ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 112-S70
Bond of Reinforcement in Ultra-High-Performance Concrete
by Jiqiu Yuan and Benjamin Graybeal
Ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) is a relatively new class
of advanced cementitious composite materials, which exhibits
high compressive (above 21.7 ksi [150 MPa]) and tensile (above
0.72 ksi [5 MPa]) strengths. The discrete steel fiber reinforcement
included in UHPC allows the concrete to maintain tensile capacity
beyond cracking of the cementitious matrix. The combination of the
matrix and fiber performance allow for a reduction on the devel-
opment length of reinforcing steel bar, thus providing the potential
for a redesign of some structural systems such as field-cast connec-
tions between prefabricated bridge elements. The bond behavior
of deformed steel reinforcing bar in UHPC is investigated in this
study by conducting direct tension pullout tests. Over 200 tests
were completed and the effect of embedment length, concrete cover,
bar spacing, concrete strength, bar size, bar type, and yielding
strength on bond strength were investigated. It was found that the
bond behavior of deformed reinforcing steel in UHPC is different
from that in traditional concrete in many aspects. In general, the
reinforcing steel development length in UHPC can be significantly
reduced. Guidance on the embedment of deformed reinforcing bars
into UHPC is provided.
Keywords: anchorage; bond strength; development length; fiber-reinforced
concrete; reinforcing bar; splice length; ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC).
INTRODUCTION
The use of accelerated bridge construction (ABC) tech-
niques continues to grow as owners look for construction
solutions that reduce impacts on the users of the infrastruc-
ture. In ABC construction, one common technique used
is prefabricated bridge elements and systems (PBES). In
this practice, bridge elements are prefabricated off site,
then assembled and connected on site during an expedited
construction time frame. The use of prefabricated bridge
elements necessitates the use of field-applied connections
between these elements. Field-cast concrete or other cemen-
titious material connections have been deployed for decades
by state departments of transportation (DOTs). However,
decades of experience has led to the recognition that the
field-cast connections are often susceptible to degradation
that can lead to substandard performance of the overall
bridge system while the prefabricated bridge elements have
demonstrated improved material quality and product dura-
bility as they are produced in a controlled plant environment.
Ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) is a relatively
new class of cementitious composite materials. Since 2000,
when UHPC became commercially available in the United
States, a series of research projects has demonstrated the
capabilities of the material. A handful of state DOTs have
deployed UHPC components within their infrastructure,
and many more are actively considering the use of UHPC.
As of late 2013, 34 bridges in the United States have been
constructed using field-cast UHPC connections.1
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
TECHNICAL PAPER
As opposed to conventional grouted connections, which
frequently contain complex reinforcement configurations,
UHPC connections often involve much simpler reinforce-
ment configurations such as the lap splicing of straight
lengths of reinforcement. A few specific connection details,
such as those discussed in References 2 and 3, have been
rigorously tested at service and ultimate performance
limits. The advanced material properties of UHPC provide
an opportunity to develop a simple and robust connection
system for prefabricated bridge elements.
The research discussed in this paper focuses on the
assessment of bond performance of deformed steel bar in
UHPC. The bond of reinforcing steel in traditional concrete
has been very well studied; however, very limited research
has investigated the bond performance of deformed bar in
UHPC. New York State DOT performed pullout tests on
steel bar embedded in 15.7 in. (400 mm) diameter UHPC
cylinders.2 The ASTM A615 Grade 60 No. 4, 5, and 6 bars
were embedded 2.9, 3.9, and 4.9 in. (75, 100, and 125 mm)
into the UHPC, respectively, and all fractured before bond
failure. Fehling et al.4 performed a series of pullout tests
with 0.47 in. (12 mm) diameter bars and different concrete
cover and embedment length. Their test results indicated
that increasing concrete cover and increasing embedment
length each resulted in an increase on the bond strength.
For example, Fehling et al.4 found that for specimens with a
concrete cover of 1.5ds (ds is diameter of reinforcing steel),
an embedment length of 8ds would yield the bar with a yield
strength of approximately 80 ksi (551 MPa); for specimens
with a concrete cover of 2.5ds, an embedment length of
5ds would yield the bar. Swenty and Graybeal5 conducted
pullout tests on No. 4 reinforcing steel embedded into 6 in.
(152 mm) cubes. Two types of UHPCs were tested, with
the test configuration including a 3 in. (76 mm) debonded
length and a 3 in. (76 mm) bond length along the center-
line of the cube. One UHPC formulation intended for use
in precast concrete applications resulted in steel bar yield
before the ultimate pullout failure. The other UHPC formu-
lation intended for field-cast applications resulted in steel
bar rupture before bond failure. Pullout tests were also
performed by Holschemacher et al.6,7 and varying parame-
ters, including bar diameter, type of reinforcement, surface
geometry of the bar, concrete cover, and loading rate, were
evaluated. They observed that the bond of reinforcement in
ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 6, November-December 2015.
MS No. S-2014-260.R2, doi: 10.14359/51687912, was received January 29, 2015,
and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2015, American
Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
author’s closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the
discussion is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
851
Fig. 1—Overall configuration of test specimens. (Notes: cso is side cover; 2csi is bar clear spacing to adjacent No. 8 bar; ld is
embedment length; ls is lap splice length.)
Fig. 2—Loading setup.
ultra-high-strength concrete was characterized by very high
maximum bond stresses as well as high bond stiffness.
