1 Bond performance of basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) bars to

2 concrete

3 Ahmed El Refai1, Mohamed-Amine Ammar2, Radhouane Masmoudi3

5Abstract

6This paper presents the test results of a study on the bond behavior of basalt fiber-reinforced

7polymer (BFRP) bars to concrete. Thirty-six concrete cylinders reinforced with BFRP bars and

8twelve cylinders reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars were tested in

9direct pullout conditions. Test parameters included the FRP material (basalt and glass), the bar

10diameter, and the bar embedment length in concrete. Bond-slip curves of BFRP and GFRP bars

11revealed similar trends. BFRP bars developed average bond strength of 75% of that of GFRP

12bars. All BFRP specimens failed in a pullout mode of failure along the interfacial surface

13between the outer layer of the bar and the subsequent core layers. The influence of various

14parameters on the overall bond performance of BFRP bars is analyzed and discussed. The well-

15known BPE and modified-BPE analytical models were calibrated to describe the bond-slip

16relationships of the bars. Test results demonstrate the promise of using the BFRP bars as an

17alternative to the GFRP bars in reinforcing concrete elements.

11

2 Assistant Professor, Ph.D., P. Eng. Email: ahmed.elrefai@gci.ulaval.ca Department of Civil and

3Water Engineering, Laval University, Qubec City, Qubec, G1V 0A6, Canada
4

52

6 M. Sc. Candidate, Laval University, Qubec, Canada, mohamed-amine.ammar.1@ulaval.ca

73

8 Professor, Sherbrooke University, Qubec, Canada, radhouane.masmoudi@usherbrooke.ca

9 1
18CE Database subject headings: concrete; bars; basalt; bonding; failure modes; fiber reinforced

19polymer; glass fibers; pullout; slip; tensile loads.

20Introduction

21 Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) offer a promising solution to infrastructure decay that results from

22corrosion of reinforcing steel bars. As a result, conventional FRP materials such as glass-, carbon-, and

23aramid- FRP have been widely used in reinforcing and strengthening concrete structures. Basalt fibers

24have been recently used in developing a new FRP composite, referred to as basalt fiber-reinforced

25polymer (BFRP). Recently, BFRP bars have emerged as a promising alternative to conventional FRP

26bars in reinforcing concrete structures.

27 Basalt fibers are processed from basalt rocks through a melting process similar to that used for glass

28fibers. The fibers are environmentally safe, non-toxic, non-corrosive, and have good magnetic

29insulation properties (Palmieri et al. 2009). They are characterized by their high resistance to alkalinity

30in surrounding concrete, overcoming a common drawback of glass fibers (Sim et al. 2005; Palmieri et

31al. 2009). They have an excellent resistance to high temperature and high moisture conditions (Militky

32et al. 2002; Palmieri et al. 2009). Moreover, the fibers have an outstanding chemical stability (Wei et al.

332010; 2011) and an excellent fatigue resistance (Wu et al. 2010).

34 Several studies (Sim et al. 2005; Carmignato et al. 2009; Lopresto et al. 2011) have documented the

35mechanical characteristics of basalt fibers and basalt composites. However, research on the feasibility

36of using BFRP products in reinforcing and strengthening concrete structures has been very limited (Sim

37et al. 2005; Liu et al. 2006; Ludovico et al. 2010). Lack of knowledge and research studies on basalt

38products as reinforcing materials has resulted in that BFRP bars are not listed among the approved FRP

39reinforcing bars in most design codes (American and Canadian codes are examples). Therefore, there is

40not yet a formulation in the technical and scientific communities for the use of BFRP reinforcing bars

41in structural applications, especially in North America.

10 2
42 The wide acceptance of BFRP bars in construction necessitates comprehensive investigation of their

43structural and mechanical performance to ensure their suitability for civil-engineering applications. One

44of the fundamental aspects of structural behavior is bond development, as bond governs the

45serviceability, ductility, and capacity of concrete structures. Previous studies have extensively reported

46on the bond performance of glass-, carbon-, and aramid- FRP bars in concrete (Tepfers et. al 1998;

47Achillides and Pilakoutas 2004; Alvarez-Villarreal 2004; ACI 2006; Tastani and Pantazopoulou 2006;

48Sayed et al. 2011). Test results showed that concrete strength, bar diameter, bar embedment length in

49concrete, and bar confinement significantly affect the bond development of FRP reinforcing bars

50(Ehsani et al. 1997; Hamad et al. 2004; Aiello et al. 2007; Davalos et al. 2008). According to Bank et

51al. (1998) and Harajli and Abouniaj (2010), bond is strongly dependent on the surface characteristics of

52the FRP bar and its treatment. Achillides and Pilakoutas (2004) and Davalos et al. (2008) reported that

53bond of FRP bars to concrete depends on the type of fibers used in manufacturing the bar. According to

54Cosenza et al. (2002), the mechanical properties of the resin matrix have a significant influence on the

55bond performance of FRP bars, as they strongly affect the strength and the deformability of the ribs and

56indentations located at the outer layer of the bar.

57 In contrast to steel reinforcing bars, FRP bars have no standardization for their surface treatment.

58The unique characteristics of every FRP material and the wide variety of fiber/resin interfaces made the

59bond behavior of FRP bars hard to predict apart from experimental investigations. Proper assessment of

60the parameters that are commonly known to influence bond of FRP bars to concrete is crucial to

61understand how BFRP bars develop their bond strength. To the best of the authors knowledge, very

62limited studies have been conducted to study the bond behavior of BFRP bars (Ramakrishnan and

63Neeraj 1998; Brik 2003; Parnas et al. 2007). Most of these studies were preliminary investigations

64where major parameters known to influence the bond performance of FRP bars were not thoroughly

65investigated.

11 3
66 The present study is part of a large research program aiming at assessing the use of BFRP bars in

67construction towards their consideration in concrete design codes. This paper presents the results of

68pullout tests carried out on concrete cylinders reinforced with BFRP bars. GFRP-reinforced specimens

69were also tested for comparison. Failure mechanism and bond-slip relationships are reported for both

70basalt and glass specimens. The study also assesses the applicability of the BPE bond-slip model

71(Eligehausen et al. 1983) and the modified-BPE model (Cosenza et al. 1997) to BFRP bars.

