Materials and Structures
DOI 10.1617/s11527-013-0173-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Steel–concrete bond behaviour of lightweight concrete
with expanded polystyrene (EPS)
Marisa Pecce • Francesca Ceroni •
Fabio Antonio Bibbò • Stefano Acierno
Received: 17 April 2013 / Accepted: 26 August 2013
 RILEM 2013
Abstract The experimental program presented in
this paper was aimed to investigate the steel–concrete
bond behaviour of lightweight concrete. The light-
weight concrete was obtained by substituting part of
the traditional coarse aggregates with beads of
expanded polystyrene (EPS). The addition of EPS in
the concrete mix could influence the bond behaviour
with steel reinforcing bars, albeit the same strength of
a normal concrete is reached. After different mixtures
of normal and lightweight concrete with EPS have
been tested in order to check the influence of several
parameters on the compressive strength, two mixtures
of lightweight concrete with EPS and one of normal-
weight concrete were finally prepared for carrying out
the bond tests. A traditional pull-out scheme was
assumed for the bond tests of black and zinc-coated
steel bars embedded in concrete blocks made of the
three mixtures.
Keywords Lightweight concrete  Expanded
polystyrene  Steel bars  Zinc coating  Bond
behaviour  Bond tests
M. Pecce  F. Ceroni (&)  F. A. Bibbò  S. Acierno
Engineering Department, University of Sannio,
Piazza Roma 21, 82100 Benevento, Italy
e-mail: ceroni@unisannio.it
1 Introduction
Although concrete is now defined as a traditional
material for construction, research on new mix designs
for concrete is currently being actively pursued; indeed,
continuous innovation with respect to this ‘traditional’
material can still be achieved by changing the compo-
nents and their quantities in the mix. If the composition
of the mixture is varied, the properties and perfor-
mances of the final material, including strength,
workability, durability, density, thermal conductivity,
and other parameters, can be changed significantly.
Density and strength of concrete are the most
studied properties of this material; the enhancement of
the strength-to-weight ratio denotes higher bearing
capacity for the self-weight and live loads. Many
solutions have been devised to reduce the density of
concrete without reducing its strength for structural
applications; however, in all cases, the efficiency
requirements provide materials more expensive than
the traditional ones. Consequently, the research of a
new mix design is still significant, especially if the use
of economic or recycled materials can be used to
reduce the overall costs or the environmental impact.
Conventionally, concrete is defined as ‘lightweight’
(LC) if its density is lower than 2,400 kg/m3, the value
usually attributed to a normal-weight concrete (NC).
The most common type of lightweight concrete is
obtained by substituting the normal coarse aggregates
with lightweight aggregates (natural or artificial) that,
in general, are characterised by higher porosity, lower

