Unified Bond Stress–Slip Model for Reinforced Concrete

Yu-Fei Wu1 and Xue-Mei Zhao2

Abstract: Despite extensive investigations of bond stress versus slip modeling for RC structures, most existing bond stress–slip models are
incomplete, discontinuous, and insufficiently accurate. These problems can cause nonconvergence and other difficulties in computational
simulations of concrete structures that use bond-slip models. Through systematical analyses of an existing database of bond-slip behavior and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

data regressions, this work develops a unified bond stress–slip model that overcomes these difficulties and is suitable for numerical simulations.
The model is given by a single and mathematically continuous equation that does not distinguish between plain and confined concrete or
splitting and pullout failure because such judgments are arrived at automatically by evaluating the model parameters. Furthermore, the model
outperforms the existing models in the precision of its predictions. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000747. © 2013 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Reinforced concrete; Bonding; Stress; Slip; Confinement.
Author keywords: Reinforced concrete; Bond stress–slip model; Bond strength; Confinement effect.

Introduction
The bond stress–slip relationship, referred to hereafter as the bond-
slip relationship, between reinforcing bars and concrete is essential
and critical for the design and analysis of RC structures. Extensive
experimental and analytical investigations are reported in the lit-
erature, yet an overall satisfactory prediction of bond-slip behavior
has not been achieved and there are large discrepancies among
existing bond-slip models [American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1995;
Comité Euro-International du Béton and Fédération Internationale
de la Précontrainte (CEB-FIP) 1993; Mendis and French 2000].
Table 1 lists several well-known bond-slip models. In the early
1960s, Rehm (1961) proposed an empirical model, and many studies
have since attempted to improve on it (Martin 1973; Mirza and
Houde 1979; Nilson 1968). However, a satisfactory solution was not
found until the study of Eligehausen et al. (1983) who carried out
a series of tests investigating the effects of different parameters on
bond-slip behavior and proposed a segmental model (see Table 1).
Since then, most of the work in this area has concentrated on further
improving this model (Bamonte and Gambarova 2007; CEB-FIP
1993; Harajli 2009; Harajli and Al-Hajj 2002; Harajli et al. 2004;
Harajli et al. 1995; Huang et al. 1996).
Recently, efforts have been made to produce more comprehen-
sive models that can be applied to different bond conditions. Harajli
et al. proposed a unified bond-slip model that is applicable to dif-
ferent confining materials and different failure modes (Harajli 2006;
Harajli et al. 2004, 1995). As depicted in Fig. 1, the model is divided
into three different curves that correspond to three failure conditions.
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, City
Univ. of Hong Kong, Hong Kong (corresponding author). E-mail: yfwu00@
cityu.edu.hk
2
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, City Univ.
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 27, 2012; approved on
September 25, 2012; published online on September 28, 2012. Discussion
period open until April 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 139, No. 11, November 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2013/11-1951–1962/$25.00.
However, the selection of the three curves is unclear for certain RC
structures. Furthermore, the transition between the three curves is
not smooth, which means that the model is not continuous. These
problems can cause difficulties with the practical application of the
model, particularly in numerical simulations for highly nonlinear
finite-element analyses (FEA) of plastic hinge zones (Zhao et al.
2012) where discontinuities can cause the nonconvergence of the
solution. There is thus a practical need for a continuous and truly
unified bond-slip model. This work aims to fulfill this need.
Existing Bond-Slip Models
Many factors, including the compressive concrete strength fc , con-
crete cover thickness c, diameter of the steel bar db , stirrup area Ast
and spacing Sst , bond/splice lap length Lb , and rib ratio and shape,
have been found to affect the local bond strength tmax . Although
there is some consensus on the qualitative effects of these factors,
there are large discrepancies in the quantitative modeling of their
effects in the literature, as can be seen in the most commonly ref-
erenced models listed in Table 2. Most of the existing models
are only applicable separately to three cases, plain concrete, splitting
failure, or pullout failure, and there is no smooth transition from
splitting failure to pullout failure. Experimental tests have substan-
tiated that the tensile resistance of concrete does not drop from a
peak stress to 0 suddenly; rather, there is a smooth descent from peak to
0 (He et al. 2008). Thus, cracking is a continuous process, and the-
oretically speaking, there is a continuous transition from splitting
failure to pullout failure.
Effect of Concrete Compressive Strength fc
Concrete strength is generally considered to be one of the most
important factors that determine bond strength. Most researchers
agree that the local bond strength t max is closely related to the square
root of the concrete compressive strength fc and study the local bond
strength in terms of the bond strength
pffiffiffiffi ratio,palso
ffiffiffiffi known as the bond
stress normalized with respect to fc , t max = fc (ACI 1995; Esfahani
and Kianoush 2005; Esfahani and Rangan 2000; Harajli et al. 1995;
Ichinose et al. 2004; Orangun et al. 1977). Given this common

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1951

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.

 pffiffiffiffi
consensus, in this work, the local bond strength
pffiffiffiffi is also studied with the ratio t max = fc tends to stop increasing after c/db $ 2 (Walker
respect to the bond strength ratio t max = fc . et al. 1997).

Effect of Concrete Cover c Effect of Rebar Diameter db

It is commonly believed that an increase in concrete cover c will lead
to an increase in local bond strength. However, there is a limit to this
increase. For concrete without stirrups, the limiting value is reached
when c/db $ 3, whereas for concrete with a 0:4 fc lateral pressure,
Table 1. Existing Bond-Slip Models
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The effect of db on bond strength is commonly referred to in the
literature as the size effect. It is commonly reported that an in-
crease in the rebar diameter will cause a decrease in bond strength.
Soroushian and Choi (1989) investigated different deformed bars
(db 5 16232 mm) confined by stirrups and concluded that tmax
increased with a decrease in the rebar diameter. There was also a
slight increase in prepeak local bond stiffness as db decreased. How-

