Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement and Concrete Composites

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

Bond performance of steel rebar embedded in 80–180 MPa ultra-high- T

strength concrete
Doo-Yeol Yooa, Hyun-Oh Shinb,∗
a
Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, South Korea
b
Department of Agricultural and Rural Engineering, Chungnam National University, 99 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34134, Republic of Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Ultra-high-strength concrete (UHSC) has attracted attention from engineers because of its great capability on
Bond performance reducing the size of reinforced concrete columns. However, the bond performance of steel rebar embedded in
Steel rebar UHSC has not been examined enough yet, although it is a fundamental information for structural design. So, this
Ultra-high-strength concrete study comprehensively investigates the bond performance of deformed steel rebar embedded in high-strength
Embedment length
concrete (HSC), very-high-strength concrete (VHSC), and UHSC with compressive strengths ranging from 80 to
Cover depth
Fiber volume fraction
180 MPa. Different bar diameters (12.7, 15.9, and 19.1 mm), embedment lengths (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 × bar dia-
meter), cover depths (1, 2, and 3 × bar diameter and center), steel fiber volume fractions (0, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5%),
and yield strengths of steel rebar (normal-strength vs. high-strength) were all considered. Test results indicate
that the average bond strength increased significantly with an increase in the compressive strength of the
concrete and decreased slightly with an increase in the bar diameter. Average bond strengths of steel rebars in
HSC, VHSC, and UHSC were all increased by increasing the embedment length. The cover depth marginally
influenced the bond strength when pullout failure was generated, and it significantly increased the bond strength
when splitting failure occurred. The incorporation of steel fibers most effectively increased the bond strength in
the UHSC mixture, compared with the HSC and VHSC mixtures. Lastly, the widely used prediction models for
average bond strength were not accurate for concrete with a compressive strength greater than 80 MPa; thus, a
new, appropriate model needs to be proposed in the near future.

1. Introduction
Recent trends in architectural buildings involve fabricating bigger
and safer structures using high-performance construction materials.
Skyscrapers (Burj Khalifa, Taipei 101, Willis Tower, Lotte World Tower,
etc.) have attracted particular attention from many architectural en-
gineers and became landmarks in cities around the world. Safe fabri-
cation of a skyscraper with an increase of utility space fundamentally
requires the use of flowable high-strength concrete (HSC). HSC can
resist uniaxial compressive force more effectively than normal-strength
concrete (NSC) by using smaller cross-sectional areas. Therefore, HSC
has frequently been applied for making columns in skyscrapers.
However, increasing the compressive strength of concrete inherently
causes higher brittleness [1], and thus, embedding steel reinforcing bar
(rebar) in concrete structures is vital to structural stability, especially
where tensile force is activated. To precisely analyze the structural
behavior of steel bar–reinforced concrete (RC) structures, the bond
performance between the steel rebar and concrete needs to be
evaluated.
For this reason, many researchers [2–11] have studied the bond
performance of steel rebar embedded in HSC. According to some pre-
vious studies [2,3], the bond strength of steel rebar is enhanced by
increasing the matrix strength (NSC → HSC). Therefore, shorter de-
velopment length is required to prevent pullout failure of the steel rebar
and fully develop its capacity. Dancygier et al. [3] examined the bond
behavior of steel bars in NSC and HSC with compressive strengths of
about 30 and 80 MPa, respectively. They [3] provided several useful
findings: (1) the increase in bond strength with the compressive
strength becomes more pronounced by adding steel fibers; (2) the in-
clusion of steel fibers leads to a reduction of bond strength, generally up
to 30%; (3) ACI 318 and EC2 codes underestimate the bond strengths
for both NSC and HSC; and (4) larger-diameter rebar gives higher safety
margins. Valcuende and Parra [2] and Sfikas and Trezos [11] compared
the bond strengths of steel rebar in self-consolidating concrete (SCC)
and normal concrete and reported that the SCC provides greater bond
strength than the normal concrete because of its greater filling capacity

