Bond of Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars Embedded in Steel Fiber

Bond of Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars Embedded in Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete – State-of-the-Art Report
Contact person : dr.ir. C.R. Braam

Date : October 2001
Author(s) : dr.ir. A.J. Bigaj-van Vliet
Toepassing van nieuwe materialen bij geboorde

Project name :
betonen tunnels
Project number : 01.06.03
Number of pages : 65
Number of tables : 66
Number of figures : 44
Number of appendices : -
Keverling Buismanweg 4
Postbus 69
2600 AB Delft
015-2693793
015-2693799
info@delftcluster.nl
www.delftcluster.nl
Delft Cluster verricht lange-termijn

fundamenteel strategisch onderzoek
op het gebied van duurzame inrichting
van deltagebieden.
Projectgroep
Tijdens de uitvoering van het project bestond de Delft Cluster-groep van thema Grond en
Constructie uit:
Naam Organisatie
Thema Trekker dr. P. van den Berg GeoDelft
Thema Duwer Prof.dr.ir. J. Rots TU Delft, Bouwkunde

Thema Leden
Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 2

Betrokken personen
Bij de totstandkoming van dit rapport waren betrokken:
Naam Organisatie
dr.ir. A.J. Bigaj-van Vliet TNO Bouw
dr.ir. C.R. Braam TU Delft, CITG
Dipl.-Ing. P. Schumacher TU Delft, CITG
dr.ir. A.H.J.M. Vervuurt TNO Bouw
Prof.dr.ir. J.C. Walraven TU Delft, CITG

Management Summary
Bond of Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars

Title Embedded in Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete –
State-of-the-Art Report
Author(s) dr.ir. A.J. Bigaj-van Vliet
Date October 2001

Project number 01.06.03
Report number 01.06.03-01

Management samenvatting
Bond of Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars

Titel Embedded in Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete –
State-of-the-Art Report
Auteurs dr.ir. A.J. Bigaj-van Vliet
Datum October 2001
Project nummer 01.06.03
Rapport nummer 01.06.03-01

Contents
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................7
1.1 Problem statement........................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Composition of SFRC................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Concrete composition vs. bond behavior.................................................................... 9
2 LITERATURE OVERVIEW ............................................................................12
2.1 Pull-out tests with short embedment length (RILEM Standard RC6 or similar
test set-up) ................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1 S. Cattaneo [6], S. Cattaneo & G. Rosati [7] ...................................................12
2.1.2 F.S. Rostásy & K.Hartwig [27]........................................................................15
2.1.3 M.H. Harajli [12] .............................................................................................18
2.1.4 M.H. Harajli, M. Hout & W. Jalkh [14]...........................................................21
2.1.5 F. De Bonte [9] ................................................................................................25
2.1.6 P. Soroushian, F. Mirza & A. Alhozaimy [32] ................................................28
2.1.7 G. A. Plizzari [25]............................................................................................31
2.1.8 S. Hota & A.E. Naaman [16] ...........................................................................34
2.2 Pull-out tests with short embedment length (Danish Standard DS2082 or similar
test set-up) ................................................................................................................... 38
2.2.1 A. Samen Ezeldin, P.N. Balaguru [30], [31]....................................................38
2.2.2 N. Krstulovic-Opara, K.A. Watson & J.M. LaFave [19] .................................41
2.2.3 C.V. Nielsen, J.F., Olesen & B.K. Aarup [22], B. Aarup & B. Chr. Jensen [1],
B. Aarup, J. Karlsen & G. Lindström [2] ........................................................45
2.2.4 G. Heshe & C.V. Nielsen [27], C.V. Nielsen [21]...........................................48
2.3 Tension tests on tie elements...................................................................................... 51

2.3.1 K. Noghabai [23], [24].....................................................................................51
2.3.2 L. Guan & G. Zhao [10]...................................................................................53
2.3.3 H.H. Abrishami & D. Mitchell [3], [4] and D. Mitchell, H.H. Abrishami & S.
Mindess [20] ....................................................................................................54
2.4 Beam tests (RILEM Standard RC5 [28] or similar test set-up) ............................. 58
2.4.1 M.H. Harajli [12] .............................................................................................58
2.5 Modeling of bond in SFRC ........................................................................................ 60
3 SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE OVERVIEW .................................................61
4 FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................62
5 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................64

1 Introduction
1.1 Problem statement
The use of steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) in civil engineering structures has been
widely discussed in recent years. In the early stage of development it was hoped that the
tensile strength of the concrete could be increased significantly through the addition of fibers.
However, only an insignificant increase in strength could be achieved with the amounts of
fibers customarily used in practice. The load bearing capacity of reinforced and prestressed
concrete proved not to be increased markedly by steel fiber addition within the practical range
i.e. a volume fraction Vf ≤ 3%. With fibers, however, the behavior of solid structural
components was found to be improved as far as ductility is concerned, in particular in the
zones where tensile stresses occur in the concrete. After initiation of cracks, the crack-
arresting effect of fibers provides a redistribution of the stresses within the structure and
consequently, the overall structural toughness is enhanced. Furthermore, fibers durably and
noticeably improve the behavior under service loads: addition of steel fibers significantly
reduces both deformation and crack width. Note, that when using the Eurocode 2, the amount
of steel reinforcement is to a high degree determined by the serviceability limit state (SLS)
checks [34]. Another major - and primarily industrial – incentive in using fibers is to reduce
the production costs by shortening the construction time and, where possible, reducing the
amount of conventional reinforcement.
An overview of the practical applications of SFRC shows that depending on the type of
structure, the use of the steel fibers can either reduce the required amount of conventional steel
reinforcement or in some cases replace it altogether, while maintaining satisfactory
performance of the structure [33]. Steel-concrete composite floors, reinforced concrete floors
supported by columns or walls and floors on an elastic foundations belong to the category of
structural elements in which the conventional steel reinforcement can be partially replaced by
the use of SFRC. In these cases the use of steel fibers is intended to reduce opening of creep
and shrinkage cracks and to increase the speed of construction works. Steel reinforcement is
still needed there to guarantee sufficient deformation capacity and load carrying capacity at the
supports. Besides the traditional use of fibers for controlling cracks in e.g. slabs and toppings,
examples can be given of fiber application for load-bearing purposes. Research affirms the
possibility of using fibers for structural repairs, ductile beam-column connections [32] or shear
reinforcement, e.g. in order to replace conventional (web) reinforcement in I-shaped girders
[23]. Also in case of prefabricated tunnels, it is possible to eliminate conventional (bending)
reinforcement if SFRC is used, provided that the bending moments remain low. However,
with respect to force distribution in tunnel structures it is important to note that, under some
geological circumstances or exceptional loading situations, it is possible to find sections where
stresses due to bending dominate the stress distribution and even absence of a normal force is
possible. In such cases it is not feasible to apply steel fibers as main reinforcement. Therefore,
in order to provide a general structural solution for future tunnel planning it is often suggested
to combine the best properties of both steel fibers and ordinary steel reinforcement. This
approach results in a combination of steel fiber reinforcement and conventional steel
reinforcement. In such case bending moments in the tunnel lining are resisted by the
reinforcing steel, while splitting forces due to thrust jacking and coupling forces resulting from
the girder behavior of the tunnel lining are withstand solely by the SFRC. In case of extrusion
tunnels, a multiaxial state of stress is present: tension is the result of truss forces, bending
results from soil settlements and compression follows from the soil (and water) pressure. Also
in this case the use of SFRC may result in a reduction of the amount of conventional steel
reinforcement.

The number of applications of SFRC increased over the past few years. However, SRFC can
be efficiently and safely applied in a wide variety of structures provided that it is fully clear in
which way the use of SFRC contributes to the resistance of the structure to the applied load,
both in terms of load carrying capacity and deformability. Considering that frequently a
combination of both types of reinforcement is applied (e.g. conventional steel reinforcement
used as main reinforcement and steel fibers used as detailing reinforcement or for durability
purposes), the behavior of structural elements, which combine both types of reinforcement,
should be thoroughly investigated. If the design of civil engineering structures has to be cost
saving, an optimum between both types of reinforcement has to be aimed at. This can be
achieved by keeping the main reinforcement of a conventional type as simple and as effective
as possible and supplementing it with steel fiber reinforcement added in adjusted quantities
and tuned to specific load cases.
When discussing deformation capacity of structural elements or civil engineering structures

manufactured using SFRC, one must be able to describe thoroughly both the behavior of the
concrete matrix reinforced with steel fibers and the interaction between this composite matrix
and discrete steel reinforcement of the conventional type. Yet, even though the knowledge on
bond behavior is essential for evaluating the overall behavior of structural components
containing reinforcement and steel fibers, information is hardly available in this area. Within
the Delft Cluster project DC 06.01.03 an extensive research is carried out aimed to clarify the
behavior of SFRC under compressive state of stresses. A literature study as well as recently
completed research at TU Delft [18] provide a significant amount of information with respect
to the tensile behavior of SFRC. The complementary literature study described in this report
aims at gathering and evaluating available information on bond of deformed bars embedded in
SFRC.
1.2 Composition of SFRC
SFRC is a composite material, which is in general regarded as macroscopically homogeneous

and isotropic. These assumptions are valid under the condition that the fibers are uniformly
distributed in the concrete matrix. Mix proportions and mixing procedures must be adjusted
accordingly, in order to prevent fiber balling and to achieve random orientation of fibers. The
fiber volume Vf applied in practice varies considerably. The following may serve as a
guideline [34]:
− Industrial floors 20 to 40 kg/m3
− Housing constructions 25 to 50 kg/m3
− Environmental structures 40 to 70 kg/m3
− Tunnel structures and civil engineering structures 40 to 100 kg/m3
− Special cases 120 kg/m3
The addition of steel fibers to concrete mixtures puts additional demands to the design of the
mix composition. A number of adaptations need to be made with respect to the aggregate
grading curve when fibers are added to the concrete mix. Firstly, continuous aggregate grading
gives a lower probability of fiber balling than discontinuous grading. Secondly, from a
workability point of view it is recommended to limit the maximum grain size to 1/2 - 1/3 of
the fiber length [17, 34]. As the maximum grain size decreases, the fibers are more randomly
distributed and orientated in the mix. Thirdly, the ratio of finest/total aggregate volume needs
to be adjusted to attain an optimum packing density. As the fiber volume Vf increases, the
packing density decreases. A similar effect is found when the fiber’s aspect ratio (Lf/df) is
increased. It is generally agreed that the Lf/df ratio should not be higher than 60. If higher Lf/df
ratios are used in combination with higher fiber volumes (e.g. in tunnel linings), it is advised

to limit the maximum aggregate diameter dmax to 16 mm [34]. In order to diminish the
decrease in packing density, a larger amount of fine aggregate is needed in SFRC, compared to
non-fibrous concrete. Depending on the fiber volume the optimum packing density is reached
when the fine to total aggregate ratio is between 40 and 60%. [17]. Besides, with higher fiber
volumes, a higher cement content is required to guarantee sufficient workability. This is due to
the fact that when adding fibers to the mix a larger internal surface needs to be moistened by
the cement paste. Note that the amount of water should be increased proportionally to the
amount of cement in order not to reduce strength and durability of the composite material due
to a largely increased water/cement ratio.
Table 1.1 ACI guideline on SFRC mix design [5]
component dmax = 10 mm dmax = 20 mm dmax = 38 mm

water/cement ratio 0.35 – 0.45 0.35 – 0.45 0.35 – 0.55
cement [kg/m3] 360 - 600 300 - 540 280 - 420
fine/total aggregate [%] 45 - 60 45 - 55 40 - 55
air volume [%] 4-8 4-6 4-5
Vf straight fibers [%] 0.8 – 2.0 0.6 – 1.6 0.4 – 1.4
Vf deformed fibers [%] 0.4 – 1.0 0.3 – 0.8 0.2 – 0.7
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) developed a guideline to simplify the mix design of
SFRC [5]. Though it does not take into account the effect and importance of additives such as
superplasticizers, it is a very good indication when verifying the quality of the mix
composition.
Generally, the workability of concrete gets worse if fibers are added to the matrix. With
increasing aspect ratio and volume of fibers, the workability of the concrete mix decreases.
The probability of fiber balling increases when the maximum fiber volume is reached for a
given maximum grain size and aspect ratio or when the volume of coarse aggregate is too high
with respect to the total aggregate volume. Moreover, production aspects such as elongation of
the mixing time and time-discontinuity when adding fibers contribute to decreasing
workability of the concrete. Addition of suitable superplasticizers shall help to improve the
workability of the concrete mix to the desired level. Also compaction has an influence on fiber
orientation. An internal vibrator for compacting the concrete will disturb the orientation of the
fibers locally, creating weak spots. With the application of an external vibrator the fibers will
tend to orientate in a direction perpendicular to the vibration direction. Yet, the compacting
method by means of external vibrators is preferable. Good workability in combination with
proper compaction is necessary to guarantee a homogeneous and isotropic structure of SFRC.
As a result of non-uniform density and inhomogeneous orientation of the fibers the properties
of the SFRC material after hardening may not be the same in every place and in every
direction. Nevertheless, one must not forget the unavoidable deviations from random fiber
orientation, which occur as a result of the geometrical influences (formwork, free surfaces,
conventional reinforcement). Furthermore, the pouring direction as well as the flow direction
tends to orient the steel fibers a well.
1.3 Concrete composition vs. bond behavior
Under increasing pull-out forces, the bond behavior in plain (non-fibrous) concrete is marked
by: 1) the initiation of inclined cracks at contact points between the steel lugs and concrete at
relatively low stresses (see Fig. 1.1a); 2) crushing of concrete in front of the lugs (see
Fig. 1.1b); 3) shearing-off of an increasingly larger part of concrete keys between the lugs
until the keys are fully sheared off (see Fig. 1.1c), after which some frictional bond resistance
is left. The gradual shearing-off of the concrete keys is possible only in well-confined