Reference Models ever, the variation in db did not result in a consistent trend in the
Rehm (1961) t 5 fc,cub ðwsa 6 CsÞ, where w, C, and a are theoretical value of slip s corresponding to the peak bond strength. Ichinose
or experimental constants et al. (2004) investigated the size effect of deformed bars with and
Nilson (1968) t 5 998:4s 2 58,400s2 1 852,200s3 without stirrups (db 5 17:4252:2 mm) while keeping c/db constant.
Martin (1973) t 5 t0 1 asb , where a and b are experimental constants A similar size effect was confirmed and was found to be larger in
Mirza and Houde t 5 539:8s 2 25,610s2 1 592,200s3 2 5,574,000s4 unconfined cases or in bars with a lower rib height, indicating that an
(1979) increase in confinement decreases the size effect.
 a
Eligehausen s
t 5 tmax when 0 # s # s1
et al. (1983) s1 Effect of Concrete Cover to Rebar Diameter Ratio c/ db
CEB-FIP (1993) t 5 tmax when s1 , s # s2
Esfahani and Rangan (1998a, b) tested 45 short pullout specimens
 
s 2 s2 and 22 RC beams with rebar splices in normal and high-strength
t 5 tmax 2ðtmax 2 tf Þ when s2 , s # s3
s3 2 s2 concrete without transverse reinforcement in which c/db varied from
t 5 tf when s3 , s approximately 1 to 2.59. The bond strength was observed to increase
as c/db increased. This ratio was thus identified as a key factor that
affects bond strength. Choi and Lee (2002) and Turk et al. (2005)
drew a similar conclusion for cases with a c/db ranging from 1 to 3
from finite element and experimental analyses.

Effect of Stirrups
Transverse confinement in the form of stirrups has long been rec-
ognized to have a positive effect on bond strength. However,
because of the complexity and large differences in experimental
results, few models have considered this effect. Among the studies
that have considered stirrups, Orangun et al. (1977) used Ast fyst
=Sst db , where Ast is the area of stirrups (one leg) and fyst is the yield
strength of transverse reinforcement, to quantify their effect.
Giuriani et al. (1991) and Giuriani and Plizzari (1985) proposed
a complicated model with many factors to be experimentally de-
termined for cases with complete splitting cracks. The ACI Com-
mittee 318 (1995), Darwin et al. (1996), and Esfahani and Kianoush
Fig. 1. Bond-slip model; data from Harajli et al. (2004)
(2005) used Ast fyst =Sst n, NAst1 =n, and Ast1 As1 =cSst where N is the
number of stirrups used inside the bond length, As1 is the area of one

Table 2. Bond Strength Models

Reference Models
Orangun et al. t max 3c 50db Ast1 fyst
pffiffiffiffi 5 1:2 1 1 1 (imperial units)
(1977) fc db Lb 500Sst db
   
c c Ast1
Xu (1990) t max 5 1:6 1 0:7 1 20rsv ft 5 1:6 1 0:7 1 20 ft
db db cSst
     
ð fc Þ1=4  cmax NAst1 pffiffiffiffi
Zuo and Darwin t max 5 59:8Lb ðcmin 1 0:5db Þ 1 2,350Ab  0:1 1 0:9 1 31:14tr td 1 3:99 fc (imperial units)
pdb Lb cmin n
(2000)
   
2=3
t max c1Kst 2=3 Ast
Harajli et al. pffiffiffiffi 5 0:78 5 0:78 c17 db
fc db sn
(2004)
    rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 1 1/M cmed  Ast1 As fc c=db 1 0:5 pffiffiffiffi
Esfahani and t max 5 tc pffiffiffiffiffi 0:88 1 0:12 1 1 0:015 where M 5 cosh 0:0022Lb 3 and t c 5 2:7 fc
1:85 1 0:024 M c cSst db c=db 1 3:6
Kianoush (2005)

1952 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.

 longitudinal bar, Ast1 is the area of stirrups (one leg), and n is the
number of tension bars enclosed by stirrups, respectively, to account
for the confinement effect. Tests conducted by Reynolds and Beeby
(1982) and Morita and Fujii (1982) showed very low stress in the
transverse reinforcement at bond failure, which indicates that fyst
does not need to be considered in bond strength modeling.
Effect of Splice/Anchorage Length Lb
Xu (1990) conducted a series of tests to investigate the influence of
different parameters on bond strength, including concrete com-
pressive strength, concrete cover, anchorage length, transverse re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
failure modes, cases that satisfied the following conditions were
collected:
1. The longitudinal reinforcement is deformed bars, and the rib
spacing is within a normal range;
2. The concrete has a normal strength, and the tests are conducted
under monotonic tension loading; and
3. Test results include a full bond stress–slip response curve,
including ascending and descending branches, with details of
specimens and test setup.
The collected test data include different types of bonding con-
ditions, i.e., specimens with and without transverse reinforcement
and both splitting and pullout failure modes. Table 3 details the test
specimens included in the database, which involves direct pullout

inforcement ratio, and longitudinal bar diameter. Xu observed that

an increase in Lb =db leads to only a small increase in the ratio t max =ft ,
where ft is the concrete tensile strength, and that this increase tends to
cease after Lb 5 5db . Practically, the bond/splice length Lb should
always be greater than 5db , which has been the case for most of the
experiments reported in the literature (Eligehausen et al. 1983;
Harajli et al. 2004). Thus, the effect of Lb usually does not need to be
considered in bond strength modeling.
Unified Model
Database
A database was built for model development by collecting test
results reported in the literature. To avoid overcomplication of the
model while considering the completeness of the data for different
tests and RC beam tests.
Smooth bars are excluded from the database. This is because very
few data of smooth bars are available in the literature, especially for
full bond-slip curves with a descending branch. Furthermore, it has
been affirmed that the bond strengths of smooth bars are approxi-
mately 60–70% lower than those of deformed bars (Menzel 1939;
Weathersby 2003). Mixing up these two types of bars could reduce
the accuracy of the model. Therefore, the scope of this work is
limited to deformed bars. Moreover, high-strength concrete is not
considered in the database because controversy exists in the liter-
ature for the effect of high-strength concrete. The test results of
Azizinamini et al. (1993) indicated a lower bond strength ratio for
high-strength concrete, while Esfahani and Rangan (1996) reported
an opposite trend. Because of the limitation of data and also current
understanding of the problem, the model to be developed is currently
intended for normal-strength concrete only.

