Sunteți pe pagina 1din 23

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 111-S02

Bond Behavior of Plain Round Bars in Concrete under


Complex Lateral Pressures
by Feng Xu, Zhi-min Wu, Jian-jun Zheng, Yu Hu, and Qing-bin Li
The bond behavior of reinforcing bars is highly dependent on
confinement conditions and is of great importance in the design
and analysis of concrete structures. This paper presents an experimental investigation into the bond behavior of plain round bars
subjected to uniaxial and biaxial lateral pressures with different
pressure ratios. The bond parameters are analyzed with respect to
the average lateral pressure. The results show that the residual and
ultimate bond strengths increase with the increase of the average
lateral pressure, but their ratio stays invariable. The slip at the
ultimate bond stress first reduces remarkably, and then increases
gradually with an increase in lateral pressure. Compared with
lateral pressure, the bar size and the strength of concrete have little
influence on the bond strength ratio. Finally, a constitutive model
of bond stress-slip with the lateral pressure effect is presented and
shown to correlate well with the experimental data for different
pressure ratios and levels.
Keywords: bond stress-slip curve; complex lateral pressure; plain
roundbar.

INTRODUCTION
The satisfactory use of steel-reinforced concrete as a
composite material depends partially on the bond of reinforcing
bars to concrete, which should be effectively developed
for the transfer of forces between the reinforcing bars and
concrete. At early ages, plain round bars were widely used
in reinforced concrete structures, and their bond properties
were correspondingly investigated.1 Abrams2 performed an
experimental investigation into the bond behavior of plain
round bars using the pullout test. Based on the measured slip
at the unloaded end of the bar, the bond stress-slip relationship was obtained. It was concluded that the bond of plain
round bars is mobilized by the adhesion at the concrete-bar
interface before a relative slip occurs and provided by the
friction between the reinforcing bar and concrete after slipping takes place. Stoker and Sozen3 further demonstrated
that the adhesion resistance before slipping is attributed
to the chemical adhesion mechanism and the micro-interlocking of concrete keys generated by the penetration of
cement paste into the indentations of the bar surface. After
the concrete keys are crushed at the peak bond stress, a bond
slip occurs, and the friction resistance is activated by the
wedging action of the cement paste at the concrete-bar interface, which leads to a progressive reduction in bond stress
with an increase in slip. Tassios4 pointed out that a small
slip is needed for activating micro-interlocking to develop
the maximum adhesion resistance. It was also shown that,
before the peak value is reached, the bond stress increases
with the increase of the slip.5-8 The reason for this is that
the bond stress is nonuniformly distributed along the bonded
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

length, but the bond stress-slip relationship was established


under the uniform distribution assumption.7 The nonuniform distribution of bond stress was confirmed theoretically
and experimentally.9,10 Feldman and Bartlett11 proposed a
mechanics-based relationship between the bond stress, slip,
and bar force and investigated the bond stress distribution
in an analytical manner. In addition, the effects of various
factors, such as the bonded length, bar size, strength of
concrete, and loading rate on the bond strength have been
evaluated experimentally.2,12,13 With the development of new
concrete materials, the bond behavior of plain round bars
has also been studied for high-performance concrete,14 lightweight concrete,15,16 and recycled aggregate concrete.6
In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the
evaluation and rehabilitation of historical structures with
plain reinforcing bars based on current design codes or
provisions. The accurate modeling of the bond behavior of
plain round bars, especially in beam-column joints, plays an
important role in the performance assessment of concrete
structures.1,17 To develop reliability-based design provisions, Feldman and Bartlett studied the variability in ultimate and residual bond strengths of plain reinforcing bars.18
To simulate the bond response of structures under seismic
loadings, Verderame et al. conducted a series of pullout tests
on specimens subjected to cyclic loadings and examined the
effects of the number of cycles and the imposed slip on the
bond capacity.7 An analytical model was then proposed for
the bond stress-slip relationship of plain reinforcing bars
with bond capacity degradation.8 In beam-column joints of
simply supported and continuous structures, lateral confinement or stress exerts a great influence on the bond behavior
of reinforcing bars.19 This effect was studied for deformed
bars,15,19-23 steel strand,24 and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
bars.25,26 For plain round bars, only the pullout test under
uniaxial lateral pressure was conducted by Robins and
Standish.15,27 They found that the bond capacity is significantly increased by lateral pressure. A corner beam-column
joint in a multi-story reinforced concrete building, however,
is subjected to a pair of lateral pressures on two opposite
sides, and an internal beam-column joint is subjected to
multi-axial lateral pressures on all four sides. The lateral
pressures may greatly influence the bond behavior of plain
round bars, which is seldom studied in the current literature.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 1, January-February 2014.
MS no. S-2011-202.R2, doi:10.14359.51686427, was received March 1, 2013, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2014, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journals date if the discussion
is received within four months of the papers print publication.

15

Table 1Diameters and material parameters of


plain round bars
Type

P12

P16

P20

Nominal diameter D, mm (in.)

12 (0.47)

16 (0.63)

20 (0.79)

Yield strength fy,


MPa (ksi)

285 (41.0)

268 (38.6)

277 (39.9)

Elastic modulus
Es, GPa (ksi)

210 (20,500)

210 (20,500)

210 (20,500)

Poissons ratio s

0.3

0.3

0.3

Table 2Mixture proportions and material


properties of concrete
Type

C30

C40

Target compressive strength fcu,


MPa (psi)

30 (4350)

40 (5800)

Cement:water:sand:coarse
aggregate

1:0.78:2.56:5.34

1:0.52:1.57:3.34

Elastic modulus Ec, GPa (ksi)

30.2 (4380)

31.7 (4595)

Poissons ratio c

0.227

0.221

Therefore, it is highly desirable to investigate the bond


behavior of plain round bars under complex lateral pressures.
The objective of this study is to investigate the bond
behavior of plain round bars subjected to uniaxial and biaxial
lateral pressures. Based on the experimental results, the ultimate bond strength, residual bond strength, and slip at the
peak bond stress are expressed as a function of the average
lateral pressure. The effects of the diameter of reinforcing
bars and the strength of concrete on the bond parameters are
examined. Finally, a constitutive model of bond stress-slip is
presented in terms of the pressure ratio and level.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Evaluation and rehabilitation of historical structures with
plain round bars has become a hot topic in recent years.
The bond behavior of plain round bars, which are usually
subjected to multi-axial lateral pressures, is an important
factor for the design and assessment of historic reinforced
concrete structures. Unfortunately, this problem is seldom
dealt with in current studies. Therefore, it is of great significance to conduct a comprehensive experiment to study the
bond behavior of plain round bars subjected to multi-axial
lateral pressures.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The pullout test was conducted on specimens with dimensions of 150 x 150 x 150 mm3 (5.91 x 5.91 x 5.91 in.3) as
shown in Fig. 1(a). A plain round bar was embedded in the
center of the specimen with bonded length lb = 5D, where
D is the nominal diameter of the bar. The unbonded parts
were encased in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubes to eliminate
any additional restraints. Because the bond stress along the
bonded length is nonuniform, a longer bonded length will
underestimate the bond stress, and a shorter one will cause a
considerable scatter in test results.28 Thus, 5D is regarded as
16

