ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 94-S48
Bond Stress-Slip Response of Reinforcing Bars Embedded
in FRC Matrices under Monotonic and Cyclic Loading
by Siva Hota and Antoine E. Naaman
The bond stress versus slip response of reinforcing bars embedded
in fiber reinforced cement based composites is investigated. Three
types of loading were carried out: 1) monotonic loading, 2) unidirec-
tional cyclic loading, i.e. loading-unloading by equal increments
of slip, and 3) fully reversed cyclic loading in a pull-pull mode.
Two types of failure were observed: a frictional type of pull-out
failure, and a splitting mode type of failure. Typically, for all
applied loading, the failure of all bars embedded in SIFCON
matrices was by frictional pullout, while failure of all bars
embedded in plain concrete was by splitting of the concrete around
the embedded bar. When fiber reinforced concrete was used a
mixed type of failure occurred depending on the test parameters.
The confined plain concrete specimens failed by spalling of the
concrete outside the confined region, i.e. the concrete cover.
Generally, in the absence of fibers, failure was rather brittle; the
addition of steel fibers resulted in a more ductile failure. Rein-
forcing bars embedded in SIFCON showed much greater bond
strength, higher energy absorption, and maintained substantially
larger slips at high stresses, than bars embedded in plain concrete,
confined concrete, or fiber reinforced concrete.
Keywords: bond (concrete to reinforcement bar); compressive strength;
confined concrete; cracking; ductility; energy absorption; fiber reinforced
concretes; monotonic loading; reversed cyclic loading; slip; spiral rein-
forcement; steel fibers; unidirectional cyclic loading.
INTRODUCTION
The bond characteristics of reinforcing steel bars
embedded in concrete play a major role in determining the
behavior of reinforced concrete structural members under
monotonic and cyclic loading. The transfer of forces across
the interface between concrete and steel is of fundamental
importance. For example, there is a widespread interest in
the slip of reinforcement inside concrete beam-column joints
and its effect on the deformation response and ductility of
joints subjected to earthquake loading.1,2
The purpose of this ongoing experimental study is to
investigate the bond characteristics of reinforcing bars
embedded in fiber reinforced cement composites under
various types of loading. Here only tests dealing with the use
of hooked steel fibers are reported.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The addition of steel fibers (of the proper parameters such
as Vf , L/d) in sufficient quantity, to a cement matrix was
shown to generally improve the overall bond properties of a
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
TECHNICAL PAPER
reinforcing bar under pullout. The use of fibers in cement-
based composites can lead to practical applications such as in
high energy absorbing joints for either cast-in-place or precast
concrete structures in seismic zones. High fiber content in the
matrix of a joint can lead to higher bond strength, higher
ductility, increased energy absorption, and ultimately signifi-
cantly increased safety levels against collapse and failure.3
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The following parameters were used:
• four matrix types: SIFCON, fiber-reinforced concrete
(FRC), plain concrete (PC), and confined concrete (CC);
• two target compressive strengths: 9 ksi (63 MPa) and 5
ksi (35 MPa), for each matrix type;
• three different types of loading: monotonic, unidirec-
tional cyclic loading, and reversed cyclic loading.
A flowchart summarizing the various test parameters is
provided in Fig. 1.
MATERIALS AND MIX PROPORTIONS
Only one type of steel fiber was used throughout the tests.
It was 30 mm in length, 0.5 mm in diameter, and had hooked
ends with an overall aspect ratio of 60; it is designated as a
30/50 hooked steel fiber. The reinforcing bars used in the test
setup had a length of 17 in. (43 cm). They were #8 bars with
a diameter of 1 in. (25 mm). Their ends were threaded in
order to attach them to the test fixture. Their rib spacing was
5/8 in. (1/2 in. + 1/16 in. + 1/16 in.) (16 mm) and the rib
height was close to 1/16 in. (1.6 mm).
Four types of cement matrices were used. The component
materials were Portland cement Type III, silica sand (type
50-70, i.e. passing ASTM sieve #50 and retained on sieve
#70), fine silica sand (passing sieve 270), flint shot blasting
sand, fly ash, and coarse aggregate (crushed limestone) with
maximum aggregate size of 3/8 in. (9.5 mm). Mix propor-
tions by weight are given in Table 1.
Mixes 1 and 2 were used to prepare the SIFCON specimens.
Mixes 3 and 4 were used to prepare the FRC specimens, the
plain concrete specimens (PC), and the confined concrete
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 5, September-October 1997.
Received April 29, 1996, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right © 1997, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion will be published in the July-August 1998 ACI Structural Journal if
received by March 1, 1998.
525
 with dimensions 6 in. x 6 in. x 4 in. (152 x 152 x 102 cm)
Antoine E. Naaman, FACI, is a professor of Civil Engineering in the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He (Fig. 3). Each mold could accommodate three specimens.
obtained his PhD in Civil Engineering from MIT in 1972. He is an active member of Light oil was applied to the mold, for easy removal of spec-
ACI Committees 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete; 549, Ferrocement; 440, FRP Rein- imens after hardening. The sides of the molds have a hole
forcements; and joint ACI-ASCE Committees 423, Prestressed Concrete; and 343,
Concrete Bridges. His research interests include prestressed and partially prestressed drilled at their center and were cut in half in order to place
concrete, and high performance fiber reinforced cement composites. the reinforcing bars exactly centered as designed. This
Siva Hota is presently employed as a project structural engineer with Saturn Corpo-
insured easy removal of the specimens from their molds after
ration in Troy, MI. He received his MSc (1995) and BSc (1993) in Civil Engineering at hardening. A thin rubber layer was placed between the two
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. cut halves to insure tightness against leakage of the matrix
during casting.
specimens (CC). For every mix, a melamine based superplas-
ticizer was used, as needed, in proportion of 1 to 3% by weight Materials
of cement. Although Type III cement was used, the specimens Plain concrete—The plain concrete mix was used for
were tested at least at 28 days of age. manufacturing reference specimens. The concrete matrix
was first prepared in a food type (Hobbart) mixer with a one
MIXING AND CASTING cubic foot pan capacity. The mix proportions used for the
Molds plain concrete were the same as the ones used for the FRC
The test specimens were prepared using plexiglass molds material except for the (50-70) silica sand, which was
as shown in Fig. 2. The specimen used had a prismatic shape replaced by Flint Shot blasting sand.
Confined concrete—For this series of tests, the mix propor-
tions and mix procedure were the same as for plain concrete
Table 1—Mix proportions specimens. In addition, spiral confinement had to be specially
Mix 1 Mix 2 prepared. The nominal diameter of the wire used for the spiral
SIFCON SIFCON Mix 3 FRC Mix 4 FRC confinement was 1/8 in. (3.2 mm). The diameter of the spiral
fc′ = 5 ksi fc′ = 9 ksi fc′ = 5 ksi fc′ = 9 ksi was five inches and the pitch was either 1/2 in. (12.5 mm) or
(35 MPa) (63 MPa) (35 MPa) (63 MPa) 3/4 in. (19 mm). The spiral confinement was placed in the
Portland cement
Type III 1 1 1 1 mold first, and the rebar was positioned accordingly.
Water 0.6 0.48 0.5 0.35 Fiber reinforced concrete—The concrete matrix was first
Fly ash 0.2 0.2 — — prepared in a food type mixer and the fibers were slowly
Silica sand 1 1 2.5 1.0 added while mixing was continued. The fiber volume fraction
Coarse aggregate was set at a constant value of 2%. The molds were then
(limestone) — — 2.1 1.6
placed on a vibrating table then filled up with the fiber
Superplasticizer 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.02 concrete mix in a manner similar to the SIFCON specimens.