Table 3. Collected Test Specimens

Reference Specimen identity fc (MPa) c (mm) Sst (mm) Ast ðmm2 Þ db (mm) n
Harajli et al. (2004) B1W 1 40.7 34 N/A 0 16 2
B1W 2 40.7 34 40 56.6 16 2
B1W 3 43.2 34 40 157 16 2
B2W 1 39 30 N/A 0 20 2
B2W 2 39 30 50 56.6 20 2
B2W 3 43.2 30 50 157 20 2
B3W 1 40.7 25 N/A 0 25 2
B3W 2 40.7 25 62.5 56.6 25 2
B4W 1 39 18 N/A 0 32 2
B4W 2 39 18 80 56.6 32 2
B2N 1 42.7 17.5 50 0 20 2
B2N 2 42.7 17.5 50 56.6 20 2
B3N 1 42.7 50 N/A 0 25 1
B3N 2 42.7 50 62.5 56.6 25 1
Harajli et al. (1995) P1 1 22 79.5 76 427 25 1
P2 1 22 60 76 427 20 1
P2 Unconfined_1 30 60 N/A 0 25 1
Eligehausen et al. (1983) Series1_1 29.4 63.3 127 2025 25.4 1
Series1_2 30.5 63.3 127 506 25.4 1
Series1_3 30.5 63.3 127 126.7 25.4 1
Series1_4 30.7 63.3 N/A 0 25.4 1
Series1_5 30.5 63.3 127 506 25.4 1
Series3 _1 31.6 66.5 95 506 19 1
Series3_2 31.6 63.3 127 506 25.4 1
Series3_3 31.6 60.1 159 506 31.8 1
Xu (1990) Xu (70)a 9.79–40.65 11–92 25–200 0–56.52 12–32 1
Soroushian and Choi (1989)b S&C (6) 30 48–75 80–125 506 16–25 1
Zhao (2001)b Zhao (3)a 22.13 44 N/A 0 12 1
Note: Data inside the parentheses denotes the number of specimens; n 5 number.
a
Only bond strength is available for the specimens without bond-slip curve.
b
Data for model verification only.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1953

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.

 Unified Mathematical Form
To avoid discontinuity or insistency in the bond-slip curves (see
Fig. 1), a unified mathematical form for all cases is essential.
Through extensive search and trial and error, Eq. (1) in exponential
form was found to best fit all types of experimental bond-slip curves
and is mathematically simple for practical use

y ¼ A eBx 2 eDx (1)

where A, B, and D are coefficients to be determined. To relate the

coefficients to the local peak point, the derivative of Eq. (1) is used to
obtain
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.


y9 ¼ A BeBx 2 DeDx (2) Fig. 2. Effect of parameter c on bond strength

Letting Eq. (2) equal 0, A  0, and B  D, the following are

obtained:

BeBx0 ¼ DeDx0

ln B þ Bx0 ¼ ln D þ Dx0
D
ðB 2 DÞ x0 ¼ ln
B

which gives the location of the peak point x0

B Fig. 3. Effect of parameter Kco on bond strength

2ln
x0 ¼ D (3)
ðB 2 DÞ
parameter Kco is thus adopted as the main parameter for plain
Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (1), the peak value y0 is obtained as concrete.
h i
y0 ¼ A e2B lnðB=DÞ=ðB2DÞ 2 e2D lnðB=DÞ=ðB2DÞ (4) Effect of Stirrups
When cases with stirrups in Table 3 are also included in Fig. 3, R2
By rewriting Eq. (4), the coefficient A can be expressed as
drops significantly from 0.7998 to 0.546. Thus, the parameter Kco
y0 fails to reflect all of the effects on the bond strength for concrete
A¼  (5)
e2B lnðB=DÞ=ðB2DÞ 2 e2D lnðB=DÞ=ðB2DÞ with stirrups. It is well recognized in the literature that stirrups
confine concrete and may significantly increase bond strength.
Xu (1990), Harajli et al. (2004), and Esfahani and Kianoush
Hence, the general bond-slip relationship or t-s curves can be
(2005) used Eqs. (8a)–(8c), respectively, as an additional parameter,
expressed as
denoted as Kst in this study, to account for the confinement effect of
t max  stirrups
t¼  eBs 2 eDs (6)
e2B lnðB=DÞ=ðB2DÞ 2 e2D lnðB=DÞ=ðB2DÞ
Ast1
Kst ¼ (8a)
cSst
The determination of t max and the coefficients B and D is discussed
in the following sections.
Ast
Kst ¼ (8b)
nSst db
Parameters Affecting Bond Strength for Plain Concrete
Ast1 As1
As discussed, the concrete pffiffiffifficover c (minimum cover) significantly Kst ¼ (8c)
affects the value of t max = fc . This effect can also be clearly observed cSst
from the database in Table 3, as shown in Fig. 2, which includes
only specimens without transverse reinforcement. Most researchers These three models will be tested and modified to improve the
consider the concrete cover in combination with the bar diameter modeling in this work.
db through the combined parameter Kco
c Size Effect
Kco ¼ (7)
db Although size effect has been reported (Den Uijl and Bigaj 1996;
pffiffiffiffi Ichinose et al. 2004), no consensus has thus far been reached on its
Fig. 3 shows the correlation between t max = fc and Kco . The cor- quantification. Ichinose et al. (2004) tried to revise the bond strength
relation coefficient R2 increases from 0.745 in Fig. 2 to 0.7998, model proposed by Zuo and Darwin (2000) by introducing a size
indicating that Kco is better correlated to the test data than c. The effect factor denoted as Ksi subsequently with Eqs. (9a) and (9b) to

1954 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.

