ANALYTICAL APPROACH TO MODELING THE EFFECT OF

TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT ON THE BOND

STRENGTH OF DEFORMED BARS

MSc Research Proposal

By

ABRAHAM KEFLEGN AND CHERINET TARIKU

Advisor: TESFAYE ALEMU (PhD)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

MASTER'S ON STUCTURAL ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF CIVIL AND ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING

ADDIS ABABA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

UNIVERSITY

September, 2019
Abstract

The bond strength of deformed bars has been widely concerned owing to its importance

in calculating development and/or splice lengths. Many database-independent analytical

models were proposed to evaluate bond strength of deformed bars for their wider

application.

In these models, however, the effects of transverse reinforcements which greatly affect

bond strength were not fully considered. Therefore, an analytical approach will be

presented in this study to model such effects on the bond strength between deformed bars

and concrete.

The proposed model could be established by considering rebar-concrete surface

characteristics and confinement around the rebar. The bond strength and bond failure

mode of deformed bars can be predicted using the proposed model when geometrical and

material properties of concrete cover, bar diameter, and layout of transverse

reinforcements are known.

Furthermore, the proposed model will be verified by the tested data with respect to

various levels of confinement. The results will be expected to show that the proposed

model could be more appropriate for predicting bond strengths of specimens confined

with transverse reinforcements by making a comprehensive comparison with the selected

empirical models.

Keywords: Bond strength; deformed bars; Confinement; Transverse reinforcement;

Analytical model.

i
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iii
List of acronyms ................................................................................................................ iv
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Back ground of the study ........................................................................................ 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 2

1.3 Objective .................................................................................................................. 3

1.3.1. General objective ............................................................................................. 3

1.3.2. Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 3

1.4. Research Questions ................................................................................................. 4

1.5. Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 4

1.6. Scope and Limitation of the study........................................................................... 5

2. Literature Review............................................................................................................ 6

2.1. Theoretical Model for Predicting Bond Strength .................................................... 6

2.1.1. Effect of Confinement on Bond Failure Mode and Bond Strength ................. 6

2.1.2. Bond Strength for Pull-Out Failure ................................................................. 8

2.1.3. Bond Strength for Splitting Failure ................................................................. 9

2.2. Proposed Partially Cracked Model ........................................................................ 10

2.2.2. Contribution of Concrete Cover .................................................................... 11

2.2.3. Contribution of Transverse Reinforcement ................................................... 12

3. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 13
4. Expected outputs ........................................................................................................... 15
5. Work plan...................................................................................................................... 16
6. Budget .......................................................................................................................... 17
Reference .......................................................................................................................... 18

ii
List of Tables

Table 6.1 Estimated budget……………………………………….……………………. 16

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Relationship between the bond strength and confinement for deformed bars…...7
Fig. 2.2 Schematic for the bond in (a) pull-out failure; and (b) splitting failure. ............... 8
Fig.2.3. Simplification for effect of transverse reinforcements. ....................................... 10
Fig.2.4. Distribution of tensile strain in concrete cover for (a) < ; and (b)
≥ .................................................................................................................................. 11
Fig.2.5. Tensile resistance provided by transverse reinforcements for (a) < ; and
(b) ≥ . ..................................................................................................................... 12
Fig.3.1. Flow chart for calculating the maximum internal radial pressure …….….13

iii
List of acronyms

= distance from center of deformed bar to axis of transverse reinforcement;

= minimum depth of concrete cover;
= cohesion of concrete;
= diameter of deformed bar;
= diameter of transverse reinforcement;
= elastic modulus of concrete;
= tensile strength of concrete;
= compressive strength of concrete;
= rib height of deformed bar;
= embedded length;
= normal stresses induced on inclined surface of wedging concrete;
= radial compressive stress provided by uncracked concrete;
= internal radial pressure;
= thickness of cracked concrete;
= distance from bar/concrete bond interface to position of free strain in concrete;
= radius of deformed bar;
= relative slip between transverse reinforcement and concrete;
= rib width of deformed bar;
= rib spacing of deformed bar;
= spacing for transverse reinforcements;
, = bond force for pull-out and splitting failure;
= tangential stresses induced on inclined surface of wedging concrete;
α = inclined angle of the wedging concrete;
= tensile strain of concrete;
= frictional coefficient of concrete; and
= tensile stress of concrete