Fig. 1—Flowchart of testing parameters.

526 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997

Fig. 2—Plexiglass molds used to prepare specimens.

SIFCON—SIFCON is a fiber-reinforced cement

composite with a relatively large fiber volume fraction (5 to
20%).4 In the presented investigation 9.6% fiber volume
fraction SIFCON was used. SIFCON is manufactured by
first placing steel fibers in the mold followed by infiltration
of the fiber network by a cement based slurry. After half of
the mold was filled with fibers, the reinforcing bars were
positioned and the remaining space in the mold was filled
with more fibers. A slight vibration was used to stabilize
fiber packing. Next, the slurry was prepared and infiltrated
into the fiber network until the mold was full. A slight vibra-
tion was used during slurry infiltration to insure good pene-
tration and to allow air voids to escape.
Curing—After pouring the specimens, the molds were
placed in a 100% relative humidity environment at room
temperature for 24 hours; then the specimens were removed Fig. 3—Layout of specimen geometry.
and cured in water for 14 days at room temperature; they
were then removed from the water tank and kept in labora-
tory environment (200 C, 70% RH) until tested.

NOMENCLATURE
SIFCON specimens were designated as SIFCON; fiber
reinforced concrete specimens were designated as FRC;
plain concrete specimens were designated as PC; and
confined concrete specimens were designated as CC. After
each designation, a two-part number follows. The first
number represents the batch number and the second number
(last digit) indicates the type of loading involved, namely: 1
for monotonic loading, 2 for unidirectional cyclic loading,
and 3 for fully reversed cyclic loading. At least two speci-
mens were tested for each parameters and, in all, about 130
specimens were tested. Details for all specimens can be
found in Reference 5, Appendix B1.

TEST SETUP
A special test fixture was built to accommodate the various
types of loading. It had to be designed for use with only one
actuator and at the same time to allow for application of the
fully reversed cyclic motion. The loading mechanism and the
nut placement at the threaded ends of the bar allowed for flex-
ibility in the applied displacement in various modes, namely:
monotonic pull, monotonic push, and cyclic pull-push, push-
pull, or pull-pull (Fig. 4). Since the ends of the reinforcing bars Fig. 4—Loading setup.
were threaded, the use of grips or wedges was avoided. The
nuts could simply be tied to the reinforcing bar and would loading mechanism. It should be noted that at the maximum
resist the motion of the upward or downward moving mecha- amplitude of each cycle, the proper nut was either released or
nism as needed (Fig. 4). The motion for fully reversed cyclic tightened to proceed with the next cycle.
loading was achieved by using two nuts, one tied at the top of All tests were performed using displacement control. The
the fixture and one at its bottom. This allows for a pull-pull loading was applied using an actuator stroke rate of 0.001

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997 527

Table 2—Representative bond strength results under monolithic loading
Compressive strength Load at ultimate, Average bond stress Slip at ultimate,
Name Specimen number fc′ , ksi (MPa) kip (kN) at ultimate. psi (MPa) in. (mm) Failure type
SIFCON 81 8.8 (60.5) 17.2 (76.5) 1369.3 (9.5) 0.090 (2.28) Frictional pullout
FRC 41 8.9 (61) 8.54 (37.9) 679.4 (4.7) 0.24 (0.61) Splitting
PC 141 8.9 (61) 5.68 (25.3) 451.7 (3.1) 0.0087 (0.22) Splitting
CC (Vspiral = 1%) 91 8.9 (61) 8.63 (38.4) 685.0 (4.8) 0.150 (3.81) Cone section pullout
CC (Vspiral = 1%) 94 8.9 (61) 10.1 (44.9) 805.0 (5.6) 0.70 (1.78) Cone section pullout
SIFCON 24 8.8 (60.5) 22.1 (98.1) 1754.6 (12) 0.098 (2.49) Frictional pullout
FRC 44 8.9 (61) 13.9 (61.8) 1113.5 (7.7) 0.038 (0.96) Splitting
PC 144 8.9 (61) 7.17 (31.9) 570.6 (3.9) 0.0094 (0.24) Splitting
CC (Vspiral = 3%) 121 8.9 (61) 9.79 (43.5) 778.0 (5.4) 0.121 (3.07) Cone section pullout
CC (Vspiral = 3%) 124 8.9 (61) 8.12 (36.1) 645.0 (4.5) 0.118 (2.99) Cone section pullout
SIFCON 34 4.9 (33.8) 17.7 (78.5) 1404.5 (9.8) 0.071 (1.80) Frictional pullout
FRC 54 4.8 (33) 8.06 (35.9) 641.5 (4.5) 0.056 (1.42) Splitting
PC 134 4.9 (33.8) 4.1 (18.2) 326.5 (2.3) 0.013 (0.33) Splitting
CC (Vspiral = 1%) 1.1 4.9 (33.8) 10.1 (44.9) 799.0 (5.6) 0.032 (0.81) Cone section pullout
CC (Vspiral = 1%) 104 4.9 (33.8) 6.75 (30.0) 536.0 (3.7) 0.040 (1.02) Cone section pullout
FRC 51 4.8 (33) 6.05 (26.9) 480.0 (3.3) 0.039 (0.99) Splitting
PC 131 4.9 (33.8) 3.84 (17.1) 305.4 (2.1) 0.009 (0.23) Splitting
CC (Vspiral = 3%) 111 4.9 (33.8) 8.19 (36.4) 650.0 (4.5) 0.110 (2.79) Cone section pullout
CC (Vspiral = 3%) 114 4.9 (33.8) 7.81 (34.7) 620.0 (4.3) 0.061 (1.54) Cone section pullout

tial movement between the reinforcing bar and the fixed

concrete specimen. The net slip is equal to the average
displacement recorded by the LVDTs minus the elastic elon-
gation of the free portion of the bar. From the data, the
average equivalent bond stress, τe, was calculated in terms of
the load P applied to the reinforcing bar for each specimen:

τe = P/πdL (1)

where L = 4 in. = 10 cm, and d is the bar diameter.

