materials

Article
Modeling Uniaxial Bond Stress–Slip Behavior of Reinforcing
Bars Embedded in Concrete with Different Strengths
Chao-Wei Tang 1,2,3

1 Department of Civil Engineering and Geomatics, Cheng Shiu University, No. 840, Chengching Rd.,
Niaosong District, Kaohsiung 83347, Taiwan; tangcw@gcloud.csu.edu.tw; Tel.: +886-7-735-8800
2 Center for Environmental Toxin and Emerging-Contaminant Research, Cheng Shiu University, No. 840,
Chengcing Rd., Niaosong District, Kaohsiung 83347, Taiwan
3 Super Micro Mass Research and Technology Center, Cheng Shiu University, No. 840, Chengching Rd.,
Niaosong District, Kaohsiung 83347, Taiwan

Abstract: This paper aims to study the uniaxial bond stress–slip characteristics of reinforcing bars
embedded in concrete with different strengths. Tests were conducted on tension–pull specimens that
had a cross-sectional dimension with a reinforcing bar embedded in the center section. The experi-
mental variable was the concrete compressive strength (20, 40, and 60 MPa). The test results show
that in the specimen subjected to any fixed load, the maximum value of the concrete strain occurred
around the central position, and its value increased as the compressive strength of the concrete
increased. Depending on the embedded position of the steel bars, the bond stress–slip relationship
was also different. In addition, the analytical results indicate that the proposed bond stress–slip
constitutive relationship is very accurate in describing the true bond stress–slip relationship.

Keywords: reinforcing bar; bond stress; slip; uniaxial tensile test







Citation: Tang, C.-W. Modeling

Uniaxial Bond Stress–Slip Behavior of 1. Introduction
Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Reinforced concrete (RC) is a composite material that has been widely used in civil en-
Concrete with Different Strengths. gineering due to its advantages such as durability, fire resistance, and cost effectiveness [1].
Materials 2021, 14, 783. https:// The structural performance of RC members mainly depends on a sufficient bond between
doi.org/10.3390/ma14040783 the reinforcing bars and the surrounding concrete [2,3]. For RC members, the characteristic
of bond slip is the difference in material strain at a certain point along the reinforcing
Academic Editor: Bahman Ghiassi
bar. Because the bond–slip relationship at the interface between steel and concrete is very
Received: 11 January 2021
complex and involves multiple variables, actual structural analysis usually ignores the
Accepted: 3 February 2021
effect of bond–slip on the overall mechanical properties of the RC structures. In other
Published: 7 February 2021
words, it is assumed that the steel and concrete are completely bonded, so the relative slip
between the two is ignored, resulting in a large deviation from the analysis results.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
So far, many scholars have established corresponding bond–slip constitutive relations
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
and models based on a large number of experimental studies under comprehensive consid-
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
eration of various factors affecting the bond performance of RC members. On this basis,
some scholars combined experimental research and theoretical analysis to establish differ-
ent reinforced concrete bond–slip theoretical models and numerical analogy methods. By
bringing the bond–slip constitutive relationship into the structural analysis to consider the
bond–slip effect, the analogy accuracy of the structural response is improved. Regarding
Copyright: © 2021 by the author.
the issue of the bond–slip between steel and concrete, this study reviewed the relevant
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
literature from three aspects: bond–slip mechanism, experimental research, and theoretical
This article is an open access article
model and numerical simulation as shown in the following paragraphs.
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
For deformed steel bars, the force transmission from the steel bars to the surrounding
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
concrete occurs through the following mechanisms: chemical adhesion, friction resistance,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and mechanical interlock [3]. The chemical adhesion between the steel bars and the
4.0/). concrete has only a slight influence. The frictional forces are caused by the roughness of

Materials 2021, 14, 783. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14040783 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2021, 14, 783 2 of 21

the interface, forces transverse to the bar surface, and relative slip between the bar and
the surrounding concrete. The mechanical interlock due to the surface protrusions or ribs
provided in deformed steel bars is the most critical mechanism. In structural design, it is
very impractical to determine the bond strength by measuring the three component stresses
of the bond stress from a microscopic point of view. In order to simplify the complexity
of calculation, many scholars have put forward the concept of average bond stress to
embody the bond strength between steel bars and concrete. For example, Filippou et al. [4]
supposed that the bond stress was uniformly distributed along the embedment length.
Therefore, based on the force equilibrium between the loads on the bar and the available
bond resistance, the following equation could be established:

πd2b
∆T = dσs = τπdb dx (1)
4
where τ is the bond stress and σs is the reinforcing bar stress, db is the diameter of the
reinforcing bar, and dx or ∆x is the embedment length of the reinforcing bar. Then, the
average bond stress could be expressed as follow:

∆T d dσs
τ (x) = = b (2)
πdb ∆x 4 dx

There are two commonly used test methods for the experimental study of the bond–
slip relationship of RC components. One is the pull-out test, and the other is the beam
test (axial tensile test) [5,6]. In most pull-out tests, the embedded length of the reinforcing
bar is set to be short (usually no more than five times the diameter of the steel bar),
the reinforcing bar more or less maintained in the elastic stage, and the bond stress is
approximately constant [7]. When the embedded length is long, on the one hand, the
steel bar undergoes significant strain due to greater stress, and the steel bar slips due to
elongation under strain penetration [8,9]. On the other hand, under lateral confinement,
once the tensile yield occurs, the transverse steel shrinks due to the Poisson effect, which
affects the development of radial compressive stress. Based on the friction mechanism,
the bond strength is reduced [10]. In addition, the yield of the steel bar also affects the
geometry of the rib and further weakens the bond strength. Therefore, considering the
effect of the steel bar yield and strain penetration, it is worth establishing a bond–slip
relationship suitable for long anchorage. Shima et al. [11] studied the bond performance
of steel bars after yielding by conducting pull-out tests on reinforced concrete specimens
with an anchor length of 50db . The experimental study found that the steel bar strain had a
significant effect on the bond–slip relationship. In the elastic stage, the strain curve was
very smooth, but when the steel bar yielded and began to enter the hardening stage, the
bond stress declined sharply. To further study the bond–slip relationship under strain
penetration, Liang and Sritharan [12] designed a total of five sets of specimens with an
embedded length of 48db and carried out pull-out tests using monotonic loading and cyclic
loading. A corresponding analysis model was also established.
With the development of concrete technology, concretes with various properties have
been successively applied to actual projects. In view of this, scholars have also explored the
bond–slip constitutive relationship of these concretes that are different from the traditional
concrete composition. Cui et al. [13] used a standard beam-end pull-out test to conduct an
experimental study on the bond stress of steel bars in reinforced geopolymer concrete (GPC)
structures. The results show that the GPC specimens had high bond stiffness. Compared
with ordinary Portland cement concrete, GPC showed that it can withstand greater tensile
loads at the same relative slip value. Huang et al. [14] studied the bond strength between
deformed steel bars and steel–polypropylene hybrid fiber reinforced concrete (HFRC).
Through a series of monotonic/cyclic pull-out tests, the benefits of hybrid fibers were
evaluated. Moreover, an analytical model was proposed to estimate the ultimate bond
strength, which was well verified by other independent experimental results.
Materials 2021, 14, 783 3 of 21

On the other hand, due to the increasing awareness of environmental protection, the
composition of concrete has been replaced by renewable resources. Romanazzi et al. [15]
studied the bond–slip behavior between rubberized concrete (RuC) and deformed steel
bars. It was observed that when the percentage of rubber particles to replace natural
fine aggregate exceeded 12%, the bond strength decreased (up to 20% relative to the
reference mixture). Gao et al. [16] studied the bond performance between deformed
steel bars and steel–polypropylene hybrid fiber reinforced recycled aggregate concrete
(HFRAC). The results clearly demonstrated that the steel–polypropylene hybrid fiber could
synergistically increase the bond strength between the steel bar and HFRAC. Rockson
et al. [17] studied the bond strength between steel bars and structural concrete using
commercially produced recycled coarse and fine aggregates. The results showed that
when using recycled concrete to design structures, the current design codes and empirical
formulas found in the literature were conservative.
The literature shows that the bond stress–slip relationship depends on many factors
or conditions, which can be roughly summarized into four categories: concrete properties;
reinforcement properties; stress state; and loading type [18]. In view of this, in the past few
decades, scholars have proposed various bond stress–slip relationships and corresponding
bond models. Eligehausen et al. [7] proposed a bond model in 1983, claiming that the
bond strength increased with the increase in concrete strength and could be regarded as
a function of the square root of the concrete compressive strength. Moreover, in 1983,
Filippou et al. [4] established an analytical model to describe the hysteresis performance of
reinforced concrete beam–column joints. Therefore, this model was collectively referred to
as the Eligehausen–Filippou model. Then, the CEB-FIP model code 2010 [19] adopted this
model. Taking the nonlinear bond stress–slip relationship of the CEB-FIP Model Code 2010
as an example, if it is a failure of the pullout, the bond stress (τ) between the concrete and
steel bar as a function of the relative displacement (s) can be calculated by the following
equations:
τ = τu (s/s1 )α for 0 ≤ s ≤ s1 (3)
τ = τu for s1 < s ≤ s2 (4)
  s − s 
2
τ = τu − τu − τ f for s2 < s ≤ s3 (5)
s3 − s2
τ = τ f for s3 < s (6)
where τu is the peak bond stress; τ f is the residual bond stress; s is the bond slip; and s1 , s2 ,
and s3 are the slip at the start of peak bond stress, slip at the end of peak bond stress, and
slip at the start of residual bond stress, respectively; α is a curve fitting parameter that must
not be larger than one to be physically meaningful. At present, the local bond stress–slip
relationship recommended by the CEB-FIP Model code 2010 is shown in Figure 1, and
the corresponding parameters in the figure are shown in Table 1 [19–21]. The local bond
stress–slip relationship suggested by Huang et al. [20] and Harajli et al. [21,22] is similar
to that in Figure 1, and the corresponding parameters in the figure are shown in Table 1.
On the other hand, regarding bond strength, the literature shows that different models
give different prediction equations. Table 2 shows the maximum “local” bond strength
observed in previous experimental tests, mainly from the pull-out tests. It can be seen from
Table 2 that with the different types of concrete, there is pobviously pscatter in the values of
maximum bond strength and its value ranges from 1.7 f c to 5.7 f c0 .
0
Materials2021,
Materials 14,x783
2021,14, FOR PEER REVIEW 44of
of21
21

Analyticalbond
Figure1.1.Analytical
Figure bondstress–slip
stress–sliprelationship
relationship(CEB-FIP
(CEB-FIPModel
ModelCode
Code2010).
2010).

