Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Case study

Bond strength of post-installed high strength deformed rebar

in concrete
Khondaker Sakil Ahmed a, *, Md. Shahjalal a, Tanvir Ahmed Siddique a,
Ang Kok Keng b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Technology (MIST), Dhaka, Bangladesh
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1 Engineering Drive 2, National University of Singapore, 117576, Singapore

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: One of the major aspects of retrofitting or strengthening of existing concrete structures is to install
Post-installed high strength rebar rebars using chemical adhesives. In a view to lighten the disturbance of existing structures by
Bond strength reducing the number of holes, high strength rebars (80 grade; nominal yield strength of 550 MPa)
Failure mode
are more preferable for repairing and strengthening structural components. Here, a total of 108
Regression analysis
Rebar diameter
specimens were prepared to evaluate the performance of post-installed high strength deformed
Embedment length rebar (PIHSDR) in concrete using pull-out tests. Test parameters included concrete compressive
strength (fc’ ), rebar diameter, embedment length of rebar into concrete and concrete cover to
rebar diameter ratio (c/db) to investigate the bond behaviors of PIHSDR at the epoxy-concrete
interface. Bond stress-slip relationships for PIHSDR were obtained, investigated, and hence
compared with previous research and available codes. It was observed that most of the specimens
showed concrete rapture, splitting, or rebar rapture failure and none of them showed pull-out
failure which indicates that the epoxy resins are very much effective as bonding chemicals for
retrofitting concrete structures in the steel-concrete interface. Besides, regression analyses were
performed using the experimental data to obtain a closed-form equation for predicting the bond
strength for PIHSDR. The predicted bond strengths were observed close to the actual test data
with a high coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.99) and very low root mean square error (0.078).

1. Introduction

The reinforced concrete buildings and infrastructures become weak with the flow of time mainly due to the deterioration of their
strength and serviceability [1]. To increase the strength, stiffness, adaptability, and resilience and to decrease the vulnerability of the
old structural elements, retrofitting is one of the best alternative solutions without demolishing the whole structure. This modification
of an existing structure is a sustainable initiative that reduces not only the operational costs but also an impact on environment and
natural resources. Different repair materials such as cement slurry [2], ultra-high performance fiber concrete (UHPFC) [3–5] or epoxy
coating [6] had been used to improve the bonding between the concrete and reinforcement bars. Tayeh et al. (2012) found that the
UHPFC exhibited excellent bond quality in retrofitting process, and interacted strongly with the old surface of the substrate [3,4,7].
Besides, it also decreases the working time of the rehabilitation works and increased the serviceability and durability of repaired
structures [4]. Tayeh et al. (2020) and Maraq et al. (2021) strengthened reinforced concrete beams with self-compacting concrete

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: drksa@ce.mist.ac.bd (K.S. Ahmed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00581
Received 10 January 2021; Received in revised form 3 May 2021; Accepted 22 May 2021
Available online 25 May 2021
2214-5095/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

jacketing reinforced with steel wire mesh [8,9]. It was observed that such a type of strengthening technique improved the flexural
capacity of repaired beams significantly.
The performance of any repaired structure and its service life largely depends on the quality of the interfacial transition zone
between the repair material and the existing substrate [7,10]. Besides, concrete texture roughness plays a significant role to form a
strong mechanical bond between an overlay material and the old substrate material [11]. Installing rebars using chemical adhesives is
also a common phenomenon of retrofitting or strengthening existing concrete structures. To understand the load transferring
mechanism in retrofitted concrete structures, this post-installed deformed rebars and their bonding with existing concrete play a vital
role in determining structural performance [12].
Generally, two categories of anchors are used for connecting different types of structural components in concrete. These are cast-in-
place and post-installed anchors in concrete [13–15]. In the post-installation process, reinforcing bars are installed into the hardened
concrete by drilling holes mechanically and inserting the reinforcement with the help of a binding material or adhesive [16]. As more
flexible and simple construction procedures are demanded in the strengthening of concrete structures, post-installed adhesive or
grouted anchors are getting more important to the engineer communities [17,18]. The tensile forces in the anchors can be distributed
effectively into the surrounding concrete by the way of the bonding agent (i.e., adhesive or grout). Moreover, these embedded anchors
can further prevent or delay crack propagation and opening in hardened concrete. The efficiency of the load transferring mechanism
strongly depends on the bond strengths of both the anchor-bonding agent and concrete-bonding agent interfaces [19].
Mo and Chan (1996) found that the bond properties can be improved by increasing the fc’ of concrete [20]. Pour and Alam (2016)
found that for fixed mix proportions, the bond strength decreased with an increase of effective embedded length and bar dia while
increased with the concrete cover [21]. Besides, a comparison had been made between the bond strength of concrete with plain bar and
deformed bar and found that the plain bar showed only 28.6 % lower bond strength compared to that of the deformed bar. Fang et al.
(2004) studied with the corrosive rebar to find the effect of corrosion on bond behavior. They observed that the bond strength for
reinforcing bars without confinement decreased rapidly as the corrosion increased and reported that at 9% corrosion level the bond
strength was only one-third of that of non-corroded samples [22]. For reinforcing bars with confinement, rebar corrosion had no
significant effect on the bond strength of concrete. The confinement effect such as reinforced with stirrups is one of the key parameters
which influenced bond strength. R.A. Cook (1993) reported that the concrete with short embedment length, cone failure model was
appropriate whereas, for intermediate embedment and deep embedment length, a combined cone-bond failure model was appropriate
based on uniform bond stress distribution and elastic bond stress distribution, respectively [13].
Lachemi et al. (2009) worked with the bond behavior of lightweight self-consolidating concrete which is generally used as a high-
performance concrete in various structural elements [23]. Results showed that the lightweight self-consolidating concrete containing
deformed bar provided less bond strength compared to normal weight self-consolidating concrete between a range of 10%–38%
reduction. Tayeh et al. (2013) carried out an experimental study to examine the bonding strength behavior between the normal
concrete substrate and UHPFC as a repair material and found that UHPFC was more capable to make a strong bond with the substrate of
normal concrete [24].
Several studies have been performed to improve the bond behavior at the steel-concrete interface by using different types of
bonding agents. Studies are often concerned with the interfacial properties in the anchorage system since the pull-out failure of an
anchor or a grout/adhesive core is very common in practical engineering which is not desirable. Recently, Tayeh et al. (2017) used
several types of bonding agents in the interface of steel rebars and old concrete to investigate the effectiveness of these adhesives in
these post-installed rebar connections. No distinct difference was observed in pull-out strength [16]. Besides, it was found that the
post-installed rebar having a larger diameter (12 mm and 10 mm) showed only splitting failure while smaller diameter (8 mm) rebar
specimen showed either splitting, yielding of rebar, or pull out of anchors. The authors concluded that adhesive anchors require lower
embedment length compared to that of the normal anchorage system to develop the desired strength. According to Eligehausen et al.
(2006), the bond strength of adhesive anchors can be significantly influenced by the procedure of drilling and cleaning method,
moisture conditions, and temperature of concrete [15]. Anda et al. (2006) worked with epoxy-coated reinforcement which is generally
used to resist the corrosion of reinforced concrete structures [25]. Tests showed that the epoxy coating decreased the bond strength,
and this reduction was increased with increasing coating thickness. To improve the bond strength of epoxy-coated rebar, Chang et al.
(2002) proposed to mix the river sand in the epoxy by which the bond strength was significantly improved [26].
To improve the mechanical and bond properties of concrete, styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) latex was also used in various studies
[27–29]. Assaad and Gerges (2019) investigated the effect of SBR latexes on the bond behavior of cementitious grouts intended for
embedding anchors under both dry and submerged water conditions [27]. It was observed that the inclusion of SBR considerably
improved the resistance to bleeding and increased the stickiness and viscosity of the grout. These properties were especially beneficial
to attenuate the reduction of mechanical properties when casting takes place in humid environments. Sakka et al. (2019) also found
that the incorporation of SBR enhanced the bond strength as well as attenuated its rate of drop [28]. Besides, this latex film minimized
the skinning phenomenon and dryness of the top surface layer of the mortar mixture.
Recently, Assaad et al. (2019) investigated the effect of SBR latexes on bond properties of structural lightweight self-consolidating
concrete (LWSCC) where the SBR dosage was up to 15 % of binder mass [29]. It was found that the initial stiffness of load-slip curves
and the ultimate bond strength of LWSCC significantly improved with the inclusion of SBR. Besides, the compressive strength and
tensile strength of LWSCC were improved after incorporating SBR. This may be attributed due to the formation of a strong ITZ
(Interfacial Transition Zone) at the cement-aggregate interface for the latex polymer films of SBR. Thus, the propagation micro-cracks
were also reduced during the loading time.
It is crucial to find the actual behavior of chemical adhesive in an anchorage system. The response of the bond stress to slip was

