Makni, Daoud, Karray, and Lorrain

3rd fib International Congress - 2010

TOWARDS A STANDARD PULL-OUT TEST SPECIMEN: GEOMETRICAL SPECIFICATIONS Moncef MAKNI, LGC, Institut Suprieur des Etudes Technologiques Sfax, Tunisia Atef DAOUD, LGC, Ecole Nationale dIngnieurs de Gabs, Tunisia Mohamed Ali KARRAY, LGC, Ecole Nationale dIngnieurs de Tunis, Tunisia Michel LORRAIN, LaSAGeC2, Institut National des Sciences Appliques de Toulouse, France

ABSTRACT The pull-out test, which is recommended by RILEM-FIB-ACI, is a simple method of assessing the bond between reinforcing bars and concrete, and understanding the influencing factors. In order to interpret easily the result of pullout test, some specifications of the specimen are proposed such as cover thickness, specimen height and anchorage length. The main objective of this project is to contribute to the production of a standard pull-out specimen. An experimental study was performed on a typical strength concrete, the diameter of the deformed bar was set at 12 mm. The results show that the failure mode of the specimen depends mainly on the cover thickness. The anchorage length seems to have no effect on the failure mode. A numerical analysis using the FE French Code CASTEM 2000 is proposed. The numerical results reproduce accurately the different failure modes observed experimentally. Keywords: Pullout Test, Failure Mode, Bond Strength, Cover Thickness, Anchorage Length.

Makni, Daoud, Karray, and Lorrain INTRODUCTION

3rd fib International Congress - 2010

Abrams1 said "During the past decade numerous bond tests have been reported. These tests have been characterized by a lack of uniformity in the form of the test specimen and in the methods of conducting the tests as well as by the wide variations in the values reported for bond resistance". CEB2 retained 3 types of bond tests: pull-out test, double pull-out test, beam test. Pull-out test as defined in the tentative recommendations of RILEM3 is the most used test for evaluating the bond strength. Because of its simplicity, it offers the possibility to understand the influencing parameters and represents clearly the concept of bar anchoring. Some objections to the pull-out test are formulated as the following by Cairns4. Firstly, the loading of the bar places concrete in compression and the bar in tension. Secondly, the specimen provides high confinement/splitting resistance (concrete cover expressed by multiple bar diameter) which is higher than the minimum cover in a beam. Thirdly, the interpretation of results for short bond lengths depends on further analysis to obtain correlations with structural performance. The double pull-out test presents the disadvantage of producing the concrete cracking between the two edges of the bars before bond failure; such test is more closely related to the control of cracking and deformation. Although the beam test presents the geometry and the nearest behavior to reality (bar and concrete in tension) this test remains rather heavy and does not allow a good analysis of the results. Since Abrams1, many researchers have conducted investigations on bond behavior using different bond test procedures e.g. by Gambarova5. The question of why not using standard bond test was asked by Cairns3 who summarized the same report on the issue as postulated by Abrams1 in 1913. A standard test should not be more complex or extensive than necessary. Actually, direct pull-out test is the most used bond test in the world. We can retain this test as a "standard" test but by carrying out a revision on the geometrical specifications of the specimen. We can distinguish two modes of specimen failure of deformed bars in this test as mentioned by Tepfers6: (1) local crushing of concrete in front of the bar ribs, and/or (2) splitting of the concrete due to radial cracks around the bar. Local crushing dominates when the confinement provided by either surrounding concrete or transverse reinforcement is large and/or the rib height is small. This mechanism of bond failure tends to be ductile and does not cause much size-effect. Splitting of the concrete dominates when the confinement is small and/or the rib height is large. This mechanism is brittle and can be a significant cause of size-effect. The second failure mode cannot be controlled and specimen splitting can happen at any phase of the test. In this case the evaluation of the ultimate bond stress does not have any physical signification.