Table
Table1.1.The
Theparameter
parametervalues
valuesfor
forthe
theprediction
predictionmodels
models for
for the
the bond
bond stress–slip
stress–slip relationship.
relationship.

Model Code
Model2010 [19]2010 [19]
Code Huang et al. et
Huang [20]al. [20] Harajli et et
Harajli al.al.[21]
[21]
Parameter
Parameter ConfinedConfined
Concrete Concrete Normal Strength Concrete
Normal Strength Concrete Concrete
Concrete
𝑠 1.0 mm 1.0 mm 1.0 mm 0.150.15
Distance bet. ribs
s1 1.0 mm Distance bet. ribs
𝑠 s2 3.0 mm 3.0 mm 3.0 mm 3.0 mm 0.350.35
Distance
Distance bet.
bet.ribs
ribs
𝑠 s3 Distance Distance
bet. ribsbet. ribs Distance bet. ribs
Distance bet. ribs Distance
Distancebet.
bet.ribs
ribs
α α 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.30.3
2.5 f c0 2.57p f c0
p p
τu 0.4 f cm
𝜏 2.5 𝑓 0.4𝑓 2.57 𝑓 0
τf 0.4τu 0.4τu 0.9 f c
𝜏 0.4𝜏 0.4𝜏 0.9 𝑓

Table
Table2.
2.General
Generalresults
resultsfor
forthe
themaximum
maximum“local”
“local” bond
bond strength
strength in
in pull-out
pull-out tests.
tests.

Concrete Strength
Concrete Strength Embedment
Embedment Maximum
Maximum Bond
Bond
Author
Author Concrete Type
Concrete Type
(MPa)
(MPa) Length
Length Strength
Strength(MPa)
(MPa)
Viwathanatepa et al. (1979) [23] Normal concrete 30 30 - - 15 15 (2.7𝑓 )f c0 )
(2.7
p
Viwathanatepa et al. (1979) [23] Normal concrete
Hawkins et al.
Hawkins et al. Normal concrete 45 45 2db 2db 34 34 (5.0𝑓 )f c0 )
(5.0
p
Normal concrete
(1982) [24]
(1982) [24]
20 20 8 (1.7𝑓p)f c0 )
8 (1.7
p
VosVos
andand Reinhardt
Reinhardt 0
(1982) [25]
Normal
Normal concrete
concrete 35 35 3db 3db 17 17 (2.9𝑓
(2.9 p)f c )
(1982) [25] 45 25 (3.7 f 0)
45 25 (3.7 𝑓p) c
0
Eligehausen
Eligehausen et al.
et al. Normal concrete 30 30 5db 14 14 p)f c )
(2.6𝑓
(2.6
(1983) [7] Normal concrete 55 5db 19 (2.6 f c0 )
(1983) [7] 55 19 (2.6 𝑓p)
Fang et al. (2006) [26] Normal concrete 22–43 4db 22 (2.9 f c0 )
Fang et al. (2006) [26] Normal concrete 22–43 4db 22 (2.9 p 𝑓)
Kivell et (2011)
al. (2011) [27] Normal concrete 0
Kivell et al. [27] Normal concrete 65 65 4db 4db (4 (4𝑓p)f c )
32 32
Araujo
Araujo et al.
et al. (2013)
(2013) [28]
[28] FiberFiber concrete
concrete 60 60 5db 5db 20 20 (2.6𝑓 )f c0 )
(2.6
(5.7𝑓 0
p
40 40 35.9 (5.7
35.9 p)f c )
0
Choi et al. (2015) [29] HighHigh performance
performance 80 80 4db 37.1
37.1 (4.1 p)f c )
(4.1𝑓
0
Choi et al. (2015) [29] concrete 100 4db 35.3 (3.5 fc )
(3.3𝑓 )f c0 )
concrete 100120 35.3 (3.5 p
36.4
120 36.4 (3.3 𝑓 p)
0
82.6 17.7 (1.9p f c )
Pishro and Feng (2017) [30] Ultra high performance 82.6
93.6
2db
17.7
19.2 (2.0𝑓
(1.9 )0
p fc )
concrete
Ultra high performance 93.6
107.6 19.2 (2.0 𝑓
25.1 (2.4 0
p)f c )
Pishro and Feng (2017) [30] 113.6 2db 27.0 (2.5𝑓 )f c0 )
concrete 107.6 25.1 (2.4
0
p
Chu and Kwan (2019) [2] Fiber concrete 51.6–61.3
113.6 4.2db 19.4–27.1
27.0 𝑓 ) fc )
(2.5 (3.1
Chu and Kwan (2019) [2] Fiber concrete 51.6–61.3 4.2db 19.4–27.1 (3.1 𝑓 )
Guizani et al. [31] produced 43 moderately anchored reinforced concrete specimens
withGuizani
an anchorage length
et al. [31] of 5db , and
produced establishedanchored
43 moderately their bond–slip constitutive
reinforced concreterelationship
specimens
through pull-out tests. In order to consider the influence of the yield of steel
with an anchorage length of 5db, and established their bond–slip constitutive relationship bars, Marti
et al. [32]
through assumed
pull-out that
tests. Inthe bond–slip
order relationship
to consider is ideal
the influence rigid-plasticity,
of the yield of steel and
bars,proposed
Marti et
al. [32] assumed that the bond–slip relationship is ideal rigid-plasticity, and proposed a
Materials 2021, 14, 783 5 of 21

a tensioned chord model, which can be applied to cracks, minimum reinforcement ratio,
tension stiffness effect and rotation capacity and so on. Later, Lowes et al. [33] modified
the bond–slip relationship based on a shorter anchorage length by introducing a reduction
factor to consider the influence of the yield of the steel bar under long anchorage. Based
on the aforementioned research, Fernández Ruiz et al. [34] made improvements, taking
into account the influence of the shape of the steel bar. Two models (the square root model
and the rigid-plastic model) were proposed, which could be used to describe the bond–slip
relationship before and after yielding of the steel bar. Affected by the difference in boundary
conditions, the empirical formulas and models derived from simple pull-out tests are not
applicable to some parts of the structure and components. Therefore, Hong and Park [6]
studied the bond stress–slip relationship of reinforced concrete members under axial tensile
loads. An analytical model was proposed, which utilized the conventional bond stress–slip
theory, the deformed bar characteristics, and the concrete cross-sectional area.
At high temperatures, the bond properties between steel and concrete will gradually
decline, which will seriously affect the mechanical properties of the structure. Aslani and
Samali [35] proposed a modified formula for the local bond stress–slip relationship of the
CEB-FIP Model code 2010 to analyze the bond stress and relative slip between concrete
and steel bars after exposure to high temperatures, as follows:

τ ( T ) = τu,T (s/s1 )α for 0 ≤ s ≤ s1 (7)

τ ( T ) = τu,T for s1 < s ≤ s2 (8)

  s − s 
2
τ ( T ) = τu,T − τu,T − τ f ,T for s2 < s ≤ s3 (9)
s3 − s2
τ ( T ) = 0.4τu,T for s3 < s (10)
where τ ( T ) = the bond strength after exposure to high temperatures of T ◦ C, τu,T = the
ultimate bond strength after exposure to high temperatures of T ◦ C; τ f ,T = the residual
bond stress after exposure to high temperatures of T ◦ C, s = the bond slip; s1 , s2 , and s3 are
the slip at the start of ultimate bond stress, slip at the end of ultimate bond stress, and slip
at the start of residual bond stress, respectively; α is a curve fitting parameter that must not
be larger than one.
In addition to the theoretical model of the bond–slip relationship, scholars have
conducted extensive research on numerical simulation. The choice of modeling method
can be direct or indirect [10]. The direct method is mainly to establish a refined finite
element model and to consider the bond–slip phenomenon by inserting the corresponding
bond element. For example, Lundgren and Gylltoft [36] developed a three-dimensional
interface element that connects steel and concrete. In this model, the splitting stress due
to bonding was included. In addition, the bond stress depended not only on the slip,
but also on the radial deformation between the steel bar and the concrete. By inserting
this interface element in the finite element software, a reasonable prediction of the split
failure and bond stress loss of the steel bar after yielding could be realized. On the other
hand, the indirect method starts from the influence of the bond–slip on the performance
of structural members, by modifying the constitutive relationship of steel or concrete,
or directly adding spring elements at the end of the member, giving the member extra
flexibility, so as to indirectly consider the bond–slip effect. Dehestani and Mousavi [37]
considered the bond–slip effect by changing the yield stress and elastic modulus of the
steel bar, and obtained a modified steel bar model. The results revealed the significant
effect of bond–slip on total behavior of the member.
Previous studies have shown that most of the proposed bond–slip relationships were
derived from the pull-out tests. These bond models, which vary with concrete types and
reinforcing steel parameters, are inconsistent with each other. Moreover, the initial stiffness
of the aforementioned bond stress–slip curves is infinite, which is impractical and could
cause problems in numerical analysis. Overall, using a pull-out test, the local bond stress–
Materials 2021, 14, 783 6 of 21

slip relationship can be obtained. However, this test does not reflect the change in bond
stress along the longitudinal axis of the embedded steel bar in the actual cracking zone.
In fact, the local bond stress–slip constitutive relationship changes along the length of the
embedded steel bar. For different concretes, the existing literature has proposed position
functions that reflect this change [38–40]. However, there is still room for research on the
distribution of the bond stress between reinforcing steel and concrete along the length of
the embedded steel bar. Considering this, this study used an axial tension test to simulate
the behavior of the beam member after cracking. In this study, strain gauges were installed
at different positions inside the steel bar of the test specimens to measure the changes in
the stress of the steel bar along the embedded length, and the relative displacement of
the concrete and the steel bar at the crack was measured by linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs). By deducing the changes in stress and strain, the bond stress and
slip of the steel and concrete inside the specimen, the position function was derived to
reflect these changes, thus achieving a more accurate description of the bond stress–slip
behavior.

