Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Bond-slip properties between lightweight aggregate concrete and rebar

Xi Liu, Yang Liu, Tao Wu ⇑, Hui Wei
School of Civil Engineering, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710061, China

h i g h l i g h t s

Analytical bond strength was derived using thick-wall model.

Bond stress-slip relationship was proposed for LWAC with pull-out failure.

Bond-slip behavior between concrete and rebar was modelled by finite element method.

Splitting failure of LWAC was predicted by the established model.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The bond-slip behavior of reinforcing bars in lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) was investigated.
Received 20 February 2020 Effects of different concrete strengths (39.4, 48.7, 62.7 and 83.2 MPa), diameters of reinforcing bars
Received in revised form 21 April 2020 (12, 16 and 20 mm) and embedded lengths (50 and 80 mm) on the bond-slip properties of rebar in
Accepted 25 April 2020
LWAC were experimentally studied. The thick-walled model was adopted to provide the analytical bond
Available online 5 May 2020
strength solution of LWAC. Three-dimensional finite element (FE) model considering the effect of radial
stress around the rebar was established to conduct simulations. The proposed bond stress-slip model
Keywords:
showed good precision to test curves, and the established FE model was able to reflect the crack propa-
Lightweight aggregate concrete
Bond stress-slip
gation at the inner of concrete. The splitting bond strength of LWAC was found to be better than that of
Bond model normal weight concrete according to FE analysis.
Finite element modelling Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In existing investigations on the bond-slip behavior between

The application of lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) into
reinforced concrete (RC) structures such as high-rise buildings,
long-span bridges, and ocean platforms is considerably desirable
owing to its low density, high specific strength, and reliable dura-
bility [1,2]. However, one of major issues associated with LWAC is
different bond behavior compared with normal weight concrete
(NWC) considering the lower strength of lightweight aggregate
(LWA). However, the bond-slip behavior of structural LWAC still
lacks a consensus due to the strength variation of aggregates
between LWAC and NWC.
The lower particle strength of LWA probably leads to the worse
bond performance of LWAC compared with that of NWC [3–5], and
thus ACI 318–19 code suggested an increase factor of 1.3 for LWAC
[6]. However, the higher content of the binder materials in LWAC
will result in an increasing strength of mortar matrix, which means
that the bond strength can be enhanced. Moreover, better inter-
locking effect of LWA contributes to higher bond strength between
rebar and concrete as well [7–9].
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wutaochd0922@yahoo.com (T. Wu).
reinforcing bars and LWAC, the expression of bond-slip relation-
ship is generally obtained by using segmented equations based
on experimental results due to the complicated mechanism
[10–13,47]. However, key points of the bond-slip relations are
found to be quite different owing to the dispersion of concrete
materials and various test conditions [7,8,14], such that notable
inconsistencies of bond stress-slip curves were observed in avail-
able literatures [15]. For instance, the bond strength is mostly
described in terms of af’cb, while a and b varied within 2.5 to 3.5
and 0.5 to 1, respectively, as suggested by CEB-FIP [16], GB
50,010 [17], Haraji, et al [18], Lee, et al [19] and Kim, et al [7]. Con-
cerning the bond stress-slip model, although the segmented
expressions were acceptable, yet key points such as peak point
and residual stress of LWAC are not similar to those of NWC, and
the relevant parameters should be concentrated.
In the finite element (FE) analysis field, it is somewhat complex
to predict reinforced concrete behavior that includes the bond-slip
relationship [20,48]. There are currently three main methods to
simulate this behavior, namely, discrete, distributed and embed-
ded models. Among these three models, the discrete model is the
only one that is able to consider the bond slip mechanism directly,
and it is more convenient to simulate irregular reinforcement in

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119355
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355

Table 1
Properties of lightweight aggregate used.

Types Diameter (mm) Apparent density (kg/m3) Bulk density (kg/m3) Water absorption (%) Cylinder compressive strength (MPa)
Shale ceramsite 5–16 1512 860 2.2 6.9
Medium sand <4 2620 1510 1.9 –

Table 2 ties of aggregates and sands are organized in Table 1. The cement
Properties of the reinforcing bars. used in the present study was Ordinary Portland cement (P.O
Diameter of rebar Modulus of elasticity Yield stress fy Ultimate stress 42.5). First grade fly ash and mine powder were used as supple-
db (mm) Es (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) mentary cementitious material for all mixtures, while the silica
12 195,000 471 628 fume was applied for the concrete with strength grade of LC60.
16 195,000 431 577 In addition, the poly-carboxylic type superplasticizer (SP) was
20 194,000 463 569 employed in all mixtures.

