Construction and Building Materials 288 (2021) 123120

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Bond behavior of helically wrapped sand coated deformed

Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars in concrete
Eliya Henin a,⇑, George Morcous b
a
Civil Engineering Department, Assiut University-Egypt & Principle Engineer, BetonStructure, LLC, USA
b
College of Engineering, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

The bond behavior of helically wrapped sand coated deformed glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcing bars is evaluated.

Test results demonstrated that force transfer between GFRP bars and concrete is achieved by chemical adhesion, mechanical interlock (bearing), and
friction.

Small bars developed higher bond strength than large bars.

Production variability could result in significant differences in the bond behavior of GFRP bars in concrete.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Using Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) bars in reinforcing concrete structures requires understanding the
Received 28 December 2020 bond behavior between the two materials to ensure adequate force transfer and crack control. Currently,
Received in revised form 8 March 2021 there are no standards for characterizing the surface condition of FRP bars, which results in significant
Accepted 16 March 2021
variability on the bond behavior of FRP bars. Thus, this paper presents the experimental investigation
Available online 1 April 2021
conducted to evaluate the bond behavior of helically wrapped sand coated deformed glass fiber-
reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcing bars. The bond-slip relationship of 96 pullout test specimens were
Keywords:
analyzed to determine the effects of bar size and production variability. Test results demonstrated that
GFRP bars
Reinforced concrete
force transfer between GFRP bars and concrete is achieved by chemical adhesion, mechanical interlock
Bond strength (bearing), and friction. All tested bar sizes demonstrated the same bond-slip relationship; however, small
Bond-slip relationship bars developed higher bond strength than large bars. Also, test results indicated that production variabil-
Pullout test ity could result in significant differences in the bond behavior of GFRP bars in concrete. Test data were
used to calibrate and compare the existing bond-slip models of FPR bars and a new model for the
bond-slip relationship of the helically wrapped sand coated deformed GFPR bars was proposed.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The use of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars in concrete struc-
tures has been increasing significantly because of their unique
mechanical properties, such as lightweight, corrosion resistance,
electromagnetic neutrality, and high tensile strength. FRP materi-
als are available in several forms: laminates, dry fiber sheets or
bars. Compared to steel bars, FRP has low elastic modulus and a
relatively poor bond to concrete [1] and because of these, rein-
forced concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars experience larger
crack width and higher deflection under service loads. As a result,
serviceability limit states (cracking and deflection) often control
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: eliyahenin80@gmail.com (E. Henin).
the design of FRP reinforced concrete members [2–5]. These limit
states require evaluating the bond behavior and load transfer
mechanisms at the interface between FRP and concrete.
Various experimental studies have been performed to investi-
gate the bond performance of FRP bars in concrete. Malvar [6]
investigated the bond characteristics for different types of FRP bars
with different surface conditions and the effect of confining pres-
sure on the bond behavior. Malvar reported that surface deforma-
tion significantly affects the bond strength, which can be increased
threefold by increasing confining pressure. Zhang and Li [7] inves-
tigated FRP bond behavior under direct pullout and reported that
the bond strength depends on many factors, but mainly the surface
deformation of FRP bars. Alves et al [8] investigated the effect of
freeze-thaw cycles, loading type (sustain, Fatigue), bar diameter,
concrete cover thickness, and load eccentricity, on the bond

