See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308900447

Determination of Bond Capacity in Reinforced Concrete Beam and Its

Influence on the Flexural Strength

Article · September 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18300.95361

CITATIONS READS

8 368

2 authors:

Mohammad Rashidi Hana Takhtfiroozeh

University of Texas at El Paso The University of Memphis
15 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rockfill and earthfill dams View project

Laboratory and Numerical Analysis of Piled Rafts and Offshore Foundations Considering Interaction and Bearing Mechanism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Rashidi on 06 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering, September 2016 – ISSN 2412-5954

Determination of Bond Capacity in Reinforced Concrete Beam and Its Influence

on the Flexural Strength

Mohammad Rashidi1, Hana Takhtfiroozeh2

1 – Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 – Department of Civil Engineering, Building and Housing Research Centre, Tehran, Iran

DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.18300.95361

Keywords: flexural strength, bond capacity, tensile bars, reinforced concrete beam, compressive strength

ABSTRACT. This paper presents results of an experimental investigation of actual performance of the reinforced
concrete beam in bond under flexure, when reinforced with tension steel is going to consider. In this experiment four
specimens of beam and a bar in the middle of the width of the beam has been used and 2.5 cm of concrete cover has
been considered from the center of the bar. In addition, transverse bars have been used to reassure lack of shear yield at
the two ends of the beam. Flexural bar has been put in the middle of the beam symmetrically and the length of the
flexural bar in each of the samples shall be: 15, 20, 30 and 40 cm. Three cylindrical samples were made in order to
determine f'c and were examined at 28 days and the compressive strength of concrete used in this study was about 35
MPa. The beam samples were examined after 28 days via two-point loading system. Based on the results, increasing the
length of bar causes increase of flexural strength. The presence of longitudinal rebar resulted in the ultimate momentum
to be more than the crack momentum of the cross-section in parts which have broken at the point of longitudinal bar
cut.

Introduction. Concrete is of a lot of use in constructions due to availability, appropriate

compressive strength and ease of implementation; although, its weakness in traction has resulted in
not being able to use this material solely in construction. In order to eliminate the weak traction of
concrete, usually bar is used in the tensile area of the concrete. The goal of this experiment is to
determine the bond strength between steel reinforcing bars and concrete. The main parameters that
influence this bond strength are well documented in the technical literature. Important among these
parameters include development/splice length, diameter of the reinforcing bar, and concrete
compressive strength [1, 2, 3, 4].
The type of cracking leading to failure has been investigated using deformed bars in tension by
injecting ink around the bars [5, 6]. The bond strength of rebars in concrete decreases as the
embedment length increases, and decreases with increasing the bar diameter [7]. The previous
investigations proved that the bond strength of rebars in concrete is influenced by the development
length rather than the bar diameter [8]. The ultimate bond strength seems to be a function of c f 'c
when other parameters are constant, since the bond strength is related to the tensile strength of
concrete. Studies on understanding the nature of bond, modes of failure and factors influencing the
failure, bar spacing and beam width, end anchorage, flexural bond and anchorage bond with high
strength ribbed bars have been reported [9]. The slip of deformed bars is due to (i) splitting of
concrete by wedge action, and (ii) crushing of concrete in front of the ribs [9].
Nilson [10] used slope of steel strain curve to evaluate the bond stress at a given load in reinforcing
bar, and a new test method was adopted to study the local slip, secondary cracking and strain
distribution in concrete [11]. A bond stress-slip model has been proposed to predict the load end
slip and anchorage length of bars extended from adjoining beams in to exterior columns under large
nonlinear actions [12]. Effect of bar diameter, confinement and strength of concrete on the bond
behaviour of bar hooks in exterior beam-column joints has been reported [13]. The bond strength
decreases as the bar diameter increases. The post-peak bond-slip response was not influenced by the
MMSE Journal. Open Access www.mmse.xyz
 Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering, September 2016 – ISSN 2412-5954

