Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Analytical model of the bond stress-slip relationship for reinforced

concrete due to splitting failure
Yanjun Chang a,b, Shuai Qin b, Mengqing Huang a,b, Dan Hu a,b, Haifeng Yang a,b, Shuangbei Li a,b,⇑
a
Guangxi Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Structural Safety, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
b
Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Structural Safety of Ministry of Education, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China

h i g h l i g h t s

An analytical model of the bond stress-slip relationship for splitting failure is proposed.

An improved concrete confinement model is proposed.

A new assumption of circumferential deformation is proposed.

The descending branch of the confinement model is reasonably analyzed.

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

Article history: This paper develops a new bond stress-slip relationship for reinforced concrete, which considers the evo-
Received 12 November 2020 lution of the concrete confinement capacity due to splitting failure of concrete cover. Considering fracture
Received in revised form 21 January 2021 characteristics of the concrete, the improved thick-walled cylinder model is used to analyze the radial
Accepted 8 March 2021
stress and radial deformation at the interface between rebar and concrete for different damage stages.
Available online 24 March 2021
A new assumption of circumferential deformation is proposed to estimate the deformation field of the
inner cracked concrete, and the linear crack profile is assumed to calculate the distribution of cohesion
Keywords:
on the crack surface. The radial strain is calculated with elastic constitutive relation including the
Analytical model
Bond stress-slip relationship
Poisson’s effect. The descending branch of the confinement model can be derived with the linear response
Reinforced concrete between the radial stress and radial deformation. The presented concrete confinement model can be
Concrete confinement model transformed into bond stress-slip relationship based on the stress and deformation analysis at the inter-
Splitting failure face. Comparing with experimental results, it is indicated that the results calculated with bond stress-slip
Assumption of circumferential deformation relationship proposed in this paper is more reasonable.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Bond performance is a crucial property of reinforced concrete
(RC) structures, which has a significant impact on the mechanical
and seismic property of RC structures. In addition to the initiation
and propagation of concrete cracks, the deflection of RC structures
is related to bond performance [1]. Hence the structural design and
optimization depend on the intact bond stress-slip relationship.
Recently, numerous research were dedicated to making bond
mechanism more clear, and it’s commonly known that the bond
stress is composed of chemical adhesion, friction and mechanical
interlock [2]. In the case of deformed bars embedded in concrete,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: changyj@gxu.edu.cn (Y. Chang), 18233288073@163.com
(S. Qin), h849008493@163.com (M. Huang), hudan5031@163.com (D. Hu),
yhfgxu@aliyun.com (H. Yang), lsbwh90@163.com (S. Li).
the friction and mechanical interlock play a major role. During
pulling rebar out of concrete, a relative displacement is generated
and the force is transmitted through ribs of the deformed bar, pro-
ducing the tangential bond stress along axial direction of rebar and
radial internal pressure at the interface between rebar and con-
crete. The radial internal pressure at the interface radiates to the
interior concrete and leads to the crack of concrete. Hence the bond
performance is significantly affected by the degree that the con-
finement of concrete to rebar embedded it [2–4]. When the rebar
has a thin concrete cover or insufficient external constraint, the
concrete may split, and the transverse cracks will appear in RC
structures under axial tensile load, which leads to the rapid decline
in the bearing capacity.
The theoretical description about bond performance with con-
crete confinement capacity can be traced back to Tepfers’ thick-
walled cylinder model [3], in which the extremum method was
proposed to investigate the bond action with rebar being pulled

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123025
0950-0618/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Chang, S. Qin, M. Huang et al.
out. Comparative analysis shows that the actual ultimate bond
strength should fall in between the partly cracked elastic mode
and the ideal plastic mode, and the two modes correspond to the
pure elasticity and the pure plasticity states, respectively. Subse-
quently, the fictitious crack model (FCM) proposed by Hillerborg
et al. [5] is introduced to consider the softening of cracked con-
crete. By means of assuming cohesion exists on the crack surface,
the FCM can simulate the generation and propagation of cracks,
which can be regarded as a way of expressing the energy absorp-
tion in the fracture process zone (FPZ).
Considering concrete fracture characteristics, several analysis
models [6–13] have been subsequently developed to evaluate the
concrete confinement capacity and describe the propagation of
crack. When cracks appear, the thick-walled concrete cylinder
can be divided into the inner cracked region and the outer
uncracked region, and an appropriate concrete softening relation-
ship controls the evolution of the inner cracked region. The circum-
ferential deformation within the inner cracked concrete at an
arbitrary position, Dh , can be expressed as the sum of the elastic
deformation of concrete and the width of cracks:
rðwÞ
Dh ¼ 2pr eh þ nw ¼ 2pr þ nw ð1Þ
Ec
where eh is the circumferential strain of concrete, n is the total num-
ber of cracks, w is the crack width, rðwÞ is the cohesion on the crack
surface and Ec is the elastic modulus of concrete. To determine the
distribution of cohesion on the crack surface and calculate the cir-
cumferential deformation Dh , it is essential to consider the concrete
softening relationship and the number of cracks [14,15] in Eq. (1).
Consequently, the contribution of the inner cracked concrete to
the confinement capacity can also be deduced.
Since the concrete softening relationship is described by the
function of cohesion with respect to crack width [5], various types
of circumferential deformation distribution have been proposed to
establish the relation between crack width and crack length, and
then the confinement capacity corresponding to different crack
lengths can be obtained. The assumption of uniform circumferen-
tial deformation has been widely adopted [6–10] due to its simple
form, in which the circumferential deformation within the inner
cracked concrete is entirely equal to that at the crack tip. To sim-
plify the calculation, it is assumed that the circumferential strain
across cracks reaches the same critical value, which undoubtedly
causes the overestimation of the contribution of the inner cracked
concrete. However, the overestimated part can be eliminated by
ignoring the Poisson’s effect at the crack tip. Meanwhile, several
types of concrete softening relationship are available to deal with
the crack propagation, such as the power-law curve [6], the expo-
nential curve [7], the hyperbola curve [8], the bilinear curve [9] and
the linear type [10].
However, when concrete cracks, the mechanical behavior of
concrete thick-walled cylinder exhibits nonlinear due to the exis-
tence of the FPZ [5], so the deformation within the inner cracked
concrete will not be uniformly distributed. Thus the assumptions
of nonuniform circumferential deformation were proposed to
describe the deformation within the inner cracked concrete. For
instance, the assumption of equivalent extended deformation
[11] follows that the circumferential deformation within the inner
cracked concrete can be obtained by the inward extension on that
of the outer uncracked concrete. In addition, the assumptions of
linear and hyperbolic distribution circumferential deformation
were used to calculate the deformation within the inner cracked
concrete [12]. Using the assumptions of nonuniform circumferen-
tial deformation above, more accurate numerical solutions can be
obtained with complicate iterative procedure. Therefore, a linear
crack surface and the equivalent elastic deformation are proposed
to provide the analytical solution of bond strength concisely [13].
2
Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025
Bond strength is an important indicator for the bond stress-slip
relationship. The experiments like pullout test and beam test are
commonly applied to investigate the influence of various factors
on bond strength for their advantage of intuitively revealing the
bond mechanism [16–19]. Moreover, the bond stress-slip relation-
ship can also be summarized through regression analysis based on
test data. As shown in Fig. 1, the ideal curve of bond stress-slip
relationship proposed by Eligehausen [20] had been amended
and incorporated into CEP-FIP Model Code [21]. Based on Elige-
hausen’s work, the improved bond stress-slip relationship pro-
posed by Filippou [22] considered the hysteretic behavior of
beam-column joints, which has been widely applied in the numer-
ical simulation of the bond-slip relationship between confined and
unconfined concrete under generalized load. Because of the com-
plexity of bond mechanism and the diversity of factors that affect
the bond performance, these stress-slip relationships always have
significant differences, and the lack of theoretical basis limits their
practical application.
Based on the thick-walled cylinder model considering concrete
softening behavior, the concrete confinement capacity at the
uncracked, crack propagation, entirely cracked and residual stages
are respectively analyzed. For the crack propagation stage, a new
assumption of circumferential deformation is proposed to pre-
cisely estimate the deformation within the inner cracked concrete.
The concrete softening relationship and linear crack profile are
introduced to deal with the distribution of cohesion on the crack
surface. In addition, the entirely cracked stage is obtained by using
a reasonable assumption and the friction is regarded as a constant
at the last stage. This confinement model can be converted to the
bond stress-slip relationship with interface analysis. Finally, the
accuracy of the presented bond stress-slip relationship is verified
by the comparison of test data and theoretical calculations.
2. Concrete confinement model based on elastic constitutive
theory
Fig. 2 shows the typical pullout test loading diagram with the
bond length less than five times the diameter of rebar. Hence the
proposed model can describe the anchoring and slip problem
based on the pullout test.
To study the bond performance of rebar embedded in concrete,
the bond stress and slip at the interface between rebar and con-
crete must be deduced by the damage analysis of the thick-
walled cylinder [9]. As shown in Fig. 3, the whole process of bond
response can be divided into four stages according to different
Fig. 1. The bond stress-slip relationship in CEP-FIP Model Code.
Y. Chang, S. Qin, M. Huang et al. Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025