the discrete model [21,46]. However, various discrete modelling
technique ignored the radial stress around the reinforcing bars
[22–24], which is considered as the main resource of bond force,
and consequently the splitting failure similar to experimental
results was difficultly obtained by FE method.
To develop a constitutive bond stress-slip model between rebar
and LWAC, pull-out test was conducted, and the results were ana-
lyzed. The analytical bond strength was derived by adopting the
thick-walled model, and relevant parameters were calibrated.
Moreover, the whole bond stress-slip relationship between rebar
and LWAC was achieved by regression of test results. With the pur-
pose of establishing a model that could explicitly account for the
stress evolution and the crack propagation at the inner of concrete,
a FE model considering radial stress was established to simulate
the tested specimens, then an analysis on the splitting bond
strength of LWAC was carried out using the established FE model.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Concrete
The crushed shale ceramsite and medium sands were used as
coarse and fine aggregates of LWAC, respectively. Crushed gravel
aggregate was used for NWC. The mechanical and physical proper-
2.1.2. Rebar
Ribbed reinforcing bars with 12, 16, and 20 mm diameters were
selected in the bond test. The mechanical properties of rebar are
listed in Table 2.
2.2. Mix proportions
Four mix proportions of LWAC were designed to prepare spec-
imens with target compressive strength grade of LC30, LC40,
LC50 and LC60. The ratio of water to binder (W/B) was varied from
0.26 to 0.5 in the four mixtures corresponding to target strength
classes of 30 MPa to 60 MPa. All the mix proportions are given in
Table 3.
2.3. Designation of specimens
Fig. 1 shows the dimensions of specimens for the bond-slip
tests. To ensure the pull-out of rebar, the embedded length was
maintained within five times the reinforcing bar diameter. A
30 mm and a 270 mm portions on rebar were protruded out of
the concrete as free end and loaded end, respectively. The PVC
tubes were used for all specimens to ensure the length of un-
bonded zone.
The variables chosen in the present study were embedded
length and diameter of reinforcing bars in the LWAC with strength

Table 3
Mix proportions.

Series Cement (kg/m3) Fly ash (kg/m3) Silica fume (kg/m3) Aggregate (kg/m3) SP (kg/m3) W/B
LC30 320 80 – 603 0.8 0.5
LC40 360 90 – 606 2.6 0.4
LC50 400 100 – 616 4.3 0.3
LC60 440 66 44 607 5.5 0.26
C50 360 90 – 1010 2.6 0.4

Fig. 1. Dimensions of the specimens.

 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355 3

classes of 30, 40, 50, and 60 MPa. One group of specimens made
with NWC were cast to investigate the differences in bond proper-
ties between NWC and LWAC. The cover depth of all specimens
was selected as over 4.5 times the rebar dimeter to avoid the fail-
ure of splitting. There are three specimens in each series for testing.
Specimens were labelled as ‘concrete type’ - ‘concrete strength’
- ‘bar diameter’ - ‘bonded length’. The ‘LC-30–16-800 , for instance,
denotes the specimens that were made of LWAC with concrete
strength class of LC30, that have reinforcing bars with diameter
of 16 mm, and that have embedded length as 80 mm.
2.4. Test method
3.1. General observation
All specimens showed the pulled-out of the rebar. During the
loading process, the specimens emitted the sound of aggregate
splitting when the bond strength was nearly approached. However,
it was found that with the increase in concrete strength, the split-
ting sound of LWA was reduced. The bond-slip behavior of LWAC is
similar to that of NWC and also can be characterized into four
stages, as described in CEB-FIP 2000 [23]. The four stages were
characterized as linearly ascending part, non-linear ascending,
descending branch, and residual stress, which can be clearly found
in Fig. 3.

The oven-dry densities qd of four LWAC mixtures were mea-
sured according to JGJ51-2002 [25] and are given in Table 4, which
varies from 1824 to 1871 kg/m3. Three concrete cubes
(100  100  100 mm3) for each group were cast simultaneously
with the related specimens to obtain the compressive strength fcu
of the concrete. The splitting tensile strengths fst were done on
100 mm- cubes. All the tests were carried out at 28-d curing age.
Fig. 2 shows the setup of bond-slip tests. To obtain the average
slip between rebar and concrete, three linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs) were set at the free end of the specimen,
one of which was set on the rebar and another two was set on
the concrete. A rectangle steel sheet was welded at the loaded
end of steel bar, and two LVDTs were used to measure the displace-
ments of two ends of the steel sheet. A loading rate of 0.1 kN/s was
employed for bond tests.
3. Results and discussion
The results of tests for materials properties and bond-slip,
including compressive strength fcu, the splitting tensile strengths
fst, ultimate bond forces Fu, bond strength su, and the displacement
of the free end of reinforcing bars corresponding to the ultimate
bond force S, are listed in Table 4, and the bond stress-slip curves
are displayed in Fig. 3. Unfortunately, the results of LC-60–16-80
were not completely obtained due to the break of LVDTs happened
prior to the end of test.
3.2. Bond strength
The distribution of the bond stress was assumed to be uniform,
so the average bond stress along the embedded length can be writ-
ten as:
s ¼ F=ðpdls Þ ð1Þ
where
s = the bond stress in MPa;
F = the bond force measured by the testing machine in N;
d = the diameter of reinforcing bar in mm;
ls = the embedded length of rebar in mm.
Generally, bond strengths of LWAC from specimens labelled
with LC-30, LC-40, LC-50, and LC-60 were about 16.52–
17.25 MPa, 21.69–22.84 MPa, 23.11–23.82 MPa, and 25.28–
32.23 MPa, respectively. In the past, Mo, et al [7] obtained the bond
strength of about 17.4–19.6 MPa with concrete cube compressive
of about 35.9 MPa, and it is a truth that the present test results
showed comparable bond strength to these values from the view
of same compressive strength level. However, the ceramsite shows
higher quality in porosity, water absorption, and dense outer shell
compared with oil palm shell used by Mo, et al, therefore, the W/B
ratio of present study (0.5) is substantially higher than one of exist-
ing study (about 0.327) at comparable strength.
Increasing bond strength with the increase of concrete strength
was reported here. The bond strength of LC-60–16-80 was 66% 
80% higher than that of LC-30–16-80. Besides the higher chemical

Table 4
Test results.

