Bond between carbon bre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars and ultra high
performance bre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): Experimental study
Sayed Ahmad Firas, Foret Gilles *, Le Roy Robert
Universit Paris-Est, UR Navier, Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, 6&8 Av. Blaise Pascal, Champs sur Marne, 77455 Marne-la-Valle Cedex 2, France
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 July 2009
Received in revised form 17 December 2009
Accepted 2 February 2010
Available online 5 March 2010
Keywords:
CFRP bars
UHPFRC
Bond
Pullout test
a b s t r a c t
Carbon bre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars are currently used to reinforce concrete in an attempt to
overcome the corrosion issue encountered with ordinary steel. In order to exploit more efciently their
tensile capacity, it is interesting to use CFRP bars as prestressing tendons. This application requires a high
quality concrete matrix. The advantageous characteristics of UHPFRC, such as high strength, good ductility and durability, mean that a UHPFRC structure prestressed with CFRP bars may be lighter and require
less maintenance. Since the exural behaviour of prestressed concrete members reinforced with CFRP
bars is highly dependent on the bond between the two materials, an experimental program was carried
out in order to investigate the bond of CFRP bars embedded in UHPFRC. Two types of surface, smooth and
sand-coated, were investigated. Pullout tests were performed to examine the effect of varying parameters
such as embedment length, bar diameter and concrete age. The results clearly show that the bond
strength of macroscopically smooth bars embedded in UHPFRC is close to that of sand-coated bars. It
was also found that ultimate bond strength decreases with bar diameter and with embedment length.
Moreover, the bond strength can be expected during early age (3 days). A post-test examination revealed
that damage occurred only in the outer layers of the CFRP bars.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In recent years, bre-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars or strips
have been proposed as the main reinforcement for reinforced
and prestressed concrete members [13]. This type of bar is suitable for overcoming the corrosion issue posed by ordinary steel
bars in reinforced concrete. CFRP bars have many distinct advantages over steel reinforcement including a high strength-to-weight
ratio, high durability, ease of handling due to their light weight,
high tensile strength, excellent fatigue characteristics and electromagnetic neutrality. A wide variety of CFRP bars is currently commercially available. They can be produced with either a smooth or
a deformed surface in order to improve bond with the concrete.
For economic reasons, some authors consider the use of CFRP
bars as prestressing tendons [3]. However, to use the tensile capacity of CFRP tendons over its whole range in prestressed structural
members, a high quality concrete matrix is required. Since CFRP
tendons and concrete are brittle materials, ultra high performance
bre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) is used in this study because of
its main characteristics, i.e. high strength in compression and
tension, excellent durability, and ductility which prevents brittle
fracture of the elements.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 164 15 37 13; fax: +33 164 15 37 41.
E-mail address: gilles.foret@enpc.fr (G. Foret).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.02.006
480
Table 1
Composition and characteristics of BSICERACEM concrete.
Composition for 1 m3
Premix EIFFAGE B1M2 (kg)
Water (kg)
W/C
Superplasticizer Glenium G51 (kg)
Fibres metal (kg)
2349
195
0.2
50
195
Properties
Modulus of elasticity E (GPa)
Flow test (mm)
Voids ratio (%)
Poissons ratio
Compressive strength at 3 days (MPa)
Compressive strength at 14 days (MPa)
Compressive strength at 28 days (MPa)
Density (t/m3)
6065
600650
1.9
0.2
120
155
170
2.8
increases the bond strength [12,13]. For this reason, a debonded section 70 mm
long was created on each embedded bar by wrapping it in a plastic pipe on the
loaded side. A special tab grip adapter was used to clamp the CFRP bars in the testing machine without premature fracture in the grip region. This tab consisted of
two steel plates separated by a 23 mm gap each with a circular groove with a
diameter similar to that of the CFRP bar. The two plates were placed on either side
of the bar and clamped together by the machine wedge grips. The grooves were
coated with a ne layer of instantaneous glue (cyanoacrylate), Figs. 2 and 3.
Loads were applied to the pullout specimens using an MTS machine with a loading rate of 0.02 mm/s. The relative displacement between the bar and the concrete
was measured at the free end of the specimen with two linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs), Fig. 3. The bond strength was calculated as the ultimate pullout load divided by the area of the embedded length of a nominal diameter bar,
which is equivalent to assuming a uniform bond stress at the ultimate load.