 quantify the tensile force contribution of concrete and confining where Eq. (11) gives K; and G, E, and v are coefficients to be
steel, respectively determined from regression analyses. Eq. (12) is physically rea-
sonable because it provides upper and lower bounds. The CEB-FIP
Ksi ¼ db20:4 (9a) Model Code 90 (CEB-FIP 1993) recommends a maximum bond
strength ratio of 2.5 for confined concrete with a good bond con-
 0:221:8Rr dition (pullout failure) and a minimum bond strength ratio of 1 for
db unconfined concrete with other bond conditions (splitting failure).
Ksi ¼ (9b)
25:4 Eqs. (13) and (14) can model these two bound values, respectively
 pffiffiffiffi
where Rr 5 ratio of the rib height to the rib spacing. However, the max t max = fc ¼ G when vK → 2‘ (13)
improvement was insignificant because the correlation coefficient
R increased only slightly by less than 0.5%.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Combination of Effects
In the literature, the aforementioned parameters are often combined
in a certain way to produce an overall parameter for bond strength
modeling. Xu (1990) and Harajli et al. (2004) used Eqs. (10a) and
(10b), respectively, to account for the combined effect K
K ¼ 1:6 þ 0:7Kco þ 20Kst (10a)
K ¼ Kco þ 7Kst (10b)
Figs. 4(a and b) show the performance of Eqs. (10a) and (10b) for all
cases, where R2 equals 0.6871 and 0.6747, respectively. Although
a better correlation is obtained than with the other models, there is
clearly still room for improvement in accuracy.
To improve the bond strength model, a general expression that
considers all three parameters and in the form of Eq. (11) is used to
consider the combined effect
K ¼ ðKco þ fKst ÞKsi (11)
where Eqs. (7) and (8) give Kco and Kst , respectively; f is a co-
efficient that accounts for the relative significance of the two factors;
and Ksi is another factor that allows for the size effect. Numerous
other combinations of the three factors have also been tested with the
database, but Eq. (11) was found to give the best correlation.
Bond Strength Model
The following equation was found to best fit the bond strength
database:
t max G t max
pffiffiffiffi ¼ (12)
fc 1 þ EevK
Fig. 4. Combined effect K: (a) Xu’s model (1990); (b) Harajli et al. model (2004)
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1955
J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.
 pffiffiffiffi
min tmax = fc ¼ G when K ¼ 0
(14)
1þE
Regression analyses are used to determine the coefficients in
Eq. (11) and Eq. (12) so that the theoretical bond strength model
given by Eq. (12) has a maximum correlation (minimum error) with
the database. Because of the large number of variables in the two
equations, regression analysis cannot be completed in one step. The
following procedure is thus used in the regression analyses:
1. Assume that Ksi 5 1 in Eq. (11), choose Eq. (8a), (8b), or
(8c) and set an initial value for f 5 f0 . A good choice of f0
is an existing value reported in the literature, such as 7.0 in
Eq. (10b);
2. Let f 5 f0 1 Df , and perform the regression analyses using the
software MATLAB to find the best value of G, E, and v;
3. Return to Step 2 and repeat the process. When an f value that
provides the largest R2 is found, go to Step 4;
4. Return to Step 1 and choose another form of Eq. (8) until all
three forms have been tried. Select the form of Eq. (8) that best
fits the test database;
5. Choose a simple function for the size effect Ksi 5 dbl . Perform
regression analyses to find a best fit value for l; and
6. Return to Step 2 and repeat the process until the parameters
converge to a set of solutions.
This intensive regression process gives the following results:
1. Eq. (8b) best fits the database and hence is used as the equation
for Kst in this work;
2. f 5 33, G 5 2:5, E 5 3:1, and v 5 20:47; and
3. Ksi 5 db20:0003  1, which indicates that the size effect is not
clearly reflected by the test results in the database. The size
effect is thus omitted.
Substituting these results into Eqs. (11) and (12), the final bond
strength model is given by
2:5
pffiffiffiffi ¼ (15)
fc 1 þ 3:1e20:47ðKco þ33Kst Þ
 where Kco 5 c/db ; and Kst 5 Ast =nSst db . The stirrup spacing is
calculated by Sst 5 Lb /N. If the bond length is reported to be 100 mm
and the stirrup spacing is reported to be 200 mm, then the real stirrup
spacing used for the database is Sst 5 100/1 5 100 mm because only
one stirrup is possible in the test region and hence the real spacing is
100 mm rather than 200 mm.
Fig. 5 shows the correlation of the database with Eq. (15) for all
cases with R2 5 0:764. The precision is higher than all of the afore-
mentioned p models
ffiffiffiffi (Fig. 4). The upper bound of the bond strength
ratio t max = fc from Eq. (13) is 2.5, which is identical to CEB-FIP
Model Code 90 (CEB-FIP 1993), whereas the lower bound is 0.61 as
given by Eq. (14), which is much smaller than 1. Further evaluation
of the performance of Eq. (15) is presented later.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Determination of Coefficients B and D
Whereas the bond strength tmax acts as the local extreme of Eq. (6),
the coefficients B and D in Eq. (6) control the shape of the bond slip
curve. Figs. 6 and 7 show the effects of B and D, respectively. Fig. 6
shows that an increase in B significantly increases the postpeak
softening slope and at the same time slightly increases the slip x0
at the peak stress. An increase in the coefficient D significantly
decreases the slope of the ascending branch and hence increases
the value of x0 (Fig. 7) but has insignificant effects on the postpeak
softening slopes. In other words, D generally governs the ascending
branch and B controls the descending branch.
It is well understood that the softening slope is largely affected by
stirrup confinement and the ascending branch is closely related to
concrete confinement. This is evident in Fig. 8(a), which shows two
series of the test results of Harajli et al. (2004). For the two series
B1W and B2W, Kco equals 2.1 and 1.5, respectively, and both have
an Ast in the range of 0–157. It is evident that an increase in stirrups
leads to an increase in the softening slope. For the same Ast , an
Fig. 5. Performance of Eq. (15)
Fig. 6. Effect of coefficient B; D 5 28
1956 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.
increase of Kco does not cause a significant change in the slope of the
softening branch because in the postpeak branch, splitting has oc-
curred and the bond is caused by stirrup confinement.
Careful scrutiny of the bond-slip curves in Fig. 8(a) reveals that
for the same Kst value, x0 seems to be slightly reduced as Kco in-
creases. However, this trend is not manifested across the whole
database, and generally, an increase in Kco causes a larger value of x0 .
A clear increase in x0 is nevertheless observed in Fig. 8(b), with
an increase in the total confinement or K value [Eq. (11)], and it
apparently tends to be a limiting value. This is consistent with the
recommendation in CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (1993). Thus, x0 is
considered to be a function of K.
Based on the foregoing analyses, the coefficient B should be
a function of Kst , whereas D is a function of K that involves both
Kco and Kst . The values of B and D for the specimens in Table 3 are
obtained by best fitting the test curves with Eq. (6) to create a da-
tabase that can be used for the development of empirical equations
for the two coefficients.
By regressing the database for B on the function B 5 f ðKst Þ, the
following equation is obtained:
0:0254 þ Kst
B¼ (16)
20:0232 2 8:34 Kst
where the lower and upper bounds of B are 21.1 and 20.12 when Kst
equals 0 and approaches infinity. Fig. 6 shows these two cases. Fig. 9
shows the correlation of Eq. (16) with the values of B fitted from the
test results.
The regression of D is more difficult because a suitable function is
difficult to find directly. As D is closely related to x0 , it can be derived
indirectly if an equation for x0 is known. Using the database for x0
obtained from the bond slip curves in Table 3, the following re-
lationship is regressed:
x0 ¼ 0:7315 þ K (17)
5:176 þ 0:3333 K
where Eq. (11) gives K or K 5 Kco 1 33 Kst . The lower and upper
bounds of x0 are 0.14 and 3, respectively, when K 5 0 and ap-
proaches infinity. These two boundary values are consistent with the
range of values of (0.6–3) proposed in CEB-FIP Model Code 90
(CEB-FIP 1993). The range of Eq. (17) can be changed easily simply
by adjusting the coefficients.
Theoretically, D can be solved by substituting Eqs. (16) and (17)
into Eq. (3). However, an explicit equation cannot be obtained. Be-
cause x0 is largely controlled by D and the effect of B is insignificant,
Fig. 7. Effect of coefficient D; B 5 20:4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Confinement effects on softening slope and x0 : (a) bond-slip curves; (b) slip at peak stress
Fig. 9. Performance of Eq. (16)
D is assumed to be a function of x0 only. Through regression, the
following equation is obtained:
D ¼ 3 lnðx0 2 0:13Þ 2 3:375 (18)
where D has a minimum value of 217:39 when x0 5 0:14 and a
maximum value of 20:212 when x0 5 3. Fig. 10(a) shows the cor-
relation of Eq. (18) to the values of D fitted from the test data.
Substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (18), D is derived as
 