Series fcu (MPa) fst (MPa) qd (kg/m3) db (mm) Fu (kN) su (MPa) S (mm)
LC-30–16-80 41.4 2.9 1836 16 65.56 16.52 2.06
16 64.16 16.80 2.18
16 69.35 17.25 2.33
LC-40–16-80 51.3 3.7 1824 16 91.80 22.84 1.86
16 89.99 22.39 2.09
16 83.88 21.69 1.35
LC-50–16-80 66 5.1 1832 16 87.06 23.11 1.22
16 95.73 23.82 1.23
16 93.35 23.23 1.08
LC-60–16-80 87.6 6.5 1871 16 108 28.66 1.9
16 115.78 29.55 –
16 112.29 29.8 2.12
LC-60–16-50 87.6 6.5 1871 16 72.91 32.23 1.19
16 78.97 31.42 0.48
16 76.65 30.5 2.01
LC-60–12-50 87.6 6.5 1871 12 47.65 25.28 1.80
12 47.92 25.94 1.58
12 45.99 25.42 0.77
LC-60–20-50 87.6 6.5 1871 20 94.60 30.11 2.17
20 82.86 26.38 0.85
20 99.91 31.80 0.48
C-50–16-80 60.2 – – 16 86.96 21.63 1.43
16 91.57 22.77 1.15
16 79.11 21.27 1.67
4 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355

Fig. 2. Setup of bond-slip tests.

adhesion provided by higher compressive strength, the increasing 3.4. Slip at maximum bond stress
strength of cement matrix also contributes to the resistance to the
concrete shearing between two ribs, and therefore the resistance to It has been widely reported that factors such as concrete cover
the pull-out forces. size, rebar diameter, and thickness ratio of cover to rebar diameter
Fig. 4 shows the variation of bond strength as the diameter of (c/db) and concrete strength showed no consistent influence on the
rebar was increasing. It was reported by previous studies that slip at maximum bond stress [7,10,28]. In this study, the test
the smaller diameter of rebar could bring higher bond strength results shown in Fig. 6 suggests that the diameter of reinforcing
[26–28]. Nevertheless, in the present study, the bars diameter of bars, concrete strength grade, and the embedded length provide
16 and 20 mm showed similarly better bond strength compared little influence on the slip corresponding to the maximum bond
with bars diameter of 12 mm. stresses for the LWAC specimens.
As given in Table 4, the LC-60–16-50 showed 0.6%-12% higher
bond strength than the specimens in LC-60–16-80. Theoretically,
4. Bond stress-slip model
longer embedded length leads to a strain penetration phenomenon
[29,30], and this would give rise to a non-uniform distribution of
Past researches have developed many constitutive bond
strain on the reinforcing bars along the longitudinal direction,
stress-slip model [19,33,34], which are mainly established as
leading to a lower bond strength of concretes with longer embed-
the form shown in Fig. 7. The model consists of three segments,
ded length.
namely, ascending portion, linearly descending portion, and the
residual stress portion, and in Fig. 7, a is the shape parameter
of ascending part, su is the bond strength, Su is the relative slip
3.3. Normalized bond strength corresponding to the bond strength, sr is the residual bond
stress, and Sr is the relative slip corresponding to the end of
To eliminate the effect of compressive strength on the bond descending part.
strength of LWAC, the normalized bond strength was incorporated The segmented expressions shown in Fig. 7 were adopted for
in present study, which is expressed as the relationship of bond-slip behavior between LWAC and rebar.
To calibrate the relationship, the analytical solution of the bond
qffiffiffiffi strength was derived by using the thick-walled model, then, key
snorm ¼ su = f 0c ð2Þ parameters of the relationship were achieved by regressing the test
where results.
su = the bond strength between rebar and LWAC, in MPa;
f’c = the compressive strength of cylinder concrete 4.1. Bond strength
(150  300 mm3), it was taken as 0.8fcu in accordance to [31].
Fig. 5 displays the normalized bond strengths of specimens with 4.1.1. Cracking model for LWAC
different concrete strength. The normalized bond strength varied Hillerborg et al [35] proposed a fictitious crack model to
from 2.8 to 3.6, and these values are greater than the suggested describe the softening of cracked concrete in terms of tensile stress
value of 2.5 by CEB-FIP for NWC [32]. As shown in Fig. 5, despite and width of crack, where the area surrounded by curve and axes is
of the same W/B ratio of specimens in C-50–16-80 and LC-40– fracture energy GF. The softening constitutive curve can be
16-80, the normalized bond strength of LC-40–16-80 is obviously expressed as:
higher. It was analyzed that apart from the higher strength of ( rt xt xt xt
matrix, the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) around the porous ft
¼ ax þ b ¼ b1
a x0 þ 1 0 6 x0 < a
rt
0
xt b xt xt
ð3Þ
a1 x0 þ 1a a 6 x0 < 1
LWAC was enhanced by the continuously happened hydration pro- ¼ ax þb¼ b
ft 0
cess which is so-called internal curing, and this is able to improve
the strength of LWA by confinement action. Accordingly, a higher where
bond strength was obtained. Furthermore, combined with the con- wt = crack width (mm);
finement effect of cement matrix and ITZ discussed previously, it rt = the cohesion between concrete cracks (MPa);
can be obtained that the increase in strength grade improves the ft = the tensile strength of concrete (MPa);
normalized bond strength of LWAC, as shown in Fig. 5. w0 = the crack width where cohesion is zero (mm);
 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355 5

Fig. 3. Bond stress-slip curves of specimen.

a, b = parameters as shown in Fig. 8; The definition of GF in CEB-FIP [37] was adopted here to obtain
a, b are experimental parameters. the fracture energy of LWAC. It was found that GF of LWAC speci-
In Eq. (3) and Fig. 8, a and b were determined in accordance mens in this study located within 70 to 135 N/mm, and considering
with Petersson et al [36], that is, a = 0.222, b = 0.667. the generally lower results given by CEB-FIP [38], the GF for all
6 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355

Fig. 4. Bond strengths of LC-60–12-50, LC-60–16-50, and LC-60–20-50.

