Bond Properties of Sand-Coated GFRP Bars with

Fly Ash–Based Geopolymer Concrete

Biruk Hailu Tekle 1; Amar Khennane 2; and Obada Kayali 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Bond behavior is an important subject in the design and performance of reinforced concrete structures. In this research, the bond
property between sand-coated glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars, a corrosion-resistant substitute to steel bars, and fly ash–based
geopolymer cement (GPC) concrete, a more environmental friendly alternative to ordinary portland cement (OPC) concrete, is investigated.
Pullout test specimens containing GFRP bars embedded in GPC and OPC concrete cylinders with 100-mm diameter and 170-mm height were
prepared. Three different embedment lengths were tested: three, six, and nine times the bar diameter. Average concrete compressive strengths
of approximately 25 and 45 MPa and GFRP bar diameters of 12.7 and 15.9 mm were the other test parameters. For each specimen, the test
results include the bond failure mode, the average bond strength, the slip at the loaded and free end, and the bond-slip relationship curves. The
test results showed that GFRP-reinforced GPC concrete has similar bond strength as that of GFRP-reinforced OPC concrete. The increase in
embedment length resulted in the decrease of the bond strength as well as a change in the failure mode of the specimens. Furthermore, the
experimental results were used to generate a constitutive bond-slip law. Finally, finite-element modeling is performed by using the
constitutive bond-slip law to investigate strain and bond distribution along the embedment length of the bar. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC
.1943-5614.0000685. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geopolymer concrete; Glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars; Bond properties; Development length; Bond slip.

Introduction
Steel-reinforced ordinary portland cement (OPC) concrete is a suc-
cessful construction material because of its affordability, strength,
and ease of construction. However, concrete, especially when ex-
posed to aggressive environments such as those encountered in
coastal areas or chemical plants, deteriorates because of the ingress
of deleterious agents through its pores. In addition to attacking con-
crete, the deleterious agents also result in the corrosion of the steel
bars, reducing the service life of the structure. To deal with these
problems, various methods such as concrete additives, galvaniza-
tion, epoxy coating, and using cathodic protection systems have
been applied, but they still are not the ultimate solution (Kessler and
Powers 1998). Moreover, production of OPC concrete comes at a
great risk to the environment because of the large CO2 emissions
associated with the production of OPC during lime calcination.
The high environmental footprint of reinforced concrete and
its durability issues have inspired scientists and engineers to find
alternatives for both OPC and steel reinforcement for more sustain-
able construction. Davidovits (1988) proposed an alternative binder
produced from by-product materials that are rich in silica and alu-
mina, such as fly ash and rice husk ash, and named it geopolymer
because of the polymerization process involved. These binders are
produced using alkali liquids (usually a soluble metal hydroxide
1
Graduate Student, School of Engineering and Information Technology,
UNSW Canberra, Campbell, ACT 2612, Australia.
2
Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering and Information Technology,
UNSW Canberra, Campbell, ACT 2612, Australia (corresponding author).
E-mail: a.khennane@adfa.edu.au
3
Associate Professor, School of Engineering and Information Technol-
ogy, UNSW Canberra, Campbell, ACT 2612, Australia.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 27, 2015; approved on
December 29, 2015; published online on March 3, 2016. Discussion period
open until August 3, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Con-
struction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
and/or alkali silicate) to react with silica (SiO2 )- and alumina
(Al2 O3 )-rich natural materials, such as metakaolin, or with indus-
trial by-products, such as fly ash (FA), silica fume (SF), rice husk
ash (RHA), or slag (Hardijito and Rangan 2005). In addition to the
low carbon footprint, using industry by-product materials such as
fly ash, which otherwise would be disposed of, saves a great deal of
virgin materials that would otherwise be used for concrete produc-
tion. These binders have been used to produce what is now known
as geopolymer cement (GPC) concrete. In addition to environmen-
tal benefits, various desirable characteristics were reported by using
GPC concrete. Such characteristics include rapid rate of strength
development, resistance to sulphate attack, acid resistance, little
drying shrinkage, low creep, improved resistance to fire, and pro-
longed handling time (Hardijito and Rangan 2005; Junaid et al.
2014, 2015b).
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcing bars can be used
instead of steel bars in reinforced concrete structures. They are
mainly based on thermoset polymers vinyl ester and glass (GFRP)
or carbon fibers (CFRP) and are characterized by high tensile
strength, high durability, light weight, and electromagnetic per-
meability (Bank 2006). Because of lack of well-stablished stan-
dards, wide varieties of FRP bars are available. If GFRP bars and
GPC concrete are to be used as alternatives for steel reinforcement
and OPC concrete, they need to display similar, or better, physical
characteristics. High ranking among these are bond properties. In-
deed, reinforced concrete is itself a composite material. Maintain-
ing this composite action requires transfer of load between the
concrete and the reinforcing bar. It is this load transfer, called bond,
which makes reinforced concrete structures effective. Depending
on the surface condition of the FRP bar, the bond mechanism
can differ. For straight FRP bars (smooth bars and bars with no
ribs or indentation), adhesion and friction have been found to be
responsible for the bond resistance (Cosenza et al. 1997). These
properties in turn depend on the bar surface condition and the type
of concrete used. Conversely, deformed bars (helically wound
spiral outer surface, indented, braided, or with ribs) gain their

