www.ernstundsohn.

de Page1 StructuralConcrete

Technical Paper

Bond Behaviour of Straight, Hooked, U-Shaped

Accepted Article
and Headed Bars in Cracked Concrete

by F. Brantschen1, D.M.V. Faria2, M. Fernndez Ruiz3 and A. Muttoni4

(1) PhD. candidate, cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne, Station 18, CH-1015,

Lausanne, Switzerland (corresponding author : fabio.brantschen@epfl.ch)

(2) Senior engineer, PhD., Muttoni & Fernndez, consulting engineers, Route du Bois 17,

CH-1024, Ecublens, Switzerland

(3) Senior Lecturer, PhD., cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne, Station 18, CH-

1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

(4) Professor, PhD., cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne, Station 18, CH-1015,

Lausanne, Switzerland

Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationandundergonefullpeerreviewbuthasnotbeenthroughthecopyediting,
typesetting,paginationandproofreadingprocess,whichmayleadtodifferencesbetweenthisversionandtheVersionof
Record.Pleasecitethisarticleasdoi:10.1002/suco.201500199.

Submitted: 26Nov2015
Revised: 17Mar2016
Accepted: 17Mar2016

2015Ernst&SohnVerlagfrArchitekturundtechnischeWissenschaftenGmbH&Co.KG,Berlin
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page2 StructuralConcrete

ABSTRACT
Most classical investigations on bond properties in reinforced concrete have been performed on the
basis of pull-out tests, where a reinforcement bar is pulled out from an uncracked concrete cylinder,
Accepted Article
prism or cube. In these tests, bond is governed by the concrete strength and bar surface properties of
the reinforcement (bond index, rib geometry) or by the splitting strength of concrete (concrete
cover). In the latter case, failure in bond occurs due to uncontrolled cracking of the concrete
specimen. Contrary to these fundamental tests, in many structural members, bond is activated
within already cracked concrete. This is particularly relevant for the reinforcement in beams and
slabs (both for the flexural and transverse reinforcement), as the reinforcing bars might be located at
planes where flexural cracks develop. The opening of these cracks along the reinforcement is
nevertheless not uncontrolled (as opposed to splitting failures), but it is governed by the bending
deformations. The bond properties and strength of the reinforcement in actual members are,
therefore, influenced by the opening of these cracks and are potentially different from those
observed from classical pull-out tests.
The present paper aims to address this topic by presenting the results of an experimental
investigation on 89 monotonic pull-out tests performed on cracked ties. The opening of the cracks
was controlled while transverse bars located in the plane of these cracks were pulled out from the
specimens. The tests were performed for crack openings ranging from 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm in order to
cover conditions both at serviceability and ultimate limit states. The results show a very significant
influence of in-plane cracking on both the strength and bond-slip stiffness, with decreasing
mechanical performance for increasing crack openings. The performance of different actual
anchorage types (straight, hooked, U-shaped and headed bars) generally characterized through
force-slip relationships is finally analytically investigated and compared to the test results.

Keywords:
Structural concrete members; cracked conditions; serviceability and ultimate limit states; bond and
anchorage performance; reinforcement detailing; pull-out tests; bond-slip relationships.
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page3 StructuralConcrete

LIST OF SYMBOLS

The following symbols are used in this paper:

Accepted Article
Latin upper case:

Ac Reduced contact area (cracked conditions)

Ac0 Initial contact area (uncracked conditions)

AR Projected area of a single rib on the cross-section

F Force acting on a bar or an anchorage

Fu Maximal force acting on a bar or an anchorage

Fy Yielding force of a bar or an anchorage

Latin lower case:

cx ,cy Horizontal and vertical cover of the longitudinal bars in tie specimens

db Bar diameter

dh Head diameter

fR Bond index (relative rib area)

fb Peak bond strength (cracked conditions)

fb0 Peak bond strength (uncracked conditions)

fc Concrete compressive strength (cylinder 160 x 320 mm)

ft Steel ultimate strength

fy Steel yield strength (for hot-rolled bars)

fy,0.2 Steel yield strength (for cold-rolled bars)

hR Equivalent rib height (ass. unique rib of constant height)

 www.ernstundsohn.de Page4 StructuralConcrete

hR,max Maximum rib height

lb Development length
Accepted Article
nl Number of lugs

sR Rib spacing

w Crack opening

wli,1 Maximum crack opening (Regime A)

wli,2 Maximum crack opening (Regime B)

Greek upper case:

p Relative shift of the peak bond strength (for cracked conditions)

p,max Maximum relative shift of the peak bond strength (for cracked conditions)

cr Factor for modified bond strength in case of parallel cracks (MC 2010)

Greek lower case:

H Angle of the head according to bar axis

R Transverse rib flank inclination according to bar axis

R Rib orientation according to bar axis

Relative displacement between steel and concrete (slip)

p Slip at peak bond strength (cracked conditions)

p0 Slip at peak bond strength (uncracked conditions)

u Slip at maximal force (Fu)

f Coefficient of proportionality

Bond stress
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page5 StructuralConcrete

1. INTRODUCTION

Bond is one of the most instrumental phenomena in structural concrete governing the behaviour
Accepted Article
both at serviceability limit state (cracking development) and at ultimate limit state (strength, strain

localization and deformation capacity). Many efforts have been devoted in the past to characterize

bond properties in uncracked conditions. This has been performed with reference to specific test

setups as standard (short) pull-out tests [1] (Fig. 1a), long pull-out tests (Fig. 1b) or direct tension

tests (Fig. 1c). The short pull-out test is aimed at determining the fundamental local bond-slip law

characterizing bond (Fig. 1d), and thus the embedment length is rather small in order to have an

almost constant slip along the bonded part of the bar. On the contrary, tests with long embedment

length such as the pull-out or the direct tension tests are aimed at understanding the bond

development and cracking phenomena as the relative concrete-steel slip vary along the bar [2].

When sufficient cover is available, the maximum bond strength and its associated slip are not

limited by the development of premature splitting cracks (Fig. 1d) [3] but they are governed by the

concrete strength and rib geometry. Based on experimental observations, Rehm [4-5] introduced

therefore the concept of bond index (fR), originally named as relative rib area in order to consider

the difference in bond performance of bars with various ribs properties. This index is usually

defined as [6]:

AR
fR = (1)
db sR

Where AR refers to the area of the projection of a single rib on the cross-section (normally

composed by two or more lugs in ordinary reinforcement), and sR and db refer respectively to the

distance between two consecutive ribs and the bar diameter. It can be noted that the bond index can

thus be related to the ratio between an equivalent rib height (hR) and the distance between ribs (sR).

Contrary to classical test setups (Figs. 1a-c), bond in actual structures develops often within cracked

concrete. In many cases, cracks develop in a plane where reinforcement is also located.

Nevertheless, two cases have to be distinguished:

 www.ernstundsohn.de Page6 StructuralConcrete

- The first corresponds to concrete members where the opening of the crack is controlled. This is

for instance the case of the flexural reinforcement in slabs [7] (Fig. 2a) or the punching
Accepted Article
reinforcement of two-way slabs [8] (Fig. 2b). It may also be the case of suspension

reinforcements (Fig. 2c), joints of precast elements with overlapping reinforcement [9] (Fig.