concrete, where excessive growth of the splitting cracks can be prevented. Nevertheless,
splitting always occurs in some way prior to bond failure, in the form of either partial splitting
(quite often undetected) or full splitting, the latter being the subject of investigations on cover
splitting in RC elements. In other words, bond of reinforcing bars to concrete and concrete
splitting are intertwined to such a degree that bond failure is always accompanied by extended
splitting, which makes bar pull-out easier.
Figure 1.1 Mechanism of bond resistance in confined concrete [32].
Since the tensile strength of concrete is low, cracking in concrete occurs at relatively low
loads. At the onset of cracking, the role of the randomly orientated steel fibers in SFRC is to
retard the propagation of micro cracks in the matrix. It is conceivable, that the steel fibers are
able to bridge the so-called Goto-microcracks arising at the ribs of the bar (see Fig. 1.2).
Figure 1.2: Effect of steel fibers in cracked reinforced concrete section [27].
Once cracking occurs, fibers strengthen the matrix by transmitting a substantial tensile force
during fiber slipping, with a sufficient margin against fracture, prevent further opening of
cracks and resist additional tensile forces, which the concrete matrix itself cannot sustain.
Hence, while the fibers may not much delay the formation of the first crack, they may keep

crack width small and prevent the sudden opening of splitting cracks. This would control the
failure in the concrete matrix itself, thereby preserving the bond strength between the
reinforcing bar and the surrounding concrete matrix. Hence, compared to plain concrete, fibers
may enhance the bond behavior of deformed bars embedded in SFRC by arresting the bond
and splitting cracks. It is plausible that fibers may also delay the crushing of concrete between
the lugs of the reinforcing bars. If this were true then the fibers would enhance both bond
stiffness and bond strength both for the splitting and for the pull-out type of bond failure.

2 Literature overview
2.1 Pull-out tests with short embedment length (RILEM Standard RC6 or
similar test set-up)
2.1.1 S. Cattaneo [6], S. Cattaneo & G. Rosati [7]
In the experimental investigation presented in [6] and [7] the bond strength, failure
development and failure type (splitting or pull-out) in case of ribbed steel bars embedded in
high performance fiber reinforced concrete were studied. Figure 2.1 shows test set-up and
geometry of the test specimens used.
Figure 2.1: Scheme of the testing device (left) and geometry of test specimens (right) [6].
Table 2.1: General test program [6], [7].
Type of tests Type of specimen Results Assumptions Variables

short pull-out cylindrical specimen - curves uniformly Vf

concentrically placed bar fracture process distributed bond ds
no bond-free length (acoustic emission) stress c/ds
concrete in compression
Table 2.2: Materials characteristics [6], [7].
Fibers Concrete Steel

Lf / df Vf fccm fct Gf ds fR Type
Shape
[mm / mm] [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
- 13 / 0.16 0 147 - - 14 0.078 FeB44K
1 155 18 0.083
Table 2.3: Specimens geometry [6], [7].
c/ds c Bar Lb / ds Lb-freepull/ds Lb-freepush/ds Loading vs.

position Additional confinement
[-] [mm] [-] [-] [-] casting
1.5 20 – 36 concentric 3 0 0 none identical
2 direction

Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 give main characteristics of the test program. Note that the effective rib
area of the bars is estimated on the basis of limited geometrical data. No bond-free length is
provided at the loaded end of the bar. Hence it is very likely that boundary restrain at the
supported specimen surface influences the results of the tests. Test results and major
conclusions from this investigation are presented in Figures 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 and in Table 2.4.
Figure 2.2: Bond stress – displacement curves for plain concrete and SFRC [6]:
(a) BD0-1455: plain concrete fccm=147 MP, ds = 14 mm, c/ds = 1.5
BD1-1455: SFRC fccm=155 MPa, ds = 14 mm, c/ds = 1.5
(b) BD0-1870: plain concrete fccm=147 MP, ds = 18 mm, c/ds = 1.5
BD1-1870: SFRC fccm=155 MPa, ds = 18 mm, c/ds = 1.5
Figure 2.3: Bond stress – displacement curves for SFRC [6]:

(a) BD1-1455: SFRC fccm=155 MPa, ds = 14 mm, c/ds = 1.5
BD1-1470: SFRC fccm=155 MPa, ds = 14 mm, c/ds = 2
(b) BD1-1870: SFRC fccm=155 MPa, ds = 18 mm, c/ds = 1.5
BD1-1890: SFRC fccm=155 MPa, ds = 18 mm, c/ds = 2

Figure 2.4 Bond strength as a function of c/ds [6].
Table 2.4: Main conclusions and observations [6], [7].
Aspect (Variable) Characteristics Conclusion

Effect of fibers Bond strength With Vf = 1% fibers splitting bond strength of SFRC is about 20%
(Vf) higher than for plain reference concrete, while √fc is only about 3%
higher.
Pull-out bond strength of SFRC is higher than for plain reference
concrete [6].
Bond stiffness (pre-
peak behavior)
Bond ductility Post-peak behavior is more ductile for SFRC than for plain reference
(post-peak behavior) concrete.
Failure propagation Both in SFRC and in plain reference concrete the occurrence of
cracks starts before the load reaches 50% of the peak load.
Diffusion of internal splitting cracks in SFRC is less fast than in the
plain reference concrete and internal cracking in SFRC is localized
to the volume close to the bar nearly until reaching the peak load (in
plain reference concrete already at 75% of the peak load extensive
growth of internal splitting cracks takes place in the large volume
around the pulled bars – widespread both in the longitudinal and
radial direction).
Structural response In contrast to the plain reference concrete splitting failure in SFRC
does not lead to specimen separation due to the bridging effect of
the fibers in the splitting cracks
Effect of bar Bond strength With increasing bar diameter bond strength of SFRC tends to
diameter (ds) decrease.
Attention: With increasing fR a tendency to increasing bond strength
is generally expected. Unfortunately, in case of this review,
estimation of fR is based on incomplete data.
Bond stiffness
Bond ductility With increasing bar diameter post-peak response in SFRC tends to
be slightly more ductile.
Failure propagation
Effect of concrete Bond strength Increase of c/ds from 1.5 to 2 increases the bond strength of SFRC
cover (c/ds) by nearly 30%.
Bond stiffness Increase of c/ds from 1.5 to 2 does not change the bond stiffness of
SFRC.
Bond ductility Increase of c/ds from 1.5 to 2 increases the ductility of SFRC in the
post-peak range (larger bond stress for given slip values in the
whole post-peak range).
Failure propagation c/ds ≤ 2 leads to splitting failure both for SFRC and for the plain
reference concrete.

2.1.2 F.S. Rostásy & K. Hartwig [27]
The experimental investigation presented in [27] was intended to answer the question why
crack widths are reduced in reinforced bending elements made of SFRC when compared to
reinforced elements made of normal weight concrete without fibers. The possible
improvement of bond of the embedded deformed bars due to fiber addition was seen as an
explanation for this finding. Besides, the extent of longitudinal cracking and occurrence of
bond splitting failure in case of SFRC was investigated. Figure 2.5 shows the types of test
specimens and Tables 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 give the main characteristics of this test program.
Figure 2.5: Test specimens [27]
Table 2.5: General test program [27]

short pull-out cylindrical and cube - curves uniformly Vf

specimens fracture process distributed bond fiber shape
concentrically placed bar (longitudinal stress c/ds
bond-free length splitting crack bar position
concrete in compression opening wspl)
Table 2.6: Materials characteristics [27].

shape Lf / df Vf fccm fspm Gf ds fR type
[mm / mm [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
]
straight 25 / 0.4 0 44 3.11 - 16 0.072 hot-
(loose) 0.75 3.22 rolled
hooked 30 / 0.5 1.5 3.32
(collated) 2.25 3.43
Table 2.7: Specimens geometry [27].
c/ds c Bar Lb / ds Lb-freepull/ds Lb-freepush/ds Loading vs.

[-] [mm] [-] [-] [-] casting
1 16 - 80 concentric 5 5 2 - 2.5 none identical
2 edge direction
5 corner

Note that internal vibrators were used for concrete compaction. Hence it is very likely that the
orientation of the fibers was locally strongly disturbed and that weak spots were created, in
particular in case of higher fiber contents.
Figure 2.6: Bond stress – slip curves for plain concrete and SFRC (hooked fibers) [27]:
(left) concentric and edge bar position
(right) corner bar position
Figure 2.7: Mean bond stress at (theoretical) occurrence of first longitudinal cracking in the
concrete cover, related to fiber content and bar position [27].

Typical bond stress - displacement curves ( - curves) are given in Figure 2.6. Figure 2.7
shows the bond stress at first longitudinal cracking, defined as the stress at 0.15‰ transverse
strain, a value that is assumed to correspond to the mean failure strain of fiber reinforced

concrete in axial tension. Main conclusions from this investigation with respect to bond
behavior of ribbed steel bars in SFRC are summarized in Table 2.8.
Table 2.8: Main conclusions and observations [27]

Effect of fibers Bond strength Bond strength is not significantly influenced by fiber content,
(Vf) irrespective of the failure mode.
Attention: Actually, with increasing Vf a slight tendency to decreasing
bond strength is observed in the concentric tests (pull-out failure
mode). No effect of Vf is found in the eccentric tests (splitting failure
mode).
Bond stiffness The bond stiffness is not significantly influenced by the fiber content.
(pre-peak Attention: Actually, with increasing Vf unexpectedly a slight tendency
behavior) to decreasing bond stiffness is observed in concentric pull-out tests.
No effect of Vf is found in eccentric pull-out tests.
Bond ductility With increasing Vf the post-peak behavior becomes more ductile in
(post-peak case of bond splitting failure.
behavior)
Failure The bond stress at (theoretical) occurrence of first longitudinal
propagation cracking in the concrete cover does not depend on the fiber content.
Attention: Actually, with increasing Vf unexpectedly a slight tendency
to decreasing bond stress at occurrence of the first longitudinal
cracks is observed in the eccentric pull-out tests for the edge bar
position.
Structural A reduction of the crack widths in bending elements in reinforced
response concrete is only due to transfer of tensile force by the fibers across
cracks and not because of improved by fibers bond of the
embedded deformed bar reinforcement.
Effect of fibers Bond strength
(fiber shape) Bond stiffness The fiber shape does not significantly influence the bond stiffness.
Bond ductility
Failure
propagation
Effect of Bond strength An increase of c/ds from 1 to 2 increases the bond strength of SFRC
concrete cover by roughly 40%.
(c/ds) Bond stiffness The bond stiffness is not significantly influenced by the concrete
cover thickness.
Bond ductility
Failure c/ds = 5 leads to pull-out failure both for SFRC and the plain
propagation reference concrete.
c/ds ≤ 2 leads to splitting failure both for SFRC and the plain
reference concrete.
Increase of c/ds from 1 to 2 roughly doubles the value of the bond
stress at the (theoretical) occurrence of first longitudinal cracking in
the concrete.
Effect of Bond strength The corner position of the bar leads to a lower bond strength than
bar position the edge position.
Bond stiffness The bond stiffness is not significantly influenced by the bar position
(concentric, edge or corner).
Bond ductility
Failure The bond stress at the (theoretical) occurrence of the first
propagation longitudinal cracking in the concrete is not significantly influenced by
the bar position (edge or corner).

2.1.3 M.H. Harajli [12]
An experimental investigation of local bond stress - slip behavior of ribbed bars embedded in
SFRC is discussed in [12]. Whereas the primary emphasis was on the monotonic local bond-
slip relationship, two tests are carried out under large slip reversals in order to study the effect
of fibers on the cyclic bond-slip behavior. A part of this investigation (i.e. beam tests) is
discussed in chapter 2.4.1. Figure 2.8 shows the type of specimens used in the pull-out test
series. Tables 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11 give the main characteristics of this part of the test program.

short pull-out prismatic specimens - curves uniformly Vf

concentrically placed bar distributed bond fiber shape
bond-free length stress ds
with and without confining confinement
reinforcement

shape Lf / df Vf fc’m fspm Gf ds fR type
[mm / mm [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
]
hooked 30 / 0.5 0 22 - - 20 0.091 Grade
(loose) 1 23.5 25 0.066 60
2 26.0
hooked 50 / 0.5 0.9 21.5
(collated) 1.4 -
c/ds c Bar Lb / ds Lb-freepull/ds Lb-freepush/ds Additional Loading vs.