This study extensively investigated the factors that affect
bond of deformed steel bar in UHPC, including embedment
length, concrete cover, bar spacing, concrete strength, bar
size, bar type, and yielding strength. The bond performance
in UHPC is compared with that in traditional concrete. Guid-
ance on the embedment of deformed reinforcing bars into
UHPC is presented.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
UHPC has garnered interest from the highway infrastruc-
ture community for its greatly enhanced mechanical and
durability properties. This research evaluated many of the
factors that affect bond strength between deformed steel bar
and UHPC. It was found that the bond behavior of deformed
reinforcing steel in UHPC is different from that in traditional
normal- or high-strength concrete in many aspects. The find-
ings can be used to develop design details for steel rein-
forcing bar embedded in UHPC, thus providing guidance for
engineers using UHPC in innovative structural applications.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Direct tension pullout tests
Direct tension pullout tests, with a novel test specimen
design and associated loading apparatus, were conducted in
this study. The test setup was developed so as to mimic the
tension-tension lap splice configuration that may be encoun-
tered in a field-deployed connection system. The pullout
852
tests’ specimens were UHPC strips cast on top of precast
concrete slabs, as shown in Fig. 1. The No. 8 bars extended
8 in. (203 mm) from the precast concrete slab. UHPC strips
were cast on top of the precast slab with the No. 8 bars in the
center of the strips. Each testing bar was situated so as to be
embedded into the UHPC strip and located between two of
the No. 8 bars.
In Fig. 1, notations were assigned to represent dimensional
parameters, including cso for the clear side cover, 2csi for the
clear spacing between the testing bar and the extended No. 8
bars, ld for the embedment length of testing bar measured
from the top surface of the UHPC strip to the end of the
testing bar, and ls for the lap splice length measured from
the end of the testing bar to the end of extended No. 8 bars.
These are also the main factors that will be investigated for
their effect on bond strength in this study. The notations of
csi, cso, ld, and ls are adopted from ACI 408R-03.8
The pullout tests were conducted using the fixture shown
in Fig. 2. A hydraulic jack was placed on a steel chair, and
the steel chair stands on the precast slab. When a pullout
force is applied, the fixture reacts against the precast slab.
With such a setup, the reinforcing bars being tested as well
as the extended No. 8 bars from the slab are both placed
in tension. The UHPC surrounding these bars transfers the
loads between them. This test setup simulates structural
configurations wherein noncontact lap-spliced reinforce-
ment is loaded in tension.
Tests were conducted by applying a load to the free end
of the embedded reinforcing bar. The load was applied
under displacement control, at a constant displacment rate of
0.2 in./min (5 mm/min), as measured by the linear vari-
able differential transformer (LVDT), which captured the
displacement at the bar chuck relative to the top of the
hydraulic cylinder. The top of the hydraulic cylinder was
approximately 30 in. (760 mm) above the precast slab and
the bar chuck started approximately 36 in. (910 mm) above
the top of the precast slab. A load cell located between the
cylinder piston and the bar chuck measured the load applied
to the bar. More details about testing setup can be found in
the associated research report.9
The bar displacement was measured at a location of
approximately 2 in. (51 mm) above the top surface of the
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
Fig. 3—UHPC strip casting setup and orientation: (a) side pour setup; (b) side pour casting; (c) upright pour setup; and
(d) upright pour casting.

Table 1—UHPC mixture design tation involved casting the specimen upright, as shown in
Fig. 3(c) and (d), where the slab was placed with a small
Material Amount, lb/yd3 (kg/m3) slope of approximately 1.5 degrees to facilitate the flow of
Premix powder 3700 (2195) the UHPC. For both orientations, the UHPC was first poured
Water 219 (130) in from one end and allowed to flow until the forms were
mostly filled. Thereafter, the UHPC was poured in from the
Superplasticizer #1 *
30 (18)
middle locations.
Superplasticizer #2† 20 (12) The forms were normally removed at 22 ± 1 hour after
Accelerator‡ 39 (23) casting so the 1-day testing could start at 23 ± 1 hour
Steel fibers (2%4) §
263 (156) after casting.
*
Modified phosphonate plasticizer.
†
Modified polycarboxylate high-range water-reducing admixture.
Ultra-high-performance concrete
‡
Non-chloride accelerator.
Advances in the science of concrete materials have led
§
Steel fibers content of 2% by volume.
to the development of a new class of advanced cementi-
tious materials—namely UHPC. UHPC is a cementitious
UHPC strip. Movement at this location was measured rela- composite material composed of an optimized gradation of
tive to the surface of the precast slab. This displacement is granular constituents, a water-cementitious materials ratio
used as a measure of the bar slip, with the understanding (w/cm) less than 0.25, and a high percentage of discontin-
that the displacement also included the stretching of the bar uous internal fiber reinforcement. The mechanical properties
under the pullout force, the elongation of the bars extending of UHPC include compressive strength greater than 21.7 ksi
from the precast slab, and deformations in the UHPC strip. (150 MPa) and sustained post-cracking tensile strength
Three LVDTs were arranged in a 120-degree angle and the greater than 0.72 ksi (5 MPa). UHPC has a discontinuous pore
average displacement of the three LVDTs was used to offset structure that reduces liquid ingress, significantly enhancing
the possible bending of the loaded bar. durability compared to conventional concrete.1,10-12
The mixture design of the UHPC used for this research
Specimen preparation is provided in Table 1. The steel fibers were nondeformed,
The UHPC materials tested in this study contained 2% cylindrical, high-tensile-strength steel. They have a diameter
(by volume) steel fibers. Casting technique can influence of 0.008 in. (0.2 mm) with a length of 0.5 in. (12.7 mm). The
the dispersion and orientation of the fiber reinforcement. In steel fibers have a thin brass coating, which provides lubri-
this study, the UHPC strips were prepared using plywood cation during the drawing process and provides corrosion
forms and two cast orientations were compared, as shown resistance for the raw fibers.