The bond stress was computed assuming a uniform bond
stress distribution along the embedded length of the bar.
However, in reality bond stress distribution is not uniform,
but the embedded length (four bar diameters) is considered
small enough to assume uniform stress. The bond strength
values are shown in Table 2.

Monotonic testing
The monotonic test is a simple pullout test of the rein-
forcing bar. A monotonic (ramp) displacement is applied and
the response of the specimen is observed up to the maximum
specified displacement of 0.6 in. (15 mm), or up to failure.*

Unidirectional cyclic loading

Fig. 5—LVDT setup.
in./sec (0.025 mm/sec). The displacement (i.e., slip) of the
reinforcing bars was measured using two Linear Variable
Differential Transducers (LVDT), as shown in Fig. 5. The
information was stored there and later converted for practical
use. Displacement, i.e., slip, is defined herein as the differen-
In the unidirectional cyclic loading test, a low number of
cycles (e.g., 6 to 10) of high loading intensity was performed
as shown in Fig. 4. The purpose was to evaluate the effect of
various test parameters on the bond degradation. Further-
more, the resulting envelope (see unidirectional cyclic test
results section) can be compared with the monotonic loading
curves to ascertain whether or not they coincide.6
*After ultimate strength was reached in PC specimens and a splitting failure
occurred, the test was stopped (due to the constraints of the test setup). This was done
to accurately represent the monotonic curve of PC specimens (marked with an arrow
in Fig. 6).