[-] [mm] position [-] [-] [-] confinement casting
1st direction 60-140 concentric 3.5 5 5 confining perpendiculair
reinforcement in direction
3
some cases
2nd direction (4 bars ds =10 mm,
stirrups ds =6 mm
5.5 -7
at 76 mm spacing)
Since the concrete strength was not intended to be a parameter in this investigation, the results
of the individual specimens were normalized to fc’ = 22 MPa, assuming that the bond
resistance is proportional to (fc’)0.5. Note that it is not quite clear how the strength of concrete
in the specimens was deduced, since only in some cases concrete cylinders for testing concrete
compressive strength were taken after adding fibers and in general no more than the
compressive strength of the unreinforced matrix was determined before adding fibers. In case
of mixes with larger fiber aspect ratio (50 / 0.5), a decrease of the concrete compressive
strength after adding fibers is reported, which suggests that workability of the mix and
compaction of the specimens were very poor. Test results and major conclusions from this
investigation are presented in Figure 2.9 and in Table 2.12.

Figure 2.8: Pull-out test series: test setup, specimen dimensions and reinforcement details [12].
Figure 2.9: Mean bond stress – slip relationships for different reinforcement and fiber parameters
[12].


Effect of fibers Bond strength Whenever bond failure is caused by pull-out, adding steel fibers to
(Vf) concrete matrix improves the bond resistance of the reinforcing
bars. However, this improvement is not proportional to the volume
fraction of fibers used.
With Vf = 2% fibers, pull-out bond strength of SFRC is about 15%
higher than for plain reference concrete, while √fc is only about 8%
higher. With Vf = 1% fibers pull-out bond strength of SFRC is not
different from that of plain reference concrete.
Attention: Actually significant number of test results that have not
been taken into account when formulating this conclusion. In case of
Lf / df = 30/0.5 and ds = 20 mm bond strength increase is found to be
75% and 30% for Vf = 2% and 1%, respectively (√fc increases with
8% and 3%, respectively) On the contrary, 15% bond strength
decrease is found for Vf = 1% in case of Lf / df = 50/0.5 and
ds = 25 mm – obviously due to poor workability and compaction of
the concrete (√fc decreases with 1%). Note that data concerning
concrete compressive strength are not quite reliable.
Bond stiffness In case of pull-out failure, the slip value at which peak bond stress is
(pre-peak mobilized is dependent on the fiber content, i.e. with increasing Vf a
behavior) tendency to increasing bond stiffness is observed.
Attention: A bond stiffness decrease with respect to the plain
reference concrete is found for Vf = 1% in case of Lf / df = 50/0.5 –
obviously due to poor workability and compaction of the concrete.
Bond ductility In case of the pull-out failure, the slip value at which bond resistance
(post-peak leveled-off is independent of fiber content.
behavior) In case of pull-out failure, the ratio between peak bond stress and
“frictional” post-peak bond resistance is dependent on fiber content,
i.e. in case of pull-out bond failure with increasing Vf post-peak
behavior becomes more ductile.
Failure
propagation
Structural
response
Effect of fibers Bond strength The ratio between peak bond stress and “frictional” post-peak bond
(fiber shape) resistance is independent of the fiber aspect ratio.
On basis of equal fiber reinforcing index Vf Lf / df, fibers with small
Lf / df are more effective than fibers with large Lf / df in the improving
bond strength.
Attention: This conclusion results from possible false interpretation
of test data: in case of fibers with Lf / df = 50/0.5 obviously poor
workability of the concrete mix and wrong compaction caused bond
strength degradation.
Bond stiffness The slip value at which the peak bond stress is mobilized is
independent of the fiber aspect ratio.
Bond ductility The slip value at which the bond resistance leveled-off is
independent of the fiber aspect ratio.
Failure
propagation
Effect of bar Bond strength With increasing bar diameter the bond strength clearly increases
diameter (ds) both in SFRC and in plain reference concrete.
and bar Attention: With increasing fR a tendency for increasing bond strength
geometry (fR) is generally expected. Considering large difference in fR values for
the tested bars, it is fully unclear what is the reason for the observed
results. Perhaps it can be attributed to the relatively small spacing of
the lugs in case of bars with higher fR value.
Bond stiffness Slip value at which peak bond stress is mobilized is proportional to
the clear spacing between the lugs.
Bond ductility Slip value at which bond resistance levels-off is approximately equal
to the clear spacing between the lugs.
Failure
propagation

Effect of Bond strength With concrete cover thickness that leads to pull-out failure addition of
concrete cover confining reinforcement does not influence bond strength.
(c/ds) Bond stiffness With concrete cover thickness that leads to pull-out failure addition of
confining reinforcement the slip value at which peak bond stress is
mobilized is independent of additional concrete confinement.
Bond ductility With concrete cover thickness that leads to pull-out failure addition of
confining reinforcement does not influence bond ductility.
Failure c/ds = 3 leads to pull-out failure for SFRC.
propagation With concrete cover thickness that leads to pull-out failure addition of
confining reinforcement does not influence failure propagation.
2.1.4 M.H. Harajli, M. Hout & W. Jalkh [14]
The experimental investigation presented in [14] was intended to extend the basis for a
formulation of an analytical model suitable for describing the bond stress – slip response of
reinforcing bars embedded in SFRC. In particular the experimental results of tests defined to
investigate splitting-type bond failure were reported. Furthermore constitutive equations
describing the characteristic bond properties were proposed, further discussed in chapter 2.5.
Figure 2.10 shows the types of specimens used in this test series. Tables 2.13, 2.14 and 2.15
give main characteristics of the test program. Typical bond stress - slip curves obtained in this
test series are given in Figures 2.11.
Specimen type P Specimen type P* (no plastic sheet provided)

Specimen type PA (plastic sheet provided)
Figure 2.10: Pull-out test series: specimen dimensions and reinforcement details [14].
for individual specimens were normalized to fc’ = 30 MPa (i.e. the average strength of
concrete matrix before adding fibres), assuming that the bond resistance is proportional to
(fc’)0.5. Just as in [12], it is not quite clear in which way the actual strength of the concrete in
the specimens was deduced.


short pull-out prismatic specimens with - curves uniformly Vf

and without notch distributed bond fiber shape
concentrically placed bar stress specimen
bond-free length geometry
Table 2.14: Materials characteristics [14]

[mm / mm [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
]
hooked 30 / 0.5 0 22 - - 25 0.066 Grade
(loose) 1 23.5 60
2 26.0
hooked 50 / 0.5 0.9 21.5
(collated) 1.5 -
Table 2.15: Specimens geometry [14]

1st direction 60-140 concentric 5 3 – 4.3 3 – 4.3 none perpendiculair
direction
2.3 - 3
2nd direction
5.5
Before conclusions from this investigation are presented, some issues must be discussed.
Firstly, it is stressed that in some specimens the splitting mode of specimen failure was
introduced by placing a thin plastic sheet in the plane of the longitudinal axis of the bar, i.e. by
making a notch. This type of specimens are absolutely unsuitable for determining the
resistance of concrete to splitting forces originating from bond action of a pulled bar: in
abovementioned specimens, due to specimen geometry (notch) and boundary conditions
(rubber pad covered with grease acting as friction-free or outward-directed-shear-force
support) additional splitting forces are acting. These splitting forces are superimposed on
forces due to the splitting action of the embedded bar and, the consequently, splitting process
is speed-up in comparison with cases where no notch is present, discussed in [12] and [14]
(compare case P1-unconfined, ds = 25 mm, Vf = 0%, 1%, 2% in Fig. 2.9 [12] and case P1A,
ds = 25 mm, Vf = 0%, 1%, 2% in Fig. 2.11 [14]; compare case P2-unconfined, ds = 25 mm,
Vf = 0%, 0,9% and case P2A, ds = 25 mm, Vf = 0%, 0,9% in Fig. 2.11 [14]). For this reason
test results of series of specimens with inserted plastic sheet should be excluded from the
evaluation.
Secondly, unexpected differences are found in the response of specimens with nearly identical
geometry, as described in [12] and in [14]. While case P1-unconfined, ds = 25 mm, Vf = 0.9%
in Fig. 2.9 [12] shows the typical response for a pull-out type of bond failure, in case P1A,
ds = 25 mm, Vf = 0%, 1%, 2% in Fig 2.11 [14] a sudden drop of bond resistance is found,
which denotes occurrence of splitting cracks. Such differences in behavior can hardly be
linked to increase of embedded length of the bar from 3.5 ds to 5 ds, or to increases in concrete
compressive strength from 22 MPa to 30 MPa, in the former and in the latter case,
respectively. Most likely this are test conditions, i.e. boundary conditions or eccentricities, that
lead to different behavior in test series reported in [12] and [14]. Note that while in case of

[14] it is reported that rubber pad covered with grease was placed between the loading plate
and the specimen, no information concerning boundary friction is provided in case of [12]. For
these reasons conclusions from references [12] and [14] are found to be not fully reliable.
Figure 2.11: Local bond stress – slip relationships for different specimens and fiber parameters
[14].
Nevertheless, main conclusions with respect to bond behavior of ribbed steel bars in SFRC are
summarized in Table 2.8, as formulated in [14].


Effect of fibers Bond strength Bond stress at which splitting occurs (bond strength in case of
(Vf) splitting bond failure) is practically independent of fiber
reinforcement.
Attention: occurrence of splitting cracks in the discussed test series
is cannot be solely attributed to splitting action of embedded bars.
Additional splitting forces are introduced in the test specimens due
to specimen geometry and boundary conditions.
Bond stiffness Before splitting, the response in terms of local bond stress – slip
(pre-peak relation is similar to that for pull-out type of bond failure.
behavior)
Bond ductility In case of splitting bond failure with increasing Vf post-peak behavior
(post-peak becomes more ductile and approaches that for pull-out bond failure.
behavior)
Failure When splitting cracks develop bond resistance descends suddenly
propagation to a post-splitting bond stress level. With further increase in bar slip
beyond splitting bond resistance diminishes approximately linear
until it reaches constant bond stress plateau analogous to the local
bond stress – slip response for specimens with pull-out bond failure.
Structural
response
(fiber shape) Bond stiffness
Bond ductility
Failure
propagation
Effect of notch Bond strength Bond stress at which splitting occurs increases with increasing
(specimen “concrete splitting area surrounding the reinforcement”.
geometry) Attention: bond stress at which splitting occurs that is larger if
specimen is not provided with a notch, since in the latter case
besides bar splitting action additional splitting forces are introduced
due to member geometry.
Bond stiffness
Bond ductility With increasing “concrete splitting area surrounding the
reinforcement” post-peak behavior becomes more ductile and
approaches that for pull-out bond failure.
Attention: premature splitting is a result of specimen geometry.
Failure If the bond stress at which splitting occurs is small, the stage of
propagation diminishing bond resistance is preceded by a slight increase in the
bond stress until the maximum interfacial shear stress between the
fibers and matrix is mobilized.
Attention: tendency to regaining bond resistance is observed only in
specimens with notch, where premature splitting is a result of
specimen geometry and not of splitting action of embedded bar.

2.1.5 F. De Bonte [9]
The experimental investigation presented in [9] focused on determining the influence of the
fiber content and of concrete cover thickness on bond strength of ribbed bars and on bond
failure propagation in SFRC. Figure 2.12 shows the types of test specimens and Tables 2.17,
2.18 and 2.19 give main characteristics of this test program.
Figure 2.12: Test set-up and specimens geometry; dimensions in mm [9].


concentrically and distributed bond c/ds
eccentrically placed bar stress bar position
bond-free length

shape Lf / df Vf fcm fspm Gf ds fR type
[mm / mm [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
]
hooked 60 / 0.9 0 39 - - 20 > 0.065 BE500
0.25 38
0.75 39


1.5 30-65 concentric 3 5 5 none perpendiculair
3.25 edge direction
Note that the effective rib area was most probably not measured and only the minimum value
guaranteed by the producer is provided. Furthermore, the dimensions of the test specimens are
small (in some cases even very small) compared to the fiber length. In particular in case of
specimen type 40/40 it is very likely that the fiber orientation is restrained by the geometrical
boundaries of the specimen and by concentrically placed bar. It would not be surprising if in
such a case fibers tend to orientate parallel to the bar and are not very effective in arresting
bond and splitting cracks. This aspect is, however, not addressed in the test report.
Figure 2.13: Bond stress – slip curves for specimen type 40/40:
(left) single test results
(right) mean test results

Typical bond stress - displacement curves are given in Figures 2.13 –2.15. Main conclusions
from this investigation are summarized in Table 2.20.

Effect of fibers Bond strength For a small concrete cover (type 40/40) practically no difference is
(Vf) found with respect to splitting bond strength when changing fiber
content within the range investigated.
For a larger concrete cover (type 75/40) with increasing fiber content
splitting bond strength increases slightly.
Pull-out bond strength is not influenced by fiber content.
Bond stiffness For a small concrete cover in case of splitting bond failure (type
(pre-peak 40/40) practically no difference is found with respect to bond
behavior) stiffness when changing fiber content within the range investigated.
For a larger concrete cover in case of splitting bond failure (type
75/40) with increasing fiber content slip at maximum bond stress
clearly increases .
Bond stiffness in case of pull-out bond failure is not influenced by
fiber content.
Bond ductility With increasing Vf post-peak behavior becomes more ductile in case
(post-peak of bond splitting failure.
behavior) Post-peak behavior for pull-out bond failure is not influenced by fiber
content.
Failure
propagation
Structural
response
Effect of Bond strength Increase of c/ds leads to similar increase of bond strength both in
concrete cover SFRC and plain reference concrete.
(c/ds) Bond stiffness Increase of c/ds leads to larger slip values at maximum bond stress
both in SFRC and plain reference concrete
Bond ductility Increase of c/ds leads to similar more stable post-peak behavior both
in SFRC and plain reference concrete.
Failure c/ds = 3.25 leads in some cases to pull-out failure and in some other
propagation cases to splitting both for SFRC with Vf = 0.25% and plain reference
concrete.
c/ds = 1.5 leads to splitting failure both for SFRC and plain reference
concrete.