© ASCE 04016025-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 04016025


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Schematic bond-slip curve
additional bond strength from the interlocking of the bar deforma-
tion and the concrete surface. Thus, for these bars, the bond pri-
marily depends on mechanical action.
Tao et al. (1992), Chaallal and Benmokrane (1993), Malvar
(1994), Okelo and Yuan (2005) studied the bond performance
of different types of FRP bars in OPC concrete. All these studies
reported a similar pattern in the bond-slip curve. As shown in Fig. 1,
the curve presents a very high initial stiffness caused by the virgin
undisturbed adhesion and mechanical interlock between the con-
crete and the bar. The interface behavior depicts three regions.
In Region I, the behavior can be considered linear for stresses lower
than half of maximum stress. In Region II, the curve then becomes
nonlinear before reaching the peak stress, which, depending on
the failure mode, is sometimes followed by a softening branch,
Region III.
The results also showed the dependence of bond behavior on
concrete strength, surface conditions of the FRP bar, bar diameter,
concrete cover, and embedment length. Pecce et al. (2001) con-
ducted both experimental and analytical studies on the bond per-
formance of GFRP-reinforced OPC concrete. They reported an
embedment length of 10 times the bar diameter as the approximate
development length. Another analytical study by Focacci et al.
(2000) determined the local bond-slip constitutive law for GFRP-
reinforced OPC concrete taking into account the distribution of slip
and bond stress along the embedment length.
Chang et al. (2009) studied the bond behavior of reinforced fly
ash–based geopolymer concrete beams with an emphasis on the
effect of concrete compressive strength, bar diameter, and splice
length of the bars on bond strength. The bond strength of steel-
reinforced GPC concrete was found to be closely related to the ten-
sile strength of the concrete. In addition, the failure modes and
crack patterns were found to be similar to that of OPC concrete.
In another study, Cui and Kayali (2013) performed pullout tests
on steel-reinforced GPC concrete. The steel-reinforced GPC
concrete was found to have a better bond performance than the
steel-reinforced OPC concrete. The higher splitting tensile strength
of GPC concrete was given as the reason. A similar phenomenon
was also observed by Sarker (2011). In another study, Sofi et al.
(2007) reported the increase of bond strength with the reduction
of bar diameters in steel-reinforced GPC concrete.
Most of the aforementioned studies dealt with the bond of FRP-
OPC concrete, steel-OPC concrete, or steel-GPC concrete. As far as
the bond of FRP and geopolymer concrete is concerned, and to the
knowledge of the authors, there exists only one published study
devoted to this subject, which is by Maranan et al. (2015). They
studied the bond performance of sand-coated GFRP-reinforced
GPC concrete and compared it with conventional steel-reinforced
GPC concrete. The bar diameter and embedment length were
© ASCE 04016025-2
J. Compos. Constr., 04016025
25
GG-15.9-5d
20
GG-15.9-10d
GG-15.9-15d
Bond Stress (MPa)
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Slip (mm)
Fig. 2. Experimental bond-slip curves obtained by Maranan et al.
(2015)
investigated as parameters. They reported that GFRP-reinforced
GPC concrete has a similar bond strength with steel-reinforced
GPC concrete. However, the bond-slip curves they reported, as
shown on Fig. 2, did not display the same characteristics as pre-
viously shown on Fig. 1. The curves do not display an initial high
stiffness. The Stages I and II shown in Fig. 1 are inversed. The
curves look more like mirror images of the curves shown on Fig. 1.
This unusual behavior could be the result of the experimental setup
or be inherent to geopolymer concrete. The latter, however, is very
unlikely because steel-reinforced geopolymer concrete did not dis-
play such behavior (Cui and Kayali 2013).
According to the ASTM A944 (ASTM 2010) for beam-end
pullout test, the slip of the reinforcement bar should be measured
with respect to the concrete surface. Yet, in their experiments,
Maranan et al. (2015) reported the overall slip of the reinforcement
bar, i.e., the settlement of the whole specimen plus the slip of the
bar. This is depicted by the low initial stiffness of the bond-
slip curves and the high value of the free-end slips. A bond-
displacement curve obtained in such a way cannot be used in
bond-slip models because the settlement is also part of the slip. When
applied to their data, the Cosenza, Manfredi, and Realfonzo (CMR)
model did not satisfactorily reproduce the Region I of the data. In-
deed, in the CMR, the constitutive bond-slip model is given by
τ ðsÞ ¼ τ m · ð1 − e−s=sr Þβ ð1Þ
where τ m = maximum bond strength; s = slip; Sr and β = curve-
fitting parameters that control the slope of the bond-slip curve.
It is very clear, therefore, that the knowledge of the bond per-
formance of GFRP-reinforced GPC concrete is limited, and further
research is warranted. The aim of this research, therefore, is to
revisit the bond performance of GFRP in GPC and OPC concretes;
to understand the bond mechanism of GFRP-reinforced GPC con-
crete; to study the effect of bar embedment length, bar diameter,
and concrete compressive strength; and to determine the bond-slip
relationship.
Experimental Program
Materials
High-modulus GFRP bars with straight sand-coated surface and a
nominal diameter of 12.7 and 15.9 mm are used. These bars were
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 1. Mechanical and Physical Properties of GFRP Bars
#4 GFRP #5 GFRP
Property Specification Experimental Specification Experimental
a c a
Tensile strength (MPa) 1,312 1,647 1,184 1,505c
Bar diameter (mm) 12.7b 15.3d 15.9b 18.9d
Cross-sectional area (mm2 ) 126.7b 183.8d 197.9b 280.6d
Elastic modulus in tension (GPa) 65.6  2.5 68.0c 62.6  2.5 62.6c
Tensile strain at failure (%) 2.00 2.42 1.89 2.40
a
Minimum guaranteed tensile strength.
b
Nominal values.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

c
Experimental tensile strength and elastic modules calculated using nominal bar diameter.
d
Effective values (including sand coating).

manufactured by using the pultrusion process and are reinforced by
continuous E-glass fibers with a minimum volume of 65%, whereas
the binding material is modified vinyl ester with a maximum vol-
ume of 35%. Diameter, tensile strength, elastic modulus, and failure
strain of the bar were tested according to ACI 440.3R-04 (ACI
2004). The mechanical and physical properties of the bar are sum-
marized in Table 1.
The mix proportions of the GPC and OPC concretes are given in
Table 2. The desired strengths of GPC concrete were attained by
varying the curing period. Class F fly ash and general-purpose ce-
ment complying with ASTM C618 (ASTM 2012) and AS 3972
(AS 2010) were used for GPC and OPC concretes, respectively.
The alkaline liquid used for GPC concrete was a combination
of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutions. The sodium
hydroxide solution had a concentration of 12 M and was prepared
by dissolving 98% caustic soda flakes in distilled water to the pre-
scribed molarity. The SiO2 =Na2 O ratio of the sodium silicate
solution used was 1.95–2.05. The nominal maximum coarse aggre-
gate size was 14 mm, and the fine aggregate size interval was
0–4.75 mm. The aggregates were brought to saturated surface dry
(SSD) condition before mixing the concrete by adding the SSD
water, which is determined from the absorption and the moisture
content tests described in ASTM C127 (ASTM 2015b) and ASTM
C566 (ASTM 2013), respectively. Midrange water-reducing ad-
mixture and viscosity modifier were used to improve the workabil-
ity of the GPC concrete. The workability was measured by using a
standard slump test in ASTM C143/C143M (ASTM 2015c), and a
medium workability was obtained according to the classification of
GPC concrete workability in Junaid et al. (2015b).
fabrication, ease of repeatability, and most importantly, its satisfac-
tory results when used for comparative purposes. This test is mainly
used to compare the bond strength of different materials under
similar conditions. It is composed of a concentrically placed rein-
forcement bar in a concrete cylinder. Each bar was embedded in
a 100 × 170-mm concrete cylinder, and the embedment lengths
were three, six, and nine times the bar diameter. All the bars were
1,000 mm long with a special anchorage on one end to avoid pre-
mature failure of the GFRP bars caused by the grip. To achieve the
desired embedment length, contact between the concrete and the
bar was avoided through the use of PVC tubing, as shown in Fig. 3.
Three nominally identical specimens were tested for each embed-
ment length. Cylindrical steel molds with plywood top and bottom,
shown in Fig. 3, were used to cast the concrete around the bar. In
the GPC concrete mixes, a thin sheet of plastic is laid inside the
steel mold for ease of demolding.
The mixing and curing of GPC concrete was based on previous
research (Junaid et al. 2015a). The pullout specimens were cast in a
vertical position and vibrated with a poker vibrator in two layers.
Standard 100 × 200-mm concrete cylinders were also cast for com-
pressive [ASTM C39/C39M (ASTM 2015a)], elastic modulus
[ASTM C469/C469M (ASTM 2014)], and splitting tests [ASTM
C496/C496M (ASTM 2011)]. The specimens were then allowed
to rest for 24 h, after which they were placed to cure in an oven

Preparation of Specimens
There are different tests for investigating the bond behavior of
reinforcing bars with concrete. Pullout tests, beam-end tests, beam
anchorage, and splice tests are the most commonly used. In this
program, the pullout specimen test is used because of its ease of

Table 2. Mix Proportions

Ingredient GPC concrete OPC concrete
3
Cement (kg=m ) — 357
Fly ash (kg=m3 ) 420 —
Coarse aggregatea (kg=m3 ) 1,090 944
Fine aggregate (kg=m3 ) 630 814
12M NaOH (kg=m3 ) 60 —
Na2 SiO3 (kg=m3 ) 150 —
Water (kg=m3 ) 31 225
Super plasticiser (kg=m3 ) 4 —
Viscosity modifier (kg=m3 ) 4 —
a Fig. 3. Molds and GFRP bars with special anchor before assembly
Maximum aggregate size of 14 mm.