Fig. 7. Constitutive bond stress-slip model.

Fig. 5. Normalized bond strength of specimens.

Fig. 8. Bilinear softening constitutive curve of concrete.

GF
x0 ¼ 3:6 ð4Þ
ft

4.1.2. Mechanical model

Fig. 6. Slip corresponding to the bond strength.
LWAC specimens were chosen as 95 N/mm to simplified the dis-
cussing followed, and an approximate width of crack for LWAC
(x0) as 0.1 mm, was selected by using Eq. (4) [36].
Thanyawat et al [39,40] and Gao et al [15] derived analytical
solutions for the bond stress-slip relation between concrete and
rebar by introducing the thick-walled cylinder model, as shown
in Fig. 9. In the present study, the process of deduction for the ulti-
mate bond stress su was briefly discussed and then a solution of su
adapted to LWAC was obtained.
As shown in Fig. 9, the inner radius of the cylinder is the radius
of rebar rb, and the outer radius is ru, which equals to the sum of
the rebar radius and the concrete cover thickness. r0 is the depth
of cracking area. The internal stress, rr,rb, is caused by the combina-
tion of the interlock force and the friction between the concrete
and rebar . Then rr,rb can be obtained according to the elastic
mechanics [39]:
r2b rr;rb r 2u
rr;r ¼ ð1  Þ ð5Þ
r 2u  r b
2 r2
The radial stress, rLE
r,rb, caused by the uncracking area on the
rebar can be written as:
 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355 7

2pecr
C2 ¼ ð11Þ
nx0
ecr = ft/Ec, where Ec represents modulus of elasticity of concrete,
which is determined according to Carreira [41] as
 0 0:3
Ec ¼ 0:0736 f c qd 1:51 ð12Þ
where
qd = oven-dry density of concrete.
Substituting the Eq. (11) into Eq. (10), the radial stress rNL
r;r s can
be expressed as:
"  2  #
aC 2 r b r 0 r0
r NL
r;r s ¼ ft 1 þb 1 ð13Þ
2 rb rb
Fig. 9. Thick-walled cylinder model.
Finally, the radial stress corresponding to ultimate bond stress
can be obtained by combining the Eqs. (13) and (5) as [15]:
"  2  #
r0 aC 2 rb r0 r0
ru ¼ ft C1 þ 1 þb 1 ð14Þ
rb 2 rb rb

where
a and b were calculated by Eq. (3) as 1.5 and 1, respectively
Fig. 10. Interaction between concrete and rebar. Furthermore, another equation was derived from Eqs. (13) and
(14) [15]:
r0 1 r 4u  r 40  4r2u r 20 r0 b
rLE
r;r b ¼ rr;r0 ð6Þ þ aC 2 ð  1Þ þ ¼ 0 ð15Þ
rb rb 2 rb rb
ðr 2u þ r 20 Þ
where
Substituting a and b into Eq. (15) and taking C2 as 0.0033 while
rr,r0 = the radial stress at the interface between the cracked and
the thickness of cover c was assumed to be three times of radius of
un-cracked concrete, which can be expressed as [40]:
rebar ds, a numerical calculation was conducted to find an expres-
rr;r0 ¼ f t C 1 ð7Þ sion to describe the ratio that r0 to ru, which can be written as

where

r 2u  r 20
C1 ¼ ð8Þ
r 2u þ r 20
Simultaneously, it was known that the concrete radial stress
between cracks along the radial axis, rNL
r;r s , can be obtained as [40]:
Z r0
1
rNL
r;r s ¼ rt;r dR ð9Þ
r rb

where
rt, r = the hoop tensile stress transmitted by the crack.
The total hoop elongation Dt,r of the concrete at the radius r can
be derived by summing up the concrete elastic deformation
between cracks 2pret,r and the width of cracks nxt,r, and owing
to the assumed equal hoop deformation of the concrete at different
radius, the hoop tensile stress can be achieved as [15]:
 
rt;r et;r
¼ aC 2 r 0  r þb ð10Þ
ft ecr
where Fig. 11. Regression of shape parameter a.

Table 5
Predicted bond strengths of specimens tested.

Mixures Theta l Predictions su,p (MPa) Test results su, t (MPa) D = su,p/su,t
LC-30–16-80 20 0.25 18.43 16.85 1.093769
LC-40–16-80 20 0.25 20.92 22.30 0.938117
LC-50–16-80 20 0.25 24.34 23.38 1.041061
LC-60–16-80 20 0.25 28.51 29.33 0.972042
LC-60–12-50 15 0.20 28.03 25.54 1.097494
LC-60–20-50 25 0.30 29.79 29.43 1.012232
Mean – – – – 1.02
Standard deviation – – – – 0.06
8 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355

Table 6
Values of parameter k.

