See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280575627

Effect of Reinforcement Size on the Concrete / Reinforcement Bond Strength

Conference Paper · September 2003

DOI: 10.1680/rocisd.32477.0005

CITATIONS READS

0 984

3 authors, including:

Kazim Turk Sinan Caliskan

Inonu University Hitit University
64 PUBLICATIONS   463 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   546 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Use of Hybrid fiber in Concrete View project

Capillary Water Absorption of Self-Compacting Concrete under Different Curing Conditions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kazim Turk on 13 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Turk K., Caliskan S. and Yildirim, M. S., Effect of Reinforcement Size on the Concrete / Reinforcement Bond
Strength, Role of Concrete in Sustainable Development, Proceedings of The International Symposia, Celebrating
Concrete: People and Practice, Eds. R K Dhir, M D Newlands and K A Paine, Dundee, UK, 3-4 September 2003,
pp. 47 – 57 [ISBN 0 7277 3247 1]

EFFECT OF REINFORCEMENT SIZE ON THE

CONCRETE / REINFORCEMENT BOND STRENGTH

K Turk
Firat University, Elazig/Turkey
S Caliskan
University of Dundee, Dundee/UK,
M S Yildirim
Trakya University, Edirne/Turkey

ABSTRACT Bond strength between reduced-water-content concrete and tensile

reinforcement in spliced mode has been investigated. Three different diameters (12, 16 and
22mm) of tensile steel were spliced in the constant moment zone, where the load was applied
to, in geometrically identical nine beams. An empirical equation has been derived to
calculate the bond strength. It is found that there is a considerable size effect in the
experimental results, i.e. as the diameter of the reinforcement reduces the bond strength and
the ductility increases significantly, whilst the stiffness of the beams reduces.

Keywords: Bond strength, tensile reinforcement, size effect, splice length

Dr Kazim Turk is a Lecturer in the Firat University, Turkey. His research interests include
properties of concrete, aggregate characteristics and interfacial bond between concrete and
reinforcement.

Dr Sinan Caliskan is a Research/Teaching Fellow in the Concrete Technology Unit,

University of Dundee. His research interests include new generation of cement-based
materials particularly high performance and self-compacting concrete, durability and
microstructure of concrete, pressure of concrete on formwork and application of Fracture
Mechanics to concrete.

Dr M. Sukru Yildirim is an Associate Professor in Corlu Engineering Faculty, University of

Trakya, Turkey. His research interests include aggregate characteristics, admixtures and
properties of concrete.
48 Turk, Caliskan and Yildirim

INTRODUCTION

Load or stress in reinforced concrete is transferred through the bond between steel and the
surrounding concrete. In the design of reinforced concrete structures, hence, the interfacial
bond between concrete and steel reinforcement in a splice is an important factor to be
considered. The term bond is defined as the resistance against slip between steel and
concrete. The bond, essentially, depends on three factors, namely, chemical adhesion,
friction and mechanical interaction between steel and concrete (Figure 1). De Larrad et al.
[1] reported that high strength concrete provided about 80% higher bond strength with 10 mm
diameter reinforcement steel than that of normal strength concrete, whilst with 25 mm
diameter steel reinforcement, the difference dropped to 30% indicating the influence of
reinforcement size and concrete quality on the bond strength.

Fric
tion

Radial Pressure
Bearing
T

nt
lta
su
Re
Bond Strength
Bearing Friction
Component
Figure 1 Free body diagram of steel section embedded in concrete.

Lap splice used by many researchers [2-4] is a common method of splicing a re-bar in
reinforced concrete beams. It is noted that splice behaviour is influenced by splitting cracks
developing along the bars and by flexural cracks that mainly develop at the splice ends. Both
types of crack are governed by bond between steel reinforcement and concrete. Of which the
flexural cracks, in particular, are closely related to the maximum slip of steel, which depends
on the local micro crushing of the porous concrete layer in front of rib [5]. Splitting cracks,
on the other hand, are caused by rib-wedging action and are governed by the bond strength
and stiffness [6].

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

A total of nine geometrically identical beam specimens made of 30 MPa reduced-water-

content concrete were used to determine the bond strength between tension reinforcement and
concrete. A water to cement (w/c) ratio of 0.33 was used for concrete mix, whilst the
required workability was attained using superplasticizer. The geometrical details and
compressive strength values of concretes at 28 days are given in Table 1 and the mix
proportions are given in Table 2. Three different diameters (12, 16 and 22 mm) of steel
reinforcement have been selected, the mechanical properties of which are shown in Table 3.
Each beam contained two-tension reinforcement as shown in Figure 2 and a total of three
beams for each diameter were tested.

