Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12 (2021) 1231–1239

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Civil Engineering

Bond behavior between concrete and steel rebars for stressed elements
Yousef R. Alharbi a,⇑, Mahmoud Galal b,⇑, Aref A. Abadel a, Mohamed Kohail b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, P.O. Box 800, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
b
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Egypt

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

Article history: Earlier research efforts related to concrete-to-steel rebar bond behavior predominantly focused on com-
Received 9 September 2020 mon parameters such as concrete strength, rebar diameter, bonded length and concrete cover, disregard-
Revised 19 October 2020 ing the actual/real state of concrete that comprises tension cracked regions. This investigation aims to
Accepted 19 October 2020
study the concrete-steel rebar bond behavior through bending stressed specimens, in order to evaluate
Available online 14 November 2020
the influence of concrete cracking coupled with other parameters to achieve a realistic simulation.
Accordingly, beam-end specimen(s) have been modified to yield the possibility of conducting pull out
Keywords:
testing under certain bending stress level. In this study, ten test specimens were prepared and tested
Bond strength
Slip
to cover some parameters including concrete strength, rebar diameter, bonded length, concrete cover
Beam-end test thickness and confining stirrups in conjunction with bending stress level. Test results proved remarkable
Bond conditions influence for stress level on bond behavior whereas, unstressed specimens showed higher bond strength
Analytical model than partially and fully stressed specimens by 40 and 63%, respectively. New models are proposed to pre-
Stress level dict bond strength and describe bond stress-slip behavior for stressed members. The proposed models
demonstate adequate agreement with the experimental results.
Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction the transfer of loads between rebar and surrounding concrete