72Experimental program

73Material properties

74 Pullout specimens were constructed using concrete with an average compressive strength of 50

75MPa. This high-strength concrete was used to ensure that bond failure occurred at the barconcrete

76interface and not in concrete and to follow current engineering practice to use high strength concrete

77with FRP reinforcement. The concrete mix had a maximum aggregate size of 14 mm and a water-

78cement ratio of 0.45 (Table 1). The measured slump was 110 mm, which allowed good compaction

79around the bars without excessive bleeding. Concrete compressive strength was determined using

80standard cylinders of 100-by-200 mm. Both pullout specimens and cylinders were cured at a

81temperature of 20C 2C and a humidity of 95% for 28 days.

82 BFRP and GFRP bars were used in this study. Table 2 shows the nominal and actual diameters of the

83bars. It can be noticed that the actual diameter of GFRP bars is larger than that of BFRP bars by 11%.

84Prior to pullout testing, tensile tests were carried out on bare bars to characterize their mechanical

85properties (Table 3). Bar characteristics reported by the manufacturers are also given in Table 3. As per

86the manufacturers specifications, BFRP and GFRP bars are pultruded using epoxy and vinyl ester

87resins, respectively. Both FRP bars are sand-coated on their surfaces. Visual inspection of the bars

12 4
 88reveals uniform and consistent sand coating on GFRP bar surface whereas the BFRP bar surface shows

89shallow spiral indentations spaced at 2.75 mm along the bar (Figure 1).

90Test specimens

91 Cylindrical molds of 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height were used to prepare the pullout

92specimens. BFRP and GFRP bars of 1000 mm long were concentrically positioned in the molds using

93the wooden frame shown in Figure 2. Prior to casting, FRP bars were properly marked so that the

94embedment length, Ld, would lie in the middle third of the cylindrical mold. Plastic tubes were used as

95bond breakers at top and bottom of the specimen. This arrangement was chosen to prevent compressive

96stresses induced during the pullout testing from influencing the bond behavior of the bar (Achillides

97and Pilakoutas 2004). Embedment lengths were designed as multiples of the bar diameter to facilitate

98comparisons between bars of different diameters.

99Test setup and procedure

100 Pullout arrangement is shown in Figure 3. Concrete specimens were placed in a specifically made

101steel frame that was positioned in the testing machine. The frame consisted of a bearing plate 25 mm

102thick connected to the rigid base of the machine with four rods 20 mm in diameter. Prior to load

103application, specimens were seated on two horizontal steel beams to allow the instrumentation of the

104specimen.

105 Two circular steel plates and a rubber plate were introduced between the concrete specimen and the

106bearing plate to secure the contact between the top surface of concrete and the bearing plate. This

107arrangement was necessary to minimize the effect of surface irregularities on the specimens alignment

108and to prevent accidental lateral movement during testing. Two linear variable displacement

109transducers (LVDT) were attached to the loaded end of the FRP bar by steel brackets to record the bar

13 5
110slip relative to the top surface of concrete. Two other LVDTs were attached to the free (unloaded) end

111of the bar, which extended outside the concrete cylinder. The instrumented test specimen was

112positioned in an MTS universal testing machine with a load cell capacity of 500 kN. Direct tensile load

113was applied to the bar in a strain-control mode at a rate of 1.2 mm/min according to CSA-S806-02

114(2002) guidelines. Test was halted when no more load could be carried by the bar. During the test, a

115data acquisition system recorded the load and slip readings at a rate of 5 readings/sec.

116Test matrix

117 The test matrix is shown in Table 4. BFRP bars with three nominal diameters (8, 10, and 12 mm)

118were used. GFRP bars with nominal diameter 10 mm were also tested for comparison. Four embedded

119lengths taken as multiples of the bar diameter (5, 7, 10, and 15 times the bar diameter) were

120investigated in the study. The selection of test parameters was based on previous experience on the

121bond behavior of GFRP bars in concrete.

122 For each set of parameters, three specimens were tested to ensure the reliability of the test results.

123Specimens are labeled as follows: the first character marks the bar type (B for basalt and G for glass),

124followed by the bar diameter (8, 10, or 12 mm). The numeral next to the bar diameter refers to the

125embedment length. Last digit refers to the specimen number in its group. For instance, B12-120-3

126refers to a BFRP-reinforced specimen with a bar diameter of 12 mm and an embedment length of 120

127mm (equivalent to 10 times the bar diameter). The last digit refers to the third specimen of its set.

128Experimental results and discussion

129 Test results of 48 pullout specimens are shown in Table 4. The maximum bond stress, max, of the bar

130is determined as follows:

P
131 max = (1)
d Ld

14 6
132where P is the tensile load, d is the bar diameter, and Ld is the bar embedment length in concrete. Actual

133bar diameters were used in calculations. At any stage of loading, bar slip at the unloaded ends was

134obtained directly from the bottom LVDTs readings. For the loaded end, the elongation of the bar

135between the upper LVDT support and the beginning of the bonded zone was subtracted from the LVDT

136measurement. It is worth noting that GFRP specimens that failed by concrete splitting during the tests

137were not used in calculations.

138Bond stress-slip response

139 Figure 4 and Figure 5 depict relationships between bond stress and slip histories of representative

140BFRP specimens with different diameters and embedment lengths at both the unloaded and loaded

141ends, respectively. Figure 6 compares the bond-slip curves at the unloaded ends of BFRP and GFRP

142specimens with bar diameter of 10 mm. It can be noticed that the bar slip in some specimens was not

143fully recorded due to an unexpected damage of the LVDTs. These specimens can be clearly identified

144in the plots.

145 As seen from Figures 4 to 6, all BFRP and GFRP curves showed an initial ascending branch up to

146maximum stress, max . The increase in bond stress was accompanied by an increase in slip between

147the bar and the surrounding concrete. Bond-slip curves also showed a falling branch, or softening

148branch, after the maximum bond stress was attained. This portion of the curve was characterized by a

149significant decrease in the bond stress accompanied by an increase in the bar slip.

