Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 78–83

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Concrete–reinforcement bond in different concrete classes

Hasan Sß ahan Arel, Sß emsi Yazıcı ⇑
_
Civil Engineering Department, Ege University, 35100 Izmir, Turkey

h i g h l i g h t s

" The concrete–reinforcement bond was increased with the increase in the curing period.
" The concrete–reinforcement bond was increased with the increase in concrete cover depth.
" The concrete–reinforcement bond was raised with the increase in mechanical properties of concrete.

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

Article history: In this study, the effect of the depth of concrete cover and the curing time on the concrete–reinforcement
Received 8 February 2012 bond strength in concretes with eighth different compressive strength levels was investigated. Eighth dif-
Received in revised form 9 April 2012 ferent concrete mixtures were produced. 150 mm cubic specimens were cast from these mixtures.
Accepted 25 April 2012
Deformed reinforcements of 14 mm diameter were embedded at a depth of 70 mm into specimens. Three
Available online 15 June 2012
different depth of the concrete cover were selected. The pull out loads, compressive strength, splitting
tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of the specimens were determined.
Keywords:
It was found that, the bonding between concrete and steel reinforcement was increased by increasing
Bond
Concrete
the mechanical properties of the concrete, the thickness of concrete cover and curing time. In addition,
Reinforcement the concrete–reinforcement bond was mathematically modeled using 28-day mechanical properties of
Concrete cover the concrete and the thickness of concrete cover.
Mechanical properties Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ness of the concrete cover surrounding the reinforcement (depth of

The strength of the bond between concrete and steel reinforce-
ment is determined by shear stress. In reinforced concrete, con-
crete and steel reinforcement may deform at different levels due
to such factors as load, corrosion, high temperature, creep and
shrinkage. Such deformations between the concrete and reinforce-
ment result in the transfer of stress via the bond developed be-
tween the two different materials. This bond serves as the basis
for the behavior of the reinforced concrete [1,2]. The concrete–
reinforcement bond is believed to be founded on three main fac-
tors: molecular bond strengths, friction force and mechanical tread
strength, which ensure the bond between steel and concrete.
The bond is known to develop in plain reinforcement bars
mainly due to the first two factors and in deformed reinforcement
bars mainly due to the third factor listed above. Factors effective on
the concrete–reinforcement bond include the tensile strength of
concrete, yield strength of the steel, diameter of the reinforcement,
surface geometry of the reinforcement, the depth at which the
reinforcement is embedded into the concrete (coupling), the thick-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 232 3886026; fax: +90 232 3425629.
E-mail address: emsiyazici@gmail.com (S
ß . Yazıcı).
concrete cover), position of the reinforcement in the concrete, the
types of aggregates and admixtures used, and the use of spiral rein-
forcement [1,3].
The strength of the concrete–reinforcement bond is calculated
via pull out and beam tests. The axial pull out test is the oldest,
simplest, most common and most practical of such tests. In pull
out tests, an axial pulling force is applied to remove the reinforce-
ment embedded into the cubic or cylindrical concrete specimen.
Concrete–reinforcement bond stress is calculated using the pull
out load obtained from these tests.
In a study by Larrard et al. [4], control concrete with 42 MPa
strength was compared to a high-performance concrete with
95 MPa strength in order to examine the concrete–reinforcement
bond. The bond strength was found to increase significantly with
an increase in concrete strength and the increase in bond strength
was more evident in the small-diameter reinforcements (the in-
crease in bond strength was calculated as 80% in samples with
10 mm diameter reinforcements and 30% in samples with 25 mm
diameter reinforcements).
Ünal [5] examined the effects of three different aggregate grain
diameters and five different concrete strength values on the con-
crete–steel reinforcement bond. Deformed steel reinforcements

