Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Analytical model for the bond stress-slip relationship of deformed bars

in normal strength concrete
Hongwei Lin a,b, Yuxi Zhao b,⇑, Josko Ozbolt c, Peng Feng a, Cheng Jiang d, Rolf Eligehausen c
a
Institute of Structural Engineering, Tsinghua University, 100084 Beijing, China
b
Institute of Structural Engineering, Zhejiang University, 310058 Hangzhou, China
c
Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, 70560 Stuttgart, Germany
d
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

h i g h l i g h t s

A local bond stress-slip relationship model for deformed steel bar is proposed.

A mathematical model for slip at the peak bond stress is proposed.

A methodology for predicting the bond failure mode is suggested.

The post-peak bond stress decreases nonlinearly under splitting failure mode.

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

Article history: The lateral confinement provided by concrete cover and stirrups has a significant influence on the bond
Received 6 October 2018 behavior of reinforcing bars. This paper presents a systematical study on the local bond stress-slip behav-
Received in revised form 8 November 2018 ior of deformed steel bars based on test results of beam-end specimens and test data reported in the lit-
Accepted 26 November 2018
erature. The bond-slip mechanism is discussed in detail and a parameter K representing the confining
ability of concrete cover and stirrups is proposed. Through parameter K the bond failure mode can be pre-
dicted. With K as the governing parameter, a mathematical model for peak slip is proposed. The proposed
Keywords:
model enables a smooth transition from splitting failure to pull-out failure. Furthermore, the nonlinear
Confinement
Concrete cover
characteristics of bond stress-slip curves under splitting failure mode, which has not been well recog-
Stirrups nized in previous studies, are thoroughly discussed. By dividing the post-peak bond stress into two com-
Bond strength ponents, a mechanism-based mathematical model for the nonlinear descending branch of bond-slip
Bond-slip relationship curves is formulated. Finally, a bond-slip model for deformed steel bars is proposed, which is applicable
for both splitting failure and pull-out failure modes. Comparisons with experimental results available in
the literature show that the proposed model can provide good predictions for the bond-slip behavior of
deformed steel bars with varying confinement levels.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The steel-concrete bond is a fundamental property that controls
the performance of reinforced concrete members. It prevents
excessive slip between steel bars and concrete and ensures rein-
forced concrete (RC) members work effectively and integrally.
The bond stress developed at the interface is made up of three
components: chemical adhesion, friction, and mechanical interac-
tion [1]. The chemical adhesion is very small (around 0.4–
0.8 MPa) and disappears once slip initiates [2]. For plain steel bars
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yxzhao@zju.edu.cn (Y. Zhao).
chemical adhesion and friction dominate, while for deformed steel
bars bond depends primarily on the mechanical interaction (see
Fig. 1). Factors affecting the three components, such as bar surface
properties, bar diameter, concrete cover, and amount of transverse
reinforcement, etc. can have impacts on the interfacial bond
behavior [3].
The mechanical properties of RC elements, such as cracking,
deflections, loading capacity and hysteretic behavior under seismic
excitations, are highly dependent on the bond behavior. Because of
this, the bond behavior of deformed steel bars, including the bond
strength and bond stress-slip relationship, has been an interesting
topic to researchers worldwide over the past decades. As for bond
strength, numerous studies have been carried out and the various

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.258
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586
Nomenclature
Ast cross-sectional area of the stirrup
a empirical parameter
b empirical parameter
Cclear clear distance between lugs
c concrete cover
cx concrete cover in x direction
cy concrete cover in y direction
d diameter of tensile steel bar
F pull-out force
fcm concrete cylinder compressive strength
K confinement parameter
kf proportion of the bond stress provided by stirrups at the
peak
l bond length
nb number of individual anchored bars or pairs of lapped
bars
Splitting crack
Crushed concrete
Rib Rib
Tensile force
Fig. 1. Mechanical interaction between concrete and deformed steel bar.
influencing parameters have been well recognized. To date, a num-
ber of mathematical models for bond strength have been proposed
[4–6]. Some of these models can already provide fairly good
predictions and have been incorporated into national codes or
standards. The present paper mainly focuses on the local bond
stress-slip relationship, referred to hereafter as the bond-slip
relationship. The local bond-slip behavior has a significant influ-
ence on the stiffness and deformation capability of RC structure.
Studies show that a large portion of the lateral displacement and
beam deflections of a frame comes from the fixed-end-rotation
caused by slippage of the main steel bars in beam-column joints
[7,8]. It is therefore essential to incorporate a reasonable local
bond-slip relationship in numerical model to yield accurate predic-
tions of response [9–11]. Hence, there is a pressing need for the
development of local bond-slip law in the context of accurately
reproducing the nonlinear behavior of RC structures through
numerical or analytical methods.
The local bond-slip behavior has been investigated since very
early times. Through a series of well-designed test methods by ear-
lier researchers, such as milling the steel bar to monitor the steel
strain distribution [12,13] or injecting red ink near the bar lugs
to monitor the inner crack development [14], knowledge on the
bond-slip mechanism at the interface is gradually deepened and
several local bond-slip models in polynomial form have been pro-
posed [15]. However, these models have limitations as they do not
fully coincide with the bond-slip mechanism. This situation was
not changed until the research work by Eligehausen et al. [16],
who proposed the famous piecewise BPE model later adopted by
CEP-FIP Model Code [17] (Fig. 2a). Since then, numerous studies
571
nst number of legs of a stirrup crossing the splitting failure
plane
s slip between concrete and tensile steel bar
sf slip corresponding to frictional bond stress
sst longitudinal spacing of the stirrups
su slip at peak bond stress
a empirical parameter
b empirical parameter
f monotonically increasing function
k empirical parameter
qst stirrup index of confinement
s bond stress
sc bond stress provided by concrete cover
sst post-peak bond stress provided by stirrups
su ultimate bond stress (bond strength)
w ratio of the residual to the maximum tensile stress in
the stirrups
have been carried out to improve the model so that it can be
adapted to different situations. Almost at the same time, Xu [2]
in China conducted a large amount of pullout tests investigating
the bond behavior of deformed steel bar. Based on the detailed
observation of local bond behavior through dedicated experiments,
the bond-slip mechanism was fully recognized, and a
micromechanics-based bond-slip law was developed. The bond-
slip model includes several stages, which reflects the change of
bond state due to concrete crushing or cracking at the interface.
The bond law by Xu [2] is proved to agree well with various exper-
imental tests and has been incorporated into Chinese National
Code [18], see Fig. 2(b). Following Eligehausen et al. [16] and Xu
[2], some other models have been proposed as well [19–21].
In general, the bond-slip behavior of deformed steel bars has
been well understood by researchers and some of the existing
bond-slip models can meet the requirements of nonlinear numer-
ical modeling. However, the current knowledge still has room for
improvement. Previous studies are mainly based on well-
confined specimens, for instance, specimens simulating the con-
fined region of a typical beam-column joint [16,22–24] or
central-pullout specimens with sufficient concrete cover or trans-
verse reinforcement [20,25–28], in which cases pull-out failure
mode occurs. In reality, for the majority of RC structures under ser-
vice, the confinement of the steel bar is intermediate between
well-confined conditions and unconfined conditions. In such cases,
bond failure generally occurs in splitting mode instead of pull-out
mode. To realistically simulate the bond splitting failure, new types
of bond tests have been developed by researchers, for instance,
beam tests [29,30] and beam-end tests [3,31,32]. Under splitting
failure mode, it has been noted that the descending branch of
bond-slip curve exhibits nonlinear characteristics. Harajli et al.
[29,33–35] investigated the local bond-slip response under split-
ting failure mode through a series of beam specimens. They pro-
posed the first bond-slip model that has a nonlinear descending
branch under splitting failure mode. The nonlinear characteristics
of the softening branch of bond-slip behavior were also specified
by Guizani and Chaallal [36], who found that the general form of
the observed bond-slip response of moderately confined speci-
mens lay between well-confined and unconfined specimens. For
moderately confined specimens in which the bond failed by cover
splitting, the bond stress after the peak showed a rapid decrease at
a variable rate. Unfortunately, this phenomenon has not been well
recognized. For most of the bond-slip models, the descending
branch is just simplified to a linear line. Moreover, the current
572 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586
(a) CEB-FIP Model Code
Fig. 2. Bond stress-slip models in Codes.
bond-slip models under different failure modes are separately
developed and knowledge regarding their transition is limited
due to a lack of criterion for forecasting the bond failure modes.
Wu et al. [37] point out that there should be a continuous transi-
tion from splitting failure to pullout failure in terms of the bond-
slip response. The inadequate knowledge regarding bond-slip
response, particularly the softening stage under splitting failure
mode, might lead to unsafe evaluations of structural properties
under certain circumstances.
Therefore, some aspects concerning the local bond-slip behav-
ior of deformed steel bars with varying confinement levels are
not yet completely understood. The present paper provides deep
insight into this problem trying to fill the knowledge gaps.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Specimen design
The geometry of the beam-end specimens in this study is
shown in Fig. 3. This specimen type was selected because it can
avoid the disadvantages of central-pullout specimens [3,31,32].
The specimen had a cross section of 300 mm  300 mm with a
length of 300 mm. The bond length was 150 mm to ensure that
the bond failure would dominate. A 150 mm PVC sleeve was used
to debond the remaining length of the steel bar. The specimens had
different confinement levels: (1) four stirrup spacings (sst); and (2)
four concrete covers (c). This experimental program includes six-
teen beam-end specimens with each specimen having 2 bars at
the corner. In total 32 pull-out tests were performed.
2.2. Material properties
The concrete was supplied by a local concrete mixing plant.
Ordinary Portland cement was used for concrete casting with a
cement content of 256 kg/m3, and the maximum aggregate size
300
120
300
PVC sleeve
20
F
Tensile steel bar
300
Dial indicator Constraint
Stirrups
Fig. 3. Specimen dimensions and reinforcement (all dimensions in mm).
(b) Chinese GB50010-2010 Code
was 25 mm. The slump of the concrete was 150 mm. The concrete
mix constituents are presented in Table 1. The cubic compressive
strength of concrete (150 mm cube) was 33 MPa after curing for
28 days. Deformed steel bars with a diameter (d) of 20 mm were
used. The yield strength of the steel bar was 540 MPa. The plain
round stirrups had a diameter of 8 mm with a mean yield strength
of 378 MPa.
2.3. Setup for pull-out testing
The pull-out tests were conducted using a universal testing
machine assisted by a specially designed loading frame, as shown
in Fig. 4. The horizontal support at the pull-out face of the speci-
men had a height of 200 mm and the vertical support over the
specimen was 120 mm wide. All the specimens were loaded under
displacement control with a consistent loading rate of 0.5 mm/
min. In each test the two steel bars were pulled out one after
another. Four dial indicators were used to monitor the relative slips
at both the free end and loaded end of the specimens (see Fig. 3).
3. Experimental results
3.1. Failure mode
Longitudinal splitting cracks were observed in most beam-end
specimens during loading. For some specimens, the splitting cracks
were accompanied by diagonal cracks starting from the embed-
ment zone toward the adjacent steel bar, as shown in Fig. 5. The
diagonal cracks induced by the firstly tested steel bar caused dam-
age to the concrete cover of the neighboring steel bar and conse-
quently the subsequent pull-out test of the adjacent steel bar
proved that its bond performance was negatively affected.
3.2. Measured bond stress-slip curves
The bond stress s is calculated by assuming that the bond stress
is uniformly distributed along the bond length:
F
s¼ ð1Þ
pdl
where F is the pull-out force, d is the bar diameter, l is the bond
length. At bond failure, the average bond stress is defined as the
average bond strength su and the corresponding slip at the free
end is defined as the peak slip su. Fig. 6 shows the average bond
stress-slip curves.
 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586 573