150 Bond-slip curves of BFRP and GFRP bars of 10 mm diameter demonstrate similar trends as shown

151in Figure 6. The ascending and softening branches can be clearly identified from the plots. Figure 7

152compares between the maximum stresses developed by the bars. It can be noticed that BFRP bars

153developed 71% and 79% of the bond strength of GFRP bars for embedment lengths of 5d and 10d,

154respectively, with an average value of 75%. Bond strengths of specimens with embedment lengths 7d

15 7
155and 15d were not compared due to the different modes of failure exhibited in each type of bars. The

156slip measured at the unloaded ends at maximum stress was negligible in both bars (average of 0.16 mm

157and 0.07 mm for BFRP and GFRP bars, respectively). At the loaded ends, an average slip of 1.01 mm

158and 0.67 mm was encountered at maximum stress for BFRP and GFRP bars, respectively.

159 At all stages of loading, bar slip at the unloaded ends was significantly smaller than that at the

160loaded ends. In fact, slip initiated at the loaded end almost at the beginning of the test after the

161chemical adhesion broke between the bar and concrete. Adhesion of FRP bars to concrete is the

162principal component that describes the bond performance of the bar at initial loading stages. Once

163adhesion between the bar and concrete breaks, the loaded end starts to slip and friction between the

164outer layer of the bar and concrete controls the bond mechanism. Achillides and Pilakoutas (2004)

165reported that adhesion of GFRP and CFRP bars depends on the bar diameter regardless of its fiber

166material. Average adhesion stresses of 0.82 MPa and 0.86 MPa were reported for both types of bars of

1678.5 mm diameter, respectively (Achillides and Pilakoutas 2004). In the current study, adhesion stresses

168were obtained from the bond-slip curves at the points where the initial slope of the ascending branch

169changed abruptly. These stresses are listed in Table 4 for all specimens. Average adhesion of 1.37, 0.67,

170and 0.51 MPa was determined for BFRP bars with 8, 10, and 12 mm diameters, respectively, compared

171to 1.09 MPa for the 10 mm diameter GFRP bar. These stresses are depicted in Figure 8a in MPa and as

172percentages of the ultimate stresses attained. These findings demonstrate that the adhesion developed

173by BFRP bars to concrete is approximately 62% of that developed by the GFRP bars.

174 Adhesion stresses shown in Figure 8a for BFRP bars confirm the findings of Achillides and

175Pilakoutas (2004) that adhesion depends on the bar diameter. Test results show that the stress needed to

176mobilize slip of BFRP bars of small diameters is larger than that needed for bars with large diameters.

177For instance, the 8 mm diameter BFRP bars slipped at a stress of 1.37 MPa that represents 9% of their

16 8
178maximum bond stress, while the 12 mm bars slipped at a stress of 0.51 MPa (4% of their maximum

179stress).

180 A similar trend was also observed at the unloaded ends of the BFRP bars. In fact, the slip recorded at

181the unloaded ends of both BFRP and GFRP bars remained practically zero until the bond stress reached

182levels close to the bond strength of the bar. The ratio of bond stress at onset of slip at the unloaded ends

183to the ultimate stress is shown in Figure 8b. Bars with small diameters encountered slip at higher stress

184than those with large diameters. Bond stress of 8 mm BFRP bar reached 14.77 MPa (95% of its

185ultimate stress) before the bar started to slip at the unloaded end. This stress decreased to 11.74 MPa

186(81% of the maximum stress) for the 12 mm diameter bars. On the other hand, stresses that mobilized

187slip of the 10 mm BFRP and GFRP bars were 11.67 MPa and 13.20 MPa, representing 84% and 80% of

188the corresponding ultimate stresses, respectively. These stresses are listed in Table 4 for all test

189specimens. The obtained stresses are consistent with the stresses reported by Achillides (1998) and

190Achillides and Pilakoutas (2004).

191Residual bond stress

192 Residual stress, or post-maximum stress, describes the bond performance of the FRP bar after

193reaching its ultimate bond stress. It indicates the additional resistance of the bar to the applied pullout

194load along the softening branch. Residual bond stresses for both BFRP and GFRP bars were determined

195by visual inspection of the bond-slip curves of all test specimens. Residual stresses were evaluated as

196the bond stresses recorded on the softening branch before the curve flattens out (e.g. point A in Figure

1976a) or dramatically changes its slope (e.g. point B in Figure 6b).

198 Residual stresses at unloaded and loaded ends are listed in Table 4. Figure 9 shows the residual

199stress obtained for all BFRP specimens. Test results showed that BFRP specimens exhibited average

200residual stresses of 9 MPa and 10 MPa (61% and 68% of the peak stress attained) at the unloaded and

17 9
201loaded ends, respectively. The residual stress appears to be independent of the bar diameter. The

202resistance of the bar post the peak stress is rather attributed to the friction resistance of the embedded

203length of the bar in concrete, which mainly depends on the surface deformations of the FRP bar in

204addition to the resistance of the undamaged part that enters the embedded zone when the bar starts to

205slip.

206 GFRP bars showed average residual stresses of 7.72 MPa and 5.75 MPa representing 39% and 35%

207of the peak stress at the unloaded and loaded ends, respectively. This low post peak stress was

208attributed to the failure of the sand-coated surface and its separation from the bar core. Friction

209provided by the resulting smooth surface could not provide enough resistance to the pullout force. In

210fact, GFRP bars showed an abrupt decrease in bond stress immediately after reaching the ultimate

211stress. This was accompanied by a significant energy release and sudden explosion. During this short

212time, no slip values were recorded. This phenomenon is shown in Figure 6b for specimen G10-70-1.

213Negligible slip was recorded at the ultimate stress of 17.35 MPa before the bar slipped 4.6 mm at a

214stress of 6.7 MPa. On the other hand, BFRP specimens showed a smooth transition between the

215ascending and descending portions of the bond-slip curve. This was attributed to the gradual and partial

216delamination of the interface between the sand-coated layer and the subsequent layers of the bar, as will

217be detailed in the following section.

218 Another important observation from the tests that slip hardening was observed in both types of bars,

219but was more pronounced in the GFRP ones. In some cases, GFRP specimens restored almost their full

220or high percentage of their bond strength (Figure 6b). Slip hardening can be attributed to many factors

221such as: (a) the development of friction between the embedded portion of the bar and concrete, (b) the

222contribution of the undamaged part of the bar that entered the embedded zone, in addition to (c) the

223entrapment of concrete and polymer residues between the bar and the surrounding concrete.

