Testing Procedure for Determining the Bond-slip Law of Steel Bars in Strain

Hardening Cementitious Composites

Androula V. Georgiou1, Souzana P. Tastani2, Stavroula J. Pantazopoulou3

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cyprus,
Kallipoleos 75, Nicosia 1678, Cyprus; email: ageorg44@ucy.ac.cy
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece,
stastani@civil.duth.gr
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde Faculty of Engineering, York
University, Toronto, Canada, pantazo@yorku.ca

ABSTRACT

In order to advance the use of Strain Hardening Cementitious Composites (SHCC) in

structural applications it is essential to understand the mechanics of bond of
reinforcement anchored in this type of material. The strength of the cover against
splitting as well as the strain development capacity of bars anchored in SHCC are
studied in the present experimental study through tests conducted on specially
designed tension pullout specimens. Parameter of study was the steel bar diameter
and the anchorage length as well as the bar cover. The experimental results obtained
from a series of 24 specimens were used to calibrate a mechanistic frictional model
for bond along reinforcement anchorages embedded in SHCC. It was shown that the
sustained tensile resistance of the SHCC up to large levels of tensile strain was
engaged confining the bar-cover interface, thereby preventing through-splitting of the
cover as would normally occur in plain concrete matrices. This enabled the
contribution of a frictional component to the anchorage strain development capacity
that is directly traceable to the deformation capacity of the SHCC matrix. This
modelling approach was motivated by the experimental evidence where splitting
failures may be mitigated even with short anchorage lengths and relatively small
covers (cover thickness = bar diameter) up to large levels of pullout slip of
reinforcement.

Keywords: bond-slip, steel, pullout, anchorage.

INTRODUCTION
The most widely-used test to determine the bond strength of bars embedded in
concrete is the standard pullout test, where a concrete block containing a bar is
mounted on a steel plate while the steel bar is pulled out. The implications of this
setup is that the concrete near the loaded end of the bar is under compression (plate
reacting stresses), whereas the pulled bar generates hoop tensile stresses in cover.
These stresses are eliminated partly by the presence of spurious restraining forces
generated due to friction at the face of the loading platens on the concrete specimen
in reaction to Poisson’s effect. These restraining forces produce a confining effect
that delays cover cracking, thereby spuriously increasing the bond strength. The
discrepancy between the bond strength measured from pullout tests and those

Rev. 02/2017
obtained from other test setups led to targeted research to develop alternative
standardized procedures to define more realistic (conservative) bond strength
magnitudes as a result of the tensile state of both materials (bars in concrete). Tastani
and Pantazopoulou (2010) proposed the direct tension pullout (DTP) test where a
concrete prism contains one bar anchored to one end and a supporting bar on the
other, both being pulled in tension. With this setup bars transfer tensile stresses to the
surrounding concrete, conditions resembling the ones in the tensile zone of flexural
members where both the steel bars and the surrounding concrete are under tension -
thus the experimental results are expected to produce the lowest bound estimates of
bond strength.
Very little research was performed to this moment regarding performance of steel
bars embedded in SHCC materials. Lee et al. (2016) investigated short and long steel
bar anchorages embedded in SHCC and conventional concrete blocks. In short
anchorages, SHCC obtained 14 % higher bond strength as compared to concrete. In
long anchorages, the bar developed yielding and hardening. In all cases the cover
prevented the development of splitting cracks in the surrounding matrix. Chao et al.
(2009) studied the effect of strain softening and strain hardening cementitious
composites on the bond strength-slip response of deformed bars under monotonic and
cyclic loading using a modified standard pullout test concluding that the fibers
bridged the cracks controlling their opening with progressive increase of load, thus
also promoting generation of multiple cracking with a commensurate increase of
bond strength.
Krstulovic-Opara et al. (1994) performed pullout tests of steel bars embedded in
three types of matrices: concrete, FRC and HPFRC. The FRC and HPFRC showed
increased bond strength and ductility in comparison to the plain concrete as a result of
the higher tensile strength and strain hardening behavior of the HPFRC; in the latter
case multiple cracking with smaller crack widths were developed. An interesting
finding was that the slip at bond strength was increased with increasing the tensile
strength and toughness of the cementitious matrix, also related to the cover thickness.
Kanakubo and Hosoya 2014 studied the bond-splitting strength of bars in SHCC
with a constant embedment length of 4 Db (Db=bar diameter) and a variable cover
thickness of 0.5, 1 and 1.5 Db. The maximum bond strength increased with increasing
cover thickness while the softening branch of the bond-slip curve had a mildly
reduced slope (compared to normal concrete). Asano and Kanakubo 2010 studied the
effect of the cover thickness (C/Db=0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2) and bar size (Db=10, 13, 16
and 22 mm) on bond strength of short anchorages (Lb=4 Db) deducting that the
descending slope of the post peak branch became larger as the maximum bond stress
increased while bond strength was enhanced with increasing cover thickness and
decreasing bar diameter. Most of the tests were conducted in a manner that introduces
compressive stresses close to the loaded end of the bars (thus compromising splitting
and spuriously affecting bond strength), while bars didn’t surpass the yielding
threshold. Taking the above into consideration no conclusive results for the bond-slip
relation of steel bars in SHCC are available so far.

DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

A series of 24 direct tension pullout (DTP) tests were conducted in order to

Rev. 02/2017
 investigate the primary variables affecting bond of steel bars in SHCC; these were the
bar diameter Db (8 and 10 mm deformed steel bars S500), the cover width (C/Db=1.2,
2.8, 3.2) and the embedment length Lb (50, 80 and 120 mm). Three tests were
performed for each combination (Table 1). The code name of specimens F12AiCj is
as follows: F12 denotes the fiber length (12 mm), letter A and B corresponds to the
bar size (8 and 10 mm bars were used, respectively), i is the embedded length (i=5, 8,
12 in cm) and Cj is the cover width (j=1, 2, 3 for C/Db=1.2, 2.8 and 3.2 respectively).

Table 1. Specimen combinations for F

pullout tests
Db Lb 260 mm
Specimen C/Db
(mm) (mm)

Lb
F12A5C1 8 1.2 50

50
F12A8C1 8 1.2 80
F12A12C1 8 1.2 120

Lb+50
F12A8C2 8 2.8 80

mm
F12A12C3 8 3.2 120
F12B5C1 10 1.2 50
F12B8C1 10 1.2 80
F12B12C1 10 1.2 120 F 2C+Db
Figure 1. Experimental setup for DTP.

The testing setup of the DTP is shown in Fig. 1 and it is a modification of

Chapman and Shah (1987) who originally developed a modified version of the
pullout test (Danish Standards Organization (1980)). The specimen comprised a
cementitious composite prism with a rectangular cross section. Two bars of the same
diameter were embedded back to back on the two opposite sides of the specimen with
embedment lengths of Lb and Lb+50 mm. Between the bars a distance of 50 mm was
left unreinforced. Thus, the length of the prism was equal to 2 Lb+100 mm. The
ability of the SHCC to sustain tensile loads is taken into consideration in determining
the width of the cross-section in order to ensure that the unreinforced composite in
the middle between the two bars will not fail in tension when the ultimate load of the
bar attains the yielding strength; under these considerations the width was chosen as
260 mm. The depth of the cross-section is determined as 2 C+Db.
During each test, the two bars were mounted on the clamps of the testing
machine. The bottom clamp acted as the fixed support whereas the top clamp
imposed the axial tensile load on the shorter bar. Three LVDTs were used to measure
displacement; one was mounted on the top bar, one on the top free surface of the
prism and one on the front surface of the prism at the end of the embedment length of
the shorter bar. The specimens were tested under displacement control with a velocity
of 2.5 μm/sec.
The composition of the SHCC used for the cementitious matrix was described in
detail in Georgiou and Pantazopoulou (2016) (mix M12C). Casting without any
vibration of the main specimens was transverse to the bar axis. After demolding, the
specimens were conditioned using wet sheets for a period of 100 days. Apart from the
24 specimens, additional material specimens, i.e. cylinders 100/200 and dogbone

