NSERC Research Chair in FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Structures

MECHANICAL AND BOND

PROPERTIES OF NEW
GENERATION OF ISOROD CFRP
REINFORCING BARS FOR
CONCRETE STRUCTURES
TECHNICAL PROGRESS REPORT

Prepared by:

Brahim Benmokrane, Burong Zhang, Kader Laoubi, Brahim

Tighiouart, and Isabelle Lord

NSERC Research Chair Professor

ISIS-Sherbrooke, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada J1K 2R1
Tel. : (819) 821-7758
Fax. : (819) 821-7974
E-mail: bbenmokrane@andrew.sca.usherb.ca

April-2001
Benmokrane et al.
 Abstract

This report presents laboratory test results on the mechanical properties and bond strength of new

generation of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Isorod reinforcing bars used as

nonprestressed reinforcement for concrete structures. The CFRP reinforcing bar has a 9.5-mm

diameter with sand-coated surface deformation. Five embedment lengths were selected for the

pullout bond tests. Tensile tests and pullout bond tests were conducted to evaluate the tensile

properties and bond strength of the CFRP bar in comparison with that of the steel bar. Experimental

results showed that the tensile stress-strain curves of the CFRP bar were linear up to failure. The

ultimate tensile strength of the CFRP bar was at least 1500 MPa, 3 times that of steel bars. The

modulus of elasticity of the CFRP bar was 128 GPa, about 65% that of steel. Furthermore, the

CFRP bar exhibited almost the same bond strength to concrete as 11.3-mm-diameter steel bars. The

minimum bond development length of the CFRP bar seemed to be equal to about 20 db, where db is

the nominal diameter of the bar.

Keywords: fibre reinforced polymer (FRP), carbon FRP (CFRP), bar, mechanical properties, tensile

strength, embedded length, pullout, bond strength, concrete structures

1. Introduction

Conventional concrete structures are reinforced with nonprestressed and prestressed steel.

The steel is initially protected against corrosion by the alkalinity of the concrete, usually resulting in

durable and serviceable construction. Many structures subjected to aggressive environments

combined with moisture, temperature, and chlorides, reduce the alkalinity of the concrete and result

in the corrosion of reinforcing and prestressing steel. In North America, this phenomenon has been

accelerated in parking garages and bridge decks due to the use of de-icing salt and significant

fluctuations of temperature. The corrosion process ultimately causes concrete deterioration and loss

of serviceability. Many investigations have been carried out to develop an appropriate technical

solution to this problem. Preventing or slowing down the corrosion rate has been the main thrust of

all these investigations. However, such remedies are effective in some situations and the measures

developed so far to mitigate the problem have met with varying degrees of success. Professionals

have turned to alternative metallic reinforcement to address the corrosion problems.

Recently, composite materials made of fibres embedded in a polymeric resin, also known as

fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs), have become an alternative to steel reinforcement for concrete

structures. Aramid fibre reinforced polymer (AFRP), carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP), and

glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) rods are the commercially available products for the

construction industry. They have been proposed for use in lieu of steel reinforcement or steel

prestressing tendons in nonprestressed or prestressed concrete structures (ACI 440R 1996). The

problems of steel corrosion are avoided with the use of FRPs because FRP materials are nonmetallic

and noncorrosive. In addition, FRP materials exhibit several properties including high tensile
strength, that make them suitable for the use as structural reinforcement (Nanni and Dolan 1993;

Taerwe 1995; El-Badry 1996; Saadatmanesh and Ehsani 1996 and 1998; JCI 1997; Dolan et al.

1999; Humar and Razaqpur 2000). Furthermore, codes and design guide provisions have been

recently prepared for the use of FRP bars in concrete structures for bridges and buildings (CHBDC

1998; ACI 440H 2000; CSA 2000; ISIS-Canada 2000).

The performance of a reinforced concrete structural member subjected to mechanical loads

depends on the properties of the concrete, the reinforcement, and the bond between these two

components. This is the case for any type of reinforcement, including FRP composite materials.

