Performance Evaluation, Material and Specification Development f or

Basalt Fber Reinforced Polymer (BFRP) Reinforcing Bars

Embedded in Concrete

Contract Number BDV30 TWO 986-01

FSU Project ID: 042088

Submitted to:

Florida Department of Transportation

Research Center
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450

Steven Nolan, Ph.D.

Project Manager
FDOT State Materials Office

Prepared by:

Raphael Kampmann, Ph.D.

Principal Investigator
Michelle Rambo-Roddenberry, Ph.D., P.E.
Co-Principal Investigator
Srichand Telikapalli, M.E.
Graduate Research Assistant

FAMU-FSU College of Engineering

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
2525 Pottsdamer Street
Tallahassee, FL 32310

06/30/2019
Disclaimer

The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and not

necessarily those of the Florida Department of Transportation or the U.S. Department of Trans-

portation.

i
Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for financial

support for this study and for a progressive approach toward an implementation of FRP rebars

in concrete construction. Special thanks go to Steven Nolan and Chase Knight for technical and

engineering support. Likewise, engineering advice and technical know-how was provide by Francisco

De Caso from the University of Miami, who effectively acted as a co-PI. His FRP rebar knowledge

and advices were indispensable for this report. In addition, many people have contributed to

the successful completion of this research project, and this study would have not been possible

without their assistance and help. Andre Schmidt and Tim Schneider worked tirelessly on numerous

test setups, experiments, and other research tasks to obtain important data and to conducted the

relevant analysis procedures. Susanna Becker and Jessica Frahling supported many tasks and were

always available and helpful when called upon. Steven Squillacote provided exceptional hands-on

support for all preparation tasks and for any laboratory efforts. In addition, the authors would like

to thank the High Performance Material Institute (HPMI) for providing test equipment; specifically

Marquese Pollard provided a lot of help for all tensile and shear tests that were conducted for this

research.

ii
Executive Summary

Florida is a coastal state with bridge infrastructure exposed to aggressive environments through

direct and indirect contact with saline solutions. Due to this exposure, conventional black steel

reinforcement that is traditionally used for bridges is corroding prematurely, resulting in early

structural deterioration which in-turn may cause huge financial and personal losses. In a successful

effort to overcome such corrosion and deteriorating effects, reinforcing bars (rebars) made from fiber

reinforced polymers (FRP) were developed. FRP rebars are composite materials, in which fibers,

resin, and sizing (interface material between fibers and resin) are the main constituent materials.

Different fiber types are used to produce such rebars, and the most common type in the US is glass

fiber. In the former Soviet Bloc, continuous fibers made from basalt rock were favored and since the

collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), previously proprietary/military tech-

nologies have been made public and continuous basalt fibers (CBF) have entered the world market

as a viable alternative to glass fibers. CBF are now used to produce basalt fiber reinforced polymers

(BFRP) in rebar applications and these rebars are now imported or produced in the North America.

Various types of BFRP rebars with dissimilar sizes, physical and strength properties, are currently

produced to be used for civil engineering construction. In this project, representative and com-

monly available BFRP rebars were tested to evaluate various physical properties (cross-sectional

properties, fiber content, and moisture absorption properties) and different strength characteristics

(horizontal and transverse shear, tensile strength, elastic modulus, and bond-to-concrete proper-

ties) according to ASTM standards, in an effort to develop basalt specific acceptance criteria for

FDOT Specifications Section 932, which governs the use of non-metallic auxiliary materials for civil

engineering construction.

BFRP rebars from three different manufacturers, two different production lots, and two most

commonly used rebar sizes (# 3 and # 5) were included in this study. The obtained results were

iii
used to evaluate the performance of each rebar type in a relativistic comparison to existing bench-

mark values for glass FRP (GFRP) rebars. The fiber content test proved that all tested samples had

consistent and nearly identical results with acceptable performance. Moisture absorption property

of the rebars varied significantly based on the manufacturers, type of raw materials used, and the

production techniques. Transverse shear strength of the tested BFRP rebars proved to be 116 %

stronger than GFRP bars. Tensile strength measurements and horizontal shear strength measure-

ments were consistent for all rebar types and the recorded values surpassed the strengths generally

reported for GFRP rebars. The bond-to-concrete strength of the tested BFRP rebars were not

significantly different from bond-to-concrete strength commonly reported for GFRP rebars because

similar surface enhancement techniques are used for either rebar type. Based on the obtained re-

sults it was noted that the tested BFRP rebars surpassed the strength related acceptance criteria for

GFRP rebars. While the manufacturer reported properties varied and each rebar type performed

different, the tested BFRP rebars were generally stronger (higher performance) than GFRP rebars.

Ultimately, it was found that BFRP rebars are a suitable and viable alternative for construction in

Florida and that those materials should be considered for FDOT Specification 932.

iv
Table of Contents

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.3 Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.4 Project Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.5 Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 Background 8

2.1 Igneous Rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2 Fiber Types and Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2.1 Basalt Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2.2 Glass Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2.3 Carbon Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.2.4 Aramid Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2.5 Fiber Types Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2.6 Properties of Basalt Fibers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.3 Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4 Resin Types and Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.1 Epoxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.4.2 Polyester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.4.3 Vinylester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

v
 2.5 BFRP Rebar Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.5.1 Pultrusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.5.2 Wet Lay-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.6 BFRP Rebar Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.7 Test Procedures for FRP Rebar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.7.1 Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.7.2 Strength Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.8 Failure Characteristics of FRP Rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.9 Durability of FRP Rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2.10 Concrete Elements Reinforced with BFRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3 BFRP Building Compliance and Market 38

3.1 Regulations for FRP Rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.2 Acceptance Criteria for FRP Rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.3 Global BFRP Rebar Manufacturer Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.4 BFRP Products Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4 Experimental Program 50

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.2 Experimental Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.2.1 Acceptance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.3 Equipment and Test Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.3.1 Cutting Saw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.3.2 Precision Saw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.3.3 Caliper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.3.4 Precision Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.3.5 Support Frame for Specimen Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.3.6 Test Fixture for Transverse Shear Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.3.7 Test Fixture for Apparent Horizontal Shear Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.3.8 Test Fixture for Tensile Strength Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.3.9 Test Fixture for Bond-to-Concrete Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

vi
 4.3.10 Load Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.3.11 Extensometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4.4 Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4.4.1 Cross-Sectional Area Test — Specific Gravity (Relative Density) . . . . . . . 67

4.4.2 Fiber Content Test — Ignition Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

4.4.3 Moisture Absorption Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4.4.4 Transverse Shear Strength Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.4.5 Apparent Horizontal Shear Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.4.6 Tensile Strength and Modulus Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

4.4.7 Bond-to-Concrete Strength Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4.5 Data Acquisition and Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5 Results 74

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5.2 Cross-Sectional Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5.3 Fiber Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5.4 Moisture Absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

5.5 Transverse Shear Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

5.5.1 Load vs. Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

5.5.2 Stress vs. Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

5.6 Modes of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.7 Summary of Transverse Shear Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

5.8 Apparent Horizontal Shear Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.8.1 Load vs. Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.8.2 Stress vs. Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

5.9 Modes of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5.10 Summary of Horizontal Shear Strength Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5.11 Tensile Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

5.11.1 Load vs. Displacement Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

5.11.2 Stress vs. Strain Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

5.12 Modes of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

vii
 5.13 Summary of Tensile Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5.14 Bond-to-Concrete Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

5.15 Bond Stress vs. Slip at Free End . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

5.16 Modes of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

5.17 Summary of Bond-to-Concrete Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

5.18 BFRP Rebar Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

6 Discussion 115

6.1 Research Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

6.2 Critical Analysis of Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

6.2.1 Cross-Sectional property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

6.2.2 Fiber Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

6.2.3 Moisture Absorption of BFRP rebar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

6.2.4 Transverse Shear Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

6.2.5 Apparent Horizontal Shear Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

6.2.6 Tensile Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

6.2.7 Bond-to-Concrete Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

6.3 Supplementary Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

6.4 BFRP Design Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

6.4.1 Design Guide Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

6.5 Research Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

6.6 Future and Further Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

7 Conclusions 131

7.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

7.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

7.3 Further Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Appendices 144

A Individual Specimen Results 145

A.1 Density and Cross-Sectional Dimension Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

viii
A.2 Fiber Content Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

A.3 Transverse Shear Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

A.4 Horizontal Shear Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

A.5 Tensile Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

A.6 Bond-to-Concrete Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

ix
List of Figures

2.1 Continuous basalt fiber production process (Ipbüker et al., 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2 Thermoset polymeric resin used in FRP rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.3 Schematic diagram of FRP rebar pultrusion (Borges et al., 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.4 Obtain position of exothermic peak (Borges et al., 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.5 Basalt FRP rebar production steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.6 Tensile stress and strain of different types of FRP according to Busel (2016) . . . . . 22

2.7 Transverse shear fixture — Main body of fixture disassembled . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.8 Transverse shear fixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.9 Tensile strength test load transfer (Schesser et al., 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.10 FRP rebar tensile failure mechanism (Ehrenstein, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.1 Chronology of documents related to the use of FRP rebar for concrete reinforcement 39

3.2 BFRP manufacturer locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.3 Production and storage strategies chosen by BFRP manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . 47

3.4 BFRP production rates (as reported by manufacturers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.1 Sample pictures of tested BFRP # 3 Rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.2 Sample pictures of tested BFRP # 5 Rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.3 Saw and diamond blade for BFRP rebar cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.4 Precision saw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.5 Electronic caliper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.6 Precision scale, used to meet ASTM D 792 requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.7 Tensile test preparation alignment frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.8 Transverse shear test concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

x
4.9 Transverse shear test — methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4.10 Transverse shear box — parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4.11 Horizontal shear test concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.12 Horizontal shear test — methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.13 Horizontal shear test fixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.14 Bottom unit connected to actuator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.15 Tensile fixture installed in load frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.16 Bond-to-concrete experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.17 Schematic of the mold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.18 Fixing the rebar and the plastic tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.19 Laboratory setup in the HPMI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.20 MTS control panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4.21 MTS extensometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.1 Fiber content percentage of rebars from all manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5.2 Fiber content specimen of rebar type C # 3, 5 after test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

5.3 Fiber content specimen of rebar # 3 after test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

5.4 Moisture absorption results of rebars from all manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

5.5 Extension vs. transverse shear load behavior of type A rebars Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . 79

5.6 Extension vs. transverse shear load behavior of type B rebars Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . 80

5.7 Extension vs. transverse shear load behavior of type C rebars Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . 80

5.8 Extension vs. transverse shear load behavior of type C rebars Lot 2 size 3 and 5 . . 81

5.9 Transverse shear stress vs. extension behavior of rebar type A Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . 82

5.10 Transverse shear stress vs. extension results of rebar type B Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . . 82

5.11 Transverse shear stress vs. extension behavior of type C Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . . . . . 83

5.12 Transverse shear stress vs. extension behavior of type C Lot 2 size 3 and 5 . . . . . . 83

5.13 Failure pattern for tested rebar after transverse shear test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5.14 Extension vs. horizontal shear load behavior of rebar type A Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . . 87

5.15 Extension vs. horizontal shear load behavior of rebar type B Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . . 88

5.16 Extension vs. horizontal shear load behavior of type C Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . . . . . 89

5.17 Extension vs. horizontal shear load behavior of type C Lot 2 size 3 and 5 . . . . . . 89

xi
5.18 Horizontal shear stress vs. extension behavior of rebar type A Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . 90

5.19 Horizontal shear stress vs. extension behavior of rebar type B Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . 90

5.20 Horizontal shear stress vs. extension behavior of rebar type C Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . 91

5.21 Horizontal shear stress vs. extension behavior of rebar type C Lot 2 size 3 and 5 . . 91

5.22 Failure pattern for tested rebar after horizontal shear test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5.23 Tensile strength vs. displacement behavior of rebar type A Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . . . 94

5.24 Tensile strength vs. displacement behavior of rebar type B Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . . . 95

5.25 Tensile strength vs. displacement behavior of rebar type C Lot 1 size 3 and 5 . . . . 95

5.26 Tensile strength vs. displacement behavior of rebar type C Lot 2 size 3 and 5 . . . . 96

5.27 Tensile stress vs. strain behavior of rebar type A Lot 1 rebar size 3 and 5 . . . . . . 97

5.28 Tensile stress vs. strain behavior of rebar type B Lot 1 rebar size 3 and 5 . . . . . . 97

5.29 Tensile stress vs. strain behavior of rebar type C Lot 1 rebar size 3 and 5 . . . . . . 98

5.30 Tensile stress vs. strain behavior of rebar type C Lot 2 rebar size 3 and 5 . . . . . . 98

5.31 # 3 rebar final failure pattern after tensile test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

5.32 # 5 rebar final failure pattern after tensile test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

5.33 Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type A Lot 1 # 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5.34 Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type A Lot 1 # 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5.35 Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type A Lot 1 # 3 and # 5 . . . . . . . . . 104

5.36 Free end slip behavior of the tested rebars type B Lot 1 # 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5.37 Free end slip behavior of the tested rebars type B Lot 1 # 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5.38 Free end slip behavior of the tested rebars type B Lot 1 # 3 and # 5 . . . . . . . . . 106

5.39 Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type C Lot 1 # 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

5.40 Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type C Lot 1 # 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

5.41 Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type C Lot 1 # 3 and # 5 . . . . . . . . . 107

5.42 Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type A Lot 1 rebar # 3 . . . . . . 108

5.43 Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type A Lot 1 rebar # 5 . . . . . . 108

5.44 Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type B Lot 1 rebar # 3 . . . . . . 109

5.45 Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type B Lot 1 rebar # 5 . . . . . . 109

5.46 Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type C Lot 1 rebar # 3 . . . . . . 109

5.47 Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type C Lot 1 rebar # 5 . . . . . . 110

xii
6.1 Gaussian distribution for tensile strength of # 3 rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

6.2 Gaussian distribution for tensile strength of # 5 rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

xiii
List of Tables

2.1 Average chemical composition of basaltic rocks based on 3594 analyzed rock samples 9

2.2 Typical properties of resin matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.3 Environmental reduction factor for various fibers and exposure conditions . . . . . . 32

3.1 Required test procedures and specimen quantities per acceptance test and production

lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.2 Required sizes and tensile loads of FRP reinforcing bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.3 Production logistics and rates per manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

3.4 BFRP rebars produced by manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.1 Physical and mechanical tests on BFRP rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.2 Physical characteristics of tested BFRP rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.3 Acceptance criteria for GFRP rebar # 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

4.4 Acceptance criteria for GFRP rebar # 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

5.1 Statistical evaluation of diameter measurements for rebar size # 3 and # 5 . . . . . . 75

5.2 Transverse Shear test statistical values for each sample group (US Customary Units) 86

5.3 Horizontal Shear test statistical values for each sample group (US Customary Units) 93

5.4 Tensile strength test statistical values for each sample group (US Customary Units) 102

5.5 Bond-to-concrete strength test statistical values for each sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

5.6 Acceptance criteria for rebar type A # 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

5.7 Acceptance criteria for rebar type A # 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

5.8 Acceptance criteria for rebar type B # 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

5.9 Acceptance criteria for rebar type B # 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

5.10 Acceptance criteria for rebar type C # 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

xiv
5.11 Acceptance criteria for rebar type C # 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

6.1 Guaranteed shear and bond-to-concrete strength of rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

6.2 Guaranteed strength and elastic modulus of rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

6.3 Reduction factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

A.1 Diameter measurements for each individual specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

A.2 Fiber content test results for each individual specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

A.2 Fiber content test results for each individual specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

A.3 Transverse shear test results (ultimate values) for each individual specimen . . . . . 148

A.3 Transverse shear test results (ultimate values) for each individual specimen . . . . . 149

A.4 Horizontal shear test results (ultimate values) for each individual specimen . . . . . 150

A.5 Tensile strength test results (ultimate values) for each individual specimen . . . . . . 151

A.5 Tensile strength test results (ultimate values) for each individual specimen . . . . . . 152

A.6 Bond-to-Concrete strength test results for each individual specimen (Imperial Units) 152

A.6 Bond-to-Concrete strength test results for each individual specimen (Imperial Units) 153

A.7 Bond-to-Concrete strength test results for each individual specimen (Metric Units) . 153

A.7 Bond-to-Concrete strength test results for each individual specimen (Metric Units) . 154

xv
Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Introduction

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) continues to implement innovative materials

to enhance the sustainability and durability of the infrastructure. Because Florida is a coastal

state with many structures exposed to saltwater (e.g., the splash zone for bridge piers), the FDOT

currently works progressively on research and applications of non-corrosive materials, such as fiber

reinforced polymers (FRP) reinforcement bars (rebars), in an effort to replace or substitute tradi-

tional steel rebars. Over the last two decades, technological advancements have facilitated the use

of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) and basalt fiber reinforced polymer (BFRP) composites as

internal rebars for concrete structures. These emerging materials are a modern, viable alternative to

traditional steel reinforcement due to significant advantages (e.g., magnetic transparency, lightness,

and — most importantly — corrosion resistance) that can lead to more durable concrete members

and extended structural life. Hence, a key initiative for the Florida Department of Transportation

is the progressive implementation of FRP technology for concrete reinforcement in infrastructure

projects.

In a recently completed FDOT research project, GFRP rebars were evaluated for physio-

mechanical and bond-to-concrete properties to properly implement GFRP rebars in concrete for

the use in aggressive environments (FDOT research project BDV 30 977-18). The project showed

that the material properties of FRP rebars are beneficial for the use in concrete, and that the

technology has the potential for standardized use in publicly funded construction projects via im-

1
plementations in design specifications (FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Con-

struction — Section 932-3). However, the past projects have mostly focused on glass FRP rebars,

because glass fibers are more dominant in the US market and Basalt FRP rebars have not yet

been thoroughly investigated for public agencies. The activities performed for this project followed

similar efforts as conducted for BDV 30 977-18, but target the virgin material characteristics and

bond-to-concrete properties of basalt fiber reinforced polymer reinforcement bars (BFRP Rebars)

to evaluate a second/additional alternative that can replace traditional rebars.

Basalt is a volcanic rock which can be formed into continuous fibers through melting raw basalt

at approximately 1500 ◦C and using technologies similar to those used for the production of E-Glass

and AR-Glass fibers. Only raw basalt rock is necessary to produce the fibers, and the purity of

the basalt depends on the source rock only. Because no additional chemical components are needed

to produce basalt fibers, they are considered a “greener product” (relative to glass fibers). Basalt

filaments are formed by platinum-rhodium bushings (similar as for glass filaments), and a sizing

agent is applied during the cooling process, before the fibers are spooled. Due to the inherent

properties of basalt and the different chemistry from glass fibers, basalt fibers are more chemically

resistant, have a higher tensile strength, and have a modulus of elasticity that exceeds the elasticity

of E-glass fibers by about 15 % to 30 % (Rarnalaishnan and Tolmare, 1998). In addition, basalt

fibers are more UV-resistant, have a higher fire resistance, and better retain physical characteristics

in cold temperatures. Finally, the production of basalt fibers are more environmentally friendly

than the production of glass fibers because toxic ingredients can be omitted.

For the production of BFRP reinforcing bars, the basalt fibers are embedded in a polymeric resin

matrix, similar to GFRP rebars. In a high quality produced basalt fiber reinforced polymer rebar,

the basalt fibers carry the load (primarily in tension), while the resin matrix protects the fibers,

binds them, and also transfers the load between them. Matrices are typically thermosetting resins;

epoxy resins seem to be preferred for BFRP because of the high mechanical toughness and excellent

corrosion resistance; coupled with ease of manufacturing, epoxy resins are ideal for FRP pultruded

systems. Drawbacks of epoxy resins include low modulus of elasticity, sensitivity to abrasion,

relatively low fatigue resistance, and high cost. The main factors affecting the characteristics of

an FRP rebar include fiber volume, dimensional effects, rate of curing, manufacturing process, and

quality control measures during manufacturing. The unit weight of BFRP rebars is about one-third

2
of steel, which reduces transportation costs and makes the rebars easy to handle at the job site,

yielding additional benefits to its implementation (Rarnalaishnan and Tolmare, 1998). To ensure

proper bond between the the pultruded BFRP rebar and the concrete, a surface treatment is applied

to increase the friction at the bond interface or to improve the interlocking effect. Manufacturers

have developed different BFRP rebar types, where the surface enhancement varies (sand-coated,

helical wrapping, lugs, etc.). Accordingly, various different BFRP rebars exist and their properties

are highly dependent on the used raw and the proprietary production techniques.

The American Concrete Institute Committee 440 (ACI440) has led the effort to address the

technical implementation for GFRP rebars by developing and publishing test methods, specifica-

tions, and design guidelines (ACI Committee 440, 2006, 2012, 2008b, 2013). Previous versions of

ACI440 (ACI Committee 440, 2008a) and the 2010 version of the Canadian-CSA Specifications

for Fiber Reinforced Polymers (Canadian Standard Association, 2010) were developed to stan-

dardize glass, carbon, and aramid FRP bars. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has

led the western effort for developing specifications and design guidelines for BFRP, and the new

CSA S807 (Benmokrane, 2018) standard includes FRP bars made with basalt fibers that empha-

size the current importance of this material and the confidence of a commercialized usage in the

field (Vincent et al., 2013). Similarly, ASTM Committees D30 and D20 have addressed the emer-

gence of this technology by developing a number of test methods (ASTM-International, 2015a)

intended to characterize GFRP rebars. In addition, the FDOT has developed documents to aid the

implementation and design of GFRP rebar technology for the built infrastructure, specifically Sec-

tion 932 for nonmetallic accessory materials for concrete pavement and concrete structures (Ruelke,

2014), and more recently the fiber reinforced polymer guidelines (FRPG) (Florida Department of

Transportation, 2015) are important documents in this context. At the national level, AASHTO

has also developed guides for the use of FRP technology (AASHTO, 2012) for externally bonded

systems. AASHTO (2018) describes the unique material properties of GFRP composite materi-

als and lists provisions for the design and construction of concrete bridge elements reinforced with

GFRP reinforcing bars. It is desired to add BFRP specific criteria to these specifications and guide-

lines as soon as practical to provide redundant supply chains and potentially improved performance

expectations. Moreover, the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), which is the

industry leader in performing technical evaluations for code compliance as part of the International

3
Code Council (ICC) that develops model codes and standards, published the Acceptance Criteria

for the use of GFRP and BFRP rebars for concrete reinforcement, known as AC454 (International

Code Council Evaluation Services, 2017). Hence, today any structure that is to be built according

to the requirements of the Florida Building Code, which is based on the model code (International

Building Code, IBC), can be realized with BFRP rebar technology.

Unlike carbon and glass fiber reinforced materials, basalt fibers have not been widely used, which

results from a lack of research and required testing to establish this material as a serious competitor.

The increasing demand on the infrastructure, as well as environmental challenges due to the unique

climate and location of the State of Florida, resulting in accelerated degradation of infrastructure,

need to be addressed by making progress toward safe and long-term infrastructure solutions.

1.2 Problem Statement

In recent years, the number of reinforced concrete (RC) structures specifying FRP rebars has in-

creased significantly due to a more pronounced need for more resilient structures. In response to

these structural trends, the number of BFRP rebar manufacturers has grown quickly. However,

compared to other construction materials (and specifically compared to traditional steel rebar man-

ufacturing), the production of BFRP rebars has not been standardized yet. Consequently, different

products have been developed by various manufacturers, and these products differ notably in char-

acteristics — dependent on the raw materials, material proportions, production processes, and final

geometric features. Accordingly, the most suitable products are yet to be identified and the present

state-of-production-practice has to be studied to identify the currently available products and the

market trends in an effort to centralize the most important strength and material properties that

engineers will need throughout the structural design process. This is important because inferior

rebar products are available in the current market, and if these products remain indistinguishable

from high-quality BFRP rebars, they may lead to misuse and potential failure. To consistently and

safely use or implement BFRP rebar technology for infrastructure projects, the material properties

of high-quality rebar products from different manufacturers have to be characterized and evaluated

to develop robust acceptance criteria for basalt based FRP rebars in FDOT Specifications Section

932. A strategic approach is needed to better use and improve this technology such that the different

products can be categorized and the effect of individual BFRP rebar attributes can be determined.

4
Minimum criteria specific to Basalt FRP rebars are desirable because such benchmark values will

help manufacturers most efficiently target defined quality parameters that FDOT, and ultimately

other state DOTs, can rely on. Likewise, threshold values are needed, under the mandatory low-bid

procurement system, to guarantee safe and reliable designs of future concrete structures, which are

internally reinforced with BFRP rebars.

1.3 Project Objectives

The project objective was to complement existing FRP rebar specifications and to identify non-

corrosive BFRP rebar technologies for concrete reinforcement with suitable surface enhancements

for the construction of durable, resilient, and potentially more sustainable infrastructure in Florida.

It was the goal to provide test data and recommendations to inform the currently ongoing efforts

toward a full implementation of this emerging technology by the FDOT, such that special project

specific approvals for BFRP rebars may not be necessary in the future. To embrace BFRP rebar

technology, a comprehensive literature review and a worldwide state-of-the art summary of cur-

rently manufactured BFRP rebars was necessary to provide relevant information for the selection

of representative BFRP rebars for the subsequent experimental program. It was the intention of

the experimental program to target physical, mechanical, and bond-to-concrete characteristics of

BFRP rebars to evaluate the most essential material properties of virgin (or unaged) BFRP rebars

in an effort to classify the material performance. These tasks aimed to identify suitable BFRP re-

bar technologies for use in Florida. Because potential future research projects will focus on refining

durability modeling of BFRP rebars, it was an additional goal to obtain benchmark values for sub-

sequent studies — in which BFRP rebars may be exposed to harsh environments for extended times,

before they are tested for property retention characteristics. While material characterization was

an important objective for this research project, the ultimate goal was to provide experimentation-

based recommendations and relevant updates to existing FDOT guidelines and specifications for

the use of BFRP rebar in concrete structures. Likewise, recommendations and relevant updates for

future updates of the 2nd edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specifications for

the GFRP Reinforced Concrete was an additional goal of this research.

5
1.4 Project Scope

In this research project, the physical characteristics and material properties of three representative

but distinct BFRP rebars were evaluated. These three rebar types were produced by different man-

ufacturers (Galen Panamerica, RockRebar® , Pultrall), and each rebar type had various distinctive

features (dissimilar fiber types, various resin types, different surface enhancement properties, etc.).

Representative samples (specimen groups) of two commonly used rebar sizes (# 3 and # 5) were

exposed to a multitude of experiments in their virgin material state. First, the physical properties

of each rebar type and size were studied before the mechanical strength properties were evaluated.

Physical tests on rebars included density measurements or measurement of cross-sectional dimen-

sions, percentage of fiber contents, and moisture absorption characteristics. Mechanical tests were

conducted to determine the transverse shear strength, horizontal shear strength, tensile strength

including elastic modulus properties, as well as the bond-to-concrete characteristics. All test data

were statistically reduced and compared to the prevailing material specifications or acceptance cri-

teria for FRP rebars (AC454, ASTM D7957, etc.). Because ASTM acceptance criteria for BFRP

rebars in the US are yet to be established, the performance of the tested BFRP rebars was evaluated

based on the available acceptance criteria for glass FRP rebars according to FDOT Specification

Section 932. Based on the experimental findings, theoretical analysis of the results, and literature

reflections, recommendations were provided to supplement FDOT Specifications Section 932 for

the implementation of acceptance criteria for BFRP rebars and to develop AASHTO design guide

recommendations for BFRP reinforced concrete structures.

1.5 Report Organization

To provide a structured overview of the completed research, this report was divided into seven chap-

ters, which are briefly described here. After the introduction presented in this chapter, the following

Chapter 2 presents background information about BFRP rebar technology, historical developments

in the basalt fiber and BFRP rebar industry, as well as information about raw constituent mate-

rials, and the production processes. In addition, existing literature with a focus on physical and

mechanical properties of BFRP rebars are presented. Chapter 3 describes the development of BFRP

rebar specifications and the current state-of-the-market (industry profile). A detailed description of

6
the experimental methodology, the conducted test procedures, and the experimental concepts are

detailed in Chapter 4. The relevant test protocols (ASTM, ACI, etc.,) that were followed for each

individual experiment are described to ensure the repeatability and accuracy of the experimental

approach. Likewise, all equipment and test devices are listed and described in detail along with the

materials that were needed to prepare the specimens for testing. While Appendix A lists all indi-

vidual test results for each tested specimen, Chapter 5 concisely presents the obtained test group

results for all conducted experiments in the form of graphs and tables; it also documents the typical

failure patterns for each conducted test procedure and for each evaluated rebar type. A detailed

discussion addressing recommendations for BFRP strength and material properties along with de-

sign specifications for FDOT Specifications Section 932 and propose AASHTO design guidance for

BFRP reinforced concrete structures is presented in Chapter 6. Finally, in Chapter 7, a summary

of this project is followed by a concise list of conclusions that were drawn based on the entirety of

this research project.

7
Chapter 2

Background

After a brief introduction of the research, this chapter provides a detailed description of Basalt

Fiber Reinforced Polymer (BFRP) reinforcement bars (rebars) from the production of the fiber

over the properties of the composition material of the rebar and its usage. Fibers and composite

materials have gained a lot of attention in the recent decades because of their wide availability

and special properties like the high strength-to-weight ratio. The first attempts to produce basalt

fibers go back to Paul Dhé (from Paris, France), who invented a basalt fiber furnace in the United

States in 1923 (Dhé, 1923; Colombo et al., 2012). The technology did not gain a lot of traction

in the US due to initial production difficulties and more profitable opportunities with glass fibers.

After the manufacturing process for glass fibers was successfully industrialized in Toledo, Ohio, by

Games Slayter in 1933 (Slayter, 1938), the major fiber producers in the US abandoned basalt fiber

research in favor of their main glass products (Faruk et al., 2017). However, extensive research

on basalt fibers was conducted in the former Soviet Union, during the Cold War (Jamshaid and

Mishra, 2016), for military purposes in a search for ballistic resistant textiles. After the Soviet

Union collapse in 1991, the research projects were declassified (in 1995) and released for civilian

applications. In consequence, basalt fibers are a recent development in the construction industry

and most basalt fiber producing companies are now located in countries that used to be associated

with the Eastern Bloc (Zych and Wojciech, 2012). Nowadays, basalt fibers gain attention from

different industry fields all over the world. Before the fibers can be used for composite products,

the fiber itself is produced from raw basalt. Therefore, the next section 2.1 introduces the origin of

continuous basalt fibers.

8
2.1 Igneous Rocks

The source material is an important factor in the characterization process for basalt fibers. Igneous

rocks are one of the three main classes of rocks, besides sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. Igneous

rocks are formed from molten material, mostly classified on the basis of their composition (either

mineralogical or chemical) and according to their silica content. Molten rock material below the

surface is called magma and then described as lava as soon as it reaches the earth surface. Igneous

rocks have to be separated into plutonic rocks (coarse-grained igneous rocks that solidified within

the crust), which are usually classified according to their mineralogical composition, or volcanic

lava rocks (fine-grained and solidified at or very near the earth crust surface with a faster cooling

process), which are classified according to their chemical composition (Best, 2003).

Basalt is the most common volcanic rock on Earth and basaltic rocks (including gabbro, diabase,

and their metamorphosed equivalents) are the most common rocks in the Earth’s crust. Gabbro

is a coarse-grained plutonic equivalent of basalt that solidified within the Earth’s crust. Diabase

is compositionally equivalent to gabbro and basalt but in its physical structure (grain structure)

between them. It forms into basalt when it solidifies rapidly and to gabbro when more time is given

for the crystals to grow (Maitre, 2002). Besides the structural differences, the chemical structure

is defined for all three types of raw basalt similar to that shown in Table 2.1. Basalt has a strict

Table 2.1: Average chemical composition of basaltic rocks based on 3594 analyzed rock samples

Rock Type SiO2 T iO2 Al2 O3 F e2 O3 F eO M nO M gO CaO N a2 O K2 O P2 O5

Basalt 50 1.8 16 3.9 7.2 0.2 6.8 9.7 3.0 1.1 0.3

chemical definition that contains more than 45 percent and less than 52% of SiO2 and less than five

percent of total alkalies (K2 O + Na2 O). High silica and low iron contents ensure the production of

fibers with high strength properties. When meeting the requirements of the chemical composition,

any of the described raw materials can be used for the basalt fiber production, which is regulated

by different national documents. Russian specifications for basalt fiber are defined as melted basalt

or gabbro-diabase (ISC, 2014). After the clarification of the proper source for the fiber production,

the next section 2.2 shows the manufacturing process of fibers.

9
2.2 Fiber Types and Production

The section below summarizes the main fiber types that are in use for structural engineering appli-

cations. Additionally, the two production methods for basalt and glass fibers are explained to have

a comparison to the most used fiber types.

Fibers commonly used to produce FRP rebars are glass, carbon, and aramid because of their

higher tensile strength in comparison to traditional steel. As a drawback compared to steel, tensile

failure of FRP rebars show linear-elastic response with sudden breakage. Basalt fibers show better

mechanical properties than glass fibers, and they are more widely available and cheaper than carbon

fibers (Zych and Wojciech, 2012). Continuous basalt fibers have become commercially available as

an alternative to glass fibers. Glass has been the predominant fiber for many civil engineering

applications because of an economical balance of cost and specific strength properties. In addition,

they were (in exactly the same way becoming available to the international market offering different

kinds of fibers (ACI Committee 440, 2007). The following subsections detail the production of

different fiber types, starting with basalt based fibers.