Normal strength concrete is commonly reinforced by steel rein-
forcing bars to serve integrally resisting the applied loads through
composite action. Consequently, efficient bond between concrete
and steel bars improves the overall performance of the composite
material under different types of loading including load carrying
capacity, deformation and stiffness [1–16]. Therefore, it is very
essential to achieve sufficient bond for satisfactory performance
of reinforced concrete structures.
Bond strength consists of three components: (1) chemical adhe-
sion, (2) friction resistance and (3) mechanical interlock. The latter
is primary for deformed bars (See Fig. 1). Chemical adhesion has
minor effect, which disappears at the first slippage of rebar leaving
⇑ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: yrharbi@ksu.edu.sa (Y.R. Alharbi), mahmoud.galal@eng.asu.
edu.eg (M. Galal), aabadel@ksu.edu.sa (A.A. Abadel), m.kohail@eng.asu.edu.eg
(M. Kohail).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
occur through the interlocking [2–4,9,10,17,18]. Factors affecting
bond strength comprises concrete strength, concrete cover thick-
ness, reinforcement geometry and size, reinforcement position,
bonded length and amount of transverse reinforcement [15,19,20].
Bond behavior between concrete and steel rebars has been
investigated and well recognized by many researchers. Bond-slip
mechanism has been described in many models such as CEB FIP
model code 2010 [21] (See Fig. 2). The model comprises several
stages according to mode of failure. For pull out failure, non-
linear ascending branch is proposed and followed by constant
linear stage and simplified linear descending branch. For splitting
failure, the model is reduced to non-linear ascending branch and
simplified linear descending branch.
Bond failure mode depends on degree of confinement, which is
represented in amount of transverse reinforcement or sufficient
concrete cover. Pull out failure occurs in RC elements with well-
confined conditions such as the confined region in beam-
columns joints [22,23], while ones with other confinement
conditions fail by splitting instead of pull out. In reality, RC ele-
ments in the majority of structures meet confinement conditions
in intermediate between unconfined conditions and well-
confined conditions. In such cases, bond failure tends to occur in
splitting failure mode [24].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.10.001
2090-4479/Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Y.R. Alharbi, M. Galal, A.A. Abadel et al.
Notations
f c0 Cylinder concrete compressive strength
C Concrete cover
K Ratio between bonded length and rebar diameter
ka Slope of ascending branch of the bond stress – slip curve
L Bonded length
P Applied tensile load on steel rebar
C.F1,2 Factors for confinement level
During the last decades, bond behavior has been investigated by
many researchers [37–39]. The majority of them used pull out
specimens because of their simplicity [17]. Nevertheless, this type
of specimens suffers major defect that the steel rebar is subjected
to tensile stress while the concrete is subjected to compressive
stress. This unrealistic scenario leads to obtain bond strength more
than the real value [25]. In addition, in which specimens, bond fail-
ure tends to occur in pull out failure mode [24]. Actually concrete
and steel rebars are tensioned simultaneously, therefore, some
researchers resorted to use other types of specimens to investigate
bond behavior, for instance, beam specimens [25,26] and beam-
end specimens [27,28]. The main advantage of such specimens
compared with pull-out test specimens is that both the reinforce-
ment bar and surrounding concrete are under tension as in case of
real flexural members. Furthermore, other advantages such as real-
istic cover and confinement configurations which control failure
mode.
In real situation, steel rebars are placed frequently in tensioned
regions through flexural members which means that the surround-
ing concrete is cracked due to flexural stresses. Consequently, there
Fig. 1. Interaction between concrete and deformed steel bar [4].
Fig. 2. CEB FIP Model Code 2010 for bond-slip [21].
1232
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12 (2021) 1231–1239
SL Bending stress level
S Slippage
Su Slippage corresponding to the ultimate bond stress
s Average bond stress
su Average ultimate bond strength
Ø Rebar diameter
is dire need to investigate bond behavior through flexural cracked
specimens.
In this investigation, beam-end specimen has been modified to
be stressed in bending by three-point loading technique to simu-
late the actual situation in flexural members in which both con-
crete and rebars are tensioned.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Material properties and mix proportions
In this study, Materials used to produce concrete comprise Port-
land cement type I (CEMI 42.5-N) conforming ASTM C150 [29],
natural sand, crushed stone with maximum nominal size of
12 mm and specific gravity of 2.61, tap water, type G superplasti-
cizer (SP) and steel rebars with yield strength and tensile strength
of 430 and 650 MPa, respectively.
Three mix proportions were prepared to achieve concretes with
various strengths. Concrete compressive strength has been deter-
mined in accordance with ASTM C 39 M – 03 [30] by using
150
300 mm cylinders. Table 1 represents mix proportions and
concrete compressive strengths.
2.2. Test specimens
This investigation comprises ten specimens of dimensions
200
300
1400 mm to investigate the effect of some parameters
on the bond strength between concrete and steel rebars including
concrete strength, concrete cover thickness, bonded length, rebar
diameter, confinement level represented by presence of stirrups
in bonded length region and bending stress level . Detailed dimen-
sions and configurations of specimens are shown in Fig. 3. Three
different concrete strengths of 20, 25 and 35 MPa are included.
In addition, two rebar diameters of 12 and 16 mm, two cover thick-
nesses of 30 and 50 mm, three values for bonded length to rebar
diameter of 5, 6.5 and 8, two confinement levels in bonded length
region of no stirrups and presence of one stirrup, finally, three
bending stress levels of 0%, 50% and 100% of ultimate bending
capacity. A detailed test matrix is shown in Table 2. The code of
specimens in Table 2 represents the different parameters in this
sequence: concrete strength – rebar diameter – bonded length –
concrete cover thickness – bending stress level – no of stirrups.
For instance, specimen with code (G25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-1S)
refers to concrete strength of 25 MPa, rebar diameter of 16 mm,
bonded length to rebar diameter of 5, concrete cover thickness of
30 mm, bending stress level of 100% and one stirrup in bonded
length region.
2.3. Specimens preparation
Steel cages were fabricated with configurations mentioned
before. Plastic tubes were used as bond breakers to control bonded
length for test rebars that, were attached to the steel cages as
Y.R. Alharbi, M. Galal, A.A. Abadel et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12 (2021) 1231–1239

Table 1
Mix proportions and concrete properties.
0
Grade Mix proportions Average compressive strength f c (MPa)
Cement (kg) Coarse aggregate (kg) Sand (kg) Water (kg) SP (kg)
C20 320 1150 550 210 — 21.3
C25 400 1110 600 210 — 24.1
C35 450 1100 550 190 4 34.8

Fig. 3. Configurations of test specimens.