density and lower strength than traditional aggregates.
In particular, the Italian standard UNI 7548
[30] defines three categories of lightweight concrete:
(1) LC1: non-structural concrete with a density
lower than 1,200 kg/m3 and a characteristic
compressive strength lower than 15 MPa;
(2) LC2: structural concrete with density in the
range of 1,200–2,000 kg/m3 and characteristic
compressive strength in the range 15–25 MPa;
(3) LC3: structural concrete with density in the
range of 1,200–2,000 kg/m3 and characteristic
compressive strength higher than 25 MPa.
The definition of lightweight concrete in ACI-318-08
[1] is less articulated and refers only to structural
concrete having compressive strength higher than
17.2 MPa and density lower than 1,842 kg/m3.
Reducing the self-weight of the material permits a
lower mass of the structural elements to be used,
which is an advantage during seismic events, and a
reduction of the dimensions of the structural elements,
which allows to realize taller buildings and long-span
bridges, and, finally, reduces the costs of transporta-
tion and mounting.
In recent years, the use of expanded polystyrene
(EPS) beads as a substitute for a portion of the coarse
aggregates has been studied by several authors [5, 8,
13, 22, 23, 29]. One of the main advantages of
employing EPS for the preparation of lightweight
concretes is that EPS, unlike other lightweight aggre-
gates, is commercially available worldwide at low
cost, even in some cases as waste from factories or
municipal waste collection. However, mixing the EPS
beads with the other components of the concrete
mixture is not simply due to their extremely low
density and hydrophobicity. Furthermore, the use of
EPS as part of the aggregate reduces the strength of the
final material more than its density. As a result, a
number of ‘non-structural’ EPS-concretes are now
available on the market. These materials are charac-
terised by low density and strength as well as high
thermal resistance, which makes them suitable for the
production of very light and thermal insulating
screeds.
The authors have carried out an experimental
program focussed on developing a lightweight con-
crete that contains EPS and that is characterised by
desirable structural properties. The substitution of a
portion of the aggregates with EPS beads increases the
Materials and Structures
overall porosity and, thus, reduces the density of the
material; however, because higher porosity might
favour the penetration of aggressive agents and
consequent corrosion of the steel, this technology
requires further investigation since information is not
available at the moment. Therefore, the opportunity of
employing an internal reinforcement less sensitive to
corrosion (i.e., zinc-coated steel, fibre-reinforced
plastic bars) must be examined. To this aim, the use
of zinc-coated steel bars is also investigated and is
coupled with the preparation of lightweight concrete
mixtures.
Zinc protection is a valid approach to avoiding
corrosion of internal reinforcements in RC structures
because it is effective and is only slightly more
expensive than ‘black’ steel (about ?40 % additional
cost); furthermore, the additional cost incurred when
using zinc coating must be framed in the whole life-
cycle cost of the structure taking into account con-
struction, maintenance, and demolition. In fact, in
some structures located in aggressive environmental
conditions, the initial higher costs of the material can
be completely compensated for by the reduction of the
maintenance costs and the enhancement of the con-
struction life. Zinc-coated steel is less sensitive to
corrosion due to its capacity for passivation, even if the
pH of concrete decreases due to carbonation; further-
more, in aggressive environments, a greater concen-
tration of chloride is needed to initiate its corrosion [25,
34].
However, the practical application of new mix
designs for concrete and new types of internal
reinforcement requires experimental tests aimed not
only at defining the mechanical properties of single
materials (concrete, internal reinforcements), but also,
especially for reinforced concrete (RC) elements, at
investigating the interaction behaviour, i.e., the bond
behaviour, at the concrete-reinforcement interface.
This aspect is a key issue of the performance of RC
elements both at ultimate and serviceability conditions
because both the cracking phenomenon and the
anchorage lengths are governed by the bond behaviour
(in particular, by the bond strength). On the other
hand, the bond behaviour cannot be analysed merely
through characterisation of the two individual mate-
rials (concrete and steel); specific bond tests need to be
carried out to determine how the interface properties
depend on the surface of both steel reinforcement and
concrete. Thus, the type of aggregate used in the
Materials and Structures
concrete mix certainly influences the interaction
phenomena, even if the compressive strength is the
same as that of normal concrete; analogously, the
coating of the steel bars, though it does not modify the
mechanical properties of the material [15], could
modify the interface properties both in terms of
adhesion and mechanical behaviour [12].
In this paper, the results of several experimental
pull-out bond tests on lightweight concrete with EPS
are presented; both black and zinc-coated bars were
employed as internal reinforcement. Reference spec-
imens made of normal concrete and black steel bars
were tested too.
2 The state of the art
2.1 Main properties and uses of lightweight
concretes with EPS
EPS is a very interesting material in the field of
building construction, primarily because of its low
thermal conductivity. This characteristic allows the
thermal insulation of a building to be improved by the
use of EPS, thus fulfilling a fundamental requirement
for sustainable construction as indicated in Interna-
tional and National codes [11, 18]. Moreover, the low
thermal conductivity of EPS is coupled with a low
density that permits the production of lighter construc-
tive elements and, thus, buildings with reduced mass;
this feature also simplifies transportation and mounting
operations. Indeed, many systems consisting entirely
of EPS, such as wall panels, are now available on the
market.
On the contrary, the use of EPS in concrete mix is
still not widespread; the theoretical and experimental
studies now available have focussed attention on the
properties of concrete with EPS only [22, 23, 29], and
information about the behaviour of structural elements
made of this material is still sparse [26, 27]. Recently
the use of lightweight synthetic particles [9] in
concrete mix has been tested [16] to evaluate the
bond and shear behaviour of RC beams. Several
researchers have investigated the mechanical charac-
teristics of concretes to which EPS, fly ash, and fibres
have been contemporaneously added [5, 13, 33].
Lightweight concretes can be obtained by substituting
part of the traditional aggregates with EPS beads; by
varying the fraction of EPS, a wide range of density
and mechanical properties can be obtained. In partic-
ular, the concrete density can be reduced to
100–200 kg/m3; however, because the strength reduc-
tion is more than proportional, it is difficult to produce
a lightweight structural concrete with EPS with a
density lower than 1,600–1,800 kg/m3. Moreover, the
preparation of concrete mix with EPS beads requires
specific procedures due to the water-repellent and
floating behaviour of EPS. Procedures to prepare the
concrete mix have been already patented (for example
Patents US 8,029,617 B2, October 4, 2011, US
8167,998 B2, May 1, 2012) and the concrete mix has
been applied to realize wall and floor panels (for
example Patent US 7,964,272 B2, June 21, 2011).
There is still little information available about the
thermal insulation capacity of lightweight concretes
with EPS. In one paper, the mechanical and thermo-
physical properties of such concretes were analysed
together [8]. In general, the thermal conductivity of
EPS concretes is expected to be similar to that of other
lightweight concretes (i.e., concretes with lightweight
aggregates or cellular concretes) and lower than that of
normal concrete [17, 2].
2.2 Main properties and uses of zinc-coated steel
bars
In general, the corrosion of steel bars in RC structures is
related to concrete carbonation and to the presence of
chloride and electrical fields that result in electro-
chemical corrosion [6]. To avoid corrosion phenomena
in steel bars, various solutions can be adopted for RC
elements. These include removing the causes that
make the environment aggressive, using less porous
concretes, reducing the concrete cracking, using
thicker concrete covers, and other approaches. Another
possibility is using internal reinforcements that are less
sensitive to corrosion, especially in cases of aggressive
environmental conditions or to provide a longer
serviceability life.
In alkaline solutions with pH [ 11.5 and without
chloride, ordinary black steel coats itself with a
passivating oxide film that gives negligible corrosion
rates. A Well mixed and realized concrete is a solution
with pH = 13–14 that is an ideal condition for the
perfect passivation of steel.
The zinc coating furnishes a physical restraint to
corrosion as well as electrochemical protection.
Indeed, as zinc is anodic to steel, the coating provides