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hyunoh.shin@cnu.ac.kr (H.-O. Shin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.07.017
Received 14 February 2018; Received in revised form 1 June 2018; Accepted 24 July 2018
Available online 25 July 2018
0958-9465/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.-Y. Yoo, H.-O. Shin
Table 1
Mix proportions of concretes.
Mixture W/B (%) S/a (%) Water (kg/m3) Binder (kg/m3) (C:ZSF:BFS:Gy:FA)
HSC 19.5 43.0 150 769 (70: 10: 0: 0: 20)
VHSC 19.5 35.0 150 769 (65: 10: 20: 5: 0)
UHSC 12.5 35.0 150 1200 (55: 20: 20: 5: 0)
[Note] S/a = sand-to-aggregate ratio, C = cement, ZSF = zirconium silica fume, BFS = blast furnace slag, Gy = gypsum, and FA = fly ash.
a
Washed sand.
b
Silica sand.
and reduced bleeding. The negative effects of bleeding on bond strength
became marginal with an increase in compressive strength, and thus,
the differences virtually disappeared when the compressive strength of
the concrete became greater than 50 MPa [2]. Azizinamini et al. [7]
discovered that bond stress distribution along a deformed steel bar's
embedded length is not uniform for HSC at ultimate state and non-
uniform distribution is more pronounced with a higher splice length
and a smaller cover depth. Based on their findings, subsequent re-
searchers explained the decreasing bond strength of steel rebar in HSC
in terms of an increase in the embedment length. For an HSC mixture,
the bond strength also decreased as the splice length increased, and the
top bar showed a higher bond strength than the bottom bar [7]. Dan-
cygier and Katz [8] found that although the bond strength of the steel
rebar increased with the compressive strength from NSC to HSC, the
increase in bond strength was not as large as the increase in compres-
sive strength. A minor effect of adding steel fibers was also obtained on
the normalized bond strengths for both NSC and HSC [8]. Sfikas and
Trezos [11] examined the effects of the water-to-binder (W/B) ratio and
compositions on the bond performance of steel rebar in HSC mixtures.
The normalized bond strength appeared to decrease with increases in
the W/B ratio and silica fume level of cement replacement. The increase
in superplasticizer content relative to water content resulted in an in-
significant change to the normalized bond strength for SCC, but it
greatly decreased the normalized bond strength for normally vibrated
concrete. Metelli and Plizzari [4] recently investigated the implications
of the relative rib area on the bond performance of steel rebar em-
bedded in NSC and HSC with compressive strengths ranging from 37.60
to 74.33 MPa. They [4] reported several important findings: (1) the
bond strength is strongly affected by the relative rib area and increases
with an increase in the bond index (fR); (2) even the minimum bond
strength (with a lower value of fR) is higher than the design value in the
MC2010 code; and (3) the bond strength and stiffness decrease with
increasing bar diameter (size effect). Numerous other studies have in-
vestigated the bond performance of steel rebar in NSC and HSC.
Ultra-high-strength concrete (UHSC), which exhibits higher com-
pressive strength than conventional HSC, was developed about two
decades ago [12]. Because it can provide even greater strength than
HSC, its use can greatly and effectively reduce the size of RC columns
without any sacrifice in the theoretical load carrying capacity. Some
researchers [13,14] therefore performed a feasibility study to use UHSC
for structural elements, mainly RC columns in high rise buildings.
However, no published study has yet considered the bond performance
of deformed steel rebar embedded in UHSC containing a coarse ag-
gregate, even though that is one of fundamental properties required for
structural design.
Accordingly, the bond performance of steel rebar in HSC, very high-
strength concrete (VHSC), and UHSC with compressive strengths ran-
ging from 80 MPa to 180 MPa was examined. To accurately analyze the
bond performance, several important parameters that affect the bond
stress–slip response and average bond strength (bar diameter, embed-
ment length, cover depth, bar yield strength, and steel fiber content)
were evaluated in detail. Quite small embedment lengths, from 0.5 to
1.5 × bar diameter (ds), were adopted to prevent premature splitting
failure in the specimens, limiting the full development of bond strength.
207
Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217
Sand (kg/m3) Gravel (kg/m3) Steel fiber (%)
a
658 889 0–1.0
415a 780 0–1.0
392b 736 0–1.5
Although, in real situation, the splitting failure is of much more interest
than the pullout failure because it can lead to abrupt failure of RC
structures, the most of specimens were designed to occur pullout failure
for evaluating the actual bond strength, effectively used for reinforce-
ment detailing at design stage.
2. Test program
2.1. Materials, mixture proportions, specimen preparation, and curing
conditions
Three different types of concrete mixtures, HSC, VHSC, and UHSC,
were designed to provide a 28-day target compressive strength of 80,
120, and 180 MPa, respectively. The details of the mix proportions used
are given in Table 1. All the mixtures used the same 10-mm-maximum
size granite coarse aggregate with a density of 2.70 g/cm3 and fineness
modulus of 6.35 and the same amount of water (150 kg/m3). The UHSC
mixture had a W/B ratio of 12.5% and a sand-to-aggregate ratio (S/a) of
35%. Silica sand was used as the fine aggregate, and it has a maximum
particle size of 0.3 mm, density of 2.68 g/cm3, and fineness modulus of
1.14. Ordinary Portland cement (C), zirconium silica-fume (ZSF), blast
furnace slag (BFS), and natural anhydrous gypsum (Gy) were used as
binders to achieve a significantly high strength. The composition of the
binders was also specially designed in accordance with the packing
density theory to obtain a high strength: the amounts were 55, 20, 20,
and 5% by weight for the C, ZSF, BFS, and Gy, respectively. The W/B
ratio of the VHSC mixture was increased to 19.5%, and different doses
of binders were applied, C:ZSF:BFS:Gy = 65:10:20:5. For the VHSC and
HSC mixtures, washed sand was used instead of silica sand to reduce
fabrication costs. The HSC mixture had the same W/B ratio as the VHSC
mixture, but a higher S/a ratio of 43.0% was applied. Furthermore, fly
ash (FA) was used instead of BFS and Gy, with doses of
C:ZSF:FA = 70:10:20. A polycarboxylic acid, high-performance water-