Table 2
Test matrix.
0
Code f c (MPa) Rebar Diameter (Ø) (mm) Bonded length (L) (mm) Cover (C) (mm) Stress Level (SL) Stirrups
(%)
G25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S1 25 16 5Ø = 80 30 100 —
G20-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S 20 16 5Ø = 80 30 100 —
G35-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S 35 16 5Ø = 80 30 100 —
G25-R12-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S 25 12 5Ø = 60 30 100 —
G25-R16-6.5Ø-C30- SL100-0S 25 16 6.5Ø = 104 30 100 —
G25-R16-8Ø-C30- SL100-0S 25 16 8Ø = 128 30 100 —
G25-R16-5Ø-C50- SL100-0S 25 16 5Ø = 80 50 100 —
G25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL50-0S 25 16 5Ø = 80 30 50 —
G25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL00-0S 25 16 5Ø = 80 30 00 —
G25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-1S 25 16 5Ø = 80 30 100 1

1
Specimen with label (G25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S) is considered control specimen.

shown in Fig. 4. Steel cages were placed in the mold with test rebar
directed in horizontal direction near the top of mold. Specimens
were demolded 24 h after casting and cured using wet burlap for
seven days. Specimens were tested at 28 days age or more.
2.4. Test setup
Test specimens have been simply supported - Span = 1200 mm -
and loaded permanently in the middle of the span for each speci-
men whereas, test rebar is near the tension side. This load leads
to bending stress over the cross section of the specimen therefore,
the concrete is cracked in the region of tested rebar according to
stress level. Pull out loading has been applied on the loaded end
of test rebar in the presence of LVDT attached to the free end of test
rebar to measure the slippage of the test rebar. Pull out loading
records and corresponding slippage have been recorded simultane-
ously (See Fig. 5).

3. Experimental results and discussion

Results of loads and corresponding free end slippage were

recorded. Average bond stress values were calculated based on
Eq. (1) considering uniform stress distribution along bonded
length.
P
s¼ ð1Þ
pL
Fig. 4. Specimens preparation.

1233
Y.R. Alharbi, M. Galal, A.A. Abadel et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12 (2021) 1231–1239

Fig. 5. Test setup.

Mean bond stress versus free end slip curves were plotted (See
Fig. 6). Ultimate bond stress (bond strength) and slip correspond-
ing to ultimate bond stress are shown in Table 3.
3.1. Mean bond stress-slip curves
3.2. Failure modes
Failure modes for tested specimens were detected. All speci-
mens exhibited splitting failure displayed in shape of one crack
in concrete cover in opposite to steel rebar in bonded length region
as shown in Fig. 7.

Effect of various parameters under study can be determined 4. Analytical study

from mean bond stress-slip curves (See Fig. 6 and Table 3). The
change of compressive strength from 25 to 35 and 20 MPa lead 4.1. Bond strength model
to change of bond strength by 44 and 12%, respectively. Decreas-
ing diameter of steel rebar from 16 to 12 mm yielded remarkable Many authors obtained prediction formulas to predict the value
increase of bond strength by 20%. Increasing bonded length of 5Ø of bond strength (su) as function of concrete compressive strength
to 6.5Ø and 8Ø lead to reduction of bond strength by 10 and [22,23,31]. Many authors improved these formulas by adding the
22%, respectively. This reduction is attributed to the non- factor of rebar diameter [27,32]. Furthermore, other parameters
uniformity of stress distribution along steel rebar. The more con- have been used to develop more precise relationships as concrete
finement at bonded length region showed better performance, cover and bonded length to rebar diameter [28] (See Table 4).
which can be noted in the remarkable increase of bond strength For CEB FIP model code 2010 [21], concrete cover in two directions
by 26 and 61% due to presence of one stirrup at bonded length was taken into account as well as, the presence of stirrups
region and the increase of concrete cover thickness, respectively. (See Eq. (2)).
It can be easily noticed that the ascending branches of curves tend !0:25   " #
0
0:2 0:33  0:1
to be steeper with the increase of ultimate bond stress. fc 25 cmin cmax
Finally, this study proves that the stress level is very influential su ¼ g2 6:5 þ K m K tr ð2Þ
25 / / cmin
on bond performance. Non-stressed specimen yielded higher bond
strength than partially and fully stressed ones by 40 and 63%, where, g2 = 1.0 for good bond conditions and 0.7 for all other
respectively therefore, this parameter is very crucial for accurate bond conditions; Cmin and Cmax represent concrete cover in two
investigation for bond behavior. directions and/or distance between neighboring steel rebars as
1234
Y.R. Alharbi, M. Galal, A.A. Abadel et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12 (2021) 1231–1239

a. Concrete strength effect. b. Rebar diameter effect.

c. Bonded length effect. d. Concrete cover thickness effect.

e. Bending stress level effect. f. Stirrups effect.