in Fig. 3. The first orientation involved casting the specimen The UHPC used in this study had an average compres-
on its side, as shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b); the second orien- sive strength of 13.5 ksi (93 MPa) at 1 day, with a minimum

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015 853

 Table 2—Properties of reinforcing steel
Yield Tensile Mean Mean Rela-
Bar strength*, strength*, height†, spacing†, tive rib
size Bar type ksi ksi in. in. area‡
No. 4 A1035 134 172 0.024 0.330 0.074
No. 5 A1035 126 167 0.037 0.417 0.088
No. 7 A1035 126 162 0.056 0.561 0.099
No. 5 Epoxy 68 108 0.034 0.408 0.083
No. 8 Epoxy 70 109 0.053 0.615 0.086
No. 5 Uncoated 75 118 0.034 0.402 0.085
*
Per ASTM A370.16
†
Per ASTM A61513 and A1035.14
‡
Per ACI 408R-038 and ACI 408.3R-0916 for calculation of relative rib area.
Notes: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
Fig. 4—Bar stress versus slip at loaded bar end.
a typical bar stress versus slip curve for bar in UHPC in this
of 11.7 ksi (81 MPa) and a maximum of 14.2 (98 MPa) study is presented in Fig. 4. The point with the maximum
for 33 compressive cylinders tested in 11 batches. It had bar stress was marked with (fs,max, s1), which refers to the
an average compressive strength of 19.4 ksi (133 MPa) bar stress and slip, respectively, at bond failure. For compar-
at 7 days, with a minimum of 18.5 ksi (128 MPa) and a ison, the bar stress versus slip curve for a traditional concrete
maximum of 20.5 (141 MPa) for 21 compressive cylin- (compressive strength of 4700 psi [32.5 MPa]) with the same
ders tested in seven batches. It had an average compressive as UHPC is also included in Fig. 4.
strength of 21.3 ksi (147 MPa) at 14 days, with a minimum Another term that has been often used in the paper is the
of 20.3 ksi (140 MPa) and a maximum of 22.2 (153 MPa) for average bond stress at bond failure, μTEST. In general, the bond
six compressive cylinders tested in two batches. strength is contributed by the chemical adhesion between
the bar and concrete, frictional forces, and mechanical
Reinforcing steel anchorage or bearing of the ribs against the concrete surface.
Three types of steel bar were tested in this study, including The load transfer between the steel bar and the surrounding
normal-strength Grade 60 uncoated and epoxy-coated bars concrete materials is assumed as the following. At the begin-
and high-strength Grade 120 uncoated bars. All the Grade 60 ning of the axial loading of the bar, the outermost rib exerts
uncoated and epoxy-coated bar meet the specification a bearing force on the surrounding concrete materials and
of ASTM A61513 and will be referred to as uncoated and this bearing force at the outermost rib plus the friction force
epoxy-coated bar, respectively; all the high-strength Grade and chemical adhesion contribute to the bond strength at this
120 uncoated bar meets the specification of ASTM A1035,14 stage. As load increases, this bearing force causes crushing
and will be referred to as A1035 bar in this paper. The bar of concrete materials in the vicinity of the outermost rib, the
sizes tested in the study ranges from No. 4 to No. 8. The bar slips, and most of the friction force and chemical adhe-
yield strength, tensile strength (per ASTM A37015), and rela- sion are lost. The slip causes the bearing reaction of next
tive rib area (per ACI 408R-038 and ACI 408.3R-0916) for adjacent ribs, which contribute to the resisting of the applied
the steel bar are presented in Table 2. axial load. At ultimate load, it is assumed that all the ribs
bear against concrete and help resist the axial load and that
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION the bond stress distribution is uniform. The average bond
The objective of this study was to evaluate the bond stress can be calculated by dividing the bond force at failure
behavior between the deformed reinforcing steel (lap spliced) by the overall contact area, using the equation in Eq. (1).
and UHPC. The primary parameters investigated included
the embedment length of reinforcing steel, concrete side f s , max πdb2 / 4 f s , max db
cover, bar spacing, UHPC compressive strength, bar size, µTEST = = (1)
and bar type and yielding strength. Throughout the study, to πdb ld 4ld
better assess the influence of a particular variable, each indi-
vidual parameter was varied while others remained constant. where fs,max is the bar stress at bond failure; db is the bar
Consistent terminology is used throughout this paper to diameter; and ld is the embedment length.
simplify the discussion of results. In terms of the pullout
force versus slip at loaded end, the applied load and displace- Cracking and damage mechanism
ment were continuously recorded during the pullout test. The In general, the transfer of force from the reinforcing steel
bar stress fs was then calculated as the applied load divided to the surrounding concrete is mainly through mechanical
by the cross-sectional area of the bar. The displacement was anchorage or bearing of the bar ribs against the concrete
measured along a loaded portion of the bar at approximately corbels between ribs, with chemical adhesion and frictional
2 in. (51 mm) above the top surface of UHPC strip. This forces between the bar and the concrete playing a minimal
displacement is used as a measure of the slip. The bar stress role. For the pullout tests in this study, the steel bars are
is plotted versus slip to characterize the bond behavior and lap-spliced, as shown in Fig. 5(a), and the force on the testing

854 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015


Fig. 5—Pullout tests: (a) forces on bars; and (b) crack
patterns.
bar is transferred to the concrete, which, in turn, transfers the
force to the No. 8 bars that extend from the precast concrete
slab. The tensile forces due to this bearing effect can cause
crack openings in a diagonal direction, as shown in Fig. 5(b).