Table 1
Mixture proportion of concrete (kg/m3).

Water Cement Fly ash Slag powder Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate Water reducing agent
104 256 49 56 902 928 6.26

Specimen

Loading frame

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Test set-up: (a) schematic representation of the loading system; (b) specimen under loading.

where fcm is the concrete cylinder compressive strength; cmin = min

(cs/2, cx, cy), cx and cy is the concrete cover in x and y direction
respectively, cs is the clear distance between neighboring steel bars;
km is 12; Ktr = nstAst/(sstdnb), nst is the number of legs of a stirrup
which crosses the potential splitting failure plane, nb is the number
of individual anchored bars or pairs of lapped bars, Ast is the cross-
sectional area of the stirrups, and sst is the longitudinal spacing of
the stirrups.
The estimated bond strength by Eq. (2) is compared with the
(a) F (b) F test results in Fig. 7. For specimens in Group D (c = 70 mm), Eq.
(2) provides good predictions. However, the bond strength of other
specimens is generally overestimated. The overestimation might
be caused by the special failure modes characterized by lateral
cracking.

4.2. Bond-slip relationship model

4.2.1. The ascending branch

According to the previous research by Eligehausen et al. [16],
F F the ascending branch of the bond-slip curve can be described by
(c) (d)
the following equation,
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of the cracking patterns.
a
s
s ¼ su ð 0 6 s 6 su Þ ð3Þ
su

4. Theoretical modeling where s is the bond stress; s is the relative slip; a varies between 0
and 1.
4.1. Bond strength model

4.2.1.1. The coefficient a. The coefficient a can greatly influence the

Fig. 7 shows the tested bond strength of the beam-end speci-
ascending branch. ‘‘a = 0” corresponds to an instantaneous
mens. It can be seen that the bond strength increases with the
increase in bond stress up to the peak, and ‘‘a = 1” yields a linear
cover to bar diameter ratio (c/d). The stirrups also have a positive
relation between bond stress and slip. Until now, specific studies
influence on the bond strength. This observation is consistent with
on a are very few and various values for a have been suggested
previous studies [4,5]. To account for the contribution of concrete
by researchers. The variation can be ascribed to the difference in
and stirrups, a mechanical model is proposed in fib Bulletin 72 [4],
concrete strength, rib pattern of the steel bar and specimen geom-

0:25
0:45
0:2 "
0:1 #
f cm d 25 cmin 0:25 cmax etry. According to the method given in the state-of-art report by fib
su ¼ 13:5 þ km K tr [38], the coefficient a has been obtained by nonlinear curve fitting.
25 l d d cmin
Considering the suggested values by previous researchers, a = 0.2
ð2Þ is adopted in this study.
574 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586

10 10
A-I (Without stirrups) B-I (Without stirrups)
A-II (sst=150mm) B-II (sst=150mm)
A-III (sst=100mm) B-III (sst=100mm)
8 8
A-IV (sst=70mm) B-IV (sst=70mm)

6 6
(MPa)

(MPa)
4 4

2 2

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
s (mm) s (mm)
(a) Group A (c = 25 mm) (b) Group B (c = 35 mm)

10 10
C-I (Without stirrups) D-I (Without stirrups)
C-II (sst=150mm) D-II (sst=150mm)
C-III (sst=100mm) D-III (sst=100mm)
8 8
C-IV (sst=70mm) D-IV (sst=70mm)

6 6

(MPa)
(MPa)

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
s (mm) s (mm)
(c) Group C (c = 45 mm) (d) Group D (c = 70 mm)
Fig. 6. Bond-slip curves measured on beam-end specimens.

14 crete strength. However, Harajli et al. [22] found that su was inde-
c = 25mm c= 25mm (Eq. 2) pendent of concrete strength and confinement conditions. Instead,
c = 35mm c= 35mm (Eq. 2)
12 c = 45mm c= 45mm (Eq. 2)
it mainly depended on the clear distance between lugs and could
c = 70mm c= 70mm (Eq. 2) be approximately taken as 0.20 Cclear (Cclear is the clear distance
10 between lugs) for steel bars smaller than 25 mm in diameter.
Similar conclusion was derived by Zhao and Zhu [41], who
found su was not sensitive to changing concrete strength but
(MPa)

8
increased with Cclear. Through regression analyses of an existing
6 database, Zhao and Zhu [41] found su was around 0.1Cclear or
u

(0.07442d0.00093d2). Based on test results of large-diameter bars

4 (d varies from 36 mm to 57 mm), Murcia-Delso et al. [39] found su
2 and Zhu [41].
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
/s (mm)
st st
Fig. 7. Comparison between tested bond strength and predictions by Eq. (2).
4.2.1.2. The peak slip su.
1) Summary of existing studies regarding su. The peak slip su, at
which the peak bond stress is reached, has a significant influence
on the bond-slip law. According to the previous studies, su is
affected by many factors including concrete strength, concrete
cover, stirrups, rib pattern, and even loading rate. The tested values
of su from previous studies could hardly vary more widely. It is rec-
ommended that su should be experimentally determined for each
case if possible [39], but it could be helpful having prediction mod-
els when experimental data is not available.
For pull-out bond failure, an earlier study by Alsiwat et al. [40]
assumed that su was inversely proportion to the square root of con-
was around 0.07d, which is very close to that proposed by Zhao
Compared with that under pull-out failure mode, the determi-
0.6 0.7 0.8 nation of su under splitting failure mode is more complex. Test
results by Xu [2] indicated that su was around 0.0368d. The CEB-
FIP Model Code [17] suggests su = 0.6 mm for splitting failure.
Based on CEB-FIP Model Code [17], Khalaf et al. [42] assumed that
su increased linearly with c/d when 1.0 < c/d < 5.0. Regression anal-
ysis of database in the literature by Wu and Zhao [37] indicated
that the increase of both concrete confinement and stirrup confine-
ment could lead to larger su. This conclusion is supported by Gui-
zani and Chaallal [36], who found that the stirrup confinement
was the most important factor among all the influencing factors.
The existing models [33,37,42,43] for su under splitting failure
mode are listed in Table 2.
2) Model for su under pull-out failure mode. When sufficient con-
crete cover or stirrups are provided, bond failure is generally char-
acterized by crushing or shearing-off of the concrete keys between
the lugs. The bond resistance is determined mainly by the shear
strength of concrete keys instead of the splitting capacity of the
 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586 575

Table 2
Existing models for su under splitting failure mode.

