Bond Behavior of Reinforcement in Conventional and

Self-Compacting Concrete

Farhad Aslani* and Shami Nejadi

Centre for Built Infrastructure Research, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

(Received: 16 November 2011; Received revised form: 23 February 2012; Accepted: 26 March 2012)

Abstract: Self-compacting concrete (SCC) can be placed under its own weight
without compaction. In addition, it is cohesive enough to be handled without
segregation and bleeding. Modification in the mix design of SCC can have a
significant influence on the material’s mechanical properties. Therefore, it is important
to investigate whether all of the assumptions about conventional concrete (CC) design
structures also valid for SCC construction. Bond behavior between concrete and
reinforcement is a primary factor in the design of reinforced concrete structures. This
study presents a bond strength model based on the experimental results from eight
recent investigations of SCC and CC. In addition, the proposed model, code
provisions, and empirical equations and experimental results from recent studies on
the bond strength of SCC and CC are compared. The comparison is based on the
measured bond between reinforcing steel and concrete utilizing the pullout test on the
embedded bars at various heights in the mock-up structural elements to assess the top-
bar effect on single bars in small prismatic specimens by conducting beam tests. The
investigated varying parameters on bond strength are the: steel bar diameter, concrete
compressive strength, concrete type, curing age of the concrete, and height of the
embedded bar along the formwork.

Key words: bond behavior, self-compacting concrete, conventional concrete, bond strength, pull-out test, beam test.

1. INTRODUCTION Therefore, it is important to ensure that all of the

Also known as self-consolidating concrete, self-
compacting concrete (SCC) is a highly flowable, non-
segregating concrete that can spread into place, fill the
formwork, and encapsulate the reinforcement without
any mechanical compaction (ACI 237R-07 2007).
Although it is highly flowable, SCC must be sufficiently
cohesive to prevent segregation or blockage of aggregates
during flowing. The enhanced cohesiveness can ensure
better suspension of solid particles in the fresh concrete
and, consequently, good deformability and filling
capability during the spread of the fresh concrete
through various obstacles (Okamura and Ozawa 1995;
Ozawa et al. 1995).
However, the modified composition of SCC in
comparison with conventional concrete (CC) may
influence the properties of the hardened concrete.
assumptions and test results upon which the structural
design models are based for CC structures are also valid
for SCC structures. One of the important properties of
hardened concrete is its bond strength with reinforced
steel. The bond strength between reinforcement and
concrete is a basic phenomenon that allows reinforced
concrete to behave as a composite structural material.
Generally, in composite materials, forces are transferred
between two materials through two types of actions:
physicochemical (adhesion) and mechanical (friction
and bearing action). These actions are activated by
various states of stress. The relative importance of these
actions depends on the surface texture and geometry of
the bars (Valcuende and Parra 2009). In addition, there
are other factors that can influence the bond behavior of
the reinforcement, including those that influence the

*Corresponding author. Email address: Farhad.Aslani@uts.edu.au; Fax: +61 2 9514 2633; Tel: +61434419460.
Associate Editor: J.G. Dai.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012 2033

 Bond Behavior of Reinforcement in Conventional and Self-Compacting Concrete
quality of the concrete. As a result, changing the mix
design can lead to changes in the mechanical properties
of the material (Domone 2007; Parra 2005), including
the steel-to-concrete bond. In CC, when either the
fluidity is increased or sand-rich mixes are used, bond
strength deteriorates (Martin 1982). SCC also improves
the bond strength, due to its filling ability. This
improvement is not significant; however, self-
compacting concrete presents at least the same bond
capacity as CC (Almeida Filho 2006; Domone 2007).
Based on extensive experiments, Carrasquillo (1988)
stated that “in no case the pullout capacity of straight
deformed bars embedded in superplaticizered concrete is
significantly less than that of the bars embedded in
concrete containing no superplasticizer”. Khayat (1998)
investigated the bond strength of SCC with a special
focus on the effect of viscosity modifying admixtures
(VMA) to reduce the top-bar effect of anchored bars. It
was found that the accumulation of bleed water under the
reinforcement and minute separation of fresh paste from
the reinforcement due to segregation and settlement
might significantly reduce the bond strength. The
reduction in bond with horizontally embedded bars
located in the upper sections of the structural elements
opposed to those located near the bottom is known as the
top-bar factor. A total of 25 specimens were prepared to
evaluate the effect of specimen height (500, 700, and
1100 mm) and bar-anchored length (2.5 and 5 times the
bar diameter) of horizontally embedded bars. The
findings indicate that the use of VMA in SCC decreases
surface settlement, which is related to bleeding and
segregation and significantly reduces the top-bar factor.
The results of pullout tests on 12- and 20-mm diameter
steel reinforcing bars conducted by Sonebi et al. (2000)
showed that the bond strength of SCC was approximately
18% to 38% higher than that of CC. In tests conducted by
Attiogbe et al. (2002), SCC yielded similar top-bar
factors to those of normal concrete with 102 to 152 mm
of slump. In a test using air-cured SCC and a VMA, the
top-bar factor was actually lower than that of CC. Chan
et al. (2003) also found that the SCC members had
significantly higher bond strength with reinforcing bars
than CC members. They also reported that reduction in
bond strength due to bleeding and non-homogeneity in
CC was prevented by using SCC. Also, in studies by
Koning et al. (2001) and Schiessl and Zilch (2001), the
CC bond strength was 15% to 20% higher than the SCC
bond strength. Conversely, Sonebi and Bartos (1999,
2002) stated that SCC bond strength was 15% to 40%
higher than the CC bond strength. In other studies
performed by Gibbs and Zhu (1999) and Lorrain and
Daoud (2002), no significant differences were observed
between the bond strength of both types of concrete.
2034
2. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The objectives of the present study are to: (a) develop a
bond strength model based on the experimental results of
the nine recent investigations on the SCC and CC that
emphasized the influence of bar type (BT; plain (P) and
deformed (D)), diameter of the steel bar (db), embedded
length of the steel bar (ld), concrete type (SCC and CC),
compressive strength of the concrete (fc′ ), and casting
direction (CD) and (b) compare the proposed model,
code provisions, and empirical equations via the
experimental results of recent studies on the bond
strength of SCC and CC. The comparison is based on the
measured bond between reinforcing steel and concrete
by utilizing the pullout test on the embedded bars at
various heights in mock-up structural elements to assess
the top-bar effect on single bars in small prismatic
specimens and; conducting additional beam tests. For
these purposes, the experimental results from the eight
recent studies (i.e., Zhu et al. 2004; Castel et al. 2006;
Almeida Filho et al. 2008; Hossain and Lachemi 2008;
Valcuende and Parra 2009; Lachemi et al. 2009, Hassan
et al. 2010, and Desnerck et al. 2010) on the bond
strength of SCC and CC are investigated and compared.
3. DATABASE FOR BOND
CHARACTERISTICS
3.1. Experimental Results
An experimental results database from various published
investigations is an effective tool for studying the
applicability of the various bond estimation models for
SCC. To apply the models to a particular concrete mixture
accurately, it is necessary to use only investigations that
are sufficiently consistent with the applied testing
methodology. The SCC experimental results included in
the database were gathered mainly from papers presented
at various conferences and published articles. The
database includes information regarding the composition
of the mixtures, fresh properties of SCC, testing
methodology, and conditions. Bond characteristics have
not been investigated as much as the other aspects of SCC.
In addition, the available published experimental data in
the literature are not extensive.
From the recent study of Aslani and Nejadi (2011a)
on the bond experimental results database, Table 1
includes general information about the concrete
experimental tests, such as type of specimens and test,
types of bar [BT; plain (P) and deformed (D)], diameter
of the steel bar (db), embedded length of the steel bar
(ld), compressive strength of the concrete (fc′ ), type of
specimen utilized in the compressive strength test (TS fc′ ),
and casting direction (CD). Various admixtures are
used in the mix design of SCC including
superplaticizers (SP), high-range water reduces
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012
Farhad Aslani and Shami Nejadi