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.074
 H.Sß. Arel, Sß. Yazıcı / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 78–83 79

of 12-mm diameter were embedded at a depth of 100 mm into
cylindrical specimens. At the end of the curing period, the pull
out loads of the specimens was determined. The results showed
that the pull out strength increased in parallel with the aggregate
grain diameter and concrete compressive strength. In addition, as
the concrete–reinforcement bond gets higher, it becomes more dif-
ficult for the steel reinforcement to slip from the concrete.
Tanyıldızı and Yazıcıoğlu [6] analyzed the effect of mineral
admixtures on concrete–plain/deformed reinforcement bonds.
Three different concrete mixtures were prepared by replacing ce-
ment with 15% fly ash or 10% silica fume. Reinforcements
(14 mm in diameter and 400 mm in length) were centered and
embedded at a depth of 150 mm in 150 mm cubic specimens. After
standard curing periods of 3, 7, 14 and 28 days, the specimens were
subjected to bond and compression tests. The compressive
strength and bond strength of the concrete specimens containing
silica fume were found to be higher for each curing period than
the other specimens. Except for 3-day cured samples, the concrete
specimens containing fly ash were found to have higher bond
strength and compressive strength than the control concrete after
7, 14 and 28 days of curing. The strength of the concrete–plain
reinforcement bond was found to be lower at each curing period
than the concrete–deformed reinforcement bond.
Fu and Chung [7] examined the relationship between curing
period and bond strength, which are believed to have a linear rela-
tionship. The authors (who had observed in a previous study that
the cement paste-stainless steel bond was negatively affected by
varying in 35–43 MPa range. Deformed reinforcements of 10 mm
diameter and plain reinforcements of 50 mm diameter were
embedded at a depth of 50 mm; concrete cover depth was
45 mm. The study identified an empirical relationship between
the concrete–reinforcement bond and slip.
The present study examined the effects of the concrete cover
depth, curing period, compressive strength and splitting tensile
strength on the concrete–reinforcement bond in concretes having
compressive strength between 13 and 75 MPa. In addition, the
concrete–reinforcement bond was mathematically modeled using
28-day mechanical properties of the concrete and the thickness
of concrete cover. Moreover, the validity of the proposed model
was tested using data from previous studies in the literature.
2. Experimental study
2.1. Materials
CEM I 42.5 R-type cement was used in this study as the binding materials. In
addition, C-class fly ash was used to replace cement in the C50/60-class concrete
and silica fume was used in C60/75-class concrete. In the production of the study
concretes, limestone-based crushed aggregates (grouped into grain classes of 0/2,
0/4, 4/16 and 11/22 mm) were used. Sieve analysis results and some physical prop-
erties of the study aggregates are listed in Table 1. Aggregate sieve analysis was
conducted according to TS 3530 EN 933-1/A1 standards and the specific weight
and water absorption tests complied with TS EN 1097-6 standards. To achieve
the desired slump values in the mixtures, Sikament NP125 was used for the con-
crete mixtures in C8/10-C40/50 range and Remmers R975 super and hyper plasti-
cizers for the concrete mixtures of C50/60 and C60/75 class.

a curing period of 1–28 days) investigated whether this observa-

tion was also valid for the relationship between the concrete and 2.2. Preparation and production of concrete mixtures