2.1.6 P. Soroushian, F. Mirza & A. Alhozaimy [32]
The experimental investigation reported in [32] deals with the effects of steel fibre
reinforcement on the local bond behavior of deformed bars under conditions similar to the
ones in a of beam-column connection. Figure 2.16 shows the test set-up and geometry of the
specimen used in the pull-out test series. Tables 2.21, 2.22 and 2.23 give main characteristics
of this test program.
Figure 2.12: Test set-up and test specimen geometry [32]


concentrically placed bar distributed bond Lf / df
bond-free length stress fiber shape
with confining reinforcement


shape Lf / df Vf fcm fspm Tfl (* ds fR type
[mm / mm [%] [MPa] [MPa] [kNm] [mm] [-]
]
hooked 60 0 28.0 3.47 4.1 25 0.099 Grade 60
0.5 3831.0 4.57 23.0
1 3928.6 9.38 72.5
1.5 27.7 11.79 63.0
80 1 37.1 14.44 74.7
100 1 36.0 8.89 59.1
crimped 60 1 35.0 9.68 48.4
straight 60 1.4 38.9 6.07 37.8
(
* Tfl – flexural toughness

1st direction 75-140 concentric 4 5.5 5.5 confining perpendiculair
reinforcement direction
3
(4 bars ds =13 mm,
2nd direction stirrups ds =10 mm)
5.5
Note that the effective rib area of the bars is estimated on the basis of very limited geometrical
data. Flexural toughness was measured on specimens with cross-section 102 x 102 mm. With
respect to the geometry of test specimens for pull-out tests few issues must be discussed. It is
reported that during casting a plastic film sheet was placed in plane of the longitudinal bar axis
to represent the splitting crack caused by the pullout of a bar in actual joint conditions. It is
debatable if such type of pre-defined crack is suitable for modeling cracks in SRFC. However,
it is not of such a critical importance as in the tests discussed in Chapter 2.1.4, considering the
amount of confining reinforcement provided and the fact that due to this confinement bond
failure is caused by bar pull-out and not by splitting. Yet, there is another aspect related to the
placing of the plastic sheet that needs further consideration.
Figure 2.13: Correlation of bond strength with flexural toughness, defined as the area underneath
the load-deflection curve determined on 102 x 102 x 356 mm prisms loaded at one-
third points on a span of 303 mm, up to a mid-span deflection equal to the test beam
span divided by 150 (regression line and 95% confidence interval) [32].

Figure 2.14: Effect of steel fiber volume fraction (Vf) on local bond behavior [32]:
(a) mean bond stress – slip relationships for various volume fractions Vf
(b) bond stress at peak versus fiber volume fractions Vf (regression analysis)
(c) slip at peak versus fiber volume fractions Vf (regression analysis)
Figure 2.15: Effect of steel fiber aspect ratio (Lf / df) on local bond behavior [32]:
(a) mean bond stress – slip relationships for various fiber aspect ratio (Lf / df)
(b) bond stress at peak versus fiber aspect ratio (Lf / df) (regression analysis)
(c) slip at peak versus fiber aspect ratio (Lf / df) (regression analysis)
As can be seen in Fig. 2.12, the opening in the plastic sheet is very small with respect to the
bar diameter (1 ds x 4 ds on each side of the bar). It is hard to judge how this will influence the
orientation of the fibers and their local concentration, in particular in the situation when the

length of the fiber is not known. One could imagine that due to flow of the mix during casting,
fibers tend to concentrate and orientate perpendicular to the plane of the opening, where they
would be very effective in arresting bond and splitting cracks. Test results and major
conclusions from this investigation are presented in Figures 2.13, 2.14 and 2.15 and in
Table 2.24.

Effect of fibers Bond strength Fiber reinforcement has a significant effect on improving the local
(Vf) bond strength of deformed bars in case of pull-out bond failure. For
Vf = 0.5% there is an increase of about one-third in local bond
strength over that of plain concrete, while √fc’ is only about 5%
higher. Further increase in fiber volume fraction above 0.5%,
however, did not have a significant effect on bond strength.
Attention: There may be a relation between observed leveling of the
effect of fiber addition and possible unintentional concentration of
fibers in the opening of the inserted plastic sheet.
Local bond strength is more strongly correlated with flexural
toughness than with compressive or the flexural strengths of
material (flexural toughness is defined as the area underneath the
load-deflection curve determined on 102 x 102 x 356 mm prisms
loaded at one-third points on a span of 303 mm, up to a mid-span
deflection equal to the test beam span divided by 150).
Bond stiffness Slip at peak bond stress for pull-out bond failure is reduced in the
(pre-peak presence of fibers, on the average by 44%.
behavior) Attention: Bond stiffness increases with increasing fiber volume
fraction.
Bond ductility With increasing Vf post-peak behavior becomes more ductile in case
(post-peak of pull-out bond failure.
behavior)
Failure
propagation
Structural
response
Effect of fibers No significant difference was observed in local bond strength for
(Lf / df) Bond strength fibrous concretes with different aspect ratios, at 95% level of
confidence.
The slip value at peak bond stress increases with increasing fiber
Bond stiffness aspect ratio, up to Lf / df = 80.
Attention: Bond stiffness increases with increasing fiber aspect ratio.
Post-peak behavior in case of pull-out bond failure is not influenced
Bond ductility
by the fiber aspect ratio
Failure
propagation
Effect of fibers Fiber type (straight or with different mechanical deformations) has
Bond strength
(fiber shape) no statistically significant effect on local bond strength.
Fiber type has no statistically significant effect on slip value at peak
Bond stiffness
bond stress.
Bond ductility
Failure
propagation
2.1.7 G. A. Plizzari [25]
In [25] results from pull-out tests on short anchorages of deformed bars, simulating the
influence zone of one stirrup, are discussed. In these tests particular attention is given to the
influence of the transverse reinforcement area on local bond behavior and on splitting crack
opening. Figure 2.15 shows the specimen geometry and arrangement of measuring devices,

while Tables 2.25, 2.26 and 2.27 give main characteristics of this test program. Note that the
effective rib area has not been specified. Furthermore, steel angles have been inserted both at
the loaded end and at the unloaded end of the specimen in order to localize a splitting crack.
Earlier research [26] has shown that specimens with preformed cracks are in general
characterized by a lower bond stiffness compared to those without preformed splitting cracks,
where the effect of the confining contribution of concrete is not disturbed. It is not fully clear
whether a similar effect is to be expected if only small notches are created by inserting stiff
material in the top and bottom surface of the specimen, the latter being loaded by the
distributed reaction force.
Figure 2.15: Specimen geometry and arrangement of measuring devices [25]


concentrically placed bar fracture process distributed bond confinement
bond-free length (longitudinal stress fcm
concrete in compression splitting crack
opening wspl)

[mm / mm [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
]
hooked 30 / 0.5 0 40 4.2 - 20 - B500B
0.38 50 4.1 - 24
0 77 4.7 -
0.38 85 5.7 -

c/ds c Bar Lb / ds Lb-freepull/ds Lb-freepush/ds Additional Loading

[-] [mm] position [-] [-] [-] confinement vs. casting
1st direction 50-190 concentric 8.5 1 1 in some cases one opposite
two-legged stirrup direction
2.5
(ds = 6, 8, 10 mm)
2nd direction
9.5
Figure 2.16: Bond stress – slip curves for specimens without stirrup reinforcement
Figure 2.17: Bond stress – slip curves for specimens with 8 mm stirrups
Figure 2.18: Bond strength versus Stirrup Index of Confinement

Typical test results are given in Figures 2.16 –2.18. In Figure 2.18 the stirrup index of
confinement Ω is defined as the ratio between the global cross-section area of the stirrup legs
and the area of the pulled bar in the splitting plane and the concrete index of confinement B is
defined as the ratio between the net area of the concrete in the splitting plane and the net area
of the pulled bar in the splitting plane. Main conclusions from this investigation with respect
to bond behavior of ribbed steel bars in SFRC are summarized in Table 2.28.
Table 2.28: Main conclusions and observations [25].

Effect of fibers Bond strength Splitting bond strength (both in specimens with and without stirrup
(Vf) confinement) as well as pull-out bond strength are clearly increased
due to fiber addition.
With Vf = 0.38% fibers splitting bond strength of normal strength
SFRC is about 50% higher than for plain reference concrete, while
√fc is only about 7% higher. For high strength SFRC splitting bond
strength is about 115% higher than for plain reference concrete,
while √fc is only about 5% higher.
With Vf = 0.38% fibers pull-out bond strength of normal strength
SFRC is about 12.5% higher than for plain reference concrete, while
√fc is about 7% higher. For high strength SFRC pull-out bond
strength is about 10% higher than for plain reference concrete, while
√fc is about 5% higher.
Attention: The bars anchored in high strength SFRC yielded before
reaching the maximum bond strength.
Attention: Relatively long embedded length does not correspond
very well with an assumption of uniformly distributed bond stress,
consequently leading to underestimation of local bond stress values.
Bond stiffness Bond stiffness is significantly increased due to fiber addition.
(pre-peak
behavior)
Bond ductility When fibers are adopted, bond ductility increases and more ductile
(post-peak failure propagation is observed.
behavior) The ultimate loaded end slip in SFRC with Vf = 0.38% fiber is three
times the value observed in concrete without fibers.
Failure When fibers are adopted, more ductile failure propagation is
propagation observed.
Structural Steel fibers reduce the splitting cracks opening, thus improving
response concrete durability.
Effect of The larger the stirrup index of confinement the higher the bond
Bond strength
additional strength becomes.
confinement Bond stiffness
Bond ductility
Splitting crack opening decreases when a higher stirrup index of
Failure confinement is adopted.
propagation Splitting crack opening is larger in high strength concrete, because
of its more brittle behavior.
2.1.8 S. Hota & A.E. Naaman [16]
The purpose of the experimental study presented in [16] was to investigate the bond
characteristics of reinforcing bars embedded in SFRC under various types of loading, i.e.
monotonic, unidirectional cyclic and reversed cyclic loading. Four types of matrix were tested,
i.e. SIFCON, fiber reinforced concrete, confined concrete and plain concrete. Figure 2.19
shows the loading setup and specimen geometry. Tables 2.29, 2.30 and 2.31 give main
characteristics of this test program. Relative rib area of the reinforcing bar is not given and
cannot be estimated due to too limited data on rib geometry. In this review attention is given
mainly to results of monotonic pull-out tests.

Figure 2.19: Loading set-up (left) and geometry of test specimen (right)[16].
Table 2.29: General test program [16].


concentrically placed bar distributed bond fc’
no bond-free length stress confinement
concrete in compression loading type

[mm / mm [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
]
hooked 30 / 0.5 0 33.8 - - 25 - -
61
2 44
61
9.6 5
60.5
c/ds c Bar Lb / ds Lb-freepull/ds Lb-

position push
/ds Additional Loading vs.
[-] [mm] [-] [-] free
confinement casting
[-]
2.5 63.5 concentric 4 0 0 in some cases spiral perpendicular
confinement direction
(ds = 3.2 mm at 12.5
or 19 mm spacing)
Test results and major conclusions from this investigation are presented in Figures 2.20 and in
Table 2.32. Note that in case of plain concrete specimens the tests were stopped directly after

ultimate strength was reached and splitting failure occurred. In case of specimens confined by
stirrup reinforcement failure was consistently caused by cone pull-out due to specimen
geometry (no bond free length provided at loaded end of the bar). Since results of these tests
cannot be directly compared with cases where (frictional) pull-out or splitting bond failure
occurs, in this review tests with spiral confinement are not further evaluated.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 2.20: Bond stress – displacement curves [16]:

(a) comparison for plain concrete fc’m = 61 MPa, SFRC fc’m = 61 MPa and
SIFCON fc’m = 60.5 MPa
(b) comparison for SIFCON fc’m = 35 MPa and fc’m = 60.5 MPa
(c) comparison for SFRC fc’m = 33 MPa and fc’m = 61 MPa

Table 2.32: Main conclusions and observations [16]:

Effect of fibers Bond strength For the range of fiber volume fraction tested, the bond strength
(Vf) increases with an increase in the volume fractions of steel fibers
Attention: with increase in fiber content shift from splitting failure
mode (for plain concrete and SFRC Vf = 2%) to (frictional) pull-out
failure mode (for SIFCON Vf = 9%) is reported.
Attention: with Vf = 2% fibers splitting bond strength of SFRC is
about 77% higher than for plain reference concrete, while fc’ remains
constant, both for higher and lower strength matrix.
Bond stiffness Bond stiffness is not meaningfully influenced by fiber content.
(pre-peak
behavior)
Bond ductility Bond ductility increases with increasing fiber content. The inclusion
(post-peak of steel fibers slows down the post-peak degradation of the bond
behavior) stress - slip curve, causing increase in pull-out energy absorption
capacity (area under bond stress – slip response) and maximum
slip.
Failure Load – displacement response linearly decreases after the peak,
propagation when pull-out occurs.
Structural
response
Effect of matrix An increase in compressive strength of the matrix increases the
strength (fc’) bond strength.
Bond strength Attention: with increase of fc’ from 35 to 63 MPa (increase of √fc’ with
34%), the bond stress increases typically by 30% for SIFCON, by
85% for SFRC and by 40% for plain reference concrete.
Bond stiffness
Bond ductility
Failure
propagation
Effect of Bond strength
concrete cover Bond stiffness
(c/ds)
Bond ductility
In SIFCON (Vf = 9%), c/ds = 2.5 leads to (frictional) pull-out failure.
In SFRC (Vf = 2%), c/ds = 2.5 leads to failure, which starts with some
Failure
frictional pullout, but eventually ends up with splitting type of failure,
propagation
when the cracks width reach a certain critical level.
In plain reference concrete, c/ds = 2.5 leads to splitting failure.