Fig. 4. Thick-walled cylinder at the uncracked stage.

!
R2s p R2c
rh ¼ 1þ ð3Þ
R2c  R2s r2

h i
R2s p R2c ð1 þ mc Þ þ r 2 ð1  mc Þ
ur ¼   ð4Þ
rEc R2c  R2s

where Rs and Rc are the inner radius and outer radius of the cylin-
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of typical pullout test.
der, respectively, p is the radial stress at the interface between rebar
and concrete, Ec is the elastic modulus of concrete, mc is the Pois-
son’s ratio of concrete, rr , rh and ur represent the radial stress, cir-
cumferential stress and radial deformation of concrete, respectively.
And the physical equations are given as [25]:
1
er ¼ ðrr  mc rh Þ ð5Þ
Ec

1
eh ¼ ðrh  mc rr Þ ð6Þ
Ec
where er and eh are the radial strain and circumferential strain,
respectively.
Substituting r ¼ Rs into Eq. (4), the radial deformation at the
interface between rebar and concrete can be expressed as
!
Rs p R2c þ R2s
uIr ¼ þ mc ð7Þ
Ec R2c  R2s

where uIr is the interfacial radial deformation at the uncracked

stage.
Fig. 3. The whole process of bond-slip. Considering the Poisson’s effect of the concrete, the circumfer-
ential and radial strains can be obtained by substituting Eqs. (2)
and (3) into Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively, and expressed as:
states of concrete crack propagation: the uncracked stage where !
1 R2 þ R2c
concrete is in an elastic state; the crack propagation stage where eI
h ¼ p s2 þ mc ð8Þ
the concrete continually cracks; the entirely cracked stage where E Rc  R2s
concrete has been penetrated by cracks; the residual stage where !
the bond stress is contributed by friction. Accordingly, the concrete 1 R2s þ R2c
confinement model can also be analyzed through the above four eIr ¼ p 1 þ mc ð9Þ
E R2c  R2s
stages. In the bond stress-slip constitutive relationship, the bond
stress is usually characterized by slippage [23,24]. Thus, the stress where eIh , eIr are the interfacial circumferential strain and radial
and deformation of concrete must be both analyzed with the strain at this stage, respectively.
model.
2.2. Crack propagation stage
2.1. Uncracked stage
The initial cracks will occur when the circumferential stress at
At this stage, the cylinder is assumed to be in an elastic state, as the interface reaches tensile strength f ct of the concrete, which
shown in Fig. 4. Timoshenko [25] gave the elastic mechanics solu- illustrates the beginning of the crack propagation stage. The radial
tions on stress and deformation of the concrete cylinder: stress, deformation and strain at the interface can be expressed as:
!
R2s p R2 R2c  R2s
rr ¼ 1  2c ð2Þ pInitial ¼ f ct ð10Þ
R2c  R2s r II
R2c þ R2s

3
Y. Chang, S. Qin, M. Huang et al. Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025

!
Rs f ct R2c  R2s early distributed along the crack length whatever the assumption
uInitial
II ¼ 1 þ mc ð11Þ of circumferential deformation is adopted, and the similar phe-
Ec R2c þ R2s
nomenon was found in Gattaneo and Rosita’s work [12], as shown
! in Fig. 7.
f ct R2c  R2s When the cracks expand to r ¼ e, the crack width can be
eInitial
II ¼ þ mc ð12Þ
Ec R2c þ Rs2
expressed as a formula with respect to crack radius:

where pInitial , uInitial and eInitial are the radial stress, radial deformation er
II II II w ¼ wm for Rs 6 r 6 e ð17Þ
and radial strain at the interface when initial cracks occur, e  Rs
respectively.
where w is the crack width at an arbitrary radius r, wm is the crack
width at the interface between rebar and concrete.
2.2.1. Radial stress
Currently, various assumptions of circumferential deformation
During the process of crack propagation, the cohesion on the
are put forward to simulate the actual deformation within the
crack surface is introduced to consider concrete softening behavior,
inner cracked concrete. Nielsen and Bićanić [11] deemed that the
as shown in Fig. 5. It can be assumed that all cracks expand forward
actual deformation of concrete lies in between the assumption of
simultaneously, and the circumferential stress reh at the crack tip
equivalent deformation and the assumption of uniform circumfer-
reaches tensile strength f ct , that is
ential deformation. However, the actual deformation range of the
reh ¼ f ct ð13Þ inner cracked concrete can be reduced again: when concrete soft-
ening behavior is considered, the actual deformation should lie in
The radial stress at the interface between rebar and concrete
between the deformations produced by ‘non-cohesion’ and ‘cohe-
must satisfy the equilibrium equation including the circumferen-
sion is uniformly distributed and equal to tensile strength’. More-
tial stresses of cracked and uncracked regions, as shown in Fig. 6,
over, the existence of concrete softening behavior inevitably
which can be expressed as:
makes a non-linear form of the circumferential deformation within
Z Z 
1 e Rc the inner cracked concrete.
pIIr ¼ rðwÞdr þ rh ðrÞdr ð14Þ Based on the existed calculate mode [9,13], the circumferential
Rs Rs e
deformation in the case of ‘non-cohesion’ (Case One), D0h , can be
where pIIr is the interfacial radial stress at this stage, rh ðrÞ is the cir- expressed as:
cumferential stress of the outer uncracked concrete.  
" #
The outer uncracked concrete can be regarded as another thick-
2 p ef R 2
 e 2 e R2c  e2 e
walled cylinder with the inner radius e and the outer radius Rc , as D0h ¼ ct
1 þ mc c2 þ 2pecr ln for Rs 6 r 6 e
Ec Rc þ e2 R2c þ e2 r
shown in Fig. 6(b). By replacing Rs with e in Eqs. (2) and (3), and
then substituting Eq. (13) into them, the uniform internal pressure ð18Þ
per can be expressed as:
And the circumferential deformation in the case of ‘cohesion is
R2c  e2 uniformly distributed and equal to tensile strength’ (Case Two), D00h ,
per ¼ f ct ð15Þ can be expressed as:
R2c þ e2
" # " #
Thus the circumferential stress of the outer uncracked concrete 2pef ct R2c  e2 2eR2c e
D00h ¼ 1 þ mc 2 þ 2pecr 2 ln  ðe  r Þ for Rs 6 r 6 e
can be expressed as: Ec Rc þ e2 Rc þ e2 r
Rc 2 ð19Þ
þ1
rh ðrÞ ¼ f ct Rr 2 for e 6 r 6 Rc ð16Þ
The distribution of cohesion under the two cases above and the
c
e
þ1
corresponding calculated circumferential deformations are shown
For the inner cracked concrete, it is composed of several cracks in Fig. 8(a) and (b), respectively. D0h and D00h represent the new lower
and the elastic concrete between cracks, as shown in Fig. 6(c). and upper limits of true circumferential deformation within the
Numerical analysis [11] shows that the crack width is almost lin- inner cracked concrete, and numerical analysis shows that none
of the existing assumptions of circumferential deformation lies in
between D0h and D00h . However, there is no more accurate calculation
method to determine the assumption of circumferential deforma-
tion in the current research, so it may be assumed that the mid-
 
point of the two limits (i.e. D0h þ D00h =2) is used to further
approximate the real circumferential deformation, as shown in
Fig. 8(b). On the other hand, the rationality of this approach can
be verified by the following analysis and discussion.
Hence the new assumption of circumferential deformation for
the inner cracked concrete can be formulated as:
! " #
R2c  e2 3R2c  e2 e
Dh ¼ 2peecr 1 þ mc þ pecr e ln  ðe  r Þ for Rs 6 r 6 e
R2c þ e2 R2c þ e2 r
ð20Þ

where ecr ¼ f ct =Ec . It is found that the non-linear assumption of cir-

cumferential deformation satisfies all basic requirements [12],
which can be understood, to some degree, as considering the non-
linear factors on the basis of the assumption of uniform circumfer-
Fig. 5. Thick-walled cylinder model considering concrete softening behavior. ential deformation.
4
Y. Chang, S. Qin, M. Huang et al. Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025

Fig. 6. Analysis method at the crack expanding stage: schematic diagram of (a) the cracked thick-walled cylinder, (b) the outer uncracked concrete and (c) the inner cracked
concrete.

!
R2c  e2
DRh s ¼ 2peecr 1 þ mc
R2c þ e2
" #
3R2c  e2 e
þ pecr e ln  ðe  Rs Þ ð22Þ
R2c þ e2 Rs

When initial cracks appear at the interface between rebar and

concrete, the crack radius can be regarded as equaling to Rs , and
the crack width at the interface, wm , is zero. Substituting r ¼ Rs ,
e ¼ Rs into Eq. (20), the circumferential deformation at the inter-
face, DRh1s , at present can be expressed as:
!
R2c  R2s
Fig. 7. Distribution of crack width. DRh1s ¼ 2pRs ecr 1 þ mc ð23Þ
R2c þ R2s

The cohesion at the interface between rebar and concrete

At the crack tip (r ¼ e), the circumferential strain can be decreases continuously with the increase of crack width, and the
expressed as: circumferential deformation of concrete at the interface is only
composed of crack width when cohesion reduces to zero. Accord-
!
R2c  e2 ing to Eq. (1), the circumferential deformation at the interface,
eeh ¼ ecr 1 þ mc ð21Þ DRh2s , at present can be expressed as:
R2c þ e2

which indicates the deformation compatibility is satisfied at the

interface between cracked and uncracked concrete.
Therefore, when the cracks expand to r ¼ e, the circumferential
deformation at the interface between rebar and concrete, DRh s , can
be obtained by substituting r ¼ Rs into Eq. (20).
DRh2s ¼ nw0 ð24Þ
where w0 is the crack width without cohesion.
Thus the circumferential deformation changing process of the
inner cracked concrete at this stage, characterized by the starting
point and ending point of crack propagation, has been obtained.

Fig. 8. The presentation of the new assumption of circumferential deformation: the distribution of (a) cohesion and (b) circumferential deformation under the two cases.