Fig. 1Pullout test specimen. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)


a proper bonded length to define the constitutive relationship
of bond stress-slip.29
Three types of commercial plain round bars (P12, P16,
and P20) were adopted in the test, where P represents plain
round bars, and 12, 16, and 20 refer to the bar diameters. The
bar diameters and material properties are listed in Table 1.
The yield strength fy and Youngs modulus Es of steel bars
were measured through direct tension tests and the Poissons
ratio s was taken from the manufacturers specifications.
The surface conditions of the plain bars as received were
different from each other, and they were directly used for
fabricating specimens. Concrete was prepared with an ordinary portland cement with a standard 28-day compressive
strength of 42.5 MPa (6163 psi), medium river sand, and
coarse aggregate with a maximum size of 20 mm (0.79 in.).
Two types of concrete with different target compressive
strengths, C30 and C40, were designed, and the mixture
proportions are listed in Table 2. All specimens were cast in
batches using lucite molds with the bar horizontally fixed in
the center of the specimen. In each batch, 15 pullout specimens were made, together with six concrete cubes with the
same sizes for measuring the strength fcu. The specimens and
cubes were demolded from the molds 24 hours after casting
and cured at 20C (68F) and 90% relative humidity for
28 days. The specimens were then stored in the laboratory
until they were tested. A total of six companion concrete
prisms with dimensions of 150 x 150 x 300 mm3 (5.91 x
5.91 x 11.82 in.3) were prepared for measuring the Youngs
modulus Ec and Poissons ratio c. The results are listed in
Appendixes 1 and 2* for the cubic compressive strength, and
in Table 2 for the Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio.
The pullout test was performed on a hydraulic servo-controlled triaxial testing machine as shown in Fig. 2. The
testing machine is capable of developing three independent
orthogonal loads to a cubic specimen by two horizontal
pistons and one vertical piston. To ensure uniform pressures are applied to the specimen surfaces, the pistons were
equipped with spherical, self-aligning heads. Compression
platens were attached to the spherical heads. A loading frame
was fastened to the base of the testing machine through a
joggled joint. The specimen was encased in the loading
frame against the bearing platen. The lateral pressures on the
specimen surfaces were applied by the horizontal loading
pistons, and a pulling force was applied to the reinforcing
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org in PDF format as an addendum to
the published paper. It is also available in hard copy from ACI headquarters for a fee
equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the time of the request.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

Fig. 2Schematic of testing apparatus.


bar by the vertical piston. A friction-reducing pad, composed
of two layers of PVC films and a layer of butter, was placed
between the concrete surfaces and loading platens.
The uniaxial lateral pressure p1 and biaxial lateral pressures
p1 and p2 (p1 p2) were applied to the specimen as shown in
Fig. 1(b) and (c), respectively. The pressure ratio p2/p1 was
respectively equal to 0, 1/2, 1/3, and 1, and the pressure level
varied from 0 to 0.8fcu. After the lateral pressures increased
up to a required level, the pulling force was applied to the
reinforcing bar in a displacement controlled manner at a rate
of 0.5 mm/min (0.02 in/min). To investigate the influence
of lateral pressure on the bond behavior of specimens with
different bar diameters and strengths of concrete, four series
of specimens, denoted by Series P16C40, P12C40, P20C40,
and P16C30, were designed as shown in Tables 3 and 4.
In Series P16C40, 21 groups of specimens with P16 bars
and C40 concrete were tested under varying lateral pressures. For comparison purposes, 10 groups of specimens
in Series P12C40 and P20C40 with P12 and P20 bars and
C40 concrete were tested to examine the effect of the bar
size on the bond behavior and five groups of specimens in
Series P16C30 and P16C40 with P16 bars, and C30 and C40
concrete were tested to evaluate the effect of the strength of
concrete on the bond behavior. There are three replicas in
each group. Thus, a total of 108 specimens were included in
the experiment.
The pulling force was measured by a load cell, and the
slips at the loaded and unloaded ends were monitored by
linear voltage displacement transducers (LVDTs). To define
a constitutive model of bond stress-slip, the bond slip s of
the reinforcing bar relative to concrete was taken as the
average of the loaded-end slip sl and unloaded-end slip sf
that is, s=(sl + sf)/2. The bond stress was determined by
dividing the pulling force P by the contact area between the
reinforcing bar and concretethat is, = P/(Dlb). Finally,
the bond stress-slip curve was obtained.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
All specimens failed by pullout of reinforcing steel bars
from concrete regardless of the pressure ratio and level, bar
diameter, and strength of concrete. For each group of specimens in Series P16C40, the mean bond stress-slip response
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

Fig. 3Bond stress-slip curves for Specimen P16C40-1 under


p1 = p2 = 0. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
is depicted and shown in Fig. 3 for p1 = p2 = 0 and in Fig. 4
to 7 for p2/p1 = 0, 1/2, 1/3, and 1, respectively. In a similar
manner, the mean bond stress-slip response of each group
of specimens in Series P12C40, P20C40, and P16C30 are
shown in Fig. 8 to 10, respectively. As can be seen from
Fig. 3 to 10, each bond stress-slip curve consists of three
branches: ascending, descending, and residual. When no
lateral pressure is applied, the bond stress is proportional to
the slip up to approximately 70% of the peak bond stress,
as shown in Fig. 3. After that, the bond stress increases less
with the increase of the slip until the peak bond stress is
reached. Finally, the bond stress drops progressively by
increasing the slip. When lateral pressures are applied, the
bond stress increases linearly with an increase in slip up to
the peak bond stress, as shown in Fig. 4 to 10. After the
peak bond stress is reached, the bond stress decreasesfirst
remarkably, and then gradually, due to the friction action at
the concrete-bar interface. For a given lateral pressure ratio,
the larger the lateral pressures, the more sharply the bond
stress drops on the descending branch.
The experimental results show that the complex lateral
pressures exert a significant influence on the bond stressslip relationship. When no lateral pressure is applied, the
micro-interlocking between the cement paste and the
17

Table 3Average characteristic parameters of bond behavior for specimens in Series P16C40 subjected
to lateral pressure
u
Specimen

pm/fcu

s0, mm (in.)