Fig. 6. Mean bond stress versus free end slip curves.

Table 3
Test results.

Code su Su ka Failure mode

MPa (%)1 mm N/mm3
G 25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S 10.15 100 1.64 6.19 Splitting
G35-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S 14.61 144 1.50 9.74 Splitting
G20-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S 8.92 88 1.50 5.95 Splitting
G25-R12-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S 12.19 120 1.31 9.30 Splitting
G25-R16-6.5Ø-C30- SL100-0 9.11 90 1.53 5.95 Splitting
G25-R16-8Ø-C30- SL100-0S 7.92 78 1.37 5.78 Splitting
G25-R16-5Ø-C50- SL100-0S 16.35 161 1.19 13.74 Splitting
G25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-1S 12.75 126 0.90 14.17 Splitting
G25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL50-0S 14.23 140 1.38 10.31 Splitting
G25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL00-0S 16.53 163 0.70 23.61 Splitting
1
Percentage of ðsu Þ for every specimen to ðsu Þ for control specimen.

shown in Fig. 8; km represents the efficiency of confinement from failure plane, Ast is the cross-sectional area of one leg of a confining
transverse reinforcement, and has a value of 12; ktr ¼ nt Ast =nb /st , stirrups, nb is the number of individual anchored bars or pairs of
nt is the number of legs of a stirrup crossing the potential splitting lapped bars, st is the longitudinal spacing of the stirrups.

1235
Y.R. Alharbi, M. Galal, A.A. Abadel et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12 (2021) 1231–1239

Fig. 7. Splitting mode failure.

Table 4
Values of a.

a Ref
0.40 [21,22,31,32]
0.30 [23]
0.101 [27]
0.23 [28]

Table 5
Analytical bond strength models.

Model (su) (MPa) Ref

qffiffiffiffiffi
0 [22]
Proportionto f c Fig. 8. Notation for concrete cover and rebar spacing [21].
qffiffiffiffiffi
0 [23]
2:57 f c
qffiffiffiffiffi
0 [31]
0:45 f c
qffiffiffiffiffi
11:4/0:35 f c
0 [27] 0
!0:25     "    #
0:45 0:2
qffiffiffiffiffi fc / 25 cmin 0:33 cmax 0:1
10:4/0:35 f c
0 [32] su ¼ 13:5 þ K m K tr
qffiffiffiffiffi
25 L / / cmin
1:36 0:24 0:35 0 [28]
0:07C k / fc
ð3Þ
In this study, a new parameter named stress level mentioned
Table 6 before has been added in addition to confinement level to formu-
Analytical ultimate slip models. late more accurate formula, which obtained through multilinear
regression analysis as shown in Eq. (4).
(Su) (mm) Ref
1.00 [22] 0:79
0
1.00 [31] su ¼ 0:976C 0:70 K 0:75 0:35 f c e0:003SL C:F 1 ð4Þ
0.20 distance between ribs for pull out failure [23]
0.10 distance between ribs for pull out failure [33] where, C:F 1 = 1.15 or 1.00 for confined or unconfined concrete
Su(su;split Þ [21] by stirrups, respectively.
0.28 e0.0095Ø [27]
Fig. 9. shows the correlation between measured and calculated
0.28 e0.0095Ø [28]
0.11 e0.054Ø [32]
bond strength. A good correlation can be easily noticed therefore,
0.0368 Ø for splitting failure [34] the proposed model for bond strength prediction can be considered
 