Literature Prediction model Average SD COV

Harajli et al. [33]   3:3    1.25 0.98 0.79
su ¼ 0:15C clear 0:304 dc þ n7Adsstst  s0 ln 0:304 dc þ n7Adsstst
 
d d

Wu and Zhao [37] 0:7315þ c 33Ast

þ
1.21 0.75 0.62
 
d nd dsst
su ¼
5:176þ0:3333 c þ 33Ast
d nd dsst
c 
Khalaf et al. [42] su ¼ 0:6 þ 0:1  d
1 0.83 0.71 0.86
Coccia et al. [43] 0:35ðc0:2dÞ 0.29 0.21 0.73
su ¼ 100

concrete cover. Consequently, the additional increase of confine-
ment provided by concrete cover or stirrups has a very limited
influence on the bond behavior, including the peak slip. Based on
the summary above, su under pull-out failure mode might be con-
trolled by Cclear. Fig. 8 shows the variation of su with Cclear based on
literature database [16,22,24–26,28,39,44–47]. Obviously, a strong
correlation between su and Cclear can be observed. A linear relation-
ship of su = nCclear is assumed and n = 0.12Cclear through regression
analysis.
3) Model for su under splitting failure mode. For su under splitting
failure mode, the above summary reveals that the lateral confine-
ment is the dominant influencing factor. It has a positive influence
on su due to the confining effect. As the bond stress increases to the
peak, longitudinal cracks open and tensile stresses are developed
in the stirrups preventing the sudden failure of concrete cover.
The presence of stirrups makes the bond failure more stable. For
specimens with larger concrete cover, the splitting failure is post-
poned due to higher splitting capacity. Therefore, for specimens
with stirrups or larger concrete cover, the damage caused by the
steel lugs to the concrete at the interface is more severe due to lar-
ger bursting pressure leading to larger deformation or slip. To this
end, the mechanisms of confinement effect by stirrups and that by
concrete cover are quite related and similar. In other words, such
two confinement effects can be represented by one single param-
eter, as did by previous researchers [33,37,48]. In the present
paper, the confinement parameter K is proposed,
K ¼ c=d þ kqst
where k is a coefficient to be determined; qst is the ‘‘stirrup index of
confinement” proposed by Xu [2],
Ast
qst ¼
csst
where Ast, sst are the same as those in Eq. (2). The physical meaning
of qst is the ratio of the cross-sectional area of stirrups to the area of
the splitting plane (see Fig. 9). The rationality of selecting of Eq. (5)
to quantify the confining effect of stirrups has been verified by pre-
vious researchers [37,41].
In the cases when c/d > 4.5  5 or the concrete cover is heavily
confined by stirrups, the pull-out failure mode is more likely to
occur instead of splitting failure mode [2,17,49,50]. Also, there
should be a continuous transition from splitting failure to pull-
out failure with the increase of lateral confinements [37]. There-
fore, it can be inferred that the upper bound of the peak slip under
splitting failure mode is the peak slip under pull-out failure mode
(su = 0.12Cclear). The model for su can be assumed as,
su ¼ 0:12C clear fðK Þ ð6Þ
where f(K) is a monotonically increasing function. When K is
greater than a certain value, f(K) approaches to 1.0 indicating
pull-out failure. Based on this understanding, Eq. (6a) is proposed
with two coefficients a and b to be determined. Eq. (6a) is
selected because it can meet the requirement of a smooth transi-
tion from splitting failure to pull-out failure. With different a and
b values, different relationships can be obtained as shown in
Fig. 10.
1
fðK Þ ¼ ð6aÞ
1 þ aebK
Through regression analysis based on the database built from
the literature [16,23,26,28,31,35,39,45,46,51–54], the unknown
ð4Þ coefficients are found as: k = 82.7, a = 85.8 and b = 1.4. For the
details of the database, please see Appendix A. Fig. 11 illustrates
the variation of f(K) with K. The hollow dots represent specimens
failing in splitting failure mode, while the solid dots represent
specimens failing in pull-out mode. As can be seen, the peak slip
ð5Þ increases with the lateral confinement and the failure mode
smoothly changes from splitting to pull-out failure. The critical
point after which most of the specimens fail in pull-out mode lies
between K = 4 and K = 6. This phenomenon is in good agreement

4.0
Eligehausen et al. [16]
3.5 Harajli et al. [22]
Soroushian et al. [24]
Balazs et al. [25]
3.0 Koch and Balazs [26]
Oh and Kim [28]
Murcia-Delso et al. [39]
2.5 Chung et al. [44]
Huang et al. [45]
su (mm)

Prince and Singh [46]

2.0 Kim et al. [47]

1.5
c

su = 0.12Cclear Stirrup
1.0
2
R =0.90 Tensile steel bar
0.5 AVG=1.15
COV=0.39 Splitting plane
sst
0.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Cclear (mm) Splitting crack
Fig. 8. The relationship between su and Cclear under pull-out failure mode. Fig. 9. Schematic representation of the physical meaning of qst.
576 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586

1.2 4.2.2. The descending branch of specimens without stirrups

It can be observed from Fig. 6 that the bond stress of the spec-
1.0 imens without stirrups drops significantly after the peak. This is
due to the sudden failure of concrete. After the splitting crack prop-
agates through the concrete cover, there is almost no lateral con-
0.8 a = 30, b = -10 finement that can help to equilibrate the bursting forces
a = 200, b = -3
generated by the bond action. However, due to the fact that con-
0.6 a = 200, b = -2
crete does not lose its tensile resistance immediately after cracking
a = 1000, b = -2
[17] (see Fig. 13), a minimum portion of bond strength can be
0.4 maintained. The residual bond strength sharply vanishes with
the crack opening. The following equation is adopted to describe
0.2 the fast reduction of post-peak bond stress,

b
s
0.0 sc ¼ su ð7Þ
su
0 2 4 6 8
K which is formally identical to Eq. (3), but b < 0. According to Eq. (6),
specimens with weaker concrete confinement lead to smaller su and
Fig. 10. Eq. (6a) with different coefficients. consequently faster decrease of post-peak bond stress according to
Eq. (7), which agrees with the bond-slip mechanism of the descend-
ing branch as analyzed above. Therefore, the influence of concrete
1.6 confinement on the descending branch can be reflected by su, justi-
1.4 fying the rationality of selecting the functional form of Eq. (7). Eq.
(7) has also been adopted by other researchers for the descending
1.2 branch of bond-slip relationship [55]. The value of b is obtained
by fitting the tested bond-slip curves of the beam-end specimens
1.0
(K)

Present work and those from the literature [16,22,24,28,35,44,46,49,53,56–58].

0.8 (K=6, (K)=0.98)
Eligehausen et al.[16]
Soroushian and Choi [23] Fig. 14 shows the influence of c/d on b. As observed, the data shows
Koch and Balazs [26]
Oh and Kim [28] a considerable scatter. This is reasonable as the descending branch
0.6 Hanjari et al.[31]
of specimens without stirrups is very difficult to be captured due to
Harajli et al.[35]

0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
K
Fig. 11. The variation of f(K) with parameter K.
with previous conclusion that when c/d > 4.5  5, the pull-out fail-
ure mode occurs. Therefore, it is feasible to predict the failure
mode through the parameter K. For model development in the fol-
lowing sections, the critical point Kcr = 6 is chosen as f(6) is very
close to 1.0.
The performance of the previous models in Table 2 are com-
pared based on the database in Appendix A. Defining t as the
ratio of predicted to the measured peak slip, the average value,
standard deviation and coefficient of variation of t are shown
in Table 2. Among the models, the model by Coccia et al. [43]
shows the largest deviation with the test data by seriously
underestimating the peak slip. The model by Khalaf et al. [42]
shows relatively good performance, but it underestimates the
peak slip as well because of neglecting the confining effects of
stirrups. The models by Wu and Zhao [37], Harajli et al. [33]
show similar performance by overestimating the peak slip. Com-
pared with the existing models, the model by the present paper
fully considers the influencing parameters and shows superior
performance concerning the database in Appendix A. The average
value and the coefficient of variation of t are 1.02 and 0.56,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 12(a). The coefficient of variation
of t is relatively large, but values of t are mostly in the range
of 0.6–1.6 (Fig. 12b). Considering the slip values are very small
and easily affected by experimental errors, the predictions by
Eq. (6) can be accepted.
Murcia-Delso et al.[39]
Huang et al.[45] drastic bond loss after the peak making it easily affected by exper-
Prince and Singh [46]
Lin et al.[51]
imental errors. Overall, b increases slightly with c/d, indicating that
Fang et al.[52]
Dahou et al.[53]
the cracked concrete plays a slight role in maintaining the bond
Lee et al. [54]
stress after the peak. For the confinement contribution of concrete
14 16 18 due to its residual tensile strength after cracking, see the literature
[59]. On average, b = 0.6 is adopted. This value is very close to that
adopted by Harajli et al. [33] for plain concrete.
4.2.3. The descending branch of specimens with stirrups
4.2.3.1. Bond-slip mechanism after the peak. For specimens with
stirrups, the bond stress after the peak is provided by cracked con-
crete and stirrups. Unlike plain concrete, the sudden loss of the
bond resistance after cover cracking is prevented because the con-
crete cover is constrained by stirrups. When the bond stress grad-
ually reaches the peak, the stirrups running through the crack faces
are passively activated and tensile stresses are developed in the
stirrups. After the peak, the continuous increase of relative slip
leads to advanced damage of concrete keys. At the same time,
the stirrups actively confine the steel bar due to the elastic contrac-
tion. When the slip is large enough, the contribution of cracked
concrete will be largely lost, and the bond stress will be mainly
determined by stirrups. Therefore, the descending branch of the
bond-slip curve is highly affected by stirrups. The components of
the bond stress after the peak and their variations with slip are
schematically illustrated in Fig. 15.
4.2.3.2. Post-peak bond stress provided by stirrups. Under splitting
failure mode, the components of the post-peak bond stress pro-
vided by stirrups include mechanical interaction and friction;
under pull-out failure mode, the only component is friction due
to the complete shearing off of concrete keys (Fig. 15). Regardless
of the failure mode, both the mechanical interaction and friction
are proportional to the radial pressure at the interface, which is
balanced by the tensile stress in the stirrups. Therefore, it can be
inferred that the post-peak bond stress by stirrups is proportional
to the tensile stress of stirrups. Test results by previous researchers
 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586 577