reinforcement. It was found that contact resistance was in direct

C8/10, C12/15, C16/20, C20/25 C30/37, C40/50, C50/60 and C60/75-class con-
proportion and bond resistance was in inverse proportion to the cretes were produced in this study. The slump value was fixed at 160 ± 20 mm.
length of the curing period. The decrease in bond resistance was To achieve the desired slump value, super and hyper plasticizer was used in some
found to be more evident when the curing period was increased concrete mixtures. Table 2 shows the material quantities required for 1 m3 concrete
and the properties of the fresh concrete.
from 7 to 14 days and less evident when the curing period was in-
A laboratory-type, vertical-axis, 65-lt capacity concrete mixer was used in the
creased from 14 to 28 days. production of the concretes. Firstly, the aggregates were put into the concrete mixer
_
Yazıcı and Inan [8] analyzed the effects of concrete cover depth, and mixed for 2 min; then, cement was added and the obtained aggregate–cement
high temperature levels and duration of action on the concrete– mixture was mixed for a further 2 min; finally, mixing water and plasticizer were
reinforcement bond in concretes with differing compressive added and the obtained wet mixture was mixed for nearly 2 min. This procedure
was followed for each concrete specimen.
strengths. Three different types of concrete (at different strength
levels) were produced with water/cement ratios of 0.40, 0.55 and
2.3. Casting and placement of the specimens
0.70. Cubic specimens (edge = 150 mm) were produced from these
concretes. Deformed reinforcements of 14 mm diameter were The produced concretes were used to prepare cubic specimens (edge = 150 mm)
embedded at a depth of 70 mm into these cubic specimens. The for compression and splitting tensile tests (192 + 192 = 384 specimens); to prepare
depth of the concrete cover was selected as 20, 30 and 40 mm cylindrical specimens (edge = 150/300 mm) for detection of modulus of elasticity
for the embedded reinforcements. After 28 days of standard curing (32 specimens); and to prepare reinforcement-embedded cubic specimens
(edge = 150 mm) for bond tests (384 specimens).
period, these specimens were exposed to temperatures of 100 °C, Deformed steel bar (with S420 deformed surface and 14 mm diameter) was
300 °C, 500 °C and 700 °C for 1 h and 3 h of duration of action. After used as the reinforcement in the pull out tests. Yield strength, tensile strength
cooling to room temperature, they were subjected to a pull out and elongation ratio of the reinforcements were 476 MPa, 542 MPa and 20.1%,
test. High temperature was suggested to significantly reduce the respectively. The bond length of the reinforcement embedded into the concrete
was fixed at 70 mm, to achieve a bond length of five times the diameter of each
concrete–reinforcement bond and it was found that temperatures
of 500 °C and higher resulted in the total loss of the bond.
Yeih et al. [9] used the pull out test to analyze the characteris- Table 1
tics of the concrete interface- reinforcement and used their empir- Sieve analysis and some physical properties of the aggregates.
ical findings to develop a model. Reinforcements (10 mm or 13 mm
Sieve size (mm) Cum. pass. (%)
in diameter) were centered and embedded into 100/200-mm cylin-
0/2 mm 0/4 mm 4/16 mm 11/22 mm
drical concrete specimens at depths of 40, 60 and 80 mm. 56 days
compressive strength of concrete samples were 35.9 MPa. The 31.5 100 100 100 100
16 100 100 99 33
force required to pull out the 10-mm diameter specimens embed-
8 100 100 54 1
ded at depths of 40 mm, 60 mm and 80 mm was calculated as 4 100 95 9 1
14 kN, 22 kN and 28 kN, respectively. The pull out force required 2 81 64 2 1
to remove 13-mm diameter specimens embedded at depths of 1 50 42 1 1
40 mm, 60 mm and 80 mm was found to be 18 kN, 31 kN and 0.5 31 28 1 1
0.25 21 20 1 1
43 kN, respectively.
Xiao and Falkner [10] analyzed the concrete–reinforcement Physical properties
SSD Specific gravity, (DYK) 2.67 2.70 2.71 2.72
bond in recycled aggregate concretes. Cubic concrete samples
Water absorption (%) 0.39 0.49 0.47 0.34
(edge = 100 mm) were produced with compressive strength values
80 H.Sß. Arel, Sß. Yazıcı / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 78–83

Table 2
Material quantities required for 1 m3 concrete mixture.

Concrete codeb w/c Cement (kg) Fly ash (kg) Silica fume (kg) Water (kg) Aggregatea (kg) Chemical admixture (kg)
0/2 mm 0/4 mm 4/16 mm 11/22 mm
C8/10 1.10 187 – – 206 0 1392 274 274 2.40
C12/15 0.93 210 – – 195 507 772 330 331 2.85
C16/20 0.77 250 – – 193 463 706 375 376 3.25
C20/25 0.69 270 – – 185 634 428 423 432 3.50
C30/37 0.51 370 – – 190 538 360 456 465 4.80
C40/50 0.41 500 – – 207 541 215 449 457 7.00
C50/60 0.36 523 50 – 190 189 480 520 500 5.23
C60/75 0.30 470 – 52 143 545 239 480 480 8.65
a
SSD Condition.
b
C8/10 concrete class designates a mixture having 28-day characteristic compressive strength of 150/300 mm cylinder at 8 MPa and 28-day characteristic compressive
strength of 150 cube at 12 MPa.

specimen. The length of the reinforcement embedded into the concrete was
Table 5
320 mm. In addition, reinforcements were embedded into the concrete at three dif-
Modulus of elasticity of the concretes.
ferent concrete cover depths (40, 55 and 70 mm). Concrete specimens were placed
in the molds and cured according to TS EN 12390-2 standards. Concrete code Modulus of elasticity (GPa)
C8/10 14.2
C12/15 18.2
C16/20 21.2
C20/25 26.7
3. Results and discussion
C30/37 29.8
C40/50 32.1
Table 3 presents the results obtained from the pull out tests of C50/60 36.2
the 14-mm diameter reinforcements embedded into the cubic C60/75 42.9
specimens (edge = 150 mm). Table 4 lists the results of the com- Each value is the average of six specimens.
pressive and splitting tensile strength tests conducted on the cubic
specimens at the end of the 3, 7, 14 and 28 day curing periods. In
addition, Table 5 shows the modulus of elasticity values calculated
using the compressive strength-unit deformation curves obtained od. Modulus of elasticity of the concretes was calculated from the
from the results of the compression test conducted on the cylindri- beam method.
cal specimens (150/300 mm) at the end of the 28-day curing peri-

Table 3
Results of the pull out tests.