5
Y. Chang, S. Qin, M. Huang et al. Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025

!
Based on the interpolation theory, the crack width at the interface ef R2c  e2
can be expressed as [13]: uer ¼ ct 1 þ mc ð32Þ
Ec R2c þ e2
DRh s  DRh1s For the inner cracked concrete, the schematic diagram of con-
wm ¼ w0 ð25Þ
DRh2s  DRh1s crete stress at an arbitrary position r is shown in Fig. 9. Hence
the radial strain err can be obtained by replacing Rs with r in Eq.
Substituting Eqs. (22), (23) and (24) into Eq. (25), the crack
(31), and substituting it into Eq. (5) with Eq. (30):
width at the interface can be rewritten as:
n   h 2 2 i  Z e Z Rc 
1 1
wm ¼ 2peecr 1 þ mc RRc2 e þpecr e 3R err ¼ rðwÞdr þ rh ðrÞdr þ mc rðwÞ
2 2
c e
2 ln Res  ðe  Rs Þ ð33Þ
 o
c þe 2
h
R c þe 2
 i ð26Þ Ec r r e

2pRs ecr 1 þ mc RRc2 R pRs ecr 1 þ mc RRc2 R

2 2 2 2

þR
s
2 w 0 = nw0  2 s
þR2 And the geometric equation can be given as:
c s c s

Then substituting Eq. (26) into Eq. (17) yields: @ur

err ¼ ð34Þ
@r
w ¼ K ðe  rÞw0 for Rs 6 r 6 e ð27Þ
Then the change in wall thickness of the inner cracked concrete
where can be obtained by substituting Eq. (33) into Eq. (34):
n  2
 h 2 2 i Z
1 þ mc RRc2 e
2 3Rc e e
K¼ e
þ 1
e ln e
 ð e  R Þ
Rs
 c þe
2
o
2Rs 2
Rc þe
h
2 Rs

s
i ð28Þ
Du ¼ err dr ð35Þ
2 2 2 2 Rs
 1 þ mc RRc2 R
þR2
s
 1
eRs
= nw0
2pRs ecr
 1 þ mc RRc2 R s
þR2
c s c s
Consequently, the radial deformation at the interface between
Accordingly, the problem of crack width has been solved by rebar and concrete, uIIr , can be expressed as:
adopting an accurate assumption of circumferential deformation. ! Z
However, no clear standard on the determination of the concrete ef ct R2c  e2 e
uIIr ¼ 1 þ mc þ err dr ð36Þ
softening relationship is established, and the parameters in differ- Ec R2c þ e2 Rs
ent softening relationships involve different methods. The expo-
nential equation proposed by Reinhardt [26] has been adopted As shown in Fig. 10, a micro element is taken at the interface
here: between rebar and concrete, which is subjected to radial stress
(" and cohesion. Substituting r ¼ Rs into Eq. (30), the cohesion at
 3 #   )
w w w  the interface can be expressed as:
rðwÞ ¼ f ct 1 þ c1 exp c2  1 þ c1 expðc2 Þ
3
n o
w0 w0 w0
rðwðRs ÞÞ ¼ f ct 1 þ ½c1 K ðe  Rs Þ3 exp½c2 K ðe  Rs Þ
ð29Þ   ð37Þ
f ct K ðe  Rs Þ 1 þ c31 expðc2 Þ
where c1 and c2 are parameters determined by experiment. Substi-
tuting Eq. (27) into Eq. (29), the cohesion on the crack surface can where rðwðRs ÞÞ is the cohesion of micro element at the interface.
be rewritten as [13]: The radial strain at the interface between rebar and concrete
n o can be obtained by substituting Eqs. (31) and (37) into Eq. (5):
rðwÞ ¼ f ct 1 þ ½c1 K ðe  rÞ3 exp½c2 K ðe  rÞ 1  II 
  eIIr ¼ p þ mc rðwðRs ÞÞ ð38Þ
 f ct K ðe  rÞ 1 þ c31 expðc2 Þ ð30Þ Ec r

Substituting Eqs. (16) and (30) into Eq. (14), the radial stress at Before reaching the maximum radial stress, the concrete cracks
the interface at this stage can be obtained: expand stably. According to Tepfers [3]: when RC structure reaches
n the ultimate bearing capacity, the cracks penetrate right through
eðR2c e2 Þ 1exp½c2 K ðeRs Þ 6c3
pIIr ¼ R f ct þ fRcts þ c4 K1 the concrete cover, which results in the change of crack propaga-
s ðRc þe Þ
2 2 c2 K
h i tion mechanism. Therefore, the formula obtained above is no
2
3 2
 ðcc12KKÞ exp½c2 K ðe  Rs Þ  ðe  Rs Þ3 þ 3ðeR
c2 K
sÞ
þ 6ððceR
K Þ
sÞ
2 þ
ð c
6
K Þ 3 longer applicable after the maximum radial stress is reached.
  o 2 2

 12 K 1 þ c31 expðc2 Þðe  Rs Þ2
ð31Þ
Obviously, when material and geometric parameters are deter-
mined, the radial stress is controlled by crack propagation length.
The maximum radial stress can be obtained by putting
@p=@e ¼ 0, and then substituting the extreme value into Eq. (31).
2.3. Entirely cracked stage and residual stage
After the first two stages, cracks have penetrated the outer sur-
face of concrete. At the entirely cracked stage, cracks will become
wider, and the concrete confinement capacity is weakened due to
the softening behavior. The cohesion is balanced with the internal
pressure at the interface between rebar and concrete, which makes

2.2.2. Radial deformation and strain

The radial stress at the interface between rebar and concrete
can be obtained by the usage of thick-walled cylinder model
considering concrete softening behavior, whereas the radial
deformation and strain at the interface can be obtained with the
assistance of analytical solution on the radial stress.
The total radial deformation at the interface between rebar and
concrete can be regarded as the sum of the deformation produced
by the outer uncracked concrete and the change in wall thickness
of the inner cracked concrete. By replacing Rs with e in Eq. (7), and
then substituting Eq. (15) into it, the deformation produced by the
outer uncracked concrete, uer , can be expressed as: Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of concrete stress at an arbitrary position r.