The tensile properties of the reinforcement and its bond behaviour to concrete are of the main

aspects to be considered in the design of reinforcing bars as reinforcement for concrete structures.

The bond characteristics are responsible to transfer the load from concrete to reinforcement and to

develop the required stress in the reinforcement for an equilibrium, particularly when concrete is

cracked. Service limits in FRP reinforced concrete elements such as deflection, crack width and crack

spacing are directly influenced by the bond properties of the reinforcement in concrete. Bond

characteristics of FRP bars vary from one product to another. Parameters such as the manufacturing

process, the type of surface deformation, the type and contents of constituent materials (resin and

fibres) have great effects on the bond properties.

Fibre reinforced polymer bars are anisotropic materials. Factors such as type and volume of

fibre and resin, fibre orientation and quality control during the manufacturing play a major role in the

mechanical characteristics. Due to the lack of well-established standards, a wide variety of FRP bars

is today commercialized, going from the simple smooth bars to bars treated to improve bond

characteristics. Therefore, a better understanding of mechanical properties and bond behaviour is

needed for a rational approach to the design of FRP reinforced structures. An extensive research

program to develop FRP composite bars as reinforcement for concrete structures with optimized

mechanical, structural and durability properties is in progress under the new NSERC Industrial

Research Chair headed by Brahim Benmokrane at the University of Sherbrooke (Sherbrooke,

Quebec).

This report presents the tensile and pullout bond properties of the newly developed CFRP

Isorod bars. A steel bar of 11.3 mm diameter was used for the comparison of results. The new

generation of CFRP bars had similar diameter of about 9.5 mm. The CFRP bar was aimed during its

development to give satisfaction of minimum requirements for CFRP bars as reinforcement for non-

prestressed concrete structures. These requirements demand that the CFRP bars should have a

minimum tensile strength of 1200 MPa (175 ksi), minimum modulus of elasticity of 110 GPa

(16_103 ksi), and minimum bond strength to concrete of 12 MPa (1750 psi) (ACI 440H 2000).

2. Materials

The new generation of carbon FRP (CFRP) sand-coated bar was manufactured by Pultrall

Inc. (Thetford Mines, Quebec). It was made of continuous longitudinal carbon-fibre stands bounded

together with a thermosetting vinyl ester resin using a pultrusion process. A new sand-coated

process was also introduced to the bar during the manufacturing to improve its bond to the concrete

(Pultrall Inc. 2000). Figure 1 shows a view of the new generation CFRP sand-coated bars. The bar

used in this study has a nominal diameter of 9.5 mm.

3. Tensile properties of CFRP bars

3.1.Tensile test specimens and procedure

The aforementioned CFRP bars were used for tensile tests. Each specimen was cut into 1200

mm long sections and anchored with a potted anchor system at each end. This method bonds the bar

to the steel cylinder utilizing a mortar (resin or cement-based grout). The potted anchor used in this

project consisted of a 400-mm-long steel tube filled with a high performance resin grout as shown in

Figure 2. The free-length (the length of the test specimen between the two anchors) to bar-diameter

ratio was about 42, which is within the range recommended by Castro and Carino (1998). The

procedure for installing the potted anchor was as follows.

The alignment of the bar in the centre of the steel tube was provided using two drilled PVC

centralizers with an outer diameter equal to the inner diameter of the tube and a drilled hole in the

centre with a diameter very close to the overall diameter of the bar. One PVC centralizer was bonded

at one free end of the tube with silicone in corresponding of the tube/centralizer interface. After

hardening of the silicone seal, the bar was placed in the tube in vertical position passing through and

the PVC centralizers and a frame for holding the tube and the rod vertically, and then silicone was

insert in corresponding of the interface between the bar and the centralizer bonded at the free end of

the tube to avoid grout leaking. After hardening of the silicone seal, the filling grout was poured from

the loaded end of the tube and the PVC centralizer was closed. The grout was allowed to harden and

the operation was repeated as stated above for installing a potted anchor for the other side. Figure 3

shows an overview of the tensile test specimens prior to testing. More details can be found

elsewhere (Masmoudi and Benmokrane 1999).