Table 1. SCC and CC experimental tests detailing

fc′
Reference Mixture Specimen type BT db(mm) ld (mm) (MPa) (TS fc′) CD
Zhu et al. CC35 pull-out test of 100 × 100 × 150 (mm) D 12 and 20 120 37.00 150 mm V-U
(2004) CC60 pull-out test of 100 × 100 × 150 (mm) D 12 and 20 120 61.50 cube V-U
SCC35 pull-out test of 100 × 100 × 150 (mm) D 12 and 20 120 47.00 V-U
SCC60 pull-out test of 100 × 100 × 150 (mm) D 12 and 20 120 79.50 V-U
Castel et al. CC25 pull-out test of 100 × 100 × 500 (mm) D and P 12 60 34.40 110 mm × V-U, V-D, H
(2006) CC40 pull-out test of 100 × 100 × 500 (mm) D and P 12 60 48.80 220 mm V-U, V-D, H
SCC25 pull-out test of 100 × 100 × 500 (mm) D and P 12 60 30.00 cylindrical V-U, V-D, H
SCC40 pull-out test of 100 × 100 × 500 (mm) D and P 12 60 43.70 V-U, V-D, H
Almeida CC1 pull-out test of cylinder with D 10 and 16 5 and 8 35.80 100 mm × V-U
Filho et al. 10 db diameter and height 200 mm
(2008) CC2 pull-out test of cylinder with D 10 and 16 5 and 8 62.25 cylindrical V-U
10 db diameter and height
SCC1 pull-out test of cylinder with D 10 and 16 5 and 8 38.00 V-U
10 db diameter and height
SCC2 pull-out test of cylinder with D 10 and 16 5 and 8 70.76 V-U
10 db diameter and height
CC1 beam specimen test D 10 and 16 10 db 35.80 H
CC2 beam specimen test D 10 and 16 10 db 62.25 H
SCC1 beam specimen test D 10 and 16 10 db 38.00 H
SCC2 beam specimen test D 10 and 16 10 db 70.76 H
Hossain and CC pull-out test of 900 × 200 × 100 (mm) D 25 100 53.00 100 mm × V-U, H
Lachemi FA SCC pull-out test of 900 × 200 × 100 (mm) D 25 100 62.00 200 mm V-U, H
(2008) SC SCC pull-out test of 900 × 200 × 100 (mm) D 25 100 39.00 cylindrical V-U, H
VMA SCC pull-out test of 900 × 200 × 100 (mm) D 25 100 47.00 V-U, H
Lachemi NG_NS pull-out test of 200 × 200 × 100 (mm) D 15 100 and 200 38.80 100 mm × V-U
et al. (2009) BS_NS pull-out test of 200 × 200 × 100 (mm) D 15 100 and 200 43.20 200 mm V-U
ES_NS pull-out test of 200 × 200 × 100 (mm) D 15 100 and 200 43.60 cylindrical V-U
Valcuende CC32-0.65 pull-out test of 200 mm cube D 16 80 27.75 150 mm × V-U
and Parra CC32-0.55 pull-out test of 200 mm cube D 16 80 33.76 300 mm V-U
(2009) CC42-0.55 pull-out test of 200 mm cube D 16 80 42.40 cylindrical V-U
CC42-0.45 pull-out test of 200 mm cube D 16 80 56.50 V-U
SCC 32-0.65 pull-out test of 200 mm cube D 16 80 30.21 V-U
SCC 32-0.55 pull-out test of 200 mm cube D 16 80 35.77 V-U
SCC 42-0.45 pull-out test of 200 mm cube D 16 80 61.15 V-U
CC32-0.65 square cross-section columns D 12 60 27.75 H
of 1500 × 150 (mm)
CC32-0.55 square cross-section columns of D 12 60 33.76 H
1500 × 150 (mm)
CC42-0.55 square cross-section columns of D 12 60 42.40 H
1500 × 150 (mm)
CC42-0.45 square cross-section columns of D 12 60 56.50 H
1500 × 150 (mm)
SCC 32-0.65 square cross-section columns of D 12 60 30.21 H
1500 × 150 (mm)
SCC 32-0.55 square cross-section columns of D 12 60 35.77 H
1500 × 150 (mm)
SCC 42-0.55 square cross-section columns of D 12 60 50.18 H
1500 × 150 (mm)
SCC 42-0.45 square cross-section columns of D 12 60 61.15 H
1500 × 150 (mm)
Hassan CC pull-out test of 4000 × 1200 × 300 (mm) D 20 150 47.00 100 mm × H
et al. (2010) SCC pull-out test of 4000 × 1200 × 300 (mm) D 20 150 45.00 200 mm H
cylindrical

Table 1. (Continued)

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012 2035

 Bond Behavior of Reinforcement in Conventional and Self-Compacting Concrete

Table 1. SCC and CC experimental tests detailing (Continued)

fc′
Reference Mixture Specimen type BT db(mm) ld (mm) (MPa) (TS fc′) CD
Desnerck CC1 beam specimen test type I D 12 60 51.80 150 mm × H
et al. (2010) SCC1 beam specimen test type I D 12 60 63.70 300 mm H
SCC2 beam specimen test type I D 12 60 57.50 cylindrical H
CC1 beam specimen test type II D 20 and 25 5 db 51.80 and H
SCC1 beam specimen test type II D 20 and 25 5 db 63.70 150 mm H
SCC2 beam specimen test type II D 20 and 25 5 db 57.50 cube H
CC1 beam specimen test type III D 32 and 40 5 db 51.80 H
SCC1 beam specimen test type III D 32 and 40 5 db 63.70 H
SCC2 beam specimen test type III D 32 and 40 5 db 57.50 H

Abbreviations used in Table 1: types of the bar (BT; plain (P) and deformed (D)), diameter of the steel bar (db), embedded length of the steel bar (ld),
compressive strength of the concrete (f c′ ), type of specimen utilized in the compressive strength test (TS f c′ ), casting direction (CD), vertical up casting direction
(V-U), vertical down casting direction (V-D), horizontal casting direction (H), viscosity-modifying admixture (VMA), fly ash (FA), slag cement (SC), normal-
weight gravel (NG), normal-weight sand (NS), blast furnace slag (BS), and expanded shale (ES).

(HRWR), water reducer (WR), viscosity-modifying
admixture (VMA), fly ash (FA), slag cement (SC),
ground granulated blast slag (GGBS), and air-
entraining admixtures (AEA). As shown in Table 1,
various types of specimens and tests have been
investigated in the literature including the pullout test
on prism specimens and cylinder specimens and beam
test specimens. Moreover, various types of db, ld, fc′ and
CD were used; however, the bar type was only
considered in Castel et al. (2006).
Table 2 summarizes the experimental results of Zhu
et al. (2004), Castel et al. (2006), Almeida Filho et al.

Table 2. SCC and CC bond strength experimental results

Reference Bond strength

Zhu et al. (2004) Bars with db = 12 mm (Maximum bond strength)
• SCC35 24% higher than CC35
• SCC60 30% higher than CC60
Bars with db = 20 mm (Maximum bond strength)
• SCC35 24% higher than CC35
• SCC60 30% higher than CC60
Castel et al. With plain bars (Maximum bond strength)
(2006) • SCC25 V-U = SCC25 V-D
• CC25 V-D 40% higher than CC25 V-U
• SCC25 H = 15% SCC25 V-D
• CC25 H = 20% CC25 V-D
• SCC40 V-D & V-U 15% higher than CC40 V-D & V-U
• SCC40 H = 30% SCC40 V-D & V-U
* CC40 H = 30% CC40 V-D & V-U
With deformed bars (Maximum bond strength)
• SCC25 V-U 10% higher than SCC25 V-D
• SCC25 V-U 12% higher than CC25 V-U
• SCC25 V-D 13% higher than CC25 V-D
• SCC40 V-D 12% higher than SCC40 V-U
• SCC40 V-D 16% higher than CC40 V-D
• SCC40 V-U = CC40 V-U
• SCC25 H 25% higher than CC40 H
• SCC40 H = CC40 H
Almeida Filho Pullout test (Maximum bond strength)
et al. (2008) • SCC1 (db = 10 mm, ld = 50 mm) 19% higher than CC1
• SCC1 (db = 10 mm, ld = 50 mm) 16% higher than CC1
• SCC2 (db = 10 mm, ld = 50 mm) 5% higher than CC2
• SCC2 (db = 10 mm, ld = 50 mm) 12% higher than CC2
Beam test (Maximum bond strength)
• CC1 14% higher than SCC1
• CC1 12% higher than SCC1
• SCC2 = CC2

2036 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012

Farhad Aslani and Shami Nejadi

Table 2. SCC and CC bond strength experimental results (Continued)