bar diameter [14], while confinement has direct influence on the local bond stress [15]. A new bond
stress-slip response has been simulated recently by Abrishami and Mitchel [16]. However,
consistent bond stress-slip response was obtained on short embedment length [17]. A mathematical
model for bond stress-slip response of a reinforcing bar due to cyclic load has been reported [19].
Other models to predict the tensile strength of concrete from the pullout load has been reported
[20]. Confinement by ordinary steel reinforcement has improved the bond strength with significant
ductility [21]. Several studies on bond in normal strength concrete (NSC) have been reported [22].
In high strength concrete (HSC), increasing the development length does not seem to increase the
bond strength of deformed bars when the concrete cover is relatively small. A minimum
confinement reinforcement needs to be provided over the splice length in RC members when HSC
is used [23]. An expression has been proposed to estimate the extra confinement reinforcement [24].
Also more general information on the local bond can be seen in CEB-FIP Report [25].
This paper studies bond capacity in reinforced concrete beam and its influence on the flexural
strength. Firstly it introduces materials and test methods. Then it presents the comparison of the
results of the experiment with the existing theories.
Materials and methods. In this experiment four specimens of beam and a bar in the middle of the
width of the beam has been used and 2.5 cm of concrete cover has been considered from the center
of the bar. Also, transverse bars have been used to reassure lack of shear yield at the two ends of the
beam. Flexural bar has been put in the middle of the beam symmetrically and the length of the
flexural bar in each of the samples shall be: 15, 20, 30 and 40 cm. Three cylindrical specimens were
made in order to determine f 'c and were examined at 28 days and the compressive strength of
concrete used in this study was about 35 MPa. The beam samples were examined after 28 days via
two-point loading system.
The considered mix for the samples has been shown in table 1 below. According to the instructions,
coarse aggregates have been sieved via a 2-cm sieve. Also, the samples considered in construction
are three cylindrical samples in 30×15 cm dimensions and four beams samples in 60×10×10 cm
dimensions.
Due to the fact that the goal of this experiment is to determine the capacity of sliding bar from
within the beam; therefore, bars with different lengths in each bar have been applied. Longitudinal
bars are of 8mm and transverse bars are of 6mm. The longitudinal bars’ cover for all samples is 2.5
cm and for observing this space, spacer has been used. The existing spacers in the laboratory were
of more height; therefore, in order to convert this height to 2.5 cm, we cut them. All the beams have
the same shear bar and their design was conducted as over design. Shear bars were placed 5 cm
from the bar up to 20 cm with the distance of 5 cm between according to figures 1 to 4.

Table 1. The considered mix for the samples.

Part Weight Ratio (kg/m3)
Cement 500
Sand 800
Gravel 800
Water 220
Total 2320

With regard to the fact, that the goal of this experiment was determination of the bond strength
between steel reinforcing bars and concrete, 4 produced beam samples during the length of the main
bar are different and the flexural bar shall be placed symmetrically from the middle of the beam in a
manner, that the length of the flexural bar in each of the samples is: 15, 20, 30, 40 cm.

MMSE Journal. Open Access www.mmse.xyz

 Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering, September 2016 – ISSN 2412-5954

After reinforcement of samples according to figures 1 to 4, the stages of concreting and curing of
concrete shall be conducted and then the samples shall be examined after 28 days of curing.
Dimensions of cylindrical samples and beam samples are also shown in table 2 and 3 respectively.

Fig.1. Samples No. 1, longitudinal bar of 40 cm.

Fig.2. Samples No. 2, longitudinal bar of 30 cm.

Fig.3. Samples No. 3, longitudinal bar of 20 cm.

Fig.4. Samples No. 4, longitudinal bar of 15 cm.

Table 2. Dimensions of Cylindrical Samples.

Sample No. The Average Diameter (Cm) The Average Height (Cm)
1 15.2 30.4
2 15.2 30.3
3 15.2 30.6

MMSE Journal. Open Access www.mmse.xyz

 Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering, September 2016 – ISSN 2412-5954

Table 3. Dimensions of the Beam Samples.

Sample No. Length (Cm) Width (Cm) Height (Cm)
1 60.20 9.95 10.10
2 60.30 10.25 10.15
3 60.20 10.1 10.02
4 60.25 9.95 10.25

It should be noted that the compressive strength test of the samples shall be conducted after
capping- the goal of which is to create a flat surface on the sample.
All the beams which were experimented on were 60 centimetres long they were placed on a 55-
centimetre- wide support and were loaded and tested. Two concentrated symmetrical loads which
were 25 centimetres away from each other were used for loading purposes. The weight of the rods
which are placed on the beam was 37.8 kg. The used bars in this experiment are of type A2 and the
current strength of 300 mpa. The loading model of the beams can be seen in figure 5.

