BuildingandEnvironrnent, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 163-168, 1985. 0360-1323/85 $3.00 +0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. © 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd.

Analytical Model for Bond-slip Behavior

Under Monotonic Loading
D. Z. YANKELEVSKY*

In this paper the distributions of bond stress, slip and strain are analyzed. The local bond-slip law is
idealized by a piecewise linear relationship, for each part of which closed-form solutions are obtained
for bond stress, slip and strain distributions. The steel bar length is divided intofour zones in the general
case. Conditions of continaity between zones and boundary conditions are used to solve the length of
zones, and strain and slip distributions. Simultaneous transcendental equations are obtained and solved
usin0 Newton's tangent method. The analytical predicted results compare well with test results in
tension and compression.

INTRODUCTION tO
O~
IM
tw
THE BOND characteristic of bars is commonly described b.-
tD
by a relation between local bond stress and the relative t~
displacement (slip) of the bar. Bond stress may be defined Z
om ' D
®
as the local shear stress between the surface of the steel bar
and the surrounding concrete. The bond stress-slip 1~ . . . . .
relationship may be considered as a representation of the
®
"rU
overall behavior of steel bar and concrete at the bar- 1 I I
concrete interface. It includes deformation stages of I
uncracked and cracked concrete, as well as crushing of
Sy BONDSLIP
concrete in front of the bar ribs at higher loads. Fig. 1
The distribution of bond stress along the anchored bar is
of major importance and may be obtained by considering
the system equilibrium. Martin [1] derived a solution define the four possible zones along the steel bar being
utilizing the ascending part of the bond-slip law which is under monotonic tension or compression. At a low stress
found to be too complicated for calculations [2]. Due to level, bond slip is smaller than Sy and the whole stress-slip
the complexity of the bond law, some researchers have relationship may be described by the first zone. When bond
used computers to solve the equilibrium differential slip exceeds Sy but is smaller than $2, two zones are
equation by stepwise integration using small increments of required to describe the bond stress-slip relationship
length [1, 3-6]. The distribution of bond stress along the along the bar and, in the general case, four zones are
bar can also be calculated by using the finite-element required, as shown in Fig. 2. All deformation properties are
method. In this method the bar-concrete interface is assumed to be concentrated in the steel bar--concrete
modeled either by springs [7-9] or by using special interface and the local relative displacement between steel
bond elements [10]. Recent works [6, 9] recommend and concrete is obtained from Fig. 1. Once the nonlinear
development of simple but efficient analytical methods to bond stress-slip relationship is transferred into a piecewise
calculate bond-stress distribution. In this paper the bond- linear relationship, a closed-form solution for each of its
slip law is idealized by a piecewise linear relationship, parts may be obtained.
which enables one to perform the analysis by dividing the
bar length into a few zones of finite length, each
representing a certain bond-slip relationship. Closed-form
solutions are obtained for each zone and the complete
solution is obtained when compatibility and boundary
conditions are considered. I
MATHEMATICAL M O D E L
The bond stress-slip relationship may be approximated L ~X=Xy ~X=X
2 IX=X!
by the piecewise linear curve shown in Fig. 1. This type of S=Sy S=S2 S=S3
X
curve fits well with experimental data [6, 9]. Its four parts