Concrete code Pull out load (kN)

Concrete cover t = 40 mm Concrete cover t = 55 mm Concrete cover t = 70 mm
Curing time (days)
3 7 14 28 3 7 14 28 3 7 14 28
C8/10 8.3 13.02 16.05 17.48 9.42 14.40 17.03 19.15 10.03 13.2 18.07 20.02
C12/15 10.42 16.25 19.16 21.45 12.52 20.34 23.15 26.37 14.21 19.05 24.19 27.35
C16/20 12.56 18.12 20.57 23.02 13.37 22.45 25.39 28.27 15.42 21.21 26.08 29.22
C20/25 13.87 19.32 22.65 26.12 16.41 23.05 26.80 30.20 16.54 22.02 27.31 30.20
C30/37 15.43 21.10 26.41 29.09 19.14 27.43 32.30 35.40 21.50 28.11 34.48 38.70
C40/50 17.25 23.40 30.17 33.11 19.68 28.12 33.70 37.20 22.04 29.11 34.56 39.00
C50/60 20.14 28.05 33.92 37.51 20.62 29.40 36.10 40.10 22.65 31.30 39.14 43.50
C60/75 22.10 30.53 34.89 39.13 21.18 31.03 37.21 41.30 35.04 32.70 40.50 45.10

Each value is the average of four specimens.

Table 4
Compressive strength and splitting tensile strength of the concretes.

Concrete code 3 Days 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days

fc (MPa) fct (MPa) fc (MPa) fct (MPa) fc (MPa) fct (MPa) fc (MPa) fct (MPa)
C8/10 7.49 1.03 10.16 1.27 12.52 1.33 13.46 1.61
C12/15 13.15 1.60 16.37 1.80 18.82 1.92 20.68 2.08
C16/20 15.35 1.92 22.58 2.04 24.61 2.18 26.29 2.30
C20/25 19.98 2.03 23.20 2.30 27.01 2.41 29.35 2.51
C30/37 26.96 2.47 30.89 2.96 34.31 3.01 38.50 3.64
C40/50 27.52 2.67 35.98 3.10 41.93 3.45 49.88 4.12
C50/60 34.13 3.19 45.33 3.77 55.12 4.14 65.53 4.77
C60/75 42.48 3.26 53.50 4.07 64.50 4.60 75.40 5.31

fc: compressive strength, fct: splitting tensile strength.

Each value is the average of six specimens.
 H.Sß. Arel, Sß. Yazıcı / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 78–83 81

Concrete cover=40 mm The curing period-based relationships between the pull out load
40 C8/10 and compressive strength of the study concretes are shown in the
35 C12/15 graphs in Figs. 4–7. Figs. 4–7 show that the compressive strength
Pull Out Load, kN

30 C16/20 and the loads required to pull out the embedded concrete rein-
25
C20/25 forcements, increased in parallel with the increase in concrete cov-
C30/37 er depth. For all curing periods, the highest pull out loads was
20
C40/50 observed in concretes with the highest compressive strength and
15 C50/60 70-mm concrete cover depth. For all curing periods, the lowest pull
10 C60/75 out loads was observed in concretes with the lowest compressive
5
3 7 14 28
Curing Time, Days 30
0.5104
y = 3.746x 0.5061
y = 3.4566x
R² = 0.9595

Pull Out Load, kN

Fig. 1. Pull out load-curing period relationship of specimens with concrete cover 25 R² = 0.9728
depth of 40 mm.
20 0.5759
y = 2.51x
R² = 0.9787
15
concrete cover = 40 mm
Concrete cover=55 mm
45 10 concrete cover = 55 mm
concrete cover = 70 mm
40 C8/10
5
C12/15 5 15 25 35 45
35
Pull Out Load, kN

