Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for

Construction & Building Materials

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: CONBUILDMAT-D-19-06828R1

Title: Bond behavior of reinforcing bars embedded in concrete made with

crushed clay bricks as coarse aggregates

Article Type: Research Paper

Keywords: Bond strength, Bar slip, Crushed clay brick, Pull-out test

Corresponding Author: Dr. Md. Mozammel Hoque, PhD

Corresponding Author's Institution: Dhaka University of Engineering &

Technology

First Author: Md. Mozammel Hoque, PhD

Order of Authors: Md. Mozammel Hoque, PhD; Md Niamul Islam, Graduate

Student; Minhazul Islam, Graduate Student; Mohammad Abdul Kader, PhD

Abstract: This study investigated the bond behavior between reinforcing

bars and brick aggregate concrete (BAC) by testing cylindrical and cubic
BAC specimens with design compressive strength values of 20, 25 and 30
MPa. Forty-six direct pull-out tests were conducted to assess the
influence of several parameters: bar diameter, bond length, concrete
confinement, specimen shape and concrete compressive strength. The
effects of these parameters were presented as force-slip relations. The
bond strength measurements were compared with predictions from design
equations used for stone aggregate concrete (SAC). The results showed
that the bond strength measurements were larger than the bond strength
predictions from ACI 318 and very close to those from CEB-FIP and AS
3600. Moreover, cubic specimens exhibited larger bond strength than
cylindrical specimens due to shorter bar embedment lengths. Furthermore,
a comparison between SAC and BAC revealed significant mechanical property
differences. Finally, a model equation was proposed using the test
results to evaluate the bond strength of reinforcing bars in BAC.
Cover Letter

Cover Letter

Paper Title: Bond behavior of reinforcing bars embedded in concrete made with crushed clay
bricks as coarse aggregates

Md. Mozammel Hoque*, Md Niamul Islam, Minhazul Islam, Mohammad Abdul Kader

The study investigated the bond strength and bond-slip relationship of reinforced bars embedded in
Brick Aggregate Concrete (BAC). BAC has been using widely in Bangladesh and some other parts of
Asia in construction of low rise to medium span bridge. Investigations are available on the bond
strength of reinforcing bars embedded in stone aggregate concrete (SAC) and code provisions are
available to predict it. However, bond strength or bond-slip response of reinforcing bars in BAC are
still unknown. In addition, design codes do not recommend any equations or guidelines to determine
the bond strength of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC. Since, studies show remarkable differences
in the mechanical properties, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, density and so on, between BAC
and SAC hence this phenomena could affect the bond strength of reinforcing bars when embedded in
these two types of concrete. Therefore investigation is required to identify the differences in the bond
strengths between BAC and SAC. This study shows the difference of bond strength between BAC
and SAC. Moreover, the study propose an equation to determine this quantity and useful information
on bond slip behavior of BAC and reinforcing bars.
*Revised Manuscript
Click here to view linked References