2.2.1 Basalt Fiber

According to the Russian specifications for fiber reinforced polymer bars, basalt fibers for polymer

composites reinforcement are made from melted basalt or gabbro-diabase (ISC, 2014) as described

in Section 2.1. The schematic process of the basalt fiber production is shown in Figure 2.1. Starting

Figure 2.1: Continuous basalt fiber production process (Ipbüker et al., 2014)

on the left side of the figure, the raw basaltic rock is first crushed, washed, and then transported to

a furnace. The melting process requires a minimum melting temperature of approximately 1450°C

10
(2640°F). Unlike glass, infrared energy is absorbed by the opaque basalt, and therefore, it is more

difficult to uniformly heat the entire basalt mixture. Molten basalt must be held in the smelter

for extended periods of time to ensure a homogeneous temperature. When melting occurs and

uniformity is reached by removal of gases, the molten basalt flows into the fore hearth (Ipbüker

et al., 2014). The molten material is forced through a platinum/rhodium crucible bushing with 9 to

24 micrometer nozzles to extrude continuous fibers. Basalt fibers are sized during the manufacturing

process (in the same way as glass) to protect the fiber and to impart the resin compatibility needed

for optimum performance. Sizing such as silences, starch, gelatin, oil, or wax is applied to improve

the bond and to minimize degradation of filament strength that would otherwise be caused by

filament-to-filament abrasion (Bagherpour, 2012; Zych and Wojciech, 2012). The fibers can be

made in the form of chopped fibers (cheaper and lower mechanical properties) or continuous fibers

rovings (spinneret method) (Fiore et al., 2015). After the basalt fibers are produced, they are

converted (packaged or spooled) into a suitable form for each particular application (Pavlovski

et al., 2007).

Only raw basalt is necessary to produce the fibers, and the purity of the raw material for the

fibers depends only on the rock source. As a consequence of specific kinds of original rock sources,

more than one category of basalt fibers with different chemical compositions may be obtained. Due

to these factors, basalt fibers may take on different mechanical or physical properties (Zych and

Wojciech, 2012). During the production process no additional chemical components are needed

to produce basalt fibers. Toxic ingredients, typically used in glass formulation, can be omitted,

therefore, they are considered as a “greener product” (relative to glass fibers) (Zych and Wojciech,

2012). The production of glass fibers requires the addition of several ingredients and a tedious

mixing process. The properties and production process are listed in the upcoming subsection 2.2.2.

2.2.2 Glass Fiber

This subsection describes glass fibers and their production for comparison to basalt. The most

common types of glass fibers are electrical (E-glass), high strength (S-glass), and alkali-resistance

(AR-glass). E-glass is the most common reinforcement material used in civil and industrial struc-

tures. Those fibers are named E-Glass because they offer high electrical insulating properties. In

addition, they are known for low susceptibility to moisture, and high mechanical strength. It is

11
produced from lime-alumina-borosilicate, which can be easily obtained from an abundance of raw

materials like sand (Bagherpour, 2012). S-glass provides higher tensile strength and modulus of

elasticity but is more cost prohibitive and so less preferable than E-glass. AR-glass is resistant in

high alkali environments such as in concrete, but at the moment, no compatible sizing is available

to use it in the FRP production where the fibers are combined with a thermoplastic resin (Nanni

et al., 2014).

The main difference to basalt fibers is that glass is made from a complex batch of materials,

whereas basalt filament is made from melting basalt rock with no other additives, which reduces the

environmental impact. Major glass ingredients of the batch of materials are silica sand, lime stone,

and soda ash. Silica sand is the glass former, while lime stone and soda ash is added for lowering

the melting temperature. Additional materials can be mixed in for manipulating certain properties

like adding borax for more chemical resistance (Aubourg et al., 1991). Fiberglass furnaces are

generally divided into three distinct sections. First, the batch is delivered into the furnace section

for melting. Then, the molten glass flows into the refiner section, where the temperature of the

glass is lowered from 1370°C (2500°F) to about 1260°C (2300°F). In the last step, the molten glass

is transferred into the end section located directly above the fiber-forming stations. The molten

mass is rapidly cooled to prevent crystallization and formed into glass fibers by a process also

known as fiberization. Nearly all continuous glass fibers are made by a direct draw process and

formed by extruding molten glass through a platinum alloy bushing that may contain up to several

thousand individual orifices (Wallenberger et al., 2001). Typical glass fiber diameters range from 3

to 20 micrometers. Individual filaments are combined into multifilament strands, which are pulled

by mechanical winders at velocities of up to 61 m/s (200 ft/s) and wound onto tubes or forming

packages (Wallenberger et al., 2001). After describing the production of glass fibers, carbon fibers

are presented in the next subsection.

2.2.3 Carbon Fiber

Primarily, carbon fibers are used for pre-stressed strands (and not as much for regular rebar pur-

poses) in civil structures because of their high tensile strength, high modulus of elasticity, and

most importantly, because of its creep resistance, which is significantly higher when compared to

glass or basalt fibers. Carbon fibers made from polyacrylonitrile (PAN) are typically classified as

12
high-modulus carbon fiber. Fibers made from carbon typically have a high fatigue strength, high

resistance to alkali or acid attacks, a low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), and high electrical

conductivity. However, it also has a relatively low impact resistance, can cause galvanic corrosion

in contact with metals, and has a significantly higher unit cost. Accordingly, proper sizing must be

applied before these fibers can be embedded in resin similar to other fibers on the market. Moreover,

carbon fibers have the highest tensile strength (three times the strength of glass fibers) , but they

are also the most expensive (about ten times more than glass fibers) (Nanni et al., 2014). Another

fiber type used for engineering purposes are aramid fibers (see subsection 2.2.4).

2.2.4 Aramid Fiber

Aramid fibers are organic aromatic polyamide based with high fatigue and creep resistance. In

addition, these fibers are good isolators for electricity or heat. However, they are sensitive to

ultraviolet (UV) light, high temperature, and moisture, and a good chemical or mechanical bond

between the aramid fibers and resin is difficult to achieve (Bagherpour, 2012). Within the wide

availability of different grades, Kevlar 29, 49, and 149 are the most common fibers in structural

applications. Compared to glass fibers, aramid fibers have a higher tensile strength and also a 50 %

higher modulus of elasticity. Nevertheless, the use of these fibers is limited by the high material

costs in the production of FRP bars (Nanni et al., 2014).

2.2.5 Fiber Types Summary

Compared to the other fibers, basalt has the highest density and a considerably high ultimate strain.

The lowest strain combined with the highest tensile modulus is generally found for carbon fibers

(Low- and high-modulus). Glass fibers measure the lowest tensile strength and modulus. Aramid

fibers, in addition to carbon fibers, are not suitable for the commercial use of composite rebars

because of economical aspects. Therefore, the focus for FRP rebars is on glass and basalt fibers

because of a wide availability and cost efficiency. While the most important fiber types are shown in

the subsections above, the next section 2.2.6 focuses on the properties of basalt and its comparison

to glass fibers.

13
2.2.6 Properties of Basalt Fibers

The paragraph below is summarizing properties with their advantages and disadvantages of basalt

fibers. Basalt is a volcanic rock that can be formed into continuous fibers through melting pure

raw basalt and using technologies similar to those used for the production of glass fibers. Due to

the inherent properties of basalt, the fibers are more chemically resistant, have a higher tensile

strength, and a modulus of elasticity that exceeds the elasticity of glass fibers by about 15 % to

30 % (Rarnalaishnan and Tolmare, 1998). In addition, basalt fibers are more UV-resistant, have a

higher fire resistance, and they better maintain their physical characteristics in cold temperatures.

Basalt fibers are reported to withstand temperatures from −260 °C to 750 °C (Bagherpour, 2012).

The variety of advantages is combined in a stiff rod used as reinforcement by adding a resin matrix.

The composite system of fibers and resin is combining advantages of two materials to eliminated

disadvantages of the individual parts. Therefore, the following section 2.4 details the different resin

types, their individual properties, and how the resin is used in the FRP rebar production.

2.3 Sizing

Sizing is a protective coating applied in the fiber manufacturing process. The sizing not only plays

a key role in improving rebar properties (due to the load transfer between fiber/matrix inter-phase)

but also crucial role in enhancing the durability properties of rebar. Sizing is typically selected

and paired based on the type of fiber-resin matrix. Although sizing is an important process, it was

observed that no specification or standards exist. Due to the proprietary nature of sizing material

and application, it is considered that specifying sizing is not feasible, and durability aging tests

must be used to identify adequate sizing, that are compatible with the fiber and matrix.

2.4 Resin Types and Properties

Next to the fibers, the resin is the other important material to produce a high quality FRP re-

bar. It is used to bond the fibers together a two-component system. The main functions of the

resin matrix are to protect the fibers from mechanical and environmental attacks, to maintain the

alignment of fibers, and to guarantee proper load transfer between individual fibers. Resins have

proven their suitability for use in FRP reinforcing bars by maintaining chemical stability under

14
harsh environmental conditions and by protecting the fibers from aggressive chemicals that would

otherwise damage the filaments (Benmokrane et al., 2002).

Two major groups of resins exist: the thermoset (once cured, they cannot be converted back to

their liquid state) and thermoplastic (soft when heated) resins. Thermoplastic resins are typically

not used for civil engineering purposes because they melt when heated and solidify when cooled.

Thermoset resins cure permanently and irreversibly at elevated temperatures (Bagherpour, 2012).

The most common thermosetting resins used in the composites industry are epoxies, unsaturated

polyesters, and vinyl esters (ACI Committee 440, 2007). Currently, vinyl esters are predominantly

used for the production of FRP rebars followed by epoxy, with polyesters typically excluded from

permanent applications due to durability concerns. Initially, in their virgin state, thermoset poly-

meric resins are usually liquid at room temperature or solid with a low melting point as shown in

Figure 2.2. The figure shows an example of a thermoset polymeric resin which is liquid at room

Figure 2.2: Thermoset polymeric resin used in FRP rebars

temperature, poured into a vessel. It can be used in the FRP rebar production process in a heated

resin bath. Heat treatment and catalysts (hardeners) are used in the curing process to solidify the

resin. After the curing process is completed, the material is permanently solidified through poly-

merization/cross linking of polymer chains, as it cannot be converted back to its initial liquid stage.

The properties of typical resin matrices for FRP composites are listed in Table 2.2. Vinyl ester

has the highest minimum tensile strength compared to epoxy and polyester, while polyester has

the lowest moisture content and epoxy resin has the highest minimum glass transition temperature

in the listed ranges. The density, the Poisson’s ratio (transverse strain to axial strain), and the

15
 Table 2.2: Typical properties of resin matrices

Resin Type Density Tensile Longitudinal Poissons’s CTE Moisture Glass Transition
Strength Modulus Ratio Content Temperature
lb/yd2 ksi ksi 10−6 /°F % °F
Epoxy 2000−2400 5−15 300−500 0.35−0.39 1.6−3.0 0.15−0.60 203−347
Polyester 2000−2400 7−19 400−600 0.38−0.40 1.3−1.9 0.08−0.15 158−212
Vinyl-ester 1900−2300 10−11 435−500 0.36−0.39 1.5−2.2 0.14−0.30 158−329
N otes : 1lb/yd3 = 0.593kg/m3 ; 1ksi = 6.89N/mm2 ; °F = (9/5°C + 32)

Coefficient of linear thermal expansion (CTE) are similar for all three types.

The following subsections describe suitable resins for an FRP production, starting with subsec-

tion 2.4.1 describing the specific properties of epoxy resin.

2.4.1 Epoxy

Epoxies are well-established in the civil engineering sector because of their lower shrinkage prop-

erties in direct comparison to vinyl ester. Epoxy resins are usually used for high-performance

composites with superior mechanical properties, resistance to corrosive liquids and environments,

superior electrical properties, good performance at elevated temperatures, and excellent adhesion to

a substrate. However, they have a low ultraviolet (UV) resistance and require post-cure (longer time

in the die under certain temperatures) because of a higher viscosity than other resins (polyester or

vinyl ester) (ACI Committee 440, 2007). Although epoxies can be more expensive than other resins,

they are more suitable for high performance applications. Epoxy resins are compatible with most

composite manufacturing processes and are also, at the moment, the predominant adhesive of choice

for concrete repair with FRP products. (Bagherpour et al., 2009). The following subsection 2.4.2

provides necessary information about polyester resin.

2.4.2 Polyester

Polyester can be classified as saturated and unsaturated. Thermoset unsaturated polyester resins

represent approximately 75 % of the composites industry. To initiate curing, the resin is dissolved

in a monomer (like styrene) solution so that it can react with the unsaturated ends on the polymer,

which then converts to a solid thermoset structure. The advantage is the balance of properties,

16
which include dimensional stability, cost efficiency, and ease of handling during processing. Because

of different required properties such as flexibility, electrical insulation, corrosion, or heat resistance,

a wide range of specific performance polyester resins are available (ACI Committee 440, 2007;

Bagherpour et al., 2009). The last resin type combines advantages of epoxy and polyester, which

are listed in subsection 2.4.3.

2.4.3 Vinylester

Vinyl esters were developed to combine the properties of epoxy resins with the fast curing of polyester

resins. In fact, it can have higher physical performance and costs less than epoxies. Due to the

combined properties, mechanical toughness, and high corrosion resistance (ACI Committee 440,

2007). These characteristic enhancements do not need complex processing or a special fabricating

process like epoxy resins. Vinyl ester resins are most commonly coupled with glass fibers (Nanni

et al., 2014). However, in the current market, BFRP rebars are usually a combination of basalt

fibers with epoxy resin.

Consequently, the next section 2.5 provides common production methods for BFRP rebars,

combining the fibers with the resin in an automated process for mass production.

2.5 BFRP Rebar Production

Different processes have been developed to combine the fibers and the resin for the efficient produc-

tion of fiber reinforced polymer rebars. Typical production methods for fiber reinforced composite

materials are pultrusion, wet-laying, braiding, or weaving. According to the literature and manu-

facturers, production processes like braiding or weaving are not used for the FRP rebar production.

The following section describes the currently common processes to produce basalt FRP rebars:

pultrusion and wet lay-up process. Based on cost efficiency, production speed, and product qual-

ity, pultrusion is the dominant manufacturing method. However, the production method is not

standardized, which may lead to different rebar products from one manufacturer to another, such

that each rebar manufacturer may produce entirely different rebars. Different investigations were

obtained to verify these processes, identify possible weaknesses, and to make recommendations for

standardization requirements. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis has shown that poros-

ity and voids are present with BFRP rebars. Researchers recommend that improvement in the

17
manufacturing process should be implemented to reduce and/or eliminate these defects (ElSafty

et al., 2014). The first process is described in Subsection 2.5.1.

2.5.1 Pultrusion

The pultrusion method is the dominant process to manufacture FRP rebars because of its cost

efficient and fast production. A continuous molding process combines fiber reinforcement and

thermosetting resin, which produces a constant cross-sectional rebar (Figure 2.3). The figure shows

Figure 2.3: Schematic diagram of FRP rebar pultrusion (Borges et al., 2015)

from the left side on, that fibers are continuously pulled from rovings, to be wetted (impregnated)

with the desired liquid resin in a resin bath. Borges et al. (2015), investigated the influence of

resin bath temperature on the properties of pultruded GFRP rebars with polyester resin. It was

shown that temperatures between 30 °C to 50 °C were suitable for the production process. Higher

temperatures lead to a low viscosity and an insufficient wetting of the fibers before entering the

heating die. The fibers are pulled through a heated metal die (with different heating zones) of the

desired diameter, which defines the final shape. The recommended curing temperatures for resins

is about 177°C (Joshi et al., 2003). In the study of Borges et al. (2015) four heating zones were

calculated ranging from 90 °C to 110 °C to 130 °C back to 110 °C again. The die was 900 mm long

and the pulls speed was set at 0.46 m/min. Inside the pultrusion die, a controlled temperature

lets the fibers and the resin harden while the heat activates the curing or polymerization of the

thermoset resin until it changes its condition from liquid to solid. Inside the heating die the rebar

reacts chemically and solidifies under an exothermic reaction forming from a liquid stage to a gel

stage until the solid stage is reached. To set the rate of the manufacturing process, the gel time and

the peak exothermic temperature of the thermoset resin need to be evaluated. The gel time is the

moment where the mixed components start to solidify and the peak exothermic temperature is the

maximum temperature the rebar itself reaches due to the reaction and therefore assigns the time of

18
the maximum reaction. Figure 2.4 is shows a schematic of how the gel time and the position of the

exothermic peak is evaluated (according to ASTM D 2471 - “Standard Test Method for Gel Time

and Peak Exothermic Temperature of Reacting of Thermosetting Resins”). After the wet-out on the

Figure 2.4: Obtain position of exothermic peak (Borges et al., 2015)

left side of the figure, the bundled fibers enter the heating die. A data acquisition system is collecting

the data of the different hardening stages of the fibers to measure the exact point of the solid stage

to determine the curing time in the die. Internal defects in the cured material, can lead to lower

durability and mechanical properties, can be caused by estimating an incorrect rate. Therefore, the

production rate is determined by the curing time of the resin. The composite solidifies when cooled

and is cut to the desired length after pulling it through the pultrusion machine. Different processing

variables can affect the quality and process efficiency such as die temperature, fiber content, pull

speed, cure time, or resin viscosity. Accordingly, product availability and company logistics are

constrained only by storage and transporting limitations. The pultrusion process has a significant

influence on the final properties of FRP rebars, as it affects the rate of resin polymerization, the air

void content, and thus, the fiber content. Moreover, to achieve a sufficient bond between concrete

and the produced rebar in its final application, an additional process is required to apply the surface

enhancement features. (You et al., 2015). These can come in the form of ribs, sand coating, , helical

wrap, or combinations of both. Because of the fixed cross section of dies, a tight dimensional

control of FRP rebars is assured. The pultrusion is considered to be a relatively simple process

for the manufacturing of FRP bars, particularly for the production of straight rods. Coiling is also

possible when smaller diameters are produced (ACI Committee 440, 2007; Patnaik, 2009). Because

19
of limitations of the method, small diameters are also produced with a different production process

explained below (see Subsection 2.5.2)

2.5.2 Wet Lay-Up

A newer automated FRP rebar production process is the wet lay-up process, developed by a Nor-

wegian company (ReforceTech AS Norway). Because it is a recent development in the production

of FRP rebars, products manufactured with this technique have not been researched widely. The

production costs are believed to be reduced in comparison to the traditional pultrusion method

because of a simple process with reduced working staff.

Wet lay-up is used to produce simple composites. A programmable arm with controlled move-

ment in three orthogonal directions manufactures the rebars with the desired length and shape.

Fibers impregnated with a polymeric resin are automatically laid to form an FRP rebar after

curing. The fibers are guided through a funnel-like resin bath where thorough wetting and impreg-

nation of the fiber take place. The wet fiber is then pulled to a working platform. Several layers

are laid up one over the other to produce a one-dimensional FRP construct. This new production

method is said to be less expensive, but contains several disadvantages such as inconsistent cross-

sectional shapes or uneven surfaces due to non-uniform pull on the fiber threads, which leads to a

wavy surface. However, this waviness attribute can be beneficial for bond-to-concrete behaviors but

also leads to lower tensile strength. Bar diameters of 0.2 in. (5 mm) to 0.6 in. (16 mm) have been

successfully produced using this process.

After the production process, tests of physical, mechanical, and durability properties are nec-

essary for quality control and product verification processes. Mechanical testing is important for

the specification and certification of FRP rebars. Therefore, the test procedures are described in

Section 2.7, with a special focus on the tensile properties in Subsection 2.7.2, because they are the

most important characteristic for the rebar classification and structural concrete design. Hence, the

next section provides a general overview of the most important characteristics before detailing each

test procedure individually.

20
2.6 BFRP Rebar Properties

This section focuses on the properties of the produced FRP rebar. These material characteristics

of the final product are important for the application in civil structures. Figure 2.5 summarizes

the process for the production of basalt fiber reinforced polymer (BFRP) reinforcing bars (rebar).

Basalt fibers manufactured from molten basaltic rocks are embedded in a polymeric resin matrix,

Basalt Rock Basalt Fibers Basalt FRP Rebar

Figure 2.5: Basalt FRP rebar production steps

similar to GFRP rebars (from left to right). Mainly, fibers are known for their high tensile strength-

to-weight ratio and — specifically when they form rebars — for corrosion resistance, as compared to

carbon-steel (black) reinforcement. The fiber volume is mainly responsible for the tensile strength of

the FRP rebar. According to the ASTM D 2584 “Standard Test Method for Ignition Loss of Cured

Reinforced Resins,” the fiber content shall not be less than 55 % by volume or 70 % by mass and shall

be reported by volume or by mass in accordance with the method used (ASTM-International, 2011).

However, a volume fraction of about 80% is common for FRP rebars, and according to Bagherpour

et al. (2009), a fiber content beyond that does not allow the fibers to be completely surrounded by

the resin matrix. The tensile behavior of FRP rebars is characterized by a linear elastic stress-strain

relationship up to failure as shown in Figure 2.6. The graph shows the stress-strain diagrams for

different FRP composites compared to the stress-strain curve for steel (dot-dash line). The y-axis

shows the tensile stress in MPa on the left and in ksi on the right side. The tensile strain in

percent is provided on the x-axis. It can be seen that the incline of the FRP products are smaller

than the one for steel (lower E-Modulus) but the point of maximum tensile stress is significantly

higher for all FRP products. The biggest incline and highest tensile stress with the lowest strain

21
 400
Carbon FRP
2,500
Aramid FRP 350
Basalt FRP
Glass FRP 300
2,000
Tensile Stress (MPa)

Conventional Steel rebar

Tensile Stress (ksi)

250
1,500
200

1,000 150

100
500
50

0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Tensile Strain (%)

Figure 2.6: Tensile stress and strain of different types of FRP according to Busel (2016)

is reached by carbon FRP (tightly dotted line) followed by aramid FRP (dash line), which has a

higher strain than basalt FRP (straight line). Glass FRP (wide dotted line) can be pointed out

as the FPR product with the lowest tensile stress and lowest elastic modulus and basalt FRP is

situated between aramid and glass. Compared to steel rebars, basalt FRP rebars offer higher tensile

strength but lower ultimate tensile strain and lower tensile modulus of elasticity, which results in a

more brittle failure for FRP products. Unlike steel, the tensile strength of an FRP rebar varies with

its diameter, while the longitudinal modulus does not change appreciably. Based on the ongoing

FDOT research project BDV 30 977-18, it is assumed that this phenomenon (known as shear lag) is

due to the fact that the tensile force is usually introduced at the outer surface (via anchors) and the

outer fibers have to transfer the load to the adjacent (inner) fibers through interface shear stresses

in the resin matrix. Therefore, the shear lag effect becomes more significant as the bar diameter

increases because the core of the bar is further distanced from the outer surface and more resin

must be activated. This leads to lower strength measurements for larger diameter rebars because

the inner core do not contribute completely to the load carrying mechanism before the outermost

fibers start to fail. The tensile strain (or stretch) in the outermost fiber reaches its limit before

the innermost fibers. The reason for the longitudinal modulus to remain almost constant (while

the strength reduces with increasing bar diameter) is assumed to be a result of the measurement

22
technique, in which an extensometer is applied at the outermost surface — at the fiber that is

activated to its full potential — independent of the rebar diameter.

2.7 Test Procedures for FRP Rebar

To use any new FRP rebar product in publicly funded infrastructure projects, it has to meet or

exceed specific test criteria and must be certified by an FDOT-approved laboratory. Numerous

properties, such as the cross-sectional area, fiber content, moisture absorption, tensile strength,

horizontal and transverse shear strength, bond strength, durability, etc., have to be evaluated for

test groups that include multiple specimens from different production lots. The following subsections

detail these tests to provide an overview of the general acceptance process and to provide context

for the associated acceptance criteria listed in the next chapter.

2.7.1 Physical Characteristics

Density and Cross-Sectional Area

To monitor physical changes in a sample while testing, and to indicate degree of uniformity in

different specimens, the specific gravity of the product is determined through multiple specimens.

A clean specimen is conditioned for at least 40 hours prior to testing in a temperature range from

21 ◦C to 25 ◦C at a moisture content between 40 % and 60 %, then it is cut to the desired length (while

the minimum length is 10 mm and the maximum length is 50 mm) and the weight is recorded to the

nearest 0.05 g. The recorded weight of the curtailed specimen should measure a minimum of 5 g and

a maximum of 50 g. The density of test specimen is determined via the principle of buoyancy and

the cross-sectional dimensions are calculated by dividing the determined volume by the measured

specimen length. For the calculation of FRP rebar strength properties, the measured cross-sectional

area is an important characteristic because strength values can differ significantly between strength

values determined via nominal diameter dimensions and values determined from the experimentally

measured area. It is the cross-sectional area per ASTM D 792 (ASTM-International, 2015b) that is

used in many of the following test procedures to determine the strength characteristics.

23
Fiber Content

To obtain the loss of resin in cured reinforced sample when exposed to constant high temperature,

and to study the structure of the composite material via the relative material proportions (per-

centage of fibers vs. percentage of resin by weight), the FRP rebar specimens are tested for fiber

content. A clean specimen is first conditioned for at least 40 hours prior to testing in temperature

range from 21 ◦C to 25 ◦C at moisture content between 40 % and 60 %. Three samples (at minimum)

with a known weight of at least 5 g and a maximum size of 25 mm × 25 mm in a crucible (of known

mass) are exposed to a minimum of 565 ◦C in a muffle furnace until all resin is burnt and only the

fibers remain. If the rebar product was made with sand on the surface for bond enhancement, this

sand must be removed from the crucible before determining the fiber content. The percentage of

fibers can be determined through the difference in weight before and after the burning process.

Absorption

The moisture absorption properties of FRP rebars are determined according to ASTM D 5229

test standards. A total of 7 different methods are provided in ASTM D 5229 to find the moisture

absorption in different environments. Procedure A is most commonly used, and is therefore, followed

and described for this research project as well. At least three specimens per bar type are oven dried,

if any moisture is present. Three diameter measurements are taken at 120° intervals perpendicular

to the longitudinal axis of the FRP rebar, and those measurements are recorded to the nearest

0.001 mm. Then, each specimen is weighed with a precision of 0.05 g in its dry state. The specimens

are then submerged in distilled water at a constant temperature. After two weeks in the water bath,

the specimens are removed and the surface is toweled dry so that no free water remains on the surface

of the rebar. Weight measurements are taken again with a precision of 0.05 g. This procedure is

repeated and weight gains are monitored until three consecutive two-week measurements do not

differ significantly from one another.

24
 Figure 2.7: Transverse shear fixture — Main body of fixture disassembled

2.7.2 Strength Characteristics

Transverse Shear Strength

The transverse shear strength is an important characteristic if the bars are used as dowels in concrete

pavement, stirrups in concrete beams, or as general shear reinforcement elements. ASTM D 7617

(ASTM-International, 2012b) is used in the process of testing and analyzing the data. Before testing,

the specimens are conditioned according to the ASTM D 5229 (ASTM, 2014). The conditioned

specimen are then cut to length with a minimum length of 225 mm so that they fit in the shear

fixture, which is a device that produces double shear on the FRP rebar specimen that is represented

in Figure 2.8. This fixture has two bar seats, two lower plates, and two guides machined from steel,

which are connected with two threaded rods using bolts and nuts. The conditioned and curtailed

bars are placed inside the shear test fixture and tested with a displacement rate such that the test

continuous for at least 1 minute and a maximum of 10 minutes until the force reaches 70 % of

the ultimate load. The transverse shear strength is determined using the ultimate load and the

cross-sectional area of the specimen as measured per ASTM D 729 (see above).

25
 (a) Assembled fixture in test frame (b) Main body of fixture assembled

Figure 2.8: Transverse shear fixture

Horizontal Shear Strength

Next, the FRP rebar product is tested for horizontal shear properties. The horizontal shear test

is conducted according to the ASTM D 4475 (ASTM-International, 2012a) standards. This test

alone does not suffice for design purposes, but the horizontal shear failure is an indicator for the

strength of the resin, and therefore, is a well-suited quality control criteria and used for comparison

among multiple specimens from the same manufacturer. First, the diameter at the center of the

specimen is recorded and the specimens are conditioned at a temperature range from 21 ◦C to 25 ◦C

and a moisture content between 40 % and 60 % before they are cut to a length of at least 5 times

the diameter. A minimum of 5 specimen are tested per sample. The horizontal shear strength is

assessed through a three-point load test over a span length that is short enough to prevent bending

failure. The load is applied at the center of specimen with a displacement rate of 1.3 mm
min until the

shear failure is reached via horizontal delamination (failure of the resin). The ultimate load and

the break type are recorded and analyzed.

Tensile Properties

The test procedure to measure the tensile strength of FRP rebars is described in ASTM D 7205

(ASTM-International, 2015a). Because of the low shear strength of the FRP rebar, special prepa-

rations are required to properly test the rebars and to obtain proper results. A naked FRP rebar,

griped by the testing machine, would fail under high transverse stresses at the grip during the

pulling process without reaching the ultimate tensile strength. Therefore, ASTM D 7205 describes

26
a method in which the FRP rebar has to be anchored on both ends with a steel pipe that is filled

with an expansive grout or resin to transfer the loads from the testing machine into the rebar

through friction. The grout or epoxy inside the anchor forms a cylindrical shell around the spec-

imen. Because of the high stiffness of the steel tubes, the grout or epoxy exerts pressure on the

specimen, which decreases the risk of premature failing in the grip region and clamps the rebar

inside the steel tube. The basic idea of this system was to provide lateral pressure on the rebar in a

sleeve to prevent slippage of the rebar. Further research work has shown that an internal pressure

between 25 MPa (3.6 ksi) and 70 MPa (10 ksi) generated by the expansive cementitious material in

the sleeve is enough to grip FRP tendons with different surface treatments (Schesser et al., 2014).

The rebar with two anchors on the ends is then installed (after the grout cured one week) into the

testing machine or into a fixture which is mounted into a test frame. Figure 2.9 illustrates one end

of the prepared FRP sample with the applied anchor system. Normally, such grouts are poured

Plastic Cap

p
Pressure on Rebar

Expansive Grout p
Steel Tube
Pressure on Tube

Plastic Cap with Central Hole Total System

BFRP Rebar

Figure 2.9: Tensile strength test load transfer (Schesser et al., 2014)

into holes drilled in rock or concrete as a non-explosive demolition agent. Because larger diameter

rebars fail under higher loads, a longer anchor length (more friction) is required for longer rebars.

The rebar diameter dependent anchor length is listed in ASTM for each rebar size.

According to the ASTM, the specimen length is dependent on the tested diameter of the rebar.

27
The total specimen length consists of two anchors of the both ends of the FRP rebar and the free

specimen length in between the anchors. Because of shear lag effects, ASTM D 7205 prescribes

the free specimen length with 40 times the diameter. Besides the effect of the gripped part of the

FRP rebar test specimen, the free specimen length has not been fully evaluated yet, and only a few

researchers have studied the behavior on GFRP rebars. The study of Castro and Carino (1998)

dealt with tensile tests on five different GFRP rebar types (Diameter 9 mm to 15 mm) with a free

specimen length from 40 to 70 times the diameter. The anchor length was set with 15 times the

rebar diameter, which was evaluated in an expeditious approach and found to be the minimum

anchorage length to avoid slippage of the FRP rebar. The intention was to evaluate the influence of

the free-length-to-bar-diameter ratio on the measured tensile strength. The tested specimen from

different manufacturers and different rebar diameters lead to no significant influences on the results.

Different than Castro and Carino (1998) approach of longer specimen, the project of Gieben (2017)

evaluated tensile tests on GFRP rebars from different sizes and manufacturers with a smaller free

specimen length from 20 to 40 times the diameter. Three tensile tests per manufacturer (three in

total) occurred. Tests showed no significant impacts on the final results compared to mechanical

results according the ASTM D 7205 regardless of the free specimen length. Additionally according

to (Gieben, 2017), the elastic modulus, calculated from the standard range between 0.1% and 0.3%,

should be calculated between 0.2% and 0.3% for short specimens with a free length of 20 times

the rebar diameter. The tensile tests of the short specimen length illustrated a non-linear behavior

under reduced loads (low strain range). Instead, all specimens in this research, independent of the

free specimen length, measured identical elastic moduli (within each test group) in the higher strain

ranges. However, it should be noted that the free test length (between the grips of the test machine)

of traditional steel reinforcement bars is merely 15 times the bar diameter (G. and D., 2011).

Aside from the dimensions, ASTM D 7205/ D 7205M-06 ASTM-International (2015a) also pre-

scribes the procedure for determining the elastic modulus of the rebars. The tensile modulus of

elasticity should be calculated from the strain range of the lower half of the stress-strain curve, with

the starting point at a strain of 0.1 % and the end point at a strain of 0.3 %. Therefore, the elastic

modulus is calculated from deformation measurements at relatively low stress levels. Strain mea-

surements are obtained on the outer fiber of the rebar with an extensometer. The shear lag effect is

not considered in this method, underlined by constant values for the modulus of elasticity (Gieben,

28
2017).