18 10
224Bond failure mechanism

225 Failure modes of all specimens are listed in Table 4. All BFRP bars failed in pullout mode as shown

226in Figure 10a for specimen B10-100-2. No visual cracks were observed on the BFRP-reinforced

227cylinders even for specimens with large embedment length (15d). GFRP specimens with embedded

228lengths of 5 and 10 times the diameter also failed by pullout of the bars, except one specimen where the

229bar ruptured before attaining its bond strength (specimen G10-100-2 shown in Figure 10b). Failure of

230this specimen was attributed to the misalignment of the bar during the test.

231 GFRP-reinforced specimens with embedment lengths of 7 and 15 times the bar diameter exhibited

232different modes of failure. All specimens with Ld = 7d failed in a splitting mode where concrete cracked

233before the bar was pulled out of the specimen. This mode of failure is depicted in Figure 10c for

234specimen G10-70-2. This finding was inconsistent with the pullout of GFRP bars with embedment

235length longer than 7d (e.g. specimens G10-100-1 and G10-100-3). Concrete splitting could be

236attributed to variation in concrete strength of these specimens or to the common scatter usually

237encountered in bond tests. On the other hand, GFRP bars with Ld = 15d ruptured before bond strength

238was attained. For specimens with such long embedment length, the pulling force was not capable to

239overcome the adherence between the bar and concrete. The tensile strength of the bar was achieved and

240the bar ruptured before bond strength was mobilized. This mode of failure indicates that GFRP bars

241supersede their BFRP counterparts in interfacial shear resistance between the grained layer and the core

242layers of the bar.

243 At the end of each test, concrete cylinders were split to visually assess the conditions of the bar and

244the surrounding concrete. Figures 11a and 11b show the conditions of the bars and concrete for

245specimens B8-120-2 and B8-56-1, respectively. Both specimens failed by pullout of the BFRP bar. It

246can be noticed that the bar surface was significantly damaged at the loaded end and the outer layer was

247entirely peeled off (delaminated) from the subsequent bar layers. White residue was detected close to
19 11
248that end and along the whole embedded length, which indicates traces of crushed resin. Close to the

249unloaded end, the surface layer of the bar was partially peeled off. At this end, parts of the sand-coated

250layer can be seen attached to the bar. No apparent damage to the surrounding concrete was observed.

251These findings suggest that bond failure took place along the interfacial shear surface between the

252grained layer and the subsequent core layers of the bar. Failure was therefore governed by the shear

253strength along the fibers interface rather than the shear strength between the bar and concrete. This

254mode of failure was anticipated in case of the high strength concrete used in this study (Tastani et al.

2552006; Davalos et al. 2008). Damage concentration at the loaded end suggest that peeling off of the

256grained layer started at that end and continued along the embedded portion of the bar until failure

257occurred. High stresses usually exhibited at the loaded ends explain the damage concentration on the

258surface of the bar at that end.

259 GFRP specimens that failed in pullout mode showed a different bond failure mechanism. Contrary

260to what was observed for BFRP bars, a uniform peeling off of the surface layer was noticed along the

261whole length of the embedded portion of the bar. Figure 11c depicts this mode of failure for specimen

262G10-70-3. This observation explains the abrupt failure of GFRP specimens. The sudden delamination

263of the grained surface of the bar led to a large energy release at the end of the test. Moreover, it explains

264the low residual stress that GFRP bars developed compared to that of the BFRP bars. The complete

265delamination of the grained surface resulted in a smooth surface incapable of resisting the increasing

266pullout force applied. In this case, the residual stress was mostly developed by the undamaged part of

267the bar that entered the embedded zone in addition to the concrete and polymer residues entrapped

268between the bar and concrete.

20 12
269Factors affecting bond behavior

270Embedment length

271 Relationships between the bond strength and the embedment length are shown in Figure 12 for

272GFRP and BFRP bars with different diameters. For each embedment length, the ultimate bond stress of

273three tested specimens is shown. The plot shows the best-fit trend lines obtained by linear regression of

274the average stress values. R-squared (R2) of best-fit lines are also shown to describe how well the

275regression line fits the recorded data.

276 From Figure 12, it can be seen that both BFRP and GFRP bars revealed similar trends. Bond

277strength of both types of bars is inversely proportional to the embedment length, i.e. increasing the

278embedment length results in a decrease in the bond strength of the bar. This observation is valid for all

279test specimens regardless of the bar diameter.

280 The decrease in bond strength with the bar embedment length is confirmed by many studies

281(Achillides and Pilakoutas 2004; Sayed et al. 2011) and is thought to be a result of two main factors

282namely (a) the nonlinear distribution of the bond stress along the embedded portion of the bar, which

283increases with the increase of the embedment length and (b) the reduction in the bar diameter due to

284Poissons ratio effect, which leads to a reduction in friction along the embedment length. Boyle et al.

285(1994) reported that reduction in bond strength is more pronounced for small cross-section reinforcing

286bars. Test results of BFRP specimens confirmed this finding as illustrated in Figure 13a. Trend lines of

287the 8 mm bars showed a steeper slope than that of the 10 mm and 12 mm bars.

288 A comparison of the influence of the embedment length on the ultimate bond stress of BFRP and

289GFRP bars is shown in Figure 13b. Difference in slopes of both trend lines indicates that the influence

290of bar embedment length is more pronounced in GFRP bars. If the embedded length of the bar

291increases, GFRP bars of similar diameters loose their friction resistance much abruptly than their BFRP

21 13
292counterparts. This trend is not valid at long embedment lengths where failure modes change

293dramatically from pullout (e.g. GFRP specimens of Ld = 5d) to bar rupture (e.g. GFRP specimens of Ld

294= 15d).

295Bar material and modulus of elasticity

296 Previous experimental studies reported that the bond strength of FRP bars significantly varies with

297the bar material (Achillides and Pilakoutas 2004; Aiello et al. 2007; Wang and Belarbi 2010). Type of

298fibers and resins used in manufacturing the FRP bars affect their mechanical properties and therefore

299affect their bond to concrete. Current test results have demonstrated the influence of the bar material on

300the bond strength of the bar. As previously stated, BFRP bars developed an average bond strength of

30175% of that of GFRP bars (Figure 7). This can be attributed to the low modulus of elasticity of BFRP

302bars compared to that of the GFRP bars (48 GPa versus 53 GPa for BFRP and GFRP bars,

303respectively). If other parameters were fixed, FRP bars with higher modulus will likely develop higher

304bond strength to concrete.

