Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers and Structures

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

A non-linear thermodynamical model for steel–concrete bonding

Norberto Domínguez a,⇑, Adnan Ibrahimbegovic b
a
Sección de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación (SEPI), ESIA-UZ Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Av. Juan de Dios Bátiz s/n edif. 12, 07738 México D.F., Mexico
b
Laboratoire de Mécanique et Technologie (LMT), ENS-Cachan/UPMC/CNRS/PRES Univer Sud Paris, 61 Avenue du Président Wilson, F-94230 Cachan, France

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

Article history: In Reinforced Concrete structures, the concrete damage configuration as well as the crack pattern distri-
Received 10 October 2011 bution depend directly on bonding, and its implementation for numerical analysis is still complicated. In
Accepted 9 April 2012 this work, a new thermodynamical non linear bond model is introduced taking into account tangential
Available online 9 May 2012
bond deterioration and coupling between tangential slip and normal decohesion/penetration. For FEM
implementation, the model (based on a stress–strain relationship) is supported by a non-width interface
Keywords: element. The calibrated material parameters are grouped in four sets: elastic behavior; tangential degra-
Steel–concrete bonding
dation; crack friction and confinement; and normal behavior. Finally, some numerical examples are pre-
Thermodynamical formulation
Reinforced Concrete
sented in this paper.
Interface element Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Finite element method

1. Introduction well as for evaluation of the real quantity of energy dissipated by

Reinforced Concrete (RC) is a very common material of con-
struction for civil engineering structures, since its invention at
the end of XIXth century [1]. Until now, even if basically it is con-
stituted by two different materials, steel and concrete – which it is
at the same time a mixture of sand, gravel, cement and water –, RC
is considered an homogeneous material able to take account of a
wide range of internal stresses (tension, compression, shearing)
of almost every structural element, and the analysis and design
of these structural systems is done based on this idea. Neverthe-
less, this assumption is true only if two essential conditions are
respected:
(1) Each material behavior does not reach (and do not surpass)
the elastic limit yield point.
(2) Bonding between steel bar and concrete remains perfect,
without any sliding between them.
Evidently, as soon as any RC structure develops any kind of
damage – even if this one is minimal –, these two conditions might
lose their validity, and the response of the structural system can
vary drastically. Because of this, the behavior of the steel–concrete
bond is essential for comprehension and prediction of cracking as
RC elements in the whole structure. The most important effects
on the global response of the structure due to the bonding deteri-
oration are:
– A significant redistribution of internal stresses in the concrete
body forming overloaded zones beyond the estimated ultimate
capacity combined to underemployed regions, due to the loss of
interaction between both materials.
– A reduction of the structure’s global durability because of infil-
tration of external agents (water, gas, biological material, etc.)
through the cracks, which can initiate a process of degradation
of concrete.
– A structural stiffness decreasing which induces an augmenta-
tion of the natural period of the structure in the case of earth-
quakes or any other dynamic event, which can be a positive
or negative factor on the structural response, depending on
the dissipative capacity of each structural element.
– In the case of beam-columns junctions, an undesirable damage
concentration inside the junction associated to the internal dis-
tribution of the steel reinforcement; and finally,
– the development of residual displacements not considered in
the structural design of the RC system.

In the framework of dissipative phenomena, our proposal of

⇑ Corresponding author.
constitutive model for bond establishes a relationship between
E-mail addresses: ndominguez@ipn.mx (N. Domínguez), ai@lmt.ens-cachan.fr
(A. Ibrahimbegovic).
sliding and shear/normal stresses taking account of concrete crack-
URLs: http://www.sepi.esiaz.ipn.mx (N. Domínguez), http://www.lmt.ens ing, crack friction and other couplings. In other words, the model
-cachan.fr (A. Ibrahimbegovic). includes:

0045-7949/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.04.005
30 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45

 Interface material cracking due to shear efforts and/or
decohesion.
 Inelastic deformations due to sliding (incompatibility of
deformations).
 Hysteresis cycles associated to the crack friction.
 Coupling between tangential response and normal stresses.
In what concerns the finite element implementation, instead of
using a classical interface element based on a displacement jump,
we created a degenerated non-width interface element using a stan-
dard base of shape functions for a quadrilateral-four nodes element.
This work is articulated in five sections outlined as follows: Section
1 explains the motivations as well as the general lines of this re-
search; in Section 2 we present in detail the thermodynamical for-
mulation of the non linear bond model, preceded by a brief
description of the bond phenomena and the hypotheses that sup-
port our proposal. Section 3 is focused not only in the numerical
implementation of the constitutive model for bonding, but also in
a brief description of the interface element that supports the bond-
ing law behavior. In Section 4, the analysis and calibration of each
parameter is fully described. Finally, in Section 5 we present some
of the numerical applications in which the model has been used, iso-
lated or mixed with other non linear material models.
 The tangential degradation of bonding is assumed to be similar
to a pseudo plastic/damage behavior.
 A normal inter-penetration between materials is allowed, but it
is never greater than a maximum value of surface penetration.
 The surface of the steel bar is considered completely stiff and
undeformable.
 Instead of supposing an initial rigid connection between the
concrete and the steel rebar (without sliding), we assumed an
initial sliding as well as an initial elastic behavior for bonding
that is valid only if the local strains have not yet reached the
yield strain limit, corresponding to the strain associated to the
elastic shear resistance of the concrete.
 The behavior of the multiple micro-cracks formed in the inter-
face region is very similar to the behavior of a particular homo-
geneous concrete zone, in which the stiffness is lower than the
stiffness of the rest of the concrete, but the ‘‘flexibility’’ of the
zone makes easier the evolution of the sliding from small defor-
mations to large slips, without losing the transfer of efforts and
stresses between steel and concrete.
 The brutal degradation of bonding as soon as large slips are
developed is due to the growing and coalescence of micro-
cracks which degenerate in the potential surface of cylindrical
failure previously defined.

2. Thermodynamical formulation of bonding 2.3. Thermodynamic constitutive model for bonding

2.1. Physical description of steel–concrete bond phenomena 2.3.1. Kinematics of bonding

In a three-dimensional context, bonding in a point over the
In general, bonding is a physical interaction between two mate- layer-coat can be expressed in terms of stresses and strains, as
rials with different behavior, which allows the transfer of stresses usual for any other material:
and forces between the bodies joined at the slip interface. In the
2 3 2 3
case of the steel–concrete bond, the tension forces produced in rrr rrt rrc rr rt rc
the reinforcement are mainly transferred to the concrete as shear r¼6 7 6 7
4 rtr rtt rtc 5 and  ¼ 4 tr tt tc 5 ð2:1Þ
stresses distributed on a layer-coat created around the steel bar
and vice versa. For full force transfer, the key point is that concrete
rcr rct rcc cr ct cc
can develop the same deformation of steel bar; if it is not the case,
cracks will appear in concrete body as well as a small sliding of the In Eq. (2.1), r, t and c correspond to radial, tangential and circumfer-
bar inside the concrete. More precisely the steel–concrete bonding ential stresses/strains respectively. If any possibility of bar’s rota-
is a set of three independent phenomena very well defined by Lutz tion inside the concrete is neglected, this formulation can be
and Gergely [2]: solved as if it were a plane strain bi-dimensional problem by reduc-
ing each tensor in the following way:
(a) A very weak adherence produced by chemical reaction 2 3 2 3
rrr rrt 0 rr rt 0
between steel and concrete.
r¼6
4 rtr rtt 7 6
0 5 and  ¼ 4 tr tt 05
7
ð2:2Þ