 Tensile tests were carried out using a 270-kN-capacity, manually operated, universal testing

machine. The specimens were loaded at a rate of approximately 250 MPa/min (JSCE 1997). The

specimen was inserted into the test frame and gripped by the two thick plates at the anchored ends,

as shown in Figure 4. The internal load cell was used to monitor the applied loads. A LVDT with a

gauge length of 200mm and two CEA-13-240UZ-120 precision strain gages manufactured by the

Micro-Measurements Division, Measurements Group, Inc. (Raleigh, North Carolina), were attached

to the specimen at the onset of the test and used to measure the longitudinal and transverse

deformations of the specimen (Figure 5). A data logger system was used to collect the readings from

the load cell, LVDT and strain gauges. The LVDT was removed from the bar at about 70% of the

expected ultimate load to avoid damage. The test was continued until the specimen fractured and

there was a sudden drop in the load. Only results in which failures occurred in the free-length of the

specimen were considered as valid for the determination of the tensile strength.

3.2.Tensile test results

As shown in Figure 6, the typical stress-strain curves of the CFRP bars are practically linear

and elastic up to failure. shows the typical tensile failure modes of the CFRP bars exhibited a brittle

failure mode as shown in Figure 7. This failure mode is typical for unidirectional carbon FRP

composite subjected to longitudinal tensile load. Tensile strengths were calculated using the nominal

diameter of the bar. Linear regression analysis was used to find best-fit line to the points in the

linear portion of the stress-strain plot, and the slope of the line is the modulus of elasticity (E) of

the bar.
 Table 1 summarizes the main mechanical properties of the new generation CFRP bars

obtained from 20 bar specimens. It indicates that the tensile strength of CFRP Isorod bars is 1536 ±

61 MPa (109 ± 4 kN), 3.0 times the yield strength of conventional deformed steel bars. The CFRP

bar has a modulus of elasticity of 128 GPa, about 65% that of steel. As expected, the value of elastic

modulus obtained from the results of the electrical strain gauges is lower than that obtained from the

results of the LVDTs. This can be attributed to the low modulus of elasticity of the resin rich

surface layer on which the strain gauges were installed.

Tensile test results show that the CFRP Isorod bar investigated fulfill the requirements in

terms of tensile strength and modulus of elasticity as specified by ACI 440H (2000).

4. Bond behaviour of CFRP bar

4.1.Specimens for pullout bond test

Pullout bond tests were conducted on the CFRP bars in comparison with the steel bar. Five

embedment lengths (bond length), namely 5db, 10db, 15db, 20db and 30db (where db is the nominal

diameter of the bar), were used for each bar type. Four specimens for the CFRP bar and two

specimens for the steel bar were tested for each type of embedment lengths, as shown in Table 2.

Each test specimen used in this study was composed of two concrete blocks (Figure 8).

Normal strength concrete was used. The composition and characteristics are summarized in Table 3.

The concrete had a compressive strength of 34 MPa and modulus of elasticity of 29 GPa after 28

days of curing. Each concrete block had a section of 150 x 150 mm and a 500 mm length. The CFRP

or steel bar was cut into 1100-mm-long sections. One end of the bar sample was completely
embedded in the concrete block (500 mm long) and the other was embedded with a specified bond

length. The debonding part of the bar embedded in concrete was obtained by wrapping in a plastic

tube and then sealing with silicone, thereby inhibiting any contact with the concrete (Figure 19). A

minimum smooth steel stirrups was used to reinforce the concrete to prevent the splitting failure

before pullout. The central part of the bar between the two concrete blocks was constructed by

inserting Styrofoam blocks into the formwork before casting concrete, shown (with FRP bars in

place) in Figure 9. Typical as-cast pullout bond test specimens are shown in Figure 10.