P16C40-1

0.133 (0.0052)

P16C40-2

0.05

0.042(0.0017)

fcu

MPa

k, MPa/mm (ksi/in.)*

kr

0.108

0.4

0.15

0.450

0.137

30.0 (111)

0.47

0.233

P16C40-3

0.10

0.020 (0.0008)

0.18

60.4 (224)

0.42

0.229

P16C40-4

0.15

0.030 (0.0012)

0.247

55.8 (207)

0.35

0.307

P16C40-5

0.20

0.040 (0.0016)

0.305

46.4 (172)

0.36

0.189

P16C40-6

0.25

0.041 (0.0016)

0.332

58.5 (217)

0.33

0.393

P16C40-7

0.30

0.062 (0.0024)

0.367

41.0 (152)

0.38

0.538

P16C40-8

0.20

0.019 (0.0007)

0.297

117.0 (435)

0.34

0.155

P16C40-9

0.40

0.028 (0.0011)

0.510

116.5 (433)

0.29

0.348

P16C40-10

0.53

0.078 (0.0031)

0.792

68.6 (255)

0.48

0.770

P16C40-11

0.15

0.058 (0.0023)

0.351

101.1 (376)

0.38

0.330

P16C40-12

0.30

0.031 (0.0012)

0.337

73.3 (272)

0.35

0.210

P16C40-13

0.45

0.036 (0.0014)

0.571

105.9 (394)

0.31

0.277

P16C40-14

0.60

0.056 (0.0022)

0.647

81.8 (304)

0.47

0.434

P16C40-15

0.10

0.052 (0.0020)

0.146

19.6 (73)

0.39

0.206

P16C40-16

0.20

0.050 (0.0020)

0.207

86.5 (321)

0.31

0.257

P16C40-17

0.30

0.035 (0.0014)

0.431

98.6 (366)

0.28

0.240

P16C40-18

0.40

0.048 (0.0019)

0.406

53.7 (200)

0.29

0.312

P16C40-19

0.50

0.032 (0.0013)

0.474

98.9 (368)

0.31

0.233

P16C40-20

0.60

0.068 (0.0027)

0.682

69.4 (258)

0.41

0.404

P16C40-21

0.80

0.053 (0.0021)

0.924

124.8 (464)

0.46

0.482

k is unavailable for Specimen P16C40-1 due to nonlinearity in bond stress-slip curve.

Table 4Average characteristic parameters of bond behavior for specimens in Series P12C40, P20C40,
and P16C30 subjected to lateral pressure
Specimen

pm/fcu

s0, mm
(in.)

P12C40-1

0.232 (0.0090)

P12C40-2

0.15

P12C40-3

u
fcu

k, MPa/mm (ksi/in.)*

kr

0.147

0.61

0.22

0.445

0.089 (0.0034)

0.309

40.4 (148)

0.40

0.241

0.30

0.052 (0.0020)

0.410

56.9 (209)

0.50

0.394

P12C40-4

0.60

0.041 (0.0016)

0.701

128.7 (472)

0.34

0.313

P12C40-5

0.80

0.090 (0.0034)

0.996

67.0 (246)

0.57

0.543

P20C40-1

0.387 (0.0151)

0.163

0.77

0.15

0.386

P20C40-2

0.15

0.051 (0.0020)

0.598

83.0 (304)

0.40

0.282

P20C40-3

0.30

0.061 (0.0024)

0.520

71.9 (264)

0.50

0.242

P20C40-4

0.60

0.070 (0.0027)

0.729

63.9 (234)

0.37

0.473

P20C40-5

0.80

0.171 (0.0067)

1.094

60.5 (222)

0.58

0.558

P16C30-1

0.319 (0.0124)

0.152

0.50

0.30

0.352

P16C30-2

0.15

0.056 (0.0022)

0.298

32.9 (121)

0.36

0.418

P16C30-3

0.30

0.069 (0.0027)

0.530

139.6 (512)

0.43

0.346

P16C30-4

0.60

0.085 (0.0033)

0.856

190.3 (698)

0.42

0.400

P16C30-5

0.80

0.076 (0.0030)

1.010

225.5 (827)

0.64

0.407

MPa

k is unavailable for Specimens P12C40-1, P20C40-1, and P16C30-1 due to nonlinearity in bond stress-slip curve.

18

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

Fig. 5Bond stress-slip curves for Specimens P16C40-8 to 10


under p2/p1 =1/3. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

Fig. 4Bond stress-slip curves for Specimens P16C40-2 to 7


under p2/p1 = 0. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
indentations of the bar surface is progressively tightened
during the pulling process, and the bond stress increases
gradually with increasing slip until the peak bond stress is
reached. When lateral pressures are applied, however, the
compressive action is exerted on the concrete-bar interACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

face before pulling, and the micro-interlocking between


the cement paste and the indentations of the bar surface is
pre-tightened and strengthened. As a result, the bond stress
is directly proportional to the slip, and the peak bond stress
is reached at a smaller slip.
The parameters that characterize the bond stress-slip
response include the bond strength u, bond slip at the peak
bond stress s0, and residual bond strength r. These parameters were measured from the experiment as listed in Appendixes 1 and 2. The average value for each group of specimens
is listed in Tables 3 and 4, which indicates that these parameters are greatly influenced by the pressure ratio and level,
strength of concrete, and bar diameter. Because the bond
strength u is closely related to the properties of concrete, the
bond strength ratio u/fcu is selected to minimize the effect
of the variation in strength of concrete.6,21
The average bond strength ratio for the specimens in
Series P16C40 is plotted against p1 and p2 in Fig. 11 for
different pressure ratios. From Appendix 1 and Table 3, it
can be seen that, when the lateral pressure is equal to zero,
the bond strength ratio varies from 0.10 to 0.123 with a mean
of 0.108, which is close to the lower limit suggested in the
CEB-FIB.5 When lateral pressures are applied, the bond
strength ratio increases significantly by increasing the lateral
pressures, as shown in Fig. 11. Compared with that for p1 =
p2 = 0, the bond strength ratio increases by 240% for p1 =
0.6fcu and p2/p1 = 0 and by 630, 500, and 760% for p1 = 0.8fcu,
and p2/p1 = 1/3, 1/2, and 1, respectively. Figure 11 also shows
that the bond strength ratio of specimens under uniaxial
lateral pressure (p2/p1 = 0) is much smaller than those under
biaxial lateral pressures (p2/p1 > 0). For the comparison specimens in Series P12C40, P20C40, and P16C30, the bond
strength ratio is significantly enhanced by lateral pressure,
as shown in Fig. 12. The bond strength ratios for the specimens in Series P12C40, P20C40, and P16C30 are found to
be slightly larger than those in Series P16C40. This could be
attributed to the different surface roughness of commercial
bars according to Feldman and Bartlett.18 The incremental
ratio of bond strength from p1 = 0.8 fcu to p1 = 0 is 678, 671,
and 664% for the specimens in Series P12C40, P20C40,
19