The tensile strength, however, is determined from the ultimate load divided by the cross-sectional

area. As a consequence, the test results of the elastic modulus are generally showing a low variance,

while the ultimate stress differs widely from one specimen to another. This is because structural

effects like local air voids and residual stresses are affecting the tensile properties, while these factors

do not have an influence on the material behavior under low stress and thus no influence on the

elastic modulus. The ultimate stress, in turn, is not only determined by the properties of the raw

materials, but also by their interaction with each other (Ehrenstein, 2006).

These interactions allow the rebar to develop additional properties, which make the product

suitable for use as reinforcement in concrete dealing with harsh environments. Accordingly, the

properties of the combined materials as a reinforcement bar are described in section 2.6 below.

Bond-to-Concrete Properties

In actual engineering applications where FRP rebars are used for internal concrete reinforcement, the

bond-to-concrete behavior is of utmost importance because it defines the uniformity or the composite

action of the final concrete element. A surface treatment is applied to the rebars to increase the

friction at the bond interface or to improve the interlocking effect and to ensure proper bond between

the pultruded BFRP rebar and the concrete. Manufacturers have developed different BFRP rebar

types, where the surface enhancement vary. For instance the surface may be sand-coated, ribbed,

or helical-wrapped. Ribbed rebars resemble the conventional black steel reinforcement and offer a

high bond interaction with the surrounded concrete but another production step is needed to add

the surface texture, which complexes the production. Sand coating is a simpler and faster way

to treat the surface of a rebar and also offers good bond quality. The main factors affecting the

properties of an FRP rebar include fiber volume, dimensional effects, rate of curing, manufacturing

process, and quality control measures during manufacturing (Nanni et al., 2014). Therefore the

production is decisive for the later properties of the rebar. The nature of the FRP manufacturing

pultrusion process requires a marginal investment to set up (compared to traditional steel mills),

while strict control measures, which are necessary to assure quality and consistency of the produced

BFRP rebar, may not always be fully implemented. Although their initial cost (raw material and

manufacturing costs) and environmental impact (CO2 emission during the manufacturing process)

29
may be slightly higher than that of conventional steel, the use of FRP rebars in concrete structures

subjected to harsh environments generates a significant potential for extending the service life of

these structures and lowering their overall life cycle cost.

While the FRP rebar is reacting over the life-period to environmental influences, the durability

of a rebar needs to be evaluated. The next Section 2.9 shows the most important aspects to consider

when durability of an FRP rebar may be an issue.

2.8 Failure Characteristics of FRP Rebars

The mechanical behavior from FRP rebars differs from steel and has to be considered in the design

of reinforced concrete because FRP rebars do not yield and fail suddenly. In addition, the fibers are

anisotropic, which means that they have different properties in different directions, and the high

tensile strength only exists along the fiber axis. The composite FRP rebar (due to its production)

also is an anisotropic material and is significantly weaker in the transverse direction than in its

longitudinal direction. This property affects the shear strength as well as the bond behavior (ACI

Committee 440, 2015).

The failure mode of the FRP rebar itself is strongly dependent on the bond behavior of the fibers

and the surrounded resin. Figure 2.10 shows two different failure modes of the matrix after fiber

breakage (in tension). The right failure mechanism is not able to transfer the load to the next fiber

due to an insufficient bond and results in fiber breakage with slippage. A composite with such a

relative low bonding strength between the fibers shows a brush-like formed failure pattern, because

the failed fibers delaminate immediately after breakage. The left failure mechanism shows a transfer

of the force from the broken fiber to the next one available, which results out of sufficient bonding

strength. Not all the fibers reach their rupture strength at the same time. Individual fibers on the

outer side of the rebar break and induce additional tension in the fibers nearby until the brittle

failure of the rebar occurs (Ehrenstein, 2006). However, too much bond strength could transfer too

much force to the surrounding fibers, which can cause a zip-effect that expands through the whole

matrix and leads to an abrupt failure of the composite material. Moreover, a composite with a

moderate bond strength is the most advantageous for a high strength material. BFRP rebars are

produced to reinforce concrete, especially in harsh environments, where its non-rusting properties

compared to conventional black steel reinforcement are advantageous. Therefore, the knowledge of

30
 Fiber Breakage with Matrix Failure Fiber Breakage with Slippage

σ σ σ σ

τ
τ

Figure 2.10: FRP rebar tensile failure mechanism (Ehrenstein, 2006)

the interactions of the rebars and concrete is essential. The following subsection 2.10 lists different

failure mechanisms of concrete reinforced with FRP rebars.

2.9 Durability of FRP Rebars

Harsh environments have an influence on the properties of an FRP rebar. Because of its reaction

to outer influences, the durability of FRP rebars is an important aspect and has to be considered

in the designing process before failing suddenly and brittle due to influences occurring over the

lifetime. FRP rebars are susceptible to varying amounts of strength and stiffness changes in the

presence of environments before, during, and after construction. Environments can include water,

ultraviolet exposure, elevated temperatures, or solutions (alkaline, acidic, or saline). Depending

on the condition, the strength of the FRP may change (ACI Committee 440, 2015). To consider

long-term exposure to the environment ACI 440 provides reduction factors for various fibers and

exposure conditions listed in Table 2.3. Currently, the design code includes carbon, glass, and

aramid fibers. The table provides two exposure conditions where fibers are exposed to earth and

water or not. Due to outer influences, the tensile strength, creep rupture, and fatigue endurance can

be reduced. Therefore, after the environmental situation is set, the tensile strength and strain has

31
 Table 2.3: Environmental reduction factor for various fibers and exposure conditions

Exposure Fiber type Environmental

condition type reduction factor, CE
Carbon 1.0
Concrete not exposed to earth
Glass 0.8
and water
Aramid 0.9
Carbon 0.9
Concrete exposed to earth
Glass 0.7
and water
Aramid 0.8

to be multiplied with the reduction factor CE (last column in table), which reduces the design value

or not in the case of carbon fibers in concrete not exposed to earth and water. Nevertheless, FRP

composites are resistant in harsh environments; such environments, as well as acidic and alkali ones,

could deteriorate the interface of fibers and matrix if they get in contact directly. For instance, acid

diffuses into the macromolecule structure of the polymer and degrades the matrix. In addition, heat,

moisture, and air pollution influence the mechanisms of degradation and the subsequent results of

aging (Bagherpour, 2012). Serviceability criteria or fatigue and creep rupture can control the design

of concrete members reinforced with FRP rebars in many cases. Aramid FRP (AFRP) and glass

FRP (GFRP) are especially emphasized in the design code because of low stiffness characteristics.

Though FRP rebars made from basalt fibers are established as a promising replacement for

CFRP and GFRP, the durability characteristics and their long-term behavior in concrete structures

is not fully understood. For concrete elements exposed to harsh environmental conditions such as

alkaline, saline, acidic, and de-iodized environments, FRP rebars appear to be the default alterna-

tive. But the durability of FRP materials (specifically basalt) in these harsh environments is one of

the most important material-specific properties because it is often the primary reason for the use

of this technology. While the high pH environment created by the cementitious matrix in concrete

provides corrosion protection for conventional black steel rebars, the same high pH environment

may attack FRP products and cause load capacity degradation. Accordingly, FRP rebars inside

concrete elements situated in harsh environments are often exposed to multiple conditions or to a

combination of chemically degrading elements simultaneously. The interaction of these combined

conditions on FRP rebars are still not fully understood and research in this area is still needed.

32
However, initial efforts have been made and some of the completed projects are summarized below.

According to Wu et al. (2014), the durability of BFRP rebars exposed to alkaline solutions is less

than the durability in saline, acidic, and de-iodized solutions when tested at 20 ◦C, 40 ◦C, and 55 ◦C.

The degradation process of FRP rebars seems to be under control if the sustained load levels are

kept below 20 % of ultimate tensile strength, but starts to accelerate beyond the 20 % threshold.

According to Wu et al. (2014) findings, it takes 16.1 years for an alkaline solution to reduce the

tensile strength of BFRP rebars by 50 %.

A study conducted by Lu et al. (2015) compared virgin to aged, pultruded BFRP plates and

rebars to measure the effect of thermal aging (at 135 ◦C and 300 ◦C for four hours) on the longitudinal

tensile strength and the interlaminar shear properties. At 300 ◦C, the resin decomposed thermally.

As the immersion temperature and thermal aging was increased, the mechanical properties of BFRP

plates notably decreased. The degradation process of aged rebars immersed in alkaline solution and

distilled water accelerated due to thermal aging. While rebars aged at 135 ◦C and 300 ◦C degraded

by 62.3 % and 74.1 % when exposed to high alkaline solution, the degradation process for un-aged

BFRP bars exposed to high alkaline solution for three months at 60 ◦C was accelerated by 43.2 %.

Altalmas et al. (2015) studied the bond-to-concrete durability properties of sand-coated basalt

fiber reinforced polymer (BFRP) rebars and glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) rebars via

accelerated conditioning in acidic, saline, and alkaline solutions for 30 days, 60 days, and 90 days.

The variations in slip of BFRP and GFRP bars after conditioning were negligible. The results

showed that the bond strength of BFRP immersed in acid solution for 90 days was reduced by 14 %

compared to bond strength of un-aged BFRP rebars, and the bond strength of rebars immersed

in ocean water and alkaline solution for 90 days was reduced by 25 % in comparison with un-aged

rebars. While the bond strength of GFRP rebars reduced by 25 % after acidic exposure, it reduced

by 17 % after exposure to alkaline and saline environments in comparison with un-aged rebars. All

specimens failed in interlaminar shear when tested for pullout strength.

Wang et al. (2017) tested tensile strength and Young’s modulus properties of BFRP and GFRP

rebars exposed to seawater and sea sand concrete (SWSSC). The rebars were exposed to normal

SWSSC (N-SWSSC), and high-performance SWSSC (HP-SWSSC) at room temperature, 40 ◦C,

48 ◦C, and 50 ◦C for 21 days, 42 days, and 63 days. Damaging mechanisms were determined by

using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), changes of microstructure were characterized via X-ray

33
computed tomography (CT), and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) was used to compute

chemical elements after exposure. Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH, 2.4 Lg ), potassium hydroxide (KOH,

19.4 Lg ), sodium chloride (NaCl, 35 Lg ), and calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH) 2 Lg ) were mixed in 1 L

of distilled water to prepare N-SWSSC with a pH level of 13.4. In addition, sodium hydroxide

(NaOH, 0.6 Lg ), potassium hydroxide (KOH, 1.4 Lg ), sodium chloride (NaCl, 35 Lg ), and calcium

hydroxide (Ca(OH) 0.037 Lg ) were mixed in 1 L of distilled water to prepare N-SWSSC with a

pH level of 12.7. Two BFRP rebar specimens and two GFRP rebar specimens per test group

(conditioned vs. unconditioned), with a total length of 760 mm — including steel tube anchors

with a length of 250 mm on both ends — were tested for ultimate tensile load. The rebars were

embedded in the steel pipe anchors using an epoxy resin, and load rates for these experiments were
mm
set to 2 min . The ultimate tensile strength of BFRP specimen exposed to N-SWSSC in 32 ◦C varied

from 1317 MPa to 1253 MPa, whereas the ultimate tensile strength of BFRP specimen exposed to

N-SWSSC in 40 ◦C varied from 1273 MPa to 1103 MPa, while the ultimate tensile strength of BFRP

specimen exposed to N-SWSSC in 48 ◦C varied from 1257 MPa to 799 MPa, and the ultimate tensile

strength of BFRP specimen exposed to N-SWSSC in 55 ◦C varied from 908 MPa to 352 MPa. The

ultimate tensile strength of BFRP specimen exposed to HP-SWSSC in 32 ◦C varied from 1341 MPa

to 1323 MPa, whereas the ultimate tensile strength of BFRP specimen exposed to HP-SWSSC in

40 ◦C varied from 1288 MPa to 1219 MPa, and the ultimate tensile strength of BFRP specimen

exposed to HP-SWSSC in 55 ◦C varied from 1212 MPa to 1046 MPa. The ultimate tensile strength

of GFRP specimen exposed to N-SWSSC in 32 ◦C varied from 952 MPa to 925 MPa, whereas the

ultimate tensile strength of GFRP specimen exposed to N-SWSSC in 40 ◦C varied from 903 MPa

to 961 MPa, and the ultimate tensile strength of GFRP specimen exposed to N-SWSSC in 55 ◦C

varied from 855 MPa to 848 MPa. The ultimate tensile strength of GFRP specimen exposed to

HP-SWSSC in 32 ◦C varied from 1031 MPa to 1036 MPa, whereas the ultimate tensile strength

of GFRP specimen exposed to HP-SWSSC in 40 ◦C varied from 959 MPa to 996 MPa, and the

ultimate tensile strength of GFRP specimen exposed to HP-SWSSC in 55 ◦C varied from 966 MPa

to 948 MPa. Nearly no change was found in Young’s Modulus for GFRP and BFRP bars after

exposure to SWSSC solutions, mainly because this property depends on the Young’s Modulus of

the (basalt and glass) fibers, and because the modulus degradation for fibers in SWSSC solutions

may not be significant. When compared to HP-SWSSC, N-SWSSC was more aggressive on both

34
BFRP and GFRP bars due to the high alkali ion concentration. In high-temperature environments,

the GFRP rebars were more durable than the BFRP rebars because of the different resins. Based

on the SEM, 3D X-ray, and CT-results, the resin properties of GFRP bars were more stable in

SWSSC conditions than the resin used for the tested BFRP rebars.

Patnaik (2009) studied the mechanical properties of BFRP rebars and moment strength of

concrete beams reinforced with BFRP rebars made by the wet lay-up process (see Section 2.5.2)

and compared the results with beams reinforced by traditional pultruded BFRP rebars (see Sec-

tion 2.5.1). The size of the rebars used in this study ranged from # 1 rebars to # 3 rebars. But

more precisely, the rebar diameters for these tests included 4.3 mm, 7.1 mm, 9.8 mm. The aver-

age tensile strength of 4.3 mm rebars was 1110 MPa, the average tensile strength of 7.1 mm rebars

was noted with 1084 MPa, and the average tensile strength of 9.8 mm rebar measured 1067 MPa.

The average modulus of elasticity of 4.3 mm rebars was recorded with 41.1 GPa, while the average

modulus of elasticity of 7.1 mm rebar was determined to be 41.4 GPa, and the average modulus of

elasticity for 9.8 mm rebars was noted at 45.1 GPa. A total of 13 beams with a cross section of

203 mm × 203 mm, longitudinally reinforced with BFRP rebars, were tested. The beam measured a

length of 2135 mm, while the span length was set to 1520 mm. All beams failed in a ductile manner,

showing large mid-span deflections. The measured failure loads were greater than, or within the 3 %

range predicted by ACI 440.1R06 (ACI Committee 440, 2006). The results showed that the BFRP

bars produced by wet lay-up were as strong as pultruded FRP rebars, but it was noted that the

durability characteristics of the BFRP rebars via wet lay-up methods require additional research.

2.10 Concrete Elements Reinforced with BFRP

Basalt FRP rebars are generally suitable alternatives to steel, epoxy-coated steel, or stainless steel

bars in reinforced concrete structures, especially for durability or electromagnetic transparency

purposes (Nanni et al., 2014). The occurring failure modes in FRP-reinforced structures are concrete

crushing or FRP tensile rupture (Ehrenstein, 2006). In comparison to steel reinforced concrete with

its three stages from the uncracked section, to the cracked section of linear-elastic yield up to the

post-yield of reinforcement failure, FRP-reinforced concrete passes only through the first two stages

without a post-yielding process (ACI Committee 440, 2007).

Due to the high alkalinity of the concrete (approximately pH 13), the steel is protected against

35
corrosion. For structures in aggressive environments, such as marine structures and bridges exposed

to seawater or parking garages exposed to deicing salts, the alkalinity will be reduced. If the

alkalinity reduces to a certain pH (approximately 9), the steel depassivates and corrosion can initiate,

which causes concrete deterioration and loss of serviceability (ACI Committee 440, 2015). Due to

their advantages in durability aspects, FRP rebars are embedded in concrete for civil engineer

applications such as highway barriers, offshore structures, and bridge decks, which are exposed

to harsh environments where traditional black steel might corrode during the estimated service

time (Brik, 2003). Mainly beams or flexural concrete members are reinforced by FRP rebars at this

point. Concrete beams reinforced with BFRP bars achieved moment strengths that are consistent

with the relevant properties of the constituent materials and are comparable to those predicted

using ACI 440.1R-06 (Patnaik, 2009). However, a lack of experience exists in the use of FRP

reinforcement in compression members (columns) and for moment frames or zones where moment

redistribution is required (Nanni et al., 2014). Performed SEM analysis by ElSafty et al. (2014) of

samples immersed in alkaline solution at elevated temperature for 1000 hours did not show significant

signs of degradation. Only the outermost covering of the bar had been affected by the conditioning.

Reductions of transverse and horizontal interlaminar shear strength due to conditioning in alkaline

solution for 1000 and 3000 hours were detected. A reduction of flexure strength due to conditioning

in alkaline solution was recorded after conditioning for 3000 hours with exposure to alkaline solution

at 60 °C. Further tests should be required to gather sufficient information for a standardized usage

to establish degradation factors for design purposes like they already exist in different codes for

other FRP rebars.

Next to the durability factors, environmental impacts of the BFRP rebar production have to be

considered to reduce pollution. Because of the high temperature required for production, steel rein-

forcement has a higher carbon footprint than FRP reinforcement. Recycling instead is not as easy as

reproducing steel. Without corrosion, the life cycle costs associated with FRP-reinforced structures

are likely lower where steel corrosion should be a concern. A comparison between FRP-reinforced

pavement and steel-reinforced pavement over the lifetime determined that FRP reinforcement had a

significantly smaller environmental impact than the version with steel (ACI Committee 440, 2015).

While the general properties and components of BFRP rebars are described above, the following

chapter offers details about the certification process of FRP rebars and their implementation into

36
national and international codes. Moreover, an analysis of the current BFRP market was conducted

to collect information about availability and production processes around the world. The gathered

information about the available products shall help to provide recommendations for an implemen-

tation of BFRP rebars into the national design codes and for the use of these construction materials

in public infrastructure projects. The next chapter deals with BFRP specifications and market.

37
Chapter 3

BFRP Building Compliance and

Market

This chapter provides details about current regulations for FRP rebars with the focus on basalt

fibers and the international BFRP market situation and the available products. The standardiza-

tion progress in the FRP industry is described in Section 3.1. In addition, Section 3.2 provides a

comparison of the different acceptance criteria for the mechanical properties on national and inter-

national levels followed by Section 3.3 and 3.4, which summarize the state of the art in the BFRP

industry.

3.1 Regulations for FRP Rebars

This section describes the national and international regulations for FRP rebars and its historical

development. Several global activities have been completed to implement FRP rebars into design

codes and guidelines since the 1980s. In the United States, the initiatives and vision of the National

Science Foundation and the Federal Highway Administration promoted the development of this

technology to support research at different universities and research institutions.

In 1991, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) established Committee 440 — FRP Reinforce-

ment. The objective of the committee was to provide the construction industry with science-based

design guidelines, construction specifications, and inspection and quality control recommendations

related to the use of FRP rebars for concrete structures. In 2001, Committee 440 published the

first version of the document “Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Rein-

38
forced with FRP Bars.” The availability of this document further expedited the adoption of FRP

rebars (Nanni et al., 2014). Around the start of the millennium, research projects on fiber reinforced

polymers were conducted in many countries (e.g., Japan, Europe, China, Canada, and America),

which led to the development of standard documents and national design codes for the use and im-

plementation of FRPs as illustrated in Figure 3.1. The first document that introduced test methods

Japan America Europe Canada China America Russian America

(Concrete Engineering Series 23) (ACI 440.1R-01) (fib TG 9.3-14) (CAN/CSA-S806-02) (CECS146:2003) (AASHTO LRFD) (GOST 31938) (AASHTO LRFD 2nd edition)

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Figure 3.1: Chronology of documents related to the use of FRP rebar for concrete reinforcement

for FRP rebars was “Recommendation for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Using

Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials”, which was published in 1997 by the Japan Society for

Civil Engineering (JSCE). ASTM International and the Organization for Standards (ISO) developed

standardized test methods related to the use of FRP composites in structural engineering. Model

test methods for FRP bars are recommended by the ACI document 440.3R, “Guide Test Meth-

ods for Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete and Masonry

Structures,” effective since 2004, while earlier documents like ACI 440.2R introduced first design

recommendations in 2002. Test procedures have also been developed by the Canadian Standards

Association (CSA) or the European International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib) (Nanni

et al., 2014).

The American Concrete Institute Committee 440 (ACI440) has led the effort to address the

technical implementation for GFRP rebars by developing and publishing test methods, specifica-

tions, and design guidelines (ACI Committee 440, 2006, 2008a,b, 2012, 2013, 2015). The 2008

version of ACI440 (ACI Committee 440, 2008b) and the 2010 version of the Canadian-CSA Spec-

ifications for Fiber Reinforced Polymers (Canadian Standard Association, 2010) were developed

to standardize glass, carbon, and aramid FRP bars. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA)

has led the western effort for developing specifications and design guidelines for BFRP. The new

CSA S807 (Benmokrane, 2018) standard includes FRP bars made from basalt fibers, which em-

phasize the current importance of this material and the confidence of a commercialized usage in

the field (Vincent et al., 2013). Similarly, ASTM Committees D30 and D20 have addressed the

39
emergence of this technology by developing a number of test methods (ASTM-International, 2015a)

intended to characterize GFRP rebars, while BFRP rebars do not have specifications in the US.

Recently, in 2017, ASTM D 7957 specific guidelines for solid round glass fiber reinforced polymer

bars for concrete reinforcement was adopted (ASTM-International, 2017). In addition, the FDOT

has developed documents to aid the implementation and design of GFRP rebar technology in the

built infrastructure, specifically the expanded Section 932 for nonmetallic accessory materials for

concrete pavement and concrete structures (Ruelke, 2014), and more recently the fiber reinforced

polymer guidelines (FRPG) (Florida Department of Transportation, 2015; Hurtado, 2018). At the

national level, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

has also developed guides for the use of FRP technology (AASHTO, 2012) for externally bonded

systems. It is desired to add BFRP-specific criteria to these specifications and guidelines as soon as

practical to provide redundant supply chains and additional alternatives. Agencies are interested in

BFRP composites because the technology has improved recently (as explained in Chapter 2). The

variability of the raw source still presents uncertainty for its adoption in infrastructure applications,

where fiber manufactures are working on providing solutions. Further reasons are properties such

as a higher elastic modulus, higher tensile strength, and, for example, the consideration of a more

environmentally friendly product.

In general, for a design guidelines to become official, it must be adopted by a model building

code or by a regulatory agency. In the United States (and other parts of the world, including the

United Nations), the International Building Code (IBC) part of the family of International Codes

(I-Codes) is the predominant model code (adopted by all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin

Islands) and covers the design and construction of new buildings. (Nanni et al., 2014) Moreover, the

International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), which is the industry leader in performing

technical evaluations for code compliance as part of the International Code Council (ICC) that

develops model codes and standards, published the “Acceptance Criteria for the use of GFRP and

BFRP rebars for concrete reinforcement,” known as AC454 (International Code Council Evaluation

Services, 2017). Hence, today any structure that is to be built according to the requirements of the

Florida building code, which is based on the model code (International Building Code, IBC), can

be realized with BFRP rebar technology.

For the implementation process of a product, the existence of a set of protocols and provi-

40
sions is necessary. Therefore, tests, analysis of the results, and the design have to be conducted.

Moreover, ICC Evaluation Services (ICC-ES) develops in partnership with the proposers of new

technology-specific documents called “acceptance criteria (AC)” for the purpose of issuing eval-

uation (research) reports. After it is demonstrated that the product is manufactured under an

approved quality control program, the experimental program outlined in the AC is conducted by a

certified independent laboratory, its outcomes are evaluated by ICC-ES, and, assuming compliance,

a evaluation service report (ESR) is issued. Thus, the alternative material/technology now has

official recognition (Nanni et al., 2014).

Through the development of standardized test procedures and available design documents, it

became feasible to compare and evaluate standardized material performances, which lead to the

development of acceptance criteria for different products. These acceptance criteria are described

in Section 3.2 below.

3.2 Acceptance Criteria for FRP Rebars

This section lists the acceptance criteria for the most important certification documents for FRP

rebars. Acceptance criteria for FRP rebars include mechanical, physical, and durability require-

ments for implementation and usage in civil structures on a state, national, or international level.

Physical requirements include testings of FRP properties such as the fiber content, glass transition

temperature, measured cross-sectional, and durability tests that consider the moisture absorption,

the resistance to alkaline environments, and the void content (International Code Council Evalua-

tion Services, 2016). This section provides mechanical acceptance criteria for FRP rebars because

this research project focuses on the mechanical tensile strength of BFRP rebars. Required criteria

are listed in Table 3.1 for Section 932 in the State of Florida for FRP rebars, ASTM D 7957 on a

national level for glass FRP rebars, and on the bottom for AC454 on an international level for glass

or basalt FRP rebars. It can be seen that the table matches the required mechanical properties

according to the official test procedure (ASTM and ACI) with the different available documents

(FDOT Section 932 and AC454) that require these tests. The table details how many specimens

per lot and how many lots have to be considered for each test and bar size. The different certifi-

cation documents require testing of three to five to ten samples per production lot. In summary,

each certification document requires a comparable amount of specimens and test repetitions per

41
Table 3.1: Required test procedures and specimen quantities per acceptance test and production
lot

Tensile Shear Bond

Ultimate Load Elastic Modulus Transverse Apparent Horizontal Strength

ASTM D7205 ASTM D7205 ASTM D7617 ASTM D4475 ACI 440.3R

smallest (5),
FDOT 932-3

Bar Size each each each each median (5),

largest (5)
Specimen per Lot 10 10 5 5 15
Lots 3 3 3 3 3
ASTM D7957

Bar Size each each each each each

Specimen per Lot 8 8 8 8 8
Lots 3 3 3 3 3

smallest (5),
Bar Size each each each each median (5),
AC454

largest (5)
Specimen per Lot 5 5 5 5 15
Lots 5 5 5 5 1

specimens to gather sufficient data for a general use in the field.

According to the normal (Gaussian) distribution to estimate the mean strength with a 95%

confidence level, within 5% margin of error, a sample size of at least five rebars are needed as stated

in ACI 440.1R-01. To obtain a 99% level of confidence at the same margin of error, at least nine

rebars are needed. To determine guaranteed values of strengths and strains at a 99 87% probability

requires testing of 25 specimens (Kocaoza et al., 2004). The guaranteed strength or strain is to be

derived based on statistical analysis if fewer test specimens are tested, or the distribution is not

a normal distribution (ACI Committee 440, 2006). Additionally, to the required amount of test

specimen, the certification documents (FDOT, ASTM, and AC454) present rebar size and tensile

load requirements for FRP rebars. All three specifications define the minimum and maximum cross-

sectional dimensions and the minimum guaranteed tensile strength values per rebar size as shown

in Table 3.2. It can be seen that information for the rebar sizes and corresponding limits for the

measured cross-sectional area and the minimum strength values for tensile capacities are listed.

The span between the min. and max. cross section is included because of differences in surface

enhancements and production processes. The last column lists minimum guaranteed tensile loads

for each rebar size for GFRP and CFRP bars. The only difference between the FDOT Section 932,

42
 Table 3.2: Required sizes and tensile loads of FRP reinforcing bars

Bar Size Nominal Nominal Measured Minimum Guaranteed

Designation Bar Diameter Cross-Sectional Area Cross Section Tensile Load

Minimum Maximum GFRP Bars CFRP Bars

# in. in.2 in.2 in.2 kip kip

2 0.250 0.049 0.046 0.085 6.1 10.3

3 0.375 0.11 0.104 0.161 13.2 20.9
4 0.500 0.20 0.185 0.263 21.6 33.3
5 0.625 0.31 0.288 0.388 29.1 49.1
6 0.750 0.44 0.415 0.539 40.9 70.7
7 0.875 0.60 0.565 0.713 54.1 -
8 1.000 0.79 0.738 0.913 66.8 -
9 1.128 1.00 0.934 0.388 29.1 -
10 1.270 1.27 1.154 1.385 98.2 -

the ASTM D 7957, and the AC454 is that the AC454 provides additional minimum tensile loads for

the measured diameters, which are a little higher than the minimum loads calculated by using the

nominal diameter.

While different production techniques and processes exist in the FRP rebar market, these es-

tablished acceptance criteria allow manufacturers to target specific properties. Nevertheless, BFRP

rebars were produced before these acceptance criteria were available and manufacturers followed

individual and proprietary production sequences. Accordingly, the market is diverse with various

products, and new manufacturers enter the market quickly. However, an overview of the current

BFRP rebar industry follows below.

3.3 Global BFRP Rebar Manufacturer Analysis

This section provides information about the BFRP rebar manufacturers, their production logistics,

and the available products. The first FRP rebar became commercially available in the late 1980s,

when the market demand for electromagnetic-transparent reinforcing systems increased. At that

time, the technology was developed enough to provide a viable solution as internal reinforcement for

concrete structures (Nanni et al., 2014). Afterwards, the technology gained traction and different

BFRP rebar manufacturers were established around the world with a majority of the early companies

43
in Russia. European and Northern American companies followed the trend of manufacturing FRP

rebars, while the basalt fiber was imported from areas with an easier access to basalt rock sources,

such as Asia or parts of Europe. In the text below, the current BFRP rebar manufacturers are

analyzed; first based on general data provided in the literature, and then based on market data

gathered directly from manufacturers.

Markets and Markets (2016) conducted a study that projected the market growth up to $91 mil-

lion until 2021. This growth is fueled by the increasing demand for the renovation and strengthening

of new and existing structurally deficient bridges, especially in harsh environments near the coast

or connecting islands to the mainland. For instance, according to the National Bridge Inventory

(NBI), more than 146.000 bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete in the US as of

2010. From February 2003 to December 2013, FDOT District 7 conducted a study that evaluated

the current status and the required repair costs of 54 (20 steel and 34 concrete) bridges. It concluded

that 76% of all repair costs would be necessary to alleviate damages due to corrosion (Fallaha et al.,

2017). Thus, the use of FRP rebars in these applications has the potential to reduce the life cycle

costs, thereby enhancing service life and safety.

The Floodway Bridge (Canada) is one of the largest bridges constructed with FRP rebars. In

addition, The Florida Keys Bridges (US) is one of the prominent examples for the use of CFRP

rebars to strengthen structurally deficient bridges and bridge elements. Many similar projects,

in which FRP rebars are used as internal concrete reinforcements, are executed in the US and

Canada (Markets and Markets, 2016). Nevertheless, the lack of confidence in durability in aggressive

environments (for 75 to 100 years of service life), limitations on strength due to low design resistance

factors related to lack of ductility or due to degradation of properties over time, are challenges

for the implementation. Moreover, creep-rupture mechanisms limit the service limit state design,

and the comparatively low elastic modulus (relative to conventional black steel) leads to greater

deflection and larger crack openings (Fallaha et al., 2017). Accordingly, a new challenge will be the

development and implementation of new inspections and repair methods.

North America is one of the main leaders in the world market for FRP rebars and has the

fastest-growing demand worldwide because of its high economic growth rate, numerous construction

projects, and capacity expansion, although the basalt fibers are mostly produced in Russia and

China and have to be imported. In 2018, the first basalt fiber production plant in North America

44
is being commissioned in North Carolina. Raw basalt rock is melted and shaped into basalt fibers.

The produced fibers are combined with a resin in one process to produce the final FRP rebar

shape. At this time, seven manufacturers produce BFRP rebars in the US either exclusively or in

combination with other FRP rebar. Figure 3.2 provides a visualization of BFRP rebar manufacturer

density worldwide, and it can be seen that (to this date and to the knowledge of the author) 23

manufacturers commercially produce BFRP rebar products year round. It is reported by Galen

Panamerica that there are hundreds of “garage BFRP operations” that pultrude products in Russia

and Ukraine during the warmer months. The circles on the map indicate number (per country)

2 3
6
7
4

Figure 3.2: BFRP manufacturer locations

and location of manufacturers. The highest density can be found in North America with nine

manufacturers (seven in USA and two in Canada). A total of six BFRP rebar producers are located

in Europe (two in Germany, one in Norway, one in Ukraine, one in Austria, and one in England),

while eight Asian manufacturers exist (four in China, three in Russia, and one in India).

As part of this research project, 23 BFRP manufacturers from ten different countries were con-

tacted to participate in a survey with the aim to collect manufacturer-specific data about production

logistics, the produced BFRP rebar product types, their physical features, and the manufacturer

guaranteed material properties. All manufacturers in these 23 countries were contacted via email,

phone calls, or personal meetings. These initial conversations were followed by surveys with a

BFRP rebar production-specific questionnaire. Details about the contacted BFRP rebar manufac-

turers and a copy of the survey that was shared with them can be found in Appendix A. Based

45
on the provided information, the state of the market was analyzed and the data is presented below

to provide additional context for the technology, within a national and international framework.