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123120
0950-0618/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Henin and G. Morcous
behavior. They reported that smaller GFRP bars shows higher bond
strength than larger ones, fatigue loading decreases the bond
strength of the tested bars without any changes in the total slip
or bond stiffness, and clear cover has significant effect on the bond
strength. Hossain et al. [9] investigated the bond behavior of
straight and headed ribbed GFRP bars embedded in engineered
cementitious composite (ECC) and fiber reinforced concrete
(FRC). They reported that the load increases with the increase of
embedment length and the bond stress in case of ECC is lower than
that of FRC. Xiong et al. [10–13] investigated the bond behavior of
recycled aggregate concrete and basalt fiber reinforced polymers
bars under static and fatigue pullout tests. They reported that sur-
face characteristic has a significant effects on bond performance
and as the concrete strength increases, the bond strength increases,
while it decreases as the bar diameter increases. Henin et al.
[14,15] evaluated the effects of surface characteristics of helically
wrapped sand-coated deformed GFRP and basalt fiber-reinforced
polymer (BFRP) on the bond-dependent coefficient (kb). They
reported that the bond strength is highly dependent on the surface
condition and the kb coefficient varies from 0.77 to 1.29, which was
confirmed by Frosch [16].
Because the surface condition and configuration play an impor-
tant role in the bond performance of GFRP bars, this article pre-
sents an experimental investigation conducted to evaluate the
bond-slip relationship between helically wrapped sand coated
deformed GFRP bars and concrete by testing a total of 96 speci-
mens under a direct static pullout. The failure modes and the effect
of bar diameter and production variability on bond strength are
presented. The bond mechanism and the characteristics of the
bond stress-slip curves are discussed. Finally, the analytical models
that describe the bond-slip behavior are evaluated using experi-
mental data; and a new model is proposed.
2. Experimental investigation
2.1. Material properties
The GFRP bars used in this research were supplied by a US man-
ufacturer and produced using the pultrusion process in which con-
tinuous longitudinal electronic glass fibers (ECR-Glass) bond
together with a vinyl ester resin. During manufacturing, the longi-
tudinal fibers wrapped in a helical pattern with small strand of
fibers to induce deformations (spacing, and angle of rips are
22 mm, and 60 degrees respectively) and sand coating is added
to improve its bond behavior as shown in Fig. 1. Four different
bar sizes were considered in this study: #3 (M10), #5 (M16), #6
(M19), and #8 (M25). Specimens from each bar size were grouped
based on the production lot and named as A1, A2, and A3 for #3
(M10) bars, B1, B2, and B3 for #5 (M16), C1, C2, and C3 for #6
(M19) bars, and D1, D2, and D3 for #8 (M25) bars. The physical
and the mechanical properties of GFRP bars were determined
and provided by the manufacturer as shown in Table 1. The man-
ufacturing process and product specifications were in compliance
#3 (M10) GFRP bar
Fig. 1. Surface characteristics of GFRP bars.
2
Construction and Building Materials 288 (2021) 123120
with ASTM 7205, ASTM D7957, and CSA S807 [17–19]. The pullout
specimens were constructed using normal weight concrete with
target compressive strength of 35 MPa and 100 mm slump. The
concrete mix was designed by the researcher and provided by a
local ready-mixed concrete supplier. The concrete mix composi-
tion was sand (1300 kg/m3), 19 mm limestone aggregate
(563 kg/m3), cement type I/II (363 kg/m3), water (155 kg/m3),
and 3% air content. The specimens were cured at the room temper-
ature using wet burlap for 7 days [20]. Concrete cylinders were
tested at 28 days and compressive strength results are shown in
Table 2.
2.2. Test specimens
To evaluate the bond-slip performance of GFRP bars in concrete,
a total of 96 specimens (24 for each bar size) were fabricated and
tested under direct static pullout loading according to ACI
440.3R-12 [21] and S806-12 Annex G [22]. The 24 specimens were
chosen from three different production lots (8 specimens from
each lot). The pullout specimen dimensions were
200  200  200 mm. for #3 (M10), #5 (M16), and #6 (M19) spec-
imens, and 300  300  300 mm for #8 (M25) specimens. Five
times the bar diameter was used as the bar embedment (bonded)
length. Fig. 2 shows the PVC pipe used as a bond breaker to control
the bonded length. All tested bars were 1200 mm long and
extended approximately 200 mm beyond the concrete block to
provide adequate length for measuring the slip. Specimens were
tested using a universal testing machine and the load was applied
at a maximum rate of 1.0 mm/minute up to failure. Two linear
variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were installed at the free
end to measure slip of the bar relative to concrete as shown in
Fig. 3.
2.3. Test results
The recorded load values and corresponding average displace-
ment measured from the two LVDTs at the free end were used to
develop bond-slip plots for each specimen. Under the assumption
of uniform distribution of the bond stress along the embedded
length, the average bond stress, s, was calculated by dividing the
pullout load, P, by the nominal surface area of the embedded
length, L, of the bar with diameter, db, as follows:
P
s¼ ð1Þ
pdb L
To consider the effect of concrete strength on bond strength, the
average compressive strength shown in Table 2 were used to
develop a correction factor to be multiplied by the bond stress. This
factor was calculated as (f’c/fcREF)1/2 [23], where f’c is average con-
crete compressive strength of each specimen and fcREE is reference
concrete compressive strength chosen to be 37 MPa in this study.
Tables 3–6 present the results obtained from pullout testing of
bar sizes #3 (M10), #5 (M16), #6 (M19), and #8 (M25) respec-
tively. Data of only 93 specimens are shown in these tables because
#8 (M25) GFRP bars
E. Henin and G. Morcous Construction and Building Materials 288 (2021) 123120

Table 1
Properties of the GFRP bars provided by the manufacturer.