Fig. 6Bond stress-slip curves for Specimens P16C40-11


to 14 under p2/p1 = 1/2. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa
= 145 psi.)
and P16C30, respectively, which is similar to that in Series
P16C40. The bond strength ratio of the specimens in Series
P12C40 is larger than that in Series P16C40, but smaller
than that in P20C40. Due to scatter in experimental data, no
consistent consensus can be achieved. Compared with lateral
pressure, the effect of the bar size on the bond strength ratio
is negligibly small. It has been widely accepted that the bond
strength is directly proportional to the square root of the
compressive strength of concrete.6,21 When the bond strength
is normalized by the square root of the compressive strength
of concrete, the experimental results in Series P16C40 and
P16C30 show that the strength of concrete has little influence on the bond strength ratio.
If pm is defined as the average value of p1 and p2 (that is,
pm = (p1 + p2)/2), the relationship between u/fcu and pm is
shown in Fig. 13. As can be seen from Fig. 13, the bond
strength ratio increases linearly with an increase in pm. Thus,
the bond strength ratio can be expressed as
u

20

fcu

= k1 + k2

pm
fcu

(1)

Fig. 7Bond stress-slip curves for Specimens P16C40-15 to 21


under p2/p1 = 1. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145psi.)
where k1 denotes the bond strength ratio at p1 = p2 = 0; and
k2 represents the rate of contribution of lateral pressure. It

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

Fig. 8Bond stress-slip curves for Specimens P12C40-1 to


5. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
follows from the experimental results that k1 = 0.12 and k2 =
1.05. Thus, the bond strength ratio is given by
u

fcu

= 0.12 + 1.05

pm
p
, for 0 m 0.8
fcu
fcu

(2)

with a correlation coefficient of 0.94. A comparison between


Eq. (2) and the experimental results is shown in Fig. 11 to
13. It can be seen from Fig. 13 that, for different strengths of
concrete and bar diameters, Eq. (2) can give a better estimate
of the contribution of lateral pressure.
The relationships between s0 and s0/D and pm/fcu are shown
in Fig. 14. It can be seen from Fig. 14(a) and Tables3 and 4
that, when no lateral pressure is applied, the slip s0u is approximately 0.133 mm (0.0052 in.) for the specimens in Series
P16C40, and varies from 0.232 to 0.387 for the comparison
specimens in Series P12C40, P20C40, and P16C30. Similar
to the bond strength ratio, the slip is also influenced by the
surface conditions of plain round bars. The value of s0u is
close to the findings of Abrams2 and Xiao and Falkner.6 When
biaxial lateral pressures are applied, s0 first drops remarkably
to approximately 0.02 to 0.03 mm (0.0008to 0.0012 in.) at
pm = 0.05 to 0.1fcu and then increases gradually to approximately 0.06 to 0.07 mm (0.0024 to 0.0027in.) at pm = 0.6 to
0.8fcu for the specimens in Series P16C40. The maximum
value of s0 for the comparison specimens even increases to
approximately 0.08 to 0.17 mm (0.0032 to 0.0067 in.) at pm=
0.8fcu, as shown in Fig. 14(a) and Table 4. This implies that
the bond mechanism is different before and after the complex
lateral pressures are applied. When there is no lateral pressure, the micro-interlocking at the bar-concrete interface is
progressively tightened, and the peak bond stress is achieved
at a larger slip. When lateral pressures are applied, however,
the bond strength is dependent mainly on the friction action
at the concrete-bar interface, which is strengthened by the
confinement from the external lateral pressures. As a result,
the peak bond stress can be reached at a smaller slip. The
experimental results also show that the slip s0 is influenced
by the bar diameter. Consequently, the parameter s0/D is
adopted to consider the bar diameter effect. In concordance
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

Fig. 9Bond stress-slip curves for Specimens P20C40-1


and 3 to 5. (Note: Curve for Specimen P20C30-2 is unavailable because slip was not successfully recorded. 1 mm =
0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

Fig. 10Bond stress-slip curves for Specimens P16C30-1 to


5. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
with the expression for the bond strength ratio, s0/D can be
estimated in terms of pm from regression analysis as

s0 s0u
=
D D

pm
pm
0.132 + 0.221 f , for 0.05 f 0.8 (3)
cu
cu

with a correlation coefficient of 0.48. In Eq. (3), s0u/D =


0.0167 is assumed, which is equal to the average value of
s0/D at p1 = p2 = 0 for all specimens.
Because the bond stress-slip relationship is approximately
linear on the ascending branch for plain round bars under
lateral pressure, the bond rigidity k is expressed as u/s0. The
values of k are listed in Appendixes 1 and 2, and the average
values for each group of specimens are shown in Tables 3
and 4 and Fig. 15. Despite large scatter in the experimental
data, the bond rigidity is in the range of 80 40 MPa/mm
(293.5 146.8 ksi/in.), independent of lateral pressure and
the surface condition of reinforcing bars. This suggests that
the bond stress-slip curve generally rises with the slip at the

21

Fig. 11Relationship between bond strength ratio and: (a) p1/fcu; and (b) p2/fcu for specimens in Series P16C40.

Fig. 12Relationship between bond strength ratio and


p1/fcu (or p2/fcu) for comparison specimens in Series P12C40,
P20C40, and P16C30.
same increasing rate for the plain round bars under varying
lateral pressures.
Due to the dynamic frictional resistance along the
concrete-bar interface, the bond stress approaches to a stable
value on the descending branch. The stable value is defined
as the residual bond stress r. Figures 3 to 10 show that the
residual bond stress is an increasing function of the peak
bond stress. If kr is used to denote r/u, it can be seen from
Fig. 16 that kr is almost independent of the pressure ratio and
level, bar diameter and strength of concrete, and the average
value of kr is equal to 0.42, with a standard deviation of 0.11.
This result is consistent with the observations by Tassios4
and Verderame et al.,8 where kr varies from 0.30 to 0.43.
BOND STRESS-SLIP RELATIONSHIP
An analytical expression for the bond stress-slip relationship is useful for the mathematical or numerical modeling
of reinforced concrete structures. This relationship is
commonly approximated by the local bond stress-slip curve
of specimens with short bonded lengths (that is, three to five
times the bar diameter). For plain round reinforcing bars
without confinement, several analytical models have been
proposed to formulate the constitutive bond stress-slip relationship by curve fitting.6,8,18

22

Fig. 13Relationship between bond strength ratio and pm/fcu.