Makni, Daoud, Karray, and Lorrain

3rd fib International Congress - 2010

According to the CEB, FIP, MC 907, there are 10 parameters influencing bond as recapitulated in Table 1. Related rib area, listed by ACI 408 committee8 as a main factor, has been shown to have a significant effect on bond performance. Table 1 Parameters influencing bond in [CEB FIP MC 90, 1993] Materials properties Concrete strength, bar type, casting position Confinement Cover, secondary reinforcement, lateral pressure Form Hooks and bends, welded transverse bars, related rib area Size Large bar diameters fct, 1, 2 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 6 3

As bond tests will be carried out on single straight bar, the 'Form' parameters may be excluded. To have a simple test, the confinement is taken into account only by the cover. The bar size can be chosen to represent typical main longitudinal steel. The main objective of this paper is to study the effects of some parameters on the failure mode of the pull out test specimen. We have chosen the concrete cover, specimen height and anchorage length as influencing parameters. However, we have not varied the bar parameters (diameter and related rib area) which will be the subject of a later investigation. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION The current test program needs to include the following components: 1. A 25/30 Concrete, using a local materials, is selected to be used in this investigation. Supplementary concrete strength can be used; 2 .The anchorage length ranges between 2 to 7 times the bar diameter; 3. Bar size: 12 mm bars were selected to represent typical main longitudinal steel; 4. Bar shape: round bars were investigated to represent main longitudinal steel; 5. Specimen cover: 12 cm-long specimens represent 10 times the bar diameter, with diameters ranging from 5 to 16 cm was selected; 6. Bar surface roughness: deformed bars were chosen to simulate typical main longitudinal steel. Bars with different roughness geometry will be investigated; A total of 28 cylindrical pullout specimens were tested within the current investigation. A minimum of three replicate specimens were cast within a group to determine the main value and standard deviation of test results with reasonable accuracy.

USED MATERIALS CONCRETE The concrete cast had a 25 MPa compressive strength. The maximum aggregate size is 20 mm to ensure that minimum concrete cover is at least three times the aggregate size. CEM I 42.5 Portland cement was used without admixtures. The concrete proportioning is given in

Makni, Daoud, Karray, and Lorrain

3rd fib International Congress - 2010

Table 2. All specimens were cured under similar conditions with an average temperature of 21 C and 24% relative humidity. Table 2: Concrete proportioning Grade of Cement (CEM I 42,5) Concrete
C25/30
Kg/m 400
3

Crushed Gravel
Kg/m
3

Sand (washed)
Kg/m 778
3

Water
l/m
3

1118

223

REINFORCING STEEL Hot-rolled and naturally hard steel, named TUNSID42 and having nominal yield strength of 420 MPa was used in all specimens (Figure 1). The surface roughness of each bar was characterized by the maximum height of profile, calculated as the distance between the highest peak and the deepest valley on the bar surface. The ratio of bearing area to shearing area was determined using the following relation:

SR =

k Fr sin c1

(1)

In this expression, SR corresponds to the related rib area; k is the number of the ribs on the perimeter; Fr is the surface of a rib; is the angle between the rib and the longitudinal axis of the reinforcement; c1 corresponds to the spacing of the ribs; and is the internal diameter of the deformed bar. The following Table shows the properties of the used reinforcing steel Table 3: Geometrical properties of reinforcing steel
k 1 Fr 19,625 mm 60 11 mm c1 8 mm SR 0,06

Fig. 1: Bar geometry SPECIMEN PREPARATION AND TESTING The test specimens were prepared in the following manner. First the steel bar was cut to length 40 cm to cast the concrete forms, PVC tubs were cut to a length of 40 cm and two donuts were cut from 8mm plywood. The outside of the donuts was the inside diameter of the PVC tube and the inside diameter of the donuts was the diameter of the rebar. Spacer blocks separated the two donuts. The rebar was placed in the center of the two donuts and the donuts

Makni, Daoud, Karray, and Lorrain

3rd fib International Congress - 2010

placed inside the PVC tube. To provide a non-adhering part in the concrete, a PVC pipes were cut to a length of the half-height of the specimen and placed around the rebar (figure 2). This formwork provides cylindrical specimens cast in the loading direction, and cased bearing faces (figure 4). The testing setup (shown in figure 5) and the procedures are essentially identical to the classic pull-out test in which a Linear Variable Differential Transducer (LVDT) with a 0 to 10mm range secured in a tripod on the unloaded end of the specimen surface recorded bar slips that were archived electronically with the load readings was used. Loading rate is chosen equal to 0,2kN/s (in accordance with the standard ACI9).

