See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308305324

Bond of reinforcement in lightweight concrete

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATION READS

1 1,116

3 authors:

Klaus Holschemacher Ahsan Ali

Hochschule für Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur Leipzig Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology
368 PUBLICATIONS   1,689 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   364 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shahid Iqbal
Sarhad University of Science & IT
26 PUBLICATIONS   453 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Timber-concrete composite View project

Special Issue: Polymer and Geopolymer Concrete Composites for Sustainable Development
(https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers/special_issues/Polymer_Geopolymer_Concrete_Composite) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahsan Ali on 19 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Insights and Innovations in Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation – Zingoni (Ed.)
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-02927-9

Bond of reinforcement in lightweight concrete

K. Holschemacher, A. Ali & S. Iqbal

HTWK Leipzig, Structural Concrete Institute (IfB), Leipzig, Germany

ABSTRACT:  After some years of stagnation, Lightweight Aggregate Concrete (LWC) is becoming
more and more popular in construction practice. Main reasons for this fact are the typical advantages of
LWC namely lower dead load and better heat insulation. The structural behaviour of LWC members is
significantly influenced by bond characteristics of reinforcement. So, knowledge about bond is of essen-
tial importance for design of LWC members. There is an almost uncountable number of investigations
on bond behaviour in Normal Weight Concrete (NWC) but only few published results on bond in LWC.
Out of these investigations it is known that there are some differences between NWC and LWC, especially
based on the brittleness of LWC. However, up-to date there is no consistent opinion about bond charac-
teristics of reinforcement in LWC. For this reason at HTWK Leipzig a research program has been started
focused on various aspects of bond of reinforcement in LWC including size effect of reinforcement. The
paper describes the main results of carried-out pull-out tests according to RILEM recommendations and
gives some advices for development of future regulations in design codes.

1  InTroduction density class. In comparison to NWC the ultimate

In civil engineering there are known different types
of lightweight concrete, e.g. cellular concrete, no-
fines concrete or lightweight aggregate concrete,
Neville (2012). The explanations in this paper are
limited on lightweight aggregate concrete for struc-
tural applications according to Eurocode 2 or com-
parable codes. In this context LWC is defined as a
concrete having a closed structure and an oven-dry
density of not more than 2000 kg/m3.
There are numerous varieties of LWC depend-
ing upon its density, type of lightweight aggregate
(e.g. expanded clay, expanded glass, foamed slag or
synthetic aggregates), proportion of lightweight
aggregates in total aggregate quantity, compressive
strength and many other factors. So, it is quite dif-
ficult to find normative regulations suitable for all
the LWC’s.
Nevertheless, recent codes like Eurocode 2, sec-
tion 11 provide sufficient information for design of
LWC members. Predominantly, the consequences
of the brittle material behavior of LWC have been
considered in normative rules.
In this context the bond behavior of reinforce-
ment in LWC is one of the most interesting subjects.
Bond properties essentially influence the structural
behavior in the serviceability limit states like crack
width control, tension stiffening, deformation and
more. So, knowledge about bond behavior is of
major importance.
Eurocode 2 provides ultimate bond stresses for
LWC depending on concrete strength class and
bond stresses for LWC have to be reduced by the
factor η1:
η1 = 0.40 + 0.60 ⋅ ρ 2200 (1)
where ρ = upper value of oven dry density of LWC
according to its density class. Unit for ρ in Equa-
tion (1) is kg/m3.
Based on density class of LWC the η1-values are
between 0.67 and 1.0. There is no demand for con-
sideration of bar size effects for bar diameters less
than 32 mm. Moreover, application of bar diam-
eters of 32 mm or more is restricted on NWC.
However, it is well known that there are only few
experimental investigations about the bond behav-
ior of reinforcement in LWC, especially for bigger
bar sizes, fib (2010). Therefore, a research program
has been started at HTWK Leipzig aiming on a
better experimentally supported database for gen-
erating ultimate bond stresses for future codes.
2  Experimental program
2.1  General remarks
In past intensive experimental studies on bond
behavior of reinforcement in different concrete
types have been carried out at HTWK Leipzig,
e.g. Holschemacher et  al. (2002), Holschemacher
et  al. (2003), Holschemacher & Weiße (2004),
Holschemacher et al. (2005), Ali et al. (2016). For