Bar Size #3 (M10) #5 (M16) #6 (M19) #8 (M25)

Lot Number A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3
Type of Fiber ECR-Glass
Type of binder VE Matrix
Surface Treatment Undulated
Fiber Volume Fraction (%) 27.21 24.53 24.70 25.11
Nominal Diameter, mm 9.525 15.875 19.05 25.4
Cross-Section Area, mm2 70.968 98.064 285.161 506.707
Modulus of Elasticity, GPa 47.8 48.7 48.1 49.1
Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa 995 765 806 669

Table 2
Concrete Compressive strength at 28 days (MPa) for different pullout specimens.

Cylinder #3 (M10) #5 (M16) and #8 (M25) #6 (M19)

No. Specimens Specimens Specimens
#1 46.6 47.1 39.3
#2 46.3 43.9 33.8
#3 47.9 44.6 39.0
#4 48.3 42.0 35.7
#5 45.1 45.2 37.1
Average 46.8 44.5 37.0

3 records were eliminated due to recording errors in one specimen

from lot A1 and two specimens from lot A2. These tables also show
the average bond stress at slip values of 0.05 mm, 0.1 mm,
0.25 mm, 2.5 mm grouped by production lot.

3. Analysis of results

3.1. Mode of failure

Two modes of failure were observed in the pullout tests when

200  200  200 mm concrete blocks were used. First, the pullout
failure (i.e. slip) was observed for all the #3 (M10), #5 (M16) and Fig. 3. Pullout test setup and instrumentation.

#6 (M19) bar specimens, which indicates adequate confinement

provided by the surrounding concrete that prevents splitting
mended by ACI 440.3 [21]. In this group, the pullout failure (slip)
cracks and ensures bond failure. Second, premature splitting fail-
was observed for all specimens, which is the desirable mode of fail-
ure of the concrete for all #8 (M25) bar specimens as shown in
ure for bond testing. Two phenomena were observed after GFRP
Fig. 4, which indicates inadequate confinement by the surrounding
bars reached the bond failure: First, peeling of the bar surface
concrete. Therefore, a new group of specimens were tested for #8
and rupture of the wrapping fibers, which is attributed to the shear
(M25) bars using 300  300  300 mm concrete blocks as recom-

Fig. 2. Specimen preparation.

3
E. Henin and G. Morcous Construction and Building Materials 288 (2021) 123120

Table 3
Pullout test results of #3 (M10) GFRP bars.

Lot ID SpecimenNumber Bond Stress (MPa)

Slip Slip Slip Slip
0.05 mm 0.1 mm 0.25 mm 2.5 mm
A1 1 14.11 14.97 15.78 15.38
2 10.12 12.6 15.13 17.75
3 8.6 10.99 13.21 13.97
4 8.15 9.77 12.9 16.41
5 14.91 16.49 20.06 19.89
6 7.7 9.63 12.44 14.72
7 6.69 9.07 10.5 11.32
Average 10.02 11.93 14.29 15.63
ST. Dev 2.99 2.66 2.86 2.55
CV % 29.8 22.3 20 16.3
A2 1 9.53 12.19 13.49 12.75
2 13.62 17.56 20.89 15.96
3 18.3 18.9 19.78 15.89
4 13.34 13.85 14.3 15.21
5 12.98 14.4 17.46 20.57
6 12.03 14.2 18.28 20.62
Average 13.3 15.18 17.37 16.83
ST. Dev 2.62 2.30 2.69 2.86
CV % 19.7 15 15.5 17
A3 1 15.47 15.85 16.37 17.27
2 15.56 16.63 18.93 19.29
3 10.46 12.24 15.26 16.48
4 10.35 12.79 17.06 18.96
5 15.99 16.91 17.92 18.86
6 10.39 18.1 19.67 18.78
7 16.95 17.24 17.18 17.41
8 14.18 16.74 19.23 18.96
Average 13.67 15.81 17.70 18.25
ST. Dev 2.63 2 1.4 0.97
CV % 19.2 12.6 7.9 5.3

Table 4
Pullout test results of #5 (M16) GFRP bars.