4.0
28%
3.5 R2=0.84 25.9%
AVG ( ) =1.02

Predicted su (mm)--Eq. (4)

3.0 SD ( ) =0.57
COV ( ) =0.56
2.5 18.5%

2.0

1.5
9.3%
1.0 7.4% 7.4%
0.5
3.7%
0.0 Su_Predicted
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Measured su (mm) <0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 >1.6 Su_Measured

(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Comparison between predicted and tested su (a) and distribution of t (b).

Splitting failure: merchanical interaction+friction

1 Pm
Rib
μmPm Rib

Residual bond stress (1) + (2) Pullout failure: pure friction

μf Pf Pf

u
ft
Residual tensile stress

Rib Rib Rib

Bond stress by stirrups (2)

Bond stress by cracked concrete (1)

0
1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
s/su
Fig. 15. Variations of the components of the post-peak bond stress with slip.

wcr wu
Crack opening w
form during crack opening and propagation [20]. From Fig. 16 it is
Fig. 13. Stress-crack opening relation for uniaxial tension of concrete [17]. found that the ratio between the residual and the peak tensile
stress is around 0.3–0.5. Therefore, it can be known that the
post-peak bond stress provided by stirrups decreases linearly and
finally maintains a constant value. Based on this conclusion the fol-
-1.8
Present work lowing equations are proposed,
Eligehausen et al.[16]

-1.5
Harajli et al.[22]
Soroushian and Choi [24] sst ðs ¼ su Þ ¼ kf su ð8Þ
Oh and Kim [28]

sst ðs P sf Þ ¼ wkf su
Harajli et al.[35]

-1.2
Chung et al.[44] ð9Þ
Prince et al.[46]

where sst is the post-peak bond stress provided by stirrups; kf is the

Torre-Casanova et al.[49]
Dahou et al.[53]
Desnerck et al.[56]
-0.9 Wu et al.[57] proportion of the bond stress provided by stirrups at the peak.
Xiao and Lei [58] According to its physical meaning, kf is closely related to the bond
-0.6 failure mode. If the specimen fails in pull-out mode, the concrete
keys are completely sheared off and the only component of the peak
-0.3 bond stress is friction actively provided by stirrups, i.e. kf = 1.0. If
= -0.5 by Harajli et al.[33] the specimen fails in cover splitting, the bond resistance after the
peak is contributed by both concrete cover and stirrups, then
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 kf < 1.0, particularly, kf = 0 when stirrups are not present. Therefore,
kf is highly affected by lateral confinement. The parameter w is the
c/d
ratio of the residual to the maximum tensile stress in the stirrups. sf
Fig. 14. Variation of parameter b with c/d on the parameter. is the characteristic slip corresponding to the frictional bond stress.
It has been widely reported that the decrease of bond stress after
the peak is very slow and even stops when the slip exceeds about
indicate that the tensile stress in lateral confinements reaches its 1.0Cclear [16,33]. Therefore, sf can be taken as 1.0Cclear. As discussed
maximum at or shortly after the peak bond stress. After that the above, the tensile stress of stirrups decreases linearly when the slip
tensile stress of stirrups decreases linearly before it finally pla- increases from su to sf. The following equation is therefore proposed,
(
teaus, as shown in Fig. 16. The residual tensile stress of transverse ð1wÞkf su
ðs  su Þ þ kf su ð su 6 s < sf Þ
reinforcement (stirrups or steel jacket) is attributed to the micro- s 0
st ðsÞ ¼ su sf
ð10Þ
cracks which do not close because of the small rubble particles that wkf su ðsf 6 sÞ
578 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586

F
4 Stirrup
Main bar
st
: stress in the stirrups 800 Stirrup : strain in the stirrups
3
Strain gauges 600
Main bar Strain gauges
Load end
/Mpa

2
F
400

/
Free end
1
200

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18

st
/MPa /Mpa

(a) Tensile stress in the stirrups [2] (b) Tensile strain in the stirrups [41]

35 p* : confining pressure by the steel jacket

30

ND2-F, db=12mm
25

20
/MPa

15 ND4-F, db=26mm

10
Main bar
5 Confining jacket

F
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36

p*/MPa

(c) Confining pressure in steel jacket [20]

Fig. 16. The relationship between bond stress and the mechanical response of lateral confinements.

4.2.3.3. Total bond resistance after the peak. For stirrup-confined
specimens, the bond resistance after the peak comes from the
cracked concrete and stirrups. The contribution by cracked con-
crete can be assumed to be the same as that of specimens without
stirrups (Eq. (7)). Therefore, the descending branch of stirrup-
confined specimens can be formulated as follows,
8 in Table 3 (values in the bracket). In Fig. 18, kf is plotted against K.
 b
>
< ð1  kf Þsu ssu þ ð1w Þkf su
ðs  su Þ þ kf su
su sf
s¼  
>
:
b
ð1  kf Þsu ssu þ wkf su
where parameters kf and w can be obtained by fitting the descend-
ing branches of the bond-slip curves of stirrup-confined specimens
[16,22–24,31,35,51,60]. The fitting results are reported in Table 3.
The R2 in the table indicates very good agreements between theo-
retical and experimental results.
The variation of w with K is shown in Fig. 17. The fitted values of
w show a considerable scatter and no clear relationship between w
and K can be observed. The data scatter may be caused by the
pressure from constraints, the difference in specimen geometry
or variation of concrete strength. However, it can be noted that
w mainly varies between 0.3 and 0.6, which is consistent with
the observation on the residual stress of stirrups. In the present
study, the lower limit w = 0.3 is adopted to get conservative predic-
tions. With w = 0.3 Eq. (11) was used to fit the reported bond-slip
curves for the second time. The updated values of kf are also listed
ð su 6 s < sf Þ The hollow points correspond to the first-time regression analysis,
while the solid points are based on w = 0.3. As can be seen, kf
ðsf 6 sÞ increases with K until it reaches 1.0 and then plateaus when
K > 6. This is in agreement with the above analysis. When K > 6
ð11Þ pull-out mode is likely to occur, and the post-peak bond stress
decreases linearly. Considering that kf = 0 when K = 0, theoretical
Eq. (12) for kf is proposed based on linear assumption. As shown
in Fig. 18, the variation of kf can be reasonably described. The aver-
age value of the predicted to the fitted values of kf is 1.07 (1.11)
and the corresponding coefficient of variation is 0.39 (0.52).
8
>
<0 ðqst ¼ 0&K < 6Þ
kf ¼ 16 K ðqst –0&K < 6Þ ð12Þ
>
:
1:0 ðK P 6Þ
 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586 579

Table 3
Values of kf and w obtained by regression analysis.