Bond behavior of reinforcing bars embedded in concrete made with crushed clay bricks as
1 coarse aggregates
2 Md. Mozammel Hoque*, Md Niamul Islam, Minhazul Islam, Mohammad Abdul Kader
3
4
5
Abstract
6
7 This study investigated the bond behavior between reinforcing bars and brick aggregate concrete
8 (BAC) by testing cylindrical and cubic BAC specimens with design compressive strength values of 20,
9 25 and 30 MPa. Forty-six direct pull-out tests were conducted to assess the influence of several
10 parameters: bar diameter, bond length, concrete confinement, specimen shape and concrete
11 compressive strength. The effects of these parameters were presented as force-slip relations. The
12 bond strength measurements were compared with predictions from design equations used for stone
13 aggregate concrete (SAC). The results showed that the bond strength measurements were larger
14 than the bond strength predictions from ACI 318 and very close to those from CEB-FIP and AS 3600.
15 Moreover, cubic specimens exhibited larger bond strength than cylindrical specimens due to shorter
16 bar embedment lengths. Furthermore, a comparison between SAC and BAC revealed significant
17 mechanical property differences. Finally, a model equation was proposed using the test results to
18 evaluate the bond strength of reinforcing bars in BAC.
19
20
21 Keywords: Bond strength, Bar slip, Crushed clay brick, Pull-out test.
22
23
24 1. Introduction
25 The utility of reinforced concrete (RC) as a structural material is derived from the combined action
26 of concrete and reinforcing bars. To ensure composite action, load transfer must occur between the
27 concrete and the reinforcing bars. However, the transfer of force from concrete to reinforcing bars and
28 vice versa will be effective only if proper bonding exists between these materials [1]. Therefore, the
29
bond between concrete and reinforcing bars is one of the most significant factors for the strength,
30
serviceability and safety of RC structures.
31
The bonding mechanism between concrete and reinforcing bars is attributed to adhesion,
32
mechanical interaction and friction. Adhesion is produced by chemical bonds, which form during the
33
curing process of concrete. Adhesion prevails in bars with smooth surfaces, and adhesive failures are
34
mainly characterized by initiation and propagation of cracks at the interface of concrete and
35
reinforcing bars. In the case of deformed bars, adhesion is secondary because the extent of force
36
carried by adhesion is insubstantial and is exhausted within a short time in the global response. Soon
37
38 after an adhesive failure, force is gradually transmitted by the mechanical anchorage developed
39 between the reinforcing bar ribs and the concrete. Hence, the mechanical interaction and friction
40 between reinforcing bars and surrounding concrete are the most important phenomena for the
41 bonding of reinforcing bars. These phenomena depend on the configuration of ribs on the bars and
42 the mechanical properties of reinforcing bars and concrete. According to ACI 408R [1], bond strength
43 is influenced by several factors: compressive strength, tensile strength, fracture energy, elastic
44 modulus, workability, bar properties, and RC member configurations. The mechanical properties of
45 concrete largely depend on the properties of the aggregates and cement and the content of cement
46 [2-3].
47 The literature shows that the bond strength of reinforcing bars embedded in lightweight concrete
48 (LWC) is different than that of reinforcing bars embedded in normal weight concrete (NWC),
49 regardless of the presence of transverse reinforcing bars [4-7]. This difference becomes significant for
50 higher strength concrete, as reported by Shideler [8]. Berg [9] reported a 10% difference in bond
51 strength between NWC and LWC. It is well established from previous studies that the properties of
52 concrete, such as the compressive strength, elastic modulus, and density, made with crushed stone
53 are different from the properties of concrete made with crushed clay bricks [10-13]. According to
54 previous studies, brick aggregate concrete (BAC) exhibits a lower elastic modulus and a higher
55 tensile strength than stone aggregate concrete (SAC) (Table 1). Khaloo [14] and Hansen [15]
56 reported that the tensile strength of BAC is 10% and 15% higher than the tensile strength of SAC,
57 respectively. In contrast, Khalaf [12] reported that BAC exhibits an 8% lower tensile strength than
58 SAC because they used a low-density BAC. In addition, unlike SAC, BAC possesses a unit weight
3 3
59 between NWC (2000 kg/m ) and LWC (2080 kg/m ); therefore, BAC can be defined as medium
60
61
62 1
63
64
65
 weight concrete [10]. However, according to Neville [16], the unit weight of BAC is 2200 to 2600
3
1 kg/m .
2 Extensive studies on the bond-slip response of SAC and reinforcing bars have been carried out
3 over the past several decades, and the corresponding bond strength has already been quantified and
4 formulated [17-25]. Hence, the current code provisions, ACI 318 [26], BNBC [27], CEB FIP [28] and
5 AS 3600 [29], represent the bond-slip relations only for SAC. No literature or code provisions can be
6 found dealing with bond-slip relations of BAC and reinforcing bars. However, BAC is widely used in
7 the construction of low-rise and medium-rise buildings and small-span bridges in Bangladesh and
8 many other countries as an alternative to natural stones due to resource scarcity [13]. Hence, bond
9 strength is dependent on the tensile strength of the concrete because the bond behavior is supposed
10 to be different for reinforcing bars embedded in BAC than that for reinforcing bars embedded in SAC.
11 The difference in the bond strength may eventually misguide designers, resulting in underestimated or
12 overestimated bond strength. Therefore, investigation is required on the bond behavior of reinforcing
13 bars embedded in BAC. However, no such investigations are available in the related literature. As a
14 result, the bond strength of reinforcing bars in BAC could be overestimated, which may lead to
15 serious consequences (e.g., failures), or underestimated, which may cause financial losses.
16 With this background, the present study aims to investigate the bond strength and bond-slip
17 relationship of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC. Subsequently, a comparison of the results of the
18 investigation will be made with the design equations proposed in design specifications and design
19 codes. In addition, this study attempts to evaluate the applicability of the design equations for SAC to
20 predict the bond strength of reinforcing bars in BAC.
21
22 2. Research significance
23
24 This study represents the bond-slip response of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC of different
25 strength grades, which reveals useful information regarding the bond-slip relation of reinforcing bars
26 and BAC. A literature review shows that the bond strength and bond-slip response of reinforcing bars
27 embedded in SAC has been extensively investigated [17, 9, 20, 4, 24, 5, 30] in the past several
28 decades, whereas these areas have not been investigated for BAC. In addition, studies show
29 significant differences among the properties of BAC and SAC, such as tensile strength and elastic
30 modulus. Therefore, the bond strength and/or bond-slip response may be different for reinforcing bars
31 when embedded in those two types of concretes. This occurrence may also affect the development
32 length or splice length. However, BAC is popularly used to construct buildings and small-span bridges
33 in Bangladesh and many other countries [13]. The design codes, such as BNBC 2006 [27], do not
34 recommend separate equations to predict bond strength, development length or anchorage length for
35 reinforcing bars when embedded in BAC. Based on the background, this investigation attempts to find
36 the difference in experimental bond strength of BAC and predicted bond strength calculated using
37 design codes for SAC. Finally, this study proposes a model of the bond strength of BAC.
38
39 Table 1
40 Properties of BAC and SAC.
41 Predicted
Concrete Modulus of Predicted tensile f’c
42 Authors tensile
type elasticity (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa)
43 strength (MPa)
44 Mansur et al.
45 [11]
BAC Ec  4050 fc' f sp  0.69 f c' 33.89 4.00
46 Akhtaruzzaman
47 and Hasnat BAC Ec  3322 f c' f sp  0.62 f c' 33.89 3.60
48 [10]
49
f sp  0.0514  f c' 
Rashid et al. 1.164
50 [31] [32]
BAC Ec  3115 f c' 33.89 3.10
51
52
53 ACI 318 [19] SAC Ec  4730 fc' f sp  0.56 fc' 33.89 3.26
54
55
56 Oluokun et al.
57 [41]
SAC - f sp  0.294 fc0.69 33.89 3.34
58
59 Esfahani and
60 Rangan [22]
SAC - f sp  0.55 fc' 33.89 3.2
61
62 2
63
64
65
 BNBC (2006) SAC Ec  4700 fc' -
1
[27]
2 BAC Ec  3750 f c' -
3
4
5 3. Experimental program
6
7 3.1 Test specimens and test variables
8 Several test methods can be found in the literature to evaluate the bond-slip relationships of
9 reinforcing bars embedded in concrete: direct pull-out tests, push-off tests, beam-end tests and beam
10 tests [1, 33]. For simplicity and wide applicability, direct pull-out tests were performed on cylindrical
11 (150 mm × 300 mm) and cubic (150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm) specimens in this study. In the first
12 part of this investigation, a total of 18 pull-out specimens were tested, and these specimens were
13 designated with the letters C and CB. These specimens were composed of concrete with specific
14 design strength values of 20 MPa, 25 MPa and 30 MPa, and the specimens were classified into three
15 groups according to these strength values. Each group contained three cylindrical and three cubic
16 specimens. The design strength of concrete was verified by a cylinder test.
17 Deformed reinforcing bars were embedded at the center of each concrete specimen. A tensile load
18 was applied to the reinforcing bar by the lower crosshead of the test machine, as shown in Fig. 3. The
19 test variables included in this study are the bar diameter (12, 16 and 20 mm), the concrete design
20 strength (20, 25 and 30 MPa), and the specimen shapes (cylindrical and cubic specimens). Table 3
21 provides a summary of the test specimens and test variables. A three-part specimen designation was
22 used to identify the specimens. The first part denoted by letters indicates the specimen type. The first
23 numerical part represents the design strength of the concrete. The last numerical part represents the
24 diameter of the bar embedded in the concrete.
25 In addition, another 28 cylindrical specimens were cast and tested separately in the second step of
26 this investigation to study bond behavior between BAC and steel bars when confined reinforcements
27 are present around the embedded bars. The concrete design strength values for these specimens
28 were 30 MPa and 20 MPa. A 5d length of the embedded bars was bonded to the concrete, and the
29
rest of the length was shielded with a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tube to prevent bonding. Specimens
30
were designated SXY_Z as shown in Table [4], where X, Y and Z represent the strength of the
31
concrete, the presence of spiral confinement and the diameter of the embedded bar.
32
33
3.2 Materials
34
35 The specimens were made using crushed clay brick aggregates, coarse sand and ordinary
36 Portland cement (OPC) with a water-cement ratio of 0.45. The properties of the concrete ingredients
37 (unit weight, specific gravity and absorption) were measured in accordance with ASTM C138/C138M
38 [34] and ASTM C128 [35]. Table 2 illustrates the properties of the coarse and fine aggregates.
39 In this investigation, grade 60 reinforcing bars were used as pull-out reinforcement. The elongation
40 properties of the reinforcing bars have not been tested in this study because bonding failure is
41 expected to happen before the reinforcing bars yield. However, in Bangladesh, steel reinforcing bars
42 generally exhibit is 10~25% elongation. The diameter of the bars was 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm. The
43 nominal yield strength of the bars was 415 MPa. The maximum size of the coarse aggregate was 19
44 mm, as shown in Fig. 1. The concrete design strength (30, 25 and 20 MPa) and mix ratios (1:1.25:2.5;
45 1:1.5:3 and 1:2:4) were selected from the manual of the Public Works Department (PWD, 2014),
46 which is commonly used in Bangladesh. Concrete ingredients were mixed on a volume basis. OPC
47 type I was used as the binding material. However, the design strength of the concrete was verified by
48 testing control cylinders with a compression testing machine (MATEST SRL, Italy, capacity 3000 kN).
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 Fig. 1. Crushed brick aggregate. Fig. 2. Specimen preparation.
61
62 3
63
64
65
 1
2 Table 2
3 Properties of aggregates.
4 Unit weight Fineness Maximum size Bulk specific Absorption
3
5 (kg/m ) modulus (mm) gravity capacity (%)
6 Coarse
1046 4.52 19 6.64 12.5
7 aggregates
8 Fine
1478 2.56 - 2.36 1.20
9 aggregates
10
11 The concrete slump was measured in accordance with ASTM C143 [36] and was found to be
12 within a range of 27 mm to 40 mm. Concrete compressive and tensile strength tests were conducted
13 in accordance with ASTM C39 [37] and ASTM C496 [38]. The maximum and minimum tensile
14 strength values of BAC were 5.95 MPa and 4.07 MPa, respectively, which was larger than the
15 predicted tensile strength of SAC. It is believed that the high angularity of brick aggregates gives BAC
16 higher tensile strength than SAC. The predicted tensile strength was calculated using the equations
17 listed in Table 1 for natural aggregate concrete (NAC), and the results are listed in Table 1.
18
19 3.3 Test procedure
20
21 The direct pull-out tests were conducted using a universal testing machine (UTM) with a capacity
22 of 200 kN (Tokyo Testing Machine) in accordance with ASTM C234 [39]. The specimens were placed
23 on a smooth steel plate to ensure a uniform loading surface at the upper crosshead of the UTM. A
24 sub-assemblage was used to firmly retain the specimen position, as shown in Fig. 3. A linear variable
25 differential transformer (LVDT) was placed on top of the machine axis and in contact with the steel
26 plate to measure the slip of the reinforcing bars, as shown in Fig. 3. The upper crosshead did not grip
27 the reinforcing bars, whereas the lower crosshead tightly gripped the loading end of the specimens.
28 The specimens were tested under monotonic loading applied by the UTM in accordance with ASTM
29 C234 [39]. However, the slip of the reinforcing bars was recorded at every point corresponding to the
30 force.
31
32 Table 3
33 Test specimens and variables for unconfined specimens
34 Concrete Tensile strength
Bar
35 Specimen design of control Specimen
36 diameter
ID strength specimen shape
37 (mm)
(MPa) (MPa)
38 C30-12 12
39 C30-16 5.24 16 Cylindrical
40 C30-20 20
41 30
CB30-12 12
42 CB30-16 5.95 16 Cubic
43 CB30-20 20
44 C25-12 12
45
C25-16 4.46 16 Cylindrical
46
C25-20 20
47 25
48 CB25-12 12
49 CB25-16 5.48 16 Cubic
50 CB25-20 20
51 C20-12 12
52 C20-16 4.07 16 Cylindrical
53 C20-20 20 20
54 CB20-12 12
55 CB20-16 4.27 16 Cubic
56 CB20-20 20
57
58 Table 4
59 Test specimens and variables for confined specimens.
60
61
62 4
63
64
65
 Concrete Bond Confinement Spacing of
Bar Embedded
1 Specimen design strength reinforcement spiral (mm)
diameter length 5d
2 ID strength (MPa)
(mm) (mm)
3 (MPa)
4 S34UC_12 12 60 4.45
5 S34UC_16 16 80 4.80
6 Unconfined No spiral
S34UC_20 20 100 3.37
7 S34UC_25 25 125 1.96
8 S34C1_12 12 60 6.61
9 S34C1_16 16 80 7.1
10 25
S34C1_20 20 100 7.43
11 S34C1_25 25 125 8.76
12 30
S34C2_12 12 60 6.22
13
S34C2_16 16 80 6.10
14 Confined 50
15 S34C2_20 20 100 5.18
16 S34C2_25 25 125 4.94
17 S34C3_12 12 60 5.80
18 S34C3_16 16 80 4.80
75
19 S34C3_20 20 100 4.87
20 S34C3_25 25 125 4.76
21 S19UN_20 20 100 2.00
22 S19UN_22 22 110 2.48 Unconfined No spiral
23 S19UN_25 25 125 2.77
24 S19C1_20 20 100 3.70
25 S19C1_22 22 110 4.59 25
26 S19C1_25 25 125 3.23
27 20
S19C2_20 20 100 3.60
28 Confined
S19C2_22 22 110 4.59 50
29 S19C2_25 25 125 3.09
30 S19C3_20 20 100 2.30
31 S19C3_22 22 110 3.67 75
32 S19C3_25 25 125 2.91
33
34
4. Test results and discussions
35
36 4.1 Bond strength
37
38 The bond strength U developed between the reinforcing bars and the concrete was calculated with
39 the following formula:
40
41
42 where U is the bond strength, P is the applied force, db is the bar diameter and lb is the bond length.
43
44
4.2 Force-slip relationship
45
46 The bond force and corresponding bar slips are presented graphically in Fig. 5. Fig. 5(a)–(f) show the
47 force-slip relations of bars embedded in BAC. The figures show that the bond force increases with
48 increasing slip. This behavior occurs because the primary bond force results from adhesion, after
49 which friction and mechanical interlocking come into action; hence, the bond force increases.
50 However, after a certain slip, the adhesion ceases to contribute to the bond force; hence, a
51 decreasing trend is seen in the force-slip curves. Additionally, no remarkable change in the trend of
52 the force-slip curves can be seen with the variation in bar diameter. In the ascending curves, the force
53 is observed to change linearly with respect to the slip, whereas the descending curve is nonlinear to
54 some extent due to slightly nonlinear behavior of concrete under tension. No significant nonlinearity
55 can be observed because concrete under tension behaves linearly and exhibits brittle failure.
56 Moreover, in almost all cases, the maximum force is at approximately 1 mm slip of the bars, as shown
57 in Fig. 5(a)–(f). Some fluctuations in values were observed in both the ascending and descending
58 parts of the force-slip curves. The slip increased as the diameter of the embedded bars increased.
59 The ascending curve of the higher strength concrete was steeper than that of the lower strength
60 concrete.
61
62 5
63
64
65
 However, for the second type of specimens, the trend was completely different due to the
1 presence of confinement reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 6(a)–(g). The slope of the force-slip curve
2 for the confined specimens decreased with increasing bar diameter. The ascending part of the force-
3 slip curves for these specimens became steeper as the bar diameter decreased. On the other hand,
4 the descending part was steep and linear because the bar exhibited pull-out failure when the force
5 reached the peak. The peak bond force was achieved after a significant amount of bar slip because
6 the presence of confinement reinforcement delayed the sudden failure of the specimens. The slip of
7 the embedded bar was larger for the confined specimens than for the unconfined specimens. Fig.
8 6(a)–(g) shows that the bond force increases with decreasing spacing of spiral reinforcements.
st
9 However, the bond force of the “S” series specimens was higher than that of the 1 type of
10 specimens. It is believed that the lower embedment length of the bars and the presence of
11 confinement reinforcement contributed to the larger bond force for the second type of specimens.
12
13
Specimen
14
15
16 LVDT
17 Splitting
18 Load cell failure
19
20
21
22
23
24 Fig. 3. Experimental setup. Fig. 4. Splitting failure of specimens.
25
26
The maximum and minimum slips observed for the first 18 specimens were 6 mm (Fig. 5(a)) and
27
2.75 mm (Fig. 5(d)) for 16 mm reinforcing bars, respectively. In contrast, for the “S” series specimens,
28
the maximum slip was 34 mm, and the minimum slip was approximately 7 mm. The peak bond force
29
30 for the confined specimens was observed at approximately 210 kN (Fig. 6(d)) for a 25 mm diameter
31 bar embedded in a cylindrical specimen with a concrete strength of 30 MPa. In contrast, the minimum
32 bond force was observed at 40 kN for a 12 mm diameter bar, as shown in Fig. 5(f). The bond strength
33 was calculated with Eq. (1) and is presented in Table 4. For the same concrete strength and bar
34 diameter, the bond strength of the cubic specimens was higher than that of the cylindrical specimens
35 because of the shorter embedded length of the bars. With higher concrete compressive strength, the
36 bond strength increased. In the case of the effect of confinement observed for the “S” series
37 specimens, the bond strength for the 12 mm and 25 mm diameter bars in the confined specimens
38 was approximately 67% and 22% higher than that in the unconfined specimens, respectively (Table
39 4). The bond force increased as the spacing of confinement reinforcement decreased (Fig. 6(a)–(g)).
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55 (a) Cylinder (30 MPa) (b) Cube (30 MPa)
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 6
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 (c) Cylinder (25 MPa) (d) Cube (25 MPa)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 (e) Cylinder (20 MPa) (f) Cube (20 MPa)
29
30 Fig. 5 Bond force-slip relationship curves for the first 18 specimens
31
32
33 Unconfined
34 25 mm spiral
35 50 mm spiral
36 75 mm spiral
Unconfined
37
25 mm spiral
38
50 mm spiral
39 75 mm spiral
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47 (a) Specimen with 12 mm diameter bar (30 (b) Specimen with 16 mm diameter bar (30
48 MPa) MPa)
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 7
63
64
65
 Unconfined
1
25 mm spiral
2 50 mm spiral
3 75 mm spiral
4
5 Unconfined
6 25 mm spiral
7 50 mm spiral
8 75 mm spiral
9
10
11
12
13
14 (c) Specimen with 20 mm diameter bar (30 (d) Specimen with 25 mm diameter bar (30
15 MPa) MPa)
16
17 Unconfined Unconfined
18 25 mm spiral 25 mm spiral
19 50 mm spiral 50 mm spiral
20 75 mm spiral 75 mm spiral
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 (e) Specimen with 20 mm diameter bar (20 (f) Specimen with 22 mm diameter bar (20
31 MPa) MPa)
32
33 Unconfined
34 25 mm spiral
35 50 mm spiral
36 75 mm spiral
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 (g) Specimen with 25 mm diameter bar (20
46
MPa)
47
48 Fig. 6 Bond force-slip relationship curves for the “S” series specimens
49
50
51
52
53 4.3 Failure mode
54 The failure modes of concrete specimens during direct pull-out tests have been studied in many
55 investigations. The literature (for instance, Song et al. [33]) shows that the failure of bonds occurs
56 either by splitting concrete or by pulling out the reinforcing bars. The present study shows that most C
57 and CB series concrete specimens exhibited splitting failures (Fig. 4). In addition, radial and
58 longitudinal cracks were generated in the concrete specimens due to the lack of confinement.
59 Because splitting failure is influenced by the tensile strength of the concrete and studies show
60 differences between the tensile strength of BAC and SAC, this phenomenon could also affect the
61
62 8
63
64
65
 bond strength. A similar failure pattern was also reported by Harajli et al., Harajli, and Song et al. [40,
1 24, 33]. It is believed that the absence of confinement reinforcement caused the concrete specimens
2 to exhibit splitting failure. Concrete splitting was the dominant failure pattern found for the C and CB
3 series specimens. On the other hand, pull-out failure was the primary failure mode for the S series
4 specimens due to the presence of confinement spirals. Thus, spiral reinforcement prevents concrete
5 from being split.
6
7 5. Comparison of code provisions
8
9 The existing design equations or code provisions to determine bond strength are proposed for
10 SAC only. Design equations or investigations are not available that are used to predict the bond
11 strength of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC. However, the existing design equations have been
12 used to calculate the bond strength of reinforcing bars and BAC. The following section briefly
13 represents the available design equations:
14
15 The ACI 318 [26] recommends the following equation to calculate the bond strength for SAC:
16
17 Ab f y
18 
19  d b ld
20 (2)
21
22 where d b is the diameter of the bar, Ab is the area of the bar, f y is the specified yield strength of
23
24 the bar and ld is the development length that is calculated from the following equation.
25
 f  
26
ld   y t e  db (3)
27  2.1 f ' 
28  c 