2. Experimental Details
2.1. Materials and Mix Proportions
The materials used to make the pull-out specimens included cement, silica fume,
fine and coarse aggregates, superplasticizers, and steel bars. The cement used was local
ordinary Portland cement conforming to ASTM C150/C150M [41], with a specific gravity
of 3.15 and a fineness of 3400 cm2 /g. The silica fume used was purchased from abroad,
and its specific gravity was 2.08. A well-graded aggregate and washed natural sand were
selected in accordance with ASTM C33/C33M [42]. Among them, the fine aggregate was
natural river sand, and the coarse aggregate was crushed stone with a maximum particle
size of 19 mm. The physical properties of these aggregates are listed in Table 3. To ensure
that the concrete had good workability, two different superplasticizers produced by Taiwan
Jong Shin Company were selected. Among them, HICON HPC 1000 was used for the
medium strength concrete, and HICON MTP A40 was used for the high strength concrete.
Their basic properties are shown in Table 4. The reinforcement was #8 rebar with a diameter
of 25 mm, a cross-section area of 5.07 cm2 , a rib distance of 30.4 mm, a rib width of 3.7 mm,
a rib height of 1.7 mm, and an elastic modulus of 205 GPa.

Table 3. Physical properties of the aggregates.

Specific Weight Water Absorption Unit Weight

Aggregate Type FM
(SSD) (SSD) (%) (Dry-Rodded) (kg/m3 )
Coarse
2.63 1.24 1532 -
aggregate
Fine aggregate 2.56 1.33 - 2.75
Notes: SSD, saturated surface dry condition; FM, Fineness modulus.

Table 4. Basic properties of the superplasticizer.

Type Specific Weight pH Value Solid Composition (%)

HPC 1000 1.20 7±1 3.37
MTP A40 1.13 7±1 -

To study the effect of concrete strength on bonding performance, the concrete was
given three designed compressive strengths over 28 days: 20, 40, and 60 MPa. The concrete
mix proportions are given in Table 5. In the concrete mix number, the letter C indicates the
type of concrete (ordinary concrete), and the number indicates the strength of the concrete
(20, 40, or 60 MPa). All the aggregates were treated in a room until the required saturated
surface dry condition was reached. The aggregates were then maintained in a room in
which the ambient temperature and relative humidity (RH) were controlled at 25 ± 3 ◦ C
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
Materials 2021, 14, 783 7 of 21

± 3 °C and 50 ± 5% to prevent moisture changes. When mixing, the cement (silica fume),
fine
andaggregate, and
50 ± 5% to coarse moisture
prevent aggregatechanges.
were firstWhen
poured into the
mixing, mixing
the drum
cement of the
(silica mixing
fume), fine
machine and mixed thoroughly. Then, water and superplasticizer were poured into
aggregate, and coarse aggregate were first poured into the mixing drum of the mixing the
mixing
machinedrum
andand mixed
mixed until the concrete
thoroughly. slurry
Then, water was
and homogeneous.were poured into the
superplasticizer
mixing drum and mixed until the concrete slurry was homogeneous.
Table 5. Concrete mix proportions.
Table 5. Concrete mix proportions.
Aggregate
Water/Cement Cement Water SP Dry Unit Weight
Mix No. (kg/m3)
Aggregate
Ratio (W/C) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
Mix No.
Water/Cement Cement Water (kg/m3 ) CA
FA SP Dry Unit Weight
(kg/m 3 3 (kg/m03 ) 3
C20 Ratio
0.76(W/C) 267 ) (kg/m
203) FA772 CA1054 (kg/m
2147)
C40
C20 0.52
0.76 390
267 203
203 772670 1054
1054 00.78 2194
2147
C60
C40 0.32
0.52 591
390 189
203 670523 1063
1054 6.50
0.78 2301
2194
C60 FA, fine aggregate;
Note: 0.32 CA, coarse 591 189
aggregate; SP, superplasticizer 523 10631000 for C40
(HICON HPC 6.50
and HICON MTP 2301
A40 for
C60).Note: FA, fine aggregate; CA, coarse aggregate; SP, superplasticizer (HICON HPC 1000 for C40 and HICON MTP A40 for C60).

2.2.
2.2.Proportions
ProportionsCasting
CastingofofSpecimens
Specimens
The
The details of the specimensfor
details of the specimens forthe
theaxial
axialtension
tensiontest
testare
areshown
shownininFigure
Figure2.2.The
Thecross-
cross-
section of the tension–pull specimens was a square of 150 mm ×
section of the tension–pull specimens was a square of 150 mm × 150 mm. The embedded150 mm. The embedded
length
lengthofofthe
the#8 #8steel
steelbar
barwaswas300
300mm.
mm.On Onthe theone
onehand,
hand,ititcould
couldensure
ensurethatthatthe
thecrack
crack
spacing
spacing was long enough to facilitate the satisfactory variation of the stress in #8 steelbar.
was long enough to facilitate the satisfactory variation of the stress in #8 steel bar.
On
Onthetheother
otherhand,
hand,thethelength
lengthwas wasshort
shortenough
enoughtotoavoidavoidthe theformation
formationof ofaatransverse
transverse
crack
crackininthe
theconcrete.
concrete.TheThe#8 rebar was was
#8 rebar buried in theincenter
buried of the of
the center concrete, and theand
the concrete, length
the
oflength
the rebar protruding at both ends was 190 mm. In this study, in reference
of the rebar protruding at both ends was 190 mm. In this study, in reference to the to the litera-
ture [43,44],
literature the #8the
[43,44], rebar was was
#8 rebar cut into twotwo
cut into equal parts
equal along
parts thethe
along diameter
diametertotoobtain
obtainthethe
actual
actual steel stress during the test, as shown in Figure 2. Each sawn half-bar was milledto
steel stress during the test, as shown in Figure 2. Each sawn half-bar was milled to
provide
provideaalongitudinal
longitudinalgroove
groove44mm mmwidewideandand22mm mmdeep.
deep.In Inthe
thegroove,
groove,we weinstalled
installedaa
5-mm
5-mmlonglongstrain
straingauge
gaugewithwithaa50-mm
50-mminterval
intervalalong
alongthe thelength
lengthof ofthe
thespecimen.
specimen.AAtotal total
ofofseven
sevenstrain
straingauges
gaugeswerewerepasted
pastedinintwo
twosmall
smallgrooves
groovesopposite
oppositeeacheachother
otheralong
alongthethe
centerline
centerlineofofthetherebar.
rebar.The
Theupper
upperandandlower
lowerparts
partsofofthe
therebar
rebarwere
werespot-welded
spot-weldedtogether
together
before
beforebeing
beingembedded
embeddedininthe theconcrete
concretespecimen.
specimen.Moreover,
Moreover,appropriate
appropriatethreads
threadswerewere
prepared
preparedatatboth
bothends
endsofofthe
thereinforcing
reinforcingbarbartototake
takeaanutnutininorder
ordertotosecure
securethethetwo
twohalves
halves
tightlytogether.
tightly together.
150 mm

#8 Rebar
Specimen
190 mm

x=0

x=50

x=100
6@50 mm

Strain
300 mm

Specimen x=150 gauge

x=200
(5 mm)

x=250

x=300
190 mm

#8 Rebar

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure2.2.Details
Detailsofofthe
thetension–pull
tension–pullspecimen:
specimen:(a)(a)dimensions
dimensionsand
andcross-section and
cross-section (b)(b)
and machined
machined
#8#8rebar.
rebar.