Rev. 02/2017
specimens, were cast in order to measure uniaxial SHCC properties. Tensile strength
of the composite had an average value of 3 MPa (obtained from 3 samples) with a
maximum tensile strain prior to crack localization of 0.8 %, while the average
compressive strength was 50 MPa. Additionally, standard bar specimens were tested
under uniaxial tension with yielding / ultimate stress of 540 MPa / 600 MPa.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF THE PULLOUT TESTS

Modes of failure
A common form of bond failure of deformed bars in concrete is through splitting of
cover. Splitting occurs when cracks emanating from the bar ribs reach the concrete
free surface in the absence of inadequate confinement. When ribs translate with
respect to concrete, they impose radial tensile stresses to the surrounding media;
when their magnitude exceeds the tensile strength of concrete, splitting cracks occur
in planes radial to the bar axis. For the 24 DTP specimens, microcracks parallel to the
bar axis appeared on the nearest faces of the specimen (sides of minimum cover - see
vertical cracks in Fig. 2), however clear splitting failure did not occur in any
specimen because confinement provided by the fibers effectively arrested their
opening. The different cover thicknesses tested provided different confinement levels
and consequently different bond strengths for tests of identical embedment length.
Cone failure occurred close to the loaded end, as depicted in Fig. 2; this was observed
only in two specimens belonging to different subgroups (of the smaller cover),
therefore it cannot be considered a characteristic failure mode for the specific
embedded lengths or cover thicknesses.

a) b) c)

Figure 2. Cone-shaped failures of a) F12A5C1 and b), c) F12A12C1.

Specimens with the smaller cover thickness and embedment length developed a
frictional mode of failure: the bar pulled out from the SHCC prism, while the prism,
although cracked, remained intact. Upon ultimate load, transverse inclined cracks
were formed in the concrete between ribs and propagated until excessive slip
occurred. The crack evolution for the frictional mode of failure is depicted in Fig. 3.

cr

Bar axis

Figure 3. Evolution of crack formation for specimen F12A8C1.

Rev. 02/2017
 Figure 3 shows the typical crack evolution which represents the response of most
of the specimens that failed by pullout. First, fine longitudinal splitting cracks were
formed on both sides nearest to the bar (smallest cover) along the upper half of the
embedded length of the tested bar (shortest) as this part was the most stressed
segment. Subsequently, transverse and inclined cracking was observed around the
splitting crack, denoting that more of the SHCC mass is mobilized in tension
(effective tension area) to balance the gradually increasing bar tensile force.
Equilibrium is ensured due to the sustained tensile strength of the strain hardening
composite: its increased resistance at any crack location provided confinement
against crack opening thus leading the next crack to be formed at an adjacent
location. The inclined cracks form at an angle “cr” with respect to the bar axis
thereby indicating the vector direction of the principal compressive stresses exerted
from the rib tips and imposed on the surrounding media (angle “cr” varies along the
embedded length, having an more acute value near the front, more stressed part of the
bar, i.e. for a F12-A8-C1, the average value is cr =40o). After peak load, a milestone
event occurred, related to the shearing-off of the cementitious matrix between the
ribs, which marked the onset of bar pullout without further crack opening.
Specimens with the longer embedment lengths (120 mm) and wider cover
thickness demonstrated a different response: the bars overcame the yielding
threshold, developing stress in the hardening range – thus an increase of load was
witnessed to values beyond the axial force that corresponds to bar yielding,
Py=(Db2/4)fy). At that state, the sufficient anchorage length along with the increased
confinement provided by the thicker cover enabled the bond mechanism to exploit all
anchorage reserves thus uniformly transferring increased bond stresses (reaching up
to the bond strength) deeper in the anchorage towards the bar free end. However,
because bond reserves were not adequate to support the bar fracture strength, failure
by clear pullout occurred.
Figure 4 shows the progress of cracking for a yielded specimen. Splitting cracks
were generated near the loaded end of both bars (the test and the support), meaning
that the support bar was also activated, but at lower bond stress magnitudes owing to
its longer embedded length. A network of transverse cracks formed near the free end
of the shorter bar (a single one near the support bar) with spacing much wider than
what was seen in the associated prisms of thinner cover. The crack inclination angle
varied (cracks were steeper at distances closer to the loaded bar end).