*Civil Engineering Department, Technion--Israel Institute of

Technology, Haifa, Israel 32000. Fig. 2
163
164 D. Z. Yankelevsky

MATHEMATICAL F O R M U L A T I O N (b) Zone II : Sy ~< S(x) ~< $2

The expression for bond stress is :
Equilibrium of an infinitesimal bar element at distance
x, yields the relationship between the bond stress z(x) and (9)
the axial force T(x) in the steel bar :
Substituting equation (9) into (4) yields :
1 dT(x) d2S(x) 4zr
r(x) (1)
it'D dx (10)
dx 2 ED
in which D is the bar diameter.
and its solution :
Assuming linear-elastic behavior of the steel bar we get:
EA de(x) S(x) = ~ x 2 +Cax+C4 (11)
z(x) = (2)
xD dx
in which C3, C4 are constants to be determined from
in which E, A--Young's modulus of elasticity and cross- boundary conditions.
sectional area of the steel bar, respectively;
The expression for strain variation:
e(x)--steel bar strain.
When the influence of concrete deformation on slip is s(x) dS(x) 4zy
considered negligible, as commonly assumed, the strain in = dx =E-D x+C3" (12)
the steel is related to the slip :
dS(x) (c) Zone III: $2 ~< S(x) <~ $3
e(x) = (3)
dx The expression for bond stress in this zone is :
When a circular cross-section of the steel bar is assumed, z(x)=zl-K2S(x) (13)
equation (2) becomes :
in which :
z(x) = ED d2S(x)
-~-" ~ dx. (4) K2 = zy-Tu. (14)
S 3--S 2
For each of the four zones shown in Figs 1 and 2, a Substituting equation (13) into (4) yields :
relationship between bond stress and slip is defined, thus
leading to a second-order differential equation. Its solution d2S(x) 4K 2 4zl
+ -=-=S(x) = (15)
yields expressions for slip and strain variations in that dx z ~.~ ED
zone. Derivations of these expressions are presented and its solution is:
below.
T1
(a) Zone I : 0 <<.S(x) ~< Sy S(x) = C5 sin(ct2x)+ C6cos(ct2x) + K22 (16)
The variation of bond stress with slip is : where :
z(x)=I,;,.S(x) (5) 4~K2 (16a)
where :
and
Ky = z-LY. (5a)
Sy C 5, C6--constants to be determined from boundary
Substituting equation (5) into (4) yields : conditions.
The expression for strain variation in the steel bar
d2S(x) 4Ky S(x) = 0 (6) becomes :
dx 2 ED
dS(x)
and its solution : e(x) dx at2[C5 cos(at2x)- C6 sin(ct2x)]. (17)

S(x) --- C1C '~ + C2e- ~'x (7)

(d) Zone IV: $3 <~ S(x)
where : In this zone there exists a constant bond stress :
z(x) = %. (18)
= ~ (7a) Similarity with zone II, directly yields the expressions for
cq ~ ED
slip and strain :
and 2z. 2
S(x) = - ~ x +C7x +C s (19)
C1, C2--constants to be determined from boundary
conditions. 4%
The expression for strain variation becomes : e(x) = ~ x + C7. (20)

dS(x) In the general case there are 11 unknowns (eight

e(x) = dx = ~q[Cle~'x-C2e-~'x]. (8)
constants C1-Cs and three coordinates xl, x2, xa) which
 Bond-slip Behavior 165

are determined from the following conditions : Zone I : 0 ~< x ~< Xy.The expressions for strain and slip in
- - A t each of the three boundaries between the four zones, zone I are:
conditions of continuity of strain and slip are required as
sl(x) = ~1 [C~e ~'x- C 2 e - " ~ (25)
well as equality of slip to the transition value between the
zones. Sl(x ) = Cle=lX + C2 e-=,x. (26)
- - A t x = L strain is known.
The boundary condition at x = 0 is:
- - A t x = 0 either strain or slip are known.
x = 0 s(x) = 0. (27)
Substituting equation (27) into (25) yields:
SOLUTION PROCEDURE
C1 = C2. (28)
At a low stress level in the steel bar, bond conditions
according to zone I exist along the bar. When stress is Hence:
increased, the slip at the loaded end exceeds S T and zone I
SI(x) = 2C1 cosh(0qx) (29)
bond conditions exist along a part of the bar closer to the
free end (left side in Fig. 1), and zone II conditions closer to e l(X) = 2~t1C 1 sinh(0~t x). (30)
the loaded end. At higher stresses three, or in general, four
zones exist along the bar.
Zone II: Xy ~ x ~< L. The expressions for strains and slip
A four-step solution technique is proposed.
in zone II are:
It is first assumed that stress-slip conditions of zone I
exist along the bar. Substituting the boundary conditions,
Ca(X) = 4Zy x +C3 (31)
solutions for strain and slip variations are obtained. A ED
check for maximum slip reveals whether it exceeds S r If
slip along the bar is smaller than ST, the assumption of zone
I is correct and the strain and slip equations are the right S2(x) = ~D x2 + C3x + C,. (32)
solutions. Otherwise, the second possibility is checked to
determine that zone I and zone II regimes exist, and The boundary condition at x = L is :
corresponding solution is checked whether maximum slip x = L 8(x) = Co. (33)
value is smaller than $2, etc. In general, we may reach the
fourth step to have all four zones included in the solution. Substituting equation (33) into (31) yields:
The formulation and solution of these cases are presented
below. - 4~Y'r (34)
C3 = eo ED ~"