D ¼ 3 ln 0:7315 þ K 2 0:13 2 3:375 (19)
5:176 þ 0:3333 K
Fig. 10(b) shows the correlation of Eq. (19) to the values of D fitted
ffi
pffiffiffiffi2
from the test data.
pffiffiffiffi
Residual Bond Stress
Earlier works, such as that of Eligehausen et al. (1983) and CEB-FIP
Model Code 90 (CEB-FIP 1993), proposed a constant residual bond
stress t f when the slip exceeds a certain value. After more exper-
imental tests, it was observed that bond stress approaches 0 with
a larger slip. Some researchers (Bamonte and Gambarova 2007;
Harajli et al. 2004; Huang et al. 1996) have thus modified the CEB-
FIP model (1993) by adding a straight line that reaches 0 at a certain
slip s4 . The value of s4 for normal-strength concrete was reported by
Huang et al. (1996) to be three times the clear rib spacing c0 and by
Bamonte and Gambarova (2007) to be 2c0 .
The bond stress from the proposed model of Eq. (6) approaches
0 when the slip approaches infinity, which is physically reasonable.
To further verify the model, the bond stress given by Eq. (6) at
s 5 1c0 , 2c0 , and 3c0 , which are considered to be the critical values
of residual bond stress (Bamonte and Gambarova 2007; CEB-FIP
1993; Harajli et al. 2004; Huang et al. 1996), is evaluated. Adopting
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1957
J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.
c0 5 10 mm, which is a normal value in practice, the maximum
corresponding residual stresses are calculated to be 0:498t max ,
0:21t max , and 0:07tmax , respectively, when the upper bound values
of B 5 20:12 and D 5 20:212 are used for the calculation. The
maximum residual bond stress at 1c0 from the proposed model is
close to that proposed by the CEB-FIP model (1993), which rec-
ommends 0:4t max at 1c0 . The maximum residual bond stress at 3c0
from the proposed model is close to 0, which is consistent with the
result of Huang et al. (1996). When using the lower bound values
of B 5 21:1 and D 5 217:19, the corresponding minimum values
of the residual bond stress from the proposed model are calculated
to be 0:21 3 1024 tmax , 0:36 3 1029 t max , and 0:59 3 10214 t max for
s 5 1c0 , 2c0 , and 3c0 , respectively, which are essentially 0 and
correctly reflect the extreme cases with the poorest confinement.
Validation of Proposed Model
Verification of Bond Strength Models
The performance of the proposed models for bond strength is
verified by assessing the deviation from the experimental results
in terms of the integral absolute error (IAE) (Girgin et al. 2007; Wu
and Zhou 2010), which is very sensitive to the deviation of a model
and is given as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

pffiffiffiffi
P Experimental t max = fc 2 theoretical t max = fc
IAE ¼ P
Experimental t max = fc
(20)
Table 4 evaluates the four models and shows that Eq. (15) out-
performs the other three models significantly in terms of overall
IAE value followed by the model of Esfahani and Kianoush
(2005).
For cases without stirrups, the IAE value for the Esfahani and
Kianoush (2005) model is slightly smaller than that for Eq. (15).
Esfahani and Kianoush’s model was regressed from spliced speci-
mens and is more suitable for unconfined cases with splitting failure.
By dividing the database into two groups, one with stirrups and one
without stirrups, it becomes clear that Esfahani and Kianoush’s
model is more suitable for cases without stirrups but that its per-
formance for cases with stirrups is poorer than Eq. (15).
To further assess the models, conventional statistical analyses of
the experimental to theoretical value ratio y as defined in Eq. (21)
were carried out, and the results are given in Table 4
 Fig. 10. Performance of models for D: (a) correlation with x0 ; (b) correlation with K
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. Evaluation of Bond Strength Models