Table 3.3 lists the production and rates per manufacturer. The leftmost column in the table lists

Table 3.3: Production logistics and rates per manufacturer

Manufacturer First BFRP bar Production Logistic† Production Rate

Year m/d f t/d
No Rust Rebar Inc. Before 1990 Stock in large quantities 4, 600 15, 000
Smarter Building System 2000 Stock in large quantities 6, 000 19, 700
Neuvokas Corp. - - - -
KODIAK Fiberglass Rebar 2014 Stock in large quantities 9, 200 30, 000
Advanced Filament Technologies 1998 Stock in large quantities 3, 000 9, 800
US Basalt - - - -
Proven Performance Chemicals - - - -
Pultrall Inc. 2010 Production on demand 8, 800 28, 800
Armkar Inc. - - - -
Incotelogy GmbH - - - -
Deutsche Basalt Faser GmbH 2017 Stock in small quantities 14, 000 45, 900
ASA.TEC GmbH 2012 Production on demand 960 3, 150
Basalt Technologies UK Limited - - - -
ReforceTech AS - - - -
Technobasalt-Invest 2010 Stock in small quantities 16, 000 52, 500
Galen Panamerica 2001 Stock in large quantities 20, 000 65, 600
Rusnano (TBM) - - - -
Armastek 2007 Production on demand 50, 000 164, 000
GMV - - - -
Phoenix New Material Co., Ltd. - - - -
GBF Basalt Fiber Co., Ltd - - - -
Huabin General Machinery Co,Ltd. - - - -
Flips India Engineering - - - -

† Small quantities below 500m (1640ft.); Large quantities over 500m (1640ft.)

the contacted manufacturers in this survey. Data about their first BFRP rebar production stocking

quantities and the production rates are listed in the table (for those manufacturers who responded

to the survey). Based on the received data from ten manufacturers, it can be inferred that just

two manufacturers started their BFRP production before the year 2000. Furthermore, over 50%

of the manufacturers started the production of BFRP rebars after 2007. The majority stock their

products in large quantities and it can be seen that the production rates are significantly higher

in the Asian and European countries compared to the United States. Kodiak Fiberglass Rebar

is the company that (currently) provides the largest production capacity on the North American

46
continent for BFRP rebars with a production output of 4, 600 m/d. In comparison the Russian

company Armastek is able to produce 50, 000 m/d, which is about 11 times more. Figure 3.3 shows

a diagram that compares the different stocking options used by the various manufacturers in the

industry. The part of the pie chart with solid diagonal lines identifies 50% of the companies that

20%

50%

30%

Stock in large quantities ⇒ multiple bar sizes with > 500 m (1640 ft)

Production on demand

Stock in small quantities ⇒ any bar sizes with < 500 m (1640 ft)

Figure 3.3: Production and storage strategies chosen by BFRP manufacturers

stock rebars in large quantities [> 500 m(1640 ft)], while the area with the dashed diagonal lines,

signifies with 20% the stocking of small quantities [< 500 m(1640 ft)], and the dotted part represents

manufacturers, who produce rebar on demand (30%). The next Figure visualizes the production

rates of the manufacturers. The production rates are listed on the y-axis in ft/d (left axis) and m/d

(right axis). Three character IDs (see Table reftab:BFRP rebars produced by manufacturer) for

each manufacturer (which participated in the survey) are listed along the x-axis. The bars visualize

the lowest production rate for ASA TEC GmbH (ASA) with 960 m/d (3150 ft/d) and the highest

production rate for Armastek with 50 000 m/d (164 000 ft/d). The average production of all listed

BFRP rebar producers is 13 000 m/d (42 650 ft/d).

17 questions about the chosen production logistics made up the first part of the BFRP rebar

manufacturer survey; the second part was aimed at specific product properties and the following

Section 3.4 summarizes the findings from part two.

47
 180
50

d)
d)

m
150
ft
Production Rate (x1000

Production Rate (x1000

40
120
30
90

60 20

30 10

0 0
AW

FT

SA

PA

M
B
SB

PA

B
O

R
T
A

G
D
A
K

A
R

Company (by ID)

Figure 3.4: BFRP production rates (as reported by manufacturers)

3.4 BFRP Products Database

The data collected through the second part of the survey provides centralized information about

parameters such as cross-sectional shape, resin type, surface enhancement, and produced diameters.

The answers to all survey questions reflect the currently available products and the related parame-

ters, cross-sectional shape, resin type, surface enhancement, and produced diameters. The acquired

data are shown in Table 3.4. Based on the manufacturers who shared their company-specific data,

the dominant cross-sectional shape is round and solid. The only exception is the German com-

pany Deutsche Basalt Faser GmbH, which produces round hollow rebars instead. In addition, the

majority of the BFRP rebar producers focus exclusively on the production of basalt FRP rebars.

However, four companies also produce rebars with other fiber types like glass or add basalt fibers

afterward to their portfolio because the production sequences and processes for these rebars are

similar. Besides vinyl ester, the most used resin type is epoxy: it is one of the more expensive

types with a long curing time. The surface enhancement is the feature that varies the most between

the listed manufacturers. The use of helical wrap, sand coat, or a combination of both is applied

based on the manufacturer. The various produced rebar diameters differ in quantities/availability

between manufacturers. Based on the preferred measurement system in the production country

(metric vs. imperial), the available nominal rebar diameters differ. Some rebar producers only pro-

48
 Table 3.4: BFRP rebars produced by manufacturer

Manufacturer Cross-Sectional Shape Fiber Type Resin Type Surface Enhancement Produced Diameters
RAW Round (solid) Basalt Epoxy Helical wrap & Sand coat #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
SBS Round (solid) Basalt Epoxy / Vinyl Ester Helical wrap #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8
NVC Round (solid) Basalt Epoxy - #3
KOD Round (solid) Basalt/Glass Epoxy / Vinyl Ester Helical wrap/rib & Sand coat #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8
AFT Round (solid) Basalt Epoxy Helical wrap #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
USB - Basalt - - -
PPC - Basalt - - -
PAL Round (solid) Basalt/Glass Epoxy Sand coat #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
AKI - Basalt - - -
ICT - Basalt - - -
DBF Round (hollow) Basalt Thermoset Sand coat #1, 2, 3, 4, 5
ASA Round (solid) Basalt Vinyl Ester Helical rib #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
BTL - Basalt - - -
RAS - Basalt - - -
TBI Round (solid) Basalt Epoxy Helical rib #1, 2, 3, 4
GPA Round (solid) Basalt/Glass Epoxy Sand coat #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
RSN - Basalt - - -
ARM Round (solid) Basalt/Glass Epoxy Helical wrap & Sand coat #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
GMV - Basalt - -
PNM - Basalt - - -
GBF - Basalt - - -
HGM - Basalt - - -
FIE - Basalt - - -

duce a single size, while other producers have the capacity to supply a wide array of rebars (# 1 to

# 12 or higher). Rebar # 3 with a diameter of 3/8 inch (10 mm) and rebar # 5 with a diameter of

5/8 inch (16mm) are the two most commonly available, and therefore, most used diameters in civil

applications.

49
Chapter 4

Experimental Program

4.1 Introduction

The experimental program chapter details how the performance of three different BFRP rebar

products was evaluated. The experimental concept and the general research approach as well as

an overview of the different test procedures and a brief description of tested rebar material are

described in the following Section 4.2. The equipment and test devices that were used to perform

the experiments, including special test fixtures that were needed to test the strength properties of

BFRP rebars, are described in Section 4.3. Finally, the test procedures based on the relevant and

applicable ASTM standard documents are outlined in Section 4.4.

4.2 Experimental Concept

To properly evaluate a new material, such as BFRP rebars, for use in infrastructure projects, the

physical and mechanical properties of the material must be evaluated and compared to accep-

tance criteria, if such criteria are available. Accordingly, the experimental approach aimed to fully

characterize strategically chosen representative BFRP rebar samples for physical and strength char-

acteristics. The relevant physical properties included the cross-sectional dimensions, fiber content,

and moisture absorption characteristics, while the physical properties including the transverse shear

strength, the apparent horizontal shear strength, the tensile properties, and the bond-to-concrete

characteristics. Table 4.1 lists all these tests and references the applicable ASTM standards that

were followed throughout the experimental program. In addition, the table shows how many speci-

50
 Table 4.1: Physical and mechanical tests on BFRP rebars

Specimen count
Physical Test type Test method Per sample Total
Cross-sectional area ASTM D792 5 40
Fiber content ASTM D2584 5 40
Moisture absorption ASTM D570 5 40
Tensile strength ASTM D7205 5 40
Mechanical

Transverse shear strength ASTM D7617 5 40

Apparent horizontal shear strength ASTM D4475 5 40
Bond-to-concrete ACI440.3R,B.3 5 30

mens (per sample group) were needed to reliably measure the materials’ performance. Because # 3

rebar of lot 1 from manufacturer C had high moisture absorption property, manufacturers devel-

oped a new technology and provided a second lot. But two other producers were still developing

the production line and could only provide prototype rebars (hence only one lot was tested).

In line with the previously described state-of-the-market situation (c.f. Section3.1), and based

on availability in the local market, representative rebar samples from three distinct BFRP rebar

manufacturers were chosen. All materials that were tested for the purpose of this research project

were provided by No Rust Rebar, Pultrall, and Galen Panamerica. These manufacturers provided

specific products, which in the following will be referred to as Rebar Type A, Rebar Type B, and

Rebar Type C (or simply Type A, Type B, and Type C), respectively. Because this research targeted

the most commonly available and often used FRP rebar sizes, the manufacturer supplied # 3 and

# 5 rebars, such that each Rebar Type had two sub-variants (e.g.; Type A # 3 and Type B # 3).

All specimen types that were characterized throughout this research are shown in the following

Figures 4.1 and 4.2. It can be seen that (at minimum) all rebar types featured a sand coat at the

outer surface to improve the bond-to-concrete properties. In addition to surface sand, one product

(Type A) also had helical fibers made from polyethylene terephthalate, produced by Dacron. The

makeup and the surface enhancement properties of the tested rebars are described in Table 4.2.

Because the precise material compositions are proprietary manufacturer information, no more data

can be supplied here.

51
 (a) Type A (b) Type B (c) Type C

Figure 4.1: Sample pictures of tested BFRP # 3 Rebars

(a) Type A (b) Type B (c) Type C

Figure 4.2: Sample pictures of tested BFRP # 5 Rebars

Table 4.2: Physical characteristics of tested BFRP rebars

Name Cross Section Surface Enhancement Resin Type

A Round (solid) Sand coat and helical wrap Epoxy
B Round (solid) Sand coat Epoxy
C Round (solid) Sand coat Vinyl-ester

4.2.1 Acceptance Criteria

While acceptance criteria for basalt FRP rebars are not fully established yet, criteria for other fiber

based rebars have been adopted. One of the most established composite rebar materials is the glass

fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) rebar, which is known to possess a lower ultimate tensile strength

and a lower elastic modulus — compared to basalt FRP rebars. For reference, the data in the

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 show common acceptance criteria for (GFRP) rebars. For the purpose of this

research, the results obtained by testing BFRP rebars were compared to GFRP rebar acceptance

52
 Table 4.3: Acceptance criteria for GFRP rebar # 3

FDOT 932-3/2017 AC454 ASTM D 7957

Test Method Test Description Unit Criteria Criteria Criteria

ASTM D 792 Measured Cross-Sectional Area in.2 0.104 – 0.161 0.104 – 0.161 0.104 – 0.161

ASTM D 2584 Fiber Content % wt. > 70 > 70 > 70

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption short term @50 ◦C % 6 0.25 6 0.25 6 0.25

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption long term @50 ◦C % 6 1.0 n/a 6 1.0

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Load kip > 13.2 > 13.2 > 13.2

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Strength ksi n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Tensile Modulus ksi > 6, 500 > 6, 500 > 6, 500

ASTM D 7205 Max. Strain % n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7617 Min. Guaranteed Transverse Shear ksi > 22 > 22 > 19

ASTM D 4475 Horizontal Shear Stress ksi n/a > 5.5 n/a

ACI440. 3 R,B.3 Bond-to-concrete strength ksi > 1.1 > 1.1 > 1.1

Table 4.4: Acceptance criteria for GFRP rebar # 5

FDOT 932-3/2017 AC454 ASTM D 7957

Test Method Test Description Unit Criteria Criteria Criteria

ASTM D 792 Measured Cross-Sectional Area in.2 0.288 – 0.388 0.288 – 0.388 0.288 – 0.388

ASTM D 2584 Fiber Content % wt. > 70 > 70 > 70

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption short term @50 ◦C % 6 0.25 6 0.25 6 0.25

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption long term @50 ◦C % 6 1.0 n/a 6 1.0

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Load kip > 29.1 > 32.2 > 29.1

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Strength ksi n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Tensile Modulus ksi > 6, 500 > 6, 500 > 6, 500

ASTM D 7205 Max. Strain % n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7617 Min. Guaranteed Transverse Shear ksi > 22 > 22 > 19

ASTM D 4475 Horizontal Shear Stress ksi n/a > 5.5 n/a

ACI440. 3 R,B.3 Bond-to-concrete strength ksi > 1.1 > 1.1 > 1.1

criteria because BFRP acceptance criteria in the US are yet to be established. Accordingly, the

listed criteria (while established for glass) serve as reference points and are used for comparison and

initial benchmark data only.

53
4.3 Equipment and Test Devices

All equipment and tools that were needed for sample preparation and to conduct the individual

tests are listed in this section.

4.3.1 Cutting Saw

The BFRP rebar samples that were provided by the manufacturers had a length between 2.30 m

(90 in.) and 2.50 m (98 in.). According to the ASTM, the tested samples have to be tested in a desired

length according to their diameter. To cut the samples, a heavy-duty single-bevel compound miter

saw with a diamond cutting wheel was used. It featured a machine-based frame to ensure a straight

cut. The saw was placed on a stable and leveled working table for a safe working space. A wooden

template was designed to ensure a fast workflow and a properly angled cut with 90° relative to the

longitudinal axis of the rebar (Figure 4.3). The round blade that was used to cut the BFRP rebars

Figure 4.3: Saw and diamond blade for BFRP rebar cutting

was a Diamond Montage Y1-2 Series diamond disk, which was designed for general purpose cutting

and to ensure a precise and clean cut of the sample. Because the saw dust caused by the cutting

process can be dangerous for human health (especially when cutting fibers), protective equipment

(respiratory masks, eye wear, and ear protection) was worn at any time the saw was used. While

this kind of cut was sufficient to prepare the BFRP rebars for tensile strength testing, the specimens

that were prepared for the evaluation of the cross-sectional properties had to be further cut with a

54
 Transparent
Safety Cover

Sample Arm
Lever Arm to
Increase Downforce

Diamond Blade
Sample Adjusting
Wheel

Control Panel
Coolant Tank

Figure 4.4: Precision saw

more precise instrument (cf. Subsection 4.3.2).

4.3.2 Precision Saw

According to ASTM D 792, a precision saw is necessary to cut the specimen for the determination

of the cross-sectional area of the BFRP rebar via the water displacement method. For a proper cut

of the BFRP material, the saw shown in Figure 4.4 was equipped with a 127 mm (5 in.) diameter

diamond blade. The model used for this research was an IsoMet 1000 Precision Cutter1 produced by

Buehler. The machine was equipped with a Sample Arm to support the sample during the cutting

process. The samples were guided over the blade — the specimen fell onto the blade, and not vice

versa — through a gravity-fed system. Thereby, deformations throughout the cutting process were

reduced. However, the contact pressure was adjustable and could be increased through the addition

of load to the lever arm that was connected to the sample arm. After precision cuts, the exact

specimen’s length had to be recorded as explained next.

4.3.3 Caliper

A digital caliper was used to measure the exact length of each BFRP rebar specimen for the cross-

sectional evaluation according to ASTM ASTM D 792 (ASTM-International, 2015b). The caliper

had to fulfill the requirements of ASTM D 7205 (ASTM-International, 2015a) for the cross-sectional
1
Information retrieved on June 13, 2018 from: www.buehler.com

55
area determination. Therefore, the electronic caliper shown in Figure 4.5 was used with a precision

of 0.01 mm (0.001 in.). Before every use, the caliper was zeroed.

Figure 4.5: Electronic caliper

4.3.4 Precision Balance

After the rebars were cut with the precision saw, different measurements for the water displacement

method had to be obtained. The used precision balance, which was needed to determine the cross-

sectional area, was a Nimbus Precision Balance NBL 623e2 produced by Adam Equipment Inc (see

Figure 4.6). Its readability of 0.001 g (2.205 × 10−6 lbs.) and its operation with a repeatability of

0.002 g (4.409 × 10−6 lbs.) matches the requirements for ASTM D 792 (ASTM-International, 2015b).

For a balanced setup, the scale was equipped with a bubble level indicator for optimal results.

Furthermore, this scale was equipped with a transparent and removable draft shield to reduce

erroneous readings that may result from air flow. Because the included shield was not sufficient to

accommodate the desired applications for this project, a customized extension was produced with

3D-printing technology.

4.3.5 Support Frame for Specimen Alignment

For the installation of the steel tube anchors on specimens, a designated frame was provided to

assure adequate alignment. As mentioned in Chapter 2, FRP rebars are anisotropic and have to be

anchored according to the ASTM 7205 before their tensile properties can be evaluated. Therefore,

an adjustable alignment frame made from aluminum was used, as shown in Figure 4.7. Two vertical

supports were installed to hold the three horizontal supports, to which the rebars were fixed via

movable pipe clamps. The frame was constructed with extruded aluminum profiles to guarantee a
2
Information retrieved on June 14, 2018 from: www.adamequipment.com/nbl-623e

56
 Customized Extension

Removable Draft Shield

Balance Pan

LCD Display

Operating Keys

Bubble Level Indicator

Figure 4.6: Precision scale, used to meet ASTM D 792 requirements

high stiffness while maintaining its adjustability to adapt to different rebar sizes and lengths. The

rebars were fixed in the plastic plug, which fitted precisely into one end of the steel tube. The

rebar specimens were placed on the melamine-coated particleboard on the bottom and positioned

along the horizontal supports to ensure a 90° angle before potting the anchors. After the grout was

poured into the bottom-plugged steel tube, the upper end was sealed with a red plastic cup. The

other end of the rebar was potted after a curing time of 24 hours, and after seven days — when

the expansive grout reached its peak pressure — the specimens were ready to be tested and move

to the test site.

4.3.6 Test Fixture for Transverse Shear Tests

The fixture for the transverse shear test was built at the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering Machine

Shop according to ASTM D7617 (ASTM-International, 2012b). The concept of the transverse shear

test and the mechanics of the test can be seen in the Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9. It can be seen that

the top pusher was able to pass through the gap in the middle of the fixture, to cut the rebar —

producing a localized shear force. The force was increased until the rebar failed in shear, in both the

57
Figure 4.7: Tensile test preparation alignment frame

Load P
h2 = 6cm

d
h1 = 10cm

P P
2 /L2 2 /L2

l2 = 5cm l1 = 2cm l2 = 5cm

Figure 4.8: Transverse shear test concept

58
 Load

d Shear Force

l2 l1 l2

Figure 4.9: Transverse shear test — methodology

cutting planes (between both the surfaces of the top pusher and the fixture). Figure 4.10 shows the

built transverse shear fixture that was used to conduct all transverse shear tests. The test fixture

consisted of two V-form bar seats, two straps, two lower blades, an upper blade, and two guides

machined from steel. The bar seats, the two lower blades, and the two guides were transversely

bolted together with two threaded rods and nuts with washers. Between the lower blades and the

Figure 4.10: Transverse shear box — parts

guides, thin shims were placed to ensure that the upper blade fitted properly between the two lower

blades (Kampmann et al., 2018).

59
4.3.7 Test Fixture for Apparent Horizontal Shear Tests

The apparent horizontal shear test fixture was build according to ASTM D4475 (ASTM-International,

2012a). The concept of this test is similar to a typical three-point bending test but with a short

span to diameter ratio (5 to 1) (c.f. 4.11) which produces a inter-laminar shear force along the lon-

gitudinal axis of the bar leading it to failure in shear (c.f. 4.12) rather than in flexure. Accordingly,
Load P

1/2 ·P 1/2 ·P
Load
l1 = 5 · d

Figure 4.11: Horizontal shear test concept

Load P

1/2 ·P 1/2 ·P

l1 = 5 · d

Figure 4.12: Horizontal shear test — methodology

the built fixture for horizontal shear test shown in Figure 4.13 was used. The fixture consisted of

two bar supports and a loading nose built on a steel beam. Both the loading nose as well as the

two bottom supports were made from suitable hardened steel rods with a groove in the middle to

fit the individual rebar sizes. These steel rods were held in place, with the help of a spring on each

side of the rod (Kampmann et al., 2018). This setup was used for all conducted apparent horizontal

60
 Figure 4.13: Horizontal shear test fixture

shear test, while the distance between the supports was adjusted, dependent on the tested rebar

size/diameter.

4.3.8 Test Fixture for Tensile Strength Tests

As mentioned above, an additional test fixture was needed to install the tensile specimens for proper

load transfer. The standard load frame grips were not suitable for the tensile test experiments, and

therefore, removed to directly attach the fixture to the load mechanism via threaded rod as shown

in Figure 4.14. After installing the test fixtures at the bottom and at the upper cross-head, the

tensile samples were installed by leading them through the slot of the bearing plates. Afterwards,

the rebar was centered with locking plates to fix the specimen and to ensure proper alignment. The

fixtures then transfer the load from the bearing plates to the cross section of the steel tube without

touching the free portion of the BFRP rebar specimen. Due to this mechanism, the full load was

transferred to the FRP rebars via friction between the cured expansive grout and the steel tube

anchors. Figure 4.15 shows the installed fixture and the entire test setup. This setup was used to

properly test all rebar types and sizes for tensile strength and elastic modulus.

61
 (a) Bottom Plate (b) Bottom Fixture

Figure 4.14: Bottom unit connected to actuator

Figure 4.15: Tensile fixture installed in load frame

4.3.9 Test Fixture for Bond-to-Concrete Test

The test fixture for the bond-to-concrete test was designed to accommodate the requirements listed

in ASTM D7913 (ASTM International, 2014). As seen in Figure 4.16, the fixture was divided into

two sub fixtures: an upper and a lower fixture component. The upper fixture was designed to slide

the concrete cube into place and to hold it in line with the thrust of the text frame. The lower part

of the fixture was attached to the bottom of the test frame and designed to accommodate the steel

tube anchor. Both the top and bottom parts of the fixture consisted of four uniformly threaded

62
 Elevation fixture
Base plate Free end LSCT
BFRP rebar - free end
Concrete cube
Concrete cube
Fixture for concrete cube
Lock plates

Bearing plate Loaded end LSCTs

BFRP rebar
BFRP rebar - loaded end

Bearing plate Fixture for anchor

Lock plate
Anchor

Anchor

Base plate
(a) Concept (b) In Laboratory

Figure 4.16: Bond-to-concrete experimental setup

rods connecting the top and bottom plates of the fixtures as seen in Figure 4.16. This design was

used to conduct all pullout experiments.

Casting Concrete Cubes for Bond-to-Concrete Tests

According to ASTM D7913 (ASTM International, 2014), the test specimen for pullout testing can

either be single casted (vertical or horizontal), or two FRP bars casted into one horizontal prism

(ganged horizontal specimens). The horizontal prism has to be separated into two halves before

conducting the pullout test. This test setup is primarily used to evaluate the “top bar effect,” which

occurs due to moisture migration in curing concrete and which can negatively affect bond strength

in concrete reinforcing bars. Because the top bar effect was not part of this research project, the

specimen were single casted. For this study, 30 pullout specimens embedded with # 3 and # 5

rebars were prepared via horizontal casting with combined molds using form dividers according

ASTM D7913 (ASTM International, 2014), as shown in Figure 4.17. For easy removal without

disturbing the embedded bars, melamine-coated particle boards were used and the edges of each

mold were sealed with silicon to guarantee a watertight mold. Because the embedment length is

given by the mold, the bond length had to be controlled by bond breakers made from plastic tubing

63
 Figure 4.17: Schematic of the mold

Sealing the edges with silicon

Screws to Fix the Rebar

Tape to fix the plastic tube

Figure 4.18: Fixing the rebar and the plastic tube

with an inner diameter that was large enough to just accommodate the individual rebar size. To

prevent the BFRP rebar and the plastic tubes from moving, the rebars were held in place with

a screw (at the free end) and the tubes were taped to the mold (c.f. 4.18) before the concrete

was poured into the molds. Each BFRP rebar was cut to a length that provided enough space

for the measurement system and to prevent the rebar from unnecessary bending while installing

the steel anchor at the opposite end. For consistency, one single operator placed the concrete in

three layers of approximately equal thickness, while a different single operator rodded each layer

25 times with a 16 mm 5/8 in. diameter tamping rod. After each layer was consolidated, a third

operator tapped the mold for each specimen with a rubber mallet 5 times. As soon as the top

layer was completely consolidated, the free surface was struck off and leveled with a trowel, before

it was covered to prevent evaporation according to ASTM C192 (ASTM International, 2018). For

curing, the specimens remained covered in the molds for 17 days, but were removed thereafter to

install the anchors at the load end (around the BFRP rebars) according to ASTM D7205 (ASTM-

International, 2015a). In line with test procedure ASTM C39 (ASTM-International, 2004), the

64
compressive strength of five test cylinders (152.4 mm × 304.8 mm or 6 in. × 12 in.) was obtained at

the day of pullout testing (≥ 28 days) with a mean compressive strength of 51 MPa (7396 psi), a

standard deviation of 1.39 MPa (201.38 psi), and a coefficient of variation of less than 2.7 %.

4.3.10 Load Frame

To properly determine the tensile strength of BFRP rebars, a displacement-controlled testing ma-

chine with a large enough working space and load capacity was required. The High Performance

Material Institute (HPMI) in Tallahassee is provided an MTS Landmark testing system (floor

sanding) with a model 370 Load Frame, which was manufactured in 2009 and had a maximum

work space capacity of approximately 2002 mm (78.8 in.) and a maximum load capacity of 500 kN

(110 kip) (MTS Landmark Testing Solutions, 2015). The used Model 647.50A grips — which were

used for the shear strength tests — could apply a clamping pressure up to 69 MPa (10 ksi) with

wedges inside the grip mechanism of a 4 in. (101.6 mm) width. Figure 4.19 shows an overview of the

testing machine and the laboratory setup. In the foreground, the computer with the MTS process-

MTS Load Frame

Upper Fixture

Safety Glass
Lower Fixture

Hydraulic Unit

MTS Processing Unit

Computer

Figure 4.19: Laboratory setup in the HPMI

ing unit is shown. Behind the computer, the hydraulic unit is set to run the MTS load frame. As

65
shown, the tensile test fixture is installed in the test frame, which was located behind safety glass.

The properly calibrated machine had a load measuring system (load cell) with a precision of ±1%

of the measured load. The provided hydraulic pressure to drive the actuator, which applied the

load to the gripped specimens, was a detached system next to the testing frame. The load and/or

displacement applications for the system were controlled via the MTS FlexTest 60 Controller, which

was connected to all sensors, hydraulic, and electrical components, to properly drive the test and to

collect the raw data. Furthermore, the controller was connected to the computer and to the MTS

control panel (shown in Figure 4.20) to operate the machine and to monitor the test procedure.

With the control panel, it was possible to adjust the position of the cross bar and to open or close

Pressure Gauge Emergency Stop

Handset

Upper Grip Switch

Pressure Control Crossbar Adjustment
Lower Grip Switch Crossbar Lock Switch

Figure 4.20: MTS control panel

the grips with the desired pressure. For fine adjustments, a handset was provided next to the con-

trol panel. To control the load and displacement settings, the computer system featured the “MTS

TestWorks 4” software. The software interface allowed a proper operation of the machine, including

the definition of test parameters and live monitoring of the test results. In addition, the program

had an export function to retrieve the gathered raw test data.

4.3.11 Extensometer

To accurately record the stretch of the outermost rebar fibers while testing the ultimate tensile

strength, an extensometer was used to determine the localized specimen strains. Figure 4.21 shows

the used MTS model 634.12-25 extensometer which has a gauge length of 1.00 in. (25.4 mm). After

an initial load of about 1 kN was applied, the extensometer was installed in the middle section of

the free specimen length with rubber bands ensuring proper contact between the measuring parts

of the extensometer and the surface of the rebar.

66
 Figure 4.21: MTS extensometer

4.4 Test Procedures

This section details how each specific test procedure was conducted and which standard test method

was followed to evaluate the individual rebar property.

4.4.1 Cross-Sectional Area Test — Specific Gravity (Relative Density)

The test procedure to determine the density and specific gravity (relative density) of plastics by

displacement methods is described to explain how the rebar diameter (or cross section) was specified

for each product. The cross-sectional properties were measured according to ASTM D 792 (ASTM-

International, 2015b), while the density of each specimen was calculated via the buoyancy principle.

A clean specimen was conditioned for 40 h prior to testing in a temperature range from 21 ◦C to

25 ◦C (70 °F to 74 °F) at a relative humidity between 40 % and 60 %. The specimen was then cut

to the desired length of 25 mm (1 in.) using an electric precision saw. The length of each curtailed

specimen was measured 3 times, at 120° intervals perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the FRP

rebar, and the average value was noted for density calculations. Afterwards, the weight of dry

and conditioned specimen was measured using an electronic balance and recorded to the nearest

0.05 g (0.0017 oz.). The recorded weight of the curtailed specimen was measured to be no less than

10 g (0.352 oz.) and the value was used as the initial specimen weight, (Wi ), needed for density

calculations. A glass beaker of known volume was used as an immersion vessel to hold the water in

which the sample was submerged . However, the immersion vessel was tared to obtain the weight

of the sample under buoyancy only. The temperature of the water bath was monitored for each test

and constant water temperatures of 21 ◦C to 25 ◦C (70 °F to 74 °F) were maintained throughout all

experiments. A corrosion-resistant copper wire was used as a sample holder and attached to the

67
fixture that was independent of the water bath/vessel but introduced the forces to the scale, the

specimen was carefully attached to one end of the copper wire. Then, the weight of the specimen

along with the copper wire was measured and recorded (Specimen + wire, Ws+w ). The immersion

vessel was placed on the support (independent of the weighing mechanism), and the specimen was

completely submerged in the water with the help of the copper wire. To remove any entrapped air

or air bubbles at the surface of the FRP rebar, the specimen was carefully rubbed with the wire

across the surface and submerged in a rotating motion. Any water that was displaced onto the

scale was wiped without disturbing the immersion vessel. The weight of the submerged specimen

was measured and recorded as final weight (Wf ). Density measurements were determined via the

buoyancy principle and the cross-sectional dimensions were calculated by dividing the determined

volume by the measured specimen length. For reliability of test results and to obtain representative

values for the BFRP rebar product as a whole, the test was repeated five times for specimens taken

from different sections of the production lot and the average value was assigned.

4.4.2 Fiber Content Test — Ignition Loss

The procedure for ignition loss test for cured reinforced resins is explained here to describe how

the fiber content for the tested basalt FRP rebars was determined. ASTM D 2584 -11(ASTM-

International, 2011) outlines this procedure and details the required conditions. Similar to the

specimen preparation for the cross-sectional dimension experiments, the specimens for this proce-

dure were also conditioned in a temperature range from 21 ◦C to 25 ◦C (70 °F to 74 °F) at a relative

humidity between 40 % and 60 %, for at least 40 hours prior to testing. The conditioned sample

was then cut to the desired length of 25 mm (1 in.) with a precision of 0.05 mm (0.0019 in.). The

weight of the conditioned sample (Ws ), was then recorded to the nearest 0.05 g (0.0017 oz.) using

an electronic balance. This weight was used as the 100 % reference value for calculating the fiber

and resin contents (relative to the initial weight). Likewise, a clean and oven-dried crucible was

weighed (Wc ) to the nearest 0.05 g (0.0017 oz.) to obtain the initial weight of the sample holder. The

FRP rebar specimen was transferred to the crucible and the total weight of the specimen and the

crucible (Wi ) was recorded to the nearest 0.05 g (0.0017 oz.). To burn off all resin, the crucible (of

known mass) along with the specimen were exposed to a temperature of 542 ◦C to 593 ◦C (1000 °F

to 1100 °F) in a muffle furnace until the specimens reached a constant weight. The crucible was then

68
carefully removed from the muffle furnace and allowed to cool down to room temperature, before the

cooled crucible including the remaining material was weighed using a precision electronic balance.

This weight was recorded as final weight (Wf ). Because the rebar products were made with sand

at the surface for bond enhancement, the weight of the sand (Ws ) was recorded and subtracted

from the initial weight of the crucible and the specimen to obtain comparable and absolute fiber

content percentages. Because fibers (and sand) are not susceptible to loss on ignition, the reduction

in weight due to the burning process is equivalent to the weight of resin, and hence, the percentage

of fibers was determined through the difference in weight before and after the burning process. For

reliability of test results and to obtain representative values for the BFRP rebar product as a whole,

the test was repeated five times for specimens taken from different sections of the production lot

and the average value was assigned.