(b) A tangential resistance due to the friction between both

0 0 rcc 0 0 0
material surfaces in contact.
(c) An important volumetric resistance around the bar induced Taking into account that the only strain modes that could be inter-
by the interlocking between steel ribs and the concrete esting to describe bonding behavior are the radial normal strain and
body. the shear tangential strain parallel to the bar’s main axis, the last
tensors can be reduced in a final expression:
From this decomposition, it is clear that for a plain bar, the    
mechanism that controls bonding is the friction between steel rN rT N T
r¼ and  ¼ ð2:3Þ
and concrete, while for a ribbed bar the main controller of bonding rT 0 T 0
corresponds to the mechanical interlocking. For our model, this
decomposition is essential to separate the non linear behavior In the last Eq. (2.3), the lower index rr is replaced by N and rt, tr by T
associated to each mechanism. in order to simplify the mathematical formulation.
For an axisymmetric case, it is possible to use a u–p displace-
2.2. Basic hypotheses for the modeling of bonding ment–pressure formulation (see [3]), that will allow managing
the volumetric effect on the global response of the steel–concrete
In our proposal, the next hypotheses are adopted: system. Considering a cylindrical system of reference with r, h
and z as the main directions, and taking the steel rebar’s axial
 Sliding between steel and concrete appears not directly in the axe as the axisymmetric axe of revolution, there will be two impor-
region of contact of these two materials, but over a cylindrical tant conditions:
surface developed around the bar (similar to a layer-coat),
whose radius is determined by the particular properties of both  All the functions are not dependent of h.
materials.  the circumferential displacement uh is equal to zero.
 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45 31

Based on these simplifications, the volumetric problem can be @W

Z ¼ q ¼ H 0 ðzÞ ð2:10Þ
solved by a bidimensional formulation adopting the standard @z
shape functions, taking into account that hh = ur/r and rhh – 0. Regarding to the last function, H0 (z) appears as an evolution
The derivatives of the shape functions are not affected in anyway, function of the bonding damage mechanism that should be defined
which allows to use the same shape functions developed for the in a precise manner. In other words, damage evolution should be
non-width interface element that is fully explained in Section 3.1. mainly controlled by a yield function which determines the pre-
dominant mode of failure in bonding (mode I for normal decohe-
2.3.2. Thermodynamical potential of bonding sion, mode II for tangential sliding) or even a combination of
Once defined the main stresses and strains that compound both. Nevertheless, considering that mode II is the predominant
bonding behavior, this one can be decoupled in normal and tan- mode of failure, it is possible to separate damage for each direction;
gential behavior and then, it can be expressed by a thermodynam- by this reason, in the next paragraphs, damage will be studied for
ical potential based on the Helmholtz free energy [4]: the normal and tangential direction as independent phenomena.
1
qW¼ hN i  E  hN i þ hN iþ  Eð1  DN Þ  hN iþ 2.3.3. Damage in the tangential direction
2     i
f f 2
Damage evolution in tangential direction can be divided in
þT  Gð1  DT Þ  T þ T   T  G  DT  T  T þca three stages:
þHðzÞ ð2:4Þ
In the expression (2.4), W corresponds to the Helmholtz free en- Stage 1:
ergy, q is the density, N and T are the normal and tangential Region of perfect bonding.
strains, while fT corresponds to the sliding strain associated to
crack friction; E is the modulus of elasticity; G corresponds to the Stage 2:
modulus of rigidity, that means G = E/[2  (1 + m)], where m is the Region of transition from small deformations to large displace-
Poisson’s coefficient; c is a sliding hardening modulus. By the ments, corresponding to the stabilized growing of micro-cracks
way, the internal variables of the model are DN and DT, which are associated to the bar’s ribs.
scalars that represents damage (between 0 and 1) in each direc-
tion; a is the internal variable associated to the kinematics harden- Stage 3:
ing; and z is the internal variable for a pseudo ‘‘isotropic’’ Region of ultimate strength of bonding and degradation until a fric-
hardening associated to the damage, with its thermodynamic func- tional residual strength, produced by the phenomenon of coales-
tion H(z). cence of transversal micro-cracks.
The constitutive functions can be obtained by derivation of this
thermodynamic potential with respect to each associated thermo- In order to identify the limits of these regions, we will define two
dynamical variable. Therefore, the normal stress rN is expressed yield strains:
by:
 – A perfect bond yield strain T 1 .
@W E  N if N 6 0
rN ¼ q ¼ ð2:5Þ – A post-coalescence yield strain T .
@ N ð1  DN Þ  N if N > 0 2

In the same manner, the total tangential stress rT can be calculated Based on this separation, and associating it to the set of damage
by: equations, it can be observed:
@W  
rT ¼ q ¼ Gð1  DT Þ  T þ G  DT  T  fT ð2:6Þ – A true separation between damage and crack friction.
@ T
– A partition of the isotropic hardening.
and the sliding tangential stress rfT by:
@W   Hereafter, the isotropic hardening associated to the damage
rfT ¼ q f
¼ G  DT  T  fT ð2:7Þ variable can be expressed as:
@ T 
@W ZT1 if T < T 6 T 2
In the last expression, rfT is associated to the sliding friction strain ZT ¼ q ¼ H 0 ðzÞ ¼ 1
ð2:11Þ
fT . @z ZT1  ZT2 if T 2
< T
By the way, if we derivate the thermodynamical potential (2.4) In the last expression, Z T 1 and Z T 2 correspond to:
with respect to the tangential damage variable DT, we obtain the (
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffi  )2
restitution energy represented by Y: 1 G T
ZT1 ¼ Y T1 þ   ln ð1 þ zT Þ ð2:12Þ
@W 1 1    ADT1 2 T 1
Y ¼ q ¼ T  G  T  T  fT  G  T  fT   
@ T 2 2 1 zT
  ZT2 ¼ Y T2 þ  ð2:13Þ
¼  Y DT þ Y fT ð2:8Þ ADT2 ð1 þ zT Þ
Subsequently, the damage yield function is established for the tan-
in which Y DT and Y fT are the damage restitution energy and the gential direction as:
rate of restitution energy associated to crack friction, respectively.
The constitutive function for the kinematics hardening leads to UDT ¼ Y DT  ðY T1 þ ZT Þ 6 0 ð2:14Þ
the definition of the back stress function: Regarding to the yield points that control the tangential damage
@W evolution function, they will be expressed as a function of the en-
v ¼ q ¼ca ð2:9Þ ergy Y DT ; for that reason, the first expression associated to the per-
@a
fect bond will be written as:
while the constitutive function for the isotropic hardening is ex-
pressed as:
32 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45

1 Here DN is the damage scalar variable for normal direction defined

Y T1 ¼Y elas jT ¼ T  G  T 1 ð2:15Þ
2 1
as:
8
In this expression, Y T 1 is the initial damage yield point, defined as a <0 if N 6 yN
function of the perfect bond yield strain T 1 , corresponding physi- DN ¼ 1
if yN < N ð2:23Þ
: 1þA BD
N
cally to the elastic limit shear strain -or even any tension strain- DN hY DN Y N 1 iþ

of concrete before cracking. In the other hand, Y T 2 corresponds to

In the last expression, damage is controlled by two parameters,
the maximal tangential resistance of bonding, that is, the instant
ADN and BDN . By the way, Y N1 is the damage yield point defined in
when the coalescence of micro-cracks starts. In other words, Y T 2
terms of energy, corresponding to the elastic limit in the normal
is defined as a function of the post-coalescence yield strain T 2 :
direction YelasjN, and it is expressed as:
1
Y ¼ T  G  T 2 ð2:16Þ 1
T2
2 2
Y N1 ¼Y elas jN ¼ yN  E  yN ð2:24Þ
2
Based on the internal variables evolution laws (developed in the Here, yN is the elastic limit strain of concrete in tension, correspond-
framework of standard associated functions) it is possible to obtain ing to the perfect bonding – in other words, we allow a small nor-
the damage multiplier: mal deformation between both materials.
@ UDT @ UDT
D_ T ¼ k_ D  ¼ k_ D and z_ ¼ k_ D  ¼ k_ D ð2:17Þ 2.3.5. Friction contribution by crack sliding
@Y DT @Z T
Regarding to the sliding formulation, we will suppose a pseudo-
By using a classical consistency condition, damage is expressed as: plastic behavior with non linear kinematics hardening, which it is
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi going to allow simulating any non linear hysteresis loop, produced
Y T1
DT ¼ 1  during the cycles of loading–unloading. This formulation originally
Y DT presented by Armstrong and Frederick [7], is able to overcome
8 "rffiffiffiffi #BD 9 with the most important disadvantage of the kinematics hardening
< 2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi T1 =

 exp ADT1   ð Y DT  Y DT1 Þ law of Drucker, that is, the linearity of the law: here, the non linear
: G ; terms are included in the dissipative potential. In which concerns
( ) to the sliding criteria, it takes the classical form of the Drucker–
1 Prager yield function taking into account the effect of radial con-
 BD
ð2:18Þ
1 þ ADT2  hY DT  Y T 1 iþ T2 finement on the sliding:

In the last expression, it is possible to identify the part that cor-

Uf ¼
rfT  v
þ c  I1 6 0 ð2:25Þ
responds to the transition region from small deformations to large
displacements with two parameters, ADT1 and BDT1 ; and the part of In this expression, v is the back stress, c is a material parameter
final damage corresponding to the crack friction, as well with two associated to confinement influence, and I1 is the first invariant of
parameters ADT2 and BDT2 . the stress tensor expressed as:
Finally, tangential isotropic hardening will be controlled by the
1 1
next functions: I1 ¼ Tr½r ¼ rN ð2:26Þ
3 3
ZT1 ¼ Y DT Y T1 ð2:19Þ
By the way, the initial yield for crack sliding is 0. Based on the
 principle of maximal plastic dissipation, the evolution laws could
0; if Y T1 <Y DT 6Y T2
ZT2 ¼ ð2:20Þ be deduced from the plastic potential expression:
Y DT Y T2 if Y T2 <Y DT

3
rfT  v
þ c  I1 þ  a  v2 ð2:27Þ
From these expressions, it can be remarked that Z T 2 is not taken into
account in the region of transition from small deformations to large
displacements.
2.3.4. Damage in the normal direction
In the model, the behavior of bonding in the normal direction
must be taken into account for two essential cases: the first one
is the decohesion between steel bars and concrete produced by
tension forces, while the second case is the inter-penetration of
surfaces induced by compression forces between both materials.
In other words, these two mechanisms may be interpreted respec-
tively as an opening or a closing of multiple cracks, which can be
controlled by a constitutive function for the normal behavior
uncoupled from the tangential behavior. In compression, assuming
a small inter-penetration between steel and concrete -that means
N 6 0 -, we adopt a classical expression for an elastic behavior
law:
rN ¼ E  hN i if N 6 0
For decohesion, instead of using a behavior law for cohesive cracks
(see [5]) or a Barenblatt law (see [6]), we preferred to use a tension
damage behavior law for concrete, that means:
rN ¼ ð1  DN Þ  E  hN iþ if N > 0
Upf ¼
4
Here, a is a material parameter, while the non linear effects in the
kinematics hardening are introduced thanks to the quadratic term
v2. Accordingly, the evolution laws associated to the sliding strain
and kinematics hardening will be expressed as:
@ Upf @ Upf
_ fT ¼ k_ f  and a_ ¼ k_ f  ð2:28Þ
@ rfT @v
The sliding multiplier k_ f is calculated numerically by imposing a
consistency condition.
3. Numerical implementation in a finite element context
3.1. Finite element support: the non-width interface element
Briefly, the proposal is based on the development of a new joint
element in order to simplify calculations and reduce meshing con-
ð2:21Þ struction problems. This interface element will be adapted from a
classical isoparametric finite element but without any dimension
or thickness, able to carry out tangential and normal stresses that
would be calculated from normal and tangential strains. The do-
main of a straight-edged quadrilateral element is defined by the
ð2:22Þ location of its four nodal points xea ; a ¼ 1; . . . ; 4 in the 2D-space. In
 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45 33

order to control strains into the joint element, we introduce the @ Upf
hpen parameter which is a physical value that corresponds to the Dv ¼ vðiþ1Þ  vðiÞ ¼ c  Da ¼ c  Dkf  ð3:4Þ
@v
maximal penetration due to thickness of compressed-pulverized
concrete [8]; that will allow us to define a normal stress even if this ðiþ1Þ ðiÞ @ Upf
DrfT ¼ rfT  rfT ¼ G  DT  DfT ¼ G  DT  Dkf  ð3:5Þ
one does not have any normal dimension, avoiding the classical @ rfT
stability drawbacks when dealing with contact forces. For the joint
element, classical shape functions will be used. Even so, the ele- By combining these expressions with the yield surface equation
ment stiffness matrix is constructed with derivatives of shape and making Uf = 0, we may deduce the increment of the multiplier
functions; so in order to avoid undetermined Jacobian for the inter- Dkf for each iteration i:
face normal dimension, we affect the nodal coordinate functions
UfðiÞ
introducing hpen projections in calculations. Finally, in order to Dkf ¼ ð3:6Þ
p ðiÞ p ðiÞ
complete the joint element formulation, we have adopted two @ Uf ðiÞ @ Uf @ Uf ðiÞ @ Uf
f  G  DT  f þ @v
c @v
@ rT @ rT
points of integration for tangential direction and only one for nor-
mal direction, using the Gaussian rules for integrals in several As soon as Dkf is obtained, it can be substituted in Eqs. (3.4) and
dimensions. For a more detailed explanation about the numerical (3.5) in order to update the thermodynamics forces rfT and v. These
implementation of the interface element, see [9]. iterations must continue until the consistency condition be verified
(by the respect of a given tolerance).
3.2. Numerical integration
3.2.2. Algorithm for numerical resolution
The numerical integration of the model has been widely simpli-
The implicit resolution algorithm for the ‘‘crack friction’’ part is
fied thanks to the uncoupling of the bonding behavior in both
presented as follows:
directions, diminishing the cost of calculations and avoiding the
use of a iterative method.
(i) Geometrical updating:
The behavior in the normal direction has been explicitly inte-
grated by the definition of an yield surface; in the tangential direc- ðT Þnþ1 ¼ ðT Þn þ rs uT
tion, the behavior has been separated in two parts: damage and
sliding crack friction. The first one is explicitly integrated by the
(ii) Elastic prediction:
definition of two limit surfaces, while the second part must be cal-
 ð0Þ  
culated by an implicit method. For that, we have chosen the classi-
fT ¼ fT ;
cal resolution known as ‘‘return-mapping algorithm’’, developed by nþ1 n
Ortiz and Simo [10]. In the next paragraph we will explain in a de-    
e ð0Þ
tailed way how it was implemented this algorithm. T nþ1
¼ ðT Þnþ1  fT ;
nþ1

ð0Þ
3.2.1. The return mapping algorithm for the implicit analysis
ðaÞnþ1 ¼ ðaÞn ;
Crack friction effects on bonding can be calculated on the
  
ð0Þ ð0Þ ð0Þ
ðrÞnþ1 ¼ r eT nþ1 ; ðaÞnþ1
framework of a pseudo-plastic behavior with a non linear kinemat-
ics hardening included. According to the method proposed by Ortiz
and Simo [10], a decoupling between elastic and plastic strains for
each time instant may be assumed, which allows doing an elastic (iii) Evaluation of the yield surface:
prediction of strains and stresses: nonetheless this assumption 8
> if YES; ending of cycle and :
must be handled carefully, because there is really no physical >
>
> 
>  ð0Þ
>
> f f
decoupling of strains (for a more detailed explanation of these is- > T nþ1 ¼ T nþ1 ;
>
>
sues, see [11]). The predicted elastic stresses/strains will be useful >
>
>
>  e  ð0Þ
as initial conditions for the integration of plastic equations, from >
> T nþ1 ¼ eT nþ1 ;
>
>
which a plastic correction will be made, by relaxation of the elastic >
< ð0Þ
6 0 ? ðaÞnþ1 ¼ ðaÞnþ1 ;
ð0Þ
stresses using an iterative procedure, in order to update the yield ðUf Þnþ1
>
>
function: the limit surface is reached as soon as the value of the >
> ð0Þ
>
> ðrÞnþ1 ¼ ðrÞnþ1 ;
yield function is equivalent to zero. The convergence is always >
>
>
>
reached because the stress trajectories follow a ‘‘steepest descend >
>
>
>
path’’, defined by the relaxation equations. >
>
> if NOT; starting of iterations and :
>
>
The relaxation procedure for stresses and internal variables is :
i¼0
done by an step-to-step iterative method. For each iteration, the
yield surface is linearized with respect to the last state-variables
and this is written as it follows:
(iv) Plastic correction:
@U
ðiÞ   @U
ðiÞ   ðiÞ
Uf ¼ UðiÞ f
: rfT
ðiþ1Þ ðiÞ
 rfT
f
: vf
ðiþ1Þ
 vf
ðiÞ
0 ðUf Þnþ1
f þ þ ð3:1Þ Dkf ¼ ðiÞ ðiÞ p ðiÞ ;
@r f
T
@v p  ðiÞ
@ Uf @U @ Uf @U
f  G  DT  f
f þ @v  c  @vf
@ rT @ rT nþ1
Introducing Eq. (2.28) in both Eqs. (2.9) and (2.10), we will have: nþ1 nþ1 nþ1

p !
p ðiÞ
!ðiÞ
@U f @ Uf @ Upf
v_ ¼ c  a_ ¼ c  k_ f  ð3:2Þ ðr
ðiþ1Þ
Þnþ1 ¼ ðr
ðiÞ
Þnþ1  G  DT  Dkf   c  Dkf  ;
@v @ rfT @v
p
@U f !ðiÞ
r_ fT ¼ G  DT  fT ¼ G  DT  k_ f  f
ð3:3Þ @ Upf
@r T
ðiþ1Þ
ðaÞnþ1 ¼ ðaÞnþ1 þ Dkf 
ðiÞ
@v
The last ones can be discretized in the next way:
34 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45