2d) or the anchorage of the web reinforcement in flanged sections members [10-11];

- The second corresponds to concrete members where the development of these cracks is

uncontrolled. This is for instance the case of delamination cracks along the flexural

reinforcement of arch-shaped members [12] or of members without transverse reinforcement

[13], where the development of these cracks can potentially lead to the failure of the member.

Contrary to splitting failures in classical bond tests (Fig. 1d) as described by Tepfers [3], it can be

noted that, for cases where the width of the cracks remains controlled, cracking through a plane

containing bar axis (limiting or even cancelling the tension ring [14]) does not necessarily imply a

bond failure [15]. Yet, the contact surface between the reinforcing bar and the concrete through the

ribs is reduced (Fig. 1e) and the mechanical performance of bond is consequently diminished.

Since the 1980s, specific test setups with active or passive confinement (during the pulling-out

process) have been developed to experimentally investigate the influence of in-plane cracks on

bond strength and stiffness [16-17, 23-25, 27-29]. On the basis of these test results, several

formulations have been proposed to determine the reduction on the bond strength as a function of

the crack widths. Fig. 1f summarizes several relevant formulation proposals from literature (in

black) [18-19, 22, 25-28] and actual codes provisions (in grey) [30-32]. These proposals are

respectively reported and briefly discussed in Appendices A and B of this paper.

Fig. 1f shows that although cracks tend to decrease bond performance, there is a sizable dispersion

among the proposed equations. These differences are mostly due to the fact that these equations

have an empirical basis and their shape depends much upon the tests and calibration range. With

respect to design codes, few of them provide explicit formulations to account for the effect of in-

plane cracks on bond strength [30-32] and generally they limit their recommendations to the
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page7 StructuralConcrete

arrangement of adequate reinforcement in areas where tensile stresses might develop in the concrete

cover.
Accepted Article
Regarding the influence of anchorage and bar detailing on the bond strength and structural

performance, previous works have confirmed this aspect both for beams [10-11, 33-46] and slabs

[8, 47-62]. For instance, by means of hooks, U-shaped bars and headed anchorage, the required

length for development of a straight bar can be significantly reduced. However, it has to be noted

that the use of inappropriate details can, under certain conditions, lead to a limitation or a loss of the

anchorage capacity (which may for instance trigger premature shear failures [63-65]). Intensive

investigations on the topic of anchorage strength have been performed on post-installed and bonded

fasteners (see for instance [66-67]), mostly in order to provide guidelines for their design in cracked

concrete (usually under service crack widths). However, the direct use of these approaches to

embedded reinforcement is not always straightforward [6, 68]. Despite of their wide use in practice,

and although several studies are yet available [25, 69-71], the effect of cracks on the performance of

the mentioned cast-in details (straight, hooked, U-shaped and headed bars) is generally neglected in

the design procedures.

In this paper, the phenomenon of bond in cracked structural concrete members is investigated by

means of a systematic experimental programme consisting in a number of monotonic pull-out tests.

A total of 89 transverse bars were pulled-out from structural elements loaded in tension and where

the crack widths were controlled during the pull-out process. This investigation is performed with

reference to a number of actual reinforcement details comprising straight, hooked, U-shaped (with

or without passing-through reinforcement) and headed bars, all respecting minimal detailing

provisions of the national code [72-73]. The aim of this programme was to determine realistic bond-

slip relationships of cracked structural concrete members accounting for the activation of the

reinforcement (as for instance the punching reinforcement according to MC 2010 [32, 74]). On that

basis, a simple proposal is introduced and validated with available tests from literature [16-17, 23-
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page8 StructuralConcrete

25, 27-29] to account for the phenomenon of in-plane cracking on the bond strength and stiffness

covering crack openings both under service and ultimate limit states.
Accepted Article
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

In order to have a general overview of the performance in cracked concrete of actual anchorage

systems, the experimental programme was divided into three series: straight bars (specimens SB6-

SB7, with a total of 16 tests), headed bars (specimens SB8-SB9, with a total of 18 tests) and bent

bar details comprising hooked and U-shaped bars (specimens SB10-SB16, with a total of 55 tests).

The pull-out tests were performed through direct support from the cast side on bars arranged in the

transverse direction of the ties longitudinally loaded in tension as presented in Figs. 3a-b. A total of

89 tests including 22 reference tests were performed comprising different bar diameters (10 and

14 mm), anchorage types and crack widths (ranging from 0.2 to 2 mm). For all specimens, a normal

strength concrete with 16 mm maximum aggregate size was used. The strength was measured on

160 320 mm cylinders and ranged between 27.5 MPa and 32.7 MPa.

The slip at the free end of the bar or anchorage was measured in an accurate and consistent manner

for all the tested details as shown in Fig. 4. This was performed by means of a 1.5 mm-diameter

stiff wire glued at the extremity of a 2 mm-diameter hole drilled in the axis of the bar (generally to a

depth of one diameter of the reinforcement bar) and connected to an inductive sensor fixed to an

external frame according to the presented arrangement (Fig. 3c).

2.1 Test setup and specimens

Eleven specimens (concrete ties of 300 250 3000 mm) with 11 transverse bars each (arranged at

a constant spacing of 218 mm) were tested following the arrangement and sequence presented in

Fig. 3a. In order to develop the tension cracks at the location of the transverse bars, these sections

were weakened by arranging crack initiators in the formwork prior to casting (3 mm thick steel

plates) representing a total surface equal to 20% to that of the concrete tie (arranged in the

transverse direction), see detailed cross section in Fig. 3b. The specimens were reinforced in the
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page9 StructuralConcrete

longitudinal direction by means of four 18 mm-diameter high-strength cold formed steel bars

without yielding plateau in order to better control crack opening after yielding (with a nominal yield
Accepted Article
strength fy,0.2 equal to 670 MPa).

2.2 Investigated bar/anchorage details

Fig. 4 provides geometrical details of the bars and anchorages that were pulled-out in the

experimental programme. The related steel properties and surface parameters are given in Table 1.

The latter were obtained through the use of digital image correlation (DIC) measurement system. It

has to be noted that, except for the headed bars, all the tested details are made of similar rods

obtained from coils, each with four lugs (Swiss steel type Topar R [73]), leading to rather similar

values of the bond index for the tested bars. To quantify only the performance associated with the

investigated anchorage zone, PVC tubes have been installed on the straight part of each of the tested

details (Figs. 3b-c and Fig. 4). These PVC tubes were arranged generally at a distance equal to one

diameter from the anchorage (beginning of the bend for hooked and U-shaped bars, enlarging of the

bar for headed bars).

2.3 Test development

The tests were performed in the following manner:

- The tie was arranged vertically in the testing machine;

- From one to three control bars (generally two) were pulled-out before loading the tie in tension

in order to have a reference in uncracked concrete for each tested details;

- Then the tie was loaded and the crack widths were tracked by using continuous and discrete

displacement measurement system;

- At selected crack widths (generally 0.2 mm and 0.5 mm to represent usual serviceability

conditions, and 1.0 mm and 2.0 mm to represent conditions at ultimate limit state), loading of

the tie was stopped and kept constant through an external displacement controlled device as the

bars were pulled-out at a loading rate of 1.5 kN/sec (refer to Fig. 3c for the arrangement of the

pull-out device).
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page10 StructuralConcrete

2.4 Results

A complete summary of the main results is provided in Appendix C. The reported concrete
Accepted Article
compressive strength of concrete was measured in cylinders of dimension 160 320 mm the same

day that the pull-out tests were performed. The test results in terms of load-slip curves are provided

in Fig. 5 for all specimens, where each figure plots the measured curves for different crack widths.