528 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997


Fig. 6—Comparison of average bond strength-displacement
response for SIFCON, FRC, PC specimens (fc′ = 9 ksi).
Fully reversed cyclic loading
Under the fully reversed cyclic loading, damage accumulates
faster and bond strength is reduced, as is the related slip. The
maximum displacement in either direction was 0.3 in. (7.6 mm)
in each direction, as shown in Fig. 4; determined by the
stroke of the two LVDTs.
TEST RESULTS: MONOTONIC LOADING
Failure mechanism (cracking)
Essentially, three types of failure were observed: (1) a
splitting type of failure, (2) a frictional pullout failure, and
(3) a cone-shaped pullout failure as shown in Fig. 7.
1) The splitting type failure occurs when the cracks
emanating from the bars reach the boundaries of the concrete
prism, and in the absence of crack confinement (such as by
fibers or spirals) split the prism in several parts. The splitting
failure is initiated by the wedging action of the ribs as the bar
moves with respect to the concrete. The ribs create sufficient
radial force components that split the concrete. Splitting is
characterized by planar like cracks in planes radial to the axis
of the bar. The degree of splitting cracks is based on the pres-
ence of fibers which in turn affect the behavior of the failure.7
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
Fig. 7—Failure types of different specimens.
2) In the frictional failure, the bar pulls out from the
concrete prism while the prism, although cracked, remains
together. As ultimate bond stress is reached, shear cracks in
concrete between ribs form and propagate until the concrete
is sheared and slip occurs.8
3) A cone-shaped failure occurred with the spiral rein-
forcement. The spiral confinement prevented crack opening
and resisted additional tensile forces after concrete cracking.
This helped maintain the bond between the reinforcing bar
and the concrete. However, with increased pull-out load, a
cone-shaped chunk of concrete pulled out leading to failure.
Generally, all SIFCON specimens failed by frictional pull-
out, accompanied by large slip, while the concrete
surrounding the reinforcing bar remained together. There
were visible cracks on the specimen surface just outside the
perimeter of the reinforcing bar as shown in Fig. 7. On the
other hand, a good portion of the FRC specimens and all of
the plain concrete specimens failed by splitting, while all the
CC specimens failed in a cone-shaped manner.
Bond strength
The equivalent average bond strength was computed as the
average equivalent bond stress τe at the peak load.
It can be seen that the bond strength increases with an
increase in the matrix compressive strength, regardless of
fiber volume fraction, as shown in Fig. 8 and 9. Referring to
Fig. 8, the 9 ksi SIFCON specimen has a much larger
average maximum bond strength than the 5 ksi SIFCON
specimen. Similarly, the 9 ksi FRC specimen (Vf = 2%) has
nearly twice the average maximum bond strength of the 5 ksi
FRC specimen (Vf = 2%), as shown in Fig. 9. PC specimens
exhibited the lowest bond strength values (Table 2). In addi-
tion, CC specimens with the same spiral confinement ratio,
show that the bond strength increased 20 to 45% as the
529
Fig. 8—Comparison of average bond strength/load-displace-
ment response for 9 ksi and 5 ksi SIFCON specimens.
compressive strength increased, as shown in Fig. 10. However,
the relative difference between the 9 ksi and the 5 ksi series
for the 3% spiral confinement was smaller than that for the
1% spiral confinement. Therefore, for 3% spiral confine-
ment, the effectiveness of increasing the compressive
strength from 5 to 9 ksi was reduced.
Bond strength can also be related to the matrix material of
each specimen. Keeping the compressive strength constant,
one can observe a big variation of the average maximum
bond strength from material to material. Two factors respon-
sible for this are the presence of fibers and their volume frac-
tion in the matrix. Since the tensile strain of concrete is low,
cracking occurs early in concrete. At the onset of cracking,
the role of the steel fibers is to prevent further crack opening
and to resist additional tensile forces which the concrete
matrix itself cannot sustain.9 This controls the failure in the
concrete matrix itself, thereby preserving the bond strength
between the reinforcing bar and the surrounding concrete
matrix. Figure 6 provides a comparison of the behavior of a
9 ksi SIFCON specimen with a plain concrete one that
contains no fibers and an FRC specimen with 2% fibers. It
can be observed that the higher the volume fraction of fibers,
the higher the bond strength and the higher is the area under
530
Fig. 9—Comparison of average bond strength/load-
displacement response for 9 ksi and 5 ksi specimens
Table 3—Energy absorption values for typical 9 ksi
series
f’c = 9 ksi (63 MPa) Energy absorption
SIFCON 1066 N-m (9436 lb-in.)
FRC 483 N-m (4275 lb-in.)
PC 6 N-m (53 lb-in.)
the bond stress versus slip response (see Table 3—energy
absorption capacity). Figure 11 shows that the 9 ksi CC
series with 3% spiral reinforcement gave about the same
bond strength (about 800 psi) as the 9 ksi series with 1%
reinforcement. However, the 5 ksi series with 3% reinforce-
ment gave a bond strength about 15% higher than that of the
series with 1% spiral confinement. This implies that the
spiral reinforcement performs better at low values of
concrete compressive strength. The confinement itself
increases bond strength capacity of the 5 ksi series to sustain
larger deformations.10
Slip
The load versus slip (or displacement) values were