   
(v) Convergence requirement: T Þ
G  1  @gð
@ T
 fT
8 H¼   @ Up  ð3:8Þ
>
> if YES; ending of cycle and : @ Uf f
>
> @ rT  @ rT
>
> ðiþ1Þ
ðrÞnþ1 ¼ ðrÞnþ1 ; 1 þ G  DT      @Up 
>
>
>
>
@ Uf

@ 2 ðqWÞ
 f
>
> ðiþ1Þ
ðaÞ ¼ ðaÞnþ1 ; @v @ a2 @v
>
>  nþ1




>< e  ¼ e ððrÞ ;ðaÞ Þ; In this equation, the partial derivative corresponds to:

ðiþ1Þ

ð0Þ
T T nþ1 nþ1

ðUf Þnþ1
6
TOLðUf Þnþ1
?  nþ1  e
>
> f
@gðT Þ
> 
> T nþ1 ¼ ð  T Þ nþ1  T nþ1 ; ¼
@DT @Y DT

>
>
>
> @ T @Y DT @ T
>
>  
>
> 0
>
> if NOT; keep iterating fromðivÞ : f  g  h  f 0  g  h  f  g0  h
>
: ¼ 2
 G  T ð3:9Þ
i¼iþ1 h
where f,g and h correspond to the known functions:
The procedure is as follows: sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Y T1
f ¼
1. Initially, reading of bonding data, that is, geometrical and Y DT
material parameters. ( "rffiffiffiffi ! )
2. Predictive calculations of elastic strains and stresses. 2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi BD
g ¼ exp ADT1   ð Y DT  Y T 1  T1
3. Evaluation of damage yield limit. G
4. Non-linear calculations of damage and cracking friction BD
h ¼ 1 þ ADT2  hY DT Y T 1 iþ
T2

contribution:
(a) In normal direction: explicit calculation of the damage
scalar variable. 3.3. Final implementation in a standard finite element code
(b) In tangential direction:
(i) definition of the type of damage by evaluating two The proposed formulation was implemented in two standard fi-
limit surfaces for damage; nite element codes, FEAP [13] and Code_Aster [14], taking care of
(ii) explicit calculation of the damage variable; respecting the global architecture of each one of them. In both
(iii) implicit calculation of the hysteresis effects pro- codes, the interface element and the non linear constitutive func-
duced by the sliding crack friction; tion were implemented separately.
In the case of the non-width interface element, this one was
5. Tangent matrix calculation: introduced as a new type of finite element, according to the
r_ T requirements of each code. Nevertheless, because the interface ele-
H¼ ment has no width (that means two nodes in the same coordi-
_ T
nates), in FEAP it was necessary to modify previously a global
6. Construction of the elementary matrix and the residual for controller which verifies the coherence of nodes coordinates,
the interface element: avoiding to erase immediately the interface element; in Code_Aster
Z this was not necessary because the program is based in objects in-
eðiÞ
BT  H nþ1  B  dXe
ðiÞ
K nþ1 ¼ and stead of logical tasks. About the implementation of the constitutive
Xe
eðiÞ e;ext e;intðiÞ
function for bonding, in both codes it was simply introduced as a
Rnþ1 ¼ f nþ1 f nþ1 new independent material library that is called for the element.
7. Assembling of the global matrix: In other words, the bonding model can be used in a standard finite
element code even if this one does not allow to manipulate a new
Nelem n o Nelem n o
eðiÞ ðiÞ e;ext e;intðiÞ interface element, being possible to use a typical four-nodes quad-
A K nþ1  Dunþ1 ¼ A f nþ1 f nþ1
e¼1 e¼1 rilateral element with a very small width.
Finally, the system matrix resolution is done by a Newton–Raph-
son iterative method, without affecting the global architecture of 4. Calibration of bond model parameters
any finite element code.
In general, the bond model is controlled by one geometrical
3.2.3. Consistent tangent matrix parameter (hpen) and 14 material parameters, distributed in the
In order to ensure the robustness and efficiency of the proposed next way:
model for the global analysis of massive structures, it is necessary
to calculate the consistent tangent matrix, which can be deter-  Two general elastic parameters, Eb and mb;
mined from the next expression:  nine parameters for behavior on the tangential direction,
three of them associated to the frictional effects and con-
r_ T ¼ H  _ T ð3:7Þ
finement; and
The implementation of a consistent tangent matrix for the local for-  three parameters for behavior on the normal direction.
mulation of the bond-slip model is needed for quadratic conver-
gence in Newton iterations. Nevertheless, it must be remarked These parameters -or in other words, the analytical expressions
that if the bond-slip model is combined with a nonlocal model for that allow to calculate them - have been developed from the
concrete, the global consistent tangent stiffness matrix cannot be numerical simulation of some experimental tests described in the
assembled from elementary contributions solely (see [12]). By next paragraph.
doing some analytical calculations, it is possible to deduce the
expression for the tangent matrix by using the consistency condi- 4.1. The experimental tests of reference
tion as well the respective evolution laws:
In order to calibrate these parameters, we have studied and
compared several pull-out experimental test that have been re-
 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45 35

ported in literature; nevertheless, the choice was not simple be- 16

cause most of the tests report only the structural response of the
14 F - hpen 1 mm
specimen -that means, maximal displacement vs. applied force -
F - hpen 2 mm
while the bond model is expressed in terms of a stress–strain rela- 12 F - hpen 3 mm
tionship. In any case, we should make different inverse analysis in
10
order to identify the influence of each parameter in the global re-

Force (kN)
sponse. Among these tests, we have chosen as experimental refer- 8
ence the works of Eligehausen et al. [15] and Laborderie et al. [16] 6
based on the next requirements:
4
 The rigorousness of the experimental procedures. 2
 The quantity and variety of results.
 The exhaustive study and vulgarization of data and 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
parameters. Displacement (mm)

Fig. 1. Variation of the force–displacement relationship according to the parameter