For comparison purposes, yield strength of pullout-bar Fy is also plotted in the diagrams.

2.4.1. Straight bars

The behaviour of straight bars (specimens SB6 and SB7) was noticeably influenced by the presence

of in-plane cracks (Figs. 5a-b). It is interesting to note that, in presence of these cracks, the load-slip

curve shows two regimes prior to reaching the maximum bond strength. The former corresponds to

a quite stiff behaviour (bond stresses were activated without almost noticeable slip at the free end)

and is followed by a second regime with a less stiff response. After the maximum bond strength was

reached, the load-slip behaviour presented a softening behaviour, with decreasing bond strength for

increasing values of the slip.

In all cases, the maximum bond strength noticeably decreased even for relatively low values of the

crack opening that can be expected under serviceability conditions (w 0.5 mm).With respect to the

slip corresponding to the maximum bond strength, it increased for larger crack openings, except for

very large crack openings (of about 1 mm), where the maximum strength was almost reached for

very low slip levels (first regime which is governing).

2.4.2. Headed bars

The performance of headed bars (specimens SB8 and SB9) is presented on Figs. 5c-d. In all cases,

the anchorage allowed for the development of yield strength regardless of the opening of the in-

plane crack. Nevertheless, the stiffness of the load-slip curve was significantly reduced for

increasing openings of the cracks. For very large openings (close to 2.0 mm), the yield strength was

eventually attained for slip close to 1.8-2.0 mm due to local phenomena.

 www.ernstundsohn.de Page11 StructuralConcrete

2.4.3. Hooks and U-shaped bars

Hooks and U-shaped anchorages were tested under different conditions:

Accepted Article
- Hooks with smooth bars (where ribs were removed manually with a milling machine) were

placed parallel to the cracking plane (specimen SB16, see Fig. 5e). As the load-slip curves

show, the influence of in-plane cracking was dramatic, with a notable reduction of the strength

and stiffness even for very low values of the in-plane crack opening (lower or equal than 0.5

mm). Full development of the bar, that was reached for uncracked concrete conditions, could

no longer be attained even for very low in-plane crack widths (see saw-cut after test was

stopped in Fig. 6a);

- Hooks with deformed bars parallel to the cracking plane (specimens SB11 and SB12, see Figs.

5f and 5i respectively). The performance was better than for hooked smooth bars. Yet,

significant reductions in the strength and stiffness were also observed. Full development of the

bars were possible only for rather low values of the in-plane crack openings, but was not

attained for cracks larger than 0.5 mm. The deformed anchorage after a test performed in the

largest in-plane crack opening is presented in Fig. 6b (bar losing the original hooked shape);

- Hooks with deformed bars parallel to the crack plane and with a longitudinal bar passing

through the hooks. This detail, typically used in structural concrete detailing, was less sensitive

to in-plane crack openings than the previous ones (specimen SB14, Fig. 5g). Although the bars

could be fully developed for low openings of the in-plane cracks, this was again not possible

above values larger than 0.5 mm. In general, the reduction in the stiffness due to in-plane

cracking was significantly lower than for equivalent details without the longitudinal bar;

- Hooks with deformed bars perpendicular to the crack plane. This detail (specimen SB13, Fig.

5h) exhibited a rather different behaviour, with a significantly lower sensitivity to the in-plane

crack opening. This behaviour is logical, as a significant part of the anchorage was located in

uncracked concrete. Nevertheless, for very large crack openings, the bar could not again be

fully activated and quite large losses of stiffness were observed;

 www.ernstundsohn.de Page12 StructuralConcrete

- U-shaped bars parallel to the crack plane. The behaviour in this case (specimen SB10, Fig. 5j)

was similar to that of the hooked bars under similar conditions. Yet, strength and stiffness
Accepted Article
reductions were indicated by the load-slip curve for the same level of in-plane crack opening

(refer to Fig. 6c for saw-cut after performed test in the largest in-plane crack opening). Yielding

of the mentioned details could always be developed.

It can be noted that all anchorage details were sensitive to the fact that in-plane cracking developed.

The level of sensitivity was however quite different, lower for headed bars and higher for bars were

the development length was placed in the crack plane.

3. INFLUENCE OF IN-PLANE CRACKING ON THE BOND STRENGTH AND BAR

DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE

The experimental results have shown in a consistent manner that the presence of in-plane cracks

influences the bond behaviour of reinforcing bars. This phenomenon is investigated in the following

by means of a simplified analytical approach whose results will be compared to those of the

experimental programme. Finally, the proposed model will also be compared to similar tests

available in literature [16-17, 23-24, 27-29]. The analytical approach presented hereafter will focus

on the development of straight bars. Yet, the formulation and conclusions can be extended to other

cases as it will be discussed.

3.1. Bond strength under in-plane cracking

Whenever cover splitting and concrete-cone breakout are not the controlling factors, the bond

strength can be investigated as analogue to the contact stresses developed by aggregate interlock

(failure due to concrete crushing at the bar-to-concrete interface [75]), see Fig. 7. This can be

performed accounting for the contact area between the ribs of the bar and the surrounding concrete.

It can be noted that according to [75], the contact stresses are characterized by a rigid-plastic

material behaviour. Considering that without any in-plane crack opening, the contact area is (Fig.

8a):
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page13 StructuralConcrete

Ac = Ac0 d b hR (2)

and assuming a simplified geometry with a rib of constant height hR (leading to the same projected
Accepted Article
area AR as the actual reinforcement with a maximum rib height hR,max), the reduced contact area

when an in-plane crack opens can be calculated for low openings as (refer Fig. 8b and to Regime A

in Fig. 9a):

w
Ac d b hR d b w = Ac0 1 (3)
hR

This formula is obtained by assuming hR << db and is valid if w < wli,1 = 2hR (crack opening at

which the concrete surface becomes tangent to the rib at the extreme points parallel to cracking, Fig.

8b).