From the experimental results, the constitutive bond
stress-slip relationship of plain bars under lateral pressure
can be simplified as shown in Fig. 17 and expressed as

u (s / s0 ) , for 0 s s0
(4)
=
u [ kr + (1 kr ) exp( s / s0 1)], for s s0

where and are two parameters that characterize the


ascending and descending branches, respectively. The
ascending branch is the same as the BPE model30 and
01. For the descending branch, is restricted to the
interval [1, 0] to guarantee the boundedness of the bond
stress. It is readily shown that is equal to u at s = s0, and
approaches to r with the increase of s.
The parameters and are calibrated from the measured
curves using the bond parameters u, s0, and r. Their average
values are listed in Tables 3 and 4 for each group of specimens. It is found that, when there is no lateral pressure,
is between 0.15 and 0.3, with an average of approximately
0.20, and varies from 0.352 to 0.450, with an average of
approximately 0.40. When lateral pressures are applied, the
linearity in the bond stress-slip curve before the peak stress
results in = 1 and decreases with the increase of pm, as
shown in Fig. 18. It follows from regression analysis that

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

Fig. 14Relationships between: (a) s0; and (b) s0/D and pm/fcu. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Fig. 15Relationship between k and pm/fcu. (Note: 1 MPa/mm


= 3668 psi/in.)

(5)

pm

0.20, for f = 0

cu
=
1.0, for 0.05 pm 0.8

fcu

(6)

pm

0.40, for f = 0

cu
=
0.215 0.35 pm , for 0.05 pm 0.8

fcu
fcu

Thus, the bond stress-slip relationship is formulated.


In Fig. 3 to 10, comparisons between Eq. (4) and the
experimental results are given. As can be seen from Fig. 3
to 10, Eq. (4) is consistent with the experimental results on
the ascending branch. This is attributed to the equivalent
bond rigidity k with a mean of approximately 80 MPa/mm
(293.5ksi/in.) and a standard deviation of approximately
40MPa/mm (146.8 ksi/in.) before the peak stress, and a
satisfactory prediction of peak bond stress given by Eq. (2)
with a mean prediction-test ratio of 1.04 and a standard deviation of 0.226. On the descending branch, Eq. (4) is also in
general agreement with the experimental results. A single
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

Fig. 16Relationship between kr and pm/fcu.


value of kr with a mean of 0.42 and a standard deviation of
0.11, however, results in an inevitable scatter on the residual
branch. Despite the large scatter, the evaluation of the model
parameters is still acceptable for plain round bars.8 Therefore, it can be seen that the proposed constitutive model is
capable of describing the whole bond stress-slip relationship
of plain round bars under lateral pressure with a reasonable
accuracy. To investigate the effect of pm on the bond stressslip curve, a comparison is made in Fig. 19, where pm/fcu
varies from 0.05 to 0.8. It can be seen from Fig. 19 that,
by increasing pm/fcu, the bond stress decreases more remarkably with the increase of the slip on the descending branch.
Therefore, the constitutive bond stress-slip relationship is
pmdependent.
CONCLUSIONS
The bond behavior of plain round bars has been investigated on pullout specimens subjected to uniaxial and biaxial
lateral pressures. A total of 108 pullout specimens have been
tested to quantify the effects of the pressure ratio and level
on the bond parameters. The conclusions of this study are
summarized as follows:
1. When no lateral pressure is applied, the bond of plain
round bars is mobilized by adhesion and friction. When
lateral pressures are applied, the bond depends mainly on the
friction between the bars and concrete. The lateral pressures

23

3. Biaxial lateral pressures can effectively enhance the


residual and ultimate bond strengths by increasing the friction action at the concrete-bar, but their ratio basically keeps
invariable regardless of the pressure ratio and level.
4. With the application of lateral pressures, the slip at the
peak bond stress first reduces by the confinement action
to the bar-concrete interface and then increases with an
increase in lateral pressure. The bond rigidity, however,
almost staysinvariable.
5. A constitutive model of bond stress-slip has been
proposed and the validity of the model has been verified with
the experimental results.
AUTHOR BIOS

Fig. 17Constitutive relationship of bond stress-slip.

Feng Xu is a PhD Candidate at the State Key Laboratory of Coastal and


Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, P. R.
China. His research interests include bond behavior of reinforcement and
fracture mechanics of concrete.
Zhi-min Wu is a Professor at the State Key Laboratory of Coastal and
Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology. He received his
BS, MS, and PhD from Dalian University of Technology. His research
interests include bond behavior of reinforcement, fracture mechanics of
concrete, and rehabilitation of existing concrete structures.
Jian-jun Zheng is a Professor at the Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, P. R. China. He received his PhD from Delft University of Technology,
Delft, the Netherlands. His research interests include stereological analysis and
numerical simulation of concrete mesostructure, mesomechanics of concrete,
and durability of concrete materials and structures.
Yu Hu is an Associate Professor in the Department of Hydraulic Engineering at Tsinghua University, Beijing, P. R. China. He received his BS
and PhD from Tsinghua University. His research interests include concrete
materials and numerical simulation of dam structures.

Fig. 18Relationship between and pm/fcu.

Qing-bin Li is a Professor in the Department of Hydraulic Engineering,


Tsinghua University, Beijing, P. R. China. He received his PhD from
Dalian University of Technology. His research interests include fracture
mechanics of concrete, constitutive modeling of concrete, and numerical
methods for structural analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation with
Grant No. 51078057 and 51121005, the National Basic Research Program
(973 Program) with Grant No. 2011CB013800 and 2009CB623200, and
the Open Research Fund Program of State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering with Grant No. sklhse-2008-D-03, of the Peoples
Republic of China, is greatly acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Fig. 19Predicted normalized bond stress-slip relationship.


induce confinement actions at the bar-concrete interface, and
consequently exert a large influence on the bond behavior.
2. When specimens are subjected to biaxial lateral pressures, the bond stress increases linearly with an increase in
slip on the ascending branch. After the peak bond stress is
reached, the bond stress first drops remarkably, and then
decreases gradually due to the decreasing action of friction
at the concrete-bar interface.