C16/20 Compressive Strength, Mpa

30
C20/25
Fig. 4. Pull out load–compressive strength relationship (for 3 days).
25 C30/37
20 C40/50
C50/60
15 40
C60/75 y = 3.9251x0.5493
10 35 R² = 0.9717 y = 5.4654x0.4509
Pull Out Load, kN

3 7 14 28 R² = 0.9573
5
30
Curing Time, Days
25 y = 3.8617x0.5102
Fig. 2. Pull out load-curing period relationship of specimens with concrete cover R² = 0.9832
depth of 55 mm. 20
concrete cover = 40 mm
concrete cover = 55 mm
15
concrete cover = 70 mm
Concrete cover=70 mm 10
50 5 15 25 35 45 55
C8/10
45
C12/15 Compressive Strength, Mpa
40
Pull Out Load, kN

C16/20
35 Fig. 5. Pull out load–compressive strength relationship (for 7 days).
C20/25
30
C30/37
25
C40/50 45
20
15 C50/60 40
Pull Out Load, kN

10 C60/75
35
5
3 7 14 28 30

Curing Time, Days 25

20
Fig. 3. Pull out load-curing period relationship of specimens with concrete cover
depth of 70 mm. 15

10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figs. 1–3 present graphical relationships showing the curing Compressive Strength, Mpa
period-based course of the forces required to pull out the rein-
forcements embedded into the concretes. Examination of Table 3 Fig. 6. Pull out load–compressive strength relationship (for 14 days).
and Figs. 1–3 reveals that the loads required pulling out the
embedded reinforcements increased in parallel with the increase
50 y = 6.4642x 0.4607
in curing period.
45 R² = 0.96
When the curing period was increased from 3 to 28 days this in- y = 6.8765x 0.4285
Pull Out Load, kN

40 R² = 0.9539
crease in the pull out load was found to be 44–53%, 46–51% and
43–50% in the all concrete classes with cover depth of 40 mm, 35
30 y = 5.013x 0.4795
55 mm and 70 mm, respectively. R² = 0.9939
The smallest pull out loads were found in the C8/10 concrete, 25
concrete cover = 40 mm
the lowest concrete class, and the greatest pull out loads were in 20
concrete cover = 55 mm
the C60/75 concrete, the highest concrete class. In the 28-day 15 concrete cover = 70 mm
cured specimens, when the concrete class was upgraded from 10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
C8/10 to C60/75, the pull out load for samples with concrete cover
Compressive Strength, Mpa
depths of 40 mm, 55 mm and 70 mm, increased by an average of
124%, 116% and 125%, respectively. Fig. 7. Pull out load–compressive strength relationship (for 28 days).
82 H.Sß. Arel, Sß. Yazıcı / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 78–83

strength and 40-mm concrete cover depth. In addition, among the 50

concrete specimens with concrete cover depths of 40 mm, 55 mm 45

Pull Out Load, kN

and 70 mm, those with concrete cover depths of 50 mm and 40
75 mm produced closer pull out load values for all curing periods. 35
Curing period-based relationships between the pull out loads 30
and splitting tensile strength of the study concretes are shown in 25
Figs. 8–11. The loads required to pull out the embedded reinforce- 20
ment, together with the splitting tensile strength, increased in par- 15
allel with the increase in the concrete cover depth. In all curing 10
periods, the highest pull out loads was obtained from the concretes 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

with the highest splitting tensile strength and a concrete cover Splitting Tensile Strength, Mpa
depth of 70 mm. In all curing periods, the lowest pull out loads
Fig. 11. Relationship between the pull out load–splitting tensile strength (for
was obtained from the concretes with the lowest splitting tensile 28 days).
strength and a concrete cover depth of 40 mm.
The pull out test results also show that the load required to pull
out the reinforcements also increased in parallel with the increase Table 3, increasing the concrete cover depth from 40 mm to 55 mm
in the concrete cover depth. As shown by the results presented in increased the required pull out load by 15% and at 70 mm depth it
increased by 20% for all curing days and all concrete classes. There-
fore, an increase in the concrete cover depth bonding the reinforce-
y = 9.9248x 0.7498 y = 9.1441x
0.7346 ment embedded into the concrete increased the strength of the
25
23
R² = 0.9678 R² = 0.958 concrete–reinforcement bond.
21 All of the results indicate an increase in the pull out load
Pull Out Load, kN