Reference Bond strength

Hossain and Horizontally cast
Lachemi (2008) • CC normalized bond stress for bottom bars ranges between 1.32 and 1.66
• CC normalized bond stress at the top range between 0.35 and 1.21
• FA SCC normalized bond stress for bottom bars ranges between 1.22 and 1.79
• FA SCC normalized bond stress at the top range between 1.13 and 1.51
• SC SCC normalized bond stress for bottom bars ranges between 0.72 and 1.102
• SC SCC normalized bond stress at the top range between 0.67 and 0.93
• VMA SCC normalized bond stress for bottom bars ranges between 1.10 and 1.30
• VMA SCC normalized bond stress at the top range between 1.11 and 1.36
• FA SCC and VMA SCC show higher bond stress compared with CC. SC SCC develop lower bond stress
compared to CC and other SCC mixtures
Vertically cast
• Normalized bond stress from top to bottom bars ranges between 0.33 and 1.13 in CC, between 1.62 and 1.75 in FA
SCC, between 0.95 and 1.23 in SC SCC, and between 1.43 and 1.64 in VMA SCC
• The normalized bond stresses of all SCCs are higher than CC
Top-bar factor horizontally cast
• The top-bar factor for CC ranges between 1.37 and 3.77, for FA SCC it ranges between 1.08 and 1.29, for SC SCC
it ranges between 1.07 and 1.18, and for VMA SCC it ranges between 1.00 and 1.06.
• The lower top bar factor is an indication of superior performance of SCCs compared to CC
Top-bar factor horizontally cast
• The top-bar factors of 2.54 and 3.4 for CC, 1.05 and 1.08 for FA SCC, 1.1 and 1.29 for SC SCC, and 1.08 and
1.14 for VMA SCC are found.
• The top-bar factor of close to unity along the height of the specimens confirmed the superior performance of SCC
compared to CC
Lachemi et al. • LWSCCs (light-weight) is found to be less (between 16% and 38%) than NWSCC (normal-weight)
(2009) • The decreases in bond strength are about 38% for BS_NS and 16% for ES_NS
• The normalized bond strength is found to increase with the increase of embedded length from 100 mm to 200 mm
Valcuende and Tests with 200 mm cube specimens
Parra (2009) • The SCC normalised maximum stress is generally greater than CC in 7%, 17%, 8% and 1% for mixes 1, 2, 3 and
4, respectively
Tests with specimens 1500 mm high (top-bar effect)
• The drop in bond strength between the upper and lower zones of the columns varies from 32% to 55% in SCC and
from 60% to 74% in CC
• The drop in bond strength at the head of the columns averages 32.1% less in SCC than in CC (differences of
29.1%, 28.6%, 27.89% and 42.9% for mixes 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively)
• In the four mixes studied, the mean bond strength is greater in SCC than in CC
• The ultimate bond strength is greater in SCC than in CC
• Depending on the mix, the loss in mean bond stress between the upper and lower areas of 1.5 m tall columns
varies by between 40% and 61% in SCC and between 70% and 86% in CC
• With regard to ultimate stress, the losses vary between 32% and 55% in SCC and between 60% and 74% in CC
Hassan et al. • No significant differences are noted between SCC and CC mixes in terms of bond or compressive strength
(2010) development with age
• The normalized bond stress is slightly higher in SCC than that in CC at 3, 7, 14 and 28 days
• The ratio of the normalized bond stress of SCC to that of CC is higher in the top bars and late tested ages
compared to the bottom bars and early tested ages
• The stiffness of the bond stress-slip curve is higher in SCC pullout specimen compared to their CC counterparts
and the difference is more pronounced at late age
• In both CC and SCC pullout specimens, the bond stress is slightly higher in the bottom bars than that in the top
and middle bars at all ages. The difference is more pronounced at late ages rather than early ages
Desnerck et al. • The stiffness of the bond stress-slip curve is higher in SCC pullout specimen compared to their CC counterparts
(2010) and the difference is more pronounced at late age
• The bond strength of SCC1 is larger than those of SCC2 and CC1 (as is expected due to the higher compressive
strength) at all stress levels
• For bar diameters of 40 mm the curves for SCC2 and CC1 are almost identical for small slip values, while the
bond stress level for SCC1 for the same slip is higher
• The differences in the normalized ultimate bond strength for the CC and the SCC are largest for bar diameters of
12 mm. The difference becomes smaller for higher bar diameters, but the results for SCC are higher in all cases.
• By increasing the bar diameter, the slip at maximum bond stress is increasing in all cases

Abbreviations used in Table 2: diameter of the steel bar (db), embedded length of the steel bar (ld), ), vertical up casting direction (V-U), vertical down casting
direction (V-D), horizontal casting direction (H), viscosity-modifying admixture (VMA), fly ash (FA), slag cement (SC), normal-weight gravel (NG), normal-
weight sand (NS), blast furnace slag (BS), and expanded shale (ES).

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012 2037

 Bond Behavior of Reinforcement in Conventional and Self-Compacting Concrete

Table 3. Analytical bond models

Reference Bond strength equation Units

Psi units
Orangun et al . (1977)

SI units
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979)

Psi units
Kemp (1983)

Psi units
Chapman and Shah (1987)

Psi units
Harajli (1994)

SI units
Pillai et al. (1999)

, ,

LWSCC NWSCC
SI units
Bae (2006)
Constant Deformed GFRP Plain Deformed
A 0.85 0.48 0.3 0.74
B 0.17 0.68 0.88 0.52
embedment length in mm

(2008), Hossain and Lachemi (2008), Valcuende and
Parra (2009), Lachemi et al. (2009), Hassan et al.
(2010), and Desnerck et al. (2010).
From the experimental results database (Tables 1
and 2), the following conclusions can be made: (a) The
ultimate and mean bond strengths are greater in SCC
than in CC; (b) For the top cast bars, the local bond
strength for SCC is less than that for CC, and (c) The
bond strength of SCC is the same as that of CC when
large bar diameters are used.
3.2. Analytical Models for Bond
In the literature, there are several analytical and
numerical models that attempt to represent the bond
stress response in the steel-concrete interface. Most of
these models are based on results of experiments that
investigated the concrete compressive strength, concrete
cover (C), steel bar diameter, and embedment length. In
them, researchers provided equations to calculate the
average bond strength via linear or non-linear
regressions (Aslani and Nejadi 2011b). Table 3 shows
some of the empirical equations (Orangun et al. 1977;
Kemp and Wilhelm 1979; Kemp 1983; Chapman and
Shah 1987; Harajli 1994; Pillai et al. 1999; Bae 2006)
that represent the bond behavior and the code provisions
used to evaluate the bond strength without transverse
reinforcement. The influence of the transverse
reinforcement is typically added to the bond strength
without reinforcement.
4. PROPOSED ANALYTICAL BOND MODEL
4.1. Bond Strength Prediction Model
Many researchers have examined relationships between
pull-out load and compressive strength. All studies in this
area have shown that the bond strength (stress) increases
with the compressive strength of concrete (Malhotra
1975; Richards 1977; Skramtajew 1983; Stone and
Carino 1983; Stone and Giza 1985). In this regard, ACI
318 (2008) proposes that the bond strength is linearly
proportional to (fc′ )0.5. It can be easily concluded from the