2
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

found to follow an elastic ascending portion where chemical adhesion works, a softening stage where mechanical interlocking was
more prominent, and a descending branch or frictional part [21,30]. Then, a tri-linear bond-slip model was more idealistic for the
interfacial behavior between the anchor and bonding materials [31,32]. A similar analytical approach can be used to analyze the
pull-out behavior of a grout/adhesive core (i.e. interfacial failure at the concrete–grout/ adhesive interface) by introducing the
bond-slip relationship of this interface. ACI 355.4 M guideline is widely used to address the qualification of post installed adhesive
anchorage system in concrete [33]. However, it is not intended to address the design of post-installed reinforcing bars. Therefore, no
standardized experimental method is currently available for determining the bond properties of post installed adhesive based rein­
forcing bars.
Based on the review of related previous works, it is observed that several factors such as concrete strength, adhesive properties,
embedded length, cover thickness, rebar dia influence the bond behavior of post-installed adhesive anchor bars. However, most of
those studies are conducted on anchor bars or normal strength rebars with smaller diameters. No study has been conducted with high
strength (HS) deformed rebars; a nominal strength of 550 MPa (80 grade rebars) and above. So, a further experimental study may
contribute to understand the actual bond behavior of post-installed high strength deformed rebars (PIHSDR) in concrete. This study
aims to assess the efficiency of PIHSDR through the pull-out test for different concrete grades. The contributions of embedment length,
rebar diameter, and cover thickness are also investigated.

2. Research significance

A good number of research studies have already been conducted to understand the post-installed bond behavior of anchorage bars
and the effectiveness of adhesives in the steel-concrete interface. Those studies were primarily performed for anchorage bars, low
strength concrete, smaller rebar diameter, and normal strength rebars. Among them, research on high strength (HS) reinforcing bars is
unavailable and there is no clear guideline for high strength deformed rebars. This experimental work investigates the bond behavior
of post-installed deformed HS rebar in moderate to high strength concrete using the epoxy coating. To the authors’ best knowledge,
this study is one of the new investigations on PIHSDR with a wide variety of parameters such as embedded length to diameter ratio,
concrete strength, and cover to diameter ratio. Besides, based on the tested results a regression analysis is also done to predict the bond
strength of PIHSDR. The proposed equations will offer solutions for engineers to analyze and redesign many old buildings or under-
designed structures through retrofitting and structural strengthening. Therefore, this experimental work will offer practicing engineers
to understand the bond behavior of PIHSDR in concrete and hence boost their confidence in retrofitting the existing concrete
structures.

3. Experimental program

3.1. Materials

The concrete mixtures consist of natural coarse aggregate (NCA), natural fine aggregate (NFA), cement, and water. The maximum
size of natural crushed stones and natural sand used in this study as NCA and NFA were 19 mm and 4.75 mm, respectively. All the
properties of aggregates were measured according to ASTM standards. The water absorption capacity and the specific gravity of NCA
and NFA were determined following ASTM C127 [34] and ASTM C128 [35], respectively, and the unit weight and voids were
measured as per ASTM C29 [7]. The sieve analyses of NCA and NFA were performed following ASTM C136 (2014) which is shown in
Fig. 1. For producing workable concrete, one of the key influencing factors is the proper gradation of aggregates. A sample of
well-graded aggregate contains minimum voids and thus requires minimum paste to fill up the aggregate’s voids. Besides, according to
ACI 211.1 [36], the concrete strength also depends on the gradation of aggregates. Since this study includes two concrete grades in the
experimental program, an appropriate gradation is required. From the figure, it is observed that both the gradation curves fall within
the ASTM ranges. All the physical properties of aggregates are presented in Table 1. The PCC (Portland Composite Cement) was used as
a binding material that is more readily available in developing countries. The properties of cement-like normal consistency, initial
setting time, and final setting times were determined in a controlled room. The room and water temperature was 24 ◦ C and the relative
humidity of the mixing room was 42 %. The tests were done according to ASTM C187 [37] and ASTM C191 [38], respectively, and the

Fig. 1. Sieve analysis of (a) NCA and (b) NFA.

3
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

Table 1
Summary of all physical properties of aggregates [40].
Variables NCA NFA

Absorption Capacity (%) 0.48 1.8

Apparent Specific Gravity 2.73 2.47
Bulk Specific Gravity (SSD) 2.71 2.41
Bulk Specific Gravity (OD) 2.70 2.36
Loose Condition Unit Weight (kg/m3) 1477 1455.44
Compact Condition Unit Weight (kg/m3) 1525.57 1579.25
Loose Condition % of Voids 45.1 38.3
Compact Condition % of Voids 43.3 33.0
Fineness Modulus 7.51 2.39

results are summarized in Table 2.