The lap-spliced tension reinforcement was located in the midspan in a region of constant
positive bending as shown in Figure 2. The splice length, ls was selected so that the bond
would fail splitting the concrete cover in the splice region before reaching the yield point.
 Concrete / Reinforcement Bond Strength 49

Table 1 Details of test specimens.

f c′ ρ
Beam with ls b (width) h (height)
Steel (mm) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (Ab/bd)
12 30.4 235 180 270 0.0054
16 30.1 235 180 270 0.0095
22 30.5 235 180 270 0.0180

Table 2 Mix proportions (kg/m3) used to prepare the beam specimens.

Portland Sand Gravel

Water Superplasticizer
Cement (0-5 mm) (5-8mm)
350 115.50 1320 566 7

Table 3 Properties of steel reinforcement used.

db Ab fy f su Elongation
(mm) (mm2) (MPa) (MPa) percent
12 113.10 476.48 719.97 17.23
16 201.06 454.63 671.63 19.44
22 380.13 446.13 663.18 20.97

P 235 mm P
a 180 mm

270 mm
35 mm
Shear span a Shear span
85 mm 235 mm 85 mm 35 mm
747.5 mm 747.5 mm
Constant moment region

a) Longitudinal section b) Section (a-a)

35 mm 35 mm

35 mm 180 mm

1900 mm

c) Top view

Figure 2 Loading arrangement and geometrical details of beam specimen.

Test beams were cast in a horizontal position with the lap spliced bars located at the bottom
of the steel mould. Poker vibrator was used to attain optimum compaction. Following
casting, the specimens were covered with wet burplap and plastic sheet, which continued for
28 days following de-moulding the specimens after 24 hours. All specimens were tested at
28 days.
50 Turk, Caliskan and Yildirim

TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURES

The test set-up and the four point loading arrangement used during the experimental study are
given in Figure 2. Beams were simply supported over a span of 1730 mm and an incremental
load of 0.0002 N/s was applied through a 5000 kN capacity testing machine until failure takes
place. The load from testing machine was transferred through a stiff steel girder onto the
specimens in the form of two equally concentrated loads.

The load and the displacement at the centre of the specimens were continuously recorded
throughout the tests. Cracks at the side and bottom faces of the specimens were marked for
further analysis. Concrete cover over the splice length in all specimens was first to fail due to
the interfacial bond failure between reinforcement bars and concrete.

MODE OF FAILURE

The first flexural cracks in all beams appeared randomly in the constant moment region on
the tension side of the beams outside the splice. As loading progressed, cracks were formed
along the entire length of the constant moment region including the splice. In all specimens,
failure took place just after the longitudinal splitting cracks started to form along the splices.
The longitudinal cracks were formed at the bottom face adjacent to the reinforcement bars.

Typical cracking pattern of a beam specimen is shown in Figure 3. The cracking pattern for
all specimens was similar. Smaller crack widths were observed on the specimens containing
smaller diameter steel reinforcement.

a) side view

splice length

b) bottom (tension side) view

Figure 3 A general crack pattern observed on beam specimens.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The failure mode in all specimens was a face-and-side split failure indicating that the splice
reached its maximum capacity. Therefore, bond strength could be determined via the stress
developed in the steel, f s , which was calculated using elastic cracked section analysis and
was determined from the maximum load obtained for each beam specimen. In this analysis
the modulus of elasticity of steel, E s was taken as 203.000 MPa and of concrete, E c was
′
obtained by E c = 4730 f c MPa (ACI 318-89). During the analysis, tensile stress in
 Concrete / Reinforcement Bond Strength 51

concrete below the neutral axis was not taken into account and linear stress-strain behaviour
was assumed. To obtain the average bond stress, ut the total force developed in the steel bar
(Abfs, where Ab is the cross-sectional area of the bar) was divided by the surface area of the
bar over the splice length ( πd b l s ) as follows:

( Ab f s ) f d
ut = ; ut = s b (1)
πd b l s 4l s

where d b is the bar diameter and l s is the splice length. The values of ut given in Table 4
and in Figure 4 have distinct size effect that as the size of reinforcing bar reduces the bond
strength increases. Table 4 also provides maximum load (Pmax), displacement at the centre of
the beam (δ), neutral axis width (x), steel stress (fs) and average bond strength (ut). The
deflection values at Pmax for each reinforcement diameter are given in Figure 5.