© ASCE 04016025-3 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 04016025

 for 24–72 h at 80°C, depending on the target compressive strength.
The specimens were demolded after curing and placed in a temper-
ature and humidity chamber [23°C and 50% relative humidity
(RH)] until the time of testing. As GPC concrete gains most of its
strength in the first 7 days, they were tested at this time (Junaid et al.
2015a). The OPC concrete specimens, on the other hand, were
stored in a fog room until the test day, which was 28 days.
Because of the low transverse compressive strength of GFRP
bars, the conventional grips used for testing the tensile strength
of reinforcing steel bar result in premature failure of the bar. Hence,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
an anchor, as shown in Fig. 3, is provided to reduce slip and lead to
failure occurring away from the grip area by decreasing the com-
pressive force on the bar. This anchorage setting was designed
according to ACI 440.3R (ACI 2004).
Test Setup and Instrumentation
The tests were performed by using a universal testing machine,
with a tensile testing capacity of 100 t. A small frame was set up
on the machine to hold the pullout specimens. As shown in Fig. 4,
the frame consisted of two parts (1 and 2 in Fig. 4). The lower part
is a jig that held the specimen to be tested and was attached by a pin
to the top part of the frame near the upper wedge grip of the ma-
chine (Cui and Kayali 2013). The upper part of the frame was held
by the machine’s upper jaws. A hole slightly larger than the diam-
eter of the anchor tube was drilled at the bottom of the jig to let the
anchor and reinforcement bar protrude through it and be held by the
machine’s lower wedge grip. The loaded end of the pullout test
specimens were capped by using dental plaster to provide plane
surfaces on the ends of the cylinders and avoid stress concentration.
The load was applied to the reinforcement bar in displacement con-
trol at 1 mm=min. The slips of the bar relative to concrete at the
loaded end and at the free end were measured with four linear var-
iable displacement transducers (LVDTs), two at each end. Forces
and displacements were recorded by using an automatic data ac-
quisition system.
Fig. 4. Setup of pullout test: sketch and photo
© ASCE 04016025-4
J. Compos. Constr., 04016025
Results and Discussions
Test Results
The raw data, consisting of the free- and loaded-end slips and the
applied load, were obtained from the data acquisition system at a
rate of five data points per second. The readings from the four
LVDTs (two at each end) were used to calculate the average values
of the slips for the free and loaded ends. The two LVDTs at the
loaded end measure the displacement of a fixed perimeter of
the bar relative to the concrete surface. Hence, they measure both
the slip and the elongation of the bar. The low elastic modulus of
GFRP bars calls for consideration of the elongation of the bar, un-
like steel bars, in which it is neglected. Therefore, the loaded-end
slips should be adjusted by deducting the displacement caused by
the elongation of the loaded-end bar outside the bonded region; this
will give the reading of the LVDTs when placed at the actual loaded
end of the embedment length. For this, the length between the point
of attachment of the LVDTs and the actual loaded end of the em-
bedment length was measured, and its elongation was calculated as
δl ¼ δm − δe ð2Þ
Pl
δe ¼ ð3Þ
A b Eb
where δ l = adjusted slip at the actual loaded end, in millimeters;
δ m = measured slip, in millimeters; δ e = slip correction casued
by bar elongation, in millimeters; P = measured pullout load, in
Newtons; l = length between the actual loaded end inside the con-
crete and the point of attachment of the LVDTs; Eb = modulus
of elasticity of GFRP, in megapascals; and Ab = nominal cross-
sectional area of GFRP, in square millimeters.
The average bond strength is defined as the shear force per unit
surface area of the bar. The average bond strength calculated from
the peak pullout load is assumed as the ultimate bond strength be-
tween the two materials. This definition of average bond strength is
followed throughout the analysis, and it is calculated as
P
τ¼ ð4Þ
πdb lb
where τ = average bond strength, in megapascals; P = applied
maximum pullout load, in Newtons; db = nominal diameter of
the bar, in millimeters; and lb = bonded/embedded length, in
millimeters.
The experimental results in terms of measured (free end) and
measured and adjusted (loaded end) slips are given in Table 3 for
OPC concrete and Table 4 for GPC concrete. The specimens are
identified by the type of concrete used (G = GPC concrete; O =
OPC concrete), the bar diameter, the embedment length as a multi-
ple of bar diameter followed by concrete strength group, and the
specimen number.
Bond Failure Mode
As Tables 3 and 4 show, both pullout and splitting types of failure
have been observed. Pullout failure occurs when adequate amount
of confinement is provided by the concrete. A relatively small em-
bedment length and a small bar diameter also lead to this type of
failure. This type of failure occurs when the shear strength of
the bond between the concrete and the reinforcement is exceeded.
In the specimens with similar compressive strength and bar diam-
eter, pullout failure occurred for those with smaller embedment
lengths. This is observed for both OPC and GPC concrete speci-
mens. Various researchers have shown a similar behavior for both
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 3. Bond Test Results for OPC Concrete
Compressive Splitting Average bond Adjusted
strength, strength Load, strength, Free-end Loaded-end loaded-end Failure
Specimen f c0 (MPa) (MPa) Pmax (kN) τ (MPa) slip (mm) slip (mm) slip, δ l (mm) mode
O13-6d1-1 43.4 3.95 51.6 16.6 0.28 1.27 0.50 P
O13-6d1-2 43.4 3.95 49.7 16.0 0.45 1.45 0.71 P
O13-6d1-3 43.4 3.95 45.5 14.7 0.38 1.35 0.67 P
O16-3d2-1 42.0 3.88 42.1 17.8 0.41 1.06 0.57 P
O16-3d2-2 42.0 3.88 40.6 16.8 0.24 0.98 0.50 P
O16-3d2-3 42.0 3.88 31.2 12.9 0.24 0.65 0.29 P
O16-6d2-1 42.0 3.88 74.6 15.6 0.22 1.30 0.58 S
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

O16-6d2-2 42.0 3.88 66.0 13.7 0.27 1.20 0.56 S

O16-6d2-3 42.0 3.88 63.9 13.2 0.43 — — S
O16-9d2-1 42.0 3.88 89.2 12.3 0.18 1.50 0.81 S
O16-9d2-2 42.0 3.88 70.6 9.8 0.04 1.11 0.56 S
O16-9d2-3 42.0 3.88 92.5 12.8 0.29 1.61 0.90 S
Note: P = pullout failure; S = splitting failure.

Table 4. Bond Test Results for GPC Concrete

Compressive Splitting Average Adjusted
strength, strength Load, bond strength, Free-end Loaded-end loaded-end Failure
Specimen f c0 (MPa) (MPa) Pmax (kN) τ (MPa) slip (mm) slip (mm) slip, δ l (mm) mode
G13-6d1-1 24.7 2.34 37.4 12.0 0.23 1.04 0.48 P
G13-6d1-2 24.7 2.34 29.8 9.6 0.10 0.74 0.29 P
G13-6d1-3 24.7 2.34 34.6 11.1 0.18 0.97 0.45 P
G13-6d2-1 42.6 4.13 57.2 18.0 0.29 1.55 0.69 S
G13-6d2-2 42.6 4.13 54.2 17.4 0.27 1.41 0.59 S
G13-6d2-3 42.6 4.13 47.0 14.8 0.12 2.04 1.33 S
G16-3d3-1 49.3 4.61 45.8 19.0 0.24 0.91 0.37 P
G16-3d3-2 49.3 4.61 43.3 18.0 0.37 0.99 0.49 P
G16-3d3-3 49.3 4.61 47.2 19.6 0.35 1.08 0.53 P
G16-6d3-1 49.3 4.61 89.1 18.5 0.29 1.59 0.73 S
G16-6d3-2 49.3 4.61 76.7 15.9 0.14 1.32 0.58 S
G16-6d3-3 49.3 4.61 90.6 18.8 0.18 1.52 0.65 S
G16-9d3-1 49.3 4.61 121.9 16.8 0.06 1.64 0.73 S
G16-9d3-2 49.3 4.61 93.8 12.9 0.05 1.42 0.70 S
G16-9d3-3 49.3 4.61 109.9 15.2 0.07 1.71 0.86 S
Note: P = pullout failure; S = splitting failure.