6
Y. Chang, S. Qin, M. Huang et al.
Fig. 10. Stress state of the micro element at the interface.
the derivation of the concrete confinement model at this stage pos-
sible. Numerous experiment data [27–32] indicate that the
descending branch of the bond stress-slip relationship approaches
linear form, whereas the bond stress-slip relationship is derived
from the concrete confinement model. In this respect, a linear
response is adopted to calculate the confinement relation at this
stage.
The penetration of concrete cover leads to a constant crack
length, whereas the cracks will continue to expand in width direc-
tion, and hence the crack width becomes the control parameter at
the entirely cracked stage [9]. In actual projects, the inner pressure
will reach a relatively stable state at the end of this stage instead of
declining to zero, that is so-called residual state. Therefore, there is
still cohesion on the crack surface to keep balance at the residual
stage. According to the above statement, the stress-deformation
relation at the entirely cracked stage can be expressed as:
pC  pm  III  3. Discussion and parameter analysis of the confinement model
r ¼ pC þ
pIII  ur  uC
uC  um
where uC and pC are respectively the radial deformation and radial
stress at the beginning of the residual state, pm and um are respec-
tively the maximum radial stress and corresponding radial
deformation.
At the residual stage, the influence of crack width on circumfer-
ential deformation is much greater than that of cohesion. By
neglecting the influence of cohesion, the circumferential deforma-
tion at the interface between rebar and concrete, DRhCs , can be
expressed as:
DRhcs ¼ nwC
where wC is the crack width at the interface when reaching the
residual stage.
Consequently, the radial deformation at the interface corre-
sponding to the residual stage can be expressed as:
uc ¼
nwC
2p
The radial strain at the interface can be expressed as:
1 At the crack propagation stage, the distribution of circumferen-
eC ¼ pc
Ec
When the crack penetrates the outer surface of concrete, the
nominal radius of fictitious cracks has exceeded the concrete
radius, as the analytical method shown in Fig. 11. Numerical anal-
ysis shows that the parameter K has little influence on the calcula-
tion results of radial stress at the residual stage, and hence the
parameter K can be assumed that remains constant after concrete
is penetrated by cracks (named K II ). Substituting w ¼ wc , K ¼ K II ,
r ¼ Rs into Eq. (27), the nominal radius of fictitious cracks at the
residual stage can be expressed as:
wc
ec ¼ þ Rs
K II  w0
Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025
Fig. 11. Structure diagram in the residual state.
Substituting K ¼ K II , e ¼ ec into Eq. (30), the distribution of
cohesion on the crack surface at the residual stage can be rewritten
as:
n o
rðwðrÞÞ ¼ f ct 1 þ ½c1 K II ðec  rÞ3 exp½c2 K II ðec  rÞ
  ð44Þ
f ct K II ðec  rÞ 1 þ c31 expðc2 Þ
Therefore, the residual radial stress, pc , can be obtained by equi-
librium relation:
Z Rc
1
pc ¼ rðwðrÞÞdr ð45Þ
Rs Rs
ð39Þ
The proposed concrete confinement model depends on the
crack propagation state and deformation hypothesis, and it’s also
affected by material and geometric parameters. Therefore, the
evolution of the stress state at the interface between rebar and
concrete is predicted by comparative analysis.
In order to explore the influence of different assumptions of cir-
cumferential deformation on the confinement model, the assump-
tion of uniform circumferential deformation [9] (the Poisson’s
effect is taken into account) and the assumption of equivalent elas-
tic deformation [13] are introduced to juxtapose with the assump-
tion proposed in this paper. Furthermore, the same basic material
ð40Þ parameters as in Ref. [13] are applied, which is listed in Table 1.
where d is the inner diameter of concrete cylinder (hence the
diameter of rebar), f c is the compressive strength of concrete, Gf
is fracture energy of concrete. w0 can be determined by the follow-
ing equation [33]:
ð41Þ af Gf
w0 ¼ ð46Þ
f ct
where af is a parameter related to concrete materials (af ¼ 7[34]).
ð42Þ
tial deformation Dh produced by different assumptions varying
with relative position r=Rs when the relative cover depth is 2,
and the cracks expand to four times the radius of the rebar is
shown in Fig. 12. The distribution of circumferential deformation
under the cases of ‘no cohesion’, ‘the cohesion is evenly distributed
and equal to tensile strength’ is listed in the figure, between which
the assumption proposed in this paper lies in. Moreover, the
assumption of equivalent elastic deformation [13] has no intersec-
tion with other assumptions at the crack tip, indicating that the
assumption does not satisfy deformation compatibility. Based on
the assumption of equivalent deformation [11], the assumption
of equivalent elastic deformation can be considered to have
ð43Þ
removed the outer uncracked concrete, or say- the crack expands
7
Y. Chang, S. Qin, M. Huang et al.
Table 1
Basic material parameters.
d(mm) fct(MPa) fc(MPa)
16 2.7 35
Fig. 12. Distribution craves of circumferential deformation produced by different
assumptions.
to the concrete outer surface directly from the inner cracked con-
crete, which leads to the incompatibility of the outer uncracked
concrete with the inner cracked concrete. From a holistic perspec-
tive, the assumption proposed in this paper also lies in between the
assumptions of equivalent elastic deformation and uniform cir-
cumferential deformation, suggesting its rationality and accuracy.
The variation of relative radial stress at the interface, p=f ct , pro-
duced by different assumptions with relative crack propagation
length e=Rs when the relative cover depth ranges from 1 to 4 is
shown in Fig. 13. Obviously, all of the curves in the graph firstly
rise to a limit value and then fall. This is attributed to the fact that
the cracking resistance performance is obvious when concrete is in
a micro-crack state, and the volume of the outer uncracked con-
crete accounts for a large proportion, which plays a major role in
the concrete confinement capacity. As the cracks gradually become
longer, the FPZ has been fully developed, resulting in the drop of
the volume ratio of the outer uncracked concrete and confinement
capacity.
Fig. 13. Variation of relative radial stress at the interface p=f ct produced by different
assumptions with relative crack propagation length e=Rs .
Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025
Ec (MPa) Gf(N/m) c1 c2 n
3
32.6  10 138.4 3 7 3
When the rebar has a thin relative cover depth (c=d ¼ 1), the
curves produced by different assumptions have little discrepancy,
that’s because the cracks have penetrated the concrete outer sur-
face before the FPZ can fully develop, whatever assumption of cir-
cumferential deformation is used. When the rebar has a thick
relative cover depth (c=d ¼ 4), the curve produced by the assump-
tion of equivalent elastic deformation enter the descending branch
at the earliest, whereas the curve obtained by the assumption of
uniform circumferential deformation enter the descending branch
at the latest. The reason is that a larger assumption of circumferen-
tial deformation can amplify the influence of the structure nonlin-
ear response and the rate of stiffness attenuation, which results in
an earlier time to enter the descending branch.
Fig. 14 shows the variation of the relative maximum radial
stress pmax =f ct calculated by different assumptions of circumferen-
tial deformation with relative cover depth c=d, together with the
plastic solution and partly cracked solution proposed by Tepfers
[3]. Obviously, these curves all lie in between the two solutions,
indicating the rationality of the assumption about the existence
of cohesion on the crack surface.
The distribution of cohesion on the crack surface is significantly
affected by the selection of assumptions of circumferential defor-
mation. Numerical analysis shows that the larger assumption of
circumferential deformation is adopted, the higher value K is
caused when reaching the maximum radial stress. According to
Eq. (27), higher value K results in larger crack width, and hence
the contribution of cohesion to the radial stress at the interface
between rebar and concrete will be reduced. Expectedly, the curve
produced by the assumption of uniform circumferential deforma-
tion is at the top, and the curve produced by the assumption of
equivalent elastic deformation is at the bottom, whereas the curve
produced by the assumption proposed in this paper lies in the mid-
dle. Moreover, in the case of the thin relative cover depth, the cal-
culation results are close to the plastic solution. This is attributed
to the fact that the FPZ is not fully developed when the maximum
radial stress is reached, resulting in the cohesion along the crack
surface nearly equal to concrete tensile strength.
At the crack propagation stage when the relative cover depth is
two, the comparison of the radial strain at the interface between
Fig. 14. Variation of the maximum relative radial stress pmax =f ct with relative cover
depth c=d.
8
Y. Chang, S. Qin, M. Huang et al.
Fig. 15. Comparison of radial strain at interface after concrete cracks when the
relative cover depth is two.
rebar and concrete produced by the calculation mode in Ref. [9]
with that of in this paper is shown in Fig. 15. According to Ref.
[9], the ratio of radial deformation at the interface to the inner
radius of concrete (equal to the rebar radius) is defined as radial
strain at the interface, so that the radial strain at the interface
increases with the expansion of cracks. However, in the whole
bond-splitting process, the strain of rebar is usually neglected,
and the calculation mode in Ref. [9] awaits for further improve-
ment when the assumption of circumferential deformation and
concrete softening relationship in this paper are adopted. There-
fore the calculation mode of radial strain is established through
radial stress in this paper, and the adjacent cracked bodies of con-
crete can be regarded as ‘connecting’ with cohesion. In order to
avoid the dispute between the two methods mentioned above,
the radial deformation at the interface between rebar and concrete
is taken as the parameter, and hence the transformational relation
between concrete confinement model and the bond stress-slip
relationship can be established.
4. The bond stress-slip relationship
4.1. Transformation of concrete confinement model to the bond stress-
slip relationship
Based on the previously generated concrete confinement model,
the bond stress-slip relationship can be derived. When relative
slippage occurs at the interface between rebar and concrete, the
force transmission mechanism of ribs is activated. The shearing
effect causes the concrete between ribs to be extruded into powder
and accumulate continually in front of ribs, thus forming a new
acting surface with angle b, as shown in Fig. 16. The squeeze force
p1 and friction lp1 will generate on the new acting surface, and the
tangential component and radial component of their resultant
force represent the bond stress s and radial stress p, respectively.
For the structures with splitting failure, the force transmission
mechanism affects the entire bond-slip process.
Fig. 16. Schematic diagram of stress transmission at the interface.
9
Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025
The bond stress and radial stress can be obtained based on the
equilibrium of force on the acting surface:
s ¼ p1 sinb þ lp1 cosb ð47Þ
p ¼ p1 cosb  lp1 sinb ð48Þ
where l is friction coefficient between rebar and surrounding con-
crete on the acting surface.
Therefore, the relation between radial stress and bond stress
can be expressed as:
tanb þ l
s¼ p ð49Þ
1  ltanb
When relative slippage is generateed at the interface, the con-
crete between ribs is squeezed and continuously expands outward
along the radial direction. Accordingly, the rebar can be assumed as
a circular truncated cone with angle u, as shown in Fig. 17. The
relation between slippage and radial deformation at the interface
can be obtained through the trigonometric relationship:
ur ¼ s  tanu ð50Þ
where s is the relative slippage between rebar and concrete, u is the
equivalent angle of assumed circular truncated cone.
4.2. Determination of parameters m, b and u
The ratio between radial stress and bond stress is significantly
affected by the parameters l and b. Under the pullout force, the
concrete between ribs is squeezed into powder and rolls on the
acting surface, leading the friction coefficient l to decay in a neg-
ative exponential form [35]. By classifying the corrosion degree of
rebars, Guo [36] defined the friction coefficient between rebar and
concrete as 0.2 ~ 0.6, and the average value of l is 0.4. Idun [37]
measured the friction coefficient between mortar and steel
through experiments, with the value of l ranged from 0.503 to
0.627. Cairns [38] determined the friction coefficient between con-
crete and steel by experiments was about 0.5. Considering not only
the friction generated between rebar and concrete during bond-
slip, but also the friction between crushed concrete and confined
concrete, the friction coefficient l is determined to be 0.4.
According to test phenomenon, Lutz [2] believed that the angle
of the acting surface between rebar and concrete ranged from 30°
to 40°, Ghaffari [39] suggested that the upper limit value lied in
between 30° and 40° by comparing the ultimate bond strength of
ordinary rebars with epoxy resin-coated rebars, Choi [40] proposed
that the angle b should be limited to 25°~35°. Therefore, the angle
b is determined to be 25° conservatively.
For the angle u, there is little research to determine its value.
Den Uijl [9] suggest the angle u can be expressed as:
u ¼ 0:1  f c ð51Þ
In this paper, a large amount of experimental data is used to
tune the value u, which can be expressed as:
fc
u ¼ 0:065  ð52Þ
f ct
Fig. 17. Equivalence of rebar to a circular truncated cone with angle u.
Y. Chang, S. Qin, M. Huang et al. Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025