iv
1. Introduction

1.1. Back ground of the study

The bond strength of deformed bars embedded in concrete has been an area of concern
for several decades owing to its importance in determining an adequate development
/splice length which ensures the debonding does not happen prior to other failures [ACI
Committee 408 (ACI 2003)].Since the 1950s, extensive experimental research (Chinn et
al.1955; Darwin et al. 1992, 1996a,b; Darwin and Graham 1993; Eligehausen et al. 1983;
Engstrom et al.1998; Ferguson and Breen,1965; Ferguson and Thompson,1962; Hamad
and Najjar,2002; Harajli and Mabsout,2002; Kemp and Wilhelm,1979; Losberg and
Olsson,1979; Maeda et al. 1995; Orangun et al. 1977; Plizzari et al. 1998; Viwathanatepa
et al. 1979; Walker et al. 1997; Zuo and Darwin,2000) have been conducted to suggest
bond strength models for deformed bars. These empirical models, most of which were
expressed in simple formats, can be easily employed to predict the bond strength of
deformed bars by considering several effects, including the material properties of
concrete (Darwin et al. 1992; Eligehausen et al. 1983; Ferguson and Thompson
1962;Kemp and Wilhelm,1979; Orangun et al. 1977; Zuo and Darwin,2000), surface
characteristics and coating conditions of rebar (Darwin et al. 1996a, b; Darwin and
Graham,1993; Ferguson and Thompson,1962; Losberg and Olsson,1979; Reinhardt and
Van der Veen,1992), and confinements provided by transverse reinforcements (Engstrom
et al. 1998; Hamad and Najjar,2002; Maeda et al. 1995; Plizzari et al. 1998). On the other
hand, since these models or equations were generally established based on regressions of
test results from one or more specific databases, they are difficult to give a reasonably
accurate prediction for cases out of the database (Wu and Chen,2015). Consequently,
many efforts were made to overcome the insufficiency of these empirical studies, and
some mechanics-based models (Cairns,1979; Cairns and Jones,1995; Choi and Choi,2017;
Choi and Lee,2002; Den Uijl and Bigaj,1996; Tepfers,1979; Wang and Liu,2003; Wu and
Chen ,2015) were proposed accordingly.
Several theoretical models were proposed to study the bond behavior between the
deformed bar and concrete based on the hydraulic pressure analogy (Den Uijl and Bigaj,

1
1996; Tepfers,1979; Wang and Liu,2003). With pulling out of deformed from concrete
cylinder, the propagation process of splitting cracks was of concern in these models.
Accordingly, the ultimate bond strength would be determined when the concrete cover
failed by splitting. Since the splitting failure of concrete cover is affected by the concrete
constitutive law, both elastic and elastoplastic models were proposed to investigate the
bond strength between deformed bars and concrete (Nielsen and Bi´ cani´c,2002;
Reinhardt and Van der Veen,1992;Tepfers,1979). In addition, the bearing angle has a
significant effect on the relationship between bond resistance and bursting pressure
applied on the thick-walled cylinder so that these models highly depended on the value of
the bearing angle (Eligehausen et al.1983; Tepfers ,1979; Wang and Liu ,2003).
In addition to the aforementioned theoretical approaches, some models were also
presented by taking into account rebarconcrete interfacial properties (Cairns,1979; Cairns
and Jones, 1995; Choi and Choi ,2017; Choi and Lee, 2002). The mechanical properties
of concrete in front of ribs are mainly of concern in these models, which considered the
effect of the surface characteristic of rebar on the bond behavior. As a result, the
equations of bond strength can be given to determine the various bond failure modes,
including the crush of concrete in front of rib (i.e., splitting failure) and pull-out of
concrete cone between ribs (i.e., pull-out failure).
Compared with the experimental results, the predicted results of bond strength using
hydraulic pressure analogy-based and rebar-concrete interfacial properties-based models
could be overestimated and underestimated. It is mainly because of some important
factors (e.g., the effect of confinement and rebar-concrete interface properties) were not
considered simultaneously in these models.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of transverse reinforcements greatly
affects the bond failure mode and bond strength of deformed bars ; however, such effect
has not been fully considered in these existing theoretical models.
Therefore, Wu and Chen (2015) proposed a unified model to predict bond strength of
deformed bars by taking account the effects of confinement and rebar-concrete interface