3. Experimental results
The bondslip curves for each specimen were plotted using the
experimental results obtained directly from the slip measurements
at the free end (bottom LVDT). The average bond stress, sav, at any
stage during loading is given by the equation:
sav
pdl
As illustrated by Figs. 4 and 5, both types of bars gave a generally similar shape of curve, with a bond strength 15% lower for the
smooth bar, probably because its low roughness affected the friction mechanism. The residual bond strength value (post-peak) rep-
481
Bar diameter
(mm)
Embedment
length (mm)
Concrete
age (days)
Maximum average
bond strength (MPa)
Smooth bars
8S5-3
8S5-14
8S5-28
8S5-90
8S10-3
8S10-14
8S10-28
8S10-90
8S15-28
8S20-3
8S20-14
8S20-28
8S20-90
10S5-28
12S5-28
7SC5-28
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
10
12
7.5
40
40
40
40
80
80
80
80
120
160
160
160
160
50
60
37.5
3
14
28
90
3
14
28
90
28
3
14
28
90
28
28
28
22.05
22.74
23.27
24.26
19.1
19.65
20.6
21.8
16.27
12.54
12.62
12.94
13.12
21.88
20.6
27.22
0.14
0.12
0.08
0.074
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.1
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.0081
0.08
Sand-coated bars
7SC10-28
7SC15-28
7SC20-28
7.5
7.5
7.5
75
112.5
150
28
28
28
22.76
19.89
15.45
0.06
0.068
0.086
40
28
50
0.038
resented 4060% of the peak bond value for both the sand-coated
and smooth bars. The deformed steel bar had a higher bond
strength (twice that of the CFRP bars) and exhibited plastic
behaviour before failure. Fig. 5 clearly shows that when the free
end started to slip, the average ratio of the bond stress to the maximum bond strength was around 20% for both CFRP surface congurations. In addition, the peak bond value for both CFRP bars
occurred at the same slip value of 0.08 mm, whereas for the steel
bar it occurred at a value of 0.038 mm. After the outer layer peeled
off, the sand-coated bar failed in a more brittle manner and had
lower residual bond stress than the smooth bar.
The bond mechanisms at the CFRP/concrete interface that are
the most commonly described in the scientic literature [13,15]
are chemical and friction bonds, in the case of both smooth and
sand-coated bars. From Fig. 5, it can be seen that the trend of the
482
curves may be divided into two distinct parts. The rst represents
initial pullout where the chemical bond (adhesion) was the main
resisting mechanism which provided load transfer. Free-end slip
started only when a threshold shear stress value was reached
(5 MPa for all types of bar). In the second stage, the continuous
increase in slip led to the total loss of the chemical bond along
the whole bar, but was accompanied by a more active friction bond
mechanism.
The peak bond strength for both CFRP surface nishes was signicant, 23.27 and 27.22 MPa for the smooth and sand-coated bars,
respectively. The results reported in the literature for CFRP bars
embedded in concrete of ordinary/moderate strength [13,15] indicate a bond strength varying from 1 to 3.5 MPa for smooth bars and
816 MPa for sand-coated bars. Therefore CFRP bars embedded in
UHPFRC clearly have better bond performance, particularly for
smooth bars for which the increase exceeded a factor of 6.
With regard to the smooth bars, three effects may have contributed to the enhanced bond strength:
483
The actual bond strength between the bar and the concrete is
directly related to the value of the normal stress that occurs close
to the bar surface. The stress differences are more pronounced with
large diameter bars, leading to a reduction in the average bond
strength. A similar conclusion was reached by Tepfers [11].
4.4. Effect of concrete age (connement effect)
Studying the effect of concrete age amounts to evaluating the
effect of the connement pressure caused by concrete shrinkage
on the bond strength. The results obtained from pullout tests performed after 3, 14, 28 and 90 days with smooth bars (d = 8 mm) are
displayed in Figs. 10 and 11. The following remarks can be made:
Fig. 8. Effect of bar diameter on the bondslip relationship (smooth bars, l = 5d,
28 days).
The slope of the bond stress from peak bond stress to residual
bond stress decreased gradually with embedment length,
whereas the ratio of residual to peak bond stresses increased.