For larger crack openings (Regime B in Fig. 9a), the reduction on the contact surface continues, yet

at a lower rate. Eventually, for a given crack opening wli,2 , no contact happens amongst the rib and

the concrete (Ac = 0). This occurs when (Fig. 8c):

2 2 2
db wli, 2 d b
+ hR = + (4)
2 2 2

By considering hR << db (i.e. hR 2 0), wli,2 results:

wli, 2 2 d b hR (5)

The resulting expression is plotted in Fig. 9a consisting of 2 regimes (linear and hyperbolic). It can

be noted that this approach follows correctly the trend of some of the formulations proposed in the

literature and fitted on the basis of test results (summarized in Appendix A). Yet, it is derived

mechanically. In fact, for small values of w/hR (and assuming hR d b ), the expression is linear

similarly to the development of Giurani and Plizzari [18], Simons [27] and Mahrenholtz [28]. For

larger values of w/hR ( w/db), the expression is hyperbolic similarly to what was formulated by
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page14 StructuralConcrete

Gambarova et al. [19, 22] (that also was shown to have a similar trend to the exponential proposal

of Idda [25]).
Accepted Article
For practical calculation of the maximum bond strength, the following assumptions will be made:

- The contact area law in Fig. 9a (solid line, defined by two functions) is approximated by a

single curve (dashed line). This is performed by assuming that hR << db (leading to an

asymptote at the horizontal axis: db/hR , refer to Fig. 9a) and by respecting at w/hR = 0 both

the value of the curve (Ac = Ac0) and its slope according to Eq. (3) (equal to -1/):

Ac 1
= (6)
Ac 0 1 + 1 w
hR

- The bond strength (Fig. 9b) will be assumed proportional to the contact area amongst the rib

and the concrete: fb ( Ac Ac 0 ) . For full contact (Ac = Ac0), the bond strength will be assumed

equal to that of a specimen without in-plane cracking (fb0):

fb 1
= (7)
fb0 1 + 1 w
hR

- The equivalent height of the rib (hR) is estimated proportional to the bond index according to

Eq. (1): hR = f R sR . If the distance amongst ribs (sR) is assumed proportional to the bar

diameter (db), then hR f R db and the bond strength results :

fb 1
= (8)
f b0 f w
1+
f R db

Where f is the coefficient of proportionality (assumed for the development of the simplified

model) that depends upon the actual geometry of the ribs (rib profile, inclination and orientation of

the rib as well as lug width and spacing among others). For practical purposes, it has been observed

that relating f to the number of lugs per rib (nl) provides already a fine estimate of test results. This
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page15 StructuralConcrete

is shown in Fig. 10 where available tests [16-17, 23-24, 27-29] are compared to Eq. (8) by

considering:
Accepted Article
f 0.75 nl (9)

A value of f = 3 results thus for the tests conducted in the experimental programme presented in

the paper as the de-coiled rods used were composed of four lugs (nl = 4). A value of f = 1.5 (half

of the previous one) was generally adopted for the tests found in literature [16-17, 23-24, 27-29]

due to the rib arrangement with two lugs (ordinary reinforcing bars, nl = 2), except for specimen

ME12 of Simons [27] (threaded bars consisting of only one continuous lug, nl = 1 and f = 0.75).

The experimental results of Idda [25] are however not included in the comparison because the

actual values of the rib geometry of the bars were not reported (only nominal values according to

[76] are provided). Even though a consistent agreement of the expression was observed for the wide

range of parameters investigated (w = 0 1.5 mm, lb/db = 2.5 10, db = 10 32 mm, fc = 15 75

MPa), further work is however suggested for a more comprehensive determination of the value of

coefficient f (or a generalization of the bond index) to better characterize the rib profile.

With respect to the test programme presented in this paper, the results of the tests on bar diameters

db = 10 mm (specimen SB6, Fig. 5a) and db = 14 mm (specimen SB7, Fig. 5b) are plotted in Figs.

11a-b against the proposed formulation. Fine agreement is observed, with the trend and strength

reductions being suitably reproduced throughout the range of tested in-plane crack openings.

3.2. Bond stiffness under in-plane cracking

Other than the bond strength, the complete bond-slip curve can additionally be calculated by

accounting for the gap between the rib and the concrete (Figs. 8d-e). Although an integration of the

individual contribution of each differential contact area is possible, the analytical or numerical

treatment becomes rather cumbersome and lacks of practical interest. However, the point at which

maximum bond strength is attained (p in Fig. 9b) can be easily determined. This can be performed
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page16 StructuralConcrete

by referring for Regime A of Fig. 9a (w < 2hR) to the last point where contact occurs (point A in

Fig. 8b). Depending on the rib geometry, this occurs for (Fig. 8d):
Accepted Article
w
p = cot R (10)
2

The maximum is thus reached at w = 2hR (Fig. 8f). For larger crack openings, this shift (p) is

however constant, as the outermost point of contact is always located at the outer perimeter of the

rib (last point corresponding to point B in Fig. 8c) and corresponds to (Fig. 8f):

p,max = hR cot R (11)

The shift on the slip leading to the maximum bond strength is thus the one plotted in Fig. 9c,

composed of two linear parts.

It should be noted that for relatively large crack openings, this value may however be quite sensitive

to the local undulations (meso-roughness) of the crack [13]. This is in fact observed for specimens

SB6 and SB7 (Figs. 5a-b) where failure occurs in a premature manner for the largest crack openings

(1.0 mm). The formula is thus not considered applicable in those cases (w > 2hR). Eq. (10) and (11)

are compared in Figs. 11c-d to the test results of this paper, showing again nice agreement. In this

comparison, a value cotR = 2 has been used to account for the fact that the ribs are not

perpendicular to the bar axis (and thus cotR has to be lower than the measured one, reported in

Table 1, considered perpendicularly to the lug axis).

4. CONSIDERATIONS FOR OTHER TYPES OF ANCHORAGE DETAILING

Apart from straight bars, the other anchorage details investigated (headed bars, hooks and U-shaped

bars) also showed a reduction on their performance and/or stiffness for increasing openings of the

in-plane cracks. The observations are in agreement to the previous bond approach:
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page17 StructuralConcrete

- For headed studs, the contact surface was eventually almost the same as for uncracked

concrete. This did not lead to reductions on the total strength of the bar, but led to a shift of the
Accepted Article
slip where it was attained. Assuming the previous Eq. (10):

w w
p = cot H (12)
2 2

A similar approach was also followed by Furche for headed reinforcement [71]. With respect to

the average value of cot H , it should be noted that the angle varies through the head, from 0 to

H (see actual surface profile measured through laser scans in Fig. 12). A comparison of Eq.

(12) to the tests performed in the experimental programme (SB8 and SB9) is presented in Fig.

12 by using a constant value of cot H = 1 showing fine and consistent agreement. Tests with

crack openings larger than 2 mm are excluded due to the very different behaviour observed

with a plateau as in Fig. 5d. The local variations in the geometry observed through performed

laser scans might be a factor that explain the increase of the scatter with increasing crack

widths.

- For hooks and U-shaped bars, and depending upon the type of anchorage detail, there are

regions of the anchorage that are not influenced by the opening of in-plane cracks (direct

contact amongst the bar and the concrete after crack opening), whereas other regions follow a

similar behaviour as for the development of straight bars (loss of contact after crack opening).

Nevertheless, also for the former regions, the presence of cracks in the concrete also reduces

the capacity of concrete to transfer stresses and its stiffness [77], leading to a similar

phenomenon as the one observed for the regions where development of the bar occurs by bond

stresses. The experimental evidence of this paper confirms this behaviour and the validity of

the approach.
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page18 StructuralConcrete

5. CONCLUSIONS

This paper investigates the influence of in-plane cracking on the anchorage and development
Accepted Article
performance of embedded reinforcing bars. The aim of this investigation is to clarify if the bond-

slip relationships usually determined from classical pull-out tests (performed on uncracked concrete

cylinders, prisms or cubes) are representative of the actual bond behaviour of reinforcement in

cracked structural members. The main conclusions of this investigation are listed below:

1. Bond behaviour and strength are significantly influenced by in-plane cracks, even when their

opening remains controlled and low. This is confirmed by the experimental evidence provided

in this paper. The bond response may markedly differ from the response resulting from the

classical pull-out tests, which are the basis of the bond-slip laws adopted in design.