Table 2
Comparison of pullout test with calculated bond strength.

Tests Specimen f c (MPa) f ct (MPa) ds (mm) c(mm) Test (MPa) Calculated (MPa) Error (%)

Hawkins et al.[41] 8D-20 – 1.94 18 80 16 16.1 0.6

8D-30 – 2.11 18 80 21 17.2 18.1
8D-40 – 2.62 18 80 26 20.4 21.5
Prince and Singh [27,31] A12R0 36.9 – 12 44 18.7 19.6 4.8
A16R0 36.9 – 16 42 14.9 14.2 4.7
A20R0 36.9 – 20 40 13.5 10.9 19.3
A25R0 36.9 – 25 37.5 9.7 8.3 14.4
B12R0 51.14 – 12 44 19.78 24.3 22.9
C12R0 68.65 – 12 44 26.08 29.1 11.6
Leibovich et al. [42] TOLF-10–2-4 43 – 20 40 13.64 12.2 10.6
SOF-10–2-2 33.6 – 20 40 11.26 10.2 9.4
Esfahani and Rangan [43] 2030L 26 – 19.3 30 7.32 6.5 11.2
2030 50 – 19.3 30 10.44 10.9 4.4
2030H 75 – 19.3 30 17.15 14.3 16.6

Table 3
Comparison of beam test with calculated bond strength.