2.2 Pull-out tests with short embedment length (Danish Standard DS2082 or
similar test set-up)
2.2.1 A. Samen Ezeldin, P.N. Balaguru [30], [31]
The experimental study presented in [30] and [31] was designed to evaluate the bond strength
and bond – slip behavior of reinforced concrete containing steel fibers. The tests were
conducted using modified pull-out specimen in which the concrete surrounding the rebar was
in tension. Such configuration was intended to simulate the behavior of the bars in the tension
zone of beams and beam-columns. The investigated loading patterns included monotonic, half
cyclic and reverse cyclic pull-out load. In this review, however, only part of research
concerning monotonic loading is considered. 18 types of matrix were tested, varying silica
fume content, fiber content and fiber aspect ratio. Figure 2.21 shows loading setup and
specimen geometry. Tables 2.33, 2.34 and 2.35 give main characteristics of this test program.
Note that for none of the bar diameters used the relative rib area is given. For the interpretation
of test results it is important to note that the geometry of the test specimens is not related to the
(variable) bar diameter. In particular, for each bar diameter an other ratio between concrete
cover and bar diameter is chosen (i.e. other confining conditions). Furthermore, the
embedment length of the bars varies with bar diameter from 50mm to 180mm (Lb / ds varies
from 5.3 to 8). Such a large variation of embedment length in combination with the
assumption of uniformly distributed bond stresses does not enable objective comparison of
(average) bond stress values. Test results and major conclusions from this investigation are
presented in Figures 2.22 and in Table 2.36.
Figure 2.21: Loading set-up (left) and geometry of test specimen (right) [30].

Table 2.33: General test program [30], [31].


concentrically placed bar distributed bond Lf / df
no bond-free length stress ds
concrete in compression c/ds
fc’
silica fume
content
loading type
Table 2.34: Materials characteristics [30], [31].

shape Lf / df Vf f c ’m fspm Gf ds fR type
[mm / mm [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
]
hooked 30 / 0.5 0 35 - - 9 - ASTM
(collated) 80 16 A615,
0.40 40 - 19 Grade
75 25 60
0.60 40 - -
0.75 40 - -
60 / 0.8 0.40 45 - -
0.60 45 - -
0.75 45 - -
75
50 / 0.5 0.40 40 - -
75
0.60 45 - -
70
0.75 45 - -
75
Table 2.35: Specimens geometry [30], [31].
ds c/ds c Bar Lb / ds Lb-freepull/ds Lb-

position push
/ds Additional Loading
[mm] [-] [mm] [-] [-] free
confinement vs. casting
[-]
9 6 59 concentric 5.5 0 0 none -
16 5 81 8 0 0
19 4 80 6.5 0 0
25 3 76 7 0 0
It is remarkable that despite the in general large ratios between concrete cover on the bar and
bar diameter, frictional pull-out failure was obtained only for bars with diameter ds = 9 mm
(c/ds = 6). Unfortunately no information is provided with respect to deformations on the bars
(ribs and/or indentations), which would allow judging the magnitude of radial splitting forces
introduced in the specimen due to the wedging action of pulled bars. One could presume that
bars with a very high effective rib areas were used. For all but ds = 9 mm splitting bond failure
was observed.

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2.22: Normalized load – slip curves for reinforcing bar ds = 19 [30]:
(a) comparison for different fiber content
(b) comparison for different fiber aspect ratio
(c) comparison for different silica fume content
Note that splitting bond failure does not provide the pull-out bond strength and that obtained
splitting bond capacity is directly linked to concrete confinement (which is not consistently
chosen in the discussed test series, as mentioned above).

Table 2.36: Main conclusions and observations [30], [31]:

Effect of fibers Bond strength For the range of fiber volume fraction tested, the bond strength
(Vf) increases insignificantly with an increase in the volume fractions of
steel fibers.
Attention: this conclusion concerns solely splitting bond strength,
since it is based on tests in which splitting bond failure took place
Contribution of fibers to bond strength seems to be slightly higher for
silica fume concrete.
Bond strength in case of pull-out bond failure is not greatly improved
by addition of fibers.
Attention: note that due to specimen geometry (no bond-free length)
and boundary conditions (stress-free edge surface) cone pull-out at
loaded bar end is likely to take place
Bond stiffness The contribution of fibers to the load –slip behavior in the ascending
(pre-peak branch is negligible in case of splitting bond failure.
behavior) The slip at maximum pull-out load in case of splitting bond failure
consistently increase with the increase in fiber content.
Bond ductility Inclusion of fibers has a softening effect on the post-peak behavior
(post-peak of the pull-out specimens both in case of splitting and pull-out bond
behavior) failure.
Failure Presence of fibers makes the splitting of concrete more stable,
propagation resulting in more ductile splitting failure.
Structural
response
Effect of matrix Bond strength Both in plain concrete and in SFRC (with and without silica fume)
strength (fc’) and bond strength increases with compressive strength of the matrix and
silica fume within the investigated range it is in general proportional to √fc’.
content this conclusion concerns solely splitting bond strength, since it is
based on tests in which splitting bond failure took place
Attention: with increase of fc’ from 45 to 80 MPa (increase of √fc’ with
40%), the splitting bond strength increases by about 30% for SFRC
with Vf = 0.75%. Note that increase in matrix strength is due to
addition of silica fume.
Bond stiffness
Bond ductility
Failure
propagation
concrete cover Bond stiffness
(c/ds) and bar
diameter (ds) Bond ductility
Failure Both in plain concrete and SFRC (Vf ≤ 0.75%), c/ds ≤ 5 leads to
propagation splitting bond failure.
Both in plain concrete and SFRC (Vf ≤ 0.75%), c/ds = 6 leads to pull-
out bond failure.
Attention: It is very likely, yet not verifiable, that pulled bars were
characterized by a very high effective rib area.
2.2.2 N. Krstulovic-Opara, K.A. Watson & J.M. LaFave [19]
The goal of this research reported in [19] was to determine the effect of a change in the
material tensile strength and toughness on the pull-out response of deformed bars. Four
material systems were therefore selected; plain concrete, two types of SFRC and high
performance SFRC (HPSFRC), representing brittle, pseudo-brittle and pseudo-ductile material
behavior.

Figure 2.23: Layout of the pull-out specimen; dimensions in inches [19].

Vf

short pull-out prismatic specimens Axial load- uniformly

concentrically placed bar curves, distributed bond f c ’m
no bond-free length stress ds

- curves
concrete in compression c/ds
Lb / ds

shape Lf / df Vf f c ’m fspm Gf ds fR type
[mm / mm [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
]
straight 6 / 0.15 0 35 1.9 0.7 10 - -
(brass- 80 25
collated) 1 40 3.1 9.7
75
3 40 4.5 18.6
7 40 6.0 29.0

position push
[mm] [-] [mm] [-] [-] free
[-]
10 2.5 25 concentric 5 0 0 none -
25 1 2 0 0
Figure 2.23 shows the layout of the pull-out specimen used in this study. Tables 2.37, 2.38 and
2.39 give main characteristics of this test program. Test results and major conclusions from
this investigation are presented in Figures 2.24 and 2.25 and in Table 2.40. A modified version
of the Danish Standard DS2082 pull-out test specimen was used, in which the concrete
surrounding the rebar was in tension. Note that for none of the bar diameters used the relative
rib area is given.

Figure 2.24: Average bond – global slip curves [19].
Figure 2.25: Change of the average bond strength with respect to compressive cylinder strength
[19]: (a) bar ds = 10 mm, (b) bar ds = 25 mm.


Effect of fibers Bond strength An increase in matrix tensile strength and toughness improves
(Vf) (splitting) bond strength. The use of SFRC matrices exhibiting strain
hardening results in a disproportionaly large increase in bond
strength, relative to the increase in matrix tensile or compressive
strength.
Bond stiffness The addition of fibers increases the bond modulus. The increase of
(pre-peak the bond modulus depends both on fiber volume fraction and the
behavior) level of matrix compaction (i.e. quality of specimen casting).
Attention: if vary good material packing is achieved, an increase in
the fiber volume results in a large increase in the composite elastic
modulus. On the contrary, if no attention is paid to improved
packing, an increase in the fiber volume fraction results in increased
porosity of the composite, which detrimentally affects the composite
elastic modulus.
Bond ductility Increase in matrix toughness due to fiber addition leads to a
(post-peak significant over-all increase in ductility.
behavior)
Failure Fiber addition prevents rapid failure along the initial crack and
propagation results in additional cracking elsewhere in the specimen so that
propagation of a longitudinal splitting crack from the loaded end of
the bar towards the embedded bar end is slower and more stable
than in plain concrete.
Specimens made with SFRC and HPSFRC matrices exhibit a more
tortuous crack path than the plain concrete ones.
If the bond failure mode is mainly splitting, strain hardening behavior
of the matrix will not result in a slip-hardening behavior of the pulled
bar. On contrary, if the failure mode is primarily crushing-shearing
pull-out, strain hardening of the matrix will result in slip-hardening
behavior of the reinforcing bar.
Structural
response
Effect of matrix Bond strength Increase in matrix tensile strength and toughness leads to a
strength (fc’) significant increase in (splitting) bond strength.
Attention: in case of ds = 10mm with increase of fc’ from 38 to 64, to
72 and to 88 MPa (increase of √fc’ with 30, 57 and 50%), the splitting
bond strength increases by about 40, 160 and 270% for FRC with
Vf = 1, 3 and 7%, respectively
Attention: in case of ds = 25mm with increase of fc’ from 38 to 64, to
72 and to 88 MPa (increase of √fc’ with 30, 57 and 50%), the splitting
bond strength increases by about 60, 210 and 390% for FRC with
Vf = 1, 3 and 7%, respectively
Increase in matrix tensile strength and toughness leads to a
Bond stiffness
significant increase in bond modulus.
Increase in matrix tensile strength and toughness leads to a
significant over-all increase in ductility.
Bond ductility
Failure
propagation
For the interpretation of test results it is important to note that the geometry of the test
specimens is not related to the (variable) bar diameter. In particular, constant cover thickness
is chosen (i.e. for each bar diameter an other ratio between concrete cover and bar diameter is
taken which results in different confining conditions). Furthermore, the embedment length of
the bars is constant, i.e. Lb / ds varies. Variation of embedment length in combination with the
assumption of uniformly distributed bond stresses does not enable objective comparison of
(average) bond stress values. Note that splitting bond failure does not provide the pull-out
bond strength and that obtained splitting bond capacity is directly linked to concrete
confinement (which is not consistently chosen in the discussed test series, as mentioned
above).

2.2.3 C.V. Nielsen, J.F., Olesen & B.K. Aarup [22], B. Aarup & B. Chr. Jensen [1], B.
Aarup, J. Karlsen & G. Lindström [2]
The goal of this research reported in [22], [1] and [2] was to investigate bond behavior of
ribbed bars and prestressing strands in high strength concrete, with emphasis on the effect of
adding steel fibers. In this review only results concerning the behavior of ordinary reinforcing
steel are evaluated. Figure 2.26 shows the layout of the pull-out specimen used in this study.
Tables 2.41, 2.42 and 2.43 give main characteristics of this test program. A modified version
of the Danish Standard DS2082 pull-out test specimen was used, in which the concrete
surrounding the rebar was in tension. Note that for none of the bar diameters used relative rib
area is given. No information is provided with respect to the tensile properties of the steel fiber
reinforced COMPRESIT matrix.
Figure 2.26: Geometry of the test specimen [22].

short pull-out prismatic specimens average bond uniformly ds
concentrically placed bar strength distributed bond c/ds
no bond-free length stress Lb / ds
concrete in tension

[mm / mm [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
]
straight 12 / 0.4 6 140-170 - - 8 - Ks550
12
16

Table 243: Specimens geometry [22].

position push
[mm] [-] [mm] [-] [-] free
[-]
8 9 71 concentric 3, 4.4, 5.6 0 0 none -
12 1st direction 11.5 - 69 1.25, 2, 0 0
3, 3.75,
6
4.6, 5.4
2nd direction
1
1.4
2.6
6
16 4 67 3, 4.4, 5.6 0 0
Figure 2.27: Experimental τ / √ fc – L / d relationship for COMPRESIT [22].
Figure 2.28: Experimental τ / √ fc – cmin / d relationship for COMPRESIT [22].