305Bar diameter

306 Many studies have demonstrated the effect of bar diameter on the bond strength of GFRP and CFRP

307bars (Benmokrane et al. 1996; Cosenza et al. 1997; Tighiouart et al. 1998; Achillides and Pilakoutas

3082004). It is established that the larger the diameter of the bar, the less bond strength developed during

309the test. This is attributed to the nonlinear stress distribution exhibited along the bar, which is more

310pronounced in case of large diameters as large embedment lengths are needed (Arias et al. 2012). In

311case of steel reinforcing rebars, the loss of bond strength is explained by the high quantity of bleeding

312water trapped beneath the rebar of large diameters, which leads to the creation of air voids underneath

313the rebar, therefore reducing the contact area between the rebar and concrete.

22 14
314 Figure 14 compares the bond strengths of 8 mm, 10 mm, and 12 mm BFRP bars with different

315embedment lengths. It is observed that bars with large diameter developed less average bond strength

316than those with small diameters. BFRP bars of 8 mm diameter showed bond strength of 16%, 0%, 11%,

317and 14% higher than the bond strengths developed by the 10 mm diameter bars for embedment lengths

318of 5, 7, 10, and 15d, respectively, with an average increase of 10%. These percentages were 3%, 11.5%,

3194%, and 12% more than the bond strength developed by the 12 mm bars for the same embedment

320lengths, with an average increase of 7.6%. Despite the variation that exists in some of the test results,

321which can be attributed to the variation in concrete strength of the test specimens or to the

322inconsistency in the mechanical properties of the bar, the general trend conforms to the findings of

323other researchers that bars with large diameters develop less average bond strengths than those with

324small diameters.

325Surface deformations

326 Surface deformations play a major role in developing friction between the FRP bar and concrete.

327Deformations could consist of just resin, fiber-reinforced resins, or resin containing longitudinal

328continuous fibers (fib report 2000). BFRP and GFRP bars used in this study were sand-coated on their

329surface with spiral indentations existing on the outer layer of BFRP bars. Indentations were created

330during the manufacturing process by winding the bar with separate filaments. Epoxy and vinyl ester

331resins were used in bonding the fibers in BFRP and GFRP bars, respectively. As previously mentioned,

332test results indicate that bond strength of BFRP bars was less than that of GFRP bars. Moreover, failure

333of both types of bars occurred at the interface between the outer layer of the bar and its core, which

334suggest that bond strength was governed by the properties of the bar itself irrespective of the

335surrounding concrete.

23 15
336 The effect of surface deformations on the failure modes of both types of bars was noticed. GFRP

337bars coated with a uniform sand layer showed good performance until the peak bond stress was

338achieved. The bar then failed abruptly as a result of the sudden detachment of the interface between

339sand grains and the bar. For BFRP bars, the spiral indentations created grooved segments on the bar

340surface at their locations, which prevented the continuity of the sand-coated surface. This explains the

341smooth mode of failure obtained for BFRP specimens compared to the brittle failure of GFRP ones. In

342fact, these indentations were supposed to play the role of ribs in FRP ribbed bars or the lugs in steel

343rebars where mechanical interlocking could be activated. In the authors opinion, the influence of these

344indentations on the bond strength of the bar has not been realized. Test results showed partial

345delamination of BFRP bars as shown in Figures 11a and 11b. It is thought that no interlocking

346mechanism has been developed, which is confirmed by the fact that concrete surrounding the bar

347remained undamaged. This mode of failure suggests that adhesion and friction remain the principal

348components in developing the bond strength of the BFRP bar. This result is consistent with the results

349reported by Benmokrane et al. (1996) for GFRP bars having helical windings on their surface.

350Theoretical analysis

351 Several analytical models that describe bond-slip relationship for FRP bars are available. In this

352study, the well-known BPE and modified BPE models were adopted to develop the bond-slip

353relationship for BFRP bars. The models were calibrated to describe the bond performance of BFRP

354bars based on the current test results.

355 The BPE model was developed by Eligehausen et al. (1983) and was successfully used to describe

356the bond-slip relationship of GFRP and CFRP bars (Lorenzis et al. 2002; Aiello et al. 2007; Baena et al.

3572009). The model describes the ascending branch of the bond-slip relationship as follows:

s
358
max
=
(s )
max
(2)

24 16
359where and s are the bond stress and the corresponding slip, respectively, at any stage of loading while

360max and smax are their corresponding maximum values. The parameter is a curve fitting parameter that

361has been calibrated for the BFRP and GFRP bars from the current bond test results. This parameter

362should be less than 1 to be physically meaningful (Cosenza et al. 1997). The BPE model proposes a

363second branch with constant bond ( = max) up to a slip s = s2. At this point, a descending branch with a

364defined slope is used to describe the post-maximum bond-slip relationship.

365 A comparison between the experimental and analytical curves showed a lack of the softening branch

366of the BPE model. Therefore, Cosenza et al. (1997) proposed a modification of the descending branch

367as follows:

368
max
=1p
( s s 1)
max
(3)

369where p is a parameter based on curve fitting of the experimental data. The modified model (mBPE)

370uses the same ascending branch of the BPE model. However, the model does not show a horizontal

371branch after attaining the maximum stress.

372 Design of FRP-reinforced concrete elements involves that the anchorage length has to be such that

373the unloaded end of the FRP bar does not slip under the service load applied (De Lorenzis et al. 2002).

374Therefore, the parameters of the BEP and the mBPE models ( and p) were calibrated for both BFRP

375and GFRP bars using the current experimental data obtained at the unloaded ends.

376 The parameter was evaluated by equating the areas underneath the ascending branch, A , of the

377analytical and experimental bond-slip curves (Cosenza et al. 1997) as follows:

smax
s max s max
378 A = max
0
(s )max
ds=
1+
(4)

379 Similarly, the parameter p was obtained by balancing the areas underneath the softening branches.

380The goal was to calibrate the values of and p while minimizing the difference between the calculated

381areas underneath the analytical and experimental curves without compromising the trend of the
25 17
382obtained curve (Cosenza et al. 2002). Values of and p of each specimen are listed in Table 5. Mean

383values, standard deviations, and coefficients of variation are shown in Table 5.