0:6 þ 0:1 /C  1 [35] reliable.
  By applying some models in literature with the results of this
0:35ðC0:2/Þ [36]
100
research, it can be noticed that the models proposed by Shamsel-
dien et al [27] yielded overestimation for bond strength value.
Furthermore, the models proposed by CEB FIP model code [21]
A similar model has been obtained by Lin et al [24]. Ratio and Lin et al [24] yielded underestimation for bond strength
between rebar diameter and bonded length has been used as an value. This can be attributed to that codes are more conservative
additional factor to the aforementioned model (See Eq. (3)). (See Fig. 11).
1236
Y.R. Alharbi, M. Galal, A.A. Abadel et al.
Fig. 9. Correlation between measured and calculated bond strength.
4.2. Slip at ultimate bond stress model
Obtaining reliable value or formula to describe Su accurately is
very complicated. Harajli et al [23] reported that Su is independent
of compressive strength and confinement level for pull out failure
mode. Instead, Su is very sensitive to steel rebar ribs pattern. Zhao
and Zhu [33] mentioned a similar conclusion. To understand that,
it can be said that the crushing of concrete between rebar ribs is
the main key for bond failure occurring. For splitting mode failure,
confinement level is the dominant factor [24]. When sufficient con-
crete cover or stirrups are provided, cracks are significantly
restricted. Thus, many authors obtained models as function in
rebar diameter and/or concrete cover to predict the value of Su
[27,28,32,34–36]. Some authors obtained fixed value for Su
[22,31] (See Table 5). In this investigation, rebar diameter, stress
level and confinement level were used for obtaining formula to
describe accurately the slip at ultimate bond stress (Su ).
Su ¼ 0:70eð0:053Þð0:0000512SL2 þ 0:01085SL þ 0:4268ÞC:F 2
ð5Þ
where, C:F 2 = 0.6 or 1.0 for confined or unconfined concrete by
stirrups, respectively.
Fig. 10. shows the correlation between measured and calculated
slip at ultimate bond stress. A good correlation can be easily
noticed therefore, the proposed model for prediction of slip at ulti-
mate bond stress can be considered reliable.
Fig. 10. Correlation between measured and calculated slip at ultimate bond stress.
1237
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12 (2021) 1231–1239
A comparison between some models mentioned in literature
and experimental results has been conducted and displayed as
shown in Fig. 11. It can be clearly observed that the proposed mod-
els yielded significant underestimation for Su value for all cases
except the cases of thick concrete cover, using confining stirrups
and zero bending stress level which yielded values for Su close to
experimental results. This notice can be attributed to the influence
of confinement level and bending stress level on the value of Su.
4.3. Bond stress-slip model
Many researchers investigated the influential parameters on
bond of concrete and steel rebars. Literature shows many trials
to obtain reliable relationships to describe the bond behavior
between concrete and steel rebars [21–23,28,31,32]. They used a
main model described by Eq. (6) – for ascending branch - and tried
to improve its accuracy by developing more accurate formulas for
ðsu Þ and ðSu Þ in addition, more adequate value for the term of a.
 a
S
sðsÞ ¼ su forS  Su ð6Þ
Su
Many authors obtained values for the term of a to produce
more reliable model as shown in Table 6. In this investigation, a
value of 0.452 is adopted for ascending branch, while modified for-
mula were adopted for descending branch as shown in Eq. (7).
sðsÞ ¼ su  1:3813S þ 1:3813Su forS > Su ð7Þ
5. Conclusions
In this study, bond between normal concrete and steel rebars
has been investigated. Many parameters containing concrete com-
pressive strength, steel rebar diameter, bonded length, concrete
cover thickness and confining stirrups in conjunction with bending
stress level were considered. Analytical study has been carried out
as well as new models have been obtained to describe bond stress-
slip relationships. The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Majority of real RC members are reinforced to withstand bend-
ing moment stress therefore, studying bond behavior between
concrete and reinforcing rebars using stressed specimens is crit-
ical for accurate conclusions. Bending stress level showed
remarkable influence on bond strength whereas, reducing
stress level from 100% of ultimate bending capacity to 50%
and 0% showed increase in bond strength by 40 and 63%,
respectively. Consequently, the use of modified beam-end spec-
imens can be considered more realistic than other ones.
2. Proposed models showed good agreement with experimental
results therefore, they can be considered reliable for prediction
of bond stress-slip relationships. Generally, the proposed mod-
els showed predictions in intermediate of conservative and
non-conservative models.
3. The change of concrete strength from 35 MPa to 20 MPa yielded
about 39% reduction in bond strength.
4. Steel rebar diameter yielded inverse proportion to bond
strength whereas, replacing 16 mm rebar diameter with
12 mm rebar diameter resulted in about 20% increase in bond
strength.
5. Bonded length yielded similar influence on bond strength that,
increasing bonded length from 5 to 6.5 and 8Ø yielded reduc-
tion in bond strength by 10 and 22%, respectively.
6. Increasing confinement level proved positive effect on bond
strength whereas, increasing concrete cover thickness from 30
to 50 mm and using one stirrup in bonded length region
showed increase in bond strength by 61 and 26%, respectively.
Y.R. Alharbi, M. Galal, A.A. Abadel et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12 (2021) 1231–1239