Figure 2.29: Experimental τ / √ fc – (cmin / d) (√ L / d) relationship for COMPRESIT [22].
The test program included, among others, variation in embedment length. Concerning
interpretation of test results with respect to this influential parameter, one must remember that
a strong effect of boundary conditions on pull-out resistance is expected for the chosen
geometry of the test specimen (i.e. pull-out of the concrete cone around the bar rather than
pull-out of the bar). Furthermore, decrease of average bond strength with increasing
embedment length is partly inherit, when uniform bond stress distribution is assumed. Test
results and major conclusions from this investigation are presented in Figures 2.27, 2.28 and
2.29 and in Table 2.44.

Effect of fibers Bond strength The addition of fiber increases bond strength
(Vf) Attention: the addition of 6% steel fibers was found to increase
τ / √ fc almost by a factor 3.
The fibers act as confinement similar to transverse bars and thus,
improve the adhesion which is directly related to bar roughness and
rib geometry.
Bond stiffness
(pre-peak
behavior)
Bond ductility
(post-peak
behavior)
Failure Attention: for the chosen test specimens geometry and boundary
propagation conditions, if pull-out failure occurs this will be typically a cone pull-
out for short embedment length
Structural In case of cover thickness c/ds = 1 the addition of 6% fibers reduced
response embedment length, required for full anchorage of ribbed bar, from
nearly 60 ds to 20 ds (ft ≈ 700 MPa).
Effect of Bond strength The relationship between τ / √ fc and cmin / ds is nearly linear for
concrete cover deformed bars.
(c/ds) and The relationship between τ / √ fc and (cmin / ds) (√ Lb / ds) is nearly
embedment linear for deformed bars.
length (Lb/ds) Bond stiffness
Bond ductility
Failure
propagation

2.2.4 G. Heshe & C.V. Nielsen [27], C.V. Nielsen [21]
The tests described in [27] and [21] deal with bond between reinforcement bars and
COMPRESIT, ultra high strength compact reinforced composite. The purpose of the tests was
to investigate the anchorage capacity of deformed reinforcement bars embedded in the matrix,
taking into account the influence of splitting along an anchored deformed bar, transverse
reinforcement and lateral compression. Results of cyclic load tests, in particular discussed in
[21], are not included in this review. Figure 2.30 shows the layout of the pull-out specimens
used in this study. Tables 2.45, 2.46 and 2.47 give main characteristics of this test program. A
modified version of the Danish Standard DS2082 pull-out test specimen was used, in which
the concrete surrounding the rebar was in tension. Note that relative rib area of the bar used is
not given and that tensile properties of the COMPRESIT matrix are not specified. Test results
and major conclusions from this investigation are presented in Figure 2.31 and in Table 2.48.
Figure 2.30: Geometry of the test specimens without and with transverse reinfrocement[27].

short pull-out prismatic specimens axial load- uniformly Lb / ds

concentrically placed bar curves distributed bond confinement
no bond-free length average bond stress
concrete in tension strength

[mm / mm [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
]
straight 6 / 0.15 6 170 - - 8 - Ks550

c/ds c Bar Lb / ds Lb-freepull/ds Lb-freepush/ds Additional Loading

[-] [mm] position [-] [-] [-] confinement vs. casting
1st direction 13.5 - 31 concentric 2 0 0 in some cases -
2.5 transverse pressure
3.9 or transverse
3.75 reinforcement
2nd direction
5 (2ds = 5 mm at 15 mm
1.7 6.25 spacing)
Figure 2.31: Examples of experimental tensile load – displacement relationships for test specimens
with Lb / ds = 3.75 (σ / fc indicates level of lateral compressive normal stress) [27].

(Vf) Bond stiffness
(pre-peak
behavior)
Bond ductility
(post-peak
behavior)
Failure For Vf = 6% and c / ds > 2 splitting cracks along the bar are
propagation prevented.
For small embedment length the boundary effects have a significant
influence on the bond strenght.
for chosen test specimens geometry and boundary conditions, if
bond failure is not controlled by splitting cracks, cone pull-out occurs
for short embedment lengths.
Structural For Vf = 6%, if the cover thickness is realistic (c / ds ≈ 1.5 - 2), the
response embedment length cannot be chosen higher than about 4 ds and
6 ds to avoid yielding of reinforcement, when test specimens with
and without transverse confinement are used, respectively.
Effect of Bond strength If bond splitting occurs, transverse pressure affects bond strength in
confinement the same way as transverse reinforcement: both lateral pressure
and the transverse reinforcement crossing the splitting cracks
increase bond strength.
Attention: for a lateral pressure level of 5% fc, the bond strength
increases by more than 60%.
Bond stiffness
Bond ductility
Failure
propagation

2.3 Tension tests on tie elements
2.3.1 K. Noghabai [23], [24]
The experimental study presented in [23] and [24] intends to describe the global behavior of
tie elements based on a more explicit representation of the concrete behavior in tension. By
that bond of reinforcing bars to concrete is indirectly investigated. In this study, plain and
fibrous concrete are used for which the relevant tensile properties are determined, which is
often not the case in other tests mentioned in this review.
Figure 2.32: Set-up of tension tests on tie elements [23].

tie elements prismatic specimens axial tensile load- - Vf
concentrically placed bar axial elongation fiber shape
no bond-free length curves
concrete in tension

shape Lf / df Vf fccm fctm Gf ds fR type
[mm / mm] [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
hooked 30 / 0.6 0 121.6 5.01 216 16 - Ks550
1 129.6 5.68 4044
straight 6 / 0.15 1 132.3 6.04 2025
hooked 30 / 0.6 0.5 127.0 5.75 5116
+ + +
straight 6 / 0.15 0.5


position push
[-] [mm] [-] [-] free
confinement casting
[-]
2 32 concentric 60 0 0 none perpendicular
direction
Figure 2.32 shows the loading setup and specimen geometry. Table 2.49, 2.50 and 2.51 give
main characteristics of this test program. Note that the relative rib area of the reinforcing bar is
not specified. Test results and major conclusions from this investigation are presented in
Figures 2.33 and in Table 2.52.
Figure 2.33: Load – displacement response of tie elements [23].

Effect of fibers Tension stiffening For the range of fiber volume fraction tested, the tension stiffening
(Vf and effect effect strongly depends on the tension softening of the concrete
fiber shape) matrix (fracture energy) and, hence, it increases with increasing
volume fraction of steel fibers.
Attention: in [23] it is explicitly reminded that due consideration must
be paid to the statistical variations in test results for SFRC that may
take place as the result of specimen geometry. Small cross-section
of the specimen under certain conditions may not adequately
represent the overall material behavior. In particular when larger
fibers are used, the scatter in the post-peak behavior increases, and
more so for smaller volume fractions. On the other hand, fine and
well dispersed in the matrix fibers are less sensitive to geometrical
effects such as the one mentioned above. One should keep this in
mind where discussing results of other tests mentioned in this
review.
Failure In each plain concrete tie element some cracks seem to dominate
propagation until they all reach the same crack width, then they stop to grow and
allow other cracks to widen. In SFRC the deformations are more
evenly distributed overall cracks that arise.
Structural The chosen amount and type of fiber did not influence tensile
response strength of concrete matrix, and virtually the same crack patterns
were obtained on elements with the same geometry.

2.3.2 L. Guan & G. Zhao [10]
The experimental study presented in [10] was performed to study the post-cracking behavior
of steel bars embedded in SFRC in uniaxial tension. Figure 2.34 shows the geometry of the
specimen and details of the steel bar. Note that the bar was provided with strain gauges placed
in channels on two opposite sides of the bar. Concrete strain was measured by means of strain
gauges glued on the concrete surface. Neither the locations of the strain gauges on the bar nor
the position of the strain gauges on the surface of specimen are specified. Most probably they
were located somewhere midlength of the specimen. Table 2.53, 2.54 and 2.55 give main
characteristics of this test program.
Figure 2.34: Set-up of tension tests on tie elements [10].

tie elements prismatic specimens average longitudinal uniform strain Vf
concentrically placed bar concrete stress – distribution both in Lf / df
no bond-free length average longitudinal cross-section of tie
concrete in tension concrete strain element and along the
longitudinal axis of the
element

shape Lf / df Vf fccm fctm Gf ds fR type
[mm / mm] [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
- 25 / 0.5 0 - - - 14 - -
1 - - - indented
1.4 - - - steel
1.9 - - -
- 27 / 0.4 1.4 - - -
c/ds c Bar Lb / ds Lb-freepull/ds Lb-freepush/ds Loading

[-] [mm] [-] [-] [-] vs. casting
1.6 23 concentric 13 0 0 none -
Note that no information is provided with respect to concrete strength and toughness. The
relative rib area of the reinforcing bar is not specified. With regard to the measuring technique
and interpretation of test data serious doubts are rising. Pondering relatively long embedment
length assuming uniform strain distribution along the bar is obviously very simplistic. Since
concrete cover on the bar is relatively small, it is almost inevitable that longitudinal splitting
cracks must have developed – this is however not mentioned in the report. In general it may be
stated that although major tendencies indicated by these tests may be qualitatively correctly
captured, due to the simplistic approach and insufficient background information, results

provided in [10] are not suitable for any model formulation or validation. Nevertheless, test
results and major conclusions from this investigation are presented in Figures 2.35 and in
Table 2.56.
Figure 2.35: Average stress-strain curves of SFRC specimens [10].

Effect of fibers Tension stiffening Addition of fiber into concrete affects mainly its post-cracking
(Vf ) effect behavior and increases both the strength and the rigidity of the
member after cracking of matrix.
Attention: In terms of average stress-strain response of tie elements,
with increasing volume fraction of fibers post-cracking response
becomes more ductile.
Failure
propagation
Structural Cracking of the matrix in SFRC does not result in abrupt load
response increment in steel bars such as observed in the case of bars
embedded in plain concrete. This gradual load transfer gives rise to
a more ductile failure, i.e. a greater energy dissipation capacity of tie
element.
2.3.3 H.H. Abrishami & D. Mitchell [3], [4] and D. Mitchell, H.H. Abrishami & S.
Mindess [20]
The experimental study presented in [3], [4] and [20] is part of a major research project to
investigate the influence of concrete strength, bar size, epoxy coating on the reinforcement,
and steel fibers on the response of tension members. [4] and [20] focus on the effect of steel
fibers on the behavior of reinforced concrete elements subjected to pure tension, including the
tension stiffening characteristics and the crack control. Part of this research devoted to epoxy-
coated bars is not discussed in this review. Figure 2.36 shows the geometry and
instrumentation for a typical specimen. Table 2.57, 2.58 and 2.59 give main characteristics of
this test program. Note that the relative rib area of the reinforcing bar is not specified. Test
results and major conclusions from this investigation are presented in Figures 2.37, 2.38, 2.39
and 2.40, and in Table 2.60.

Figure 2.36: Typical tension specimen [4].

tie elements prismatic specimens axial load – elongation uniform strain Vf
concentrically placed bar curves distribution in cross- f’c
no bond-free length average longitudinal section of tie element
concrete in tension concrete stress –concrete and average strain in
strain curves the bar equal to the
crack opening average strain in the tie
element

shape Lf / df Vf f’cm fsplm Gf ds fR type
[mm / mm] [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
hooked 30 / 0.5 0 34.9 3.1 - 16 - with yield
90.0 6.3 - plateau
1 30.8 4.8 -
69.4 7.3 -
c/ds c Bar Lb / ds Lb-freepull/ds Lb-freepush/ds Loading

[-] [mm] [-] [-] [-] vs. casting
1st direction 40 - 77 concentric 94 0 0 none -
2.5
2nd direction
4.8

Figure 2.37: Load – displacement response of tie elements with normal and high-strength concrete,
with and without fibers [4].
Figure 2.38: Typical crack patterns for tie elements [4].
Figure 2.39: Effect of steel fibers on the tension response of concrete [4].

Figure 2.40: Influence of fibers and concrete strength on crack widths in tie elements [20].
Table 2.60: Main conclusions and observations [4], [20].