reducing admixture, called superplasticizer, was added in form of a
solution to produce the required workability and viscosity in all the
mixtures. To investigate the effects of steel fibers on the bond perfor-
mance of the concretes, different volume fractions of steel fibers were
included in the mixtures: 0–1.5% for UHSC and 0–1.0% for VHSC and
HSC.
The hooked-end steel fibers with a length of 30 mm and a diameter
of 0.5 mm, resulting in an aspect ratio of 60, were used. The mechanical
properties of the steel fibers, specified by the manufacturer, are as
follows: density, tensile strength, and elastic modulus of 7.85 kg/m3,
1100 MPa, and 200 GPa, respectively.
Korean Standard (KS) deformed reinforcing bars with three different
diameters, denoted as D13, D16, and D19, and two different grades,
SD400 and SD600, were used to fabricate pullout test specimens. KS
grades SD400 and SD600 represent minimum specified yield strength of
400 MPa (called normal-strength steel rebar, NSS) and 600 MPa (called
high-strength steel rebar, HSS), respectively. The mechanical proper-
ties, obtained from tension tests on three random coupons, and geo-
metrical properties, including the rib dimensions, of the steel rebars are
summarized in Table 2.
Test specimens for evaluating both the mechanical properties and
D.-Y. Yoo, H.-O. Shin
Table 2
Geometrical and mechanical properties of steel rebars.
Nominal diameter, ds Cross sectional area, A Perimeter (mm)
(mm) (mm2)
D13-SD400 12.7 1267 4.0
D16-SD400 15.9 1986 5.0
D16-SD600
D19-SD400 19.1 2865 6.0
bond performance were cast using the same batch of concrete for each
mixture, and they were covered and sealed using plastic sheets to
prevent fast setting of the concrete surface. All of the specimens were
initially cured at ambient temperature for 24 h and then were removed
from the molds. After that, the specimens for the mechanical tests were
stored in water storage tanks for moisture curing at a temperature of
25 ± 2 °C until testing (28 days later), and the specimens for the
pullout tests were stored in a moisture curing chamber with an ambient
temperature of 25 ± 2 °C and a relative humidity of 70% until testing
(28–35 days later).
2.2. Mechanical tests
The compressive strengths of the concretes were measured from
tests on three 100 mm diameter by 200 mm height cylindrical speci-
mens from each batch. The tests were carried out in accordance with
ASTM C39 [15] using a 5000 kN capacity universal testing machine.
The concrete mixtures used in this study exhibited an extremely brittle
failure mode, and therefore, only the peak loads, Pmax, could be mea-
sured instead of complete compressive stress-strain curves. The flexural
strengths of the concretes, measured in four-point bending test, were
determined from tests on three 100 × 100 × 400 mm3-sized prismatic
specimens from each concrete mix. The tests were performed in ac-
cordance with ASTM C78 [16] and ASTM C1609 [17] for concretes
without and with steel fibers, respectively, using a 250 kN capacity
universal testing machine. The detailed test setup used to evaluate the
mechanical properties of the concretes is shown in Fig. 1.
2.3. Pullout test
To investigate the bond performance of deformed steel rebar em-
bedded in HSC, VHSC, and UHSC, the pullout test was conducted, si-
milar to the RILEM recommendation for steel reinforcement [18]. Dif-
ferent bar diameters (12.7, 15.9, and 19.1 mm), embedment lengths
(0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 × bar diameter), cover depths (1, 2, and 3 × bar
diameter and center), steel fiber volume fractions (0, 0.5, 1.0, and
Fig. 1. Test setup for the mechanical properties: (a) compressive test, (b) four-point bending test.
Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217
Avg. rib spacing, s Avg. rib height, a Yield strength, fy Ultimate strength, fult
(mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
8.9 0.75 502.1 607.5
11.1 1.05 497.5 629.7
641.9 777.1
13.4 1.5 440.2 570.5
1.5%), and yield strengths of steel rebar (NSS vs. HSS) were considered
as primary variables for the pullout tests. In a previous study performed
by Yoo et al. [19], deformed steel rebar embedded in ultra-high-per-
formance concrete, which has a strength similar to that of UHSC, was
yielded when the embedment length was more than 2 times the bar
diameter due to its extremely high bond strength. Therefore, this study
applied shorter embedment lengths, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 times the bar
diameter (le = 0.5db, 1.0db, and 1.5db), than given in the RILEM re-
commendation (le = 5db).
Fig. 2 shows the details of the specimens and setup for the pullout
tests. All the specimens were 200 × 200 × 200 mm3, with steel rebar of
different embedment lengths and concrete cover depths. For fabricating
the pullout specimens, the steel rebar was first positioned in the wood
form used by making a hole at both sides. Then, fresh concrete was cast
in the vertical direction of the steel rebar, and once the wood form was
completely filled with concrete, it was shortly vibrated using a vibra-
tion table. The precise embedment lengths were applied by covering the
unbonded region of the steel rebar with a plastic pipe before concrete
casting (Fig. 2a). The embedded zone of steel rebar was located at the
center of cube concrete, which is different with the RILEM re-
commendation that the embedded zone is located at near the free end.
The number of ribs included in the embedment length can significantly
affect the bond strength between the concrete and steel rebar through
the mechanical interlocking between bar ribs and the concrete.
Therefore, all of the specimens containing steel rebar with the same
diameter were fabricated to have the same number of ribs within the
embedment length.
As shown in Fig. 2b, the pullout tests were conducted using a
2500 kN capacity universal testing machine equipped with a very stiff
pullout test frame. The cubic specimens were installed in the test frame
with a specially fabricated spherical seat to prevent unintended ec-
centricity of the load. A monotonically increasing pullout load was
applied to the steel rebar and measured by the load cell of the testing
machine. The maximum capacity of the load cell was 200 kN, and its
accuracy was 0.01% of the capacity (= 20 N). The loading rate was
controlled based on a speed of crosshead movement. The load was
208
D.-Y. Yoo, H.-O. Shin Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217