Harajli et al. Esfahani and
IAE=y (database) (2004, 1995) Xu (1990) Kianoush (2005) Eq. (15)
IAE (%) (Eligehausen et al. 1983; Harajli et al. 2004; Xu 1990) 17.982 25.187 16.031 13.511
IAE (%) (Eligehausen et al. 1983; Harajli et al. 2004) 17.268 29.385 20.032 15.887
IAE (%) (Xu 1990) 18.259 23.557 14.477 12.589
IAE (%) (all with stirrup) 18.131 23.510 16.761 13.706
IAE (%) (all without stirrup) 16.959 36.667 11.030 12.181
IAE (%) (Soroushian and Choi 1989) 23.487 16.508 39.950 16.016
IAE (%) (Zhao 2001) 30.224 55.053 4.602 13.009
IAE (%) (Soroushian and Choi 1989; Zhao 2001) 24.819 24.130 32.961 15.422
Maximum (y) (Eligehausen et al. 1983; Harajli et al. 2004; Xu 1990) 1.711 1.299 1.670 1.463
Minimum (y) (Eligehausen et al. 1983; Harajli et al. 2004) 0.674 0.504 0.779 0.693
Average (y) (Eligehausen et al. 1983; Harajli et al. 2004) 1.076 0.826 1.121 1.014
Maximum (y) (Soroushian and Choi 1989; Zhao 2001) 1.364 1.230 1.815 1.277
Minimum (y) (Soroushian and Choi 1989; Zhao 2001) 0.711 0.597 0.908 0.819
Average (y) (Soroushian and Choi 1989; Zhao 2001) 1.129 1.014 1.437 1.088

pffiffiffiffi
Experimental t max = fc
v¼
pffiffiffiffi (21) Code 90 (1993) are also compared in the figures.
Theoretical t max = fc
The mean value of y for Eq. (15) is close to 1, indicating better
correlation with the test results. Figs. 11(a–d) depict the distributions
of y for different models.
The test results from Soroushian and Choi (1989) and Zhao
(2001) that have not been used for model development further verify
the model. Table 4 shows the results. For the cases from Soroushian
and Choi (1989) (with stirrups), the proposed model generates the
lowest IAE among the four models, followed by Xu’s model, while
the largest IAE is from Esfahani and Kianoush’s model. However,
for the cases from Zhao (2001) (without stirrups), Esfahani and
Kianoush’s model (IAE 5 4.6%) performs better than the proposed
model (IAE 5 13.0%), while the other two models perform very
poorly. With the combined data including both that of Soroushian
and Choi (1989) and Zhao (2001), the proposed model outperforms
others with the lowest IAE (15.4%), while the largest IAE (32.96%)
is from Esfahani and Kianoush’s model. This verification shows that
the performance of a model depends very much on test data. When
more extensive and consistent data are available, the coefficients of
the model can be refined and the accuracy of the model further
increased in the future.
Shape of Bond-Slip Curves
To verify the performance of the proposed bond-slip model, the
curves from Eq. (6), together with those from Eqs. (15), (16), and
(19), are plotted in Figs. 12–14 and compared with the test curves.
The bond-slip curves of Harajli et al. (2004) and CEB-FIP Model
Figs. 12(a and b) are plotted to verify the performance of the
proposed model for unconfined cases with no stirrups. It is apparent
from the figures that the predictions of CEB-FIP Model Code 90
(1993) generally overestimate the bond strength and the postpeak
branch of the bond slip curve, whereas the predictions of the pro-
posed model and of the model of Harajli et al. (2004) better match the
overall test curve. In terms of residual bond stress, the proposed
model gives a more conservative prediction with a faster descending
slope, whereas the model of Harajli et al. (2004) overestimates
slightly with a slower descending rate.
Fig. 13 examines the performance of the proposed model for
splitting-failure cases. Fig. 13(a) shows that the proposed model
matches the test curve better than the other models in terms of the
whole curve. In Fig. 13(b), the proposed model slightly overesti-
mates the ascending branch compared with the model of Harajli et al.
Fig. 14 compares the pullout failure cases. In Fig. 14(a), a nearly
exact match with the test curve is observed for the proposed model,
demonstrating its superior performance for pullout cases. For the
case in Fig. 14(b), all of the models underestimate the ascending
branch and the peak bond stress. This may be because of the inherent
heterogeneity of concrete that sometimes causes large scattering in
experimental results (Eligehausen et al. 1983).
The model is further verified with the bond-slip curve of speci-
men #8-1 from Soroushian and Choi (1989) that has not been used
in the model development (Fig. 15). Because it was not clearly stated in
the paper whether the specimen failed in splitting mode or pullout
mode, both the splitting and pullout failure curves from the model of
Harajli et al. are compared. Considering the large deviations from

1958 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Comparison of strength models: (a) by Eq. (15); (b) by Esfahani and Kianoush (2005); (c) by Xu (1990); (d) by Harajli et al. (2004)

Fig. 12. Comparisons of bond-slip curves for unconfined cases: (a) B3W 1; (b) Series1_4

other predictions, the proposed model agrees with the test curve
satisfactorily.
Generally speaking, the proposed model performs well for all
three failure modes. Bearing in mind that the Harajli et al. (2004)
model was developed directly from these test curves whereas the
proposed model needs to accommodate all of the test data from
a range of sources, the proposed model generally outperforms the
other models. Although the Harajli et al. (2004) model matches some
of the test curves almost as well as the proposed model, the former
generally overestimates the test results and requires judgment as to
whether the specimen fails in a splitting or pullout mode because
this cannot be determined directly from the value of the parameters
in their model. In general, all other models require interventions
by operatives to judge the failure mode, whereas the proposed model
calculates everything automatically based on the values of the para-
meters. This enables the model to be conveniently applied in com-
putational modeling.
Conclusion
This work develops a unified and continuous bond stress–slip model
including a new bond strength model that caters for both unconfined
bonding conditions without transverse reinforcement and confined
bonding conditions with stirrups that fail in both the splitting mode
and pullout mode. The proposed model takes into account all of the
main parameters, including fc , db , Ast , c, n, and Sst , integrates them in
a logical way to account for the combined confinement effect, and
outperforms the existing models.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1959