G 25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S G 20-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S

G 35-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S G 25-R12-5Ø-C30- SL100-0S

G 25-R16-6.5Ø-C30- SL100-0S G 25-R16-8Ø-C30- SL100-0S

G 25-R16-5Ø-C50- SL100-0S G 25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL50-0S

G 25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL00-0S G 25-R16-5Ø-C30- SL100-1S

Fig. 11. Analytical versus experimental bond stress-slip curves.

1238
Y.R. Alharbi, M. Galal, A.A. Abadel et al.
Acknowledgement
The authors extend their appreciation to Researchers Support-
ing Project number (RSP-2020/271), King Saud University, Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia
References
[1] Deshpande Alok A, Kumar Dhanendra, Ranade Ravi. Temperature effects on the
bond behavior between deformed steel reinforcing bars and hybrid fiber-
reinforced strain-hardening cementitious composite. Constr Build Mater
2020;233():117337.
[2] Chu SH, Kwan AKH. A new bond model for reinforcing bars in steel fibre
reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2019;104:103405.
[3] Huang Le et al. Bond strength of deformed bar embedded in steel-
polypropylene hybrid fiber reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater
2019;218:176–92.
[4] Lin Hongwei et al. State-of-the-art review on the bond properties of corroded
reinforcing steel bar. Constr Build Mater 2019;213:216–33.
[5] Fang Congqi et al. Bond behaviour of corroded reinforcing steel bars in
concrete. Cem Concr Res 2006;36(10):1931–8.
[6] Lagier Fabien, Massicotte Bruno, Charron Jean-Philippe. Experimental
investigation of bond stress distribution and bond strength in unconfined
UHPFRC lap splices under direct tension. Cem Concr Compos 2016;74:26–38.
[7] Huang Le et al. Local bond performance of rebar embedded in steel-
polypropylene hybrid fiber reinforced concrete under monotonic and cyclic
loading. Constr Build Mater 2016;103:77–92.
[8] Wu Zemei, Shi Caijun, Khayat Kamal Henri. Multi-scale investigation of
microstructure, fiber pullout behavior, and mechanical properties of ultra-high
performance concrete with nano-CaCO3 particles. Cem Concr Compos
2018;86:255–65.
[9] Magnusson Jonas. Bond and anchorage of ribbed bars in high-strength
concrete. Chalmers University of Technology 2000.
[10] Lundgren Karin. Bond between ribbed bars and concrete. Part 1: Modified
model. Mag Concr Res 2005;57(7):371–82.
[11] Al-Negheimish Abdulaziz I, Al-Zaid Rajeh Z. Effect of manufacturing process
and rusting on th ebond behavior of deformed bars in concrete. Cem Concr
Compos 2004;26(6):735–42.
[12] Ahmed, K., et al. ‘‘Effect of rebar cover and development length on bond and
slip in high strength concrete.” Pakistan Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences (2016).
[13] Bazant Zdenék P, Sener Siddik. Size effect in pullout tests. ACI Mater J 1988;85
(5):347–51.
[14] Bažant Zdeněk P, Li Zhengzhi, Thoma Michael. Identification of stress-slip law
for bar or fiber pullout by size effect tests. J Eng Mech 1995;121(5):620–5.
[15] Sulaiman, Muhd Fauzy, et al. A review on bond and anchorage of confined
high-strength concrete. Structures. Vol. 11. Elsevier, 2017.
[16] Darwin D, Tholen ML, Idun EK, Zuo J. Splice strength of high relative rib area
reinforcing bars. ACI Struct J 1996;93(1):95–107.
[17] Bond ACI. Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension. ACI
2003;408R–03.
[18] Lutz Leroy A, Gergely Peter. Mechanics of bond and slip of deformed bars in
concrete. Journal Proceedings. 1967;64(11).
1239
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12 (2021) 1231–1239