Series su sr k k SD

LC-30–16-80 16.85 3.71 0.220178 0.26 0.054

LC-40–16-80 22.30 5.80 0.26009
LC-50–16-80 23.38 7.82 0.334474
LC-60–16-80 29.33 10.06 0.342994
LC-60–16-50 31.38 6.96 0.221797
LC-60–12-50 25.54 6.10 0.238841
LC-60–20-50 32.76 6.72 0.205128

Fig. 12. FE models developed in this study.

where
h = the angle between the failure surface of the concrete and the
longitudinal axis of the rebar. It was firstly limited into a range in
line with [42], then was determined empirically for different type
of bars according to test results;
l = the friction coefficient between rebar and surrounding con-
crete, which was usually taken as 0.25–0.35 according to literature
[43].
Then, a simple calculation for bond strength between LWAC and
rebar was obtained. The calculations for the bond strength is sum-
Fig. 13. Connection elements and their local coordinates systems.
marized as:
8
lcosh
>
>
> su ¼ sinhþ
coshlsinh u
r
r0 >
>  2  

¼ 0:9385 - 0:0055ds ð16Þ >

>
ru >
> r ¼ r0
 1:5C 2 r b r 0
 þ r0

>
< u f t r b
C 1 2 r b
1 r b
1
Then r0 ð21Þ
  >
> ¼ ð0:9385 - 0:0055ds Þð1 þ 2c Þ
r0 r0 rb þ c 2c >
>
rb ds

¼ ¼ ð0:9385 - 0:0055ds Þð1 þ Þ ð17Þ >

>
>
> C 1 ¼ 1þð0:9385 2- 0:0055d Þ2  1
rb ru rb ds >
> s
:
C 2 ¼ 0:0033
r 2e  r 20 2
C1 ¼ ¼ 1 ð18Þ Theoretical solution of su for each group in the present study
r 2e þ r 20 1 þ ð0:9385 - 0:0055ds Þ2 were calculated and are organized in Table 5, where the tensile
Substituting parameters a and b into Eq. (15), which can be strength was calculated according to [16] by using the splitting
expressed as tensile strength given in Table 4.
"  2  #
r0 1:5C 2 r b r 0 r0
ru ¼ f t C1  1 þ 1 ð19Þ 4.2. Shape parameter a
rb 2 rb rb
The shape parameter in ascending portion of bond-slip curve, a,
Considering friction forces mainly contributes to the bond
can be re-written as
strength, as shown in Fig. 10. So it is obviously that su can be
obtained by aðlnðSÞ  lnðSu ÞÞ ¼ lnðsÞ  lnðsu Þ ð22Þ
sinh þ lcosh
su ¼ ru ð20Þ where
cosh  lsinh S = the relative slip between the bar and concrete, in mm;
 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355 9

Su = the relative slip corresponding to the bond strength, in bx

y¼ ð24Þ
MPa; b  1 þ xb
s = is the bond stress calculated by F and Eq. (1), in MPa.
 0 0:3
A regression analysis was conducted based on the test results, Ec ¼ 0:0736 f c qd 1:51 ð25Þ
by which the value of a was obtained and applied to the bond-
slip model, the regressed results are shown in Fig. 11.  
ec ¼ 0:71f 0c þ 168  105 ð26Þ
4.3. Residual bond strength sr where
y = fc/f’c;
The residual bond strength (sr) was expressed as a function of x = e/ec;
ultimate bond strength. From the test data, it was found that the
1
ratio that sr accounts for 20%-35% of su, accordingly, an average b¼  0 
of the ratios (k) that sr to su was adopted to complete the constitu- 1 - f c =ec Ec
tive local bond-slip model, as shown in Table 6. The uniaxial tensile behavior of LWAC was applied bi-linearly,
as depicted in Fig. 14, while the GF was given by CEB-FIP and the
4.4. Constitutive bond-slip model tensile strength was calculated according to [16]:

f t ¼ g1 0:3f ck
2=3
The Su and the slip of residual point (Sr) are taken as constants ð27Þ
1.1 and 10.0 mm, respectively, according to the test results and the
observations. Then, with the parameter a of 0.22 and taking sr as g1 ¼ ð0:4 þ 0:6qd =2200Þ ð28Þ
0.26su, a bond-slip relationship between deformed bars and LWAC
where
was recommended here as
fck = characteristic compressive strength of LWAC, which was
8  0:22
> taken as 30, 40, 50, 60 MPa corresponding to LC30, LC40, LC50,
>
< s ¼ su S
Su
0 < S 6 1:1 mm
and LC60, respectively.
ð23Þ
>
> s ¼ su  ðsu  s r Þ Sr Su
SSu
1:1 < S 6 10 mm A simple linear damage evolution was assumed for concrete
:
s ¼ 0:26su S < 10 mm [44], which can be expressed as:
ri
di ¼ 1  ; i ¼ t; c ð29Þ
fi
5. Verification of proposed model with FEM
where
Three-dimensional FE models that directly reflect the interac- t, c = tension and compression, respectively;
tion between LWAC and rebar were established in ABAQUS soft- r = general stress in each time increment;
ware. The model is capable of considering the bond and radial f = the peak stress in uniaxial stress–strain curves.
stress at interface simultaneously. By incorporating the proposed
bond-slip relationship, the specimens tested in the present study 5.2. Bond stress-slip curves
were simulated, and the evolution of crack was discussed briefly.
Then the splitting failure of LWAC was investigated using devel- Fig. 15 shows the bond stress-slip curves obtained by FE method,
oped model. meanwhile the relationships of tested specimens are displayed to
make comparison. It was found that the calibrated constitutive bond
5.1. Modelling of specimens stress-slip model showed good precision to the test curves, and it
also identified the validity of established FE model.
The C3D8R elements were selected to model the rebar and con-
crete, while CARTESIAN and Align connection elements were
inserted between two superimposed nodes on rebar and concrete
to simulate the bond-slip behaviour. The steel bar was partitioned
into 12 areas along the circumferential direction, and a PYTHON
script was written to generate local coordinate system and add
connections between superposed nodes located within the bonded
area. The developed FE model is shown in Fig. 12 and the connec-
tors are displayed in Fig. 13.
The stress–strain relationship of reinforcing bars was assumed
as ideally bilinear, while the elastic modulus and yielding point
needed by the relationship were determined by Table 2. The con-
crete damaged plastic (CDP) model was used for simulating the
properties of concrete. Basic parameters required by CDP are
shown in Table 7. The uniaxial compressive stress–strain response
adopted was in accordance to Carreira and Chu [41], which can be
written as