is the concrete strength;  t is the reinforcement location factor, which is set to 1.3 if the
29
30 where f c'
31 reinforcement is placed in such a position where more than 300 mm of concrete is casted below the
bar and is set to 1 for other conditions;  e is the reinforcement coating factor, which is 1 for uncoated
32
33
34 bars; and  is the concrete aggregate factor, which is calculated from f c' /1.8 f ct .
35
36
37 According to the Australian Standard, AS 3600 [29], the bond strength between SAC and
38 reinforcing bars is calculated using Eq. (4).
39
40  c 
41   0.265 fc'   0.5 
42  db 
43 (4)
44 where c is the concrete cover. In this study, the concrete cover was considered 75 mm for both
45 cylindrical (150 mm × 300 mm) and cubic specimens (150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm).
46
47 The CEB-FIP model code [28] recommends specific formulas for determining the bond strength
48 between deformed bars and concrete considering several conditions, as shown in Table 5.
49
50 Table 5
51 Bond strength of reinforcing bars embedded in SAC recommended by the CEB-FIP model code.
52
53 Failure type Bond condition Bond strength (MPa)
54 0.25
55 Good bond  f 
Splitting failure Unconfined 7.0  ck  (5)
56 condition  20 
57  
58
59
60
61
62 9
63
64
65
 0.25
 fck 
8.0 
 20 
1 Confined (6)
2
3  
0.25
4  fck 
5.0 
 20 
5 Unconfined (7)
6  
7 Other conditions 0.25
8  fck 
5.5 
 20 
9 Confined (8)
10  
11 Good bond
12 condition
2.5 f ck (9)
13 Pull-out failure
14 Other conditions 1.25 f ck (10)
15
16
17 Using these equations, the bond strength was calculated and compared with the experimental results
18 (see Table 6). The differences in bond strength obtained from the BAC experiments and the design
19 equations are shown in Table. 6.
20 The bond strength obtained from the current experimental tests was approximately 30% larger
21 than those calculated using the design equations. More specifically, the average experimental bond
22 strength of BAC was approximately 100% and 60% higher than the predicted bond strength
23 calculated using ACI 318 and CEB-FIP model code equations, respectively. In addition, the AS 3600
24 code predicts an approximately 70% higher bond strength than that obtained from this investigation
25 (Table 6).
26 Several studies have proposed equations to predict the bond strength of reinforcing bars
27 embedded in NAC [21, 18, 23, 29, 26, 28]. The parameters that influence the bond strength are the
28 concrete compressive strength, bar diameter, bar/concrete bond length, concrete cover thickness and
29 concrete confinement. The literature shows that concrete compressive strength is one of the dominant
30 parameters and is directly proportional to the bond strength. The concrete compressive strength plays
31 an important role in normalizing the bond strength. The literature shows that a range of values are
32 used as power functions of concrete strength. According to the studies conducted by Orangun et al.
33 '3/4
34 [18], Zuo and Darwin [23] and Harajli [24], normalization of bond strength with f c' , f c , and f c'1/4
35 underestimates or overestimates the bond strength for a specific type of concrete. However, most of
36 '
37 the studies account for f c to develop the bond model. On the other hand, the bar diameter and
38 concrete cover thickness were disproportionate and proportionate to the bond strength, respectively.
39
40 Table 6
41 Bond strength obtained from experiments and code equations.
42 Specimen Compressive Bond Code recommended bond strength (MPa)
43 ID f ' strength ACI 318 AS 3600 CEB- Exp. / Exp. / Exp. /
strength c
44 U (MPa) FIP ACI AS3600 CEB-
45 (MPa) FIP
46 C30-12 5.75 3.06 9.80 5.06 1.87 0.59 1.1
47 C30-16 5.50 3.06 7.53 5.06 1.79 0.73 1.1
48 C30-20 4.93 3.06 6.17 5.06 1.61 0.80 1.0
30
CB30-12 7.96 3.06 9.80 5.06 2.60 0.81 1.6
49
CB30-16 6.36 3.06 7.53 5.06 2.07 0.84 1.3
50 CB30-20 6.09 3.06 6.17 5.06 1.99 0.99 1.2
51 C25-12 5.70 2.78 8.94 4.95 2.05 0.64 1.2
52 C25-16 5.00 2.78 6.87 4.95 1.79 0.73 1.0
53 C25-20 4.60 2.78 5.63 4.95 1.65 0.82 0.9
25
54 CB25-12 7.43 2.78 8.94 4.95 2.67 0.83 1.5
55 CB25-16 6.76 2.78 6.87 4.95 2.43 0.98 1.4
56 CB25-20 5.84 2.78 5.63 4.95 2.10 1.04 1.2
57 C20-12 5.20 2.57 8.00 4.81 2.02 0.65 1.1
58 C20-16 4.80 2.57 6.15 4.81 1.86 0.78 1.0
C20-20 20 4.20 2.57 5.04 4.81 1.63 0.83 0.9
59
CB20-12 7.07 2.57 8.00 4.81 2.75 0.88 1.5
60 CB20-16 6.23 2.57 6.15 4.81 2.42 1.01 1.3
61
62 10
63
64
65
 CB20-20 5.83 2.57 5.04 4.81 2.26 1.16 1.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Fig. 7 Normalized bond strength with c/db ratio obtained from test results and code
19 provisions (f’c =25 MPa)
20
21
22 In this study, to establish an equation among the influencing parameters, bond strength was
23 '
normalized by the square root of the concrete compressive strength f c and plotted against the c / db
24
25 ratio. Fig. 7 demonstrates the variation between U / f c' and c / db for a concrete strength of 25
26
27 MPa. A nonlinear regression line was obtained from Fig. 7 with a coefficient of determination of 0.99
28 that establishes the relation between the normalized bond strength and the c / db ratio.
29 Based on the regression line in Fig. 7, the following expression is derived to evaluate the bond
30 strength of reinforcing bars in BAC.
31 0.42
32  c 
33 U/ f  0.525  
c
'
(11)
34  db 
35 R² = 0.99
36
37 5.1 Verification of the proposed equation
38
This section presents the verification of the proposed model. The verification was performed by
39
comparing the values of bond strength obtained from the proposed model, the present investigation
40
and the code equations (Eq. (2), Eq. (4), Eq. (5) and Eq. (11)). During model verification, the bond
41
strength obtained from cube specimens was considered because of the short embedded length of the
42
reinforcing bars and the predicted bond strength using the proposed model, which is very close to the
43
44 bond strength obtained from the experimental results of cubic specimens (Table 7). The bond
45 strength values obtained from the experiment and those calculated using the proposed model and
46 code equations were plotted, and the results calculated with the proposed equation are in good
47 agreement with the test results for the bond strength between BAC and reinforcing bars (Fig. 8).
48
49 Table 7
50 Predicted and experimental bond strength values.
51 Bond strength calculated from equations
Specimen Bond strength
52 Proposed
ID (MPa) ACI CEB-FIP AS 3600
53 equation
54 CB30-12 7.96 6.21 3.06 5.06 9.80
55
56 CB30-16 6.36 5.50 3.06 5.06 7.53
57 CB30-20 6.09 5.01 3.06 5.06 6.17
58 2.78 4.95 8.94
59 CB25-12 7.43 6.21
60 CB25-16 6.76 5.50 2.78 4.95 6.87
61
62 11
63
64
65
 CB25-20 5.84 5.01 2.78 4.95 5.63
1 CB20-12 7.07 6.21 2.57 4.81 8.00
2
3 CB20-16 6.23 5.50 2.57 4.81 6.15
4 CB20-20 5.83 5.01 2.57 4.81 5.04
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Fig. 8 Variation in the bond strength values between the proposed equation and code equations
24
25 6. Conclusion
26
27 The present study was carried out to find the bond strength of reinforcing bars in BAC. To fulfill the
28 objectives, pull-out tests were conducted on both cylindrical and cubic specimens considering several
29 parameters: reinforcing bar diameter, concrete compressive strength, confinement effect, embedment
30 length and specimen shape. The water-cement ratio was kept constant at 0.45 throughout this study.
31 In addition, the tensile strength of BAC was tested and compared with the value obtained from the
32 predicted equation for BAC and SAC. Finally, a model equation was proposed to predict the bond
33 strength of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC based on a limited number of parameters. This study
34 can form a starting point for more work to generate generally applicable formulas suitable to include in
35 design codes. The following conclusions can be drawn from this experimental investigation:
36
37 (1) The tensile strength of BAC obtained from the experimental study was higher than the
38 predicted tensile strength for both BAC and SAC.
39 (2) The force-slip failures of rebar embedded in BAC can be divided into several stages: elastic
40 stage, local slip stage, slip ascending stage, slip descending stage and remnant stage.
41 However, slips were higher in the larger diameter bars than in the lower diameter bars. The
42 maximum (6 mm) and minimum slip (2.75 mm) were observed for the 16 mm and 12 mm
43 diameter bars, respectively.
44 (3) Variations in specimen shape showed remarkable differences in bond strength. The bond
45 strength for the cubic specimens was higher than that of the cylindrical specimens for a
46 specific concrete strength and bar diameter because of the short embedment length of the
47 bar.
48 (4) The bond strength was higher than the tensile strength of BAC, causing the specimens to
49 exhibit splitting failures. Therefore, pull-out failure of the specimens was prevented. In
50 contrast, for confined specimens, bond failure was the primary failure mode for all the
51 specimens.
52 (5) The unconfined specimens exhibited splitting failures, wherein cracks propagated radially
53 from the center to the edge of the concrete specimens.
54 (6) A comparison showed that the experimental bond strength was larger than the bond strength
55 predicted by the design equation for SAC in ACI 318 and was very close to bond strength
56 predicted by the design equation for SAC in CEB-FIP. However, the design equation for SAC
57 proposed in AS 3600 predicted a larger bond strength than the experimental bond strength for
58 cylindrical specimens. Note that the conclusions herein are restricted to the parameters used
59 in this study.
60
61
62 12
63
64
65
 (7) It is found that the bond strength of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC is different than that of
1 reinforcing bars embedded in SAC.
2
3 The conclusions drawn in the paper are based on normal strength concrete made with crushed
4 clay brick available in Bangladesh and the concrete mixes generally used in the construction industry
5 of Bangladesh. The reinforcement cover, water-cement ratio, and embedment length could also be
6 studied to recommend a generalized model to obtain the bond strength of rebar embedded in BAC.
7
8 Acknowledgments
9
The authors would like to acknowledge their gratitude to the Development Design and
10
Management for providing financial support and a wide variety of assistance.
11
12
References
13
14 [1] ACI-committee 408 (2003). 408R-03: Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in
15 Tension. Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute; 2003.
16 [2] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited,
th
17 5 Edition, 2011.
18 [3] Shetty MS. Concrete technology theory and practice. New Delhi, India: S. Chand & Company Pvt.
19 Ltd. Revised Edition: 2005.
20 [4] Robins PJ, Standish IG. Effect of lateral pressure on bond of reinforcing bars in concrete. In:
21 Proceedings of the International Conference on Bond in Concrete, Paisley, Applied Science
22 Publishers, London, p. 262-272, 1982.
23 [5] Chen HJ, Huang CH, Kao ZY. Experimental investigation on steel–concrete bond in lightweight
24 and normal weight concrete. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 17(2):141–152, 2004.
25 [6] Mitchell DW, Marzouk H. Bond characteristics of high-strength lightweight concrete. Structural
26 Journal, ACI 104(1): 22-29, 2007.
27 [7] Pul S. Loss of concrete-steel bond strength under monotonic and cyclic loading of lightweight and
28 ordinary concretes. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transaction B: Engineering
29 34(B4):397-406, 2010.
30 [8] Shideler JJ. Lightweight aggregate concrete for structural use. ACI Journal, Proceedings
31 54(10):298-328, 1957.
32 [9] Berg O. Reinforced structures in lightweight aggregate concrete. Publication 81.3, Chalmers
33 University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 1981.
34 [10] Akhtaruzzaman AA, Hasnat A. Properties of concrete using crushed brick as aggregate.
35 Concrete International, ACI 5(2): 58-63, 1983.
36 [11] Mansur MA, Wee TH, Cheran LS. Crushed bricks as coarse aggregate for concrete. ACI
37
Materials Journal 96(4):478-484, 1999.
38
[12] Kahaf FM. Using crushed clay brick as coarse aggregate in concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil
39
Engineering, ASCE 18(4):518-526, 2006.
40
[13] Rashid MA, Hossain T, Islam MA. Properties of higher strength concrete made with crushed brick
41
as coarse aggregate. Journal of Civil Engineering, IEB 37(1):43-52, 2009.
42
[14] Khaloo AR. Properties of Concrete Using Crushed Clinker Brick as Coarse Aggregate. Materials
43
Journal, ACI 91(4):401-407, 1994.
44
[15] Hansen TC. Recycling of demolished concrete and masonry. RILEM Report 6. E&FN Spon,
45
46 London; 1992.
47 [16] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, England: Pearson Education
rd
48 Limited, 3 Edition, 1993.
49 [17] Baldwin JW. (1965) Bond of reinforcement in lightweight aggregate concrete. ACI Convention,
50 University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo., March 1965.
51 [18] Orangun CO, Jirsa IO, Breen JE. A revaluation of test data on development length and splices,
52 ACI J. 74 (3):114–122, 1977.
53 [19] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and
54 commentary. 318R-99. Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
55 [20] Mor A. Steel-concrete bond in high-strength lightweight concrete. ACI Materials Journals
56 89(1):76-82, 1992.
57 [21] Azizinamini A, Stark M, Roller JJ, Ghosh SK. Bond performance of reinforcing bars embedded in
58 high-strength concrete. ACI structural Journal, 95(5):554- .
59 [22] Esfahani R, Rangan V. Bond between normal strength and high-strength concrete (HSC) and
60 reinforcing bars in splices in beams. ACI Struct. J., 95(3): 272–280, 1998.
61
62 13
63
64
65
 [23] Zuo J, Darwin D. splice strength of conventional and high relative rib area bars in normal and
1 high-strength concrete. Structural Journal ACI 97(4):630-641, 2000.
2 [24] Harajli MH. Comparison of bond strength of steel bars in normal and high-strength concrete.
3 Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE 16(4): 365-374, 2004.
4 [25] Lopez JE, Paz SS, Fonteboa BG, Abella FM. Bond behavior of Recycled Concrete: Analysis and
5 Prediction of Bond Stress-Slip Curve. J. mater. Civ. Eng., 29(10): 04017156-1-12, 2017.
6 [26] ACI Committee 318. Building code for structural concrete and Commentary (318R–2008),
7 Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
8 [27] BNBC (2006) Bangladesh National Building Code. Housing and Building Research Institute and
9 Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution, Bangladesh.
10 [28] CEB-FIP (2010) CEB-FIP Model Code 2010. Comite´ Euro-International du Be´ ton, 2010.
11 [29] AS 3600 (1994) Australian Standard for Concrete Structures. North Sydney, Australia.
12 [30] Diab AM, Ashy HMA, Hussein MA, Elyamany HE. Bond behaviour and assessment of design
13 ultimate bond stress of normal and high strength concrete. Alexandria Engineering Journal
14 53(2):355-371, 2014.
15 [31] Rashid MA, Hossain T, Islam MA. Higher strength concrete using crushed Brick as coarse
16 Aggregate. Indian Concrete Journal, 82(10):18-23, 2008.
17 [32] Rashid MA, Salam MA, Shill SK, Hasan MK. Effect of replacing natural coarse aggregate by brick
18 aggregate on the properties of concrete. Duet Journal, 1(3):17-22, 2012.
19 [33] Song X, Wu Y, Gu X, Chen C. Bond behavior of reinforcing steel bars in early age concrete.
20 Construction and Building Materials 94:209-217, 2015.
21 [34] ASTM C138 / C138M-17a, Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air
22 Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
23 [35] ASTM C128-15, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of
24 Fine Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
25 [36] ASTM C143 / C143M-15a, Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete,
26 ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
27 [37] ASTM C39 / C39M-18, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
28 Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018.
29 [38] ASTM C496 / C496M-17, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical
30 Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
31 [39] ASTM C234-91a, Standard Test Method for Comparing Concretes on the Basis of the Bond
32 Developed with Reinforcing Steel (Withdrawn 2000), ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
33 PA, 1991.
34 [40] Harajli M, Hamad B, Karam K. Bond-slip response of reinforcing bars embedded in plain and fiber
35 concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE 14(6):503-511, 2002.
36 [41] Oluokun FA, Burdette EG, Deatherage JH. Splitting tensile strength and compressive strength
37 relationships at early ages. ACI materials journal 88(2):115-121, 1991.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 14
63
64
65
*Detailed Response to Reviewers