Tests Specimen f c (MPa) f ct (MPa) ds (mm) c(mm) Test (MPa) Calculated (MPa) Error (%)

Filho et al.[44] B-SCC-C30-B16 – 2.45 16 50 11.58 12.4 7.1

B-SCC-C60-B16 – 4.99 16 50 17.25 22.1 28.1
B-VC-C30-B16 – 2.182 16 50 13.2 11.2 15.2
B-VC-C60-B16 – 3.92 16 50 16.95 18.4 8.6
Harajli M H [45] B2N-NS 27.5 – 20 17.5 4.3 3.9 9.3
B2W-NS 27.5 – 20 30 5.58 6.5 16.5
B1N-NS 27.9 – 16 21.5 5.76 6.1 5.9
B1W-NS 27.9 – 16 34 7.05 9.4 33.3
B1N-HS 55.8 – 16 21.5 10 10.5 5
B1W-HS 55.8 – 16 34 12.63 15.7 24.3
B2N-HS 57.1 – 20 17.5 7.11 7.1 0.1
B2W-HS 57.1 – 20 30 10.43 11.5 10.3

CEB-FIP Model Code 2010 [21] gives the conversion relation test and beam test with the calculated value is listed in
between compressive strength and tensile strength: Tables 2–3. The relative error of most data is within 15%, showing
that the model in this paper can predict the bond strength
1:5
f c ¼ ðf ct =0:3Þ þ8 ð53Þ accurately.
Substituting Eq. (53) into Eq. (52), the angle u can be finally
determined. 5.2. Bond stress-slip relationship

5. Verification For the pullout test with splitting failure, the slippage corre-
sponding to the starting point of the residual stage, sc , is close to
5.1. Bond strength a rib spacing urib [21], that is:

sc ¼ urib ð54Þ
Bond strength is a key factor in the bond stress-slip relation-
ship, which can be calculated according to the presented formulas. Thus the residual bond stress can be obtained through previous
The comparison between the bond strength measured by pullout formulas.

Fig. 18. Comparison of the predicted bond-slip curves with test results in Ref. [46].