The experimental research developed by Eligehausen et al. [15]
is one the most famous research programs about steel–concrete
bonding behavior, because they effectuated not only the pull-out
experimentation of 125 specimens, but also they proposed a
semi-empirical model for the local prediction of bond deteriora-
tion, which has been the basis for the CEB-FIP 1990 Model Code
[17]. Each specimen was conceived to represent the confined re-
gion of a standard beam-column connection, in which only a short
length of the steel bar was in contact with the concrete surface. The
controlled-displacement tests were done by applying a monotonic
and cyclic load in one edge of the bar and measuring the sliding on
the other bar’s edge. In this research, the influence of the following
parameters on bonding was investigated: (1) loading history; (2)
confining reinforcement; (3) bar diameter and deformation pat-
tern; (4) concrete compressive strength; (5) clear bar spacing; (6)
transverse pressure; and (7) loading rate.
The other experimental work [16] was developed in the Labora-
tory of Mechanics and Technology (LMT)/ ENS of Cachan in collab-
oration with Electricity of France (EDF), and it consisted in a set of
pull-out tests whose objective was to study the influence of the
concrete stress state on the bonding behavior (confinement ef-
fects). The specimens (cubes of 80x80x80 mm) had a steel bar
placed at the center of the transversal section, being in contact
with the concrete only on a length of 45 mm, in order to concen-
trate the damage on the bond interface. Four levels of lateral pres-
sure were considered: 0, 5, 10 and 15 MPa. A detailed description
of both experiments is available in [18].
4.2. Initial parameters
4.2.1. The basic parameter hpen
This parameter manages the inter-penetration between the sur-
faces on contact, affecting directly the tangent stiffness of the
interface element. At the same time, it is a controller for both the
bond dissipative energy and the sliding kinematics, as it is shown
in the Fig. 1. This parameter is associated to the volume of the com-
pressed-damaged-pulverized concrete generated exactly on the
interface region. Based in our observations, we propose to calculate
hpen with the help of two bar properties: the diameter / and the re-
hpen.
that in the United States asR has a value between 0.05 and 0.08,
while for the plain bar (without lugs) asR has a value between
0.005 and 0.02.
4.2.2. The basic parameter G or modulus of Coulomb
Typically, due to the difficulties of measuring shear strains on
any problem, the modulus of Coulomb is calculated directly from
the experimental elastic parameters E and m. Nevertheless, in our
case we consider bonding as a pseudo-material related to both
materials, steel and concrete; therefore, we have tested numeri-
cally the elastic response of the experimental specimen of [16],
in order to verify the influence of this value in the global response.
As numerical reference, the first simulation was done without
interface elements, or in other words, as there is only perfect bond.
The parameter hpen was tested as well. Fig. 2 was constructed
based on this criteria, and it is possible to observe on it that any va-
lue of G less than the corresponding concrete shear value
(6650 MPa) drives to a brutal reduction of the global stiffness,
showing an inadmissible deformed configuration without ensuring
a perfect bond. In the other hand, the use of a value for G greater
than the steel shear value (80750 MPa) does not really affect the
global stiffness. Regarding to the influence of the parameter hpen,
as its value increases, the numerical global stiffness moves away
from the stiffness value of the model without interface elements:
this could be explained as the result of replacing a rigid link - com-
mon nodes - between steel and concrete by an isoparametric ele-
ment which energy rises as hpen grows. Conversely, even if the
value of hpen decreases as G grows, the global stiffness never
reaches the reference global stiffness without interface elements,
400
350
K ( kN / mm )

300
lated rib area asR, using the expression (4.1):

hpen ¼ /  asR ð4:1Þ 250

hpen 1 mm
hpen 2 mm
According to [15], asR can be determined using the expression (4.2): hpen 3 mm
200 Perfect bond
k  F R  sinb
asR ¼ ð4:2Þ
p/c 150 4 4 4 4 5
0 2 10 4 10 6 10 8 10 1 10
where k is the number of transverse lugs around perimeter; FR is the
G
area of one transverse lug; sinb is the angle between lug and longi-
tudinal axis of bar; and c is the center to center distance between Fig. 2. Combined effect of G and hpen on the global stiffness of a Reinforced Concrete
transverse lugs. In the same study, Eligehausen et al. [15] mention piece.
36 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45
with a residual variation close to 5%. Hence, assuming that con-
crete will be the first material in being damaged, for bonding we
propose to use the same value of G estimated for the concrete. Nev-
ertheless, it is always possible to combine higher values for G and
hpen but we recommend not to adopt for bonding a value of G
greater than the corresponding value of G for steel.
4.3. Damage parameters on the tangential direction
The behavior of bond in the tangential direction can be sepa-
rated in three major regions: elastic or perfect bond region, transi-
tion region (from small to large sliding), and post-coalescence
region. The elastic region is controlled by the modulus of Coulomb
G and limited by the perfect bond yield strain T 1 . The transition re-
gion is controlled by two parameters, ADT1 and BDT1 , while the third
region is controlled by two similar parameters, ADT2 and BDT2 . the
boundary between these regions is defined by the post-coales-
cence yield strain T 2 . At the same time, the confinement and crack
friction effects are acting in both damage regions.
4.3.1. The perfect bond yield strain T 1
In order to define the perfect bond limit,we consider that shear
damage starts as soon as a perfect bond yield strain is reached.
Based on it, we propose to adopt the typical yield strain of concrete
in traction, that means, a value between 1.e4 and 1.5e3, which
corresponds to a shear stress between 0.5 and 4.0 MPa for perfect
bond.
4.3.2. The parameter of brittleness damage transition ADT1
In the second region, the damage evolution law controls the
shear stress as a function of the sliding and it is expressed in terms
of strains and its construction depends on the elastic slope defined
by the shear linear behavior. For our proposal, this parameter is a
key-point because the evolution of the damage must verify some
particular conditions indicated by different researchers, for
example:
 The bonding resistance is directly proportional to the con-
crete compression strength. On the other hand, it should
be taken into account that if the concrete strength becomes
higher, the stiffness too, and by consequence the bond
might fail due to the associated fragile rupture.
 The steel bar stiffness is related to its diameter and its
quantity of ribs, therefore this condition must raise the
bonding resistance.
 The relationship between the elastic modulus of both
materials (steel and concrete) must define directly the
kinematics of bonding.
Based on our numerical experiences, we have observed that the
value of this parameter should be placed between 1 et 5, and it
must be adjusted according to the experimental test adopted as
reference. In spite of this, we propose a conservative expression
(4.3), that allows adopting an initial value, which depends on the
own characteristics of the concerned materials:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 f 0c Esteel
ADT1 ¼   ð4:3Þ
ð1 þ asR Þ 30 Econcrete
In the last expression, f0 c corresponds to the concrete compression
strength; Esteel corresponds to the elastic modulus of steel; and Econ-
crete is the elastic modulus of concrete; all of them expressed in MPa.
The Fig. 3 gives a graphic comparison of the influence of this param-
eter, showing that as ADT1 raises, the maximal shear stress grows.
4.3.3. The exponential parameter of brittleness damage transition BDT1
This parameter affects the degree of curvature of the behavior
relationship, immediately in the transition between the elastic
slope and the non linear region. Its value goes from 0.1 to 0.5,
and it is recommended to adopt a value of 0.3 for ordinary calcula-
tions. In Fig. 4 it could be observed that any reduction of this value
produces a drastic curvature as well as an increasing of the shear
stress.
4.3.4. The post-coalescence yield strain T 2
The third region of the tangential bond behavior starts as soon
as the sliding reaches the post-coalescence yield strain. In order to
calculate the value of this parameter, which is very close to the
peak of the bond resistance (see Fig. 5(a)), we propose the next
expression (4.4) that is based on a sigmoid function:
 
1 ðADT1 Þn
T ¼ 2  1  6 1:0 ð4:4Þ
2
hpen ðC þ ADT1 Þn
ref
hpen
ref
In the last expression, hpen must be expressed in mm and hpen is
a reference value of 1 mm. In which concerns to the sigmoid func-
tion, this one is necessary for adjusting the kinematics effect of ADT1
on the sliding, which commonly diminishes as bond stiffness
grows. Adopting the values of C = 9 and n = 4 (but any other set
of values can be proposed), the last form of expression (4.4) will
be:
" #
1 ðADT1 Þ4
T ¼ 2  1  6 1:0 ð4:5Þ
ð9 þ ADT1 Þ4
2
hpen
href
pen
The choice of the post-coalescence yield strain is very important
because it defines the level of the fragility in the bond response
(see Fig. 5(b)), which is directly associated to the concrete com-
pression strength by the parameter ADT1 .
4.3.5. The parameter of post-coalescence damage ADT2
In this model, the tangential damage is controlled by two differ-
ent evolution laws expressed by just one classic scalar variable in
order to guarantee the damage continuity. Nevertheless, even if
the parameters of both laws are independent, a bad selection of
them might produce serious effects on the shape of the local
stress–strain curve. as it is shown in Fig. 6(a). Being very difficult
to build a simple general expression for this parameter, we propose
to adopt a value between 1.0e3 and 9.0e2 MPa1 based on the ac-
quired experience. From Fig. 6(a), it can be derived that as soon as
ADT2 grows, the maximal stress as well as the residual stress tend to
diminish.
4.3.6. The exponential parameter of post-coalescence damage BDT2
This parameter is necessary for controlling not only the growth
of the bond resistance or the shape of the behavior curve before
and after the peak, but also the kinematics of the response. The
parameter BDT2 determines the sliding associated to the maximal
shear stress as well as the amplitude of the curve in the behavior
peak. As it can be seen in the Fig. 6(b), this parameter is directly re-
lated to the parameter ADT2 , and they should be calibrated at the
same time. Even though, it is important to note that the value of
BDT2 varies inversely to the sliding amplitude at the peak, or in
other words, a value of 0.8 for BDT2 produces larger sliding than a
value of 1.2, for example. Based on our experience, it is recom-
mended to use a value between 0.8 and 1.1 in order to produce a
coherent behavior curve.
 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45 37

Fig. 3. Identification of parameter ADT1 .