Mechanical properties of 80 grades steel had been determined for four different rebar diameters. Three rebar samples of each
diameter resulting in a total of 12 deformed rebars had been tested following ASTM A706 [39] by using a Universal Testing Machine
(UTM) with a capacity of 1000 kN. The sizes of mild steel rebar are 10 mm, 12 mm,16 mm, and 20 mm diameter. The test set-up, failure
mode, and stress-strain relationship of all rebars are shown in Fig. 2. The key mechanical parameters of the HS rebars are presented in
Table 3. The result showed that the nominal strength of HS rebars was found in a range of 540 MPa to 600 MPa with an average of 570
MPa. The ultimate strength of the tested rebars was found in a range of 666− 702 MPa with an average of 685 MPa. The ratio of
ultimate to yield strength was found to be in a close range of 1.18–1.22 for different rebar dia. The percentage elongation of the tested
rebar samples was observed in a range of 18–22 %.
Pure epoxy resin based grouted adhesive was used in this study to install the deformed rebar into the hardened concrete. This
chemical adhesive works like a mortar and is practically used to install rebar by preparing drilled holes in existing concrete structures.
Before pouring it into the holes, the holes are required to be cleaned cautiously. The curing time on dry concrete is 1.75 h to 8 h
depending upon the temperature of the surroundings. The specifications of the epoxy chemical provided by the company are presented
in Table 4.

3.2. Mixing proportions

To accomplish a comparative analysis, two different mix designs were performed considering two different concrete strengths. The
target concrete strengths of this study were 30 MPa and 40 MPa. The mix design was prepared according to the ACI 211.1 guideline
[36]. The w/c ratios were kept constant at 0.43 and 0.41 for 30 MPa and 40 MPa concrete, respectively without using any
water-reducing admixture. The mixed proportion of materials is summarized in Table 5.

3.3. Specimen details

Ninety specimens having a size of 100 mm dia x 200 mm height and eighteen specimens having a size of 150 mm dia x 300 mm
height in total 108 concrete cylinders were prepared for this study. Among them, eighteen 100 mm dia x 200 mm samples were used to
determine the fc’ at different ages. Rest ninety cylinders were prepared to investigate the bond behavior of the steel-adhesive-concrete
interface. Three specimens were tested for each combination and the results are presented based on the average of these three
specimens. The primary variables for this experimental study were the rebar diameter (10 mm, 12 mm, 16 mm and, 20 mm),
embedment length (75 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm, 150 mm, 175 mm, and 200 mm), fc’ (30 MPa and 40 MPa), and concrete cover. 80
grade, a nominal yield strength of 550 MPa rebar was used in both concrete grades.
Each batch of the sample is designated with a unique name like BX_Y_Z where B is the batch name, X is concrete fc’ and Y is the bar dia
and Z is the embedded length. For example, B30_10_125 means 30 MPa normal strength concrete, 10 mm bar dia with an embedded
length of 125 mm. The total variable parameters of this pull-out test are summarized in Table 6. It is important to highlight that this
pull-out test was conducted on samples prepared by drilled holes and using chemical adhesives. Therefore, no confinement of the
samples was considered since this study is dealing with post-installed rebars and no radial stress works at the interface of the drilled
holes.

Table 2
Properties of PCC [40].
Setting Time (min)
Compound (%Mass) Normal Consistency (%)
Initial Final

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO SO3 Na2O K2 O LOI

26.7 130 180
20.60 4.74 3.28 64.82 1.84 2.4 0.21 0.38 1.73

4
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

Fig. 2. Tensile test of high rebar; a) Test set-up, b) Failure mode, and b) Stress-strain relationship.

Table 3
Mechanical properties of HS reinforcing steel.
Sl. Dia Yield Strength Average Yield Ultimate Average Ultimate Fu/ Elongation Minimum Elongation for
No (mm) (MPa) Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa) Fy (%) A706− 80 (%)

1 555 666
2 10 570 573 696 687 1.20 18 12
3 595 699
4 575 684
5 12 590 588 698 695 1.18 22 12
6 600 702
7 560 679
8 16 570 568 685 684 1.20 20 12
9 575 687
10 560 682
11 20 545 548 684 682 1.24 22 12
12 540 679

Table 4
Properties of the chemical adhesive.
Sl No Description Specification

1 Type Two-component, thixotropic, advanced fixing, and pure epoxy resin-based chemical anchoring mortar epoxy
2 Water Permanent immersion No
3 Applied Temperature +5 ◦ C to +35 ◦ C
4 Stored Temperature +10 ◦ C or above
5 Substrate Temperature +5 ◦ C +10 ◦ C +20 ◦ C +25 ◦ C +35 ◦ C
6 Working Time 30 min 15 min 10 min 6 min 3 min
7 Curing time on dry concrete 8h 6 h 30 min 3 h 30 min 2 h 45 min 1 h 45 min

Table 5
Mixing proportion of materials per cubic meter.
Batch No Batch Code Cement (kg) NCA (kg) NFA (kg)

1 B30 363.5 966.9 690.6

2 B40 420.7 968.1 631.1

3.4. Test procedure

Fresh concrete mixture was prepared by using a mixing machine following ASTM C31 [41]. The fresh properties of concrete, such
as slump value and air content were determined following the provisions of ASTM C143 [42] and ASTM C231 [43], respectively. After
preparing the cylindrical specimens, they were kept in a controlled room for 24 h and then de-molded and kept at a submerged

5
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

Table 6
Pull-out test variable parameters.
Parameters

fc’ (MPa) Rebar Diameter (mm) Embedment Length (mm) Cylinder Size (mm)