Table 7
Parameters used in FE model.

Dilation angle Eccentricity fb0/ fc0 K Viscosity Parameter

38 0.1 1.16 0.6667 0.00001
Fig. 14. Tensile stress–strain adopted in the present study.
10 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355

5.3. Cracking behavior
Fig. 16 shows the typical propagation of possible cracks in con-
crete by using the plastic strain. It was found that the concrete
started to crack at the middle of the embedded portion along the
length of rebar, and the possible cracks in concrete expanded into
a small range around the steel bar. With the increase of load, all the
concrete bonded with rebar began to participate in resisting the
pull-out force, and the cracks propagated toward the free end of
the rebar. This process is similar to the mechanism of the force
transformation in practical RC structure, and the observation pre-
sents the non-uniform distribution of bond stress in the embedded

Fig. 15. Bond stress-slip curves obtained by FE method and test results.
 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355 11

Fig. 16. Propagation of internal cracking in concrete.

area. In spite of that a uniformly distributed strain of reinforcing
bars is assumed, the proposed bond stress-slip model is capable
of analysing RC structures with respect to related issues.
5.4. Splitting bond strength
The assumed splitting bond strength (assp) picked from results
of FE models were listed in Table 8. The equation proposed by
Harajli, et al was used to evaluate the splitting bond strength
obtained by FE method, which can be written as [18]

While the pull-out bond strength is ideal for most cases, yet the
use of bond properties obtained from pull-out failure may overes-
timate bond strengths of members [45]. Note that the established
FE model included the evolution of radial stress around the rebar,
which entails the relatively real tracking on the propagation of
splitting cracks.
The FE analysis on the bond-splitting failure was conducted for
LWAC with concrete strength fcu of 87.6 MPa. Eight models owning
diameters of 12, 16, and 20 mm were presented here, the details of
models are shown in Table 8.
Fig. 17 presents the constitutive bond stress-slip model consid-
ering the response of splitting bond failure proposed by Harajli,
et al [33]. Owing to the absence of the predetermination of split-
ting strength, the assp was selected corresponding to the calculated
first cracking at the lateral surface of concrete, which could be
slightly lower than the actual value. Fig. 18 shows the typical split-
ting failure obtained by FE method. The cracks of all models firstly
occurred at the lateral surface of concrete within the range of
bonded length and then propagated to the un-bonded zone, finally
leads to the splitting failure. Fig. 17. Constitutive local bond-slip model proposed by Harajli, et al [33]
12 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355

Table 8
Details and results of FE models.

Diameter of rebar db (mm) Embedded length ls (mm) c/db db/ls assp obtained by FE method (Mpa) Predicted bond strength rp (MPa) Failure mode
12 50 3.33 0.24 18.49 13.99 Splitting
12 50 4.17 0.24 – – Pull-out
16 50 2.50 0.32 18.72 11.56 Splitting
16 50 2.81 0.32 21.77 12.50 Splitting
16 50 3.13 0.32 – – Pull-out
20 50 2.00 0.4 23.74 9.96 Splitting
20 50 2.50 0.4 25.56 11.56 Splitting
20 50 3.00 0.4 – – Pull-out

models were established with concrete strength up to 70 MPa. Fur-

thermore, a = 0.7 in reference [18] was considered inappropriate
for LWAC with such high strength, consequently, a higher number
was recommended here. Furthermore, a higher splitting bond
strength was supposed for the LWAC in the present study, which
is similar to [7].
To obtain the relationship among c/db, db/ls, and assp, a regres-
sion analysis was conducted by using simulated data, and the arsp
qffiffiffiffiffiffi
was normalized to assp = f c . The regressed relationships can be
0

described as a surface in three-dimension space, as shown in

Fig. 19, and the relationship can be written as:

qffiffiffiffiffiffi
assp = f 0 c ¼ 2:4126 þ 0:6977ðc=db Þ þ 9:4241ðdb =ls Þ ð31Þ

Overall, the trend of regressed equation is similar to that of

equation obtained by Harajli, et al, where the assp shows an
increase with the increase of c/db. Nonetheless, the influence of
db/ls on the splitting bond strength is considered greater than that
Fig. 18. Typical splitting failure obtained by FE method. of c/db, which is differed from the suggestion of Harajli, et al.