10
Y. Chang, S. Qin, M. Huang et al.
Fig. 19. Comparison of the predicted bond-slip curves with test results in Ref. [30].
The comparison of the bond stress-slip relationship obtained by
this paper with test results [29,46] is shown in Fig. 18 and Fig. 19.
Fig. 18 shows the bond stress-slip curves of test pieces with differ-
ent curing times (14 days and 28 days) [46], and Fig. 19 shows the
bond stress-slip curves of recycled aggregate concrete [30]. It is
shown that the bond stress-slip relationship obtained by this paper
accurately predicts the whole process of the bond stress with the
increase of relative slippage. However, in the rising branch, the
decay rate of bond stiffness obtained by theory is higher than that
of experiment. Actually, the FPZ of concrete occupies only a small
part at the crack tip, whereas it is assumed to be distributed on the
entire crack surface in theoretical calculation, which makes the
nonlinear factor in the bond-slip curves become larger. The theo-
retical calculations of the residual bond stress also have a certain
error with test results. This is attributed to the fact that the real
descending branch actually displays a nonlinear response, which
results in a difference between the assumed and actual stress state.
Meanwhile, different assumptions of circumferential deformation
and concrete softening relations have a significant influence on
the calculation results, which needs to be further improved.
6. Conclusions
Based on the two cases of the distribution form for cohesion on
the crack surface, the new lower and upper limits of the real cir-
cumferential deformation have been firstly obtained. The mid-
point of the two limits was considered to be the new proposed
assumption of circumferential deformation, which has a higher
approach to the actual deformation field within the inner cracked
concrete.
Subsequently, the new assumption of circumferential deforma-
tion was introduced to present the improved concrete confinement
model with the assumption of the linear response at the concrete
entirely cracked stage. Meanwhile, the deformation analysis mode
was optimized with the usage of elastic constitutive relation. The
bond stress-slip relationship was deduced based on the interfacial
mechanism analysis, and its validity has been verified by the com-
parison of the predicted value and test data. Therefore, the pro-
posed bond stress-slip relationship can be applied to investigate
the bond performance of RC structures due to splitting failure.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yanjun Chang: Conceptualization. Shuai Qin: Methodology,
Software, Validation, Writing - original draft. Mengqing Huang:
11
Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025
Visualization. Dan Hu: Data curation. Haifeng Yang: Writing -
review & editing. Shuangbei Li: Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This project was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11962001, 51768004, 51968004,
51878186) and Guangxi Science and Technology Major Project
(AA18118055).
References
[1] ACI Committee 408, Bond and development of straight reinforcing bars in
tension. American Concrete Institute, 2003.
[2] L.R.A. Lutz, P. Gergely, Mechanics of bond and slip of deformed bars in
concrete, ACI J. 64 (11) (1967) 711–721.
[3] R. Tepfers, Cracking of concrete cover along anchored deformed reinforcing
bars, Mag. Concr. Res. 31 (106) (1979) 3–12, https://doi.org/
10.1680/macr.1979.31.106.3.
[4] J. Cairns, An analysis of the ultimate strength of lapped joints of compression
reinforcement, Mag. Concr. Res. 31 (106) (1979) 19–27, https://doi.org/
10.1680/macr.1979.31.106.19.
[5] A. Hillerborg, M. Modeer, P.E. Petersson, Analysis of crack formation and crack
growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements, Cem.
Concr. Res. 6 (6) (1976) 773–782, https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(76)
90007-7.
[6] C. Van der Veen, Cryogenic bond stress-slip relationship, Delft University of
Technology, Delft, 1990.
[7] Reinhardt H.W., Van Der Veen C., Splitting failure of a strain-softening material
due to bond stresses, in: A. Carpinteri (Ed.), Applications of Fracture Mechanics
to Reinforced Concrete, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992, pp. 333-
346, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482296624-13.
[8] G. Rosati, C. Schumm, Modeling of local bond to concrete bond in reinforced
concrete beams, in, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Bond in
Concrete, 1992, pp. 33–43.
[9] J.A.D. Uijl, A.J. Bigaj, A bond model for ribbed bars based on concrete
confinement, Heron. 41 (3) (1996) 201–226.
[10] J.Q. Ye, Z.J. Wu, Micro-mechanical analysis of splitting failure in concrete
reinforced with fiber reinforced plastic rods, Cem. Concr. Compos. 22 (4)
(2000) 243–251, https://doi.org/10.14359/5168575110.1016/S0958-9465(00)
00023-8.
[11] C.V. Nielsen, N. Bićanić, Radial fictitious cracking of thick-walled cylinder due
to bar pull-out, Mag. Concr. Res. 54 (3) (2002) 215–221, https://doi.org/
10.1680/macr.2002.54. 3.215.
[12] S. Cattaneo, G. Rosati, Bond between steel and self-consolidating concrete:
experiments and modeling, ACI Struct. J. 106 (4) (2009) 540–550, https://doi.
org/10.1002/eqe.882.
Y. Chang, S. Qin, M. Huang et al.
[13] F. Xu, Z. Wu, W. Li, W. Liu, S. Wang, D. Du, Analytical bond strength of
deformed bars in concrete due to splitting failure, Mater. Struct. 51 (6) (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-018-1266-0.
[14] P.G. Gambarova, G.P. Rosati, Bond and splitting in bar pull-out: behavioural
laws and concrete cover role, Mag. Concr. Res. 49 (179) (1997) 99–110, https://
doi.org/10.1680/macr.1997.49.179.99.
[15] P.G. Gambarova, G.P. Rosati, C.E. Schumm, Bond and splitting: a vexing
question, ACI Sympos. Public. (1998) 23–44.
[16] M.N.S. Hadi, Bond of high strength concrete with high strength reinforcing
steel, Open. Civ. Eng. J. 2 (1) (2008) 143–147, https://doi.org/10.2174/
1874149500802010143.
[17] G. Metelli, G.A. Plizzare, Influence of the relative rib area on bond behaviour,
Mag. Concr. Res. 66 (6) (2014) 277–294, https://doi.org/
10.1680/macr.13.00198.
[18] V.A. Yerlici, T. Ozturan, Factors affecting anchorage bond strength in high-
performance concrete, ACI Struct. J. 97 (3) (2000) 499–507, https://doi.org/
10.1046/j.0014-2956.2001. 02457.x.
[19] J.M. Delso, A. Stavridis, P.B. Shing, Bond strength and cyclic bond deterioration
of large-diameter bars, ACI Struct. J. 110 (4) (2013) 659–670, https://doi.org/
10.14359/51685751.
[20] R. Eligehausen, E.P. Popov, V.V. Bertero, Local bond stress-slip relationships of
deformed bars under generalized excitations, Calif. The Univ. (1982).
[21] CEB-FIP Model Code 2010, International Federation for Structural Concrete,
Lausanne, 2010.
[22] F.C. Filippou, E.P. Popov, V.V. Bertero, Modeling of R/C joints under cyclic
excitations, J. Struct. Eng. 109 (11) (1983) 2666–2684, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)0733-9445(1983) 109:11(2666).
[23] H. Shima, L.L. Chou, H. Okamura, Micro and macro models for bond in
reinforced concrete, J. Facu. Eng. 39 (2) (1987) 133–194.
[24] C.K. Kankam, Relationship of bond stress, steel stress, and slip in reinforced
concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 123 (1) (1997) 79–85, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)
0733-9445(1997)123:1(79).
[25] S.P. Timoshenko, J.N. Goodier, Theory of elasticity, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1970.
[26] H.W. Reinhardt, H.A.W. Cornelissen, D.A. Hordijk, Tensile tests and failure
analysis of concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 112 (11) (1986) 2462–2477, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce) 0733-9445(1986)112:11(2462).
[27] M.J.R. Prince, B. Singh, Bond behaviour of deformed steel bars embedded in
recycled aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 49 (2013) 852–862, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.08.031.
[28] M.J.R. Prince, B. Singh, Investigation of bond behaviour between recycled
aggregate concrete and deformed steel bars, Struct. Concr. (2014) 154–168,
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201300042.
[30] M.J.R. Prince, B. Singh, Bond behaviour between recycled aggregate concrete
and deformed steel bars, Mater. Struct. 47 (3) (2014) 503–516, https://doi.org/
10.1617/s11527-013-0075-8.
12
Construction and Building Materials 287 (2021) 123025
[31] M.J.R. Prince, B. Singh, Bond behaviour of normal- and high-strength recycled
aggregate concrete, Struct. Concr. 16 (1) (2015) 56–70, https://doi.org/
10.1002/suco.201300101.
[32] X. Gao, X. Ren, J. Li, Y. Zhang, Bond behavior between steel reinforcing bars and
concrete under dynamic loads, Struct. Concr. (2018), https://doi.org/
10.1002/suco.201700205.
[33] S. Xu, Fracture mechanics of concrete, Science Press, Beijing, 2011 (in Chinese).
[34] H.K. Hilsdorf, W. Brameshuber, Code-type formulation of fracture mechanics
concepts for concrete, Inter. J. Fract. 51 (1) (1991) 61–72, https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF00020853.
[35] Xu Y., Shen W., Wang H., An experimental study of bond-anchorage properties
of bars in concrete, J. Archit. Struct. 015 (003) (1994) 26-37, https://doi.org/10.
14006/j.jzjgxb.1994.03.004 (in Chinese).
[36] Z. Guo, X. Shi, Mechanism and Analysis of Reinforced Concrete, Tsinghua
University Press, Beijing, 2003 (in Chinese).
[37] E.K. Idun, D. Darwin, Bond of epoxy-coated reinforcement: coefficient of
friction and rib face angle, ACI Struct. J. 96 (4) (1999) 609–615, https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF02481640.
[38] J. Cairns, R. Abdullah, Fundamental tests on the effect of an epoxy coating on
bond strength, ACI Mater. J. 91 (4) (1994) 331–338, https://doi.org/10.1016/
0040-6090(94)90811-7.
[39] H.H. Ghaffari, D. Darwin, S.L. Mccabe, Effect of epoxy coating on bond of
reinforcing steel to concrete, Lawrence, Kans, 1991.
[40] O.C. Choi, W.S. Lee, Interfacial bond analysis of deformed bars to concrete, ACI
Struct. J. 99 (6) (2002) 750–756, https://doi.org/10.14359/12339.
[41] Hawkins N.M., Lin I.J., Jeang F.L., Local bond strength of concrete for
cyclic reversed loadings. Bond in Concrete, Paisley, Scotland, 1982, pp. 151-
161.
[42] O. Leibovich, D.Z. Yankelevsky, A.N. Dancygier, Circumferential strains on a
concrete specimen in a pullout test, Struct Concr. 20 (3) (2019) 986–995,
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201800172.
[43] M.R. Esfahani, B.V. Rangan, Local bond strength of reinforcing bars in
normal strength and high-strength concrete, ACI Struct. J. 95 (2) (1998) 96–
106.
[44] F.M.D.A. Filho, M.K.E. Debs, A.L.H.C.E. Debs, Bond-slip behavior of self-
compacting concrete and vibrated concrete using pull-out and beam tests,
Mater. Struct. 41 (6) (2008) 1073–1089, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-
9307-0.
[45] M.H. Harajli, Comparison of bond strength of steel bars in normal- and high-
strength concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 16 (4) (2004) 365–374, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)0899- 1561(2004)16:4(365).
[46] D. Shen, X. Shi, H. Zhang, X. Duan, G. Jiang, Experimental study of early-age
bond behavior between high strength concrete and steel bars using a pull-out
test, Constr. and Build. Mater. 113 (2016) 653–663, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2016.03.094.