The constants C1, C4 and the coordinate xy are found

Case I: zone I regime
from the conditions at the interface between zone I and
It is assumed that zone I conditions exist along the bar
zone II :
and slip and strain variation are therefore according to
equations (7) and (8), respectively. et(x,) = e2(xy) (35)
When a free end of the steel bar is assumed at x = 0
Sl(x,) = Sy (36)
(Fig. 2) the boundary conditions are :
S2(xy) = S r (37)
x = 0 e(x) = 0 (21a)
Condition (35) yields :
x = L s(x) = s o (21b)
where So is the strain in steel due to the applied external ~ x y + e o - ~4~y L .
2~ttCl sinh(attxy) = -4zy (38)
force.
Substituting the boundary conditions in equation (8)
yields the constants : Condition (36) yields :

2C1 cosh(~qxy) = S r (39)

s° (22)
C1 = C2 = 2~ 1 sinh(cqL) "
Dividing equation (38) by (39) yields :
Hence the expressions for strain and slip variation are:
SO tanh(~tlXy) = cqxy + - r, l L . (40)
s(x) = sinh'0qL"[
) smh(~qx) 0 ~< x ~< L (23)
This is a transcendental equation with a single unknown
S(x) = So xy and for given values of the constants it may be solved by
cq sinh(~qL)" cosh(~qx) 0 ~< x ~< L. (24) common techniques, e.g. Newton's tangent method [121
to obtain x r Back substitution into equation (39) yields C 1.
Equation (37) yields :
Case II: zones I, II (Fig. 2)
In this case it is assumed that zone I conditions exist in
the range 0 ~< x ~< xy, and zone II conditions exist in the ~D X~ + Caxy + C4 = Sy (41)
rangex T ~< x ~< Lwhereslipislarger.xTisthecoordinatein
which the slip is equal to S r from which C4 is found.
166 D. Z. Y a n k e l e v s k y

Case I I I : zones I, II, I I I (Fig. 2) Substituting equation (55) into (47) and using (49) yields :
In a similar way the case of three zones is analyzed. The
2"1 ~0
transition from zone I to zone II occurs at x = xy where the
C6(x2) = S2 K2 c~2cos(72 L)
slip equals Sy and from zone II to zone III occurs at x = x2
where the slip equals $2. [tan(~2L) sin(~2x2)+cos(~2x2)]. (56)
Substituting equation (56) into (49) we get C5(x2).
Zone I : 0 ~< x ~< x r The expressions for strain and slip Two conditions for the slip at the boundaries of zone II
are as given in equations (7) and (8). Using the boundary are :
condition equation (21a) yields the expressions for strain Condition 4 :
and slip : S2(xy) = S r (57)
el(x) = 2C1 cosh(~tlX) (42) Which yields :
SI(x) = 2cqCl sinh(axx). (43) 2zy 2
-E~ Xy dc..c3xy-~- c 4 = Sy (58)
and
Zone I I : Xy ~< x ~< x2. The expressions for strain and slip
Condition 5 :
in zone II are :
$2(X2) = S 2. (59)
4~y Which yields :
e2(x) =~--/:ix+C3 (44)
D X2 -~-C3x 2 -~-C 4 = S 2. (60)
S2(x ) --~ ~ X2 -~-C3x -at-C 4. (45)
Subtracting equation (58) from (60) we get :