4.4.3 Moisture Absorption Test

The test procedure described in ASTM D 5229 (ASTM, 2014) defines the standard method for de-

termining the moisture absorption characteristics of FRP and is an indicator of porosity. This para-

graph explains how the porosity of the tested rebars was determined and calculated. ASTM D 5229

offers seven different test procedures (A through E, Y, and Z) to assign moisture absorption proper-

ties for FRP in different environments. Procedure A is most commonly used, and was used for this

research project. Each specimen was first oven dried for 48 h to eliminate moisture entrapped in the

pores or at the surface. The dried and conditioned specimens were placed in storage bags to ensure

that no moisture contaminated the specimens. Three diameter measurements were taken at 120°

intervals, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the FRP rebar, and those measurements were

recorded to the nearest 0.001 mm ( 10 4000 in.). Then, each specimen was weighed with a precision of

0.05 g (0.0017 oz.) in its dry state and recorded as Wi . The specimens were then submerged in dis-

tilled water. The water along with the submerged specimens were stored in an air-circulated oven to

maintain a temperature of 50 ◦C (122 °F) throughout the entire duration of the conditioning. First

weight measurements to record W1 after water conditioning were taken after two weeks. To obtain

additional measurements, the specimens were removed from the water bath in two-week intervals

(continuous conditioning) and surface dried with a fresh paper towel until no free water remained on

the surface of the FRP rebar. All intermediate measurements and the final weight of each specimen

69
(Wf ) were measured and recorded to the nearest 0.05 g (0.0017 oz.). This procedure was repeated

and weight gains were monitored until three consecutive two-week measurements did not differ by

more than 0.02 % from one another. For reliability of test results and to obtain representative values

for the BFRP rebar product as a whole, the test was repeated five times for specimens taken from

different sections of the production lot and the average value was assigned.

4.4.4 Transverse Shear Strength Test

ASTM D 7617 (ASTM-International, 2012b) was used in the process of testing and analyzing the

transverse shear strength data. Before testing, the specimens were conditioned according to the

ASTM D 5229 (ASTM, 2014). The conditioned specimen were then cut to a minimum length of

225 mm (8.85 in.) so that they fit in the shearing apparatus, which is a device that produces double

shear on the FRP rebar specimen. The conditioned and curtailed bars were placed inside the shear

test device and loaded with a displacement rate such that the test continued for at least 1 minute,

but not more than 10 minutes until the force reached 70 % of the ultimate load. The transverse

shear strength was determined using the ultimate load and the nominal cross-sectional area of the

specimen.

4.4.5 Apparent Horizontal Shear Test

The FRP rebar products were tested for the apparent horizontal shear properties and this test was

conducted according to ASTM D 4475 (ASTM-International, 2012a) standards. First, the diameter

at the center of the specimen was recorded and the specimens were conditioned at a temperature

range from 21 ◦C to 25 ◦C (69.8 °F to 77 °F) and a moisture content between 40 % and 60 % be-

fore they were cut to a length of approximately five times the diameter. The horizontal shear

strength was assessed through a three-point load test over a span length that was short enough to

avoid bending failure. The load was applied at the center of specimen with a displacement rate
mm in.
of 1.3 min (0.05 min ) until the shear failure was reached via horizontal delamination (failure of the

resin or resin-fiber interface). The ultimate load and the break type (number of fracture surfaces)

were recorded and analyzed. For reliability of test results and to meet the requirements listed in

FDOT Specifications, Section 932, a minimum of five specimen per sample were tested.

70
4.4.6 Tensile Strength and Modulus Test

The rebars were tested according to the ASTM D 7205, which describes a specific test method

for specimen preparation and testing of FRP rebars. It details how to anchor and grip the rebar

specimen via steel pipe anchors at both ends, which is necessary because of the low shear and

crushing strength of FRP rebars as such anchors prevent the rebar from failing in shear before

reaching the ultimate tensile strength. Otherwise, the grip mechanism of standard test machines

would lead to a premature (transverse) failure of the specimen. The anchors for this research

project were potted with expansive grout to transfer the force from the testing machine into the

rebar through compression and friction between the rebar surface and the grout. The dimensions

of the anchors relate to the rebar diameter and the free specimen length between the anchors was

set to 40 times the rebar diameter. After the grout in the anchors was cured for a minimum of

seven days, the specimens were fixed in the MTS test frame. After the specimen was placed into

the fixture and aligned properly by the locking plates, the crossbar of the machine was locked for

safety purposes. Subsequently, the handset was used for the fine adjustment. An initial load of 1 kN

(0.225 kip) was applied to the bar by using the setting wheel of the handset. The next step was to

place the extensometer with two little rubber bands in the middle of the free specimen length of

the rebar. When the extensometer was fixed, the safety pin was pulled out and the extensometer

connected to the computer was ready to measure the displacement. Then, safety glass was placed

on the top of the table of the load frame to protect the laboratory staff from chipping fibers caused

by the failure of the rebars. The specimen was installed in the MTS Load Frame and the test was

set up and configured with the program MTS TestWorks 4 to control and start the tests. The

load had been zeroed before the samples were hung into the fixture to gain proper results without

additional forces of the fixtures’ dead weight. The rates were chosen to target a failure time between

60 s (1 min) and 600 s (10 min) as defined by ASTM D 7205 / D 7205 (ASTM-International, 2015a).

To test the setup, some test specimens were produced in addition to the experimental program.

After starting the test program, the force versus displacement and the strain data were monitored

continuously at a 10 Hz frequency. According to ASTM D 7205, the tensile chord modulus of

elasticity should be calculated from the strain range of the lower half of the stress-strain curve,

with the start point being a strain of 0.1 % and the end point being a strain of 0.3 %. To protect

the extensometer, it was removed around 10 % displacement before the sample failed and possibly

71
damaged the extensometer. The testing machine stopped automatically when the force dropped by

85 %. This procedure was performed on 40 specimens.

4.4.7 Bond-to-Concrete Strength Test

The bond-to-concrete properties of the rebars were evaluated via pullout testing according to

ASTM D7913 (ASTM International, 2014). The bond strength experiments were conducted under

standard laboratory conditions within (23 ± 2) ◦C [(73 ± 5) °F] and (50 ± 10) % relative humidity,

using a 300 kN (66 kip) hydraulically controlled load frame. First, the specimens were cleaned and

installed in the test frame and an initial seating load of 272 kN (600 lbs.) was applied to generate

sufficient stiffness in the system. Then the LSCTs, which were needed to measure the rebar slip

at both ends (the so-called free and load ends). Once the setup was made safe, a static force was

continuously applied via a displacement rate of 0.75 mm in.

min (0.03 min ) and the raw data was recorded

with 1000 Hz until the measured force decreased significantly (more than 50 %) and the slippage

at the free end of the bar measured at least 2.5 mm (0.1 in.). After each test was completed, the

concrete block was split open to analyze the failure mode and to measure the precise bond length

of each specimen. For repeatability, a minimum of five specimen per sample group were tested.

4.5 Data Acquisition and Data Analysis

All raw data for tensile strength and shear strength tests were recorded with MTS TestWorks

software, and the raw data for the bond-to-concrete experiments were recorded using LabView

software with high data rates. For all experiments, the measurements were written to file at 10 Hz

(using appropriate filters). For efficient data analysis and data presentation, the high-speed data

was filtered and reduced using R-statistics3 and R-Studio4 software packages. However, all reported

numerical maximum and minimum values are based on the raw data and were calculated before

any filter was applied.

To properly analyze and evaluate the BFRP rebar samples (specimen groups), the individual

specimen results were determined and categorized, before statistical values (minimum, maximum,

average, standard deviation and coefficient of variation) for the relevant specimen groups were
3
R.app GUI 1.70 (7434 El Capitan build), S. Urbanek & H.-J. Bibiko, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2016
4
Version 1.1.383 2009-2017 RStudio, Inc.

72
individually calculated using R-static software. The mean and other statistical values for each

BFRP rebar sample were calculated based on a minimum of five individual specimen results.

73
Chapter 5

Results

5.1 Introduction

The performance evaluation of basalt fiber reinforced polymer (BFRP) rebars is summarized in

this chapter. The following results were obtained at the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering in the

High Performance Materials Institute (HPMI). All tests were conducted in accordance with the

relevant American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test protocol. The collected raw data

were analyzed with the engineering software R-statistics1 and R-Studio2 . The results are presented

throughout this chapter in tables and graphs for visual representation. For clarity, each property

was individually studied and presented separately. At the end of the chapter, a summary of the

test results is provided to comprehensively present each specific product, document its performance,

and to compare it to the acceptance criteria in FDOT 932, AC 454, and ASTM D 7957 (for glass

based FRP rebars).

5.2 Cross-Sectional Properties

The effective rebar diameter was measured according to the ASTM D 792-13. Due to the variety

of FRP rebars on the market and depending on the proprietary production methods, rebars from

different manufacturers with different surface enhancement may vary significantly and deviate from

the given nominal diameter. Table 5.1 below lists the results of water displacement method according
1
R.app GUI 1.70 (7434 El Capitan build), S. Urbanek & H.-J. Bibiko, R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
2016
2
Version 1.1.383 2009-2017 RStudio, Inc.

74
to the ASTM D 792-13 of all the rebar products.

Table 5.1: Statistical evaluation of diameter measurements for rebar size # 3 and # 5

Min Value Max Value Mean Value Standard Deviation CoV †

Rebar
Type Size mm mm mm mm %
A #3 10.23 10.24 10.28 0.02 0.22
B #3 10.78 10.87 10.94 0.06 0.58
C-1 #3 9.92 9.95 9.99 0.03 0.32
C-2 #3 10.16 10.18 10.25 0.02 0.23
A #5 16.64 16.71 16.78 0.05 0.31
B #5 17.51 17.65 17.98 0.18 1.05
C-1 #5 17.05 17.14 17.40 0.14 0.86
C-2 #5 16.90 17.26 17.64 0.23 1.73
† Coefficient of Variation

5.3 Fiber Content

The fiber content by weight of the rebars was calculated according to ASTM D 2584 -11 (ASTM-

International, 2011). The measured fiber content results are plotted in the Figure 5.1. The bar chart

was generated to compare the different rebar types against each other and to compare the different

rebar sizes. Each row in the plot indicates a specific rebar size, while each column represents a

different rebar type. The bars represent individual specimens. The red hatched part of the bars

indicates the fiber content in percentage, the blue crosshatched part represents the percentage of

resin, and the black part represents the amount of sand that was applied to the rebar surface to

increase the bond-to-concrete performance. Since the weight of the sand surface enhancement has

a relative higher contribution (percentage wise) on smaller specimens, the percentage weight on # 3

rebars is higher than # 5 rebars as presented in bar chart. The 100 % values for these rebars are

based on total specimen weight minus the sand content. The dashed line at the 70 % mark shows

the currently accepted minimum fiber content for FRP rebars. It can be seen that all individual

rebar specimens met the minimum requirement for the fiber content. The only marginal exception

was specimen d of rebar Type A, # 3, however, that specimen still passed the acceptance criteria.

Overall, the measured fiber content results show that the production quality was consistent for all

rebar types and sizes (within each rebar product).

75
 Fiber Content Sand Content
Resin Content Fiber Content Limit

Lot 1 Rebar A Lot 1 Rebar B Lot 1 Rebar C Lot 2 Rebar C

Material Content (%) 120
100
# 3 Rebars

80
60
40
20
0
120
Material Content (%)

100
# 5 Rebars

80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Specimen ID Specimen ID Specimen ID Specimen ID

Figure 5.1: Fiber content percentage of rebars from all manufacturers

The following Figure 5.2 and 5.3 exemplify the rebar appearance after the loss on ignition test

procedure. While the specimens shown in the figure were type C rebar materials, the appearance

of the rebars after the test were similar for all rebar types. The following Figure 5.3 presents

exemplary closeup pictures for individual test specimens of rebar types A through C. These pictures

show # 3 rebars, but # 5 rebars were similar in appearance after completion of the lost on ignition

experiments.

76
 Figure 5.2: Fiber content specimen of rebar type C # 3, 5 after test

(a) Type A (b) Type B (c) Type C

Figure 5.3: Fiber content specimen of rebar # 3 after test

77
5.4 Moisture Absorption

The moisture absorption property of rebars was tested in accordance with ASTM D 5229 (ASTM,

2014). The graph plotted in Figure 5.4 represents weight change of the rebar specimen stored in

distilled water over a test period of 98 d. It can be seen in the graph that all rebar types showed

comparable moisture absorption behavior, except # 5 rebar from type C with epoxy resin. All the

rebar types satisfied the AC454 limitations for the absorption limit of 0.25 % in first 24 hours of

exposure except # 5 rebar from type C.

Type A Type B Type C

# 3 Rebars # 5 Rebars
Log Time (d) Log Time (d)
0 1 14 4256 0 1 14 4256
1.25

Saturation absorption limit Saturation absorption limit

1 (AC454) (AC454)
Weight Change (%)

0.75

0.5

24 h absorption limit 24 h absorption limit

0.25

0
0 10 100 1000 0 10 100 1000
Log Time (h) Log Time (h)

Figure 5.4: Moisture absorption results of rebars from all manufacturers

5.5 Transverse Shear Test

ASTM D 7617 (ASTM-International, 2012b) was used in the process of testing and analyzing the

transverse shear strength of the rebars. Tested and processed data are plotted in the following

sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2.

78
5.5.1 Load vs. Displacement

The graphs plotted in Figures 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8 show the load vs. displacement behavior of

transverse shear behavior of # 3 and # 5 rebars from all manufacturers. The x-axis of the graph

represents the cross-head extension or the relative displacement between the edges of the directly

sheared specimen, while the y-axis shows the measured force throughout the load application period.

The Graph in figure 5.5 shows a linear behavior until it reaches the ultimate failure load. It

Cross-Head Extension (in.)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6
70 Type A Epoxy Lot1 # 3
Type A Epoxy Lot1 # 5 14
60
12
50
10

Load (kip)
Load (kN)

40 8
30 6
20 4

10 2

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.5: Extension vs. transverse shear load behavior of type A rebars Lot 1 size 3 and 5

can be seen that # 5 sized rebar sustained higher load in comparison with # 3 rebars. All the # 3

rebars sustained a consistent load while # 5 rebars sustained same peak load but the extension of the

rebars varied. The graph in Figure 5.6 shows a comparison between the load and the displacement

for transverse shear strength of # 3 and # 5 rebars lot 1 from type B rebar. It can be seen that the

graph had a linear behavior until it reached the ultimate failure load. All the rebars sizes sustained

a consistent load with similar extension. The graph in Figure 5.7 presents a comparison between

the load and the displacement for of transverse shear strength of # 3 and # 5 rebars lot 1 from

type C rebar. The graph shows a linear behavior until it reached 90% of the ultimate failure load.

The visualized data in Figure 5.8 show the load vs. displacement behavior for transverse shear

79
 Cross-Head Extension (in.)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
100
Type B Vinyl-ester Lot1 # 3
Type B Vinyl-ester Lot1 # 5 20

75
15

Load (kip)
Load (kN)

50
10

25 5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.6: Extension vs. transverse shear load behavior of type B rebars Lot 1 size 3 and 5

Cross-Head Extension (in.)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6
120
Type C Epoxy Lot1 # 3 25
Type C Epoxy Lot1 # 5
100
20
80

Load (kip)
Load (kN)

15
60

10
40

20 5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.7: Extension vs. transverse shear load behavior of type C rebars Lot 1 size 3 and 5

strength of # 3 and # 5 rebars lot 2 from type C rebar. It can be seen that the material behaved

linearly until 90 % of the ultimate failure load was reached.

80
 Cross-Head Extension (in.)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
120
Type C Epoxy Lot2 # 3 25
Type C Epoxy Lot2 # 5
100
20
80

Load (kip)
Load (kN)

15
60

10
40

20 5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.8: Extension vs. transverse shear load behavior of type C rebars Lot 2 size 3 and 5

5.5.2 Stress vs. Displacement

Transverse shear results are presented in Figures 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.12 compare the stress vs. dis-

placement behavior of transverse shear test of # 3 and # 5 rebars from all rebar manufacturer. The

data along the x-axis represents the cross-head extension or the direct shear displacement, while

the y-axis signifies the measured shear stress.

The data in Figure 5.9 show that the material behaved nearly linearly until the ultimate failure

load was reached. It can be seen in Figure 5.9 that the stress vs. strain behavior of both the rebars

is close but not identical-especially because it varied significantly for rebar number # 5.

The graph in Figure 5.10 presents the stress vs. displacement behavior of transverse shear test

of rebar type C lot 1. From the post failure stress vs. strain behavior of rebar type C as shown in

Figure 5.10, it can be seen that the rebars underwent similar failure behavior.

The graph in Figure 5.11 presents the stress vs. displacement behavior of transverse shear test

of rebar type C lot 1. The graphs display a mostly linear behavior until the ultimate failure load

was reached. Figure 5.12 shows the stress vs. displacement behavior of transverse shear test of rebar

type C lot 2. It can be seen that the data represented a nearly linear behavior until the ultimate

81
 Cross-Head Extension (in.)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Type A Epoxy Lot1 # 3
250
Type A Epoxy Lot1 # 5

30
Shear Stress (MPa)

200

Shear Stress (ksi)

Minimum shear stress (22ksi)
150 (FDOT Specifications)
20

100
10
50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.9: Transverse shear stress vs. extension behavior of rebar type A Lot 1 size 3 and 5

Cross-Head Extension (in.)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6
300
Type B Vinyl-ester Lot1 # 3
Type B Vinyl-ester Lot1 # 3
250
30
Shear Stress (MPa)

Shear Stress (ksi)

200
Minimum shear stress (22ksi)
150 (FDOT Specifications)
20

100
10
50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.10: Transverse shear stress vs. extension results of rebar type B Lot 1 size 3 and 5

failure load was attained. The stress vs. strain behavior of failed rebar specimen from both lots

of type C in Figures 5.11 and 5.12 show that, although the ultimate failure capacity of the rebars

varied significantly, all the rebar samples failed in a identical manner.

82
 Cross-Head Extension (in.)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Type C Epoxy Lot1 # 3
250
Type C Epoxy Lot1 # 5

30
Shear Stress (MPa)

200

Shear Stress (ksi)

Minimum shear stress (22ksi)
150 (FDOT Specifications)
20

100
10
50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.11: Transverse shear stress vs. extension behavior of type C Lot 1 size 3 and 5

Cross-Head Extension (in.)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Type C Epoxy Lot2 # 3
250
Type C Epoxy Lot2 # 5

30
Shear Stress (MPa)

200

Shear Stress (ksi)

Minimum shear stress (22ksi)
150 (FDOT Specifications)
20

100
10
50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.12: Transverse shear stress vs. extension behavior of type C Lot 2 size 3 and 5

83
5.6 Modes of Failure

To study the failure process, the failed BFRP rebars were analyzed in detail to observe the failure

pattern of outer fibers and inner fibers. Therefore Figure 5.13 exemplifies the failure patterns of

the tested BFRP specimen in response to the applied transverse shear loads. Figure 5.13 shows

that the failure mode for all the rebars was identical irrespective of the sizes and types. The test

fixture was designed so that direct shear stresses are applied perpendicular to the longitudinal axis

of the rebars and a “scissor-like” failure occurs at the center of the specimen as dictated in ASTM

standards. After a detailed analysis of failed specimens, it was seen that similar to GFRP rebars,

BFRP rebar samples also tried to bend throughout the test, although fibers were aligned in the

longitudinal direction.

84
 (a) Type A # 3 (b) Type A # 5

(c) Type B # 3 (d) Type B # 5

(e) Type C # 3 (f) Type C # 5

Figure 5.13: Failure pattern for tested rebar after transverse shear test

85
5.7 Summary of Transverse Shear Properties

The results of the statistical evaluation for the transverse shear strength properties of the tested

products are listed in the following Table 5.2. A total of 30 specimen, five for each rebar type and

size, were tested. The average and all other statistical values were calculated based on a sample size

of five specimen, and the corresponding results are shown in the table. For numerical comparison

and concluding values, Table 5.2 lists the minimum shear stress (∧), the maximum shear stress (∧),

the average shear stress (µ), the standard deviation (σ), and the coefficient of variation (CV) for

each individual test sample.

Table 5.2: Transverse Shear test statistical values for each sample group (US Customary Units)

Sample Group Statistical Values

Shear Stress

Manuf. Resin Size Lot ∧ ∨ µ σ CV

Type Type # No. ksi ksi ksi ksi %

Rebar A Epoxy 3 1 29.1 33.2 31.4 1.9 6.00

Rebar A Epoxy 5 1 25.7 26.9 26.5 0.5 1.94
Rebar B Vinyl-ester 3 1 33.3 35.8 34.5 1.2 3.51
Rebar B Vinyl-ester 5 1 30.8 32.9 31.7 0.8 2.62
Rebar C Epoxy 3 1 33.6 37.5 35.2 1.6 4.64
Rebar C Epoxy 3 2 36.5 39.8 37.7 1.4 3.71
Rebar C Epoxy 5 1 32.4 35.9 33.7 1.4 4.14
Rebar C Epoxy 5 2 35.3 38.0 36.5 1.0 2.71

It can be seen in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 that all the BFRP rebar samples are satisfying the minimum

required criteria for GFRP transverse shear stress.

86
5.8 Apparent Horizontal Shear Test

The FRP rebar products were tested for horizontal shear properties. The horizontal shear test was

conducted according to the ASTM D 4475 (ASTM-International, 2012a) standards.

5.8.1 Load vs. Displacement

The graphs in Figures 5.14, 5.15, 5.16, and 5.17 plot the load vs. displacement behavior of short

span 3 point bending. Each rebar type is shown individually — and every specimen within the

relevant sample is displayed — to compare # 3 and # 5 from the same manufacturer. The x-axis of

the graph represents the cross-head frame displacement, and the y-axis represents the applied load.

The graph in Figure 5.14 shows a nearly linear behavior until it reached the ultimate failure

load. Following the peal load , a descending branch proceeds with individual peals and falls. The

Cross-Head Extension (in.)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6
14 Type A Epoxy Lot1 # 3
Type A Epoxy Lot1 # 5 3
12
2.5
10

Load (kip)
Load (kN)

2
8
1.5
6

4 1

2 0.5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.14: Extension vs. horizontal shear load behavior of rebar type A Lot 1 size 3 and 5

peaks and fals represent individual layers of fibers engaged and failing in tension located in the

lower part of the specimen experiencing pure tension, while the upper part is in compression.

Extension vs. Horizontal shear behavior of rebar type B can be seen in the graph in Figure 5.15.

Similar to type A, # 5 type B rebar sustained more load in comparison with # 3 rebars. The failure

87
 Cross-Head Extension (in.)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
20
Type B Vinyl-ester Lot1 # 3
Type B Vinyl-ester Lot1 # 5 4

15
3

Load (kip)
Load (kN)

10
2

5 1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.15: Extension vs. horizontal shear load behavior of rebar type B Lot 1 size 3 and 5

pattern of both rebars was similar and identical to type A rebar failure pattern.

The graphs shown in Figures 5.16 and 5.17 show the load vs. displacement behavior of rebar

type C Lot 1 and 2. The graphs show a linear behavior until it reached 90 % of the ultimate failure

load. It can be seen in Figures 5.16 and 5.17 that the failure behavior of type C rebar is identical

irrespective of production lot and rebar size. After a detailed analysis, we can see the shear lag

effect in the rebars similar to other two types.

5.8.2 Stress vs. Displacement

To provide clarity and to compare the transverse shear strength performance of the two rebar sizes,

stress vs. strain behavior of rebar is shown in this section via graphs. The following graphs in

Figures 5.18, 5.20, and 5.21 show the comparison of the stress vs. cross-head behavior for the tested

BFRP rebars. The x-axis of graph represents the cross-head extension, while the y-axis signifies the

measured shear stresses. As expected, there is a significant difference in peak load between rebar

sizes of type A rebar. Nevertheless, the resultant horizontal shear stress is approximately the same

regardless of the rebar size. The stress vs. strain behavior of rebar type B shows that the failure

pattern was identical for both the sizes but # 5 rebars sustained more stress in comparison with

# 3 rebars.

88
 Cross-Head Extension (in.)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
14 Type C Epoxy Lot2 # 3
Type C Epoxy Lot2 # 5 3
12
2.5
10

Load (kip)
Load (kN)

2
8
1.5
6

4 1

2 0.5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.16: Extension vs. horizontal shear load behavior of type C Lot 1 size 3 and 5

Cross-Head Extension (in.)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6
14 Type C Epoxy Lot2 # 3
Type C Epoxy Lot2 # 5 3
12
2.5
10

Load (kip)
Load (kN)

2
8
1.5
6

4 1

2 0.5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.17: Extension vs. horizontal shear load behavior of type C Lot 2 size 3 and 5

The graphs in Figures 5.20 and 5.21 compare the stress vs. displacement behavior of horizontal

shear test of # 3 and # 5 rebars from lot 1 and 2 of type C rebars. Figures 5.20 and 5.21 show

89
 Cross-Head Extension (in.)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
50
Type A Epoxy Lot1 # 3
7
Type A Epoxy Lot1 # 5
40 6
Shear Stress (MPa)

Shear Stress (ksi)

5
30
4

20 3

2
10
1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.18: Horizontal shear stress vs. extension behavior of rebar type A Lot 1 size 3 and 5

Cross-Head Extension (in.)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Type B Vinyl-ester Lot1 # 3 8
Type B Vinyl-ester Lot1 # 5
50
Shear Stress (MPa)

Shear Stress (ksi)

40 6

30
4

20
2
10

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.19: Horizontal shear stress vs. extension behavior of rebar type B Lot 1 size 3 and 5

that all the rebars of type C underwent similar stress and strain irrespective of lot and size.

90
 Cross-Head Extension (in.)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Type C Epoxy Lot1 # 3
50
Type C Epoxy Lot1 # 5

6
Shear Stress (MPa)

40

Shear Stress (ksi)

30
4

20
2
10

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.20: Horizontal shear stress vs. extension behavior of rebar type C Lot 1 size 3 and 5

Cross-Head Extension (in.)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Type C Epoxy Lot2 # 3
50
Type C Epoxy Lot2 # 5

6
Shear Stress (MPa)

40

Shear Stress (ksi)

30
4

20
2
10

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.21: Horizontal shear stress vs. extension behavior of rebar type C Lot 2 size 3 and 5

91
5.9 Modes of Failure

To study the shear lag effect of BFRP rebars, failure modes of the tested rebars were analyzed.

Figure 5.22 shows the failed BFRP specimen after completion of the horizontal shear test. All the

(a) Type A # 3 (b) Type A # 5

(c) Type B # 3 (d) Type B # 5

(e) Type C # 3, (f) Type C # 5

Figure 5.22: Failure pattern for tested rebar after horizontal shear test

92
tested specimens failed due to the apparent horizontal shear force, resulting in horizontal failure

planes as observed from the perpendicular cracks to the applied load, through the depth of the

cross section. After the peak load, secondary cracks were generated representing the horizontal

shear failure plane as each inter-laminar layer of fibers is engaged in tension and then failing in

fiber-matrix interface.

5.10 Summary of Horizontal Shear Strength Properties

The statistical values for the horizontal shear strength properties of the tested products are listed

in the following Table 5.3. A total of 30 specimens, five for each type and each size, were tested

in total. The average of five specimens was assigned to each sample (specimen group) as shown

in the table. All BFRP rebar samples satisfied the minimum acceptance criteria for the horizontal

shear strength of glass FRP rebars according to FDOT Specifications 932, with the ultimate values

shown in Tables 4.3 and 4.4.

Table 5.3: Horizontal Shear test statistical values for each sample group (US Customary Units)

Sample Group Statistical Values

Shear Stress

Manuf. Resin Size Lot ∧ ∨ µ σ CV

Type Type # No. ksi ksi ksi ksi %

Rebar A Epoxy 3 1 5.8 6.7 6.4 0.4 5.90

Rebar A Epoxy 5 1 6.2 6.9 6.5 0.3 3.89
Rebar B Vinyl-ester 3 1 5.1 6.1 5.6 0.4 6.80
Rebar B Vinyl-ester 5 1 5.0 7.5 6.6 1.0 14.46
Rebar C Epoxy 3 1 6.4 7.5 7.0 0.5 6.57
Rebar C Epoxy 3 2 6.2 6.7 6.5 0.2 2.79
Rebar C Epoxy 5 1 5.6 6.8 6.4 0.5 7.98
Rebar C Epoxy 5 2 6.0 6.8 6.4 0.3 4.99

For numerical comparison and concluding values, Table 5.3 lists the minimum shear stress (∧),

93
the maximum shear stress (∧), the average shear stress (µ), the standard deviation (σ), and the

coefficient of variation (CV) for each individual test sample.

5.11 Tensile Test

The rebars were tested according to the ASTM D 7205 (ASTM-International, 2015a) to evaluate

the tensile properties. The obtained and processed data of the tensile strength test are shown in

this section via graphs and table.

5.11.1 Load vs. Displacement Behavior

To compare the load vs. displacement behavior of the different rebar samples and specimens, the

graphs in the Figure 5.23, 5.24, 5.29, and 5.30 plot the recorded test data. As shown, the x-axis of

the graph represents the cross-head extension — which has to be interpreted with care because it

includes the elastic deformation of the load frame and the test fixtures — and the y-axis indicates

the applied and measured load. Figure 5.23 shows that # 5 rebar type A sustained higher failure

Cross-Head Extension (in.)

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
250
Type A Epoxy # 3
Type A Epoxy # 3 50
200
40

Load (kip)
Load (kN)

150
Minimum guaranteed tensile load (29.1kips)
30
(# 5 rebars — FDOT Specifications)

100
20
Minimum guaranteed tensile load (13.2kips)

50 (# 3 rebars — FDOT Specifications)

10

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.23: Tensile strength vs. displacement behavior of rebar type A Lot 1 size 3 and 5

load in comparison with # 3 rebars. And the extension of rebar # 5 was almost twice that of the # 3

94
rebars extension. Figure 5.24 shows that the extension of # 5 was more than twice in comparison

Cross-Head Extension (in.)

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
300
Type B Vinyl-ester # 3
Type B Vinyl-ester # 3 60
250
50
200

Load (kip)
Load (kN)

40
150 Minimum guaranteed tensile load (29.1kips)
30
(# 5 rebars — FDOT Specifications)

100
20
Minimum guaranteed tensile load (13.2kips)

50 (# 3 rebars — FDOT Specifications)

10

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.24: Tensile strength vs. displacement behavior of rebar type B Lot 1 size 3 and 5

with # 3 rebars and the peak load was much higher. All the rebars failed in similar fashion. After

Cross-Head Extension (in.)

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
250
Type C Epoxy # 3
Type C Epoxy # 5 50
200
40
Load (kip)
Load (kN)

150
Minimum guaranteed tensile load (29.1kips)
30
(# 5 rebars — FDOT Specifications)

100
20
Minimum guaranteed tensile load (13.2kips)

50 (# 3 rebars — FDOT Specifications)

10

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.25: Tensile strength vs. displacement behavior of rebar type C Lot 1 size 3 and 5

95
 Cross-Head Extension (in.)
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
250
Type C Epoxy # 3
Type C Epoxy # 5 50
200
40

Load (kip)
Load (kN)

150
Minimum guaranteed tensile load (29.1kips)
30
(# 5 rebars — FDOT Specifications)

100
20
Minimum guaranteed tensile load (13.2kips)

50 (# 3 rebars — FDOT Specifications)

10

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Cross-Head Extension (mm)

Figure 5.26: Tensile strength vs. displacement behavior of rebar type C Lot 2 size 3 and 5

comparing Figures 5.25 and 5.26, it can be seen that the rebars of the same size from both the lots

of type C sustained the same peak load and failed in the same mode. Post failure extension of # 5

rebars was almost twice in comparison with # 3 rebars.

5.11.2 Stress vs. Strain Behavior

The stress-strain behavior of the failed rebars of all types was plotted to quantify and compare

the elastic moduli of the tested BFRP rebars. The data in the Figures 5.27, 5.28, 5.29, and 5.30

were plotted to compare the stress vs. strain behavior of the different rebar types. Accordingly,

the x-axis shows the applied stress while the y-axis represents the outermost surface strain that

was measured with an external extensometer (c.f. Chapter 4, section 4.3). The post failure results

plotted in the graph in Figure 5.27 show that although the load capacities of the different sized

rebars vary in large scale, the slope of the stress-strain curve is identical for all the rebars.

It can be seen in Figure 5.28 that the post failure results, also known as stress-strain behavior

of rebar type B are nonidentical for both the rebar sizes.

The post failure stress-strain behavior of rebar type C as shown in Figures 5.29 and 5.30 show

that the slopes of # 3 bars from different lots are identical but slopes of # 5 bars are not identical.