10 100 × 200
12 75 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm and 150 mm 100 × 200
30
16 100 × 200
20 150 mm, 175 mm and 200 mm 150 × 300
10 100 × 200
12 75 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm and 150 mm 100 × 200
40
16 100 × 200
20 150 mm, 175 mm and 200 mm 150 × 300

condition under fresh water at a temperature of 27 ± 1 ◦ C. The compressive strength test of 18 concrete cylinders was performed at 7,
21, and 28 days as per ASTM C39 [44]. The loading rate of the tests was kept constant at 0.25 ± 0.05 MPa/s.
All the remaining concrete cylinders were drilled up to the desired depth as per the test program presented in Table 6. The diameter
of the holes was approximately 2 mm greater than that of the nominal diameters of the rebars. The holes were cleaned very carefully by
using compressed air so that the loose particles of concrete could not affect the bonding. After cleaning the holes, the epoxy chemical
was poured into the drilled holes so that the gap between rebar and hardened concrete of the entire embedded length was uniformly
occupied by the epoxy. One end of the rebar was coated with the help of an epoxy gun before the rebar was inserted carefully into the
drilled hole. Then, the post-installed rebars were inserted into the drilled holes of the hardened concrete. Then, the cylinders were
cured for 1.75 h to 8 h depending upon the temperature of the surroundings as specified in Table 4.
The pull-out test setup of specimens with PIHSDR is shown in Fig. 3. The UTM manufactured by Instron was used for conducting the
pull-out test. An additional pull-out apparatus was used for this testing purpose which was clamped on the upper grip of the UTM.
Afterwards, the samples were placed vertically into that apparatus in a reverse position. Afterwards, the rebar was clamped in the
lower grip of the UTM and the tension was applied at this lower end (Fig. 3).The pull-out test was performed at 28 days following ASTM
C900 [45]. A constant displacement rate of 1 mm/ min was applied throughout the test. The bond stress-slip data was recorded from
the beginning of the test until the bond fails or pull-out force reduced significantly.

Fig. 3. Sample preparation and Pull-out test setup in UTM.

6
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

4. Experimental results and discussion

The fc’ results at different ages are presented in Table 7. The 28 days fc’ of 30 MPa and 40 MPa concrete was found 32.4 MPa and
43.8 MPa, respectively which are close to the targeted fc’ . The slump value was observed to be reduced for the lower w/c ratio (0.41)
compared to the w/c ratio of 0.43, however, both of them are still in the acceptable range (75− 100 mm).

4.1. Bond stress-slip responses

The bond stress is assumed to be uniformly distributed along the embedment length of the post-installed rebar in concrete. The
bond strength is estimated using the following equation:
Pmax
τ = (1)
πdb le

where τ is the average bond strength in MPa, Pmax is the maximum pull-out force in kN, db is the diameter of the rebar in mm and le is
the embedment length in mm. The average bond strength of different batches of samples is presented in Table 8.
The bond stress versus slip response of different specimens is presented in Fig. 4. From the stress-slip relationship, it is observed that
the curve is divided into two parts. In the first segment of the response, a sharp ascending trend occurs which remains nearly linear up
to the peak load where the chemical adhesion and mechanical interlocking between rebar and concrete are more predominant. After
the peak of bond stress, the descending segment of the bond behavior starts which is also observed to be a linear pattern for most of the
specimens.

4.1.1. Bond stress-slip responses of 10 mm dia PIHSDR

The bond stress-slip responses of specimens with 10 mm dia PIHSDR are shown in Fig. 4(a) and (e) for 30 and 40 MPa concrete,
respectively. It can be observed from the figure that the bond strength increases linearly with the slip up to the peak value. However, a
moderate non-linear response is observed in the descending region reflecting a more pronounced strain-hardening phenomenon which
is an indication of ductile behavior. It is clearly observed that the bond strength increases with the concrete strength as observed in the
previous studies as well. Besides, the specimens with a strength of 30 MPa provide comparatively lower slip resistance than that of the
40 MPa concrete. For same concrete strength, both initial stiffness and bond stress decrease as the embedment length increases. Among
the all six embedment lengths, the smaller embedment length (75 mm) provides the highest bond strength though reasonably a low slip
occurs. The slips of 10 mm rebar corresponding to the maximum bond stress vary in the range of 2.0–4.0 mm.

4.1.2. Bond stress-slip responses of 12 mm and 16 mm dia PIHSDR

From the stress-slip behaviors of 12 mm and 16 mm dia PIHSDR are presented in (Fig. 4(b), (c), (f) and (g)), for 30 MPa and 40 MPa
concrete, respectively. The ascending portion of the relationships is linear which is quite similar to that of the 10 mm dia rebars.
However, a sharp drop is observed after reaching the peak value. No strain hardening region is observed in the descending portion of
the response of any specimens which indicates a brittle failure. This may happen due to the occurrence of concrete rupture or rebar
rapture immediately after reaching their ultimate pull-out force. Similar to the previous observation, the maximum pull-out force
increases with the increase of the embedment length for the same diameter. Besides, the 40 MPa concrete specimens provide a higher
bond strength compared to that obtained for 30 MPa concrete. The slips of rebar corresponded to the peak pull-out force vary in a range
of 2.0–5.5 mm.

4.1.3. Bond stress-slip responses of 20 mm dia PIHSDR

Fig. 4(d) and (h) presents the bond stress-slip responses of 20 mm dia PIHSDR for 30 MPa and 40 MPa concrete, respectively. The
responses follow the similar trends as observed for 12 mm or 16 mm dia rebar. Since this rebar diameter is significantly higher than the
other rebars, 150 mm x 300 mm cylinders (where 100 mm x 200 mm for other sizes) were used to install 20 mm dia HS rebars.
Therefore, these specimens get larger concrete cover than the others. It can be observed from the figures that they showed compar­
atively higher ductile responses than that of the 10 mm, 12 mm, and 16 mm rebar specimens. The slope of the curve (initial stiffness) of
the 20 mm dia specimens is milder to that of the smaller specimens with smaller dia rebars. The peak pull-out force decreases with the
increasing of the embedment length. Therefore, bond strength is observed to be influenced by the rebar dia, concrete cover and
concrete strength which is discussed in later sections. The slips corresponded to the peak pull-out force is observed in the range of 4–6.5
mm.

Table 7
Fresh and hardened properties of concrete.
Batch Name B30 B40

Age fc’ (MPa) Slump (mm) Air Content (%) fc’ (MPa) Slump (mm) Air Content (%)

7 days 15.2 18.2

21 days 24.8 105 2.1% 28.6 95 2.4%
28 days 32.4 43.8

7
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

Table 8
Average bond properties of specimens.
Batch Slip at Maximum Average Max Load Average Bond Strength SD COV Normalized Bond Strength Failure mode
Name Load (mm) Pmax (kN) τmax (MPa) (MPa) (%) τN (MPa
12/
)