19 depending on the compressive strength and splitting tensile

17 y = 7.5715x 0.84 strength of the concrete. In addition, increased concrete cover
15 R² = 0.973 depth resulted in a significant increase in the pull out load. Con-
13
concrete cover = 40 mm crete must have sufficient mechanical strength and concrete cover
11
9
concrete cover = 55 mm depth for an adequate concrete–reinforcement bond.
7
concrete cover = 70 mm In addition, a multiple regression analysis was applied to obtain
5 the following relationship among 28-day mechanical properties of
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
concrete (compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, modulus
Splitting Tensile Strength, Mpa of elasticity), concrete cover and pull out load values. The following
Fig. 8. Relationship between the pull out load–splitting tensile strength (for
equation was shown below.
3 days). Pt ¼ 3  fct28 þ ðfc28 þ Ec28  t þ 4  fct28  tÞ=ðEc28 þ t þ 6  fct28 Þ ð1Þ
In this Eq. (1): Pt is the theoretical pull out load (kN), fc28 the 28-
35 0.7624 y = 13.518x 0.6231 days compressive strength of concrete (MPa), fct28 the 28-days split-
y = 11.793x
R² = 0.9781 R² = 0.9552 ting tensile strength of concrete (MPa), Ec28 the 28-days modulus of
30 elasticity of concrete (GPa), and t is the thickness of concrete cover
Pull Out Load, kN

y = 10.775x 0.7034 (mm).

25 R² = 0.9765 This correlation was embedded in concrete at a depth of 70–
14 mm diameter deformed steel rebar are valid. The loads required
20 to pull out the embedded reinforcements from the study concretes
concrete cover = 40 mm were calculated via the theoretical relationship and listed in Ta-
concrete cover = 55 mm
15 ble 6, together with the empirical values.
concrete cover = 70 mm
As can be concluded from Table 6, the empirical pull out loads
10
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
and the pull out loads obtained via the theoretical relationship
Splitting Tensile Strength, Mpa are very close and have almost 100% agreement with each. This sit-
uation can also be seen in Fig. 12 shown below.
Fig. 9. Relationship between the pull out load–splitting tensile strength (for The relationship established in this study, on the basis of various
7 days). parameters effective on concrete–reinforcement bond, was com-
pared to the empirical results obtained from related studies within
the literature (see Table 7). Reference studies focused on the loads
y = 15.514x 0.6558
45
R² = 0.9824
required to pull out reinforcements with differing diameters and
40 y = 15.094x 0.6333 approximately 5d embedding length. Theoretical pull out loads of
R² = 0.9739 the samples used in the reviewed studies were calculated on the
Pull Out Load, kN

35
basis of the splitting tensile strength (fct = 0.81 ⁄ (0.556 ⁄ fc0.5) and
30
y = 12.691x 0.6731 elasticity modulus (E = 4700 ⁄ fc0.5), which were calculated with
25 R² = 0.9883 the help of the relationship suggested by ACI 318-95 (Building Code
concrete cover = 40 mm Requirements for Structural Concrete), according to the compres-
20
concrete cover = 55 mm sive strength of the concretes used in those studies.
15 concrete cover = 70 mm Regarding the reference studies, empirical pull out loads were
10 found to differ by 29% and +17% from the theoretical pull out
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
loads calculated via the proposed relationship. This difference is
Splitting Tensile Strength, Mpa
thought to have resulted from the differences in the reinforcement
Fig. 10. Relationship between the pull out load–splitting tensile strength (for diameter, concrete cover depth and embedding depth of the rein-
14 days). forcements used in the reviewed studies.
 H.Sß. Arel, Sß. Yazıcı / Construction and Building Materials 36 (2012) 78–83 83

Table 6
Empirical and theoretical load required to pull out the reinforcements embedded into the concretes.

Concrete code Pull out loads (kN)

Concrete cover t = 40 mm Concrete cover t = 55 mm Concrete cover t = 70 mm
Pd Pt Pd Pt Pd Pt
C8/10 17.48 17.97 19.15 19.40 20.02 20.37
C12/15 21.45 21.54 26.37 23.51 27.35 24.88
C16/20 23.02 23.46 28.27 25.77 29.22 27.42
C20/25 26.12 25.86 30.2 28.72 30.2 30.80
C30/37 29.09 30.70 35.4 34.16 38.7 36.76
C40/50 33.11 32.95 37.2 36.70 39 39.57
C50/60 37.51 36.03 40.1 40.23 43.5 43.50
C60/75 39.13 38.95 41.3 43.71 45.1 47.48

Pt: theoretical pull out load, Pd: empirical pull out load.