Effect of fibers Tension stiffening The addition of fibers, in the volume used, controls the splitting
(Vf ) effect cracks and leads to significant increase in the tension stiffening
within the investigated range of concrete strength.
Attention: Presence of Vf = 1% fibers in the concrete has resulted in
a slight increase in stiffness before cracking and an increase in the
cracking load.
Attention: There is a sudden jump in the elongation immediately
after cracking for tie elements without fibers, whereas the fibers are
capable of limiting this jumps.
Only specimens containing steel fibers were able to develop
tensions greater than the yield load of the reinforcing bar.
Attention: After localized yielding of the bar at a crack in case of
specimens without fibers an abrupt loss of stiffness occurs and the
response follows that of the yield plateau of the bar. In case of
specimens with fibers tie elements can carry loads higher than the
yield load of the reinforcing bar.
Failure
propagation
Structural Steel fibers help to prevent bond splitting cracks from propagation in
response both normal and high-strength concrete.
Attention: Both transverse cracks and splitting cracks were observed
during the test for specimens without fibers. In the specimens with
fibers no splitting cracks were observed during the test.
Steel fibers reduce widths and spacing of the transverse cracks
within the investigated range of concrete strength.
Attention: Note that bond strength decreases also due to occurrence
of splitting cracks, leading to larger crack widths than in case where
occurrence of splitting cracks is prevented
Effect of matrix Tension stiffening The high strength concrete specimens are characterized by larger
strength (fc’) effect stiffness before cracking and higher cracking load than the normal–
strength concrete specimens.
The response of the high-strength and normal-strength concrete
specimens, that did not contain fibers are almost identical at a
certain stage after cracking.
Failure
propagation
Structural
response

2.4 Beam tests (RILEM Standard RC5 [28] or similar test set-up)
2.4.1 M.H. Harajli [12]
The experimental investigation of local bond stress - slip behavior of ribbed bars embedded in
SFRC, presented in [12], is already partly discussed in 2.1.3. Figure 2.41 shows the type of
specimens used in the beam test series. Tables 2.61, 2.62 and 2.63 give main characteristics of
this part of test program.

pull-out beam specimens - curves uniformly distributed Vf

bottom bars bond stress fiber shape
bond-free length
with and without
confining reinforcement
concrete in tension

shape Lf / df Vf f’cm fsplm Gf ds fR type
[mm / mm] [%] [MPa] [MPa] [N/m] [mm] [-]
hooked 30 / 0.5 0 22 - - 20 0.091 Grade
(loose) 1 23.5 60

position push
[-] [mm] [-] [-] free
confinement casting
[-]
1st direction 53 - 66 bottom 3 5 16 confining perpendicular
reinforcement in some direction
3.3
cases (4 bars ds
2nd direction =10 mm, stirrups ds
=6 mm at 76 mm
2.7 spacing)
of individual specimens were normalized to fc’ = 22 MPa, assuming that the bond resistance is
proportional to (fc’)0.5. Note that it is not quite clear how the strength of concrete in the
specimens was deduced. Test results and major conclusions from this investigation are
presented in Figures 2.42 and in Table 2.64. The bond stress was calculated using moment
equilibrium at the beam mid-span section between the extremely applied load and the internal
force couple provided solely by the bottom and top reinforcing bars.

Figure 2.41: Beam test series: specimen dimensions and reinforcement details, all sizes are in mm
[12].
Figure 2.42: Mean bond stress – slip relationships for different confinement and fiber content [12].

specimen type Bond stiffness
Bond ductility Due to large vertical pressure exerted by the reinforcing bars on the
surrounding concrete as a result of bending, the magnitude of the
frictional bond resistance (for slip values larger than 7mm)
measured using beam specimens is significantly larger than in case
of pull-out specimens.
Attention: when comparing results of beam and pull-out tests the bar
position with respect to the mould should also be taken into account:
while bars in the beam are situated at the bottom of the specimen in
good bond conditions, this is not the case for pull-out specimens.
Failure
propagation
Structural
response

2.5 Modeling of bond in SFRC
Moving from the constitutive to the structural behavior, it is of primary interest to study steel-
concrete bond, because it affects the overall response. With reference to judging safety and
durability, modeling of bond is obviously a principal issue. Yet, modeling of bond in SFRC is
not very well advanced. Few investigations in this direction only touch various aspects,
approaches and techniques related to bond modeling. It is obviously much to early to be ably
to come with a well-established numerical model, which is able to serve as engineering tool
accurate in various bond-related questions.
Fundamental studies of Cattaneo [6] allowed developing limit analysis model to evaluate the
ultimate bond capacity by maximizing bar pressure with respect to crack extension. This
refined theoretical model allows finding the solution with the static and energetic methods.
The description of the splitting-pullout failure transition is in good agreement with
experimental evidence. It is however not sufficient for practical engineering application to be
able to predict bond strength only. A very simple approach has been taken by Kstulovic et al
[19], who proposed an empirical equation to predict ultimate bond strength. Using regression
analysis a function has been derived, which relates ultimate bond strength to matrix tensile
strength and toughness. As with every empirical relationship, its validity is limited due to
limited (own-test-based) database used in the analysis.
Local bond stress – slip models offer more application relatedpossibilities. Two of such
models can be mentioned: the empirical relationship proposed by Vandewalle [35] and the
analytical model proposed by M.H. Harajli [13] and M.H. Harajli et al [14]. Model proposed
by Vandewalle [35] allows evaluating the ultimate bond capacity based on hydraulic pressure
analogy (elastic-cracked model). The local bond stress – slip relationship can be predicted
using Coulomb criteria solely in the initial ascending branch. In case of SFRC sufficient
accuracy is reached only in case of splitting bond failure, as shown by De Bonte [9]. De Bonte
[9] analyzed also the accuracy of the empirical model of Harajli [13] and M.H. Harajli et al
[14], consisting of a monotonic envelope curve and a reduced bond resistance curve
corresponding to pull-out and splitting mode bond failure, respectively. With respect to this
model it is stressed that serious doubts exist with respect to the relevancy of test results that
serve as the basis for model formulation and correctness of test interpretation, as discussed in
preceding sections. De Bonte [9] concludes that the accuracy of model predictions is not quite
satisfactory, both with respect to ultimate bond strength and local bond-slip relationship.
Besides local bond stress – slip models, analytical models are devised to predict directly the
load-deformation response of a tie element. Though few such models exist, actually only the
model of Noghabai [24] explicitly accounts for tension softening of concrete. The relatively
simple approach is taken, where the tension element is modeled by parallel “springs”. The
behavior of the tie element is described as the addition of the response of the bare rebar and
the tension stiffening of the concrete that takes place at predefined crack planes. Also, a
condition for compatibility between the rebar and concrete has to be met. The obvious
deficiency of the model is the need of assuming the average crack spacing before tension
stiffening effect can be estimated. Where this assumption is explicitly based on the observed
crack patterns, the model seems to fit the experimental evidence quite well (however it must
be stressed that verification is limited to the own tests). Contrary to the refined fracture-
mechanics based model of Noghabai [24], Abrishami & Mitchell [3] proposed a simple
approach to model tension stiffening. However, neglecting the influence of splitting cracks
and assuming (unverified) orientation of fibers in the cross section limit the applicability of the
model to the pull-out bond failure mode and shows its oversimplification.

3 Synthesis of literature overview
The pull-out behavior is a function of the bar characteristics (geometry and steel type),
characteristics of the surrounding matrix, and the level of lateral confinement (e.g. cover
thickness or the presence of additional active or passive confinement). Results from the
investigations discussed in this review may serve to outline the whole spectrum of factors
influencing bond behavior, however at current stage available knowledge is clearly far from
being complete. This is partly due to lack of consistency and systematic in studies, partly due
to contradictions in conclusions from different investigations, and partly due to lack of
understanding of links between concrete technology, basic material characteristics and
composite behavior of reinforced concrete. Typical for SFRC diversity of properties of
concrete matrix components (in particular shape and size of fibers) as well as differences in
composition and quality of the SFRC composite make it very complicated to compare
quantitatively results from different investigations, in particular when reference parameters
describing general tensile characteristics of the matrix are missing or when non-representative
specimen types are used in the investigations. Nevertheless, in the following tables
conclusions from various researches are gathered and synthesized.
Table 3.1: Main conclusions and observations from discussed references

Effect of fibers Bond strength For the range of fiber volume fraction tested, the majority of
(Vf) researchers generally agree that the bond strength in case of
splitting bond failure is increasing. There is no agreement with
respect to the magnitude and significance of bond strength increase
in case of splitting bond failure in relation to an increase in the
volume fraction of steel fibers.
There is clearly no agreement with respect to the influence of fiber
addition on bond strength in case of pull-out bond failure.
Conclusions vary from confirming significant improvement of bond
strength in case of pull-out bond failure to proving any correlation
false.
Still, some researchers conclude that bond strength is not influenced
by fiber content, irrespective of the failure mode.
Bond stiffness There is no agreement with respect to influence of fiber content on
(pre-peak bond stiffness. Conclusions vary from confirming increase of bond
behavior) strength with increasing fiber volume fraction to proving any
correlation false.
Single researchers find a clear difference between bond stiffness of
SRFC for splitting and pull-out bond failure, while others find no
difference at all.
Bond ductility In general researchers agree that post-peak behavior is more ductile
(post-peak for SFRC than for plain reference concrete. Yet, while a strong
behavior) softening effect of fiber addition on the post-peak behavior in case of
splitting bond failure is generally confirmed, opinions differ with
respect to the magnitude of softening due to fiber addition in case of
pull-out bond failure.
Failure In general it is agreed that the presence of fibers makes the splitting
propagation of concrete more stable, resulting in more ductile propagation of
splitting cracks.
Structural There is no agreement whether reduction of crack widths in
response reinforced members with SFRC matrix is only due to transfer of
tensile forces across the cracks or also due to improvement of bond
behavior of reinforcement. The tension stiffening effect is generally
found to increase with increasing fiber volume fraction and reduction
of widths of transverse cracks is reported in SFRC. However there is
no agreement with respect to the influence of fiber addition on the
spacing of the transverse cracks.

Effect of of fibers Bond strength Very limited research work is devoted to the effect of fiber
(fiber shape and Bond stiffness characteristics on bond behavior. It suggests that there is no
Lf / df) statistically significant effect of fiber type and shape on local bond
Bond ductility behavior. Note that the effect of fiber shape and aspect ratio is not
Failure sufficiently studied and in general systematic is missing in the few
propagation investigations devoted to this topic.
Effect of matrix Bond strength Very limited research work is devoted to the effect of fiber
strength (fc) characteristics on bond behavior. In generally it suggests that the
increase in compressive strength of the matrix leads to an increase
the bond strength of bars embedded in SFRC, both in case of
splitting and pull-out bond failure. There is no agreement with
respect to relationship between matrix strength and bond strength.
Some researchers suggest that not only increase in matrix strength
but also increase in matrix toughness are responsible for bond
strength increase in SFRC.
Results of single investigations devoted to the effect of matrix
Bond stiffness strength of SFRC on bond behavior suggest that increase in matrix
strength leads to increase in bond stiffness.
Bond ductility
Failure
propagation
Effect of Bond strength It is generally concluded that concrete cover and additional
concrete cover Bond stiffness confinement influence bond behavior in SFRC in a similar way as in
(c/ds) and plain concrete, though single researchers come to different
additional Bond ductility conclusions.
confinement Concrete cover thickness of c/ds ≥ 2 in general is likely to lead to
pull-out bond failure if fiber volume content is close to 1%. For very
low fiber volume content (0.25%) values close to 3 – 3.5 are
Failure
reported. Still, single researchers observe splitting bond failure for
propagation
c/ds = 5. Note that these conclusions are based on tests with most
diverse (and not well documented) rib patterns and bar splitting
capacities.
Effect of bar Bond strength Single research devoted to the effect of bar position on bond
position Bond stiffness behavior suggests that corner position of bar leads to lower bond
strength than edge position, but does not influence bond stiffness or
Bond ductility ductility.
Failure
propagation
4 Final conclusions and recommendations
As mentioned repeatedly in earlier sections, changes in bond quality have implications for the
performance of reinforced concrete structures. The primary contribution of fibers for structural
applications is in the area of ductility. The enhancement of ductility can be effectively utilized
in all three modes of loading: bending, shear, and torsion. In this respect bond properties of
reinforcement embedded in SFRC affect the structural behavior of members and structures
from the point of view of structural safety and stiffness reduction caused by splitting.
An important aspect with respect to contribution of fibers concerns the structural durability.
While (transverse) flexural or tensile cracks expose a very limited bar length to the
environment, bond splitting cracks develop longitudinally along the bar so that a considerable
length of the reinforcement can be exposed to aggressive agents. As far as the structural
durability is concerned, the presence of fibers is again particularly useful since the fibers allow
a reduction of the splitting crack width. Note that durability may in turn affect structural safety
as well. While it is known that the addition of steel fibers leads to a reduction of crack width it
is not established whether this effect is only due to the proven transfer of tensile forces by the
fibers across cracks or also because of an improvement of bond of the embedded deformed bar
reinforcement by fibers.