Steelmolds
Steel moldswere
were used
used to to cast
cast all all
the the tension–pull
tension–pull specimens.
specimens. The freshly
The freshly mixedmixed
con-
concrete
crete was slowly
was slowly poured
poured intotension–pull
into the the tension–pull specimen
specimen mold,mold,
and aand a concrete
concrete vibrator
vibrator was
was used
used to compact
to compact the concrete.
the concrete. For For
eacheach concrete
concrete mix,
mix, two
two tension–pullspecimens
tension–pull specimenswere
were
cast, for a total of six. For each concrete mixture, six 100 mm diameter × 200 mm high
 cast, for a total of six. For each concrete mixture, six 100 mm diameter ×
cylindrical specimens, referred to hereafter as the control cylinders, were a
compressive strength test. Moreover, for the split strength test, six cylindr
Materials 2021, 14, 783
of each concrete mixture were cast with a diameter and a height8of 150 mm
of 21
respectively. After the specimens were cast, they were covered with wet l
polyethylene sheet for 24 h, and then demolded. After the specimens were d
were immediately
cylindrical placed
specimens, referred in a laboratory
to hereafter as the controlwater container
cylinders, were also for
cast 27 days. Te
for the
compressive strength test.
formed 28 days after casting.Moreover, for the split strength test, six cylindrical specimens
of each concrete mixture were cast with a diameter and a height of 150 mm and 300 mm,
respectively. After the specimens were cast, they were covered with wet linen cloth and
2.3. Instrumentation
polyethylene sheet for 24 and Test
h, and Procedures
then demolded. After the specimens were demolded,
they were immediately placed in a laboratory water container for 27 days. Testing was
In this study, a machine controlled by a-500 kN MTS servo valve and a
performed 28 days after casting.
ricated testing stand were used to perform the uniaxial tensile testing of th
2.3. Instrumentation
mens. The schematic and Test Procedures
diagram of the test setup and the relevant details of
are shown in Figure 3. Itcontrolled
In this study, a machine by a-500
can be seen fromkN Figure
MTS servo valvethe
3 that andrelative
a speciallybond sl
fabricated testing stand were used to perform the uniaxial tensile testing of the tensile spec-
#8 rebar
imens. The and the surrounding
schematic diagram of the test concrete
setup andwas measured
the relevant byofathe
details pair of linear var
specimens
tialshown
are transformers
in Figure 3.(LVDTs) installed
It can be seen on both
from Figure 3 that sides of the
the relative bond#8slip
rebar near the e
between
the #8 rebar and the surrounding concrete was measured
of the specimen. Under the displacement control, the pulling force by a pair of linear variable dif-was ap
ferential transformers (LVDTs) installed on both sides of the #8 rebar near the embedded
stant
part ratespecimen.
of the of 0.01 Under
mm/sthe until the designed
displacement control,load was reached.
the pulling Loading
force was applied at was a
atonically
constant rateto ofthe
0.01tension–pull
mm/s until thespecimens
designed loadinwasincrements of 10was
reached. Loading kNapplied
from 0 to 1
monotonically to the tension–pull specimens in increments
the test, the pull-out force was measured by a dynamometer installed of 10 kN from 0 to 180 kN. in t
During the test, the pull-out force was measured by a dynamometer installed in the testing
chine. Furthermore,
machine. Furthermore, the the test progress
test progress was monitored
was monitored on a computeron a computer
screen. In additionscreen.
observing
to observing eacheach loadload increment
increment and displacement
and displacement data, these datadata, these
were also data
stored were als
in the
hard disk through a data logger.
hard disk through a data logger.
30 cm

LVDT
Specimen holder

Rigid base
50 cm

Figure
Figure 3. Setup
3. Setup of uniaxial
of uniaxial tensile
tensile test. test.
2.4. Analytical of Measurements
2.4.InAnalytical of Measurements
the axial tensile test, an axial tensile force was applied to the protruding steel bars
at bothIn ends
theof axial
the specimen.
tensileAstest,
the load increases,
an axial the distribution
tensile force was of applied
tensile stress
tointhe
theprotru
steel and concrete in the specimen also changes. The distribution of the tensile stress is very
at both
similar ends
to the of the specimen.
distribution of the tensileAszonethe
of load increases,
a general RC flexiblethe distribution
member. Therefore,of tens
itsteel and concrete
is generally agreed thatinthethe specimen
bond–slip also changes.
relationship obtained fromThe thedistribution
analysis throughof the t
the
veryaxial tensile test
similar will distribution
to the be closer to the of
actual
thesituation
tensilethan
zone theof
bond–slip
a general relationship
RC flexible m
obtained from the pull-out test. In the tensile test specimen, the strain gauges installed
fore,
at it ispositions
different generallyinsideagreed
the rebarthat the bond–slip
are shown relationship
in Figure 4. Taking concrete C20 obtained
as an from
throughthethe
example, axial
actual tensile
measured test
steel barwill
strainbeatcloser to the actual
each calculation point oversituation
the course than
of the b
the test, and its transformation process, are shown in Figure 5. Assuming
tionship obtained from the pull-out test. In the tensile test specimen, the that the material
has linear elastic behaviour, the stress–strain distribution of the steel bar, the stress–strain
installed at different positions inside the rebar are shown in Figure 4. Takin
distribution of the concrete, and the bond stress–slip of the test specimen can be obtained
as an theoretical
through example,analysis
the actual
methods. measured
The detailedsteel barmethod
analysis strain atfollows.
is as each calculation p
course of the test, and its transformation process, are shown in Figure 5. A
the material has linear elastic behaviour, the stress–strain distribution of th
stress–strain distribution of the concrete, and the bond stress–slip of the tes
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
Materials 2021, 14, 783 9 of 21
Materials 2021,
Materials 2021, 14,
14, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 99 of 21
of 21

#8 Rebar Concrete Strain gauge

#8 Rebar Concrete
#8 Rebar Concrete Strain gauge
Strain gauge
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5 Point 6 Point 7

Groove x=0 Point 2x=100

Point 1x=50 Point 4x=200
Point 3x=150 Point 6x=300
Point 5x=250 Point 7
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5 Point 6 Point 7

Groove x=0 x=50 x=1006@50 mmx=200 x=250 x=300

x=150
Groove x=0 x=50 x=100 x=150 x=200 x=250 x=300
6@50 mm
6@50
Figure 4. Calculation points formm
the steel strain.
Figure 4. Calculation points for thesteel
Figure 4. Calculation points for the steelstrain.
strain.
2000
εs (Microstrain)

2000
2000
(Microstrain)
εsεs(Microstrain)

1500
1500
1500
1000
1000
1000
stain,

500
stain,

500
stain,

500
Steel

0
Steel

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Steel

0
0 200 400 Time600(sec) 800 1000 1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
x=0 x=50 x=100 Time (sec)
x=150 x=200 x=250 x=300
Time (sec)
x=0 x=50 x=100 x=150 x=200 x=250 x=300
x=0 x=50 x=100 x=150 x=200 x=250 x=300

Figure 5. Steel strain and its changing process at various positions inside the tensile specimen dur-
Figure
ing 5.5. Steel
loading
Figure strain
(taking
Steel and
andits
itschanging
strainconcrete C20 as anprocess
changing atatvarious
example).
process variouspositions
positionsinside thethe
inside tensile specimen
tensile during
specimen dur-
Figure
loading 5.(taking
Steel strain and
concrete its
C20 changing
as an process
example). at various positions inside the tensile specimen dur-
ing loading (taking concrete C20 as an
ing loading (taking concrete C20 as an example). example).
2.4.1. Definition
2.4.1. Definition of of the
the Model
Model
2.4.1.
2.4.1.TheDefinition
The concrete
Definition of the
prism
of prism
the Model
Modelanalysis model model usedused in in this
this study
study isis shown
shownin inFigure
Figure6.6. This
This
concrete analysis
model
model The
Thenot concrete
only
notconcrete prism
considers analysis
the
prism analysis
only considers model
constitutive
model used
the constitutive used in
relationship thisofstudy
in this study
relationship the is shown
constituent
of theisconstituent in Figure
materials
shown in Figure 6.
but This
also
6. This
materials but
model
introduces
model
also not only
the considers
bond–slip
not only considers
introduces the bond–slip the constitutive
relationship
the constitutive at relationship
the interface.
relationshiprelationship of the
This constituent
of theThis
at the interface. characteristic
constituent materials but
overcomes
materials
characteristic also
the
but also
overcomes
introduces
assumption
introduces
the assumption the
the bond–slip
that therethere
bond–slip
that is no relationship
isslip
no between
relationship at
slip betweenthe
at the interface.
the concrete
interface. and
the concrete This
Thisthe characteristic
andsteel.
the The
characteristic overcomes
analytical
steel. overcomes
The the
formu-
the
analytical
assumption
lation
assumption
formulation thatdominates
that dominates
that
that therethe
there is no
is no slipbehavior
behavior
slip
the between
between the
of theofthe concrete
element
theconcrete
element and
(a single
and the steel.
bar
the
(a single steel. The analytical
embedded
The analytical
bar embedded formu-
in concrete with
formu-
in concrete
lation
an
with that
lationanthat dominates
infinitesimal
infinitesimallength
dominateslength theof behavior
dx, as of
shown the
of dx, asofshown
the behavior inelement
Figure
in Figure
the element (a
6a single
with bar embedded
reference
6a with
(a single barreferenceto
embedded the in
to the concrete with
cross-section
cross-section
in concrete withat
an infinitesimal
abscissa
at
anabscissa x is length
summarized
x is summarized
infinitesimal of dx,
below.
length of dx,below. as shown in Figure 6a with reference to the
as shown in Figure 6a with reference to the cross-section at cross-section at
abscissa x is summarized
abscissa x is summarized below. below.
dx
P P
Rebar σc dx
dx
Concrete σc+dσc
Concrete
PP PP σs σc σs+dσ
Concrete Rebar
Rebar σc Concrete
Concrete σσcc+dσ
Rebar
+dσ
c
c s
Concrete
x dx σσs
s Rebar σσ+dσ
s
s+dσs
s
Rebar
xx dx
dx
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Concrete Rebar
σc Concrete σc+dσc Concrete Rebar
Concrete Rebar
""""
σσc dt σσc+dσ
Concrete +dσc
Concrete
c c c
!!!!
"""" dt dx esdx
σs  σs+dσs
!!!! dτ Rebar
 dx esdx
σσs σs+dσs dx ecεdx
sdxds
s !!!! Rebar σs+dσs
 Rebar e dx ds
(c) (d)εccdx ds
(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Analytical
Analyticalmodel:
model:(a) (a)diagram ofof
diagram tension–pull
tension–pullspecimen, (b) (b)
specimen, equilibrium of prism,
equilibrium (c) (c)
of prism,
equilibrium
Figure 6. at interface,
Analytical
Figure 6. Analytical and
model:
model: (d)
(a) compatibility
diagram of of deformations.
tension–pull specimen, (b) equilibrium of prism, (c)
equilibrium at interface, and(a)(d)diagram of tension–pull
compatibility specimen, (b) equilibrium of prism, (c)
of deformations.
equilibrium at interface, and (d) compatibility of deformations.
equilibrium at interface, and (d) compatibility of deformations.
2.4.2. Stress
2.4.2. Stress and
and Strain
Strain of
of Steel
Steel
2.4.2.
2.4.2.AsStress
Stress
As and
mentionedStrain
and Strain
mentioned of
earlier,Steel
of Steel
earlier, todetermine
to determinethe
thebond
bondstress
stressalong
alongthe
thesteel
steelbars,
bars,strain
straingauges
gauges
As mentioned
installed
installed
As mentioned
at various earlier,
variousearlier,
positions
positions to determine
to determine
canbe
can beused the
used
the bond
totomeasure
bond stress
measure
stressthealong
thestrain
along the
strain
the steel
of
thethe
ofsteel bars,
steel
steel
bars, strain gauges
(Figure
(Figure
strain 4).
4). As
gauges
installed
As shown
shown
installed at
inat various
in
FigureFigure
various positions
4, there
4, there can
are seven
positions can be
are be usedcalculation
seven to measure
calculation
used to measure thebond
pointspoints
for
the strain of the
forstress,
strain bond
of thethat
steel
stress,
steel (Figure 4).
thatinterme-
is,(Figure
five is,4). As
five
As
shown
diate in
intermediate
pointsFigure
and 4,
points
two there
and are
two
boundary seven
boundarycalculation
points. points.
The five points
The for
five bond stress,
intermediate
intermediate points
shown in Figure 4, there are seven calculation points for bond stress, that is, five interme- that
points
are is,
located five
are interme-
located
in the mid-in
the
dle middle
diateof points
the of the
and
embedded embedded
two boundary
length, length,
and theand
points.two the
The two
five
boundary boundary
intermediate
points points
points
are are
located
diate points and two boundary points. The five intermediate points are located in the mid- located
are located
at the atinthe
edges theedges
mid-
of the
of
dlethe
start
dle of start
ofand
the andpoints
theend end points
embedded
embedded the of
length,
oflength, the
andembedded
embedded
and the two
the length. length.
two boundary
boundary
During During
points the
areloading
the loading
points are located process,
process,
located atthe
at the pasted
thepasted
the edges
edges of the
of the
strain
strain
start gauge
and end can steadily
points of send
the real-time
embedded data
length. to the
During acquisition
the loading system.
start and end points of the embedded length. During the loading process, the pasted strain process,Assuming
the pastedthat the
strain
Materials 2021, 14, 783 10 of 21