recorded continuously throughout the testing of each spec-
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
Fig. 10—Comparison is response of CC specimens with 9
ksi and 5 ksi matrix (vf-spiral = 1 and 3%).
imen. Typical load-displacement curves and corresponding
average bond stress versus displacement curves for
SIFCON, FRC, and PC are shown in Fig. 6. It can be
observed that the load-displacement response linearly
decreases after the peak, when pull-out occurs. A possible
reason for the increase in slip is the stable failure pattern
when pullout occurs. While the fibers may not much delay
the formation of the first crack, they keep crack width at
small values and prevent the sudden opening of cracks.9
Figure 6 shows that the plain concrete specimen, with no
fibers, has very low slip values at maximum load, while the
SIFCON specimen has values up to five times larger. Also
significant is the increase in pull out energy (see Table 3) and
ductility (maximum slip) with the presence of fibers and an
increase in fiber content.
In the case of CC specimens, increasing (a) matrix
compressive strength and/or (b) the amount (i.e., ratio) of
spiral reinforcement leads to an increase in the value of slip
at the peak load, as shown in Fig. 11. Increasing matrix
compressive strength from 5 ksi to 9 ksi doubled the value of
slip at the peak load. Similarly, increasing the amount of
spiral reinforcement from 1 to 3% increased the value of slip
at the peak load 1.5 to 2 times, for specimens with 9 ksi and
5 ksi concrete, respectively
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
Fig. 11—Comparison of CC specimens Vf-spiral = 1 and 3%.
TEST RESULTS: UNIDIRECTIONAL CYCLIC
LOADING
Monotonic envelope curve
A monotonic envelope curve is defined herein as a load-
displacement curve of a bar monotonically loaded under
constant displacement rate. The curve is considered an upper
bound envelope, for cyclic loading curves.6 The concept of
envelope curve has been confirmed for many materials.6 The
concept is valid for the SIFCON specimen, as shown in Fig. 12.
However, it is not fully applicable to the FRC and plain
concrete specimens, as shown in Fig. 13 and 14. Typically,
in the case of FRC, the maximum load at each cycle
decreased as the bond slip increased indicating a deterioration
with respect to the envelope curve.
Effect of cracking on bond strength
For a typical concrete specimen at first loading cycle, the
bond stress-slip curve follows the monotonic curve. This
initial slope depends on a number of parameters such as the
concrete compressive strength, concrete cover, anchorage
length, and the rib area. At low bond stresses, inclined cracks
propagate from the tip of the ribs. Transfer of forces across
the interface between concrete and steel occur and are caused
by bearing and adhesion.8,11 As the loading is increased,
inclined cracks begin to form. At maximum load the
531
Fig. 12—Comparison of SIFCON unidirectional cyclic
envelope curve to SIFCON monotonic curve.
Fig. 13—Comparison of FRC unidirectional cyclic envelope
curve to FRC monotonic curve.
concrete between the lugs is sheared off. Thereafter, as the
slip increases, the load tends to drop. Unloading then takes
place and the loading and unloading pattern is repeated until
severe degradation has occurred.
The cracking and the bond-slip response vary with the
fiber content and the matrix compressive strength.
Under cyclic loading, SIFCON specimens performed the
best as they experienced little stiffness degradation with the
number of cycles. Fibers help maintain the integrity of the
concrete matrix around the reinforcing bar. At about five
times the slip at maximum load (taken as the basic slip incre-
ment for cyclic loading), the average bond stress was still
about 50% of maximum.
The FRC material also performed well as compared to PC
specimens. However, the degradation of the load versus slip
response occurred at a much faster rate than is the case with
SIFCON specimens. Typically, at about five times the slip at
maximum load the average bond stress dropped to about 30%
of maximum. As the number of cycles continued to increase
and further degradation took place, cracks in the concrete open
532
Fig. 14—Comparison of PC unidirectional cyclic envelope
curve to PC monotonic curve.
Fig. 15—Typical unidirectional curve of CC specimens.
sufficiently to cause splitting leading to a splitting type of
failure. After the maximum load cycle, the stiffness of the
FRC specimens decreased little between cycles.
Compared with the SIFCON and the FRC specimens, the PC
specimens degraded at the fastest rate since as soon as splitting
occurred, there was a sudden loss of load capacity, as shown in
Fig. 14. Failure always occurred in a splitting mode.
All the CC specimens exhibited the same cracking
patterns. Cracking first took place outside the confined
region then extended to the confined region as the number of
cycles increased, and eventually lead to a pullout failure
mode in a cone-shaped manner (Fig. 7). Typically, cracks
became visible near the peak load and continued to develop
in the post peak zone along with spalling of the concrete in
the unconfined region. This led to a continuous deterioration
in the pull-out load. For all the confined concrete specimens,
it typically took six to seven cycles to reach a minimum load
capacity equivalent to a bond stress of about 150 psi (1 MPa)
(Fig. 15). This residual value was about the same for the two
spiral reinforcement ratios used.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
 Fig. 16—Comparison of unidirectional cyclic bond-slip response for 9 ksi and 5 ksi
SIFCON and FRC specimens.