ID c/d qst K kf w R2 Source

A-II 1.25 0.0134 2.36 0.70(0.78) 0.41(0.3) 0.93(0.91) Present work
A-III 1.25 0.0201 2.91 0.68(0.72) 0.35(0.3) 0.95(0.95)
A-IV 1.25 0.0287 3.62 1.0(1.0) 0.44(0.3) 0.94()
B-II 1.75 0.0096 2.54 0.74(0.75) 0.32(0.3) 0.9(0.91)
B-III 1.75 0.0144 2.94 0.75(1.0) 0.9(0.3) 0.76()
B-IV 1.75 0.0205 3.45 1.0(1.0) 0.74(0.3) 0.93()
C-II 2.25 0.0074 2.87 0.37(0.40) 0.48(0.3) 0.94(0.94)
C-III 2.25 0.0112 3.17 0.53(0.68) 0.59(0.3) 0.99(0.90)
C-IV 2.25 0.0159 3.57 0.6(0.92) 0.75(0.3) 0.81(0.49)
D-II 3.50 0.0048 3.90 0.6(0.88) 0.69(0.3) 0.99(0.63)
D-III 3.50 0.0072 4.09 0.67(0.84) 0.58(0.3) 0.99(0.86)
D-IV 3.50 0.0103 4.35 0.65(0.84) 0.65(0.3) 0.99(0.68)
Series1-1 2.00 0.162 15.40 1.0(1.0) 0.34(0.3) 0.99(–) Eligehausen et al. [16]
Series1-2 2.00 0.041 5.35 1.0(1.0) 0.35(0.3) 0.99(–)
Series1-5 2.00 0.041 5.35 0.90(1.0) 0.33(0.3) 0.99(0.99)
P1-confined 3.18 0.0226 5.05 0.87(0.93) 0.32(0.3) 0.99(0.99) Harajli et al. [22]
P2-confined 3.00 0.0374 6.09 0.8(0.93) 0.38(0.3) 0.95(0.95)
#5-1 2.00 0.099 10.18 1.0(1.0) 0.28(0.3) 0.99(–) Soroushian and Choi [23,24]
#5-2 2.00 0.099 10.18 1.0(1.0) 0.41(0.3) 0.99(–)
#7-1 2.00 0.052 6.33 1.0(1.0) 0.33(0.3) 0.98(–)
#7-2 2.00 0.052 6.33 1.0(1.0) 0.24(0.3) 0.97(–)
#8-1 2.00 0.041 5.35 1.0(0.98) 0.28(0.3) 0.98(0.98)
#8-2 2.00 0.041 5.35 1.0(1.0) 0.28(0.3) 0.96(–)
Vertical bars 2.00 0.041 5.35 1.0(1.0) 0.52(0.3) 0.99(–)
Two#4 2.00 0.041 5.35 0.74(1.0) 0.56(0.3) 0.98(–)
Six# 4 2.00 0.041 5.35 0.62(0.6) 0.27(0.3) 0.98(0.98)
B1W-2 2.13 0.021 3.84 0.29(0.18) 0(0.3) 0.97(0.95) Harajli et al. [35]
B1W-3 2.13 0.058 6.90 0.81(0.97) 0.49(0.3) 0.99(0.93)
B2N-2 0.88 0.032 3.52 0.26(0.47) 0.79(0.3) 0.99(0.95)
B3W-2 1.00 0.018 2.50 0.58(0.51) 0(0.3) 0.98(0.96)
B3N-2 2.00 0.009 2.75 0.40(0.41) 0.35(0.3) 0.98(0.99)
B4W-2 0.56 0.020 2.19 0.56(0.72) 0.85(0.3) 0.96(0.93)
B2W-2 1.50 0.019 3.06 0(0) 0.45(0.3) 0.99(–)
B2W-3 1.50 0.052 5.83 0.94(1.0) 0.45(0.3) 0.97(–)
M-0-1 1.75 0.0287 4.12 0.42(0.41) 0.29(0.3) 0.99(0.99) Lin et al. [51]
M-0-2 1.75 0.0287 4.12 0.49(0.53) 0.34(0.3) 0.97(0.97)
M-0-3 1.75 0.0287 4.12 0.29(0.44) 0.57(0.3) 0.99(0.92)
Type-B 1.50 0.0279 3.81 0.66(0.59) 0.16(0.3) 0.91(0.90) Hanjari et al. [31]
Test-1 3.00 0.0118 3.97 0.71(0.77) 0.40(0.3) 0.99(0.97) Kivell [60]
Test-2 3.00 0.0118 3.97 0.81(0.82) 0.31(0.3) 0.99(0.99)
Test-3 3.00 0.0118 3.97 0.98(1.0) 0.45(0.3) 0.94(-)

Note: ‘‘–” means the best fitting cannot be obtained due to the limitation of the upper bound of kf.

1.5 1.6
Peresent work
Eligehausen et al.[16]
Present work
Eligehausen et al.[16] 1.4 Harajli et al.[22]
Soroushian and Choi [23, 24]
1.2 Soroushian and Choi [23, 24] Hanjari et al.[31]
Harajli et al.[35]
Hanjari et al.[31] 1.2 Lin et al.[51]
Harajli et al.[22, 35] Kivell [60]

0.9 Lin et al.[51] 1.0

Kivell [60]
kf

0.8
0.6 Theoretical model
0.6 Peresent work ( = 0.3)
Eligehausen et al.[16] ( = 0.3)

0.3 0.4 Harajli et al.[22] ( = 0.3)

Soroushian and Choi [23, 24] ( = 0.3)
Hanjari et al.[31] ( = 0.3)

0.2 Harajli et al.[35] ( = 0.3)

Lin et al.[51] ( = 0.3)
Kivell [60] ( = 0.3)
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
K K
Fig. 17. Variation of parameter w with confinement parameter K. Fig. 18. Variation of parameter kf with confinement parameter K.
580 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586

4.3. Proposed bond-slip model ure mode. The corresponding bond-slip model is expressed as
follows,
4.3.1. Unconfined or moderately confined specimens (K < 6) 8  a
>
> su ssu ðs 6 su Þ
According to the analyses in Section 4.2.1, the unconfined or >
>
>
<  b
moderately confined specimens (K < 6) tend to fail in splitting fail- Þkf su
s ¼ ð1  kf Þsu ssu þ ð1w ðs  su Þ þ kf su ðsu < s < sf Þ
>
>
su sf
>
>  
> b
: ð1  kf Þsu s þ wkf su
su
ðsf 6 sÞ
ð13Þ
where su can be calculated from Eq. (2); a = 0.2; su can be evaluated
through Eq. (6); b = 0.6; kf can be obtained from Eq. (12); w = 0.3;
sf = Cclear. It should be noted that Eq. (13) is only suggested to be
used for normal strength concrete. It is reported that the bond-
slip response of high strength concrete is more brittle, which is
characterized by a sharp drop of bond stress at the beginning of
the descending branch. w can be as low as 0 for high strength con-
crete [20,61].

4.3.2. Fully confined specimens (6  K)

For fully confined specimens the failure mode is generally pull-
out, which is characterized by the complete shearing-off of the
concrete keys. At the peak bond stress, a small plateau can be
expected as the failure is relatively stable [16,22,26,49]. Therefore,
the following bond stress-slip model is proposed (6  K),

Fig. 19. The proposed local bond stress-slip model.

1.4 1.2 1.4 1.2

1.0
1.0
1.2 0.8 1.2
0.8
Pull-out failure
u

0.6
u
/

0.6
1.0 1.0
/

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.8 0.8 0.2
0.0
u

0.0
u

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
/

0.6 s (mm) 0.6

/

s (mm)

0.4 c=15mm, K=3.52 0.4 d=12mm, K=5.00

c=30mm, K=2.88 d=16mm, K=3.96
c=50mm, K=3.33 d=20mm, K=3.33
0.2 c=70mm, K=4.09
0.2 d=25mm, K=2.83
c=120mm, K=6.35 d=20mm, dst=8mm, sst=100mm, Cclear=10mm d=32mm, K=2.39 c=50mm, dst=8mm, sst=100mm
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
s (mm) s (mm)
(a) Influence of concrete cover (b) Influence of steel diameter

1.4 Without stirrups, K=1.5 c=30mm, d=20mm, Cclear=10mm 1.4 Without stirrups, K=1.5 c=30mm, d=20mm, sst=100mm, Cclear=10mm
sst=50mm, K=4.27 1.2 dst=6mm, K=2.28 1.2

sst=100mm, K=2.88 dst=8mm, K=2.88

1.2 1.0 1.2 dst=10mm, K=3.66
1.0
sst=150mm, K=2.42
0.8
sst=200mm, K=2.19 0.8 dst=12mm, K=4.62
1.0 1.0
u

0.6
u

0.6
/

0.4
0.8 0.4
0.8 0.2
u

0.2
u

0.0
/

0.6 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
/

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 s (mm)
s (mm)
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
s (mm) s (mm)
(c) Influence of stirrup spacing (d) Influence of the diameter of stirrups
Fig. 20. Influence of various parameters on the predicted bond stress-slip curves.
 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586 581

8  a
>
> su ssu ðs 6 su Þ is very limited. Compared with the concrete cover (c) and steel
>
>
>
< diameter (d), the influence of stirrups on the bond-slip curves is
s¼ su ð s u 6 s 6 s u þ Ds u Þ ð14Þ more significant. The increase of the diameter of stirrups or the
>
> ð1wÞsu
ðs  su  Dsu Þ þ su ðsu þ Dsu < s < sf Þ
>
> su þDsu sf
reduction of the stirrup spacing can apparently improve the nor-
>
:
wsu ðsf 6 sÞ malized post-peak bond stress.