steel bars inside the test piece are still in the linear elastic range, then the measured steel
bar strain ε s at each position is substituted into the generalized Hooke’s law to obtain the
corresponding steel stress at each position, as shown in the following equation:

σs ( x ) = Es ε s ( x ) (11)

where ε s = steel strain and Es = Young’s modulus of the steel.

2.4.3. Stress and Strain of Concrete

As shown in Figure 6b, by cutting the segment at x and taking a free body, we obtain

P = σc Ac + σs As (12)

where P = applied normal force; σc = stress in the concrete; Ac = cross-sectional area of the
concrete; σs = stress in the steel; and As = cross-sectional area of the steel. Furthermore, as
shown in Figure 6b, the following equilibrium equation must be satisfied:

dσc Ac + dσs As = 0 (13)

Using Equation (13), the concrete stress can be calculated by the following equation:

σc,i+1 = σc,i − ( As /Ac )(σs,i+1 − σs,i ) (14)

where σc,i = concrete stress at the ith section; σc,i+1 = concrete stress at the (i + 1)th section;
σs,i = steel stress in the ith section; and σs,i+1 = steel stress in the (i + 1)th section. Since the
concrete at x = 0 is not stressed, the boundary condition is σc (0) = 0. Assuming that the
concrete inside the specimen still has linear elastic behavior, the concrete strain at each
position (ε c ( x )) can be obtained from the generalized Hooke’s law and Equation (14), as
shown in the following equation:

ε c ( x ) = σc ( x )/Ec (15)

where ε c = concrete strain, and Ec = Young’s modulus of the concrete.

2.4.4. Bond Stress

Using the force equilibrium (Figure 6c), the relative bond stress can be obtained by

σs,i+1 − σs,i = −dτ (πdb dx ) (16)

where dτ = the relative bond stress between two adjacent positions; db = steel bar diameter.
Applying the boundary condition (i.e., at x = 0, τ (0) = 0) [45], the bond stress in any
segment of the prism can be calculated by the following equation [46]:

τi+1 = τi + dτ (17)

where τi = bond stress at the ith section, and τi+1 = bond stress at the (i + 1)th section.

2.4.5. Slip between Concrete and Steel Bar

The increment of the local slip (ds( x )) within the infinitesimal steel bar length dx at
position x can be defined as the difference between the steel strain ε s ( x ) and the concrete
strain ε c ( x ) (Figure 6d), as shown in the following equation:

ds( x ) = −[ε s ( x ) − ε c ( x )]dx (18)

Materials 2021, 14, 783 11 of 21

where ds( x ) = relative slip. Applying the boundary condition (at the central point of the
specimen, slip = 0), the slip in any segment of the prism can be calculated by the following
equation:
si+1 = si + ds (19)
where si = slip at the ith section, and si+1 = slip at the (i + 1)th section.

3. Experimental Results and Discussion

3.1. Mechanical Properties of Concrete
On the same day as the uniaxial tensile test, each control cylinder was capped and a
compression test was performed to use the result as the concrete compressive strength of
the tension–pull specimen. The average compressive strength was calculated by taking the
average of three specimens. Table 6 shows that the average 28-day compressive strength of
each concrete mixture was close to the design value (i.e., 20, 40 and 60 MPa). In addition,
Table 6 also shows the average splitting tensile strength and elastic modulus of each
concrete mixture.

Table 6. Mechanical properties of the concrete.

Compressive Splitting Strength Elastic Modulus

Mix No.
Strength (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
C20 20.20 2.40 23.32
C40 40.97 2.91 30.22
C60 59.46 3.23 30.72

3.2. Steel Strain Distribution

In the tension–pull specimens, the steel strain was measured using strain gauges
installed at various planned positions, as shown in Figure 4. Taking concrete C20 as an
example, the applied load and steel strain relationship is plotted in Figure 7. It can be
seen from Figure 7 that the steel strain in the specimen increased proportionally with the
increase in the load. According to the different concrete strength of the specimens, the steel
strain distribution along the longitudinal axis of the steel bars actually measured during the
test is shown in Figure 8. It can be seen from Figure 8 that the steel strains in the specimen
increased with an increasing load and varied with the position of the strain gauge. As
the position of the strain gauge moved from the two ends of the test piece (i.e., x = 0 and
x = 300) to the center, the strain of the steel bar decreased, and the minimum strain value
was at the center (x = 150). In addition, the strain values that were symmetrical to the
center were similar (e.g., x = 0 and x = 300; x = 50 and x = 250; x = 100 and x = 200), which
was in line with the characteristics of symmetrical stress. At both ends of the specimen
(x = 0, x = 300), the steel bar strain value was almost equal to the steel bar tensile strain
value under the same load. Moreover, it can be seen from Figure 8 that with an increase in
the compressive strength of the concrete, the strain of the steel bars in the center and the
two sides of the center of the test piece showed a significant decreasing trend. From this
point of view, in the vicinity of the center of the specimen, the concrete’s axial tensile force
was greater than that near the two sides. When the specimen was subjected to axial tensile
force, the concrete near the steel bar was also subjected to tensile force due to the bond
effect. When the bond performance is good, concrete can withstand greater tensile stress.
Therefore, as the compressive strength of our concrete increased, the strain development of
the steel bar near the center of the specimen became smaller.
Materials 2021, 14, 783 12 of 21
Materials
Materials2021,
2021,14,
14,x xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 1212ofof2121

180
180
160
160

Applied load,P (kN)

Applied load,P (kN)
140
140
120
120
100
100
8080
6060
4040
2020
00
00 250
250 500
500 750750 10001000 1250
1250 1500
1500 1750
1750 2000
2000
Steel stain,
Steel εsε(Microstrain)
stain, (Microstrain)
s
x=0
x=0 x=50
x=50 x=100
x=100 x=150
x=150 x=200
x=200 x=250
x=250 x=300
x=300

Figure
Figure7.7.
Figure 7.Applied
Appliedload
loadand
andsteel
and steelstrain
steel strainrelationship
strain relationship(taking
relationship (takingconcrete
(taking concreteC20
concrete C20as
C20 asan
as anexample).
an example).
example).