Conical cracks were observed during the tests and an illus-
tration of the conical cracks is presented in later discussion.
The wedging action of the deformations on the steel bar, as
confined by the surrounding concrete, could also cause hoop
tensile stresses, which can initiate splitting cracks, as shown
in Fig. 5(b).
For tests in this study, wherein the failure was not caused
by bar tensile rupture, the majority of the tests expressed a
bond failure associated with splitting cracks, either running
to the adjacent No. 8 bars, or to the side face, or both. In
some cases, a UHPC tensile failure was observed, wherein
the tensile force separates a roughly planar region of concrete
from the rest of the specimen.9 In general, the specimens
with UHPC tensile failures had smaller concrete side cover,
demonstrating less bond strength than those with splitting
failures. More details about the failure mode can be found
in the associated research report.9 In most structural appli-
cations, splitting failure is more common (ACI 408R-03).8
When the effect of different parameters on bond strength is
evaluated in this paper, the analysis only included those with
splitting failures.
Casting orientation
The UHPC materials tested in this study contain 2% (by
volume) steel fibers. Casting technique can influence the
dispersion and orientation of the fiber reinforcement. In this
study, the UHPC strips were prepared using plywood forms
and two cast orientations were compared: one with side pour
setup and one with upright pour setup, as shown in Fig. 3.
For both orientations, the UHPC was first poured in from
one end and allowed to flow until the forms were mostly
filled. Thereafter, the UHPC was poured in from the middle
locations. The study found that the orientation of the casting
did not have an obvious effect on bond behavior. For the
purpose of easy construction and casting, the upright orien-
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
Fig. 6—Effect of embedment length: fs,max versus embedded
length ld. (Notes: cso is side cover; db is bar diameter; D is
testing age in days.)
tation (Fig. 3b) was used in most of the tests, although it
was noted that the very end specimens that were close to the
casting point (where the large majority of the UHPC was
poured into the formwork) consistently displayed slightly
lower bond strengths than specimens at the other positions.
This is likely due to the local variations in the fiber distri-
bution and orientation inside the UHPC near the primary
casting point as compared to other locations.
Effect of embedment length
The effect of embedment length on bond strength was
evaluated. A total of 37 tests were included and all speci-
mens used A1035 No. 5 steel bar and had a center-to-center
spacing between the testing bar and the nearest No. 8 bar
of 4 in. (102 mm). The test results of bar stress at bond
failure versus the embedment length for all specimens are
presented in Fig. 6. As shown, the specimens were divided
into four groups based on side cover and concrete age. In
each group, the specimens had the same design except for
the varied embedment length. For example, all specimens in
group cso = 2db, 1D in Fig. 6 have a side cover of 2db and the
tests were conducted at 1 day after casting; the only variable
among the specimens is the embedment length. Similarly,
specimens in each of the other groups have the same design
except for embedment length and the legend of each group
shows the information of the side cover in terms of bar diam-
eter and testing age. It should be pointed out that the embed-
ment length and side cover in this study are defined in terms
of bar diameter with the consideration that they are often
defined in terms of bar diameter (db) in design codes. The
bar spacing being defined in terms of actual measurement
in inches results from the fact that the No. 8 bars extending
from the precast slabs were spaced at either 8 or 12 in.
(203 or 305 mm). In many cases, the testing bar was placed
in the middle of the two No. 8 bars; therefore, the center-to-
center spacing was either 4 or 6 in. (102 or 152 mm).
As shown in Fig. 6, increasing the embedment length of
a reinforcing bar increases the bar stress at bond failure and
the relationship between the bar stress and the bonded length
is nearly linear. The linear relationship observed in the study
is similar to that observed in normal-strength concrete
(ACI 408R-03).8 The linear relationship between bond force
855
Fig. 7—Bond splitting cracks: (a) csi > cso; and (b) csi < cso.
Fig. 8—Effect of side cover: bond strength µTEST versus side
cover for specimens tested at 1 day after casting. (Notes: ld
is embedment length; db is bar diameter; D is testing age
in days. All specimens were designed to have the same bar
spacing csi and UHPC compressive strength.)
and the bonded length in normal-strength concrete is often
explained based on the assumption that all ribs bear against
concrete at the ultimate stage and help in resisting the applied
axial force; therefore, at ultimate, the bond stress distribu-
tion is nearly uniform. However, the bond stress distribution
in high-strength concrete, with compressive strength over
13 ksi (90 MPa) and without fiber reinforcement, was found
to be not uniform based on a study conducted by Azizin-
amini et al.17 Azizinamini et al.17 noted that for high-strength
concrete, the increase in bearing capacity is more than the
increase in tensile strength which, in turn, would prevent
crushing of the concrete in the vicinity of each rib to the
extent that would otherwise take place in normal-strength
concrete. In other words, the high-strength concrete would
crack before crushing the concrete in the vicinity of each rib.
All ribs may not participate in resisting applied axial load
before the concrete cracks, and the first few ribs contribute
the most. The observed linear relationship between bond
strength and embedment length implies that the behavior
attributed to traditional high-strength concretes by Azizin-
amini et al.17 may not be present in UHPC, potentially due
to the enhanced pre- and post-cracking tensile response of
the UHPC.