2~y ( x 2 _ x Z ) + C 3 ( x r ) . ( x 2 _ x y ) = $ 2 - S , . (61)
Zone III : x2 ~< x ~< L. The expressions for strain and ED
slip in zone III are :
in which C3(xy) is substituted from equation (54).
ea(x ) = u2C 5 cos(~2x)-- ~2C6 sin(~2x) (46) Condition 6 :
g2(X)~--'~3(X2). (62)
Sa(x) = C5 sin(a2x) + C6 cos(~2x) + K2" (47)
F r o m which we get :
The boundary condition at x = L is : 4z r
ED x2 + C3(x r)
x = L e(x) = eo (48)
from which we get : = ~2[C5(x2) cos(~2x2)- C6(xz) sin(~2x2)] (63)
in which Ca(xy), Cs(xz) and C6(x2) are taken from
~o
C5 4- C6 tan(a2L). (49) equations (54), (49) and (56), respectively. Equations (61)
0C2 COS(0c2L)
and (63) are two simultaneous transcendental equations
By requiring the following six continuity conditions with xy and x2 as unknowns. The solution is obtained by
between the zones, we obtain the constants C1, C3, C4, C6 using Newton's tangent method and back substitution
and the coordinates xy and x2. into the above equations yields the expressions for strain
Condition 1 : and slip in the three zones.
The fourth case is solved in a similar way and yields three
~l(x~) = ~2(x~). (50)
simultaneous transcendental equations with xy, x2, x3 as
Substituting equation (50) into (42) and (44) yields : unknowns, and are solved using a similar technique.
4Ty
2alC1 sinh(~lxy) = ~ xy + C3. (51)
COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL PREDICTIONS
WITH TEST RESULTS
Condition 2:
In a series of tests [ 111 compressive loads were applied to
S~(xy) = S r (52) a 1.8-era-diam. deformed bar centrally embedded in a
Substituting equation (52) into (43) yields : concrete block. In these tests the load magnitude and bar
length were varied (Figs 3-5). The following values were
Sr (53) taken for the bond stress-slip diagram (Fig. 1) :
C1 = 2 cosh(0qxy)"
zy = 21 M P a ; zu = 10 M P a ; Sy = 0.1 cm; $2 = 0.4 cm;
Back substitution of Ct(xy) into equation (51) yields the $3 = 0.8 cm.
expression of C3(xy) :
Calculated results according to the present approach
4zy are shown and found in good agreement with measured
Ca(xy) = ctxSy tanh(alx~) -- ~ x r (54)
data.
In a series of monotonic pull tests [9] various loads were
Condition 3 :
applied to a 2.44-cm-diam. deformed bar which is
Sa(x) = S2. (55) embedded 63,5 cm in concrete. The measured strains for
 Bond-slip Behavior 167

~, -I.2
o
-I.I

i
k~ .... CALCULATEDFo
-I.0 N
-0.9

-0.8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

O0 I 3 5 7 I0 15 15
DISTANCE (CM)
Fig. 3

~, -13
O r 70 kN~'X\
~-,.ff ,,~-~\ MEASU"ED ~Fo
n~ J ~.~k N~.\ CALCULATED

-.% \ 111x
_0.7F \ \ o -,~
0~L~o~ \ "k.
-o.~ I- ,,-,,, "~. "~
i .~ "-,'t,,. \_
o,r - , - ~ . - ~ . ~... \ ",,.
o~f oJ"~'~-.. "~-.."-..
O/ I I I I I I I , "~""J
0 I 3 5 7 IO 12 16 20 24 25
DISTANCE (CM)