Lot ID Specimen Number Bond Stress (MPa)

Slip Slip Slip Slip
0.05 mm 0.1 mm 0.25 mm 2.5 mm
B1 1 10.84 12.61 13.62 14.52
2 13.76 14.11 14.3 15.66
3 13.85 13.9 13.93 14.75
4 11.9 13.05 14.09 14.78
5 13.94 14.7 15.29 17.09
6 10.59 11.81 13.13 15.49
7 11.09 13.05 14.49 15.17
8 12.03 13.64 14.81 14.94
Average 12.25 13.36 14.21 15.3
ST. Dev 1.32 0.86 0.63 0.77
CV % 10.8 6.4 4.4 5
B2 1 8.05 10.96 13.05 13.96
2 14.99 15.91 16.42 15.63
3 11.16 13.24 13.66 14.4
4 13.74 14.78 16.73 14.17
5 13.76 14.38 14.84 15.23
6 14.09 14.36 14.68 14.45
7 14.29 14.42 14.7 14.86
8 15.14 15.44 15.92 14.61
Average 13.15 14.19 15 14.67
ST. Dev 2.24 1.43 1.21 0.52
CV % 17 10.1 8 3.5
B3 1 12.17 13.62 14.86 16.31
2 9.29 10.43 11.75 12.18
3 8.79 9.63 11.35 13.23
4 8.27 9.56 11.84 13.45
5 9.01 9.94 12 14
6 10.52 11.04 11.85 13.12
7 7.61 9.57 11.61 14.25
8 11.52 12.56 13.22 14.03
Average 9.65 10.79 12.31 13.82
ST. Dev 1.5 1.43 1.09 1.12
CV % 15.5 13.25 8.8 8.1

4
E. Henin and G. Morcous Construction and Building Materials 288 (2021) 123120
Table 5
Pullout test results of #6 (M19) GFRP bars.

Lot ID Specimen Number Bond Stress (MPa)

Slip Slip Slip Slip
0.05 mm 0.1 mm 0.25 mm 2.5 mm
C1 1 8.12 8.97 10.23 11.26
2 7.45 8.31 9.51 10.34
3 8.72 9.49 10.09 10.53
4 9.67 10.16 10.61 10.78
5 9.01 9.7 10.43 11.66
6 9.23 9.97 11.02 11.15
7 8.79 10.31 11.35 12.16
8 9.63 10.38 11.87 11.62
Average 8.83 9.66 10.64 11.19
ST. Dev 0.7 0.67 0.7 0.58
CV % 7.9 6.9 6.6 5.2
C2 1 8.74 9.88 11.21 12.1
2 7.55 8.95 10.43 11.81
3 10.89 11.61 12.04 11.38
4 10.24 11.35 12.94 13.59
5 11.86 12.25 12.77 12.65
6 10.6 11.82 12.58 12.64
7 10.89 11.55 12.21 11.68
8 10.02 11.37 12.53 12.34
Average 10.1 11.1 12.1 12.27
ST. Dev 1.27 1.03 0.8 0.65
CV % 12.6 9.3 6.6 5.3
C3 1 11.02 11.45 12.2 14.71
2 10.84 11.37 12.29 15.49
3 8.25 9.17 10.2 13.81
4 9.35 10.24 11.87 15.71
5 9.23 10.11 11.27 16.12
6 9.29 10.32 11.66 15.16
7 11.55 11.99 12.7 15.65
8 10.58 11.62 12.76 16.32
Average 10.01 10.78 11.87 15.37
ST. Dev 1.06 0.9 0.79 0.76
CV % 10.5 8.3 6.6 4.9

Table 6
Pullout test results of #8 (M25) GFRP bars.

Lot ID Specimen Number Bond Stress (MPa)

Slip Slip Slip Slip
0.05 mm 0.1 mm 0.25 mm 2.5 mm
D1 1 9.1 9.34 9.99 13.71
2 6.13 6.92 8.12 11.48
3 6.36 7.36 8.53 11.33
4 7.93 9.28 10.40 12.91
5 8.56 9.36 10.66 12.19
6 4.77 9.72 12.19 14.45
7 6.55 7.15 8.00 10.77
8 7.33 8.11 9.17 12.13
Average 7.09 8.41 9.63 12.37
ST. Dev 1.133 1.07 1.36 1.17
CV % 15.9 12.7 14.1 9.4
D2 1 9.67 10.79 11.93 13.6
2 7.86 8.99 10.14 12.67
3 8.3 8.96 9.66 11.81
4 10.34 10.76 11.18 12.1
5 8.72 10.1 11.42 12.18
6 6.71 7.56 8.6 12.1
7 10.6 11.17 11.72 13.21
8 8.25 9.06 10.13 12.6
Average 8.81 9.67 10.60 12.53
ST. Dev 1.23 1.15 1.08 0.57
CV % 13.9 11.9 10.2 4.5
D3 1 9.09 10.04 11.16 13.19
2 8.04 8.92 9.97 10.83
3 10.57 11.54 12.62 13.47
4 7.53 8.47 9.89 12.74
5 10.88 12.62 14.52 16.33
6 14.36 15.32 15.88 15.73
7 10.35 10.46 10.65 11.43
8 8.71 10.39 12.34 14.26
Average 9.94 10.97 12.13 13.5
ST. Dev 2.02 2.06 2.03 1.79
CV % 20 18.8 16.7 13.3