856
Fig. 9—Effect of side cover: bond strength µTEST versus side
cover for specimens tested at 7 days after casting. (Notes: ld
is embedment length; db is bar diameter; D is testing age in
days. All specimens were designed to have same side cover
cso and UHPC compressive strength.)
Side cover
Concrete side cover and bar spacing play important roles
in bond strength. In general, for bond failure involving
splitting of the concrete, the nature of the splitting failure
depends on whether the concrete cover, cso, is smaller than
csi, which is half of the clear spacing to adjacent bar. The
demonstration of cso and csi is presented in Fig. 7. When
cso is smaller than csi, the splitting crack occurs through the
side cover to the free surface, as shown in Fig. 7(a). When
csi is smaller than cso, the splitting crack forms between the
reinforcing bars, as shown in Fig. 7(b). In ACI 318-11,18 the
actual values of csi are used for development length calcula-
tions. In the Canadian requirements for reinforced concrete
design,19 a larger value defined as [(4/3)csi + (1/6)db] instead
of the values of csi is used. Darwin et al.20 suggested using
either 1.6csi when using a multiple of csi or using csi + 0.25 in.
(csi + 6.4 mm) when a constant value is added to csi. Darwin
et al.21 explained that the reason a larger value than the value
of csi is used is most likely “due to the longer effective crack
lengths that occur when concrete splits between bars.” The
presence of fiber reinforcement in UHPC can be expected
to further increase the resistance to splitting crack between
bars and thus an even larger value than the actual value of
csi between bars may be necessary when the effect of bar
spacing is evaluated. In the present analysis, both the csi
representing half of the clear spacing as well as the actual
clear spacing, 2csi, are compared with side cover cso.
The results of bond strength versus side cover are presented
in Fig. 8 and 9. A total of 37 specimens were included and
all specimens were cast with A1035 No. 5 bars and have the
same center-to-center bar spacing of 4 in. (102 mm). The
specimens in Fig. 8 were tested at 1 day after UHPC casting
with an average compressive strength of 13.7 ksi (94 MPa),
while the specimens in Fig. 9 were tested at 7 days after
the UHPC casting with an average compressive strength of
19.4 ksi (133 MPa). The specimens in each figure are grouped
based on embedment length and within each group, the spec-
imens have the same design except for side cover. The bond
strength, µTEST, is used herein, where the embedment length
was included in the calculation. In this way, all specimens in
each figure can be compared equally as a whole.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015

Fig. 10—Effect of bar spacing: bond strength µTEST versus
2csi. (Note: All specimens were designed to have same side
cover cso and UHPC compressive strength.)
Fig. 11—Geometrical demonstration of lstan(θ) and 2csi.
Based on the results shown in Fig. 8 and 9, it is clear that
the bond strength increased as the side cover increased. Also
note that constant bar spacing was used for all specimens
and straight lines representing the point where the side cover
cso is equal to csi and 2csi are included in the figures. It is
observed that when half of the bar clear spacing csi is smaller
than the side cover cso, the bond strength still increases as the
side cover cso increases, instead of being controlled by half
of the bar clear spacing csi. This supports the early assump-
tion that a greater bar spacing value than csi can be used due
to the presence of the fibers. All tested specimens had side
covers cso less than the clear bar spacing 2csi. It is reasonable
to predict that when the side cover is large enough, the bar
spacing would become the controlling factor.
Bar spacing
The effect of bar spacing on bond performance is analyzed
in this section with a total of 38 specimens included in this
analysis. The 38 tests were grouped into three sets. In Set 1,
a constant embedment length of 8db (A1035 No. 5 bar)
and a constant side cover of 2db were used; the clear bar
spacing, 2csi, varied from 0.15 to 11.4 in. (4 to 290 mm).
All tests were conducted at 1 day after UHPC casting with
an average compressive strength of 13.7 ksi (94.5 MPa). It
should be noted that the specimens with a bar spacing of
0.15 in. (4 mm) were designed to have a contact lap splice,
and the actual measurement indicated a bar spacing of
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
Table 3—Bond strength reduction for bar clear
spacing out of range of 2db < 2csi < lstan(q)
2db < 2csi <
lstan(θ) Contact lap splice 2csi > lstan(θ)
Bar clear Average Average Reduc- Average Reduc-
spacing µTEST, psi µTEST, psi tion, % µTEST, psi tion, %
Set 1 3279 2575 21 2583 21
Set 2 4376 3309 24 3472 21
Set 3 3815 3324 13 2999 21
Notes: cso is side cover; 2csi is bar clear spacing to adjacent No. 8 bar; ld is embed-
ment length; ls is lap splice length; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
0.15 in. (4 mm). Given the small measured spacing value,
these specimens were considered to have contact lap splices
in the study. Other than the contact lap splice, the least bar
spacing (center-to-center) that was tested in the study was
2 in. (51 mm), which is approximately 2db bar clear spacing.
The specimens in Set 2 had similar design as those in Set 1,
except that the side cover was increased from 2db to 3.5db.
The specimens in Set 3 had a nominal embedment length
of 6db and side cover of 2db and all tests were conducted
at 7 days after UHPC casting, with an average compressive
strength of 19.2 ksi (132 MPa); the bar spacing varied.