2038 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012

Farhad Aslani and Shami Nejadi

earlier literature that the average bond stress reduces as ratio of compressive strength of 150 mm × 300 mm to
the embedment length increases due to the nonlinear 100 mm × 200 mm cylinders was 0.9, regardless of
stress distribution that exists between the rebar and the strength and test age.
concrete. Another conclusion is that average bond stress Figure 1 shows the comparisons of the SCC and CC
decreases with larger rebar diameters. Different bond strength measured from the experimental results
explanations exist for the decrease in bond stress due to (Tables 1 and 2) versus the calculated values from
the larger rebar diameters (Ichinose et al. 2004). In this empirical equations (Table 3). Figure 2 shows the
study, the relationships proposed for the CC and SCC are comparison of the SCC and CC bond strengths
based on regression analyses using existing experimental measured from the experimental results (Tables 1 and 2)
data, with the results expressed as Eqns 1 to 4. Eqns 1 and versus the calculated values from the proposed models
2 consider plain rebar bond strength for CC and SCC, (Eqns 1–4). The measured experimental results (Tables
respectively, whereas Eqns 3 and 4 consider deformed 1 and 2) and calculated values using empirical equations
rebar bond strength for CC and SCC, respectively. In and proposed model are shown in Appendix A.
these equations the influences of concrete cover, bar
diameter, embedment length, and compressive strength 4.2. Bond Stress-Slip Prediction Model
(at the curing age) parameters are considered. In the analysis of reinforced concrete structures, the bond
action between steel bars and concrete is often viewed as
For plain rebar and CC: a bond-slip relationship. This relationship expresses the
0.6
local bond stress at any location along a bar as a function
  c  d  0.23 of the local slip. Numerous bond-slip relationships have
τ max =  0.7   + 4  b   ( fc′) (1)
  db   ld   been proposed and formulated. However, given that
bond-slip relationships are impacted by various factors
(CEB 1982) that vary across bond tests, these proposed
For plain rebar and SCC: models are different (Morita and Fujii 1985). For
example, in pullout tests, bond-slip relationships
  c
0.6
 d  obtained from extremely short specimens are different
0.23
τ max =  0.7   + 5  b   ( fc′) (2) from those obtained from longer ones (Yamao et al.
  db  
 ld   1984). Even in the same specimen, the bond-slip
relationship varies with the location along the bar if the
For deformed rebar and CC: free end slip exists (Chou et al. 1983). Table 4 shows
several bond stress-slip prediction models (Barbosa
 0.6 2001; CEB-FIP 1999; Huang et al. 1996; Harajli et al.
 c  d  0.55
τ max =  0.679   + 3.88  b   ( fc′) (3) 1995) described in the literature. According to Table 4,
 d
 b l
 d  three of these models are based on and similar to the
main curve of bond stress-slip, although the influencing
For deformed rebar and SCC: parameters are different. In this study, the main curve is
similar to the CEB-FIP (1999), Huang et al. (1996), and
 0.6 Harajli et al. (1995) models but the τmax parameter for
 c  d  0.55 SCC and CC are different (see Table 5).
τ max =  0.672   + 4.8  b   ( fc′) (4)
  db   ld   Figures 3 through 9 illustrate the capability of
proposed bond strength equations with a combination
Proposed bond strength models are related to of bond stress-slip compared with the findings of
compressive strength. Further, because the compressive Valcuende and Parra (2009) (with different compressive
strength test types of specimens in the database are strength and water to cement ratio), Hassan et al. (2010)
different, the fc′ values should be corrected. In this study, (with different bar pullout positions (top, middle, and
the most used type of compressive strength test in the bottom) and age of concrete), and Desnerck et al. (2010)
database (i.e. 100 mm × 200 mm cylindrical) is (with different diameter of bar) for both of SCC and CC.
considered as main and other types of test results (i.e.,
150 mm × 300 mm cylindrical and 150 mm cube) must 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
convert to it. Yi et al. (2006) reported that the As shown in Figure 1, available bond strength
relationship between 100 mm × 200 mm cylindrical with prediction models (Orangun et al. 1977; Kemp and
150 mm cube was: fcy(100 ′ × 200) = (fcu(150)
′ −8.86)/0.85. Wilhelm 1979; Kemp 1983; Harajli 1994; Pillai et al.
Also, Carrasquillo et al. (1981) stated that the average 1999; Bae 2006) generally underestimate the bond

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012 2039

 Bond Behavior of Reinforcement in Conventional and Self-Compacting Concrete

Orangun et al. (1977) Kemp and Wilhelm (1979)

40 40

Predicted maximum bond strength (MPa)

Predicted maximum bond strength (MPa)

CC CC
35 35
SCC SCC
30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Experimental results of the maximum bond strength (MPa) Experimental results of the maximum bond strength (MPa)

Kemp (1986) Chapman and Shah (1987)

40 40
Predicted maximum bond strength (MPa)

Predicted maximum bond strength (MPa)

CC CC
35 35
SCC SCC
30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Experimental results of the maximum bond strength (MPa) Experimental results of the maximum bond strength (MPa)

Harajli (1994) Pillai et al. (1999)

40 40
Predicted maximum bond strength (MPa)

Predicted maximum bond strength (MPa)

CC CC
35 35
SCC SCC
30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Experimental results of the maximum bond strength (MPa) Experimental results of the maximum bond strength (MPa)

Bae (2006)
40
Predicted maximum bond strength (MPa)

CC
35
SCC
30

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Experimental results of the maximum bond strength (MPa)

Figure 1. Comparison of the SCC and CC bond strength from experimental results versus calculated values from Orangun et al. (1977),
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979), Kemp (1983), Chapman and Shah (1987), Harajli (1994), Paillai et al. (1999), Bae (2006) models

2040 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012

Farhad Aslani and Shami Nejadi

Porposed model strength for both SCC and CC mixtures when compared
40 to experimental results. Although Chapman and Shah
Predicted maximum bond strength (MPa)

CC (1987) model has a more accurate prediction equation,

35
SCC
the model tends to underestimate the bond strength. The
30
proposed models for bond strength are consistent with
25 the experimental results for both normal and high
strength SCC and CC, as shown in Figure 2.
20
As shown in Table 6 for CC, the proposed model
15 provides a better prediction of bond strength data with a
coefficient of correlation factor (R2) of 0.80 compared
10
to 0.37 in Kemp (1983), 0.38 in Kemp and Wilhelm
5 (1979), 0.40 in Orangun et al. (1977) and Harajli
(1994), 0.41 in Pillai et al. (1999), 0.44 in Chapman and
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Shah (1987), and 0.60 in Bae (2006). Also, as shown in
Experimental results of the maximum bond strength (MPa) the Table 6 for SCC, the proposed model provides a
better prediction of bond strength data with a coefficient
Figure 2. Comparison of the SCC and CC bond strength from
of correlation factor (R2) of 0.81 compared to 0.27 in
experimental results versus calculated values from proposed model

Table 4. Analytical bond stress-slip models

Reference Bond stress-slip equation Units

τ = 19.36 s 0.51 ( fc′ < 50 MPa ) τ = 32.58 s 0.48 ( fc′ ≥ 50 MPa )

Barbosa (2001) SI units
 α 0 ≤ s ≤ s1 
τ max ( s / s1 )
CEB-FIP (1999),  
 τ max s1 < s ≤ s2 
Huang et al. (1996) τ= 
and Harajli et al. (1995) τ max − (τ max − τ u ) ( s − s2 / s3 − s2 ) s2 < s ≤ s3  SI units
 τu s3 < s 


CEB-FIP Unconfined Huang et al. High strength Normal strength Harajli et al.
Confined concrete Concrete
(1999) concrete (1996) concrete concrete (1995)

s1 (mm) 1.0 0.6 s1 (mm) 0.5 1 s1 (mm) 0.15 Distance between ribs

s2 (mm) 3.0 0.6 s2 (mm) 1.5 3 s2 (mm) 0.35 Distance between ribs

Distance between Distance between Distance

s3 (mm) 1.0 s3 (mm) s3 (mm) Distance between ribs
ribs ribs between ribs
α 0.4 0.4 α 0.3 0.4 α 0.3

τmax 2.5 fc′ 2.0 fc′ τmax 0.4 fcm 0.4 fcm τmax 2.57 fc′

τu 0.4 τ max 0.15 τ max τu 0.4 τ max 0.4 τ max τu 0.9 fc′

Table 5. Proposed parameters that included in bond stress-slip model

High strength Normal strength Confined Unconfined

concrete concrete concrete concrete
s1 (mm) 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.6
s2 (mm) 1.5 3.0 3.0 0.6
s3 (mm) Distance between ribs Distance between ribs Distance between ribs 1.0
α 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
τmax for CC with plain rebar Eqn 1
τmax for SCC with plain rebar Eqn 2
τmax for CC with deformed rebar Eqn 3
τmax for SCC with deformed rebar Eqn 4
τu 0.4 τmax 0.4 τmax 0.4 τmax 0.15 τmax

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012 2041

 Bond Behavior of Reinforcement in Conventional and Self-Compacting Concrete

(b) SCC32, w/c = 0.55

(a) CC32, w/c = 0.55 30
Experimental results of Valcuende and Parra (2009)
30 Barbosa (2001)
Experimental results of
Valcuende and Parra (2009) CEB-FIP (1999)
Barbosa (2001) 25 Huang et al. (1996)
25 CEB-FIP (1999) Harajli et al. (1995)
Huang et al. (1996) Proposed model

Bond stress (MPa)

Harajli et al. (1995) 20
Bond stress (MPa)

20 Proposed model

15
15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

Figure 3. Bond stress versus slip curves of the equations compared with Valcuende and Parra (2009) experimental results of: (a) CC and
(b) SCC ( f c′ = 32 MPa and w/c = 0.55)

(b) SCC42, w/c = 0.45

(a) CC42, w/c = 0.45 30
45
Experimental results of
Valcuende and Parra (2009)
40 Barbosa (2001) 25
CEB-FIP (1999)
35 Huang et al. (1996)
Bond stress (MPa)