1800
1800
Steel strain, εs (Microstrain)
Steel strain, εs (Microstrain)

1600
1600
1400
1400
1200
1200
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
00
00 5050 100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250 300
300
Position, x (mm)
Position, x (mm)
3030
kNkN 5050
kNkN 7070
kNkN 9090
kNkN
110 kNkN
110 130 kNkN
130 150 kNkN
150 170 kNkN
170

(a)
(a)
1800
1800
Steel strain, εs (Microstrain)
Steel strain, εs (Microstrain)

1600
1600
1400
1400
1200
1200
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
00
00 5050 100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250 300
300
Position, x (mm)
Position, x (mm)
3030
kNkN 5050
kNkN 7070
kNkN 9090
kNkN
110 kNkN
110 130 kNkN
130 150 kNkN
150 170 kNkN
170

(b)
(b)
1800
1800
Steel strain, εs (Microstrain)
Steel strain, εs (Microstrain)

1600
1600
1400
1400
1200
1200
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
00
00 5050 100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250 300
300
Position, x (mm)
Position, x (mm)
3030
kNkN 5050
kNkN 7070
kNkN 9090
kNkN
110 kNkN
110 130 kNkN
130 150 kNkN
150 170 kNkN
170

(c)
(c)
Figure
Figure8.8.
Figure 8.Strain
Straindistribution
distributioninin
distribution insteels
steelsbar
steels barsubjected
bar subjectedtoto
subjected totensile
tensileload:
tensile load:(a)
load: (a)C20,
(a) C20,(b)
C20, (b)C40,
(b) C40,and
C40, and(c)
and (c)C60.
(c) C60.
C60.
 Materials
Materials 14,14,
2021,
2021, 783 PEER REVIEW
x FOR 1313
of of
2121

3.3. Concrete
3.3. ConcreteStrain Distribution
Strain Distribution
The axial stress and
The axial stress and strain
strainofofthe concrete
the concrete were
werecalculated
calculated bybyEquations
Equations(14) and
(14) and(15),
(15),
respectively. The calculation results of the concrete strain of the specimen
respectively. The calculation results of the concrete strain of the specimen under different under different
axial
axialtensile
tensileforces
forcesare shown
are shown ininFigure
Figure 9. 9.
It It
cancanbebe
clearly
clearly seen
seenfrom
fromFigure
Figure99that
thatininthethe
specimen
specimen subjected
subjected totoanyanyfixed
fixedload,
load,thethemaximum
maximumvalue valueofofconcrete
concretestrain
strainoccurred
occurred
around
around thethe
center, and
center, andits its
value
valueincreased
increased as the compressive
as the compressive strength of the
strength ofconcrete in-
the concrete
creased. Moreover,
increased. Moreover,comparing
comparing Figure 9 with
Figure 9 withFigure
Figure8, it8, can bebe
it can seen that
seen thatthe
theconcrete
concrete
strain
strainwas
was less
lessthan
thanthethesteel
steelstrain
strainalong
alongthetheoverall embedded
overall embeddedlength. length.

90
Concrete strain, εc (Microstrain)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Position, x (mm)
30 kN 50 kN 70 kN 90 kN
110 kN 130 kN 150 kN 170 kN

(a)
80
Concrete strain, εc (Microstrain)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Position, x (mm)
30 kN 50 kN 70 kN 90 kN
110 kN 130 kN 150 kN 170 kN

(b)
140
Concrete strain, εc (Microstrain)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Position, x (mm)
30 kN 50 kN 70 kN 90 kN
110 kN 130 kN 150 kN 170 kN

(c)
Figure 9. 9.
Figure Strain distribution
Strain in in
distribution thethe
concrete subjected
concrete toto
subjected a tensile load:
a tensile (a)(a)
load: C20, (b)(b)
C20, C40, and
C40, (c)(c) C60.
and
C60.
3.4. Bond Stress Distribution
3.4. Bond Stress
It can be Distribution
seen from the schematic diagram of the force balance of the steel bar in the
lengths of two
It can be seen adjacent
from thepositions
schematicin Figure
diagram6c that theforce
of the internal bondofstress
balance of the
the steel specimen
bar in the
is mainly caused by a change in the steel stress. The bond stress developed by
lengths of two adjacent positions in Figure 6c that the internal bond stress of the specimen the steel bar
is in any segment
mainly caused of
bythe prism specimen
a change was
in the steel calculated
stress. by Equation
The bond (17), and the
stress developed boundary
by the steel
conditions were set as τ(0) = 0 and τ(300) = 0. Figure 10 shows the bond stress distribution
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

Materials 2021, 14, 783 14 of 21

bar in any segment of the prism specimen was calculated by Equation (17), and the bound-
ary conditions were set as τ(0) = 0 and τ(300) = 0. Figure 10 shows the bond stress distri-
bution
curvecurve with respect
with respect to several
to several increments
increments of theofstatic
the static tensile
tensile load within
load within the service
the service range.
range.
As theAs the tensile
tensile load increased,
load increased, the bond thestress
bondofstress
almostof all
almost all measuring
measuring points
points also also
continued
continued to increase,
to increase, as shown as in
shown in Figure
Figure 10. The 10.bond
The bond
stressstress distribution
distribution of the
of the specimen
specimen was
was uneven
uneven along
along the embedded
the embedded length.
length. Previous
Previous studiesstudies
on theon the distribution
distribution of bondofstress
bondin
stress in concrete
concrete have shown
have shown that thethat the assumption
assumption of a uniform
of a uniform bond stress
bond stress is onlyisapplicable
only appli-to
cable to short-embedded
short-embedded specimens
specimens [47]. In [47]. In addition,
addition, it can beitseen
canfrom
be seen from
Figure 10Figure
that the10change
that
the
ofchange
the bondof the bond
stress stress distribution
distribution was a sinusoidal
was a sinusoidal waveform;waveform; the maximum
the maximum value
value of each
ofcurve
each mainly occurred
curve mainly at or near
occurred thenear
at or central
the anchored point, whereas
central anchored the minimum
point, whereas value
the mini-
occurred
mum valueatoccurred
the anchored
at themidpoint
anchoredor the loaded
midpoint endloaded
or the due toend
the due
symmetry.
to the symmetry.

5
4
Bond stress, τ (MPa)

3
2
1
0
-1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-2
-3
-4
-5
Position, x (mm)
30 kN 50 kN 70 kN 90 kN
110 kN 130 kN 150 kN 170 kN

(a)
10
8
Bond stress, τ (MPa)

6
4
2
0
-2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-4
-6
-8
Position, x (mm)
30 kN 50 kN 70 kN 90 kN
110 kN 130 kN 150 kN 170 kN

(b)
15

10
Bond stress, τ (MPa)

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-5

-10

-15

-20
Position, x (mm)
30 kN 50 kN 70 kN 90 kN
110 kN 130 kN 150 kN 170 kN

(c)
Figure
Figure10.10.
Bond stress
Bond distribution
stress along
distribution steel
along bars
steel subjected
bars to tensile
subjected load:
to tensile (a) C20,
load: (b) C40,
(a) C20, andand
(b) C40,
(c)(c)
C60.
C60.

3.5. Slip Distribution

According to the diagram showing the compatibility of deformations in the specimen
(Figure 6c), the relative slip of the steel bar between two adjacent positions, ds(x), can
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

Materials 2021, 14, 783 15 of 21

3.5. Slip Distribution
According to the diagram showing the compatibility of deformations in the specimen
(Figure 6c), the relative slip of the steel bar between two adjacent positions, ds(x), can be
be obtained by using Equations (18) and (19). The calculated amount of slip for each
obtained
specimenby using Equations
subjected (18)axial
to different and tensile
(19). The calculated
forces is plottedamount of slip
in Figure 11.for
Aseach
shownspeci-
by
men
the slip distribution curve in Figure 11, in the specimen subjected to any fixed load, slip
subjected to different axial tensile forces is plotted in Figure 11. As shown by the the
distribution
magnitude of curve
the in Figure
slip varied11,from
in thezero
specimen
at the subjected
anchored to any fixedtoload,
midpoint the magnitude
a maximum at the
of the slip varied from zero at the anchored midpoint to a maximum
ends due to symmetry. In addition, with an increase in the concrete’s compressive at the endsstrength,
due to
symmetry.
the magnitudeIn addition, with
of the slip an increasecurves
distribution in theatconcrete’s compressive
each position strength,tended
of the specimen the mag-to
nitude of
be smaller.the slip distribution curves at each position of the specimen tended to be smaller.

0.25

0.20
Slip, s (mm)

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Position, x (mm)
30 kN 50 kN 70 kN 90 kN
110 kN 130 kN 150 kN 170 kN

(a)
0.25

0.20
Slip, s (mm)

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Position, x (mm)
30 kN 50 kN 70 kN 90 kN
110 kN 130 kN 150 kN 170 kN

(b)
0.20

0.15
Slip, s (mm)

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Position, x (mm)
30 kN 50 kN 70 kN 90 kN
110 kN 130 kN 150 kN 170 kN

(c)
Figure
Figure 11.
11. Slip
Slip distribution
distribution along
along steel
steel bars subjected to a tensile load: (a) C20, (b) C40, and (c) C60.
C60.
3.6. Bond Stress–Slip Relationship
Taking
3.6. Bond the C40Relationship
Stress–Slip specimen as an example, under the condition that the axial force is
loaded to 100the
Taking kN, thespecimen
C40 bond stress–slip relationship
as an example, undercurves of the different
the condition positions
that the of the
axial force is
specimen were obtained, as shown in Figure 12. It can be clearly seen from Figure 12
loaded to 100 kN, the bond stress–slip relationship curves of the different positions of the that
the relationship between the bond stress and slip at the steel–concrete interface was not
consistent but varied with the measurement position. In other words, the bond stress–slip
relationship varied with the position of the steel bar; the closer the stress was to the center
 specimen were obtained, as shown in Figure 12. It can be clearly seen from Figure 12 that
the relationship between the bond stress and slip at the steel–concrete interface was not
Materials 2021, 14, 783
consistent but varied with the measurement position. In other words, the bond16stress–slip of 21

relationship varied with the position of the steel bar; the closer the stress was to the center
of the specimen, the curve steeper the curve became and the more the bond stiffness in-
creased. On the contrary,
of the specimen, the curvethesteeper
bond the
stiffness
curve at the center
became and theandmore
boththeends
bondof stiffness
the test piece
increased. On the contrary, the bond stiffness at the center and both
was zero. In other words, the bond strength and stiffness approached zero at the ends of the test pieceloaded
was zero. In other words, the bond strength and stiffness approached zero
end or near the central anchored point of the specimen. In addition to measuring the bond at the loaded
end or near the central anchored point of the specimen. In addition to measuring the bond
stress at different positions under the same slip value, they were also connected with a
stress at different positions under the same slip value, they were also connected with a
smooth curve, as shown in Figure 13. Overall, the maximum value of the bond stiffness of
smooth curve, as shown in Figure 13. Overall, the maximum value of the bond stiffness of
thethe
specimen
specimenoccurred
occurred in
in the vicinityofofx x==0.3l
the vicinity 0.3𝑙− −0.7l0.7𝑙(x =(xdistance
= distance
fromfrom the loaded
the loaded end; end;
a a
3
𝑙 l=a =
half the length of the specimen).
half the length of the specimen).
Bond stress, τ (MPa)

2
10
1
Bond stress,τ (MPa)

8
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-1 6

-2 4
-3
2
Position, x (mm)
s=0.01 s=0.02 s=0.03
s=0.04 s=0.05 0
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080
Figure 13. Bond stress vs. slip relationship along
Slip, sembedded
(mm) length with the
x=50 x=100 x=200 x=250
same slip value: (a) C20, (b) C40, and (c) C60.
Figure
Figure 12.12.
BondBondstress–slip
stress–slip relationship
relationship curve
curveat at
different positions
different of theofspecimen
positions (taking(taking
the specimen concretecon-
C20 as an example).
crete C20 as an example).