384 The obtained analytical results show that the parameter for BFRP bars ranges between 0.01 and

3850.08 with a mean value of 0.048. The low values of characterize the ascending branch of BFRP bars

386and indicate the high initial stiffness of the bars at this stage of loading. In fact, most specimens

387develop their bond strength without significant slip at the unloaded ends as previously mentioned.

388 The parameter for GFRP bars ranges between 0.03 and 0.07 with a mean value of 0.05. The

389obtained value is very close to that of the BFRP bars, which depicts a similar trend in the bond-slip

390relationship for both types of bars. This is attributed to the friction-type behavior observed for both

391bars. Analytical values of reported by Cosenza et al. (1997) for sanded GFRP bars show a mean value

392of 0.069.

393 The parameter p of the softening branch is obtained for all test specimens. A mean value of 0.023 is

394reported for BFRP bars compared to 0.167 for GFRP bars. Such difference in the values of p explains

395the variation in the trend of the softening curve of each type of bars. As observed from the test results,

396GFRP bars showed a sharp and sudden decrease in bond stress after reaching the maximum stress of

397the bar.

398 A comparison of the analytical curves obtained from the BPE and mBPE models and the

399experimental results is reported in Figures 15a and 15b for representative BFRP and GFRP specimens

400with embedded lengths of 5d and 10d. Good correlation between the analytical and actual curves is

401observed. The calibrated parameters for each specimen are used to represent the ascending and

402descending branches instead of the mean value. An important observation is that the GFRP bars exhibit

403a horizontal branch after reaching the maximum bond stress. In this case, the second branch of the

404initial BPE model is used to represent the GFRP bond behavior at this stage of loading.

26 18
405Summary and concluding remarks

406 Pullout test results on BFRP and GFRP bars showed similar trends of the bond-slip curves of both

407types of bars, with an ascending branch up to maximum stress and a softening branch where slip

408hardening was noticed. Bond of BFRP bars to concrete was governed by the same factors that govern

409conventional FRP bars. In particular, the following concluding remarks can be drawn from this study:

4101- All BFRP specimens failed in a pullout mode. Failure was governed by the shear strength along the

411 interfacial surface between the grained layer and the subsequent core layers of the bar. BFRP bars

412 developed average bond strength of 75% of that of GFRP bars.

4132- BFRP bars with small diameters showed better adhesion to concrete at initial stages of loading than

414 bars with large diameters. Average adhesion of 10 mm diameter BFRP bars was 0.67 MPa compared

415 to 1.09 MPa for GFRP bars.

4163- BFRP bars exhibited higher residual stress than that of GFRP bars with an average value of 9 MPa

417 and 10 MPa (compared to 7.72 MPa and 5.75 MPa for GFRP bars) at unloaded and loaded ends,

418 respectively.
4194- At unloaded ends, slip corresponding to the maximum stress was negligible for both BFRP and

420 GFRP bars of 10 mm diameter (average of 0.16 mm and 0.07 mm, respectively) compared to 1.01

421 mm for BFRP bars and 0.67 mm for GFRP bars at loaded ends.
4225- The BPE and mBPE analytical models can be used to represent the bond-slip relationship for BFRP

423 bars. Parameters and p can be taken as 0.048 and 0.023, respectively.

424 Finally, this study has gone some way towards enhancing our understanding of the bond

425performance of BFRP bars. Despite the fact that BFRP bars showed lower bond strength than that of

426their GFRP counterparts, the current findings have demonstrated the promise of BFRP bars to be used

427as reinforcing materials for concrete elements. However, caution should be paid when extending these

428conclusions to other types of BFRP bars or when different concrete strengths are used. Experimental

429tests on other types of commercially available BFRP bars with various properties and surface

27 19
430deformations are recommended for future studies. Bond durability data of BFRP bars are also needed

431to investigate the bond performance of the bars when exposed to various service environments.

432Acknowledgments

433The authors would like to thank Magmatech personnel for providing the BFRP bars needed for this

434study. Thanks are also extended to Pultrall personnel for donating the GFRP bars used in the tests.

435References

436Achillides, Z. (1998). Bond behavior of FRP bars in concrete. Ph.D. Thesis, Centre for Cement and

437Concrete, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, U.K.

438Achillides, Z. and Pilakoutas K. (2004). Bond behavior of fiber reinforced polymer bars under direct

439pullout conditions. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 8(2), 173-181.

440Aiello, M.A., Leone, M., and Pecce, M. (2007). Bond performances of FRP rebars-reinforced

441concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(3), 205-213.

442Alvarez-Villarreal, A. (2004). Temperature effect on bond properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer

443(FRP) bars embedded in concrete. M.Sc. Thesis, Sherbrooke University.

444American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440 (2006). Guide for the design and construction of

445structural concrete reinforced with FRP bars, ACI 440.1R-06, American Concrete Institute,

446Farmington Hills, MI, USA.

447Arias, J. P. M., Vazquez, A., and Escobar, M. (2012). Use of sand coating to improve bonding between

448GFRP bars and concrete. Journal of Composite Materials, 46(18), 2271-2278.

449Baena, M., Torres, L., Turon, A., and Barris, C. (2009). Experimental study of bond behavior between

450concrete and FRP bars using a pullout test. Composites Part B: Engineering, 40(8), 784-797.

451Bank, L.C., Puterman, M., and Katz, A. (1998). The effect of material degradation on bond properties

452of fiber reinforced plastic reinforcing bars in concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 95(3), 232-243.
28 20
453Benmokrane. B., Tighiouart, B., and Chaallal, O. (1996). "Bond strength and load distribution of

454composite GFRP reinforcing bars in concrete." ACI Materials Journal, 93(3), 246-253.

455Boyle, H. C. and Karbhari, V. M. (1994) Investigation of bond behavior between glass fiber composite

456reinforcements and concrete. Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering, 33(6), 733-753.