6. Conclusions

According to the investigation on the bond-slip relationship

between reinforcing bar and LWAC, following conclusions can be
drawn:

Fig. 19. Relationship among c/db, db/ls, and assp.
qffiffiffiffiffiffi
ssp ¼ 0:75 f 0 c ðc=db Þ2=3
where
ssp = Splitting bond strength in MPa, and
c = thickness of concrete cover, and
The calculated results of Eq. (30) are given in Table 8. It is obvi-
ous that the bond splitting strengths obtained by FE method are
higher than calculated ones, which is possibly attributed to the fact
that the Eq. (30) were achieved by test results that using specimens
with compressive strength (fcʹ) not more than 33 MPa, while the FE
(1) The bond strength between LWAC and rebar was better than
that between rebar and NWC with comparable concrete
strength. The diameter of reinforcing bars had little influ-
ence on the bond strength of specimens with pull-out
failure.
(2) Increasing concrete strength of LWAC enhanced the normal-
ized bond strength of LWAC. Specimens with strength grade
of LC30 showed significantly lower normalized bond
strength than LWAC specimens with higher strength grade.
(3) The analytical solution of bond strength shows good match
to the test results, and the proposed bond stress-slip model
agrees with the experimental bond stress-slip curves well.
(4) The established FE model incorporating the proposed bond-
slip model yielded good results regarding the bond-slip
curves, stress distribution, and cracking behavior of
ð30Þ concrete.
(5) The three-dimensional FE model is capable of simulating the
bond-splitting failure, and it was found that the splitting
bond strength of LWAC is better than that of NWC.
7. Data availability
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings
cannot be shared at this time due to technical or time limitations.
 X. Liu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 255 (2020) 119355
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Xi Liu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Writing - original draft. Yang Liu: Methodology, Investi-
gation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft.
Tao Wu: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Fund-
ing acquisition, Writing - original draft. Hui Wei: Investigation,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support pro-
vided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China
(No. 51878054, No. 51908041, and No. 51708036), the Natural
Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province, China (2018ZDCXL-SF-
03-03-02, 2020GY-248), the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities, China (300102280204), and China Postdoc-
toral Science Foundation, China (2019M663915XB).
References
[1] Y. Gao, C. Zou, Experimental study on segregation resistance of nanoSiO2 fly
ash lightweight aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 64–69.
[2] K.M.A. Sohel, K. Al-Jabri, M.H. Zhang, et, al, Flexural fatigue behavior of ultra-
lightweight cement composite and high strength lightweight aggregate
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 173 (2018) 90–100.
[3] James W. Baldwin, Bond of Reinforcement in Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,
University of Missouri, 1965.
[4] Martin H. Bond performance of ribbed bars-influence of concrete composition
consistency. Bond Concr., [Proc. Int. Conf.], (1982): 289-99.
[5] Khandaker M. Hossain, Anwar, Bond characteristics of plain and deformed
bars in lightweight pumice concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (7) (2008) 1491–
1499.
[6] ACI Committee, and International Organization for Standardization. ‘‘Building
code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.” American
Concrete Institute, 2019.
[7] Kim Hung Mo et al., Bond stress-slip relationship of oil palm shell lightweight
concrete, Eng. Struct. 127 (2016) 319–330.
[8] Kim Hung Mo et al., Influence of lightweight aggregate on the bond properties
of concrete with various strength grades, Constr. Build. Mater. 84 (2015) 377–
386.
[9] U. Johnson Alengaram et al., Shear behaviour of reinforced palm kernel shell
concrete beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (6) (2011) 2918–2927.
[10] Kim Hung Mo et al., Bond strength evaluation of palm oil fuel ash-based
geopolymer normal weight and lightweight concretes with steel
reinforcement, J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 32 (1) (2018) 19–35.
[11] Rattapon Ketiyot, Chayanon Hansapinyo, Bhuddarak Charatpangoon,
Nonlinear strut-and-tie model with bond-slip effect for analysis of RC beam-
columnjoints under lateral loading, Int. J. GEOMATE. 15 (47) (2018) 81–88.
[12] Dae-Jin Kim et al., Bond strength of steel deformed rebars embedded in
artificial lightweight aggregate concrete, J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 27 (5-6) (2013)
490–507.
[13] J. Bogas, M. Glória Alexandre, Gomes, and Sofia Real, Bonding of steel
reinforcement in structural expanded clay lightweight aggregate concrete: the
influence of failure mechanism and concrete composition, Constr. Build.
Mater. 65 (2014) 350–359.
[14] Kim Hung Mo, U. Johnson, Alengaram, and Mohd Zamin Jumaat. Experimental
investigation on the properties of lightweight concrete containing waste oil
palm shell aggregate, Procedia Eng. 125 (2015) 587–593.
[15] Xiangling Gao, Naikun Li, Xiaodan Ren, Analytic solution for the bond stress-
slip relationship between rebar and concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 197 (2019)
385–397.
[16] Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib): Model Code 2010-final draft, vol. 1,