J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Comparisons of bond-slip curves for splitting cases: (a) B3W 2; (b) B2N 2
Fig. 14. Comparisons of bond-slip curves for pullout failure: (a) Series1_1; (b) Series3_1
Fig. 15. Comparisons of bond-slip curves for case #8-1 in Soroushian
and Choi (1989)
Most importantly, the model caters for all failure modes and
produces a continuous bond-slip curve automatically without the
need to specify a failure mode. Transition from one failure mode to
another is smooth, reflecting the fact that cracking of concrete is a
continuous process. These characteristics mean that the model can
be conveniently used for the computational modeling of concrete
structures without causing the nonconvergence of the solution be-
cause of discontinuities in the bond-slip model.
The bond-slip model is general and governed by three parame-
ters, namely, the local bond strength t max and the shape factors B and
D that control the descending and ascending slopes of the bond-slip
curve, respectively. Because of the limit of the current database, the
equations proposed in this paper for these three parameters are only
1960 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.
applicable for normal-strength concrete and deformed rebars. How-
ever, when more data are available, the database can easily be
extended, and hence its application can be further extended. Fur-
thermore, when more consistent data are used, the precision of the
model can also be further increased.
Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant
from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Ad-
ministrative Region, China (Project No. CityU 123711).
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ast 5 area of stirrups including all legs;
Ast1 5 area of one leg of the stirrup;
As1 5 area of one longitudinal bar;
a 5 experimental constant (Table 1);
B 5 coefficient controlling the postpeak softening slope
of the stress-strain curve;
b 5 experimental constant (Table 1);
c 5 minimum concrete cover, i.e., the smaller of side cover,
bottom cover, or half the clear distance between rebars;
cmax 5 factor related to maximum concrete cover (Table 2);
cmed 5 factor related to average concrete cover (Table 2);
cmin 5 factor related to minimum concrete cover (Table 2);
c0 5 clear rib spacing;
 D 5 coefficient controlling the ascending slope of the
stress-strain curve;
db 5 diameter of longitudinal reinforcement;
E 5 coefficient of bond strength model [Eq. (12)];
f 5 coefficient of Eq. (11);
fc 5 concrete compressive strength;
fc,cub 5 concrete cubic compressive strength;
ft 5 concrete tensile strength;
fyst 5 yield strength of transverse reinforcement;
f0 5 initial value of f ;
G 5 coefficient of bond strength model [Eq. (12)];
K 5 combined confinement effect given by Eq. (11);
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Kco 5 confinement effect of concrete [Eq. (7)];
Ksi 5 size effect [Eq. (9)];
Kst 5 confinement effect of stirrups [Eq. (8)];
Lb 5 bond or splice length of rebar;
N 5 number of stirrups over the bond length;
n 5 number of tension bars enclosed by stirrups;
Rr 5 ratio of rib height to the rib spacing;
Sst 5 stirrup spacing;
s 5 slip;
smax 5 slip at maximum bond stress;
s1 5 initial slip in segmental bond-slip model related to
peak stress;
s2 5 end slip in segmental bond-slip model related to peak
stress;
s3 5 slip in segmental bond-slip model related to residual
stress;
s4 5 slip at 0 bond stress;
td 5 coefficient related to db (Table 2);
tr 5 coefficient related to relative rib area of reinforcing
bars (Table 2);
x0 5 slip at peak of bond-slip curve;
y0 5 local extreme of bond-slip equation;
a 5 theoretical or experimental constant (Table 1);
l 5 coefficient for size effect;
rsv 5 transverse reinforcement ratio;
t 5 bond stress;
t f 5 residual bond stress;
t max 5 maximum bond stress;
t0 5 adhesive bond stress;
t1 5 maximum bond stress for pullout failure;
y 5 ratio of experimental to theoretical values [Eq. (21)];
w 5 theoretical or experimental constant (Table 1);
c 5 theoretical or experimental constant (Table 1); and
v 5 coefficient of bond strength model [Eq. (12)].
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (1995). Building code requirements for
reinforced concrete, ACI Committee 318, Detroit.
Azizinamini, A., Stark, M., Roller, J. J., and Ghosh, S. K. (1993). “Bond
performance of reinforcing bars embedded in high-strength concrete.”
ACI Struct. J., 90(5), 554–561.
Bamonte, P. F., and Gambarova, P. G. (2007). “High-bond bars in NSC and
HPC: Study on size effect and on the local bond stress-slip law.” J. Struct.
Eng., 133(2), 225–234.
Choi, O. C., and Lee, W. S. (2002). “Interfacial bond analysis of deformed
bars to concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 99(6), 750–756.
Comité Euro-International du Béton and Fédération Internationale de la
Précontrainte (CEB-FIP). (1993). CEB-FIP model code 1990, Lausanne,
Switzerland.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1961
J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.
Darwin, D., Tholen, M. L., Idun, E. K., and Zuo, J. (1996). “Splice strength
of high relative rib area reinforcing bars.” ACI Struct. J., 93(1), 95–107.
Den Uijl, J. A., and Bigaj, A. J. (1996). “A bond model for ribbed bars
based on concrete confinement.” HERON, 41(3), 201–226.
Eligehausen, R., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V. (1983). “Local bond
stress-slip relationships of deformed bars under generalized excita-
tions.” Rep. UCB/EERC-83/23, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Univ., of California, Berkeley, CA.
Esfahani, M. R., and Kianoush, M. R. (2005). “Development/splice length
of reinforcing bars.” ACI Struct. J., 102(1), 22–30.
Esfahani, M. R., and Rangan, B. V. (1996). Studies on bond between
concrete and reinforcing bars, School of Civil Engineering, Curtin
Univ., of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Esfahani, M. R., and Rangan, B. V. (1998a). “Bond between normal strength