Responses to the Reviewers’ Comments

Journal name: Construction & Building Materials

Ref.: CONBUILDMAT-D-19-06828
Title: Bond behavior of reinforcing bars embedded in concrete made with crushed clay bricks as
coarse aggregates
Authors:
Md. Mozammel Hoque, Md Niamul Islam, Minhazul Islam, Mohammad Abdul kader
(*corresponding author: mhoque@duet.ac.bd)

The authors wish to thank the reviewers for their helpful remarks and valuable suggestions, which helped
improve the quality of this paper. The authors have reviewed the entire manuscript and made
revisions in the appropriate places. Additionally, all the comments are addressed in the revised
manuscript. A detailed list of the changes that have been made in response to the reviewer’s comments
are provided hereinafter. The basic format of this list is as follows: reviewer comment, author response
and references.

Responses to the Reviewers’ Comments

Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author

This paper presented the experimental research on the bond behavior of steel bars embedded in
recycled concrete with crushed brick aggregates as coarse aggregates. The idea was interesting and
useful for actual engineering. The experiment was designed properly and the analysis was sufficient.
The English language was appropriate. Hence the reviewer commend to accept the paper directly.

Reviewer: 4
Comments to the Author
In this paper the authors present an interesting topic that is not well addressed in the scientific
literature. Fundamental tests are reported, results are compared with the literatures and a suggestion is
put forward to bring the findings into practice. The limitations of the study are also outlined. To this end,
this reviewer is eager to recommend this for publication. However, a few shortcoming as mentioned in
the following need to be addressed.
1. Line 14-15; Line 165: Why cube specimens are included in the test campaign? It is not also clearly
explained why larger bond strength is found in cube specimen.

- Previous studies have shown that specimen shape influences the bond strength. Therefore, both cubic
and cylindrical specimens are included in this study. The bar embedment length is inversely
proportional to the bond strength, and reinforcing bars with a short embedment length provide a higher
strength in the cubic specimens than in the cylinder specimens. Since, lines 14-15 are in the abstract, it
is not rational to mention these details within these lines.