5
E. Henin and G. Morcous
Fig. 4. Splitting failure for #8 (M25), when 200  200  200 mm concrete block was used.
Fig. 5. The non-embedded part of the bar is pulled into the concrete block.
failure at the resin-fiber interface; Second, the non-embedded part
of the bar (i.e. the part extending outside of the concrete block at
the free end) is pulled into the concrete adding resistance to the
pullout load produced by the wedging effect of the un-tensioned
part of the bar as shown in Fig. 5. This additional resistance
explains the residual stresses in the constant branch of the bond-
slip relationship discussed later.
3.2. Bond stress-slip relationships
Fig. 6 plots the bond stress-slip relationships of the tested heli-
cally wrapped sand coated deformed GFRP bars obtained from the
pullout test of different bar sizes and production lots. Each graph
shows four plots: three plots for the average of tested specimens
from each production lot and one plot for the average of all tested
6
Construction and Building Materials 288 (2021) 123120
specimens of that bar size. For example, ‘‘#5 B1 Average”, illus-
trates the average bond stress-slip relationship for the 8 specimens
of #5 bars tested from production lot B1, while ‘‘#5 All Average”
illustrates the average bond stress-slip relationship[ for the 24
specimens tested from production lots B1, B2, and B3. These rela-
tionships indicate similar bond behavior regardless of the bar size
and production lot. In each relationship, the curve consists of two
main branches, the ascending branch that goes up to the maximum
bond stress at insignificant slip, then the constant branch, where
the bond stress remains almost constant with increasing slip.
Fig. 7 shows a schematic diagram of the four stages of bond
behavior detected from the pullout testing of GFRP bars. First stage
is the linear behavior between the bond stress and slip up to 10% of
ultimate bond value, which is attributed to adhesion resistance of
the interface, also known as chemical bond. The chemical bond
between concrete and GFRP bars is the primary component of bond
at this stage, which explains the low slip at the free end. Second
stage starts after the chemical adhesion bond is broken and contin-
ues up to 30% to 40% of the ultimate bond value, which corre-
sponds to a slip equals to approximately 0.05 mm. This
observation was supported by other researchers [7]. In this stage,
the relative slip between the GFRP bar and concrete increases grad-
ually as the load increases. The friction resistance of the interface
between the GFRP bars and the concrete is considered the main
contributor to bond in this stage. In the third stage, a nonlinear
increase in slip from approximately 0.05 to 0.5 mm between the
GFRP bar and concrete occurs at minimal increase in loading until
to maximum bond stress is reached. This is attributed to the
mechanical interlocking between bar deformation and concrete
due to irregularity of the interface. The fourth stage represents
the constant branch and starts after reaching the maximum bond
stress. Significant increase in the slip with a constant bond stress
is the main characteristic of this stage. The predominant bond
mechanism is known as residual bond stress, which was observed
by other researchers [23,24]. The bond performance of the FRP bar
after reaching its ultimate bond stress was correlated to the com-
bination of residual bond stress and the treatment of the bar
texture.
E. Henin and G. Morcous
Fig. 6. Average bond stress-slip relationships of tested GFRP bars.
Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of bond stress-slip relationship of GFRP bars.
3.3. Effect of bar size on bond behavior
Fig. 8 shows the average bond stress of the four bar sizes at dif-
ferent slip values. The smaller the bar size, the higher the bond
stress regardless of the slip value. This observation was confirmed
by other researchers [25,26]. The experimental results show that
#3(M10) GFRP bars can develop about 13%, 34% 45%, higher bond
7
Construction and Building Materials 288 (2021) 123120
stress than #5 (M16), #6 (M19) #8 (M25) GFRP bars respectively.
Both Poisson ratio and shear lag influence the bond stress in large
bar sizes. The development of longitudinal stresses in GFRP bars
leads to a reduction in the diameter of bars, known as Poisson
effect, which results in higher reductions in diameter in large bars
than small bars. Also, the differential movement between the sur-
face fibers and the core is considered higher in large bars, which
could result in a nonuniform normal stress distribution on the
cross-section of the bar. The surface normal stress is higher than
core normal stress, and the difference between these stresses can
lead to a reduced average bond stress, which is known as shear lag.
4. Effect of production variability on bond behavior
Due to the lack of standards for making surface deformations
and normal variability in the physical and mechanical properties
of the constituent materials of GFRP bars, the bond behavior of
GFRP bars can vary among production lots. In order to evaluate
the null hypothesis that the mean value of the bond stress is the
same among different production lots, one-way Analysis of Vari-
ance (ANOVA) was conducted for all bar sizes and at all slip values.
Table 7 shows the results of all the 16 ANOVA tests using 95% level
of confidence and critical F value of 3.47. Based on these results,
the production lot was found to be a significant factor in 12 out
of the 16 tests, which indicates that the variability in production
could have a significant effect on the bond behavior of GFRP bars
in concrete. This could be attributed to variability in the surface
condition, possible misalignment of fibers, or difference in fiber
volume fraction..
E. Henin and G. Morcous Construction and Building Materials 288 (2021) 123120