1284
this purpose several types of specimens were used
in previous experiments. It is recognized that pull-
out specimens are appropriate and easy executable
for comparative studies. This benefit outweighs
the disadvantages that are especially in the circum-
stance that concrete in pull-out specimen is under
pressure in longitudinal direction while in mem-
ber’s real tensile zone it is under tension between
adjacent cracks. Hence, pull-out tests according to
RILEM (2006) recommendation were performed
in the reported experimental program.
Aiming on better understanding of bar size
effects on bond behavior three different deformed
steel bar sizes were used (bar diameter 10, 16 and Figure 2.  Specimen during testing stage.
20 mm). Steel strength class of the bars was B500.
This strength class is typical for steel reinforcement
in Germany and is classified by a characteristic
yield strength value of fyk = 500 N/mm2.

2.2  Test setup

Main part of experimental program included pull-
out tests. For each bar size three pull-out tests were
performed. Specimen geometry was chosen accord-
ing to RILEM (2006) except of the dimensions
(Figure  1). The modification of the specimen’s
dimension has proved successful in previous inves-
tigations, because a more realistic concrete cover
Figure 3.  Coarse aggregate used in experimental work.
can be attained, Holschemacher et al. (2002).
For bond tests a 600 kN displacement control-
led testing machine was used. The slip between Table 1.  Concrete composition (kg/m3).
reinforcement and concrete was recorded at the
unloaded side of the specimen using 3 LVDT’s with Coarse
the frequency of 10 readings/second. The loading Cement Fine Aggregate Water Superplasticizer
rate was 0.005  mm/s. Figure  2  shows 10  mm bar
size specimen ready for testing. 360 772 472 204 1.8
Additionally fresh and hardened concrete prop-
erties were measured.
2.3  Concrete composition
For development of concrete composition
expanded clay was used as coarse lightweight
aggregate. The expanded clay had a density of
1190 kg/m3 and grain size ranging from 2 to 10 mm
(Figure 3). Furthermore, Portland Cement (CEM-
1/42.5  N), normal weight sand as fine aggregate
and Polycarboxylate Ether-based superplasticizer
were components of the concrete mix, Table 1.

3 experimental results

3.1  Fresh concrete properties

Figure 1. Geometry of pull-out specimen.
Advantages of lower density of aggregate and its
regular round shape were highly realized while con-
creting and during stage of determination of fresh
properties. Besides being easy to work on, move
and lift the concrete due to lower weight; shape

1285
of the aggregates helped the concrete to achieve
better spread due to rolling of ball type particles.
Figure  4 shows flow condition of concrete at the
end of slump flow test, determined using German
standard DIN EN 12350-5. Results of fresh prop-
erties are presented in Table 2

3.2  Hardened concrete properties

Hardened concrete properties were tested in con-
crete age of 28 days. Concrete compressive strength
was measured using cubes with an edge length of
150 mm, whereas elastic modulus was determined
using cylinders of 200  mm length and 100  mm Figure 5.  Elastic modulus test arrangement.
diameter (Figure  5). Most important results are
given in Table 2 as average of 3 test specimens.

3.3  Pull-out tests

Main results of pull-out tests are represented in
Figure 6. Each curve represents the average from
three test results. Ultimate bond stress values are
calculated by placing maximum pull-out load value
in Equation 2.

F
τb = (2)
π ⋅ ∅ ⋅ lb

Figure 6.  Results of pull-out tests.

where, τb = bond stress; F = pull-out load; ∅ = bar

diameter; and lb =  length of bar in contact with
concrete i.e. development length. Table 3 enlists all
these test results.
Ultimate bond strength of specimens with
10 mm bar size was higher than the other two i.e.
16 mm and 20 mm bar size specimens by 21% and
79% respectively. It can also be seen from stress-slip
Figure 4.  Flow table test for slump determination. curves that bar size has also influence on slip, as
the bar size increases the corresponding displace-
ment/slip also increase for ultimate stress values.
Table 2.  Concrete fresh and hardened properties. Similar behavior is also reported by Desnerck et al.
(2010) in his work in which he used 5 different bar
Fresh concrete properties sizes for evaluation of bond-slip behavior.
The ultimate bond stress was accompanied by
Slump flow Density Air content
(mm) (kg/m3) %
splitting of concrete cover. Brittleness and splitting
cracks were more pronounced in specimens with
440 1717 5.09 higher bar sizes as shown in Figure 7. Lower tensile
strength of aggregates resulted in fracture of aggre-
Hardened concrete properties gates along splitting plane, Figure 8. To overcome
brittleness of NWC, fibers have been incorporated
Compressive Splitting tensile Elastic
strength strength Modulus
by various researchers, Harajili (2010), Garcia-
(N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) Taengua et al. (2016). It would be interesting to see
37.98 2.5 19510 at what fiber volume LWC has similar or better per-
formance under bond than normal weight concrete