and high-strength concrete (HSC) and reinforcing bars in splices in
beams.” ACI Struct. J., 95(3), 272–280.
Esfahani, M. R., and Rangan, B. V. (1998b). “Local bond strength of
reinforcing bars in normal strength and high-strength concrete (HSC).”
ACI Struct. J., 95(2), 96–106.
Esfahani, M. R., and Rangan, B. V. (2000). “Influence of transverse rein-
forcement on bond strength of tensile splices.” Cement Concr. Compos.,
22(3), 159–163.
Girgin, Z. C., Arioglu, N., and Arioglu, E. (2007). “Evaluation of strength
criteria for very-high-strength concretes under triaxial compression.”
ACI Struct. J., 104(3), 278–284.
Giuriani, E., and Plizzari, G. A. (1985). Local bond-slip law after splitting
of concrete, Milan Univ. of Technology, Milan, Italy.
Giuriani, E., Plizzari, G., and Schumm, C. (1991). “Role of stirrups and
residual tensile strength of cracked concrete on bond.” J. Struct. Eng.,
117(1), 1–18.
Harajli, M. H. (2006). “Effect of confinement using steel, FRC, or FRP on the
bond stress-slip response of steel bars under cyclic loading.” Mater.
Struct., 39(6), 621–634.
Harajli, M. H. (2009). “Bond stress-slip model for steel bars in unconfined
or steel, FRC, or FRP confined concrete under cyclic loading.” J. Struct.
Eng., 135(5), 509–518.
Harajli, M. H., and Al-Hajj, J. (2002). “Bond stress-slip response of rein-
forcing bars in high-strength concrete.” Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on Bond in
Concrete: From Research to Standards, Budapest Univ. of Technology
and Economics, Budapest, Hungary, 570–577.
Harajli, M. H., Hamad, B. S., and Rteil, A. A. (2004). “Effect of confinement
of bond strength between steel bars and concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 101(5),
595–603.
Harajli, M. H., Hout, M., and Jalkh, W. (1995). “Local bond stress-slip
behavior of reinforcing bars embedded in plain and fiber concrete.” ACI
Mater. J., 92(4), 343–354.
He, W., Wu, Y. F., and Liew, K. M. (2008). “A fracture energy based
constitutive model for the analysis of reinforced concrete structures
under cyclic loading.” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 197(51–52),
4745–4762.
Huang, Z., Engstrom, B., and Magnusson, J. (1996). “Experimental and
analytical studies of the bond behaviour of deformed bars in high
strength concrete.” 4th Int. Symp. on Utilization of High-Strength/High-
Performance Concrete, Vol. 3, Laboratories des Ponts et Chaussées
Paris, 1115–1124.
Ichinose, T., Kanayama, Y., Inoue, Y., and Bolander, J. E. (2004). “Size
effect on bond strength of deformed bars.” Construct. Build. Mater.,
18(7), 549–558.
Martin, H. (1973). “On the interrelation among surface roughness, bond and
bar stiffness in the reinforcement subject to short-term loading.”
Deutscher Ausschuss Stahlbeton, (228), 1–50 (in German).
MATLAB 7.6 [Computer Software]. Natick, MA, Mathworks.
Mendis, P., and French, C. (2000). “Bond strength of reinforcement in high-
strength concrete.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 3(3), 245–253.
Menzel, C. A. (1939). “Some factors influencing results of pull-out bond
tests.” ACI J. Proc., 35(6), 517–542.
Mirza, S. M., and Houde, J. (1979). “Study of bond stress-slip relationships
in reinforced concrete.” ACI J. Proc., 76(1), 19–46.
 Morita, S., and Fujii, S. (1982). “Bond capacity of deformed bars due to
splitting of surrounding concrete.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Bond in Concrete,
P. Bartos, ed., Applied Science Publishers, London, 331–341.
Nilson, A. H. (1968). “Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete by the finite
element method.” ACI J. Proc., 65(9), 757–766.
Orangun, C. O., Jirsa, J. O., and Breen, J. E. (1977). “A reevaluation
of test data on development length and splices.” ACI J., 74(3), 114–
122.
Rehm, G. (1961). “On the fundamentals of steel-concrete bond.” Deutscher
Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, (138), 1–59 (in German).
Reynolds, G. C., and Beeby, A. W. (1982). “Bond strength of deformed
bars.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Bond in Concrete, P. Bartos, ed., Applied
Science Publishers, London, 434–445.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON on 04/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Soroushian, P., and Choi, K. B. (1989). “Local bond of deformed bars
with different diameters in confined concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 86(2),
217–222.
Turk, K., Caliskan, S., and Yildirim, M. S. (2005). “Influence of loading
condition and reinforcement size on the concrete/reinforcement bond
strength.” Struct. Eng. Mech., 19(3), 337–346.
1962 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
J. Struct. Eng. 2013.139:1951-1962.
Walker, P. R., Batayneh, M. K., and Regan, P. E. (1997). “Bond strength
tests on deformed reinforcement in normal weight concrete.” Mater.
Struct., 30(7), 424–429.
Weathersby, J. H. (2003). “Investigation of bond slip between concrete
and steel reinforcement under dynamic loading conditions.” Ph.D.
thesis, Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA.
Wu, Y. F., and Zhou, Y. W. (2010). “Unified strength model based on Hoek-
Brown failure criterion for circular and square concrete columns con-
fined by FRP.” J. Compos. Constr., 14(2), 175–184.
Xu, Y. L. (1990). “Experimental study of anchorage properties for de-
formed bars in concrete.” Ph.D. thesis, Tsinghua Univ., Beijing.
Zhao, X. M., Wu, Y. F., and Leung, A. Y. T. (2012). “Analyses of plastic
hinge regions in reinforced concrete beams under monotonic loading.”
Eng. Struct., 34, 466–482.
Zhao, Y. (2001). “Studies on the bond behavior and durability of rein-
forced concrete structures.” Ph.D. thesis, Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou,
China
Zuo, J., and Darwin, D. (2000). “Splice strength of conventional and high
relative rib area bars in normal and high-strength concrete.” ACI Struct.
J., 97(4), 630–641.