Effect of compressive strength

Bond strength and failure mode are affected by the matrix
compressive strength. For cyclic tests, the mode of failure and
the bond-slip response were similar for a 9 ksi SIFCON and 5
ksi SIFCON material, as well as for a 9 ksi and a 5 ksi FRC
material as shown in Fig. 16. The SIFCON and FRC exhibited
a ductile response, while the plain concrete and confined
concrete exhibited a brittle failure. The 9 ksi matrix generally
was able to sustain a higher load than the 5 ksi matrix.

TEST RESULTS: FULLY REVERSED CYCLIC

LOADING
Typical load-displacement and average bond stress-
displacement curves of specimens loaded under fully
reversed cyclic loading are presented in Fig. 17. Typical
values for maximum average bond stresses are summarized
in Table 4. Although the values are different than observed
with the unidirectional cyclic loading, the influence of
compressive strength and confinement ratio is qualitatively
the same. For the same number of cycles, the fully reversed
cyclic loading affected the bond strength and stiffness more
severely than the unidirectional cyclic loading as shown in
Fig. 18.
The observed specimen response was affected by the level
of displacement at which reversal occurs. An increase in
displacement at which reversal occurs (after the peak) leads
to a more severe damage. During the reversal part of the
cycle, the lugs press against the concrete whose resistance
has been lowered by inclined cracks created during the
loading half cycle. The inclined cracks coupled with splitting
cracks (when present) along the concrete result in degrada-
tion and reduction in bond capacity. For example, comparing Fig. 17—Comparison of SIFCON and FRC specimens
specimens SIFCON83 and SIFCON86, SIFCON83 had under reversed cyclic loading.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997 533

Fig. 18—Bond strength comparison between unidirectional
cyclic and reversed cyclic responses.