where su, a, su, sf and w are the same as those in Eq. (13); Dsu is the
length of the plateau, which is around 0.5su according to the tested
bond-slip curves. The proposed bond stress-slip model is schemat-
ically shown in Fig. 19.
4.4. Parameter analysis of the proposed bond-slip model
To have a general idea about the proposed model, a parameter
study is performed, as shown in Fig. 20. The parameters chosen for
analysis include the concrete cover (c), the diameter of the tensile
steel bar (d), the stirrup spacing (sst) and the diameter of the stir-
rups (dst). As the clear distance between lugs (Cclear) is closely
related to the steel diameter d, the empirical equation
C clear ¼ 9:3  103  ð80  dÞd proposed by Zhao and Zhu [41] is
adopted to evaluate Cclear. As for the concrete cover, an interesting
phenomenon is that its increase does not necessarily lead to
enhancement of normalized post-peak bond stress. With the
increase of concrete cover, the normalized post-peak bond stress
decreases firstly and then increases. The increase of steel diameter
decreases the normalized post-peak bond stress, but the influence
4.5. Performance of the proposed bond-slip model
The predicted curves are compared with the tested bond-slip
curves in Fig. 21. The bond-slip curves are normalized to avoid
the influence of bond strength. It can be seen that the predicted
curves agree well with some of the measured bond-slip curves,
while some of the tested curves are underestimated. The underes-
timation is due to additional lateral confinement in the form of lat-
eral pressure. The lateral pressure is provided by the vertical
support due to unfavorable specimen geometry. However, this fac-
tor is not considered in the model yet.
The tested bond-slip curves by Harajli et al. [35] are also used
for verification in Fig. 22. The model is overall in good agreement
with the tested bond-slip curves of the beam specimens. Both
the ascending branches and the descending branches can be well
predicted. For specimens heavily confined with stirrups, the small
plateau at the peak and the linear decrease of post-peak bond
stress (B1W-3, B2W-3) are well approximated. For specimens
moderately confined with stirrups, the nonlinear characteristics
of descending branches are reproduced as well. In the case of

1.4 1.4 B-I

A-I
Model prediction
Model prediction
B-II
1.2 A-II 1.2 Model prediction
Model prediction
B-III
A-III
Model prediction
1.0 Model prediction 1.0
B-IV
A-IV
Model prediction
Model prediction
0.8 0.8
u
u

/
/

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
s (mm) s (mm)

(a) (b)
1.4 1.4
C-I D-I
Model prediction Model prediction
1.2 C-II 1.2 D-II
Model prediction Model prediction
C-III D-III
1.0 Model prediction 1.0 Model prediction
C-IV D-IV
Model prediction Model prediction
0.8 0.8
u

u
/

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
s (mm) s (mm)

(c) (d)
Fig. 21. Comparisons of the model predictions with the tested bond-slip curves.
582 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586

1.4 B1W-1
1.4
B2N-1
Model prediction
c/d = 2.13, = 0.058, K = 6.90 Model prediction
1.2 st B1W-2 1.2 B2N-2
splitting failure Model prediction
Model prediction
B1W-3
1.0 Model prediction
1.0

0.8 0.8 c/d = 0.88, st

= 0.032, splitting failure
u

u
0.6
/

0.6

/
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 c/d = 0.88, splitting failure

c/d = 2.13, splitting failure
c/d = 2.13, st
= 0.021, splitting failure
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
s (mm) s (mm)
(a) (b)
1.4 B2W-1 1.4
Model prediction B3N-1
B2W-2 Model prediction
1.2 Model prediction 1.2 B3N-2
c/d = 1.5, st
= 0.052, K= 5.83 Model prediction
B2W-3
1.0 splitting failure Model prediction
1.0

0.8 0.8
u

c/d = 2.0, = 0.009, splitting failure

u
st
/

0.6 0.6
/

0.4 0.4

c/d = 1.5, = 0.019, splitting failure 0.2

0.2 st

c/d = 2.0, splitting failure

c/d = 1.5, splitting failure
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
s (mm) s (mm)

(c) (d)

1.4 B3W-1
1.4 B4W-1
Model prediction Model prediction
1.2 B3W-2 1.2 B4W-2
Model prediction Model prediction
Model Code (Good bond) Model Code (Good bond)
1.0 1.0
c/d = 1.0, = 0.018, splitting failure
st
c/d = 0.56, st
= 0.02, splitting failure
0.8 0.8
u

0.6 0.6
/

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 c/d = 0.56, splitting failure

c/d = 1.0, splitting failure

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
s (mm) s (mm)

(e) (f)
Fig. 22. Model comparisons with the tested bond-slip curves by Harajli et al. [35].

specimens without stirrups, especially the specimens with smaller [16] and Soroushian et al. [24] are used for simulating the condi-
c/d (B2N-1, B3W-1, and B4W-1), the predicted post-peak bond tions at beam-column joints, the stirrups in the specimens run par-
stress is far less than that of the tested values. This does not mean allel to the splitting plane and have no confining effect on the local
that the proposed model is not accurate. Previous studies have bond behavior. Instead, the vertical steel bars play an important
shown that the descending branch of specimen without stirrups role in restraining the widening of artificial splitting cracks. There-
can hardly be observed under splitting failure mode due to drastic fore, the vertical steel bars are taken as the stirrups in the determi-
failure. From this point of view, the predictions by the proposed nation of stirrup index. From Fig. 23 it is evident that the proposed
model are reasonable. model agrees very well with the tested curves. In Fig. 23(b) the
To further examine the model accuracy, the tested curves by influence of the clear distance between ribs on the descending
other researchers are used to make a comparison branch is clearly described. It should be noticed that the tested
[16,22,24,31,51,60]. Some of the selected curves have not been used bond-slip curve of the unconfined specimen by Bandelt et al. [30]
for model development [30,62]. It should be noted that the speci- (Fig. 23f) shows a very high post-peak bond stress in contrary to
mens (confined concrete blocks) adopted by Eligehausen et al. that of Soroushian et al. [24] (Fig. 23c) though the former c/d is
 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586 583

1.4 Serie 1-1 1.4

Eligehausen et al.[16] Model prediction Harajili et al.[22] P1-confined
Model prediction
c/d = 2, = 0.162, K= 15.40 Serie 1-2 P2-confined
1.2 st
Model prediction
1.2
c/d = 3.18, = 0.023, pullout failure Model Prediction
pullout failure Series 1-4
st
P2*
1.0 Model Prediction 1.0 Model prediction

c/d = 2, = 0.041, pullout failure c/d = 3.0, = 0.037, K = 6.09

0.8 st 0.8 st
u pullout failure

u
0.6 0.6
/

/
c/d = 2, splitting failure
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 c/d = 2.3, splitting failure

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
s (mm) s (mm)

(a) (b)
1.4 Plain concrete 1.4 M-0-1
Soroushian et al.[24] Model Prediction Lin et al. [51] M-0-2
Vertical bars only
1.2 Two#4 1.2 M-0-3
Six#4 Model prediction
Model prediction
1.0 1.0
c/d = 2.0, = 0.041, pullout failure
st

0.8 0.8
u

u
0.6 0.6
/

/
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 c/d = 1.75, = 0.0287, splitting failure

st

c/d = 2, splitting failure

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
s (mm) s (mm)

(c) (d)
1.4 1.4
Kivell [60] Test25 Bandelt et al.[30] CON-UC-1.0
Test26 Model Prediction
1.2 Test27 1.2 CON-C-1.5
Model Prediction Model Prediction
Model Code (Good bond)
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 c/d = 1.5, st

= 0.018, splitting failure
u

0.6 0.6
/

0.4 0.4
c/d = 3.0, st
= 0.012, splitting failure
0.2 0.2
c/d = 1.0, splitting failure
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
s (mm) s (mm)
(e) (f)
1.4 Type A 1.4
Hanjari et al. [31]
Model Prediction Tang [62] N20#4
Type B N40#4
1.2 Model Prediction 1.2 N60#4
Model Code (Good bond) Model Prediction
1.0 c/d =1.5, = 0.028, splitting failure
st
1.0 c/d = 5.41, = 0.027, K = 7.66
st
pullout failure
0.8 0.8
u
u

0.6 0.6
/

0.4 0.4

0.2 c/d = 1.5, splitting failure 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8 10
s (mm) s (mm)
(g) (h)
Fig. 23. Comparisons of the model predictions with the tested bond-slip curves by other researchers.
584 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586

1.4 1.4
Tang [62] N20#6 Tang [62] N20#8
N40#6 N40#8
1.2 Model Prediction
1.2 Model Prediction

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 c/d = 2.45, = 0.015, pullout failure

st

u
u

0.6 0.6

/
/

0.4 0.4
c/d = 3.44, = 0.019, pullout failure
st
0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
s (mm) s (mm)
(i) (j)
Fig. 23 (continued)