24

1. Baldwin, M. I., and Clark, L. A., The Assessment of Reinforcing


Bars with Inadequate Anchorage, Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 47,
No. 171, June 1995, pp. 95-102.
2. Abrams, D. A., Tests of Bond between Concrete and Steel, University of Illinois Bulletin No. 71, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, IL, 1913, p. 240.
3. Stoker, M. F., and Sozen, M. A., Investigation of Prestressed Reinforced Concrete for Highway Bridges. Part V: Bond Characteristics of
Prestressing Strand, University of Illinois Bulletin No. 503, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1970, pp. 116-119.
4. Tassios, T. P., Properties of Bond between Concrete and Steel under
Load Cycles Idealizing Seismic Actions, Comit Euro-International du
Bton, Bulletin No. 131, Paris, France, 1979, pp. 67-121.
5. CEB-FIP, CEB-FIP Model Code (MC-90), Comit Euro-International du Bton, Thomas Telford Ltd., London, UK, 1993, p.437.
6. Xiao, J. Z., and Falkner, H., Bond Behavior between Recycled
Aggregate Concrete and Steel Rebars, Construction and Building Materials, V. 21, No. 2, 2007, pp. 395-401.
7. Verderame, G. M.; Ricci, P.; De Carlo, G.; and Manfredi, G., Cyclic
Bond Behaviour of Plain Bars. Part I: Experimental Investigation,
Construction & Building Materials, V. 23, No. 12, 2009, pp. 3499-3511.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

8. Verderame, G. M.; De Carlo, G.; Ricci, P.; and Fabbrocino, G.,


Cyclic Bond Behaviour of Plain Bars. Part II: Analytical Investigation,
Construction & Building Materials, V. 23, No. 12, 2009, pp. 3512-3522.
9. Mylrea, T. D., Bond and Anchorage, ACI Journal, V. 44, No. 3,
1948, pp. 521-552.
10. Kankam, C. K., Relationship of Bond Stress, Steel Stress, and Slip
in Reinforced Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 123,
No. 1, Jan. 1997, pp. 79-85.
11. Feldman, L. R., and Bartlett, F. M., Bond Stresses Along Plain Steel
Reinforcing Bars in Pullout Specimens, ACI Structural Journal, V. 104,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2007, pp. 685-692.
12. Edwards, A. D., and Yannopoluos, P. J., Local Bond-Stress to Slip
Relationships for Hot Rolled Deformed Bars and Mild Steel Plain Bars,
ACI Journal, V. 76, No. 3, Mar. 1979, pp. 405-420.
13. Mo, Y. L., and Chan, J., Bond and Slip of Plain Rebars in Concrete,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 8, No. 4, Nov. 1996,
pp. 208-211.
14. Larrard, F. D.; Schaller, I.; and Fuchs, J., Effect of Bar Diameter on the Bond Strength of Passive Reinforcement in High-Performance Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 90, No. 4, July-Aug. 1993,
pp.333-339.
15. Robins, P. J., and Standish, I. G., The Influence of Lateral Pressure
upon Anchorage Bond, Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 36, No. 129,
Dec. 1984, pp. 195-202.
16. Hossain, K. M. A., Bond Characteristics of Plain and Deformed
Bars in Lightweight Pumice Concrete, Construction and Building Materials, V. 22, No. 7, July 2008, pp. 1491-1499.
17. Fabbrocino, G.; Verderame, G. M.; and Manfredi, G., Experimental Behaviour of Anchored Smooth Rebars in Old Type Reinforced
Concrete Buildings, Engineering Structures, V. 27, No. 10, Aug. 2005,
pp. 1575-1585.
18. Feldman, L. R., and Bartlett, F. M., Bond Strength Variability in
Pull-Out Specimens with Plain Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal,
V.102, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2005, pp. 860-867.
19. Untrauer, R. E., and Henry, R. L., Influence of Normal Pressure on
Bond Strength, ACI Journal, V. 62, No. 5, May 1965, pp.577-585.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

20. Navaratnarajah, V., and Speare, P. R. S., An Experimental Study of


the Effects of Lateral Pressure on the Transfer Bond of Reinforcing Bars
with Variable Cover, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Part 2, V. 81, Dec. 1986, pp. 697-791.
21. Walker, P. R.; Batayneh, M. K.; and Regan, P. E., Bond Strength
Test on Deformed Reinforcement in Normal Weight Concrete, Materials
and Structures, V. 30, No. 7, Aug.-Sept. 1997, pp. 424-429.
22. Malvar, L. J., Bond of Reinforcement under Controlled Confinement, ACI Materials Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992, pp. 593-601.
23. Moosavi, M.; Jafari, A.; and Khosravi, A., Bond of Cement Grouted
Reinforcing Bars under Constant Radial Pressure, Cement and Concrete
Composites, V. 27, No. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 103-109.
24. Laldji, S., and Young, A. G., Bond between Steel Strand and
Cement Grout in Ground Anchorages, Magazine of Concrete Research,
V.40, No.143, June 1988, pp. 90-98.
25. Malvar, L. J., Tensile and Bond Properties of GFRP Reinforcing
Bars, ACI Materials Journal, V. 92, No. 3, May-June 1995, pp. 276-285.
26. Malvar, L. J.; Cox, J. V.; and Cochran, K. B., Bond between Carbon
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bars and Concrete. I: Experimental Study,
Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V.7, No. 2, May 2003,
pp. 154-163.
27. Robins, P. J., and Standish, I. G., The Effect of Lateral Pressure on
the Bond of Round Reinforcing Bars in Concrete, International Journal of
Adhesion and Adhesives, V. 2, No. 2, Apr. 1982, pp. 129-133.
28. Soroushian, P., and Choi, K. B., Local Bond of Deformed Bars with
Different Diameters in Confined Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1989, pp. 217-222.
29. RILEM Recommendations for the Testing and Use of Constructions
Materials, RC6 Bond Test for Reinforcement Steel, No. 2, Pull-Out Test,
1983, pp. 218-220.
30. Eligehausen, R.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., Local Bond
Stress-Slip Relationships of Deformed Bars under Generalized Excitations, Report No. UCB/EERC 83-23, EERC University of California at
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1983, pp. 69-80.

25

Appendix 1 - Characteristic parameters of bond behavior for specimens in Series P16C40


subjected to lateral pressure

Specimen

p1
f cu

P16C40-1

0.1

P16C40-2 0.1

0.1

P16C40-3 0.2

p2
f cu

f cu ,

MPa

s0 ,

mm

(ksi)

(in.) *

42.07

0.215

(6.11)

(0.0085)

42.07

0.109

0
(6.11)

(0.0043)

38.17

0.074

(5.54)

(0.0029)

42.07

0.022

0
(6.11)

(0.0009)

38.17

0.027

(5.54)

(0.0011)

42.20

0.076

u
f cu

(0.0030)

42.07

0.020

(6.11)

(0.0008)

r ,

MPa

MPa/mm

( MPa ) (ksi/in.)

kr

(ksi)

0.123

0.100

0.32 (46.4) 0.49

0.101

0.22 (31.9) 0.35

0.29(42.1)

0.36

0.172

50.5 (188) 0.34 (49.3) 0.30

0.133

30.4 (123) 0.55 (79.8) 0.67

0.107
(6.12)

k,

0.217

9.2 (34)