1286
Table 3.  Bond test results. bar size. The results from pull-out tests show that
there is a clear dependence of ultimate bond stress
Bar Pull-out Bond as well as post peak bond behavior on bar diam-
diameter Specimen load stress eter. For higher bar sizes the ultimate bond stress is
(mm) Nr. (kN) (N/mm2)
decreasing and the there is a loss of ductility.
LWC-10–01 21.63 13.77 It seems necessary to consider the bar size
10 LWC-10–02 24.52 15.61 effects in the design codes. However, the presented
LWC-10–03 19.72 12.55 results are only valid for one investigated LWC.
LWC-16–01 55.38 13.77 Because of the big variety of available LWC’s fur-
16 LWC-16–02 48.62 12.09 ther research is needed.
LWC-16–03 41.11 10.22
LWC-20–01 48.72   7.75
20 LWC-20–02 57.47   9.14 references
LWC-20–03 41.64   6.63
Ali, A., Iqbal, S., Holschemacher, K. & Bier, T. 2015. Effect
of Fibers on Bond Performance of Lightweight Rein-
forced Concrete. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineer-
ing, Vol. 60 (2016), No. 1, 97–102.
Desnerck, P., de Schutter, G. & Taerwe, L. 2010  A local
bond stress-slip model for reinforcing bars in self-com-
pacting concrete. Proceedings of FraMCoS-7on Fracture
Mechanis of Concrete and Concrete Structures, Seoul,
2010, 771–778.
DIN EN 12350–5. Testing fresh concrete - Part 5: Flow
table test; German version EN 12350–5:2009. Deutshes
Institut für Normung, Berlin, 2009.
Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures – Part 1–1: Gen-
eral rules and rules for buildings; German version EN
1992–1–1:2004 + AC:2010.
fib 2010. fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Ber-
lin: Ernst & Sohn.
Garcia-Taengua, E., Martí-Vargas, J. R. & Serna, P. Bond
of reinforcing bars to steel fiber reinforced concrete.
Figure 7.  Failed pull-out specimen. Construction and building materials, Vol. 105 (2016),
275–284.
Harajli M. H. 2010. Bond Behavior in Steel Fiber-Rein-
forced Concrete Zones under Static and Cyclic Loading:
Experimental Evaluations and Analytical Modeling. J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. Vol. 22 (2010), 674–686.
Holschemacher, K., Dehn, F. & Weiße, D. 2002. Bond in
High-Strength Concrete – Influence of the Rebar Posi-
tion. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium
on Utilization of High Strength/High Performance Con-
crete, Leipzig, 2002, 289–297.
Holschemacher, K., Klug, Y., Weiße, D., König, G. &
Dehn, F. 2003. Bond behaviour of reinforcement in self-
compacting concrete (SCC). Proceedings of the Second
International Structural Engineering and Construction
Conference, Rome, 2003, 1907–1912.
Holschemacher, K. & Weiße, D. 2004. Bond of Reinforce-
Figure  8.  Failed pull-out specimen—close view along ment in Fibre Reinforced Concrete. Proceedings of the
splitting plane. 6th International RILEM Symposium on Fibre Rein-
forced Concrete (BEFIB 2004), Varenna-Lecce, Italy,
2004, 349–358.
of identical compressive strength class, but any such Holschemacher, K., Weiße, D. & Klotz, S. 2005. Bond of
findings require additional testing program. Reinforcement in Ultra-High Strength Concrete. Pro-
ceedings of the 7th International Symposium on High-
Strength/High-Performance Concrete, Washington,
2005, 513–528.
4 summary
Neville, A. M. 2012. Properties of Concrete. Trans-Atlantic
Publications.
The paper describes the results of a research pro- RILEM 2006, Technical Recommendations for the Testing
gram aiming on better understanding of bond and Use of Construction Materials, Taylor and Francis
behavior of reinforcement in LWC depending on CRC eBook account, Kindle Edition.

1287

View publication stats