cathodic protection to exposed steel. In addition, zinc
is resistant to the effects of carbonation of concrete
because it can remain passivated as the pH goes lower
than 11.5 and can withstand exposure to concentra-
tions of chloride ions several times higher than those
present in black steel [34].
Conversely, the heat treatment required for realis-
ing the zinc coating can produce defects on the steel
bar surfaces and, in general, an excessive thickness of
the coating should be avoided. Both aspects can
worsen the bond behaviour; moreover, in [7] Bird
showed that hydrogen formation, during the first hours
after concrete cast, can worsen the bond significantly
due to the existence of spongy concrete in the
surroundings of the steel bars. More in general, the
zinc coating can modify the chemical-physical inter-
actions along the bar-concrete interface during con-
crete hardening.
The zinc coating’s high inertia to corrosion con-
tributes to the durability of RC elements; however, the
coating can produce a negative effect on the bond
behaviour at the reinforcement-concrete interface if
the coating is too thick. However, there are no code
indications about the maximum thickness of zinc
coating of steel bars that could influence the bond
phenomena; the only indication given is that of the
minimum zinc coating in terms of mass for unit
surface [4, 31, 32]. According to the ASTM indica-
tions, the minimum limit is 128 lm for class I and
85 lm for class II; these limits are designed to warrant
good adhesion of the zinc coating on the bar surface.
In recent decades, several investigations of the
bond strength behaviour of galvanised reinforcing bars
have been carried out by conducting pull-out tests on
plain and deformed bars in normal weight concretes.
At the present, the experimental results obtained are
contradictory. Kayali and Yeomans [19] carried out
bond tests on normal concrete elements with ribbed
black and zinc-coated bars. Their results evidence
negligible differences for concretes cured 28 days.
Conversely previous experimental bond tests car-
ried out by the authors [12] on zinc-coated steel bars
embedded in normal weight concrete blocks demon-
strated that, in the presence of the zinc coating, bond
strength was reduced by about 30 %. The reduction
depends on the bar diameter (10 and 12 mm) and the
concrete strength, but mainly on the quality of the
coating process and on the final thickness of zinc,
which was quite high (greater than 750 and 450 lm for
Materials and Structures
bars with diameters of 10 and 12 mm, respectively).
The high thickness of the zinc coating, indeed,
modifies the efficiency of the ribbed surface of the
steel bar because the ribs are levelled and, thus, the
frictional contribution to the bond mechanism is
reduced.
The few results available in the literature regarding
the use of zinc-coated steel [15] confirm that the effect
of zinc-coating on the bond behaviour is not a solved
problem. The zinc coating can, indeed, modify also the
chemical–physical interactions along the bar-concrete
interface during concrete hardening.
2.3 The bond behaviour in lightweight concretes
Research on the structural behaviour of RC elements
with EPS concrete is in its infancy, and experimental
results are still few. Tang et al. [27] provided some
information about bond behaviour. These authors
conducted several pull-out tests on steel and GFRP
bars embedded in lightweight concrete in which part
of the normal aggregate was substituted with EPS
aggregate (beads with an average diameter of 4 mm
and a bulk density of about 24 kg/m3). The addition of
EPS beads led to a reduction of concrete density from
2,325 to 1,435 kg/m3 and to a consequent reduction of
the compressive strength from 55 to 9.6 MPa. Despite
the fact that the study was primarily designed to
compare the bond behaviour of different types of glass
bars with that of steel bars, the experiments also gave
some information about the effect of using EPS in
place of the normal aggregate. In particular, it was
observed that specimens with a content of EPS of
about 30 % in volume (density lower than 1,650
kg/m3) and strengthened with sand-coated glass bars
attained a splitting failure characterised by a less
brittle behaviour, less explosive failure phenomena
and no side longitudinal cracks compared with higher
density specimens. This difference was due to the
energy-absorbing properties of the EPS, which gave
the concrete lower compressive strength and larger
deformation capacity. Moreover, all specimens
strengthened with smooth bars (both steel and glass
types) attained a pull-out failure independent of their
EPS content. However, it should be noted that no study
has been performed in which such materials were
compared with normal concrete having the same
strength.
Materials and Structures
In general, information about the bond behaviour of
lightweight concretes with EPS is still lacking. Indeed,
the use of lightweight aggregates for high-strength
concrete has been investigated in the past in attempts to
improve the fatigue performance of equivalent-strength
concrete in view of the better compatibility of the
elastic moduli of the aggregates and the matrix, an
improved transition zone between the aggregate and the
cement past, and better bond properties [21]. In Mor
[21], bond tests were performed on deformed steel bars
embedded in specimens made of normal (density
*2,400 kg/m3) and lightweight concrete (density
*2,000 kg/m3) with high strength (*66 MPa); the
high strength was achieved by using condensed silica
fume (13–15 % by weight) or a very low water–cement
ratio (0.25–0.34), while the lightweight aggregate
consisted of expanded shale. The bond behaviour of
normal and lightweight concrete was substantially the
same until the slip was about 0.25 mm in the absence of
silica fume; on the contrary, the addition of silica fume
made the bond stress in the lightweight concrete
approximately double at the same slip. However, at
higher values of slip, the normal weight concrete
attained superior bond strength. This behaviour is due
to the different resistant mechanisms that characterise
the steel–concrete bond: adhesion, friction, and inter-
locking with ribs. Up to a slip of about 0.25–0.30 mm,
the bond mechanism is governed by adhesion. This
produces a better result for the lightweight concrete in
view of its internal structure: indeed, the compatibility
between aggregates and cement paste minimises
cracking and allows exploiting fully the adhesion
between the concrete and the steel bar. On the contrary,
for higher values of slip, the bond mechanism switches
to friction and rib-interlocking phenomena that lead to a
splitting failure in unconfined concrete specimens.
Thus, the lower splitting tensile strength of the light-
weight concrete and its more brittle behaviour com-
pared to normal concrete are the cause of its lower final
bond strength (about -25 %).
The effects of silica fume in lightweight concrete
were also studied by Sancak et al. [24], who conducted
pull-out bond tests on concrete with lightweight
aggregates made of pumices; the density was approx-
imately 1,700 kg/m3, and the mean compressive
strength was variable in the range 22–28 MPa accord-
ing to the amount of silica fume and super plasticisers
added to the mix. Due to its porous structure, the large
amount of voids, and the weak mechanical properties
of the pumice aggregates compared to those of
limestone aggregates, the lightweight concrete had a
compressive strength lower than that of the normal
weight concrete used in the study (2,300 kg/m3,
34–57 MPa). However, the bond strength normalised
to the square root of the compressive strength gave a
result for lightweight concretes that was comparable to
that of the reference normal weight concrete without
additives (±10 %). As in other research, when the
slips were lower than 0.25 mm, the bond stress-slip
relationships of normal and lightweight concretes
were comparable, but the failure mode of specimens
made of lightweight concrete was always splitting,
while for normal concrete the failure mode was pull-
out for the reference specimens without any additives.
The brittle behaviour of concrete made of light-
weight aggregate was also demonstrated by Mitchell
and Marzouk [20], who conducted several bond pull-
out tests on steel bars embedded both in high-strength
lightweight and normal weight concrete blocks. The
lightweight concrete used in this experimental pro-
gram, prepared with natural coarse aggregates with a
density of about 960 kg/m3, had the same compressive
strength (83 MPa) as the normal weight concrete. The
results of the bond tests indicated that the use of
lightweight aggregates has a negligible effect on the
bond strength, which decreased a maximum of 10 %.
A more relevant effect of the lightweight aggregates
on the experimental bond-slip relationships was
observed: indeed, a significant sharp decrease in bond
stress after the peak strength was observed. In
particular, due to the effects of friction and mechanical
interlocking after concrete cracking, the residual bond
stress is only 40–50 % of the strength, while in the
case of normal aggregates it is 60–70 %. The different
interlocking properties of the lightweight aggregates
make the behaviour of the concrete more brittle and
cause it to have a lower energy absorption capacity.
Another solution aimed at making lightweight
concrete reliable for use in structural elements is
addition of fibres to the concrete mix to both increase
the compressive and tensile strength and reduce the
material decay after the peak. Campione et al. [10]
performed bond tests on steel bars embedded in
lightweight concretes (density *1,600 kg/m3) with
different percentages of hooked steel fibres (0, 0.5, 1,
and 2 %); the lightweight aggregates were expanded
clay (density of 650 kg/m3). As the fibre percentage
increased, the compressive and tensile strength and
 Materials and Structures