Fig. 4. Identification of parameter BDT1 .

4.4. Parameters for frictional effects and confinement
4.4.1. The parameters c and a for the crack friction effects
One of the most important contributions of this model is the
capacity of taking into account the crack friction effects in the bond
behavior: for monotonic loading, this contribution is appreciated
as a growing of the bond shear resistance; for cyclic loading, the
width and shape of the hysteresis loops are determined for the va-
lue of both parameters. Because the experimental tests taken as
reference have not included the study of these cyclic effects, we
have chosen for c a value lower than 10 MPa and a maximal value
of 1.0 MPa1 for a. From Fig. 7 it is possible to appreciate that a
reduction of the value of a produces an increasing of dissipation,
shear resistance and the residual pseudo-plastic strain. The impor-
tance of this lies on the fact that once the maximal resistance of
bond is reached, there is not any other contribution to the resis-
tance associated to the sliding, only the friction between the sur-
face of the concrete linked to the steel bar and the surface of the
concrete body.
4.4.2. The lateral pressure parameter c
Normally, the values of the maximal bond shear resistance and
the corresponding sliding increase as the confinement or lateral
pressure raises around the steel bar. In this model, this influence
is taken into account by the parameter c. For calibration, we have
done numerical simulations with confinement values of 0, 5, 10
and 15 MPa considering a value of 1.0 for the parameter c (see
Fig. 8).
38 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45
Fig. 5. Influence of the post-coalescence yield strain T
4.5. Parameters of damage on the normal direction
In order to model the bond behavior on the normal direction,
each bond mechanism (closing or opening) has been represented
in an independent way. In the case of compression (closing), we
just allow a non-limited small deformation controlled by a linear
elastic behavior, while in the case of traction (opening), a damage
criteria has been adopted for simulating decohesion between the
steel bar and the concrete. Because there are not experimental
studies focused in this phenomenon, we propose hypothetical val-
ues for the three parameters that give numerical stability and
coherence to the model.
4.5.1. The elastic limit strain yN
Similar to the elastic limit strain in the tangential direction, we
have considered that decohesion should start as soon as as a con-
crete limit strain is reached, assuming a typical value between
1.0e4 and 1.0e3.
2
.
Fig. 6. Influence of parameters of post-coalescence damage.
4.5.2. The parameter for traction damage ADN
The parameter ADN controls the peak magnitude and shape of
the post-peak phase. A minimal value of 10.0 MPa1 produces a
coherent damage state similar to concrete damage. Nevertheless,
if it is necessary to model a much more fragile bond behavior, it
is enough by increasing this value, as it is shown in Fig. 9(a).
4.5.3. The exponential parameter for traction damage BDN
Combined with the previous parameter, BDN controls the magni-
tude and the shape of the normal behavior curve in the post-peak
phase. An non-dimensional value between 1.0 and 1.2 is conve-
nient for the model (see Fig. 9(b)).
 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45 39

20 For a value of BDN = 1.0

20

ADN = 5e+1
ADN = 1e+2
15 15 1DN = 5e+2

- Bond Normal Stress -

SYY (MPa)
10 10
- Shear stress -
SXY (MPa)

5 5

gamma 100 alpha 4 0

0 gamma 100 alpha 1 0 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 0.015
gamma 100 alpha .5 Normal Strain
gamma 100 alpha .2 (a) Identification of parameter ADN .

-5 For a value of ADN = 5e+2

12

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 BDN = 0.8

10 BDN = 1.0
Strain EXY
BDN = 1.2

- Bond Normal Stress -

Fig. 7. Combined influence of c and a parameters over the hysteresis loops. 8
SYY (MPa)

6
Values for a lateral pressure of 2.5 MPa
4
2.5 10
4
4
2 10
2
4
1.5 10
Force (N)

4
1 10
5000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 8. Combined influence of parameter c related to the lateral pressure.
5. Numerical examples
Briefly, in the next paragraphs we present some numerical
examples in which the proposed bond model has been used either
alone or combined with other non linear material behavior models.
The examples are grouped in three sets: In the first one, a simple
validation test for a one interface element is done in order to verify
the mathematical coherence of our proposal. The aim of the second
set is to validate the bond model by reproducing the experimental
response of different pull-out tests extracted from literature (see
[16,19]). In the third set, the numerical simulations include the
use of three non linear models for the material behavior of the steel
bar, concrete and bond (see the experimentaltest tie tests [20,21]).
For a wider description of each experimental study, it is recom-
mended to consult the corresponding reference.
5.1. Test 1: A simple validation test for sliding and decohesion
0
0 0 .0 0 5 0.01 0.015
Normal Strain
c = 0.0
c = 0.1
(b) Identification of parameter BDN .
c = 0.5
c = 1.0 Fig. 9. Influence of parameters on normal direction.
3
concrete and steel (see Table 1). By the way, we simulate the two
principal mechanisms of failure in bonding: a pure decohesion be-
tween steel and concrete (see Fig. 10(b)), and the tangential sliding
or bond-slip behavior (see Fig. 10(c)). For the first mechanism, the
boundary conditions are assigned in the next way: a vertical trac-
tion displacement is applied in the nodes of the concrete element
while the displacements in the bottom of the steel element are
fully-restrained ( see Table 2). As it is shown in Fig. 11(a) and (b),
the normal resistance of the bond reaches the peak and immedi-
ately it descends until a value of zero. For compression, a simple lin-
ear elastic law is considered. Regarding to the second mechanism,
the only variation is the direction of the displacement over the con-
crete element, which is applied horizontally by little increments,
and developing large displacements, activating the non linear tan-
gential behavior of the bond. This is shown in Fig. 11(c) and (d),
where it is possible to observe the three zones of the bond behavior:
a region of perfect bond, followed by a region of damage with tran-
sition from small to large displacements and finally, a region of
post-coalescence damage and residual resistance produced by fric-
tion. In Table 3, the numerical values obtained for Tangential and
Normal behavior are listed respectively.

For a simple validation of the interface model as well as for the
bond thermodynamical model implementation, in FEAP we analyze
a simple mesh of three finite elements (see Fig. 10-(a)) based on a
fictitious behavior for each material: concrete, steel and bond. In or-
der to focus to the non linear behavior of bonding (see parameters
in Table 1), we assigned a typical elastic model to both materials:
5.2. Validation based on experimental tests
5.2.1. Test 2: The pull-out validation test of Laborderie and Pijaudier-
Cabot
In this numerical simulation we analyze a simple pull-out
experimental test carried out by La Borderie and Pijaudier-Cabot
40 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45