Fig.2 Plywood donuts PVC pipe and steel bar in place

Fig.3 PVC tub placed over plywood Donuts

Fig.4 Specimen after casting

RESULTS

Fig.5 Test setup

The results are presented as following: PULL-OUT LOAD VERSUS SLIP CURVE We present in the figure 6 and 7 two typical curves of the pull-out load versus slip.

Makni, Daoud, Karray, and Lorrain

3rd fib International Congress - 2010

50 45 40 35 L o a d (k N )
Load (kN)

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
0 0,5 1 Slip (mm) 1,5 2
S223

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 S133

4 Slip (mm)

Fig. 6: Typical curve for local crushing failure mode

Fig. 7: Typical curve for splitting crack failure mode

Two failure modes have been observed: Local crushing of concrete in front of the bar ribs allowing a pull-out failure as shown in figure 6 and 8. Brittle splitting of concrete due to radial cracks around the bar (figure 7): we can distinguish three cracks pattern within this failure mode: 2radial cracks (figure 9), 3 radial cracks (figure 10) and four radial cracks (figure 11). We can observe, also, in the interfacial zone a start of the local crushing of concrete.

Fig.8 : Pull-out failure

Fig.9 : Splitting failure: 2 radial cracks

Makni, Daoud, Karray, and Lorrain

3rd fib International Congress - 2010

Figure 10 : Splitting failure: 3 radial cracks

Figure 11 : Splitting failure: 4 radial cracks

CONCRETE COVER EFFECT The fig.12 presents the variation of the maximum pull-out load with specimen radius to bar diameter ratio. We can deduce that the failure mode of the specimen change for c = 5 . The

confinement provided by either surrounding concrete is large for

greater than 5. Thats

why we observe a pull-out failure. So, we can evaluate the maximum bond stress. The splitting failure mode is observed when the confinement is small. This failure mode can't be controlled and specimen splitting can happen at any phase of the test. As we can see in table 4 below, the maximum bar slip for the splitting failure specimen is lower than the one for the pull-out failure specimen. The splitting occurs in the ascending branch of the pull-out load versus slip curve (figure 7). In this case the evaluation of the ultimate bond stress hasnt any physical signification. So, we must avoid this failure mode to appreciate the bond performance.
45 40 Maximum load (kN) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3
C/

Splitting failure Pull-out failure

Fig. 12 : Maximum load versus specimen radius/bar diameter

Makni, Daoud, Karray, and Lorrain

3rd fib International Congress - 2010

EMBEDDED LENGTH EFFECT In table 4, we recapitulate the experimental results. Table 4 Experimental results Specimen Anchorage C/ identification length (mm S111 2,875 34 S112 2,875 34 S113 2,875 34 S121 3,916 48 S122 3,916 48 S123 3,916 48 S131 5,583 67 S132 5,583 67 S133 5,583 67 S141 6,650 80 S142 6,650 80 S143 6,650 80 S211 2,875 60 S212 2,875 60 S213 2,875 60 S221 3,916 60 S222 3,916 60 S223 3,916 60 S231 5,583 60 S232 5,583 60 S233 5,583 60 S241 6,650 60 S242 6,650 60 S243 6,650 60 S1 4,985 60 S2 4,985 60 S3 4,985 60 S4 4,985 60 Slip (mm) 0,361 0,149 0,134 0,869 0,850 0,349 1,208 / 1,313 / 1,602 1,692 / 0,132 0,171 0,581 0,430 0,449 1,340 1,094 1,128 0,901 0,981 / / 1,201 1,255 /