B30_10_75 1.96 22.90 9.72 1.58 6.89 1.71 Concrete

Rupture
B30_10_100 2.21 28.56 9.09 1.85 6.47 1.60 Concrete
Rupture
B30_10_125 3.75 35.23 8.97 1.25 3.55 1.58 Rebar
Rupture
B30_10_150 2.07 38.46 8.16 1.16 3.02 1.43 Rebar
Rupture
B30_12_75 4.87 23.98 8.49 1.25 5.21 1.49 Concrete
Rupture
B30_12_100 2.77 28.13 7.46 0.98 3.49 1.31 Concrete
Rupture
B30_12_125 2.17 33.16 7.04 1.96 5.90 1.24 Rebar
Rupture
B30_12_150 2.64 39.07 6.77 2.20 5.57 1.19 Rebar
Rupture
B30_16_75 2.46 23.87 6.33 0.93 3.88 1.11 Concrete
Rupture
B30_16_100 5.21 30.29 6.03 1.67 5.53 1.06 Concrete
Rupture
B30_16_125 4.21 36.57 5.82 1.96 5.37 1.02 Concrete
Rupture
B30_16_150 4.03 42.37 5.62 1.64 3.88 0.99 Concrete
Rupture
B30_20_150 6.42 62.85 6.67 0.49 0.76 1.17 Concrete
Rupture
B30_20_175 4.67 69.82 6.35 1.29 1.85 1.12 Concrete
Rupture
B30_20_200 4.84 74.91 5.96 2.86 3.82 1.05 V-notch
Failure
B40_10_75 4.17 30.32 12.87 1.98 6.55 1.94 Concrete
Rupture
B40_10_100 5.38 33.37 10.62 1.85 5.56 1.60 Concrete
Rupture
B40_10_125 6.91 37.98 9.67 2.55 6.70 1.46 Rebar
Rupture
B40_10_150 14.28 43.87 9.31 1.99 4.53 1.41 Rebar
Rupture
B40_12_75 3.1 29.13 10.30 1.23 4.22 1.56 Concrete
Rupture
B40_12_100 4.34 37.55 9.96 1.83 4.86 1.50 Concrete
Rupture
B40_12_125 4.13 40.07 8.50 0.99 2.48 1.28 Rebar
Rupture
B40_12_150 2.92 46.38 8.20 2.29 4.93 1.24 Rebar
Rupture
B40_16_75 2.92 30.56 8.11 0.54 1.78 1.22 Concrete
Rupture
B40_16_100 3.08 37.52 7.46 1.96 5.22 1.13 Concrete
Rupture
B40_16_125 4.02 42.18 6.71 0.92 2.18 1.01 Concrete
Rupture
B40_16_150 3.81 48.67 6.46 2.09 4.28 0.98 Concrete
Rupture
B40_20_150 5.88 66.68 7.08 1.48 2.22 1.07 Concrete
Rupture
B40_20_175 6.23 73.03 6.64 2.34 3.20 1.00 Concrete
Rupture
B40_20_200 4.23 79.97 6.36 0.13 0.13 0.96 V-notch
Failure

4.2. Failure modes

Two types of failure modes were noticed during this bond test of PIHSDR in concrete. These were rebar rapture (Fig. 5(a)), and
splitting failure. The splitting failure modes are divided into two types such as V-notch failure (Fig. 5(c)) and concrete rupture (Fig. 5(b
& d)). The typical failure mode of different concrete specimens that were observed during this test program is presented in Figs. 5 and

8
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

Fig. 4. Bond stress versus slip response of concrete cylinders.

6. For a clear understanding, rebar failure may be categorized as rebar rupture or rebar yielding as drawn in Fig. 6 (a1 and a2). V-notch
or cone failures were observed in several samples as drawn in Fig. 6(b). Moreover, several tested samples showed concrete cracking or
splitting of concrete as shown in Fig. 6(c).
From Table 8, it can be observed that the majority of the tested samples demonstrated splitting failure except for the 10 mm and 12
mm rebar corresponding to 125 mm and 150 mm embedment length. The reason behind this concrete splitting failure is that the
surrounding concrete of the rebar cannot resist the circumferential tensile stresses. This type of failure cracks generally occurs on the

9
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

Fig. 5. Typical failure modes of the tested samples.

Fig. 6. Failure modes of PIHSDR in concrete under tensile loading; (a1) and (a2) rebar rupture and rebar yielding, respectively; (b) v-notch failure
of concrete; (c) concrete cracking or rupture failure.

10
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

concrete surface and propagate along the bonded length of the rebar. No pull-out failure of rebar had occurred in the entire test
samples. Though most of the specimens showed concrete rapture failure, in some specimens, rebars were fractured even when the
epoxy bonds were intact subjected to embedded length. This observation suggests that the epoxy resins are very much effective in the
steel-concrete interface subjected to proper surface treatment and application of the chemical adhesive.

5. Parametric study of bond strength

Parameter dependencies of steel-adhesive-concrete bond strength of HS rebar are studied and discussed in this section. The key
parameters that influence the bond strength are considered for fc’ , rebar diameter, embedment length of rebar, and concrete cover.

5.1. Influence of rebar diameter

The variation of bond strength with different rebar diameters is presented in Fig. 7. From this figure and Table 8, it is observed that
specimens with larger rebar diameters show lower bond strength under the same mix proportions of concrete as observed in previous
studies [21,29]. However, the pull-out force increases with increasing the diameter of the bar (Table 8). This observation agrees well
with a recent study on adhesive anchor bars conducted by Tayeh et al. (2017) [16]. The figure shows that for 75 mm embedment length
in 30 MPa concrete, the bond strength is decreased by 12.7 % and 34.9 % for 12 mm and 16 mm rebar specimens, respectively
compared to that of 10 mm rebars. For 40 MPa concrete, these reductions are 20.0 % and 37 %, respectively. A similar trend is also
observed for other embedment lengths. This outcome may be described by the fact that with increasing the bar diameter, the contact
surface area at the steel/adhesive/concrete also increases linearly. As a result, bond strength decreases as the same amount of pullout
force spreads over a larger surface area considering other parameters remain unchanged. In addition, with the increasing bar diameter,
the number of ribs per given length is decreased which trends to reduce mechanical interlocking between concrete and rebar. This can
be one of the reasons for the reduction of bond strength with the increase of bar diameter. This reduction of bond strength associated
with the increase of rebar diameter can be diminished by increasing the clear cover of concrete and decreasing the embedment length
[21]. As an illustration, for the embedment length of 150 mm, the bond strength is decreased by 17.0 %, 31.1 % and, 18.3 % for 12 mm,
16 mm, and 20 mm rebar specimens, respectively compared to 10 mm rebar specimen for 30 MPa concrete. It can be observed that for a
20 mm rebar specimen the reduction of bond strength is much lower (18.3 %) compared to 16 mm rebar (31.1 %) because 20 mm rebar
was used in the larger cylinders (150 mm × 300 mm). Thus, the bond strength can be increased by increasing the concrete cover (larger
diameter cylinder) as well.
The magnitude of reduction of bond strength with the increasing of rebar diameter is quite small for longer embedment length. As
an example, for the 30 MPa concrete with 12 mm rebar, the reduction of bond strength is 12.1 %, 17.1 %, and 20.3 % for 100 mm, 125
mm, and 150 mm embedment length, respectively, compared to 75 mm embedment length specimen. It is to be noted, when the
embedment length increases from 100 mm to 125 mm, almost 5.0 % more reduction is observed (12.1%–17.1%). However, when this
embedment length is further increased to 150 mm, only 3.2 % more reduction is observed (17.1%–20.3%). This attribute can be
explained by the fact that at the larger embedment, the bond strength is governed by the rebar yielding rather than the concrete
properties or cover thickness. Therefore, the bond strength tends to be constant as the embedded length increases and rebar diameter
dependencies is nearly insignificant.