especially the post-peak behaviour of the concrete
mixes (in terms of both residual strength and ductility
resources) were improved. Lightweight concrete
without steel fibres was, indeed, very brittle due to
the presence of lightweight aggregates. Bond tests
showed that concrete–steel interaction phenomena
were substantially the same as those observed for
normal concrete; the pull-out failure of the bar
occurred, despite the fact that the brittle nature of the
lightweight aggregates influenced both the maximum
and the residual frictional bond stress. The addition
of hooked steel fibres increased the maximum and the
frictional strength by 35–45 % and made the post-
peak behaviour less brittle. Finally bond tests on
beams, varying the splice lengths of the reinforce-
ment, were realized employing concrete with light-
weight synthetic particles [16]; the experimental
results pointed out the same behaviour of normal
strength reduces with the EPS amount for whatever
value of the water/cement ratio used in the mix.
Finally in Fig. 1c, the compressive strength after
28 days from casting is graphed versus the compres-
sive strength after 7 days (Rcm,7) for both normal and
lightweight concrete with EPS. It can be observed that
for the normal concrete a clear trend does not exist,
while for the lightweight one the relationship is quite
linear and low scattered.
After these preliminary tests on different types of
concrete mixtures, it was planned to realize for the
following bond tests three mix having the following
properties:
(a) 60
w/out EPS
50
with EPS
40

[MPa]
Rcm,28
concrete. 30

20

10
3 The experimental program
0
1000 1500 2000 2500
3.1 Properties of concrete mix
density [kg/m3]
(b) 35
Aimed to individualize the concrete mix for the bond 0.30
30 water/cement
tests, several mixtures of normal and lightweight ratio 0.35
25 0.40
concrete with EPS have been prepared and tested to 0.45
[MPa]
Rcm,28

check their compressive strength. In particular, the 20 0.50

amount of EPS in the mix varied in the range 2–9 15
kg/m3, the water–cement ratio varied in the range 10
0.3–0.5 for the lightweight concrete or 0.3–0.6 for the
5
normal one. Note that the amount of cement takes into
0
account also the silica fume when it is added to the mix. 0 2 4 6 8 10
In Fig. 1a the compressive strength of the concrete EPS [kg/m 3]
after 28 days from casting (Rcm,28) is plotted versus (c) 60
w/out EPS
the density for both the normal and the lightweight with EPS
50
concrete; for normal concrete the strength is low
influenced by the density, but it mainly depends on 40
[MPa]
Rcm,28

other parameters as the water/cement ratio, the 30

presence of additives, and the aggregate/cement ratio.
20
On the contrary, for lightweight concrete with EPS the
compressive strength depends quite linearly with the 10
density of the final mixture. Such a trend is confirmed Rcm,7 [MPa]
0
by the graph of Fig. 1b, where the compressive 0 10 20 30 40 50
strength of only lightweight concrete with EPS is
Fig. 1 Compressive strength after 28 days of normal and
plotted in function of the EPS amount (kg of EPS for
lightweight concrete with EPS versus: a density of the mixture;
m3 of mixture) added to the mix for different values of b amount of EPS for m3 of mixture; c compressive strength after
the water/cement ratio; it can be observed that the 7 days
Materials and Structures
– density variable in the range 1,800–2,300 kg/m3;
– fluidity necessary for casting the specimens with-
out using vibratiors, but using only the self-weight
of the concrete;
– minimum compressive strength after 28 days
Rcm,28 = 20 MPa.
In particular, two lightweight mixtures with EPS
(L1 and L2) and a normal-weight (N) concrete were
cast in the laboratory. Concretes were prepared using
limestone Portland cement (CEM II A-LL 42.5R,
Colacem, Italy), natural sand (with specific density
compared to the water density of 2.4) and coarse
aggregate (Dmax = 20 mm, specific density of 2.7).
Lightweight concretes were prepared by substituting
part of the coarse aggregate with EPS beads (average
diameter 3.0 mm, bulk density 15 kg/m3). In all cases,
to allow homogeneous dispersion of EPS in the matrix,
reduce floating of EPS particles, minimise segrega-
tion, and permit good consolidation without using
vibrators, the following admixtures were used:
• an acrylic-based superplasticiser, SP (Dynamon
SX, Mapei, Italy);
• an air-entraining agent, AE (Mapeplast PT1,
Mapei, Italy);
• a viscosity modifier, VM (Viscofluid SCC/10,
Mapei, Italy).
Concrete mixtures N and L2 were designed to have the
same strength (approximately 20 MPa) and densities
of about 2,300 and 1,800 kg/m3, respectively. The
detailed compositions of the three concrete mixtures
used in the bond tests are given in Table 1.
Specimens were demolded after 48 h and moist
cured at 23 C. The compressive cubic strength
measured 28 days after casting was approximately
20 MPa for the normal weight (N) and EPS light-
weight concrete L2 (which was designed to have the
same strength), while for the other lightweight
concrete (L1), a higher strength of approximately
30 MPa was achieved.
Table 1 Composition of the concrete mixtures
Concrete Cement Water w/c Sand
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
N 286 200 0.70 796
L1 815 220 0.27 734
L2 643 193 0.30 475
The physical and mechanical properties of the three
types of concrete are listed in Table 2. Values of
densities and slump flow are referred to fresh concrete,
while the strength in compression was obtained by
performing three compressive tests on cubes with sides
150 mm 28 days after casting. The elastic modulus, Ec,
and the tensile strength, fctm, were evaluated by
compressive and Brazilian tests, respectively, on cyl-
inders 150 mm in diameter and 300 mm in length.
3.2 Properties of the steel reinforcement
Ribbed bars 14 mm in diameter were used as internal
steel reinforcement; both black and zinc-coated bars
were tested. The zinc coating was realised by dipping
the reinforcing bars into a molten bath of zinc that
gave a final coat thickness of 212 lm, which is larger
than the minimum value indicated in (ASTM 767/A
767 M-09).
The tensile tests on three specimens each of black
and zinc-coated bars gave the following mean values
of yielding, fy, and ultimate, ft, tensile stress:
– black steel: fy = 519 MPa; ft = 647 MPa;
– zinc-coated steel: fy = 525 MPa; ft = 615 MPa.
3.3 Experimental setup
The bond tests were conducted according to the
following pull-out setup. The specimens were made
of concrete cubes (side 150 mm) with the steel bar
embedded in the centre (Fig. 2a). The bar was effec-
tively embedded only for a length equal to 5 times its
bar diameter in the middle part of the specimen. This
procedure is well-known and is considered reliable in
the literature for testing the bond mechanism [3, 14,
28]; indeed, it avoids the bond transfer at the ends of the
specimen where the concrete is not confined and
permits to test an embedded length sufficiently short to
consider the bond stress constant along it and
Gravel EPS SP AE VM
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
989 0.00 3.90 0.00 3.90
367 5.32 9.11 2.73 9.11
591 5.09 7.05 2.12 7.05
 Materials and Structures