Fig. 2. Pullout test specimen and setup: (a) test specimen, (b) test setup.

applied with a loading rate of 0.3 mm/min until the pullout load where τ is the average bond stress, P is the applied pullout force, ds is
dropped to 50% of the peak load, followed by an increased loading rate the nominal diameter of the steel rebar, and le is the initial embedment
of 0.6 mm/min until the end of the test. The testing was continued until length. If the applied pullout force (P) is replaced with the maximum
either the pullout load dropped to 10% of the peak load or the end slip pullout force (Pmax), the average bond strength (τav) can be calculated.
reached a value of 30 mm. Two linear variable differential transformers
(LVDTs) with a capacity of 50 mm were attached at the unloaded (free) 3. Mechanical properties of HSC, VHSC, and UHSC with and
end of the rebar to measure the average free-end slip, and one LVDT without steel fibers
was attached to the loaded side to determine the yielding of the rebar.
3.1. Compressive strength
2.4. Evaluation parameters
Compressive strength data for all tested cylindrical specimens are
This study considered three different concrete mixtures to examine summarized in Fig. 3. The compressive strengths of HSC, VHSC, and
the effects of compressive strength on bond performance. Four different UHSC were measured to be 82.9, 125.3, and 174.6 MPa, respectively,
fiber volume fractions, 0, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5%, were adopted to in- which were quite close to the target values of 80, 120, and 180 MPa,
vestigate their effects on bond performance. Thus, the compressive respectively. The compressive strength of the HSC greatly increased
strength of three cylindrical specimens for each variable was calculated with the addition of steel fibers and an increase in their volume. For
based on the following equation: instance, the compressive strength of HSC with 1.0% steel fibers was
Pmax 108.4 MPa, approximately 17% and 31% higher than those (92.7 and
fc′ = 82.9 MPa) of HSC with 0.5% steel fibers and without fibers, respec-
πd 2/4 (1)
tively. This change occurs because the steel fibers effectively inhibit the
where fc' is the compressive strength, Pmax is the maximum uniaxial propagation and widening of cracks, thereby limiting the brittle failure
load, and d is the diameter of cylinder.
In addition, to investigate the effects of compressive strength and
fiber volume fraction on flexural behavior, the flexural stress of all
tested prismatic beams was calculated as follows:
PL
f=
bh2 (2)
where f is the flexural stress, P is the uniaxial load, b is the beam width,
and h is the beam height. For calculating the flexural strength, P can be
replaced with Pmax. For deflection-softening beams, the flexural
strength equals the initial cracking strength up to the limit of pro-
portionality (fLOP), and the modulus of rupture (fMOR) is the flexural
strength for deflection-hardening beams.
To evaluate the bond stress at the interface between the steel rebar
and concrete, Eq. (3) was applied with an assumption of uniform in-
terfacial bond stress distribution.
P Fig. 3. Summary of compressive strengths (Note: F = steel fiber, 0.5 = 0.5%,
τ=
πds le (3) 1.0 = 1.0%, and 1.5 = 1.5%).