Figure 4. Evolution of crack formation for specimen F12A12C3.

Bond-slip curves
Figure 5 plots the obtained relationship of average bond sress fb versus slip for all

Rev. 02/2017
tested specimens. The average bond-slip curves for the three specimens of each series
in Table 1 is ploted. Slip of the loaded end is defined herein as the differential
movement between the reinforcing bar and the free surface of the SHCC (i.e. the
difference LVDT2-LVDT1) by also extracting the elastic elongation el occurring
between the bar entrance point to the clamping position of LVTD2 on the bar
(distance ℓ). Therefore, s=LVDT2 - LVDT1 -el. In the case of non-yielded bars, the
free part’s elongation is el= ℓ, ε=P/(EsDb2/4). In the cases where bar surpassed
yielding (> εsy=0.0026), calculation of bar elongation is more complicated. Strain 
is calculated considering the end points of the hardening stress–strain branch; this
branch initiated at point (0.038, 539 MPa), whereas the end point corresponds to bar
rupture (0.15, 606 MPa). In the descending branch of the load–displacement
response, the loaded end of the bar would begin to unload following the elastoplastic
hysteretic behavior that characterizes steel reinforcement. The current strain could
be found from the point of maximum attained stress in the envelope, by following a
hysteresis unloading branch having a slope equal to the initial Modulus of Elasticity,
Es. At each load step, the average equivalent bond stress, fb (assuming uniform bond
stress distribution) is calculated from the applied load P values, by dividing with the
interfacial area over the embedment length as: fb = P/(πDbLb).

Figure 5. Average bond stress-slip curves for all tested specimens.

The diagrams of Fig. 5 show that by increasing the bond length the average bond
strength gradually decreases (for both bar diameters) when the cover is constant (see
curves with index C1). The increase of cover (compare F12A8C1 with F12A8C2 in
the plot to the left) results to almost doubling of strength. The compliance of the
anchorage is assessed in regards to slip; for the smaller cover thickness (C1),
irrespective of the bond length, the peak value of bond stress occurs at a slip sy of 1.2
mm, while for the covers C2 and C3 the associated slip values are 2.8 mm and 3.2
mm respectively. It is also evident that after a slip value in the order of a bar size
translation (suDb, 8-10 mm) the curves diminish to a residual bond strength of 2
MPa for the thinner cover and of 4 MPa for the thicker cover. All tests demonstrated
a slowly descending response between slip milestones so and su thus favoring the
bond toughness (area under the curve); the latter is attributed to the well-confined
conditions along the anchorage supported by the increased strain ductility of SHCC.

Estimation of splitting failure

Experimental bond strength values are plotted in Fig. 6 (a). For the estimation of the

Rev. 02/2017
splitting capacity of the cover, the maximum radial stress that may be developed is
related to the tensile stress capacity and cover thickness as shown in Fig. 6 (b) where
hoop tensile stresses hoop balance the radial component n of bond stresses exerted
from the rib tips on the surrounding media. For SHCCs of tensile strength fct, the
maximum radial stress n that may be sustained from the cover by developing
longitudinal splitting crack along the bar axis is (equilibrium at a plane crossing the
bar cross section):
Db  σ n  2  C  f ct (1a)
Considering inclined cracking of path pcr in each side of the thicker cover (estimated
as at least 3 Db, see Fig. 3) the corresponding equilibrium at a plane crossing the bar
length results to the:
Db  σ n  cos θ  pcr  f ct (1b)
Considering that the radial pressure n is associated with the bond stresses fb
along the bar axis (Fig. 6. b) through the cracking angle cr, thus tancr=n/fb then,
the maximum bond stress for each splitting failure, fbsplt, may be estimated as:
1 2C cos θcr pcr
long. splitting: f b  f ct , inclined splitting: f bsplt 
splt
f ct (2)
tan θcr Db tan θcr Db
The values of fbsplt extracted from Eq. 2 are also depicted in the bar chart of Fig. 6
(fct=3 MPa and average cr=40o). Using a strength-based approach, the failure that
prevailed in the experiment is the minimum of two values: the pullout bond strength
and the splitting failure bond strength. For the cases F12A5C1 and F12B5C1 where
splitting failure occurred, Eq. 2 gives a precise estimation of the splitting failure bond
strength.