Pullout bond tests were carried out using an MTS loading machine, where the concrete

blocks were fixed as show in Figure 11. The loading rate was between 10 and 15 kN/min (JSCE

1997). An automatic data acquisition system was used to monitor the load. More details about the

test setup and procedures can be found elsewhere (Masmoudi et al. 1999; Adimi et al. 2000).

4.2 Pullout Bond Test Results

Tables 4 and 5 summarize the bond test results in terms of average maximum pullout load,

corresponding average maximum bond stress and the failure mode observed during the tests. Bond

strength (maximum shear stress) refers to the maximum shear resistance per unit contact surface and

is obtained by dividing the maximum pullout resistance force by the surface area of the rod in

contact with the concrete with the assumption of uniform bond stress distribution along the

embedment length:

[1]
where τmax is the maximum bond stress (MPa); Pmax is the maximum applied pullout load (N); db is

the nominal diameter (mm); and La is the controlled embedment length (mm).

As can be seen in Tables 4, the 9.5-mm-diameter CFRP sand-coated bars exhibit an average

maximum bond stress of 20.0 ± 1.2, 17.9 ± 1.2, and 16.6 ± 1.1 MPa for an embedment length of 50

mm (5db), 100 mm (10db) and 150 mm (15db), respectively. Pullout failure occurs for a embedment

length equal to or less than 150 mm (15db). Bar tensile failure occurs for an embedment length of 200

mm (20db) or more.

Table 5 shows the pullout bond test results on 11.3-mm-diametr conventional steel bars.

The steel bar exhibits an average maximum bond stress of 24.6 ± 2.1 MPa for an embedment length

of 50 mm (5db). Pullout failure occurs for a embedment length equal to or less than 50 mm (5db). Bar

yielding occurs for an embedment length of 100 mm (10db) or more.

4.3 Optimal embedment length

Table 4 also shows that the force required pulling CFRP Isoro bars out of concrete increases

as the embedment length of the rebar into concrete increases. After a certain point, the rebar

ruptures in tension before it is pulled out. The development length is defined as the minimum

embedment length required to develop the ultimate tensile capacity (ffuA) of the rebar, where ffu is the

tensile strength and A is the nominal cross-sectional area of the bar, respectively. A typical

evaluation of development length is illustrated in Fig. 12.

The optimal embedment length of the CFRP Isorod bar used in this study was determined

from the pullout bond test results obtained and was presented in Table 6. Furthermore, theoretical
basic development lengths for the CFRP bar, as defined by ACI 440H (2000), is also given in Table

6. It is calculated by using the following equation:

[2]

where Ld is the basic development length of the FRP bar embedded in concrete, mm; db is the

nominal diameter of the FRP bar, mm; and ffu is the ultimate tensile strength of the FRP bar, MPa.

Table 6 shows that the theoretical development length calculated in accordance with ACI

440H (2000) is 744 mm for the CFRP Isorod bar, about 3.5 times that obtained from experimental

results. The formula recommended by ACI 440H (2000) seems to be very conservative.

5. Conclusions

This research investigated the tensile properties and pullout bond behaviour of the new

generation of CFRP Isorod bars. Based on the exploratory test results, the following conclusions can

be drawn:

• The new CFRP reinforcing bars investigated in this study behave elastic and linear up to

failure in tension. The CFRP Isorod bars exhibit brittle tensile failure mode. The ultimate

tensile strength and modulus of elasticity are 1536 ± 61 MPa (109 ± 61 kN) and 128 ± 5 GPa.

The CFRP bar exhibits an ultimate tensile strength of more than 3 times that of conventional

steel and modulus of elasticity of 65% that of steel.

• The new generation of CFRP bars exhibit almost the same bond strength as the steel bar

studied. The experimental development length is 215 mm (20db), while the theoretical values

in accordance with ACI 440H is about 3.5 times the experimental data.
• The new generation of CFRP bars presented in this report fulfill the minimum requirements

(1200 MPa in tensile strength, 110 GPa in modulus of elasticity, and 12 MPa in bond strength

to concrete) for CFRP bars to be used as nonprestressed reinforcement for concrete

structures. The minimum embedment length to develop a tensile strength of 1200 MPa is

about 200 mm (20db).