2. The actual response depends on anchorage detailing. Nevertheless, all the details investigated

in this paper consistently bring in a reduction of the strength and/or stiffness of the force-slip

curve:

a. Straight deformed bars and the bends of plain bars exhibited the greatest sensitivity

to in-plane cracking.

b. Deformed hooked bars generally underwent reductions in both bond stiffness and

strength, because of cracking; the degree of the reduction was markedly dependent

on the orientation of the hook with respect to the crack and on the presence of a bar

passing through the detail.

c. Headed or deformed U-shaped bars exhibited the lowest sensitivity to cracking and

in general were merely affected by a stiffness reduction.

3. The influence of in-plane cracking on bond behaviour can be reproduced analytically by

considerations analogous to the aggregate interlock approaches. On that basis, simple formulas

are derived in this manuscript allowing to calculate the reductions on the strength and on the

stiffness for various details (straight and headed bars).

 www.ernstundsohn.de Page19 StructuralConcrete

4. The comparisons performed in this study allow to conclude that the bond index fR does not

seem sufficient to characterize properly in its current form the influence of various rib
Accepted Article
geometry on bond strength in cracked conditions. Parameters such as rib inclination/orientation

as well as lug width and spacing for different bar type should be further investigated in order to

describe in a consistent manner the bond properties.

Finally, it should be highlighted that further efforts are needed to investigate the structural

implications of bond decay in cracked concrete, and to formulate tailored bond stress-slip curves

for other types of anchored bars, such as hooked bars, whose use may require some limitations even

in the case of rather thin cracks, as those admissible at the serviceability limit state.
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page20 StructuralConcrete

REFERENCES

[1] RILEM, Essais portant sur ladhrence des armatures du bton Essais par traction,
Recommendations RILEM / CEB / FIP RC6, Matriaux et Constructions, Vol. 6,
Accepted Article
No. 32, 1978
[2] Fernndez Ruiz M., Muttoni A. and Gambarova P., Analytical modelling of the pre-
and post-yield behaviour of bond in reinforced concrete, ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 10, Reston, USA, Oct. 2007, pp. 1364-1372
[3] Tepfers R., A theory of bond applied to overlapped tensile reinforcement splices for
deformed bars, Publication 73:2, Gteborg, Sweden, Chalmers University of
Technology, 1973, 328 p.
[4] Rehm G., ber die Grundlagen des Verbunds zwischen Stahl und Beton, Deutscher
Ausschu fr Stahlbeton (DAfStb), Heft 138, Berlin 1961, 59 pp.
[5] Rehm G., Kriterien zur Beurteilung von Bewehrungsstben mit hochwertigen
Verbund, Stahlbetonbau, Berichte aus Forschung und Praxis, Verlag Wilhelm Ernst &
Sohn, Berlin, 1969, pp. 7996
[6] FIB, Bond of Reinforcement in Concrete, fib Bulletin 10, Aug. 2000, 427 p.
[7] Dawood N. and Marzouk H., Cracking and Tension Stiffening of High-Strength
Concrete Panels, ACI Strctural Journal, Vol. 109, No. 1, Feb. 2012, pp. 21-30
[8] Einpaul J., Brantschen F., Fernndez Ruiz M. and Muttoni A., Performance of
punching shear reinforcement under gravity loading: influence of type and detailing,
ACI Structural Journal [accepted for publication]
[9] Joergensen H.B. and Hoang L.C., Strength of Loop Connections between Precast
Bridge Decks Loaded in Combined Tension and Bending, Structural Engineering
International, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2015, pp. 71-80
[10] Rehm G., Eligehausen R. and Neubert B., Rationalisierung der Bewehrungstechnik im
Stahlbetonbau Vereinfachte Schubbewehrung in Balken, Betonwerk+Fertigteil-
Technik, Heft 3/1978, pp. 147-155
[11] Rehm G., Eligehausen R. and Neubert B., Rationalisierung der Bewehrungstechnik im
Stahlbetonbau, Teil 2 Vereinfachte Schubbewehrung in Balken,
Betonwerk+Fertigteil-Technik, Heft 4/1978, pp. 222-227
[12] Fernndez Ruiz M., Plumey S. and Muttoni A., Interaction between Bond and
Deviation Forces in Spalling Failures of Arch-Shaped Members without Transverse
Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 107, No. 3, USA, May-Jun. 2010, pp.
346-354
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page21 StructuralConcrete

[13] Fernndez Ruiz M., Muttoni A. and Sagaseta J., Shear strength of concrete members
without transverse reinforcement: A mechanical approach to consistently account for
size and strain effects, Engineering structures, UK, May 2015, pp. 360-372
Accepted Article
[14] Hillerborg A., Analysis of a single crack, Fracture mechanics of concrete, edited by
F.H. Wittmann, Elsevier science Publishers B.V., 1983, pp. 223-249
[15] Nielsen M.P. and Hoang L.C., Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity (Third Edition),
CRC Press, Jan. 2011, 816 p.
[16] Gambarova P.G. and Karako C., In tema di aderenza fra barre nervate e
calcestruzzo, in presenza di fissure longitudinali da spacco, Studi e Ricerche, Vol. 3,
edited by S. Dei Poli, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, 1981, pp. 143-176
[17] Gambarova P.G. and Zasso B., Aderenza armature-calcestruzzo e fessurazione
longitudinale da spacco: una sintesi di alcuni recenti risultati sperimentali, Studi e
Ricerche, Vol. 7, edited by S. Dei Poli, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, 1985, pp. 7-54
[18] Giurani E., Plizzari G., Legami locali delladerenza in presenza di fissure di
splitting, Studi e Ricerche, Vol. 7, edited by S. Dei Poli, Politecnico di Milano,
Milan, 1985, pp. 57-118
[19] Gambarova P.G., Rosati G.P. and Zasso B., Steel-to-concrete bond after concrete
splitting: constitutive laws and interface deterioration, Materials and Structures, Vol.
22, 1989, pp. 347-356
[20] Giurani E., Plizzari G. and Schumm C., Role of Stirrups and Residual Tensile Strength
of Cracked Concrete on Bond, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117,
No. 1, Jan. 1991, pp. 1-18
[21] Giurani E. and Plizzari G., Interrelation of Splitting and Flexural Cracks in RC
Beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 9, Sep. 1998, pp.
1032-1040
[22] Gambarova P.G., Rosati G.P., Bond and splitting in bar pull-out: behavioural laws
and concrete cover role, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 49, No. 179, Jun. 1997,
pp. 99-110
[23] Gambarova P.G., Rosati G. and S. Omar Sharif, Aderenza armature-calcestruzzo e
fessurazione longitudinale per barre di grosso diametro, Studi e Ricerche, Vol. 12,
edited by S. Dei Poli, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, 1990, pp. 45-79
[24] Gambarova P.G., Rosati G. and G.M. Sufi, Aderenza armature-calcestruzzo e
fessurazione longitudinale per barre di piccolo diametro, Studi e Ricerche, Vol. 14,
edited by S. Dei Poli, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, 1993, pp. 1-27
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page22 StructuralConcrete