2
properties. By comparing with different test data sets, this model has been verified to
have a more accurate prediction on the bond strength in the case of splitting failure.
Moreover, experimental results showed that bond failure modes were closely related to
the confinement of deformed bars (Eligehausen et al. 1983; Kemp and Wilhelm,1979).
Since the equations were established with respect to the specified failure modes, the
application of the available theoretical models is limited when the failure mode would be
changed under various transverse reinforcements.
Both the rebar-concrete interfacial properties and confinement around the rebar will be
considered in the analytical model. The bond strength and the bond failure mode can be
evaluated for deformed bars using the proposed model.
Finally, the model will be verified by taking a comparison between the predicted results
and the tested data from other researchers, and its advantage will be presented by
carrying out a prediction accuracy analysis between the analytical and existing empirical
models.

1.3 Objective

1.3.1. General objective

To develop an improved analytical approach to predict the bond strength of deformed

bars embedded in concrete such as the confinement provided by transverse
reinforcements.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

 To determine the effect of confinement provided by transverse reinforcements that

affects the bond failure mode and bond strength of deformed bars
 To determine the effect of confinement and rebar-concrete interface properties around
the rebar in the analytical model.
 To evaluate the bond strength of deformed bars confined with transverse
reinforcements using the proposed model.
 To evaluate the bond failure mode for deformed bars confined with transverse
reinforcements using the proposed model.

3
1.4. Research Questions

 How to determine the effect of confinement provided by transverse reinforcements

that affects the bond failure mode and bond strength of deformed bars?
 How to affect the analytical model considering of the effect of confinement and rebar-
concrete interface properties around the rebar?
 How to evaluate the bond strength of deformed bars confined with transverse
reinforcements using the proposed model?
 How to evaluate the bond failure mode for deformed bars confined with transverse
reinforcements using the proposed model?
 How to compared the predicted results with test data, and compared with the ones
from the selected empirical models?

1.5. Significance of the Study

This research is very much important for the researchers and designers because it will
improve the study are specified to an analytical approach to predict the bond strength of
deformed bars by considering the effect of transverse reinforcements.
 To know confinement provided by transverse reinforcements greatly affects the bond
failure mode and bond strength of deformed bars;
 To have a better understanding on the prediction of the bond strength of deformed bars
embedded in concrete such as the confinement provided by transverse reinforcements.
 To know the bond strength and bond failure mode of deformed bars can be predicted
using the proposed model when geometrical and material properties of concrete cover,
bar diameter, and layout of transverse reinforcements are known.

4
1.6. Scope and Limitation of the study

This study will be developed an analytical approach to predict the bond strength of
deformed bars by considering the effect of transverse reinforcements.
The limitation of this study based on the test results from different data sets and accuracy
will not be generalizable of some existing empirical models presents to evaluate the bond
strength for deformed bars by considering the contribution of transverse reinforcements
Reinforced concrete beam.
The proposed model will be verified with test data, and the predicted results should be
compared with the ones from the selected empirical models for deformed bars confined
with and without transverse reinforcements to show the advantage of this model. It is
expected that the investigation will be carried out in this study can provide a more
appropriate method to evaluate the bond strength of deformed bars confined with
transverse reinforcements.

5
2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Model for Predicting Bond Strength

2.1.1. Effect of Confinement on Bond Failure Mode and Bond Strength

The wedging action was widely adopted to reveal the bond mechanism between
deformed bars and concrete (Choi and Lee, 2002; Kemp and Wilhelm,1979). When the
slip of rebar occurred, the concrete in front of deformed ribs is gradually compacted and
further acts as a wedge, resulting in a bursting force for the surrounding concrete. Such
bursting pressure provides the hoop tensile stress in concrete cover and leads to the
propagation of transverse cracks. These transverse cracks would propagate throughout
the concrete cover if the thickness of concrete cover or spacing between two bars is
sufficiently small. Thereafter, the bond between rebar and concrete may be invalid due to
the splitting failure in the concrete cover. In this manner, the splitting failure could be
delayed by increasing the confinement of the rebar, which provides higher bond strength.
In general, the confinement comes from the sufficient depth of concrete cover and
additional transverse reinforcement. The concrete between ribs could be gradually
crushed with the sliding of the deformed bar if the confinement is large enough to resist
the wedging action. As a result, the pull-out bond failure would occur when the concrete
keys are all sheared off along the embedded length. It should be noted that the bond
resistance mainly depends on material properties of concrete in the case of pull-out
failure, which is caused by shearing of concrete between deformed ribs. This means that
the bond strength is hardly enhanced by increasing the confinement when pull-out failure
occurs.
Accordingly, the relationship between the bond strength and confinement with respect to
different failure modes is illustrated in Fig. 2.1. With the increase of confinement, the
variations of bond strength are represented by solid and dashed lines for splitting and
pull-out failures, respectively. The intersect point between the two lines denotes the
critical status (i.e., the bond failure mode transfers from splitting of concrete to pull-out
of deformed bar). Fig.2.1 shows that the bond strength of deformed bars increases with
confinement until the pull-out failure occurs.