smaller. This is because Bandelt et al. [30] used the lap-spliced
beam specimens, while Soroushian et al. [24] used the pull-out
specimen. This phenomenon is also apparent for the tested curves
by Hanjari et al. [31] (Fig. 23g) who used beam-end specimens.
The tested descending branches based on beam or beam-end spec-
imens tend to be higher compared with those based on concentric
pullout specimens.
5. Discussions on model application
The comparisons between model predictions and tested curves
in Figs. 22 and 23 reveal that the proposed bond-slip model shows
relatively worse performance in terms of specimens with very
small concrete cover, particularly specimens without stirrups. To
find out whether the proposed model shows better performance
than existing models in terms of poorly confined specimens, the
model suggested by Model Code [17] is selected for comparisons.
Model predictions are compared with the tested curves B3W-1
and B4W-1 by Harajli et al. [35], Con-C-1.5 by Bandelt et al. [30]
and Type B by Hanjari et al. [31]. As can be seen, these two models
show similar performance except for specimens without stirrups.
When stirrups are not present, the predictions by the bond-slip
model suggested by Model Code [17] are even worse. The pre-
dicted descending branches can be hardly observed, which means
that the bond stress is completely lost immediately after the peak.
Considering the selected curves are not derived through standard
bond tests, it remains a question whether the proposed model or
the model by Model Code can provide reasonable predictions for
lightly confined specimens. Further discussions on this problem
are needed in the future.
Therefore, the current bond-slip model still has its limitations
and must be improved based on larger database in the future.
The application of the proposed bond-slip model should be
restricted to the following conditions: (1) normal strength concrete
is used; (2) the cover to diameter ratio is no less than 1.0; (3) the
steel diameter is intermediate between 8 mm and 32 mm; (4) the
stirrups are in the elastic stage. Also, great care should be taken
when the model is applied to simulate the descending branch of
the bond-slip behavior of specimens without stirrups.
6. Conclusions
(1) The peak slip under pull-out failure mode is closely related
with the clear distance between steel lugs, whereas the peak
slip under splitting failure mode is determined mainly by
confinement levels. A mathematical model for peak slip is
proposed, which is applicable for both splitting failure and
pull-out failure modes.
(2) A parameter K is proposed to represent the overall confining
ability of concrete cover and stirrups. Based on the parame-
ter K, a methodology for predicting the bond failure mode is
suggested.
(3) Under pullout failure mode, the post-peak bond stress
decreases linearly before it finally plateaus, whereas it
decreases nonlinearly under splitting failure mode.
(4) For stirrup-confined specimens, the post-peak bond stress
is provided by cracked concrete and stirrups. The compo-
nent by stirrups is highly dependent on the tensile stress
of stirrups. Larger parameter K leads to slower reduction
of post-peak bond stress on the condition that stirrups
are present.
(5) A local bond stress-slip relationship model for deformed
steel bar is proposed, the shape of which is highly dependent
on the lateral confinements. The model is applicable for
unconfined specimens, moderately confined specimens and
well-confined specimens. Comparisons with a large number
of tested bond stress-slip curves prove that the proposed
model can provide good predictions.
Conflict of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support pro-
vided by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Grant (No.
2018M630163) and the China Scholarship Council. The authors
would also like to sincerely thank Professor Yufei Wu, Professor
Reinhardt Hans-Wolf and Junior Professor Akanshu Sharma for
their valuable remarks, which have contributed to the improve-
ment of the manuscript.

This paper mainly deals with the bond-slip response of Appendix

deformed steel bar with varying confinement levels. The following
conclusions can be drawn: Table A1.
 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586 585

Table A1
Experimental database used for derivation of the proposed model for peak slip.

ID c (mm) d (mm) Cclear (mm) sst (mm) Ast (mm) K su (mm) Failure model Source
A-I 25 20 10 – 0.00 1.25 0.13 splitting Present paper
A-II 25 20 10 150 50.24 2.36 0.48 splitting
A-III 25 20 10 100 50.24 2.91 0.65 splitting
A-IV 25 20 10 70 50.24 3.62 0.86 splitting
B-I 35 20 10 – 0.00 1.75 0.11 splitting
B-II 35 20 10 150 50.24 2.54 0.26 splitting
B-III 35 20 10 100 50.24 2.94 0.37 splitting
B-IV 35 20 10 70 50.24 3.45 0.58 splitting
C-I 45 20 10 – 0.00 2.25 0.4 splitting
C-II 45 20 10 150 50.24 2.87 0.43 splitting
C-III 45 20 10 100 50.24 3.17 0.18 splitting
C-IV 45 20 10 70 50.24 3.57 0.6 splitting
D-I 70 20 10 – 0.00 3.50 0.39 splitting
D-II 70 20 10 150 50.24 3.90 0.31 splitting
Series1_1 50 25 11 125 1013 15.40 1.72 pullout Eligehausen et al. [16]
Series1_2 50 25 11 125 253 5.35 1.58 pullout
Series1_4 50 25 11 – 0.00 2.00 0.32 splitting
Series1_5 50 25 11 125 253 5.35 1.75 pullout
#5-1 32 16 8 80 253 10.18 1.32 pullout Soroushian and Choi [23]
#5-2 32 16 8 80 253 10.18 1.00 pullout
#7-1 44 22 12 110 253 6.32 1.55 pullout
#7-2 44 22 12 110 253 6.32 1.56 pullout
#8-1 50 25 12 125 253 5.35 1.10 pullout
#8-2 50 25 12 125 253 5.35 1.97 pullout
Monotonic 72 16 10 – 0.00 4.50 1.6 pullout Koch and Balazs [26]
Monotonic 67 16 12 – 0.00 4.19 1.04 pullout Oh and Kim [28]
Type A 30 20 10 – 0.00 1.50 0.16 splitting Hanjari et al. [31]
B1W-1 21.5 16 7 – 0.00 1.34 0.20 splitting Harajli et al. [35]
B1W-2 34 16 7 40 28.26 3.84 0.41 splitting
B1W-3 34 16 7 40 78.54 6.90 0.51 splitting
B2N-1 17.5 20 6 – 0.00 0.88 0.20 splitting
B2N-2 17.5 20 6 50 28.26 3.54 0.74 splitting
B3W-1 25 25 12 – 0.00 1.00 0.22 splitting
B3W-2 25 25 12 63 28.26 2.50 0.41 splitting
B3N-1 50 25 12 – 0.00 2.00 0.34 splitting
B3N-2 50 25 12 63 28.26 2.75 0.32 splitting
B4W-1 18 32 9 – 0.00 0.56 0.28 splitting
B4W-2 18 32 9 80 28.26 2.18 0.42 splitting
B2W-1 30 20 6 – 0.00 1.50 0.24 splitting
B2W-2 30 20 6 50 28.26 3.06 0.61 splitting
B2W-3 30 20 6 50 78.54 5.83 0.54 splitting
Series1 439 36 19.1 61 133 12.60 3.00 pullout Murcia-Delso et al. [39]
Series2 436 43 24.9 61 133 10.54 2.80 pullout
Series3 429 57 24.4 61 133 7.94 3.00 pullout
S000-P000-II-C 65 20 10 30 28.26 4.45 0.78 splitting Huang et al. [45]
A8R0 46 8 5 – 0.00 5.75 0.71 pullout Prince and Singh [46]
A10R0 45 10 7 – 0.00 4.50 0.58 pullout
M-0-1 35 20 10 50 50.24 4.12 0.72 splitting Lin et al. [51]
M-0-2 35 20 10 50 50.24 4.12 0.90 splitting
M-0-3 35 20 10 50 50.24 4.12 0.95 splitting
D1 60 20 10 – 0.00 3.00 0.30 splitting Fang et al. [52]
D2 60 20 10 40 28.26 3.97 0.60 splitting
HA10 45 10 12 – 0.00 4.50 1.46 pullout Dahou et al. [53]
HA12 44 12 12 – 0.00 3.67 1.44 pullout
65%–3.5D 39 13 9 – 0.00 3.00 0.28 splitting Lee et al. [54]