96
 300
Type A Epoxy # 3 40
Type A Epoxy # 5
250
32
Shear Stress (MPa)

200

Stress (ksi)
24
150

16
100

50 8

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Strain (%)

Figure 5.27: Tensile stress vs. strain behavior of rebar type A Lot 1 rebar size 3 and 5

300
Type B Vinyl-ester # 3
Type B Vinyl-ester # 5
250
Shear Stress (MPa)

200

Stress (ksi)
40
150 32

100 24
16
50
8
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Strain (%)

Figure 5.28: Tensile stress vs. strain behavior of rebar type B Lot 1 rebar size 3 and 5

97
 300
Type C Epoxy # 3 40
Type C Epoxy # 5
250
32
Shear Stress (MPa)

200

Stress (ksi)
24
150

16
100

50 8

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Strain (%)

Figure 5.29: Tensile stress vs. strain behavior of rebar type C Lot 1 rebar size 3 and 5

300
Type C Epoxy # 3 40
Type C Epoxy # 5
250
32
Shear Stress (MPa)

200

Stress (ksi)
24
150

16
100

50 8

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Strain (%)

Figure 5.30: Tensile stress vs. strain behavior of rebar type C Lot 2 rebar size 3 and 5

98
5.12 Modes of Failure

According to ASTM D 7205, three different failure modes may occur during a tensile strength test.

The first and expected one is the tensile rupture outside of the anchor pipes. Due to insufficient

sample preparation or test procedure issues, two more failure modes may occur. The rebar could

slip within the grouted anchor (rebar slippage) or the anchor could slip out of the fixture/grips

(anchor slippage). Therefore, the last two described failure modes lead to unusable results when

defining the material characteristics. However, for this research project, no specimen failed due to

rebar or anchor slippage. Hence, tensile rupture of the BFRP rebar was the recorded failure mode

for each bar that was tested.

Figure 5.31a and 5.32a show the failed specimens of type A rebars. It can be seen that all

specimens, regardless of their diameter, displayed similar failure pattern. The fibers formed a brush

type of failure and all specimens suffered fiber delamination throughout the entire free specimen

length. Figure 5.31b and 5.32b present the post failure pattern of type B rebar specimens. It is

shown that all the rebar sizes had an identical failure. The fibers were delaminated and a distinct

brush-like failure was observed. Similarly, Figure 5.31c and 5.32c # 5 rebars exemplify the failure

mode of type C rebars. All the specimens from two lots failed in a similar manner. After the peak

load was reached, a bundle of outer fibers failed and brushed out over the entire free specimen

length. After the first load drop, this behavior continued at each additional sudden load drop until

delamination reached the center of the rebar, and the specimen eventually separated into two parts

along the rebar axis.

99
 (a) Type A

(b) Type B

(c) Type C

Figure 5.31: # 3 rebar final failure pattern after tensile test

(a) Type A

(b) Type B

(c) Type C

Figure 5.32: # 5 rebar final failure pattern after tensile test

100
5.13 Summary of Tensile Properties

The results of the statistical evaluation for the measured tensile properties of all products along

with the elastic modulus property are listed in the following Table 5.4. A total of 40 specimen,

5 per rebar size and type, were tested and analyzed to determine the results shown in the table.

For numerical comparison and concluding values, Table 5.4 lists the minimum tensile stress (∧),

the maximum tensile stress (∧), the average tensile stress (µ), the standard deviation (σ), and the

coefficient of variation (CV) for each individual test sample.

101
 Table 5.4: Tensile strength test statistical values for each sample group (US Customary Units)

Sample group Statistical values

Tensile Strength Elastic Modulus
Manf. Resin Size Lot ∧ ∨ µ σ CV ∧ ∨ µ σ CV
Type Type # No. ksi ksi ksi ksi % ksi ksi ksi ksi %
Rebar A Epoxy 3 1 118.8 128.1 121.7 3.8 3.14 6742 7735 7238 3145 57.37
Rebar A Epoxy 5 1 127.8 137.9 134.2 4.3 3.23 7639 7990 7753 147 1.90
Rebar B Vinyl-ester 3 1 188.8 198.8 196.3 4.2 2.15 7542 7999 7808 179 2.29
Rebar B Vinyl-ester 5 1 161.9 183.2 172.5 9.2 5.32 7810 8301 7946 201 2.53
Rebar C Epoxy 3 1 178.2 189.3 183.9 4.8 2.61 5385 7659 7154 990 13.84
Rebar C Epoxy 5 1 139.6 171.8 161.2 12.9 7.97 7346 7933 7640 3312 62.88
Rebar C Epoxy 3 2 161.3 175.0 169.2 5.0 2.97 6531 7881 7200 516 7.16
Rebar C Epoxy 5 2 143.9 153.4 147.7 4.0 2.73 7065 8138 7479 410 5.48

5.14 Bond-to-Concrete Strength

The bond stress τmax (MPa or lbs./in.2 ) for a circular bar diameter d (mm or in.) is given by

Equation 5.1, in which F represents the recorded pullout load (N or lbs.) and L is the accurately

measured bond length (mm or in.).

F
τmax = [inMPa or psi] (5.1)
dπL

This formula was used to determine the bond behavior development and is the basis for the following

graphs; Figures 5.39, 5.40, 5.33, 5.34, 5.36, and 5.37 depict the measured bond stresses along the

rebar surfaces relative to the rebar slip at the free end. For clarity, the post failure measurements (at

the onset of a 50 % load drop) were removed from these graphs. All tested specimens failed at the

rebar-concrete interface in bond slip, without splitting the concrete open or without tensile failure.

The bond capacity and the failure behavior of the BFRP rebar-concrete interface were affected by

the surface enhancement features.

5.15 Bond Stress vs. Slip at Free End

The graphs in this section compare the bond stress vs. slip at free end of rebar. Graphs in

Figure 5.41, 5.35, and 5.38 portray bond stresses vs slip at free end of the rebars of both the sizes.

102
The x-axis of the graph signifies the measured bond stress, while the y-axis represents the slip of

rebar at the free end.

Generally, from the graphs in Figures 5.33 to 5.41, it can be seen that each rebar type resulted

in a consistent but distinct failure mode with ultimate stresses that were characteristic for each

rebar type. All of the sand-coated rebars (Type-A and B) showed a soft failure while the rebars

with a deformed surface (Type-C) failed suddenly with abrupt pullout.

Slip at Free End (in.)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15
5
30
4
Bond Stress (MPa)

Bond Stress (ksi)

20 3

#3 Specimen 1
2
#3 Specimen 2
10 Minimum bond strength (1.1ksi) #3 Specimen 3
(FDOT Specifications) #3 Specimen 4 1
#3 Specimen 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Slip at Free End (mm)
Figure 5.33: Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type A Lot 1 # 3

103
 Slip at Free End (in.)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
30 5

4
Bond Stress (MPa)

Bond Stress (ksi)

20
3

#5 Specimen 1
2
10 #5 Specimen 2
Minimum bond strength (1.1ksi)
#5 Specimen 3
(FDOT Specifications)
#5 Specimen 4 1
#5 Specimen 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Slip at Free End (mm)
Figure 5.34: Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type A Lot 1 # 5

Slip at Free End (in.)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15
5
30
4
Bond Stress (MPa)

Bond Stress (ksi)

20 3

2
10 Minimum bond strength (1.1ksi)

(FDOT Specifications) #3 1
#5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Slip at Free End (mm)
Figure 5.35: Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type A Lot 1 # 3 and # 5

104
 Slip at Free End (in.)
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
5
30
4
Bond Stress (MPa)

Bond Stress (ksi)

20 3

#3 Specimen 1
2
#3 Specimen 2
10 #3 Specimen 3
#3 Specimen 4 1
#3 Specimen 5
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Slip at Free End (mm)
Figure 5.36: Free end slip behavior of the tested rebars type B Lot 1 # 3

Slip at Free End (in.)

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
30 5

4
Bond Stress (MPa)

Bond Stress (ksi)

20
3

#5 Specimen 1
2
10 #5 Specimen 2
#5 Specimen 3
#5 Specimen 4 1
#5 Specimen 5
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Slip at Free End (mm)
Figure 5.37: Free end slip behavior of the tested rebars type B Lot 1 # 5

105
 Slip at Free End (in.)
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
5
30
4
Bond Stress (MPa)

Bond Stress (ksi)

20 3

2
10
#3 1
#5
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Slip at Free End (mm)
Figure 5.38: Free end slip behavior of the tested rebars type B Lot 1 # 3 and # 5

Slip at Free End (in.)

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
15
2
Bond Stress (MPa)

Bond Stress (ksi)

10 1.5

#3 Specimen 1 1
5 #3 Specimen 2
#3 Specimen 3 0.5
#3 Specimen 4
#3 Specimen 5
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Slip at Free End (mm)
Figure 5.39: Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type C Lot 1 # 3

106
 Slip at Free End (in.)
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
15
2
Bond Stress (MPa)

Bond Stress (ksi)

10 1.5

#5 Specimen 1 1
5 #5 Specimen 2
#5 Specimen 3 0.5
#5 Specimen 4
#5 Specimen 5
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Slip at Free End (mm)
Figure 5.40: Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type C Lot 1 # 5

Slip at Free End (in.)

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
15
2
Bond stress (MPa)

Bond Stress (ksi)

10 1.5

1
5
0.5
#3
#5
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Slip at Free End (mm)
Figure 5.41: Free end slip behavior of the tested rebar type C Lot 1 # 3 and # 5

107
5.16 Modes of Failure

After the pullout tests were completed, the concrete blocks were split in half to further evaluate the

failure mode by analyzing the surface of the rebar and the concrete. Figures 5.42, 5.43, 5.44, 5.45,

5.46, and 5.47 depict the different failure modes as they were observed after pullout testing. It
Loaded-end

Loaded-end
Free-end

Free-end
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2 (c) Specimen 3 (d) Specimen 4 (e) Specimen 5

Figure 5.42: Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type A Lot 1 rebar # 3
Loaded-end

Loaded-end
Free-end

Free-end
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2 (c) Specimen B (d) Specimen C (e) Specimen 5

Figure 5.43: Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type A Lot 1 rebar # 5

was noted that the rebar surface of all manufacturers was significantly damaged at the loaded end.

For rebar type A only the sand layer was pulled off from the concrete and the surface deformed

slightly, but the helical wraps remained in place. For rebar type B the layer between rebar and

sand coat, which was made of fiber mesh, was entirely peeled off from the rest of the rebar. For

rebar type C, de-bonding of the entire sand coat was observed (sand delamination). Close to the

unloaded end, the surface layer of the rebar did not peel off, and most parts of the sand-coated

layer remained well-adhered to the bar.

108
Loaded-end

Loaded-end
Free-end

Free-end
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2 (c) Specimen 3 (d) Specimen 4 (e) Specimen 5

Figure 5.44: Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type B Lot 1 rebar # 3
Loaded-end

Loaded-end
Free-end

Free-end
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2 (c) Specimen B (d) Specimen C (e) Specimen 5

Figure 5.45: Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type B Lot 1 rebar # 5
Loaded-end

Loaded-end
Free-end

Free-end

(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2 (c) Specimen 3 (d) Specimen 4 (e) Specimen 5

Figure 5.46: Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type C Lot 1 rebar # 3

109
Loaded-end

Loaded-end
Free-end

Free-end
(a) Specimen 1 (b) Specimen 2 (c) Specimen B (d) Specimen C (e) Specimen 5

Figure 5.47: Overview rebar surface after bond strength test on type C Lot 1 rebar # 5

110
5.17 Summary of Bond-to-Concrete Strength

The statistical values for the bond strength properties of the tested products are listed in the

following Table 5.5. A total of 30 specimens, five for each type and each size, were tested in total.

The average of five specimens was assigned to each sample (specimen group) as shown in the table.

All BFRP rebar samples satisfied the minimum acceptance criteria for the bond strength of glass

FRP rebars according to FDOT Specifications 932, with the ultimate values shown in Tables 4.3,

and 4.4. For numerical comparison and concluding values, Table 5.5 lists the minimum bond stress

(∧), the maximum bond stress (∧), the average bond stress (µ), the standard deviation (σ), and

the coefficient of variation (CV) for each individual test sample.

Table 5.5: Bond-to-concrete strength test statistical values for each sample

Sample Group Statistical Values

Manuf. Resin Size Lot ∧ ∨ µ σ CV
Type Type # No. ksi ksi ksi ksi %
Type A Epoxy 3 1 3.20 4.08 3.77 0.38 0.10
Type A Epoxy 5 1 3.33 4.16 3.77 0.32 0.08
Type B Vinyl-ester 3 1 2.39 3.05 2.79 0.27 0.10
Type B Vinyl-ester 5 1 2.81 2.95 2.88 0.05 0.02
Type C Epoxy 3 1 2.24 2.43 2.33 0.08 0.03
Type C Epoxy 5 1 2.89 3.01 2.96 0.04 0.02

5.18 BFRP Rebar Performance

This section summarizes the material performance of the evaluated BFRP rebar samples based on

the available acceptance criteria for glass FRP rebars, as shown in Tables 4.3, and 4.4, based on

three different specifications. Tables 5.6 and 5.7 summarizes and compares the results for the

type A rebar met or exceeded the acceptance criteria. The acceptance criteria for fiber content

properties of # 3 and # 5 rebar samples of type B are shown in Table 5.8 and Table 5.9 respectively.

Table 5.10 details the obtained results and the acceptance criteria for # 3 of type C rebar. It

can be seen that the cross section properties and fiber content properties of the rebar fell within

111
 Table 5.6: Acceptance criteria for rebar type A # 3

Per diameter FDOT 932-3/2017 AC454 ASTM D 7957

Test Method Test Description Unit Nom. Exp. Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7

ASTM D 792 Measured Cross-Sectional Area in.2 0.11 0.15 0.104 – 0.161 3 0.104 – 0.161 3 0.104 – 0.161 3

ASTM D 2584 Fiber Content % wt. 75.17 75.17 > 70 3 > 70 3 > 70 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Short Term @50 ◦C % 0.2 0.2 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Long Term @50 ◦C % 0.55 0.55 6 1.0 3 n/a n/a 6 1.0 3

ASTM D 7617 Min. Guaranteed Transverse Shear ksi 29.1 n/a > 22 3 > 22 3 > 19 3

ASTM D 4475 Horizontal Shear Stress ksi 5.75 n/a n/a n/a > 5.5 3 n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Load kip 13.4 13.4 > 13.2 3 > 13.2 3 > 13.2 3

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Strength ksi 121.7 105.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Tensile Modulus ksi 7306 6313 > 6, 500 3 > 6, 500 3 > 6, 500 3

ASTM D 7205 Max. Strain % 1.66 1.66 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ACI440. 3 R,B.3 Bond-to-Concrete Strength ksi 3.20 2.64 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3

Table 5.7: Acceptance criteria for rebar type A # 5

Per diameter FDOT 932-3/2017 AC454 ASTM D 7957

Test Method Test Description Unit Nom. Exp. Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7

ASTM D 792 Measured Cross-Sectional Area in.2 0.307 0.25 0.288 – 0.388 3 0.288 – 0.388 3 0.288 – 0.388 3

ASTM D 2584 Fiber Content % wt. 78.4 78.4 > 70 3 > 70 3 > 70 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Short Term @50 ◦C % 0.18 0.18 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Long Term @50 ◦C % 0.77 0.77 6 1.0 3 n/a n/a 6 1.0 3

ASTM D 7617 Min. Guaranteed Transverse Shear ksi 25.7 n/a > 22 3 > 22 3 > 19 3

ASTM D 4475 Horizontal Shear Stress ksi 6.22 n/a n/a n/a > 5.5 3 n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Load kip 41.2 41.2 > 29.1 3 > 32.2 3 > 29.1 3

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Strength ksi 137.9 121.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Tensile Modulus ksi 7749 6989 > 6, 500 3 > 6, 500 3 > 6, 500 3

ASTM D 7205 Max. Strain % 1.78 1.78 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ACI440. 3 R,B.3 Bond-to-Concrete Strength ksi 3.33 2.89 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3

the acceptance ranges, whereas the moisture absorption of the rebar exceeded specifications. The

rebar met and exceeded all acceptance ranges for all evaluated strength parameters. The following

Table 5.11 shows that # 5 rebar of type C were within the acceptance range for cross section,

fiber content, and shear properties, whereas the modulus of elasticity was lower than the required

minimum.

112
 Table 5.8: Acceptance criteria for rebar type B # 3

Per diameter FDOT 932-3/2017 AC454 ASTM D 7957

Test Method Test Description Unit Nom. Exp. Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7

ASTM D 792 Measured Cross-Sectional Area in.2 0.110 0.14 0.104 – 0.161 3 0.104 – 0.161 3 0.104 – 0.161 3

ASTM D 2584 Fiber Content % wt. 83.3 83.3 > 70 3 > 70 3 > 70 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Short Term @50 ◦C % 0.2 0.2 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Long Term @50 ◦C % 0.644 0.644 6 1.0 3 n/a n/a 6 1.0 3

ASTM D 7617 Min. Guaranteed Transverse Shear ksi 33.3 26.0 > 22 3 > 22 3 > 19 3

ASTM D 4475 Horizontal Shear Stress ksi 5.1 3.98 n/a n/a > 5.5 n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Load kip 20.9 20.9 > 13.2 3 > 13.2 3 > 13.2 3

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Strength ksi 183.6 148.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Tensile Modulus ksi 7542 5957 > 6, 500 3 > 6, 500 3 > 6, 500 3

ASTM D 7205 Max. Strain % 2.5 2.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ACI440. 3 R,B.3 Bond-to-Concrete Strength ksi 2.39 2.02 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3

Table 5.9: Acceptance criteria for rebar type B # 5

Per diameter FDOT 932-3/2017 AC454 ASTM D 7957

Test Method Test Description Unit Nom. Exp. Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7

ASTM D 792 Measured Cross-Sectional Area in.2 0.307 0.372 0.288 – 0.388 3 0.288 – 0.388 3 0.288 – 0.388 3

ASTM D 2584 Fiber Content % wt. 82.28 82.28 > 70 3 > 70 3 > 70 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Short Term @50 ◦C % 0.18 0.18 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Long Term @50 ◦C % 0.501 0.501 6 1.0 3 n/a n/a 6 1.0 3

ASTM D 7617 Min. Guaranteed Transverse Shear ksi 30.8 25.3 > 22 3 > 22 3 > 19 3

ASTM D 4475 Horizontal Shear Stress ksi 5.0 4.09 n/a n/a > 5.5 n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Load kip 49.7 49.7 > 29.1 3 > 32.2 3 > 29.1 3

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Strength ksi 144.9 133.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Tensile Modulus ksi 7819 6448 > 6, 500 3 > 6, 500 3 > 6, 500 3

ASTM D 7205 Max. Strain % 2.07 2.07 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ACI440. 3 R,B.3 Bond-to-Concrete Strength ksi 2.81 2.34 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3

113
 Table 5.10: Acceptance criteria for rebar type C # 3

Per diameter FDOT 932-3/2017 AC454 ASTM D 7957

Test Method Test Description Unit Nom. Exp. Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7

ASTM D 792 Measured Cross-Sectional Area in.2 0.110 0.109 0.104 – 0.161 3 0.104 – 0.161 3 0.104 – 0.161 3

ASTM D 2584 Fiber Content % wt. 82.035 82.035 > 70 3 > 70 3 > 70 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Short Term @50 ◦C % 0.20 0.20 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Long Term @50 ◦C % 0.75 0.75 6 1.0 3 n/a n/a 6 1.0 3

ASTM D 7617 Min. Guaranteed Transverse Shear ksi 33.59 33.59 > 22 3 > 22 3 > 19 3

ASTM D 4475 Horizontal Shear Stress ksi 6.38 6.38 n/a n/a > 5.5 3 n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Load kip 19.68 19.68 > 13.2 3 > 13.2 3 > 13.2 3

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Strength ksi 163.38 163.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Tensile Modulus ksi 6.933 6.933 > 6, 500 3 > 6, 500 3 > 6, 500 3

ASTM D 7205 Max. Strain % 2.34 2.34 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ACI440. 3 R,B.3 Bond-to-Concrete Strength ksi 2.24 1.98 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3

Table 5.11: Acceptance criteria for rebar type C # 5

Per diameter FDOT 932-7/2017 AC454 ASTM D 7957

Test Method Test Description Unit Nom. Exp. Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7 Criteria 3/7

ASTM D 792 Measured Cross-Sectional Area in.2 0.307 0.353 0.288 – 0.388 3 0.288 – 0.388 3 0.288 – 0.388 3

ASTM D 2584 Fiber Content % wt. 81.8 81.8 > 70 3 > 70 3 > 70 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Short Term @50 ◦C % 0.25 0.25 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3 6 0.25 3

ASTM D 570 Moist. Absorption Long Term @50 ◦C % 1.17 1.17 6 1.0 7 n/a n/a 6 1.0 7

ASTM D 7617 Min. Guaranteed Transverse Shear ksi 32.38 28.115 > 22 3 > 22 3 > 19 3

ASTM D 4475 Horizontal Shear Stress ksi 5.56 4.826 n/a n/a > 5.5 7 n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Load kip 42.82 42.82 > 29.1 3 > 32.2 3 > 29.1 3

ASTM D 7205 Min. Guaranteed Tensile Strength ksi 119.6 121.16 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ASTM D 7205 Modulus ksi 5710 5836 > 6, 500 7 > 6, 500 7 > 6, 500 7

ASTM D 7205 Max. Strain % 2.12 2.07 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ACI440. 3 R,B.3 Bond-to-Concrete Strength ksi 2.89 2.37 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3 > 1.1 3

114
Chapter 6

Discussion

To support the development of basalt-specific acceptance criteria for FDOT Specifications Section

932, this research was conducted with a focus on the physiomechanical properties of readily available

BFRP rebars. A test matrix — to address the cross-sectional properties, fiber content, moisture

absorption, transverse shear strength, horizontal shear strength, tensile properties, and bond-to-

concrete characteristics for three dissimilar rebars including two sizes (# 3 and # 5) — was developed

to evaluate the essential material properties for BFRP rebar characterization. Based on established

test standards and acceptance criteria for glass FRP (GFRP) rebars, BFRP rebars were classified for

performance, and it was found that all test samples (specimen groups) from rebar types A, B, and

# 3 rebar samples from type C satisfied the minimum requirements for GFRP rebars. Rebar # 5 of

type C satisfied all criteria except the maximum moisture absorption and minimum elastic modulus

criteria. In the following, these findings are discussed in further detail and studied in context of

the available and relevant literature to provide BFRP rebar implementation recommendations and

suggestions for future design specifications.

6.1 Research Significance

BFRP rebars are still considered new in civil engineering construction in the United States, but it

has been successfully used around the world in demonstration and low-risk projects (Singha, 2012;

Patnaik, 2009; Elgabbas et al., 2016). Before using new or emerging materials for infrastructure

projects, the physical and mechanical properties must be evaluated and compared to acceptance

criteria. In the case of emerging materials, acceptance criteria might not have been fully established

115
yet and research is needed to characterize a variety of products to determine general market quality

and to define adequate limiting values. In this report, recommendations for physical properties

such as cross-sectional dimensions, fiber content, and moisture absorption properties for BFRP

rebars are proposed. In addition, recommendations for minimum mechanical properties, including

the apparent horizontal shear strength, the transverse shear strength, the tensile properties, and

the bond-to-concrete characteristics are suggested. These suggestions are based on experimental

material evaluations, the above presented analyses, and the accompanying literature. These efforts

were necessary because acceptance criteria for the specific use of BFRP rebars in the U.S. are still

missing. More specifically, FDOT Specifications Section 932 provides defined minimum criteria

for glass and carbon based FRP rebars, but values for BFRP rebars have not been implemented

yet. Likewise, while some design codes like international building code AC454 (International Code

Council, 2017) generally allow the use of BFRP rebars for engineering structures, some design

guidelines in the USA, such as AASHTO LRFD guidelines (AASHTO, 2012, 2018), already provide

specific procedures for the structural design with glass and carbon FRP rebars — using defined

adjustment factors — explicit values for basalt have not been proposed yet. Accordingly, this

research project was needed to initiate the development of BFRP rebar specific acceptance criteria

and to open the discussion about adjustment factors for another rebar alternative.

6.2 Critical Analysis of Major Findings

Because various material properties were experimentally evaluated throughout this research project

and each property has its one specific relevance, these properties are individually discussed in the

following subsections.

6.2.1 Cross-Sectional property

The cross-sectional properties were measured according to ASTM D 792 (ASTM-International,

2015b), and it is an important characteristic because rebars are classified based on that diametric

size and the strength requirements are dependent on the actual rebar size (in form of the nominal

diameter). For traditional steel rebars, the tensile strength of rebar is directly related to effective

area. While this is not ultimately true for FRP rebars — as only the fibers carry the tensile loads

— it is a measurement that is needed due to design and detailing needs of reinforcement in con-

116
crete elements to this end, and in order to implement the use of FRP rebars, the same nominal

geometry used in steel rebar is specified for FRP rebars with th exception of a range to account

for different surface treatments, which for # 3 GFRP rebar is 0.11 in.2 , with a minimum measured

area of 0.104 in.2 and a maximum measured area of 0.161 in.2 For # 5 rebars, the nominal cross-

sectional area is given as 0.31 in.2 , with a minimum measured cross-sectional area of 0.228 in.2 and

a maximum of 0.338 in.2 . All rebars shall be within that range to avoid errors in assumed centroid

position for structural resistance calculations, any fit up errors in detailing such as spacing, cover

or clearance, and consistency in product approval (Hurtado, 2018; AASHTO, 2018). Likewise, the

production sequence for BFRP rebars and the load transfer is similar to glass fiber based rebars,

which allows similar definitions for both rebar types (Kampmann et al., 2018).

6.2.2 Fiber Content

The experiments and the accompanying mathematical procedures to determine the fiber content per-

centage for FRP rebars are specified in material standard ASTM D 2584 -11(ASTM-International,

2011). Fiber content (given in percent) plays a key role in the tensile behavior and load capacity

of FRP rebars because induced stresses are mostly carried by the fibers, while the resin matrix

must be stiff and elastic enough to transfer the loads between the individual fibers. The minimum

fiber content percentage required for GFRP rebars according to FDOT Specifications Section 932,

AC454 (International Code Council, 2017), and ASTM D7957 (ASTM-International, 2017) which

follows ASTM D 2584 -11 (ASTM-International, 2011), is 70 %. After careful evaluation on the

tested samples, it was seen that two of the three BFRP rebar products exceeded the required min-

imum criteria by at least 10 %. The third manufactured product exceeded the criteria by 5 % on

average. Further decrease in the fiber content percentage may affect the stress transfer capacity of

the rebar. However, it appears reasonable to suggest a minimum fiber content percentage for BFRP

rebars that is similar to that for GFRP products because the observed load carrying and stiffness

behaviors were acceptable in the context of the measured fiber contents. As mentioned by You et al.

(2015); ACI Committee 440 (2015), fiber contents less than 70 % are not acceptable because the

fiber-volume faction significantly affects the tensile strength and quality of FRP rebars. Additional

research and analyses are required to establish a precise correlation between fiber content percent-

age and its effects on the rebar strength to support any modifications of the GFRP specifications

117
for a BFRP specific minimum. For now, the 70 % minimum criteria seems to be appropriate for

BFRP rebars as well and should be adopted in FDOT Specifications Section 932.

6.2.3 Moisture Absorption of BFRP rebar

ASTM D 5229 (ASTM, 2014) details seven different test procedures (A through E,Y, and Z) for

estimating moisture absorption properties for FRPs in different environments. Procedure A is

most commonly used, and therefore, was followed for this research project. It is considered that

the moisture absorption correlates to durability and the corresponding strength retention, where

high moisture absorption values are indicative of a porous rebar that is more prone to degrada-

tion. According to FDOT Specifications Section 932, which follows ASTM D 5229 (ASTM, 2014)

section 7.1, AC454 (International Code Council, 2017), and ASTM D7957 (ASTM-International,

2017), the maximum short-term moisture absorption limit for GFRP rebars is 0.25 % by weight.

In addition, the long-term moisture absorption specified by FDOT Specifications Section 932 and

ASTM D7957 (ASTM-International, 2017) is less than 1 %. After proper evaluation of the tested

specimens, it was found that the long-term moisture absorption of BFRP rebars was less than 1 %.

Kampmann et al. (2019) discussed the long term behavior of GFRP rebars, and it was found that

the rebar strength and the micro structure durability is severely affected by an increased moisture

absorption property. As increased moisture absorption affects the strength and strength retention

of FRP rebars, it is reasonable to suggest that the BFRP rebar should follow the criteria estab-

lished for GFRP moisture absorption properties (Kampmann et al., 2018). Nevertheless, it must

be emphasized that basalt fibers contain approximately 7 % iron oxide, which makes them poten-

tially more vulnerable in alkaline-chloride (concrete-saltwater) environments (Stekloplastics, 2014;

Toni Schneider, 2015; Kochergin et al., 2013). Accordingly, a more critical moisture absorption

value may eventually be necessary for BFRP rebars, but more research will be needed to support

this claim. Until then, it is not advisable to use BFRP rebars in salty or submerged environments.

6.2.4 Transverse Shear Strength

ASTM D 7617 (ASTM-International, 2012b) was followed to test and analyze the transverse shear

data obtained from BFRP rebar testing. FRP rebars are weak in the transverse direction or perpen-

dicular to the rebar longitudinal axis due to the unidirectionality of the fibers and the corresponding

118
low shear strength of the fibers.According to FDOT Specification Section 932, which is in agreement

h AC454 (International Code Council, 2017), GFRP rebars are required to reach a minimum shear

strength of 22 ksi before rupture. These values are more critical than the 19 ksi minimum transverse

shear strength required by ASTM D 7957 (ASTM-International, 2017). After careful testing and

analyses, the evaluated # 3 BFRP rebars sustained shear stresses before ultimate failure ranging

from 30 ksi to 36 ksi and # 5 rebars sustained stresses between 26 ksi and 33 ksi. Based on the

results obtained in this study, in comparison to other studies (Kampmann et al., 2018; Chen et al.,

2007; ElSafty et al., 2014), BFRP rebars have a higher strength compared to GFRP rebars. This

research suggests that the minimum transverse shear strength criteria for BFRP rebars can be equal

to the specification for GFRP rebars, given that other rebars sizes have not been evaluated and

the specification should remain equal regardless of the rebar size. The Authors suggest that with

additional test data the specification for trasnverse shear strength may be increased up to 20 %.

This specifications needs to be validated both for the average value as well as the guaranteed value,

if BFRP products are considered for dowel applications as well, the higher shear strength of BFRP

in comparison to GFRP can be beneficial (Brown and Bartholomew, 1993; Eddie, 1999).

6.2.5 Apparent Horizontal Shear Strength

The horizontal shear test was conducted according to ASTM D 4475 (ASTM-International, 2012a)

standards. AC454 (International Code Council, 2017) specifies a minimum of 5.5 ksi horizontal shear

strength for GFRP bars. It has been noted that the FDOT Specifications and ASTM D 7957 (ASTM-

International, 2017) currently does not include minimum horizontal shear strength requirements for

rebars made from any fiber material. The horizontal shear failure, however, is an indicator of the

resin strength and the resin-to-sizing-to-fiber interface and as such important for the load transfer

mechanism. Ultimately, this mechanical property is a suitable quality control measure. After a

manufacturer survey was conducted — as part of the literature review process, c.f. Section 3.3 —

to identify common practices in the FRP rebar industry, it was noted that horizontal shear tests

are one of the most common quality control methods that manufacturers use to ensure production

consistency (because it is a mechanical test that can be conducted quickly). Accordingly, FDOT

Specifications Section 932 would benefit from limiting minimum values for the acceptance of FRP

rebars because it would provide a direct benefit to the manufacturing community and the inter-

119
section between FDOT and technology implementation; this quality control parameter could be

directly targeted during production — and quickly evaluated. The horizontal shear strength of # 3,

and # 5 GFRP rebars appears to range around 6 ksi (c.f. Kampmann et al. (2018)) with a minimum

average of 5.2 ksi. Based on the experimental results obtained for this study, basalt FRP rebars

with a size of # 3 and # 5 measure a minimum average apparent horizontal shear strength of 5.6 ksi

and an absolute minimum value of 5.0 ksi. According to AC454 (International Code Council, 2017)

and Canadian Standard Association (2018), the minimum horizontal shear strength of BFRP rebars

should be 5.5 ksi. Hence, for now, a minimum requirement of 5.5 ksi for the apparent horizontal

shear strength, tested on at least five specimens, appears to be an adequate addition to FDOT

Specifications Section 932.

6.2.6 Tensile Properties

The tensile strength and elastic modulus of BFRP rebars were evaluated based on procedures and

methods detailed in ASTM D 7205 (ASTM-International, 2015a). Minimum guaranteed tensile

load requirements for # 3 and # 5 GFRP rebars according to FDOT Specifications Section 932,

AC454 (International Code Council, 2017), and ASTM D 7957 (ASTM-International, 2017) are

13.2 kip and 29.1 kip, respectively. Based on the findings from this research project and projects

targeting glass fiber based rebars (Kampmann et al., 2018), on average BFRP rebars provide a

relatively higher ultimate tensile load capacity and modulus — as compared to GFRP rebars (Ben-

mokrane et al., 2015). It was noted that the minimum tensile load sustained by # 3 BFRP rebars

is 19.7 kip and that of # 5 rebars was 42.8 kip . In addition, the elastic moduli of BFRP rebars were

measured with a minimum of 8000 ksi (c.f. Table 5.4). The elastic moduli of GFRP rebar according

to Kampmann et al. (2018) reached average values of approximately 7 ksi. All tested BFRP rebar

types superseded the minimum strength criteria for GFRP rebars. According to research done

by Patnaik (2009), BFRP rebars are stronger in tension and Wang et al. (2017) proved that long-

term durability of BFRP rebars in harsh environments is higher in comparison to GFRP rebars.