0.31 (45)

0.45

70.0 (260) 0.71 (103) 0.51

0.2

0.2

0.3

P16C40-4 0.3

0.3

38.17

0.015

(5.54)

(0.0006)

38.17

0.023

0
(5.54)

(0.0009)

42.07

0.026

(6.11)

(0.0010)

38.17

0.023

0
(5.54)

(0.0009)

42.20

0.040

(6.12)

(0.0016)

0.172

70.7 (263)

0.51 (74)

0.48

0.151

40.4 (150) 0.27 (39.2) 0.28

0.263

65.4 (243) 0.49 (71.1) 0.29

0.227

60.9 (226) 0.54 (78.3) 0.39

0.252

41.0 (152) 0.59 (85.6) 0.36

42.07
0.4

0.310

0.89 (129) 0.45

(6.11)
38.17
P16C40-5 0.4

0.4

0.5

(5.54)

(0.0017)

38.17

0.038

(5.54)

(0.0015)

42.07

0.029

P16C40-6
0.5

0.042

(6.11)

(0.0011)

38.17

0.032

0.365

53.8 (200) 0.72 (104) 0.31

0.239

38.9 (144) 0.48 (69.6) 0.32

0.365

81.7 (304) 0.67 (97.2) 0.28

0.319

61.6 (229) 0.76 (110) 0.39

0.5

0.6

P16C40-7 0.6

0.6

(5.54)

(0.0013)

42.20

0.063

0
(6.12)

(0.0025)

42.07

0.074

(6.11)

(0.0029)

38.17

0.039

0
(5.54)

(0.0015)

38.17

0.072

(5.54)

(0.0028)

41.57

0.012

(6.03)

(0.0005)

39.94

0.024

0.3 0.1

P16C40-8 0.3 0.1


(5.80)

(0.0009)

38.92

0.021

(5.65)

(0.0008)

39.66

0.027

0.3 0.1

0.6 0.2
(5.76)

(0.0011)

39.66

0.034

(5.76)

(0.0013)

0.312

32.2 (120) 0.63 (91.4) 0.31

0.394

34.6 (129) 1.14 (165) 0.44

0.386

61.0 (227) 0.74 (107) 0.31

0.320

27.5 (102) 0.78 (113) 0.39

0.403

212.5 (779) 1.29 (187) 0.51

0.240

64.6 (237) 0.36 (52.2) 0.23

0.246

73.8 (271) 0.45 (65.3) 0.29

0.523

124.8 (458) 0.84 (122) 0.25

0.422

78.2 (287) 0.69 (100) 0.26

P16C40-9
0.6 0.2

38.92

0.025

(5.65)

(0.0010)

44.14

0.070

0.6 0.2

0.8 0.27
(6.41)

(0.0028)

44.14

0.061

(6.41)

(0.0024)

38.92

0.101

P16C40-10 0.8 0.27

0.8 0.27
(5.65)

(0.0040)

41.57

0.034

(6.03)

(0.0013)

39.66

0.012

(5.76)

(0.0005)

38.92

0.129

0.2 0.1

P16C40-11 0.2 0.1

0.2 0.1
(5.65)

(0.0051)

41.57

0.037

(6.03)

(0.0015)

39.66

0.032

0.4 0.2

P16C40-12
0.4 0.2

0.4 0.2

(5.76)

(0.0013)

38.92

0.024

0.586

146.4 (537) 1.33 (193) 0.36

0.734

69.7 (256) 2.35 (341) 0.48

0.734

80.0 (293) 1.85 (268) 0.38

0.907

56.0 (205) 3.23 (468) 0.57

0.344

66.0 (245) 0.53 (76.9) 0.24

0.264

136.1 (506) 0.81 (117) 0.49

0.444

1.09 (158) 0.40

0.233

40.9 (152)

0.333

65.4 (243) 0.66 (95.7) 0.31

0.444

113.6 (422) 1.07 (155) 0.39

0.51 (74)

0.34

(5.65)

(0.0009)

41.57

0.043

0.6 0.3

0.430
(6.03)

(0.0017)

39.66

0.034

(5.76)

(0.0013)

38.92

0.030

P16C40-13 0.6 0.3

64.6 (240) 0.68 (98.6) 0.25

0.545 101.9 (379) 1.24 (180) 0.36

0.6 0.3

0.737 151.3 (562) 1.44 (209) 0.31


(5.65)

(0.0012)

44.14

0.061

(6.41)

(0.0024)

44.14

0.043

(6.41)

(0.0017)

38.92

0.066

0.8 0.4

0.701

P16C40-14 0.8 0.4

76.3 (284) 1.92 (278) 0.41

0.851 131.7 (489) 2.33 (338) 0.41

0.8 0.4
(5.65)

(0.0026)

39.94

0.024

(5.80)

(0.0009)

41.57

0.079

0.1 0.1

P16C40-15 0.1 0.1


(6.03)

0.391

37.2 (138) 1.44 (209) 0.59

0.105

27.9 (104) 0.14 (20.3) 0.21

0.138

11.3 (42)

0.42 (60.9) 0.47

0.194

0.59 (86.6) 0.49

(0.0031)

39.66
0.1 0.1

(5.76)

39.94

0.012

(5.80)

(0.0005)

41.57

0.089

0.2 0.2

161. 7
0.307

P16C40-16 0.2 0.2


(6.03)

0.65 (94.3) 0.33


(600)

0.156

11.2 (42)

0.19 (27.6) 0.19

0.159

0.41 (59.6) 0.41

(0.0035)

39.66
0.2 0.2

(5.76)
39.94

0.040

0.3 0.3

0.481
(5.80)

77.5 (288) 0.66 (95.7) 0.21

(0.0016)

41.57
P16C40-17 0.3 0.3

0.218

(6.03)
39.66

0.031

(5.76)

(0.0012)

39.94

0.052

0.3 0.3

0.594 119.7 (445) 1.30 (189) 0.35

0.4 0.4
(5.80)

(0.0020)

41.57

0.059

(6.03)

(0.0023)

39.66

0.034

P16C40-18 0.4 0.4

0.4 0.4

P16C40-19 0.5 0.5

(5.76)

(0.0013)

39.94

0.046

0.446

54.2 (201) 1.20 (174) 0.43

0.472

51.5 (191) 0.65 (94.3) 0.21

0.299

55.3 (205) 0.42 (60.9) 0.22

0.526

72.2 (268) 1.25 (181) 0.38

(5.80)

(0.0018)

41.57

0.020

0.5 0.5
(6.03)

(0.0008)

38.92

0.031

(5.65)

(0.0012)

41.57

0.052

0.5 0.5

0.6 0.6
(6.03)

(0.0020)

39.66

0.113

(5.76)

(0.0044)

38.92

0.039

(5.65)

(0.0015)

44.14

0.031

P16C40-20 0.6 0.6

0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8
(6.41)

(0.0012)

44.14

0.052

(6.41)

(0.0020)

44.14

0.077

P16C40-21 0.8 0.8

0.8 0.8
(6.41)
Note:
17.