Fig. 8. Influence of bar size on bond stress.

4.1. Analytical models of bond-slip behavior
Many studies were carried out to develop an analytical model
for bond-slip behavior of FRP bars in concrete. A brief review of
three models is presented and a new model is proposed and cali-
brated using pullout test results.
4.1.1. Malvar model
Malvar [6] was one of the first to model bond-slip relationship
between FRP bars and concrete. Malvar proposed a model that has
two empirical constants (F and G) determined for each bar type
based on the experimental bond-slip curve. The model that relates
the bond stress (s) to the slip (s) is represented by the following
expression:
 
F þ ðG  1Þðssm Þ2
s
sm
s ¼ sm  
1 þ ðF  2Þ ssm þ Gðssm Þ2
where sm and sm are the peak bond stress and corresponding slip,
respectively. Examples of F and G values in the literature are 11
and 1.1 respectively. Also, in case of external confinement axisym-
metric radial pressure, Malvar defined the peak bond stress as a
function of the confinement stress.
4.1.2. BPE model
Proposed by Eligehausen, Popov, and Bertero [27] for deformed
steel bars, this model expresses the ascending branch of the bond-
slip curve. This model was applied by Faoro [28], Rosetti et al. [29]
and Cosenza et al. [30] to FRP bars and can be presented as follow:
s a
s ¼ sm ð Þ For0  s  sm ð3Þ
sm
where sm and sm are the peak bond stress and corresponding slip,
respectively, and a is the curve fitting parameter, which is less than
1.0 for steel bars [19].
4.1.3. CMR model
Cosenza, Manfredi, and Realfonzo [30] developed this model as
a modification to the ascending branch of the bond-slip curve of
the BPE model. This modification considers the serviceability limit
state and can be presented as follows:
b
s ¼ sm ð1  expðsr Þ Þ
s
ð4Þ
ð2Þ
where sm is the peak bond stress, while sr and b are the parameters
based on curve fitting of the experimental data. Tighiouart et al.
[31] calibrated the two parameters based on the experimental
results and reported 0.25 and 0.5 for sr and b respectively.
Fig. 9 shows the comparison between the three bond-slip mod-
els and experimental results of this study for the four bar sizes. In
this figure, it can be observed that Malvar’s model has its initial
tangent lower than the other models (i.e. slip occurs immediately
after loading), which does not match the stage 1 behavior (i.e.
chemical adhesion). In addition, Malvar’s model provides less bond
stress than those obtained from pullout tests. Malvar’s model was

Table 7
ANOVA test results for production lot effect on bond.

Bar Size ANOVA Parameter Slip Value

0.05 mm 0.1 mm 0.25 mm 2.5 mm
#3 (M10) P-Value 6.56% 2.11% 4.08% 17.7%
F Test 3.18 4.81 3.84 1.91
Significant NO YES YES NO
#5 (M16) P-Value 0.31% 0.02% 0.02% 1.24%
F Test 7.71 13.61 13.12 5.45
Significant YES YES YES YES
#6 (M19) P-Value 5.83% 1.54% 0.39% 0.000%
F Test 3.26 5.13 7.29 74.17
Significant NO YES YES YES
#8 (M25) P-Value 0.94% 1.53% 2.09% 22.8%
F Test 5.87 5.14 4.68 1.59
Significant YES YES YES NO

8
E. Henin and G. Morcous Construction and Building Materials 288 (2021) 123120

Fig. 9. Comparison between GFRP bond-slip models and experimental data.

Fig. 10. Experimental results versus predictions of the proposal model.

calibrated using F = 13 and G = 1.1. Fig. 9 also shows that both the the CMR model is in close agreement with the experimental data.
BPE and the CMR models have vertical initial tangent, which sup- The curve fitting parameters sr and b were calibrated and found to
ports the chemical adhesion phenomena of stage 1 behavior. The be 0.15 and 0.275, respectively, which is in agreement with the val-
BPE model underestimates the bond stress using a = 0.175, while ues proposed by Cosenza et al. [22].