Wei et al. (2010) tested chemical durability of GFRP and BFRP rebars and found that BFRP

rebars are durable and stronger in tension. Further detailed testing of a wide range of rebars from

several manufacturers is required to fully study the strength properties of rebar and to properly

define a minimum required criteria that is more critical than the one given for glass based FRP

120
rebars. However, if basalt fiber specific criteria are desirable for the tensile properties, the data in

this research suggests that the minimum strength and elastic modulus should be similar for GFRP

rebars.

6.2.7 Bond-to-Concrete Strength

The bond-to-concrete strength of the rebar specimen was tested according to procedure described

in ASTM D 7913 (ASTM International, 2014). The minimum guaranteed bond strength required

for GFRP rebars according to FDOT Specifications Section 932, AC454 (International Code Coun-

cil, 2017) and ASTM D 7957 (ASTM-International, 2017) is 1.1 ksi. Based on the measurements

obtained in this research and a careful analyses of the results, the bond-to-concrete strength of # 3

rebars ranged from 2.2 ksi to 3.2 ksi and it varied between 2.8 ksi and 3.3 ksi for # 5 BFRP rebars.

These results, in comparison to other studies (Kampmann et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2007; Brik, 2003;

Li et al., 2017; Hassan et al., 2016), show that the bond-to-concrete strength of basalt FRP rebars

is similar to the recorded bond strength of GFRP rebars. The bond strength of FRP rebars is a

function of the geometric and surface enhancement features. As the surface for FRP rebars is either

deformed or sand coated (or possibly both), it is reasonable to assume that the bond behavior of

basalt FRP rebars is similar to the bond behavior of glass or other FRP rebars since equivalent

friction is generated, irrespective of the fiber type. To this end, this research suggests that the

minimum bond-to-concrete strength criteria for BFRP rebars should remain consistent with GFRP

available specifications at a minimum guaranteed bond strength of 1.1 ksi.

6.3 Supplementary Findings

Two of the three tested rebar types for this research included rebars made with epoxy resins. The

mechanical performance of the rebars made from epoxy resin was higher than the rebars made from

other resin. Through the state-of-the-production-practice review, it was noted that many/most

basalt rebar producers across the globe uses epoxy resin in the manufacturing processes. It appears

that epoxy resins are suitable for the production of basalt FRP rebars and that such constituent

materials should be considered in future updates of FDOT Specifications Section 932. However,

additional research with a focus on physical and mechanical properties in response to chemical

durability for rebars made with different resins should be considered.

121
 Comparing the findings from this research to the findings made in a previous study with a focus

on GFRP (Kampmann et al., 2018), it can be seen that the maximum strain and elongation of

BFRP rebars surpasses the maximum strains of glass fiber based rebars. The research completed

by Wang et al. (2014) has also shown that the tensile strength retention of BFRP rebars is higher

than the tensile strength retention of GFRP rebars. In addition, the maximum strain of BFRP is

higher. Likewise, the elastic lengthening of BFRP tendons is higher than that of steel (Thorhallsson

and Jonsson, 2012; Pearson et al., 2013) and it might be beneficial to evaluate basalt fiber materials

for the use of prestressing tendons to make additional alternatives available that can be used for

prestressed concrete elements that are completely steel- or corrosion-free.

6.4 BFRP Design Specifications

AASHTO-LRFD specifications for the design of concrete bridges reinforced with BFRP rebars are

yet to be developed. Only ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria AC454 (International Code Council, 2017)

provides referenced design recommendations and a method of acceptance for BFRP reinforcing

under US building codes for alternative materials. The current FDOT Standard Specifications for

Road and Bridge Construction Section 932, which details FRP internal reinforcement for concrete

structures, does not include or address requirements or minimum criteria for basalt fiber rebars. This

research project aims at addressing this knowledge gap by providing recommendations for BFRP

rebar specifications. To this end, four different tests were conducted. The assigned guaranteed shear

strengths and bond-to-concrete strengths of the tested rebars is the average value for the individual

test sample (specimen group). In other words, the mean sample shear strength of the rebars is

considered as guaranteed shear strength and mean bond-to-concrete strength is considered as the

guaranteed bond-to-concrete strength (ASTM-International, 2012a,b; ASTM International, 2014).

To summarize the guaranteed mechanical strength values for all rebar types evaluated in this study,

the following Tables 6.1 and 6.2 list the shear and bond-to-concrete characteristics, as well as the

tensile properties, respectively. Table 6.1 highlights the transverse shear strength, the horizontal

shear strength, and the bond-to-concrete strength for the three different BFRP rebar types (A, B,

C). The final results (per test group) were compared to the acceptance criteria for GFRP rebars as

given in FDOT Specifications Section 932, such that the prevalent value for the GFRP acceptance

criteria represent 100 % and a value above 100 % indicates a performance above the minimum

122
 Table 6.1: Guaranteed shear and bond-to-concrete strength of rebars

Transverse Shear Horizontal Shear Bond-to-Concrete

Strength Strength Strength

Rebar size Lot ksi MPa %† ksi MPa %† ksi MPa %†

#3 1 35.20 242.7 160 7.00 48.31 n/a 2.33 16.09 212

Rebar A

#5 1 33.74 232.7 153 6.41 44.16 n/a 2.96 20.41 269

#3 2 37.67 259.7 171 6.49 44.71 n/a 1.92 13.22 174

#5 2 36.48 251.6 166 6.41 44.15 n/a 1.65 11.41 150

Rebar B

#3 1 31.39 216.3 143 6.42 44.22 n/a 2.79 19.23 254

#5 1 26.51 182.8 120 6.53 45.00 n/a 2.88 19.85 262

Rebar C

#3 1 34.48 237.2 157 5.56 38.38 n/a 3.77 26.00 343

#5 1 31.69 218.5 144 6.64 45.77 n/a 3.77 26.01 343

† Percentage comparison based on FDOT specifications section 932, where 100 % is GFRP rebar accep-
tance criteria .

requirement (for GFRP rebars). According to ACI Committee 440 (2015), the guaranteed strength,

ff∗u , of GFRP rebars is defined as the experimentally obtained average tensile strength minus three

times the measured standard deviation, as shown in equation 6.1, while the guaranteed elastic

modulus, Ef = Ef,ave , is defined as the mean elastic modulus of a test sample (specimen group).

ff∗u = ff uaverage − 3σ (6.1)

Accordingly, the calculated value for ff∗u corresponds to the 99th percentile (Rossini et al., 2018),

such that the chance for material failure (before any design factors are applied) remains below

1 %. The strength of commercially available GFRP rebars differs based on the fiber content and

manufacturing techniques (Emparanza et al., 2017), and the guaranteed strength is typically exper-

imentally determined at the time of (concrete) design. If a specific rebar product strength is not

defined experimentally at that time, the manufacturer specified rebar strength (ff0 u ) is to be used

(ACI Committee 440, 2015; Rossini et al., 2018). This specified design strength, ff0 u , is always less

123
than the guaranteed strength (c.f. equation 6.2) of the particular rebar lot that is to be used for

construction.

ff0 u < ff∗u (6.2)

While most strength values for the basalt FRP rebars tested in this research showed that basalt

rebars have a higher performance, the general material behavior appeared to be similar to the

behavior of GFRP bars, and it is reasonable to assume that Equation 6.2 applies and can be used

to calculate the guaranteed strength of basalt rebars. Accordingly, Table 6.2 lists the guaranteed

strength values and elastic moduli for the three different BFRP rebar types (A, B, C) tested in this

study, and the results are compared to criteria for GFRP rebar according to FDOT Specifications

Section 932. The results in Table 6.2 show that both # 3 and # 5 type B rebars were the strongest

Table 6.2: Guaranteed strength and elastic modulus of rebars

Tensile Strength Elastic

Mean Sta. Deviation Guaranteed Modulus

µ σ µ − 3σ E

Rebar size Lot ksi MPa ksi MPa ksi MPa %† ksi GPa %†
Rebar A

#3 1 121.7 839 3.82 26.36 110.2 760 92 5482 37.80 84

#5 1 134.2 925 4.34 29.92 121.3 836 129 7735 53.46 119
Rebar B

#3 1 196.3 1353 4.21 29.03 183.6 1266 153 7808 53.83 120

#5 1 172.5 1189 9.19 63.33 145.0 999 155 7946 54.79 122

#3 1 183.9 1268 4.80 33.12 169.5 1168 141 7154 49.32 110
Rebar C

#5 1 161.2 1112 12.85 88.63 122.7 1074 131 5267 36.31 81

#3 2 169.2 1166 5.03 34.69 154.1 1062 128 7200 49.64 111

#5 2 147.8 1019 4.04 27.86 135.6 935 145 7480 51.57 115
† Percentage comparison based on FDOT specifications section 932, where 100 % is GFRP rebar acceptance
criteria .

among all tested rebar samples. But the standard deviation of # 3 type A rebars was the smallest,

while the type C # 5 rebars measure the highest standard deviation. The graphs in Figures 6.1

and 6.2 visualize the Gaussian distribution for the measured tensile strength results for # 3 and # 5

rebar, respectively. The mean value and guaranteed tensile strength (µ − 3σ) are indicated on the

124
 Rebar A Lot1 # 3 Rebar A Lot2 # 3
0.12

0.1
3σ = 14.4 3σ = 15.09
probability/ksi

0.08

µ − 3σ = 169.5

µ − 3σ = 154.1
0.06

µ = 183.9

µ = 169.2
0.04

0.02

0
Rebar B Lot1 # 3 Rebar C Lot1 # 3
0.12
3σ = 11.46 3σ = 12.63
0.1
probability/ksi

0.08
µ − 3σ = 110.2

µ − 3σ = 183.6
µ = 121.7

µ = 196.3
0.06

0.04

0.02

0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
ksi ksi

Figure 6.1: Gaussian distribution for tensile strength of # 3 rebars

Rebar A Lot1 # 5 Rebar A Lot2 # 5

0.12
3σ = 12.12
0.1
3σ = 38.55
probability/ksi

0.08
µ − 3σ = 135.6

µ = 147.8
µ − 3σ = 122.7

0.06
µ = 161.2

0.04

0.02

0
Rebar B Lot1 # 5 Rebar C Lot1 # 5
0.12
3σ = 13.02
0.1
3σ = 27.57
probability/ksi

0.08
µ − 3σ = 121.3

µ − 3σ = 145.0
µ = 134.2

0.06
µ = 172.5

0.04

0.02

0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
ksi ksi

Figure 6.2: Gaussian distribution for tensile strength of # 5 rebars

125
curves. It can be concluded that the guaranteed tensile strength of BFRP rebars can be derived

similar to GFRP rebars.

6.4.1 Design Guide Considerations

According to AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specifications for GFRP Reinforced Concrete

and ACI 440.1R Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bars, strength reduction factors must be applied to decrease the

design strength of FRP to overcome strength degradations (c.f. Table 6.3). The guaranteed strength

of FRP rebars must be reduced by applying the environmental factor (CE ) (ACI Committee 440,

2015) to account for the strength loss due to exposure conditions. Likewise, the design strength

for FRP rebars under sustained load must be reduced via the creep rupture factor (Cc ) to avoid

premature failure due to creep (ACI Committee 440, 2015; du Béton, 2007). The fatigue reduction

factor (Cf ) must be applied to properly define the strength of FRP rebars under cyclic loading.

For the design of FRP rebar reinforced concrete structures, a reduction factor (Cb ) has to be

applied to the bond-to-concrete strength values listed in Table 6.1 to account for the different

surface enhancement properties, which may differ significantly in comparison to steel rebars (ACI

Committee 440, 2015). ACI Committee 440 (2015) defines the bond reduction factor as the inverse

of the bond coefficient (kb ), which is larger than 1.0 for FRP rebars with a bond strength that

is inferior to the bond strength for traditional steel rebars and less than 1.0 for FRP rebars with

superior bond strength.

The brittle nature of FRPs implies a possibility of over-reinforced flexural members, which leads

to concrete failure in the compression zone or to under-reinforced compression members, which

may cause reinforcement rupture in the tension zone (ACI Committee 440, 2015; Rossini et al.,

2018). The two failure modes — failure in the compression zone and rupture in the tension zone

— are characterized by two different strength factors φc and φt respectively (ACI Committee 440,

2015; Rossini et al., 2018). As flexural members can sometimes undergo shear failure, the strength

reduction factor φs is incorporated in the design; in other words, the nominal shear resistance of

the designed member shall be reduced to factored shear resistance (Rossini et al., 2018). These

factors are applied during the design phase to reduce the estimated nominal moment of a reinforced

concrete member. Table 6.3 provides an overview of these factor and exemplifies how each factors

126
is applied in the design procedures according to ACI Committee 440 (2015); AASHTO (2018). The

Table 6.3: Reduction factors

Reduction factor Equation used in design

Environmental factor (CE ) ff d = CE ff0 u

Creep rupture factor (Cc ) ff,c = Cc ff d = CE Cc ff0 u

Fatigue rupture factor (Cf ) ff,f = Cf ff d = CE Cf ff0 u

Bond reduction factor (Cb ) (Cb ) = 1/kb

Factor for compression-controlled failures (φc ) M r = φ c Mn

Factor for tension-controlled failures (φt ) M r = φ t Mn

Factor for shear-controlled failures (φs ) V r = φs V n

results obtained through this research can be used to initiate the development of the bond factor

for BFRP rebars in concrete structures. A detailed research focusing on the reduction factors and

long-term durability of BFRP rebars in harsh environments is suggested because this would inform

future iterations of the AASHTO LRFD bridge specifications for BFRP rebars and also helps with

updates to ACI 440 codes for the implementation of BFRP design specifications.

6.5 Research Limitations

This research project was focused toward a BFRP rebar market analysis and the performance

evaluation of three different BFRP rebar products. It was found that numerous readily available

rebar types exist, with a range of strength properties, and that those properties are dependent on

the different raw materials and surface enhancement features (chosen by the manufacturer). While

an effort was made to evaluate representative and commonly available BFRP rebar products, this

study was limited to the specific material compositions used by the three selected manufacturers.

Likewise, for economical considerations, only the two most common rebar sizes were tested. Only

one manufacturer was able to supply material from two lots, while the other two manufacturers were

still developing their production lines and only supplied materials from their pilot productions. The

results obtained from this research are currently used by the manufacturers to improve the quality

of production of the rebars. Accordingly, it must be noted that the presented conclusions have to

127
be interpreted with care when using other products or different material compositions. While the

findings seem adequate and applicable in the context of the BFRP rebar technology, it is emphasized

that the derived conclusions are not universal. Because acceptance criteria for BFRP rebar are still

under development for FDOT Specifications Section 932, all obtained results were benchmarked

relative to the existing acceptance criteria for GFRP rebars.

BFRP rebars are intended for use in harsh environments. Therefore, a long-term durability

analysis of these rebars must be done because those aspects could not be addressed through this

research project. Only BFRP rebar material properties were tested, while the application behavior

of these rebars in concrete elements such as beams, columns, and slabs was not studied here. The

presented findings provide insight and initial guidance for the adoption of BFRP rebars in FDOT

Specifications and suggestions for future iterations of design guidelines. But the authors explicitly

advise acting with caution when extrapolating the findings and conclusions to other or future FRP

rebar materials.

6.6 Future and Further Directions

It is noted that no long-term tests were performed throughout this project and that additional

durability analyses for BFRP rebars in extreme environments shall be conducted. It appears vital

because of the unique chemical composition of basalt fibers and the interaction they can potentially

undergo in saline-rich environments heterodyned with high pH concentrations. This may be one

of the most important aspects for a proper life cycle of concrete structures reinforced with BFRP

rebars in aggressive environments (e.g.; coastal bridges) because of the highly basic conditions of

the rebar surrounding cementitious paste.

Lu et al. (2015) compared virgin to aged, pultruded BFRP plates and rebars to measure the

effect of thermal aging (at 135 ◦C and 300 ◦C for four hours) on the longitudinal tensile strength

and the interlaminar shear properties. It was found that the degradation process of aged rebars

immersed in alkaline solution and distilled water accelerated due to thermal aging. Similarly, Al-

talmas et al. (2015) studied the bond-to-concrete durability properties of sand coated basalt fiber

reinforced polymer (BFRP) rebars and glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) rebars via accelerated

conditioning in acidic, saline, and alkaline solutions for 30 days, 60 days, and 90 days. The results

showed that the bond strength retention was reduced for rebars immersed in acid solution, alkaline,

128
and saline environments, as compared to un-aged rebars; all rebars failed in interlaminar shear.

Wang et al. (2017) tested tensile strength and Young’s modulus properties of BFRP and GFRP

rebars exposed to seawater and sea sand concrete (SWSSC). The rebars were exposed to normal

SWSSC (N-SWSSC), and high performance SWSSC (HP-SWSSC) at room temperature, 40 ◦C,

48 ◦C, and 50 ◦C for 21 days, 42 days, and 63 days. When compared to HP-SWSSC, N-SWSSC was

more aggressive on both BFRP and GFRP bars due to the high alkali ion concentration. In high

temperature environments, the GFRP rebars were more durable than the BFRP rebars because of

the different resins. Based on the SEM, 3D X-ray, and CT-results, the resin properties of GFRP

bars were more stable in SWSSC conditions than the resin used for the tested BFRP rebars. In

research projects conducted by Benmokrane et al. (2017) and Kajorncheappunngam et al. (2002),

the long-term durability in alkali environments at accelerated temperatures for rebars made with

different resins was evaluated. It was seen that the performance of epoxy resins was comparably

good and acceptable.

Wei et al. (2011) studied degradation of basalt fiber-epoxy resin and glass fiber-epoxy resin

composites in seawater, and it was found that the bending and tensile strength decreased with

increased immersion times. This study also emphasized that the chemical stability of BFRP rebars

can be improved by lowering the Fe+2 ions in basalt rock and durability of rebar in seawater can

be increased.

As mentioned before and based on the above listed research studies, it is suggested to conduct

degradation analyses of BFRP rebars in harsh environments. Furthermore, because the micro-

structure porosity and the moisture absorption of FRP rebars are closely related, SEM analysis

of basalt fiber rebar specimens after long-term moisture absorption tests should be performed to

evaluate the rebar properties at the micro level and to define its vulnerability to degradation. New

products should be characterized via SEM technology, such that the findings and images can be

stored for comparison to future iterations of specific product lines. The development of a product

database is highly suggested. It appears that long-term durability performance of BFRP rebars

in concrete structures has not been sufficiently studied yet. To fully embrace this technology, it

is important to study the flexural and shear properties of BFRP rebar reinforced concrete beams

after exposing them to aggressive environments for extended periods. Therefore, it is suggested to

evaluate the performance of BFRP rebars and strength retention in concrete elements exposed to

129
different environmental conditions.

130
Chapter 7

Conclusions

To provide a concise overview of the tasks performed for this research project, a brief summary of

the experimental work and the analysis is provided in this chapter, before the final conclusion and

future recommendations — based on the overall findings and the discussion presented in Chapter 6

— are listed here.

7.1 Summary

This project was conducted to evaluate the performance of three commercially available BFRP

rebar products to assist the Florida Department of Transportation in the development of accep-

tance criteria for basalt based fiber reinforced polymer (BFRP) reinforcing bars for the extension

of FDOT Specifications Section 932 — Nonmetallic Accessory Materials for Concrete Pavement

and Concrete Structures. Three high-quality rebar products from different established FRP rebar

producers were selected to evaluate two of the most commonly used rebar sizes (# 3 and # 5) and

to fully characterize the relevant material properties. It was the goal to study the effects of dif-

ferent material constituents and surface enhancement properties. For the purpose of this research,

a total of three different physical properties (cross-sectional dimensions, moisture absorption, and

fiber content) and four mechanical strength characteristics (transverse shear strength, apparent hor-

izontal shear strength, tensile strength and elastic modulus, and bond-to-concrete strength) were

experimentally quantified for virgin state BFRP rebars. Because acceptance criteria for basalt

FRP rebars does not yet exist in the US, the findings were compared to the prevalent minimum

criteria for glass FRP rebars. The measured and analyzed data showed that two of the three re-

131
bar products (Type A and B), irrespective of their size, met the GFRP rebar criteria defined in

FDOT Specifications Section 932. The other rebar Type C met all performance criteria for the

# 3 rebar size, but rebar size # 5 did not meet the acceptance criteria for moisture absorption or

elastic modulus properties. Performance differences were noted for rebar products from different

manufacturers because of dissimilarities in material production and surface enhancement properties.

However, basalt fiber rebar products appear to be a viable alternative as a non-corrosive rebar op-

tion for future FDOT construction projects, and the data gathered throughout this research showed

that high-quality BFRP rebars are available in the American market. A standardized use of such

rebars seem feasible based on appropriate acceptance criteria because BFRP rebars outperform

the already accepted/established GFRP rebars. While the development of acceptance criteria for

BFRP rebars has been initiated through this project, and an implementation of this alternative

reinforcing technology should be strongly considered by the FDOT, more critical BFRP-specific

performance criteria — beyond GFRP performance criteria — can be developed in future projects

to further differentiate the various fiber types and to take full advantage of the available material

characteristics.

7.2 Conclusions

Based on the research findings which were obtained through a comprehensive literature review,

a BFRP rebar market analysis, material characterization, and the discussion points presented

throughout this report, the following conclusions were drawn:

• A variety of BFRP rebar types and sizes, with dissimilar physical and strength properties, are

currently available in the market. The strength properties of different types of rebars vary

vastly based on the manufacturer type, raw materials, and surface enhancement property.

While manufacturer reported properties vary, BFRP rebars appear to be [notably] stronger

than GFRP rebars.

• The fiber content of BFRP rebars appears to be well-controlled throughout the manufacturing

process, and it is nearly identical between various products (or the tested rebar types). This

property was notably consistent with minimal coefficients of variations, which indicates high-

quality products.

132
• Differences in performance of rebars were observed based on the moisture absorption property,

specifically for the material that did not satisfy the maximum absorption criteria. It appears

that the rebar strength is inversely proportional to moisture absorption property because of

the related porosity that potentially leads to material imperfections.

• The transverse shear strength of BFRP rebars appears to be measurably stronger than the

the transverse shear strength of GFRP rebars. The data showed that BFRP outperformed

the minimum GFRP criteria by at least 116 %.

• Because the apparent horizontal shear strength is dependent on the quality of the resin and

the resin-fiber interface — and less influenced by the fiber itself — this property was not

significantly different from measurements usually obtained for GFRP products. Nevertheless,

this property is a valuable quality control parameter that is used by many manufacturers

around the world to quickly recognize/address production inconsistencies. As such, FDOT

Specifications Section 932 should adopt a minimum threshold value.

• The size effect or shear lag for BFRP rebars with sizes between # 3 and # 5 is notably higher.

These phenomenon occurred because BFRP rebars are a product of composite materials and

they are produced in multiple layers. Due to the test procedure, the external fibers are

stretched the most, while the inner layers stretch less towards the rebar core and can only be

fully utilized after the outer fibers fail.

• Similar to GFRP rebars, for BFRP rebars which were manufactured with helical wraps — as

surface enhancement property — the helically wrapped fibers ruptured before the longitudinal

fibers failed in tension.

• The bond-to-concrete property of BFRP rebars is highly dependent on the surface enhance-

ment features and the rebar geometry. Due to the geometric interlocking effect, helically

wrapped rebars (in addition to being sand coated) measured the highest absolute bond-to-

concrete strength, while the rebar slip was significantly minimized — in comparison to the

measured slip for sand coated rebars.

• The minimum criteria for bond-to-concrete of ≥ 1.1 ksi appears to be at the lower limit,

because all rebars tested in this study outperformed this criteria by more than 200 %, with

133
 individual rebar types beyond 300 %.

• Based on the performance analysis of the tested BFRP rebars and an evaluation of all obtained

results in context of FDOT Specifications Section 932, AC454, and ASTM 7957, it can be

concluded that the tested materials are generally stronger than comparable GFRP rebars.

• The elastic modulus and tensile strength criteria for BFRP rebars can be set higher than the

existing criteria for GFRP rebars in FDOT Specifications Section 932.

7.3 Further Recommendations

Because FRP rebars are desirable for use in harsh environments and material properties generally

degrade in aggressive media (ACI Committee 440, 2015; du Béton, 2007), the long-term chemical

durability performance of BFRP rebars, including their raw material components, have to be studied

and evaluated in various alkaline and saline environments before minimum material and design

criteria can be ultimately defined. As discussed in Section 6.4.1, for the implementation of BFRP

rebar technology in future design codes, such as AASHTO design guidelines, ACI, or state design

requirements, the following suggestions are made.

• The bond strength results obtained through this research project can be used in the develop-

ment of a bond factor (Cb ) for BFRP rebars, and this factor can be directly implemented in

ACI 440 and AASHTO-bridge design guide specifications.

• Additional studies with a focus on bond-to-concrete properties of BFRP rebars and the bond

degradation over time in harsh environments is recommended to full development of a suitable

bond reduction factor (Cb ) that is specific to BFRP rebars.

• Because BFRP rebars are thought of as a preferable alternative in harsh environments, it

is important to study the long-term chemical durability properties of such rebars before the

environmental reduction factor (CE ) for BFRP rebars can be independently defined.

134
References

AASHTO (2012). Guide Specifications for Design of Bonded FRP Systems for Repair and Strength-

ening of Concrete Bridge Elements. American Association of State Highway and Transportations

Officials.

AASHTO (2018). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specifications for GFRP-Reinforced Con-

crete Bridge Decks and Traffic Railings. American Association of State Highway and Transporta-

tions Officials.

ACI Committee 440 (2006). Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Rein-

forced with FRP Bars, (440.1R). American Concrete Institute.

ACI Committee 440 (2007). Report on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete

Structures, (440R). American Concrete Institute.

ACI Committee 440 (2008a). Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP

Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures, (440.2R). American Concrete Institute.

ACI Committee 440 (2008b). Specification for Carbon and Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bar

Materials for Concrete Reinforcement,, (440.6). American Concrete Institute.

ACI Committee 440 (2012). Guide Test Methods for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites

for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete and Masonry Structures, (440.3R). American Concrete

Institute.

ACI Committee 440 (2013). Specification for Carbon and Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

Materials Made by Wet Layup for External Strengthening of Concrete and Masonry Structures,

(440.8-13). American Concrete Institute.

135
ACI Committee 440 (2015). “Guide for the design and construction of structural concrete reinforced

with fiber-reinforced polymer (frp) bars.” Report No. ACI 440.1R-15, American Concrete Institute.

Altalmas, A., Refai, A. E., and Abed, F. (2015). “Bond degradation of basalt fiber-reinforced poly-

mer (bfrp) bars exposed to accelerated aging conditions.” Construction and Building Materials,

81, 162–171.

ASTM (2014). Standard Test Method for Moisture Absorption Properties and Equilibrium Con-

ditioning of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials, (D5229). ASTM International, West Con-

shohocken, PA.

ASTM-International (2004). Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete

Specimens, (C 39/C 39 M). West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM-International (2011). Standard Test Method for Ignition Loss of Cured Reinforced Resins,

(D2584-11). West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM-International (2012a). Standard Test Method for Apparent Horizontal Shear Strength of

Pultruded Reinforced Plastic Rods By the Short-Beam Method, (D4475 - 02 (REAPPROVED

2008)). West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM-International (2012b). Standard Test Method for Transverse Shear Strength of Fiber-

reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars, (D7617/D7617M - 11). West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM International (2014). Standard Test Method for Bond Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer

Matrix Composite Bars to Concrete by Pullout Testing, (D7913/D7913M). West Conshohocken,

PA.

ASTM International (2014). Standard Test Method for Bond Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer

Matrix Composite Bars to Concrete by Pullout Testing, (D7913/D7913M). ASTM International,

West Consohocken, PA.

ASTM-International (2015a). Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced

Polymer Matrix Composite Bars, (D7205/D7205M – 06 Reapproved 2011). West Conshohocken,

PA.

136
ASTM-International (2015b). Standard Test Methods for Density and Specific Gravity (Relative

Density) of Plastics by Displacement, (D792-13). West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM-International (2017). Standard Specification for Solid Round Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer

Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, (ASTM D7957 / D7957M – 17). West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM International (2018). Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in

the Laboratory, (C192/C192M). West Conshohocken, PA.

Aubourg, P., Crall, C., Hadley, J., Kaverman, R., and Miller, D. (1991). Engineered Materials

Handbook, (Vol. 4). ASM International.

Bagherpour, S. (2012). (Polyester). InTech.

Bagherpour, S., Bagheri, R., and Saatchi, A. (2009). “Effects of concentrated hcl on the mechanical

properties of storage aged fiber glass polyester composite.” Materials and Design, 30(2), 271–274.

Benmokrane, B. (2018). “Development of New Edition of CSA S807 Standard — Specifications for

Fiber Reinforced Polymers.” Report No. to be assigned, Canadian-CSA Specifications for Fiber

Reinforced Polymers.

Benmokrane, B., Ali, A. H., Mohamed, H. M., ElSafty, A., and Manalo, A. (2017). “Laboratory

assessment and durability performance of vinyl-ester, polyester, and epoxy glass-frp bars for

concrete structures.” Composites Part B: Engineering, 114, 163–174.

Benmokrane, B., Elgabbas, F., Ahmed, E. A., and Cousin, P. (2015). “Characterization and compar-

ative durability study of glass/vinylester, basalt/vinylester, and basalt/epoxy frp bars.” Journal

of Composites for Construction, 19(6), 04015008.

Benmokrane, B., Wang, P., Ton-That, T. M., Rahman, H., and Robert, J.-F. (2002). “Durability of

glass fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcing bars in concrete environment.” Journal of Composites

for Construction, 6(3), 143–153.

Best, M. G. (2003). Igneous and metamorphic petrology, (2nd Edition). Wiley-Blackwell.

Borges, S. G., Ferreira, C. A., Andrade, J. M., and Prevedello, A. L. (2015). “The influence of bath

temperature on the properties of pultruded glass fiber reinforced rods.” Journal of Reinforced

Plastics and Composites, 34(15), 1221–1230.

137
Brik, V. B. (2003). “Advanced concept concrete using basalt fiber/bf composite rebar reinforcement.”

Final report for highway-idea project 86, Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis Programs.

Brown, V. and Bartholomew, C. (1993). “Frp dowel bars in reinforced concrete pavements.” Special

Publication, 138, 813–830.

Busel, J. P. (2016). “Introduction to fiber reinforced polymer (frp) composites in infrastructure.”

Report no., American Composites Manufacturers Association.

Canadian Standard Association (2010). Specifications for Fibre Reinforced Polymers, (CAN/CSA-

S807).

Canadian Standard Association (2018). Specifications for Fibre Reinforced Polymers, (CAN/CSA-

S807).

Castro, F. and Carino, N. J. (1998). “Tensile and nondestructive testing of frp bars.” Journal of

Composites for Construction.

Chen, Y., Davalos, J. F., Ray, I., and Kim, H. Y. (2007). “Accelerated aging tests for evaluations of

durability performance of FRP reinforcing bars for concrete structures.” Composite Structures,

78(1), 101–111.

Colombo, C., Vergani, L., and Burman, M. (2012). “Static and fatigue characterisation of new

basalt fibre reinforced composites.” Composite Structures, 94, 1165–1174.

Dhé, P. (1923). “Tipping crucible for basalt furnaces.” Patent 1,462,446, United States Patent

Office.

du Béton, F. I. (2007). “Frp reinforcement in rc structures.” Task Group, 9, 151.

Eddie, D. (1999). “Frp dowels for concrete pavements. Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba.

Ehrenstein, G. W. (2006). Faserverbund-Kunststoffe: Werkstoffe - Verarbeitung - Eigenschaften,

(2. Edition). Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH and Co. KG.

Elgabbas, F., Vincent, P., Ahmeda, E. A., and Benmokrane, B. (2016). “Experimental testing of

basalt-fiber-reinforced polymer bars in concrete beams.” Composites Part B, 91, 205–218.

138
ElSafty, A., Benmokrane, B., Rizkalla, S., Mohamed, H., and Hassan, M. (2014). “Degradation as-

sessment of internal continuous fiber reinforcement in concrete environment.” Report no., Florida

Department of Transportation.

Emparanza, A. R., Kampmann, R., and y Basalo, F. D. C. (2017). “State-of-the-practice of global

manufacturing of frp rebar and specifications.” The 13th International Symposium on Fiber-

Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-13), American Concrete

Institute Anaheim, CA.