Harajli et al. (1995)

Bond stress (MPa)

20
30 Proposed model

25
15
20

15 10 Experimental results of
Valcuende and Parra (2009)
Barbosa (2001)
10 CEB-FIP (1999)
5 Huang et al. (1996)
5 Harajli et al. (1995)
Proposed model
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

Figure 4. Bond stress versus slip curves of the equations compared with Valcuende and Parra (2009) experimental results of: (a) CC and
(b) SCC (f c′ = 42 MPa and w/c = 0.45)

(b) SCC, Top, 28 day

(a) CC, Top, 28 day 25
30 Experimental results of Hassan et al. (2010)
Experimental results of Barbosa (2001)
Hassan et al. (2010) CEB-FIP (1999)
Barbosa (2001)
25 CEB-FIP (1999)
20
Huang et al. (1996)
Bond stress (MPa)

Harajli et al. (1995)

Bond stress (MPa)

20 Proposed model
15

15
10
10

5
5 Huang et al. (1996)
Harajli et al. (1995)
Proposed model
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

CC SCC

Figure 5. Bond stress versus slip curves of the equations compared with Hassan et al. (2010) experimental results of: (a) CC and (b) SCC
(Top bar pullout at 28 days)

2042 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012

Farhad Aslani and Shami Nejadi

(a) CC, Middle, 14 day (b) SCC, Middle, 14 day

25 25
Experimental results of Hassan et al. (2010) Experimental results of Hassan et al. (2010)
Barbosa (2001) Barbosa (2001)
CEB-FIP (1999) CEB-FIP (1999)
20 20

Bond stress (MPa)

Bond stress (MPa)

15 15

10 10
Huang et al. (1996) Huang et al. (1996)
Harajli et al. (1995) Harajli et al. (1995)
Proposed model Proposed model
5 5

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

CC SCC

Figure 6. Bond stress versus slip curves of the equations compared with Hassan et al. (2010) experimental results of: (a) CC and (b) SCC
(Middle bar pullout at 14 days)
(a) CC, Bottom, 7 day (b) SCC, Bottom, 7 day
25 25
Experimental results of Hassan et al. (2010) Experimental results of Hassan et al. (2010)
Barbosa (2001) Barbosa (2001)
CEB-FIP (1999) CEB-FIP (1999)
20 20
Bond stress (MPa)

Bond stress (MPa)

15 15

10 10
Huang et al. (1996) Huang et al. (1996)
Harajli et al. (1995) Harajli et al. (1995)
Proposed model Proposed model
5 5

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

CC SCC

Figure 7. Bond stress versus slip curves of the equations compared with Hassan et al. (2010) experimental results of: (a) CC and (b) SCC
(Bottom bar pullout at 7 days)

(a) CC1, db = 25 mm (b) SCC1, db = 25 mm

30 30
Experimental results of Desnerck et al. (2010)
Barbosa (2001)
CEB-FIP (1999) 25
25
Bond stress (MPa)
Bond stress (MPa)

20 20

15 15

10 10
Experimental results of Desnerck et al. (2010)
Barbosa (2001)
CEB-FIP (1999)
5 Huang et al. (1996) 5 Huang et al. (1996)
Harajli et al. (1995) Harajli et al. (1995)
Proposed model Proposed model
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

CC SCC1

Figure 8. Bond stress versus slip curves of the equations compared with Desnerck et al. (2010) experimental results of: (a) CC and (b)
SCC1 (diameter of bar 25 mm)

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012 2043

 Bond Behavior of Reinforcement in Conventional and Self-Compacting Concrete

(b) SCC2, db = 40 mm
(a) CC1, db = 40 mm 30
30
Experimental results of Desnerck et al. (2010)
Barbosa (2001) 25
CEB-FIP (1999)
25

Bond stress (MPa)

20
Bond stress (MPa)

20

15
15

10 10
Experimental results of Desnerck et al. (2010)
Barbosa (2001)
CEB-FIP (1999)
5 Huang et al. (1996) 5 Huang et al. (1996)
Harajli et al. (1995) Harajli et al. (1995)
Proposed model Proposed model
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)
CC SCC2

Figure 9. Bond stress versus slip curves of the equations compared with Desnerck et al. (2010) experimental results of: (a) CC and (b)
SCC2 (diameter of bar 40 mm)

Table 6. Coefficient of correlation factor (R2) bond prediction models for CC and SCC

CC SCC
Predicted/Experimental Predicted/Experimental
Reference bond results R2 bond results R2
Orangun et al. (1977) 0.78 0.40 0.68 0.27
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 0.60 0.38 0.50 0.35
Kemp (1986) 0.43 0.37 0.33 0.38
Chapman and Shah (1987) 0.91 0.44 0.8 0.43
Harajli (1994) 0.74 0.39 0.64 0.29
Pillai et al. (1999) 0.74 0.41 0.64 0.30
Bae (2006) 0.70 0.60 0.57 0.51
Proposed Model 1.19 0.80 1.16 0.81

Orangun et al. (1977), 0.29 in Harajli (1994), 0.30 in the the experimental results. On the contrary, Barbosa’s
Pillai et al. (1999), 0.35 for the Kemp and Wilhelm (2001) model overestimates the values, whereas CEB-
(1979), 0.38 in Kemp (1983), 0.43 in Chapman and FIP’s (1999) model underestimates them. According to
Shah (1987), and 0.51 in Bae (2006). Figure 5, compared to the experimental results of
Compared to the experimental results (SCC and CC) Hassan et al. (2010) (SCC, top, 28 days), Huang et al.’s
of Valcuende and Parra (2009) (with different types of (1996) and Barbosa’s (2001) models are consistent. In
maximum compressive strength at 28 days and water- addition, CEB-FIP’s (1999) and Harajli et al.’s (1995)
to-cement ratio), the available bond stress-slip models models underestimate the bond strength. According to
(Barbosa 2001; CEB-FIP 1999; Huang et al. 1996; Figures 6 and 7, in comparison with experimental
Harajli et al. 1995) underestimate the bond strength, as results of Hassan et al. (2010) [(SCC, middle, 14 days),
shown in Figures 3 and 4. However, the predicted (CC, bottom, 7 days) and (SCC, bottom, 7 days)],
values of the proposed model are more consistent with Barbosa’s (2001) model has good agreement. Further,
Valcuende and Parra’s (2009) bond stress-slip CEB-FIP’s (1999), Huang et al.’s (1996), and Harajli
experimental results, although there are several different et al.’s (1995) models underestimate the values.
factors [compressive strength, water-to-cement ratio, However, the proposed model’s prediction results for all
and concrete (for both SCC and CC)]. of these conditions (with different bar pullout positions
According to Figures 5 and 6, compared to the and age of concrete) are consistent with Hassan et al.’s
experimental results of Hassan et al. (2010) [(CC, top, (2010) bond stress-slip experimental results.
28 days) and (CC, middle, 14 days)], Huang et al.’s According to Figure 8, in comparison with
(1996) and Harajli et al.’s (1995) models are consistent experimental results (CC1, db = 25 mm), all of the