Table 7
Comparison with the literature results.

Researchers d (mm) le (mm) t (mm) fc (MPa) fct (MPa) E (GPa) Pd (kN) Pt (kN) (Pt ⁄ 100/Pd) ratio (%)
Ref. [8] (Yazıcı and Inan) 14 5d 40 51 2.76 33.6 40.32 28.7 71
40.8 2.52 30 31.5 26.9 85
30 2.23 25.7 21 24.6 117
Ref. [9] (Yeih) 13 5d 45 35.9 2.7 28.16 30.67 28.1 92
Ref. [10] (Xiao and Falkner) 10 5d 45 43.52 2.97 31.01 27.3 30.0 110
39.27 2.82 29.45 27.06 28.8 107
34.63 2.65 27.68 27.3 27.8 102

d: diameter of the bar, le: embedded depth of bar, t: concrete cover, fc: compressive strength of concrete, fct: splitting tensile strength of concrete, E: modulus of elasticity
concrete, Pt: theoretical pull out load, Pd: empirical pull out load.

The concrete–reinforcement bond was mathematically mod-

Theoritecial pull out loads, kN

50
45 y = 0.9632x 1.0074 eled using 28-day mechanical properties of the concrete (such as
R² = 0.9718
40
28-day compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, modulus
of elasticity) and the thickness of concrete cover. Pull out loads cal-
35
culated via the proposed mathematical model were found to be in
30
almost full compliance (100%) with the empirically-calculated pull
25 out loads.
20 The empirical pull out loads and the pull out loads calculated
15 via the proposed model were found to differ by 29% and +17%
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
when compared with results from previous studies in the
Empirical pull out loads, kN
literature.
Fig. 12. Relationship between the empirical and theoretical pull out loads.
References

_
[1] Ersoy U. Reinforced concrete. Istanbul: Evrim Press; 1985 [in Turkish].
4. Conclusion _
[2] Celep Z, Kumbasar N. Reinforced concrete structures. Istanbul: Sema Press;
1996 [in Turkish].
The following results were obtained in the present study: [3] Bingöl F, Gül R. Residual bond strength between steel bars and concrete after
The load required to pull out embedded concrete reinforcements elevated temperatures. Fire Safety J 2009;44:854–9.
[4] Larrard F, Schaller I, Fuchs J. Effect of bar diameter on the bond strength of
– in turn, the bond between the concrete and reinforcement – was passive reinforcement in high-performance concrete. ACI Mater J
observed to increase in parallel with the increase in the curing 1993;90:333–9.
period. [5] Ünal Y. Based on strength of concrete aggregate and change in research on
grain. Fırat University Science Institute in Civil Engineering, Master Thesis;
The load required to pull out the embedded concrete reinforce-
1998.
ments was found to increase in parallel with the increase in con- [6] Tanyıldızı H, Yazıcıoğlu S. Effect of mineral admixtures on bond strength of
crete cover depth. This increase was recorded to be 15% when concrete and reinforcement. Fırat University J Sci 2006;18:351–7.
the concrete cover depth was increased from 40 mm to 55 mm [7] Fu X, Chung DDL. Decrease of the bond strength between steel rebar and
concrete with increasing curing age. Cem Concr Res 1997;28:167–9.
and to be 20% when increased from 40 mm to 70 mm for all con- [8] Yazıcı S _ Effect of thickness of concrete cover, high temperature level
ß , Sezer GI.
crete classes and curing times. and exposure time on reinforcement–matrix bond in concrete mixtures having
In the concrete classes from C8/10 to C60/75, pull out load was different strength levels. TUBITAK Project No. 107M345; 2011.
[9] Yeih W, Huang R, Chang JJ, Yang CC. A pullout test for determining interface
found to increase by 124%, 116% and 125%, respectively, depending properties between rebar and concrete. Adv Cem Based Mater 1997;5:57–65.
on the concrete cover depth. [10] Xiao J, Falkner H. Bond behaviour between recycled aggregate concrete and
The load required to pull out the embedded reinforcements was steel rebars. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:395–401.
found to increase as splitting tensile strength of the concrete
increased.