One can see in Figure 4 that as the size of the reinforcement decreases the bond strength
between reinforcement and concrete increases significantly indicating a clear size effect, i. e.
the smaller the diameter the higher the bond strength. Furthermore, the deflection at the Pmax,
given in Figure 5 reduces as the diameter of the reinforcement increases, which show that as
the diameter of the steel reinforcement increases the stiffness of the beams increases while
the ductility reduces.

Table 4 Experimental results for specimens with three different sizes of bar.

Steel Pmax δ x fs ut
Diameter (mm)
(kN) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
(mm)
12 50.30 1.97 58.68 394.38 5.03
16 60.80 1.74 74.85 273.95 4.66
22 71.50 1.51 95.69 175.75 4.11

6.0

5.5
Bond Strength (MPa)

5.0
R2 = 1
4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Steel Diameter (mm)

Figure 4 Bond strength results of the specimens for different reinforcement sizes.
52 Turk, Caliskan and Yildirim

2.5

δ (mm) 2.0

R2 = 0.9868

1.5

1.0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Steel Diameter (mm)

Figure 5 Deflections at Pmax recorded at the centre of the specimens.

For the test results, u t / f c′ was plotted against 1 / d b and is given in Figure 6, which shows
that a good correlation is obtained between the test results and the proposed equation:

ut 4.36
= 0.558 + (2)
f c′ db

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6
f `c

4.36
0.4 Bondstrength = 0.558 +
u test /

db

0.2
Experimental results R2 = 0.9556
0.0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
1/db

Figure 6 Proposed equation for bond strength.

Load-displacement curves for beam specimens with 12, 16 and 22 mm of reinforcements are
shown in Figure 7, 8 and 9 respectively. Each figure contains three results, which are
obtained from three different specimens with the same size of reinforcement. It is shown in
these figures that the maximum load increases as the reinforcement size increases indicating
the increase in the stiffness of the beams. Furthermore, it is also indicated that there is a good
agreement between the results of three beams with the same size of steel bars.
 Concrete / Reinforcement Bond Strength 53

75

60
Load (kN)

45

30
Specimen-I

Specimen-II
15
Specimen-III

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Midspan deflection (mm)

Figure 7 Load-deflection curves for db=12 mm beam specimens.

75

60
Load (kN)

45

30
Specimen-I

Specimen-II
15
Specimen-III

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Midspan deflection (mm)

Figure 8 Load-deflection curves for db=16 mm beam specimens.

75

60
Load (kN)

45

30 Specimen-I

Specimen-II
15
Specimen-III

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Midspan deflection (mm)

Figure 9 Load-deflection curves for db=22 mm beam specimens.

54 Turk, Caliskan and Yildirim

COMPARISON WITH ORANGUN [3] AND ESFAHANI [7]

Experimental bond strength results of three different diameters of reinforcement were

compared with that of theoretically predicted values, which were calculated by using the
empirical equations:

′
u = [1.2 + 3(c / d b ) + 50(d b / l s ) + K tr ] f c (3)

developed by Orangun et al. [3], where

Atr f yt
K tr = (3a)
500sd b

and

1 + 1/ M⎛ c ⎞
U = uc ⎜⎜ 0.88 + 0.12 med ⎟⎟ (4)
1.85 + 0.024 M ⎝ cm ⎠

developed by Esfahani and Rangan [7], where

c m / d b + 0 .5 ′
u c = 4 .9 f ct for f c < 50 MPa (4a)
c m / d b + 3 .6

c m / d b + 0 .5 ′
u c = 4 .9 f ct for f c ≥ 50 MPa (4b)
c m / d b + 3 .6

⎛ ′⎞
⎜ fc ⎟
M = cosh⎜ 0.0022 Ld R (4c)
⎜ d b ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠

′ ′
and U and f c are in MPa; f ct = 0.55 f c ; c m is the smallest value and c med is the second
larger value of side cover, bottom cover or ½ of center-to-center spacing of bars; R varies
between 3 and 4.25, which depends on type of reinforcing bar.

The results are given in Table 5 and in Figure 10. The bond efficiencies, which were
obtained dividing the bond strength by the predicted values, for all reinforcement splices
were 0.92 and 1.04 using the Equations 3 and 4 respectively. It is seen in Table 5 and in
Figure 10 that the predicted bond strength values by using Equation 4 were closer to that of
the experimental values. However, it is clear that the Equation 3 overestimates the bond
strength between reinforcement and concrete.
 Concrete / Reinforcement Bond Strength 55

Table 5 Comparison of bond strength with Orangun et al. [3] and Esfahani and Rangan [7].