FRP-reinforced GPC concrete and FRP-reinforced OPC concrete
(Maranan et al. 2015; Okelo and Yuan 2005; Cosenza et al.
1997). For the same embedment length and diameter, a change
in concrete compressive strength resulted in a change in failure
mode. G13-6d1 specimens failed by pullout caused by their lower
compressive strength, whereas G13-6d2 specimens showed a split-
ting failure mode. This shows the dependence of failure mode on
compressive strength. Smaller bar diameters were also found to re-
sult in pullout failure because of the relatively higher amount of
confinement provided in smaller bar diameters. When the confine-
ment provided by the concrete is not enough to support the radial
stresses generated by the bond, longitudinal cracks that initiate at
the interface propagate to the surface of the concrete, resulting in
splitting failure. Both GPC and OPC concrete specimens’ splitting
failures were observed to be brittle. This was also reported by Cui
and Kayali (2013), Sarker (2011), and Sofi et al. (2007).
Furthermore, a close investigation of the failure faces (Fig. 5)
revealed that the GFRP bar was covered with a thin layer of crushed
concrete in both the OPC and GPC concrete specimens, and no
peeling off of the sand coating is observed.
Bond-Slip Relationship Curves
The median curves from groups of three identical samples are
chosen to be representative of the bond-slip behavior and are
plotted in Figs. 6–9. The bond-slip curves display the characteristic
stages of the typical bond-slip curve shown in Fig. 1. For low val-
ues of bond stress, no significant slip is observed resulting in a
steep initial slope. Once the failure occurred, i.e., at the maximum
bond stress point, softening of the bond stress follows. This is ac-
companied by a large slip at both free and loaded ends. This divides
the bond-slip curve into linear, nonlinear, and descending branch.
The high initial stiffness observed is caused by the adhesion and
mechanical interlock between the concrete and the bar. The slip
at the free end lags that of the loaded end, showing the nonlinear
bond stress across the embedment length. The loaded-end bond-
slip curve shows a lower stiffness than the unloaded-end curve
(Figs. 6–9). The difference represents the lengthening of the
reinforcing bar between the two points of slip measurements. As
the pullout load increases, the stiffness of the curve reduces, and
nonlinear response is observed. This continues up to the peak bond
stress. This lower slope is caused by the progress of bond damage
as the pullout load increases. At this stage, the friction and the
mechanical interlock are responsible for the bond strength. After
this, either pullout (Fig. 6) or splitting failure (Figs. 8 and 9) occurs
depending on the specimen. When enough confinement from the
surrounding concrete, the bond-slip curve will continue until shear
cracks are initiated between the concrete and the bar. Once the peak
bond stress is reached, for pullout failure mode, friction reduces as

© ASCE 04016025-5 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 04016025

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Failure faces: (a) O16-6d2-1 concrete surface after splitting failure; (b) G16-6d3-1 concrete surface after splitting failure; (c) bar surface of
G16-3d3-1 (pullout failure specimen) after hand splitting

20 20
18 18
16 16

Bond stress (MPa)

Bond stress (MPa)

14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
G16-3d3-1 free end G16-6d3-1 free end
6 G16-3d3-1 loaded end 6
G16-9d3-3 free end
4 O16-3d2-2 free end 4 G16-6d3-1 loaded end
O16-3d2-2 loaded end G16-9d3-3 loaded end
2 2
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Slip (micron) Slip (micron)
Fig. 6. Bond stress–slip curve for 15.9-mm 3d specimens Fig. 8. Bond stress–slip curve for 15.9-mm 6d and 9d GPC concrete
specimens

20
18 18
16 16
Bond stress (MPa)

14 14
Bond stress (MPa)

12 12
10 10
8 G13-6d2-2 free end 8
6 G13-6d2-2 loaded end 6 O16-6d2-2 free end
4 O13-6d1-2 free end O16-9d2-1 free end
O13-6d1-2 loaded end 4 O16-6d2-2 loaded end
2
2 O16-9d2-1 loaded end
0
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Slip (micron) Slip (micron)
Fig. 7. Bond stress–slip curve for 12.7-mm 6d specimens Fig. 9. Bond stress–slip curve for 15.9-mm 6d and 9d OPC concrete
specimens

pullout continues. With increasing slip, the bond stress decreases as

the shear failure propagate. In case of splitting failure, however, the
bond resistance will rapidly drop to zero.
For further investigation of the post peak behaviors of the spec-
imens with pullout failure, the test was continued until the loaded-
end slip reaches approximately 20 mm. The bond stress–slip
pattern was then studied. As shown in Figs. 10 and 11, after failure,
the bond rapidly decreases, and the slip increases as the reinforcing
bar starts to pull out. After this stage, however, the large slip incre-
ment is accompanied by small bond stress decrement. This occurs
at a bond stress of approximately 20 and 30% of the maximum

© ASCE 04016025-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 04016025

 20
length increases. On the contrary, the free-end slip decreases as the
18
embedment length increases. The nonlinearity of the bond, which is
16 G16-3d3-1
more pronounced in long embedment lengths, can again explain
Bond stress (MPa)
14 G16-3d3-2
G16-3d3-3 this behavior.
12
10
8 Effect of Compressive Strength and Bar Diameter
6 The straight GFRP bar’s bond strength has been found to vary with
4 compressive strength of the concrete. Unlike steel bars, where the
2 average bond strength is proportional to ðf c0 Þ0.5 (Eligehausen et al.
0 1983), the GFRP-reinforced GPC concrete specimens in this experi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 5 10 15 20 ment did not show the same trend. However, the results of this ex-
Loaded end slip (mm)
periment were not sufficient to quantify this behavior of the bond.
Fig. 10. Extended bond stress–slip curve for 15.9-mm GPC concrete The observed splitting failure of some of the specimens also shows
3d specimens the dependence of the bond strength on the compressive strength
as splitting failure cannot happen unless the tensile strength of the
concrete is reached, which in turn depends on the compressive
strength of the concrete. In case of nondependence on compressive
20
strength, like in some deformed FRP bars where the indentation on
18
the bar is relatively weak, the bond collapses because of detachment
16 of the ribs or spirals and the concrete remains uncrushed (Cosenza
Bond stress (MPa)

14 et al. 1997).
12 O16-3d2-1 Bond strength decreases with the increase of bar diameter. This
10 O16-3d2-2 tendency is observed by various researchers in GFRP bars with
O16-3d2-3
8 OPC concrete (Baena et al. 2009; Cosenza et al. 1997; Okelo and
6 Yuan 2005). The failure mode difference between O13-6d1 and
4
O16-6d2 shows the effect of bar diameter on bond behavior of
the specimens. The nonlinear bond stress distribution along the em-
2
bedment length was given as the possible cause of this behavior
0
(Lee et al. 2013; Baena et al. 2009). Poisson effect has also been
0 5 10 15 20
Loaded end slip (mm) suggested as another factor for the reduction of bond strength as bar
diameter increases. As the bar is subjected to pullout stress, a slight
Fig. 11. Extended bond stress–slip curve for 15.9-mm OPC concrete reduction in diameter occurs. This reduction in the bar diameter
3d specimens increases with diameter and leads to the reduction of friction and
mechanical locking stress between the bar and the concrete.