The results obtained in the present study show that the new CFRP bars appear to be a

promising alternative to steel reinforcement in concrete structures. The CFRP bars perform well

where long-term resistance against corrosion, low conductibility to electrical and electromagnetic

fields, high strength-to-weight ratio, and so on, are desirable, such as marine structures, parking

structures, bridge decks, and structures highly susceptible to corrosion and magnetic fields.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support from Natural Science and Engineering

Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Pultrall Inc. (Thetford Mines, Québec), Marshall Industries

Composites, Inc. (Lima, Ohio), the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec, the Network of Centres

of Excellence ISIS-Canada, and the University of Sherbrooke.

References

ACI 440H 2000. Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars,
American Concrete Institute American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich., 97p.
ACI 440R 1996. State-of-the-art report on fiber reinforced plastic reinforcement for concrete
structures, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich., 68p.
Adimi, M. R., Rahman, A. H., Benmokrane, B. 2000. New method for testing fiber-reinforced
polymer rods under fatigue. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 4(4): 206–213.
Castro, P. F., and Carino, N. J. 1998. Tensile and non-destructive testing of FRP bars, Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, 2(1): 17–27.
CHBDC 1998. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, First Edition.
CSA 2000. S806–00 Design and construction of building components with fiber reinforced
polymers (draft), Canadian Standards Association, Ontario, November, 192p.
Dolan, C. W., Rizkalla, S. H., and Nanni, A. (eds.) 1999. Fiber reinforced polymer reinforcement for
reinforced concrete structures. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium, ACI SP-188,
Baltimore, Mich.
El-Badry, M. M. (ed.) 1996. Advanced composite materials in bridges and structures. Proceedings
of the 2nd International Conference, ACMBS-2, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,
Montreal, Quebec.
Humar, J., and Razaqpur, A. G. (eds.) 2000. Advanced composite materials in bridges and
structures. Proceedings of the 3st International Conference, Ottawa, Ont.
ISIS Canada 2000 Reinforcing Concrete Structures with Fibre Reinforced Polymers, the Canadian
Network of Centers of Excellence on Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures, ISIS-M04-
00, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, 40 p.
Japan Concrete Institute (JCI) 1997. Non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures.
Proceedings of the 3rd International RILEM Symposium on Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement
for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3), Sapporo, Japan.
Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) 1997. Recommendation for design and construction of
concrete structures using continuous fiber reinforced materials. Concrete Engineering Series 23,
A. Machida, ed., Research Committee on Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials, Tokyo,
Japan.
Masmoudi, R., and Benmokrane, B. 1999. Tensile tests of CFRP-Isorod bars (size #3, 9.5 mm),
Technical Report, summated to Pultrall Inc., Thetford Mines, Que., 10p.
Masmoudi, R., Lord, I., and Benmokrane, B. 1999. Bond properties of Isorod FRP rebars embedded
in normal concrete, Technical Report, summated to Pultrall Inc., Thetford Mines, Que., 5p.
Nanni, A., and Dolan, C.W. (eds.) 1993. Fibre reinforced plastic reinforcement for concrete
structures. Publication ACI SP-138 of International Symposium, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Mich., USA.
Pultrall Inc. 2000. Isorod composite reinforcing rod. Technical Sheets, Theford Mines, Que.
Saadatmanesh, H., and Ehsani, M.R. (eds.) 1996. Fibre composite in infrastructure. Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure (ICCI’1996), Tucson, Arizona,
USA.
Saadatmanesh, H., and Ehsani, M.R. (eds.) 1998. Fibre composite in infrastructure. Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure (ICCI’1998), Tucson, Arizona,
USA.
Taerwe, L. (ed.) 1995. Non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures. Proceedings of the
Second International RILM Symposium (FRPRCS-2), University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
List of symbols
A = nominal cross-sectional area of the bar, mm2

db = nominal diameter of the bar, mm

ffu = ultimate tensile strength of the bar, MPa.