Fallaha, S., Knight, C., and Nolan, S. (2017). “FDOT GFRP-RC implementation - current status,

projects and challenges. First International Workshop on Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)

Bar for Concrete Structures (IWGFRP-1), July 18, 2017.

Faruk, O., Tjong, J., and Sain, M. (2017). (Lightweight and Sustainable Materials for Automotive

Applications). Tyler & Francis Group, LCC.

Fiore, V., Scalici, T., Bella, G. D., and Valenza, A. (2015). “A review on basalt fibre and its

composites.” Composites Part B, 74, 74–94.

Florida Department of Transportation (2015). “Fiber reinforced polymer guidelines (frpg).” Struc-

tural Manual Topic No. 625-020-018 Volume 4, FDOT.

G., N. and D., V. (2011). Wendehorst Baustoffkunde Grundlagen - Baustoffe - Oberflächenschutz,

(Vol. 27). Vieweg+Teubner Verlag.

Gieben, N. (2017). “An analysis of the free specimen length for tensile testing of glass fiber reinforced

polymer (gfrp) reinforcement bars according to astm 7205. Master’s thesis, FH Münster University

of Applied Sciences.

Hassan, M., Benmokrane, B., ElSafty, A., and Fam, A. (2016). “Bond durability of basalt-fiber-

reinforced-polymer (bfrp) bars embedded in concrete in aggressive environments.” Composites

Part B, 106, 262–272.

Hurtado, D. (2018). “Fdot standard specification for road and bridge construction.” Report no.,

Florida Department of Transportation.

139
International Code Council (2017). Fiber-reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bars for Internal Reinforce-

ment of Concrete Members. 500 New Jersey Avenue, NW.

International Code Council Evaluation Services (2016). “Acceptance criteria for glass fiber–

reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars for internal reinforcement of concrete members.” Acceptance

criteria 454, ICCES.

International Code Council Evaluation Services (2017). “Acceptance criteria for glass fiber–

reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars for internal reinforcement of concrete members.” Acceptance

criteria 454, ICCES.

Ipbüker, C., Nulk, H., Gulik, V., Biland, A., and Tkaczyk, A. H. (2014). “Radiation shielding

properties of a novel cement–basalt mixture for nuclear energy applications.” Nuclear Engineering

and Design, 284, 27–37.

ISC (2014). Fibre-Reinforced polymer bar for concrete reinforcement general specifications, (GOST

31938-2012). Interstate Council for Standardization, Metrology and Certification (ISC).

Jamshaid, H. and Mishra, R. (2016). “A green material from rock: basalt fiber — a review.” The

Journal of The Textile Institute, 107(7), 923–937.

Joshi, S. C., Lam, Y., and Tun, U. W. (2003). “Improved cure optimization in pultrusion with

pre-heating and die-cooler temperature.” Composites Part A, 34, 1151–1159.

Kajorncheappunngam, S., Gupta, R. K., and GangaRao, H. V. (2002). “Effect of aging environment

on degradation of glass-reinforced epoxy.” Journal of composites for construction, 6(1), 61–69.

Kampmann, R., De Caso Y Basalo, F., and Ruiz Emparanza, A. (2018). “Performance evaluation

of glass fiber reinforced polymer (gfrp) reinforcing bars embedded in concrete under aggressive

environments.” Technical Report BDV30 TWO 977-18, Florida Department of Transportation.

Kampmann, R., Ruiz Emparanza, A., Telikapalli, S., Suhrheinrich, J., and De Caso Y Basalo, F.

(2019). “The correlation between moisture absorption and tensile strength retention of glass

fiber reinforced polymer rebars.” 2nd International Workshop on Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer

(GFRP) Bars for Concrete Structures.

140
Kocaoza, S., Samaranayakeb, V., and Nanni, A. (2004). “Tensile characterization of glass frp bars.”

Composites Part B, 36, 127–134.

Kochergin, A., Granovskaya, N., Kochergin, D., Savchenko, V., and Galimov, N. (2013). “Ways to

supply gabbro-basalt raw materials to mineral fiber producers.” Glass and Ceramics, 69(11-12),

405–408.

Li, C., Gao, D., Wang, Y., and Tang, J. (2017). “Effect of high temperature on the bond performance

between basalt fibre reinforced polymer (bfrp) bars and concrete.” Construction and Building

Materials, 141, 44–51.

Lu, Z., Xian, G., and Li, H. (2015). “Effects of exposure to elevated temperatures and subsequent

immersion in water or alkaline solution on the mechanical properties of pultruded bfrp plates.”

Composites Part B: Engineering, 77, 421–430.

Maitre, R. W. L. (2002). (Igneous Rocks: A Classification and Glossary of Terms: Recommendations

of the International Union of Geological Sciences Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous

Rocks). 2nd. Cambridge University Press.

Markets and Markets (2016). “Frp rebar market by resin type, by fiber type, by application —

global forecasts to 2021.” PR Newswire Association LLC.

MTS Landmark Testing Solutions (2015). Versatile, high-performance servohydraulic systems for

static and dynamic material and component testing, (12/15). MTS Systems Corporation, 14000

Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2290 USA.

Nanni, A., De Luca, A., and Jawaheri Zadeh, H. (2014). (FRP Reinforced Concrete Structures –

Theory, Design and Practice). CRC Press.

Patnaik, A. (2009). “Applications of basalt fiber reinforced polymer (bfrp) reinforcement for trans-

portation infrastructure.” Report no., The University of Akron.

Pavlovski, D., Mislavsky, B., and Antonov, A. (2007). “Cng cylinder manufacturers test basalt

fibre.” REINFORCEDplastics, 36–39.

Pearson, M., Donchev, T., and Salazar, J. (2013). “Long-term behaviour of prestressed basalt fibre

reinforced polymer bars.” Procedia Engineering, 54, 261–269.

141
Rarnalaishnan, V. and Tolmare, N. S. (1998). “Performance evaluation of 3-d basalt fiber reinforced

concrete & basalt rod reinforced concrete.” IDEA Program Final Report, Contract No. NCHRP-

45, Transportation Research Board National Research Council.

Rossini, M., Matta, F., Nolan, S., Potter, W., and Nanni, A. (2018). “Aashto design specifica-

tions for gfrp-rc bridges.” Italian Concrete Days, Associazione Italiana Calcestruzzo Armato e

Precompresso (AICAP) & Collegio .

Ruelke, T. (2014). “Non metallic accessory materials for concrete pavement and concrete struc-

tures.” Section 932, Florida Department of Transportation.

Schesser, D., Yang, Q. D., Nanni, A., and Giancaspro, J. W. (2014). “Expansive grout-based

gripping systems for tensile testing of large-diameter composite bars.” Journal of Materials in

Civil Engineering, 26(2), 250–258.

Singha, K. (2012). “A short review on basalt fiber.” International Journal of Textile Science, 1(4),

19–28.

Slayter, G. (1938). “Method and apparatus for making glass wool.” Patent 2,133,235, United States

Patent Office.

Stekloplastics, D. (2014). “Stekloplastic visit to iceland.” Communication with Stekloplastics Boris

Gromkov and Natalya Demenia with Birgir Jóhannesson.

Thorhallsson, E. and Jonsson, B. S. (2012). “Test of prestressed concrete beams with bfrp tendons.”

Reykjavik University.

Toni Schneider, G. L. (2015). “Lipex gmbh, germany.” Communication with Toni Schneider, Gert

Lichblau with Birgir Jóhannesson.

Vincent, P., Ahmed, E., and Benmokrane, B. (2013). “Characterization of basalt fiber-reinforced

polymer (bfrp) reinforcing bars for concrete structures.” Specialty Conference on Material Engi-

neering & Applied Mechanics, 3rd, MEC–111–1 – MEC–111–10.

Wallenberger, F. T., Watson, J. C., Li, H., and PPG Industries Inc. (2001). “Glass fibers.” ASM

Handbook 21, ASM International.

142
Wang, X., Wang, Z., Wu, Z., and Cheng, F. (2014). “Shear behavior of basalt fiber reinforced

polymer (frp) and hybrid frp rods as shear resistance members.” Construction and Building

Materials, 73, 781–789.

Wang, Z., Zhao, X.-L., Xian, G., Wu, G., Raman, R. S., Al-Saadi, S., and Haque, A. (2017). “Long-

term durability of basalt- and glass-fibre reinforced polymer (bfrp/gfrp) bars in seawater and sea

sand concrete environment.” Construction and Building Materials, 139, 467–489.

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

chemical treatment.” Materials and Design, 31, 4244–4250.

Wei, B., Cao, H., and Song, S. (2011). “Degradation of basalt fibre and glass fibre/epoxy resin

composites in seawater.” Corrosion Science, 53(1), 426–431.

Wu, G., Dong, Z.-Q., Wang, X., Zhu, Y., and Wu, Z.-S. (2014). “Prediction of long-term per-

formance and durability of bfrp bars under the combined effect of sustained load and corrosive

solutions.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 19(3), 04014058.

You, Y.-J., Kim, J.-H. J., Kim, S.-J., and Park, Y.-H. (2015). “Methods to enhance the guaranteed

tensile strength of gfrp rebar to 900 mpa with general fiber volume fraction.” Construction and

Building Materials, 75, 54 – 62.

Zych, T. and Wojciech, K. (2012). “Study on the properties of cement mortars with basalt fibres.”

Brittle Matrix Composites 10, 155–166.

143
Appendices

144
Appendix A

Individual Specimen Results

This appendix supplements the results chapter to present the individual test results for every tested

specimen and the corresponding statistical results that were determined for each control and test

group (of relevant specimen sets). The tables with individual specimen results are sorted by rebar

type, size, lot, and specimen count. Dependent on the test procedure, the tables for the individual

test results list the most essential (e.g. maximum specimen strength, displacement at maximum

strength, etc.) data, while the statistical tables present the minimum (∧), maximum (∧), mean (µ),

standard deviation (σ), and coefficient of variation (CV) values. For the purpose of this research

project, a wide variety of physical and mechanical tests were conducted on five specimens per sample

of BFRP rebar materials. All statistical results that are presented in the main text above are based

on those five individual specimen results.

A.1 Density and Cross-Sectional Dimension Test

The following Table A.1 lists all specimen measurements and results that were determined to derive

the BFRP rebar diameters according to ASTM D792 (ASTM-International, 2015b). The diame-

ter and the cross-sectional area of the rebars were calculated from the measured density and the

individual specimen volume and lengths.

c

145
 Table A.1: Diameter measurements for each individual specimen

Specimen Specimen Length Weight

Manuf. Lot Size Specimen L1 L2 L3 Average a a+s b s δM
Type No. # No. mm mm mm mm g g g g g
A 1 3 1 31.30 31.30 31.40 31.30 5.22 13.01 10.36 7.80 2.57
A 1 3 2 32.10 32.10 31.90 32.10 5.32 13.13 10.44 7.81 2.63
A 1 3 3 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 5.00 12.81 10.27 7.81 2.46
A 1 3 4 32.30 32.30 32.40 32.30 5.37 13.17 10.48 7.80 2.67
A 1 3 5 31.20 31.10 31.20 31.20 5.18 12.99 10.37 7.81 2.57
A 1 5 1 31.20 31.40 31.20 31.20 13.60 21.40 14.61 7.80 6.80
A 1 5 2 31.20 31.20 31.20 31.20 13.73 21.54 14.69 7.81 6.88
A 1 5 3 31.10 31.00 31.10 31.10 13.64 21.45 14.62 7.81 6.81
A 1 5 4 33.00 33.20 32.90 33.00 14.43 22.24 15.06 7.81 7.26
A 1 5 5 31.00 30.80 30.80 31.00 13.49 21.30 14.51 7.81 6.70
B 1 3 1 27.90 28.10 28.00 27.90 5.02 12.82 10.40 7.79 2.61
B 1 3 2 29.90 29.70 29.70 29.90 5.39 13.21 10.61 7.82 2.79
B 1 3 3 30.20 30.40 30.30 30.20 5.46 13.26 10.63 7.80 2.83
B 1 3 4 28.90 29.00 29.00 28.90 5.17 12.97 10.47 7.80 2.67
B 1 3 5 29.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 5.22 13.03 10.45 7.81 2.63
B 1 5 1 30.50 30.50 30.80 30.50 14.35 22.16 15.56 7.81 7.75
B 1 5 2 30.40 30.50 30.30 30.40 14.26 22.07 15.17 7.81 7.36
B 1 5 3 30.80 30.70 30.70 30.80 14.42 22.22 15.26 7.79 7.46
B 1 5 4 31.00 30.90 30.90 31.00 14.55 22.37 15.33 7.82 7.51
B 1 5 5 29.70 29.70 29.80 29.70 13.87 21.67 14.94 7.80 7.14
C 1 3 1 25.50 25.27 25.12 25.30 3.98 11.77 9.77 7.80 1.97
C 1 3 2 25.14 25.19 25.27 25.20 3.98 11.78 9.76 7.80 1.96
C 1 3 3 25.58 25.33 25.21 25.37 3.98 11.78 9.77 7.81 1.96
C 1 3 4 25.13 25.12 25.27 25.17 3.94 11.74 9.74 7.80 1.95
C 1 3 5 25.70 25.36 25.23 25.43 3.93 11.73 9.76 7.80 1.96
C 1 5 1 25.57 25.35 25.38 25.43 11.41 19.02 13.64 7.61 6.03
C 1 5 2 25.30 25.47 25.69 25.49 11.15 18.94 13.59 7.80 5.79
C 1 5 3 25.39 25.58 25.49 25.49 11.17 18.97 13.60 7.79 5.81
C 1 5 4 25.35 25.36 25.41 25.37 11.25 19.05 13.65 7.80 5.86
C 1 5 5 25.34 25.48 25.34 25.39 11.15 18.95 13.60 7.80 5.80
C 2 3 1 30.80 30.80 30.70 30.80 4.85 12.65 10.30 7.80 2.50
C 2 3 2 31.00 30.90 30.80 31.00 4.90 12.69 10.32 7.80 2.53
C 2 3 3 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 4.93 12.74 10.34 7.81 2.53
C 2 3 4 30.30 30.10 30.30 30.30 4.75 12.55 10.25 7.80 2.45
C 2 3 5 31.80 31.80 31.70 31.80 5.00 12.80 10.37 7.80 2.57
C 2 5 1 31.00 30.90 31.00 31.00 9.00 16.79 15.34 7.79 7.54
C 2 5 2 31.40 31.60 31.40 31.40 9.15 16.95 14.84 7.80 7.04
C 2 5 3 30.50 30.60 30.60 30.50 8.81 16.61 14.73 7.80 6.93
C 2 5 4 30.40 30.40 30.70 30.40 8.87 16.67 15.01 7.80 7.21
C 2 5 5 30.30 30.30 30.40 30.30 8.79 16.59 14.96 7.80 7.16

The specific gravity was calculated by dividing the measured dry mass of the sample by the weight of

the submerged specimen. Subsequently, the density of the samples was determined by multiplying

the specific gravity and the density of the water in which the specimen was submerged. Because the

density of every substance depends on its temperature, the water temperature was monitored as

described in ASTM. The water temperature measured 19.8° (67.6 °F) for this project, and hence, the

distilled water had a density of 998.25 kg/m3 (62.319 lbs./ft3 ). Then, the volume of the submerged

146
rebar section was determined by dividing the dry mass of the sample by the density of the water.

Afterwards, the volume of the rebar sample was divided by the average length of the sample to

calculate the cross-sectional area. Finally, the diameter was calculated based on the assumption

that the shape of the rebars was round.

A.2 Fiber Content Test

The relative amount of constituent materials were determined based on weight measurements after

lost on ignition tests. The percentage of fiber content is listed in Table A.2 along with the relative

resin and sand (surface coating) quantities.

c

Table A.2: Fiber content test results for each individual specimen

Specimen Contents
Manuf. Lot Size Spec Fiber Resin Sand
Type No. # No. % % %
A 1 3 1 76.6 23.4 9.1
A 1 3 2 76.6 23.4 9.5
A 1 3 3 76.1 23.9 11.4
A 1 3 4 69.5 30.5 7.4
A 1 3 5 77.0 23.0 8.8
A 1 5 1 78.6 21.4 1.9
A 1 5 2 78.4 21.6 4.4
A 1 5 3 79.2 20.8 2.4
A 1 5 4 78.9 21.1 2.2
A 1 5 5 79.1 20.9 2.3
B 1 3 1 83.3 16.7 15.1
B 1 3 2 83.3 16.7 15.3
B 1 3 3 83.3 16.7 14.9
B 1 3 4 83.4 16.6 15.2
B 1 3 5 83.2 16.8 15.2
B 1 5 1 82.7 17.3 7.4
B 1 5 2 82.6 17.4 7.1
B 1 5 3 82.5 17.5 7.2
B 1 5 4 82.8 17.2 6.5
B 1 5 5 80.8 19.2 5.4
C 1 3 1 82.3 17.7 9.4
C 1 3 2 82.1 18.0 7.8
C 1 3 3 82.1 17.9 8.1
C 1 3 4 81.7 18.3 8.3
C 1 3 5 82.0 18.0 7.8
C 1 5 1 81.9 18.1 7.7
C 1 5 2 81.8 18.3 7.7
C 1 5 3 81.8 18.2 8.2
Continued on next page . . .

147
 Table A.2: Fiber content test results for each individual specimen

Specimen Contents
Manuf. Lot Size Spec Fiber Resin Sand
Type No. # No. % % %
C 1 5 4 81.7 18.3 7.7
C 1 5 5 81.9 18.2 7.3
C 2 3 1 82.4 17.6 8.3
C 2 3 2 82.6 17.4 8.8
C 2 3 3 82.4 17.6 7.8
C 2 3 4 82.1 17.9 7.7
C 2 3 5 82.2 17.8 7.7
C 2 5 1 81.9 18.1 7.8
C 2 5 2 81.9 18.2 8.1
C 2 5 3 81.8 18.2 7.7
C 2 5 4 81.9 18.1 7.4
C 2 5 5 81.7 18.3 7.8

For rebar types that included sand as part of the surface enhancement, the weight of sand was

subtracted before the fiber and resin content percentage were calculated to achieve comparable

results throughout all tested rebar types, independent on the surface enhancement.

A.3 Transverse Shear Test

The following Table A.3 displays the most important measurements and results related to the

transverse shear strength test for every individual rebar specimen.

Table A.3: Transverse shear test results (ultimate values) for each individual specimen

Specimen Transverse Displacement

Manuf. Lot Size Spec Shear Strength at Shear Strength
Type No. # No. ksi MPa in. mm
A 1 3 1 29.77 205 0.115 2.92
A 1 3 2 33.01 228 0.085 2.16
A 1 3 3 29.07 200 0.110 2.79
A 1 3 4 31.87 220 0.107 2.72
A 1 3 5 33.22 229 0.110 2.80
A 1 5 1 26.95 186 0.198 5.04
A 1 5 2 26.73 184 0.172 4.38
A 1 5 3 26.38 182 0.287 7.29
A 1 5 4 25.68 177 0.182 4.62
A 1 5 5 26.84 185 0.185 4.69
B 1 3 1 35.58 245 0.097 2.46
Continued on next page . . .

148
 Table A.3: Transverse shear test results (ultimate values) for each individual specimen

Specimen Transverse Displacement

Manuf. Lot Size Spec Shear Strength at Shear Strength
Type No. # No. ksi MPa in. mm
B 1 3 2 33.26 229 0.099 2.51
B 1 3 3 33.26 229 0.099 2.51
B 1 3 4 35.78 247 0.095 2.42
B 1 3 5 34.52 238 0.099 2.51
B 1 5 1 31.13 215 0.124 3.14
B 1 5 2 32.85 226 0.126 3.19
B 1 5 3 30.79 212 0.116 2.96
B 1 5 4 31.50 217 0.118 2.99
B 1 5 5 32.17 222 0.124 3.14
C 1 3 1 34.08 235 0.125 3.17
C 1 3 2 35.39 244 0.114 2.91
C 1 3 3 33.59 232 0.121 3.07
C 1 3 4 37.47 258 0.130 3.31
C 1 3 5 36.79 254 0.127 3.22
C 1 3 6 33.87 234 0.132 3.36
C 2 3 1 36.95 255 0.103 2.61
C 2 3 2 36.74 253 0.107 2.72
C 2 3 3 39.82 275 0.129 3.27
C 2 3 4 38.35 264 0.118 2.99
C 2 3 5 36.49 252 0.113 2.86
C 2 5 1 36.17 249 0.120 3.04
C 2 5 2 37.99 262 0.132 3.35
C 2 5 3 36.71 253 0.119 3.03
C 2 5 4 35.29 243 0.128 3.26
C 2 5 5 36.26 250 0.134 3.40

The shear strength results (based on the nominal diameter) and the corresponding cross-head dis-

placements — measured at the same moment at which the maximum test load was reached and

recorded — are provided.

A.4 Horizontal Shear Test

Similar to the previous section, the following Table A.4 lists the maximum measured data for all

specimens that were tested for horizontal shear strength.

149
 Table A.4: Horizontal shear test results (ultimate values) for each individual specimen

Specimen Horizontal Displacement

Manuf. Lot Size Spec Shear Strength at Shear Strength
Type No. # No. ksi MPa in. mm
A 1 3 1 6.66 45.9 0.086 2.18
A 1 3 2 6.64 45.8 0.066 1.68
A 1 3 3 5.75 39.7 0.064 1.62
A 1 3 4 6.45 44.5 0.088 2.25
A 1 3 5 6.57 45.3 0.078 1.97
A 1 5 1 6.62 45.6 0.076 1.94
A 1 5 2 6.54 45.1 0.147 3.72
A 1 5 3 6.23 42.9 0.101 2.56
A 1 5 4 6.89 47.5 0.120 3.05
A 1 5 5 6.36 43.8 0.142 3.62
B 1 3 1 6.07 41.9 0.044 1.11
B 1 3 2 5.35 36.9 0.049 1.24
B 1 3 3 5.11 35.2 0.036 0.90
B 1 3 4 5.49 37.9 0.049 1.25
B 1 3 5 5.81 40.0 0.055 1.39
B 1 5 1 6.91 47.7 0.104 2.65
B 1 5 2 4.98 34.4 0.094 2.38
B 1 5 3 7.00 48.2 0.095 2.42
B 1 5 4 6.81 47.0 0.116 2.95
B 1 5 5 7.49 51.6 0.110 2.78
C 1 3 1 6.70 46.2 0.098 2.48
C 1 3 2 7.15 49.3 0.067 1.69
C 1 3 3 6.38 44.0 0.063 1.59
C 1 3 4 7.52 51.9 0.098 2.48
C 1 3 5 7.29 50.2 0.082 2.08
C 1 5 1 6.35 43.8 0.092 2.35
C 1 5 2 6.82 47.0 0.112 2.84
C 1 5 3 6.78 46.7 0.116 2.96
C 1 5 4 6.52 44.9 0.101 2.58
C 1 5 5 5.56 38.3 0.084 2.14
C 2 3 1 6.20 42.8 0.128 3.24
C 2 3 2 6.62 45.7 0.071 1.80
C 2 3 3 6.66 45.9 0.113 2.87
C 2 3 4 6.45 44.5 0.072 1.82
C 2 3 5 6.48 44.7 0.100 2.53
C 2 5 1 6.36 43.8 0.121 3.06
C 2 5 2 6.18 42.6 0.113 2.87
C 2 5 3 6.62 45.6 0.132 3.35
C 2 5 4 6.82 47.0 0.108 2.74
C 2 5 5 6.04 41.6 0.091 2.31

The given strength values were determined based on the measured maximum loads and the nominal

(not measured) cross-sectional dimensions. The displacement at shear strength represents the cross-

head extension that was measured at the instant in time at which the maximum failure load was

150
recorded. Accordingly, this value is indicative of the ultimate defection of the shear specimen that

lead to resin failure and slip between the fibers.

A.5 Tensile Test

The longitudinal tensile properties for all tested specimens are listed in Table A.5.

Table A.5: Tensile strength test results (ultimate values) for each individual specimen

Specimen Tensile Elastic

Manuf. Lot Size Spec Strength Modulus
Type No. # No. ksi MPa ksi GPa
A 1 3 1 122 844 5760 39.72
A 1 3 2 120 828 6996 48.24
A 1 3 3 119 819 6917 47.69
A 1 3 4 128 883 6812 46.72
A 1 3 5 119 822 7735 53.33
A 1 5 1 128 881 7800 53.78
A 1 5 2 132 908 7645 52.71
A 1 5 3 138 949 7692 53.04
A 1 5 4 136 938 7639 52.67
A 1 5 5 138 951 7990 55.09
B 1 3 1 189 1302 7735 53.33
B 1 3 2 199 1371 7928 54.66
B 1 3 3 198 1365 7542 52.00
B 1 3 4 197 1361 7837 54.03
B 1 3 5 198 1367 7999 55.15
B 1 5 1 176 1211 7868 54.25
B 1 5 2 162 1116 7819 53.91
B 1 5 3 178 1226 8301 57.23
B 1 5 4 183 1263 7837 54.03
B 1 5 5 164 1131 7907 54.52
C 1 3 1 189 1306 7630 52.61
C 1 3 2 187 1290 7659 52.81
C 1 3 3 180 1238 7535 51.95
C 1 3 4 178 1229 5385 37.13
C 1 3 5 185 1276 7559 52.12
C 1 5 1 172 1184 4126 28.45
C 1 5 2 160 1107 6834 53.45
C 1 5 3 169 1168 7933 54.70
C 1 5 4 165 1137 6534 45.05
C 1 5 5 140 962 7739 53.36
C 2 3 1 171 1178 6990 48.19
C 2 3 2 170 1175 7509 51.78
C 2 3 3 168 1159 6531 45.03
C 2 3 4 175 1207 7881 54.34
C 2 3 5 161 1112 7088 48.87
Continued on next page . . .

151
 Table A.5: Tensile strength test results (ultimate values) for each individual specimen

Specimen Tensile Elastic

Manuf. Lot Size Spec Strength Modulus
Type No. # No. ksi MPa ksi GPa
C 2 5 1 153 1058 8138 56.11
C 2 5 2 146 1006 7242 49.93
C 2 5 3 145 1001 7404 51.05
C 2 5 4 150 1037 7065 48.71
C 2 5 5 144 992 7549 52.05

Specifically, the table presents the maximum tensile stresses and the corresponding elastic moduli,

both based on the nominal cross-sectional dimensions.

A.6 Bond-to-Concrete Test

The individual measured bond strength test results are listed in Table A.6 to report both the bond

stresses and the rebar bond slippage for each specimen.

Table A.6: Bond-to-Concrete strength test results for each individual specimen (Imperial Units)

Specimen Bond Stress Bond Slippage

at Specific Slippage at Maximum Stress
2 4 1
Manuf. Lot Size Spec 1000 in. 1000 in. 100in. Ult. Free End Load End
Type No. # No. ksi ksi ksi ksi in. in.
A 1 3 1 1.55 1.93 2.54 3.56 0.059 0.080
A 1 3 2 1.31 1.87 3.30 4.07 0.022 0.070
A 1 3 3 1.68 2.12 2.90 3.95 0.060 0.085
A 1 3 4 0.94 1.39 2.01 3.20 0.100 0.123
A 1 3 5 2.21 2.50 3.01 4.08 0.067 0.082
A 1 5 1 1.01 1.71 2.62 3.89 0.054 0.074
A 1 5 2 0.36 0.70 1.55 3.59 0.097 0.119
A 1 5 3 1.24 1.75 2.73 4.16 0.070 0.092
A 1 5 4 0.82 1.37 2.13 3.89 0.105 0.110
A 1 5 5 0.82 1.22 1.83 3.33 0.083 0.106
B 1 3 1 1.60 1.94 2.35 2.39 0.015 0.020
B 1 3 2 1.42 1.77 2.60 2.80 0.017 0.023
B 1 3 3 2.45 2.79 3.03 3.05 0.013 0.018
B 1 3 4 1.96 2.28 2.66 2.67 0.010 0.017
B 1 3 5 1.81 2.26 2.86 3.03 0.018 0.021
B 1 5 1 2.01 2.54 2.83 2.85 0.014 0.026
Continued on next page . . .

152
Table A.6: Bond-to-Concrete strength test results for each individual specimen (Imperial Units)

Specimen Bond Stress Bond Slippage

at Specific Slippage at Maximum Stress
2 4 1
Manuf. Lot Size Spec 1000 in. 1000 in. 100in. Ult. Free End Load End
Type No. # No. ksi ksi ksi ksi in. in.
B 1 5 2 2.14 2.49 2.80 2.81 0.012 0.024
B 1 5 3 1.98 2.37 2.79 2.88 0.017 0.027
B 1 5 4 2.21 2.66 2.89 2.90 0.013 0.023
B 1 5 5 2.29 2.66 2.94 2.95 0.012 0.035
C 1 3 1 2.06 2.28 2.42 2.43 0.009 0.016
C 1 3 2 1.90 2.22 2.34 2.35 0.008 0.011
C 1 3 3 2.04 2.28 2.38 2.39 0.009 0.016
C 1 3 4 1.62 2.21 2.27 2.27 0.008 0.013
C 1 3 5 1.49 1.89 2.23 2.24 0.010 0.012
C 1 5 1 2.43 2.78 3.00 3.01 0.011 0.038
C 1 5 2 2.30 2.59 2.94 2.96 0.011 0.027
C 1 5 3 2.30 2.59 2.95 2.98 0.013 0.030
C 1 5 4 2.29 2.71 2.96 2.97 0.012 0.028
C 1 5 5 2.18 2.45 2.84 2.89 0.015 0.024

Because ACI 440.3R suggests documenting the slippage behavior through the bond stress measure-

ments at specific rebar slip instances, the table presents not just the ultimate bond stress (strength)
2 4 1
but also the bond stresses that corresponded to slip values of 1000 in., 1000 in., and 100 in. For

clarity, the table lists all results in imperial units only.

Similar to the previous table, Table A.7 documents the bond-to-concrete measurement results

for all tested specimens per ASTM requirements.

Table A.7: Bond-to-Concrete strength test results for each individual specimen (Metric Units)

Specimen Bond Stress Bond Slippage

at Specific Slippage at Maximum Stress
5 1 1
Manuf. Lot Size Spec 100 mm 10 mm 4 mm Ult. Free End Load End
Type No. # No. MPa MPa MPa MPa mm mm
A 1 3 1 10.7 13.3 17.5 24.5 1.49 2.02
A 1 3 2 9.1 12.9 22.8 28.0 0.56 1.77
A 1 3 3 11.6 14.6 20.0 27.2 1.53 2.16
A 1 3 4 6.5 9.6 13.9 22.1 2.54 3.13
A 1 3 5 15.3 17.3 20.7 28.2 1.69 2.09
A 1 5 1 6.9 11.8 18.0 26.8 1.38 1.89
A 1 5 2 2.5 4.8 10.7 24.7 2.48 3.02
Continued on next page . . .

153
 Table A.7: Bond-to-Concrete strength test results for each individual specimen (Metric Units)

Specimen Bond Stress Bond Slippage

at Specific Slippage at Maximum Stress
5 1 1
Manuf. Lot Size Spec 100 mm 10 mm 4 mm Ult. Free End Load End
Type No. # No. MPa MPa MPa MPa mm mm
A 1 5 3 8.6 12.1 18.8 28.7 1.78 2.34
A 1 5 4 5.7 9.4 14.7 26.9 2.67 2.79
A 1 5 5 5.6 8.4 12.6 23.0 2.11 2.70
B 1 3 1 11.0 13.4 16.2 16.5 0.37 0.50
B 1 3 2 9.8 12.2 17.9 19.3 0.42 0.58
B 1 3 3 16.9 19.3 20.9 21.0 0.32 0.45
B 1 3 4 13.5 15.7 18.4 18.4 0.25 0.44
B 1 3 5 12.5 15.6 19.7 20.9 0.45 0.54
B 1 5 1 13.9 17.5 19.5 19.7 0.36 0.65
B 1 5 2 14.7 17.2 19.3 19.4 0.31 0.62
B 1 5 3 13.7 16.4 19.3 19.9 0.43 0.68
B 1 5 4 15.2 18.3 19.9 20.0 0.32 0.59
B 1 5 5 15.8 18.4 20.3 20.4 0.30 0.88
C 1 3 1 14.2 15.7 16.7 16.7 0.24 0.40
C 1 3 2 13.1 15.3 16.1 16.2 0.20 0.29
C 1 3 3 14.0 15.7 16.4 16.4 0.24 0.40
C 1 3 4 11.2 15.2 15.6 15.7 0.21 0.32
C 1 3 5 10.3 13.1 15.4 15.4 0.24 0.30
C 1 5 1 16.8 19.2 20.7 20.8 0.28 0.96
C 1 5 2 15.8 17.9 20.2 20.4 0.28 0.68
C 1 5 3 15.9 17.8 20.3 20.5 0.34 0.75
C 1 5 4 15.8 18.7 20.4 20.5 0.29 0.71
C 1 5 5 15.1 16.9 19.6 19.9 0.37 0.62

However, other than the previous table, Table A.7 offers the test results in metric units. Accordingly,

the relevant bond stresses are tabulated for measurements corresponding to 0.05 mm, 0.10 mm, and

0.25 mm of rebar slip.

154