bar had a diameter of 8 mm, and it was subjected to a controlled-

displacement of 8.0e3 mm/s. For numerical simulation, we built
an axisymmetric model with a structured mesh of 4-node quadri-
lateral elements for concrete and steel, and the modified version of
the non-width 4-node quadrilateral element to model the bond-
slip interface, as it is shown in Fig. 12(a): bonding elements are
placed between the steel bar and concrete body, without adhesion
on the bottom of the rebar. Regarding to the boundary conditions,
the displacements on the top of the concrete body were fully re-
strained, while the head of the rebar was subjected to the experi-
mental controlled-displacement. The whole bunch of parameters
is shown in the Table 1. This comparison allows to verify that the
local model reproduces the structural response of the pull-out test,
in terms of applied force vs. maximal displacement, just as it is
done in experimental laboratories (see numerical values on Table
4). Adjusting some of the parameters of the bonding model, it is
Fig. 10. A simple non-width bonding element: (a) placed between fictitious steel
possible to reproduce the confinement effect observed in the
and concrete elements; (b) pure decohesion; (c) tangential sliding. experimental results, that means, the dissipated energy is larger
as confinement increases. Unfortunately, even if it is possible to ad-
just some parameters in each curve in order to improve its shape in
Table 1 the last residual region, without this adjustments the experimental
Material parameters for all tests.
residual resistance of bonding is not well reproduced, in particular
Parameter Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 the tendency of the four experimental curves to approach them-
Steel selves as long as the large slips appears in the experiment (see
Young modulus Es 2.0e+5 2.0e+5 2.1e+5 2.1e+5 2.1e+5 Fig. 13). Nevertheless in those cases it must be mentioned that
Poisson ratio ms 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 the original elements of concrete and steel are not more in contact
Concrete in fact and so, according to the physical reality of the problem, the
Young modulus Ec 3.0e+4 3.7e+4 3.9e+4 3.1e+4 3.1e+4 full model should not be longer available.
Poisson ratio mc 0.2 0.17 0.2 0.2 0.2
Bond
Tangential modulus Gb 1.5e+4 1.55e+4 1.56e+4 1.5e+4 1.5e+4 5.2.2. Test 3: Pull-out test of Bamonte, Coronelli and Gambarova
Poisson ratio mb 0.2 0.17 0.2 0.2 0.2 The aim of the research of Bamonte et al. [19] was to study the
Maximal penetration hpen 0.64 0.64 1.55 0.8 0.8
scale effects on the behavior of the steel–concrete bond, compar-
ing ordinary concrete with high performance concrete. They have
tested 48 specimens combined with four different steel bar diam-
[16] on LMT-Cachan triaxial machine. In this experiment, the ef- eters (5,12, 18 and 26 mm). the steel bar edge was primarily sub-
fects of confinement over the bonding resistance as well as for jected to a traction force (pull-out test) and secondly to a
the maximum shear bearing capacity were studied by applying dif- compression force (push in test). Based on an axisymmetric for-
ferent values of lateral pressure (0, 5, 10 and 15 MPa), showing that mulation, the corresponding mesh was built with 4-node quadri-
resistance of bonding grows as much as the confinement increases. lateral elements for steel and concrete, while bond was built with
In order to make the results as representative as possible of the lo- non-width interface elements. All of the different diameters were
cal behavior of bonding, the researchers have built specimens with modeled. A list of the parameters used for modelling can be con-
very small dimensions (cubes of 80 mm per side). The steel ribbed sulted in Table 1. Fig. 14(a) shows the shear stress distribution for

Table 2
Material parameters for all tests (Continuation).

Parameter Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5

Bond
For tangential behavior:
P.B. yield strain T 1
4.0e4 4.0e4 2.0e4 5.0e4 5.0e4
B.D. transition ADT1 1.0 1.0 2.49 2.34 2.34
B.D.T. exponential BDT1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5
P. yield strain T 2
0.96 3.00 0.08 0.36 0.36
P. damage ADT2 1.0 0.95 1.0 1.0 1.0
P.D. exponential BDT2 0.5 0.45 1.02 0.5 0.5
For frictional effects and confinement:
Kinematics law c 100.0 100.0 1.0 10.0 10.0
Nonlinear hardening a 4.0 0.65 0.1 1.8 1.8
Lateral pressure c 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
For normal behavior:
Elastic limit strain yN 1.0e1 1.0e1 1.0e1 1.0e1 1.0e1
T. damage ADN 1.0e9 1.0e9 1.0e9 1.0e9 1.0e9
T.D. exponential BDN 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45 41

Fig. 11. Nonlinear behavior of bonding.

Table 3
any particular interface element on the global results is reduced
Tangential and normal stress–strain relationship for test 1.
significantly.
Tangential behavior Normal behavior
Strain Stress (MPa) Strain (e4) Stress (MPa) 5.3. Combined effect of three non linear models (steel–concrete-bond)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 on tie tests
0.25 10.20 1.00 1.53
0.50 12.4 2.00 2.60
Tie tests are widely used to study the effort transfer between
0.75 14.50 3.00 3.90
0.95 16.20 4.00 5.28
steel bars and the concrete body, focusing particularly on the
1.00 16.20 5.00 6.58 crack pattern distribution on concrete, as well as the changes
1.25 15.70 6.00 7.96 on the force - displacement response at each time that a crack
1.50 14.90 7.00 4.37 appears on the tie. The effects of bonding deterioration are
1.75 14.00 8.00 0.80
clearly identified in this kind of test. In the next cases, concrete
2.00 13.10 – –
was modeled using the damage model proposed for Mazars [22],
while the steel behavior is modeled using a classical elasto-plas-
tic model based on Mises criteria; bonding behavior is modeled
the ND3 pull-out test (diameter of 18 mm) while the correspond- with this proposal using non-width interface elements. By the
ing experimental and numerical results are compared in way, in order to verify the effectiveness of mixing three non lin-
Fig. 14(b), as well as in Table 5. Despite the parameter sensitivity, ear models and before doing any realistic prediction, we simu-
a very good approximation between experimental and numerical lated a long concrete tie (length of 150 cm) in which a
results is observed in 14(b), and this could be explained as fol- maximal displacement of 3 mm was imposed, finding that the
lows: because the loading is applied monotonically, the damage model with interface elements included is able to reproduce
in each interface element occurs gradually and not at the the different jumps in force that should appear as soon as a
same time step and, as a consequence, the local influence of crack arises in concrete - in contrast with the model without
42 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45

Fig. 12. Pull-out test of Laborderie and Pijaudier-Cabot.

Table 4
Force–displacement data for test 2.

Displacement (mm) Force (kN) wo/conf Force (kN) w/conf 5 MPa Force (kN) w/conf 10 MPa Force (kN) w/conf5 MPa
0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.1 2.97 2.98 2.95 2.92
0.2 5.71 5.99 5.96 5.93
0.4 10.10 11.10 11.90 12.00
0.6 12.70 13.80 15.30 16.80
0.8 14.00 15.10 16.60 18.50
1.0 14.30 15.40 17.00 18.80
1.2 14.10 15.20 16.80 18.70
1.4 13.70 14.80 16.40 18.30
1.6 13.10 14.30 15.90 17.80
1.8 12.60 13.70 15.30 17.20
2.0 12.00 13.10 14.80 16.70
2.5 10.70 11.90 13.60 15.50
3.0 9.60 10.80 12.60 14.50
3.5 8.70 10.00 11.70 13.60
4.0 8.00 9.30 11.10 13.00

Fig. 13. Comparison between experimental and numerical results of the structural response of the Laborderie/Pijaudier-Cabot pull-out test.
 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45 43

STRESS 4

-3.48E+01
-2.50E+01
-2.25E+01
-2.00E+01
-1.75E+01
-1.50E+01
-1.25E+01
-1.00E+01
-7.50E+00
-5.00E+00
-2.50E+00
0.00E+00
3.02E+00

Time = 1.60E+00
(a) Damage distribution for an ap-
(a) Shear stress distribution near to the resistance peak. plied displacement of 3 mm, with-
out and with interface elements.
140
40
120
35
100
Force (KN)

80 30

60 25
Force (KN)

40 Experimental
Numerical simulation 20
20
15
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
10
Displacement (mm)
Without interface elements
5 With interface elements
(b) Comparison between experimental and numerical force-
displacement relationship. 0
Fig. 14. Simulation of the ND3 specimen subjected to pull-out loading according to
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Bamonte [19]. Displacement (mm)
(b) Comparison of numerical results with and without
Table 5
interfaces elements.
Force–displacement data for test 3.
Fig. 15. Numerical study of an hypothetic tie of 150 mm length.
Displacement (mm) Force–experimental (kN) Force–numerical (kN)
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.06 39.30 39.30
0.11 49.60 47.30
0.60 105.00 109.00 30
1.10 120.90 134.50
1.64 133.00 134.50
2.10 130.70 126.50 25
3.10 109.30 104.40
4.00 93.90 90.10
20
Force (KN)

interface elements, which can only reproduce one unique crack 15

associated to one jump in force (see Fig. 15). A fully description
Exp. A
of this simulation can be consulted in [23]. 10 Exp. B
Exp. C
5.3.1. Test 4: Tie test of Clement Steel bar only
The tie test developed by Clement [20] consisted in a prismatic 5
Without interface elements
specimen with dimensions of 10  10  68 cm, in which a high With interface elements
resistance ribbed steel bar of 1.0 cm of diameter was placed at 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
the center, and subjected to a monotonic displacement-controlled
Displacement (mm)
until a first crack appeared on the concrete body. Numerically, for
each specimen two axisymmetric models were built: one without Fig. 16. Comparison of the tie structural response.
44 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45