F max(KN) 17,330 20,620 19,020 35,910 33,900 30,880 49,150 41,190 44,600 31,160 29,020 30,770 25,260 25,140 24,550 37,710 37,050 38,240 32,920 35,630 30,570 35,890 31,560 34,400 31,160 34,950 40,560 37,180

Failure mod Splitting Splitting Splitting Splitting Splitting Splitting Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out Splitting Splitting Splitting Splitting Splitting Splitting Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out

Makni, Daoud, Karray, and Lorrain

3rd fib International Congress - 2010

We can distinguish particularly the effect of embedded length on the specimen failure (so the specimen height). The embedded length seems to have no incidence on the failure mode.

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

A numerical analysis using the FE French Code CASTEM 2000 is proposed. An axisymetric computation has been carried out to investigate the cover thickness effect on the failure mode of the pull-out test specimen Daoud and al,10. The Mazars11 isotropic damage model is used for concrete. We use an elastic perfectly- plastic model for steel bar. A perfect contact is supposed between steel and concrete. c Figure 13 shows the crack pattern in the concrete for various ratios. We can easily see that

the damage area to cover thickness ratio decreases with the increase of reproduces accurately the experimental results.

ratio. This analysis

Damage scale

= 2,875

= 3,916
c

= 4,985

= 5,583

= 6,65

Fig. 13: Effect of

ratio on the crack pattern on the pull-out test specimen

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

An experimental investigation on the pull out test specimen has been carried out in order to produce a standard test. Based on the experimental results we can formulate the following conclusions:

Makni, Daoud, Karray, and Lorrain -

3rd fib International Congress - 2010

The failure mode of the pull-out test specimen depends on cover thickness. c = 5 seems to be the minimal ratio to produce a pull-out failure.

The embedded length seems to have no incidence on the failure mode.

A numerical analysis has been carried out reproducing accurately the minimal cover thickness observed experimentally. Various concrete strength and different bar roughness should be investigated in order to generalize the geometrical characteristics of the pull-out test specimen.

REFERENCES

1.Abrams, D. A., "Tests of Bond Between Concrete and Steel," University of Illinois Bulletin No. 71, University of Illinois, 1913, 240 pp. 2.Comit Europen du Bton (CEB), adhrence Ancrage- dformations , Bulletin dinformation N=48, avril (compte rendu de la 9me session plnire ANKARA SEP 1964), (1965) 3.RILEM, "Essai portant sur ladhrence des armatures du bton : essai par traction ", Materials and structures, vol. 3, n 15, 1973 4.Cairns J., Plizzari G.A., Do we need a standard test for bond, Bond in concrete-From research to standards, Budapest, pp259-266, 2002 5.Gambarova P., Plizzari G.A., Balazs G.L., Bigaj-vanVliet A., Cairns J. et al., fib, Bulletin 10, Bond of reinforcement in concrete, Chapter 1, Bond mechanics including pull-out and splitting failures, pp1-97, Lausanne, 2000 6. Tepfers R., Cracking of concrete cover along anchored deformed reinforcing bars, Magazine of Concrete Research; 31(106):312, 1979 7.CEB-FIP Model Code (1991), Bulletin d'information du CEB n203-204-205, Final Draft 8.ACI 408.2R-92 State-of-the-art Report on Bond under Cyclic loads , Detroit, Mich. Amerrican Concrete Institute, 1992. 9. ACI Committee 318, Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary (ACI 318-05/ACI 381R-05). Detroit, Michigan (USA): American Concrete Institute; 2005. 10.Atef Daoud, Christian Laborderie, Michel Lorrain, A simple bond model for predicting the behavior of steel-concrete interface, Advances in Geomaterials and Structures, Hammamet, Tunisia, 2008 11.Mazars J., Application de la mcanique de lendommagement au comportement non linaire et la rupture du bton de structure, Thse de doctorat dtat, Universit de PARIS VI, 1984

10