a) b) Radial
cracking
n

C
σhoop Db

c) fct n
cr fb
F

pcr
Figure 6. a) Average bond strength from experiments and b) and c) stress state in
the cover for estimation of splitting and inclined splitting failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The experimental study presented in this paper documents the bond behavior of
deformed bars embedded in SHCC matrix and anchored in a tensile stress field. The
direct tension test setup considers bond to occur in the most adverse conditions,
where development of the bar force occurs in a cover that is also subjected to
longitudinal tension, as would happen in the tension zone of a beam. Parameters of

Rev. 02/2017
study were the diameter and the anchorage length of the bars, as well as the cover
thickness; the matrix comprised PVA-reinforced high fly ash content, fine-aggregate
concrete with a tensile strain capacity in the order of 1%. Ribs of the deformed bar
engage the SHCC matrix exerting inclined compression stresses. The radial
component creates splitting cracks parallel to the bar that lead to failure. The load at
which splitting cracks occur is related to bar diameter, cover width and tensile
strength of SHCC. Performance of anchorages in SHCC surpassed all possible
expectations – the cover contribution to development capacity of the bar was
sustained even in cases of small covers (C=Db) and up to excessive amounts of slip.
Clearly, the performance resembled that of confined anchorages, effected by the
sustained tensile strength of the SHCC owing to the action of the dispersed fibers.
Splitting cracks if they occurred (in the cases of small cover thickness) were hardly
visible and did not open to enable unrestrained passage of the bar as would occur in
normal concrete. Instead, pullout failure occurred in most cases – marked by the
formation of a sheared cylinder that was defined by the tips of the ribs – a
characteristic performance of confined anchorages. The experimental results obtained
for different covers and embedment lengths were used to evaluate the average bond; a
frictional-based mechanistic model to link radial with shear stresses at the bar-cover
interaction surface was also defined and used to evaluate the experimental results.

REFERENCES
Asano, K., Kanakubo, T. (2010). “Study on Size Effect in Bond Splitting Behavior of
ECC.” In HPFRCC 6, Parra-Montesinos, G.J., Reinhardt, H.W., and Naaman,
A.E., eds. RILEM, pp. 137–144.
Chao, S., Naaman, A.E., Parra-Montesinos, G. (2009). “Bond Behavior of
Reinforcing Bars in Tensile Strain-Hardening Fiber-Reinforced Cement
Composites.” ACI Struct. J., 106, 897–906.
Chapman, R., Shah, S. (1987). “Early-age bond strength in reinforced concrete.” ACI
Mater. J., 501–510.
Danish Standards Organization: Pull Out Test (DS 2082). (1980). Copenhagen,
Denmark.
FIB Model Code: Model Code (2010). Federation Internationale du Beton (fib).
Georgiou, A. V, Pantazopoulou, S.J. (2016). “Effect of Fiber Length and Surface
Characteristics on the Mechanical Properties of Cementitious Composites.”
Constr. Build. Mater., 125(10), 1216-1228.
Kanakubo, T., Hosoya, H. (2014). “Bond-Splitting Strength of Reinforced Strain-
Hardening Cement Composite Elements with Small Bar Spacing.” ACI Struct.
J., 189–198.
Krstulovic-Opara, N., Watson, K. a., LaFave, J.M.: Effect of increased tensile
strength and toughness on reinforcing-bar bond behavior.” Cem. Concr.
Compos., 16, 129–141 (1994).
Lee, S., Kang, S., Hai, K., Yang, E. (2016). “Experimental and analytical
investigation on bond-slip behaviour of deformed bars embedded in
engineered cementitious composites.” Constr. Build. Mater., 127, 494–503.
Tastani, S.P., Pantazopoulou, S.J. (2010). “Direct Tension Pullout Bond Test:
Experimental Results.” J. Struct. Eng., 136, 731–743.

Rev. 02/2017