BOND

in Concrete
Engr. Ahsan

Presentation outline

Bond
Mechanism of Bond transfer
Development length
Tests on Bond
Influencing parameters
Bond in different types of concretes

Bond
Concrete being weak in tension requires services of
reinforcement to overcome that shortcoming.
In order to pass on tensile forces successfully to reinforcement
however it is essential that the good BOND between the two
material is present in the system.
Many researchers have studied the interface and also have
made efforts to improve BOND behavior of Reinforced
concrete members by playing with various parameters like
cover, relative rib area etc.

FBD
F = 0
-T1 uavg ..db.l + T2 = 0
-As . fs1 + As. fs2 = uavg ..db.l
(fs2 - fs1) As = uavg ..db.l
fs . /4. db2 = uavg ..db.l
uavg ..db.l = fs . /4. db2
uavg .l = fs . db /4
Source: [1]

For l = dx
4u/db= dfs/dx
Where u is the true bond stress acting in the length dx.
Bond stress at any point is proportional to the slope of the steel stress diagram at that same point.

Average bond stresses in beam in terms of Shear force

T = M/jd

T = uavg ..db. x
T = M/jd
M/x = uavg ..db . jd
uavg = V/ (.db)jd

True Bond stresses in Beam

Source: [1]

Mechanism of Bond Transfer

Smooth bar
Adhesion
Friction
Quickly lost due to Poisson's effect

Deformed bar
Adhesion
Friction
Mechanical interlock (Bearing on
deformations of bar)

Equal and opposite bearing stresses act on

concrete.
Forces on concrete have both longitudinal
and radial components.
Circumferential tensile stresses develop in
concrete due to radial components.
Eventually concrete splits once its tensile
capacity is reached.

Source: [1]

 The splitting cracks follow the

reinforcing bar along the bottom or side
surfaces of the beam
Once these cracks develop, the bond
transfer drops rapidly.
Splitting load is function of
Tensile strength of concrete
Average bond stress
Min. dist. from bar to concrete
surface or to next bar.
Pullout failure can occur if cover and
bar spacing are large.

Development length

the actual bond varies along the length of the bar anchored in zone of tension,
Because
the ACI code
uses concept of development length

The Development length , ld, is the shortest length of bar in which the bar stress can
increase from zero to the yield strength, fy.

ld
fs=
0

fs = f y

Distance lesser than ld will result in pull out failures.

Taking and
We have

Design expressions
ACI 318
The design provision for development and splice length of straight
reinforcement in tension are based on the expressions developed by
Orangun, Jirsa and Breen in year 1975-77

Source: [2]

Source: [3]

Comparison of design expressions

Source: [3]

Tests

Various test configurations are in practice.

Pullout specimens ( ASTM C234)
Widely used
Ease of fabrication
Simplicity of testing.
Least realistic stress state differs from most reinforced
concrete members.
Beam end specimens
Also known as modified cantilever beam
Relatively more realistic as bar and surrounding concrete
both are in tension.
Small length unbonded to prevent conical failure.
Specified in ASTM A 944
Transverse reinforcement can be added if its effect on bond is
desired.
Beam anchorage specimens
Large scale specimens.
Simulates specimens with flexural cracks
Known bonded length.

Splice specimens
Normally fabricated with splice in constant moment region.
Simple in fabrication as compared to anchorage specimens.
Most of the data for design expression of ACI from these
tests.

Source: [3]

Influencing Parameters
1. Structural Characteristics
I.
II.
III.
IV.

Concrete cover and bar spacing

Development and splice length
Transverse reinforcement
Bar casting position

2. Bar properties
I.
Bar size
II. Bar geometry
o. For epoxy-coated bars under all conditions of confinement, bond strength increases with relative rib area (Darwin et al. 1996b;
Zuo and Darwin 1998)
I.
Bar surface condition

Bar cleanliness

Epoxy coated

3. Concrete properties
I.
Compressive strength
II. Aggregate type and quantity
III. Tensile strength and fracture energy
IV. Lightweight concrete
V. Concrete slump and workability admixture
VI. Mineral admixture
VII. Fiber reinforcement
VIII. Consolidation
IX. Vibration

Bond behavior in different type of concretes

HSC
o Bond strength increases with increasing concrete
compressive strength.[Balaguru, ACI-408-12]
o Avraham et al in 2010, performed pullout tests of
deformed bars in NSC and HSC specimens. They
observed the Higher bond values for HSC specimens.
o They also established that this increase is not necessarily
accompanied by the similar increase in concrete strength.

Source: Ezeldin & Balaguru -1989

Fiber reinforced concrete

o Fiber reinforcement, especially steel fibers, tend to act as
transverse reinforcement providing increased bond
strength to reinforcing steel.
o Harajili et al (2002) tested 32 small scale beam specimens
to evaluate the local bond stress-slip response. He
observed that adding fibers in 1 and 2% by volume
fraction increased the splitting bond strength, on average,
by 26 and 33%, respectively, and resulted in a significant
improvement in the ductility of bond failure.

Source: Harajili et al -2002

Lightweight aggregate concrete

o Lightweight aggregate concrete develops lower
bond strength than normalweight concrete with the
same compressive strength.[ACI-408-12]
o ACI 318 incorporates factor =0.75 in design
expression to reflect the lower tensile strength of
the lightweight concrete.

Self Compacting Concrete.

o Increased cohesiveness of SCC leads to reduction
in bleeding, segregation and reduce the structural
defects resulting from porosity under embedded
reinforcement.
o Desnerck et al (2010) tested total of 36 specimens.
were cast using 3 different concrete types: one
conventional vibrated concrete (CVC) and two
powder-type SCCs. The bond stressslip
behaviour of reinforcing bars with diameters
ranging from 12 to 40 mm were recorded. From
these tests, it can be concluded that the bond
strength of SCC is even higher than it is for CVC.

Source: Desnerck et al -2010

References

[1]
Wight, J. K., and MacGregor, J. G., Reinforced Concrete Mechanics & Design, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey,
2009, 1031pp.
[2]
ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
[3]
ACI Committee 408, 2003, Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension (ACI 408R-03
(Reapproved 2012)), American Concrete Institute Farmington Hills, Mich., 53 pp.
.

Danke

About me

2002
B.E Civil
2003-2006
Field Engineer
2006-2008
MS Structural Engineering
2008-2010
Structural Engineer
From 2010
Assistant Professor