[19] Darwin D, Tholen ML, Idun EK, Zuo J. Development length criteria for
conventional and high relative rib area reinforcing bars. ACI Struct J 1996;93
(3):347–59.
[20] YERLiCi, Vedat, Ozturan T. Bond Properties in High-Strength Concrete
Elements. 13 (2001): 745-769.
[21] Béton Du. Fédération Internationale. fib model code for concrete structures
2010. Wiley-vch Verlag Gmbh; 2013.
[22] Eligehausen, Rolf, Egor P. Popov, and Vitelmo V. Bertero. Local bond stress-slip
relationships of deformed bars under generalized excitations. (1982).
[23] Harajli MH, Hout M, Jalkh W. Local bond stress-slip behavior of reinforcing
bars embedded in plain and fiber concrete. Materials Journal 1995;92
(4):343–53.
[24] Lin Hongwei et al. Analytical model for the bond stress-slip relationship of
deformed bars in normal strength concrete. Constr Build Mater
2019;198:570–86.
[25] Harajli M, Hamad B, Karam K. Bond-slip response of reinforcing bars
embedded in plain and fiber concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 2002;14(6):503–11.
[26] Bandelt Matthew J, Billington Sarah L. Bond behavior of steel reinforcement in
high-performance fiber-reinforced cementitious composite flexural members.
Mater Struct 2016;49(1-2):71–86.
[27] Shamseldein Ayman et al. Assessment and restoration of bond strength of
heat-damaged reinforced concrete elements. Constr Build Mater
2018;169:425–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.008.
[28] Ghazaly Nesma et al. Evaluation of bond strength between steel rebars and
concrete for heat-damaged and repaired beam-end specimens. Eng Struct
2018;175:661–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.056.
[29] ASTM C150-15, Standard Specification for Portland Cement.
[30] ASTM C39-18, Standard Specification for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens.
[31] Huang, Z., B. Engström, and J. Magnusson. Experimental investigation of the
bond and anchorage behaviour of deformed bars in high strength concrete. 4°
International Symposium on Utilization of High-Strength/High Performance
Concrete. Proceedings. Vol. 3. 1996.
[32] Maree A Farghal, Hilal Riad K. Analytical and experimental investigation for
bond behaviour of newly developed polystyrene foam particles’ lightweight
concrete. Eng Struct 2014;58:1–11.
[33] Zhao Weiping, Zhu Binrong. Theoretical model for the bond–slip relationship
between ribbed steel bars and confined concrete. Structural Concrete 2018;19
(2):548–58.
[34] Xu Youlin. Experimental study of anchorage properties for deformed bars in
concrete. Tsinghua: Beijing; 1990.
[35] Khalaf Jamal, Huang Zhaohui, Fan Mizi. Analysis of bond-slip between
concrete and steel bar in fire. Comput Struct 2016;162:1–15.
[36] Coccia Simona, Di Maggio Erica, Rinaldi Zila. Bond slip model in cylindrical
reinforced concrete elements confined with stirrups. International Journal of
Advanced Structural Engineering (IJASE) 2015;7(4):365–75.
[37] El-Feky MS et al. Effect of microwave curing as compared with conventional
regimes on the performance of alkali activated slag pastes. Construction and
Building Materials 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2019.117268.
[38] Amer I et al. Evaluation of using cement in Alkali-activated slag concrete.
International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research 2020;9(5):245–8.
[39] El-Feky MS et al. Nano-Fibrillated Cellulose as a Green Alternative to Carbon
Nanotubes in Nano Reinforced Cement Composites. International Journal of
Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering 2019;8(12):484–91. doi:
https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.L3377.1081219.