Table 6 stress contribution due to the crack friction is integrated by the

Force–displacement data for test 4. use of an implicit resolution algorithm known as ‘‘return mapping’’
Displacement (mm) Force wo/bond (kN) Force w/bond (kN) to preserve the asymptotic quadratic convergence characteristic of
0.00 0.00 0.00 Newton’s method. In order to support the thermodynamical model,
0.10 6.46 6.59 a non-width interface element developed before was used. The
0.25 13.80 14.10 model -as well as the interface element - has been implemented
0.50 24.20 24.70 in two different standard finite element codes: FEAP and Code_Aster.
0.55 26.40 16.00
0.70 31.40 19.40
By the way, the study of all the parameters that support the ther-
0.75 10.70 20.50 modynamical bond model is widely developed. Based on the adop-
1.05 14.20 27.20 tion of an uncoupled bond behavior, it is possible to assembly them
1.10 14.70 20.20 in four sets of parameters: (a) three parameters relied to the global
1.55 19.70 27.40
elastic behavior; (b) six parameters controlling the tangential
1.60 20.30 22.20
2.00 24.80 27.40 behavior; (c) three parameters associated to the crack friction and
2.50 30.50 33.50 confinement effects; and (d) three parameters controlling the nor-
3.00 35.80 38.90 mal behavior. The calibration was done leaned on two experimental
tests [15,16] that allowed to evaluate each parameter separately,
and to propose a value or even formulate an expression for calculate
interface elements, and the other with interface elements included.
this value. Finally, some numerical examples in which the bond
A comparison between experimental and numerical results is
model was already used are briefly described in order to show the
shown in Fig. 16 as well as in Table 6: it is clear that including
potentialities of this proposal, especially when two or more non lin-
interface elements improves the prediction of the tie response,
ear material models will be used in order to make a prediction of
being able to reproduce the jumps on force associated to the loss
the real response of any Reinforced Concrete structure.
of tie stiffness. A fully detailed description of these simulations
can be found at [23].
References
5.3.2. Test 5: Tie test of Daoud
A more recent study of ties developed by Daoud [21] was done [1] G. Delhumeau, L’invéntion du béton armé, Norma, Paris, 1999.
[2] Lutz LA, Gergely P. Mechanics of bond and slip of deformed bars in concrete.
in order to verify if there is a relationship between the efforts and ACI Structural Journal 1967;64(11):711–21.
the number and location of cracks as soon as a certain applied dis- [3] Bathe KJ. Finite Element Procedures. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1996.
placement is reached. Adopting the same procedure (axisymmetric [4] Ibrahimbegovic A, Gharzeddine F, Chorfi L. Classical plasticity and
viscoplasticity models reformulated: theoretical basis and numerical
mesh with interface elements with combined non linear models implementation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
for material behavior), we introduced an hazardous distribution 1998;42:1499–535.
of elastic properties of concrete in order to take into account the [5] Krasucki F, Munch A, Ousset Y. Numerical simulation of debonding of
adhesively bonded joint. International Journal of Solids and Structures
heterogeneity of the material. Even though the prediction of the 2002;39:6355–83.
exact location of cracks remains undetermined, our numerical [6] J. Laverne, Formulation énergétique de la rupture par des modèles des forces
studies of several specimens show that it is possible to predict cohésives: considérations théoriques et implantations numériques, Thèse de
l’Université Paris XIII, 2004.
not only the number of cracks for an specific value of charge, but
[7] P.J. Armstrong, C.O. Frederick, A mathematical representation of the multiaxial
also the maximal and minimal spacing between them. In order to bauschinger effect,Technical Report RD/B/N 731, G.E.G.B., 1966.
see a detailed description of all this research, it is recommended [8] Ibrahimbegovic A, Wilson EL. Unified computational model for static and
to consult [23]. dynamic frictional contact analysis. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 1992;34:233–47.
[9] Ragueneau F, Dominguez N, Ibrahimbegovic A. Thermodynamic-based
interface model for cohesive brittle materials: application to bond-slip in RC
6. Conclusions structures. Computers Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
2006;135(52):7249–63.
In this work we have presented the formulation of a new model [10] Ortiz M, Simo JC. An analysis of a new class of integration algorithms for
elastoplastic constitutive relations. International Journal for Numerical
for the steel–concrete bonding behavior, which is written in the
Methods in Engineering 1986;23:353–66.
framework of the thermodynamics and the damage mechanics. [11] Montans FJ, Bathe KJ. Computational issues in large strain elasto-plasticity: an
This formulation is developed in terms of a classical stress–strain algorithm for mixed hardening and plastic spin. International Journal for
relationship, which facilitates its implementation in a standard fi- Numerical Methods in Engineering 2005;63:159–96.
[12] Huerta Antonio, Rodriguez-Ferran Antonio, Morata Irene. Efficient and reliable
nite element code, without affecting its global architecture. Regard- nonlocal damage models. In: Kolimbas Dimitrios, editor. A dvanced
ing to the thermodynamical writing of the model, this one describes mathematical and computational geomechanics. Berlin: Springer; 2003. p.
well the degradation of bonding by the use of damage variables and 239–67.
[13] R.L. Taylor, FEAP: a finite element analysis program, version 7.5 all manuals,
pseudo-plastic strains, passing from small deformations to large 2004.
displacements, taking into account the inelastic strains induced [14] Electricité de France R& D, Code_Aster Libre version 7.4, logiciel libre sous
by the sliding as well as the hysteresis loops produced by crack fric- licence GPL: Sources, documentation, exemples, 2004.
[15] R. Eligehausen, E.P. Popov, V.V. Bertero, Local bond stress-slip relationships of
tion. By the way, the use of two damage variables is possible if we deformed bars under generalized excitations, Technical Report UCB/EERC-83/
consider that the main mechanism of damage is the tangential slid- 23 of the National Science Foundation, University of California, 1983.
ing parallel to the principal axis of the steel bar: this assumption is [16] C. Laborderie, G. Pijaudier-Cabot, Étude expérimentale du comportement des
matériaux renforcés, rapport intermédiaire: Détermination expérimentale des
going to help us to take into account the cracking derived from a lois de comportement de l’interface fibre-matrice, Technical Report I70/1F
high concentration of shearing stresses associated to the excessive 3146, LMT Cachan/ Electricité de France R& D, 1987.
sliding between surfaces. Based on this decoupling of damage in [17] CEB-FIP, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. Design Code, Comité Euro-International du
Béton et Fédération Internationale de la Précontrainte, London, 1993.
two directions (normal and tangential), the proposed model is very
[18] N. Dominguez. Étude de la liaison acier-béton: de la modélisation du
similar to an orthotropic material model, in which initially the phénomène à la formulation d’un élément fini enrichi Béton Armé, Thèse de
orthotropic directions are already known. In which concerns to l’École Normale Supérieure de Cachan, 2005.
numerical integration, this one is simplified thanks to the same [19] P. Bamonte, D. Coronelli, P.G. Gambarova, Size effects in high-bond bars, in:
Proceedings of the conference Bond in Concrete, Budapest, 2002.
decoupling. The damage scalar variables are calculated explicitly [20] J.L. Clément, Interface acier – béton et comportement des structures en béton
from the energy of deformation. In the tangential direction, the armé: caractérisation – modélisation, Thèse de l’Université Paris VI, 1987.
 N. Domínguez, A. Ibrahimbegovic / Computers and Structures 106–107 (2012) 29–45 45

[21] A. Daoud, Étude expérimentale de la liaison entre l’acier et le béton auto-
plaçant – contribution à la modélisation numérique de l’interface, Thèse de
l’INSA de Toulouse, 2003.
[22] Mazars J. A description of micro- and macroscale damage of concrete
structures. Journal of Engineering Fracture Mechanics 1986;25(5/6):729–37.
[23] Dominguez N, Brancherie D, Davenne L, Ibrahimbegovic A. Prediction of crack
pattern distribution in reinforced concrete by coupling a strong discontinuity
model of concrete cracking and a bond-slip of reinforcement model.
Engineering Computations 2005;22(5/6):558–82.