Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov • Vol.

5 (54) - 2012
Series 1: Special Issue No. 1

BOND BETWEEN SELF-COMPACTING

CONCRETE AND REINFORCEMENT

M. SABĂU1 T. ONEȚ1 I. POP1

Abstract: This paper study the bond behaviour of self-compacting concrete

(SCC) in comparison to normal vibrated concrete (NVC). In this paper are
presented the following parameters: the influence of bar diameter, the
influence of concrete quality, the top-bar effect, the influence of active and
passive confinement. In literature, different test results are found for the bond
strength in SCC, which deliver contradictory results, but internationally it
seems to be agreed that bond strength in SCC is slightly higher than NVC.

Key words: self-compacting concrete, bond, reinforcement, top-bar effect.

1. Introduction flow and consolidate under its own weight,

One of the more recent developments is
self-compacting concrete (SCC). This
concrete type has in contrast to normal
vibrated concrete (NVC), no need for
external vibration energy to be compacted.
To obtain these properties a few
modifications in the composition of the
concrete are necessary. One of the methods
to achieve self-compaction is the reduction
of the coarse aggregate and an increase in
the amount of powder.
Self-compacting concrete is defined
according to De Schutter et al. [1] as: ‘a
kind of concrete which needs to possess
sufficient fluidity in order to be able to fill
a formwork completely (filling ability)
without the aid of other forces than
gravity, even when having to flow through
narrow gaps (passing ability), but also
showing a sufficient resistance to
segregation, during flow and in stationary
conditions (stability)’.
The definition given by EFNARC [2] is
quite similar: ‘A concrete that is able to
completely fill the formwork even in the
presence of dense reinforcement, whilst
maintaining homogeneity and without the
need for any additional compaction’.
In both definitions three important
requirements of fresh concrete are
mentioned: the filling ability (the ability to
fill the formwork), the passing ability (the
resistance against blocking) and the stability
(the resistance against segregation).
The bond between steel and concrete has
an important influence on the behaviour of
reinforced elements in the cracked stage.
Crack widths and deflections are influenced
by the distribution of bond stresses along
the reinforcement bars and by the slip
between the bar and the surrounding
concrete.
Bond has been the subject of different
studies on SCC, but the conclusions are
very contradictory: some indicate that bond
strengths of reinforcing bars in SCC are
higher than those measured for NVC, other
researchers see no differences between or
even lower strengths. Most studies agree

