslip relationship (smooth bars, l = 5d,
28 days).

The slope of the bond stress from peak bond stress to residual
bond stress decreased gradually with embedment length,
whereas the ratio of residual to peak bond stresses increased.
For example this ratio increased from 60% to 90% when the
embedment length increased from 5d to 20d. This may be attributed to bond failure (shear off in the outer layer of the bar) starting at the loaded end where the interfacial bond stress reached
its ultimate strength, then progressively continuing along the
embedment length. Hence for a shorter embedment length,
shear off progresses rapidly meaning that a specimen with
longer embedment length fails in a more brittle manner.
4.3. Effect of bar diameter

The bond behaviour curves were the same shape for all the
specimens.
There was no signicant difference (less than 10%) in the ultimate bond strength of specimens tested after 3 days and after
90 days. Furthermore, the ratio of residual to ultimate bond
strength remained almost constant for the different concrete
ages.
The concrete age effect decreased with embedment length, and
was negligible for a 20d embedment length.

Fig. 9. Shear lag phenomenon.

Many studies have been performed to evaluate the effect on the

bond strength of the diameter of CFRP bars embedded in ordinary/
moderate strength concrete [6,1012,20,22,23]. Our experimental
results, displayed in Fig. 8, show that the average maximum bond
strength decreased when the diameter of the bars increased. This
has been explained by the bleeding of the water in the concrete
[7,23]. The larger the diameter, the more bleed water is trapped beneath the bar, which creates larger voids. The result is lower bond
strength as the presence of voids limits the contact surface between the bar and the concrete.
Achillides and Pilakoutas [22] attribute such lower bond
strength to three factors:
Larger diameter bars require longer embedment lengths in order
to reach the same normal bond stress. As shown earlier, greater
embedment lengths reduce the average bond strength.

Fig. 10. Effect of concrete age on the bondslip relationship (smooth bars d = 8 mm,
l = 5d).

484

F. Sayed Ahmad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 479485

Fig. 11. Effect concrete age on bond strength with varying embedment length.

Moreover, the test specimens with sand-coated bars exhibited

the same behaviour regardless of concrete age. This may be attributed to the high early age autogenous shrinkage of UHPFRC resulting from the relatively large amount of cement and silica fume.
Thus, adequate connement was provided around the bars which
enabled them to attain their maximum bond strength earlier. The
swelling effect due to moisture absorption by the epoxy matrix
and to radial thermal expansion caused by the heat of hydration
may also contribute to the additional lateral stresses acting at
the CFRPconcrete interface, especially during the rst three days,
as reported by many researchers [6,15,16,2325].
We may therefore conclude that an increase in connement
pressure would not necessarily be accompanied by a noticeable increase in bond strength. The ultimate bond strength of CFRP bars
(smooth or sand-coated) embedded in UHPFRC may be reached
during early age (3 days) because it is mainly dependent on the
shear strength of the connection between the core and the outer
layer of the CFRP bars.
4.5. Bond failure modes
All the CFRP specimens in this study failed in a pull-out mode,
whereas steel specimens failed by tensile rupture. After each test,
the CFRP bar was removed from the concrete cylinder. This latter
was then split in order to carry out a visual examination of the actual bond failure mode, Fig. 12. It was found that bond failure was
caused by peeling off (delamination) of the outside layers of the
bar which were attached to the concrete cylinder along the entire
embedment length. There was no apparent damage to the concrete. It was also found that carbon bres close to the surface of
the sand-coated bar were broken, with the bar coating totally removed. Similar observations have been reported elsewhere
[11,22]. This may be explained by the low internal shear strength
in the resin between the bres forming the CFRP bars. Hence the
bond strength is very dependent on the inter-laminar shear

strength between the bar core and the outer layers of the CFRP
bars.
In order to estimate the development length (the shortest
embedment length at which the failure mode is tensile rupture
of the bar) specimens with sand-coated bars were tested with an
embedment length of 30d, 35d and 40d, respectively. The pullout
load developed was, respectively, 90%, 98% and 100% of the bars
ultimate tensile capacity. Therefore, the development length is
about 40 times the diameter (40d). On the other hand pullout tests
were carried on smooth bars with different embedment lengths.
The longer embedment length was 40d, the pullout device not
allowing to increase the embedment length beyond 40d. The
experiments showed that the pullout load developed by smooth
bars specimens with embedment length of 40d was approximately
65% of their ultimate tensile capacity.
5. Conclusions
The following
investigation:

conclusions

may

be

drawn

from

this

The simplest way to increase the bond strength of very smooth

CFRP bars is to apply an absorbing/protecting sheet (peel ply) to
their surface, which is also by far the most inexpensive solution.
The sand-coated bars had bondslip curves that were similar to
the macroscopically smooth ones, with slightly better (15%)
bond performance but a more brittle failure of the bond.
The bond action between smooth and sand-coated CFRP bars
and UHPFRC is attributed to chemical adhesion at zero slip
and friction when slip is occurring. In addition to these bond
mechanisms, mechanical interlock also plays a role in bonding
in the case of deformed steel bars. In all cases, the role of adhesion is not negligible (about 5 MPa).
An increase in embedment length is accompanied by a decrease
in bond strength. Smaller diameter bars develop higher bond
strengths than larger ones.
The ultimate bond strength for the CFRP bars (smooth or sandcoated) embedded in UHPFRC is mostly expected during early
age (3 days). This is due to the high autogenous shrinkage of
UHPFRC that provides appropriate connement for the bars to
reach their maximum bond strength.
The surface of the CFRP bars is weaker than that of steel bars
because of the low inter-laminar shear strength between successive bre layers and the increase in concrete strength will not
allow to increase in a signicant way the bond strength between
UHPFRC and CFRP bars. In fact, even if the use of UHPFRC
increase the CFRP bar/concrete interface shear strength, bond
failure will be caused by an inter-laminar rupture mechanism.
The visual examination revealed that the exterior layers of the
bar were attached to the concrete cylinder along the embedment length, without any apparent damage to the surrounding
concrete.
The development length for sand-coated bar is about 40d,
whereas the smooth bar needs a longer embedment length
(>40d) in order for tensile failure to occur.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Etandex Inc. and Sireg Inc. for their support.
References