9
E. Henin and G. Morcous
4.1.4. Proposed model
To model the two branches of the bond-slip relationship (as-
cending branch and constant branch), a new model is proposed
as follows:


s ¼ sm A:expa:s  B:expb:s 0  s  sm ð5Þ
s ¼ sm s > sm ð6Þ
where A, B, a and b are the parameters based on curve fitting of the
experimental data. Fig. 10 shows the comparison between the
experimental bond-slip relationship and the proposed model. It is
clear from the figure that the proposal model matches very well
the experimental results when the values of the parameters A, B,
a, and b are 1.0, 16, 0.005, and 0.65, respectively.
5. Summary and conclusions
In this paper, the bond performance of helically wrapped sand
coated deformed glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars was
investigated. A total of 96 specimens were fabricated and tested
under direct static pullout load. Four different bar sizes were con-
sidered: #3 (M10), #5 (M16), #6 (M19) and #8 (M25) bars (24
specimens for each bar size). Specimens from three different pro-
duction lots (8 specimens from each lot) were tested for each bar
size. The average bond stress, the average bond-slip relationship,
and the failure mode were determined. Based on test results, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1. For all bar sizes, the bond-slip relationship consists of two
branches: the ascending branch up to the maximum bond stress
with insignificant slip; and the constant bond stress branch
with significant slip. The transfer of forces between the GFRP
bar and concrete in the ascending branch is achieved by chem-
ical bond, friction resistance and mechanical interlock
(bearing).
2. Small size bars developed higher bond strength than large size
bars. The experimental results show that #3(M10) GFRP bar can
develop about 13%, 34% 45%, bond strength higher than #5
(M16), #6 (M19) #8 (M25), respectively.
3. Pullout (i.e., slip) failure mode was observed for #3 (M10), #5
(M16), and #6 (M19) and splitting failure mode was observed
for #8 (M25) when 200  200  200 mm concrete block was
used. Therefore, larger concrete block is needed for large size
bars.
4. Measured bond stress was found to vary significantly among
similar specimens from different production lots due to vari-
ability in production, which could be a result of surface condi-
tion, possible misalignment of fibers, or difference in fiber
volume fraction.
5. The CMR model accurately predicts the ascending branch of
bond-slip curve and shows a good agreement with the experi-
mental results. Therefore, it is the recommended model for
the bond of GFRP bars at the serviceability limit state.
6. The proposed bond-slip model can accurately predict both the
ascending and constant branches of the bond-slip relationships
and matches very well the experimental data after
calibration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
10
Construction and Building Materials 288 (2021) 123120
Acknowledgments
The reinforcement bars used in this study were manufactured
by Owens Corning (formerly Hughes Bros.), Seward, NE.
References
[1] R. Kotynia, D. Szczech, M. Kaszubska, Bond behavior of GFRP bars to concrete in
beam test, Procedia Eng. 193 (2017) 401–408.
[2] O. Chaallal, B. Benmokrane, Pullout and bond of glass fiber rods embedded in
concrete and cement grout, Mater. Struct. 26 (3) (1993) 167–175.
[3] B. Benmokrane, O. Chaallal, R. Masmoudi, Flexural response of concrete beams
reinforced with FRP reinforcing bars, ACI Struct. J. 93 (1) (1996) 46–55.
[4] B. Tighiouart, B. Benmokrane, D. Gao, Investigation of bond in concrete
member with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars, Constr. Build. Mater. 12 (8)
(1998) 453–462.
[5] M. Pecce, G. Manfredi, R. Realfonzo, E. Cosenza, Experimental and analytical
evaluation of bond properties of GFRP bars, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 13 (4) (2001)
282–290.
[6] L.J. Malvar, Tensile and bond properties of GFRP reinforcing bars, ACI Mater. J.
92 (3) (1995) 1995.
[7] Zhang H. X. and Li J., ‘‘Bond behavior and modeling of fiber reinforced polymer
bars to concrete under direct pullout” Asia-Pacific Conf. on FRP in Struc.
(APFIS), Inter. Institute for FRP in constr., 2007, pp. 739-744.
[8] J. Alves, A. El-Ragaby, E. El-Salakawy, Durability of GFRP Bars’ bond to concrete
under different loading and environmental conditions, J. Compos. Constr.
