Yes / Although several research studies have been conducted on investigating the bond stress – slip behaviour of Glass-Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars embedded in high strength concrete (HSC) using a pull-out method, there is no published work on the bond behaviour of GFRP bars embedded in high strength concrete using a hinged beam. This paper presents the experimental work consisted of testing 28 hinged beams prepared according to RILEM specifications. The investigation of bond performance of GFRP bars in HSC was carried out by analysing the effect of the following parameters: bar diameter (9.5, 12.7 and 15.9 mm), embedment length (5 and 10 times bar diameter), surface configuration (helical wrapping with slight sand coating (HW-SC) and sand coating (SC)) and bar location (top and bottom). Four hinged beams reinforced with 16 mm steel bar were also tested for comparison purposes. The majority of beam specimens failed by pull-out. Visual inspection of the test specimens showed that the bond failure of GFRP (HW-SC) bars usually occurred owing to the bar surface damage, while the bond failure of GFRP (SC) bars was caused due to the detachment of sand coating. The GFRP bars with helical wrapping and sand coated surface configurations showed different bond behaviour and it was found that the bond performance of the sand coated surface was better than that of the helically wrapped surface. Bond strength reduced as the embedment length and bar diameter increased. It was also observed that the bond strength for the bottom bars was higher than that of the top bars. The bond strength was compared against the prediction methods given in ACI-440.1R, CSA-S806 and CSA-S6 codes. All design guidelines underestimated the bond strength of both GFRP re-bars embedded in high strength concrete. / Ministry of Higher Education in Libya for funding.

Yes / In this study, bond properties of glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars embedded in high-strength concrete (HSC) were experimentally investigated using a pull-out test. The experimental program consisted of testing 84 pull-out specimens prepared according to ACI 440.3R-12 standard. The testing of the specimens was carried out considering bar diameter (9.5, 12.7 and 15.9 mm), embedment length (2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 times bar diameter) and surface configuration (helical wrapping with slight sand coating (HW-SC) and sand coating (SC)) as the main parameters. Twelve pull-out specimens reinforced with 16 mm steel bar were also tested for comparison purposes. Most of the specimens failed by a pull-out mode. Visual inspection of the tested specimens reinforced with GFRP (HW-SC) bars showed that the pull-out failure was due to the damage of outer bar surface, whilst the detachment of the sand coating was responsible for the bond failure of GFRP (SC) reinforced specimens. The bond stress – slip behaviour of GFRP (HW-SC) bars is different from that of GFRP (SC) bars and it was also found that GFRP (SC) bars gave a better bond performance than GFRP (HW-SC) bars. It was observed that the reduction rate of bond strength of both GFRP types with increasing the bar diameter and the embedment length was reduced in the case of high-strength concrete. Bond strength predictions obtained from ACI-440.1R, CSAeS806, CSA-S6 and JSCE design codes were compared with the experimental results. Overall, all design guidelines were conservative in predicting bond strength of both GFRP bars in HSC and ACI predictions were closer to the tested results than other codes.

Four beam-bond test specimens, two in accordance with RILEM TC-RC5 recommendation, labelled as RILEM and two based on a modified form of the ACI 208 beam-bond test method, labelled as Notched, were tested in four-point bending to investigate the bond stress distribution and values along the bar embedment length of a 15 𝑚𝑚 nominal diameter GFRP rebar. The beams experienced failure through the rupturing of the longitudinal GFRP tensile reinforcement. In addition, two Modified and ten Standard pullout specimens were tested using the same bar. The beam-bond and the Modified pullout specimens had embedment length of 600 𝑚𝑚 while the Standard pullout specimens had, in accordance with CSA S806, 60 𝑚𝑚 embedment, or four times the bar nominal diameter. The first Modified pullout specimen experienced concrete splitting failure and as a result, the second was lightly confined and failed by GFRP bar rupture. All ten Standard pullout specimens failed due to bar pullout. It was determined that the actual bond stress distribution as a function of the embedment length is practically parabolic and can be described by the derivative of a modified form of the logistic growth function used to approximate the strain distribution along the embedment length. Furthermore, the maximum bond stress location progressively moves from the loaded-end towards the unloaded-end as the bond continues to deteriorate with increasing GFRP stress levels. The development length recommendations by ACI 440.1 and to a lesser degree, CSA S806 and CSA S6 are quite conservative compared to that which is required. It is observed that pullout tests alone cannot provide sufficient knowledge regarding the bond behaviour of FRP reinforcement; consequently, the results of beam-bond testing are more appropriate. Standard pullout tests may be incorporated into quality assurance programs with the understanding that they cannot provide valuable information regarding bond stress distribution and required development length in real structural elements with large embedment lengths. In terms of the beam-bond test method, the RILEM TC-RC5 design recommendation appears to be superior since it eschews severe stress perturbation caused by incidence of flexural cracks at beam midspan. As a result, it produces stability in the terms of the data gathered from the strain gauges placed on the GFRP bar. This benefit outweighs the ease of constructability of the Notched beams as well as their resemblance to real beams. / Thesis / Master of Applied Science (MASc) / The force that bonds a reinforcing rod to concrete is determined using three test methods. Each method is recommended by some design standards, but it is unclear how the results of these tests compare to each other. To shed light on the issue, a 15 𝑚𝑚 fibre glass rod was tested using three well-known test methods. It was discovered that two of the methods give results that are reasonably close while the third gives variable results that generally do not agree with the results of the other two. It was also discovered that the required embedment length recommended for such a bar by design codes and standards are relatively excessive because they underestimate the actual bond strength of the rod. Since sometimes it may be difficult to provide such long length in practice, it is recommended that the code requirements be revisited.