bond stress for OPC and GPC concretes, respectively. A similar

value has been reported by Lee et al. (2013) for normal strength
OPC concrete with carbon and aramid FRP. This residual bond
stress is caused by the friction between the concrete and the sand-
coated surface of the GFRP bar. This constant bond stress branch of
the curve completes the bond-slip curve.
Effect of Embedment Length
The general trend of the test result indicates that the longer the em-
bedment length, the smaller the value of the average bond strength.
Figs. 8 and 9, for example, show the smaller bond strength of 9d
specimens compared with 6d specimens in both OPC and GPC
concretes. The splitting failure of the longer embedment length
specimens, which causes the sample to fail before the full bond
strength is developed, coupled with the nonlinear distribution of
bond along the embedment length, is believed to cause this lower
bond strength values. Maranan et al. (2015) also observed a similar
behavior as the embedment length increases. Various researches on
GFRP-reinforced OPC concretes also suggest the nonlinear distri-
bution of bond along the embedment length to be the possible ex-
planation for the lower average bond strength (Cosenza et al. 1997;
Tighiouart et al. 1998; Okelo and Yuan 2005; Lee et al. 2013).
Larger embedment length also resulted in a higher loaded-end
displacement for both OPC and GPC concretes. The higher failure
load as the embedment length increases, coupled with the lower
elastic modulus of GFRP bars, caused elongation of the bar and
thus increment of the loaded-end displacement as the embedment
Comparison between GFRP-Reinforced GPC Concrete
and GFRP-Reinforced OPC Concrete
Comparisons of GPC and OPC concrete specimens with a similar
parameter showed that GFRP-reinforced GPC concrete specimens
have a better average bond strength over their OPC concrete alter-
natives. Typical bond-slip curves for GPC and OPC concrete are
shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively, for 3d and 6d embedment
lengths. The average bond strength of the G13-6d2 specimens
is equal to 16.7 MPa, whereas that of the O13-6d1 is equal to
15.7 MPa. The GPC concrete specimens under consideration failed
by splitting of the concrete, whereas those made of OPC concrete
failed by pullout failure. In general, splitting failure yields lower
bond strength than pullout failure, yet in this case the recorded
bond strength of GPC concrete specimens is higher than those re-
corded for OPC concrete specimens. The splitting failure of GPC
concrete specimens may raise a question on the better splitting ten-
sile strength of GPC concrete, which is reported by Sarker (2011).
However, the slightly lower compressive strength and the higher
bond strength of the GPC concrete specimens (G13-6d2) may ex-
plain this behavior. In other words, the higher bond strength of GPC
concrete specimens resulted in higher radial stresses leading to the
splitting failure. For all the specimens involved, average bond
strengths of 15.8 MPa for GPC concrete and 14.3 MPa for OPC
concrete were found. The better bond performance of GPC con-
crete over OPC concrete was also observed by Cui and Kayali
(2013) for tests with steel bar. This comparable bond strength
of GFRP-reinforced GPC concrete specimens suggests that it

© ASCE 04016025-7 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 04016025

 can be an effective alternative to that of GFRP-reinforced OPC
concrete.
Analytical Models for Bond-Slip Relationship
Different analytical models have been developed to represent the
constitutive bond-slip relationship of steel and GFRP bars. The
modified version of the Eligehausen, Popov, and Bertero (mBPE)
law (Eligehausen et al. 1983) and CMR law (Cosenza et al. 1995)
were adopted as the constitutive relationships. The ascending and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
softening branches of the mBPE model are given in Eqs. (5) and
(6), respectively. The CMR model, given in Eq. (1), only describes
the ascending branch of the bond-slip curve because most structural
problems are dealt with at the serviceability limit state level. These
analytical models contain unknown parameters, which are cali-
brated by using the experimental test results. The constitutive
law developed in such a way can then be used to carry out a numeri-
cal simulation of the experimental tests.
The modified version of the mBPE law is expressed as

α
s slip will be zero. This equation, as obtained by Pecce et al. (2001),
τ ðsÞ ¼ τ m : ð5Þ
sm


τ ðsÞ ¼ τ m · 1þp−p
s
ð6Þ
sm
where τ m = maximum bond stress; sm = slip at the maximum bond
stress; and α, p, β, and sr = unknown parameters. The CMR law is
given in Eq. (1).
The parameters for the bond-slip constitutive laws are deter-
mined by assuming a constant bond stress distribution along the
embedment length of the bar and measuring the slip at the free
end. This procedure works well for steel bars because of the neg-
ligible difference between the slips at the loaded and free end;
hence, the constant bond stress distribution is acceptable. However,
for GFRP bars, there is a significant difference between the slips at
the two ends because of the lower elastic modulus of the bar. These
results in two bond-slip curves for each test: free- and loaded-end
curves. Thus, the procedure of finding a constitutive law for the
bond strength of GFRP bars is not as straightforward as for steel
bars (Pecce et al. 2001).
The differential equation of the problem of a reinforcing bar em-
bedded in a concrete block can be derived by considering an infini-
tesimal segment of embedded reinforcing bar as shown in Fig. 12.
The bond stress along the bar is given by τ ¼ τ ðsÞ, where τ = shear
stress acting on the contact surface between the bar and the con-
crete; and s ¼ sðxÞ = relative displacement between the bar and the
Fig. 12. Infinitesimal segment of anchored GFRP
© ASCE 04016025-8
J. Compos. Constr., 04016025
concrete at location x. The bar has a strain of ε ¼ εðxÞ and a stress
of σ ¼ σðxÞ at location x.
Equilibrium of forces on the interface of the infinitesimal seg-
ment combined with compatibility and constitutive relations of
GFRP tensile stress and bond stress give the governing differential
equation of the problem as shown in Eq. (7) (Focacci et al. 2000)
d2 s 4
¼ · τ ½sðxÞ ð7Þ
dx2 E · db
where x = distance from the free end; and E = elastic modulus of the
bar. Eq. (7) is valid if the GFRP bar has a linear elastic constitutive
law in the longitudinal direction and the displacement of the con-
crete points at the interface between the concrete and GFRP bar are
negligible compared with the displacements of the bar points;
i.e., the deformation of the concrete are neglected, and thus sðxÞ
will be the displacement of the GFRP bar at x (Focacci et al. 2000).
By integrating Eq. (7), a relationship between slip and tensile
stress can be obtained. A closed-form solution of this differential
equation can be determined only if the embedment length of the bar
is longer than the development length, in which case the free-end
is as follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
8·E
σðsl Þ ¼ · Aτ ðsl Þ ð8Þ
db
where Aτ ðsl Þ = area under the τ − s curve. As stated previously,
Eq. (8) can only be used if the free-end slip is zero. However, as
the free-end slip is greater than zero for all the specimens in the
present case, the closed-form solution cannot be used. Therefore,
Eq. (7) is integrated by using a numerical method with the boun-
dary conditions as shown in Eqs. (9) and (10)
ds
¼ εðxÞ; sð0Þ ¼ sf ð9Þ
dx
dε 4
¼ · τ ½sðxÞ; εð0Þ ¼ 0 ð10Þ
dx E · db
where ε = strain along x; and sf = slip at the free end. With these
boundary conditions and a set of assumed tentative values for the
parameters (τ m , α, sm , and p for mBPE and τ m , sr , and β for
CMR), Eq. (7) is solved by using Euler’s method. For each loading
step of the experiment, the theoretical values of slip and strain at the
loaded end of the embedment length of the bar are estimated. These
theoretical values of slip and stress at the loaded end are compared
with experimental values to obtain the optimal values of the param-
eters of the bond-slip relationship. The error function, Eq. (11),
used by Pecce et al. (2001), is used to optimize these parameters
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

th 
th  ffi
u
uPn σl − σel 2 sl − sel 2
u i¼1 þ
t σel sel
e¼ ð11Þ
n
where N th th e e
l , sl , N l and sl = theoretical and experimental load and
slip at the loaded end, respectively; and n = number of loading
steps, i.e., number of data points from the experiment. The afore-
mentioned procedure is applied for all the specimens, and the re-
sults are summarized in Tables 5 and 6.
The mBPE and CMR bond-slip relationships determined by
averaging the parameters for each set of specimens are also re-
ported in Tables 5 and 6. The average parameters for all specimens,
except G13-6d1 specimens, are reported in Table 7 (only the as-
cending part is reported for mBPE). These values represent the
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 5. GPC Concrete Bond-Slip Parameters
mBPE CMR
Specimen τ m (MPa) sm (mm) α p τ m (MPa) sr β
G13-6d1-1 12.3 0.12 0.56 0.03 12.9 0.03 1.12
G13-6d1-2 10.1 0.07 0.56 0.03 11.0 0.04 0.83
G13-6d1-3 11.7 0.11 0.53 0.03 12.0 0.03 1.00
τ ðsÞ ¼ 40s0.550 — τ ðsÞ ¼ 12½1 − expð−29sÞ0.986
G13-6d2-1 18.2 0.15 0.44 — 19.9 0.06 0.84
G13-6d2-2 16.5 0.11 0.52 — 17.5 0.05 0.98
G13-6d2-3 15.0 0.09 0.61 — 16.4 0.03 1.08
τ ðsÞ ¼ 51s0.525 — τ ðsÞ ¼ 18½1 − expð−22sÞ0.968
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