[25] Idda K., Verbundverhalten von Betonrippensthlen bei Querzug, PhD Thesis,
Massivbau Baustofftechnologie Karlsruhe, Heft 34, 1999
[26] Purainer R., Last- und Verformungsverhalten von Stahlbetonflchentragwerken unter
Accepted Article
zweiaxialer Zugbeanspruchung, Dissertation, Universitt der Bundeswehr, Mnchen,
2005
[27] Simons I.N., Verbundverhalten von eingemrtelten Bewehrungsstben unter
zyklischer Beanspruchung, PhD Thesis, Stuttgart University, Jan. 2007
[28] Mahrenholtz C., Seismic Bond Model for Concrete Reinforcement and the Application
to Column-to-Foundation Connections, PhD Thesis, Stuttgart University, Aug. 2012
[29] Lindorf C., Bond fatigue in reinforced concrete under transverse tension, PhD Thesis,
Dresden University, Dec. 2011
[30] DIN 1045 (2001), Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton: Teil 1
Bemessung und Konstruktion, Deutsches Institut fr Normung, Jul. 2001
[31] NTC (2008), Nuove Norme Tecniche per le Construzioni, Feb. 2008
[32] Fdration internationale du bton, fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010,
Ernst & Sohn, Germany, 2013, 434 p.
[33] Bach C. and Graf. O., Versuche mit Eisenbeton-balken zur Bestimmung des Einflusses
der Hakenform der Eiseneinlagen, Deutscher Ausschuss fr Eisenbeton, Heft 9, 1911
[34] Bach C. and Graf. O., Versuche mit Eisenbeton-balken zur Ermittlung der
Widerstandsfhigkeit verschiedener Bewehrung gegen Schubkrfte, Deutscher
Ausschuss fr Eisenbeton, Heft 10, 1911
[35] Saliger R., Schubwiderstand und Verbund in Eisenbetonbalken, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1913
[36] Kupfer H. and Baumann T., Versuche zur Schubsicherung und Momentendeckung von
profilierten Stahlbetonbalken, Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, Heft 218, 1972,
62 p.
[37] Scribner C.F. and Wilhelm D.R., Behavior of Tbeams sections with varied shear
reinforcement, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 79, Issue 2, Mar.
1982, pp. 139146
[38] Bosshard M. and Menn C., Versuche ber den Einfluss der Bewehrungsanordnung auf
das Tragverhalten von Rahmenecken aus Stahlbeton, Institut fr Baustatik und
Konstruktion ETH Zrich, Bericht Nr. 78061, May 1984, 34 p.
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page23 StructuralConcrete

[39] Mirza S.A., Furlong R.W., Ma J.S., Flexural shear and ledge reinforcement in
reinforced concrete inverted Tgirders, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 85, Issue 5, Sep.
1988, pp. 509520
Accepted Article
[40] Regan P.E. and Kennedy Reid I.L., Shear Strength of RC beams with defective stirrup
anchorages, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 56, No. 3, Apr. 2004, pp.159-166
[41] Iso M. and Goh M., Evaluation of ultimate shear strength of reinforced concrete thin
beams with singly arranged reinforcing bars, Journal of Structural and Construction
Engineering, Volume 73, Issue 634, Dec. 2008, pp. 22052213
[42] Varney J. C., Brown M. D., Bayrak O. and Poston R. W., Effect of Stirrup Anchorage
on shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 108,
Jul. 2011, pp. 469-478
[43] Albrecht C. and Schnell J., Wirksamkeit rtlicher Bewehrungselemente zur
Querkrafttragfhigkeit von Deckenplatten mit integrierten Leitungsfhrungen, Beton-
und Stahlbetonbau 106, Heft 8, Aug. 2011, pp. 522-530
[44] Yang J.M., Min K.H. and Yoon Y.S., Effect of anchorage and strength of stirrups
on shear behavior of highstrength concrete beams, Structural Engineering and
Mechanics, Vol. 41, Issue 3, 10 Feb. 2012, pp. 407420
[45] Wang X.H. and Liu X.L., Analysis of RC beam with unbonded or exposed tensile
steel reinforcements and defective stirrup anchorages for shear strength, Computers
and Concrete, Volume 10, Issue 1, Jun. 2012, pp. 5978
[46] Rupf M., Fernndez Ruiz M. and Muttoni A., Post-tensioned girders with low
amounts of shear reinforcement: Shear strength and influence of flanges, Engineering
structures, Vol. 56, 2013, pp. 357-371
[47] Elstner R. C. and Hognestad E., Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs, ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 53, No. 2, Detroit, USA, Jul. 1956, pp. 29-58
[48] Langohr P. H., Ghali A. and Dilger W. H., Special Shear Reinforcement for Concrete
Flat Plates, ACI Journal, Vol. 73, Detroit, USA, Mar. 1976, pp. 141-146
[49] Dilger W. H. and Ghali A., Shear Reinforcement for Concrete Slabs, Journal of the
Structural Division - ASCE, Vol. 107, USA, Dec. 1981, pp. 2403-2420
[50] Van der Voet A. F., Dilger W. H. and Ghali A., Concrete Flat Plates with Well-
Anchored Shear Reinforcement Elements, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol.
9, No. 1, Canada, Nov. 1981, pp. 107-114
[51] Mokhtar A. S., Ghali A. and Dilger W. H, Stud Shear Reinforcement for Flat
Concrete Plates, ACI Journal, No. 82-60, Detroit, USA, Sep.-Oct., 1985, pp. 676-683
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page24 StructuralConcrete

[52] Ghali A. and Hammil N., Effectiveness of Shear Reinforcement in Slabs, Concrete
International, Jan. 1992, pp. 60-65
[53] Marzouk H. and Jiang D., Experimental Investigation on Shear Enhancement Types
Accepted Article
for High-Strength Concrete Plates, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94, Farmington Hills,
USA, Feb. 1997, pp. 49-58
[54] Oliveira D. R., Melo G. S. and Regan P. E., Punching Strengths of Flat Plates with
Vertical or Inclined Stirrups, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, USA, May 2000, pp.
485-491
[55] Regan P.E., Shear Reinforcement of Flat Slabs, International Workshop On Punching
Shear Capacity of RC Flat Slabs, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of
Structural Engineering, Stockholm, Jun. 2000, pp. 99-107
[56] FIB, Punching of structural concrete slabs, fib Bulletin 12, Apr. 2001, 307 p.
[57] Beutel R. and Hegger J., The effect of anchorage on the effectiveness of the shear
reinforcement in the punching zone, Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 24, Dec.
2002, pp. 539-549
[58] Eligehausen R., Vocke H., Clauss A., Furche J. and Bauermeister U., Neue
Durchstanzbewehrung fr Elementdecken. Beton-und Stahlbetonbau, Vol. 98, 2006,
pp. 334-344
[59] Fernndez Ruiz M. and Muttoni A., Punching Shear of Reinforced Concrete Slabs
with Transverse Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106, No.4, Jul.-Aug.
2009, pp.485-494
[60] Fernndez Ruiz M. and Muttoni A., Performance and Design of Punching-Shear
Reinforcing Systems, 3rd fib International Congress, No. 437, Washington D.C., Jun.
2010, 14p.
[61] Incio M.M.G., Pinho Ramos A. and Faria D.M.V., Strengthening of flat slabs with
transverse reinforcement by introduction of steel bolts using different anchorage
approaches, Engineering Structures, Vol. 44, Jun. 2012, pp. 63-77
[62] Lips S., Fernndez Ruiz M. and Muttoni A., Experimental Investigation on Punching
Strength and Deformation, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 109, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2012,
pp. 889-900
[63] Regan P. E. and Samadian F., Shear Reinforcement against punching in reinforced
concrete flat slabs, The Structural Engineer, London, England, May 2001, pp. 24-31
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page25 StructuralConcrete