Fig. 5. The loading model of the beam.

With regard to the suggested relationship in the regulations, the amount of modulus of elasticity of
concrete is:

E  500 f ' c (1)

Table 4. The Result Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete for the Samples

Sample No. Compressive force Stress Mpa Ec
KN
1 706.0 39.95 31603
2 730.0 41.30 32132
3 511.6 28.15 26530
Average 649.2 34.46 29351

MMSE Journal. Open Access www.mmse.xyz

 Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering, September 2016 – ISSN 2412-5954

Discussion of test results. In the flexural load of the reinforced beam, at the beginning of loading
due to the lowness in the amount of tensile and compressive stress in concrete, the part operates in
an elastic and linear manner. The linear behavior continues until when the stress in the last warp of
the tensile area of the cross-section reaches the concrete tensile strength of σr. This stage of the
behavior of the bar is known as the elastic stage.
In order to calculate the crack momentum of the concrete cross-sections (meaning the least of
flexural momentum which causes the fraction of the cross-section), an approximate but simple
method, which is based on the distribution of linear stress and applying module of rupture of
concrete, is used. Until the time when the most tensile stress in one flexural cross- section does now
exceed the tensile strength of the concrete, the cross- section will remain in the elastic mode. In this
mode, the cross- section will remain uncracked and distribution of stress is linear. Therefore, in
order to determine the stress, it is possible to use the classic relations of material strength.
Another matter which is discussed in relation to the elastic stage is the calculation of crack
momentum. A simple and practical method which is applied for this calculation, is the use of the
tensile equation and limiting the tensile stress of concrete to the module of rupture, σr. Therefore,
the order of the relation of determining crack momentum of a tensile cross- section is according to
equation 2:

fr  I
M cr  (2)
y'

In which σr is the moment of inertia of the converter cross- section in relation to the neutral axis
and y’ is the distance of the furthest tensile warp from the neutral axis.
It is worth mentioning that in the regulations, for the ease of calculation, a simpler relation is
suggested instead of the above relation:

r  Ig
M cr  (3)
yt

In which Ig is the moment of inertia of the whole cross- section in relation to the central axis of the
cross- section without taking steel into account and yt is the distance of the furthest tensile warp
from the central axis of this cross- section. According to the regulations, the module of rupture for
concretes with normal weight is kg/ cm2:

 r  2 f 'c
(4)

The results of the experiment for different samples of beam are as follows:
As can be seen in figure 6, the crack has begun precisely from under the load in Sample number 1
in a flexural manner and by increasing the load, the crack progressed and ended at the point of
applying the load and the beam failed completely.

MMSE Journal. Open Access www.mmse.xyz

 Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering, September 2016 – ISSN 2412-5954

Fig. 6. Failure of beam No. 1

For sample number 2 according to figure 7, the flexural crack was established at the point of cutting
the longitudinal bar and developed through increasing the load and caused the beam to break.

Fig. 7. Failure of beam No. 2

Based on figures 8 and 9 for sample number 3 and 4 respectively, the flexural crack was established
at the point of cutting the longitudinal bar and developed through increasing the load and caused the
beam to break.

Fig. 8. Failure of beam No. 3

MMSE Journal. Open Access www.mmse.xyz

 Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering, September 2016 – ISSN 2412-5954

Fig. 9. Failure of beam No. 4.

With regard to the existing methods in the discussion of traction of the parts of the reinforced
concrete, in order to calculate crack momentum of the cross- section and the ultimate momentum of
the cross-section, the following equations can be applied. While the required equation for
calculation the ultimate momentum of the cross- section, with regard to the ultimate compressive
force which was tolerated by the cross- section is mentioned below
Crack momentum:

0.63√𝑓́𝑐 𝑏ℎ2
𝑀𝑐𝑟 = (5)
6

The ultimate momentum of the cross- section via the Whitney rectangle method:

𝐴𝑠 𝐹𝑦
𝑀𝑟 = 𝐴𝑠 𝐹𝑦 (𝑑 − 0.6𝑓 ́𝑏) (6)
𝑐

The ultimate momentum on the cross- section:

𝑃
𝑀𝑢 = 2 × 15 (7)

The created momentum in the x distance from the base to the concentrated load:

𝑃
𝑀𝑢 = 2 × 𝑋 (8)

Considering the above- mentioned equations and the results of the experiment, the below table can
be established and it is possible to compare the results of the experiment with the applied theories in
the concrete lesson and conduct the required analysis.