5.2. Influence of embedment length

According to ACI 408 [46], the bond strength can adequately be measured by using the square root of fc’ up to 55 MPa. Fig. 8
represents the bond strength (τ) of different batches in terms of normalizing the values as follows:
τ
τnz = √̅̅̅̅̅
̅ (2)
’ f c

Fig. 7. Relationship between bond strength and bar diameter; (a) 30 MPa (b) 40 MPa concrete.

11
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

Fig. 8. Variation of normalized bond strength with the embedded length of PIHSDR for (a) 30 MPa (b) 40 MPa concrete.

where, τnz is the normalized bond strength, τ is the bond strength in MPa and f’c is the compressive strength of concrete in MPa. From
Fig. 8 and Table 8, it can be seen that the normalized bond strength decreases with the increase of embedment length to diameter ratio
of the rebars (le/db). As an example, for a 10 mm rebar in a 30 MPa concrete cylinder, the bond strengths are decreased by 6.5 %, 7.7 %,
and 16 % for le/db ratio of 10, 12.5, and 15, respectively compared to that of le/db of 7.5. For 40 MPa concrete specimens, they are
reduced by 17.5 %, 24.9 %, and 27.7 %, respectively. This identical trend is also observed for 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm rebar. For 12
mm rebar this reduction ranges vary from 12.1%–20.3% and 3.3%–20.4% for 30 MPa and 40 MPa concrete, respectively and for 16
mm rebar this ranges are 4.7%–11.2% and 8.0%–20.3%, respectively. As per the stress transferring mechanism of rebar to concrete, the
stress is distributed by the mechanical interlocking, friction, and adhesion (for post-installed bars) of concrete and rebar.
The length of the embedment of rebar in reinforced concrete plays a vital role to achieve the desired bond strength. As observed in
this study, the pull-out force is increased with the increase of embedment length which was also observed previously [16]. However,
the bond strength decreases with the increase of embedded length which agrees with all similar previous studies [21]. With the in­
crease of the le/db, ratio, the pull-out force is distributed over a longer length that ultimately results in reduced bond strength of the
concrete. Besides, the void creation along with the embedment length of rebar also increases for longer embedment length which is
responsible for decreasing the bond strength.
Based on the experimental result presented in section 4 and Figs. 7 and 8, it can be concluded that the bond strength is largely
dependent on the embedded length and bar diameter ratio. A variable, embedded length to bar diameter ratio (l/db) is quite mean­
ingful to consider a parameter that can influence the bond strength. Regression analysis is conducted by which an equation is
developed to understand the bond strength of post-installed rebar’s dependency on l/db as presented in Eq. 3.

Fig. 9. Relationship between bond strength and fc’ ; (a) 10 mm rebar, (b) 12 mm rebar, (c) 16 mm rebar and (d) 20 mm rebar.

12
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

√̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅
le
τ = 1.375 f ’c − 0.015 f ’c (3)
db

5.3. Influence of fc’

The relation between bond strength and fc’ is presented in Fig. 9. It is well understood from the figure that the bond strength is
significantly increased for higher-strength concrete cylinders. As an example, for 10 mm rebar, the bond strength of higher-strength
concrete i.e., 40 MPa is increased by 32.4 %, 16.8 %, 7.8 %, and 14.1 % for 75 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm, and 150 mm embedment length,
respectively compared to that of normal strength concrete (30 MPa). This trend is similarly observed for 12 mm, 16 mm, and 20 mm
rebar. As shown in Table 8, for 40 MPa concrete, the increased percentage of bond strengths varies from 21.1%–33.5%, 14.9%–28.1%,
and 4.6%–6.7% for 12 mm, 16 mm, and 20 mm rebar, respectively for different embedment lengths.
√̅̅̅̅̅
Previous studies on bond strength have revealed that bond strength has an excellent correlation with the square root of the fc’ ( f ’c )
[46–48]. Accordingly, to determine the influence of concrete strength on the bond behavior of post-installed rebars, a function of the
square root of concrete strength (fc′ 0.5) is also presumed in this study. Using the data presented in Table 8, a linear regression equation
is developed for post-installed deformed rebar to quantify average bond stress for different fc’ as presented in Eq. 4.
√̅̅̅̅̅
τ = 1.26 fc ’ (4)

where τ is the average maximum bond strength of post-installed high strength rebar using chemical adhesives. It can predict the data of
bond strength of post-installed high strength deformed rebar up to the concrete strength of 43 MPa. The standard variation of the result
is around ± 0.8 MPa and regression factor, R2 = 0.954. It may change because of other variables such as the embedment length, clear
cover, and rebar diameter.

5.4. Influence of concrete cover

There were two types of cylinder molds used in this study to observe the influence of concrete cover. For 20 mm dia rebar, 150 mm
dia cylinders were used for the sample and 100 mm dia cylinders were used for all other cases. Due to the variation of rebar and
different cylinder sizes, there is a scope to observe the bond strength dependencies on concrete cover thicknesses. In order to examine
the cover’s effect on the bond strength, normalized bond strength with cover to diameter ratio is presented in Fig. 10. The figure shows
that a higher concrete cover provides higher bond strength due to the high confinement effect of the rebar as obtained in previous
researchers [21,49]. Besides, the specimen with a larger concrete cover to diameter ratio showed a higher ductility. From the figure, it
can be concluded that if the cover to diameter ratio is increased by 50 %, bond strength increases up to 40 % for a particular diameter
considering all other parameters remain the same. The relationship can be approximated in a linear pattern. A regression analysis was
conducted based on test results to correlate the clear cover to diameter ratio (c/db) with the maximum average bond strength, yielding
the equation as shown in Eq. 5. Square of regression factor R2 = 0.904.
√̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅
C
τ = 0.05 f ’c + 0.36 f ’c (5)
db