457Brik, V.B., 2003, Advanced concept concrete using Basalt Fiber/BF composite bar reinforcement,

458Final Report for Highway-IDEA Project 86, Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA)

459Programs, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., USA.

460Canadian Standards Association (2002). Design and construction of building components with fiber

461reinforced polymers. CAN/CSA-S806-02, CSA, ON, Canada.

462Carmignato, S., De Rosa, I. M., Sarasini, F., and Valente, M. (2009). Characterisation of basalt fiber

463reinforced vinyl polyester composite: An overview, Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on

464Innovative natural Fiber Composites for Industrial Applications, Rome, Italy.

465Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. (1997). Behavior and modeling of bond of FRP rebars to

466concrete. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 1(2), 4051.

467Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G., and Realfonzo, R. (2002). Development length of FRP straight rebars.

468Composites: Part B: Engineering, 33(7), 493-504.

469Davalos, J. F., Chen, Y., and Ray, I. (2008). Effect of FRP bar degradation on interface bond with high

470strength concrete. Cement & Concrete Composites, 30(8), 722-730.

471De Lorenzis, L., Rizzo, A., and La Tegola, A. (2002). A modified pullout test for bond of near-surface

472mounted FRP rods in concrete. Composites Part B: Engineering, 33(8), 589-603.

473Ehsani, M. R., Saadatmanesh, H., and Tao, S. (1997). Bond behavior of deformed GFRP rebars.

474Journal of Composite Materials, 31(14), 1413-1430.

29 21
475Eligehausen, R., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V. (1983). Local bond stress-slip relationships of

476deformed bars under generalized excitations. Report No. UCB/EERC-83/23, University of California,

477Berkeley, California, USA.

478Fib report (2000). Bond of reinforcement in concrete, state-of-art report. Bulletin 10, fib-

479international federation for concrete task group bond models, Lausanne, Switzerland.

480Hamad, B., Rteil, A., and Soudki, K. (2004). Bond strength of tension lap splices in high-strength

481concrete beams strengthened with glass fiber reinforced polymer wraps. Journal of Composites for

482Construction, ASCE, 8(1), 14-21.

483Harajli, M. and Abouniaj, M. (2010). Bond performance of GFRP bars in tension: experimental

484evaluation and assessment of ACI 440 guidelines. Journal of composites for construction, ASCE,

48514(6), 659-668.

486Liu, Q., Shaw, M., Parnas, R., and Mcdonnell, A. (2006). Investigation of basalt fiber composite

487mechanical properties for applications in transportation. Polymer Composites, 27(1), 41-48.

488Lopresto, V., Leone, C., and De Iorio, I. (2011). Mechanical characterization of basalt fiber reinforced

489plastic. Composites: Part B, 42(4), 717-723.

490Ludovico, M. D., Prota, A., and Manfredi, G. (2010). Structural upgrade using basalt fibers for

491concrete confinement. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 14(5), 541-552.

492Militky, J., Kovacic, V., Rubnerova, J. (2002). Influence of thermal treatment on tensile failure of

493basalt fibers. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 69(9), 1025-1033.

494Palmieri, A., Matthys, S., and Tierens, M. (2009). Basalt fibers: mechanical properties and

495applications for concrete structures. Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK, 165-169.

496Parnas, R., Shaw, M., and Liu, Q. (2007). Basalt fiber reinforced polymer composites. Report

497prepared for The New England Transportation Consortium - NETCR63, Project 03-7.

30 22
498Ramakrishnan, V. and Neeraj, S. (1998). Performance evaluation of 3-D basalt fiber reinforced

499concrete and basalt rod reinforced concrete. Final report, Transportation Research Board, national

500Research Council, Contract NCHRP-45.

501Sayed, A.F., Foret G., and Le Roy, R. (2011). Bond between carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP)

502bars and ultra high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): Experimental study.

503Construction and Building Materials, 25 (2), 479-485.

504Sim, J., Park, C., Moon D.Y. (2005). Characteristic of basalt fiber as a strengthening material for

505concrete structures. Composites: Part B, 36(6), 504-512.

506Tastani, S. P. and Pantazopoulou, S. J. (2006). Bond of GFRP bars in concrete: experimental study and

507analytical interpretation. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 10(5), 381-391.

508Tepfers, R., Hedlund, G., and Rosinski, B. (1998). Pull-out and tensile reinforcement splice tests with

509GFRP bars. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure,

510Saadatmanesh, H. and Ehsani, M. R. editors, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

511Tighiouart B., Benmokrane, B., and Gao, D. (1998). Investigation of bond in concrete member with

512fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. Construction and Building Materials, 8(12), 453-462.

513Wang, H. and Belarbi, A. (2010). Static and Fatigue Bond Characteristics of FRP Rebars Embedded in

514Fiber-reinforced Concrete. Journal of Composite Materials, 44(13), 1605-1622.

515Wei, B., Cao, H., and Song, S. (2010). Tensile behavior contrast of basalt and glass fibers after

516chemical treatment. Materials and Design, 31(9), 4244-4250.

517Wei, B., Cao, H., Song, S. (2011). Degradation of basalt fiber and glass fiber/epoxy resin composites

518in seawater. Corrosion Science, 53(1), 426-431.

519Wu, Z., Wang, X., Iwashita, K., Sasaki, T., and Hamaguchi, Y. (2010). Tensile fatigue behavior of FRP

520and hybrid FRP sheets. Composites: Part B Composites: Part B, 41(5), 396-402.