209
D.-Y. Yoo, H.-O. Shin
of the concrete specimen. This is consistent with the findings of Song
and Hwang [20] for HSC mixtures. On the other hand, no obvious
change was observed in the compressive strength of the VHSC mixtures
with steel fibers, and the compressive strength of the UHSC mixtures
even slightly decreased as the fiber volume content increased, as shown
in Fig. 3. Previous studies [21,22] similarly reported a minor change or
slight decrease in the compressive strength of concrete with the addi-
tion of steel fibers. These conflictive results are attributable to some of
the demerits of adding steel fibers: inhomogeneous dispersion and
concentration of fibers, increase of porosity, decrease of workability,
etc. In addition, different pullout failure modes of steel fibers in HSC,
VHSC, and UHSC might account for the conflictive compressive
strength test data. Because most steel fibers ruptured before complete
pullout in the VHSC and UHSC mixtures, they couldn't efficiently resist
the propagation and widening of cracks under compression. The im-
plication of fiber volume fraction on the compressive strengths of VHSC
and UHSC was insignificant up to 1.0%, which is similar to the test
results of Hsu and Hsu [21].
3.2. Flexural strength
Fig. 4 summarizes the flexural strength of all the tested prismatic
beams. Obviously, the flexural strength of concrete increased by in-
creasing the compressive strength. The flexural strength of UHSC was
11.2 MPa, approximately 6% and 107% higher than those (10.6 and
5.4 MPa) of VHSC and HSC, respectively. It was interesting to note that
the magnitude of flexural strength increase was much greater from HSC
to VHSC as compared to that from VHSC to UHSC. The addition of steel
fibers enhanced the flexural strength of all concrete mixtures. In par-
ticular, the flexural strength significantly increased for specimens HSC-
F1.0 and UHSC-F1.5 because they exhibited deflection-hardening be-
havior that provided a higher load carrying capacity after initial matrix
cracking. On the other hand, all other specimens displayed deflection-
softening behavior because of an insufficient amount of steel fiber and
the fiber rupture. Previous studies [23,24] reported that increasing the
matrix strength also increased the bond strength of aligned hooked steel
fibers. Thus, the VHSC and UHSC, with compressive strengths equal to
or greater than about 120 MPa, exhibited the fiber rupture failure
mode, whereas the HSC mixture, with a lower compressive strength of
about 80 MPa, displayed the fiber pullout failure mode, as shown in
Fig. 5. It is worth noting that the HSC beam with 1.0% steel fibers
exhibited deflection-hardening behavior, whereas the VHSC and UHSC
beams exhibited deflection-softening behavior at the identical fiber
volume fraction of 1%.
The matrix cracking strength (fLOP) was less influenced by the steel
fibers than the modulus of rupture (fMOR) because fiber bridging is
activated after the onset of matrix cracking [25]. Thus, only a minor
Fig. 4. Summary of flexural strengths (Note: F = steel fiber, 0.5 = 0.5%,
1.0 = 1.0%, and 1.5 = 1.5%).
210
Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217
increase in flexural strength was observed for most of the FRC beams in
comparison with the plain concrete beams; the exceptions were HSC-
F1.0 and UHSC-F1.5, as shown in Fig. 4.
4. Bond performance of deformed steel rebar in HSC, VHSC, and
UHSC
4.1. Effect of compressive strength
The average bond stress (τ) versus end-slip (S) curves of steel rebar
embedded in HSC, VHSC, and UHSC without fibers are shown in Fig. 6.
The average bond strengths (τav) are also summarized in Fig. 6. Because
quite small embedment length (le = 1 × ds) was applied, all of the
tested specimens exhibited pullout failure without splitting or yielding
of the steel rebar. The average bond strength clearly increased with
increasing the compressive strength from 80 MPa to 180 MPa. For in-
stance, the highest value of τav was 52.23 MPa for UHSC, which is ap-
proximately 32% and 70% higher than that for VHSC and HSC, re-
spectively. This is consistent with the findings of Valcuende and Parra
[2], Dancygier et al. [3], and Dancygier and Katz [8] reporting that the
bond strength increases with an increase in the compressive strength
from NSC to HSC. Because of the obvious increase in the bond strength
of steel rebar according to the compressive strength of the concrete,
most design codes and previous studies have correlated the bond
strength with the compressive strength of concrete by adopting a
power, ranging from 1/4 to 2/3 [3,4,26–29]. The bond resistance of
deformed steel rebar in concrete mainly consists of chemical adhesion,
mechanical interlocking between bar ribs and concrete keys, and fric-
tion [30]. The mechanical interlocking of deformed steel rebar allows it
to exhibit much better bond performance than smooth steel rebar in
UHSC [19]. In particular, the average bond strength is closely related to
the capacity of concrete to transfer the large and locally generated
compressive stress in front of the bar ribs [5]. Thus, higher strength
concrete can more effectively resist compressive stress and local
crushing that occurs during the pulling out process of steel rebar than
lower strength concrete, and it caused the higher average bond
strength, as shown in Fig. 6. However, the increase in bond strength
was not as large as the increase in compressive strength, consistent with
the findings of Dancygier and Katz [8] for NSC and HSC. For instance,
the average bond strength of UHSC was 32% and 70% higher than that
of VHSC and HSC, respectively, whereas the compressive strength of
UHSC was about 50% and 125% higher than that of VHSC and HSC,
respectively. All specimens exhibited quite steep decrease in the bond
stress with end-slip after reaching the peak strength (τav). In addition,
the post-peak stress reduction rate was not noticeably influenced by the
compressive strength of concrete, as shown in Fig. 6.
4.2. Effect of rebar diameter
Fig. 7 shows the bond performance of steel rebar with three dif-
ferent bar diameters (12.7, 15.9, and 19.1 mm) embedded in UHSC. The
embedment length of 1 × ds was identically applied to all tested spe-
cimens, and they all experienced the pullout failure mode. The average
bond strength decreased slightly with an increase in the bar diameter,
which is consistent with the findings of Benmokrane and Tighiouart
[31] and De Larrard et al. [6] for NSC and HSC with fc' of 31, 42, and
95 MPa, respectively. For example, the highest value of τav, 55.59 MPa,
was obtained for the case with the smallest steel rebar (12.7-mm dia-
meter), which was approximately 6% and 8% higher than those of steel
rebars with diameters of 15.9 and 19.1 mm, respectively. The main
reason for the reduction in bond strength according to the bar diameter
is the nonuniform distribution of local bond stress along the embedded
length in HSC. Azizinamini et al. [7] reported that because all ribs bear
against the concrete under the pullout of deformed steel rebar at the
ultimate state, the assumption of uniform bond stress distribution along
the embedment length is reasonable for NSC. However, a clear
D.-Y. Yoo, H.-O. Shin Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217

Fig. 5. Picture of failure surface: (a) HSC with 1.0% steel fibers and (b) VHSC with 1.0% steel fibers.

Fig. 6. Effect of compressive strength on bond performance of steel rebar in

plain concrete without fibers (le = 1 × ds).

Fig. 7. Effect of bar diameter on bond performance of UHSC (le = 1 × ds).

nonuniform bond stress distribution was obtained in HSC because its

higher bearing capacity prevented the crushing of concrete keys, so
most of the applied pullout force was resisted by the first few ribs [7].
As shown in Eq. (3), the average bond stress was calculated by as-
suming a uniform interfacial bond stress distribution. However, the
actual bond stress distribution for UHSC is nonuniform, as reported by
Azizinamini et al. [7], and that non-linearity in the bond stress dis-
tribution increases along with the pullout load and embedment length
[31,32]. Because the specimens with larger-diameter rebars exhibited
greater maximum pullout load due to the greater bond area than their Fig. 8. Effect of embedment length on bond performance: (a) HSC, (b) VHSC,
counterpart with smaller-diameter rebars, the smaller rebar provided and (c) UHSC (Note: D16 = steel rebar with nominal diameter of 15.9 mm,
the greater average bond strength than the counterpart. D19 = steel rebar with nominal diameter of 19.1 mm, ds = nominal diameter of
steel rebar).