2044 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012

Farhad Aslani and Shami Nejadi
models overestimate the bond strength. According to
Figures 8 through 9, CEB-FIP’s (1999) and Harajli et
al.’s (1995) models have a good prediction, whereas
Huang et al.’s (1996) and Barbosa’s (2001) models
overestimate the values in comparison to the
experimental results of Desnerck et al. (2010) [(SCC1
and SCC2, db = 25 mm) and (CC1, SCC1, and SCC2,
db = 40 mm)]. The proposed relationship is consistent
with Desnerck et al.’s (2010) test results, despite the
different bar diameters (db = 12, 25, and 40 mm) and
concrete types (CC1, SCC1, and SCC2).
In literature a lot of models to predict the ultimate
bond strength, corresponding slip and equations to
describe the bond stress-slip behavior can be found
mostly for conventional concrete with compressive
strengths in the range of 20 MPa to 50 MPa.
Comparisons between the available models and the
experimental results database revealed a rather poor
agreement. Therefore new proposals for bond strength
and bond-slip curve are made.
The proposed bond strength models in this study are
covered bond strength predictions for the plain and
deformed steel bars, the normal and high strength
conventional and self-compacting concrete. Furthermore,
the proposed bond-slip models are covered bond-slip
behavior predictions for the plain and deformed steel
bars, the normal and high strength conventional and self-
compacting concrete, and the confined and unconfined
conventional and self-compacting concrete.
Also, the proposed bond-slips models are showed
have good predictions for bond-slip experimental curves
with different range of bar diameters, with different
range of concrete age, with different steel bar pullout
positions in the form works, with different types of
maximum compressive strength at 28 days and water-
to-cement ratio. This study presented proposed models
based on the experimental results from eight recent
investigations of SCC and CC, the proposed models
have some limitations (e.g. more high strength SCC,
confined SCC, and etc.) then additional tests are need.
6. CONCLUSION
The following conclusions can be drawn from this
research:
(1) Based on the experimental results database the
following conclusions can be made:
• The ultimate and mean bond strengths are
greater in SCC than in CC.
• For the top cast bars, the local bond strength
for SCC is greater than that for CC.
• The bond strength of SCC is as high as the
bond strength for CC when large bar
diameters are studied. For smaller bar
diameters, the bond strength of SCC is
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012
slightly higher, with the largest difference
occurring for the smallest bar diameters.
• The slip corresponding to the maximum
bond strength increases for increasing bar
diameters.
(2) By comparison of the code provisions and
equations can be concluded that the same
procedures adopted for CC can be used for SCC,
which means that bond properties of SCC are
similar to the CC.
(3) Most available bond strength models are not
reliable for evaluating SCC and CC. The
proposed bond strength models of normal and
high strength SCC and CC (by considering plain
or deformed rebar) are based on regression
analyses on existing experimental data that is in
good agreement with the experimental test
results for SCC and CC.
(4) The proposed bond stress-slip model, the main
curve is similar to the ones used in CEB-FIP’s
(1999), Huang et al.’s (1996), and Harajli
et al.’s (1995) models, but the bond strength
models for SCC and CC are different. Although
there are several different factors (compressive
strength, water-to-cement ratio, bar pullout
positions, age of concrete, and bar diameter), the
predicted values from the proposed model are
consistent with Valcuende and Parra’s (2009),
Hassan et al.’s (2010), and Desnerck et al.’s
(2010) bond stress-slip experimental results.
(5) The predicted values of the proposed bond
stress-slip model using proposed bond strength
models verified that this model can predict good
the bond stress-slip curve of normal and high
strength SCC and CC in the various conditions
(such as different bar pullout positions, different
ages of concrete, different compressive strength,
and different bar diameters).
(6) The proposed models based on the experimental
results from eight recent investigations of SCC
and CC, have some limitations (e.g. more high
strength SCC, confined SCC, and etc.) then
additional tests are need.
REFERENCES
ACI 237R-07 (2007). Self-Consolidating Concrete, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI 318-08 (2008). Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Almeida Filho, F.M. (2006). Contribution to Study of the Bond
Between Steel Bars and Self-Compacting Concrete, PhD
Thesis, Universidade de Saõ Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. (in
Portuguese)
2045
 Bond Behavior of Reinforcement in Conventional and Self-Compacting Concrete
Almeida Filho, F.M., El Debs, M.K. and El Debs, A.L.H.C. (2008).
“Bond-slip behavior of self-compacting concrete and vibrated
concrete using pullout and beam tests”, Materials and Structures,
Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 1073–1089.
Aslani, F. and Nejadi, S. (2011a). “A comparison of the bond
characteristics in conventional and self-compacting concrete, Part
I: experimental results”, Proceedings of the 9th Symposium on
High Performance Concrete, Rotorua, New Zealand,
pp. 435–442.
Aslani, F. and Nejadi, S. (2011b). “A comparison of the bond
characteristics in conventional and self-compacting concrete, Part
II: code provisions and empirical equations”, Proceedings of the
9th Symposium on High Performance Concrete, Rotorua, New
Zealand, pp. 443–450.
Attiogbe, E., See, H. and Daczko, J. (2002). “Engineering properties
of self-consolidating concrete”, Proceeding of the First North
American Conference on the Design and Use of Self-
Consolidating Concrete, Center for advanced Cement-Based
Materials, Chicago, IL, USA.
Bae, S. (2006). Mix Design, Formwork Pressure and Bond
Characteristics of Special Self-Consolidating Concrete, Master
Thesis, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada.
Barbosa, M.T.G. (2001). Evaluation of the Behavior of the Bond in
Ordinary and High Strength Concrete, PhD Thesis,
COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (in Portuguese)
Carrasquillo, P.M. (1988). “Pullout tests on straight deformed bars
embedded in super plasticized concrete”, ACI Materials Journal,
Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 90–94.
Carrasquillo, R., Nilson, A. and Slate, F. (1981). “Properties of high
strength concrete subject to short-term Loads”, ACI Journal,
Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 171–178.
Castel, A., Vidal, T., Viriyametanont, K. and François, R. (2006).
“Effect of reinforcing bar orientation and location on bond with
self-consolidating concrete”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 103,
No. 4, pp. 559–567.
CEB-FIP (1999). Structural Concrete—Bulletin No. 1, Paris, France.
CEB (1982). Bond Action and Bond Behaviour of Reinforcement
(State-of-the-Art Report), CEB, Paris, France.
Chan, Y., Chen, Y. and Liu, Y. (2003). “Development of bond
strength of reinforcement steel in self-consolidating concrete”,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 100, No. 4, pp. 490–498.
Chapman, R.A. and Shah, S.P. (1987). “Early-age bond strength in
reinforced concrete”, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 84, No. 6,
pp. 501–510.
Chou, L., Niwa, J. and Okamura, H. (1983). “Bond model for
deformed bars embedded in massive concrete”, Proceedings of
2nd JCI Colloquium on Shear Analysis of RC Structures, Japan
Concrete Institute, pp. 45–52. (in Japanese)
Desnerck, P., De Schutter, G. and Taerwe, L. (2010). “Bond
behaviour of reinforcing bars in self-compacting concrete:
experimental determination by using beam tests”, Materials and
Structures, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 53–62.
Domone, P.L. (2007). “A review of the hardened mechanical
properties of self-compacting concrete”, Cement and Concrete
Composites, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1–12.
2046
Harajli, M.H. (1994). “Development/splice strength of reinforcing
bars embedded in plain and fiber reinforced concrete”, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp. 511–520.
Harajli, M.H., Hout, M. and Jalkh, W. (1995). “Local bond stress-
slip behaviour of reinforcing bars em1bedded in plain and fibre
concrete”, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 92, No. 4, pp. 343–353.
Hassan, A.A.A., Hossain, K.M.A. and Lachemi, M. (2010). “Bond
strength of deformed bars in large reinforced concrete members
cast with industrial self-consolidating concrete mixture”,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 520–530.
Hossain, K.M.A. and Lachemi, M. (2008). “Bond behavior of self-
consolidating concrete with mineral and chemical admixtures”,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 20, No. 9,
pp. 608–616.
Huang, Z., Engström, B. and Magnusson, J. (1996). Experimental
Investigation of the Bond and Anchorage Behaviour of Deformed
Bars in High Strength Concrete, Report 94:4, Chalmers
University of Technology, Landala, Sweden.
Ichinose, T., Kanayama, Y., Lnoue, Y. and Bolander, J.E., Jr.
(2004). “Size effect on bond strength of deformed bars”,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 18, No. , pp. 549–558.
Gibbs, J.C. and Zhu, W. (1999). “Strength of hardened self-
compacting concrete”, Proceedings of RILEM International
Symposium on SCC, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 199–209.
Kemp, E.L. (1986). “Bond in reinforced concrete: behavior and design
criteria”, ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 50–57.
Kemp, E.L. and Wilhelm, W.J. (1979). “Investigation of the
parameters influencing bond cracking”, ACI Journal
Proceedings, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 47–71.
Khayat, K.H. (1998). “Use of viscosity-modifying admixture to
reduce top-bar effect of anchored bars cast with fluid concrete”,
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 95, No. 2, pp. 158–167.
Koning, G., Holschemacher, K., Dehn, F. and Weisse, D. (2001).
“Self-compacting concrete time development of material
properties and bond behavior”, Proceedings of Second
International Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete, Tokyo,
Japan, pp. 507–516.
Lachemi, M., Bae, S., Hossain, K.M.A. and Sahmaran, M. (2009).
“Steel–concrete bond strength of lightweight self-consolidating
concrete”, Materials and Structures, Vol. 42, No. 7,
pp. 1015–1023.
Lorrain, M. and Daoud, A. (2002). “Bond in concrete: from research
to standards”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium,
Budapest, Hungary, pp. 529–536.
Malhotra, V.M. (1975). “Evaluation of the pullout test to determine
strength in-situ concrete”, RILEM Pub SARL, Vol. 8, No. 43,
pp. 19–31.
Martin, H. (1982). “Bond performance of ribbed bars (pullout tests)
– influence of concrete composition and consistency”,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Bond in
Concrete, Paisley, Scotland, pp. 89–99.
Morita, S. and Fujii, S. (1985). “Bond-slip models in finite
element analysis”, Proceeding of Japan-US Seminar on Finite
Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Tokyo,
Japan, pp. 348–363.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012
Farhad Aslani and Shami Nejadi