Table 4—Maximum bond stress values

Maximum bond stress τe Vspiral = 1% Vspiral = 3%
fc′ = 9 ksi 625 psi -CC93 660 psi -CC123
(63 MPa) (4.3 MPa) (4.6 MPa)
fc′ = 5 ksi 500 psi -CC106 590 psi -CC113
(35 MPa) (3.4 MPa) (4.1 MPa)

more bond stress reduction from cycle A (ultimate strength

cycle) to cycle B (next cycle) than SIFCON86 (Table 5).
This is directly due to the reversal of load point and damage
relationship discussed earlier.
The plain concrete specimens showed the lowest perfor-
mance compared to other materials. The PC specimens
failed by concrete splitting, after only (relatively) few cycles.
The addition of fibers significantly improved specimen Fig. 19—Reversed cyclic loading performance improvement
performance as shown in Fig. 19. Similar to the case of of SIFCON and FRC specimens compared to PC specimens.
unidirectional cyclic loading, the SIFCON specimens
performed best by failing in a stable, ductile manner (Fig. 17). was significantly more degradation within each set of cycles.
As the cumulative displacement with the number of cycles Moreover, with continued cycles of loading and reversed
increased past ultimate, the bond strength decreased. The loading, the matrix of the concrete cracked (longitudinal and
degradation within each set of cycles at same total displacement splitting cracks) and failure of the specimens ended up being
was relatively small (Fig. 17). For the FRC specimens, there by concrete splitting.