sufficiently long compared with the dimension of the
ribs on the steel bar. To avoid bonding of the bars at the
ends of the concrete specimen, they were inserted in
plastic tubes before the casting.
The specimen was blocked in a stiff steel frame so
that the steel bar was held by the testing machine at the
upper end, while the upper side of the block was
pressed against by a steel plate that applied compres-
sion to the concrete during the test (Fig. 2b, c).
A linear inductive displacement transducer
(LVDT) was placed at the free unloaded end (the
bottom end) of the rebar to record its slip with respect
to the concrete surface.
Each test was carried out under displacement
control with a speed of 2 mm/min.
bonded length, Lb, of 70 mm (5 times the bar
diameter). The specimens were divided into two
series, 9 specimens with black steel and 9 specimens
with zinc-coated steel bars; each series consisted of
three equal specimens for each of the three concrete
mixtures analysed (N, L1, and L2).
The list of specimens is reported in Table 3. In the
labels of the specimens, the first number indicates the
bar diameter (14 mm), the first letter indicates the type
of concrete mixture (N = Normal concrete; L = Light-
weight concrete with EPS), the second letter indicates
the use of an ordinary (O) black or a zinc-coated
(Z) steel bar, and the last number is the progressive
number of the specimen among the three equal
specimens.

3.4 The experimental program 3.5 Experimental results

The experimental program involved 18 specimens In Figs. 3 and 4, the experimental bond-slip relation-
with steel bars of diameter 14 mm embedded for a ships, s–s, are depicted to compare the effects of both

Table 2 Characteristic
Concrete Density Slump Rcm,28 (MPa) fctm (MPa) Ec (MPa)
properties of the concretes
(kg/m3) flow (mm)
used in the tests
N 2,265 560 20 ± 1 2.41 22,359
L1 2,011 350 30 ± 2 2.66 19,893
L2 1,848 640 20.5 ± 0.5 2.77 18,548

Rebar Ø14
Lb=5Ø=70mm

F/Ac

40

70 150

Contrast-distance piece Specimen

40

150

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2 Bond test set-up: a scheme of the front cross-section; b specimen in the tensile machine; c scheme of the lateral view
Materials and Structures

Table 3 Matrix of bond tests splitting phenomenon is an indication of brittle

Specimen Steel Concrete
behaviour, and this result confirms the trend
observed in the literature for lightweight concretes
14_N_O_1 Black Normal (see Sect. 2.3). However, in this case, the splitting
14_N_O_2 Black Normal and the more brittle behaviour of the lightweight
14_N_O_3 Black Normal concrete are not due to the characteristics of the
14_L1_O_1 Black Lightweight L1 aggregate but to the characteristics of the matrix.
14_L1_O_2 Black Lightweight L1 Indeed, because of the reduction in the water/cement
14_L1_O_3 Black Lightweight L1 ratio in the lightweight concretes that was made to
14_L2_O_1 Black Lightweight L2 achieve compressive strength comparable or higher
14_L2_O_2 Black Lightweight L2 than that of normal concrete, the cement matrix
14_L2_O_3 Black Lightweight L2 attains a higher strength, is more compact and is
14_N_Z_1 Zinc-coated Normal also less ductile. The addition of EPS to the mix
14_N_Z_2 Zinc-coated Normal results in greater porosity but does not modify the
14_N_Z_3 Zinc-coated Normal characteristics of the matrix and aggregates.
14_L1_Z_1 Zinc-coated Lightweight L1 Compared with mix L2, mix L1 shows a greater
14_L1_Z_2 Zinc-coated Lightweight L1 scattering of the results both in terms of bond strength
14_L1_Z_3 Zinc-coated Lightweight L1 (CV about 27 vs. 7 %) and failure mode (two
14_L2_Z_1 Zinc-coated Lightweight L2 specimens failed for splitting and one for pull-out).
14_L2_Z_2 Zinc-coated Lightweight L2 Moreover, despite having a higher compressive
14_L2_Z_3 Zinc-coated Lightweight L2 strength than mix L2 (30 vs. 20.5 MPa, ?38 %),
mix L1 presents a tensile strength that is slightly lower
(2.66 vs. 2.77 MPa), and the splitting occurred in two
the zinc coating and the concrete mixture; the mean specimens for lower values of bond stress (at approx-
bond stress, s, is assumed constant along the embed- imately 10.9 vs. 12.7 MPa). The only specimen
ded length, Lb, and is calculated as follows: composed of mix L1 that failed for pull-out
(14_L1_O_3) attained a higher bond strength com-
F
s¼ ð1Þ pared with the specimens made of normal concrete
p/  Lb
(16.9 vs. 10.0 MPa) due to the higher strength in
where F is the applied tensile load and / the bar compression of L1.
diameter. Of the specimens composed of mixture L2, which
The slip was measured by the LVDT placed at the exhibited the same compressive strength as the normal
free unloaded end of the bar, so that the rebar concrete, the splitting failure occurred with
deformation is excluded from this measure. smax = 12.7 MPa, indicating, thus, that the pull-out
In Table 4, the experimental results are presented in bond strength was higher than that of the specimens
terms of maximum bond stress, smax , and correspond- made of normal concrete (smax = 10.0 MPa). This
ing slip, Smax , failure mode, mean value and variation provides evidence for a positive effect of the EPS on
coefficient of smax for each series of equal specimens, enhancing the pull-out strength and, in general,
smax and CV, respectively. increasing the bond strength (?27 %), even though
In particular, in Fig. 3a–c, the relationship s–s is the failure mode changed to splitting instead of pull-
reported for specimens made of the same concrete (N, out.
L1 or L2) and reinforced with normal or zinc coated The experimental bond-slip laws reported in
bars to show the effect of the steel type; the Fig. 4a for the black steel bars embedded in different
corresponding failure modes are also indicated in the types of concrete confirm that the bond behaviour of
photos. concrete with EPS is more brittle than that of normal
The results show that, when ordinary black steel concrete, as evidenced by the lower values of slips at
bars are used, the bond strength increases for both the same stress along the ascending branch, the
types of lightweight concrete, although the failure splitting failure as typical failure mode, and the
mode changes from pull-out to splitting. The steeper descending branch after the peak.
 Materials and Structures