(ASCE) 15 (3) (2011) 249–262.
[9] K.M.A. Hossain, A.A.A. Hamoda, M.E.S. Shoukry, Z.I. Mohmoud, Bond strength
of ribbed GFRP bars embedded in high performance fiber reinforced concrete, J.
Multidiscip. Eng. Sci. Technol. (JMEST) 2 (6) (2015) 1260–1267.
[10] X. Xiong, W. Wei, F. Liu, C. Cui, L. Li, R. Zou, Y. Zeng, Bond behaviour of recycled
aggregate concrete with basalt fiber reinforced polymer bars, Compos. Struct.
256 (2021).
[11] R. Zou, F. Liu, Z. Xiong, S. He, L. Li, W. Wei, Experimental study on fatigue bond
behavior between basalt fiber reinforced polymer bars and recycled aggregate
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 270 (2021).
[12] Xiong Z., Zeng Y., Li L., Kwan A., and He S., ‘‘Experimental Study on the effects
of glass fibers and expansive agent on the bond behavior of glass/basalt FRP
bars in Seawater sea sand concrete” Construction and Building Material 274,
2021
[13] Z. Xiong, W. Wei, S. He, F. Liu, H. Luo, L. Li, Dynamic bond behavior of fiber
wrapped basalt fiber reinforced polymer bars embedded in sea sand and
recycled aggregate concrete under high strain rate pull out tests, Constr. Build.
Mater. 276 (2021).
[14] E. Henin, G. Morcous, Bond-dependent coefficient of helically wrapped sand-
coated glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars, Adv. Civ. Eng. Mater. 7 (1)
(2018) 353–366.
[15] E. Henin, R. Tawadros, G. Morcous, Effect of surface condition on the bond of
basalt fiber reinforcement polymer bars in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 226
(2019) 449–458.
[16] R.J. Frosch, Another look at cracking and crack control on reinforced concrete,
ACI Struct. 96 (3) (1999) 437–442.
[17] ASTM D7957/D7957M-17 ‘‘Standard Specification for Solid Round Glass Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[18] ASTM D7205/D7205M-06 ‘‘Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[19] CAN/CSA S807-10 ‘‘Specifications for Fiber Reinforced Polymers” Canadian
Standards Association, Rexdale, Canada, 2019.
[20] ACI Committee 408. ‘‘Guide to Curing Concrete” ACI 308R-01, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008,
[21] ACI Committee 440. ‘‘Guide Test Methods for Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRPs)
for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures” ACI 440.3R-12,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2012,
[22] CAN/CSA S806-12 (R2017), Design and Construction of Building Structures
with Fiber-Reinforced Polymers, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale,
Canada, 2012.
[23] Aiello M. A., Leone M., and Pecce M., ‘‘Bond Performance of FRP Rebars-
Reinforced Concrete” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, V. 12, Issue 3,
March 2007, P.P 205-213.
[24] Z. Achillides, K. Pilakoutas, Bond behavior of fiber reinforced polymer bars
under direct pullout conditions, Constr. Build. Mater. 8 (2) (2004) 173–181.
[25] B. Benmokrane, B. Tighiouart, O. Chaallal, Bond strength and load distribution
of composite GFRP reinforcing bars in concrete, ACI Mater. J. 93 (3) (1996)
246–253.
[26] Baena M., Torres L., Turon A., and Barris C., ‘‘Experimental Study of bond
behavior between concrete and FRP bars using a pull-out test” Composites Part
B: Engineering, V (40), Issue 8, 2009, Pp784–797.
[27] Eligehausen R., Popov E. P., Bertero V.V., ‘‘Local bond stress-slip relationships
of deformed bars under generalized excitations” Report No. 83/23, EERC,
University of Cali., Berkely, 1983.
E. Henin and G. Morcous
[28] Faoro M., ‘‘Bearing and deformation behavior of structural components with
reinforcements comprising resin bounded glass fiber bars and conventional
ribbed steel bars” Proc., Int., Conf., Bond in Concrete, CEB, 3, Riga, Larvia, 1992.
[29] V.A. Rossetti, D. Galeota, M.M. Giammatteo, Local bond stress-slip
relationships of glass fiber reinforced plastic bars embded in concrete,
Mater. Struct. 28 (6) (1995) 340–344.
11
Construction and Building Materials 288 (2021) 123120
[30] Cosenza E., Manfredi G., and Realfonza R., ‘‘Analytical modelling of bond
between FRP reinforcing bars and concreter” Proc., 2nd Int. RILEM Symp. 1995
(FRPRCS-2), L. Taerwe, ed.
[31] B. Tighiouart, B. Benmokrane, D. Gao, Investigation of bond in concrete
member with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars, Constr. Build. Mater. J. 12
(1998) 453–462.