MMSE Journal. Open Access www.mmse.xyz

 Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering, September 2016 – ISSN 2412-5954

Table 5. Comparison of the Results of the Experiment with the Existing Theories.
Sample Compressive Crack Ultimate Momentum Maximum of Created Created Momentum
No. force (KN) Momentum of the Cross- Section Momentum at the Cross- at the Rupture of the
(t.m.) Section (t.m.) Cross- Section (t.m.)

1 26.0 0.065 1.52 0.1950 0.1950

2 12.4 0.065 1.54 0.0930 0.0775
3 11.8 0.062 1.50 0.0885 0.0885
4 10.8 0.064 1.55 0.0810 0.0810

In beams number 3 and 4 the crack was at the place of bar cut and because in this beams the length
of the tensile bar was less than the distance between the two point forces, the momentum which
caused the beam to break is the maximum momentum forced on the beam which was almost 40%
more than the crack momentum of the cross- section. In beam number 2, the tolerated momentum
was 5% more than beam number 3 and 15% more than beam number 4 which is in accordance with
the existing theories and in beam number 2 the momentum is less than the tolerated maximum
momentum at the place of the crack which indicates the fact that the length of the applied bar was
shorter that what could prevent the beam from breaking.
The results show that increasing the length of the bar results in increase of tolerable momentum by
the cross- section. Even in beams number 3 and 4, where the crack was between the two forced
loads and occurred at the bar cut, the tolerated momentum in beam number 3 was almost 10% more
than beam number 4; whereas, according to the existing methods, the tolerated momentum should
be equal at the two cross- sections. While the tolerated momentum in beam number 4 was 8% more
than the experimented samples in the flexural experiment of the simple concrete samples, which
carries the point that the presence of longitudinal bar influenced the increase in the capacity of the
freight of the cross- section.
Through comparing the tolerated momentum by the cross- section and the crack momentum and the
ultimate momentum which resulted from the theory, we can reach the conclusion that the
momentum which caused the crack in the cross- sections without longitudinal bar (breaking at the
longitudinal bar cut) is more than the crack momentum; whereas, it should be equal to the crack
momentum. Although this increase in strength can be due to the safety factors used in the equations
and applying these factors is because of problems which exist in performance, such as less strength
of concrete compared to the calculated amount. But in this experiment, due to thoroughness in
performance and application of compressive strength which resulted from the experiment, the
existing error is insignificant and has caused the tolerated momentum to be more than the crack
momentum. In beam number 1 the crack was at the point where the bar was longitudinal but the
tolerated momentum was far less than the ultimate momentum calculated by the Whitney rectangle
method and is in no accordance with the above theory.
Summary. The purpose of this study was to make an effort to determinate bond capacity in
reinforced concrete beam and its influence on the flexural strength. The result gained from this
study are as follows:
 In beams that the length of the tensile bar was less than the distance between the two point forces,
the crack took place at bar cut place and because in this beams, the momentum which caused the
beam to break is the maximum momentum forced on the beam which was almost 40% more than
the crack momentum of the cross- section.
 In beam number 2 (the flexural bar of 30cm), the tolerated momentum was 5% more than beam
number 3 (the flexural bar of 20cm) and 15% more than beam number 4 (the flexural bar of 15cm)
which is in accordance with the existing theories and in beam number 2 the momentum is less than
MMSE Journal. Open Access www.mmse.xyz
 Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering, September 2016 – ISSN 2412-5954