3
Bond stress, τ (MPa)

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-1

-2

-3
Position, x (mm)
s=0.01 s=0.02 s=0.03
s=0.04 s=0.05

(a)
10
8
Bond stress, τ (MPa)

6
4
2
0
-2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-4
-6
-8
Position, x (mm)
s=0.01 s=0.02 s=0.03
s=0.04 s=0.05

(b)
Figure 13. Cont.
 0

Bond st
-2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-4
-6
-8
Position, x (mm)
Materials 2021, 14, 783 s=0.01 s=0.02 s=0.03
17 of 21
s=0.04 s=0.05

(b)
15
10

Bond stress, τ (MPa)

5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-5

-10
-15

-20
Position, x (mm)
s=0.01 s=0.02 s=0.03
s=0.04 s=0.05

(c)
Figure
Figure13.
13.Bond
Bondstress
stressvs.
vs.slip
sliprelationship
relationshipalong
alongembedded
embedded length
length with
with the
the same
same slip value: (a)
slip value: (a) C20,
C20, (b) C40, and (c)
(b) C40, and (c) C60. C60.

3.7.Position
3.7. PositionFunction
Function
Fromthe
From theprevious
previousanalysis,
analysis,ititcan
canbe beknown
knownthat thatthe
thebond
bondstress–slip
stress–sliprelationship
relationship
variedalong
varied alongthethe longitudinal
longitudinal axisaxis of steel
of the the steel bar.describe
bar. To To describe this change,
this change, the localthe local
bond–
bond–stress
stress relationship
relationship was obtained
was obtained by a general by local
a general local
pull-out pull-out
test test we
[48]. Then, [48]. Then, we
determined
adetermined
position function 𝜙 𝑥 function
a position φ( x ) and
and expressed theexpressed the bond
bond stress–slip stress–slipatrelationship
relationship different em-at
different embedded lengths x of the steel bar by the product of
bedded lengths x of the steel bar by the product of the two. The 𝜙 𝑥 curve of each the two. The φ( x ) spec-
curve
of each specimen was drawn, as shown in Figure 14. Clearly, the shape
imen was drawn, as shown in Figure 14. Clearly, the shape of the position function of the of the position
function of
specimen is the
onlyspecimen
related tois the
onlyrelative
related embedded
to the relative embedded
position, position,
and the curveand the curve
distribution
distribution
under
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW under
different slipdifferent
values isslip values similar.
basically is basically similar. Moreover,
Moreover, comparingcomparing
the 𝜙 𝑥 of the φ(21x )
18each
of
of each specimen with its bond stiffness curve, it can be clearly seen that
specimen with its bond stiffness curve, it can be clearly seen that the curve shapes of the the curve shapes
of the
two aretwo
veryare very consistent.
consistent.

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
ϕ(x)

0.00
-0.25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Position, x (mm)
s=0.01 s=0.02 s=0.03
s=0.04 s=0.05

(a)
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
ϕ(x)

0.25
0.00
-0.25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
Position, x (mm)
s=0.01 s=0.02 s=0.03
s=0.04 s=0.05

(b)
0.7514. Cont.
Figure
0.50
0.25
0.00
ϕ(x)

-0.25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

-0.50
 0.00
-0.25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
Position, x (mm)
Materials 2021, 14, 783 s=0.01 s=0.02 s=0.03 18 of 21
s=0.04 s=0.05

(b)
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00

ϕ(x)
-0.25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.25
Position, x (mm)
s=0.01 s=0.02 s=0.03
s=0.04 s=0.05

(c)
Figure
Figure14.
14.Position
Positionfunction:
function:(a)(a)C20,
C20,(b)
(b)C40,
C40,and
and(c)(c)C60.
C60.

Theposition
The function𝜙φ(𝑥x ) describes the bond stiffness
positionfunction stiffness atat different
different positions
positionsand andisisa
a relative
relativefunction.
function.In Inother
otherwords,
words,thetheshape
shapeofof
the position
the position function
function φ( x𝜙) is
𝑥 used to describe
is used to de-
the relative
scribe magnitude
the relative of the bond
magnitude of thestrength at different
bond strength positions positions
at different along the along
steel bar.
theTaking
steel
bar. Taking the ratio 𝑥 ⁄𝑙 of the distance from the endpoint of the specimen (x) to the
the ratio ( x/l a ) of the distance from the endpoint of the specimen (x) to the half-length
of the specimen
half-length (la ) as the parameter,
of the specimen the position
𝑙 as the parameter, thefunction ( x ) and its
positionφfunction 𝜙 𝑥determination
and its de-
termination coefficient were obtained by regression analysis, as shown inAccording
coefficient were obtained by regression analysis, as shown in Figure 15. Figure 15.toAc-
the
concrete
cording tostrength,
the concretethe polynomials
strength, theofpolynomials
the positionoffunction of each
the position specimen
function are listed
of each speci-as
Equations (20)–(22):
men are listed as Equations (20)–(22):
 3  2  
𝜙 3.05 x
𝑥 = 3.05 x
− 6.72 x
+ 3.68
N20: N20: −− 3×
1010
−14 (R
(R2 == 0.95) (20)
2
φ( x ) = − 6.72 + 3.68 3× 0.95) (20)
la la la
N40: 𝜙 𝑥 = −10.50 3 − 12.67
 2 − 2.16
  + 2 × 10 (R2 = 0.95) (21)
x x x −14
N40: φ( x ) = −10.50 − 12.67 − 2.16 + 2 × 10 (R2 = 0.95) (21)
la la la
 3  2  
x x x
N60: φ( x ) = −5.93 + 6.95 − 1.02 + 6 × 10−15 (R2 = 0.98) (22)
la la la

3.8. Bond Stress–Slip Constitutive Relationship

We can determine the local bond stress–slip constitutive relationship τ (s) using a
general local bond pull-out test. The position function φ( x ) can also be determined as
previously stated. Therefore, the bond stress–slip constitutive relationship τ (s, x ) can be
expressed as follows:
τ (s, x ) = τ (s)·φ( x ) (23)
According to the above equation, the bond stress at different positions along the steel
bar can be calculated by the uniaxial tensile test for a specific slip. In addition, the analytical
results indicate that the proposed bond stress–slip constitutive relationship is accurate in
describing the true bond stress–slip relationship. In other words, it has practical value.
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 21

Materials 2021, 14, 783 19 of 21

N60: 𝜙 𝑥 = −5.93 + 6.95 − 1.02 + 6 × 10 (R2 = 0.98) (22)

0.8
0.7 y = 3.0452x3 − 6.7206x2 + 3.6753x − 3 × 10−14
0.6 R² = 0.9509

0.5

𝜙(x)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/la

(a)
1.4
1.2 y = −10.504x3 + 12.666x2 − 2.1616x + 2 × 10−14
R² = 0.9464
1.0
0.8
𝜙(x)

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/la

(b)
0.8
0.7 y = −5.9297x3 + 6.947x2 − 1.0173x + 6 × 10−15
R² = 0.983
0.6
0.5
𝜙(x)

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/la

(c)
Figure
Figure15.
15.Position
Positionfunction
functionfitting:
fitting:(a)
(a)C20,
C20,(b)
(b)C40,
C40,and
and(c)
(c)C60.
C60.