12 (a) (b)

9
τ [MPa]

14_N_O_2

3 14_N_O_3
14_N_Z_1
14_N_Z_3
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
s [mm]

20
(c) 14_L1_O_2 (d) (e)
14_L1_O_3
14_L1_Z_1
16 14_L1_Z_3

12
τ [MPa]

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
s [mm]

16 (f) 14_L2_O_3 (g) (h)

14_L2_Z_1

12 14_L2_Z_3
τ [MPa]

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
s [mm]

Fig. 3 Experimental bond-slip relationships and failure modes: a normal concrete; b pull-out failure; c lightweight concrete L1;
d splitting failure; e pull-out failure; f lightweight concrete L2; g splitting failure; h pull-out failure

By contrast with normal steel bars, when zinc- values of bond strength are comparable
coated steel bars are used, a pull-out failure was (smax = 9.2–9.5 MPa) for the normal and the light-
always observed for all concrete mixtures. The mean weight concrete L2, having the same compressive
Materials and Structures

(a) reduces the maximum bond stress, the transfer of

16
L1
circumferential tensile stresses to the concrete is also
12
L2 reduced; thus, pull-out failure is activated instead of
splitting. For the specimens made of normal concrete,
τ [MPa]

N
8 the failure mode was pull-out for both types of bars; in
14_L1_O_2
14_L1_O_3
this case, the reduction of bond strength in the
4 14_N_O_2 L1 presence of the zinc coating was only 8 %.
14_N_O_3
14_L2_O_3 For black steel bars embedded in normal concrete,
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 the maximum shear stress should increase proportion-
s [mm] ally to the square root of the compressive strength
(b) [14]. For the black steel bars embedded in normal
12 L1
concrete (N) and for the only specimen (14_L1_O_3)
made of lightweight concrete (L1) that failed by pull-
N out the ratio of the maximum shear stress is larger than
τ [MPa]

8
4 L2
14_L1_Z_1 14_L1_Z_2 14_N_Z_1
14_N_Z_2 14_L2_Z_1 14_L2_Z_3
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
s [mm]
Fig. 4 Experimental bond-slip relationships: a black steel bars;
b zinc-coated steel bars
strength, while it increases about 15 % for the
lightweight concrete L1 (smax = 10.9 MPa). These
results provide evidence that the zinc coating cancels
the positive effect of the addition of EPS previously
observed for the mix L2 when ordinary bars are used
(bond strength increase was 27 %). Furthermore,
unlike the case with the ordinary black bars, when
the zinc-coated bars are embedded in concrete L1 the
stresses are higher than when they are embedded in
concrete L2; this is because pull-out of the bar is
positively influenced by the higher compressive
strength of L1. The experimental bond stress-slip
relationships shown in Fig. 3b for some of the
specimens with zinc-coated bars confirm that, due to
the pull-out failures, the zinc coating permits a less
brittle behaviour of the lightweight mixtures than that
of the normal concrete.
In general, comparison of the behaviour of the
black and zinc-coated steel bars for the same type of
concrete shows that bond strength decreases in the
presence of the zinc coating, even if the behaviour of
the bars is not always directly comparable due to their
different failure modes. In particular, with respect to
the change in failure mode, because the zinc coating
the ratio of the concrete compressive strength as
follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
smax;L1 Rcm;L1
¼ 16:9=10:0 ¼ 1:69 [ ¼ 1:20
smax;N Rcm;N
2
However, this result cannot be generalized being
related to only one specimen made of mixture L1 that
failed for pull-out, but further experimental data need
to confirm this trend.
Moreover, the dependence of the tensile strength on
the compressive strength of concrete seems to be
different for the lightweight concrete with EPS com-
pared to normal one since it remains practically the
same, even if the compressive strength increases (i.e.,
see results in Table 2 for concrete type N and L1). The
change in these relationships was also shown by the
behaviour of the specimens with black steel bars
embedded in the blocks made of mix L2: indeed, despite
the fact that it had the same compressive strength as
the normal concrete, the tensile strength of L2 is 12 %
larger than that of N (fctm = 2.77 vs. 2.41 MPa; see
Table 2). As a consequence the mean bond strength for
splitting of specimens made of mix L2 (smax =
12.9 MPa) is larger than the bond strength for pull-
out of specimens made of mix N (smax = 10.0 MPa).
In conclusion, the results show that when EPS
beads are added to the concrete mix, the relationships
between tensile and compressive strength and the
correlations of these parameters with the maximum
bond stress (pull-out or splitting) are not the same as
those generally used for normal concretes. This is most
likely due to the change in the lightweight mixture,
whose components are the same except for the
addition of EPS beads. In particular, the addition of
 Materials and Structures