2. Lines 43-55: Ref [10] mentions BAC as medium weight concrete. The authors may consider this.
- The authors have considered this.

3. Line 95: Table 1. The justification and the procedure for calculating the values in last column is not
clear. It is a bit early to introduce the experimental data before introducing the experiment plan.
-The experimental results in the last column of Table 1 have been deleted.

4. Line 118: What were the design strengths for the two mix ratios? Why arbitrary mix ratio was
considered?

-The design strength values for these two mix ratios have been included. These mix ratios were
determined from ACI mix design methods.

5. Line 129: What is the elongation property of reinforcement steel?

- In this study, the elongation properties of the reinforcing bars have not been tested because bonding
failure is expected to happen before the reinforcing bars yield. However, in Bangladesh, steel
reinforcing bars generally exhibit 10~25% elongation.
6. Figures 1-2: A scale is required to judge the figure.
-A scale has been incorporated in these figures.

7. Line 149: "….some other equations…." Not clear.

- This sentence in the manuscript has been modified.

8. Lines 153-162: What was the cross head speed in loading? How was that maintained?
- The crosshead displacement rate was 2 mm/min, which was maintained via servo hydraulic control.

9. Table 3: How tensile strengths in cylinder and cube specimen were determined?
- The tensile strength was determined through a splitting tensile test of the concrete. The concrete
cylinder was taken from a concrete batch mixture for both cylindrical and cubic specimens.
10. Tables 3-4: The table captions require rephrasing and detailing as these are looking exactly the
same. It is suggested to use a few horizontal lines to group the specimens for better readability.
-The table captions for Tables 3-4 have been changed, and horizontal lines have been added in the
tables for clarity.
11. Figures 3-4: The figure looks tilted. Please correct.
- These figures have been corrected.
12. Figures 5-6: All vertical and horizontal axes maximum and minimum limits need to be uniform to
better readability and comparison.
- If the maximum and minimum limits of all the vertical and horizontal axes are made uniform, these
figures become unreadable.
13. Figure 6: Why these is a non-uniform different trend among the specimens. Please also use SI unit
in the figures instead of FPS unit.
-Due to the inclusion of both confined and unconfined specimens, the figures have nonuniform trends.
SI units are used in the legends.
14. Lines 226-227: This should go to Introduction part.
- These sentences have been moved to the introduction.
15. Figure 7: X-axis caption is not correct.
- This figure has been deleted.
16. Figure 7 and Table 6: May need to be combined or modified as some data are repeated.
- Figures 7 have been deleted.
17. Figure 8-9: Presentation should be improved.
- The presentation of these figures has been changed.
18. Line 368: Unclear
- The sentences have been corrected.
19. Line 371: Please delete … "it can be concluded that the specimen failed in tension".
- This line has been corrected according to the reviewer’s instructions.
20. Lines 361-384: Please avoid the term "conclusion" as it is already mentioned in Line 359.
- This sentence has been corrected.
21. Line 392: It may look better if written: "The authors would like to ….. for collaboration and financial
support…"
-This line has been changed.
*Highlights

Highlights:

 Bond strength of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC is different than that of

reinforcing bars embedded in SAC.
 A model equation is proposed to evaluate bond strength of reinforcing bars in
BAC.
 Effect of parameters on bond strength of reinforcing bars in BAC is
investigated.
*Declaration of Interest Statement

Conflict of Interest
The authors would like to declare that they have read all the details about publishing this manuscript and
have been informed about the policies of “Construction and Building Materials”. It is also declared that
authors have no conflict of interest on financial, professional or personal point of view in this manuscript.
*Credit Author Statement

Credit Author Statement:

Md. Mozammel Hoque: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing-
reviewing and editing, Funding acquisition and Project administration.

Md Niamul Islam: Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation, Resources,

Visualization, Investigation, validation, Formal analysis and Software.

Minhazul Islam: Data curation and Resources.

Mohammad Abdul Kader: Supervision and Writing- Reviewing and Editing.

*Title page

Bond behavior of reinforcing bars embedded in concrete made with crushed clay bricks as coarse
aggregates

1 2 4
Md. Mozammel Hoque , Md Niamul Islam , Minhazul Islam3, Mohammad Abdul Kader

1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering; Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology,
Bangladesh
2
Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Nagaoka University of Technology, Japan;
3
Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Dhaka University of Engineering &
Technology, Bangladesh
4
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering; Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology,
Bangladesh