1
Dept. of Structures, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca
282 Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov • Vol. 5 (54) - 2012 • Series 1
that the bond strength of reebars in SCC is
larger than that in NVC.
2. The influence of bar diameter
Generally we can say that when the bar
diameter increases, the medium and
ultimate bond strength decrease. This
decrease of the bond is not a linear
variation in comparison with the bar area,
being more accentuated for small
diameters and smaller for big diameters.
The SCC presents the same behaviour
Fig. 1. Influence of bar diameter.
In his study, Desnerck [4] observed that
by increasing the bar diameter, the slip at
maximum bond stress is increasing in all
cases and no significant difference can be
noticed between the results for SCC and
the results for NVC.
3. The influence of concrete quality
Bond action results from the localized
pressure underneath the ribs and is directly
but in most of the studies [3], [4] SCC
show a better behaviour than NVC.
As we can see in Figure 1, the
differences in the normalized bond for
NVC and SCC are largest for bar
diameters of 12 mm and the difference
become smaller for higher diameters.
Especially for self-compacting concrete the
differences in the ultimate bond strength
between these two concretes is largest for
small diameters and became smaller for
higher bar diameters.
related to the shear component of the interface
forces.
Bond performances depend on both
concrete multi-axial behaviour in compression
and on concrete tensile strength fct. fc and fct
play a major role in pull-out and splitting
failures respectively.
The dependence, however, is less then
linear and the position of bar during
concreting is even more important than
concrete strength as is shown in Figure 2.
M. SABĂU et al.: Bond between self-compacting concrete and reinforcement
Fig. 2. Bond stress versus concrete strength for different slip values and casting directions [5]
The bars positioned at the bottom of the
formwork and vertical bars loaded in
opposite direction of the casting direction
have higher bond strengths.
For vertical reinforcing bars parallel to
the casting direction, the combined effect
of bleeding in and settlement of the fresh
concrete leads to void formation
underneath the ribs of the bar and the bond
behaviour of the rebar is affected by the
direction in which it is loaded during the
experiments [6].
4. Top-bar effect
Top-cast bars have lower bond strengths
than bars cast lower in a member. This
behaviour is recognized in ACI318 [7] and
EC2 [8]. Top reinforcement, horizontal
reinforcement with more than 300 mm in
ACI318 and 250 mm in EC2 of fresh
concrete cast in the member below the
development length or splice, requires a
30% increase in development length. Most
research, however, indicates that while an
increased depth of concrete below a bar
reduces bond strength, the effect of
shallow top cover is of greater
significance. The impact of shallow top
cover on the top-cast bar effect is
emphasized by the fact that the strength
283
reduction becomes progressively greater as
cover is decreased.
The lower bond strength of top-cast bars
may be explained as follows: rising bleed
water can be trapped under the bars, and
any settling of the concrete can leave air
voids under the bars which will compound
the effect. The amount of bleeding
increases with concrete depth below the
bar, resulting in lower bond strength in the
upper parts of a deep section.
All studies performed to determine the
top-bar effect in SCC are using pull-out
test method. Domone [9] presents in his
paper results of two programs.
Figure 3 shows the results of tests on a
set of five wall elements, each 1.5 m high,
with deformed bars at four levels. Four of
the elements were cast with SCC of
different compositions and one with NVC.
The in situ strength for the NVC was
approximately 50 MPa, and the in situ
SCC strengths varied from 35 to 43 MPa.
All mixes showed a reduction in bond
strength with increasing height in the wall.
Three of the SCC mixes behaved similarly
to the NVC mix and one somehow better at
all heights. The NVC and two of the SCC
mixes also showed a reduction greater than
the EC2 [8] top-bar factor at the top of the
section.
284 Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov • Vol. 5 (54) - 2012 • Series 1
Fig. 3. Variation of bond strength in wall slab and column elements [9]
More extreme behaviour was obtained
from tests on round bars in 2 m high
columns, as can be seen in Figure 3. Each
data point is the average from bars at three
closely spaced levels. Columns with three
NVC and two SCC mixes with varying
strength levels were tested, and
considerable reductions in bond strength (of
up to 80%) were obtained with the two
lower strength NVC mixes. The two SCC
mixes and the highest strength NVC mix
showed broadly similar behaviour, with
reductions in bond strength similar to that
recommended in EC2 [8].
In Figures 4 and 5 are presented results
from a recent study made by Chan et al.
[10] dealing with pull-out tests. They have
reported that, as compared to NVC, SCC
exhibits higher bond to reinforcing bars and
lower reduction in bond strength due to top-
bar effect at all ages.