6. Regression model of bond strength for post-installed deformed rebar

Based on the experimental results, the influencing parameters for bond strength evaluations are considered to be concrete strength,
rebar diameter, embedment length to diameter ratio, and clear cover to diameter ratio. Similar to the previous work on the bond
strength evaluation [6,50,51], this study considers that the bond stress (τ) can be expressed as a function of the following parameters:
(√̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅ )
l c
τ= f f ’c , f ’c , f ’c (6)
db db
Based on the regression analysis of all tested samples, the following equations were developed for post-installed deformed rebar
√̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅
l c
τpre = 0.43 f ’c − 0.07 ( f ’c ) + 0.42 ( f ’c ) (7)
db db
It is to be noted that the developed regression equations are valid only for the tensile bond strength of post-installed deformed rebar
(PIHSDR). The proposed regression equations are used to predict the tensile bond strength and are further used to compare with the
tested values. Fig. 11 provides a comparison between the tested values and predicted values extracted from the regression equation. It
is seen that a good correlation is found between the experimental and the predicted values for post-installed deformed rebar where the
standard variation of the result is around ± 0.6 MPa and the R2 value is 0.99. Therefore, the proposed equation can be appropriately
applied to evaluate bond strength for similar post-installed deformed rebars in concrete.
The developed regression equation of this study for PIHSDR has been checked in terms of key statistical parameters such as average
performance factor (PF), covariance (COV), average absolute percentage error (AAPE), and root mean squared error (RMSE). Equa­
tions for those parameters are presented in Eq. 8 to Eq. 11. The values of those parameters suggest that the proposed equations can

13
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

Fig. 10. Bond strength variation due to the change in c/db ratio.

Fig. 11. Comparison of bond strength between experimental and regression model.

predict the experimental results quite accurately since the value of avg PF is close to 1, with a low standard deviation, AAPE, and RMSE
as presented in Table 9.
τexp
PF = (8)
τpre
( ) ( )
Σ τexp − τexp × τpre − τpre
COV = (9)
n− 1
⃒ ⃒
1 ⃒τexp − τpre ⃒⃒
AAPE = Σ ⃒⃒ × 100 (10)
n τexp ⃒
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Σ((τexp − τpre )2
RMSE = (11)
n
The average PF is 1.005 with a COV of 2.41 and an RMSE of 0.078. Therefore, the proposed bond equations for PIDHSR may be
considered as accurate measures to predict the bond strength of PIHSDR.

Table 9
Statistical parameters of the bond equations.
PF= τexp / τpre
Proposed Bond Equation for AAPE RMSE
Avg. PF Std. PF COV

PIHSDR 1.005 0.074 2.41 0.483 0.078

14
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

7. Conclusions

In this study, the bonding performance of post-installed high strength deformed rebar (PIHSDR) embedded in concrete is inves­
tigated through pull-out tests. The key parameters used in the pull-out tests are fc’ , rebar diameter, embedment length of rebar, and
concrete cover. Two different concrete strengths (30 MPa and 40 MPa), four different rebar diameters (10 mm, 12 mm, 16 mm, and 20
mm), six different embedment length (75 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm, 150 mm, 175 mm, and 200 mm) and two different cylinder sizes (100
mm × 200 mm and 150 mm × 300 mm) are used in this experimental program. The key findings from the study are briefly presented as
follows:

1 Most of the specimens showed concrete rapture, splitting, or rebar rapture failure and none of them showed pull-out failure. Based
on experimental observation, it can be concluded that epoxy resins are very much effective as bonding chemicals at the rebar/
concrete interface.
2 The fc’ was found to play a central role in determining the bond strength between the reinforcing bar, adhesive, and the surrounding
concrete. The bond strength was found up to 33.5 % higher with the increase of concrete strength from 30 to 40 MPa. Based on this
√̅̅̅̅̅̅
study, the proposed empirical relationship between bond strength and fc’ for PIHSDR is τ = 1.26 f c ’ with coefficient of deter­
mination, R2 = 0.954.
3 Bond strength of steel-adhesive-concrete was observed to decrease with the increase of embedded length to rebar diameter ratio as
well as with the increase of rebar diameter. This result showed a very good agreement with all previous designated pull-out bond
tests.
4 The concrete clear cover was also found to have a significant influence on the bond strength of PIHSDR. As an example, with the
increase of 50 % cover to diameter ratio, a 40 % increment in the bond strength was observed.
5 The proposed equation can predict the bond strength of PIHSDR quite accurately. The values of PF (1.005) and coefficient of
determination (R2 = 0.99) are very close to 1.00 and also the RMSE is very low (0.078) that demonstrates the accuracy of the
proposed equation.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Khondaker Sakil Ahmed: Conceptualization, Experimental Investigation, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Funding
acquisition. Md Shahjalal: Investigation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Tanvir Ahmed Siddique: Experi­
mental Investigation, Methodology, Formal analysis. Ang Kok Keng: Visualization, Validation, Resources.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors are pleased to acknowledge the funding and technical support provided by the Department of Civil Engineering of
MIST, Dhaka, Bangladesh. The authors also acknowledge the pure epoxy chemical commercially named Masterflow 935 manufactured
by BASF chemical for its application in the test program.

References

[1] S. Bhardwaj, S.A. Belali, A review on retrofitting, SSRG Int. J. Civil Eng. (SSRG-IJCE) 2 (3) (2015).
[2] L. Courard, Adhesion of repair systems to concrete: influence of interfacial topography and transport phenomena, Mag. Concr. Res. 57 (5) (2005) 273–282.
[3] B.A. Tayeh, B.H.A. Bakar, M.A.M. Johari, Mechanical properties of old concrete—UHPFC interface, concrete repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting III, in: 3rd
International Conference on Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting, ICCRRR-3, CRC Press, Cape Town, South Africa, 2012.
[4] B.A. Tayeh, B.H.A. Bakar, M.A.M. Johari, Y.L. Voo, Utilization of ultra-high performance fibre concrete (UHPFC) for rehabilitation a review, Procedia Eng. 54
(2013) 525–538.
[5] B.A. Tayeh, M.A. Naja, S. Shihada, M. Arafa, Repairing and strengthening of damaged RC columns using thin concrete jacketing, Adv. Civ. Eng. (2019).
[6] K. Islam, A.H.M.M. Billah, M.M.I. Chowdhury, K.S. Ahmed, Exploratory study on bond behavior of plain and sand coated stainless steel rebars in concrete,
Structures 27 (2020) 2365–2378.
[7] A.F. AlHallaq, B.A. Tayeh, S. Shihada, Investigation of the bond strength between existing concrete substrate and UHPC as a repair material, International
Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT) 6 (3) (2017).
[8] B.A. Tayeh, M.A.A. Maraq, M.M. Ziara, Flexural performance of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with self-compacting concrete jacketing and steel
welded wire mesh, Structures 28 (2020) 2146–2162.
[9] M.A.A. Maraq, B.A. Tayeh, M.M. Ziara, R. Alyousef, Flexural behavior of RC beams strengthened with steel wire mesh and self-compacting concrete jacketing —
experimental investigation and test results, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 10 (2021) 1002–1019.
[10] B.A. Tayeh, B.H.A. Bakar, M.A.M. Johari, A.M. Zeyad, Microstructural analysis of the adhesion mechanism between old concrete substrate and UHPFC, J. Adhes.
Sci. Technol. 28 (18) (2014) 1846–1864.
[11] B.A. Tayeh, B.H.A. Bakar, M.A.M. Johari, M.M. Ratnam, Existing concrete textures: their effect on adhesion with fibre concrete overlay, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings 167 (6) (2014) 355–368.
[12] R. Mahmud, K.S. Ahmed, Interface dependency of reinforced concrete jacketing for column strengthening, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Struct. Build. 173 (1) (2020)
31–41.