[64] Rojek R. and Keller T., Durchstanzversuche mit HFV-Ankern, Forschungsbericht

Bewehrung mit hochfestem Verbund, Kompetenzzentrums Konstructiver
Ingenieurbau, Fachhochschule Augsburg, 2006, 269 p.
Accepted Article
[65] Yamada T., Nanni A. and Endo K., Punching Shear Resistance of Flat Slabs:
Influence of Reinforcement Type and Ratio, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 88,
Farmington Hills, USA, Sep. 1992, pp. 555-563
[66] CEB, Design of Fastenings in Concrete Design Guide Parts 1 to 3, CEB Bulletin
233, 1997, 83 p.
[67] FIB, Design of Anchorages in Concrete, fib Bulletin 58, 2011. 280 p.
[68] FIB, Bond and anchorage in fib MC2010, fib Bulletin 72, May 2014, 161 p.
[69] Rehm G., Dieterle H. and Eligehausen R., Rationaliserung der Bewehrungstechnik im
Stahlbeton Das Tragverhalten verschiedener Verankerungselemente in Rissen,
Abschlussbericht Teil 5b, Uni Stuttgart und Braunschweig, 1979
[70] Regan P.E, Anchorage pull-out tests in uncracked and cracked concrete, Test report
obtained from private communications with the author (partially reported in [58])
[71] Furche J., Zum Trag - und Verschiebungsverhalten von Kopfbolzen bei zentrischem
Zug, PhD Thesis, Stuttgart University, Jun. 1993
[72] SIA 262:2013 Betonbau, Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein,
Schweiz, Zrich, 2013, 102 p.
[73] SIA 262:2013 Register normkonformer Betonsthle, Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und
Architektenverein, Schweiz, Zrich, 2015, 5 p.
[74] Muttoni A., Fernndez Ruiz M., Bentz E., Foster S.J. and Sigrist V., Background to
the model code 2010 shear provisions Part II punching shear, Structural Concrete,
Vol. 14, No. 3, Germany, pp. 195-203, 2013
[75] Walraven J.C., Fundamental analysis of aggregate interlock, ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 107, No. 11, 1981, pp. 2245-2270
[76] DIN 488-2 (1984), Betonstahl: Masse und Gewichte, Deutsches Institut fr Normung,
Sep. 1984
[77] Vecchio F.J. and Collins M.P., The modified compression-field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear, ACI Journal, Vol. 83, No. 2, 1986, pp. 219-231
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page26 StructuralConcrete

FIGURES:

(a) (b) (c) (d)

10db
Accepted Article F fb0

10db
max. bond strength
bar

>> 5db
db

5db
bond failure

10db
splitting failure
F F F

(e) (f)
F
Eq. (B1)
1
Eq. (B2)
0.8 Eq. (B3)

f b /f b0 [-]
Eq. (B2) + (B3)
0.6 Eq. (A6)
Eq. (A4)
0.4
w w/2 Eq. (A3)
Eq. (A5)
0.2
db Eq. (A1) Eq. (A2)
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
reduced contact area w/d b [-]

Fig. 1 Characterization of bond properties in concrete: (a) short pull-out test [1]; (b) long pull-
out test; (c) direct tension test; (d) bond-slip laws for pull-out (solid line) and splitting (dashed
line) failures [3]; (e) pull-out test in cracked conditions; and (f) decrease of bond strength (fb) in
presence of cracks according to existing formulations from literature (black) [18-19, 22, 25-28]
and actual codes provisions (grey) [30-32]

(a) (b)
cracks due to bending

reduced bond and tension stiffening potential anchorage problems of

effect due to the transverse bending transverse reinforcement
(c) (d)
element 1 joint reduced strength
of the anchorage
due to cracking
overlapping of
flexural crack bent bars details
tensile crack element 2

Fig. 2 Practical cases in which cracks might develop in the plane of the reinforcement in
structural concrete members: (a) flexural reinforcement in slabs [7]; (b) transverse
reinforcement in two-way slabs [8]; (c) suspended loads; and (d) joints of precast elements [9]
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page27 StructuralConcrete

Accepted Article (a) (b)

longitudinal bars cast direction
1
specimen
PVC tube crack iniators
(t = 3)
weakened section

tested details
db=18

160
(cx=21)

250
2
(cy=36)
pull-out device 240
tension crack
1
300
(c)
evaluated anchorage PVC tube (d10,ext=16, d10,int=13 and d14,ext=20, d14,int=17)
LVDT thin plaster layer
F

independant external frame load cell hydr. jack 120 kN bar

LVDT holder introduction steel plate transition element steel wedges

Fig. 3 Experimental programme (dimensions in [mm]): (a) pull-out tests with in-plane cracks
in reinforced concrete tie specimens; (b) cross section in the plane of the evaluated anchorage
(weakened section); and (c) testing and measurement devices installed prior to pull-out

db=10 db=14 db=10 db=14 db=10

10 d10
b
=10 db=14 db=10
unbonded zone
smooth (no 40
ribs) studied zone
40
6db
10db

60b

60b
10db

6d

6d

db

17 17
10

db

db
10
db

db
db
db

dh=3db dh=3db 4db 60 4db

60
4db 4db
piano wire measurement
(db=1.5) point of the slip
LVDT

Fig. 4 Details of the geometrical properties and slip measurement for the anchorages
considered in the experimental programme (dimensions in [mm]): straight, headed, hooked and
U-shaped bars (refer to Table 1 for material and surface properties)
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page28 StructuralConcrete

(a) (b)
50 16 100 16
Fy Fy
45 14 90 14
40 uncracked 80 uncracked
12 12
35 SB6 w = 0.2 [mm] 70 SB7 w = 0.2 [mm]
db=10 w = 0.5 [mm] 10 db=14 w = 0.5 [mm] 10

[MPa]
30 60
F [kN]

w = 1.0 [mm] w = 1.0 [mm]*

Accepted Article 25
20
8 50
6 40
8
6
15 30
4 4
10 20
5 2 2
10
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
[mm] [mm]
(c) (d)
50 100
45 Fy 90 Fy
40 80
35 70
30 60
F [kN]

25 50
20 uncracked 40 uncracked
15 SB8
w = 0.2 [mm] 30 SB9 w = 0.2 [mm]
w = 0.5 [mm] w = 0.5 [mm]
10 db=10 20 db=14 w = 1.0 [mm]
w = 1.0 [mm]
5 w = 2.0 [mm]* 10 w = 2.0 [mm]*
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
[mm] [mm]
(e) (f)
50 50
Fy Fy
45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
F [kN]

25 25 uncracked
20 20 w = 0.2 [mm]
15 15 w = 0.5 [mm]
SB16 smooth uncracked* SB11 w = 1.0 [mm]*
10 w = 0.2 [mm]* 10
db=10 db=10 w = 1.5 [mm]*
5 w = 0.5 [mm]* 5 w = 1.5 [mm]**
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
[mm] [mm]
(g) (h)
50 50
Fy Fy
45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
F [kN]