For example this ratio increased from 60% to 90% when the
embedment length increased from 5d to 20d. This may be attributed to bond failure (shear off in the outer layer of the bar) starting at the loaded end where the interfacial bond stress reached
its ultimate strength, then progressively continuing along the
embedment length. Hence for a shorter embedment length,
shear off progresses rapidly meaning that a specimen with
longer embedment length fails in a more brittle manner.
4.3. Effect of bar diameter
The bond behaviour curves were the same shape for all the
specimens.
There was no signicant difference (less than 10%) in the ultimate bond strength of specimens tested after 3 days and after
90 days. Furthermore, the ratio of residual to ultimate bond
strength remained almost constant for the different concrete
ages.
The concrete age effect decreased with embedment length, and
was negligible for a 20d embedment length.
Fig. 10. Effect of concrete age on the bondslip relationship (smooth bars d = 8 mm,
l = 5d).
484
Fig. 11. Effect concrete age on bond strength with varying embedment length.
strength between the bar core and the outer layers of the CFRP
bars.
In order to estimate the development length (the shortest
embedment length at which the failure mode is tensile rupture
of the bar) specimens with sand-coated bars were tested with an
embedment length of 30d, 35d and 40d, respectively. The pullout
load developed was, respectively, 90%, 98% and 100% of the bars
ultimate tensile capacity. Therefore, the development length is
about 40 times the diameter (40d). On the other hand pullout tests
were carried on smooth bars with different embedment lengths.
The longer embedment length was 40d, the pullout device not
allowing to increase the embedment length beyond 40d. The
experiments showed that the pullout load developed by smooth
bars specimens with embedment length of 40d was approximately
65% of their ultimate tensile capacity.
5. Conclusions
The following
investigation:
conclusions
may
be
drawn
from
this
[1] Limam O, Nguyen VT, Foret G. Numerical and experimental analysis of twoway slabs strengthened with CFRP strips. Eng Struct J 2005;27(6):8415.
[2] Foret G, Limam O. Experimental and numerical analysis of RC two-way slabs
strengthened with NSM CFRP rods. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(10):202530.
485
[14] Rossetti VA, Galeota D, Giammatteo MM. Local bond stressslip relationships
of glass bre reinforced plastic bars embedded in concrete. Mater Struct J
1995;28(180):3404.
[15] Al-Zahrani MM. Bond behaviour of bre reinforced plastic (FRP)
reinforcements with concrete. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, USA;
1994.
[16] Bakisa CE, Uppuluri VS, Nanni A, Boothby TE. Analysis of bonding mechanisms
of smooth and lugged FRP rods embedded in concrete. Compos Sci Technol
1998;58(8):130719.
[17] Chen YW, Li VC. Effects of transition zone, densication on ber/cement paste
bond strength improvement. Adv Cem Based Mater 1997;5(1):817.
[18] Chen YW, Chu SH. Effect of silica fume on steel ber bond characteristics in
reactive powder concrete. Cem Concr Res 2004;34(7):116772.
[19] ACI Committee 234. Guide for use of silica fume in concrete. ACI Mater J
1995;92(4):43740.
[20] De Larrard F, Schaller I, Fuchs J. Effect of the bar diameter on the bond strength
of passive reinforcement. ACI Mater J 1993;90(4):3339.
[21] Al-Mahmoud F, Castel A, Franois R, Tourneur C. Effect of surface preconditioning on bond of carbon bre reinforced polymer rods to concrete. Cem
Concr Compos 2007;29(9):67789.
[22] Achillides Z, Pilakoutas K. Bond behavior of ber reinforced polymer bars
under direct pullout conditions. ASCE J Compos Constr 2004;8(2):17381.
[23] Benmokrane B, Tighiouart B, Chaallal O. Bond strength and load distribution of
composite GFRP reinforcing bars in concrete. ACI Mater J 1996;93(3):2549.
[24] Gentry TR, Hudak CE. Thermal compatibility of plastic composite
reinforcement for concrete. In: Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on
advanced composite materials in bridges and structures, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada; 1996. p. 14956.
[25] Achillides Z. Bond behaviour of FRP bars in concrete. PhD thesis, Centre for
Cement and Concrete, University of Shefeld, UK; 1998.