6
Thereafter, the bond strength remains constant regardless of the level of confinement.
The bond strengths with respect to splitting and pull-out failures can be calculated,
respectively, in which the smaller one would be selected to determine the real failure
mode. For example, the bond strengths under confinements A and B are marked using
pentagrams in Fig.2.1. Hereinafter, the bond mechanism between deformed bars and
concrete is analyzed, and the

Fig. 2.1. Relationship between the bond strength and confinement for deformed bars.

7
Fig. 2.2 Schematic for the bond in (a) pull-out failure; and (b) splitting failure.
Theoretical expressions of bond strength for splitting and pull-out failures are proposed,
respectively.
Moreover, the bond strength of deformed bars mainly depends on the compressive
strength of surrounding concrete, and it will keep constant even though the confinement
varies. The assumption is verified by the experimental observations that the bond strength
of deformed bars was slightly increased by applying active confinement for pull-out
failure (Torre-Casanova et al. 2013;Untrauer and Henry,1965).

2.1.2. Bond Strength for Pull-Out Failure

Choi and Choi (2017) found that the shear stress can lead to failure when it overcame the
shear strength of concrete and accordingly proposed an analytical model of bond strength
aiming at this failure. A potential shear crack was first assumed, and the concrete cone
with an angle was isolated in their model. Based on this geometry, the equilibrium

8
relationship between shear-friction action and bearing resistance provided by deformed
ribs can be established.
It should be noted that this model is not convenient in practice because the bearing angle
is complicated to be determined (Choi and Choi, 2017). Therefore, a simplified model
will be presented in this study by assuming that the shearing surface of concrete between
deformed ribs is parallel to the axis of deformed bars when pullout failure occurs. The
schematic of such bond failure is shown in Fig. 2.2(a). It is much easier for application
compared to provided by Choi and Choi (2017) because the parameter of bearing angle is
not introduced. This simplification is reasonable according to the test observation in
which the concrete keys between ribs were generally sheared off when pull-out failure
occurred [ACI Committee 408 (ACI 2003)]. Moreover, it can be seen from a simplified
model that the bond strength of deformed bars mainly depends on the compressive
strength of surrounding concrete, and it will keep constant even though the confinement
varies. The assumption is verified by the experimental observations that the bond strength
of deformed bars was slightly increased by applying active confinement for pull-out
failure (Torre-Casanova et al. 2013;Untrauer and Henry, 1965).

2.1.3. Bond Strength for Splitting Failure

In the case of bond fails caused by concrete splitting, as shown in Fig. 2.2(b), a small
piece of concrete is compacted by the rib and acts as a wedge which results in a pressure
on the surrounding concrete.
The bond strength models of deformed bars were also suggested by Choi and Choi (2017)
for splitting failure. The equations in their research, were different from a different bond
failure mechanism will be considered in this study. The crushed concrete in front of rib
was regarded as a rigid body, so that the bond failure plane can be determined as shown
in Fig. 2.2(b). Upon this viewpoint, the actions induced on the inclined and horizontal
parts of the failure plane.

9
2.2. Proposed Partially Cracked Model

2.2.1Effect of Transverse Reinforcements

According to the bond resistance for the splitting failure, the bond resistance is
proportional to the maximum internal radial pressure. From existing theoretical studies
(Den Uijl and Bigaj,1996; Tepfers,1979; Wang and Liu,2003), the radial pressure
increases with increasing of the confinement provided by the surrounding concrete. In
this study, the effect of transverse reinforcements on the radial pressure could be
analyzed based on the partially cracked thick-walled cylinder model (Tepfers,1979;
Wang and Liu, 2003).
As shown in Fig.2.3, the confinement provided by the transverse reinforcement is
simplified as a hoop effect in the model, where denotes the distance from the center of
the deformed bar to the axis of transverse reinforcement.
In practice, the reinforcing bar is placed next to the stirrup, so that should be
calculated as the sum of radii of reinforcing bar and stirrup. Thus, the internal radial
pressure can be expressed , where is the radius of the deformed bar and is equal to
0.5D

Fig.2.3. Simplification for effect of transverse reinforcements.