4. Conclusions
3.8. Bond Stress–Slip Constitutive Relationship
Based
We canon the analysis
determine the model proposed
local bond in this constitutive
stress–slip paper, the analytical expressions
relationship 𝜏 𝑠 usingfor the
a
stress of the steel bar, the bond stress between the steel bar and the concrete,
general local bond pull-out test. The position function 𝜙 𝑥 can also be determined as and the relative
slip are derived,
previously stated.and verifiedthe
Therefore, by bond
the uniaxial tensile
stress–slip test data. relationship
constitutive In addition, the
𝜏 𝑠,change
𝑥 canrulebe
of bond stress–slip
expressed as follows: relationship with different positions is also introduced, namely position
function. The analytical results indicate that the proposed bond stress–slip constitutive
𝜏 𝑠, 𝑥 =
relationship is very accurate in describing the𝜏 true
𝑠 ∙ 𝜙bond
𝑥 stress–slip relationship. (23)
According to the above equation, the bond stress at different positions along the steel
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.-W.T.; methodology, C.-W.T.; software, C.-W.T.; vali-
bar can be calculated by the uniaxial tensile test for a specific slip. In addition, the analyt-
dation, C.-W.T.; formal analysis, C.-W.T.; investigation, C.-W.T.; resources, C.-W.T.; data curation,
ical results
C.-W.T.; indicate that the
writing—original proposed
draft bond
preparation, stress–slip
C.-W.T.; constitutive
writing—review andrelationship is accurate
editing, C.-W.T.; visualiza-
intion,
describing the true bond
C.-W.T.; supervision, stress–slip
C.-W.T.; projectrelationship. InC.-W.T.;
administration, other words,
fundingitacquisition,
has practical value.
C.-W.T. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan grant
number MOST 108-2221-E-230-003-MY2.
Acknowledgments: The author sincerely thanks the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan
for funding this research work.
Materials 2021, 14, 783 20 of 21

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Darwin, D.; Dolan, C.W.; Nilson, A.H. Design of Concrete Structures, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza: New York, NY,
USA, 2016.
2. Chu, S.H.; Kwan, A.K.H. A new bond model for reinforcing bars in steel fibre reinforced concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2019, 104,
103405. [CrossRef]
3. ACI Committee 408-03. Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension (ACI 408R-03); American Concrete Institute:
Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2003.
4. Filippou, F.C.; Popov, E.P.; Bertero, V.V. Modeling of R/C joints under cyclic excitations. J. Struct. Eng. 1983, 109, 2666–2684.
[CrossRef]
5. Saeed, M.N. Internal measurement of bond stress slip relationship in reinforced concrete. Aci. J. 1979, 76, 19.
6. Hong, S.; Park, S.K. Uniaxial Bond Stress-Slip Relationship of Reinforcing Bars in Concrete. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2012, 328570.
[CrossRef]
7. Eligehausen, R.; Popov, E.P.; Bertero, V.V. Local Bond Stress-Slip Relationships of Deformed Bars under Generalized Excitations. Report
UCB/EERC-83/23; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1983.
8. Zhao, J.; Sritharan, S. Modeling of strain penetration effects in fiber-based analysis of reinforced concrete structures. ACI Struct. J.
2007, 104, 133–141.
9. Yu, J.; Tan, K.H. Bar stress-slip relationship in reinforced concrete joints with large inelastic bar strains. In Proceedings of the
International Conference of Design and Analysis of Protective Structures, JeJu, Korea, 19 June 2012.
10. Zheng, S.; Pei, P.; Zhang, Y.; Dong, L.; Zheng, J.; Dong, F. Review of Research on Bond-Slip of Reinforced Concrete. Mater. Rev. A:
Rev. Pap. 2018, 32, 4182–4191. (In Chinese)
11. Shima, H.; Chou, L.L.; Okamura, H. Micro and macro models for bond in reinforced concrete. J. Fac. Eng. 1987, 39, 133–194.
12. Liang, X.; Sritharan, S. An investigation of the bond-slip behavior of reinforcing steel subjected to inelastic strains. In Proceedings
of the Tenth US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Fronties of Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, AK, USA,
21–25 July 2014; p. 12.
13. Cui, Y.; Zhang, P.; Bao, J. Bond Stress between Steel-Reinforced Bars and Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Adv. Mater. Sci.
Eng. 2020, 9812526. [CrossRef]
14. Huang, L.; Xu, L.; Chi, Y.; Deng, F.; Zhang, A. Bond strength of deformed bar embedded in steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber
reinforced concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 218, 176–192. [CrossRef]
15. Romanazzi, V.; Leone, M.; Tondolo, F.; Fantilli, A.P.; Aiello, M.A. Bond strength of rubberized concrete with deformed steel bar.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 272. [CrossRef]
16. Gao, D.; Yan, H.; Fang, D.; Yang, L. Bond strength and prediction model for deformed bar embedded in hybrid fiber reinforced
recycled aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 265. [CrossRef]
17. Rockson, C.; Tamanna, K.; Alam, M.S.; Rteil, A. Effect of cover on bond strength of structural concrete using commercially
produced recycled coarse and fine aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 255. [CrossRef]
18. Morris, G.J. Experimental Evaluation of Local Bond Behaviour of Deformed Reinforcing Bars in Concrete Structures; University of
Canterbury: Christchurch, New Zealand, 2015.
19. CEB. CEB-FIP Model Code 2010; Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib): Lausanne, Switzerland, 2010.
20. Huang, Z.; Engström, B.; Magnusson, J. Experimental Investigation of the Bond and Anchorage Behaviour of Deformed Bars in High
Strength Concrete; Report 95:4; Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 1996.
21. Harajli, M.H.; Hout, M.; Jalkh, W. Local bond stress–slip behaviour of reinforcing bars embedded in plain and fiber concrete. ACI
Mater. J. 1995, 92, 343–353.
22. Harajli, M.H. Numerical bond analysis using experimentally derived local bond laws: A powerful method for evaluating the
bond strength of steel bars. J. Struct. Eng. 2007, 133, 695–705. [CrossRef]
23. Viwathanatepa, S.; Popov, E.P.; Bertero, V.V. Effects of Generalised Loadings on Bond of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Concrete blocks,
Report UCB/EERC-79/22; Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1979.
24. Hawkins, N.M.; Lin, I.J.; Jeang, F.L. Local Bond Strength of Concrete for Cyclic Reversed Loadings; Bond in concrete; Applied Science
Publishers: London, UK, 1982; pp. 151–161.
25. Vos, E.; Reinhardt, H.W. Influence of loading rate on bond behaviour of reinforcing steel and prestressing strands. RILEM Mater.
Struct. 1982, 15, 3–10. [CrossRef]
26. Fang, C.; Gylltoft, K.; Lundgren, K.; Plos, M. Effect of corrosion on bond in reinforced concrete under cyclic loading. Cem. Concr.
Res. 2006, 36, 548–555. [CrossRef]
27. Kivell, A. Effects of Bond Deterioration Due to Corrosion on Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Master’s
Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2011.
28. Araujo, D.L.; Danin, A.R.; Melo, M.B.; Rodrigues, P.F. Influence of steel fibres on the reinforcement bond of straight steel bars.
Ibracon Struct. Mater. J. 2013, 6, 307–338.
29. Choi, E.S.; Lee, J.W.; Kim, S.J.; Kwark, J.W. A Study on the Bond Strength between High Performance Concrete and Reinforcing
Bar. Engineering 2015, 7, 373–378. [CrossRef]
Materials 2021, 14, 783 21 of 21

30. Pishro, A.A.; Feng, X. Experimental Study on Bond Stress between Ultra High Performance Concrete and Steel Reinforcement.
Civ. Eng. J. 2017, 3, 1235–1246. [CrossRef]
31. Guizani, L.; Chaallal, O.; Mousavi, S.S. Local bond stress-slip model for R/C joints and anchorages with moderate confinement.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 44, 201–211. [CrossRef]
32. Marti, P.; Alvarez, M.; Kaufmann, W.; Sigrist, V. Tension chord model for structural concrete. Struct. Eng. Int. 1998, 8, 287–298.
[CrossRef]
33. Lowes, L.N.; Moehle, J.P.; Govindjee, S. Concrete-steel bond model for use infinite element modeling of reinforced concrete
structures. ACI Struct. J. 2004, 101, 501–511.
34. Fernández Ruiz, M.; Muttoni, A.; Gambarova, P.G. Analytical modeling of the pre- and post-yield behaviour of bond in reinforced
concrete. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 2007, 133, 1364–1372. [CrossRef]
35. Aslani, F.; Samali, B. Predicting the bond between concrete and reinforcing steel at elevated temperatures. Struct. Eng. Mech.
2013, 48, 643–660. [CrossRef]
36. Lundgren, K.; Gylltoft, K. Model for the bond between concrete and reinforcement. Mag. Concr. Res. 2000, 52, 53–63. [CrossRef]
37. Dehestani, M.; Mousavi, S.S. Modified steel bar model incorporating bond-slip effects for embedded element method. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2015, 81, 284–290. [CrossRef]
38. Xu, Y.L. A simplified model of bond-slip relationship for reinforced concrete. Eng. Mech. A02 1997, 14, 34–38. (In Chinese)
39. Tassios, T.P.; Yannopoulos, P.J. Analytical studies on reinforced concrete members under cyclic loading based on bond stress-slip
relationships. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1981, 78, 206–216.
40. Somayaji, S.; Shah, S.P. Bond stress versus slip relationship and cracking response of tension members. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1981, 78,
217–225.
41. ASTM C150/C150M-15. Standard Specification for Portland Cement; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015;
Available online: www.astm.org (accessed on 15 May 2020).
42. ASTM C33/C33M-13. Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013;
Available online: www.astm.org (accessed on 15 May 2020).
43. Kankam, C.K. Relationship of bond stress, steel stress and slip in reinforced concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 1997, 123, 79–85. [CrossRef]
44. Zhao, Y.; Lin, H.; Wu, K.; Jin, W. Bond behaviour of normal/recycled concrete and corroded steel bars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013,
48, 348–359. [CrossRef]
45. F’ed´eration Internationale du b´eton (FIB). Bond of Reinforcement in Concrete, State-of-Art Report. F´ed´eration Internationale du
b´eton; International Federation for Structural Concrete: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2000.
46. El-Hacha, R.; El-Agroudy, H.; Rizkalla, S. Bond Characteristics of High-Strength Steel Reinforcement. ACI Struct. J. 2006, 103,
771–782.
47. Hong, S.N.; Park, J.M.; Kim, T.W.; Han, K.B.; Park, S.K.; Ko, W.J. Bond stress-slip relationship in reinforced concrete: New
relationship and comparative study. In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures, Singapore,
25–27 August 2008.
48. Tang, C.W.; Cheng, C.K. Modeling Local Bond Stress-Slip Relationships of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Concrete with Different
Strengths. Materials 2020, 3, 3701. [CrossRef] [PubMed]