25 uncracked 25 uncracked
20 w = 0.2 [mm] 20 w = 0.2 [mm]
15 SB14 tr. bar
w = 0.4 [mm] 15 SB13 w = 0.5 [mm]
db=10 w = 0.5 [mm] w = 1.0 [mm]
10 w = 0.7 [mm] 10 db=10 w = 1.5 [mm]*
5 w = 0.8 [mm]* 5 w = 2.0 [mm]*
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
[mm] [mm]
(i) (j)
100 100
Fy Fy
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
F [kN]

50 50 uncracked
40 uncracked 40 w = 0.2 [mm]
30 w = 0.2 [mm] 30 SB10 w = 0.5 [mm]
SB12 w = 0.5 [mm] db=10 w = 1.0 [mm]
20 db=14 w = 1.0 [mm] 20 w = 1.5 [mm]*
10 w = 1.5 [mm] 10 w = 2.0 [mm]*
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
[mm] [mm]

Fig. 5 Force-slip relationships of tests in specimens: (a) SB6; (b) SB7; (c) SB8; (d) SB9; (e)
SB16; (f) SB11; (g) SB14; (h) SB13, (i) SB12; and (j) SB10 (*only one test could be
performed for the given crack opening)
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page29 StructuralConcrete

(a) (b) (c)

Accepted Article
Fig. 6 Saw-cuts performed after test in specimens with details made of bend bars disposed
parallel to cracks (dashed line for initial geometry): (a) smooth hooked bar with w = 0.5 mm
(SB16); (b) ribbed hooked bar with w = 1.5 mm** (SB11); and (c) ribbed U-shaped bar with w
= 2.0 mm* (SB10)

crushed concrete crushed concrete

rib
w/2
w
idealized
reinforcement bar being pulled-out aggregate
in cracked concrete

Fig. 7 Analogy between pull-out of a ribbed bar and aggregate interlock phenomenon [75]

(a)
initial A-A
contact area
hR hR
(A c0 )
A

(b) reduced B-B

point A contact area
(A c )
B

B wli,1 /2 = hR

(c) point B no contact C-C

C
hR
2+ wli,2 /2 = db hR
d b/
C db /2

(d) (e) (f)

w/2 contact
p hR R
p P,max
R
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page30 StructuralConcrete

Fig. 8 Evolution of the contact area (black surface) and gap between the rib (dark grey surface)
of a bar (medium grey surface) and the surrounding concrete (light grey surface) with
increasing transverse crack opening (in white): (a) uncracked; (b) low crack openings, limit
Accepted Article
case of Regime A (0 w wli,1); (c) large cracks openings limit case of Regime B (wli,1 w
wli,2); (d) gap resulting from crack opening and associated relative shift of the peak bond
strength; (e) considered contact pressure law; and (f) case of maximum bond stress (point B)

(a) (b) (c)

Ac p
Ac0
Eq. (8) fb0 hR cot( R)
1 w=0 2
Regime A fb fb0 1
fb cot( R)
1
2  1 approximated law, Eq. (6)
1-
 Eq. (10) w0
Regime B p

2  2db/hR w/hR p0 p 2 w/hR

Fig. 9 Bond phenomenon under transverse cracking: (a) contact area law: two regimes (solid
line) and approximation (dashed line); (b) bond-slip relationships; and (c) shift of the peak for
maximum bond strength
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page31 StructuralConcrete

db = 10mm
89 tests
Accepted Article 1 mean=0.99
COV=0.12
db = 12mm

0.8 db = 14mm

f b /f b0 [-]
0.6 db = 16mm

db = 18mm
0.4
proposed model db = 20mm
0.2
db = 24mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 db = 32mm
f w
[-]
fR db

Fig. 10 Comparisons between the predictions of the bond model (solid line) and the test results
(empty dots) from conducted experimental programme and from literature [16-17, 23-24, 27-29]

(a) (b)
SB6 SB7
1
0.8
f b /f b0 [-]

0.6
0.4 Eq. (8) Eq. (8)

0.2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
w/d b [-] w/d b [-]
(c) (d)
SB6 SB7 w = 2 hR
1
p [mm]

0.8
w = 2 hR Eq. (11)
0.6
Eq. (11)
0.4
Eq. (10) Eq. (10)
0.2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
w/d b [-] w/d b [-]

Fig. 11 Comparisons between the predictions of the bond model (solid line) and the mean test
results (full dots) of the series on straight bars of the experimental programme (SB6 and SB7)
for normalized crack openings: (a-b) reduction of bond strength; and (c-d) shift of the slip at
peak bond strength
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page32 StructuralConcrete

1 SB8
w/2 SB8
p
0.8 SB9
Accepted Article H cst

p [mm]
0.6 transition zone
Eq. (12)
with variable
0.4 curvature
SB9
0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
w [mm]

Fig. 12 Headed bars in cracked concrete: shift of the head slip at maximum strength (solid
line) with the mean tests results in tension cracks presented in this paper (dots) and actual laser
scans of tested headed bars with diameters 10 mm (top) and 14 mm (bottom)
 www.ernstundsohn.de Page33 StructuralConcrete

Table 1 Main material and surface parameters of the tested bars

db / dh fy 1) / ft 1) sR 2) fR 3) hR,max 4) / hR 4) R 4) / H R,1 4) / R,2 4)
Bar type Steel grade and type
[mm] [MPa] [mm] [-] [mm] [] []
Topar-R, B500B
hooked 5) 10 cold rolled, de-coiled 552 / 602 - - - - -
Accepted Article rods

Topar-R, B500B
straight, hooked
10 cold rolled, de-coiled 552 / 602 6.40 0.050 0.65 / 0.32 35 44
and U-shaped
rods
(3)
(2)

(1) (2) (3) (1)

Topar-R, B500B
Straight and
14 cold rolled, de-coiled 572 / 630 9.10 0.056 1.08 / 0.51 44 41
hooked
rods
(3)
(2)

(1) (2) (3) (1)

BST 500, B500B

headed 6) 10 / 30 706 / 736 6.60 0.058 0.90 / 0.38 35 / 73 52 / 44
hot rolled, bars

(2)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (3)

(4)

BST 500, B500B

headed 6) 14 / 42 655 / 734 8.40 0.058 0.99 / 0.49 49 / 73 57
hot rolled, bars

(2)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (3)

(4)
1)
Value for a straight bar. To be noted that the effective values for anchorages might be reduced due to fabrication process (notably for headed bars).
For cold rolled steel, the yield strength given corresponds to fy,0.2 as for hot rolled steel, it corresponds to strength at the plateau fy.
2)
Distance between two consecutive ribs. Determined through the ratio between the measured length (10db) and the number of gaps included in it.
3)
Defined as Eq. (1) and in agreement with recommended minimal values from Table 5 in SIA 262:2013 [72] for conform reinforcing steel [73].
4)
Determined through the use of digital image correlation (DIC) measurement system.
5)
Bars from the same production, but with smooth surface (ribs removed manually with milling machine and sand paper). Mechanical bond
neglected.
6)
Due to the fabrication process, the part of the bar close to head is not ribbed. The surface parameters are given for consistency purposes.