\
70kN Fig. 4
-1.4
z-l.3
11:-I.2
F-
if)
-I.I k

MEASURED
-0.9 , ~,~ CALCULATED Ill~"l
-0,8 ,X
o,
-O.6 ! ~'[',. :" .'.. "~'~
I!I
-0.~ %'%'%,,~'%'~..~ /
-0:'
-0.3 '',~ ~ ~-'~ ",~
-0.2 ~ ~ ~ ~,.~. .-..~~
-0.1

I 3 5 7 I0 13 15 20 24 28 33 35
DISTANCE (CM)
Fig. 5
168 D. Z. Yankelevsky

% some load levels are shown in Fig. 6. The following bond

=: stress-slip parameters were taken :
~2000 zr = 14.7 M P a ; z. = 4.05 M P a ; S r = 0.062 cm;
X\x $2 = 0.16 cm; S~ = 0.59 cm.
\\% MEASURED
CALCULATE0 Calculated results are shown in Fig. 6 and good
agreement is found with measured data.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

\NN N\\ This paper presents an analytical model for analyzing
N% NN
I000 NN \\ the behavior of a single reinforcing deformed bar
embedded in confined concrete and subjected to
x g~ • monotonic loading. A general local bond stress-slip is
considered and closed-form solutions for strain and slip
distributions are obtained for each of its branches. The
complete distribution along the bar is obtained by
computing the constants and the distances at which
transition between zones occur from continuity and
b o u n d a r y conditions. The analytically predicted results
I0 20 50 40 50
compare wellwith test results conducted at Berkeley a n d i n
DIS~NCE ALONG BAR (cm) West Germany. Generalization of the presented model to
analyze bond-slip relationship under general reversal
Fig. 6 loading, is in progress.

REFERENCES
I. H. Martin, Zusammenhang zwischen obcrfl/ichenbeschaffenh¢it, Verbund und Sprengwinkung yon
Bewehrungsst~alen unter Kurzzeitbelastung Deutscher Ausschuss ffir Stahlbeton, Heft 228 (1973).
2. CEB, Bulletin d'information No. 151 (April 1982).
3. G. Rehm, (.J'ber die Grundlagen des Verbundes zwischen Stahl und Beton, Deutscher Ausschuss ffir
Stahlbeton, Heft 138 (1961).
4. K. Morita and P. Kaku, Local bond stress-slip relationship under repeated loading. Symposium on
Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, IABSE,
Lisbon (1973).
5. T.P. Tassios and P. J. Yannopoulos, Analytical studies on reinforced concrete members under cyclic
loading based on bond-slip relationships, ACI J. 78, 206-216 (1981).
6. V. Ciampi, R. Eligenhausen, V. Bertero and E. Popov, Analytical model for deformed bar bond under
generalized excitations, Prec. IABSE Colloquium on Advanced Mechanics in Reinforced Concrete,
Delft (June 1981).
7. B. Bresler and V. Bertero, Behavior of R.C. under repeated load, J. ASCE 94 (ST6), 1567-1590 (1968).
8. L. Franke, Einfluss der Belestungsdauer auf das Verbundverhalten yon Stahl in Beton
(Verbundkriechen), Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Heft, 268, Berlin (1976).
9. S. Viwathanat©pa, E. P. Popov and V. V. Bertcro, Effects of generalized loadings on bond of reinforcing
bars embedded in well confined concrete, Report No. EERC 79/22, Earthquake Engineering Center,
Berkeley (1979).
10. H. Schafer, A contribution to the solution of contact problems with the aid of bond elements, Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering (1975).
11. F, P. Miiller and W. Eisenbiegler, Ermittlung der Vcrbundspannungen an Gedriikten Einbetonierten
Betonst~ihlen, Universit@ Karlsruhe, Institute fiir Beton und Stahlbeton (1979).
12. I.S. Sokolnikoffand R. M. Redheffer, Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineerin0. McGraw-Hill,
New York (1966).