Corresponding Author: Md. Mozammel Hoque

Professor-Department of Civil Engineering,

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, DUET, Gazipur-1700

Email: mhoque@duet.ac.bd
*Revised manuscript with changes marked

Bond behavior of reinforcing bars embedded in concrete made with crushed clay bricks as
1 coarse aggregates
2 Md. Mozammel Hoque*, Md Niamul Islam, Minhazul Islam, Mohammad Abdul Kader
3
4
5
Abstract
6
7 This study investigated the bond behavior between reinforcing bars and brick aggregate concrete
8 (BAC) by testing cylindrical and cubic BAC specimens with design compressive strength values of 20,
9 25 and 30 MPa. Forty-six direct pull-out tests were conducted to assess the influence of several
10 parameters: bar diameter, bond length, concrete confinement, specimen shape and concrete
11 compressive strength. The effects of these parameters were presented as force-slip relations. The
12 bond strength measurements were compared with predictions from design equations used for stone
13 aggregate concrete (SAC). The results showed that the bond strength measurements were larger
14 than the bond strength predictions from ACI 318 and very close to those from CEB-FIP and AS 3600.
15 Moreover, cubic specimens exhibited larger bond strength than cylindrical specimens due to shorter
16 bar embedment lengths. Furthermore, a comparison between SAC and BAC revealed significant
17 mechanical property differences. Finally, a model equation was proposed using the test results to
18 evaluate the bond strength of reinforcing bars in BAC.
19
20
21 Keywords: Bond strength, Bar slip, Crushed clay brick, Pull-out test.
22
23
24 1. Introduction
25 The utility of reinforced concrete (RC) as a structural material is derived from the combined action
26 of concrete and reinforcing bars. To ensure composite action, load transfer must occur between the
27 concrete and the reinforcing bars. However, the transfer of force from concrete to reinforcing bars and
28 vice versa will be effective only if proper bonding exists between these materials [1]. Therefore, the
29
bond between concrete and reinforcing bars is one of the most significant factors for the strength,
30
serviceability and safety of RC structures.
31
The bonding mechanism between concrete and reinforcing bars is attributed to adhesion,
32
mechanical interaction and friction. Adhesion is produced by chemical bonds, which form during the
33
curing process of concrete. Adhesion prevails in bars with smooth surfaces, and adhesive failures are
34
mainly characterized by initiation and propagation of cracks at the interface of concrete and
35
reinforcing bars. In the case of deformed bars, adhesion is secondary because the extent of force
36
carried by adhesion is insubstantial and is exhausted within a short time in the global response. Soon
37
38 after an adhesive failure, force is gradually transmitted by the mechanical anchorage developed
39 between the reinforcing bar ribs and the concrete. Hence, the mechanical interaction and friction
40 between reinforcing bars and surrounding concrete are the most important phenomena for the
41 bonding of reinforcing bars. These phenomena depend on the configuration of ribs on the bars and
42 the mechanical properties of reinforcing bars and concrete. According to ACI 408R [1], bond strength
43 is influenced by several factors: compressive strength, tensile strength, fracture energy, elastic
44 modulus, workability, bar properties, and RC member configurations. The mechanical properties of
45 concrete largely depend on the properties of the aggregates and cement and the content of cement
46 [2-3].
47 The literature shows that the bond strength of reinforcing bars embedded in lightweight concrete
48 (LWC) is different than that of reinforcing bars embedded in normal weight concrete (NWC),
49 regardless of the presence of transverse reinforcing bars [4-7]. This difference becomes significant for
50 higher strength concrete, as reported by Shideler [8]. Berg [9] reported a 10% difference in bond
51 strength between NWC and LWC. It is well established from previous studies that the properties of
52 concrete, such as the compressive strength, elastic modulus, and density, made with crushed stone
53 are different from the properties of concrete made with crushed clay bricks [10-13]. According to
54 previous studies, brick aggregate concrete (BAC) exhibits a lower elastic modulus and a higher
55 tensile strength than stone aggregate concrete (SAC) (Table 1). Khaloo [14] and Hansen [15]
56 reported that the tensile strength of BAC is 10% and 15% higher than the tensile strength of SAC,
57 respectively. In contrast, Khalaf [12] reported that BAC exhibits an 8% lower tensile strength than
58 SAC because they used a low-density BAC. In addition, unlike SAC, BAC possesses a unit weight
3 3
59 between NWC (2000 kg/m ) and LWC (2080 kg/m ); therefore, BAC can be defined as medium
60
61
62 1
63
64
65
 weight concrete [10]. However, according to Neville [16], the unit weight of BAC is 2200 to 2600
3
1 kg/m .
2 Extensive studies on the bond-slip response of SAC and reinforcing bars have been carried out
3 over the past several decades, and the corresponding bond strength has already been quantified and
4 formulated [17-25]. Hence, the current code provisions, ACI 318 [26], BNBC [27], CEB FIP [28] and
5 AS 3600 [29], represent the bond-slip relations only for SAC. No literature or code provisions can be
6 found dealing with bond-slip relations of BAC and reinforcing bars. However, BAC is widely used in
7 the construction of low-rise and medium-rise buildings and small-span bridges in Bangladesh and
8 many other countries as an alternative to natural stones due to resource scarcity [13]. Hence, bond
9 strength is dependent on the tensile strength of the concrete because the bond behavior is supposed
10 to be different for reinforcing bars embedded in BAC than that for reinforcing bars embedded in SAC.
11 The difference in the bond strength may eventually misguide designers, resulting in underestimated or
12 overestimated bond strength. Therefore, investigation is required on the bond behavior of reinforcing
13 bars embedded in BAC. However, no such investigations are available in the related literature. As a
14 result, the bond strength of reinforcing bars in BAC could be overestimated, which may lead to
15 serious consequences (e.g., failures), or underestimated, which may cause financial losses.
16 With this background, the present study aims to investigate the bond strength and bond-slip
17 relationship of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC. Subsequently, a comparison of the results of the
18 investigation will be made with the design equations proposed in design specifications and design
19 codes. In addition, this study attempts to evaluate the applicability of the design equations for SAC to
20 predict the bond strength of reinforcing bars in BAC.
21
22 2. Research significance
23
24 This study represents the bond-slip response of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC of different
25 strength grades, which reveals useful information regarding the bond-slip relation of reinforcing bars
26 and BAC. A literature review shows that the bond strength and bond-slip response of reinforcing bars
27 embedded in SAC has been extensively investigated [17, 9, 20, 4, 24, 5, 30] in the past several
28 decades, whereas these areas have not been investigated for BAC. In addition, studies show
29 significant differences among the properties of BAC and SAC, such as tensile strength and elastic
30 modulus. Therefore, the bond strength and/or bond-slip response may be different for reinforcing bars
31 when embedded in those two types of concretes. This occurrence may also affect the development
32 length or splice length. However, BAC is popularly used to construct buildings and small-span bridges
33 in Bangladesh and many other countries [13]. The design codes, such as BNBC 2006 [27], do not
34 recommend separate equations to predict bond strength, development length or anchorage length for
35 reinforcing bars when embedded in BAC. Based on the background, this investigation attempts to find
36 the difference in experimental bond strength of BAC and predicted bond strength calculated using
37 design codes for SAC. Finally, this study proposes a model of the bond strength of BAC.
38
39 Table 1
40 Properties of BAC and SAC.
41 Predicted
Concrete Modulus of Predicted tensile f’c
42 Authors tensile
type elasticity (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa)
43 strength (MPa)
44 Mansur et al.
45 [11]
BAC Ec  4050 fc' f sp  0.69 f c' 33.89 4.00
46 Akhtaruzzaman
47 and Hasnat BAC Ec  3322 f c' f sp  0.62 f c' 33.89 3.60
48 [10]
49
f sp  0.0514  f c' 
Rashid et al. 1.164
50 [31] [32]
BAC Ec  3115 f c' 33.89 3.10
51
52
53 ACI 318 [19] SAC Ec  4730 fc' f sp  0.56 fc' 33.89 3.26
54
55
56 Oluokun et al.
57 [41]
SAC - f sp  0.294 fc0.69 33.89 3.34
58
59 Esfahani and
60 Rangan [22]
SAC - f sp  0.55 fc' 33.89 3.2
61
62 2
63
64
65
 BNBC (2006) SAC Ec  4700 fc' -
1
[27]
2 BAC Ec  3750 f c' -
3
4
5 3. Experimental program
6
7 3.1 Test specimens and test variables
8 Several test methods can be found in the literature to evaluate the bond-slip relationships of
9 reinforcing bars embedded in concrete: direct pull-out tests, push-off tests, beam-end tests and beam
10 tests [1, 33]. For simplicity and wide applicability, direct pull-out tests were performed on cylindrical
11 (150 mm × 300 mm) and cubic (150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm) specimens in this study. In the first
12 part of this investigation, a total of 18 pull-out specimens were tested, and these specimens were
13 designated with the letters C and CB. These specimens were composed of concrete with specific
14 design strength values of 20 MPa, 25 MPa and 30 MPa, and the specimens were classified into three
15 groups according to these strength values. Each group contained three cylindrical and three cubic
16 specimens. The design strength of concrete was verified by a cylinder test.
17 Deformed reinforcing bars were embedded at the center of each concrete specimen. A tensile load
18 was applied to the reinforcing bar by the lower crosshead of the test machine, as shown in Fig. 3. The
19 test variables included in this study are the bar diameter (12, 16 and 20 mm), the concrete design
20 strength (20, 25 and 30 MPa), and the specimen shapes (cylindrical and cubic specimens). Table 3
21 provides a summary of the test specimens and test variables. A three-part specimen designation was
22 used to identify the specimens. The first part denoted by letters indicates the specimen type. The first
23 numerical part represents the design strength of the concrete. The last numerical part represents the
24 diameter of the bar embedded in the concrete.
25 In addition, another 28 cylindrical specimens were cast and tested separately in the second step of
26 this investigation to study bond behavior between BAC and steel bars when confined reinforcements
27 are present around the embedded bars. The concrete design strength values for these specimens
28 were 30 MPa and 20 MPa. A 5d length of the embedded bars was bonded to the concrete, and the
29
rest of the length was shielded with a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tube to prevent bonding. Specimens
30
were designated SXY_Z as shown in Table [4], where X, Y and Z represent the strength of the
31
concrete, the presence of spiral confinement and the diameter of the embedded bar.
32
33
3.2 Materials
34
35 The specimens were made using crushed clay brick aggregates, coarse sand and ordinary
36 Portland cement (OPC) with a water-cement ratio of 0.45. The properties of the concrete ingredients
37 (unit weight, specific gravity and absorption) were measured in accordance with ASTM C138/C138M
38 [34] and ASTM C128 [35]. Table 2 illustrates the properties of the coarse and fine aggregates.
39 In this investigation, grade 60 reinforcing bars were used as pull-out reinforcement. The elongation
40 properties of the reinforcing bars have not been tested in this study because bonding failure is
41 expected to happen before the reinforcing bars yield. However, in Bangladesh, steel reinforcing bars