the tolerated maximum momentum at the place of the crack which indicates the fact that the length
of the applied bar was shorter that what could prevent the beam from breaking.
 Increasing the length of the bar results in increase of tolerable momentum by the cross- section.
 The momentum which caused the crack in the cross-sections without longitudinal bar (breaking at
the longitudinal bar cut) is more than the crack momentum; whereas, it should be equal to the crack
momentum. Although this increase in strength can be due to the safety factors used in the equations
and applying these factors is because of problems, which exist in performance, such as less strength
of concrete compared to the calculated amount.
References
[1] Darwin, D., Zuo, J., Tholen, M.L., and Idun, E.K., Develpomnet length criteria for conventional
and high relative rib area reinforcing bars, ACI Structural Journal, No. 3, 93, 347-359, 1993.
[2] Orangun, C.O., and Breen, J. E., Strength of anchored bars: A re-evaluation of test data on
development length and splices, Research Report No. 154-3F, Center for Highway Research,
University of texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., 78, 1975.
[3] Orangun, C. O., and Breen, J. E., Reevaluation of test data on development length and splices,
ACI Journal, Proceedings, No. 3, 74, 114-122, 1977.
[4] Zuo, J., and Darwin, D., Splice strength of conventional and high relative rib area bars and high
strength concrete, ACI Structural Journal, No. 4, 97, 630-641, 2000.
[5] Rehm G, Uber die grundlagen des verbudzwischen stahl undbeton, Heft 138, Deutscher
Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Berlin, 1961.
[6] Goto Y., Cracks formed in concrete around deformed bars in concrete. ACI Journal 68(2) 244-
251, 1971.
[7] Mathey RG and W Watstein D, Investigation of bond in beam and pull out specimens with high
yield strength deformed bars. ACI Journal T. No.57-50 1071-1089, 1961.
[8] Ferguson PM, Robert I and Thompson JN, Development length of high strength reinforcing bars
in bond. ACI Journal T. No.59-17 887-922, 1962.
[9] Lutz LA and Gergely P, Mechanics of bond and slip of deformed bars in concrete. ACI
Materials Journal T. No. 64-62 711-721, 1967.
[10] Nilson AH, Internal measurement of bond slips. ACI Journal 69(7) 439-441, 1972.
[11] Jiang DH, Shah SP and Andonian AT. Study of the transfer of tensile forces by bond. ACI
Journal T. No.81-24 251-258, 1984.
[12] Ueda T, Lin I and Hawkins NM, Beam bar anchorage in exterior column-beam connections.
ACI Structural Journal T. No. 83-41 412-422, 1986.
[13] Soroushian P, Pull out behavior of hooked bars in exterior beam-column connections. ACI
Structural Journal 85 269-276, 1988.
[14] Soroushian P and Choi KB, Local bond of deformed bars with different diameters in confined
concrete. ACI Structural Journal 86(02) 217-222, 1989.
[15] Soroushian P, Choi KB, Park GH and Aslani F, Bond of deformed bars to concrete: effects of
confinement and strength of concrete. ACI Materials Journal 88(3) 227-232, 1991.
[16] Abrishami HH and Mitchel D, Simulation of uniform bond stress. ACI Materials Journal T.
No. 89-M18 89(2) 161-168, 1992.
[17] Malvar LJ, Bond of reinforcement under controlled confinement. ACI Materials Journal 89(6)
593-601, 1992.

MMSE Journal. Open Access www.mmse.xyz

 Mechanics, Materials Science & Engineering, September 2016 – ISSN 2412-5954

[18] Yankelevsky DZ, Adin MA and Farhey DN, Mathematical mode0l for bond slip behavior
under cyclic loading. ACI Structural Journal 89(6) 692-698, 1992.
[19] Bortolotti , Strength of concrete subjected to pull out load. ASCE Materials Journal 15(5) 491-
495, 2003.
[20] Harajli MH, Hamad BS and Rteil AA, Effect of confinement on bond strength between steel
bars and concrete. ACI Structural Journal 101(5) 595-603, 2004. DOI: 10.14359/13381
[21] Somayaji S and Shah SP, Bond stress versus slip relationship and cracking response of tension
members. ACI Journal 78(3) 217–225, 1981.
[22] Azizinamini A, Stark M, Roller JJ and Ghosk SK, Bond performance of reinforcing bars
embedded in HSC. ACI Structural Journal 90(5) 554–561, 1993.
[23] Azizinamini A, Pavel R, Hatfield E and Ghosh SK, Behavior of spliced reinforcing bars
embedded in HSC. ACI Structural Journal 96(5) 826–835, 1999a.
[24] Azizinamini A, Darwin D, Eligehausen R, Pavel R and Ghosh SK, Proposed modification to
ACI 318-95 tension development and lap splice for high strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal
96(6) 922–926, 1999b.
[25] CEB-FIP Report, Bond of reinforcement in concrete: state of the art report. FIB Bulletin-10,
Switzerland, 2000.

MMSE Journal. Open Access www.mmse.xyz

View publication stats