4.3. Effect of embedment length

Fig. 8. The pullout failure mode was obtained for all tested specimens.
The bond performance of steel rebar with various embedment Clearly, the average bond strength and normalized bond strength (τav/
lengths and diameters in HSC, VHSC, and UHSC is summarized in fc'0.5) increased with the embedment length, regardless of the

211
D.-Y. Yoo, H.-O. Shin
Fig. 9. Effect of embedment length on (a) normalized bond strength and (b) maximum bar stress.
Fig. 10. Geometry of deformed steel rebar: (a) schematic description, (b) pic-
ture of rebar surface.
compressive strength of the concrete or bar diameter (Figs. 8 and 9a).
For instance, 57–106% greater average bond strengths were obtained
for HSC, VHSC, and UHSC as the embedment length increased from
1 × ds to 1.5 × ds. This finding is inconsistent with the findings of
Hossain [33], Tighiouart et al. [34], and Pour and Alam [35]. Given an
increase in the embedment length, the average bond strength of de-
formed steel rebar in concrete is well known to deteriorate due to the
nonuniform bond stress distribution caused by the fact that tensile
stress in the steel rebar rapidly attenuates from the loaded end to the
free end. However, in both the present study and a previous study
performed by Lachemi et al. [36], the normalized bond strength of the
deformed steel rebar increased instead. The bond strength at the ulti-
mate state is strongly influenced by the mechanical interlocking of bar
ribs and concrete keys, so if more ribs per unit length are included in
the embedment length, higher pullout resistance can be obtained.
Therefore, to investigate this unusual observation, the real number of
steel rebar ribs in the embedment length was measured for obtaining
the number of ribs per unit length. A schematic description and picture
of the used steel rebar are given in Fig. 10, and its geometrical prop-
erties are summarized in Table 2. The average rib spacings (s) of the
D16 and D19 rebars were approximately 11.1 and 13.4 mm, respec-
tively. Therefore, one, two, and three ribs were included in the em-
bedded lengths of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 × ds, respectively, for both the D16
212
Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217
and D19 rebars. For instance, with an embedment length of 1 × ds, 15.9
and 19.1 mm for D16 and D19 rebars, respectively, two ribs could be
included in the embedded zone because the embedment lengths were
between 1 × s and 2 × s. Thus, the number of ribs per unit embedment
length was 0.126 ea/mm and 0.105 ea/mm for the D16 and D19 rebars,
respectively. This unexpected result might thus have been caused by the
much smaller embedment lengths, 0.5–1.5 × ds, adopted in this study
compared to previous studies [34,35], which used embedment lengths
at least 5 × ds. However, further study will be required to rationally
understand why the greater bond strength was observed as the small
embedment length increased.
As shown in Fig. 9b, a linear increase in the maximum bar stress was
obtained for all tested specimens according to the embedment length.
This result is mainly due to the increased bonding area between the
rebar and concrete and is consistent with the findings of Yuan and
Graybeal [37] for ultra-high-performance concrete. However, com-
pared with that previous study [37], a much greater increase in max-
imum bar stress was obtained in this study (approximately 400% in-
crease of bond strength from 0.5 × ds to 1.5 × ds).
4.4. Effect of cover depth
The effects of cover depth on the bond performance of steel rebar
with two different diameters in HSC and UHSC are summarized in
Fig. 11. Various cover depths (cc), 1 × ds, 2 × ds, 3 × ds, and center
(5.8 × ds for D16 and 4.8 × ds for D19, respectively), were adopted to
examine their effects on bond performance. It is interesting to note that
no significant differences occurred in the average bond strength and the
shape of the average bond stress–slip (τ–S) curves according to the
cover depth in HSC, as shown in Fig. 11a. This occurred because the
quite small embedment length of 1 × ds was applied, so all the tested
specimens exhibited pullout failure only without any concrete splitting
failure and rebar yielding. On the other hand, the smallest average bond
strength was obtained at the smallest cover depth of 1 × ds in UHSC
with both D16 and D19 steel rebars, as shown in Fig. 11b and c. The
average bond strength noticeably increased along with the cover depth
from 1 × ds to 2 × ds in the UHSC specimens (Fig. 11b and c), and
similar values of τav were found thereafter (le ≥ 2 × ds). For instance,
the smallest average bond strength of the D19 steel rebar in UHSC was
39.02 MPa, which increased by as much as 33% as the cover depth
increased from 1 × ds to 2 × ds. In addition, wide variations in the post-
peak average τ–S curves were observed for UHSC. This is because the
UHSC specimens with the smallest cover depth (cc = 1 × ds) exhibited
only the formation of microcracks surrounding the rebar toward the
shorter cover depth, although they finally failed by pullout of the rebar
without complete splitting of the concrete block. Therefore, a steeper
decrease in bond stress was also obtained after reaching the peak
D.-Y. Yoo, H.-O. Shin
Fig. 11. Effect of cover depth on bond performance (le = 1 × ds): (a) HSC with
D16, (b) UHSC with D16, and (c) UHSC with D19 (Note: D16 = steel rebar with
nominal diameter of 15.9 mm and D19 = steel rebar with nominal diameter of
19.1 mm).
strength, as shown in Fig. 11b and c. Only the UHSC specimens ex-
hibited such splitting microcracks at cc = 1 × ds because the increase of
tensile strength from HSC to UHSC is much smaller than the increase of
compressive strength.
An increase in average bond strength according to the cover depth
Fig. 12. Splitting failures of UHSC specimens with D19 steel rebar and embedment length of 1.5 × ds: (a) cc = 1 × ds, (b) cc = 2 × ds, (c) cc = 3 × ds (Note:
D19 = steel rebar with nominal diameter of 19.1 mm, cc = cover depth, and ds = nominal diameter of rebar).
213
Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217
was also reported in previous studies [38–41]. Orangun et al. [42]
proposed an equation for the normalized bond strength (τav/fc'0.5) of
plain unconfined concrete from a linear function of normalized cover
depth (cc/ds) and embedment length (ds/le). An identical formulation
with different regression coefficients was adopted by ACI committee
440 [43] for fiber-reinforced polymer bars based on the database of
Wambeke and Shield [44]. The empirical formula given by ACI 440
code [43] consists of a normalized cover depth, 3.5 or less, and they
[43] recommended the use of a constant normalized cover depth of 3.5
even it is over that value because at larger cc/ds ratios, direct pullout
failure is always generated without splitting. In the same vein, no sig-
nificant changes in average bond strength were observed in HSC across
the range of cover depths or in UHSC with a cover depth greater than
2 × ds because only the pullout failure mode was obtained without any
formation of cracks or splitting.
When the embedment length increased from 1 × ds to 1.5 × ds, all
the UHSC specimens with D16 or D19 steel rebar at all three cover
depths (1 × ds, 2 × ds, and 3 × ds) failed in the splitting failure mode,
as shown in Fig. 12. When pullout force is applied to deformed steel
rebar, inclined compressive force (or stress) is introduced into the
concrete, causing tensile stress in the circumferential direction [45].
Thus, given an increased embedment length, higher circumferential
tensile stress is activated in the concrete surrounding the steel rebar
through the higher inclined compressive stress, and that higher tensile
stress provokes splitting and cracking of specimens prior to pullout of
the steel rebar. Due to the very brittle behavior of UHSC, the pullout
load dropped to zero immediately after crack formation. The splitting
cracks thus form before the maximum bond strength is reached. The
normalized bond strength of UHSC specimens with an embedment
length of 1.5 × ds therefore increased noticeably with an increase in the
cover depth, as shown in Fig. 13, because the larger cover depth can
better resist circumferential tensile force. Because more ribs were in-
cluded in the bonded area for the pullout specimens as the embedment
length became longer (le = 1.5 × ds), greater average bond strengths
were obtained compared to specimens with a shorter embedment
length (le = 1 × ds), as given in Fig. 13, which resulted in splitting
failures. In contrast, no clear change in the normalized bond strengths
of HSC and UHSC occurred when le equaled 1 × ds, in accordance with
the normalized cover depth when the pullout failure mode occurred
without splitting cracks. Increasing the normalized cover depth from 1
to 2 led to an increase in the normalized bond strength of UHSC with an
le of 1 × ds due to the formation of cracks, as explained previously.
4.5. Effects of steel fiber volume fraction and yield strength of steel rebar
Fig. 14 summarizes the effects of the fiber volume fraction on the
bond performance of D16 steel rebar in HSC, VHSC, and UHSC. For this
test, the embedment length was 1 × ds, the cover depth was ‘center,’
and hooked-end steel fibers with volume fractions from 0% to 1.5%
were considered. All of the tested specimens exhibited the pullout
D.-Y. Yoo, H.-O. Shin
Fig. 13. Relationship between normalized bond strength and normalized cover
depth for HSC and UHSC with different embedment lengths.
Fig. 14. Effect of fiber volume fraction on bond performance (D16 steel rebar,
le = 1 × ds, cc = center): (a) HSC, (b) VHSC, and (c) UHSC.
214
Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217
Fig. 15. Effect of fiber volume fraction on the ratio of normalized bond strength
according to specimens without fibers.
failure mode. The average bond strength increased by 5–14% as the
fiber volume fraction increased from 0.5% to 1% in all concrete mix-
tures. However, for the HSC and VHSC mixtures, slight decreases in the
average bond strength were obtained by adding 0.5 vol% hooked-end
steel fibers, as shown in Fig. 14a and b. To clearly display the effect of
fiber usage on the bond strength, the ratio of normalized bond strengths
with and without fibers is summarized in Fig. 15. The normalized bond
strength ratio according to the specimen without fibers was slightly
lower than 1.0 for the HSC and VHSC mixtures, which is consistent with
the findings of Dancygier et al. [3], Chan et al. [46], and Dancygier and
Katz [8], but is inconsistent with the findings of Harajli et al. [40] for
the splitting bond strength. According to Harajli's study [40], splitting
bond strength was enhanced by including steel fibers and increasing
their volume fraction because of the increased splitting tensile strength
and ductility of bond failure. That result is not applicable to the test
results of this study due to the different failure modes (splitting vs.
pullout). However, Dancygier and Katz [8] observed a minor change in
normalized bond strength in NSC and HSC under bond-slip failure, and
Dancygier et al. [3] even reported a reduction in bond strength of up to
30% when including steel fibers. They [3] insisted that improper
compaction of fiber-reinforced concrete in the vicinity of steel rebar is
the cause of the bond strength reduction. The slight decrease in bond
strength with the addition of steel fibers is supported by the picture of a
failure surface shown in Fig. 16. The steel rebar was pulled out from the
concrete by shearing off and crushing the concrete keys between the bar
ribs, without any noticeable formation of cracks in the concrete sur-
rounding the steel rebar (Fig. 16). Therefore, the major role of fibers,
i.e., inhibiting the propagation of cracks, might not be executed effec-
tively in the HSC and VHSC mixtures. A slightly poorer compaction was
obtained from the fiber-reinforced HSC and VHSC mixtures than from
those without fibers.
However, increases in the average bond strength and normalized
bond strength ratio were observed in UHSC according to the fiber vo-
lume fraction, as shown in Figs. 14c and 15. It is well known that the
enhancement of tensile strength in concrete is smaller than that of
compressive strength. Thus, the load bearing capacity of the concrete
keys between the bar ribs substantially increased by using the UHSC
mixture, although the increase in resistance to circumferential tensile
stress was relatively small, which could cause cracks more easily in the
UHSC specimens than in specimens with lower strength (HSC and
VHSC). Therefore, the incorporated steel fibers effectively limited the
D.-Y. Yoo, H.-O. Shin Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217