G16-3d3-1 19.2 0.12 0.52 0.02 20.2 0.03 1.28

G16-3d3-2 18.2 0.21 0.46 0.02 18.2 0.05 1.22
G16-3d3-3 19.2 0.17 0.45 0.01 20.0 0.04 1.20
τ ðsÞ ¼ 45s0.479 — τ ðsÞ ¼ 19½1 − expð−25sÞ1.231
G16-6d3-1 18.8 0.16 0.44 — 19.4 0.04 1.00
G16-6d3-2 15.9 0.11 0.51 — 16.8 0.03 1.04
G16-6d3-3 18.2 0.12 0.50 — 19.5 0.03 1.14
τ ðsÞ ¼ 47s0.485 — τ ðsÞ ¼ 18.5½1 − expð−30sÞ1.062
G16-9d3-1 16.9 0.14 0.50 — 15.2 0.01 1.71
G16-9d3-2 15.1 0.12 0.43 — 12.7 0.01 1.76
G16-9d3-3 16.4 0.14 0.45 — 15.0 0.01 1.53
τ ðsÞ ¼ 41s0.462 — τ ðsÞ ¼ 14½1 − expð−111sÞ1.669

Table 6. OPC Concrete Bond-Slip Parameters

mBPE CMR
Specimen τ m (MPa) sm (mm) α p τ m (MPa) sr β
O13-6d1-1 16.3 0.17 0.30 0.01 16.4 0.05 0.50
O13-6d1-2 16.5 0.21 0.27 0.01 16.2 0.06 0.49
O13-6d1-3 16.1 0.20 0.29 0.01 16.0 0.05 0.51
τ ðsÞ ¼ 26s0.287 — τ ðsÞ ¼ 16½1 − expð−19sÞ0.503
O16-3d2-1 17.5 0.19 0.30 0.02 17.5 0.04 0.57
O16-3d2-2 16.9 0.13 0.26 0.02 18.3 0.06 0.39
O16-3d2-3 12.7 0.11 0.31 0.03 12.7 0.02 0.63
τ ðsÞ ¼ 28s0.290 — τ ðsÞ ¼ 16½1 − expð−23sÞ0.527
O16-6d2-1 15.8 0.13 0.30 — 15.7 0.02 0.80
O16-6d2-2 15.0 0.16 0.33 — 14.0 0.02 0.82
τ ðsÞ ¼ 28s0.316 — τ ðsÞ ¼ 14.9½1 − expð−50sÞ0.812
O16-9d2-1 13.7 0.19 0.26 — 13.5 0.01 1.47
O16-9d2-2 12.1 0.18 0.25 — 12.8 0.01 0.98
O16-9d2-3 14.3 0.29 0.24 — 14.0 0.02 0.67
τ ðsÞ ¼ 19s0.251 — τ ðsÞ ¼ 11.75½1 − expð−83sÞ1.041

bond-slip laws resulting from the average behavior of all the con- Table 7. Average Bond-Slip Parameters
sidered specimens. G13-6d1 specimens (24.66 MPa compressive
mBPE CMR
strength) are not included in the average bond-slip parameter cal-
culation because of the much lower value of the bond strength, Specimen τ m (MPa) sm (mm) α τ m (MPa) sr β
which comes from the difference in compressive strength. This GPC concrete 17.3 0.14 0.49 17.6 0.03 1.23
introduces higher variation to the bond-slip parameters, especially OPC concrete 15.2 0.18 0.28 15.2 0.03 0.71
the maximum bond strength. Thus, the parameters of these spec-
imens are measured separately from the higher-strength specimens
(45 MPa compressive strength on average). Furthermore, as shown in between the free-end and loaded-end bond-slip curves for both
in Tables 5 and 6, different bond-slip relationships are found from numerical and experimental results.
different specimens because of the difference in bar diameter and The developed CMR bond-slip law appeared to be more close
embedment length. As a result of these differences, the average to the free-end curve than that of the loaded end for both GPC and
bond-slip law (Table 7) only gives general indications on the bond- OPC concretes. In addition, in terms of shape, the numerical re-
slip behavior of the GFRP bar. sults from the CMR law were found to be more accurate than those
By using these bond-slip law, the numerical values of the from the mBPE. This is shown in Figs. 13 and 14, in which the
loaded-end slip and the stress at the loaded end, which are then CMR constitutive law shows a decrease in slope and becomes
used to calculate the average bond stress along the embedment almost zero as it approaches the peak bond stress, which is also
length, are determined. The numerical and experimental bond- observed in the experimental results. Conversely, the mBPE still
slip relationships are shown in Figs. 13 and 14. For most of the has a significant slope around the peak bond stress. As for the ex-
ascending branch, the bond-slip constitutive law appears to be perimental results, the average bond stress of GPC concrete was

© ASCE 04016025-9 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 04016025

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Numerical and experimental bond-slip curves with the bond-slip law: (a) GPC-mBPE; (b) GPC-CMR

Fig. 14. Numerical and experimental bond-slip curves with the bond-slip law: (a) OPC-mBPE; (b) OPC-CMR

found to be greater than that of OPC concrete in both mBPE and
CMR models.
Further verification of the constitutive bond-slip law is done by
finite-element modeling in the next section. The bond-slip constit-
utive law is used with other material models to simulate the pullout
specimens.
Finite-Element Modeling
Description of the Model
The experimental results only provided data on what happened out-
side the embedment length. These include free-end slip, loaded-end
slip, and the load value. The actual bond development along the
embedment length can only be understood through modeling. For
this purpose, the bond between the reinforcement and the concrete
is modeled through a bond-slip relationship to define its behavior.
In a perfect bond situation, the nodes of the reinforcement elements
and of the concrete elements displace by the same amount acting as
a single material. However, this is only valid in areas with low
stress transfer. In high-stress areas, the strain in the concrete and the
reinforcement are different, which causes loss of bond. In such sit-
uations, the real bond behavior should be modeled separately. In
ABAQUS, this can be done either by using cohesive elements or
surface-based cohesive behaviors. In this study, the bond is mod-
eled by using surfaced-based cohesive behavior because the inter-
face thickness is negligibly small. This behavior assumes a linear
elastic traction-separation law before damage and also assumes fail-
ure of the cohesive bond to be characterized by progressive deg-
radation of the cohesive stiffness, which is driven by a damage
process. Because the loading, boundary, and material properties
offer symmetry of revolution as shown in Fig. 15, the problem
can be modeled as axisymmetric. A meshed model consisting of
four-node bilinear axisymmetric quadrilateral elements with a re-
duced integration and hourglass control (CAX4R) is also shown on
Fig. 15. The same element is used for both the concrete and the
reinforcement.
Concrete and Reinforcement Models
The concrete damage plasticity model (CDPM) available in
ABAQUS is used to model the concrete. As the complete stress-
strain behavior of the geopolymer concrete is not available, it is

© ASCE 04016025-10 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 04016025

 parameter compared to the characteristic time increment. A value
of 0.0005 was adopted through extensive trials. The GFRP, con-
versely, is modeled as a linear elastic material.
To find a reasonable mesh size required, a mesh sensitivity
analysis was performed on concrete cylinders compressive strength
test using CDPM. The analysis shows that a mesh size of approx-
imately 5 mm is reasonable as it yields acceptable results.