La = controlled embedment length, mm

Ld = basic development length of the bar embedded in concrete, mm

Ldepr = experimental basic development length, mm

Ldthe = theoretical basic development length, mm

Pmax = maximum applied pullout load, N

max = maximum bond stress, MPa;

Table 1.Tensile test results of the CFRP reinforcing bars

Nominal Cross- Load at Tensile Modulus of Ultimate Poisson's

Diameter sectional area break strength elasticity strain* ratio
(mm) (mm2) (kN) (MPa) (GPa) (%) (%)

9.5 71 109 ± 4 1536 ± 61 128 ± 5 1.2 ± 0.0 0.26 ± 0.02

(114 ± 4)

Note: The number of specimens is 10 for each type of CFRP bars;

Values of modulus of elasticity reported in parentheses were obtained from the data of
electrical stain gauges; and
* Ultimate strains were calculated by using the ultimate tensile strength divided by the
modulus of elasticity obtained from LVDT.
Table 2. Summary of pullout bond test specimens

Embedment length Number of

Type of bar (mm) specimens

CFRP bar 50 4
(9.5-mm diameter) 100 4
150 4
200 4
300 4

Steel ribbed bar 50 2

(11.3-mm diameter) 100 2
150 2
200 2
300 2

Table 3 Composition and characteristics of concrete

Water (W), kg 170

Cement (C), kg 340

W/C 0.5

Sand, kg 880

Aggregate, kg 1040

Slump 120

Air, % 2.0

Density, kg/m3 2380

Compressive strength, MPa 34

Modulus of elasticity, GPa 29

Table 4.Summary of pullout bond test results of 9.5-mm-diameter CFRP bars

Embedment length Maximum pullout load Maximum bond stress

(mm) (kN) (MPa) Failure mode

50 (5db) 29.9 ± 1.8 20.0 ± 1.2 Pullout failure

100 (10db) 53.5 ± 3.5 17.9 ± 1.2 Pullout failure
150 (15db) 75.6 ± 4.9 16.6 ± 1.1 Pullout failure
200 (20db) 107.0 ± 7.7 18.9 ± 1.4 Bar tensile failure
300 (30db) 101.8 ± 10.4 11.9 ± 1.3 Bar tensile failure

Table 5.Summary of pullout bond test results of 11.3-mm-diameter steel bars

Embedment length Maximum pullout load Maximum bond stress

(mm) (kN) (MPa) Failure mode

50 (5db) 43.6 ± 4.8 24.6 ± 2.1 Pullout failure

100 (10db) 53.8 ± 1.7 15.2 ± 1.0 Pullout failure/yielding
150 (15db) 55.1 ± 4.9 16.6 ± 1.1 Yielding
200 (20db) 48.1 ± 2.3 6.8 ± 0.5 Yielding
300 (30db) 50.8 ± 3.2 4.8 ± 0.3 Yielding

Table 6.Theoretical and experimental development length of the CFRP bars studied

Bar diameter Tensile strength Ldthe Ldepr

(mm) (MPa) (mm) (mm) Ldthe /Ldepr

9.5 1536 744 215 3.46

Note: Ldthe = theoretical development length [Equ. (2)]; and Ldepr = experimental
development length.
Fig. 1.CFRP sand-coated bar used in the study

Fig. 2. Scheme view of FRP tensile test specimens

Fig. 3. Typical tensile test specimens prior to testing

Fig. 4. Tensile test setup

 LVDT

200 mm
Resistance
strain
gauges

Fig. 5. Close-up view of installation of LVDT and strain gauges

Fig. 6. Typical tensile stress-strain curves of the CFRP bars studied

Fig. 7. Typical tensile failure modes of the CFRP bars studied

Fig. 8. Scheme view of pullout bond test specimens

Fig. 9. Form works and effective embedment length

Fig. 10. Pullout bond test specimens

 Fig. 11. Pullout bond test setup

Fig. 12. Scheme of optimal embedment length