because all the tested specimens failed in the pullout failure mode prior
to reaching their yield strength. In addition, for both NSS and HSS, the
average bond strength increased by incorporating the steel fibers and
increasing their volume fraction, because of the effectiveness at in-
hibiting crack propagation and the confining effect described above.

4.6. Prediction of average bond strengths for HSC, VHSC, and UHSC

To investigate the feasibility of applying previous codes and models,

given by CEB-FIP Model Code (MC90) [47], Australian Standard (AS)
3600 [48], Orangun et al. [49], and Darwin et al. [50], a total of 92
measured bond strength test data were compared. Four different pre-
diction equations are summarized in Table 3. In addition, to quantita-
tively analyze the appropriateness of the prediction models, a coeffi-
cient of error proposed by Naville et al. [51] was also adopted, as
follows.

2 1/2
M=
1 ⎛ ∑ [S0 (t , t0) − Sp (t , t0)] ⎞⎟
⎜
Save (t , t0) ⎝ n−1 ⎠ (4)
Fig. 16. Picture of failure surface of VHSC with vf of 0.5%.

Fig. 17. Effects of fiber volume fraction and yield strength of steel rebar on
bond performance of UHSC (D16 steel rebar, le = 1 × ds, cc = center) (Note:
NSS = normal-strength steel rebar and HSS = high-strength steel rebar).
formation and propagation of cracks and the deformed steel rebar from
pullout, which is why including steel fibers was more effective in UHSC
than in HSC and VHSC, as shown in Figs. 14 and 15.
The implications of fiber volume fraction and the yield strength of
the steel rebar for the bond performance of UHSC are shown in Fig. 17.
Bar yield strength produced no significant effects on the shapes of the
average bond stress versus end-slip curves or average bond strength
where S0 (t, t0) and SP(t, t0) are the observed and predicted bond
strengths, respectively, Save (t, t0) is the mean observed bond strength
for n observations, and n is the number of data (= 92).
Fig. 18 shows the comparison between the measured and predicted
bond strengths of steel rebar in HSC, VHSC, and UHSC. Obviously, the
CEB-FIP and AS3600 codes significantly underestimate the actual bond
strength, whereas the models suggested by Orangun et al. and Darwin
et al. generally overestimate it. Mazloom [52] suggested that a coeffi-
cient error (M) of 0.15 or less is acceptable in a prediction model. All
four prediction models considered in this study provided coefficients of
error much greater than 0.15. Accordingly, it is concluded that the
previous models are not appropriate for predicting the bond strengths
of steel rebar in concrete with a compressive strength greater than
80 MPa. Therefore, a better formula appropriate for HSC, VHSC, and
UHSC mixtures needs to be proposed based on additional tests and data.
5. Conclusions
This study examined the bond performance of deformed steel rebar
embedded in HSC, VHSC, and UHSC according to various parameters:
bar diameter, embedment length, cover depth, bar yield strength, and
steel fiber content. To rationally investigate the effect of steel fiber
content on bond performance, the failure surface was also analyzed.
Based on the test results and discussion above, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:

Table 3
Summary of prediction models for bond strength of steel rebar.
Formula Notation

MC90 [47] τ = 2.0 ft′ a fc' = compressive strength of concrete (MPa)

AS3600 [48] fc' = compressive strength of concrete (MPa)
τ = 0.265 ft′ ( cc
ds )
+ 0.5
cc = cover depth (mm); and
ds = nominal diameter of steel rebar (mm)
Orangun et al. [49] fc' = compressive strength of concrete (MPa)
(
τ = 0.083045 ft′ 1.2 + 3.0
cc
ds
+ 50
ds
le ) cc = cover depth (mm)
ds = nominal diameter of steel rebar (mm); and
le = embedment length (mm)
Darwin et al. [50] fc' = compressive strength of concrete (MPa)
τ = 0.083045 ft′ ⎡2.12
⎣
( cc
ds
+ 0.5 ) (0.92 + 0.08 ) + 75
Cmax
Cmin
ds ⎤
le ⎦ cc = cover depth (mm)
ds = nominal diameter of steel rebar (mm)
Cmax = max [min (Cx, Cs/2), Cy] (mm)
Cmin = min (Cx, Cy, Cs/2) (mm)
Cx = side cover (mm)
Cy = bottom cover (mm)
Cs = spacing between the bars (mm); and le = embedment length (mm)

a
This equation is used for unconfined concrete with a good bond condition.