Fig. 15. Pullout model: (a) full model; (b) meshed axisymmetric model Bond-Slip Interaction
As described previously, the bond-slip behavior in this model is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

simulated by using surface-based cohesive behavior. For this con-

estimated by the modified Popovics stress-strain relationship equa-
tion using compressive strength and elastic modules from the ex-
perimental results. This relationship of Popovics, as modified by
Thorenfeldt et al. (1987), is given by the following expression:
 
σ εc n
¼ ð12Þ
f c0 εc0 n − 1 þ ðεεc0 Þnk
c
tact model, ABAQUS estimates bond behavior by using linear elas-
tic traction-separation model as shown in Fig. 17. This model
initially assumes elastic behavior followed by the initiation and
evolution of damage. The elastic behavior is written in terms of an
elastic constitutive matrix that relates the normal and shear stresses
to the normal and shear separations across the interface. Assuming
uncoupled normal and tangential components of the stiffness, the

traction separation behavior matrix as expressed in ABAQUS is

where σ = concrete compressive stress, in megapascals; εc = strain given by
in concrete; fc0 = maximum compressive stress in concrete, in meg- 8 9 2 38 9
apascals; εc0 = strain when σ reaches fc0 ; and n = curve fitting factor. > knn 0 0 > δn >
< n>
t
= < =
The factor k equals 1 when εc =εc0 is less than 1 and is given by 6
T ¼ ts ¼ 4 0 kss 0 5 δ s ¼ Kδ
7
ð16Þ
Eq. (13) when εc =εc0 is greater than 1 (Collins and Mitchell 1991). >
: > ; : >
> ;
Fig. 16 gives the complete stress-strain relationship of GPC con- tt 0 0 ktt δt
crete as determined by this method
where tn = nominal traction in the normal direction; ts and tt =
f0 ε nominal stresses in two local shear directions; δ n , δ s , and δt =
k ¼ 0.67 þ c for c0 > 1 ð13Þ corresponding displacements.
62 εc
According to Henriques et al. (2013), kss , ktt , and knn are
obtained as follows:
fc0
n ¼ 0.8 þ ð14Þ
17 kss ¼ ktt ¼ τ m =sm ð17Þ

fc0 n knn ¼ 100kss ¼ 100ktt ð18Þ

εc0 ¼ · ð15Þ
Ec n − 1
The mBPE model parameters for maximum bond strength (τ m )
In addition to uniaxial test results, the CDPM, which is a non- and slip at the maximum bond strength (sm ) are used for this mod-
associated plasticity model, requires the value of the dilation angle eling work.
to control the plastic flow. As there is no agreed value for the di-
lation angle (ranging from 30° to 45°), the value of 38° suggested in
Pullout Test Model Results
(Jankowiak and Lodygowski 2005) was used. Additionally, like all
materials exhibiting strain softening and stiffness degradation, con- The bond distribution along the embedment length of the speci-
vergence is sometimes very difficult to achieve in implicit analysis. mens is determined by using the pullout model results. The accu-
These convergence difficulties can be avoided by using a viscoplas- racy of the model is verified by Fig. 18, in which the model and the
tic regularization of the constitutive equations. The convergence
issues with the CDPM were resolved by introducing a coefficient
of viscosity. ABAQUS recommends a small value of viscosity

50
45
40
Traction

35
Stress (MPa)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0
Strain Separation

Fig. 16. GPC concrete (49.33 MPa) stress-strain curve Fig. 17. ABAQUS typical traction-separation response

© ASCE 04016025-11 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 04016025

 20
numerical reinforcement strain values at each node along the em-
18 bedment length, whereas the bond stress is calculated from the
16 change in reinforcement strain by using Eq. (7). Each curve cor-
Bond stress (MPa)

14 responds to a specific load represented as a percentage of the maxi-

12
10
8 ment length for GFRP bars. The strain on the bar increases rapidly
6 Model-loaded end (G16-6d3)
4 Experimental-loaded end (G16-6d3-1)
Experimental-loaded end (G16-6d3-2)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mum pullout load. A nonlinear strain distribution was observed and
is more pronounced at lower load levels. Benmokrane et al. (1996)
also observed this nonlinearity of tensile strain along the embed-
from the free end to the loaded end.
At low load levels, a low value of the bond stress was observed
at the free end. However, as the load increases, the bond stress at the

2 Experimental-loaded end (G16-6d3-3)

0 vicinity of the free-end increases, and the difference in bond stress
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 along the embedment length becomes less pronounced. This can be
Slip (mm) explained by the redistribution of the bond stress along the embed-
ment length as the load increases.
Fig. 18. Experimental and modeling bond-slip curve for G16-6d3
specimens
Conclusions
0.007 In this research, the bond property between straight sand-coated
GFRP bars and fly ash–based GPC concrete was investigated.
0.006
Parameters such as embedment length, bar diameter, and compres-
0.005 20%Pmax sive strength of concrete were examined. For each specimen, the
bond failure mode, the average bond strength, the slip at the loaded
Bar strain (ε)

40%Pmax
0.004 and free ends, and the bond-slip relationship curves were deter-
60%Pmax
mined. Furthermore, analytical and numerical analyses were made
0.003 80%Pmax
to determine a bond-slip relationship and investigate the bond dis-
90%Pmax tribution along the embedment length. The results of this study can
0.002
100%Pmax be summarized as follows:
0.001 1. The bond-slip behavior of sand-coated GFRP-reinforced GPC
concrete is similar to that of OPC concrete reinforced with
0 FRP or steel in the sense that it display similar stages consisting
0 20 40 60 80 100 of initial stiffening, nonlinear behavior before peak stress, and
Distance from free-end (mm) softening when pullout failure takes place;
Fig. 19. Modeling result for strain distribution along the embedment 2. The bond performance of sand-coated GFRP-reinforced GPC
length for G16-9d3 specimen concrete is better than that of the OPC concrete counterpart.
This is shown by the higher failure loads and bond strengths
of GFRP-reinforced GPC concrete specimens. For all the speci-
20 mens involved, average bond strengths of 15.8 MPa for GPC
concrete and 14.3 MPa for OPC concrete were found;
18
3. Pullout load increases with increasing embedment length, but
16 20%Pmax the average bond strength decreases because of the splitting fail-
14 40%Pmax ure mode and the nonlinear distribution of the bond along the
Bond stress (MPa)

12 60%Pmax embedment length;

80%Pmax 4. The failure mode is dependent on the embedment length. Lower
10
90%Pmax embedment length results in pullout failure, whereas longer em-
8 bedment lengths showed splitting failure. In the pullout failure,
100%Pmax
6 the crushing of the concrete interface between the concrete and
4 the bar was found to be the main cause of failure in both GPC
2 and OPC concretes, whereas the splitting failure is caused by the
radial stress generated by the bond;
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 5. The average bond strength of sand-coated GFRP-reinforced
Distance from free-end (mm) GPC concrete specimens are dependent on the compressive
strength of the concrete. The GPC concretes with the lowest
Fig. 20. Modeling result for bond distribution along the embedment compressive strength recorded the lowest average bond strength
length for G16-9d3 specimen despite other parameters such as bar diameter, embedment
length, and compressive strength;
6. Residual bond stress of approximately 20 and 30%, respec-
experimental bond-slip relationship for G16-6d3 are compared. tively, for OPC and GPC concretes is maintained following a
A good agreement is obtained between the experimental and the rapid attenuation of the bond resistance after the peak value.
modeling results. This residual bond stress is caused by the friction resistance be-
In Figs. 19 and 20, respectively, the strain and bond distribution tween the concrete and the sand coating of the GFRP bar; and
of G16-6d3 specimen obtained by using its average bond-slip con- 7. Distribution of tensile and bond stresses along the embedment
stitutive law are reported. The strain values are obtained from the length of the bars is nonlinear. As the load increases, the bond