Okamura, H. and Ozawa, K. (1995). “Mix design for self-compacting
concrete”, Concrete Library International, Vol. 25, pp. 107–120.
Orangun, C.O., Jirsa, J.O. and Breen, J.E. (1977). “A reevaluation of
test data on development lenght and splices”, ACI Journal
Proceedings, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 114–122.
Ozawa, K., Sakata, N. and Okamura, H. (1995). “Evaluation of self-
compactability of fresh concrete using the funnel test”, Concrete
Library International, Vol. 25, pp. 59–75.
Parra, C.J. (2005). Experimental Study of Self-Compacted Concrete
in Hardened State, PhD Thesis, Polytechnic University of
Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Pillai, S.U., Kirk, D.W. and Erki, M.A. (1999). Reinforced Concrete
Design, McGraw-Hill Ryserson, Whitby, ON, Canada.
Richards, O. (1977). Pullout Strength of Concrete Reproducibility
and Accuracy of Mechanical Tests, ASTM STP REP. No. 626,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Schiessl, A. and Zilch, K. (2001). “The effects of the modified
composition of SCC on Shear and bond behavior”, Proceedings
of Second International Symposium on Self-Compacting
Concrete, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 501–506.
Skramtajew, B.G. (1983). “Determining concrete strength for
control of concrete in structures”, ACI Journal Proceedings,
Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 205–304.
Sonebi, M. and Bartos, P.J.M. (2002). “Bond Behavior and pull-off
test of self compacting concrete”, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Symposium on Bond in Concrete, Budapest,
Hungary, pp. 511–519.
Sonebi, M. and Bartos, P.J.M. (1999). “Hardened SCC and its
bond with reinforcements”, Proceedings of RILEM
International Symposium on SCC, Stockholm, Sweden,
pp. 275–290.
Sonebi, M., Bartos, P.J.M., Zhu, W., Gibbs, J. and Tamimi, A.
(2000). Properties of Hardened Concrete, Final report,
Advanced Concrete Masonry Centre, University of Paisley,
Scotland, UK.
Stone, W.C. and Carino, N.J. (1983). “Deformation and failure in
large-scale pullout tests”, ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol. 80,
No. 6, pp. 501-513.
Stone, W.C. and Giza, B.J. (1987). “The effect of geometry and
aggregate on the reliability of the pullout test”, Concrete
International, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 27–36.
Valcuende, M. and Parra, C. (2009). “Bond behaviour of
reinforcement in self-compacting concretes”, Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 162–170.
Yamao, H., Chou, L. and Niwa, J. (1984). “Experimental study on
bond stress-slip relationship”, Proceedings of JSCE, No. 343,
pp. 219–228. (in Japanese)
Yi, S.T., Yang, E.I. and Choi, J.C. (2006). “Effect of specimen
sizes, specimen shapes, and placement directions on
compressive strength of concrete”, Nuclear Engineering and
Design, Vol. 236, No. 2, pp. 115–127.
Zhu, W., Sonebi, M. and Bartos, P.J.M. (2004). “Bond and
interfacial properties of reinforcement in self-compacting
concrete”, Materials and Structures, Vol. 37, No. 7,
pp. 442–448.

APPENDIX A
Table A1. Comparison of experimental bond stress (Zhu et al. 2004; Castel et al. 2006) versus predicted bond
stress by using models

Bond stress (MPa)

Zhu et al. (2004) CC35 SCC35 CC60 SCC60
db = 12 mm, ld = 120 mm 10.24 13.5 22.56 32.58
Predicted Bond Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 7.61 8.86 10.41 12.06
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 7.19 8.37 9.83 11.39
Kemp (1986) 5.38 1.60 6.77 7.59
Chapman and Shah (1987) 9.13 10.63 12.49 14.47
Harajli (1994) 7.14 8.31 9.76 11.31
Pillai et al. (1999) 7.18 8.36 9.83 11.38
Bae (2006) 9.82 11.72 14.13 16.76
Proposed 11.50 14.23 16.23 19.98
db = 20 mm, ld = 120 mm 7.89 10.5 22.24 32.52
Predicted Bond Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 7.11 8.28 9.73 11.27
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 5.23 6.09 7.16 8.29
Kemp (1986) 3.54 3.86 4.26 4.68
Chapman and Shah (1987) 8.64 10.06 11.82 13.70
Harajli (1994) 6.70 7.80 9.16 10.62
Pillai et al. (1999) 6.76 7.87 9.24 10.71
Bae (2006) 6.95 8.29 10.00 11.86
Proposed 10.36 13.42 14.63 18.84

Table A1. (Continued)

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012 2047

 Bond Behavior of Reinforcement in Conventional and Self-Compacting Concrete

Table A1. Comparison of experimental bond stress (Zhu et al. 2004; Castel et al. 2006) versus predicted bond
stress by using models (Continued)

Bond stress (MPa)

Castel et al. (2006) CC25 SCC25 CC40 SCC40

V-U, Plain Bar 3.537 4.835 8.272 7.314
V-D, Plain Bar 5.879 4.827 7.605 4.93
H, Plain Bar 4.459 3.902 4.93 4.439

Predicted Bond Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 10.34 9.66 12.32 11.65
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 7.33 6.84 8.73 8.26
Kemp (1986) 5.45 5.20 6.19 5.94
Chapman and Shah (1987) 12.08 11.28 14.39 13.62
Harajli (1994) 9.71 9.073 11.57 10.95
Pillai et al. (1999) 9.78 9.14 11.66 11.03
Bae (2006) 2.71 2.63 2.92 2.85
Proposed 4.66 5.20 4.94 5.55

Castel et al. (2006) CC25 SCC25 CC40 SCC40

V-U, Deformed Bar 17.254 17.338 26.086 21.176
V-D, Deformed Bar 15.173 15.575 22.763 23.528
H, Deformed Bar 12.76 12.367 22.499 19.785

Predicted Bond Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 10.34 9.66 12.32 11.65
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 7.33 6.84 8.73 8.26
Kemp (1986) 5.45 5.20 6.19 5.94
Chapman and Shah (1987) 12.08 11.28 14.39 13.62
Harajli (1994) 9.71 9.07 11.57 10.95
Pillai et al. (1999) 9.78 9.14 11.66 11.03
Bae (2006) 10.05 9.28 12.30 11.54
Proposed 14.46 15.13 17.53 18.60

Table A2. Comparison of experimental bond stress (Almeida Filho et al. 2008; Hossain and Lachemi 2008)
versus predicted bond stress by using models
Bond stress (MPa)
Almeida Filho et al. (2008) CC1 SCC1 CC2 SCC2
Pullout test, db = 10 mm, ld = 50 mm 11.56 14.34 17.05 18.11
Predicted Bond Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 12.29 12.66 16.20 17.28
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 9.03 9.30 11.91 12.70
Kemp (1986) 6.99 7.16 8.71 9.18
Chapman and Shah (1987) 14.15 14.58 18.67 19.90
Harajli (1994) 11.52 11.87 15.19 16.20
Pillai et al. (1999) 11.60 11.95 15.30 16.31
Bae (2006) 12.12 12.54 16.70 17.99
Proposed 16.71 19.28 22.65 27.14

Pullout test, db = 16 mm, ld = 80 mm 10.75 12.93 21.94 19.23

Predicted Bond Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 11.89 12.24 15.67 16.71
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 8.67 8.93 11.44 12.19
Kemp (1986) 6.66 6.81 8.27 8.71
Chapman and Shah (1987) 13.73 14.15 18.11 19.31
Harajli (1994) 11.153 11.49 14.70 15.68
Pillai et al. (1999) 11.23 11.57 14.81 15.79
Bae (2006) 11.72 12.13 16.15 17.40

Table A2. (Continued)

2048 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012

Farhad Aslani and Shami Nejadi

Table A2. Comparison of experimental bond stress (Almeida Filho et al. 2008; Hossain and Lachemi 2008)
versus predicted bond stress by using models
Bond stress (MPa)
Almeida Filho et al. (2008) CC1 SCC1 CC2 SCC2
Proposed 16.29 18.83 22.08 26.51
Beam test, db = 10 mm, ld = 100 mm 13.44 11.45 16.55 16.86
Beam test, db = 16 mm, ld = 160 mm 13.2 11.58 16.95 17.25