Table 4 Results of the

Specimen Zinc smax (MPa) Smax (mm) Failure smax CV (%)
bond tests
coating (MPa)

14_N_O_1 No 10.4 0.340 PO 10.0 ± 0.3 3.2

14_N_O_2 No 9.8 0.180 PO
14_N_O_3 No 9.9 0.269 PO
14_N_Z_1 Yes 9.1 0.144 PO 9.2 ± 1.2 13.2
14_N_Z_2 Yes 8.0 0.125 PO
14_N_Z_3 Yes 10.5 0.332 PO
14_L1_O_1 No 10.8 0.044 S 12.9 ± 3.5 27.0
14_L1_O_2 No 10.9 0.056 S
14_L1_O_3 No 16.9 0.231 PO
14_L1_Z_1 Yes 12.0 0.631 PO 10.9 ± 1.9 17.1
14_L1_Z_2 Yes 11.9 0.622 PO
14_L1_Z_3 Yes 8.7 0.581 PO
14_L2_O_1 No 13.0 0.028 S 12.7 ± 0.9 7.3
14_L2_O_2 No 11.7 0.009 S
14_L2_O_3 No 13.5 0.047 S
14_L2_Z_1 Yes 8.7 0.175 PO 9.5 ± 1 10.5
14_L2_Z_2 Yes 9.2 0.244 PO
PO pull-out failure, 14_L2_Z_3 Yes 10.6 0.094 PO
S splitting failure

EPS beads to the mixture has a double effect: (1) an
increase of porosity of the final material; and (2) an
increase in the strength of the cement matrix due to
reduction of the water/cement ratio in an effort to
achieve the same or higher compressive strength as
normal concrete. This last circumstance enhances the
contribution of friction to the bond strength.
In the case of specimens with zinc-coated steel bars,
which always exhibited pull-out failure, the ratios
previously introduced seem to confirm what has been
reported in the literature. Indeed, these ratios are:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
smax;L1 Rcm;L1
¼ 1:18 ffi ¼ 1:20
smax;N Rcm;N
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
smax;L2 Rcm;L2
¼ 1:03 ffi ¼ 1:02
smax;N Rcm;N
The zinc coating appears to dampen the friction at
the concrete-rebar interface and reduce the effect of
the addition of EPS beads to the concrete mix.
Moreover, because of the lower bond transfer, the
circumferential tensile stresses transferred to the
concrete are also reduced, so that the bond behaviour
becomes less sensitive to the tensile strength (indeed, a
pull-out failure occurred instead of splitting). The
reduction in the bond strength may be due to a thick
coating of zinc that reduces the effectiveness of the
interface mechanism; however, there is a lack of
information concerning this effect for the experimen-
tal tests available (i.e., see [19]) to give conclusive
remarks.
4 Conclusions
This paper presents the results of bond tests on normal
black and zinc-coated steel bars embedded in blocks
made of lightweight concrete with beads of EPS in
partial substitution for normal aggregates. Two light-
weight concrete mixtures have been developed and are
characterised by density reductions of 12 % (L1) and
19 % (L2) and by compressive strengths similar (L2)
or higher (?50 %, L1) than that of normal concrete
(N).
Lightweight concrete with EPS resulted in a very
compact and resistant material because the EPS beads
substituted for part of the normal aggregates tended to
fill some of the voids; moreover, the components of
the lightweight mixture are the same as the compo-
nents of the normal mixture, and the water/cement
ratio is lower. This results in a more resistant and
Materials and Structures
brittle matrix that imparts more brittle behaviour to the
new material compared to normal concrete.
The experimental bond tests, carried out according
to the pull-out scheme, evidenced the following
outcomes:
– For black steel bars embedded in lightweight
concrete with EPS, the correlations between the
compressive strength of concrete and the maxi-
mum bond stress (pull-out or splitting) may not the
same as those generally used for normal concrete
mixtures. In particular, for the only specimen
failed for pull-out the bond strength increases
more than the root of the compressive strength.
– An increase in the bond strength is observed when
normal black bars are embedded in lightweight
concrete with EPS, although the failure mode
changes from pull-out to splitting. In particular,
the tensile strength of concrete with EPS, despite
the fact that it has the same or higher compressive
strength as normal concrete, gives approximately
the same result, and this leads to the magnification
of the importance of the splitting failure.
– The bond behaviour of concrete with EPS is, in
general, more brittle than that of normal concrete,
as reported in the technical literature for light-
weight concretes. However, for the types of
lightweight concrete tested in this experimental
program, this result is not due to the characteristics
of the aggregates but to those of the matrix; the
latter is more compact, resistant and less ductile
due to the reduced water/cement ratio used to
achieve the same or higher compressive strength
of the normal concrete.
– In the case of the zinc coating, pull-out failure occurs
for both types of lightweight concretes tested; both
have shown mean bond strengths lower (-15 % for
L1 and -25 % for L2) than those attained by the
black steel bars that failed by splitting. For normal
concrete, both types of bars experienced pull-out
failure, and the mean bond strength reduction in the
case of the zinc coating was only 8 %.
– In specimens made of lightweight concrete and
zinc-coated steel bars, the mean pull-out bond
strength is the same for normal (N) and lightweight
(L2) mixtures having the same compressive
strength, and it increases in the case of the mixture
that has a higher compressive strength (L1). In
particular, the pull-out bond strength increases
proportionally to the square root of the compres-
sive strength, just as it does for black steel bars
embedded in normal concrete. These results show
that the zinc coating dampens the effect of EPS
with respect to the increase in bond strength and
changes the failure mode from splitting to pull-out.
In general, the results of this study demonstrate a
good performance of the bond behaviour of concrete
with EPS, although the correlations between com-
pressive, tensile and bond strength have to be reviewed
with respect to those used for normal concrete. The
influence of the zinc coating on bond performance
seem to be negligible for normal concrete and more
significant for concrete with EPS, but needs to be
further investigated to have definitive results. In
particular, in further experiments, attention should
be focused on the thickness of the zinc coating that
could influence sensibly the bond behaviour.
Moreover, the effect of EPS in the case of black
bars is a general increase in the bond strength, even
though this construction is coupled with splitting
failure and with a more brittle behaviour.
In conclusions, the results presented here provide a
good perspective for structural applications of the
innovative materials used; however, more experimen-
tal tests using RC elements (beams, panels) are
necessary to confirm and extend the results.
Acknowledgments The authors kindly thank Mapei S.p.A.
for providing the materials used in the experiments.
References
1. ACI Committee 318 (2008) Building code requirements for
structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI 48331
2. ACI Committee 523 (1975) Guide for cellular concretes
above 50 pcf, and for aggregate concretes above 50 pcf
with compressive strengths less than 2500 psi, Report of
ACI Committee 523. ACI Journal, 50–66
3. Aiello MA, Leone M, Pecce MR (2007) Bond performance
of FRP rebars reinforced concrete. J. Mater Civ Eng 19(3):
205–213
4. ASTM A 767/A 767 M (2009) Standard specification for
zinc-coated (galvanized) steel bars for concrete reinforcement
5. Babu KG, Babu DS (2004) Performance of fly ash concretes
containing lightweight EPS aggregates. Cem Concr Com-
pos 26:605–611
6. Bertolini L, Elsener B, Pedeferri P, Polder RB (2005)
Corrosion of steel in concrete. Wiley, Weinheim