All three sets of specimens demonstrated similar trends
and the results from Set 1 are discussed first herein. The
bond stress µTEST is plotted versus bar clear spacing 2csi
for specimens in Set 1 in Fig. 10. Figure 10 also includes
two straight lines, representing the points of 2csi = cso and
2csi = lstan(θ), respectively. The meaning of 2csi and lstan(θ)
are demonstrated in Fig. 11. The 2csi represents the clear
spacing to the nearest bar; ls is the lap splice length (instead
of embedment length ld); and θ is the angle between the diag-
onal cracks and testing bar. The angle θ for the A1035 No. 5
bar tested in this study was measured to be approximately
55 degrees. The hypothesis of adding the two straight lines
is as follows: when 2csi ≤ cso, the bond strength is controlled
by the bar spacing 2csi, with larger bar spacing resulting in
higher bond strength; when cso < 2csi ≤ lstan(θ), the bond
strength is controlled by constant side cover cso; and when
2csi > lstan(θ), the induced diagonal cracks from pullout force
would not intersect with adjacent bars. In this last situation,
the adjacent bars would not help to stop the propagation of
the diagonal cracks and the bond strength would likely to be
primarily dependent on the tensile mechanical performance
of the UHPC.
The results in Fig. 10 indicate that the specimens with bar
spacing less than lstan(θ) but not in contact with adjacent
bars (the minimum clear bar spacing in this study is 2db)
had higher bond strength than specimens with either contact
lap splice or specimens with testing bar placed further than
lstan(θ) away from the adjacent No. 8 bars. The similar
trend was also observed in the other two sets of specimens.
The average bond strength for specimens with bar spacing
between 2db and lstan(θ) was compared with those with bar
spacing out of the range and the results are presented in
Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the reduction of bond strength
is over 20% in most cases. The decrease on bond strength
for contact lap splice specimens is probably due to decreased
857

Fig. 12—Effect of compressive strength: (a) uTEST versus
fc′; and (b) uTEST versus fc′1/2. (Note: All specimens had side
cover of 1.25 in. [32 mm] and center-to-center bar spacing
of 4 in. [102 mm].)
contact area between the steel bar and UHPC materials, espe-
cially considering the dispersion of the fiber reinforcement
into the spaces near closely spaced bars, which is needed
to locally enhance the mechanical resistance of the UHPC.
This is contrary to early studies in normal non-fiber-rein-
forced concrete,22-24 where it was concluded that tied spliced
(zero spacing) bars had similar or even better bond strength
than noncontact lap splices. When the bar clear spacing is
larger than lstan(θ), the induced diagonal cracks from the
pullout force will not intersect with the adjacent bar and the
bond strength becomes a function of the mechanical proper-
ties of the UHPC and, in most cases in this study, decreases
compared to those with closer spacing.
UHPC compressive strength
Traditionally, the effect of concrete properties on bond
strength is represented by the square root of the compressive
strength (√fc′), which is related to the tensile strength of the
concrete. An increase in the concrete compressive strength
increases the bond strength. The effect of UHPC compres-
sive strength on bond strength is evaluated in this section.
A total of 25 specimens were included and all specimens
were tested with A1035 No. 5 bars and designed to have the
same side cover of 1.25 in. (32 mm) and bar center spacing
of 4 in. (102 mm). The bond strength μTEST is plotted versus
fc′ and √fc′ for all specimens in Fig. 12(a) and (b), respec-
tively. As expected, an increase in the compressive strength
increases the bond strength. It is also noted that the correla-
858
Fig. 13—Bond strength versus bar size.
tion coefficient (R2) values are low, no matter if it is between
μTEST and fc′ or between μTEST and √fc′. Because the UHPC
material investigated is both high-strength and fiber-reinforced,
other material properties besides compressive strength, such
as tensile strength and fracture energy, should be involved in
the evaluating of bond strength.
Bar size
In this section, the effect of bar size on bond strength is
evaluated. Tests on A1035 No. 4, No. 5, and No. 7 bar were
used in this analysis. With the consideration that the design
(development length, concrete cover, and bar spacing) is
often defined in terms of bar diameter db in design codes,
the embedment length and confinement used for different
sized bar in this study will also be based on individual bar
diameter. For example, No. 4 bar with 2db side cover (that is,
1 in. [25 mm] side cover) will be compared with the No. 5
bar with 2db side cover (that is, 1.25 in. [32 mm] side cover),
and they are considered to have the same side cover in terms
of bar diameter. Also, as discussed previously, specimens
with the bar spacing between 2db and lstan(θ) are recognized
to demonstrate similar performance. All specimens in this
section had bar spacing in this range and the effect of bar
spacing is assumed to be minimal and will be neglected in
this analysis.
A total of 27 tests were included in this section and the
specimens are divided into two sets. The bond strength for
No. 4 and No. 5 bars are compared in Set 1, which all had a
side cover of 3.5db, and No. 7 and No. 5 bars are compared
in Set 2, which all had a side cover of 2db. The average
bond strength for each type of bar in each set is presented in
Fig. 13. In addition to the average values of bond strength,
the figure also shows the maximum and minimum values
for the included specimens and number of tests conducted.
As shown in Fig. 13, No. 4 bars had slightly higher average
bond strength than the No. 5 bars in Set 1, and No. 5 bars had
higher average bond strength than the No. 7 bars in Set 2.
The test results indicate that bond strength may exhibit a
decrease as the bar size increases.
Bar type and yield strength
As demonstrated early, a reinforcing bar embedded only
6db in UHPC (with appropriate cover) can achieve a bar
stress over 70 ksi (483 MPa) before bond failure. To mini-
mize the effect of steel bar yielding on bond strength when
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015

Fig. 14—Average bar stress at bond failure for different
types of bar. (Note: Specimens in each set had same design
except for bar type.)
other factors were evaluated, the majority of the tests in
the study were conducted using A1035 Grade 120 bar. The
effect of bar type and the effect of bar yielding strength are
evaluated in this section.