Fig. 12. Bond failure modes.

[1] Limam O, Nguyen VT, Foret G. Numerical and experimental analysis of twoway slabs strengthened with CFRP strips. Eng Struct J 2005;27(6):8415.
[2] Foret G, Limam O. Experimental and numerical analysis of RC two-way slabs
strengthened with NSM CFRP rods. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(10):202530.

F. Sayed Ahmad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 479485

[3] Burgoyne CJ. Rational use of advanced composites in concrete. In: Third
international symposium on non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete
structures FRPRCS-3, Sapporo, Japan; 1416 October 1997. p. 7588.
[4] Al-Zahrani MM, Al-Dulaijan SU, Nanni A, Bakis CE, Boothby TE. Evaluation of
bond using FRP rods with axisymmetric deformations. Constr Build Mater
1999;13(6):299309.
[5] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Development length of FRP straight rebars.
Compos Part B: Eng 2002;33(7):493504.
[6] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Behaviour and modelling of bond of FRP
rebars to concrete. ASCE J Compos Constr 1997;1(2):4051.
[7] Nanni A, Bakis CE, Boothby TE. Test methods for FRPconcrete systems
subjected to mechanical loads: state of the art review. Reinf Plast Compos J
1995;14(6):52458.
[8] Wang Z, Goto Y, Joh O. Bond strength of various types of bre reinforced plastic
rods. In: Proceedings of 4th international symposium on ber reinforced
polymer reinforcement for reinforced concrete structures, FRPRCS-4, ACI-SP188, Baltimore, USA; 1999. p. 111730.
[9] Benmokrane B, Zhang B, Laoubi K, Tighiouart B, Lord I. Mechanical and bond
properties of new generation of carbon bre reinforced polymer reinforcing
bars for concrete structures. Can J Civil Eng 2002;29(2):33843.
[10] Tighiouart B, Benmokrane B, Gao UD. Investigation of bond in concrete
member with bre reinforced polymer FRP bars. Constr Build Mater
1998;12(8):45362.
[11] Tepfers R. Bond clause proposals for FRP bars/rods in concrete based on CEB/
FIP model code 90 part. 1: design bond stress for FRP reinforcing bars.
Structural Concrete 2006;7(2):4755.
[12] Tastani SP, Pantazopoulou SJ. Bond of GFRP bars in concrete: experimental
study and analytical interpretation. ASCE J Compos Constr 2006;10(5):38191.
[13] Malvar JL. Tensile and bond properties of GFRP reinforcing bars. ACI Mater J
1995;92(3):27685.

485

[14] Rossetti VA, Galeota D, Giammatteo MM. Local bond stressslip relationships
of glass bre reinforced plastic bars embedded in concrete. Mater Struct J
1995;28(180):3404.
[15] Al-Zahrani MM. Bond behaviour of bre reinforced plastic (FRP)
reinforcements with concrete. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, USA;
1994.
[16] Bakisa CE, Uppuluri VS, Nanni A, Boothby TE. Analysis of bonding mechanisms
of smooth and lugged FRP rods embedded in concrete. Compos Sci Technol
1998;58(8):130719.
[17] Chen YW, Li VC. Effects of transition zone, densication on ber/cement paste
bond strength improvement. Adv Cem Based Mater 1997;5(1):817.
[18] Chen YW, Chu SH. Effect of silica fume on steel ber bond characteristics in
reactive powder concrete. Cem Concr Res 2004;34(7):116772.
[19] ACI Committee 234. Guide for use of silica fume in concrete. ACI Mater J
1995;92(4):43740.
[20] De Larrard F, Schaller I, Fuchs J. Effect of the bar diameter on the bond strength
of passive reinforcement. ACI Mater J 1993;90(4):3339.
[21] Al-Mahmoud F, Castel A, Franois R, Tourneur C. Effect of surface preconditioning on bond of carbon bre reinforced polymer rods to concrete. Cem
Concr Compos 2007;29(9):67789.
[22] Achillides Z, Pilakoutas K. Bond behavior of ber reinforced polymer bars
under direct pullout conditions. ASCE J Compos Constr 2004;8(2):17381.
[23] Benmokrane B, Tighiouart B, Chaallal O. Bond strength and load distribution of
composite GFRP reinforcing bars in concrete. ACI Mater J 1996;93(3):2549.
[24] Gentry TR, Hudak CE. Thermal compatibility of plastic composite
reinforcement for concrete. In: Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on
advanced composite materials in bridges and structures, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada; 1996. p. 14956.
[25] Achillides Z. Bond behaviour of FRP bars in concrete. PhD thesis, Centre for
Cement and Concrete, University of Shefeld, UK; 1998.