42 generally exhibit is 10~25% elongation. The diameter of the bars was 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm. The
43 nominal yield strength of the bars was 415 MPa. The maximum size of the coarse aggregate was 19
44 mm, as shown in Fig. 1. The concrete design strength (30, 25 and 20 MPa) and mix ratios (1:1.25:2.5;
45 1:1.5:3 and 1:2:4) were selected from the manual of the Public Works Department (PWD, 2014),
46 which is commonly used in Bangladesh. Concrete ingredients were mixed on a volume basis. OPC
47 type I was used as the binding material. However, the design strength of the concrete was verified by
48 testing control cylinders with a compression testing machine (MATEST SRL, Italy, capacity 3000 kN).
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 Fig. 1. Crushed brick aggregate. Fig. 2. Specimen preparation.
61
62 3
63
64
65
 1
2 Table 2
3 Properties of aggregates.
4 Unit weight Fineness Maximum size Bulk specific Absorption
3
5 (kg/m ) modulus (mm) gravity capacity (%)
6 Coarse
1046 4.52 19 6.64 12.5
7 aggregates
8 Fine
1478 2.56 - 2.36 1.20
9 aggregates
10
11 The concrete slump was measured in accordance with ASTM C143 [36] and was found to be
12 within a range of 27 mm to 40 mm. Concrete compressive and tensile strength tests were conducted
13 in accordance with ASTM C39 [37] and ASTM C496 [38]. The maximum and minimum tensile
14 strength values of BAC were 5.95 MPa and 4.07 MPa, respectively, which was larger than the
15 predicted tensile strength of SAC. It is believed that the high angularity of brick aggregates gives BAC
16 higher tensile strength than SAC. The predicted tensile strength was calculated using the equations
17 listed in Table 1 for natural aggregate concrete (NAC), and the results are listed in Table 1.
18
19 3.3 Test procedure
20
21 The direct pull-out tests were conducted using a universal testing machine (UTM) with a capacity
22 of 200 kN (Tokyo Testing Machine) in accordance with ASTM C234 [39]. The specimens were placed
23 on a smooth steel plate to ensure a uniform loading surface at the upper crosshead of the UTM. A
24 sub-assemblage was used to firmly retain the specimen position, as shown in Fig. 3. A linear variable
25 differential transformer (LVDT) was placed on top of the machine axis and in contact with the steel
26 plate to measure the slip of the reinforcing bars, as shown in Fig. 3. The upper crosshead did not grip
27 the reinforcing bars, whereas the lower crosshead tightly gripped the loading end of the specimens.
28 The specimens were tested under monotonic loading applied by the UTM in accordance with ASTM
29 C234 [39]. However, the slip of the reinforcing bars was recorded at every point corresponding to the
30 force.
31
32 Table 3
33 Test specimens and variables for unconfined specimens
34 Concrete Tensile strength
Bar
35 Specimen design of control Specimen
36 diameter
ID strength specimen shape
37 (mm)
(MPa) (MPa)
38 C30-12 12
39 C30-16 5.24 16 Cylindrical
40 C30-20 20
41 30
CB30-12 12
42 CB30-16 5.95 16 Cubic
43 CB30-20 20
44 C25-12 12
45
C25-16 4.46 16 Cylindrical
46
C25-20 20
47 25
48 CB25-12 12
49 CB25-16 5.48 16 Cubic
50 CB25-20 20
51 C20-12 12
52 C20-16 4.07 16 Cylindrical
53 C20-20 20 20
54 CB20-12 12
55 CB20-16 4.27 16 Cubic
56 CB20-20 20
57
58 Table 4
59 Test specimens and variables for confined specimens.
60
61
62 4
63
64
65
 Concrete Bond Confinement Spacing of
Bar Embedded
1 Specimen design strength reinforcement spiral (mm)
diameter length 5d
2 ID strength (MPa)
(mm) (mm)
3 (MPa)
4 S34UC_12 12 60 4.45
5 S34UC_16 16 80 4.80
6 Unconfined No spiral
S34UC_20 20 100 3.37
7 S34UC_25 25 125 1.96
8 S34C1_12 12 60 6.61
9 S34C1_16 16 80 7.1
10 25
S34C1_20 20 100 7.43
11 S34C1_25 25 125 8.76
12 30
S34C2_12 12 60 6.22
13
S34C2_16 16 80 6.10
14 Confined 50
15 S34C2_20 20 100 5.18
16 S34C2_25 25 125 4.94
17 S34C3_12 12 60 5.80
18 S34C3_16 16 80 4.80
75
19 S34C3_20 20 100 4.87
20 S34C3_25 25 125 4.76
21 S19UN_20 20 100 2.00
22 S19UN_22 22 110 2.48 Unconfined No spiral
23 S19UN_25 25 125 2.77
24 S19C1_20 20 100 3.70
25 S19C1_22 22 110 4.59 25
26 S19C1_25 25 125 3.23
27 20
S19C2_20 20 100 3.60
28 Confined
S19C2_22 22 110 4.59 50
29 S19C2_25 25 125 3.09
30 S19C3_20 20 100 2.30
31 S19C3_22 22 110 3.67 75
32 S19C3_25 25 125 2.91
33
34
4. Test results and discussions
35
36 4.1 Bond strength
37
38 The bond strength U developed between the reinforcing bars and the concrete was calculated with
39 the following formula:
40
41
42 where U is the bond strength, P is the applied force, db is the bar diameter and lb is the bond length.
43
44
4.2 Force-slip relationship
45
46 The bond force and corresponding bar slips are presented graphically in Fig. 5. Fig. 5(a)–(f) show the
47 force-slip relations of bars embedded in BAC. The figures show that the bond force increases with
48 increasing slip. This behavior occurs because the primary bond force results from adhesion, after
49 which friction and mechanical interlocking come into action; hence, the bond force increases.
50 However, after a certain slip, the adhesion ceases to contribute to the bond force; hence, a
51 decreasing trend is seen in the force-slip curves. Additionally, no remarkable change in the trend of
52 the force-slip curves can be seen with the variation in bar diameter. In the ascending curves, the force
53 is observed to change linearly with respect to the slip, whereas the descending curve is nonlinear to
54 some extent due to slightly nonlinear behavior of concrete under tension. No significant nonlinearity
55 can be observed because concrete under tension behaves linearly and exhibits brittle failure.
56 Moreover, in almost all cases, the maximum force is at approximately 1 mm slip of the bars, as shown
57 in Fig. 5(a)–(f). Some fluctuations in values were observed in both the ascending and descending
58 parts of the force-slip curves. The slip increased as the diameter of the embedded bars increased.
59 The ascending curve of the higher strength concrete was steeper than that of the lower strength
60 concrete.
61
62 5
63
64
65
 However, for the second type of specimens, the trend was completely different due to the
1 presence of confinement reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 6(a)–(g). The slope of the force-slip curve
2 for the confined specimens decreased with increasing bar diameter. The ascending part of the force-
3 slip curves for these specimens became steeper as the bar diameter decreased. On the other hand,
4 the descending part was steep and linear because the bar exhibited pull-out failure when the force
5 reached the peak. The peak bond force was achieved after a significant amount of bar slip because
6 the presence of confinement reinforcement delayed the sudden failure of the specimens. The slip of
7 the embedded bar was larger for the confined specimens than for the unconfined specimens. Fig.
8 6(a)–(g) shows that the bond force increases with decreasing spacing of spiral reinforcements.
st
9 However, the bond force of the “S” series specimens was higher than that of the 1 type of
10 specimens. It is believed that the lower embedment length of the bars and the presence of
11 confinement reinforcement contributed to the larger bond force for the second type of specimens.
12
13
Specimen
14
15
16 LVDT
17 Splitting
18 Load cell failure
19
20
21
22
23
24 Fig. 3. Experimental setup. Fig. 4. Splitting failure of specimens.
25
26
The maximum and minimum slips observed for the first 18 specimens were 6 mm (Fig. 5(a)) and
27
2.75 mm (Fig. 5(d)) for 16 mm reinforcing bars, respectively. In contrast, for the “S” series specimens,
28
the maximum slip was 34 mm, and the minimum slip was approximately 7 mm. The peak bond force
29
30 for the confined specimens was observed at approximately 210 kN (Fig. 6(d)) for a 25 mm diameter
31 bar embedded in a cylindrical specimen with a concrete strength of 30 MPa. In contrast, the minimum
32 bond force was observed at 40 kN for a 12 mm diameter bar, as shown in Fig. 5(f). The bond strength
33 was calculated with Eq. (1) and is presented in Table 4. For the same concrete strength and bar
34 diameter, the bond strength of the cubic specimens was higher than that of the cylindrical specimens
35 because of the shorter embedded length of the bars. With higher concrete compressive strength, the
36 bond strength increased. In the case of the effect of confinement observed for the “S” series
37 specimens, the bond strength for the 12 mm and 25 mm diameter bars in the confined specimens
38 was approximately 67% and 22% higher than that in the unconfined specimens, respectively (Table
39 4). The bond force increased as the spacing of confinement reinforcement decreased (Fig. 6(a)–(g)).
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55 (a) Cylinder (30 MPa) (b) Cube (30 MPa)
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 6
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 (c) Cylinder (25 MPa) (d) Cube (25 MPa)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 (e) Cylinder (20 MPa) (f) Cube (20 MPa)
29
30 Fig. 5 Bond force-slip relationship curves for the first 18 specimens
31
32
33 Unconfined
34 25 mm spiral
35 50 mm spiral
36 75 mm spiral
Unconfined
37
25 mm spiral
38
50 mm spiral
39 75 mm spiral
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47 (a) Specimen with 12 mm diameter bar (30 (b) Specimen with 16 mm diameter bar (30
48 MPa) MPa)
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 7
63
64
65
 Unconfined
1
25 mm spiral
2 50 mm spiral
3 75 mm spiral
4
5 Unconfined
6 25 mm spiral
7 50 mm spiral
8 75 mm spiral
9
10
11
12
13
14 (c) Specimen with 20 mm diameter bar (30 (d) Specimen with 25 mm diameter bar (30
15 MPa) MPa)
16
17 Unconfined Unconfined
18 25 mm spiral 25 mm spiral
19 50 mm spiral 50 mm spiral
20 75 mm spiral 75 mm spiral
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 (e) Specimen with 20 mm diameter bar (20 (f) Specimen with 22 mm diameter bar (20
31 MPa) MPa)
32
33 Unconfined
34 25 mm spiral
35 50 mm spiral
36 75 mm spiral
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 (g) Specimen with 25 mm diameter bar (20
46
MPa)
47
48 Fig. 6 Bond force-slip relationship curves for the “S” series specimens
49
50
51
52
53 4.3 Failure mode
54 The failure modes of concrete specimens during direct pull-out tests have been studied in many
55 investigations. The literature (for instance, Song et al. [33]) shows that the failure of bonds occurs
56 either by splitting concrete or by pulling out the reinforcing bars. The present study shows that most C
57 and CB series concrete specimens exhibited splitting failures (Fig. 4). In addition, radial and
58 longitudinal cracks were generated in the concrete specimens due to the lack of confinement.
59 Because splitting failure is influenced by the tensile strength of the concrete and studies show
60 differences between the tensile strength of BAC and SAC, this phenomenon could also affect the
61
62 8
63
64
65
 bond strength. A similar failure pattern was also reported by Harajli et al., Harajli, and Song et al. [40,
1 24, 33]. It is believed that the absence of confinement reinforcement caused the concrete specimens
2 to exhibit splitting failure. Concrete splitting was the dominant failure pattern found for the C and CB
3 series specimens. On the other hand, pull-out failure was the primary failure mode for the S series
4 specimens due to the presence of confinement spirals. Thus, spiral reinforcement prevents concrete
5 from being split.
6
7 5. Comparison of code provisions
8
9 The existing design equations or code provisions to determine bond strength are proposed for
10 SAC only. Design equations or investigations are not available that are used to predict the bond
11 strength of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC. However, the existing design equations have been
12 used to calculate the bond strength of reinforcing bars and BAC. The following section briefly
13 represents the available design equations:
14
15 The ACI 318 [26] recommends the following equation to calculate the bond strength for SAC:
16
17 Ab f y
18 
19  d b ld
20 (2)
21
22 where d b is the diameter of the bar, Ab is the area of the bar, f y is the specified yield strength of
23
24 the bar and ld is the development length that is calculated from the following equation.
25
 f  
26
ld   y t e  db (3)
27  2.1 f ' 
28  c 