The fact that fibers increase ductility is well established, but how to estimate the improved
ductility and incorporate it into design is not established to the point where a designer can
specify a certain fiber type and volume fraction to achieve the level of ductility needed. To
achieve such a goal, numerical models are needed to evaluate several aspects related to the
structural behavior of structures and structural elements i.e. development/splice length of
reinforcing bars, anchorage capacity of reinforcing bars embedded inside exterior or interior
beam-column connection, crack widths and crack spacing, deflections and rotations. In order
to develop these numerical models, basic stress-strain characteristics are needed both for
compression and tension, as well as a description of bond characteristics of reinforcement bars
embedded in SFRC. Once it is established that fibers can provide predictable and repeatable
ductility, design procedures can be formulated.
In general it may be concluded that effects of steel fiber reinforcement on the interaction
between deformed bars and concrete have not been investigated thoroughly and
systematically. While extensive experimental and analytical studies have focused on the bond
characteristics of reinforcing bars embedded in conventional concrete, experimental data on
the bond properties of reinforcing bars embedded in SFRC is very limited: there are only few
reports dealing with this question; their statements are partly contradictory. Since in the tests
discussed above both the reinforcing bars and the fibers had different geometrical and
mechanical properties and different concrete mixes were used, the results are hardly
comparable. Although tendencies observed may be in general correctly captured, reference
parameters are often missing, which hinders reliable evaluation of bond test results. Note that
such a reference property could be the shape of softening diagram under tensile load, since it
represents the effectiveness of fibers in transmitting tensile stresses – also radial tensile
stresses due to splitting bond forces.
Hence, it necessary to further study the influence of steel fibers on the bond behavior of
deformed bars. A program of additional systematic experimental study should be developed
keeping in mind the following aspects directly and indirectly related to bond behavior of
deformed bars in SFRC:
• Choosing type of bond tests relevant for structural models used to analyze members and
RC structures in intended field of application (local bond stress-slip relationship, tension
stiffening model for tie elements etc.).
• Adjusting geometry of test specimens on one hand to intended field of application and on
the other hand to homogeneity level (i.e. quality) of SFR composite (fiber length, aggregate
size, workability etc.).
• Limiting variation of material characteristics of steel and concrete to that relevant for
intended field of application.
• Providing necessary reference information with respect to the actual matrix behavior.
It is evident that short pull-out tests provide direct information with regard to bond
performance of a bar embedded in a concrete matrix. However, for full understanding of the
basic principles governing the behavior of reinforced concrete, more than only knowledge of
local bond stress - slip response under specific conditions is required. In particular crack
control and tension stiffening in reinforced members deserve more attention. In case of SFRC
it must be further clarified to what extend improved (local) bond performance in combination
with ability of SFRC to transmit tension across cracks contribute to improvement of the
cracking behavior and the tension stiffening effect in reinforced concrete members. Although
reinforced concrete members subjected to pure tension (tie elements) do not often occur in
practice, studying this simple case forms crucial step in understanding the response of
biaxially or triaxially stresses reinforced elements.

Due consideration must be paid to the variations in response of SFRC members as the result of
geometrical boundaries, in particular in relation to the homogeneity of SFRC and
unintentional fiber concentration and orientation. Fine and well dispersed in the matrix fibers
are less sensitive, in sense of stochastic variation, to geometrical effects such as spacing of
bars or cover thickness. On the contrary when larger fibers are used, the scatter in the post-
peak behavior increases, the more the smaller the volume fractions. One should keep this in
mind when discussing effectiveness of fibers in enhancing bond behavior and controlling
cracking in reinforced members. Beforehand it must be examined whether the combination of
specific boundary conditions and material characteristics is adequate to study the influence of
fiber addition on the local bond-related phenomena. Consequently, with respect to the
practical cases, it must be deduced in which way, under which conditions and within which
limits the description of material behavior obtained from the tests can be translated into the
material behavior expected in a structure.
With respect to the homogeneity of SRFC one must not forget the relation between volume the
fraction of fibers and the level of matrix compaction (i.e. quality of concrete casting). Though
it seems to be obvious, it is frequently forgotten that when no particular attention is paid to the
improvement of mix packing, an increase in the fiber volume fraction may detrimentally affect
the composite quality. Concrete mix workability and compactability as well as the actual
quality of specimen casting are in fact parameters that directly influence bond behavior of a
rebar embedded in SFRC matrices. The influence of this and other parameters on the basic
matrix behavior can be captured if information is provided with respect to basic material
characteristics of the concrete matrix. Knowledge of matrix compressive strength is certainly
not sufficient. It is indispensable to possess information concerning the actual matrix tensile
behavior, such as matrix tensile strength and toughness, if one aims at developing a basis for
any type of systematic analysis or model formulation.
5 References
1 Aarup B. & Jensen B.Chr., Bond Properties of High Strength Fiber Reinforced
Concrete, ACI Special Publication SP-180 - Bond and Development of Reinforcement,
1998, pp.459-472
2 Aarup B., Karlsen J. & Lindström G., Fiber reinforced high performance concrete for
in-situ cast joints, ACI Fall Conference, Orlando, Sept. 2000, pp.9
3 Abrishami H.H & Mitchell D., Influence of Splitting Cracks on Tension Stiffening, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 93, No. 6, 1996, pp. 703-710
4 Abrishami H.H & Mitchell D., Influence of Stel Fibers on Tension Stiffening, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No. 6, 1997, pp. 769-776
5 ACI Commitee 544, Design considerations for Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 85 (6), 1988, pp. 563-580
6 Cattaneo S., Ultra High-Performance Concrete: Constitutive Behavior and Structural
Applications, PhD Thesis, Politecnico di Milano, 2000, pp.185
7 Cattaneo S. & Rosati G., Bond and splitting in High Performance Fiber Reinforced
Concrete, Proceedings of Fifth RILEM Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced Concretes
(RC), Lyon, Ed. P.Rossi and G.Chanvillard, 2000
8 DANSK STANDARD DS-2082, Armeringsstål. Prøvning af forankrings-evnen (Steel
for reinforced concrete – Pull-out test), 1980, pp.2
9 De Bonte F., Hechtsterkte bij staalvezelbeton, MSc Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, 2000, pp.140

10 Guan L. & Zhao G., A study on the post-cracking behaviour of SFRC working
together with steel bar in uniaxial tension, Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Concrete, Mardas, India, 1987, pp. 2.153-2.161
11 Hamza A.M. & Naaman A.E, Bond Characteristics of deformed Reinforcing Steel
Bars Embedded in SIFCON, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 93, No. 6, 1996, pp. 578-587
12 Harajli M.H., Local Bond-Slip Behavior of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Fiber
Reinforced Concrete, Proceedings of International Conference: Bond in Concrete –
From Research to Practice, Riga, 1992, pp.7.87-7.97
13 Harajli M.H., Development/Splice Strength of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Plain
and Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 5, 1994, pp. 511-
520
14 Harajli M.H., Hout M. & Jalkh W., Local Bond Stress-Slip Behavior of Reinforcing
Bars Embedded in Plain and Fiber Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 92 No.46,
1995, pp. 343-354
15 Heshe G. & Nielsen C.V., Anchorage of Reinforcement Bars, EU264 – COMPRESIT,
Technical Report, Subtask 1.7, 1992, pp.29
16 Hota S. & Naaman A.E., Bond Stress-Slip Response of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in
FRC Matrices under Monotonic and Cyclic Loading, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94,
No. 5, 1997, pp. 525-537
17 Johnston, C.D., Proportioning, mixing and placement of fiber reinforced cements and
concrete's, Proceedings of the International RILEM Conference 'Production Methods
and Workability of Concrete', Paisley, Scotland, June 3-5, 1996, pp.155-179
18 Kooiman, A.G., Modeling Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Structural Design,
PhD Thesis, TU Delft, 2000, pp.170
19 Krstulovic-Opara N., Watson K.A & LaFave J.M., Effect of increased Tensile
Strength and Toughness on Reinforcing Bar Bond Behavior, Cement & Concrete
Composites, Vol. 16, 1994, pp. 129-141
20 Mitchell D., Abrishami H.H. & Mindess S., The Effect of Steel Fibers and Epoxy-
Coated Reinforcement on Tension Stiffening and Cracking of Reinforced Concrete,
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 93, No. 1, 1996, pp. 61-68
21 Nielsen C.V., Presentation of cyclic load tests of rebars anchored in steel fiber
reinforced high-strength composite, Fatigue of Concrete Structures (ed. L.P. Hansen),
Department of Building Technology and Structural Engineering, Aalborg University,
Aalborg, Denmark, 1993, pp.65-71
22 Nielsen C.V., Olesen J.F. & Aarup B.K., Effect of fibers on the bond strength of high-
strength cocnrete, Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Utilization of High-
Strength/High-Performance Concrete, Paris, 1996, pp.1209-1218
23 Noghabai, K, Effect of Tension Softening on the Performance of Concrete Structures,
PhD Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, 1998, pp.146
24 Noghabai K., Behavior of Tie Elements of Plain and Fibrous Concrete and Varying
Cross Section, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No. 2, 2000, pp. 277-284
25 Plizzari G.A., Bond and splitting crack development in normal and high strength fiber
reinforced concrete, Proceedings of 13th Eng. Mechanics Division Conference –
EMD 99, Baltimore, 1999, pp. 6
26 Plizzari G.A., Deldossi M.A., Massimo S., Experimental study on anchored bars in
RC elements with transverse reinforcement, Materials and Structures, Vol. 29, 1996,
pp. 534-542
27 Rostásy F.S. & Hartwich K., Bond of deformed reinforcing bar embedded in steel
fiber reinforced concrete, The International Journal of Cement Composites and
Lightweight Concrete, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1988, pp.151-158
28 RILEM RC5, TC9-RC, Bond test for reinforcement steel – Beam test, RILEM
Technical Recommendations for the Testing and Use of Construction Materials, 1982,
pp.213-217

29 RILEM RC6, TC9-RC, Bond test for reinforcement steel – Pull-out test, RILEM
Technical Recommendations for the Testing and Use of Construction Materials, 1983,
pp.218-220
30 Samen Ezeldin A., Balaguru P.N., Bond Behavior of Normal and High-Strength Fiber
Reinforced Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 86, No. 5, 1989, pp. 515-524
31 Samen Ezeldin A., Balaguru P.N., Bond Performance of Reinforcing Bars Embedded
in Fiber Reinforced Concrete and Subjected to Monotonic and Cyclic Loads,
Proceedings of ASCE on Serviceability and Durability of Construction Materials,
1990, pp.145-154
32 Soroushian P., Mirza F. & Alhozaimy A., Bonding of Confined Steel Fiber Reinforced
Concrete to Deformed Bars, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 91 (2), 1994, pp. 141-149
33 STUVO-rapport 102, Constructieve toepassingen van staalvezelbeton, Eindrapport
van STUVO-cel 149, 1996, pp.77
34 Teutsch M., Anwendung von Faserbeton in Beton- und Fertigteilwerken, Betonwerk +
Fertigteil-Technik 10/97, 1997, pp.84-89
35 Vandewalle L., Hechting tussen wapening met verbeterde hechting en beton by
gewone en cryogene omstandigheden, Doctoraatsproefschrift FWT, Leuven,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Departement Bouwkunde, 1988

Bond of Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars Embedded in Steel Fiber

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bond of Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars Embedded in Steel Fiber

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bond of Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars Embedded in Steel Fiber

Reinforced Concrete – State-of-the-Art Report

Contact person : dr.ir. C.R. Braam

Toepassing van nieuwe materialen bij geboorde

Delft Cluster verricht lange-termijn

Thema Duwer Prof.dr.ir. J. Rots TU Delft, Bouwkunde

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 2

Bij de totstandkoming van dit rapport waren betrokken:

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 3

Bond of Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars

Date October 2001

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 4

Bond of Deformed Reinforcing Steel Bars

Datum October 2001

Project nummer 01.06.03

Rapport nummer 01.06.03-01

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 5

1.1 Problem statement........................................................................................................ 7

1.2 Composition of SFRC................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Concrete composition vs. bond behavior.................................................................... 9

2 LITERATURE OVERVIEW ............................................................................12

2.3 Tension tests on tie elements...................................................................................... 51

2.5 Modeling of bond in SFRC ........................................................................................ 60

3 SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE OVERVIEW .................................................61

4 FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................62

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 6

1.1 Problem statement

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 7

When discussing deformation capacity of structural elements or civil engineering structures

1.2 Composition of SFRC

SFRC is a composite material, which is in general regarded as macroscopically homogeneous

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 8

Table 1.1 ACI guideline on SFRC mix design [5]

component dmax = 10 mm dmax = 20 mm dmax = 38 mm

1.3 Concrete composition vs. bond behavior

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 9

Figure 1.1 Mechanism of bond resistance in confined concrete [32].

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 10

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 11

2.1.1 S. Cattaneo [6], S. Cattaneo & G. Rosati [7]

Table 2.1: General test program [6], [7].

Type of tests Type of specimen Results Assumptions Variables

short pull-out cylindrical specimen - curves uniformly Vf

Table 2.2: Materials characteristics [6], [7].

Fibers Concrete Steel

Table 2.3: Specimens geometry [6], [7].

c/ds c Bar Lb / ds Lb-freepull/ds Lb-freepush/ds Loading vs.

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 12

Figure 2.3: Bond stress – displacement curves for SFRC [6]:

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 13

Table 2.4: Main conclusions and observations [6], [7].

Aspect (Variable) Characteristics Conclusion

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 14

Figure 2.5: Test specimens [27]

Table 2.5: General test program [27]

Type of tests Type of specimen Results Assumptions Variables

short pull-out cylindrical and cube - curves uniformly Vf

Table 2.6: Materials characteristics [27].

Fibers Concrete Steel

Table 2.7: Specimens geometry [27].

c/ds c Bar Lb / ds Lb-freepull/ds Lb-freepush/ds Loading vs.

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 15

Date: October 2001 Bond in SFR Concrete – State-of-the-Art / 01.06.03-01 Page 16

Table 2.8: Main conclusions and observations [27]