© ASCE 04016025-12 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 04016025

 stress at the vicinity of the free end increases because of the
redistribution of bond stress along the embedment length.
References
ABAQUS [Computer software]. Dassault Systèmes, Waltham, MA.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2004). “Guide test methods for fiber-
reinforced polymers (FRPs) for reinforcing or strengthening concrete
structures.” ACI 440.3R-04, Farmington Hills, MI.
AS (Australian Standard). (2010). “General purpose and blended cements.”
AS 3972-2010, Sydney, Australia.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 03/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ASTM. (2010). “Standard test method for comparing bond strength of
steel reinforcing bars to concrete using beam-end specimens.” ASTM
A944-10, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2011). “Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens.” ASTM C496/496M-11, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2012). “Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or
calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete.” ASTM C618-12a, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2013). “Standard test method for total evaporable moisture content
of aggregate by drying.” ASTM C566-13, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2014). “Standard test method for static modulus of elasticity
and poison’s ratio of concrete in compression.” ASTM C469/469M-14,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2015a). “Standard test method for compressive strength of cylin-
drical concrete specimens.” ASTM C39/39M-15a, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2015b). “Standard test method for relative density (specific
gravity) and absorption of coarse aggregate.” ASTM C127-15, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2015c). “Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement
concrete.” ASTM C143/143M-15, West Conshohocken, PA.
Baena, M., Torres, L., Turon, A., and Barris, C. (2009). “Experimental
study of bond behaviour between concrete and FRP bars using a
pull-out test.” Compos. Part B Eng., 40(8), 784–797.
Bank, L. C. (2006). Composites for construction: Structural design with
FRP materials, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Benmokrane, B., Tighiouart, B., and Chaallal, O. (1996). “Bond strength
and load distribution of composite GFRP reinforcing bars in concrete.”
ACI Mater. J., 93(3), 246–252.
Chaallal, O., and Benmokrane, B. (1993). “Pull out and bond of glass-fibre
rods embedded in concrete and cement grout.” Mater. Struct., 26(3),
167–175.
Chang, E. H., Sarkar, P., Natalia, L., and Rangan, B. (2009). “Bond behav-
iour of reinforced fly ash-based geopolymer concrete beams.” 24th Bi-
ennial Conf. of the Concrete Institute of Australia: Concrete Solutions,
Concrete Institute of Australia, North Sydney, Australia, 1–10.
Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D. (1991). Prestressed concrete structures,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. (1995). “Analytical model-
ling of bond between FRP reinforcing bars and concrete.” Proc., 2nd
Int. RILEM Symp. on Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures, E&FN Spon, London, 164–171.
Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. (1997). “Behaviour and mod-
elling of bond of FRP rebars to concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(1997)1:2(40), 40–51.
Cui, Y., and Kayali, O. (2013). “Bond performance of steel bar and fly ash
based geopolymer concrete.” 26th Biennial Conf. of the Concrete In-
stitute of Australia: Understanding Concrete, Concrete Institute of Aus-
tralia, North Sydney, Australia.
Davidovits, J. (1988). “Geopolymer chemistry and properties.” Proc., Geo-
polymer Conf., 1st European Conf. on Soft Mineralogy, Geopolymer
Institute, Saint-Quentin, France, 25–48.
© ASCE 04016025-13
J. Compos. Constr., 04016025
Eligehausen, R., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V. (1983). “Local bond stress-
slip relationships of deformed bars under generalized excitations: Ex-
perimental results and analytical model.” UCB/EERC-83/23, Univ. of
California, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Berkeley, CA.
Focacci, F., Nanni, A., and Bakis, C. E. (2000). “Local bond-slip relation-
ship for FRP reinforcement in concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2000)4:1(24), 24–31.
Hardjito, D., and Rangan, B. V. (2005). “Development and properties of
low calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.” Research Rep. GC
1, Curtin Univ. of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Henriques, J., da Silva, L. S., and Valente, I. B. (2013). “Numerical
modelling of composite beam to reinforced concrete wall joints. I:
Calibration of joint components.” Eng. Struct., 52, 747–761.
Jankowiak, T., and Lodygowski, T. (2005). “Identification of parameters
of concrete damage plasticity model.” Found. Civ. Environ. Eng., 4,
53–69.
Junaid, M. T., Kayali, O., Khennane, A., and Black, J. (2015a). “A mix
design procedure for low calcium alkali activated fly ash-based
concretes.” Constr. Build. Mater., 79, 301–310.
Junaid, M. T., Khennane, A., and Kayali, O. (2015b). “Performance of fly
ash based geopolymer concrete made using non-pelletized fly ash
aggregates after exposure to high temperature.” Mater. Struct., 48(10),
3357–3365.
Junaid, M. T., Khennane, A., Kayali, O., Sadaoui, A., Picard, D., and
Fafard, M. (2014). “Aspects of the deformational behaviour of alkali
activated fly ash concrete at elevated temperatures.” Cem. Concr. Res.,
60, 24–29.
Kessler, R. J., and Powers, R. G. (1998). “Corrosion of epoxy-coated rebars
keys segmental bridge.” Rep. No. 88-8A, Florida DOT, Corrosion
Research Laboratory, Gainesville, FL.
Lee, Y. H., Kim, M. S., Kim, H., Lee, J., and Kim, D. (2013). “Experimen-
tal study on bond strength of fiber reinforced polymer rebars in normal
strength concrete.” J. Adhes. Sci. Technol., 27(5–6), 508–522.
Malvar, L. J. (1994). “Bond stress-slip characteristics of FRP rebars.” Tech-
nical Rep., Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme,
CA.
Maranan, G., Manalo, A., Karunasena, K., and Benmokrane, B. (2015).
“Bond stress-slip behavior: Case of GFRP bars in geopolymer con-
crete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001046,
04014116.
Okelo, R., and Yuan, R. L. (2005). “Bond strength of fiber reinforced poly-
mer rebars in normal strength concrete.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2005)9:3(203), 203–213.
Pecce, M., Manfredi, G., Realfonzo, R., and Cosenza, E. (2001). “Ex-
perimental and analytical evaluation of bond properties of GFRP
bars.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2001)13:4(282),
282–290.
Sarker, P. K. (2011). “Bond strength of reinforcing steel embedded in fly
ash-based geopolymer concrete.” Mater. Struct., 44(5), 1021–1030.
Sofi, M., van Deventer, J. S. J., Mendis, P. A., and Lukey, G. C. (2007).
“Bond performance of reinforcing bars in inorganic polymer concrete
(IPC).” J. Mater. Sci., 42(9), 3107–3116.
Tao, S., Ehsani, M. R., and Saadatmanesh, H. (1992). “Bond strength
of straight GFRP rebars.” Proc., Materials Engineering Congress:
Material Performance and Prevention of Deficiencies and Failures,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 598–605.
Thorenfeldt, E., Tomaszewicz, A., and Jensen, J. J. (1987). “Mechanical
properties of high strength concrete and application in design.” Proc.,
Symp. on Utilization of High Strength Concrete, Tapir, Trondheim,
Norway, 149–159.
Tighiouart, B., Benmokrane, B., and Gao, D. (1998). “Investigation of bond
in concrete member with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 12(8), 453–462.
J. Compos. Constr.