is the concrete strength;  t is the reinforcement location factor, which is set to 1.3 if the
29
30 where f c'
31 reinforcement is placed in such a position where more than 300 mm of concrete is casted below the
bar and is set to 1 for other conditions;  e is the reinforcement coating factor, which is 1 for uncoated
32
33
34 bars; and  is the concrete aggregate factor, which is calculated from f c' /1.8 f ct .
35
36
37 According to the Australian Standard, AS 3600 [29], the bond strength between SAC and
38 reinforcing bars is calculated using Eq. (4).
39
40  c 
41   0.265 fc'   0.5 
42  db 
43 (4)
44 where c is the concrete cover. In this study, the concrete cover was considered 75 mm for both
45 cylindrical (150 mm × 300 mm) and cubic specimens (150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm).
46
47 The CEB-FIP model code [28] recommends specific formulas for determining the bond strength
48 between deformed bars and concrete considering several conditions, as shown in Table 5.
49
50 Table 5
51 Bond strength of reinforcing bars embedded in SAC recommended by the CEB-FIP model code.
52
53 Failure type Bond condition Bond strength (MPa)
54 0.25
55 Good bond  f 
Splitting failure Unconfined 7.0  ck  (5)
56 condition  20 
57  
58
59
60
61
62 9
63
64
65
 0.25
 fck 
8.0 
 20 
1 Confined (6)
2
3  
0.25
4  fck 
5.0 
 20 
5 Unconfined (7)
6  
7 Other conditions 0.25
8  fck 
5.5 
 20 
9 Confined (8)
10  
11 Good bond
12 condition
2.5 f ck (9)
13 Pull-out failure
14 Other conditions 1.25 f ck (10)
15
16
17 Using these equations, the bond strength was calculated and compared with the experimental results
18 (see Table 6). The differences in bond strength obtained from the BAC experiments and the design
19 equations are shown in Table. 6.
20 The bond strength obtained from the current experimental tests was approximately 30% larger
21 than those calculated using the design equations. More specifically, the average experimental bond
22 strength of BAC was approximately 100% and 60% higher than the predicted bond strength
23 calculated using ACI 318 and CEB-FIP model code equations, respectively. In addition, the AS 3600
24 code predicts an approximately 70% higher bond strength than that obtained from this investigation
25 (Table 6).
26 Several studies have proposed equations to predict the bond strength of reinforcing bars
27 embedded in NAC [21, 18, 23, 29, 26, 28]. The parameters that influence the bond strength are the
28 concrete compressive strength, bar diameter, bar/concrete bond length, concrete cover thickness and
29 concrete confinement. The literature shows that concrete compressive strength is one of the dominant
30 parameters and is directly proportional to the bond strength. The concrete compressive strength plays
31 an important role in normalizing the bond strength. The literature shows that a range of values are
32 used as power functions of concrete strength. According to the studies conducted by Orangun et al.
33 '3/4
34 [18], Zuo and Darwin [23] and Harajli [24], normalization of bond strength with f c' , f c , and f c'1/4
35 underestimates or overestimates the bond strength for a specific type of concrete. However, most of
36 '
37 the studies account for f c to develop the bond model. On the other hand, the bar diameter and
38 concrete cover thickness were disproportionate and proportionate to the bond strength, respectively.
39
40 Table 6
41 Bond strength obtained from experiments and code equations.
42 Specimen Compressive Bond Code recommended bond strength (MPa)
43 ID f ' strength ACI 318 AS 3600 CEB- Exp. / Exp. / Exp. /
strength c
44 U (MPa) FIP ACI AS3600 CEB-
45 (MPa) FIP
46 C30-12 5.75 3.06 9.80 5.06 1.87 0.59 1.1
47 C30-16 5.50 3.06 7.53 5.06 1.79 0.73 1.1
48 C30-20 4.93 3.06 6.17 5.06 1.61 0.80 1.0
30
CB30-12 7.96 3.06 9.80 5.06 2.60 0.81 1.6
49
CB30-16 6.36 3.06 7.53 5.06 2.07 0.84 1.3
50 CB30-20 6.09 3.06 6.17 5.06 1.99 0.99 1.2
51 C25-12 5.70 2.78 8.94 4.95 2.05 0.64 1.2
52 C25-16 5.00 2.78 6.87 4.95 1.79 0.73 1.0
53 C25-20 4.60 2.78 5.63 4.95 1.65 0.82 0.9
25
54 CB25-12 7.43 2.78 8.94 4.95 2.67 0.83 1.5
55 CB25-16 6.76 2.78 6.87 4.95 2.43 0.98 1.4
56 CB25-20 5.84 2.78 5.63 4.95 2.10 1.04 1.2
57 C20-12 5.20 2.57 8.00 4.81 2.02 0.65 1.1
58 C20-16 4.80 2.57 6.15 4.81 1.86 0.78 1.0
C20-20 20 4.20 2.57 5.04 4.81 1.63 0.83 0.9
59
CB20-12 7.07 2.57 8.00 4.81 2.75 0.88 1.5
60 CB20-16 6.23 2.57 6.15 4.81 2.42 1.01 1.3
61
62 10
63
64
65
 CB20-20 5.83 2.57 5.04 4.81 2.26 1.16 1.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Fig. 7 Normalized bond strength with c/db ratio obtained from test results and code
19 provisions (f’c =25 MPa)
20
21
22 In this study, to establish an equation among the influencing parameters, bond strength was
23 '
normalized by the square root of the concrete compressive strength f c and plotted against the c / db
24
25 ratio. Fig. 7 demonstrates the variation between U / f c' and c / db for a concrete strength of 25
26
27 MPa. A nonlinear regression line was obtained from Fig. 7 with a coefficient of determination of 0.99
28 that establishes the relation between the normalized bond strength and the c / db ratio.
29 Based on the regression line in Fig. 7, the following expression is derived to evaluate the bond
30 strength of reinforcing bars in BAC.
31 0.42
32  c 
33 U/ f  0.525  
c
'
(11)
34  db 
35 R² = 0.99
36
37 5.1 Verification of the proposed equation
38
This section presents the verification of the proposed model. The verification was performed by
39
comparing the values of bond strength obtained from the proposed model, the present investigation
40
and the code equations (Eq. (2), Eq. (4), Eq. (5) and Eq. (11)). During model verification, the bond
41
strength obtained from cube specimens was considered because of the short embedded length of the
42
reinforcing bars and the predicted bond strength using the proposed model, which is very close to the
43
44 bond strength obtained from the experimental results of cubic specimens (Table 7). The bond
45 strength values obtained from the experiment and those calculated using the proposed model and
46 code equations were plotted, and the results calculated with the proposed equation are in good
47 agreement with the test results for the bond strength between BAC and reinforcing bars (Fig. 8).
48
49 Table 7
50 Predicted and experimental bond strength values.
51 Bond strength calculated from equations
Specimen Bond strength
52 Proposed
ID (MPa) ACI CEB-FIP AS 3600
53 equation
54 CB30-12 7.96 6.21 3.06 5.06 9.80
55
56 CB30-16 6.36 5.50 3.06 5.06 7.53
57 CB30-20 6.09 5.01 3.06 5.06 6.17
58 2.78 4.95 8.94
59 CB25-12 7.43 6.21
60 CB25-16 6.76 5.50 2.78 4.95 6.87
61
62 11
63
64
65
 CB25-20 5.84 5.01 2.78 4.95 5.63
1 CB20-12 7.07 6.21 2.57 4.81 8.00
2
3 CB20-16 6.23 5.50 2.57 4.81 6.15
4 CB20-20 5.83 5.01 2.57 4.81 5.04
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Fig. 8 Variation in the bond strength values between the proposed equation and code equations
24
25 6. Conclusion
26
27 The present study was carried out to find the bond strength of reinforcing bars in BAC. To fulfill the
28 objectives, pull-out tests were conducted on both cylindrical and cubic specimens considering several
29 parameters: reinforcing bar diameter, concrete compressive strength, confinement effect, embedment
30 length and specimen shape. The water-cement ratio was kept constant at 0.45 throughout this study.
31 In addition, the tensile strength of BAC was tested and compared with the value obtained from the
32 predicted equation for BAC and SAC. Finally, a model equation was proposed to predict the bond
33 strength of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC based on a limited number of parameters. This study
34 can form a starting point for more work to generate generally applicable formulas suitable to include in
35 design codes. The following conclusions can be drawn from this experimental investigation:
36
37 (1) The tensile strength of BAC obtained from the experimental study was higher than the
38 predicted tensile strength for both BAC and SAC.
39 (2) The force-slip failures of rebar embedded in BAC can be divided into several stages: elastic
40 stage, local slip stage, slip ascending stage, slip descending stage and remnant stage.
41 However, slips were higher in the larger diameter bars than in the lower diameter bars. The
42 maximum (6 mm) and minimum slip (2.75 mm) were observed for the 16 mm and 12 mm
43 diameter bars, respectively.
44 (3) Variations in specimen shape showed remarkable differences in bond strength. The bond
45 strength for the cubic specimens was higher than that of the cylindrical specimens for a
46 specific concrete strength and bar diameter because of the short embedment length of the
47 bar.
48 (4) The bond strength was higher than the tensile strength of BAC, causing the specimens to
49 exhibit splitting failures. Therefore, pull-out failure of the specimens was prevented. In
50 contrast, for confined specimens, bond failure was the primary failure mode for all the
51 specimens.
52 (5) The unconfined specimens exhibited splitting failures, wherein cracks propagated radially
53 from the center to the edge of the concrete specimens.
54 (6) A comparison showed that the experimental bond strength was larger than the bond strength
55 predicted by the design equation for SAC in ACI 318 and was very close to bond strength
56 predicted by the design equation for SAC in CEB-FIP. However, the design equation for SAC
57 proposed in AS 3600 predicted a larger bond strength than the experimental bond strength for
58 cylindrical specimens. Note that the conclusions herein are restricted to the parameters used
59 in this study.
60
61
62 12
63
64
65
 (7) It is found that the bond strength of reinforcing bars embedded in BAC is different than that of
1 reinforcing bars embedded in SAC.
2
3 The conclusions drawn in the paper are based on normal strength concrete made with crushed
4 clay brick available in Bangladesh and the concrete mixes generally used in the construction industry
5 of Bangladesh. The reinforcement cover, water-cement ratio, and embedment length could also be
6 studied to recommend a generalized model to obtain the bond strength of rebar embedded in BAC.
7
8 Acknowledgments
9
The authors would like to acknowledge their gratitude to the Development Design and
10
Management for providing financial support and a wide variety of assistance.
11
12
References
13
14 [1] ACI-committee 408 (2003). 408R-03: Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in
15 Tension. Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute; 2003.
16 [2] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited,
th
17 5 Edition, 2011.
18 [3] Shetty MS. Concrete technology theory and practice. New Delhi, India: S. Chand & Company Pvt.
19 Ltd. Revised Edition: 2005.
20 [4] Robins PJ, Standish IG. Effect of lateral pressure on bond of reinforcing bars in concrete. In:
21 Proceedings of the International Conference on Bond in Concrete, Paisley, Applied Science
22 Publishers, London, p. 262-272, 1982.
23 [5] Chen HJ, Huang CH, Kao ZY. Experimental investigation on steel–concrete bond in lightweight
24 and normal weight concrete. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 17(2):141–152, 2004.
25 [6] Mitchell DW, Marzouk H. Bond characteristics of high-strength lightweight concrete. Structural
26 Journal, ACI 104(1): 22-29, 2007.
27 [7] Pul S. Loss of concrete-steel bond strength under monotonic and cyclic loading of lightweight and
28 ordinary concretes. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transaction B: Engineering
29 34(B4):397-406, 2010.
30 [8] Shideler JJ. Lightweight aggregate concrete for structural use. ACI Journal, Proceedings
31 54(10):298-328, 1957.
32 [9] Berg O. Reinforced structures in lightweight aggregate concrete. Publication 81.3, Chalmers
33 University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 1981.
34 [10] Akhtaruzzaman AA, Hasnat A. Properties of concrete using crushed brick as aggregate.
35 Concrete International, ACI 5(2): 58-63, 1983.
36 [11] Mansur MA, Wee TH, Cheran LS. Crushed bricks as coarse aggregate for concrete. ACI
37
Materials Journal 96(4):478-484, 1999.
38
[12] Kahaf FM. Using crushed clay brick as coarse aggregate in concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil
39
Engineering, ASCE 18(4):518-526, 2006.
40
[13] Rashid MA, Hossain T, Islam MA. Properties of higher strength concrete made with crushed brick
41
as coarse aggregate. Journal of Civil Engineering, IEB 37(1):43-52, 2009.
42
[14] Khaloo AR. Properties of Concrete Using Crushed Clinker Brick as Coarse Aggregate. Materials
43
Journal, ACI 91(4):401-407, 1994.
44
[15] Hansen TC. Recycling of demolished concrete and masonry. RILEM Report 6. E&FN Spon,
45
46 London; 1992.
47 [16] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, England: Pearson Education
rd
48 Limited, 3 Edition, 1993.
49 [17] Baldwin JW. (1965) Bond of reinforcement in lightweight aggregate concrete. ACI Convention,
50 University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo., March 1965.
51 [18] Orangun CO, Jirsa IO, Breen JE. A revaluation of test data on development length and splices,
52 ACI J. 74 (3):114–122, 1977.
53 [19] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and
54 commentary. 318R-99. Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
55 [20] Mor A. Steel-concrete bond in high-strength lightweight concrete. ACI Materials Journals
56 89(1):76-82, 1992.
57 [21] Azizinamini A, Stark M, Roller JJ, Ghosh SK. Bond performance of reinforcing bars embedded in
58 high-strength concrete. ACI structural Journal, 95(5):554- .
59 [22] Esfahani R, Rangan V. Bond between normal strength and high-strength concrete (HSC) and
60 reinforcing bars in splices in beams. ACI Struct. J., 95(3): 272–280, 1998.
61
62 13
63
64
65
 [23] Zuo J, Darwin D. splice strength of conventional and high relative rib area bars in normal and
1 high-strength concrete. Structural Journal ACI 97(4):630-641, 2000.
2 [24] Harajli MH. Comparison of bond strength of steel bars in normal and high-strength concrete.
3 Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE 16(4): 365-374, 2004.
4 [25] Lopez JE, Paz SS, Fonteboa BG, Abella FM. Bond behavior of Recycled Concrete: Analysis and
5 Prediction of Bond Stress-Slip Curve. J. mater. Civ. Eng., 29(10): 04017156-1-12, 2017.
6 [26] ACI Committee 318. Building code for structural concrete and Commentary (318R–2008),
7 Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
8 [27] BNBC (2006) Bangladesh National Building Code. Housing and Building Research Institute and
9 Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution, Bangladesh.
10 [28] CEB-FIP (2010) CEB-FIP Model Code 2010. Comite´ Euro-International du Be´ ton, 2010.
11 [29] AS 3600 (1994) Australian Standard for Concrete Structures. North Sydney, Australia.
12 [30] Diab AM, Ashy HMA, Hussein MA, Elyamany HE. Bond behaviour and assessment of design
13 ultimate bond stress of normal and high strength concrete. Alexandria Engineering Journal
14 53(2):355-371, 2014.
15 [31] Rashid MA, Hossain T, Islam MA. Higher strength concrete using crushed Brick as coarse
16 Aggregate. Indian Concrete Journal, 82(10):18-23, 2008.
17 [32] Rashid MA, Salam MA, Shill SK, Hasan MK. Effect of replacing natural coarse aggregate by brick
18 aggregate on the properties of concrete. Duet Journal, 1(3):17-22, 2012.
19 [33] Song X, Wu Y, Gu X, Chen C. Bond behavior of reinforcing steel bars in early age concrete.
20 Construction and Building Materials 94:209-217, 2015.
21 [34] ASTM C138 / C138M-17a, Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air
22 Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
23 [35] ASTM C128-15, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of
24 Fine Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
25 [36] ASTM C143 / C143M-15a, Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete,
26 ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
27 [37] ASTM C39 / C39M-18, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
28 Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018.
29 [38] ASTM C496 / C496M-17, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical
30 Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
31 [39] ASTM C234-91a, Standard Test Method for Comparing Concretes on the Basis of the Bond
32 Developed with Reinforcing Steel (Withdrawn 2000), ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
33 PA, 1991.
34 [40] Harajli M, Hamad B, Karam K. Bond-slip response of reinforcing bars embedded in plain and fiber
35 concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE 14(6):503-511, 2002.
36 [41] Oluokun FA, Burdette EG, Deatherage JH. Splitting tensile strength and compressive strength
37 relationships at early ages. ACI materials journal 88(2):115-121, 1991.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 14
63
64
65