521

31 23
522Table 1: Concrete mix design

Constituent Quantity (kg/m3)

Portland cement 474
Water 211
Coarse aggregate (14 mm) 381.5
Coarse aggregate (10 mm) 230.5
Fine aggregate 912
Air entraining agent 85.5
Super-plasticizer 94.7
523

524

525Table 2: Nominal and actual diameters of BFRP and GFRP bars

Bar diameter BFRP bars GFRP bars

Nominal diameter (mm)a 8.00 10.00 12.00 10.00
Measured diameter (mm)b 8.63 10.20 12.42 11.32
526a Reported by the manufacturer
527b Measured using the Archimedes method

528Table 3: Design properties of BFRP and GFRP bars

Tensile strength Ultimate strain Elastic Modulus

Resin
Bar (MPa) (%) (GPa)
type
Guaranteeda Testedb Guaranteeda Testedb Guaranteeda Testedb
BFRP RockbarTM Epoxy 1168 1017 2.20 2.12 50 48
GFRP V-RodTM Vinyl ester 889 986 1.66 1.86 53.42.5 53
529a Reported by the manufacturer
530b Tested by the authors
531

532 Table 4: Bond test results of BFRP and GFRP specimens

Ascending branch Softening branch

Test Failure max smax, fe smax, le ons, fe ons, le BPE r, fe r, le PBPE

mode
(MPa) (mm) (mm)(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
BFRP specimens
B08-40-1 P 16.56 0.01 0.45 14.22 0.55 0.050 10.80 15.30 0.030
B08-40-2 P 15.81 0.15 0.60 14.60 1.40 0.015 10.00 11.92 0.030
B08-40-3 P 19.81 0.10 0.98 19.45 0.38 0.010 14.50 14.34 0.016
B08-56-1 P 14.10 NA 0.00 12.18 NA NA 11.90 9.92 NA
B08-56-2 P 14.01 0.12 0.73 13.25 0.45 0.050 9.50 9.00 0.030
B08-56-3 P 21.60 NA 1.20 19.98 0.80 NA 13.50 13.12 NA
32 24
 B08-80-1 P 18.07 0.10 1.07 17.93 2.30 0.050 13.50 13.36 0.012
B08-80-2 P 11.80 0.01 0.55 11.79 2.80 0.012 7.50 7.74 0.003
B08-80-3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
B08-120-1 P 13.74 0.20 1.87 13.37 1.30 0.015 10.40 11.05 0.020
B08-120-2 P 15.27 0.13 2.16 14.96 1.30 0.030 9.39 12.20 0.012
B08-120-3 P 10.65 0.16 1.63 10.40 0.90 0.040 5.01 7.50 0.022
B10-50-1 P 14.37 0.29 0.89 12.43 0.70 0.080 7.30 9.22 0.055
B10-50-2 P 13.71 0.23 0.00 11.30 NA 0.080 9.00 7.96 0.045
B10-50-3 P 15.30 0.05 0.11 15.69 0.60 0.015 10.00 12.56 0.012
B10-70-1 P 18.10 0.20 0.48 10.04 0.40 0.060 7.60 6.61 0.040
B10-70-2 P 17.11 0.20 0.85 9.24 0.46 0.075 7.00 6.70 0.040
B10-70-3 P 14.64 0.20 0.85 7.98 0.40 0.075 7.00 6.57 0.040
B10-100-1 P 13.26 0.01 1.24 12.03 0.80 0.050 8.50 12.14 0.002
B10-100-2 P 12.76 0.01 1.44 11.78 0.32 0.080 8.70 12.19 0.001
B10-100-3 P 13.92 0.16 1.47 12.89 0.32 0.045 NA 9.15 0.015
B10-150-1 P 10.80 0.23 1.33 10.59 1.50 0.040 5.30 6.40 0.022
B10-150-2 P 12.71 0.23 1.58 12.55 1.28 0.040 8.25 9.30 0.020
B10-150-3 P 10.48 0.17 1.83 10.22 0.25 0.040 6.00 8.44 0.018
B12-60-1 P 16.51 0.20 0.84 12.96 1.30 0.070 10.00 10.17 0.027
B12-60-2 P 17.02 0.25 0.56 13.37 0.30 0.070 12.50 12.57 0.032
B12-60-3 P 17.40 0.00 0.00 17.21 0.27 0.070 12.00 12.03 0.000
B12-84-1 P 17.97 0.00 0.75 9.04 0.10 NA 6.10 6.00 NA
B12-84-2 P 12.35 0.15 0.66 5.99 NA 0.080 4.50 3.90 0.030
B12-84-3 P 13.87 0.13 0.98 7.22 0.10 0.080 6.00 5.53 0.025
B12-120-1 P 14.32 0.28 0.00 12.80 NA 0.025 11.00 NA 0.027
B12-120-2 P 14.42 0.19 1.36 14.17 0.97 0.040 10.50 10.70 0.017
B12-120-3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
B12-180-1 P 10.91 0.25 2.31 10.50 0.25 0.036 NA NA 0.022
B12-180-2 P 11.68 0.30 2.37 11.15 0.40 0.036 6.00 9.98 0.022
B12-180-3 P 12.18 0.25 2.14 11.83 0.40 0.030 6.70 10.20 0.017
GFRP specimens
G10-50-1 P 20.07 0.36 0.03 12.13 0.78 0.070 4.60 4.90 0.300
G10-50-2 P 21.03 0.00 1.32 16.69 0.45 NA 12.50 14.00 NA
G10-50-3 P 20.44 0.02 0.00 NA 1.80 NA 7.00 6.73 NA
G10-70-1 S 17.35 0.00 0.92 17.08 NA NA 8.00 5.83 NA
G10-70-2 S 18.22 0.00 1.67 18.09 0.70 NA 6.50 5.62 NA
G10-70-3 S 20.75 0.00 1.13 NA 0.96 NA NA 0.34 NA
G10-100-1 P 17.52 0.16 0.00 15.45 0.16 0.070 NA 1.05 0.140
G10-100-2 R 15.21 0.01 0.00 15.17 1.00 NA NA NA NA
G10-100-3 P 17.88 0.12 0.78 15.16 NA 0.030 NA 2.02 0.060
G10-150-1 R 12.37 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
G10-150-2 R 11.56 0.01 1.78 NA 1.30 NA NA NA NA
G10-150-3 R 11.71 0.01 0.80 NA NA 0.030 NA NA 0.005

33 25
533max = maximum bond stress; smax, le and smax, fe = slip corresponding to maximum stress at loaded and unloaded
534end, respectively; ons, le and ons, fe = bond stress at onset of slip at loaded and unloaded end, respectively; r, le
535and r, fe = residual bond stress at loaded and unloaded end, respectively; P = pullout; S = concrete splitting; R
536= bar rupture; NA = test data is not available
537Table 5: Mean values, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation for the model parameters
538 BFRP GFRP
BPE PBPE BPE PBPE
539
Average 0.048 0.023 0.050 0.167
540Standard deviation 0.023 0.013 0.023 0.122
Coefficient of variation 0.481 0.577 0.462 0.733

34 26