10
 2.2.2. Contribution of Concrete Cover
Case 1
In this case, the crack does not initiate at bar/concrete interface, and the concrete remains
elastic without crack development in the concrete cover. Thus, the concrete cover can be
calculated where the hoop tensile stress of concrete and can be determined from the
tensile stress-strain relationship of concrete .
The distribution of tensile strain in concrete cover is shown in Fig. 2.4(a), in which a
linear distribution of concrete hoop strain along the radius is assumed. The concrete
hoop strain at radius can be calculated the distance from bar/concrete interface to the
position of free strain in concrete. As a result, the hoop tensile stress of concrete can be
obtained by once the hoop strains are known.
Case 2
In this case, the concrete cover is partially cracked, so that both contributions from
cracked and uncracked concrete should be considered in calculating the confinements
from the cracked and uncracked concrete, respectively. The distribution of tensile strain
of cracked concrete is shown in Fig.2.4(b). The hoop strain of cracked concrete can be
calculated based on the classic partial cracked thick-walled cylinder model (Wang and
Liu, 2003)

Fig.2.4. Distribution of tensile strain in concrete cover for (a) < ; and (b)
≥
Meanwhile the radial compressive stress provided by uncracked concrete, can be
obtained by (Tepfers ,1979; Wang and Liu, 2003).

11
 2.2.3. Contribution of Transverse Reinforcement

It should be noted that the current analysis could be simplified as a planar problem when
using the thick-walled cylinder model (Tepfers,1979). The lateral stress around the
deformed bar is regarded to be constant along the embedded length of the bar. This
assumption is reasonable for the contribution of concrete because the concrete cover
generally does not change along the embedded length.
However, the confinement of transverse reinforcements is not uniform along the
embedded length because the stirrups are placed at regular intervals in practice. Therefore,
a ratio of is introduced to consider such non uniform effect when discussing the
contribution of transverse reinforcements. Here, and are the diameter and spacing of
transverse reinforcements, respectively

Fig.2.5. Tensile resistance provided by transverse reinforcements for (a) < ; and
(b) ≥ .
, is the resistance provided by transverse reinforcements. As shown in Fig.2.5(a), a
perfect bond can be assumed between transverse reinforcement and surrounding concrete
when the hoop tensile strain of concrete at does not exceed . It is because the
concrete does not crack at the position of transverse reinforcement. At that moment , is
caused by the tensile elongation of transverse reinforcement. As shown in Fig.2.5(b),
splitting cracks extend to the position of transverse reinforcement when the hoop tensile
strain of concrete at exceeds . In this case, the relative slip between the concrete
and the transverse reinforcement should be considered.

12
3. Methodology

In this study, a total of 97 tested results will be selected from the existing to verify the
proposed model. These test data could be obtained from spliced or beam-end bond tests,
in which different confinements provided by concrete cover and transverse
reinforcements should be considered and several parameters should be provided to
determine the peak internal radial pressure a numerical method is implemented to
calculate in which the flow chart for the program is illustrated in Fig. 3.1.
Most of these parameters will be covered by the database, such as the bar diameter, rib
height, bond length, minimum cover depth, concrete strength, diameter, and spacing of
the transverse reinforcement. The tensile strength and elastic modulus of concrete,
however, were not given for all the cases. Thus, the two parameters will be determined
according to fib, 2010 (CEB-FIP, 2013) in this study.
Since plain round bars are generally adopted as transverse reinforcements, the following
local bond-slip relationship of plain bars (Wu et al. 2014) will be introduced to calculate
the tensile resistance provided by the transverse reinforcement. It can be seen from Fig.
3.1. Flow chart there is a reasonable agreement between the predicted results and the
experimental ones.