A total of 46 tests are included in this section and different
types of bar, including high-strength A1035 Grade 120 bar
and normal-strength Grade 60 uncoated and epoxy-coated
bar, were tested. The tests were grouped into six sets that the
specimens in each set had the same bar diameter, embed-
ment length, concrete cover, and bar spacing, but not the
same bar type. The average bar stress at bond failure for each
type of bar is presented in Fig. 14. In addition to the average
values of bar stress at bond failure, the figure also shows the
maximum and minimum values for the included specimens,
number of tests conducted, and the average UHPC compres-
sive strength at testing. The six sets are presented in an order
from low bond strength to high bond strength.
As shown in Fig. 14, for specimens with ultimate bar
stress at bond failure below or close to the yield strength
of the uncoated Grade 60 bar (Sets 1 and 2), the uncoated
Grade 120 and Grade 60 bars had similar bond strength.
When the bar stress at bond failure was greater than the yield
strength of the uncoated Grade 60 bar, the Grade 120 bar had
higher ultimate bar stress than the corresponding uncoated
Grade 60 bar. In all cases, the epoxy-coated bar had lower
ultimate bar stress than the uncoated bar.
CONCLUSIONS
The research discussed herein focused on assessing
the bond strength of deformed reinforcing bar in UHPC.
Deformed reinforcing steel, including ASTM A615
Grade 60 uncoated and epoxy-coated No. 5 bars and ASTM
A1035 Grade 120 No. 4, No. 5, and No. 7 bars, were tested.
The specific UHPC material used in this study had a steel
fiber content of 2% by volume and an average compressive
strength of 13.5 ksi (93 MPa) at 1 day, 19.4 ksi (133 MPa) at
7 days, and 21.3 ksi (147 MPa) at 14 days.
The main factors affecting bond performance, including
the structural characteristics such as the embedment length,
concrete side cover, bar spacing, bar size, and bar type, and
material properties such as UHPC compressive strength and
bar yield strength, are investigated. It was found that the bond
behavior of deformed reinforcing steel in UHPC has similar-
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015
ities but also differences as that in traditional concrete. The
following conclusions are based on the research presented in
this paper for deformed bar embedded in UHPC.
• Increasing the embedment length of the steel bar
increases the ultimate pullout force at bond failure; a
linear relationship between the pullout force and the
bonded length is observed.
• Bond strength increases as the side cover increases.
• An increase on the compressive strength of the UHPC
results in an increased bond strength. The effect of
UHPC properties on bond strength cannot be effec-
tively represented solely by the compressive strength
fc′, or the square root of its compressive strength fc′1/2.
Other UHPC mechanical properties, particularly those
relevant to the post-cracking tensile behavior of UHPC,
may be more appropriate for evaluating the bond
strength of steel bar in UHPC.
• Noncontact lap splice specimens exhibit higher bond
strength than contact lap splice specimens, due to the
fact that the tight spacing in contact lap splice limits the
ability of the fiber reinforcement to locally enhance the
mechanical resistance of the UHPC.
• When the bar clear spacing is so large that the induced
diagonal cracks from the pullout force will not intersect
with the adjacent bars, the adjacent bar will not help
stop the propagation of the diagonal cracks and the bond
strength becomes a function of the tensile mechanical
properties of the UHPC, and in most cases in this study,
decreases compared with those with closer spacing.
• Models that use bar spacing and side cover to predict
bar bond strength in conventional concrete may need
to be reevaluated in consideration of the added crack
propagation resistance provided by fiber reinforcement
in UHPC.
• For bars with larger diameter, the bond strength decreases.
• Bars that yield before bond failure exhibit less ulti-
mate pullout load than geometrically similar high-yield
strength bars subjected to the same loading conditions.
RECOMMENDED DESIGN
One of the main goals of the research is to develop
design recommendations for steel bar embedded in UHPC,
thus providing guidance for designers using reinforced
UHPC in innovative applications. This study focused on a
widely available UHPC product containing 2% steel fiber
(by volume).
Deformed reinforcing bar embedded in UHPC can attain
the lesser of the bar yield strength or 75 ksi (517 MPa) at
bond failure when the following conditions are met:
• Bar size from No. 4 to No. 8;
• Uncoated or epoxy-coated bar;
• Minimum embedment length of 8db;
• Minimum side cover of 3db;
• Bar clear spacing between 2db and ls; and
• Minimum UHPC compressive strength of 13.5 ksi
(93 MPa).
For lap splice reinforcement configurations, a minimum
lap splice length of 75% of the embedment length is
suggested, which is the range into which most of tests in this
859
study fell. Note that db is the bar diameter and ls is the lap
splice length.
For situations where in the aforementioned conditions are
met except that the minimum side cover is between 2db and
3db, the minimum embedment length should be increased
to 10db.
Refinements of the recommended design can be made
for specific applications. For example, if a larger side cover
is provided, and/or UHPC has gained higher compressive
strength, an embedment length reduction may be possible.
The supporting information can be found in the associated
research report.9
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Jiqiu Yuan is employed by PSI, Inc., as a Researcher at the
FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, VA. He
received his BS and MS in material science and engineering in China and
his PhD in civil engineering from the University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS,
in 2011. He is a member of ACI Committee 239, Ultra-High Performance
Concrete; Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 408, Bond and Development of Rein-
forcement; and ACI Subcommittee 228-B, Visual Inspection (Nondestruc-
tive Testing of Concrete).