215
D.-Y. Yoo, H.-O. Shin
Fig. 18. Comparative measured and predicted bond strengths of HSC, VHSC, and UHSC.
1) By increasing the compressive strength of concrete from 80 to
180 MPa, the average bond strength of steel rebar increased.
However, the increase of average bond strength was relatively small
as compared to the increase of compressive strength.
2) The average bond strength of steel rebar in UHSC decreased slightly
as the bar diameter increased.
3) As the embedment length increased as much as 50% (from 1.0 × ds
to 1.5 × ds), the average bond strengths in HSC, VHSC, and UHSC
also increased by 57–106%.
4) Given the pullout failure mode, cover depth had an insignificant
effect on the normalized bond strength, whereas the normalized
bond strength increased noticeably with increasing cover depth in
the splitting failure mode.
5) Slightly lower bond strengths were found for HSC and VHSC con-
taining 0.5% steel fibers, compared to the plain mixture without
fibers. However, by increasing the fiber volume fraction from 0.5%
to 1.0%, the average bond strengths increased by 5–14% for HSC,
VHSC, and UHSC. The inclusion of steel fibers was most effective in
enhancing the bond strengths for the UHSC mixture as compared to
the HSC and VHSC mixtures.
6) Previous models suggested by MC90, AS3600, Orangun et al. and
Darwin et al. were all inappropriate for predicting the average bond
strength of steel rebar in concrete with a compressive strength
greater than 80 MPa. Thus, a new formula appropriate for HSC,
VHSC, and UHSC is required to be proposed.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.
2017R1C1B2007589).
216
Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217
References
[1] A.A. Khan, W.D. Cook, D. Mitchell, Early age compressive stress-strain properties of
low-, medium, and high-strength concretes, ACI Mater. J. 92 (6) (1995) 617–624.
[2] M. Valcuende, C. Parra, Bond behaviour of reinforcement in self-compacting con-
cretes, Construct. Build. Mater. 23 (1) (2009) 162–170.
[3] A.N. Dancygier, A. Katz, U. Wexler, Bond between deformed reinforcement and
normal and high-strength concrete with and without fibers, Mater. Struct. 43 (6)
(2010) 839–856.
[4] G. Metelli, G.A. Plizzari, Influence of the relative rib area on bond behaviour, Mag.
Concr. Res. 66 (6) (2014) 277–294.
[5] K. Holschemacher, D. Weiße, S. Klotz, Bond of reinforcement in ultra high-strength
concrete, ACI Spec. Publ. 228 (2005) 513–528.
[6] F. De Larrard, I. Shaller, J. Fuchs, Effect of the bar diameter on the bond strength of
passive reinforcement in high-performance concrete, ACI Mater. J. 90 (4) (1993)
333–339.
[7] A. Azizinamini, M. Stark, J.J. Roller, S.K. Ghosh, Bond performance of reinforcing
bars embedded in high-strength concrete, ACI Struct. J. 90 (5) (1993) 554–561.
[8] A.N. Dancygier, A. Katz, Bond over direct support of deformed rebars in normal and
high strength concrete with and without fibers, Mater. Struct. 45 (1–2) (2012)
265–275.
[9] K.M.A. Hossain, D. Ametrano, M. Lachemi, Bond strength of standard and high-
modulus GFRP bars in high-strength concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (3) (2012)
449–456.
[10] M.F. Sulaiman, C.K. Ma, N.M. Apandi, S. Chin, A.Z. Awang, S.A. Mansur, W. Omar,
A review on bond and anchorage of confined high-strength concrete, Structure 11
(2017) 97–109.
[11] I.P. Sfikas, K.G. Trezos, Effect of composition variations on bond properties of self-
compacting concrete specimens, Construct. Build. Mater. 41 (2013) 252–262.
[12] K. Mitsui, T. Yonezawa, M. Kinoshita, T. Shimono, Application of a new super-
plasticizer for ultra high-strength concrete, ACI Spec. Publ. 148 (1994) 27–46.
[13] H.O. Shin, Y.S. Yoon, W.D. Cook, D. Mitchell, Effect of confinement on the axial
load response of ultrahigh-strength concrete columns, J. Struct. Eng. 141 (6) (2015)
04014151.
[14] H.O. Shin, Y.S. Yoon, W.D. Cook, D. Mitchell, Axial load response of ultra-high-
strength concrete columns and high-strength reinforcement, ACI Struct. J. 113 (2)
(2016) 325–336.
[15] ASTM C39, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical concrete
Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[16] ASTM C78/C78M, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of concrete (Using
Simple Beam with Third-point Loading), ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2015.
[17] ASTM C1609, Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-reinforced
concrete (Using Beam with Third-point Loading), ASTM International, West
D.-Y. Yoo, H.-O. Shin
Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
[18] T.C. RILEM, RILEM Recommendations for the Testing and Use of Constructions
Materials, RC 6 Bond Test for Reinforcement Steel. 2. Pull-out Test, E & FN SPON,
1983, pp. 218–220 1994.
[19] D.Y. Yoo, J.J. Park, S.W. Kim, Y.S. Yoon, Influence of reinforcing bar type on au-
togenous shrinkage stress and bond behavior of ultra high performance fiber re-
inforced concrete, Cement Concr. Compos. 48 (2014) 150–161.
[20] P.S. Song, S. Hwang, Mechanical properties of high-strength steel fiber reinforced
concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 18 (9) (2004) 669–673.
[21] L.S. Hsu, C.T.T. Hsu, Stressestrain behavior of steel-fiber high-strength concrete
under compression, ACI Struct. J. 91 (4) (1994) 448–457.
[22] D.Y. Yoo, Y.S. Yoon, N. Banthia, Flexural response of steel-fiber-reinforced concrete
beams: effects of strength, fiber content, and strain-rate, Cement Concr. Compos. 64
(2015) 84–92.
[23] P. Robins, S. Austin, P. Jones, Pull-out behaviour of hooked steel fibres, Mater.
Struct. 35 (7) (2002) 434–442.
[24] D.Y. Yoo, J.J. Park, S.W. Kim, Fiber pullout behavior of HPFRCC: effects of matrix
strength and fiber type, Compos. Struct. 174 (2017) 263–276.
[25] D.Y. Yoo, S.T. Kang, N. Banthia, Y.S. Yoon, Nonlinear finite element analysis of
ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete beams, Int. J. Damage Mech. 26
(5) (2017) 735–757.
[26] CEB-FIP, Model code for concrete structures. Comité Euro international du Béton/
Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte, Comité Euro-International du Béton,
Lausanne, 1993.
[27] D.Y. Yoo, H.O. Shin, J.M. Yang, Y.S. Yoon, Material and bond properties of ultra
high performance fiber reinforced concrete with micro steel fibers, Compos. B Eng.
58 (2014) 122–133.
[28] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
14) and Commentary (318R-14), Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute,
2014.
[29] D. Darwin, J. Zuo, M.L. Tholen, E.K. ldun, Development length criteria for con-
ventional and high relative rib area reinforcing bars, ACI Struct. J. 93 (3) (1996)
347–359.
[30] S.U. Pillai, D.W. Kirk, Reinforced concrete Design in Canada, McGraw-Hill, 1983.
[31] B. Benmokrane, B. Tighiouart, Bond strength and load distribution of composite
GFRP reinforcing bars in concrete, ACI Mater. J. 93 (3) (1996) 254–259.
[32] S.P. Tastani, S.J. Pantazopoulou, Reinforcement and concrete bond: state de-
termination along the development length, J. Struct. Eng. 139 (9) (2012)
1567–1581.
[33] K.M.A. Hossain, Bond characteristics of plain and deformed bars in lightweight
pumice concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 22 (7) (2008) 1491–1499.
[34] B. Tighiouart, B. Benmokrane, D. Gao, Investigation of bond in concrete member
with fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) bars, Construct. Build. Mater. 12 (8) (1998)
217
Cement and Concrete Composites 93 (2018) 206–217
453–462.
[35] S.M. Pour, M.S. Alam, Investigation of compressive bond behavior of steel rebar
embedded in concrete with partial recycled aggregate replacement, Structure 7
(2016) 153–164.
[36] M. Lachemi, S. Bae, K.M.A. Hossain, M. Sahmaran, Steel–concrete bond strength of
lightweight self-consolidating concrete, Mater. Struct. 42 (7) (2009) 1015–1023.
[37] J. Yuan, B. Graybeal, Bond of reinforcement in ultra-high-performance concrete,
ACI Struct. J. 112 (6) (2015) 851–860.
[38] H. Yalciner, O. Eren, S. Sensoy, An experimental study on the bond strength be-
tween reinforcement bars and concrete as a function of concrete cover, strength and
corrosion level, Cement Concr. Res. 42 (5) (2012) 643–655.
[39] P.K. Sarker, Bond strength of reinforcing steel embedded in fly ash-based geopo-
lymer concrete, Mater. Struct. 44 (5) (2011) 1021–1030.
[40] M. Harajli, B. Hamad, K. Karam, Bond-slip response of reinforcing bars embedded in
plain and fiber concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 14 (6) (2002) 503–511.
[41] Arel HŞ, Yazıcı Ş. Concrete–reinforcement bond in different concrete classes,
Construct. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 78–83.
[42] C.O. Orangun, J.O. Jirsa, J.E. Breen, A reevaluation of test data on development
length and splices, ACI J 74 (3) (1977) 114–122.
[43] ACI Committee 440, Guide for the Design and Construction of concrete Reinforced
with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-06), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., USA, 2006.
[44] B.W. Wambeke, C.K. Shield, Development length of glass fiber-reinforced polymer
bars in concrete, ACI Struct. J. 103 (1) (2006) 11–17.
[45] F.S. Rostásy, K. Hartwich, Bond of deformed reinforcing bar embedded in steel fibre
reinforced concrete, Int. J. Cem. Compos. Lightweight Concr. 10 (3) (1988)
151–158.
[46] Y.W. Chan, Y.G. Chen, Y.S. Liu, Effect of consolidation on bond of reinforcement in
concrete of different workabilities, ACI Mater. J. 100 (4) (2003) 294–301.
[47] CEB-FIP, Model Code for concrete Structures, Comité Euro international du Béton/
Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1993.
[48] AS3600, Australian Standard for concrete Structures, North Sydney, Australia,
(1994).
[49] C.O. Orangun, I.O. Jirsa, J.E. Breen, A reevaluation of test data on development
length and splices, ACI J 74 (3) (1997) 114–122.
[50] D. Darwin, S.L. McCabe, E.K. Idun, S.P. Schoenekase, Development length criteria:
bars not confined by transverse reinforcement, ACI Struct. J. 89 (6) (1992)
709–720.
[51] A.M. Naville, W.H. Dilger, J.J. Brooks, Creep of plain and Structural concrete,
Longman, London, 1983.
[52] M. Mazloom, Estimating long-term creep and shrinkage of high-strength concrete,
Cement Concr. Compos. 30 (4) (2007) 316–326.