13
Fig. 3.1. Flow chart for calculating the maximum internal radial pressure .

14
4. Expected outputs

With all the parameters known, the bond strength and bond failure mode will be
predicted. The predicted bond strength ( ) will be compared with the experimental one
( ) by means of the prediction-over-test ratio.
 It can be expected that there will be a reasonable agreement between the predicted
results and the experimental ones.
 Expect Several factors, such as concrete strength, depth of concrete cover, and layout
of transverse reinforcements, play important roles in the prediction of the bond failure
mode.
 The increase of compressive strength of concrete, the bearing capacity of concrete for
pull-out bond resistance will be expected based on the proposed model could be always
greater than the splitting one for concrete with a relative high compressive strength.
 Besides the strength of concrete, the ratio of rib height to spacing, , will affects
the bond failure mode.
 The tensile stress-strain relationship of concrete will be bring it the current analysis is
probably too simplified to describe the properties of concrete accurately.
 The expected proposed model could be provide a wide application for predicting the
bond strength of deformed bars confined with transverse reinforcements by comparing
with the available empirical models.
 It is expected that the investigation will carried out in this study can provide a more
appropriate method to evaluate the bond strength of deformed bars confined with
transverse reinforcements.

15
5. Work plan
The activities to be done, and the corresponding time required during the study is expressed by Gantt chart.

Chart 5.1 Work schedule where, W =Week

16
6. Budget
The total cost of this research will be estimated to be 25,000.00 ETB. Detail cost of the
research is as shown in table below.
No Item Unit Quantity Rate(birr) Amount(birr)
1 Stationeries
Papers Package 3 200 600
photo copies Number 1,500 1 1,500
flash disk 932GB) Number 1 545 545
Blank CDs Number 4 20 80
Typing and printing Pages 500 3.15 1,575
2 Internet GB 15 100 1,500
3 personal computer Number 1 18,300.00 18,300
4 Transport cost Day 2 450 900
Grand Total ETB 25,000.00

Table 6.1 Estimated budget

17
Reference

ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2003. Bond and development of straight reinforcing
bars in tension. ACI 408R. Farmington Hills,MI: ACI.
Cairns, J., and K. Jones. 1995. “Influence of rib geometry on strength of lapped joints:
An experimental and analytical study.” Mag. Concrete Res.47 (172), pp. 253–262.
Chinn, J., P. M. Ferguson, and J. N. Thompson. 1955. “Lapped splices in reinforced
concrete beams.” ACI J. 52 (10), pp. 201–213.
Choi, O. C., and H. Choi. 2017. “Bearing angle model for bond of reinforcing bars in
concrete.” ACI Struct. J. 114 (1) ,pp. 245–253.
Choi, O. C., and W. S. Lee. 2002. “Interfacial bond analysis of deformed bars to
concrete.” ACI Struct. J. 99 (6) ,pp. 750–756.
Darwin, D., and E. K. Graham. 1993. “Effect of deformation height and spacing on bond
strength of reinforcing bars.” ACI Struct. J. 90 (6) ,pp. 646–657.
Darwin, D., L. Lutz, and J. Zuo. 2005. “Recommended provisions and commentary on
development and lap splice lengths for deformed reinforcing bars in tension.” ACI Struct.
J. 102 (6) ,pp. 892–900.
Darwin, D., S. L. McCabe, E. K. Idun, and S. P. Schoenekase. 1992.“Development length
criteria: Bars not confined by transverse reinforcement.” ACI Struct. J. 89 (6) ,pp.709–
720.
Darwin, D., M. L. Tholen, E. K. Idun, and J. Zuo. 1996a. “Splice strength of high relative
rib area reinforcing bars.” ACI Struct. J. 93 (1) ,pp.95–107.
Darwin, D., J. Zuo, M. L. Tholen, and E. K. Idun. 1996b. “Development length criteria
for conventional and high relative rib area reinforcing bars.” ACI Struct. J. 93
(3) ,pp.347–359.
Den Uijl, J. A., and A. J. Bigaj. 1996. “A bond model for ribbed bars based on concrete
confinement.” Heron 41 (3) ,pp. 201–226.
Eligehausen, R., E. P. Popov, and V. V. Bertero, ''Local bond stress slip relationships of
deformed bars under generalized excitations,'' Rep. No. UCB/EERC-82-23, Berkeley, CA:
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, 1983.