Predicted bond stress (MPa) Bond efficiency

Beam with Measured bond
Steel (mm) stress, ut (MPa) Orangun et al. Esfahani and
ut/uOrangun ut/uEsfahani
[3] Rangan [7]
12 5.03 5.75 4.86 0.87 1.03
16 4.66 5.09 4.62 0.92 1.01
22 4.11 4.88 4.41 0.84 0.93

6.0

5.5
Bond Strength (MPa)

5.0

4.5

4.0 Measured R2 = 1
Orangun et al. R2 = 0.8446
3.5
Esfahani and Rangan R2 = 0.9766
3.0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Steel Diameter (mm)

Figure 10 Comparison of measured and the predicted bond strength results.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, bond strength between concrete and reinforcement has been investigated using
nine beams containing an overlapping splice of two bars (12, 16 and 22 mm in diameters).
Based on the analysis and comparison of modes of failure, ultimate loads, load-deflection
behaviour and bond stresses of the beam specimens, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. Experimental results indicate that beam failure occurred due to the collapse of the
overlapping splice, which was provoked by concrete splitting.
2. It is shown that there is a strong size effect in the experimental results, i. e. as the
diameter of the steel reinforcement reduces the bond strength and ductility increases
significantly, whilst the stiffness of the beams reduces.
3. The method developed by Esfahani and Rangan [7] predicted the bond strength that is
closer to the measured values, while that developed by Orangun et al. [3]
overestimated the bond strength between concrete and reinforcement.

NOTATIONS

ρ : reinforcing bar ratio( ρ = Ab / bd )

δ : deflection at the centre of the beam
x : neutral axial width
W/C : water-to-cement ratio
56 Turk, Caliskan and Yildirim

Ab : area of one reinforcing bar being spliced

Atr : area of transverse reinforcement crossing plane of splitting adjacent to single

anchored reinforcing bar
b : width of beam
c max : maximum of cx, cy ve (cs+φ)/2
c med : median of cx, cy ve (cs+φ)/2 (c< cmed<cmax)
cm : minimum of cx, cy ve (cs+φ)/2
cs : spacing between the spliced bars
cy : bottom cover
cx : side cover
d : useful heigth
db : bar diameter
Ec : modulus of elasticity of concrete

Es : modulus of elasticity of steel

f c′ : concrete compressive strength (standard cylinder specimen)
f ct : tensile strength of concrete

fs : tensile stress in the reinforcing bar

f su : ultimate stress in reinforcing bar

f yt : yield strength of transverse reinforcement

fy : yield stress of reinforcing bar

h : height of beam
K : modulus of displacement
K tr : index of transverse reinforcement provided along anchored bar
Ld : development length
ls : length of lap splice
M : bond strength parameter given by Eq. (4c)
P : applied load
Pmax : maximum applied load
R : K/f’c, taken as 3 when ρ is close to 0.07
r : correlation coefficient
s : spacing of transverse reinforcement
T : tension force
u : average bond stress
uc : bond stress when the concrete cover cracks
ut : average bond stress corresponding to maximum applied load
utest : bond stress calculated from experiments
 Concrete / Reinforcement Bond Strength 57

REFERENCES

1. DE LARRARD, F., SCAHALLER, I. AND FUCHS, J., Effect of bar diameter on the
bond strength of passive reinforcement in high-performance concrete, ACI Materials
Journal, 1993, pp. 333-339.
2. TEPFERS, R., A theory of bond applied to overlapped tensile reinforcement splices
for deformed bars, Publication No. 73:2, Division of concrete structures, Chalmers
University of Technology, Goteborg, 1973, pp. 328
3. ORANGUN, C. O., JIRSA, J.O. AND BREEN, J. E., A reevaluation of test data on
development length and splices, ACI Journal, 1977, pp. 114-122
4. SAGAN, V. E., GERGELY, P. AND WHITE, R. N., Behaviour and design of
noncontact lap splices subjected to repeated inelastic tensile loading, ACI Structural
Journal, 1991, pp. 420-431
5. GAMBAROVA, G. P. AND GIURIANI, E., Discussion of “Fracture mechanics of
bond in reinforced concrete” by Ingraffea, A. R., Gerstle, W. H., Gergely, P. and
Saouma, V., ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 1985, pp. 1161-1163
6. TEPFERS, R., Cracking of concrete cover along anchored deformed reinforcing bars,
Magazine of Concrete Research, 1979, No. 106, pp. 3-12
7. ESFAHANI, M. R. AND RANGAN, B. V., Bond between normal strength and high-
strength concrete and reinforcing bars in splices in beams, ACI Structural Journal,
1998, pp. 272-280

View publication stats