7. Bird CE (1962) Bond of galvanized steel reinforcement in
concrete. Nature 194:798
8. Bouvard D, Chaix JM, Dendievel R, Fazekas A, Létang JM,
Peix G, Quenard D (2007) Characterization and simulation
of microstructure and properties of EPS lightweight con-
crete. Cem Concr Res 37:1666–1673
9. Bondy K (2012) The promising future of middleweight
concrete. Structure Magazine April:9–12
10. Campione G, Cucchiara C, La Mendola L, Papia M (2005)
Steel–concrete bond in lightweight fiber reinforced concrete
under monotonic and cyclic actions. Eng Struct 27:881–890
11. CEN: European Committee for Standardization, EN 15217
(2007) Energy performance of buildings—methods for
expressing energy performance and for energy certification
of buildings
12. Ceroni F, Pecce M (2008) Prove di aderenza su elementi in
c.a. con barre in acciaio zincato. Atti del 17 Convegno CTE
Roma (in Italian)
13. Chen B, Liu J (2004) Properties of lightweight expanded
polystyrene concrete reinforced with steel fiber. Cem Concr
Res 34:1259–1263
14. Eligehausen R, Popov EP, Bertero VV (1983) Local bond
stress-slip relationships of deformed bars under generalized
excitations. Report UCB/EERC 83–23. University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley
15. Franchi A, Fratesi R, Plizzari GA (2001) Seismic behavior
of R.C. Columns with zinc coated rebars. In: Banthia N (ed)
Proceedings of CONSEC01. Vancouver, Canada
16. Heiser MJ, Hosny A, Rizkalla SH, Zia P (2011) Bond and
shear behavior of concrete beams containing lightweight
synthetic particles. ACI Struct J 108(6):698–705
17. Hanson JA (1967) Guide for structural lightweight aggre-
gate concrete. ACI J 64:433–469
18. Italian Ministerial Decree (2009) Linee Guida Nazionali per
la certificazione energetica degli edifici (in Italian)
19. Kayali O, Yeomans SR (2000) Bond of ribbed galvanized
reinforcing steel in concrete. J Cem Concr Compos 22(6):
459–467
20. Mitchell DW, Marzouk H (2007) Bond characteristics of high-
strength lightweight concrete. ACI Struct J 104(1):22–29
21. Mor A (1992) Steel–concrete bond in high-strength light-
weight concrete. ACI Mater J 89(1):76–82
Materials and Structures
22. Perry SH, Bischoff PH, Yamura K (1991) Mix details and
material behavior of polystyrene aggregate concrete. Mag
Concr Res 43:71–76
23. Ravindrarajah RS, Tuck AJ (1994) Properties of hardened
concrete containing treated expanded polystyrene beads.
Cem Concr Compos 16:273–277
24. Sancak E, Simsek O, Apay AC (2001) A comparative study
on the bond performance between rebar and structural
lightweight pumice concrete with/without admixture. Int J
Phys Sci 6(14):3437–3454
25. Swamy RN (1990) In situ behaviour of galvanized rein-
forcement. In Baker et al JM (eds) Proceedings of the 5th
international conference on durability of building materials
and components. Chapman and Hall, pp 299–312
26. Tang WC, Balendran RV, Nadeem A, Leung HY (2006)
Flexural strengthening of reinforced lightweight polysty-
rene aggregate concrete beams with near-surface mounted
GFRP bars. Build Environ 41:1381–1393
27. Tang WC, Lo TY, Balendran RV (2008) Bond performance
of polystyrene aggregate concrete (PAC) reinforced with
glass-fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. Build Environ
43:98–107
28. Tepfers R (2002) Test system for evaluating of bond prop-
erties of FRP reinforcement in concrete. In: Proceedings of
international conference bond in concrete: from research to
standard, Budapest, Hungary, pp 657–666
29. Trussoni M, Hays CD, Zollo RF (2012) Comparing light-
weight polystyrene concrete using engineered or waste
materials. ACI Mater J 109(1):101–107
30. UNI 7548-1 (1992) Calcestruzzo leggero con argilla o scisti
espansi. Definizione e classificazione (in Italian)
31. UNI 10622 (1997) Barre e vergella (rotoli) di acciaio
d’armatura per cemento armato zincati a caldo (in Italian)
32. UNI-EN-ISO-1461 (2009). Hot dip galvanized coatings on
fabricated irons and steel articles. Specifications and test
methods
33. Wu HC, Sun P (2007) New building materials from fly ash-
based lightweight inorganic polymer. Constr Build Mater
21:211–217
34. Yeomans SR (2004) Galvanized steel reinforcement in
concrete. In: Yeomans SR (ed) Concrete: a consultant’s
perspective. Elsevier, Oxford