18
Engstrom, B., J. Magnusson, and Z. Huang. 1998. “Pull-out bond behavior of ribbed bars
in normal and high-strength concrete with various confinements.” ACI Spec. Publ.
180,pp.215–242.
Esfahani, M. R., and B. V. Rangan. 1998. “Local bond strength of reinforcing bars in
normal strength and high-strength concrete (HSC).” ACI Struct. J. 95(2) ,pp.96–106.
Ferguson, P. M., and J. E. Breen. 1965. “Lapped splices for high strength reinforcing
bars.” ACI J. 62 (9) ,pp.1063–1078.
Ferguson, P. M., and J. N. Thompson. 1962. “Development length of high strength
reinforcing bars in bond.”ACI J. 59 (7) ,pp.887–922.
Hamad, B., and S. Najjar. 2002. “Evaluation of the role of transverse reinforcement in
confining tension lap splices in high strength concrete.”Mater. Struct. 35 (4) ,pp. 219–228.
Harajli, M. H., and M. E. Mabsout. 2002. “Evaluation of bond strength of steel
reinforcing bars in plain and fiber-reinforced concrete.” ACI Struct. J. 99 (4) ,pp.509–517.
Kemp, E. L., and W. J. Wilhelm. 1979. “Investigation of the parameters influencing bond
cracking.” ACI J. 76 (1) ,pp. 47–72.
Losberg, A., and P. Olsson. 1979. “Bond failure of deformed reinforcing bars based on
the longitudinal splitting effect of the bars.” ACI J. 76 (1) ,pp.5–18.
Maeda, M., S. Otani, and H. Aoyama. 1995. “Effect of confinement on bond splitting
behavior in reinforced concrete beams.” Struct. Eng.Int. 5 (3) ,pp.166-171.
Nielsen, C. V., and N. Bi´ cani´ c. 2002. “Radial fictitious cracking of thick walled
cylinder due to bar pull-out.” Mag. Concr. Res. 54 (3) ,pp.215-221.
Orangun, C. O., J. O. Jirsa, and J. E. Breen. 1977. “A reevaluation of test data on
development length and splices.” ACI J. Proc. 74 (3) ,pp.114–122.
Pantazopoulou, S., and K. Papoulia. 2001. “Modeling cover-cracking due to
reinforcement corrosion in RC structures.” J. Eng. Mech. 127 (4) ,pp.342–351.
Plizzari, G. A., M. A. Deldossi, and S. Massimo. 1998. “Transverse reinforcement effects
on anchored deformed bars.” Mag. Concr. Res.50 (2) ,pp.161–177.
Reinhardt, H., and C. Van der Veen. 1992. “Splitting failure of a strain softening material
due to bond stresses.” In Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Reinforced Concrete,
edited by A. Carpinteri ,pp. 333–346,New York: Elsevier Applied Science.

19
Tepfers, R. 1979. “Cracking of concrete cover along anchored deformed reinforcing bars.”
Mag. Concrete Res. 31 (106) ,pp. 3–12.
Torre-Casanova, A., L. Jason, L. Davenne, and X. Pinelli. 2013. “Confinement effects on
the steel–concrete bond strength and pull-out failure.”Eng. Fract. Mech. 97,pp.92–104.
Untrauer, R. E., and R. L. Henry. 1965. “Influence of normal pressure on bond strength.”
J. Am. Concr. Inst. 62 (5) ,pp.577–586.
Viwathanatepa, S., E. P. Popov, and V. V. Bertero. 1979. Effects of generalized loadings
on bond of reinforcing bars embedded in confined concrete blocks. Rep. No.
UCB/EERC-79/22. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of
California Walker, P., M. Batayneh, and P. Regan. 1997. “Bond strength tests on
deformed reinforcement in normal weight concrete.” Mater. Struct. 30 (7) ,pp.424–429.
Wang, X., and X. Liu. 2003. “A strain-softening model for steel–concrete bond.” Cement
Concrete Res. 33 (10),pp.1669–1673.
Wu, C., and G. Chen. 2015. “Unified model of local bond between deformed steel rebar
and concrete: Indentation analogy theory and validation.” J. Eng. Mech. 141 (10):
04015038.
Wu, Y., and X. Zhao. 2012. “Unified bond stress-slip model for reinforced concrete.” J.
Struct.Eng. 139 (11) ,pp.1951–1962.
Wu, Z., X. Zhang, J. Zheng, Y. Hu, and Q. Li. 2014. “Bond behavior of plain round bars
embedded in concrete subjected to biaxial lateral tensile-compressive stresses.” J. Struct.
Eng. 140 (4): 04013089.
Zuo, J., and D. Darwin. 2000. “Splice strength of conventional and high relative rib area
bars in normal and high-strength concrete.” ACI Struct. J. 97 (4) ,pp. 630–641.

20