Khayat [11] studied the bond strength of
SCC with special focus on the effect of
VMA to reduce the top-bar effect of
anchored bars. Accumulation of bleed water
under the reinforcement and separation of
fresh paste from the reinforcement due to
segregation and settlement can significantly
reduce the bond. A total of 25 specimens
were prepared by Khayat [11] to evaluate
the effect of specimen height (500, 700 and
1100 mm) and bar anchored length (2.5 and
5 times bar diameter) on external bleeding,
surface settlement, segregation and relative
bond strength (from pull-out tests) of
horizontally embedded bars. The findings
indicated that the use of VMA reduced
surface settlement (that is related to
bleeding and segregation) and significantly
reduced the top-bar factor.
Sonebi et al. [12] performed bond tests
(pull-out tests) with 12 and 20 mm
deformed bars placed in concrete specimens
of 100x100x150 mm to study the
performance of SCC compared to NVC.
The test results showed 10–40% higher
normalized bond strength in SCC compared
to NVC.
M. SABĂU et al.: Bond between self-compacting concrete and reinforcement
Fig. 4. Bond strength in NVC [10]
5. The influence of passive and active
confinement
The stress state of the surrounding
concrete has a significant effect on the
bond strength of the steel bar. If the
transverse stresses are compressive, the
Fig. 6. Examples of bond-confinement interaction [5]
Active confinement is resulting from a
direct support or a column-beam joint and is
more efficient than passive confinement,
since its effects do not depend on the
mobilized bond stress.
Passive confinement is developed by the
concrete cover and the stirrups and is less
efficient, since it originates from concrete
dilatancy, which accompanies crack
formation and is strictly related to the
285
Fig. 5. Bond strength in SCC [10]
bond behaviour is favoured.
Confinement can be active or passive as
shown in Figure 6: (a) bar anchorage
(partly active partly passive confinement);
(b) lapped splice (passive confinement by
stirrups) and (c) bar anchorage in an
indirect support (active confinement).
actual bond stress.
The major problem for passive
confinement is how much transverse
reinforcement is needed to be able to
prevent splitting failure. The topical
subject for active confinement is the
transition from a pull-out failure to a
splitting failure.
The cover thickness and the transverse
pressure help as long as bond failure is
 286 Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov • Vol. 5 (54) - 2012 • Series 1
controlled by concrete splitting.
6. Conclusions
For larger bar diameters, the difference
between the values measured for NVC and
those for SCC are small. For small
diameters the bond strength for SCC is
significantly higher than for NVC.
Generally it can be concluded that the
top-bar effect is less pronounced in SCC
members.
Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by the project
"Improvement of the doctoral studies
quality in engineering science for
development of the knowledge based
society-QDOC” contract no.
POSDRU/107/1.5/S/78534, project co-
funded by the European Social Fund
through the Sectorial Operational Program
Human Resources 2007-2013.
References
1. Poppe, A.-M., De Schutter, G.,
Audenaert, K., Boel, V.: Kennismaking
met zelfverdichtend beton (1)
Samenstelling en reologie.
(Introducing self-compacting concrete
(1) Composition and rheology)
.Bouwkroniek 2002, 30-34.
2. EFNARC. The European Guidelines for
Self-Compacting Concrete:
Specification, Production and Use;
ERMCO, 2005; p 68.
3. Fernando Menezes de Almeida et al.:
Bond-slip behaviour of self-
compacting concrete and vibrated
concrete using pull-out and beam tests.
In: Material and Structures (2008) 41:
1073- 1089.
4. Pieter Desnerck, Geert De Schutter et
View publication stats
al.: Bond behaviour of reinforcing
bars in self-compacting concrete:
experimental determination by using
beam tests. In: Material and
Structures (2010) DOI
10.1617//s11527-010-9596-6.
5. fib bulletin 10. Bond of reinforcement
in concrete, International Federation
for Structural Concrete, august 2000.
6. Castel, A., Vidal, T., Viriyametanont,
K., François, R.: Effect of reinforcing
bar orientation and location on bond
with self-consolidating concrete. In:
ACI Structural Journal 2006, 103(4),
559-567.
7. American Concrete Institute. ACI 318-
11. Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete; ACI, 2011 p 503.
8. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures - Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings.
9. Domone P.L.: A review of the
hardened mechanical properties of
self-compacting concrete. In: Cement
& Concrete Composites 29, 2007.
10. Chan, Y., Chen, Y., Liu, Y.:
Development of bond strength of
reinforcement steel in
self-consolidating concrete. In: ACI
Structural Journal 2003,
100(4):490–498.
11. Khayat, K.H., Manai, K. and
Trudel, A.: In Situ Mechanical
Properties of Wall Elements Cast
Using Self-Consolidating Concrete.
In: ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 94,
No. 6, 1997, pp. 491-500.
12. Sonebi, M., Bartos, PJM., Zhu, W.,
Gibbs, J., Tamimi, A.: Properties
of hardened concrete. Final report.
In: Advanced Concrete Masonry
Centre, University of Paisley,
Scotland, UK, 2000.