534 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997

Table 5—Bond stress slip values at Cycles A and B
Bond stress τe Cycle A, Displacement Cycle A,
Specimen psi (MPa) in. (mm)
SIFCON83 1225 (8.5) 0.12 (3.0)
SIFCON86 1125 (7.8) 0.115 (2.9)
Fig. 20—Typical load vs. displacement response curve of
CC specimens under reversed cyclic loading.
For all CC specimens, the cracking and failure patterns
were consistent. The bond between the reinforcing bar and
the surrounding confined concrete was maintained (Fig. 20
shows bond strength-displacement response) while cracking
and spalling occurred in the unconfined concrete region
(cover). Cracking and spalling became first visible near the
peak load in the unconfined region, and continued to occur
in the post peak region. Compared to the unidirectional
cyclic loading, reversed cyclic loading caused more cracking
and spalling and faster degradation. Typically, as the number
of cycles increased, all the concrete in the unconfined region
spalled off with only the cylindrical, confined concrete
region remaining. This led to a cylindrical pullout failure of
the specimen (Fig. 21).
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997
Bond stress τe Cycle B, Displacement Cycle B, Bond stress reduction,
in. (mm) in. (mm) psi (MPa)
550 (3.8) 0.15 (3.8) 675 (4.7)
500 (3.5) 0.13 (3.3) 625 (4.3)
Fig. 21—Pullout failure of CC specimens under: (a)
reversed cyclic loading; (b) unidirectional cyclic loading.
CONCLUSIONS
Monotonic loading
1. For the SIFCON specimens failure occurred by frictional
pullout. Plain concrete generally exhibited a splitting type of
failure near the peak load. The failure of FRC started with
some frictional pull-out but eventually ended up with a splitting
type of failure, when the crack width reached a certain
critical level. The confined concrete specimens failed by
pullout of a cone-shaped chunk of concrete attached to the
reinforcing bar.
2. The inclusion of steel fibers slowed down the post-peak
degradation of the pull-out load versus displacement curve,
thus increasing the ductility of the pull-out response.
3. An increase in the compressive strength of the matrix
increased the maximum pullout load and equivalent bond
strength. When fc′ was increased from 5 to 9 ksi (35 to 63
MPa), the bond strength increased typically 30% for SIFCON,
85% for FRC, 40% for PC, and 25 to 45% for CC specimens,
with a spiral confinement of 3% and 1% respectively.
4. For the range of fiber volume fraction tested, both the
maximum pullout load and the corresponding slip value
increase with an increase in the volume fractions of steel fibers.
5. For 5 ksi series, an increase in the amount of spiral
confinement from 1 to 3% provided a 15% improvement in
the average maximum bond stress. The 9 ksi series exhibited
little change.
535
Unidirectional cyclic loading
1. All the conclusions reported for monotonic loading are
also valid for the unidirectional cyclic loading.
2. The use of fibers played a major role in slowing down
degradation of the specimen’s load-carrying capacity by
delaying the onset of cracks and slowing down the opening
of existing cracks. Of the four materials tested, SIFCON
exhibited the best performance as its envelope curve closely
followed the path of its monotonic curve. The FRC specimen
also did well, but degraded faster. CC specimens performed
similar to FRC specimens, but had less bond strength
capacity. The plain concrete performed the worst and exhibited
very fast degradation.
3. The mode of failure and the load-slip response were
similar for specimens of the same material, regardless of the
matrix compressive strengths.
4. The degradation in stiffness of SIFCON and FRC
specimens changed little with continued cyclic loading.
Fully reversed cyclic loading
1. Conclusions 1, 2, 4, and 5 for monotonic loading apply.
2. With fully reversed cyclic loading, degradation of bond
strength and bond stiffness occurs faster than for the unidi-
rectional cyclic loading. The degradation depends on the
maximum slip value at which reversal of loading occurs in
either direction. The larger the slip at which reversal occurs
the more the damage that results in the reversed loading.
3. Bars embedded in SIFCON matrices had the maximum
bond stress capacity. Bond stress degradation within each set
of cycles was minimal. Because the volume fraction of fibers
was smaller than for the SIFCON specimens, the FRC speci-
mens had much lower bond stress capacity. Plain concrete
performed the worst. CC specimens performed better than PC,
but worse than FRC due to cylindrical spalling effect of cover.
4. Cylindrical pullout failure occurred in the confined concrete
specimens through complete spalling of the concrete cover.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The experimental work was performed in the structural laboratory of the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of
Michigan.
The illustration of Fig. 21 was done by Mark Dingman, who is presently
employed at Saturn Corporation.
The research described in this paper was supported in part by Grant No.
BCS-9307843 from the U.S. National Science Foundation to the University
of Michigan, with M. P. Singh and S. C. Liu as program directors. The
support of NSF is gratefully acknowledged. Opinions expressed in this
paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the
sponsor.
536
NOTATION
d = nominal reinforcing bar diameter, in.
fc′ = compressive strength of concrete at 28 days, psi
L = embedded length of reinforcing bar
P = maximum pullout load
τe = average bond stress, psi
RH = relative humidity
Vf = volume fraction of steel fiber, by weight
Vf-spiral = spiral steel confinement ratio
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 in. = 25.4mm
1 kip = 4.448kN
1 lb/yd3 = 0.59 kg/m3
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
1 MPa = 6.896 N/mm2
REFERENCES
1. Ahmad, S. H., and Shah, S. P., “Behavior of Hoop Confined Concrete
Under High Strain Rates,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings, Sept.-Oct. 1985,
pp. 634-646.
2. Naaman, A. E.; Reinhardt, H. W.; Fritz, C., “Reinforced Concrete
Beams with a SIFCON Matrix,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 1, Jan.-
Feb. 1992, pp.79-87.
3. Soroushian, P.; Mirza, F.; Alhozaimy, A., “Bonding of Confined Steel
Fiber Reinforced Concrete to Deformed Bars,” ACI Materials Journal,
V. 91, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1994, pp. 141-149.
4. Naaman, A. E.; Otter, Duane; and Najm, H., “Elastic Modulus of
SIFCON in Tension and Compression,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec. 1991, pp. 603-612.
5. Hota, S,. and Naaman, A. E., “Bond Stress—Slip Response of Reinforcing
Bars Embedded in FRC Matrices under Monotonic and Cyclic Loading,”
Report No. UMCEE 95-15, Civil and Environmental Engineering Depart-
ment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, June 1995, 60 pp.
6. Otter, D., and Naaman, A. E., “Fiber Reinforced Concrete under
Cyclic and Dynamic Compressive Loadings,” Ph. D. Thesis, Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Oct. 1988, p.176.
7. Krstulovic-Opara, N.; Watson, K. A.; LaFave, J. M., “Effect of
Increased Tensile Strength and Toughness on Reinforcing-Bar Bond
Behavior,” Cement & Concrete Composites, V. 16, 1994 pp. 129-141.
8. ACI Committee 408, “Report on Bond under Cyclic Loads (ACI
408.2R-92),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 26 pp.
9. Hamza, A. M., and Naaman, A. E., “Bond Characteristics of
Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars Embedded in SIFCON,” ACI Materials
Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 578-588.
10. Ahmad, S. H., and Shah, S. P., “Stress-Strain Curves of Concrete
Confined by Spiral Reinforcement,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1982, pp. 484-490.
11. Rehm G., and Eligehausen, R., “Bond of Ribbed Bars under
Repeated Loads,” Report 291, German Institute for Reinforced Concrete,
Berlin, 1977.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1997