Bulletin 65, and vol. 2, Bulletin 66, Lau- sanne, Switzerland, 2013
[17] GB 50010: Code for design of concrete structures. China Planning Press:
Beijing, China, 2010
13
[18] M. Harajli, B. Hamad, K. Karam, Bond-slip Response of Reinforcing Bars
Embedded in Plain and Fiber Concrete, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 14 (6) (2002) 503–
511.
[19] Siong Wee Lee et al., Experimental and analytical investigation on bond-slip
behaviour of deformed bars embedded in engineered cementitious
composites, Constr. Build. Mater. 127 (2016) 494–503.
[20] Li, Xin. Finite Element Modeling of Skewed Reinforced Concrete Bridges and
the Bond-slip Relationship Between Concrete and Reinforcement. Diss. 2007.
[21] American society of civil engineers. Task committee on Finite element analysis
of reinforced concrete structures, and Zdeňek P. Bǎzant. ‘‘State-of-the-art
report on finite element analysis of reinforced concrete.” ASCE, 1982.
[22] Bresler, Boris, and Vitelmo Bertero. ‘‘Behavior of reinforced concrete under
repeated load.” J. Struct. Division (1968): 1567-90
[23] CEB-FIP. 2000. State-of-the-Art Report on Bond of Reinforcement in Concrete.
State-of-Art Report Prepared by Task Group Bond Models (former CEB Task
Group 2.5) FIB -Féd. Int. du Béton: 1-97.
[24] Nilson, Arthur H. ‘‘Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete by the finite
element method.” J. Proc. Vol. 65. No. 9. 1968.
[25] CS (Chinese Standard) JGJ51-2002, Light-weight Aggregate Concrete Technical
Regulations, Ministry of Construction of the People’s Republic of China, China,
2002 (in Chinese).
[26] P.G. Gambarova, G.P. Rosati, Bond and splitting in bar pull-out: behavioural
laws and concrete cover role, Mag. Concr. Res. 49 (179) (1997) 99–110.
[27] Parviz Soroushian, K.B. Choi, Local bond of deformed bars with different
diameters in confined concrete, ACI, Struct. J. 86 (2) (1989) 217–222.
[28] Farghal Maree, A, K Hilal Riad. Analytical and experimental investigation for
bond behaviour of newly developed polystyrene foam particles’ lightweight
concrete. Eng. Struct. 58(2014):1-11.
[29] Hiroshi Shima, Lie-Liung Chou, Hajime Okamura, Micro and macro models for
bond in reinforced concrete, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, University
of Tokyo 39 (2) (1987) 133–194.
[30] Xiao Liang, Sri Sritharan, An investigation of bond-slip behavior of reinforcing
steel subjected to inelastic strains, Natl. Conf. Earthquake Eng. Front,
Earthquake Eng, 2014.
[31] Min Hong Zhang, Od.d.E. Gjvorv, Mechanical properties of high-strength
lightweight concrete, ACI, Mater. J. 88 (3) (1991) 240–247.
[32] Comité euro-international du béton, CEB-FIP model code 1990: design code /
Comite Euro-International du Beton, Telford, London, 1993.
[33] M.H. Harajli, Bond stress-slip model for steel bars in unconfined or steel, FRC,
or FRP confined concrete under cyclic loading, J. Struct. Eng. 135 (5) (2009)
509–518.
[34] Omid Gooranorimi, Wimal Suaris, Antonio Nanni, A model for the bond-slip of
a GFRP bar in concrete, Eng. Struct. 146 (2017) 34–42.
[35] Arne Hillerborg, Mats Modéer, P.-E. Petersson, Analysis of crack formation and
crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements,
Cem. Concr. Res. 6 (6) (1976) 773–781.
[36] Per-Erik Petersson, Crack growth and development of fracture zone in plain
concrete and similar materials, Report No. TVBM-1006, Div, Build. Mater.,
Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden (1981).
[37] Comité Euro-International du Beton (CEB-FIP). Structural concrete: Textbook
on behavior, design and performance, International. Federation for Structural
Concrete (FIB), Lausanne, Switzerland, (1999).
[38] Jae Il Sim et al., Effects of Aggregate and Specimen Sizes on Lightweight
Concrete Fracture, Energy. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (5) (2014) 845–854.
[39] Thanyawat Pothisiri, P. Panedpojaman, Modeling of bonding between steel
rebar and concrete at elevated temperatures, Constr. Build. Mater 27 (1)
(2012) 130–140.
[40] Thanyawat Pothisiri, Pattamad Panedpojaman, Modeling of mechanical bond-
slip for steel-reinforced concrete under thermal loads, Eng. Struct. 48 (2013)
497–507.
[41] Carreira, Domingo J., and Kuang-Han Chu. Stress-strain relationship for plain
concrete in compression. J. Proc. Vol. 82. No. 6. (1985).
[42] Steel for the reinforcement of concrete-Part 2: Hot rolled ribbed bars (GB/T
1499.2-2007) Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of
China, Standards Press of China, 2007.
[43] Youlin Xu, Experimental study of anchorage properties for deformed bars in
concrete, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 1990.
[44] Alrazi Earij et al., Nonlinear three-dimensional finite-element modelling of
reinforced-concrete beams: Computational challenges and experimental
validation, Eng. Fail. Anal. 82 (2017) 92–115.
[45] Losberg, Anders, and Per-Ake Olsson. ‘‘Bond failure of deformed reinforcing
bars based on the longitudinal splitting effect of the bars.” J. Proc. Vol. 76. No.
1. 1979.
[46] X.F. Deng et al., Effects of High Strength Concrete on Progressive Collapse
Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frame., J. Struct. Eng. 146 (6) (2020)
4020078.
[47] K Qian et al., Quasi-static and dynamic behavior of precast concrete frames
with high performance dry connections subjected to loss of a penultimate
column scenario., Eng. Struct. 205 (2020) 110115.
[48] Y.H. Weng, Numerical investigation on load redistribution capacity of flat slab
substructures to resist progressive collapse., J. Build. Eng. 29 (110109) (2020).