15
K.S. Ahmed et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 (2021) e00581

[13] R.A. Cook, Behavior of chemically bonded anchors, J. Struct. Eng. 119 (9) (1993) 2744–2762.
[14] D. Wang, D. Wu, C. Ouyang, M. Zhai, Performance and design of post-installed large diameter anchors in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 114 (2016) 142–150.
[15] R. Eligehausen, R. Cook, J.J. Appl, Behavior and design of adhesive bonded anchors, ACI Struct. J. 103 (6) (2006).
[16] B.A. Tayeh, Z.M. EL dada, S. Shihada, M.O. Yusuf, Pull-out behavior of post installed rebar connections using chemical adhesives and cement based binders,
J. King Saud Univ. - Eng. Sci. (2017).
[17] R.A. Cook, J. Kunz, W. Fuchs, R.C. Konz, Behavior and design of single adhesive anchors under tensile load in uncracked concrete, ACI Struct. J. 95 (1) (1998).
[18] B.S. Hamad, R.A. Hammoud, J. Kunz, Evaluation of bond strength of bonded-in or post-installed reinforcement, ACI Struct. J. 103 (2) (2006).
[19] J. Veludo, E.N.B.S. Júlio, D. Dias-da-Costa, Compressive strength of micropile-to-grout connections, Constr. Build. Mater. 26 (1) (2012) 172–179.
[20] Y.L. Mo, J. Chan, Bond and slip of plain rebars in concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 208 (1996).
[21] S.M. Pour, M.S. Alam, Investigation of compressive bond behavior of steel rebar embedded in concrete with partial recycled aggregate replacement, Structures 7
(2016) 153–164.
[22] C. Fanga, K. Lundgrenb, L. Chena, C. Zhua, Corrosion influence on bond in reinforced concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 2159–2167.
[23] M. Lachemi, S. Bae, K.M.A. Hossain, M. Sahmaran, Steel–concrete bond strength of lightweight self-consolidating concrete, Mater. Struct. 42 (2009) 1015–1023.
[24] B.A. Tayeh, B.H.A. Bakar, M.M.A. Johari, A.M. Zeyad, Flexural strength behavior of composite UHPFC - existing concrete, Adv. Mat. Res. 701 (2013) 32–36.
[25] L.D. Anda, C. Courtier, J.P. Moehle, Bond strength of prefabricated epoxy-coated reinforcement, ACI Struct. J. 103 (2) (2006).
[26] J.J. Changa, W. Yeiha, C.L. Tsaib, Enhancement of bond strength for epoxy-coated rebar using river sand, Constr. Build. Mater. 16 (2002) 465–472.
[27] J.J. Assaad, N. Gerges, Styrene-butadiene rubber modified cementitious grouts for embedding anchors in humid environments, Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
84 (2019) 317–325.
[28] F.El. Sakka, J.J. Assaad, F.R. Hamzeh, C. Nakhoul, Thixotropy and interfacial bond strengths of polymermodified printed mortars, Mater. Struct. 52 (2019).
[29] J.J. Assaad, N. Gerges, C.A. Issa, Bond to reinforcement of polymeric lightweight flowable concrete for structural applications, J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 33 (6)
(2019) 595–615.
[30] B. Zhang, B. Benmokrane, Pullout bond properties of fiber-reinforced polymer tendons to grout, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 14 (5) (2002).
[31] F.F. Ren, Z.J. Yang, J.F. Chen, W.W. Chen, An analytical analysis of the full-range behaviour of grouted rockbolts based on a tri-linear bond-slip model, Constr.
Build. Mater. 24 (3) (2010) 361–370.
[32] Z. Wu, S. Yang, J. Zheng, X. Hu, Analytical solution for the pull-out response of FRP rods embedded in steel tubes filled with cement grout, Mater. Struct. 43 (5)
(2010) 597–609.
[33] ACI 355.4, Qualification of Post-Installed Adhesive Anchors in Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, 2019.
[34] ASTM C127, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2015.
[35] ASTM C128, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Fine Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2015.
[36] ACI Standard 211.1, Standard practice for selecting proportions for Normal, heavyweight, and mass concrete, in: ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 1,
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005.
[37] ASTM C187, Standard Test Method for Amount of Water Required for Normal Consistency of Hydraulic Cement Paste, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2016.
[38] ASTM C191, Standard Test Methods for Time of Setting of Hydraulic Cement by Vicat Needle, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018.
[39] ASTM A706 / A706M, Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Low-Alloy Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[40] F.M.Z. Hossain, M. Shahjalal, K. Islam, M. Tiznobaik, M.S. Alam, Mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete containing crumb rubber and
polypropylene fiber, Constr. Build. Mater. 225 (2019) 983–996.
[41] ASTM C.31, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2019.
[42] ASTM C143, Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[43] ASTM C231, Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[44] ASTM C.39, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018.
[45] ASTM C900, Standard Test Method for Pullout Strength of Hardened Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2019.
[46] ACI 408, Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension (ACI 408R-03), American Concrete Institute, 2003.
[47] ACI 318-14, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, 2014.
[48] CSA A23.3-14, Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian Standards Association, 2014.
[49] S. Quayyum, Bond Behaviour of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Rebars in Concrete, The University Of British Columbia, Canada, 2010.
[50] C.O. Orangun, J.O. Jirsa, J.E. Breen, A reevaluation of test data on development length and splices, 318Reference 12 (9) (2005) 114–122.
[51] D. Darwin, L.A. Lutz, J. Zuo, Recommended provisions and commentary on development and lap splice lengths for deformed reinforcing bars in tension, ACI
Struct. J. 102 (6) (2005) 892–900.

16