Predicted Bond Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 11.26 11.60 14.85 15.83
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 10.47 10.78 13.80 14.72
Kemp (1986) 8.34 8.55 10.49 11.08
Chapman and Shah (1987) 13.01 13.41 17.16 18.29
Harajli (1994) 10.53 10.85 13.88 14.80
Pillai et al. (1999) 10.59 10.91 13.96 14.88
Bae (2006) 13.61 14.09 18.76 9.62
Proposed 15.53 17.29 21.06 24.34

Hossain and Lachemi (2008) CC FA SCC SC SCC VMA SCC

Bottom Left 11.33 11.65 4.50 7.54
Bottom Middle 12.06 14.09 6.87 8.91
Bottom Right 9.62 9.61 5.00 7.61
Top Left 5.47 9.06 4.18 7.61
Top Middle 8.80 11.89 5.81 9.32
Top Right 2.52 8.90 4.68 8.09
Top 2.40 12.75 5.93 9.80
Middle 6.10 13.46 6.56 10.58
Bottom 8.20 13.78 7.68 11.24

Predicted Bond Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 11.09 11.99 9.51 10.44
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 6.10 6.59 5.23 5.745
Kemp (1986) 3.57 3.73 3.29 3.45
Chapman and Shah (1987) 13.19 14.27 11.31 12.42
Harajli (1994) 10.45 11.31 8.97 9.84
Pillai et al. (1999) 10.55 11.41 9.05 9.94
Bae (2006) 8.13 8.91 6.81 7.58
Proposed 15.33 15.23 16.71 16.87

Table A3. Comparison of experimental bond stress (Valcuende and Parra 2009; Desnerck et al. 2010) versus
predicted bond stress by using models

Lachemi et al. (2009) NG_NS BS_NS ES_NS

db = 15 mm, ld = 100 mm 9.88 6.48 9.02
Predicted Bond Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 9.66 11.94 18.16
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 9.40 9.92 9.97
Kemp (1986) 6.35 7.47 8.38
Chapman and Shah (1987) 11.21 15.40 19.90
Harajli (1994) 9.05 11.19 12.91
Pillai et al. (1999) 10.77 11.37 11.42
Bae (2006) 12.19 3.31 3.32
Proposed 16.51 15.89 18.80

db = 15 mm, ld = 200 mm 12.41 8.47 10.59

Predicted Bond Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 9.36 9.88 9.93
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 10.90 9.92 9.97
Kemp (1986) 7.21 7.53 7.55
Chapman and Shah (1987) 11.05 11.66 11.71

Table A3. (Continued)

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012 2049

 Bond Behavior of Reinforcement in Conventional and Self-Compacting Concrete

Table A3. Comparison of experimental bond stress (Valcuende and Parra 2009; Desnerck et al. 2010) versus
predicted bond stress by using models

Lachemi et al. (2009) NG_NS BS_NS ES_NS

Harajli (1994) 8.76 9.25 9.29
Pillai et al. (1999) 8.81 9.30 9.34
Bae (2006) 12.70 3.31 3.32
Proposed 14.27 13.73 15.81

Hassan et al. (2010) CC SCC

20.59 20.49
Predicted Bond Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 9.31 9.11
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 7.88 7.71
Kemp (1986) 5.46 5.38
Chapman and Shah (1987) 11.15 10.91
Harajli (1994) 8.74 8.55
Pillai et al. (1999) 8.8 8.62
Bae (2006) 11.11 10.83
Proposed 16.78 19.44

Table A4. Comparison of experimental bond stress (Valcuende and Parra 2009; Desnerck et al. 2010) versus
predicted bond stress by using models

Bond Stress (MPa)

Valcuende and Parra (2009) CC32 SCC CC32- SCC 32- CC42- SCC 42- CC42- SCC42-
-0.65 32-0.65 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.45
V-U 15.39 18.00 19.18 21.66 23.63 27.97 29.69 39.98
Predicted Bond
Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 12.88 13.44 14.21 14.63 15.93 17.33 18.39 19.13
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 9.71 10.13 10.71 11.02 12.00 13.06 13.85 14.41
Kemp (1986) 7.85 8.13 8.50 8.70 9.33 10.01 10.53 10.89
Chapman and Shah (1987) 14.70 15.33 16.21 16.69 18.17 19.76 20.97 21.82
Harajli (1994) 12.07 12.59 13.31 13.70 14.92 16.23 17.22 17.92
Pillai et al. (1999) 12.15 12.68 13.40 14.24 15.02 16.34 17.34 18.04
Bae (2006) 13.10 13.10 13.97 14.45 15.95 17.59 18.84 19.72
Proposed 16.86 18.80 18.77 20.64 21.28 24.86 24.92 27.72

Valcuende and Parra (2009) CC32- SCC CC32- SCC CC42- SCC 42- CC42- SCC 42-
0.65 32-0.65 0.55 32-0.55 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.45
H 15.39 18.00 19.18 21.66 23.63 27.97 29.69 39.98
Predicted Bond
Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 19.27 20.05 14.09 16.68 15.33 16.32 18.16 17.51
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 10.26 10.71 11.32 11.65 12.69 13.80 14.65 15.24
Kemp (1986) 11.27 11.66 8.67 9.97 9.29 9.79 10.71 10.39
Chapman and Shah (1987) 21.90 22.79 16.01 18.96 17.43 18.55 20.64 19.91
Harajli (1994) 18.05 18.77 13.19 15.62 14.36 15.28 17.01 16.40
Pillai et al. (1999) 12.73 13.28 14.04 14.45 15.73 17.12 18.16 18.90
Bae (2006) 13.00 13.66 13.66 15.06 16.63 18.33 19.64 20.56
Proposed 17.43 25.51 19.61 25.65 19.42 25.51 21.52 28.60

Desnerck et al. (2010) CC1 SCC1 SCC2 CC1 SCC1 SCC2 CC1 SCC1
db (mm) 12 12 12 20 20 20 25 25
19.88 27.82 25.70 19.46 24.07 21.54 16.28 19.39

Table A4. (Continued)

2050 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012

Farhad Aslani and Shami Nejadi

Table A4. Comparison of experimental bond stress (Valcuende and Parra 2009; Desnerck et al. 2010) versus
predicted bond stress by using models

Bond stress (MPa)

Valcuende and Parra (2009) CC32 SCC CC32- SCC 32- CC42- SCC 42- CC42- SCC42-
-0.65 32-0.65 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.45
Predicted Bond
Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 14.22 15.77 14.98 13.54 15.01 14.26 11.91 13.21
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 10.23 11.35 10.78 10.14 10.67 10.14 8.17 9.06
Kemp (1986) 7.30 7.92 7.60 6.73 7.28 7.00 5.36 5.77
Chapman and Shah (1987) 16.51 18.31 17.40 15.80 17.52 16.65 14.09 15.62
Harajli (1994) 13.34 14.80 14.06 12.71 14.10 13.39 11.20 12.42
Pillai et al. (1999) 13.44 14.91 14.16 12.81 14.21 13.50 11.29 12.52
Bae (2006) 14.51 16.36 15.41 13.73 15.48 14.59 11.69 13.18
Proposed 19.06 23.02 21.76 18.31 22.19 20.97 16.35 20.02

Desnerck et al. (2010) SCC2 CC1 SCC1 SCC2 CC1 SCC1 SCC2
db (mm) 25 32 32 32 40 40 40
18.60 18.10 20.49 19.77 16.61 19.86 17.48
Predicted Bond
Stress (MPa) Orangun et al. (1977) 12.55 12.52 13.89 13.19 11.25 12.48 11.85
Kemp and Wilhelm (1979) 8.61 8.72 9.67 9.18 7.58 8.40 7.98
Kemp (1986) 5.56 5.87 6.34 6.10 4.80 5.15 4.97
Chapman and Shah (1987) 14.84 14.73 16.33 15.52 13.39 14.85 14.11
Harajli (1994) 11.80 11.77 13.05 12.40 11.77 11.74 11.16
Pillai et al. (1999) 11.90 11.86 13.15 12.50 10.68 11.84 11.25
Bae (2006) 12.42 12.49 14.08 13.27 12.49 12.13 11.43
Proposed 18.92 17.11 20.87 19.72 15.48 19.05 18.01

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 12 2012 2051