0.365

117.5 (437) 0.42 (60.9) 0.17

0.536

107.1 (398) 1.27 (184) 0.38

0.519

62.9 (234) 1.42 (206) 0.43

0.951

53.0 (197) 3.31 (480) 0.55

0.577

92.3 (343) 0.89 (129) 0.25

0.693

148.4 (551) 1.71 (248) 0.37

1.126

143.8 (534) 3.56 (516) 0.48

0.952

82.2 (305) 3.35 (486) 0.53

(0.0030)

* s0 was not successfully recorded for one of specimens P16C40-5 and P16C40-15 to
k is unavailable for specimen P16C40-1 due to the non-linearity in the bond stress-slip
curve and for other specimens due to the lack of s0.

Appendix 2 - Characteristic parameters of bond behavior for specimens in Series P12C40,


P20C40, and P16C30 subjected to lateral pressure

p1
Specimen f cu

p2
f cu

f cu ,

MPa

(ksi)

s0 ,

mm

(in.) *

u
f cu

k,

r ,

MPa

MPa/mm

( MPa ) (ksi/in.)

kr

(ksi)

0 35.82(5.19) 0.261(0.0102) 0.135

0.43

0.527

0 35.82(5.19) 0.167(0.0065) 0.167

0.74

0.734

0 35.82(5.19) 0.269(0.0105) 0.139

0.48

0.579

0.15 0.15 35.82(5.19) 0.140(0.0055) 0.314

13.4(49)

0.59

0.313

0.15 0.15 35.82(5.19) 0.105(0.0041) 0.294

16.8 (62)

0.84

0.477

0.15 0.15 35.82(5.19) 0.021(0.0008) 0.319

91.0(334)

0.81

0.421

1.03

0.572

0.3 0.3 35.82(5.19) 0.072(0.0028) 0.314

26.1(96)

0.97

0.514

0.3 0.3 35.82(5.19) 0.042(0.0016) 0.615

87.6(321)

1.57

0.426

0.6 0.6 35.82(5.19) 0.068(0.0026) 0.750

66.0(242)

1.67

0.371

0.6 0.6 35.82(5.19) 0.021(0.0008) 0.720 205.2(753)

0.98

0.227

0.6 0.6 35.82(5.19) 0.033(0.0013) 0.633 114.8(421)

1.60

0.423

P12C401

P12C402

0.3 0.3 35.82(5.19)

0.301

P12C403

P12C404

0.8 0.8 35.82(5.19) 0.105(0.0041) 1.125

64.1(235)

3.39

0.503

0.8 0.8 35.82(5.19) 0.079(0.0032) 1.111

84.2(309)

3.38

0.508

0.8 0.8 35.82(5.19) 0.085(0.0033) 0.750

52.8(194)

3.15

0.702

P12C405

0 36.41(5.27) 0.371(0.0145) 0.140

0.67

0.793

0 36.41(5.27)

0.191

0 36.41(5.27) 0.403(0.0157) 0.157

0.71

0.756

73.0(268)

1.18

0.491

0.15 0.15 36.41(5.27) 0.035(0.0014) 0.759 130.9(480)

1.72

0.374

0.15 0.15 36.41(5.27) 0.085(0.0033) 0.635

45.1(165)

1.32

0.344

0.3 0.3 36.41(5.27) 0.029(0.0011) 0.464

96.6(354)

1.53

0.548

1.48

0.651

0.3 0.3 36.41(5.27) 0.092(0.0036) 0.719

47.2(173)

1.34

0.310

0.6 0.6 36.41(5.27) 0.052(0.0020) 0.514

59.6(219)

0.96

0.309

0.6 0.6 36.41(5.27) 0.092(0.0036) 0.739

48.5(178)

1.84

0.413

0.6 0.6 36.41(5.27) 0.067(0.0026) 0.933

83.5(306)

2.19

0.389

P20C40- 0.8 0.8 36.41(5.27) 0.164(0.0064) 1.225

45.1(165)

4.22

0.571

P20C40

0.15 0.15 36.41(5.27) 0.033(0.0013) 0.399


P20C402

P20C400.3 0.3 36.41(5.27)

0.378

P20C404

0.8 0.8 36.41(5.27) 0.298(0.0116) 1.106

22.4(82)

0.8 0.8 36.41(5.27) 0.050(0.0020) 0.951 114.1(419)

5.21

0.781

2.15

0.374

0 29.01(4.20) 0.365(0.0142) 0.197

0.59

0.555

0 29.01(4.20) 0.348(0.0136) 0.115

0.29

0.474

0 29.01(4.20) 0.245(0.0096) 0.143

0.36

0.473

0.31

0.263

0.15 0.15 29.01(4.20) 0.052(0.0020) 0.318

32.9(121)

0.69

0.401

0.15 0.15 29.01(4.20) 0.059(0.0023) 0.360

32.9(121)

0.79

0.408

0.3 0.3 29.01(4.20) 0.008(0.0003) 0.539 362.5(1330)

1.15

0.396

0.3 0.3 29.01(4.20) 0.098(0.0038) 0.357

19.6(72)

0.95

0.496

0.3 0.3 29.01(4.20) 0.102(0.0040) 0.695

36.7(135)

1.49

0.399

0.6 0.6 29.01(4.20) 0.008(0.0003) 0.711 478.8(1756)

1.59

0.415

0.6 0.6 29.01(4.20) 0.169(0.0066) 0.954

30.4(112)

2.32

0.451

0.6 0.6 29.01(4.20) 0.079(0.0031) 0.902

61.8(227)

1.87

0.385

P16C30- 0.8 0.8 29.01(4.20) 0.146(0.0057) 0.975

36.0(132)

2.91

0.553

88.2(326)

4.23

0.647

P16C301

0.15 0.15 29.01(4.20)

0.217

P16C302

P16C303

P16C304

0.8 0.8 29.01(4.20) 0.074(0.0029) 1.213

0.8 0.8 29.01(4.20) 0.008(0.0003) 0.841 552.4(2026)

3.23

0.714

Note: * s0 was not successfully recorded for one of specimens P12C40-3, P20C40-1 and 3,
and P16C30-2.
k is unavailable for specimens P12C40-1, P20C40-1, and P16C30-1 due to the nonlinearity in the bond stress-slip curve and for other specimens due to the lack of s0.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

S-ar putea să vă placă și