References [6] M.R. Esfahani, B.V. Rangan, Local bond strength of reinforcing bars in normal
strength and high-strength concrete (HSC), ACI Struct. J. 95 (2) (1998) 96–106.
[7] G. Russo, M. Pauletta, A simple method for evaluating the maximum slip of
[1] R. Tepfers, Cracking of concrete cover along anchored deformed reinforcing
anchorages, Mater. Struct. 39 (5) (2006) 533–546.
bars, Mag. Concr. Res. 31 (106) (1979) 3–12.
[8] V. Ciampi, R. Eligehausen, V.V. Bertero, E.P. Popov, Analytical model for
[2] Y.L. Xu, Experimental study of anchorage properties for deformed bars in
deformed bar bond under generalized excitations, in: Trans IABSE colloquium
concrete PhD thesis (In Chinese), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, 1990.
on advanced mechanics of reinforced concrete, 1981, pp. 53–67.
[3] P.S. Chana, A test method to establish realistic bond stresses, Mag. Concr. Res.
[9] T.E. Maaddawy, K. Soudki, T. Topper, Analytical model to predict nonlinear
42 (151) (1990) 83–90.
flexural behavior of corroded reinforced concrete beams, ACI Struct. J. 102 (4)
[4] Fib Bulletin 72-bond and anchorage of embedded reinforcement: background
(2005) 550–559.
to the fib model code for concrete structures 2010, Technical report, fib-
[10] L.N. Lowes, J.P. Moehle, S. Govindjee, Concrete-steel bond model for use in
Fédération internationale du béton, Germany, 2014.
finite element modeling of reinforced concrete structures, ACI Struct. J. 101
[5] C.O. Orangun, J.O. Jirsa, J.E. Breen, A reevaulation of test data on development
(2004) 501–511.
length and splices, ACI J. Proc. 74 (3) (1977) 114–122.
586 H. Lin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 570–586
[11] L. Xu, T.K. Hai, L.C. King, Bond stress-slip prediction under pullout and dowel
action in reinforced concrete joints, ACI Struct. J. 111 (4) (2014) 977–987.
[12] A.H. Nilson, Internal measurement of bond slip, ACI J. Proc. 69 (1972) 439–441.
[13] S.M. Mirza, J. Houde, Study of bond stress-slip relationships in reinforced
concrete, ACI J. Proc. 76 (1) (1979) 19–46.
[14] Y. Goto, Cracks formed in concrete around deformed tension bars, ACI J. Proc.
68 (4) (1971) 244–251.
[15] A.H. Nilson, Bond stress–slip relations in reinforced concrete Research Report
No. 345, Cornell University, US, 1971.
[16] R. Eligehausen, E. P. Popov, V. V. Bertero, Local bond stress-slip relationships of
deformed bars under generalized excitations, in: 7th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 1982, pp. 69–80.
[17] CEB-FIP Model Code 2010, First Complete Draft, vol. 1, Comité Euro-
International du Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2010.
[18] Code for Design of Concrete Structures: GB 50010-2010. China Architecture &
Building Press, Beijing, China, 2015 (In Chinese).
[19] A.F. Maree, K.H. Riad, Analytical and experimental investigation for bond
behaviour of newly developed polystyrene foam particles’ lightweight
concrete, Eng. Struct. 58 (2014) 1–11.
[20] P.F. Bamonte, P.G. Gambarova, High-bond bars in NSC and HPC: Study on size
effect and on the local bond stress-slip law, J. Struct. Eng. 133 (2) (2007) 225–
234.
[21] M. Haskett, D.J. Oehlers, M.S. Mohamed Ali, Local and global bond
characteristics of steel reinforcing bars, Eng. Struct. 30 (2) (2008) 376–383.
[22] M.H. Harajli, M. Hout, W. Jalkh, Local bond stress-slip behavior of reinforcing
bars embedded in plain and fiber concrete, ACI Mater. J. 92 (4) (1995) 343–
353.
[23] P. Soroushian, K. Choi, Local bond of deformed bars with different diameters in
confined concrete, ACI Struct. J. 86 (2) (1989) 217–222.
[24] P. Soroushian, K. Choi, G. Park, F. Aslani, Bond of deformed bars to concrete:
effects of confinement and strength of concrete, ACI Mater. J. 88 (3) (1991)
227–232.
[25] C.U. Balázs, C.U. Grosse, R. Koch, H.W. Reinhardt, Damage accumulation on
deformed steel bar to concrete interaction detected by acoustic emission
technique, Mag. Concr. Res. 48 (177) (1996) 311–320.
[26] R. Koch, G. Balazs, Influence of preloading on bond strength and related slip,
in: Proceedings of the bond in concrete–from research to practice, 1992, pp. 7–
11.
[27] E. Choi, B.S. Cho, J.S. Jeon, S.J. Yoon, Bond behavior of steel deformed bars
embedded in concrete confined by FRP wire jackets, Constr. Build. Mater. 68
(15) (2014) 716–725.
[28] B.H. Oh, S.H. Kim, Realistic models for local bond stress-slip of reinforced
concrete under repeated loading, J. Struct. Eng. 133 (2) (2007) 216–224.
[29] M. Harajli, B. Hamad, K. Karam, Bond-slip response of reinforcing bars
embedded in plain and fiber concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 14 (6) (2002) 503–
511.
[30] M.J. Bandelt, S.L. Billington, Bond behavior of steel reinforcement in high-
performance fiber-reinforced cementitious composite flexural members,
Mater. Struct. 49 (1–2) (2016) 71–86.
[31] K.Z. Hanjari, D. Coronelli, K. Lundgren, Bond capacity of severely corroded bars
with corroded stirrups, Mag. Concr. Res. 63 (12) (2011) 953–968.
[32] J. Ožbolt, F. Oršanić, G. Balabanić, Modeling pull-out resistance of corroded
reinforcement in concrete: coupled three-dimensional finite element model,
Cem. Concr. Compos. 46 (2014) 41–55.
[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] M.H. Harajli, Comparison of bond strength of steel bars in normal-and high-
strength concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 16 (4) (2004) 365–374.
[35] M.H. Harajli, B.S. Hamad, A.A. Rteil, Effect of confinement on bond strength
between steel bars and concrete, ACI Struct. J. 101 (5) (2004) 595–603.
[36] L. Guizani, O. Chaallal, An experimental study on bond-slip in moderately
confined concrete subjected to monotonic and cyclic loading using an
experimental plan, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 38 (3) (2011) 272–282.
[37] Y.F. Wu, X.M. Zhao, Unified bond stress-slip model for reinforced concrete, J.
Struct. Eng. 139 (11) (2014) 1951–1962.
[38] Bond of reinforcement in concrete, state-of-art report, Fédération
Internationale du Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2000.
[39] J. Murcia-Delso, A. Stavridis, P.B. Shing, Bond strength and cyclic bond
deterioration of large-diameter bars, ACI Struct. J. 110 (4) (2013) 659–670.
[40] J.M. Alsiwat, M. Saatcioglu, Reinforcement anchorage slip under monotonic
loading, J. Struct. Eng. 118 (9) (1992) 2421–2438.
[41] W. Zhao, B. Zhu, Theoretical model for the bond-slip relationship between
ribbed steel bars and confined concrete, Struct. Concr. 19 (2) (2018) 548–558.
[42] J. Khalaf, Z. Huang, M. Fan, Analysis of bond-slip between concrete and steel
bar in fire, Comput. Struct. 162 (2016) 1–15.
[43] S. Coccia, E.D. Maggio, Z. Rinaldi, Bond slip model in cylindrical reinforced
concrete elements confined with stirrups, Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 7 (4) (2015)
365–375.
[44] L. Chung, J. Jay Kim, S. Yi, Bond strength prediction for reinforced concrete
members with highly corroded reinforcing bars, Cem. Concr. Compos. 30 (7)
(2008) 603–611.
[45] L. Huang, Y. Chi, L. Xu, P. Chen, A. Zhang, Local bond performance of rebar
embedded in steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber reinforced concrete under
monotonic and cyclic loading, Constr. Build. Mater. 103 (2016) 77–92.
[46] M.J.R. Prince, B. Singh, Bond behaviour between recycled aggregate concrete
and deformed steel bars, Mater. Struct. 47 (3) (2014) 503–516.
[47] S.W. Kim, H.D. Yun, W.S. Park, Y.I. Jang, Bond strength prediction for deformed
steel rebar embedded in recycled coarse aggregate concrete, Mater. Des. 83
(2015) 257–269.
[48] G.A. Plizzari, M.A. Deldossi, S. Massimo, Transverse reinforcement effects on
anchored deformed bars, Mag. Concr. Res. 50 (2) (1998) 161–177.
[49] A. Torre-Casanova, L. Jason, L. Davenne, X. Pinelli, Confinement effects on the
steel–concrete bond strength and pull-out failure, Eng. Fract. Mech. (2013) 92–
104.
[50] E. García-Taengua, J.R. Martí-Vargas, P. Serna, Splitting of concrete cover in
steel fiber reinforced concrete: semi-empirical modeling and minimum
confinement requirements, Constr Build Mater 66 (1) (2014) 743–751.
[51] H. Lin, Y. Zhao, J. Ožbolt, R. Hans-Wolf, The bond behavior between concrete
and corroded steel bars under repeated loading, Eng. Struct. 140 (2017) 390–
405.
[52] C. Fang, K. Lundgren, L. Chen, C. Zhu, Corrosion influence on bond in reinforced
concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (11) (2004) 2159–2167.
[53] Z. Dahou, A. Castel, A. Noushini, Prediction of the steel-concrete bond strength
from the compressive strength of Portland cement and geopolymer concretes,
Constr. Build. Mater. 119 (2016) 329–342.
[54] H. Lee, T. Noguchi, F. Tomosawa, Evaluation of the bond properties between
concrete and reinforcement as a function of the degree of reinforcement
corrosion, Cem. Concr. Res. 32 (8) (2002) 1313–1318.
[55] L. De Lorenzis, A. Rizzo, A. La Tegola, A modified pull-out test for bond of near
surface mounted FRP rods in concrete, Composites Part B 33 (8) (2002) 589–
603.
[56] P. Desnerck, J.M. Lees, C.T. Morley, Bond behaviour of reinforcing bars in
cracked concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 94 (2015) 126–136.
[57] Q. Wu, Y.S. Yuan, J.H. Jiang, J. Zhu, J. Jiang, Experimental research on the
bonding between corroded reinforcement bar and concrete, J. China. Univ.
Min. Technol. 38 (5) (2009) 685–691 (In Chinese).
[58] J.Z. Xiao, B. Lei, Experimental study on bond behavior between corroded steel
bars and recycled concrete, J. Build. Struct. 32 (01) (2011) 58–62 (In Chinese).
[59] E. Giuriani, G. Plizzari, C. Schumm, Role of stirrups and residual tensile
strength of cracked concrete on bond, J. Struct. Eng. 117 (1) (1991) 1–18.
[60] A.R.L. Kivell, Effects of bond deterioration due to corrosion on seismic
performance of reinforced concrete structures Master thesis, University of
Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand, 2012.
[61] M. Alavi-Fard, H. Marzouk, Bond of high-strength concrete under monotonic
pull-out loading, Mag. Concr. Res. 56 (9) (2004) 545–557.
[62] C.W. Tang, Local bond stress-slip behavior of reinforcing bars embedded in
lightweight aggregate concrete, Comput. Concr. 16 (3) (2015) 449–466.