ACI member Benjamin Graybeal leads the Structural Concrete Research
Program for the Federal Highway Administration at the Turner-Fair-
bank Highway Research Center. He received his BS and MS from Lehigh
University, Bethlehem, PA, and his PhD from the University of Maryland,
College Park, MD. He is a member of ACI Committee 239, Ultra-High
Performance Concrete, and of the ACI Concrete Research Council. His
research interests include structural application of advanced cementitious
materials, concrete material characterization, and experimental evaluation
of highway bridge structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research project could not have been completed were it not for
the dedicated support of the federal and contract staff associated with the
FHWA Structural Concrete Research Program. Special recognition goes
to G. Greene, formerly of PSI, Inc., who assisted with the scoping of the
project, the specimen design, and the test setup. Recognition also goes
to the technical staff who assisted with specimen fabrication and testing.
PSI, Inc., provided laboratory support to FHWA under Contract DTFH61-
10-D-00017 through the duration of this research project.
The research was funded by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration.
This support is gratefully acknowledged. The publication of this report
does not necessarily indicate approval or endorsement of the findings,
opinions, conclusions, or recommendations either inferred or specifically
expressed herein by the Federal Highway Administration or the United
States Government.
REFERENCES
1. Ultra-High Performance Concrete, U. S., Department of Transporta-
tion, Federal Highway Administration, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/
resources/uhpc. (last accessed Oct. 13, 2015)
2. Graybeal, B., “Behavior of Field-Cast Ultra-High Performance
Concrete Bridge Deck Connections under Cyclic and Static Structural
Loading,” Report No. PB2011-101995, National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA, 2010.
3. Graybeal, B., “Development of a Field-Cast Ultra-High Perfor-
mance Concrete Composite Connection Detail for Precast Concrete Bridge
Decks,” Report No. PB2012-107569, National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA, 2012.
860
4. Fehling, E.; Lorenz, P.; and Leutbecher, T., “Experimental Investiga-
tions on Anchorage of Rebars in UHPC,” Proceedings of Hipermat 2012
3rd International Symposium on UHPC and Nanotechnology for High
Performance Construction Materials, Kassel, Germany, 2012, pp. 533-540.
5. Swenty, M., and Graybeal, B., “Influence of Differential Deflection
on Staged Construction Deck-Level Connections,” Report No. FHWAHRT-
12-057, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Technical
Information Service Accession No. PB2012-111528, 2012.
6. Holschemacher, K.; Weiße, D.; and Klotz, S., “Bond of Reinforce-
ment in Ultra High Strength Concrete,” Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Ultra High Performance Concrete, Kassel, Germany, 2004,
pp. 375-387.
7. Holschemacher, K.; Weiße, D.; and Klotz, S., “Bond of Reinforcement
in Ultra High- Strength Concrete,” Seventh International Symposium on the
Utilization of High-Strength/High-Performance Concrete, Vol. I, SP-228,
H. G. Russell, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2005, pp. 513-528.
8. ACI Committee 408, “Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcing
Bars in Tension (ACI 408R-03),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 2003, 49 pp.
9. Yuan, J., and Graybeal, B., “Bond Behavior of Reinforcing Steel in
Ultra-High Performance Concrete,” FHWA-HRT-14-090, Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 2014.
10. Russell, H. G., and Graybeal, B., “Ultra-High Performance Concrete:
A State-of-the-Art Report for the Bridge Community,” U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-HRT-13-60, June
2013, 171 pp.
11. Graybeal, B., and Baby, F., “Development of Direct Tension Test
Method for Ultra-High-Performance Fiber Reinforce Concrete,” ACI Mate-
rials Journal, V. 110, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2013, pp. 177-186.
12. Graybeal, B., “Tensile Mechanical Response of Ultra-High-Per-
formance Concrete,” Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, 2015,
doi:10.1520/ACEM20140029.10.1520/ACEM20140029
13. ASTM A615/A615M-13, “Standard Specification for Deformed and
Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, 7 pp.
14. ASTM A1035/A1035M-13b, “Standard Specification for Deformed
and Plain, Low-Carbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforce-
ment,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, 6 pp.
15. ASTM A370-12a, “Standard Test Methods and Definitions for
Mechanical Testing of Steel Products,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2012, 48 pp.
16. ACI Committee 408, “Guide for Lap Splice and Development Length
of High Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars in Tension and Commentary
(ACI 408.3R-09),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2009, 12 pp.
17. Azizinamini, A.; Stark, M.; Toller, J. J.; and Ghosh, S. K., “Bond
Performance of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in High-Strength Concrete,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1993, pp. 554-561.
18. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-11),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
19. CSA A23.3-94, “Design of Concrete Structures,” Canadian Stan-
dards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 1994.
20. Darwin, D.; Idun, E. K.; Zuo, J.; and Tholen, M. L., “Reliabili-
ty-Based Strength Reduction Factor for Bond,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 95, No. 4, July-Aug. 1998, pp. 434-443.
21. Darwin, D.; Tholen, M. L.; Idun, E. K.; and Zuo, J., “Splice Strength
of High Relative Rib Area Reinforcing Bars,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1996, pp. 95-107.
22. Walker, W. T., “Laboratory Tests of Spaced and Tied Reinforcing
Bars,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 47, No. 5, May 1951, pp. 365-372.
23. Chamberlin, S. J., “Spacing of Spliced Bars in Tension Pullout Spec-
imens,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 49, No. 3, Mar. 1952, pp. 261-274.
24. Chinn, J.; Ferguson, P. M.; and Thompson, J. N., “Lapped Splices
in Reinforced Concrete Beams,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 52, No. 2,
Feb. 1955, pp. 201-213.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2015